Talk:Italian Mare Nostrum/Archive 1

n style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mare Nostrum is a Roman idea, as far as I remember, and was revived by Italian irredentists and again Mussolini. The article text addresses only Mussolini's use and does not talk about it as an idea, or propaganda tool, but an actual existing territorial entity, which is laughable. The title is incorrect as well (it should be simply "Mare Nostrum" if we were trying to really address the phrase's historical use). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mare Nostrum (our sea) and Mare Internum (inner sea) were terms used by the Romans in the Roman Empire Ages, concerning Mediterranean Sea. AFAIK these terms were not official or administrative names of it, it was only in vernacular usage, but became popular or known as many other Latin phrases, terms or names. Here it's not related to all Mediterranean.==If this was actually...==

If this was actually used in propaganda, what was the Italian gloss? "Il mare nostrum italiano"? – Kaihsu 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Starace, Dino Grandi, Ciano and other fascist leaders used the words "Italian Mare Nostrum" when communicated with the English (and American) Embassy in Rome, according to the english historian Dennis M. Smith in his books on Mussolini and Fascism. Even Richard Lamb in his book "Mussolini as Diplomat" (Fromm International Editors, London, 1999 ISBN 088064244 0) writes that the "...Italian Mare Nostrum was used by the Duce as a diplomatic propaganda in 1942...". Regards.--Brunodam 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HMS Queen Elizabeth (Queen Elizabeth-class battleship).jpg

Image:HMS Queen Elizabeth (Queen Elizabeth-class battleship).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this article supposed to be?

The idea of reviving "mare nostrum" was being floated around before Mussolini was even born, in the 1870s. So what is this article supposed to be about? It seems to be a bizarre collection of information, with a "belligerents" list, a list of areas controlled by Italy, a list of battles fought in the waters of mare nostrum, and then some random photographs. Fine, if this article is about the historical concept of mare nostrum, but as it stands it is just a random page with a lot of information that does not belong here. I am tempted to nominate this article for deletion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is non-existent as a fascist propaganda tool, capitalizing on the old "Mare Nostrum" tendencies of Italian irredentism that never materialized. The real existence of an Italian "zone of control" is extremely doubtful considering real WW2 events were a string of Italian strategic defeats. The article is just another in a series of articles trying to increase the appearance of Italian control over Dalmatia, Corsica, Malta, and the Mediterranean sea as a whole. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm even more minded to nominate for deletion after reading your comment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Italy never achieved the control over the area that they claimed doesn't reduce the notability of the historical term. At most it shifts it from the well-filled list of "areas of battle" into the rather narrower but perhaps more interesting list of "claims for propaganda purposes" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article title can be compared to something like "German Greater Reich", or "Greater German Lands" in Nazi Germany. The real history of the Mediterranean War is that of a list of stalemates and minor Italian losses, interrupted now and again by a really catastrophic defeat (the Battles of Taranto and Cape Matapan being more famous examples). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think, Brunodam will respond. Should we nominate? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable, this is for speedy deletion. Zenanarh (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Its more comparable with Pax Britannica than anything, perhaps the article name is at fault.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article was on the general concept of mare nostrum, both in the Latin usage and then in the Italian revival usage, that would be fine, but it's really just a rambling list of "stuff that happened inside the place that Mussolini called 'our sea'". <spa

Italian nazi expansionism in WWII was fed in large part by ideas of forming something similar to the Roman Empire and supposed "rights" of the "Italian" people on half of Europe, just because it was under control of the Roman Legions 2.000 years ago. This article text is rubbish - "glorification" of an army mostly known for its defeats (in some cases very funny defeats) hidden under such revived term from Antiquity (enriched with Italiana) is nothing but neo-nazi propaganda - reffering to the territories of the neighbbouring countries, BTW it's edited by an user whose almost all contributions are of irredentistic nature.

If this article is about naval forces of Fascistic Italia it should be named properly... in that case it would be nice to read here about glorious escaping maneuver of 3 Italian battleships (the biggest in the world in that moment) who sank all in the same time because of its "fantastic" navigation characteristics :)

Whatever, name, map with inserted borders of "Italian Mare nostrum" and finally text about the navy is... what... ? Zenanarh (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, objectively speaking, Italian exploits in the Mediterranean are one of the most comical episodes of WW2, obviously if one ignores the tragic aspect of it. I can't remember any victory of the Italian navy or Air force in the Mediterranean Sea, at all, if we exclude the daring raids by their human torpedoes.

Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, I don't think we'll get a talkpage response, would you nominate for deletion? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of large sections

I consider the deletion by Ravichandar84 of large sections of an article that's already tagged with AfD to be a highly partisan act and far from good faith. [1] [2] I would revert these changes, except that I have no wish to start what would obviously become an edit war. These sections are detailed and well-referenced. They may possibly be irrelevant to the article, but that's a subject for consensus, not for unilateral immediate and complete removal, particularly not at such a contentious time. The same editor had already tagged them as NPOV, yet deleted them anyway, a manner which is far from how such NPOV issues are supposed to be resolved by consensus before acting. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of "decorum" it is probably wrong to do whilst an AfD is open. However, if we are concerned with having a good encyclopaedia, I fully support the material that was removed. It was total and utter guff. Total and utter guff. To pick a few sentences, how is this relevant, at all to the concept of mare nostrum? "The Italian Regia Aeronautica entered the war with 3296 airplanes (1332 Bombers and 1160 "Caccia", as were called the Fighters in Italian) distributed in all the Italian Empire, but only 1796 were in perfect fighting conditions. Most were old "wood" models, and could not match the British aircraft in 1940." Just because something is detailed and well-referenced does not mean it is relevant or worthy of inclusion: often, quite the opposite. There are only two things this article should discuss: (1) Roman usage of "mare nostrum" (2) Italian revival of the term, both in the 1870s and under Mussolini. For details on Italy during WW2, link to the relevant articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all forgetting that "Mare Nostrum", though translated as "Our Sea", does not mean "sea under Italian (or Roman) control", but is another name for the whole of the Mediterranean. In other words, Italian "Mare Nostrum" never really existed, and in WW2 terms can only be viewed as a fascist propaganda tool or catchphrase. Largely unsuccessful Italian military exploits in the Mediterranean are not relevant when discussing what was little more than a fascist catchphrase and unrealized dream. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)