Talk:Kingdom of Italy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Former countries / Italian historical states  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Italian historical states task force.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Italy (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Migration[edit]

There should be a section of Migration from Italy with statistics.

Requested move[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 08:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Kingdom of Italy (Savoy)Kingdom of Italy — The Kingdom of Italy page was formerly a disambiguation page, which is now located at Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation). The Kingdom of Italy existed 1861 to 1946 and other entities sometimes referred to by the same or similar name already have separately named articles. —Domino theory 09:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC) copied from WP:RM Bobblehead 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

  1. Support This was the correct name of the Kingdom. --Checco 13:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    What was the correct name of the Napoleonic kingdom? That’s a genuine question, to which I don’t know the answer;) —Ian Spackman 16:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]

  1. Oppose. Seems a bit disingenuous for the person that moved the disambiguation page without discussion to suggest that the other articles related to a Kingdom of Italy being located at names in order to disambiguate themselves from each other is justification to move this article to Kingdom of Italy. Not only do I oppose the move of this article to Kingdom of Italy. I support the move of Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) back to Kingdom of Italy. --Bobblehead 02:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose and agree with Bobblehead; title changes affecting multiple articles should be discussed first. Olessi 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mildly oppose: see comments below under Discussion. —Ian Spackman 16:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:

I don’t like the current name at all: it requires readers to know too much. (Many readers will have heard of the place Savoy, without knowing about the family.) The Italian equivalent it:Regno d'Italia (1861-1946) is better. But I think that it doesn’t make sense to do anything to this page—or to the disambiguation page—in isolation. A naming scheme needs to be worked out at the same time as deciding what to do with the King of Italy article. They should really cover the same field. Where there were kings there were kingdoms. (Mostly. Maybe always: I’m no expert!) And I don’t quite see how you can write a King of Italy article which starts with unification. What about that iron crown thingie? And if that’s right, I don’t think I can support the proposed move. —Ian Spackman 16:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Could someone help me out on writing this page?[edit]

I'm new on Wikipedia and I started this page. It is currently rated at "Stub" level, could others help improve the quality of the document. I started it because there was no direct article on the Kingdom of Italy of the House of Savoy which was a major European power in the early to mid twentieth century. I have been trying as best as I can with available information on Wikipedia to improve the quality of this article, and I thank those who have contributed to this page. But I think this document should be improved by others who believe it is not done well.

Also it doesn't really matter whether the title of the whole document is renamed "Kingdom of Italy" from what it is now "Kingdom of Italy (Savoy)". The Savoy Kingdom is the most well known and most legitimate to claim the title Kingdom of Italy as an article because the other major Italian kingdoms were the Lombard Kingdom, which only comprised northern Italy and the Napoleon-run state which also only was composed of the north. (See Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic)). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R-41 (talkcontribs) 16:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I don’t agree with everything you wrote—specifically, I am not quite happy about Garibaldi being described as left-wing in the context of the risorgimento: if indeed it was you that wrote that caption. (By that I don’t mean to denigrate him. A hero and an attractive figure. But I think I understand why various Mazzinians insisted on leaving the thousand in Tuscany rather than having to fight under a royal flag.) But since noone has said it so far, I will: Great work! Thanks! —Ian Spackman 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well again, I'm new to Wikipedia and I actually am pretty fresh at this topic so I'm bound to make mistakes. I'm writing this article because of my interest in how fascism came to power in Italy and the fact that one of my grandfathers and his relatives came from Susa, Italy to Canada around 1910. Upon looking up Kingdom of Italy I found no clear site that mentioned the Savoy Kingdom, which was extremely dissappointing, so I started one. So far I have been reading a recent book published in 1997 about the Kingdom of Italy, its description of Garibaldi as compared to other Italian politicians like Cavour and King Emmanuel. I appreciate you correcting me on that and I will remove the term "left-wing revolutionary" to describe Garibaldi and change it to simply "revolutionary. Judging by the knowledge you have and that you are the first people to comment to my address for help, I assume that you might be the one who is adding more details also, that is good, but I am finding it increasing difficult to read some long titles that are not relevant to the article, such as having the long, official form of the name of the British Empire, which has been changed in the article to say the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". I don't think that this is necessary, if you are trying to put a link to the British Empire that existed before the breakaway of Ireland, you can still have the link, but put the in short-form "British Empire" into the link so that the sentences don't become too long with information not directly related to the topic. If it's not you who is doing that I just hope the person who did extend some of the titles reads the information above. Otherwise I am glad that you are helping me get my facts straight and I would really like it if you and other people could add more information especially on the long "Liberal Period" section which would working alone take me a long time to get done. I really hope this article get get up from being a stub to being recognized as being a good article, anyone who can help do this deserves my deepest gratidude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.131.26 (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I forgot to sign in when putting the above comment in. I've been having trouble with finding out how to link my user name to the discussion board.

Relax! You are doing well. Cheers —Ian Spackman 14:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add some information about Prime Minister Giovanni Giolotti. I've put a lot of information down already but I'm busy trying to shorten what's already in the there and make it concise, if someone could fill in the gap about Giolotti that would be a real help.

Orlando Signing Treaty[edit]

The History section claims that Vittorio Orlando signed the Treaty of Versailles, but his own article says otherwise-- that he prided himself on refusing to sign the treaty. What's going on with this?

WPFC Assessment[edit]

I have no problem in re-assessing this article from Stub to B class, and nominating the article for possible GA-class. I have also made a few changes to the infobox in keeping with WPFC guidelines. The only recommendation that I can make is that you look for some extra references. - 52 Pickup 20:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference comment[edit]

Looking very promising so far. But the reference section needs to be splitting into "Notes" and "References/Sources". Notes (what we usually call "inline citations" or, more confusingly, just "references") are supposed to be written in shorthand (Smith (1958) p. 45). Writing out the full name, title, year of publishing, publisher and where it was printed for every single note is just overdoing it and makes them that much harder to read. Leave the full info for the list of sources instead.

Peter Isotalo 14:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That was closer to standards, but still retaining a few oddities. One only uses "pp." for notes covering more than one page, otherwise it's just "p.". Parenthesis shouldn't be used for notes unless to differentiate two works by the same author with the year of publishing; forexample "Doe (1967)" and "Doe (1978)". And you don't need to include any information about sources (author's name, ISBN, etc) in the notes if you already have them in the separate list of sources. Not even once.
Peter Isotalo 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GA[edit]

I have reviewed this article in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. --Eurocopter tigre 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review[edit]

Although the editor above means well, I don't think this article qualifies and have asked for a review accordingly. One Night In Hackney303 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

By a vote of 7-1, the GA status of this article has been delisted for failure to meet GA criteria. The full review discussion can be seen here. Once the issues have been addressed and the article is brought up to standards, it can be renominated. Thank you for your work so far, and good luck with future edits.

Regards, LaraLoveT/C 05:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit[edit]

I have copedited the article to improve readability, and to fix various grammatical, spelling and formatting errors. This is an excellent article, but needed a thorough review to improve readability. There were many long, confusing run-on sentences, while some other sentences lacked principal verbs. The language was at times more complicated than necessary, and at other times, less formal than is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. In some places points were made so emphatically as to appear to violate WP:NPOV. I have also fixed the headings to conform to WP:MSH. I hope that the various authors of this article accept these changes in the spirit in which they are intended: to help improve Wikipedia, and not as a criticism of anyone's previous efforts. Ground Zero | t 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pho 203x275 propaganda5.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Pho 203x275 propaganda5.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Norge N1[edit]

This was not an Italian aircraft, this was an private zeppliner built in Italy for [[Roald Amundsen], the Italian Pilot and an American explorer. This should be made perfectly clear in the articel. --62.89.115.59 (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Referendum Italy.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Referendum Italy.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


Save_Us_229 18:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Southern-europe-1940.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Southern-europe-1940.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ItaloFlight.jpg[edit]

The image Image:ItaloFlight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Map[edit]

In the map there are some mistakes: some islands (Cres, Lošinj) were part of the Kingdom. And where is the Republic of San Marino?--Pascar (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Split[edit]

I think this article should be split between Kingdom of Italy (1861-1922), Fascist Italy, and Provisional Government of the Kingdom of Italy because the first is a constitutional monarchy, the second other is a de facto fascist dictatorship, and the third was a chaotic quasi-puppet state backed by the Allies. Plumber (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with giving Fascist Italy its own article, but for a different reason. Fascist Italy has too much information on it not to be a separate article. There is an enormous amount of this information in the article, enough to form a decent-sized article. Plus, that segment on Italian history is just too different from the rest of the Kingdom of Italy's history. We also have to remember that the only two things readers of English Wikipedia think of when they hear "Italy" are food and fascism. Also, precedent. The governments of West Germany and Germany of today are technically the same government, which is known as the Federal Republic of Germany. We have two articles on two governments with the same name, so it wouldn't be without precedent to do it here. The reasons for doing it would be about the same too. Commissarusa (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The 1861-1922 and Fascist periods of the Kingdom of Italy are widely and commonly regarded as seperate historiographical eras. It is for the same reason that we also don't just lump the seperate articles on the German Empire, Weimar Germany and Nazi Germany together just because the official state name of Germany in those times was German Reich for instance. Unless somebody thinks that this warrants further debate, I'm going to split this section off soon enough.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We should certainly have a separate article on Fascist Italy. I do think we should also have an article which provides an overview of the history of the kingdom as a whole. In particular, it's problematic to say there was any particular break in continuity in 1922. All that happened in 1922 is that the king appointed Mussolini prime minister; it took some years before Mussolini was able to establish a dictatorship. Note also that we have an article called German Reich about the state as a whole, even though the German Reich had considerably less constitutional continuity than the Kingdom of Italy did. So I'd say we ought to have an article Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946) which gives a brief overview of the history of the kingdom, with a focus on issues of constitutional history and historical geography. Then we should have separate articles which deal in more detail with the history of Italy in this era; we could have History of Italy (1861-1922) and Fascist Italy, perhaps, with another article on the the whole transitional period from 1943-1948. john k (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Obsession[edit]

This article seems to be written by a man obsessed by Italian nationalists. Nationalists are put everywhere in the text: even Garibaldi became a nationalist, even if everyone knows he was a leftish man! All the history of the first 60 years of the kingdom, seems to be a Biblic prophecy of the rise of fascism in the Twenties.
In reality, the first 60 years of the K are everywhere know as the Liberal Era, with a very very large liberal majority excluding from power both Socialists on the left and Nationalists on the right (while Catholic organizations were banned from political roles by the non expedit of the Popes). --Cusio (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Garibaldi was not a nationalist? That's a new one. Nationalism was "leftish" until it was co-opted by the right at the end of the nineteenth century. john k (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dictatorship??[edit]

[from User talk:Rjensen] Hello. I have amended the edit again but this time chose "leader". That should suffice. The word "dictator" is not acceptable on this site and neither are the words régime or evil among others. They are ubiquitous but a user is free to sweep the editorial broom and change/remove these terms. "Dictator" is 100% POV - unless you can find an example of a leader who has titled himself dictator, been referred to as such by his loyalists, and has declared his state a dictatorship. With that, the only sources to use the term are those unfavourable to the pronominal person and therefore unreliable (not well-placed to comment). Furthermore, the word is not mentioned on Mussolini's article: there is only a mild adjective reference, "Mussolini obtained from the legislature dictatorial powers for one year...", and it is unequivocal that should an editor grace the pages of known totalitarian figures with the word "dictator" then it would be removed immediately. The other problem with words like "dictator" is that they constitute original research. It is good enough to have a link on a person's name without the need to produce details of what the individual was on irrelevant pages, but where there is need you can refer to an authortiatian system. By claiming one man is a dictator when he did not use this term for himself also implies that he had every reign of power within the system. This is impossible as there are invariably several people who exercise real power within any administration, even "dictators" need some people to hold the ladder for them: those people (army chiefs? corporate tycoons? clergy? his deputies?) clearly have some influence or their services would not be required. So in real terms, there is a number of dictators. It's a complex business and we cannot scour the site to amend titles or offices for "dictator" simply because you or I dislike them. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What would you think if I changed the slot to "Mussolini's authoritarian leadership"? As you believe something to that effect needs mentioning, this does clarify that he was firmly rooted to power against the nation's will. I personally thought however that the term per se "Fascist Italy" surmises that this was a non-democratic entity. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The way wikipedia works is that we follow the Reliable sources, and they tell us Mussolini a dictator. Personal POV is not allowed here Rjensen (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's much better, thanks. You won't believe this but I was in the process of editing the section myself after reading your reply - but you beat me to it. Mine actually said "autocratic leadership" but as I clicked Save, the edit conflict page informed me of an update since my attempted modification. I am happy enough with how it stands now. And I wasn't denying that he was a dictator, it's just sometimes there is more to a presentation than simply citing Wikipedia's approved publications. Some of these are newspapers refer to Saddam Hussein as Butcher of Baghdad but I'm not about to add that to the Iraq page on the 1968-2003 part!!! Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks. we're not talking about using newspapers we're using the best scholarship--such as Payne and Bosworth. See Mussolini's Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915-1945 by R. J. B. Bosworth (2007) for probably the best coverage by a top scholar. Rjensen (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Council of Four Versailles.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Council of Four Versailles.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC[edit]

Has anyone ever researched the possibility that this might be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kingdom of Italy"? Imo this is where "Kingdom of Italy" should take the reader, while the other two kingdoms are the only ones that need disambiguation to differentiate from this one. -- Director (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. FactStraight (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, its been ten days. I'll request a move if noone opposes this today either. -- Director (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Cúchullain t/c 16:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)Kingdom of Italy


Well, as far as I can tell this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kingdom of Italy" (as one really might exepect). In other words it is "the" Kingdom of Italy.

In addition to this, the current title "Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)" is somewhat clumsy. A reader looking for this article, and it is by far the most sought, will most likely have to go through the Kingdom of Italy disambiguation page - unless he remembers exactly when the state was founded and abolished. What I think would make sense, given the facts, is that the Kingdom of Italy disambiguation article be moved to "Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation)" and that the {{About}} template be used here (e.g. "This article is about the 1861–1946 Kingdom, for other uses, see Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation)"). -- Director (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Clear primary topic, the others are all rather obscure. PatGallacher (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but the other topics are not obscure. I suggest the hatnote ought to link directly to the medieval/Lombard and Napoleonic kingdoms at least (as it does now, awkwardly). The phrase "other uses" suggests there might be a pop song or a novel titled "The Kingdom of Italy". It would be best to make it clear that there were other kingdoms called Italy. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • For my part, agreed. -- Director (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
      • There are some dangers of an over-cluttered hatnote, I'm not too keen on linking directly to other meanings, and more than links in the hatnote is definitley unwieldy. I'm not against saying something like "For other kingdoms known as the Kingdom of Italy see Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation)." PatGallacher (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Googling "Kingdom of Italy" -wikipedia suggests that Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946) (77,000 page views in the last 90 days) and Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic) (14,000) are the likely desired topics. In contrast, Kingdom of Italy (medieval) got only 3,200 views. Since two topics are responsible for the bulk of the relevant traffic, this is effectively a WP:TWODABS situation. The modern kingdom should be made primary with a hatnote to the Napoleonic kingdom. Then the overwhelming majority of readers would be able to get to where they want to go without going through the DAB page. This page is poorly written and gives the modern kingdom as fourth choice. Kauffner (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Kauffner. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support original nomination, including retention of the article currently at Kingdom of Italy. Question: what to do with that article? In its present state, it's not a disambiguation page as defined by MOS:DAB, and it is in fact tagged as a set index. Either we shave it down to a dab page, or we find a name for it that doesn't contain "(disambiguation)". Favonian (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the map seems anachronistic. To be more precise it seems to show all territories that were ever held at any one time by the Kingdom of Italy. I didn't double check, but I don't think Italy had control of Tunis, Corsica and such extensive French territories in 1941. Further, I don't think Rommel had quite gotten to El Alamein (which is what the map shows) that year. The map might be accurate for a brief period in late 1942, but I doubt it. Case Anton came after Second Alamein, that I know for certain.

Also the countries on the map are way off. These aren't modern-day borders, and I'm pretty sure they aren't historical borders for any period. Why doesn't the map use pre-WWII borders, or the 1946 ones? This is just weird. I don't think there was ever a time when there was no Soviet Union and Yugoslavia remained entirely intact, and Yugoslavia is the only country in its pre-WWII borders (note that its missing Istria [1]). And Czechoslovakia is intact too.. Weird. -- Director (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask the folks at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop about it. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Life for Italians under German occupation was hard especially in Rome[edit]

How is possible state "Life for Italians under German occupation was hard especially in Rome" Life was hard for all Italians; in the south the war ended early, in the north ended in April 1945 as in the rest of the Europe. Just not to mention the devastating bombing raids on north Italian cities, the German occupation and so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.87.223 (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Fascist era summarized in the lede[edit]

Using the ideas of a leading scholar (Payne) makes it possible to summarized the Fascist era in 90 words in the lede: "The Fascist regime passed through several relatively distinct phases," says Payne (1996). The first phase 1923-25 was nominally a continuation of the parliamentary system, albeit with a "legally organized executive dictatorship." Then came the second phase, "the construction of the Fascist dictatorship proper from 1925 to 1929." The third phase, with less activism, was 1929-34. The fourth phase, 1935–40, was characterized by an aggressive foreign policy, warfare in Ethiopia, confrontations with the League of Nations sanctions, growing economic autarchy, and semi-Nazification. The war itself (1940–43) was the fifth phase, and the rump Salo regime the final stage (1943–45). This is an a excellent way to summarize the era in the lede, with the details given in the main text. It makes sense out of what happened and will be useful to students. The coverage is proportionate to the importance of the era in the historiography of Italy. Rjensen (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Split[edit]

I think we should split this article into Kingdom of Italy, Fascist Italy, and Italian Provisional Government in the same way that the German Empire, Weimar Republic, and Nazi Germany articles are not one article just because the official name of the state was German Reich (Deutsches Reich) throughout all three of those eras. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Map[edit]

The map in the infobox needs to be updated to include the Italian concession of Tientsin. Capt Jim (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)