Talk:Second Battle of Sirte/Archive 2

Result

The result of this action was changed anonymously and has been reverted. The result as written:-
“British tactical victory
Axis strategic victory"
is the product of long discussion here and represents the consensus view of the editors involved. Any changes will require discussion and the agreement of those editors involved. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Axis victory?

Why this victory is considered an Axis victory? No German sheeps are involved in that battle so this victory is totaly italian. If we take our stand Italy is member of Axis and Italy was supported somehow by German (like England by Commenwealth) we must considere ALL british victory like COMMENWEALTH/ALLIED victory. But i think taht would be a non-sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestorm81 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the article's sources, please. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(and for the hard of reading...)

Because, in the lengthy discussion here shows, the claim it was an Axis victory rests on the damage caused by the german aircraft to the merchant ships of the convoy the following day.

If that isn’t included, then the action was inconclusive, or an RN victory. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How is "for the hard of reading" consistent with respecting talk page guidelines? The battle is given as an "Axis strategic victory" in the infobox because there appears to be one reliable published source with that precise analysis. Also, the "damage caused by the german aircraft to the merchant ships of the convoy the following day" was limited to one ship sunk and another badly damaged. Two other merchant ships arrived in Malta that day virtually unscathed. Kraken7 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight, Part I: Evidence and a Proposal

After eight months of discussion and despite a few changes, the minority view of Italian/Axis victory and an Italian point of view (POV) still occupy more space in the "Assessments" section than warranted by reliable published sources. This is undue weight. Since undue weight is contrary to an official English Wikipedia policy (WP:Undue), removing the undue weight from the "Assessments" section would improve this article.

How much undue weight is there? Six times more than is warranted. That is, 75% of the text argues for Italian/Axis victory or presents the battle from an Italian POV:

• Of the section's eleven sentences and 233 words, nine sentences (2-5 and 7-11) composed of 204 words argue for an Italian/Axis victory or narrate the battle from an Italian POV.

But, only 12.5% of reliable published sources vouch for an Italian/Axis victory:

• Of twelve reliable published sources that assess a winner in the battle (footnotes #1 and #22 plus Sadkovich), two grant the Italians a partial achievement while awarding the British a "tactical and moral triumph" (Sadkovich, 247; and Macintyre, 135, 136).
• A third source apparently credits the Axis with an "operational and strategic victory" and the British with a "brilliant tactical success" (Stephen, footnote #2).
• Giving a half-point for each of the three split decisions, that's 1.5 sources for some degree of Italian/Axis victory.
• The remaining nine sources assign victory to the British alone (footnote #1).

It has been suggested (Archive: 31 August) that the phrase "British victory" be added "25 tmes or so" to counter the undue weight. However, this would be not only tedious, but also insufficient. Or, the section might be edited so the contending views are described "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject" (WP:Undue), like so:

• Twelve reliable published sources have assessed the battle as a victory for Britain's Royal Navy (footnotes #1 and #2; Sadkovich, 246) because "the British ships and flotillas" employed "bold and skillful delaying tactics" to hold off their much larger Italian opponents (Macintyre, 135). In addition, the British simultaneously beat off heavy Axis air attacks (Playfair, 166) and thus kept the convoy ships from all harm (Bradford, 205) for the duration of the March 22 battle. As a result, British Prime Minister Churchill generously praised "Admiral Vian and all who sailed with him" for "this resolute and brilliant action" (Thomas, 154-155). Three sources grant the Italians/Axis were at least partly successful (Sadkovich, 247; Macintyre, 136; and Stephen, 115). Kraken7 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from Kraken7 talkpage with several changes:

1) The policy about undue weight in Wikipedia doesn't mention "percentages" of sources supporting a position, just vaguely states that Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This is open to interpretation given the context. Thus, your calculations are pure wikilawyering.

2) Your focus on the supposed lack of neutrality in the section "Assessments" is erroneous.

There is nothing in the text contradicting the idea of a "British victory". And since this section necessarily deals both with the battle and its aftermath, we simply cannot ignore those sources which describe the consequences of the battle (i. e.: the destruction of the convoy, documented by an overwhelming number of authors). Have I to repeat that all reliable and published sources about the issue don't split the battle from its consequences? Have I to repeat the example of the Battle of the River Plate?

The reference to an Italian "partial achievement" doesn't contradicts the fact of the British tactical victory; indeed, neither Mcintyre nor Stephen contradict themselves when they simultaneously write of a "British victory" and an "Italian achievement", since they are not dealing with the same subject. And if they are not dealing with the same subject (they are not putting in doubt the Royal Navy success), tell me please, where is the alleged "undue weight"? It is the same case of our discussion on "tactical victory" and "strategic victory" some months ago. Do you remember? You agreed then that a lonely source claiming an axis strategic success would be valid to support this idea, despite hundreds of authors asserting a British tactical victory.

I want also to make clear that there is no OR in summarizing the statements of Bauer & Young, Mcintyre, Stephen, Llewellyn, Bernotti and De la Sierra under the Mcintyre concept of "partial achievement", since WP:OR establishes that: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

3) You're miscounting the sources. The idea of partial achievement is supported not only by "three sources" as claimed. The citations include not only Mcintyre or Stephen (we can put Sadkovich aside, since he asserts an outright victory), but also Bauer and Young, Llewellyn and some foreing language sources lake Bernotti and De la Sierra. Then we have now 6 sources, already cited in footnotes. And, as exposed in point 2), this is an 6-0 ratio; the partial achievement of the Italian side (in forcing the convoy to the south) doesn't contradicts the idea of a "British victory", so this sources don't qualified as a "minority view".

4) I strongly disagree with the proposed changes in the section's narrative, since these seem to ignore the aftermath of the battle (the main subject of the title "Assessments", I guess). The wording and the tone of your proposal also seem unencyclopedic. I would not object, however, the deletion of the paragraph regarding the "Italian victory" imagined by the fascist propaganda (already erased by February 10).

5) I think that after more than a year, the only user in Wikipedia who challenged the validity of sources in this article are you. Since I guess that the article was read by a substancial number of editors who didn't make any objections, I am of the opinion that there is enough consensus to keep the text in its present status.

6) I will not discuss in the future any issue already present in the archive of this talkpage.--Darius (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of time and space, the "six-point long answer" will be addressed one point at a time:

1. The objection to percentages is groundless. And, Wikipedia's undue weight policy allows percentage as a method to calculate undue weight.

• a) Correct: The undue weight policy "doesn't mention 'percentages' of sources supporting a position." But, if the policy is vague and "open to interpretation," why should that matter? This is not to say that anything goes, but rather to point out that the premises in the above post are contradictory.
• b) The policy does mention proportion, and percentage is a "rate or proportion per cent; a proportion," according to the "Oxford Reference Dictionary" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). Therefore, since proportion and percentage are synonyms, what difference does it make if the policy "doesn't mention 'percentages'"?
• c) The policy also states that "undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" (emphasis added). How else to measure "depth of detail" or "quantity of text" except by "calculations" expressed in percentages? Kraken7 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia's undue weight policy allows percentage as a method to calculate undue weight." Please, provide us with a quotation which explicitly does mention percentages (your example of "proportion" doesn't count for me). If you can't, the question is open to debate.

• I think point 1) is not the central point of the alleged "undue weight". The main issue is the focus of your objections (point 2) and the question of consensus (point 5). The rest is just a complement to the discussion.--Darius (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Where does the undue weight policy say that percentages can't be used to calculate undue weight without "a quotation which explicitly does mention percentages"? And, why is it despite a reliable published source affirming that proportion and percentage are synonyms, this is an "example" that "doesn't count for me"? What does "the question is open to debate" mean?

Where is it stated that the first point is "the central point of the alleged 'undue weight'"? And, why is "c" not answered? Kraken7 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Point 2) of my question still unanswered.--Darius (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Kraken7 (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Only 12.5% of reliable published sources award victory to the Italians/Axis at the Second Battle of Sirte; nevertheless, the claim of Italian/Axis victory and the Italian POV deserve 75% of the text in the "Assessments" section because (in italics):

And since this section necessarily deals both with the battle and its aftermath . . .

a) Why "necessarily"? Unless reliable published sources have a precise analysis that takes "its aftermath" into account in their assessments of the battle (WP:NOR:Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position), why should it be included necessarily in the "Assessments" section?

b) Is "its aftermath" synonymous with the battle's consequences and the "destruction of the convoy"?

. . . we simply cannot ignore those sources which describe the consequences of the battle (i. e.: the destruction of the convoy, documented by an overwhelming number of authors).

c) No one has advocated ignoring "those sources," as long as they are verifiable and relevant to undue weight. Whether the convoy's destruction was among the "consequences of the battle" is irrelevant unless reliable published sources have a precise analysis that takes that destruction into account in their assessments of the battle. So, if "an overwhelming number of authors" have said analysis, why not name them and cite exact page references?

. . . the example of the Battle of the River Plate?

d) The Wikipedia article on the "Battle of the River Plate" has no "Assessments" section. How then can it serve as an "example" for this article?

The reference to an Italian "partial achievement" doesn't contradicts the fact of the British tactical victory; indeed, neither Mcintyre nor Stephen contradict themselves when they simultaneously write of a "British victory" and an "Italian achievement", since they are not dealing with the same subject.

e) What different subjects are Macintyre and Stephen "dealing with"? How is this relevant to undue weight?

It is the same case of our discussion on "tactical victory" and "strategic victory" . . . a lonely source claiming an axis strategic success would be valid to support this idea, despite hundreds of authors asserting a British tactical victory.

f) How is "Axis strategic victory" in the infobox relevent to undue weight in the "Assessments" section?

g) Which "hundreds of authors" claim the British won a "tactical victory" at the Second Battle of Sirte? If "hundreds" of reliable published sources vouch for a British tactical victory, how would "axis strategic success" not be a viewpoint held by an "extremely small minority" that "doesn't belong in Wikipedia" (WP:NOR:Neutral point of view)? Kraken7 (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The key point is "e", if all of this is about undue weight. You have already agreed with this position in the past:

• This is my statement of 13 August 2008: "We could have hundreds of authors claiming a British tactical victory; however, if none of them denies in an explicit way an Axis strategic victory, they don't count as a 'majority view'; they simple remain silent about the issue. There is no basis then for a case of "undue weight" of sources."

• This is your response on October 1º: "Agreed: A British tactical victory would not necessarily exclude the possibility of an Italian strategic victory, if a reliable published source with that precise analysis existed."

I later found the 'precise analysis' you sued for (Stephen).

May 25 2009: exactly the same case. A British victory doesn't exclude the possibility of an Italian partial achievement, thus we are talking about two different topics. So a single source (Mcintyre) claiming a 'partial achievement' is enough.--Darius (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight, Part II: Unfinished business from the archive

As shown above, the minority view of Italian/Axis victory and an Italian point of view receive unwarranted emphasis, also known as undue weight, in the "Assessments" section's text. Since this is contrary to an official English Wikipedia policy (WP:Undue), removing this undue weight from the "Assessments" section would improve this article.

It has been argued that no undue weight exists because "it is no wonder if the analyse focuses on the consequences of the battle," which "were more favorable to the Axis" (Archive: 31 August). But, which "consequences" are not already included in "Follow-up actions"? Moreover, since the article's subject is the Second Battle of Sirte, why shouldn't "Assessments" focus on historians' judgments about the battle, rather than on events several days later that were only indirectly relevant to the battle (Bragadin, 166)?

Other unfinished business from the Archive:

• 1-3) Another argument (31 August) claims there is no undue weight because Italian/Axis victory is vouched for by five foreign language authors: Gigli, Secchia, and Bernotti (per endnote #33); as well as Weichold and Sierra (per endnote #36). However, without quotes in the original languages how would one verify what these sources allegedly say (WP:V:Sources in languages other than English)? And, how did Sierra (per endnote #36) corroborate an Italian/Axis victory when "according to him, the Italians left the battlefield 'not defeated'" (7 July)?
• 4) Also, it has been argued that the five sources given above have been "given as valid" because the article has been assessed as "B" class (24 May) and, per the "first criterion" for that assessment, "the text . . . is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations" (31 August). However, where is it written in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment that this "first criterion" necessarily means foreign language sources in the article have been "given as valid"?
• 5a) How does answering a question with a question meet the burden of proof?
• 5b) How is depicting "the 'mood' of the regime after the battle" (31 August) an assessment? And, how does "Italian victory" accurately depict the regime's "mood" when Trizzino makes no reference to anyone's mood in endnote #32? Instead, he stated: "So, under an avalanche of lies was buried one of our biggest naval failures and the legend was born of the victory in the Second Battle of Sirte."
• 5c) Neither Llewellyn nor Weichold (31 August) mentions a "partial achievement" nor do they make that precise analysis. Perhaps, a "partial achievement" is implied or can be inferred from their words, but shouldn't Wikipedia editors "adhere to what those sources say" (WP:NOR)? Also, how is it clear now that they [foreign-language sources] are perfectly valid"? As for "the exclusive use of English sources," where in WP:NPOV is it written that using only English-language sources would necessarily make an article biased or the subject of undue weight (31 August)? Kraken7 (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Only agreed on "5b" and partially on WP:V: I promise to upload the original language quotes. I will make no objections if the fascist lie about an "Italian victory" is removed; in its current state, the statement could confuse the readers. See your own talk page (I mean that of "Kraken7") for further details.

The rest of your post is pure wikilawyering, specially "5c", or points that I will not repeat (specially the relationship between the battle and its consequences), since those issues were properly discussed on the archived stuff.--Darius (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Pure wikilawyering"? Since no reasoning or explanation of this charge has been offered, how is it not a baseless accusation? Also, some of "those issues" may have been "discussed on the archived stuff," but no resolution was reached. Perhaps these questions can be answered now?Kraken7 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I insist, go to your own (?) talkpage (or better, see above).--Darius (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How is the above "better"? Where is the clear, concise definition of "pure Wikilawyering" (a term that does not exist on Wikipedia, see WP:LAWYER)? Where are the examples from the 6 February post and the explanation of how these meet the characteristics of the definition (see WP:LAWYER:Misuse of the term)? Indeed, absent a definition and explanation, how is the charge of "pure Wikilawyering" not a ploy to divert attention from undue weight? Kraken7 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You are seeing too many ploys, man. Are you an obssesive person, or what?. Get to the point, please.--Darius (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Only one ploy was identified in the first 14 February post. What other ploys are the "too many" referred to above? How is "obsessive person" relevant to the lack of proof for "pure wikilawyering"? The point is undue weight (see WP:UNDUE) in the "Assessments" section. And, one way to show good faith in this discussion might be to address the questions from the 6 February post. Kraken7 (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions already adressed. Just see around...--Darius (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If all these questions have been addressed, why wasn't it done here in this section of the talkpage? And since they weren't addressed here, it would help to be more specific than "see around" for where the answers might be. Kraken7 (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I assume you're an adult and capable person, so if you can't find my six-point long answer on this talkpage, I give up...--Darius (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Better than nothing. But, would it not have been more considerate to have placed the answers in the same section as the questions? And, why not explain which answers correspond to which questions? Kraken7 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Gentlemen, you can’t fight here, this is the War Room!"
I have to say it’s surprise to me to see this action as an Axis victory, and I find the Italian websites on the subject a bit revisionist.
But I think this article is reasonably NPOV on the subject. And I think the assessment is reasonably evenhanded, acknowledging the successes and failures on both sides.
My only cavil is with the statement
“When the main objective… is included… the outcome is clearer”
Clearer for who? Those who want to see an Axis victory? "The outcome changes", or "the outcome is different", would be less POV.
And
“the convoy operation was a clear failure”?
The ships arrived unharmed, so there’s no failure there; the operation as a whole was unsuccessful because the supplies were destroyed before they could be secured.
Other than that, it's OK.Xyl 54 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the conversation and thanks for the "Dr. Strangelove" quote. See below for one long and two shorter comments on the above post. First, the "Assessments" section is "reasonably evenhanded" because "it acknowledg[es] the successes and failures on both sides"? Let's see:

• Sentences 1 and 6 state the British won and explain how they did so.
• Sentence 2 highlights at length (33 words) a "partial Italian achievement"; mentions "British success" in a parenthetical clause.
• Sentence 3 emphasizes the Italians inflicting greater damage on the British.
• Sentences 4 and 5 elaborate on the Italian fleet's performance: "a failure on the Italians' part" and "they were unable."
• Sentence 7 extenuates in detail (33 words) the Italian fleet's performance: "bad weather and lack of radar."
• Sentence 8 implies the battle's "outcome" was "different" than a British victory. The next four sentences (9-12) support that thesis.
• Sentences 9, 10, and 11 accentuate at length (58 words) Italian/Axis success: "disrupted by the intervention of the Italian Navy," "exposed to axis air supremacy," and "Italian and German aircraft caught . . . chased . . . supplies were lost."
• Sentence 12 implicitly conflates the convoy's fate ("a clear failure") and the battle's outcome.

To summarize, two short sentences (1 and 6) and a parenthetical clause (2) deal with British victory, while the remaining ten sentences present matters from an Italian POV (4, 5, and 7) or argue for an Italian/Axis victory (2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12). How does this not suggest a slanted "Assessments" section?

Second, how is "the outcome is different" less POV than "the outcome is clearer"? Don't both imply that the March 26 failure of the "British convoy operation" makes the March 22 Second Battle of Sirte an Italian/Axis victory?

Third, only two of the four supply "ships arrived unharmed." A third arrived heavily damaged, and the last was sunk at sea by Axis air attack. Still, your point is a good one: The re-supply operation failed, but inasmuch as three of the four supply ships arrived at their destination, the convoy might be judged a partial success. But, which reliable published sources have that precise analysis? Kraken7 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for a bit.

To repeat, I'd viewed this as a RN victory, though I can see if the operation is looked at as a whole, it was unsuccessful. the Assessment acknowledges most writers also see it that way, and anything on WP is subject to compromise. I'm not enraptured with what's here, but I can live with it.

On the second point, "clearer" implies the verdict is fudged in favour of the RN (which I'd certainly dispute!), while "different" is more ambiguous; again, you can make of it what you will.

On your third, you're right: I'd overlooked the ship that was sunk at sea; my mistake. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject is undue weight, so debating about who won or whether to consider the "operation . . . as a whole" is off the point. And, which Wikipedia policy or guideline states that "anything on WP is subject to compromise"?

In this context, "different" and "clearer" imply the same thing: The battle was an Italian/Axis victory. Although this in itself is unobjectionable (since three sources say the same thing), the use of ten sentences (out of twelve total) to say it is what qualifies as undue weight. Kraken7 (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

The following paragraph has been copied from the 13 February post of a previous section dealing with undue weight:

I want also to make clear that there is no OR in summarizing the statements of Bauer & Young, Mcintyre, Stephen, Llewellyn, Bernotti and De la Sierra under the Mcintyre concept of "partial achievement", since WP:OR establishes that: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

Apparently, the above paragraph justifies characterizing "some authors" as members of a group who "write of the battle as a partial Italian achievement" (see last sentence, first paragraph of the "Assessments" section and footnote #33). However, note the caveat in the last clause from WP:NOR:

. . . with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

So, before "the statements of Bauer & Young, Mcintyre, Stephen, Llewellyn, Bernotti and De la Sierra" could be summarized "under the Mcintyre concept of 'partial achievement'" wouldn't those sources have to first "explicitly" make that claim? And, which of these five sources (excluding Macintyre, of course) does so?

• Perhaps, Bauer, et al., in "The Marshall Cavendish Encyclopedia of World War II" (762) or Stephen and Grove's "Sea Battles in Close-Up: World War Two" (115) makes an explicit claim of "partial Italian achievement," although there is no evidence for it in footnotes #2, #33, or #37.
• Likewise, no explicit claim of "partial Italian achievement" is found on p. 72 of Llewellyn's "The Royal Navy and the Mediterranean Convoys: A Naval Staff History."
• As for Bernotti and Sierra, they are in Italian and Spanish, respectively, so how would anyone not fluent in those languages verify that these are reliable sources? Kraken7 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1)"Explicitly" doesn't mean "literally"; thus Bauer et al., Stephen & Grove, Llewelyn, Bernotti and De la Sierra could be summarized under Mcintyre idea of "partial achievement". I will not repeat that non-English sources are perfectly valid as per Wikipedia policies. If you want the specific quotes:

• Bauer et al.: "The result of this second battle of Sirte was not as disappointing for the Italians as it might at first have seemed."

• Stephen: "Iachino had succeeded..." (Are you unsure about the meaning of the verb "to suceed"??)

• Llewellyn: "...as Admiral Iachino had foreseen." Translation: What Iachino had forseen eventually materialized.

• Bernotti: Però lo scopo italiano era quello di attaccare il convoglio e qui raggiunse dei risultati... (But the Italian aim was to attack the convoy, and regarding this they met the goals...)

• De la Sierra: Sin embargo, los esfuerzos y los riesgos corridos por los italianos no resultaron inútiles... (However, the efforts and risks taken by the Italians were not in vain...)

2) Since a) no other user disputed the current version of the article for months and b) another user "explicitly" agrees with that version (User: Xyl 54) I think this discussion about alleged original research is over. If you continue this in the future, I will simply ignore you.

Ah, and please, don't restore archived comments again.--Darius (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Result

The result of this action was changed anonymously and has been reverted. The result as written:-
“British tactical victory
Axis strategic victory"
is the product of long discussion here and represents the consensus view of the editors involved. Any changes will require discussion and the agreement of those editors involved. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight, Part II: Unfinished business from the archive

As shown above, the minority view of Italian/Axis victory and an Italian point of view receive unwarranted emphasis, also known as undue weight, in the "Assessments" section's text. Since this is contrary to an official English Wikipedia policy (WP:Undue), removing this undue weight from the "Assessments" section would improve this article.

It has been argued that no undue weight exists because "it is no wonder if the analyse focuses on the consequences of the battle," which "were more favorable to the Axis" (Archive: 31 August). But, which "consequences" are not already included in "Follow-up actions"? Moreover, since the article's subject is the Second Battle of Sirte, why shouldn't "Assessments" focus on historians' judgments about the battle, rather than on events several days later that were only indirectly relevant to the battle (Bragadin, 166)?

Other unfinished business from the Archive:

• 1-3) Another argument (31 August) claims there is no undue weight because Italian/Axis victory is vouched for by five foreign language authors: Gigli, Secchia, and Bernotti (per endnote #33); as well as Weichold and Sierra (per endnote #36). However, without quotes in the original languages how would one verify what these sources allegedly say (WP:V:Sources in languages other than English)? And, how did Sierra (per endnote #36) corroborate an Italian/Axis victory when "according to him, the Italians left the battlefield 'not defeated'" (7 July)?
• 4) Also, it has been argued that the five sources given above have been "given as valid" because the article has been assessed as "B" class (24 May) and, per the "first criterion" for that assessment, "the text . . . is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations" (31 August). However, where is it written in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment that this "first criterion" necessarily means foreign language sources in the article have been "given as valid"?
• 5a) How does answering a question with a question meet the burden of proof?
• 5b) How is depicting "the 'mood' of the regime after the battle" (31 August) an assessment? And, how does "Italian victory" accurately depict the regime's "mood" when Trizzino makes no reference to anyone's mood in endnote #32? Instead, he stated: "So, under an avalanche of lies was buried one of our biggest naval failures and the legend was born of the victory in the Second Battle of Sirte."
• 5c) Neither Llewellyn nor Weichold (31 August) mentions a "partial achievement" nor do they make that precise analysis. Perhaps, a "partial achievement" is implied or can be inferred from their words, but shouldn't Wikipedia editors "adhere to what those sources say" (WP:NOR)? Also, how is it clear now that they [foreign-language sources] are perfectly valid"? As for "the exclusive use of English sources," where in WP:NPOV is it written that using only English-language sources would necessarily make an article biased or the subject of undue weight (31 August)? Kraken7 (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Only agreed on "5b" and partially on WP:V: I promise to upload the original language quotes. I will make no objections if the fascist lie about an "Italian victory" is removed; in its current state, the statement could confuse the readers. See your own talk page (I mean that of "Kraken7") for further details.

The rest of your post is pure wikilawyering, specially "5c", or points that I will not repeat (specially the relationship between the battle and its consequences), since those issues were properly discussed on the archived stuff.--Darius (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Pure wikilawyering"? Since no reasoning or explanation of this charge has been offered, how is it not a baseless accusation? Also, some of "those issues" may have been "discussed on the archived stuff," but no resolution was reached. Perhaps these questions can be answered now?Kraken7 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I insist, go to your own (?) talkpage (or better, see above).--Darius (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How is the above "better"? Where is the clear, concise definition of "pure Wikilawyering" (a term that does not exist on Wikipedia, see WP:LAWYER)? Where are the examples from the 6 February post and the explanation of how these meet the characteristics of the definition (see WP:LAWYER:Misuse of the term)? Indeed, absent a definition and explanation, how is the charge of "pure Wikilawyering" not a ploy to divert attention from undue weight? Kraken7 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You are seeing too many ploys, man. Are you an obssesive person, or what?. Get to the point, please.--Darius (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Only one ploy was identified in the first 14 February post. What other ploys are the "too many" referred to above? How is "obsessive person" relevant to the lack of proof for "pure wikilawyering"? The point is undue weight (see WP:UNDUE) in the "Assessments" section. And, one way to show good faith in this discussion might be to address the questions from the 6 February post. Kraken7 (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions already adressed. Just see around...--Darius (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If all these questions have been addressed, why wasn't it done here in this section of the talkpage? And since they weren't addressed here, it would help to be more specific than "see around" for where the answers might be. Kraken7 (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I assume you're an adult and capable person, so if you can't find my six-point long answer on this talkpage, I give up...--Darius (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Better than nothing. But, would it not have been more considerate to have placed the answers in the same section as the questions? And, why not explain which answers correspond to which questions? Kraken7 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Gentlemen, you can’t fight here, this is the War Room!"
I have to say it’s surprise to me to see this action as an Axis victory, and I find the Italian websites on the subject a bit revisionist.
But I think this article is reasonably NPOV on the subject. And I think the assessment is reasonably evenhanded, acknowledging the successes and failures on both sides.
My only cavil is with the statement
“When the main objective… is included… the outcome is clearer”
Clearer for who? Those who want to see an Axis victory? "The outcome changes", or "the outcome is different", would be less POV.
And
“the convoy operation was a clear failure”?
The ships arrived unharmed, so there’s no failure there; the operation as a whole was unsuccessful because the supplies were destroyed before they could be secured.
Other than that, it's OK.Xyl 54 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the conversation and thanks for the "Dr. Strangelove" quote. See below for one long and two shorter comments on the above post. First, the "Assessments" section is "reasonably evenhanded" because "it acknowledg[es] the successes and failures on both sides"? Let's see:

• Sentences 1 and 6 state the British won and explain how they did so.
• Sentence 2 highlights at length (33 words) a "partial Italian achievement"; mentions "British success" in a parenthetical clause.
• Sentence 3 emphasizes the Italians inflicting greater damage on the British.
• Sentences 4 and 5 elaborate on the Italian fleet's performance: "a failure on the Italians' part" and "they were unable."
• Sentence 7 extenuates in detail (33 words) the Italian fleet's performance: "bad weather and lack of radar."
• Sentence 8 implies the battle's "outcome" was "different" than a British victory. The next four sentences (9-12) support that thesis.
• Sentences 9, 10, and 11 accentuate at length (58 words) Italian/Axis success: "disrupted by the intervention of the Italian Navy," "exposed to axis air supremacy," and "Italian and German aircraft caught . . . chased . . . supplies were lost."
• Sentence 12 implicitly conflates the convoy's fate ("a clear failure") and the battle's outcome.

To summarize, two short sentences (1 and 6) and a parenthetical clause (2) deal with British victory, while the remaining ten sentences present matters from an Italian POV (4, 5, and 7) or argue for an Italian/Axis victory (2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12). How does this not suggest a slanted "Assessments" section?

Second, how is "the outcome is different" less POV than "the outcome is clearer"? Don't both imply that the March 26 failure of the "British convoy operation" makes the March 22 Second Battle of Sirte an Italian/Axis victory?

Third, only two of the four supply "ships arrived unharmed." A third arrived heavily damaged, and the last was sunk at sea by Axis air attack. Still, your point is a good one: The re-supply operation failed, but inasmuch as three of the four supply ships arrived at their destination, the convoy might be judged a partial success. But, which reliable published sources have that precise analysis? Kraken7 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for a bit.

To repeat, I'd viewed this as a RN victory, though I can see if the operation is looked at as a whole, it was unsuccessful. the Assessment acknowledges most writers also see it that way, and anything on WP is subject to compromise. I'm not enraptured with what's here, but I can live with it.

On the second point, "clearer" implies the verdict is fudged in favour of the RN (which I'd certainly dispute!), while "different" is more ambiguous; again, you can make of it what you will.

On your third, you're right: I'd overlooked the ship that was sunk at sea; my mistake. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject is undue weight, so debating about who won or whether to consider the "operation . . . as a whole" is off the point. And, which Wikipedia policy or guideline states that "anything on WP is subject to compromise"?

In this context, "different" and "clearer" imply the same thing: The battle was an Italian/Axis victory. Although this in itself is unobjectionable (since three sources say the same thing), the use of ten sentences (out of twelve total) to say it is what qualifies as undue weight. Kraken7 (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Axis victory?

Why this victory is considered an Axis victory? No German sheeps are involved in that battle so this victory is totaly italian. If we take our stand Italy is member of Axis and Italy was supported somehow by German (like England by Commenwealth) we must considere ALL british victory like COMMENWEALTH/ALLIED victory. But i think taht would be a non-sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestorm81 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC) (suspected sockpuppet of Kraken7)

Read the article's sources, please. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(and for the hard of reading...)

Because, in the lengthy discussion here shows, the claim it was an Axis victory rests on the damage caused by the german aircraft to the merchant ships of the convoy the following day.

If that isn’t included, then the action was inconclusive, or an RN victory. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How is "for the hard of reading" consistent with respecting talk page guidelines? The battle is given as an "Axis strategic victory" in the infobox because there appears to be one reliable published source with that precise analysis. Also, the "damage caused by the german aircraft to the merchant ships of the convoy the following day" was limited to one ship sunk and another badly damaged. Two other merchant ships arrived in Malta that day virtually unscathed. Kraken7 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight, Part I: Evidence and a Proposal

After eight months of discussion and despite a few changes, the minority view of Italian/Axis victory and an Italian point of view (POV) still occupy more space in the "Assessments" section than warranted by reliable published sources. This is undue weight. Since undue weight is contrary to an official English Wikipedia policy (WP:Undue), removing the undue weight from the "Assessments" section would improve this article.

How much undue weight is there? Six times more than is warranted. That is, 75% of the text argues for Italian/Axis victory or presents the battle from an Italian POV:

• Of the section's eleven sentences and 233 words, nine sentences (2-5 and 7-11) composed of 204 words argue for an Italian/Axis victory or narrate the battle from an Italian POV.

But, only 12.5% of reliable published sources vouch for an Italian/Axis victory:

• Of twelve reliable published sources that assess a winner in the battle (footnotes #1 and #22 plus Sadkovich), two grant the Italians a partial achievement while awarding the British a "tactical and moral triumph" (Sadkovich, 247; and Macintyre, 135, 136).
• A third source apparently credits the Axis with an "operational and strategic victory" and the British with a "brilliant tactical success" (Stephen, footnote #2).
• Giving a half-point for each of the three split decisions, that's 1.5 sources for some degree of Italian/Axis victory.
• The remaining nine sources assign victory to the British alone (footnote #1).

It has been suggested (Archive: 31 August) that the phrase "British victory" be added "25 tmes or so" to counter the undue weight. However, this would be not only tedious, but also insufficient. Or, the section might be edited so the contending views are described "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject" (WP:Undue), like so:

• Twelve reliable published sources have assessed the battle as a victory for Britain's Royal Navy (footnotes #1 and #2; Sadkovich, 246) because "the British ships and flotillas" employed "bold and skillful delaying tactics" to hold off their much larger Italian opponents (Macintyre, 135). In addition, the British simultaneously beat off heavy Axis air attacks (Playfair, 166) and thus kept the convoy ships from all harm (Bradford, 205) for the duration of the March 22 battle. As a result, British Prime Minister Churchill generously praised "Admiral Vian and all who sailed with him" for "this resolute and brilliant action" (Thomas, 154-155). Three sources grant the Italians/Axis were at least partly successful (Sadkovich, 247; Macintyre, 136; and Stephen, 115). Kraken7 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from Kraken7 talkpage with several changes:

1) The policy about undue weight in Wikipedia doesn't mention "percentages" of sources supporting a position, just vaguely states that Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This is open to interpretation given the context. Thus, your calculations are pure wikilawyering.

2) Your focus on the supposed lack of neutrality in the section "Assessments" is erroneous.

There is nothing in the text contradicting the idea of a "British victory". And since this section necessarily deals both with the battle and its aftermath, we simply cannot ignore those sources which describe the consequences of the battle (i. e.: the destruction of the convoy, documented by an overwhelming number of authors). Have I to repeat that all reliable and published sources about the issue don't split the battle from its consequences? Have I to repeat the example of the Battle of the River Plate?

The reference to an Italian "partial achievement" doesn't contradicts the fact of the British tactical victory; indeed, neither Mcintyre nor Stephen contradict themselves when they simultaneously write of a "British victory" and an "Italian achievement", since they are not dealing with the same subject. And if they are not dealing with the same subject (they are not putting in doubt the Royal Navy success), tell me please, where is the alleged "undue weight"? It is the same case of our discussion on "tactical victory" and "strategic victory" some months ago. Do you remember? You agreed then that a lonely source claiming an axis strategic success would be valid to support this idea, despite hundreds of authors asserting a British tactical victory.

I want also to make clear that there is no OR in summarizing the statements of Bauer & Young, Mcintyre, Stephen, Llewellyn, Bernotti and De la Sierra under the Mcintyre concept of "partial achievement", since WP:OR establishes that: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

3) You're miscounting the sources. The idea of partial achievement is supported not only by "three sources" as claimed. The citations include not only Mcintyre or Stephen (we can put Sadkovich aside, since he asserts an outright victory), but also Bauer and Young, Llewellyn and some foreing language sources lake Bernotti and De la Sierra. Then we have now 6 sources, already cited in footnotes. And, as exposed in point 2), this is an 6-0 ratio; the partial achievement of the Italian side (in forcing the convoy to the south) doesn't contradicts the idea of a "British victory", so this sources don't qualified as a "minority view".

4) I strongly disagree with the proposed changes in the section's narrative, since these seem to ignore the aftermath of the battle (the main subject of the title "Assessments", I guess). The wording and the tone of your proposal also seem unencyclopedic. I would not object, however, the deletion of the paragraph regarding the "Italian victory" imagined by the fascist propaganda (already erased by February 10).

5) I think that after more than a year, the only user in Wikipedia who challenged the validity of sources in this article are you. Since I guess that the article was read by a substancial number of editors who didn't make any objections, I am of the opinion that there is enough consensus to keep the text in its present status.

6) I will not discuss in the future any issue already present in the archive of this talkpage.--Darius (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of time and space, the "six-point long answer" will be addressed one point at a time:

1. The objection to percentages is groundless. And, Wikipedia's undue weight policy allows percentage as a method to calculate undue weight.

• a) Correct: The undue weight policy "doesn't mention 'percentages' of sources supporting a position." But, if the policy is vague and "open to interpretation," why should that matter? This is not to say that anything goes, but rather to point out that the premises in the above post are contradictory.
• b) The policy does mention proportion, and percentage is a "rate or proportion per cent; a proportion," according to the "Oxford Reference Dictionary" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). Therefore, since proportion and percentage are synonyms, what difference does it make if the policy "doesn't mention 'percentages'"?
• c) The policy also states that "undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" (emphasis added). How else to measure "depth of detail" or "quantity of text" except by "calculations" expressed in percentages? Kraken7 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia's undue weight policy allows percentage as a method to calculate undue weight." Please, provide us with a quotation which explicitly does mention percentages (your example of "proportion" doesn't count for me). If you can't, the question is open to debate.

• I think point 1) is not the central point of the alleged "undue weight". The main issue is the focus of your objections (point 2) and the question of consensus (point 5). The rest is just a complement to the discussion.--Darius (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Where does the undue weight policy say that percentages can't be used to calculate undue weight without "a quotation which explicitly does mention percentages"? And, why is it despite a reliable published source affirming that proportion and percentage are synonyms, this is an "example" that "doesn't count for me"? What does "the question is open to debate" mean?

Where is it stated that the first point is "the central point of the alleged 'undue weight'"? And, why is "c" not answered? Kraken7 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Point 2) of my question still unanswered.--Darius (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Kraken7 (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Only 12.5% of reliable published sources award victory to the Italians/Axis at the Second Battle of Sirte; nevertheless, the claim of Italian/Axis victory and the Italian POV deserve 75% of the text in the "Assessments" section because (in italics):

And since this section necessarily deals both with the battle and its aftermath . . .

a) Why "necessarily"? Unless reliable published sources have a precise analysis that takes "its aftermath" into account in their assessments of the battle (WP:NOR:Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position), why should it be included necessarily in the "Assessments" section?

b) Is "its aftermath" synonymous with the battle's consequences and the "destruction of the convoy"?

. . . we simply cannot ignore those sources which describe the consequences of the battle (i. e.: the destruction of the convoy, documented by an overwhelming number of authors).

c) No one has advocated ignoring "those sources," as long as they are verifiable and relevant to undue weight. Whether the convoy's destruction was among the "consequences of the battle" is irrelevant unless reliable published sources have a precise analysis that takes that destruction into account in their assessments of the battle. So, if "an overwhelming number of authors" have said analysis, why not name them and cite exact page references?

. . . the example of the Battle of the River Plate?

d) The Wikipedia article on the "Battle of the River Plate" has no "Assessments" section. How then can it serve as an "example" for this article?

The reference to an Italian "partial achievement" doesn't contradicts the fact of the British tactical victory; indeed, neither Mcintyre nor Stephen contradict themselves when they simultaneously write of a "British victory" and an "Italian achievement", since they are not dealing with the same subject.

e) What different subjects are Macintyre and Stephen "dealing with"? How is this relevant to undue weight?

It is the same case of our discussion on "tactical victory" and "strategic victory" . . . a lonely source claiming an axis strategic success would be valid to support this idea, despite hundreds of authors asserting a British tactical victory.

f) How is "Axis strategic victory" in the infobox relevent to undue weight in the "Assessments" section?

g) Which "hundreds of authors" claim the British won a "tactical victory" at the Second Battle of Sirte? If "hundreds" of reliable published sources vouch for a British tactical victory, how would "axis strategic success" not be a viewpoint held by an "extremely small minority" that "doesn't belong in Wikipedia" (WP:NOR:Neutral point of view)? Kraken7 (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The key point is "e", if all of this is about undue weight. You have already agreed with this position in the past:

• This is my statement of 13 August 2008: "We could have hundreds of authors claiming a British tactical victory; however, if none of them denies in an explicit way an Axis strategic victory, they don't count as a 'majority view'; they simple remain silent about the issue. There is no basis then for a case of "undue weight" of sources."

• This is your response on October 1º: "Agreed: A British tactical victory would not necessarily exclude the possibility of an Italian strategic victory, if a reliable published source with that precise analysis existed."

I later found the 'precise analysis' you sued for (Stephen).

May 25 2009: exactly the same case. A British victory doesn't exclude the possibility of an Italian partial achievement, thus we are talking about two different topics. So a single source (Mcintyre) claiming a 'partial achievement' is enough, since it doesn't contradicts the majority view; it is an entirely different statement.

For the rest, I recomend you read carefully past threads--Darius (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

2. The title of this section is "undue weight" and the evidence for it in the "Assessments" section was set forth in detail in this section's first entry on 5 February. Further, "undue weight" was explicitly referred to four more times on 25 February, three times on 9 March, three times on 21 May, once on 25 May, and once more on 27 May. Therefore, the answer to the implied question "if all of this is about undue weight" would appear to be yes.

a) If item #2 is the "central point of the alleged 'undue weight,'" "the main issue," and "the focus" (see 25 February), then why are six of the seven queries unanswered? And, if the answers to these six are in "past threads," then why not cite the specific places where these answers can be found?

b) What exactly is "this position" that was "already agreed with . . . in the past"? How does one editor's alleged agreement with "this position" prove there is no undue weight in the "Assessments" section?

c) How is it "exactly the same case" when the August/October discussion was about the infobox, but the present one concerns the narrative? Do the infobox and the narrative have different functions that might affect how information is presented in their respective formats?

d) What are the "two different topics"? How are they related to undue weight?

e) Apparently, "a single source (Mcintyre) claiming a 'partial achievement' is enough," but "enough" for what? Is it "enough" to justify dedicating 72% of the "Assesments" section to the claim of Italian/Axis victory and the Italian POV? If so, how? Kraken7 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

a) and b) If Mcintyre and others refer to a different subject (other than the 'victor' of the battle), then there is NO ground to claim undue weight, even if we count only Mcintyre as a valid source. "How does one editor's alleged agreement with "this position" prove there is no undue weight in the "Assessments" section?": Because that editor is you, and I guess that you wouldn't contradict yourself in order to mantain this moronic dispute (WP:GAME). You can't cherry-pick an argument to your behest; just take it or leave it.

c) No matter if the 'format' of infobox and narrative has different functions; I think the pattern is the same: Infobox: "British tactical victory" doesn't contradict "Axis strategic victory"; narrative: in the same way, a British victory in the battle doesn't contradict an Italian partial achievement (namely the delay imposed to the convoy), as asserted by several sources.

e) Already answered in a) and b). Stop insisting on percentages when no Wikipedia policy mentions it.--Darius (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

3. A further response to the "six-point long answer" on this talk page (13 February):

a) As for "miscounting the sources," only two not "three sources" were identified with the precise analysis of the Second Battle of Sirte as an Italian partial achievement (see 5 February post, Undue Weight, Part I).

b) The "idea of a partial achievement" is not at issue, but rather whether the Italian POV and the claim of Italian/Axis victory deserve 75% of the text in the "Assessments" section despite having only 12.5% of the sources with a precise analysis of Italian/Axis victory at the Second Battle of Sirte (ibid.).

c) As "already cited in footnotes," only two of "six sources" have a precise analysis of "the partial achievement of the Italian side":

i) In footnote #2, Stephen credited the Axis with an "operational and strategic victory" not a "partial achievement." In #33, he is said to "agree on the idea of a partial achievement" and there is a page citation but nothing else to substantiate that assertion. In #37, Stephen is quoted directly but the quotation says zero about a "partial achievement."

ii) In none of the eight footnotes (#3, 6, 17, 26, 33, 35, 36, and 37) in which Sadkovich is cited did he assert "an outright victory" for the Italians. However, Sadkovich did quote Macintyre as "more accurate" for concluding that Italian Admiral "Iachino 'had partially achieved his aim'" (246). Sadkovich also stated that Iachino had won a qualified "moral victory" (#33 and 247). Is either or both of these assessments a precise analysis of "outright victory"? If so, why?

iii) As for "Bauer and Young, Llewellyn and some foreing language sources lake Bernotti and De la Sierra," see "Original Research" on this talk page (21 May).

iv) This leaves only Sadkovich and Macintyre with a precise analysis of "the partial achievement of the Italian side"; the same two as noted in the 5 February post.

d) Why is "forcing the convoy to the south" relevant to undue weight? Kraken7 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely superseded. My argument is that, being the claim of a "British victory" and an "Italian partial achievement" totally different statements and not contradictory between them, only one source of the two you mention in c.iv (Mcintyre, if you want) is enough to maintain the "partial achievement" assertion in the narrative. Remember that you have already agree on this regarding the infobox result entry (1º October 2008 post). If you choose to contradict yourself in order to continue this futile polemic, I will lost any assumption of good faith by considering you a troll. For c. i and c. iii, try "Original Research" on this talk page (25 May). Of all those notes you mentioned regarding Sadkovich in c. ii, only #33 deals with the concept of an "Italian outright victory". Also for c. i: Stephen asserts that "Iachino had succeeded in forcing the convoy to manoeuvre so far south that Axis air power was able to act in synergy to ensure its destruction", thus he clearly gives Iachino credit for some "success".--Darius (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

3. If there is no undue weight, then why were 42 words about how the British won the battle recently added (since 18 February) to the "Assessments" section? This addition slightly reduced undue weight from almost 7:1 (by word count) in favor of the Italian POV and the claim of Axis/Italian victory to 5.8:1. Welcome as this addition is, to eliminate undue weight and make the text proportional to the 6:1 majority view would require either adding 1,500 more words on British victory or deleting 173 words (i.e., sentences 3-5 and 7-12) that emphasize the Italian POV and the claim of Axis/Italian victory.

a) What Wikipedia policy or guideline explicity establishes a proportion between number of sources and number of words in the narrative?

b) Where in "Assessments" section is mentioned an Italian/Axis victory?.

Meanwhile, whether the sources have been miscounted still needs to be sorted out:

a) What does "British victory" and "Italian partial achievement" being "totally different statements" yet "not contradictory between them" mean? What does it have to do with undue weight?

a') This means that one issue is different from the other, therefore, we can have thousands of sources claiming a British victory (I read it somewhere...) and that doesn't preclude a single source claiming an Italian partial achievement in disrupting the convoy. Example: The sources assessing a German tactical victory at Dunkirk don't contradict nor preclude the sources which claim that "Operation Dynamo" was a success, no matter how many sources we have for each statement.

b) How many reliable published sources have a precise analysis of "partial Italian achievement," one (25 May) or six (15 February)?

b') Only one would be enough as per a'.

c) Why is Sadkovich's "qualified . . . moral victory" (25 May and footnote #33) a precise analysis of "outright victory"?

c) What other thing can suggest a sentence whose subject is "Iachino" associated with the verb "won"?? He's depicting an Italian victory, no matter if moral, tactical, strategic or pyrrhic. See also this thread.

d) Stephen is the sole source justifying "Axis strategic victory" in the infobox. So, how would it not be double-counting to also include him among the "six sources" with a precise analysis of "partial Italian achievement"? And, why is "succeeded in forcing the convoy to manoeuvre so far south that Axis air power was able to act in synergy to ensure its destruction" a precise analysis of "partial Italian achievement"?

d') First question: See a'. Second question: suceed = achieve.

Kraken7 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And please, stop adding junk to this page by reposting already answered questions. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The final three responses to the "six-point long answer" on this talk page (13 February):

4) Why should "the aftermath of the battle" be "the main subject of the title 'Assessments,'" instead of what the majority of reliable published sources say (WP:NOR:What is excluded) in their assessments of the battle? How are the "wording and tone" of the proposed revisions "unencyclopedic"? Why not suggest ways to improve the proposal's wording and tone to make it better and more encyclopedic?

5) Not "the validity of sources in this article," but rather their verifiability has been called into question. Specifically, how would editors not fluent in Italian, Spanish, and German be able to "verify for themselves" that all the foreign language sources cited in this article were "published by a reliable source" (Wikipedia:Verifiability) or sources? Also, which Wikipedia policies or guidelines state that a single editor cannot challenge the verifiability of sources? How is it known "the article was read by a substancial number of editors"? How many is "a substancial number"? How is the absence of "any objections" proof of "enough consensus to keep the text in its present status"?

6) Improving the current "Assessments" section to eliminate undue weight may require extensive revision. Suggestions on how to save as many and as much of the footnotes as possible are welcome. All editors are encouraged to participate in this project. Kraken7 (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

4) a) Because a good number of authors (Mcintyre, Llewelyn, Bragadin, Stephen, Bauer & Young, Bernotti, Sierra, Simpson and Sadkovich) make that precise analysis by linking the battle itself with its aftermath, while the others remain silent. b) I think you can improve your proposal by yourself.

4) Agreed: In the current version of the article, the "aftermath of the battle" is (and not necessarily ought to be) "the main subject of the title 'Assessments'" (13 February). So, why not re-title this section "Aftermath of the Battle"? Not only would re-titling more accurately reflect the section's actual content, but also it might help resolve the undue weight problem.

4)' I think the "assessment" of any action relies heavily on the "results" or "aftermath" of that. Indeed, most military actions in history seems at first sight, indecisive (Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of Gravelines, Battle of the River Plate), but the ultimate assessment is close related to their aftermath. And almost all the analyses about the battle (I am tired of repeat that, seriously) include the idea that the delay imposed to the British convoy by the Italian fleet during the actual naval action was the main cause of the destruction of most of the convoy by Axis aircraft. I think the current "assessment" title is more comprehensive than the proposed "aftermath".

a) Stephen makes the convoy's destruction (i.e., the "aftermath of the battle") key to his assessment of the battle (Stephen, footnote #2), but what about the other eight sources? Where exactly (page numbers?) do they have that precise analysis?

a)' Just read the other eight sources' inline citations (footnote # 39).

b) OK, but why not explain what makes the "wording and tone" of the proposed revisions "unencylopedic"? Kraken7 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

b)' We need a narrative, not 'percentages' of sources claiming this or that, as you proposed.--Darius (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

5) a) The exclusive use of English sources is not mandatory as per WP:V. By the way, Sierra and Bernotti can be found at Google books and Weichold is cited by an English source (Sadkovich). Not so difficult to verify for an English-speaker.

b) Yes, a single editor (even a suspected sockpuppet like you) can challenge whatever he wants on Wikipedia, but since February 2008, at least 10 users edited the article and NOBODY questioned verifiability, original research or NPOV. Furthermore, at least one of them explicitly supports the present status.

5) At issue is the verifiability of foreign-language sources cited in this article. So, why no answer to how editors not fluent in Italian, Spanish, and German would be able to "verify for themselves" that those sources were "published by a reliable source" (WP:V)?

5)' The foreign-languages citations (Sierra and Bernotti) are short statements, easy of translating by Babel Fish or any reliable online resource of this kind. (See below for Weichold).

a) Who said the "exclusive use of English sources" is "mandatory per WP:V"?

a)' It's you who seems to suggest that by insisting on that point. Get real, man: your intention is to have those sources removed because they contradict your own PoV.

a).2 While it is a tribute to Google Books that Sierra and Bernotti can be found there, does that necessarily make Google Books their publisher in the Wikipedia sense? If so, why is Google Books a reliable source? How does Weichold's being "cited by an English source (Sadkovich)" enable editors not fluent in German to verify for themselves that "Die deutsche Fuhrung und das Mittelmeer unter Blickwinkel der Seestragegie" was published by a reliable source?

a)" Google Books is not a source by itself, it's just a search engine of books digitalized by the most prestigious Universities of the States, thus I guess those sources are perfectly reliable as per WP policies. Weichold credibility relies on Sadkovich translation (unless you want to questioning Sadkovich as a reliable author...).

b) Recognition that a single editor can challenge anything on Wikipedia is progress. But, is it completely accurate to say that "since February 2008 . . . NOBODY [else] questioned" this article? What about Xyl 54 on 16 February 2009? And, which editor "explicitly supports the present status"?

b)' Right, a single editor can challenge whatever he wants on WP, but there is a limit: Did you read WP:IDHT?.

b)" Xyl 54 statement on 16 February 2009, supporting the present status of the article: "But I think this article is reasonably NPOV on the subject. And I think the assessment is reasonably evenhanded, acknowledging the successes and failures on both sides."

c) Why no response to how the alleged absence of "any objections" is proof of "enough consensus to keep the text in its present status"? Kraken7 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

c)' Enough is enough... I posted WP official statements regarding that on 8 June 2009, section "Original Research". My answer is already there.--Darius (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

6) All editors welcome, but beware of sockpuppets...--Darius (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadkovich claims an Italian victory

Sadkovich personal assessment on the Second Battle of Sirte overrides ANY other citation he makes (Mcintyre, Iachino, Weichold), so please stop editing the section "Assessments" under the pretense that Sadkovich claims a British victory.--Darius (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Sadkovich opinion was acknowledged by user Kraken7 in past threads:

• "Of twelve reliable published sources that have more than one full page about the battle: Seven maintain the British won (1); three express no opinion (2); one awards the Italians "a [qualified] moral victory" (3); and one avers the Italians were "not defeated" (4).

1. Bradford: "a tactical and moral victory (205), "brilliant naval action" (207); Woodman: "a noteworthy tactical victory" (316); Macintyre: "a tactical and moral triumph (136); Belot: "one of their most brilliant naval actions (159); Playfair: "successful action" (172); Thomas: "successful defence" (152); and Roskill: "defeated [the Italians'] purpose" (54).

2. Bragadin, Holland, and Greene & Massignani.

3. Sadkovich, 247.

4. Sierra, 365."

(19 August 2007)

--Darius (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was "acknowledged" in past threads? Was it that Sadkovich concluded the Italians won a "qualified . . . moral victory"? Yes, this was acknowledged. But, how does this preclude recognition that Sadkovich also acknowledged a British victory? Kraken7 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadkovich never acknowledged something like a 'British victory'; he simply cites a number of other authors who claim a RN success. He uses the phrase 'more accurate' comparing Cunningham with Macintyre, but without endorsing any statement from them.

Let's give an example. Let's consider a modern cosmologist comparing Babylonic astrology with Ptolemaeus astronomy. Suppose he says that Ptolemaeus is "more accurate" than the Babylonians: Does this mean that he's endorsing Ptolemaeus cosmology?? The same case for Sadkovich: he systematically criticizes all opinions claiming a British victory (pp. 246-247), no matter if he perceives some statements better than others. More important, his personal conclusion, that is, the author opinion, is that "Iachino had won a qualified moral victory." Period.--Darius (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The user also recognizes that another author "with an opinion on the matter" (Sierra) asserts that the Italians were "not defeated".--Darius (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight, Part III: Selective reading of sources

I came upon two of the authors originally cited by the account Kraken7 as claiming an outright British victory: De Belot and Roskill. Surprisingly, both of them make statements that support the concepts of a "partial Italian achievement in delaying the convoy" (De Belot, page 162-163) and "the delay of the convoy as a result of the action" (Roskill, page 55),

A "partial Italian achievement in delaying the convoy" is not found on pages 162-163 of Belot's "The Struggle for the Mediterranean 1939-1945"; nor does "the delay of the convoy as a result of the action" appear on page 55 of Roskill's "The War at Sea 1939-1945." Kraken7 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? Read the quotes below, please.--Darius (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

. . . which led to its later destruction by Axis aircraft.

Which pages of Belot's "The Struggle for the Mediterranean 1939-1945" have a precise analysis of this delay causing the convoy's "destruction by Axis aircraft" (footnote #30) on March 26, 1942? Kraken7 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Belot, pp. 162-163:

"Although it had escaped the Italian fleet, the convoy had not reached the end of its troubles. It had been delayed for several hours by evasive maneuvers during the battle, a delay which must be credited to Iachino's actions, and it could no longer reach Malta by dawn as had been planned. Furthermore, the cruisers had had to leave the convoy during the night and return to Egypt so as to avoid having to take on fuel from the limited supply at Malta. On the morning of the 23rd the merchant ships, sailing with reduced escort, were subjected to violent attacks from Axis aircraft."--Darius (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I usually assume good faith, but I think that there was an intentional concealement of what these sources say, in order to misrepresenting alleged "undue weight" in the "Assesssment" section.

Since the above quotations from Belot and Roskill are not "what those sources say," these conclusions are unwarranted. Kraken7 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't added the quotations here until now, when you asked for. How can you come to that conclusions when still you haven't read them?--Darius (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, we have a new source which, without contradicting itself, claims both the British victory and the Italian achievement in delaying the convoy (De Belot), and another (also claiming a British victory) that can be included as making the 'precise analysis' of the successful Axis attacks as a direct consequence of the battle (Roskill).

Which pages of Roskill's "The War at Sea 1939-1945" have a precise analysis that the March 26 "successful Axis attacks" were "a direct consequence of the battle"? Kraken7 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Roskill, page 55:

"Unfortunately the delays caused by the recent battle prevented the convoy making harbour early on the 23rd, and this gave the German bombers another chance. They renewed their attacks at daylight, and the escorts were handicapped by being desperately short of ammunition".--Darius (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If we consider the addition of a further source (Wilmott & Fowler) we have now 12 sources which support the linkage between the battle and the further destruction of the convoy by air attacks.

Adding Wilmott & Fowler to Belot and Roskill makes 3 sources that supposedly have a precise analysis of Italian/Axis victory. Which are the remaining nine? Kraken7 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just go to footnote #41 and count them...--Darius (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If compared with the 12 sources which consider the battle a British victory (at least 8 of them are the same that also make the analysis of "battle=delay of the convoy=successful Axis air strikes"),

Stephen appears to have that precise analysis, but on which pages of Belot, Llewellyn, Macintyre, Roskill, Simpson, and Shores, et al., can "the same" be found? And, more importantly, where do these six have a precise analysis of Italian/Axis victory? Kraken7 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to footnote #40 and read them carefully, please...--Darius (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

. . . we have now a 50-50 situation.

This implies the text is evenly balanced (as the number of sources are claimed to be) between claims of British and Italian/Axis victory. But, besides sentences 1 and 6 and a parenthetical clause in sentence 2 (see 5 February 2009 post), which other sentences in the Assessments section extol a British victory? Kraken7 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are exactly in the narrative of the "Assessments" section the phrases "Italian victory" or "Axis victory"??--Darius (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No ground for a fair complaint over undue weight, I guess.

In the absence of 12 sources with a precise analysis of Italian/Axis victory and given the lack of a balanced text (see 5 February 2009 post), there remain plenty of grounds to doubt the Assessments section is NPOV. Kraken7 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember when I proposed to you a request for arbitration?--Darius (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the absurd proposal of applying something like "percentages", a procedure not contemplated by Wikipedia's policies.--Darius (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy or guideline states that using percentages without a "quotation which explicitly does mention percentages" is an "absurd proposal"? Kraken7 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy or guideline states the use of percentages?--Darius (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Original Research II

Since none of the 16 sources cited in Footnote #39 has a precise analysis of "air supremacy," how is including this concept in the "Assessments" section not an unpublished analysis according to WP:OR? Kraken7 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation added on 25 August 2009--Darius (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A comment

Are you still arguing about this? This row is shaping up to be longer than the Battle of the Mediterranean was! And the talk pages are five times longer than the article itself! ("Lets not bicker and argue about who killed who...")
Seeing as my name has been bandied around a bit maybe I should say a few things on the subject.
First: (to declare an interest) I'm British, and I've always understood this to be a British victory; in fact a classic example of how to handle an inferior force. But I can see if the operation is taken as a whole, then the Axis were successful (which doesn't make it an "Italian Victory" BTW; and the action on 22 March wasn't by any stretch an Italian victory)
Second: I am all for giving the Italian Navy credit where credit is due; I'd point to Cunninghams opinion that the RM as not to be underestimated. But I don't think that is served by the sort of selective reading I can see in the sources quoted in this article. There are a number of specific problems I have, which I've put in a section below; I'd like opinions on whether these changes can be made.
Third: WP is a co-operative venture; there is bound to be give and take, and no-one gets everything they want. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree and move on. Specifically:-

• Kraken7-stop trying to change the Assessment; they aren’t going to be convinced, and neither I feel is anyone else.

There is no "they." Darius and DagosNavy are one and the same. Kraken7 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Darius and DagosNavy-stop removing the neutrality tag. He neutrality patently is disputed, and this won't be the only article that has one.
• If you cannot agree, isn't it about time you took it to Wikipedia:Mediation?

Cordially, Xyl 54 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xyl 54, and thanks for your comments. Funny quote from Monty Python's "Holy Grail" :) They are also quite popular here in Argentina. Sorry if I get you involved into this mess, but...

First of all: I acknowledge that my protracted row with Kraken7 had some positive consequences for the article; It's now properly sourced, rich in details and balanced proportionally to what authors said on the matter: the article has now more than 25 books cited. My first impression when I came upon this page almost three years ago was that it badly needed a huge reassesment. I had been barely a couple of months editing WP, thus my firsts contributions here failed to comply with some wikipolicies like WP:NOR and WP:SYN; that was the reason behind the reposting (I was not the original editor) of the phrase "Italian Victory" to the result entry. After learning more about WP requirements, I eventually accepted some Kraken7 proposals, and, in his own words "The addition of "British tactical success" improves the article."

He insisted, however, on the same thread, that "That leaves the question of "Axis strategic victory." No one likes unneeded repetition, so maybe if just one source could be quoted (including page reference) with the precise analysis of "strategic victory . . . for the axis" or of "British strategical failure" then this controversy can be concluded forthwith." Well, after I found the requested citation and appropriately added it to the article, rather than "concluding the controversy" he focused on the "Assessments" section. I introduced then some changes on the latter, removing any reference to an "Italian victory" (since very few sources claim that) and even Kraken7 by himself reshaped a statement regarding the consequences of the gunnery duel.

After all this changes, he still continued to challenge the section on the grounds that there was undue weight of sources -despite your comments on 16 February- while dissmissing foreign language sources when is nothing in WP preventing the use of them, just some caveats. By now it is clear to me that he is on a PoV pushing. Just read his later comments about original research: he disputes something obvious like the 1942 Axis air supremacy over Malta in an attempt to raise controversy.

I can understand an editor like you claiming that "I have to say it’s surprise to me to see this action as an Axis victory" because, instead of Wikilawyering as Kraken7 usually does, you have read carefully the sources and acknowledged that "But I think this article is reasonably NPOV on the subject. And I think the assessment is reasonably evenhanded, acknowledging the successes and failures on both sides." (your statement of 12 February). Kraken7, instead, proved to be a PoV warrior, systematically moving the goal line every time an agreement is near, or introducing contentious issues; frankly, I losed any assumption of good faith concerning him. Thus lets just say that I basically disagree with your proposal on the neutrality tag. After almost three years of disscusion and changes, the NPOV of a narrative shouldn't be put in doubt just because a single editor refuses to get the point, a behavior described by WP guidelines as WP:IDHT.

I suggested to him a request for arbitration some time ago, but he remained silent until now.

PS: I fundamentally agree with the modifications proposed by you on "Changes?". I will comment some details there as soon as possible. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes?

I wish to make the following changes; can I have any opinions?

• Introduction: "Naval supremacy" -> "naval superiority". The advantage went from one side to the other throughout, but no-one had supremacy till September 1943 at the earliest.

Unless a majority of reliable published sources have that precise analysis, I would not mention it at all. Kraken7 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Xyl 54. Change done and a further quote added.--Darius (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• British Defence Plan: needs an Italian/Axis plan section for balance

Whatever the majority of reliable published sources have to say on the matter would be fine with me. Kraken7 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think, however, that was not something like an "Axis plan": they realised that a major RN operation was underway after the Italian submarine Platino spotted MW-10 and reacted accordingly.--Darius (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Battle: “might have easily attacked “ as this was what they had been trying to do without success all day, this is a bit speculative, don’t you think?

Agreed, it is speculative, unless a majority of reliable published sources have that precise analysis. Kraken7 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Speculation, this short statement should be removed.--Darius (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Already deleted.--Darius (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto: “numerically superior force" that’s a bit of a spin; particularly if the RM force is elsewhere described as "overwhelming"

Agreed, it is spin, unless the conditions outlined above apply. Kraken7 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The complete sentence reads: "numerically superior British destroyer force." As per sources -particulary that cited on footnote # 19- there were 18 Royal Navy destroyers against only 8 Italians. Therefore, despite the overwhelming RM advantage regarding the big ships (1 battleship and 2 heavy cruisers plus a light cruiser against 5 light British cruisers), matters are different if you focus on the small units. Furthermore, note # 19 makes that precise analysis.--Darius (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The British destroyer force was not quite so "numerically superior" because the 5 Hunt-class destroyers were detailed to defend the convoy, leaving 13 British destroyers compared to 8 Italian. Moreover, to "focus on the small units" would make sense only if the Italian battleship and heavy cruisers had not participated in the battle and instead allowed the destroyers to fight it out amongst themselves. Which published reliable sources have that precise analysis? If fewer than a majority, then the passage indicated stands guilty of spin. Kraken7 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No spin at all. Lewllyn (p. 51) shows a box with the expenditure of ammo by any single warship involved in the battle. British destroyers fired 979 rounds. On the Italian side, regarding the destroyers, only the Aviere fired her guns in anger (84 rounds); thus the British destroyer role in the battle was unequivocally superior to its counterpart.

Moreover, to "focus on the small units" would make sense only if the Italian battleship and heavy cruisers had not participated in the battle and instead allowed the destroyers to fight it out amongst themselves. The main weapon of the destroyers in surface combat until the cold war was the torpedo, not the guns, and their main advantage against the "big boys" was their speed. Therefore, the dash of the British destroyers against the Littorio went unopposed due to the absence of Italian destroyers and, given their numbers, they were an effective deterrent for the Italian heavy units. This is the precise analysis of Bragadin (pp. 165-166) and Sierra (p. 165). Llewellyn's maps of the battle (pp. 46, 48 and 50) didn't show a single Italian destroyer engaged in combat.

If fewer than a majority... We don't need a "majority" in this sense; for this or any affirmation in WP, we just need one source making an assertion, provided that no other contradicts it. And in any case, all sources asserts the presence of 18 RN destroyers against 8 Italians, no matter if 6 of then were defending the convoy or whatever they were doing. And even 13 destroyers are still more than 8.--Darius (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My only point here was that a numerically inferior force cannot also be “overwhelming”. Using terms like this sound like making excuses. But now I'm re-reading it I can't find it (the comment about British numerical superiority) has it been taken out?Xyl 54 (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not taken out, but reworded as per sources (see footnote # 19). Text reads now: "The Italians outgunned their British counterparts but they appeared unwilling to close for a decisive blow, perhaps wary of the torpedo threat from the numerically superior British destroyer force."

P/S: The Italian squadron outgunned the British by far, but vessel-by-vessel -according to all sources- there were 12 Italian warships against 23 British, with the destroyer force making the difference.--Darius (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Follow up: The damage to Kingston is repeated, and “almost broken in two “ is a bit of a contradiction if she then “recovered speed and made it to Malta under her own power. The follow up is that she was bombed while in dock and written off, that's all this section needs to say.

Whatever the majority of reliable published sources say about the damage to the Kingston should be in the article. Regarding, the follow up, it's always nice to put in details, but do a majority of reliable published sources agree with this account and is it really relevant to the battle on March 22? Kraken7 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I already moved the chunk of text describing Kingston's damage in detail to the "battle" section, leaving only a minor summary on the "follows up actions". And yes, the damaged received by the destroyer in battle is relevant because she was forced to make to Malta, where she met her fate.--Darius (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• And (my biggest issue) in the Battle section: the whole footnote here from Bernotti needs to go; it is contradictory, is an evasion of NPOV, to have an agreed neutral text for the battle then add an alternative, non-neutral account which can’t be touched because it is an extended quote from a source. If the quote is backing up an assertion in the text, then the relevant page number, or sentence, would suffice, but I can’t see what assertion is made, except that the Italian view is different. And there are already 2 accounts from Italian point of view accessible in the External links

Explain "evasion of NPOV" and how this one differs in kind from others like it, such as footnote #3 which mocks the courage, performance, and sacrifice of Malta's military and civilian populations in the guise of explaining why the island was important. Unless there's a difference in kind, I see little point in singling out footnote #14. Kraken7 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I focused on Bernotti because it was the most obvious example; your comment about Sadkovitch is perfectly valid (the fact he trots out the “Faith Hope and Charity” comment, when that’s been recognized as a myth for at least 30 years now, speaks volumes) but that’s been changed, so it’s OK

And “evasion of NPOV” is just what I said earlier; introducing an alternative account in the guise of an extended quote is just not on. But we are all agreed on that, and its gone. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Xyl. This is a PoV translation of an Italian text performed by a banned user. A more relevant statement -in Italian- is found on footnote # 42. Removed outright.--Darius (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response; I’ve made a couple of comments above.Xyl 54 (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my comment about footnotes; they are there to back up the text, not to add unchallengeable comment. If the book is readily available in English, a reference and page number is fine; if not, or if it’s asked for, the sentence itself with the reference is useful. But (to take one of the first examples) to back up a simple statement about the Axis “gain(ing) the upper hand in their attempts to isolate Malta and even made plans to remove it as a threat” with two paragraphs that begin “with Malta …writhing under the effects of the air offensive…” is the latter not the former. Do you see what I mean? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation of quotes

Hi, Kraken7. I will translate the non-English quotes in the narrative as soon as possible. Initially I though that translations performed by editors were not allowed, but after reading WP:NONENG, in the absense of a third-part translation, a user English-version is entirely valid.--Darius (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)