User talk:Lee-Sensei

+Welcome

Hi, welcome to Real-Life Villains! Thanks for your edit to the Winston Churchill page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- AmethystKnight (Talk) 03:10, March 20, 2013

Winston Churchill

Well; I did just read a little bit on him; and while I saw that he allowed the Dresden bombings in Germany and battled against a rebellion in Myanmarr; but otherwise; I couldnt find anything. At that; you could look up Harry S Truman (who bombed Japan and killed thousands and that he was a huge racist).That Dawg 15:15, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html

http://www.againstbombing.org/chemical.htm

It really opens eyes doesn't it? I don't consider him a villain, but when people like Mussolini, Petain and Ceasar are listed as villains... Churchill should be too.Lee-Sensei (talk) 01:21, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I owe you an apology; for some reason I thought you were being a racist yourselfThat Dawg 14:18, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I couldn't get back on to explain. I wasn't being racist. I was just copying a well known fact about Winston Churchill.Lee-Sensei (talk) 07:39, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean mate, as far as I recall, the only time I edited Churchils page was to make certain it included the good things he did as well, if other people made other edits you can't blame me. As for Mussolini, well if you look it still includes his good things, I simply added more of the bad things he did, because they weren't included on the page. Don't blame me, he did them. I personally still think that although he did do some terrible things, Churchil was on the whole a good person, he just made a few very bad mistakes or tough choices. I've no dellusions, he was a racist, he was an imperielist, he was elitiest, and he was a bit of a warmonger. But I still think he was a good man, he just like all men had a darker side. General MGD 109 (talk) 01:33, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

I've already given you my sources, you have yet to give me conflicting ones, until them I'm afraid I cannot except your statement that my facts are inaccurate. I know for a fact that things such as his invasions of Etheopia and Yugoslavia did happened, as did his attacks in north Africa and Greece, so even if parts are wrong, not all the things your removing are as inaccurate as you claim. I'm sorry to continue this arguement, my I'm sure you can see my point, even if you disagree with it. General MGD 109 (talk) 12:17, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

I never said that his invasions weren't wrong, but a lot of you're information is. First of all, the links you've provided have already been proven inaccurate and biased so they aren't reliable sources.Lee-Sensei (talk) 07:26, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

If they aren't wrong why did you remove them? And sorry, but the mere fact that a few of them got one fact wrong and failed to mention the few good deeds he did (truthfully I don't think they were that great, not in comparison to all the evil ones he did.) doesn't mean there unreliable, like I said, until you can provide me with conflicting ones, I cannot simply except you removing my information. Its simple really, it shouldn't be that hard to find evidence of your points, if you are right. Once you have, please give it to me and I'll stop reverting your edits. But for the momment mine stand. Please don't make this any more difficult than it needs to be. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:02, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove them. I said that he invaded countries. And no. If a souce is proven to be biased and getting it's information wrong it isn't a reliable source. It's the equivalent of me using this:

The Monstrous Winston Churchill | The Occidental Observer - White Identity, Interests, and Culture

and calling it a reliable source. Reliable sources are unbiased and factual. The sources you've used are not. Not good? Ending slavery isn't good? Protecting Jews isn't good? You're biased too. Why are you so on about this? I thought you wanted to stop. You also said that wasn't your information? Your tripping over your own feet. It's quite the opposite honestly. First you have to provide a reliable source to prove your point. BTW... your sources don't say that he kidnapped people. They'ren not reliable in the first place, but they don't say that.Lee-Sensei (talk) 07:26, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe but you removed all the information about what happened during the invasions, Mussolini was forced to ask Hitler for assistance when he tried to invade North Africa and Greece, and he did invade Albania, causing the King to flee. I don't understand your removals, that is historically accurate, I was simply trying to add more information.

I think once again your jumping to extreames, although a few of my sources were a bit harsh, I don't think they went that far. The fact a large portion of them mentioned the same information, is to me proof that atleast some of it is true. Ending Slaverly in a country you brutally conquered, during which conquest you were willing to commit just about every war crime in the book, is that really that good? Protecting the jews after you proceeded to stab them in the back, despite many of them being with you since the start, purely to curry favour with another mad tyrant, is that really so good? I'm not dening there good deeds, I'm just saying they don't seem so much in comparison to all the evil ones he did. I think your find that the one on Yugoslavia says he took women and children as hostages to quell rebellion, which is what I put on the page.

I do want this to stop, but if I've gone to the trouble of researching this information, I'm going to include it, untill you prove its not true. And thats all I'm asking, rather than argue against my choices, why not simply give me some of your sources, your so sure your right, so why not give them to me? General MGD 109 (talk) 10:53, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Being forced to ask for assistance has no bearing on villainy? To a point. The failure of the invasions is irrelevant. Yes. It is historically accurate. But failure has no bearing on villainny. And Albania was invaded... but it was basically a puppet kingdom for Italy any ways. And had been since WWI. More Mussolini bravado.

It's not about jumping to extremes. It's about reliable sources. Your sources weren't reliable. They were biased and they had wrong information that have been debunked by historians for over 60 years. The fact that several of your unreliable sources had the same misinformation is telephone in action. You know... the spread of misinformaton especially on the internet. Was Mussolini a bad guy? Absolutely. In the same way that every imperialist of the first half of the 20th century were.

Committing every war crime in the book is an over exaggeration. Did you noticed that I never deleted the part about him using gas and bombing the red cross? That's because it happened. He used gas and bombed the red cross. Those are well documented facts and I'm not going to argue against them. The other things that were written either happened without his consent or didn't happen at all (like the kidnappings). And yes. Protecting Jews from the Holocaust is way more important than Racial laws (That existed in most countries any ways). Okay. We're going to have to go back to Churchill because he's the bias for him is the only reason I'm arguing for Mussolini. Churchill starved 4 million Indians and bombed civilians (women, children and the elderly). Doesn't that out weigh fighting the Nazis (not for freedom, but to preserve the British Empire). Again. TheNot a reliable source. He didn't kidnap people in Yugoslavia.

I don't have to prove that it's not true. You have to prove that it is true. You had some links... they were proven unreliable because they have false information and a proven bias. Bring reliable sources or leave the page alone.Lee-Sensei (talk) 12:52, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your word does not count as indisputatble proof, I am willing to admit certian sources I used were biased and potentially inaccurate, and as such I will except sections that are this being removed. But deleting the entire thing save a few points is a differnt matter all together.

Reguardless if they have anything to do with Villainly, they should be included as it did happen, and the point of these articles is to have a non-biased and accurate report of there lives activities. By the same token I could delete all the good things he did, as non of them have anything to do with Villainy, if we mearly include the bad and the very bad it is not a full report. You yourself argued that, if your not against including either the good or the bad then why are you against including the neuteral.

I would agree with you, but I need proof. One man's word is not enough. Not when I have multiple sources each saying the same thing. If we were to swap places and you had multiple, potentially/partially biased and innacurate sources, each of which agreed on multiple points and one person started to declare it was all wrong without providing any evidence on the countary, would you except simply there word alone?

And why are you going back to Churchil? Let that one rest please, if your going to keep trying to restart that argument, I'm just going to stop trying to reason with you. Points on moral supremacy are irrelevant at this moment, I'm talking about facts and at the present my facts agree with me, all you keep offering is simply your word and as are previous arguments have proven, neither of us are infallable.

Why not? You haven't proven its false, so for the momment it stands as either, as such untill you prove it, it stays. What bugs me is why your so unwilling to show any of your sources and instead simply keep arguing that you are right, despite no one else agreeing with you. Just show me some of these sources you keep quoting and we can let this whole matter settle, you said yourself your sick of these arguments, in which case simply play along and let his rest. If your so sure your right what are you so worried about? General MGD 109 (talk) 14:25, August 13, 2013 (UTC)  a 

That's not how this works. You have to provide reliable information first. Other wise I don't have to debunk it. It's the equivalent of using a tabloid as a source of information. They aren't facts. If someone on the internet says Churchill ate puppies do you look in a history book for a historian to say that Churchill didn't eat puppies. If it's an unreliable source it's an unreliable source and doesn't need to be debunked because it's unreliable. I don't have to show you my scans I told you Google Books. If you want to find my quotes just put them into google. They're all over the internet. And I've studied History at the University level. That's how I know so much about Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Mussolini and the rest. I've read many books by prominent historians on these people, seen the documentaries, read he speeches... in short. I know what I'm talking about. When you posted factual information (like his racism against Slavs and stabbing a class mate in the hand) I immediately agreed that you were right. Here... you are not.Lee-Sensei (talk) 16:07, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Now I think should also tell you, to end the constant edit waring, I've locked the page. Now don't over react, this is not an attack on you or anything, its simply there is to much conflict over the page, and as tempory Admin, I have put a stop to that. Once the matter over who is right and whether or not the information is bias and innacurate is sorted, I will unlock the page. Or ask the Admin to do so, if it streches past my appointed time. Please don't over react. General MGD 109 (talk) 14:32, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to get into an edit war. That's why I posted on your talk page that we should discuss it and you went back and edited it again. There is no matter to settle. Your sources have already proven unreliable. If he did those things I wouldn't edit the page. I didn't delete the part about him being expelled for stabbing a kid in the hand, the part about bombing red cross, starting wars, suspending liberties, killing approx. 500,000 or being racist against Slavs. Those are facts. The rest are not.Lee-Sensei (talk) 15:56, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Well you edited first, so I took it from there. But your right I should have waited. Now I know you didn't and its good to see we can agree on a few things. However I need more than just your word alone. After all even if parts of the soruces are inaccurate, other parts aren't, as you've already admited, as such I can't simply let it all be removed based purely on your say so. I just need to see some proof. If you can give me some, I'll personally delete the innacurate parts, unlock the page and make certain no one else removes them. Thats all I want, proof. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:15, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

No. You have to provide a information from a reliable source. I don't have to do anything because your sources are unreliable. You don't understand how this works. Any idiot with a computer can type something online. Look a reliable historians that would corrobarate the story and we can take it from there. The fact that they're getting information wrong and have a proven bias means that they aren't reliable. I shouldn't have to repeat this. If you know the information is factual then what's the problem? Read some books about Mussolini, fascism, the Interwar Period, Italy or WW2 and come up with some examples. If a source said online said online that Churchill attempted to commit a genocide in the Iraq mandate and I tried using that that source, you wouldn't have to debunk it because it's proven to be unreliable. If it gets facts wrong (and they got more than one as you asserted earlier) then the whole thing has to be taken with a grain of salt. The reason I haven't argued against the things listed above is because we have many reliable sources from noted historians saying the same thing.Lee-Sensei (talk) 17:33, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Okay this is going to far. Your telling me that rather than you proving a source for your claims, I now have to provide them, and that all my sources are wrong based solely on your word, which has been wrong in the past. I'm sorry but I'm not excepting that. I know theres a lot of false stuff online, thats why I don't like looking online for information and only go to sources that seem reliable, I number of things I found online I didn't bother to include because I knew it was rubish from a meer clance. One of two of my sources I admit are less reliable, and if you are right they are wrong. But in my search for sources, I didn't find anything that agrees with you. So as far as I'm conserned until I see some information that proves otherwise, there right. If your so sure your right please give me some proof or else just drop the issue, because this is going to far. You don't seem to grasp that there is nothing going against what is written, except your own word and I'm not going to take that as evidence, because you have been wrong before. Why do you have to make such a big thing of this? We could have ended this ages ago, and yet you refuse to be in anyway copperative, I'm starting to think you want this argument to continue. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:21, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

1. If your so sure about the veracity of your information, you shouldn't have any problem finding noted historians to confirm your information.

2. You have to provide reliable source.

3. Not solely on my word. Based on the fact that I found misinformation and clear signs of bias in the sources you provided.

4. What have I been wrong about?

5. Then don't look on line. Read books. Find excerpts.

6. Seem reliable? They've already been proven to be unreliable.

7. You didn't find anything that agrees with me on what? That he ended slavery in Ethiopia? That he sent the Mafia into hiding? That he sympathized with the Jewish plight and protected them during the holocaust?

You want sources:

"In 1926, the vice-director general of the Ministry of Colonies, commenting on the empire - Eritrea, Somalia, and Libya - believed that the facts showed that the work of colonization was in effect a campaign against slavery, since Italy was ending slavery were it had flourished before. The society proudly sponsored villages in Ethiopia for freed slaves, and the first one was called Villagio Benito Mussolini after another noted humanist and opponent of slavery." - Steven Epstein.

"The music changed. Mafiosi had a hard life. After the war the mafia hardly existed anymore. The Sicilian Families had all been broken up." - Antonio Calderone

Undoubtedly, no contemporary Englishman or Russian had so much sympathetic understanding of he Jews, as Mussolini with me in 1932. - Emil Ludwig (1946)

I mentioned the date that was written to point out that it was after WW2. This was written in hindsight. So tell me... which of my facts are wrong?

8. What was I wrong about?

9. You want to know why I'm making a big thing of this? Because you're making a big thing of this. You're engaging in historical revisionism and I hate that. I know you're better than this so just accept the facts and move on.

10. Provide reliable sources.

11. You want this to go on. You should just accept that you were wrong and move on.

12. Mussolini is a typical turn of the century European imperialist. Like Churchill with a smaller body count and less racist.Lee-Sensei (talk) 21:25, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Okay thank you for setting it out so neatly, now let me see if I get this right, I did some reasearch, you then denounced my sources as bias and inaccurate, and I agreed they might be. You then removed the information and I put it back and asked for some sources to back up your claims, and you've refused on the grounds that my sources are bias and inaccurate and your not willing to provide me with any proof and instead expect me want you to just except your word, is that it?

1. I'm not, I'm willing to admit it might be wrong, I simply want some proof before I throw it out of the window.

2. And you don't? Don't forget its only unreliable based on your word.

3. Declare by you. Could you give me some more specific examples please? To make it easier here are the sources:

http://biography.yourdictionary.com/benito-mussolini

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/399484/Benito-Mussolini

http://www.geocities.com/~dagmawi/News_Graziani_Jun19.html

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mussolini_roman_catholic.htm

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Mussolini.html

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/jun/25/artsandhumanities.highereducation

http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/Mussolini.htm

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/benito_mussolini.htm

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/heroesvillains/g3/

4. Lets see theres about the invasions, your claims he was peacefully voted out (even you admited you got that one wrong) and claiming he wasn't racist. I think thats about it, but isn't that enough?

5. To back up your points? I'm sorry, I don't own any books on Mussolini at the present.

6. By your word, which I went along with to avoid another argument.

7. I'm not going to argue that was wrong, I've never tried to remove that. I was pointing to the fact that I haven't seen anything yet that supports your claims what I wrote is innacurate.

8. Haven't you already wrote this one?

9. Based solely on your word, with no evidence to back it up? Would you in my place except that?

10. Why do you keep bringing up Churchil? Are you looking for a fight? Are you obssessed with him or something? That argument is over, its done.

Okay now let me say this one more time, I have no problem excepting what I wrote is inaccurate and removing it if it is, all I want is some proof, something more than your word. Something I've said again and again and I'm not saying it another time, you need to stop being stubbon and help each other and find something to support your argument. So either go with my requests or don't, its your choice. However this argument ends here, I've said all I want to say, and I see no reason to carry it on further. All I'm asking is you to prove me wrong, is that so much to ask? So that is that, my final word on the matter. Prove me wrong and I'll remove it, or don't and it stays. If you think I'm being unreasonable, I'm sorry, but honestly I don't. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:59, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

You're confused. I deleted information that was from an unreliable source and were false. I asked for you to find sites that weren't biased and didn't have false information. You refused.

1. If it said on the internet that he ate puppies in a stew would you believe it too?

2. Here's an idea. If you're so sure of yourself why don't you find reliable sources confirming it? I know. Because you can't. Just admit that you were wrong so this can end.

3. No. I'm not going to go through them again because they've already been proven as unreliable. It's a waste of time. They're unreliable. You need to find better sources. It's time to move on.

4. Invasions? I have never in my life said that he never invaded countries. That would be stupid. It's well documented that he invaded Britains colonies, Ethiopia, Greece and debatably Albania. I said he was voted out of power. I never said it was peaceful. And that depends on what your definition of peaceful is anyways. Was anyone killed? Was anyone even hit? I never admitted that I got that wrong. None of my information is wrong. I never claimed he was't racist. I said that he was less racist than Winston Churchill. And that's a fact (That you were very unwilling to admit). When you brought up your slavic comment I immediately agreed with you because it was true. When you had correct information I agreed with you. It doesn't mean I was wrong.

5. I told you to use google books.

6. Not by my word. They had false information (like about him executing political opponents) and clear bias. You admitted that they had false information. But if that's not true can you please give some examples of political opponents he killed? We've been through this. Your sources are unreliable. Find better ones.

7. If someone wrote that Churchill liked to strangle kittens on a website would you automatically believe it? Find better sources that confirms that he did things like stabbing his girlfiend in the hand or concede so we can move on. This is getting tiresome. I studied this at the University level. Do you really think you know more about these people than I do?

8. Yes, but you repeated yourself.

9. 'Yes because your sources are unreliable.' If you were so sure about their reliability you'd be able to find other (more reliable) sources that confirms that information. But you can't. That's why you aren't bringing in anymore sources.

10. Because. The only reason I brought up Mussolini was as a comparison to Churchill. I joined this wiki to add his page as he'd done some terrible things in the past. When people said that he was a 'hero' I brought comparisons to other people in history like Ceaesar, Petain and Mussolini who had less blood on their hands and were arguably less 'evil'. Without Churchill I wouldn't be here talking about Mussolini. That's why I'm bringing this back to Churchill.Lee-Sensei (talk) 00:06, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Because if you read my previous post, your find I've said all I'm going to say, we've jus been repeating things for to long, we just finished one pointless argument I don't want another. This is my ultimatum. Nothing more. General MGD 109 (talk) 14:29, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

So basically, you took it upon yourself to revise history, typed and locked in incorrect information, couldn't back up your claims, and refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong? Concession accepted.Lee-Sensei (talk) 18:26, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I know I said I wasn't going to carry this on, but you know what, you really are that annoying. Your the one who made claims that you refused to back up with anything other than your word, which as far as I'm concerned, by this point in time means just about nothing, and your the one who reacted hostily when I politely asked you for some evidence to your claims. I've tried to be nice, believe me I have, but you've defied me and quaraled with me at every possible chance you've got and you know what, I'm done.

Here is your choice, either end this pointless talk here and now by just letting me see what I've been asking for since the beginning, or just don't reply, those are the only options you have left. This whole matter could have been ended days ago, but you've dragged it on and on, what could have been settled in less than a day has gone on for over a week. And you know why? Because your stubbon and arrogant, and are completely unwilling to admit to there being even the slightest chance your wrong. So either reply or don't its your choice, but don't try and blame this on me, because I've done nothing other than ask you to use something more than your word to back up your argument and if thats so wrong, hang me for it. What ever happens next, for good or for ill, is your fault and because of your choices. I'm leaving it up to you to decide which one its going to be. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:22, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

No. You're annoying. I've backed up all of my claims. He did free slaves in Ethiopia, he did make Italy a safe-haven for Europe's Jews during the holocaust, he did chase out the mafia and he was less racist than Churchill. You're the one who made claims without backing them up. When I asked for an example of rivals he killed, you failed to provide them. You brought in unreliable sources (and yes they were proven unreliable) and couldn't find reliable to ones to back them up. EVIDENCE FOR WHAT CLAIMS. I provided evidence for the good things that he did (Which you tried to underplay) and when I asked you for examples of him executing political rivals, kidnapping people or stabbing his girlfriend in the arm you failed to provide them. Here's an example. Hitler killed political rivals. An example is in the Night of the Long Knives. Another example. Stalin killed political rivals. An example is the Great Purge. Those are facts. If everything you posted was true I wouldn't deny it. When you said that he was racist against Slavs I immediately agreed with you. Why? Because it was true. If you're done then don't respond. I've provided proof for my information. You have not. You've provided links to sources that were proven unreliable and biased and coulnd't back it up when I asked for better sources. Either give examples, admit that you were wrong, or don't reply. Listen... if I was wrong, I'd admit it. If you're right (like when you mentioned his racism against Slavs I agreed with you whole heartedly). Have I ever erased the comment about Slavs? Have I ever told you yo're wrong about the Slavs? No. Why would I deny some of your information, but accept other parts if all of your information is correct.

In short:

1. My information is correct an I backed them up. He did free the Ethiopian slaves, he did make Italy a safe haven for European Jews, he did chase out the mafia and he was less racist than Churchill. These are facts.

2. I studied this at the University level. Have you? Maybe that's why I'm coming off as arrogant to you. It wasn't my intention, but it annoys me when people try to revise history.

3. Your information is incorrect, but if it is correct. Give examples. What was the name of the girl he stabbed, what political rivals did he kill, who did he kidnap. He's not exactly obscure. If he did these then there would be information on the girl he stabbed, rivals he killed, and people he kidnapped. If you can provide solid examples of people he did these things too I'll admit to it whole heartedly. If you had proof then you would provide it, but you don't.

4. If not then don't respond. Remember, that you're on my talk page.Lee-Sensei (talk) 00:55, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

It is, Why were having it here I don't know. You've backed up your claims with your words you don't seem to get I want more than that. For your argument, your bringing up past examples? If memory serves me right when I couldn't prove my point I admited I was wrong and dropped, while you tried to down play your own (forgive me if this simply a self serving memory). But that is irrevlevant, your acting like this whole talk is about whether or not Mussolini was worse in comparison to others. Its not I don't care who was worse, all I care about is getting this over, because its getting on my wits end.

All your proof is your word, thats it and you keep trying to call me out simply because I don't blindly follow what you say? I've admitted so many times you could be right, I just want something a bit more concrete, is that so wrong?

1. BACKED UP WITH YOUR WORD. He did all those things, so what I don't reallly care. And I swear if you mention Churchil one more time... Why Do you keep bringing him up? We've moved on.

2. Have you? No I haven't, but like I said, I don't exactly take your word as concrete evidence any more. And you are arrogant, what else do you call a person who refuses to admit they could be wrong until proven otherwise? It annoys me too, I just want something to prove what your saying.

3. My proof is simply what my sources say, which are Biased and innacurate only on your word. The fact you've failed to provide me with any better ones leads me to stick by them till I'm proven wrong. Why won't you prove me wrong? I keep asking you to? Your not doing me any injuries, I want you to prove me wrong. Then this whole thing can be put behind us and the information will be accurate. Thats all I want.

4. You keep responding, it takes to people to have a conversation, I've tried to end this twice now.

I'm sorry if I seem hostile or rude, but to be frank I've had enough, I'm not backing down till I see proof and your not backing down until I back down. So either we waste are time carrying this on, or we simply find a better solution. I keep giving you the offer to end this and you keep streaching it on and on, and then you tell me I'm the one in the wrong? How? Why? What have I done that is so bad? I've simply refused to take another editors points, which I know confict with several sources I've read (which may or may not be biased and innacurate), as the absolute concrete truth and have constantly asked him politely to give me some evidence for there claims. Now I've got annoyed because following my attempts to end it, all that I get is multiple points mocking me and I'm in the wrong for getting steamed? General MGD 109 (talk) 00:26, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

1. Listen. If you thought I was being rude, then I'm sorry. You seem lke a nice guy, but you just aren't getting it. I'm not admitting to being wrong because I wasn't wrong.

2. You can't completely separate Mussolini from the comparisons. Because the only reason I'm here talking about him is because I compared Churchill to him.

3. Really now? All my proof is in my words?

You want sources:

"In 1926, the vice-director general of the Ministry of Colonies, commenting on the empire - Eritrea, Somalia, and Libya - believed that the facts showed that the work of colonization was in effect a campaign against slavery, since Italy was ending slavery were it had flourished before. The society proudly sponsored villages in Ethiopia for freed slaves, and the first one was called Villagio Benito Mussolini after another noted humanist and opponent of slavery." - Steven Epstein.

"The music changed. Mafiosi had a hard life. After the war the mafia hardly existed anymore. The Sicilian Families had all been broken up." - Antonio Calderone

Undoubtedly, no contemporary Englishman or Russian had so much sympathetic understanding of he Jews, as Mussolini with me in 1932. - Emil Ludwig (1946)

I mentioned the date that was written to point out that it was after WW2. This was written in hindsight. So tell me... which of my facts are wrong?

And for the record. I have tried looking for information on his kidnappings, political murders and the girlfriend he stabbed. I haven't found any.

3. Yes. It is wrong. Because you haven't brought proof. 100s of books have been written on Mussolini. It shouldn't be hard to bring examples. Like Ernst Rohm for Hitler. Or Trotsky for Stalin.

4. I've said it over and over again. The reason I keep bringing Churchill up is because Churchill is the only reason I'm talking about Mussolini.

5. Yes. That's why I know so much about this. Be honest. Did you know about Mussolini freeing slaves in Ethiopia? Did you know about Churchills response to the Bengal famine? Someone who refuses to admit that they're wrong until proven otherwise? Why should they admit to being wrong if they aren't proven wrong.

6. It isn't only my word. FIrst of all... do you really think that the jewish virtual library is going to be unbiased to someone who was allied with Hitler, whether he was killing Jews or not? Second of all they were proven unreliable. If they are reliable back it up. Give me the names of the politicians he had killed, the people he kidnapped and the girlfriend he stabbed. 100s of books have been written on him. If he did these things the victims have to be documented. I told you to use google books. Or is that to much reading?

7. I'm not proving you wrong because their aren't any sources that are going to say that he "didn't stab his girlfriend". Why? Because the historians don't even know that information is going around. It's incorrect. It's like a website saying that "Mussolini liked to tortur cats on his free time". And then telling me to go find a source that says he didn't. It's nonsensical. Give me something to go on. Some names? Some dates? Because I've read countless books on these people and have never seen them written.

8. If you wanted to end it you wouldn't have come back.

What you've done wrong is revise history. And to be fair, I don't think you're doing it intentionally. But you are revising history, and it needs to stop. The only claims I've made about Mussolini was that he freed slaves, chased out the mafia, protected European Jews, was less racist than the other guy and was an imperialist. That's what you've done. You think that your information is correct? Fair enough. Then give me some names. It shouldn't be hard. Do you know how many political victims I can name off for Hitler, Stalin and Mao? He's not an obsucre figure in history. Just give me some names so that we can end this.Lee-Sensei (talk) 21:55, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, okay, this is going to far. We both know that. And truthfully I agree with you, I agree with you on most things you've said. And your probably right, I agree you know more about this than I do. I starting to think were alike in some ways, but not in a good way. I suppose your right in that my sources are less than water tight, but the problem is I'm not really willing to go to all the effort to shift through all this trash on the internet looking for information for claims I didn't even make. I don't really care about Mussolini, well part of me does as I'm of Italian deccent, but only slightly, as far as I'm concerned he's just another man who the world is better off without. That is why I asked you for yours, because I figured you would know some. However I didn't realise you would be unwilling to take that. I don't know, I don't want to back down, but truthfully I'm close to giving up. By the way, please stop talking about Churchil, if he's the only reason your on Mussolini, just drop both of them, constantly hearing his name so often in almost irrelevant posts is making me regret ever starting the first talk. Reguardless of if he's worse or not, he has no place in these converstations, I can think of about a hundred people who were worse than either of them, but it does nothing for me to bring them up. General MGD 109 (talk) 15:09, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

I have to apologize. This went to far. When I saw that you responded I was dreading it because I'm tired of this debate. I did get worked up and I shouldn't have. I'm sorry. Asked me for what? The good things he did? He gave sources. As for the bad things he did... the racism against slavs, invasion of countries, alliance with Hitler and Imperial Japan etc., I never denied it. But some of the things on the page (Stabbing his girlfriend, kidnapping people in Yugoslavia (I can't think of a dictator that got involved at that personal a level) and killing political rivals) were obviously false. It's just hard to keep WC out of this discussion when he's the only reason I'm here talking about Mussolini. You didn't find any names, huh? I'm not even asking to change the page anymore. I'm just curious because this is the first I've ever heard of the girlfriend he stabbed and kidnappings in Yugoslavia.Lee-Sensei (talk) 16:10, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I went a bit far aswell, I'm sorry. Its just these debates really get to you. I'm not going to deny the good he did, I've read about that. And I agree, I wasn't very clear. I think it was more of a policy of taking hostages to stop the people rebelling rather than a personal thing, that is if it happened. I'll look into it a bit deeper. How about we just end this, I'll unlock the page and we can go back to editing it like normal? How that sound? I've heard he stabbed his girlfrend a few times before, I can't remember where truthfully, I think it was an old book a read a few years ago. And truthfully I read about the kidanppings in an article about war crimes during the second world war a while back. Lets just end this and hope that are next meeting is more peaceful. General MGD 109 (talk) 22:22, August 21, 2013 (UTC) 

Well... you did try to gloss over the good he did though. I don't think it was even that. Usually if a source is accurate they'll give examples. I have never heard of him kidnapping people, stabbing his girlfriend or killing political rivals. And I've never seen any names of victims. Therefore I have to believe that it didn't happen. It's also incredibly unlikely that he got so personally involved in what was happening in Yugoslavia, especially considering the many other things that he'd have to handle during wartime. I have never read about him stabbing his girlfriend. He did stab a student in the hand at school (which is why I never removed that part), but his girlfriend? I'm pretty sure that never happened.Lee-Sensei (talk) 16:43, August 23, 2013 (UTC)