Talk:Giovanni Gentile

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sicily High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily 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.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Social and political philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Giovanni Gentile was copied or moved into Fascism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Giovanni Gentile. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Giovanni Gentile at the Reference desk.

Archives

1

Gentile = not a socialist

As Gentile was an early philosopher of Fascism, classifying him as a socialist in the lead when 1: Fascism is a direct counter to socialism, 2: No mention of his alleged socialist ties are made in the article, and 3: The only source that calls Gentile a socialist is from a fringe right-wing website, there is no question that the moniker "socialist" does not belong in the lead or in the article at all. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 18:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. James Gregor's detailed article from the esteemed Journal of the History of Ideas (among countless other sources that you've hidden away as "forum-like discussion") says otherwise... or at least shows how deeply Gentile was influenced by Marx and socialism. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2707846 You're blocking literally all attempts to bring this fact to light. Your political bias is showing. Be objective. Bzzzing (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bzzzing. It is no coincidence that Giovanni Gentile - the creator of fascism, was openly inspired by the likes of Marx and the article will be updated to show this, as it used to.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Correct. François Robere (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about World Net Daily, this has been found to be unreliable over and over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, most recently (afaik) at RS/N Archive 113 also at (1, 2, 3, 4). If you wanted an updated opinion on this, you could open a request at WP:RS/N quoting these links, and asking whether this consensus still holds. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forum-like discussion

::It's common to avoid talking about it, because it's uncomfortable to many people... but Gentile absolutely was a socialist. His views openly talk about it... he even quotes Marx repeatedly. Also, the view that "Fascism is a direct counter to socialism" is not technically correct... it's what's called "folk wisdom". The economics of Gentile's Fascism are an almost exact copy of Marx's socialism. I know there will be a great deal of argument here, but you simply need to read his work. Bzzzing (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gentile was not a socialist. Full stop. This argument has been had before, and it is not going to happen again. See the thread. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gentile WAS a socialist. Full stop. Your argument has been made before, and it very likely will happen again, because as I said, people don't want socialism and fascism to be connected in any way, despite the fact that they very clearly are. You're also the person who said socialism was the "direct counter" to fascism. I'll ask any of my colleagues in the economics department if that's the case, because you obviously think I'm biased... somehow I think I know what they'll say. Bzzzing (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this talk page isn't meant to be a forum for discussion of the subject. Either make a (sourced) change or stop posting (but any change you make will be against consensus and will be reverted anyway). The material that claimed Gentile was a socialist was removed because the source provided was unreliable. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re: sourcing of socialist claim

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Isn't really any need of an RfC right now, as of yet, as outlined by Mathglot Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should [http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/fascisms-karl-marx-man-the-left-doesnt-want-you-to-meet/ WorldNetDaily] be considered a credible source for calling Gentile a socialist in the lead? Gentile's alleged socialist ties are not discussed at any other point in the WP article. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Premature Rfc There has been no discussion of this prior to this Rfc, afaict, and since [e]ditors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others, per WP:RFC this is premature. I am looking into whether an immediate procedural close would be appropriate here. Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This topic has been listed at Wikipedia:AN/RFC to be assessed for closure. Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad Source

the part about his death sources the Italian Wikipedia page. Citing a wikipedia page is against Wikipedia editing guidelines, thus this should be edited to either have a different citation, or to change the information entirely. Comradeka (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about relationship between actual idealism and fascism ('Philosophy' section)

The second paragraph of the "Philosophy" section asserts that Gentile's fascist politics do not necessarily follow from the principles of actual idealism, which comes across as a debatable philosophical position rather than a neutral explanation. While I can see the grounds for such a position (and suspect there are scholars who have put forth similar arguments), as it stands the passage clashes with the encyclopedic tone and could be improved by instead citing relevant scholars' stances on the topic. Until I have a chance to look into said scholarship or someone more familiar with it pitches in, I'm marking the claim as potential original research. RobinMukyu (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]