Talk:Second Battle of Sirte

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." Definition of disappointment : "A circumstance in which a strongly held expectation is not met."

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

• 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)

Why not? There was no apparent cause for archiving as none of the material has been "superseded." Kraken7 (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1) How is it known that "[e]xplicitly doesn't mean literally"? And, why not define what "explicitly" does mean? According to "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (third edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), the primary definition of "explicit" is "fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied." Thus, "if Bauer et al., Stephen & Grove, Llewelyn, Bernotti and De la Sierra could be summarized under Mcintyre idea of 'partial achievement,'" then each would fully and clearly express said achievement and leave nothing implied. Which of "the specific quotes" (none of which are in footnote #33) meets those criteria?

• Bauer, et al.: Because the "as . . . as" construction denotes comparison ("The American Heritage Dictionary"), "the result" was a lesser disappointment for the Italians than "it might at first have seemed." So, how is this lesser disappointment a full and clear expression of "the Mcintyre idea of 'partial achievement'"?
• Stephen: It's tough to argue with success, but in this case success came "in forcing the convoy to manoeuvre so far to the south." Thus, Stephen was not passing judgment on the battle as a whole, but rather on a specific aspect of it. And, even if Stephen's judgment were more general (as it is in footnote #2), how would an unqualified success be a full and clear expression of the "idea of a partial achievement"?
• Llewellyn: Why is "as Admiral Iachino had foreseen" (which is not on p. 72) a full and clear expression of a "partial Italian achievement" that leaves nothing implied?
• Bernotti and Sierra: The question is not whether "non-English sources are perfectly valid," but rather whether they are verifiable. How would any editor not fluent in Italian and Spanish be able to "verify for themselves" that Bernotti and Sierra were "published by a reliable source" (WP:V) or sources? Kraken7 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

2) Which Wikipedia policies or guidelines:

• require more than one editor to question whether an article contains original research?
• set a deadline (e.g., "months") for raising questions about original research?
• state that if "another user 'explicitly' agrees with" the current version of an article, said article contains "no OR"?

If no Wikipedia policies or guidelines so require, set, or state, then how is the above (see 25 May 2009 post) relevant to whether "summarizing" several authors' views as a "partial Italian achievement" constitutes original research? Kraken7 (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Neither the article, nor Mcintyre, nor the other sources make a "judgement on the battle as a whole", as you say.

Why focus on a single phrase regarding a single source (Stephen) when the 00:15, 2 June 2009 post addressed four sources and much else besides? Moreover, the Stephen quote (see 25 May 2009 post) has apparently been taken out of context. Per footnote #2, Stephen explicitly makes the claim (WP:OR) for the battle as a British strategic and operational failure because "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." Therefore, how can this very same statement also be an explicit claim of "a partial Italian achievement" (see article, Assessments section, first para, last sentence) per footnote #36? Kraken7 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Simply because he also claims a British tactical victory, thus the Italian "success" is necessarily partial.--Darius (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They only assert the partial success of the Italian fleet in forcing the convoy to the south, thus disrupting the planned British schedule.

All six English-language sources in footnote #36 note the convoy was delayed or diverted or both. But, that is not the issue. Instead, it is whether "summarizing the statements of Bauer & Young, Mcintyre, Stephen, Llewellyn" (plus Belot and Wilmott & Fowler) "under the Mcintyre concept of 'partial achievement'" (see first entry, this section of talkpage) is "true to the original intent" (WP:OR) of those sources. There is room to doubt that it is because only Macintyre explicitly claimed "a partial Italian achievement" (see 00:15, 2 June 2009 post; "a" above; and "d" below). Kraken7 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

All those quotes are compatible with "a partial Italian achievement in delaying and turning the convoy aside.", which is the correct transcription of the article's text. See below, in the last paragraph, for further details please.--Darius (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The cited sources clearly reflect this statement.

To "clearly reflect" is not enough. Wikipedia policy (WP:OR) apparently requires "the cited sources" to explicitly make the claim of "a partial Italian achievement." Kraken7 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your quote of the article's narrative is incomplete, mate. See below, please.--Darius (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, where is the alleged "Original Research"?.--Darius (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here: It would be original research to include Bauer et al., Stephen, and Llewellyn in footnote #36 without their making an explicit claim (WP:OR) of "a partial Italian achievement." As for Belot and Wilmott & Fowler, how is what they said (footnote #41) explicitly a claim of "a partial Italian achievement"? Kraken7 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I will not repeat the same things ad aeternum: Llewellyn : "as Admiral Iachino had foreseen"; Belot : "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."; W & F: "the Italians did have some compensation for the action delayed the arrival of the convoy at Malta with the result that two of the merchantmen were sunk by aircraft the following day;..."; I have already made the analysis of Stephen quote above. This is just your own interpretation of WP:OR. Remember that "you're not only failing to convince me, but anybody else." (Xyl 54, "A comment" section). Ah, and "a partial Italian achievement" is NOT what the current narrative says. See below, please--Darius (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think the present sources (including those which you read selectively) are so clear in supporting the current text that any claim of original research implies bad faith and PoV.--Darius (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What Bauer et al., Stephen, Llewellyn, Belot, and Wilmott & Fowler said (footnote #41) can be interpreted as "supporting" "a partial Italian achievement" (footnote #36). But, if they do not make that explicit claim (WP:OR), then how is this "supporting" not original research? Kraken7 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You're omitting something important, man. The narrative doesn't mention an "Italian partial achievement"; it reads "an Italian partial achievement in delaying and turning the convoy aside.", an statement what is entirely compatible with the cited sources.--Darius (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2) a) The disagreement of one editor doesn't mean that his point of view is per se relevant: Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best.

b) I never asserted that WP:Consensus can override any Wikipedia official policy; I only expressed that there is consensus about NPoV and NOR regarding this article.

c) WP:Consensus asserts that ...silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community. I think that a lapse of more than a year and the silence of 10 editors constitutes by far the adequate exposure requiered by WP policies. Latin quote from WP (not mine): Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

a), b), and c) No "consensus about NPOV and NOR regarding this article": See "comments" section on this talkpage. Kraken7 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find any 'comments' section. If you are speaking about Xyl 54 remarks, he didn't question the NPoV or NOR of this article in any way.--Darius (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

d) I think you're not a reasonable editor and I lost any assumption of good faith regarding your attitude; a quite important issue in this case since as per WP: Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner.--Darius (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How is impugning the motives and character of another editor consistent with the article's policy to "avoid personal attacks"? Kraken7 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'am "impugning" you as per WP:IDHT.--Darius (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

Kraken7: Not quite more than 90 days yet.

DagosNavy: Before reposting archived stuff, you must contact the administrator (Misza13) which added the automatic bot.

I put the bot on the page, about a month ago. When the bot ran, at 07:28 6 Sept (UTC), the oldest archived comment was dated 03:06 8 June (UTC). That's [counts in fingers, mumbles] just over 90 days. If someone does want to hang on to a section you can, but please also delete it from the archive page so it doesn't get archived twice. If you think the bot isn't waiting long enough to archive sections, just change it.
—WWoods (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Sirte versus Operation M.G. 1

I don't think that there's any doubt that Convoy M.W.10 and Operation M.G.1 and was on balance a win for the Axis, but the Battle of Sirte was just part of the entire Operation M.G.1, and the Battle of Sirte, in isolation, was a victory for the Royal Navy.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Already discussed some years ago, consensus reached (in accordance with cited sources) that the battle led to the British "strategic and operational failure" (Stephen, Martin; Grove, Erik (1998) Sea Battles in Close-up: World War Two. Naval Institute press, p. 115. ISBN 978-0-7110-2118-1)--Darius (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Battle of Sirte is not Operation M.G.1. I feel that the Battle of Sirte and Operation M.G.1 should not be covered in a single article titled Battle of Sirte, but that there should be separate articles for both.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the cited source (note #2)? It's crystal-clear that the battle and the fate of M.G.1 are inextricably connected. Making a separated article for the convoy operation would be WP:CFORK. And please, read also the two-year long discussion on the page talk archives.--Darius (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There are precedents for treating important battles separately from the overall operation, such as the Battle of the Denmark Strait being given a separate entry from Operation Rheinübung and I don't think we need to be so rigid as to be unwilling to give a separate entry for the Battle of Sirte and for Operation M.G.1., especially as that would allow better treatment of a tactical victory (Sirte) versus a strategic failure (M.G.1).Damwiki1 (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What I mean by "read note #2" is that whether or not we could have an article on M.G.1, the operational failure of the convoy is the main consequence of the battle, and there is nothing wrong in the infobox's "result" entry in its current status.--Darius (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Attempted ce

Only when I began to copy-edit the article did I realise the severe structural problems of the article which led me to give up and revert what I'd altered. There is far too much reliance on slabs of quotations which clutter the references section. Quotations should be in the text or in notes, not used as a substitute for the editor describing the nature of OR. When writing the gist of a RS, we don't need to put a quote of the passage in the RS in a citation, only the means to find the section by author, year and page. It is also better to use RS to describe the event and leave explanation and descriptions of differing views by RS to the aftermath section, rather than peppering the text with meandering commentary on discrepancies, disagreements among the RS and anomalies. Several comments by editors in the article are flagrant OR and significant parts of the article belong in a bibliographical list, not a prose article. I wouldn't cut much but I suggest that the article should be re-written according to the Wiki manual of style. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Made a start on resolving my moan. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Luring The Convoy

Hi.

Im not trying to POV-Pushing here but, The Battle is A Italian Victory . Iachino had succeeded to lure the convoy to a massive Axis Air attack. Sinking Most of The convoy and its Destroyer Escorts. If the British DE's (Destroyer Escort) had successfully evade the Italian Fleet and the Convoy managed to slip and survive the Massive Air Attack then that would be a total British victory. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Our opinions are irrelevant, it's what the reliable sources say that matters. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)