Talk:Indro Montanelli

Allegations of pedophilic marriage in Ethiopia
This was in a CBC article about Black Lives Matters protests in Europe:

“ In Milan, Italy, protesters scrawled "rapist" and "racist" in Italian on the statue of a late Italian journalist who had acknowledged having had a 12-year-old Eritrean bride while stationed in the Italian colony on the horn of Africa in the 1930s.”

“ The statue of Indro Montanelli, inside a Milan park that bears his name, has been a flashpoint in Italy's Black Lives Matter protests.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/atlanta-police-shooting-1.5611559

—40.142.140.74 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
Dear WIKIPEDIA Co-contributors, I am not sure if this is the right place to say this. I have been editing the Indro Montanelli WIKIPEDIA page, and it just occurred to me that I might be infringing copyright. So far I have been making a synthesis of published material, but I do not plagiarise in the sense that I do not copy entire extracts of text. Should I cite my sources, or do I not need to bother? I would be grateful for a clarification, Best wishes Pietro

If you would summarize the article I think the problem disappears. I appreciate your effort but I think your are going into detail far too much. This is not the place to write a complete biography. Mafia Expert 11:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I see what you mean. I'll make is shorter as soon as possible. Thanks, Pietro 20:00 1 August 2006

Spanish Civil War
"The trial ended with a full absolution." Perhaps "acquittal" (as a legal term) would be better than "absolution" (which has religious connotations)? Elio1 17:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. Thanks. Pietro

Henry Ford interview
According to the article, Montanelli was surprised to find, when he interviewed Henry Ford in 1934 that the automobile entrepreneur did not have a driver's license. Since a copy of such license from 1919 is available on the web, the authenticity of the story is called into question.

Maybe Ford's licence had lapsed when Montanelli met him.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indro Montanelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120116082802/http://www.freemedia.at/awards/world-press-freedom-heroes to http://www.freemedia.at/awards/world-press-freedom-heroes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Slave and "Montanelli"
I don't believe for a second that white fatso in the slave picture is Montanelli. Look at the guy and his fat cheeks. He even has man boobs. Montanelli was a skinny guy all his life. This is an obvious hoax. /Capannoreso (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The hoax refers to "the most prestigious Italian newspaper: Il Corriere della Sera", but the link does certainly not go to Corriere della Sera./Capannoreso (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Same picture here but you can see the white guys legs too: https://www.tori.ng/news/28369/slavery-see-how-white-slave-traders-dehumanised-nk.html If you compare the man in this image with Montanelli, you can clearly see it can't possibly be him. No way! /Capannoreso (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Persistent reverts
Why is 79.66.214.44 continuously reverting any edit to this page? Introducing a whole paragraph on Montanelli’s precise ‘crimes’ in a short  introduction is clearly inappropriate. I would have imagined that at least three separate editors trying to remove it would indicate this clearly. Haltendehand (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there. You yourself seem to be removing numerous references from the article and replacing them with unsourced opinion. Can you provide rationale for the edits you have made? Best, Darren-M   talk  19:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Darren. I initially only moved the initial part to 'controversy', which is where it seems to belong and removed some clearly unwarranted sentences, e.g. 'the little child, named Destà was purchased to act as his sex slave', which is unsourced and a clearly POV interpretation of what the sources cited, and added nothing except opinion. Earlier this evening I removed specifically the following:

-expressed fascist ideas, declaring the superiority of the white race - the sources cited don't say this and only mention his words, which though racist and inadmissible are some way off arguing the 'superiority of the white race' or being 'fascist' ideas. It is is any case better in my view more closely to reflect what was actually said -"Only in 1943, at the end of the war, did he decide to join an anti fascist group, Giustizia e Libertà, but he was discovered by the nazi-fascists and on the 5 February 1944 Indro Montanelli and his wife were arrested, but thanks to his many connections he wasn't executed." I removed this as the source cited (BBC article) does not say anything at all about this and I couldn't find a source that would support that statemnt -"On his departure from Abyssinia, Montanelli sold Destà to be the wife of one of his soldiers." which was unsourced entirely and once again I couldn't find anywhere The IP address I cited has a history on this page of reverting literally any edit that removes what seems to me, though I may be wrong, a fairly transparent attempt to put his misdeeds in Abyssinia front and centre and have them dominate an article that should (as it is, for example, on the Italian and other Wikipedias) chiefly be about his life and not about recent controversy. Haltendehand (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reasoned and explanatory reply. Makes sense. Best, Darren-M   talk  20:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Darren, I just read the comments in this paragraph and I am appalled by Haltendehand lies. Haltendehand continuously has removed sources and facts about Montanelli biography to push his narrative. In the introduction, I added a link to a youtube interview (with English subtitles), where the journalist Montanelli admitted having bought and married a 12-year-old girl. Here's the link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_2xZWu_Ak8 Haltendehand says that there was no source cited, regarding the facts Montanelli expressed racist ideas. This is a lie, because I added a source and also the wikipedia version in Italian reports this fact. Montanelli wrote in the fascist magazine "Civilta Fascista" in 1936 this: "We will never be rulers, if we do not have the exact awareness of our fatal superiority. We do not fraternize with the niggers. We can't, We shouldn't. At least until a civilization has been given to them". Link to sources: https://www.bufale.net/precisazioni-indro-montanelli-e-lacquisto-di-una-moglie-12enne-in-abissinia-era-un-bel-animalino/ http://www.storiologia.it/montanelli/montanelli.htm (here's the original article) The user Haltendehand says there is no source to the fact "On his departure from Abyssinia, Montanelli sold Destà to be the wife of one of his soldiers". This is a lie. Here you can see the sources with the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV16E0MK9bA I understand you might not be fluent in Italian, but I add here a link to an article, published in the Guardian, that mentions some of these facts. Please let me know if you need other sources. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/14/milan-mayor-refuses-remove-defaced-statue-italian-journalist-black-lives-matter Vale.devin (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Vale.devin


 * I did not at any stage say that Montanelli buying and marring a 12-year-old girl was a lie. The statements I removed specifically were not anywhere in the sources cited, while I only *moved* the sentence in the introduction, which was inappropriate for the context, to the correct section. Regarding the 'selling' of Desta, I did not watch the interview as that was not quoted as the source for it. I believe it would count as primary research, but I have no qualms with it. In terms of them being racist ideas, I have once again not removed anything about that, only edited a sentence saying specifically that he was arguing the 'superiority of the white race', which I thought was going too far. Instead, I substituted literally part of the quote you mentioned. I'm glad you've finally agreed to debate this properly instead of engaging in an edit war incidentally, and I hope you'll agree that the long sentence in the introduction that you have so steadfastly defended against anyone touching it must be edited or moved. It is important information, but it simply doesn't belong in the introduction. Regarding everything else, there is room for debate - I hope on your end tooHaltendehand (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Haltendenhand, you have said that adding a 'paragraph on Montanelli’s precise ‘crimes’ in a short  introduction is clearly inappropriate'. What do you mean about 'precise crimes'? Wikipedia is not a moral tribunal. We add a fact with sources (confirmed in various interviews by the same Montanelli). Why do you think is it inappropriate to add a fact in the introduction? I think that in the light of the recent news debate and coverage of this news (you can find in the major English speaking newspapers and websites like The Guardian, The New York Times, BBC news, CCN and others) it is a relevant fact to include in the introduction. But you have to be intellectual honest and not saying lies. You did write in previous comments (read above) this: "expressed fascist ideas, declaring the superiority of the white race - the sources cited don't say this and only mention his words, which though racist and inadmissible are some way off arguing the 'superiority of the white race' or being 'fascist' ideas". I included the source, This link (https://www.bufale.net/precisazioni-indro-montanelli-e-lacquisto-di-una-moglie-12enne-in-abissinia-era-un-bel-animalino/) and you boldly state the contrary. In the source, it is included the sentence from Montanelli article published in "Civilta Fascista" about the superiority of white race. Why do you negate that? I will write the sentence below: "We will never be rulers, if we do not have the exact awareness of our fatal superiority. We do not fraternize with the niggers. We can't, We shouldn't. At least until a civilization has been given to them". Does not Montanelli write about the 'superiority of the white race?" The fact Montanelli sold Desta wasn't an unwarranted sentence and it was sourced. But you didn't bother to verify the validity of the information and deleted it! Vale.devin (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Vale.devin

I strongly support the work of Haltendehand and I believe that my last version expressed a balanced judgment on the man pointing out his good and bad actions. The edits by 79.66.214.44 are the ones of a zealot, clearly meant to highlight t=only the bad things about Montanelli with expressions like "only at the end of the war" while 1943 was in fact THE BEGINNING of the Italian civil war, with the Nazi occupation of North Italy where Montanelli lived, and so the most dangerous moment to change side. In addition while it's perfectly fine to talk about the Eritrean girl controversy, it is equally right to point out that many Italian journalists called for evaluating the life and works of the author thoroughly, but 79.66.214.44 deleted all the references about this more than once. In conclusion, 79.66.214.44 is a moralist puritan zealot and does not know anything about Italian history. --91.142.236.37 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that what you are adding in the introduction has a source does not mean it belongs there necessarily. As you rightly said, Wikipedia is not a moral tribunal. The point is to state that the controversy happened, with a short explanation of what the accusations were and what was done about it, which you will note is exactly what I added in lieu of presenting the evidence, from reputable sources, directly in the introduction. This is also why that paragraph of the introduction belongs at the bottom of the introduction, not the middle: its purpose is to tell the reader that there were protests against its removal, why they happened, what the reaction was - the longer evidence can stay in 'controversy'. This, incidentally, is what at least three or four contributors before me seem to have thought before you reverted their changes.

Regarding the selling of Destà: I assumed that since it was a separate sentence with no footnote of its own and I couldn't find it in writing anywhere in the sources quoted elsewhere (which I believe were the BBC and Guardian) that it didn't have a source. If the video contains evidence of him selling her it should be re-included with proper sourcing. On the quote: I don't agree that we should interpret that quote for the reader with loaded terms. It is not in itself a fascist statement (though I'm sure he made some and I'm happy to include a few words to that effect if we have a source for it) nor does it declare the a priori superiority of the white race - only that it is more civilised and hence superior, which is no doubt a racist statement, but one that is best portrayed by calling it that, as I believe the sources quoted about the controversy do incidentally. A few more points: it is absolutely relevant to say that the mayor and many prominent journalists have come out in favour of keeping the statue, as the point is not to judge the man but to describe the controversy around it - the outcome of which is key to understanding it. It is wrong to describe Il Giornale as 'Berlusconi newspaper': it was owned by him, but it's POV that it was 'his' newspaper; it is also clearly biased to describe Montanelli in the sidebar as being 'famous for' being 'employed by Silvio Berlusconi', which is what you wrote to replace the previous correct statement that he was known for being classically liberal. We could also just leave 'famous journalist'. Lastly, 1943 was not 'the end of the war'. There are some other elements you seem to insist on integrating against any other editor's wishes again and again that should be changed, but let's leave it at this for now Haltendehand (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Clearly, you are disrespectful calling me a 'puritan zealot'. I stated facts and added sources, but obviously you want to write a whitewashed biography. Is it relevant to add in the introduction a list of Italian journalists (some of the closest Montanelli's friends and colleagues) rallying in support of Montanelli, defending his actions during the fascist regime? Are you reporting facts or opinions? This is really a disservice to a factual Wikipedia. Writing that Montanelli joined a resistance group at the end of the war, it is a fact. It is not up to you saying that it "was the most dangerous moment to change side". Otherwise add a source. I always wrote factual and sourced informations and as I said above, these news are relevant in the light of the British and American newspapers coverage in the last weeks, regarding Montanelli involvement in the fascist regime and the Italian colonialism. For example, I never added in the introduction or in other sections of the biography that Montanelli was a staunch supporter of Pinochet or that he wrote different articles supporting the segregation of black people in the USA. These informations are Montanelli's opinions and not relevant facts. But his fascist past and his colonialism and racist ideas cannot be hidden. --Vale.devin (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Vale.devin


 * Nobody wants to hide anything! On the opposite I had added references about the racist declarations on the superiority of the white race, and the Eritrean girl. that were broken or missing since you just wanted to shame the author without even adding sources. I agree once again with Haltendehand, who wrote this stuff has clearly no understanding of recent Italian history: Il Giornale is one of the many newspapers and TV channels engulfed by the Silvio Berlusconi's media empire during the decades, but it was founded by Montanelli and only later acquired by Mr. Berlusconi. That was exactly the reason for the clash between the two. So he's not "famous for being someone who worked for Mr. Berlusconi", but on the opposite someone whose newspaper's stocks were bought by Mr. Berlusconi who subsequently tried to force him to align with his political views.


 * In addition once again, the comment about 1943 being the end of the war is incredibly wrong, since once again whoever has a basic knowledge of modern Italian history should know that 1943 is the starting date of the Italian Civil War that raged for 2 whole years so you don't know what you are talking about.


 * Finally I would like to point out that I am also trying to improve the main corpus of the article by adding sources and fixing the grammar, but some users are just here to engage in edit wars about the introduction without any contribution to the article, and this is a shame. --91.142.236.37 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I explained why that information was relevant in the introduction. The coverage in the British and American newspapers made the news relevant in the biography of one of the most famous Italian journalists. Why do you want to hide the fact? It is not a controversy. The controversy regards the statue and his removal, not the fact that Montanelli bought a married a 12-year old girl. In the controversy section you can write about the statue defaced and the discussion about its removal. I clearly added the sources and you keep negating it. Please re-read what you have written above. Are you still saying this sentence ("We will never be rulers, if we do not have the exact awareness of our fatal superiority. We do not fraternize with the niggers. We can't, We shouldn't") is not a statement 'declaring the superiority of white race'? I am honestly baffled by your negationism. The removal of the statue is a fact that doesn't attain to the biography of the journalist, but that can be added in the controversy section. The fact that many 'prominent' journalists (some of his closest journalists friends) have come out in favour of keeping the statue is not the key to understand it. I personally agree with keeping the statue and sanctioning who defaced it, but this is MY PERSONAL opinion. These journalists rallying to justify Montanelli's actions were some of his closests friends and you cannot say, 'it is key to understand it'. To understand what? They are opinions and not facts. The second world war lasted 6 years: from the 1st September 1939 to the 2nd September 1945. Montanelli decided to join the resistance group after the 8 settembre 1943, when Italy was under Nazi occupation and the war was at the end. Check the historical facts. Il Giornale was and still is 'Berlusconi newspaper', in fact Montanelli quit, because he didn't want to support Berlusconi during the election. In the introduction, someone ( you or 91.142.236.37?) made it appear like an opponent to Berlusconi, clearly misrepresenting the fact. Montanelli was 'employed by Berlusconi'. Do you negate it? Is not a fact? Montanelli also wrote and said that "Berlusconi was the best editor, he had". Do you want to whitewash the fact? --Vale.devin (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Vale.devin


 * The point is that the coverage of this by the sources related ENTIRELY to the controversy. The facts themselves around his actions in Abyssinia belong a) in his biography, together with all the other things he did and b) in the controversy section, seeing as that is the main context in which they have been widely publicised. Nobody was talking about these beforehand and all the news coverage is based on the statue first, the reactions and perceptions of others second, the actual actions committed third. So the controversy and how it was resolved should be briefly in the introduction, details of what was done in the '30s in the appropriate sections. Frankly it is clear to everyone that you are trying to impose a specific agenda on this, and I think your insistence on the Berlusconi point, which is clearly misleading as phrased in your version, only shows this more clearly.Haltendehand (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You need to stop offending me (calling me 'puritan zealot'), accusing me to shame the author and not adding sources, which is not true. You need to stop offending me and saying that I don't have 'clearly understanding of recent Italian history'. Being offensive is not a constructive way to discuss about the topics. In the introduction, you added personal sided and partial opinions of Montanelli's journalists friends, defending him. You have added opinions and not facts. I wrote facts regarding the events of Montanelli's life and not, like you, opinions in support or against his behaviour. Il Giornale is a newspaper owned by Berlusconi family. Do you deny it? Was not Montanelli employed by Berlusconi? Yes or not? Is it a fact or opinion? Is it true that Montanelli said that "Berlusconi was the best editor he had"? As I wrote, Montanelli decided to join the resistance group after the 8 settembre 1943, when Italy fall under Nazi occupation and Italy fascist regime crumbled and it was the end of the war. Can you deny it? It is good that you try to improve the grammar of the page, but you should improve your manners and stop being offensive towards other contributors. --Vale.devin (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Vale.devin


 * The controversy regarding the removal of Montanelli statue brought to light his past that cannot be hidden. The controversy is related to the statue defacement, not to Montanelli's actions, that needs to be added in the biography and not in the controversy section. 'The reactions and perceptions' can be included in the controversy section, but in the biography, you need to include the factual events. You write: "Nobody was talking about these beforehand". What does it mean: it is not relevant? Are you joking? You write: "It is clear to everyone that you are trying to impose a specific agenda". Why? Can I say the same regarding your reluctance to add facts in the biography? Do you have a personal agenda? I don't. So, you should stop accusing me. Also, what do you mean "your insistence on the Berlusconi point, which is clearly misleading as phrased in your version, only shows this more clearly"? What does it show? Did I write facts or opinions? --Vale.devin (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Vale.devin


 * @Vale.devin are you answering to me or Haltendehand? We are not the same user...Anyway given you are citing things said by me I'll try to address them. First of all, please stop with the accusation that other users want to "whitewash", it's you that want to exaggeratedly highlight only Montanelli's bad actions and deleting all the rest. I believe we have to maintain a balanced approach.


 * Secondly, it's not even worth discussing it, but once again, if the war ended in 1945, 1943 means 2 years left, so by no means it can be considered "the end" of the war, but more the middle. Consider also that Italy entered the war almost one year after Germany, in May 1940. You just want to make things look like Montanelli was a coward who joined the resistance only when the war was already won by the Allies, when in fact THE Italian resistance movement WAS ITSELF BORN IN 1943, so in fact Montanelli joined the resistance movement as soon as it came to exist. And once again, the Italian Civil War STARTED IN 1943, when the Germans invaded Italy and set up a puppet Nazi state in the north, and the resulting conflict was astoundingly violent and bloody. So you can see that what you are saying is simply not true. Montanelli joined the resistance as soon as he could and then risked his life in the civil war that was starting in that very moment. This for sure DOES NOT DELETE his fascist and racist past, but we have to stick to facts. He was no coward. Also after the war he kept on being anti-Communsit, bashing his enemies and didn't care about his personal safety during the Years of Lead, insomuch that Communist terrorist shot him, and even after that he kept on being anti-communist even more. Compare him to authors like Dario Fo or others that were also ardent fascists even after 1943, but after the war rushed to join the Communist party.


 * Thirdly, about il Giornale, I really don't understand what you would like to demonstrate, that Montanelli was a supporter of Berlusconi? Once again you don't know Italian history if this is your point. Silvio Berlusconi started his career in the 1960s as a construction and then media tycoon, let's say a bit like Donald Trump, but stayed completely out of politics until 1994. So until then he just made money with media but did not interfere with what his newspapers said and did not have a political agenda. He was even a close friend of Socialist leader and prime minister Bettino Craxi, so many people actually thought of him as a leftist before 1994. Only in 1994, when he decided to start a political career founding a right-wing populist party, he tried to force Montanelli to endorse him, and then Montanelli left il Giornale and became his most vocal critic for years. If you speak Italian you can easily find tons of articles in which Montanelli bashes Berlusconi.


 * Fourthly, regarding the controversies, I strongly believe they should be put in the article and in the introduction as well and once again I provided sources for both of them (racism and the girl). But I think they should not be put in the intro WITH A LOT OF DETAILS, like that he called the girl "small animal", resold her and so on: details belong to the Controversies paragraph.


 * Fifthly; what you mean that the journalists who defend him were his friends? He was the most famous journalist of his time, so virtually every Italian and European journalist met him or worked with him sooner or later. This is not relevant. What is relevant is that they are important columnists for some major national newspapers in Italy. In addition, the mayor of Milan, Mr. Sala, was not a friend of Montanelli and he is even a member of a left-wing political party that is worlds apart form the political views of Montanelli. And of course these are their opinions, so what? If we are talking about the protest asking for the removal of his statue we should explain why and how the request was denied. I really don't understand why you deleted that part.


 * In conclusion, I am no big fan of the author and I don't want to hide anything, on the opposite we must put his dark side in the article, but we should write a balanced article about a hugely complex person, highlighting both his fascist/racist past, his participation in the resistance against fascism, his struggle for the freedom of the press after the war that costed him an assassination attempt by Communist terrorists and his fight against Berlusconi.--91.142.236.37 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I replied both to your comments and Haltendehand'ones. I agree with you, when you write the page needs 'to maintain a balanced approach'. So does it mean we cannot add in the introduction he bought and married a 12-year-old girl and he had fascist and racist opinions? In the introduction, you can read his relevance in the journalism field (one of the 50 World Press Freedom Heroes according to the International Press Institute), his colonialist and fascist past, resistance, arrest, escape. His work as historian and his 'monumental' (in italian 'grandioso', 'enorme' not certainly an objective adjective) work on History of Italy. Brigate Rosse terrorist attack and Berlusconi collaboration and opposition. What is relevant or what is not?

Regarding your points: 1. I don't want to 'exaggeratedly highlight only Montanelli's bad actions'. This is not true and you are accusing me again. 2. I didn't write he was a coward, but Montanelli joined the Italian resistance movement only in 1943, when Italy fall under Nazi occupation. When we talk about Italian resistance, we talk about the opposition to the Italian Fascist regime. You write "Montanelli joined the resistance as soon as he could and then risked his life in the civil war that was starting in that very moment". This is your opinion, but actually it is not a fact. We are not discussing if he was a coward or not. We are not discussing about his anti-communism, but about his role in the fascist regime. Only after being informed in July 1943 that Mussolini was arrested, he started to write antifascist articles in Il Corriere della Sera and Il Tempo. Just a few months before, the Foreign Ministry Galeazzo Ciano sent a person to Berlin to ask the approval for Montanelli wedding. You can't really depict him as an anti-fascist, because he was fascist until Mussolini's arrest and deeply involved in Mussolini regime. 3. Again, you accuse me of not knowing Italian history. I don't want to demonstrate anything. But it is important to report facts. In my previous comment, I wrote the same things you have written. 4. It is correct to add 'the small animal' comment in the controversy section, but the actual event of buying and marrying a 12-year old girl is a fact an it belongs to the core biography. 5. You added in the introductions opinions of journalists that were Montanelli's friends: Travaglio, Severgnini, etc Weren't they his friends or colleagues? You cannot really deny it. You added opinions and not facts. You need to be more intellectually honest about it. Regarding Sala, he refused to remove the statue. But please, do not discuss with me in terms of right or left wings parties, as you tried to do, mentioning Sala, Fo, Craxi, Berlusconi, etc. Because I just want to report facts in Wikipedia and not to push a political agenda. The term 'Fight against Berlusconi' seems an excessive term. Berlusconi was not a dictator and he was democratically elected. In the introduction, you can read about his collaboration and also his opposition to Berlusconi government. How do you want to put it? Regarding the assassination attempt, it is mentioned in the introduction. What do you want to add? You talk about struggle for the freedom of press? What do you mean? There was freedom of press in the democratic Italy at the time, while it was not free during the fascist regime. And Montanelli didn't fight for any freedom of press during the regime. As I said, I am keen and open to discuss. But I don't accept any offence and accusation of partisanship. Vale.devin (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Vale.devin


 * 1. So why you keep on putting unnecessary details in the intro? But I think we agreed on this finally.
 * 2. Why do you keep calling an opinion a fact? You don't like that we say you don't know Italian history but then you look like to don't accept that the Italian resistance was born in 1943, before there were just a few intellectuals exiled in France and some in prison. Only in 1943 a military movement took arms in the north. So Montanelli could not have possibly been part of it before 1943. What you can argue is that Montanelli was not an opponent of the regime before 1943, but nobody denies this, in fact he was a supporter until 1941-42 when he witnessed the regime's shortcomings in Greece. But once again the Italian resistance came to exist only in 1943, so virtually everybody was "fascist" (employed in the fascist apparatus in a way or another) before the Badoglio coup of 1943, besides the Rosselli brothers, Antonio Gramsci, Carlo Levi and a dozen of exiled or imprisoned Jewish or communist politicians. There was simply no chance for a resistance movement to exist before 1943 thanks to the secret police OVRA, so in the 1920s and 1930s all the anti-fascists had been arrested, killed or escaped. You have to realize that the Italian Civil War started precisely in 1943 and this is the turning point in the lives of many modern Italian intellectuals that precisely in that moment had the opportunity to choose their side. Many like Dario Fo, Ugo Tognazzi, Raimondo Vianello and others chose to stay with the Nazi and this must lead us to think that they still believed an Axis victory was possible. So the choice of Montanelli was not that of a person who wanted to bandwagon at the end of the war. On the opposite, he chose the losing side, losing at that time in that place, and was almost executed by the Nazi for that.
 * 4. Indeed I had put the marriage in the intro, we could also write bought and married but finally we agree that the other details should be moved.
 * 5. I don't want to deny anything because it was precisely my intention to bring their opinions. I don't get your point. There is a debate about tearing down a statue so we should of course talk about the reasons of the protesters and the reasons of who oppose the proposal i.e. the mayor, journalists and politicians. Regarding Berlusconi and the freedom of the press we are talking of two intermingled subjects. The first is the Years of Lead when Italy witnessed an unprecedented wave of political street violence in which many intellectuals and politicians were routinely shot, murdered or kidnapped by far-left or far-right groups just for expressing their ideas. Montanelli opposed this state of things and was shot in the legs. Regarding Berlusconi, he was not a dictator but in the view of Montanelli he tried to force journalist working in his newspapers to write articles that praised him and to control the majority of Italian media by de facto merging his private TV channels with the public broadcaster Rai, that he stuffed with journalists chosen by him and sympathetics to his political part.--91.142.236.37 (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My point was precisely that Wikipedia's job is not to unveil previously hidden information, but to reflect the information already out there, giving a balanced account not on its own merits, but as it is presented in reliable sources. When as in this case all reliable sources NOT reporting on the controversy barely mention his actions in Abyssinia (see for example obituaries) and those that do ONLY discuss them as reasons for what the protesters did, while their own summaries of his life don't include anything about it, it seems unreasonable to put that in the middle of the introduction in huge detail. That being said, I am happy with putting the marriage to a 12-year old girl in the intro as long as it's within the final paragraph of the intro, about the controversy - which I hope you'll agree is hardly hiding it. In fact, I think the fairest introduction that really reflects closely what those sources are saying about him would be a translation of the one on the Italian Wikipedia, with a short paragraph added on the controversy and this being rooted in his support for the regime, marriage of a 12-year old in Abyssinia, racist statements, and the request being denied. On the Berlusconi point: it looks frankly ridiculous to say in his profile that he was 'famous for: famous journalist, employed by Berlusconi'. Before you edited it this said that he was famous for his classical liberal views, which is entirely correct. Not just as, as 91.142.236.37 wrote, Montanelli clearly became an enemy of his as soon as he entered politics - not least because it threatened to compromise his journalistic independence - but because, once again, it is not something any reliable source considers him to be 'famous' for: you don't read, in the BBC or the Guardian articles on him the subtitle 'The famous Italian journalist Indro Montanelli, who was employed by Silvio Berlusconi...' So it simply doesn't belong there. Still on that note, to say 'Berlusconi newspaper' in the intro is clearly tendentious, hence my repeated attempts to change it to 'Berlusconi-owned', which is what it was. Lastly, 'monumental', when referred to books in English, is not a sympathetic adjective, but a neutral one - it just means long and hefty. Haltendehand (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the interests of providing an (informal) third opinion, I'll spend some time this evening reading through the above discussion in full and come back to add my thoughts. However - and directed at nobody in particular - please can we remember that editors are volunteers, and that we need to be civil. I think some of the comments above could stray into being a personal attack. Best, Darren-M   talk  10:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. You did add unnecessary details in the intro, like the opinions of his colleagues, defending Montanelli actions during the fascist regime. Are these facts relevant to the biography or just opinions necessary to construct a specific narrative? 2. Again you want to push your narrative and make appear Montanelli, like an antifascist. The voice of 'Italian Resistance' in Wikipedia (English version) says "Most active 1943–1945; the Resistance originated following the rise of Fascist Italy in the 1920s". So the resistance to fascism originated in the 1920s and again you accuse me of not knowing history. Montanelli started to write antifascist articles only after Mussolini was arrested in July 1943. Historical facts speak louder than your accusation against me. 5. You are just confirming what I am saying. Vale.devin (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Vale.devin


 * I am speechless. You write: "My point was precisely that Wikipedia's job is not to unveil previously hidden information, but to reflect the information already out there". What do you mean? Can't we add new information on Wikipedia? You write also "in this case all reliable sources NOT reporting on the controversy". I am speechless again. Hundreds of articles have been written in the last few weeks, regarding this topic (published in the major Italian and international newspapers) and you boldly state the contrary. Why do you think it is ridiculous to say 'Montanelli was a famous journalist, employed by Berlusconi'. Is this not a fact? I updated it, because I found a bit contradictory to keep 'famous journalist for his liberal views', for someone who supported the fascist regime, had racist opinions, supported the segregation of black people in USA, bought a 12 year-old-girl, hailed Pinochet and so on. Do you think these opinions reflect liberal views? Are not liberal views supporting individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), gender equality, racial equality and so on? Why do you think that writing 'Il Giornale is Berlusconi's newspaper' is 'clearly tendentious'. Is it a fact or an opinion? I am honestly baffled by this negationsim. Vale.devin (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Vale.devin


 * Hi Darren, have you had a chance to read through the discussion? I think a third opinion is sorely needed here Haltendehand (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * apologies for the delay, my work life has got monumentally busier and I don't think I have the capacity (or indeed the experience) to mediate this. I would suggest formally reaching out for a WP:THIRD for assistance. Best, Darren-M   talk  21:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No, we can't add 'new' information on Wikipedia that comes from primary sources - this is an encyclopedia, not an investigative journalistic article. Information on Wiki rests on secondary sources and the way that information is presented should reflect that. As the full sentence that you quoted misleadingly says, the sources that speak of his actions in Abyssinia speak of them in the context of the BLM protests, which is how they should be presented here. The same applies with his classical liberal (note: NOT liberal in the American sense) views and the Berlusconi thing: leaving aside the misleading impression given by saying that 'he worked at Berlusconi's paper' when this was long before the man was near politics; all serious sources, from biographies to recent articles, focus on his renown as a journalist who held those classical liberal views. If Berlusconi is mentioned at all, it is in the context of him "forcing Montanelli out" of Il Giornale and the rivalry between the two men. It's disingenuous to present this as if he were famous for writing in Berlusconi's political interest, as a paid lackey, which is how it reads now. Haltendehand (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article starkly lacks neutrality and it has been clearly written with a significant stress over the Abyssinian rape and his days within the Fascist party, and arguably to portray him in the worst possible light. The "legacy" paragraph is frankly ludicrous, as if the legacy of a life of journalism were two days of protests over a hundred years-old rape. This needs serious rework and I'm considering a non-neutral flag over the article.2001:B07:A96:9FA6:96A:69DA:9B31:9C56 (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently, there are no neutral sources in English language and only liberals reported the news internationally. I guess this is the reason for the original bias in the article. I have anyway rewritten the last paragraph to better portray the situation. 2001:B07:A96:9FA6:ACC5:7342:B59C:6473 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)