Talk:Death of Benito Mussolini#Requested move 6 May 2024

I was surprised to not see the Dongo Treasure mentioned nevertheless discussed in this GA. It's a major aspect of the legacy of his capture and death. czar 00:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This does not make sense:

"In the afternoon, he, with other partisans, including Aldo Lampredi and Michele Moretti, drove to the De Maria family's farmhouse to collect Mussolini and Petacci. After they were picked up, they drove 20 kilometres (12 mi) south to the village of Giulino di Mezzegra.The vehicle pulled up at the entrance of the Villa Belmonte on a narrow road known as via XXIV maggio and Mussolini and Petacci were told to get out and stand by the villa's wall."

Villa Bellamonte is just down the road from De Maria family's farmhouse, on the way down to the main road. Driving distance of around 600meters. https://www.museofineguerradongo.it/en/mezzegra-2/ 2A01:799:39A:4400:50FC:7CB6:D5DB:279A (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Which source claims that Mussolini was killed by "a (unnamed or unknown) partisan" who was not necessarily Audisio? If there is one, it seems to be missing from the article. The article main body doesn't seem to suggest that anyone other that Audisio fired the machine gun, although details of event differ slightly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC) p.s. the lead image montage, headed "Mussolini and his executioner", also seems to leave rather little room for doubt?

:Since I wrote almost every single word in this article I feel I can explain those words. There's a whole section on this! See "Post-war controversy". There are multiple claims of others shooting him but, as the article say, the claim that it was Auditio remains (only) "the most credible". All that's certain is that the partisans killed him. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see. We are talking about the sub-section headed "Shooting" here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's where I wrote that Audisio's version remains the "most credible". If that's what you mean, then yes. But I also wrote a lot of text about the other candidates in the following section. As I also wrote, there is technically no definitive/"official version" of who shot him. That's why I think it makes most sense to say in the lead (a) he was shot by a partisan and then after that (b) it's "generally accepted" that that partisan was Audisio. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I wonder could you highlight for me any source that casts any doubt on the claim that Audisio pulled the trigger? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Huh? It's all in the article eg Lazaro claimed Longo shot him. "At least 12 different individuals have been identified at various times as being responsible for carrying out the shooting.[76]" DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Many thanks. So the source is "Moseley, Ray (2004) p.275"? I think my problem arises from the lack of the mention of any other candidates in the "Shooting" section. Without more credible detail in the main body, these sound like doubtful claims invented after the war. Perhaps it's because it's those details, including the claims of Lazzaro, are buried lower down in the article. There seems to be a disconnect between the definitiveness of lead image caption and the doubts caused by the later claims and theories. I'm not sure how that could be improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Since I'm the one that structured and wrote it like that I'm probably not the one to address your concerns. Nevertheless, here are my thoughts as to why I did it like that:

::::::::# I decided to use the "Shooting" section to describe the "generally accepted" version. I thought it would be overly complicated to put the alternate versions into that section. My judgment was based on readability. If that judgment was wrong then the solution would be to basically create, in writing, a type of decision tree with the alternate versions at the different pints saying "Audiso said this... but X said this... and y said that...". It was beyond my abilities to make that into readable encyclopedic text.

::::::::# "invented claims invented after the war". They are all claims invented/told after the war, including Audiso's. Not sure what you mean by that. Audisio's post-war claims only gained a reasonable amount of credibility in the 1990s.

::::::::# I wrote in the lead image that Audisio was "generally believed" to be the executioner so I don't see the problem with that. If it's because of the heading I gave it - easily fixed. i'll change it.

:::::::I don't think there's anything else? DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, I suppose even Audisio's own version was "after the war", although the "Shooting section" does not make that clear (but I don't see there is any easy way for it to do that anyway). Yes, a decision tree might make that a lot clearer, but it wouldn't be prose. Thanks for adjusting the caption. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{small|And thank you for using "Huh?" and not "Duurh??"}} Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)