Talk:Italian Mare Nostrum/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Italian Mare Nostrum. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Merge, again

(I've separated this, because it looks like we are abouot to have this argument again. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

I have reverted the ABUSE of merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.224.112 (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here? Can everyone who is edit scrapping on this page bring their argument to the talk page? The consensus in the discussion above was to merge: that has been done; what's the objection now? And who is making it? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We have the odd spectacle of a couple of IP addresses, exercising their right not to open accounts, but nonetheless fighting tooth and nail to keep this Wikipedia article. Who are they exactly, one wonders. Meanwhile, as if the result of the AfD was not clear enough already, I'd like to point up the participation in it of three socks, ItaliaIrridenta, Luigi 28 and Popovichi all of whom voted keep. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, see here:[1]

Keep:

Delete, Merge or Redirect:

The result of the AfD discussion was: "The result was keep [my emphasis]. 8 vs. 5.

Please, show me the consensus to redirect, merge or delete. Thank you.

"Popovichi -> sock?"... where is the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please?--87.28.126.85 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, IP 87, I have no idea who you really are, but it seems pretty clear that you are no casual newcomer to this project who has just kind of decided not to bother having an account. And yes, Popovichi is a sock who has edit warred to keep on an article an image that was created by my old friend Bruno. Other than one rogue edit since, Bruno retired him after the 19 June when I politely pointed out that Popovichi had been uncovered. So shut up about Popovichi.

Next, if you want to talk about the AfD which had so many smelly socks in attendance, let's look at what the closure actually said. It said "The result was keep. Few if any problems have been asserted with respect to this article that cannot be addressed through rewriting, merging or redirecting it [my emphasis]. These actions do not require deletion". Thus, explicit consensus to merge or redirect.

Now, perhaps you might do us the courtesy of telling us who you really are, as it is absolutely damn clear from your behaviour that you are not simply "IP 87". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said! My name is: "Shut up and eat your spinach!" :-))). But... I repeat: "Popovichi --> sock?": where is the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP)? Then read here, please: [[2]]: "Keep". Thank you for your kind attention.--87.28.126.85 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bruno old chum, forgive my slowness, but I've finally twigged that it's you. It's your habit of spelling 'italian' with a small 'i' that gives you away. How are you these days? In Italy on your hols, or is it business? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You really want me to bust Popovichi? What about Cherso? I don't see much point as long as you don't use them anymore. What about this IP? Are you heading back to the States soon? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand a word of this.

My question is: The result of the AfD discussion was: "The result was keep" [my emphasis]. 8 vs. 5.

Please, show me the consensus to redirect, merge or delete. Thank you very much. "Mr. Shut up and eat your spinach!"--87.28.126.85 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Now now, Bruno, the cat's out of the bag, and "I don't understand a word of this" is a poor attempt at a retraction, if I may say so. I'll send it to SSP now, since you have thrown down the gauntlet. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, for anyone who isn't a sock, the issue isn't the deletion proposal, but the merge proposal, from 29 May. The result of that was 4 in favour of merging what was useful with other articles, 1 against. So that was what was done. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I got brought here by the IP user. The result was keep. Why is this being unilaterally redirected? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AFDs are decided on arguments, not strictly on a count of votes. Whether a couple of the participants are or are not sockpuppets is immaterial. I have placed commetns on the protector's talk page and placed a copy below. I was not aware of the merge proposal, as I do not watch every page on where I comment on an AFD. In respect of that my vote is for Revert to pre-merger article, which should haowever be linked by a "main" template to this one. Indeed after a clear AFD decision, to reopen the question by measn of a merger proposal, smacks of bad faith. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. This wasn't a close decision, or a no consensus close. It was a pretty solid keep. The "merge" appears to be the addition of two paragraphs from this article, which is leaving behind quite a bit of uncited material. If those two paragraphs had been the only content back when it was AfDed, I would have !voted merge, and I bet many others would have as well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am yet to see any supporting arguments as to why 95% of the content of the article (military details and photographs) is actually relevant to an article on a political concept - see my post below. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This was already discussed at the AfD; that simple. Consensus was clearly in favor of retaining it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

After another look at it, my advice is this: if you think the merge is acceptable in light of the result of the AfD, take it to DRV. With so little of it being merged, it's tantamount to deletion anyway. Therefore, you're basically arguing that the consensus to keep was incorrect, so have it reviewed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note the comment below: "A 'keep' outcome at an AfD does not rule out a merge or redirect." Most of the people writing 'keep' responses were not arguing for inclusion of the whole article as-is, and you are misrepresenting their comments. The relevant portion of the article was preserved at Mare Nostrum. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Two things: 1) while I'm aware of the relative irrelevance of this point, it should be noted by all involved Users that the "Italian Mare Nostrum" article was created originally by a sockpuppeteer known for his strong (Italian) nationalist/irredentist views. 2) While the AfD did have a strong Keep vote, the argument was, by my error, not fully explained in my first post of the proposal, resulting in something of a misunderstanding. By reading my later clarifications of the deletion reason, one will see that the majority of the "Keepers" did not address the issue. Also three socks of the page's creator voted, and his IP is stirring up trouble again. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, again

The merge proposal was to move the political content to Mare Nostrum and the military content to Battle of the Mediterranean.

2 of the 4 paragraphs in the political section were moved to MN:

"Italian controlled sea shores" was moved to Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II

and everything in the military section was already covered, more completely and with more neutrality at BftM, so none of it was needed. (see Irrelevance… section below). Xyl 54 (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest that there should be a short article, in the nature of a disambiguation page pointing to ALL the destination articles, either here or added to Mare Nostrum. I still think it to be bad practice for editors, immeidately after an AFD to seek to acheive a different result from the AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to set red tape aside and do what's best to maintain the quality of the encyclopaedia. What you suggest would be a total misuse of a disambiguation page. You are essentially proposing a page entirely devoted to what normally resides in a "see also" section. This can be accomplished in the "mare nostrum" page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept your criticism, and would suggest that you or the other participants in this discussion ensure that all the relevant cross-references do in fact appear in Mare Nostrum. Contrary to the banter below, between Xyl and others, I am not a sockpuppet. I am a historian (with a doctorate), but this is not my period. I am therefore reluctant to participate in the actual editing myself, but will be watching what the rest of you do. I still think that the Mare Nostrum article is a little too brief compared to what was formerly in this one. I think that you might be able to add a little as to the failure of Mussolini's dreams, probably summarising the content of fuller articles and cross-referring to them. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Noone's accusing you of being a sock puppet, you're clearly an established editor. Agreed that the article is brief, but we must be careful not to stray into WP:OR as we are dealing with something that did not come to fruition. Besides, I don't think it matters if this article is brief - remember that an encyclopaedia article is not a thesis. What is there to say? Mare nostrum was a political term first used by the Romans then revived by the Italians. Combined with the articles on military history and the Italian colonial empire, the reader can make up their own mind on how far Mussolini's project got. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A sockpuppet!? I was referring to the IP that started all this again. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to IP 87...

Re this [3], no, as a historical fact Mussolini's dream never existed, it never came to reality, and not a single one of those Google hits claims that it does. Oh, sorry, with the lone exception of the Wikipedia article. End of story. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Musolini's dream, though never realised, is in my view a potentially encyclopaedic subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protected for a week

... due to ongoing edit warring over the merge. Please establish consensus here about what, if anything, should be done with this article. If the editwarring recommences after the protection expires, blocks may ensue. Sandstein 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The following appears on User:Sandstein's Talk page. However this is a bettero forum for the discussion:

What would you like me to do about Italian Mare Nostrum? I've protected it for now to stop the edit warring. A "keep" outcome at an AfD does not rule out a merge or redirect, if there is consensus for that. Sandstein 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I participated in the AFD discussion, but this is not my specialism. Some one else has drawn my attention to this warring, which appears to be the result of some one not accepting the outcome of the AFD, claiming the consensus was Merge rather than Keep. The proper whay to dispute the closure of an AFD is a deletion review, but that is not what has been done. Having decided that the outcome was to Keep, you should be protecting the full text of the article, not the redirect, and I would therefore suggest that you revert to the full article and protect that. During that period of protection, discussion can take place on its talk page as to what should happen. That is difficult while it is a redirect, becasue of the automatic transfer to the redirect destination. I know how to get around that but others may not. The addition of a paragraph to Mare Nostrum is also appropriate, but this should be linked by a "main" template to that on Italian Mare Nostrum. That is a much fuller article, dealing with the Italian Naval War in the Mediterranean guring WWII. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevance of 95% of the "old" Italian Mare Nostrum

Peterkingiron, please explain why an article on a political concept has to go into military details? How is a photo of a "Macchi C.205 Veltro of Regia Aeronautica" relevant? How is it relevant that there was an "attack on the British base at Suda Bay, Crete by destroyers Crispi and Sella, both transporting explosive motor boats: HMS York beached and abandoned and one oil tanker sunk"? Do we need to know that "The Italian fleet also took advantage of the situation and moved onto the offensive, blocking or decimating at least three large Allied convoys bound for Malta" in order to understand what the term means? Or that "The Italian Regia Aeronautica entered the war with 3296 airplanes (1332 Bombers and 1160 "Caccia", as were called the Fighters in Italian)", on a page about a political concept? Do we see this same irrelevance at Lebensraum? No, we do not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that if all the irrelevant military stuff is ignored, we're left with a couple of paragraphs that can be highly appropriately covered under a section entitled "Revival of the Mare Nostrum concept by Mussolini" at Mare Nostrum. The notion of having two articles on the same subject is a blatant content fork. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical analogy: an article about French national football team players (list of 23 of them involved in recent Euro 2008 campaign with descriptions of their abbilities, talents, careers, etc...) titled "European champions 2008". They didn't make it, so why this title? Well, French journalists and football fans were expecting it from their undoubtly high quality selection. "European champions" was phrase sporadically used in the newspapers to describe expectations of the French publics before competition. Can I write such article? Zenanarh (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to knock on the head any idea that the encyclopaedia has lost something here.

Most of the military section is derivative; it already exists elsewhere.

The "Regia Marina in the Italian Mare Nostrum" section for example (good NPOV title!) is copied verbatim from the history section of the Regia Marina article. The only changes are, 2 paragraphs about Allied successes deleted, and 2 places where “Axis” is changed to “Italian”; which is pretty revisionist.

And the "main battles in the IMN" section (how NPOV is that?) only covers Italian successes (also highly selective/POV).

Xyl 54 (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Xyl, this is just another "irredentist" sock stirring trouble again, believe me there are at least TEN of them all told, all coming from a couple of kids. Its all getting pretty routine by now, and there aren't any real arguments for non-merging. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to understand the meaning of this:

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

For me keep is keep. Ciao.--88.81.169.138 (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Now, I notice that this is 'apparently' your first edit to Wikipedia. Forgive my suspicious nature, but you'd have us believe that you were just innocently perusing this encyclopedia, happened to stumble across this article, happened to notice this discussion at the bottom of its talk page, and felt you ought to give us the benefit of your opinion??? Is that about it? Well, please forgive me if I find that a little hard to believe.

What is it about you irridentists that makes you sock so much? Is it that nobody else agrees with you, so you try to pretend that one or two lonely voices are a whole crowd? Pathetic. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, your answer is Irridentist?--88.81.169.138 (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I know my share of Italians and they are, in my experience, great, modern people, just like everyone else. I could not believe such a proportion of Italian Wikipedians were nationalist freaks. I guess I should have figured its all a couple of fanatical kids... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And your answer is nationalist freak. Wonderful!--88.81.169.138 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes isn't it... lucky for me you're a sock so I can call you names :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

People, please stop with the accusation of bad faith. It's a dynamic IP; they could have contributed under other IPs. For example, it was User:87.28.126.85 who'd asked for me to post here after the AfD (both IPs resolve to Italy). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Italian Mare Nostrum. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.