Talk:Second Battle of Sirte/Archive2

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)

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)