Category talk:Italian military history task force articles

Sources

1. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). This means that minority views can and should be included for the sake of balance.

2.Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

3.Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

4.While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe...".

5. The general public mostly gets its history from novels, films, TV shows, or tour guides at various sites. These sources are full of rumor and gossip and false or exaggerated tales. They tend to present rosy-colored histories in which the well-known names are portrayed heroically. Almost always editors can find much more authoritative sources.

6.Historical articles on wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible.

7.Recent scholarship is scholarship which displays the currently acceptable methodological practices, and that refers to other recent material. This constitutes a shifting window of "recentness" that depends on the area of historical studies, and changes in historical scholarship. The only way to judge this is by becoming aware of the higher order debates within a field of history, this can be done by reading the reviews.

Neutral POV

1.Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view.

2.There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view.

3. Avoid biased vocabulary and language. Strive to write in a neutral tone, avoiding cliches and sensationalist words. Write "surrender" not "abject surrender". Write "retreat" or "withdrawal" rather than "rout"; "failed" rather than "fiasco". Better still, instead of "fiasco" write something like this: "The Italian advance did not accomplish its original objectives." Because no matter how badly things may have gone for the Italian army, there is often something good that came out of it. Calling a battle a "fiasco" is too imprecise colorful language that tells us nothing about the battle and indicates bias.

4.Impartial tone: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

5.The historical perspective of the Allies of World War II, particularly the US and Great Britain, prevails.

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject for Countering systemic bias has been set up to deal with this problem.

AnnalesSchool (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please see WP:OWN. You have no ability to unilaterally seek to enforce guidelines of your own invention (though I note that you've lifted some of the above from the essay WP:HISTRS without attribution). There also isn't an infinite amount of patience for your nonsense, and it's likely that you will be blocked if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

But the above guidelines are Wikipedias, not mine! May I remind you that you do not own the articles

Please read this Wiki guideline about ownship below:

All Wikipedia content[1] is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article.

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about – perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:

Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone

AnnalesSchool (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)