Talk:Italian Mare Nostrum/Archive 2

Redirect/Merge

Where, out of interest, is the discussion of the redirecting of this article to Mare Nostrum? I see someone's done a ring-around-a-rosie of discussion pages and redirects, but I can't see a proper discussion anywhere which in light of the "Keep" verdict on the AfD is odd to say the least. --Harlsbottom (talk | library)

Noone was interested in discussion apparently, the merge template was there for days. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The merge tag was added on this article less than forty-eight hours ago; you think that counts as "days"? That aside, you could have at least made a statement on the merge discussion. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 12:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could have, but I must've explained the whole thing a number of times in the deletion discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this is out of order. This is not the way we should do things. As the outcome is probably what I would have sought, I do not want my name attached to this kind of action. You need to to put things back the way they were, make a statement of intent, and set a reasonable deadline. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(copy to User talk:DIREKTOR)

I think that it's important to remember that the top priority here is to have a quality encyclopaedia, not to get bogged down in procedural detail and rules. Perhaps Harlsbottom and Xyl54 could begin by suggesting what parts of the ex-Italian Mare Nostrum article - [1] should be readded to Mare Nostrum? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted redirect. I agree, consensus is necessary in this. Should I copy-paste the reasons from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Mare Nostrum? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem is I don't see why there need be ONE Mare Nostrum article. I would have Mare Nostrum as an outline of the concept and then have an "Italian Mare Nostrum" and a "Roman Mare Nostrum" article. I understand perfectly your above stated desire "to have a quality encyclopædia". I happen to think that quality referenced articles could be written on both subjects. I fully recognise that the previous incarnation was full of "guff", but there is enough academic materiel out there for a decent article to be produced. And if you want a quality encyclopædia I just don't think one Mare Nostrum page will be enough.

And DIREKTOR, I read your comments on the AFD and while of course it made perfect sense, I fail to see a consensus on following through on it. My apologies, DIREKTOR, I just saw the revert. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about two separate articles: the very fact that mare nostrum was a Roman term revived by Italians is the sine qua non, so an Italian Mare Nostrum article must begin by stating its origins, which is going to basically duplicate the Roman Mare Nostrum one. And, how much mileage can you really get out of one mare nostrum article, let alone a separate Roman and Italian "mare nostrum"? It was just a loaded term, after all, it wasn't an ideology in and of itself. The ideology of the Italians thinking of themselves as the successors to the Romans, and where this slotted into their imperialist ambitions, should really be dealt with in Italian Colonial Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed what I consider the "guff" to be, and the references associated with the guff [2]. Anyone disagree with that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t is right. "Mare Nostrum" was just vernacular Latin phrase reffering to the Meditteranean Sea under control of the Romans during Antiquity, one concept copied later by Italian nationalists and fascists in their propaganda. How many relevant articles can be written about it? Let's be real. How many articles can be written about next Latin phrases: Anno Domini, de Facto, deux ex machina, et hoc genus omne, et tu Brute?, festina lente, Gloria Patri, homo homini lupus, Magna Europa est Patria Nostra, Mea Culpa, Tempora Heroica, etc... from List of Latin phrases (full), which includes Mare Nostrum too. For example: should we write seperate new article for every case in history when sombody repeated that well known et tu Brute? (And you Brutus?). If that's so, God help us. Zenanarh (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another reason for the merge would be that the Italian Mare Nostrum did not actually exist. Also, the phrase used by Mussolini was not "Italian Mare Nostrum", but simply "Mare Nostrum". (No objections to the removal of the guff, all that is irrelevant in an article about a phrase and is covered much better in other articles.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want these actions to be beyond reproach

My proposal for a merge would be (or I agree to) moving anything of value in the "MN of Mussolini" section to Mare Nostrum (which is probably the 2 paragraphs already repeated there), and move anything of value in the 2 "Battle.." sections to Battle of the Mediterranean (which is probably precious little), and I’m happy if whatever is left is deleted.

But I also think anyone with a different view should have a chance to say something, and I suggest a time limit of one week for this. Then there’s no room for argument at all. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll happily go with a deadline. It would be nice if someone with a detailed understanding of these things weighed in though - I have a good grasp on Roman and Italian Fascist history but Is uspect compared to the original author of the article.

Zenanarh, with all due respect, I think your point above is rather useless. Yes, Mare Nostrum may be a vernacular Latin phrase, but, as I thought would have become blatantly obvious by now, it achieved a cultural significance on two separate occasions. You can not possibly lump Mare Nostrum with all the other Latin phrases you mentioned, which are either one-offs "Et tu, Brute?" or very common sayings. How often is Latin used for political or social gain nowadays? --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 11:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it was sarcasm, maybe useless, my apologise. The best part is already written at this talk page. BTW it achieved a cultural significance on two separate occasions is a little bit shaky. Actually it achieved a cultural significance on one (1st) occasion (Antiquity). Then this term was reflection of reality and became known and popular. In 2nd occasion (19th century irredentism) and 3rd (WWII) it was used only in political pamphlets, absolutely not related to reality. As already said here, Italian MN simply didn't exist in the Mediterranean in 40's of 20th cent. Zenanarh (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Zenanarh, sorry. My understanding is that "Italian" Mare Nostrum formed a part of the burgeoning nationalism which occured in Italy at the turn of the 20th Century. D'Annunzio was already writing of a new Mare Nostrum before the First World War, and later acted on it by occupying the port of Fiume to try and claim it for Italy. The journal of the Italian Naval league, a semi-governmental organisation established in 1897, was named Mare Nostrum and was subscribed to by a great many nationalists. What I'm getting at is that the initial scope of this article had it all wrong. Instead of focussing on the Second World War where the RM achieved little, this article would focus on the nearly 40 years of burgeoning nationalist/fascist feeling in Italy. Quite apart from the political side, we have the very real rebuilding and expansion of the Regia Marina, which did not happen with or after the establishment of the "Italian Empire" in '36. A cursory glance at the sources available on the Internet tells me there's enough for a full-blown article here, which can be both relevent and interesting. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything which you mention, Harlsbottom, should appear on the Italian Colonial Empire page. "Mare nostrum" wasn't an end in itself - it was just a phrase used in propaganda. It should simply suffice to mention on this article when and where it was used, and a few quotes here and there, but the meat should be in articles that discuss Italian nationalism/colonialism. Analogy: Pax Britannica and British Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I add that there are also other articles covering the rest, like Regia Marina and others (concerning WWII). I must repeat, we are editing an encyclopedia: the key words of this article are: Mare Nostrum. A reader, who wants to read about it, must receive information about phrase and its usage, but nothing more. The rest is covered by at least ten other articles. We don't have to copy content of one article (ie Italian Colonial Empire) to another differently titled (ie Mare Nostrum) since we have links for that. The nearly 40 years of burgeoning nationalist/fascist feeling in Italy focused under title Mare Nostrum would be more poetic than encyclopedic approachment. Zenanarh (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One final hurrah I suppose; "nooone objected or provided reasons why it should not be merged". I would have thought the above was testament to the fact that someone did object and give reasons why. Would any reasons have been good enough to save the article from being merged? --Harlsbottom (talk | library)

There are plenty of good reasons. There are 22000 bites of good reasons, reduced to the teenager stupidity of "nooone objected or provided reasons why it should not be merged". What about the posts of Harlsbottom? He doesn't exist? And all those who posted against deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.16.9 (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to completely ignore this guy, he's banned. It's just another sock of a banned irredentist User (namely User:Brunodam/Marigiove/Giovanni Giove) trying to write his opinion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I guessed as much from his edit history and had gone as far as to remove his very uncivil comment, but someone felt it important enough to be put back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, case closed it would seem. I've had worse abuse hurled at me on discussion pages before which are still on record. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 02:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)