Talk:Greco–Italian War/Archive 7

Declaration of war
Mussolini joined the Axis by declaring war on France and the British Empire on 10 June 1940. To use the term "the Allies" is misleading as there were no other countries in the war at that stage. (165.120.184.91 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC))
 * Thank you for taking your concern to the talkpage.
 * The Anglo-French alliance was known as "the Allies". Not to mention, the British Commonwealth independently joined the war, so New Zealand, Australia, and Canada were all independent partners. Furthermore, exiled Governments and forces (I.e. the Poles, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, and Norwegians) were all part of the alliance.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Italy only declared war on France and the British Empire, not the governments in exile. You can see the video of Mussolini declaring war on youtube. (165.120.184.91 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC))


 * Edit conflict: Allies of World War II There was never any peace treaty with Poland so it never ended its war with Germany. All the others had governments in exile as well and continued their belligerency. This is a matter of fact not opinion.Keith-264 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark etc were all defeated and overrun. Only the British Empire was still in the war by 10 June 1940. (165.120.184.91 (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC))
 * I am afraid Keith is right on this. Please stick to the facts. Wikipedia is not a personal blogspot, the people need to stick to the facts and not try change how the events are portrayed in Wikipedia based on their personal points of view. It is striking how there is, lately, a growing tendency to have historical facts overshadowed by personal perceptions on past events. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  15:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The only countries that actually mattered in June 1940 were the UK and Canada. (165.120.184.91 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC))
 * Your opinon. Which is completely irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is true. All the other countries including France had been overrun. Mussolini only entered the war because France was already defeated. If the UK had been invaded the Royal Navy was to continue the war from Canada. (165.120.184.252 (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC))

Analysis additions
Taking into account some of the above discussions about how the analysis section should be presented, a couple of paragraphs which deal with the Greek morale and the importance of the Greek resistance will be fine additions:


 * Dear, this looks good for me. No problem from my part. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  22:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think something about the importance of high Greek morale will help with balance but I'd like more on the quality of Greek training and due caution on Soddu's writing, since it's a primary source. Comments about biological superiority are ones that I wouldn't mention for obvious reasons. Churchill is a primary source too but a speech at the time reported as a speech seems more reliable. Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by comments about "biological superiority". Where do you see that? Athenean (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tsirpanlis by saying that "the biological superiority of mountain or rural population (especially people from Epirus, Roumeli, Macedonia, Thessaly" was one of the factors that raised Greek morale, obviously means that the Greek soldiers coming from the mountain&rural regions of north-central Greece were accustomed to the mountainous environment of the battlefront and its correspondent weather conditions.Alexikoua (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes but it's unfortunately-worded given the history of European racism. Keith-264 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this needs to be re-worded. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  23:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok I see now. The source uses "biological superiority", but "biological superiority" does not appear in the proposed additions.  There is of course no question that "biological superiority" should NOT be included in the additions to the article.  That said, I think most of these proposed additions should be in the "Home Front" section rather than the Analysis section.  In the analysis section we should also mention that 28 October, the day Metaxas rejected the Italian ultimatum is a national holiday in Greece known as "The day of 'No'" ("Oxi day"). Athenean (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Right then, all in favor or adding the above material? Athenean (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Mazower
(for the analysis section) In 2009, Mazower wrote that the Italian invasion of Greece was a disaster and the "first Axis setback" of the war. Mussolini sent 140,000 poorly-equipped troops to attack, over some of the worst mountain country in Europe, at the beginning of winter. The Greeks repulsed the invasion, to the surprise of enemies and Allies alike, an event made worse by the Italian disasters in Libya, Eritrea and Ethiopia. After the German invasion of Greece, Italy gained a small empire in the Balkans, mainly to relieve Germany of the need to find garrisons and had to tolerate a collaborationist government in Athens.Keith-264 (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Put the cut version with Mazower into the Analysis as it appears acceptable to all but it's still missing an adequate treatment of the the Greek side. Happy to change it if needed.Keith-264 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Think you guys are doing an excellent job at sorting out the bottom of the article. One observation: everything may have went to shit for the Italians, but at least the rank and file apparently kept a brave face about it: the reference to heroism via Jowett. I only mention this as last year if was one of the major complaints by our old friend last year. Can we work something back in?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Had a look in British Foreign Policy in the Second World War Volume I, Sir Llewellyn Woodward (1970) but it didn't add much detail.Keith-264 (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we should also mention that the defeat in Greece greatly reduced Italian standing and made them a satellite of Germany. Otherwise looks good. Athenean (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

✅Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I am not a native english speaker, but I think there is a small typo issue as well - I got the impression the word "numerical superior" needs to be changed into "numerically superior". Otherwise it looks good and balanced. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  02:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Missing material
It has just come to my realization that a lot of well-sourced material that used to be in the article is now missing. See here for example. All the material in the diff has been removed, even though it is well sourced and relevant. I move it be reintroduced in some form. Athenean (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that my recent copy-edit? Since there is an article on the Primavera Offensive, we don't need to duplicate it here, just have a 1–2 paragraph summary and a link to where the detail can go. Keith-264 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No I'm talking about the whole Greek surrender to the Italians affair, long after the Primavera Offensive. I think that's highly relevant to the article. Athenean (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede proposal
Proposed Athenean (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a good start, but it needs to clarify one or two things. 1) The mention of Greece joining the Allies on the onset of the Italian invasion is not mentioned on the 3rd paragraph as it should. 2) The word Axis needs to be mentioned once in the entire lead as this war was part of the broader Axis VS Allies clash. And 3) the "tying down 530,000 Italian troops" is not accompanied with figures of the Greek side's loses in Albanian mountains. Perhaps either mentioning a figure of the Greek troop losses could present both sides equally... -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  03:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1st&2nd paragraph are fine. The 3rd paragraph describes the core of this article (it's all about this Greco-Italian conflict). Thus, some minor additions may be appropriate, for example that Greece was Britain's only ally that time, or that the Greek army retreated only after the Germans were at its back.Alexikoua (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, I would put two commas in (shown by the []) and alter "tying down" to "against" and might add that the aggression against Greece was at the expense of other fronts in the "strategic" paragraph. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see a major problem with this: it is the lovely dovey version of history. There is no mention that the war bogged down into a stalemate or if the drain it had on both sides. No mention of the geopolitical nature of the conflict, no explanation as to why Germany intervened. For the Italians, the war not end with the German intervention and conveniently the Greek defeat and occupation is removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's missing the most direct consequence of the war that it was three and a half years of occupation, and no, it didn't raise morale in allied Europe.Uspzor (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and, please, this lead is about the Greek-Italian War, not about the Battle of Greece. The lead must summarize what events this article is about, not with the outcome of the Battle of Greece which is covered on a separate article. The editor Athenean has included already a link to the Battle of Greece in the proposal and this is all what we can do as per WP:Lead. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Silent, this is the Italo-Greek war, in which both sides were beginning to wilt under the strain and then became the victims of Great Power rivalry before this impasse was resolved. How can we go further if there aren't the sources in the main text? There is very little detail on the economic consequences of the war like the balance of payments, inflation, economic dislocation of the farming sector and the risk of famine. We need this to justify more detail in the lead of the ramifications of the failure of the Primavera Offensive and for how long the stalemate could have continued. Does anyone have a copy of Mazower handy? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with you Keith, that the proposed less is missing the geopolitical and economic impact. However, it feels like blatant historical revisionism to end a summary of the war with the Greeks won the first victory of the war for the Allies. The conflict may have morphed into the German-British Battle of Greece, but the Italians and Greeks did not stop fighting each other the culmination of the Italians starting the war was that Greece was occupied. More than lip service should be given to this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , thing is, Greece was not occupied as result of the Greek-Italian war, and all the scholars in the world - I literally am emphasizing the word ALL here - agree that the Occupation of Greece was the result of the Battle of Greece, not of the Greek-Italian War by itself. After all, it is reasonable why the Scholars call it an Axis Occupation and not Italian Occupation. Because the combined Axis forces of Germany, Italy and Bulgaria attacked the Ally power simultaneously from multiple fronts; Italy from the northwest, Germany from the north, and Germany with Bulgaria from the northeast. And therefore, like how I said previously: in this article's lede summary, we can't include things that happened much later, at a different phase of the World War II and are out of the context of Greek-Italian War. The Battle of Greece should not be confused with the Greek-Italian War, as these are two distinct events, even if the one was triggered by the other. To make it simple for you, the outcome of the Greek-Italian War was the triggering of the Battle of Greece, not the eventual Axis occupation of Greece. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  15:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The outcome of the Italio-Greek war was neither the first Allied victory of the war, but that is what the spin here is. Completely ignoring context is appalling. As repeatedly stated, yet your long replies are ignoring, was that there was a larger geopolitical game at play that resulted in the expansion of the conflict and ultimate defeat and occupation of Greece; paying lip service to that and literally ignoring (claiming a victory and stating any defeat should be in another article) is revisionism.
 * Your hyperbolic comments on literally all the scholars in the world ignoring context is false, and we both know it.
 * What are your comments (since you have not addressed neither mine or Keith's) on the lack of commentary on the economic and political consequences inside Greece and Italy as a result of the conflict?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that leaving out the result of the Battle of Greece and treating the Greco-Italian War basically as an unqualified success would be akin to discussing the Second Sino-Japanese War as a great success for Japan and quietly ignoring what happened after December 1941. The German intervention and subsequent occupation was a direct result of the war, and it should be presented in the introduction. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There was two rfcs about this and the consensus was to keep it as it is now, the war ended with the greek armistice and the infobox, lead and sections of the article alike demonstrates that. It isn't because the battle of greece is a separated topic that one must end after the other begin, there is plenty of things that can run simultaneous. Uspzor (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The repulse of the Italian invasion and the Greek counter-offensive in 1940 been called the first Allied land victory of World War II by historians such as Cyril Falls and Peter Ewer and helped to raise morale in Allied Europe.

I don't think that this is a swaggering claim of victory but a careful and nuanced summary of the article. Repulse, counter-offensive, land and 1940 seem pretty specific, not a claim about the Italo-Greek war per se. Certainly enough to justify Inconclusive or See Aftermath Section in the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The statement is moreover sourced, and carefully worded. I don't see any issue here. @ Uspzor:  There were never any Rfcs or consensus regarding anything, so let's not pretend otherwise.  Unless you can provide links to those purported Rfcs.  If people feel we should add stuff about economic effects, geostrategic considerations, that's fine I see no problem there. Can someone draft something up?  But I draw the line at stuff that occurred after the German intervention because after that it's the Battle of Greece, a separate article.  Besides there is nothing in the article about the armistice, purported continuing fighting with the Italians, etc...It pretty much ends with the battle of Greece.  The lede should be a summary of the article, and not include stuff not present anywhere in the article. Athenean (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you had read the first section of this series, the one I made to remind you about what was accorded but you had conveniently forgotten, you would have seen it; or maybe you're just pretending there isn't anything again, who knows. That's why I think all this is a big waste of time, why enter in a consensus about something if in three months all will be forgotten and started anew? Uspzor (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It was until the radical reorganization and sourcing of the article a few months (a year?) ago. Just because there is nothing expansive in the article does not provide a rational for excluding it from the lede. Your right, the lede should be a reflection of the article; and in this case, the article (while rightly focusing on the Italo-Greek fighting rather than the whole conflict including the expansion and German invasion) is lacking some information. You are all right that it should not go into massive detail, but the current comments here appear to be pretending that the Italian-Greek fighting was in a vacuum. The geopolitical surrounds of the conflict resulted in escalation, and resulted in the defeat of the Greeks: lip service should not be paid.
 * In addition, just to clarify, the comment about the Greek counterattack lifting the morale within occupied Europe; that is sourced to something other than Terrorism in Greece right? We were previously able to find better sources to support the notion of the first allied victory, surely (if this is the case) we can find a better source for the morale comment. Note: Only if the previous assumption is correct.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Further clarification for previous comment on final sentence of proposed lede: The issue is more of where it is placed. At the end, it is making a statement. Personally, I would argue it should be placed in its chronological place with the final word being the German intervention and ultimate fate of the conflict. I would also seek clarification on the 530,000 Italian troops tied down. The figure only appears in the current lede, and not the article. Where exactly where they tied down from being deployed too? Sources on Italian logistical capability note Italian plans and actual deployments of less than 200,000 men to Libya during the whole war (presumably after Compass took out the majority of those forces already based there).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear, you are calling my comments as hyperbolic, but it is not my sticking to the facts the hyperbole here. Is your event revisionism that is striking. You want to re-write the article to suit your tastes(?), you want to include content in there that is already covered by other articles, you are profoundly underrating the one side in the war and expressed bias toward the other, and you are constantly raising objections to Keith's and Athenean's efforts and proposals, (or at least, partially agreeing with them but never really giving your full consent for once). Furthermore you are diminishing what some scholars have described as the first Allied land victory for some unknown reason that escapes me and you are insisting on selective picking of certain sources about the stalemate to prove and illustrate your point, and you are avoiding to acknowledge that at least two-third of the sources also stated otherwise from the "stalemate" thing. If that wasn't enough, you are trying to confuse the Greek-Italian war with the Battle of Greece even if the Greek people and the historians marked them and treat them separately (but not unrelated...). And like how I noticed - you are diminishing the facts about this war and you are constantly insisting on your personal perceptions that are very different from the way the Wikipedia community has treated these historical events so far. A God knows what more can be expected from you. I am really sad and disappointed, because a constructive attitude from us the users is required to achieve a consensus and move on with other articles. So be it. Call me hyperbolic, keep reducing what I have said as "being false and wrong", insist with your personal opinions about this war, and keep raising objections and even dispute the other people's suggestions and proposals. But at least, I can hope, that, while you keep with this attitude, you are acknowledging that you are not harming just only yourself or me. You are, above all, undermining the article and any attempts to improve its quality. I am really sad. Well, in my case, I believe that Keith, Athenean, Dr. K, and Alexikoua have made some very reasonable proposals or statements that avoided WP:Cherrypicking and are in line with WP:Lead and cover the entire field of sources about that time period, which I will not ignore but fully support and endorse them from my part. -_- -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  21:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet another long winded rant that takes out of context what I stated. I also note, yet again, you completely avoid relevant questions and focus on your out of context attacks. I am also fed up of the continual accusations of cherry picking (highly ironic considering your own attitude towards sources). Not to mention, it is not only me with an issue with the current proposal.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the reason I added it at the end is because this kind of material belongs in the "Aftermath" and Analysis section, which is at the end of the article, and I figured the last paragraph of the lede should be an "aftermath and analysis" type paragraph. We can add more to it if you like (like the effect the war had on the Italian war effort). But I think the lede should end with an ""aftermath and analysis" type paragraph. Athenean (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with such an attitude towards the lede. However, the current proposal only provides a limited summary of the current article. As you note yourself, additional information is needed to provide not only a balanced summary of the article but also a complete one. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, dear Athenean, I could have done the same. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  22:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Enigma: Well, do you have any concrete suggestions?  what else would you like in there?  Please be specific.  I'm all ears.  This would be a whole lot easier if you actually made suggestions and proposals of your own instead of just objecting. Athenean (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually there's a paragraph about it in the current lead, that would be a good start. Uspzor (talk)_ —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will take you up on your challenge, although you will have to wait until later today. I also note that the raising of morale in Europe is covered (and sourced) in the below section regarding the revamp of the anyalsis section, so that alleviates that concern. The only other point (other than the current discussion on wording) is the issue of number of Italian soldiers "tied down". Looking over the article, that appears unsourced.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@ everyone; I don't think any of us are happy with the compromises being negotiated but that we are all moving to a version we can live with (more or less) until new sources turn up that support one view or another. Clearly for us anglophones, the literature available is not comprehensive or easily available; I made an approach to the Greek general staff history section but I fear that they are busy with the ECB occupation. I'd like more detail on how both sides organised their war in Albania - signalling, engineering, roads, vehicles or pack animals, medical services, ammunition states, flows of reinforcements and replacements etc. Keith-264 (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @: Exactly. That is the spirit. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  09:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @everyone: Every person here may have his own perceptions of past events and personal opinions and this is very natural and democratic. But thing here is, Wikipedia is not democracy as some people may think. Compromises are needed to be made - the proposals do not satisfy me 100%, but I have already given my consent because this is how consensus can be reached - we are not supposed to be 100% satisfied, and we can not be 100% satisfied with anything, anyways. After all, Wikipedia is based on facts and the editors will have to stick on them and not allow for the article's quality to be derailed because of different opinions. If changes to the article's perception of historical events have to be made, (like how certain events are told or portrayed), these changes will have to be accompanied with strong, reliable and indisputable sources in the first place. Unless such sources are provided, the lead of the article will have to be written in compliance with WP:Lead and the current sources. Nothing more, nothing less. And Athenean's Lede proposal is exactly that: it does not make everyone 100% happy, but gets the job done. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  09:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm posting in response to the request made at WT:MILHIST. The lead proposed above generally looks good to me, but I'm not a fan of the final paragraph. I'm not familiar with Cyril Falls, but I am aware of Peter Ewer and he's a fairly little known author with no formal academic qualifications as a historian whose only work on this topic is a popular history focused on the experiences of Australian and New Zealand troops. As such, while he does qualify as a reliable source, I question why so much weight is being placed on his view? - what do the leading historians on this topic say? More generally, the claim that the campaign represented the "first Allied land victory of World War II" seems somewhat dubious - the British and French achieved tactical victories in Norway, the French did a good job of defending the Maginot Line, the delaying action around Dunkirk was an very important success and by 1940 the Chinese had won a number of significant victories over the Japanese. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ewer can go for me, Cyril Falls and Mark Mazower (I found my copy yesterday) were put in because the claim was vigorously challenged on the grounds you had laid out above. I'd suggest that the Italian repulse was a bigger defeat than the tactical successes of the Anglo-French in Norway and France. I wouldn't include the war between Japan and China as it was local, not part of the Second World War until December 1941; you might as well add the Changkufeng Incident and Battles of Khalkhin Gol. I rather hope that the wording and the inclusion of names makes it clear that it is included as a claim made by historians in the field, because this is a compromise between editors who are sceptical and those who want the point mentioned for context. Because that war was overtaken by the interference of the British and Germans, there is a rather ragged "end of the Italo-Greek war–beginning of the Battle of Greece"; the Italo-Greek war limped on until the end of hostilities. That said, I'm glad that you've taken an interest because I feel the need for fresh eyes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision proposal
In regards to Athenians' request, I have provided a rough suggestion largely based off the information in the article unless otherwise stated. In an effort to make discussion/argument/fighting easy, and to the point, I have broken each section up; so let the fun begin.

Comments

 * I felt the initial proposal above was okay, although in light of being asked to provide my own suggestion here is largely a reorganization of what has already been suggested in direct proposals and discussion.
 * Per the RFCs on Nazi Germany, consensus and precedent has been established that inserting political prefixes should be avoided; long story short, there has not been a country called "Nazi Germany" or "Fascist Italy".
 * In addition, the various names of the war have been placed together rather than spread out. There appears to be no need for the Greek name of the war to be tagged on the end.
 * I have the following questions:
 * 1) Do we need the Italian and Greek translations of the respective English terms (thus, for the moment removed)? I note other articles avoid translations.
 * The ones I work on (WWI tend to have the British name with the French and German names in brackets
 * 1) What is the preferred term in Italy and Greece: World War II or the Second World War?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For the Greek side, the term used is just Second World War (Β' Παγκόσμιος Πόλεμος; B' World War) but I doubt it does matter really since the translation/transliteration in this article has to be about the Greek-Italian war rather than the 2nd WW. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  23:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good except two minor things: It should be made clear that "war of '40" and "epic of '40" are the names of the war in Greece.  As far as I know it is not referred to that way anywhere else.  Also, it should be "morphed/turned into/evolved into the Battle of Greece". Athenean (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * True that. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  07:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

✅
 * Question: Is the British involvement significant enough to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lede? Athenean (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes if the Germans are going to be mentioned. Became and turned into aren't quite right but I want to avoid flabby terms like overtaken, subsumed or escalated.Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * I have opted for an expanded background to provide context to Italy's actions, as well as to bring the reader up to the point of war.
 * I have removed mention of Metaxas rejecting the offer of British. As far as I can tell, this happened in December and thus is out of place here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good, just a few suggestions: It should be made clear that the Elli was sunk by an Italian submarine, and that the 15th of August is a major religious holiday in Greece, which is why the Italians chose that date. Also, it should be mentioned that Metaxas rejected the Italian ultimatum with a single word "No" ("Oxi" in Greek), and for this reason the 28th of October is a major national holiday in Greece with the name "Oxi day".  I also feel this paragraph should end with Metaxas' "No", and mention of the fighting begin in the next para. Athenean (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

✅ put the feast day in but you might want to modify the form.
 * I don't think the submarine is necessary but agree that Italian culpability needs to be explicit.Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 15 August is the Dormition of the Mother of God, a feast which has its own article. The feast commemorates the date of death of the Theotokos (Mother of God), the title used for Mary, mother of Jesus. It is a Great Feast of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, not just Greece. The Catholic equivalent feast is the Assumption of Mary which is celebrated on the same day. Some Anglican Communion churches also celebrate the feast. Lutherans consider this to be a minor feast, but do include it in their Calendar of Saints. This is one on the major days of the Christian calendar. Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that I think of it,I don't see why we need to mention Ethiopia and the Spanish civil war. It makes no sense.  We say Mussolini wanted to build a mediterranean empire and then we mention ethiopia.  Also the Spanish civil war had nothing to do with building a mediterranean empire.  It is sufficient to mention that Mussolini wanted a mediterranean Empire and annexed Albania to that end. Athenean (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, "sinking of the light cruiser Elli by an Italian submarine" is grammatically far better than "the Italian sinking of the cruiser Elli". "Italian sinking" just sounds weird. Athenean (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Any better?Keith-264 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the religious day really necessary? It would only be important as part of the Italian decision to strike, which author does this correlation? Uspzor (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I fear so if you want consensus.Keith-264 (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * Per the various discussions, I have opted to mix the chronological and analytical sections into a single narrative
 * Removed the the comment about "tying down 530,000 Italian troops", since it is not sourced in the article and no context is provided.
 * "Allied Europe": I note the source for the increase in morale, although based off the source used are we talking just about the British? If so, I would suggest further rewording.
 * Commentary on the taxing of both sides comes from Stockings and Playfair. It is something that can be refined and built upon (and more importantly added into the main part of the article)
 * Keith has noted additional issues for the Greeks including inflation. I only have access to some of Stockings' comments at the moment, so I have avoided adding this in at the moment to avoid potential mis-wording.
 * Likewise, without access to more varied sources - at the moment - I have not expanded upon the logistical suggestions. Although I note several sources complaining of the Italian divisions being shipped to Albania with next to no motorized vehicles nor pack animals.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my above comment about the second sentence. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Para should begin with the day of the Italian invasion ("e.g. "On XX XX 1940, the Italians invaded....). I don't see why we shouldn't mention Cyril Falls as well as Mazower, thus I think the second sentence should be "The repulse of the Italian invasion and the Greek counter-offensive in 1940 been called the first Allied land victory of World War II by historians such as Cyril Falls and Peter Ewer and helped to raise morale in Allied Europe." or something like that.  There should also be mention of the high Greek morale and belief in a just cause. In general the issue here is that everything is framed in terms of Italy ("the first axis setback" instead of the first "allied victory", that the Italians faced difficult conditions (so did the Greeks though), that they were surprised by the Greek resistance, etc...). Athenean (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I took out Falls for brevity and Ewer because he was questioned as a source, then edited the details to Mazower specifically so I could use quote marks. My edit is suggestive and the other bits could go back if preferred but I think it's enough as long as the article section is comprehensive and cites at least two of the three. I'd go for Falls and Mazower since they have written books (possibily Ewer in a footnote?).


 * Ewer can go per Nick-D. However, what happened to the sentence on the effect of the war in Italy? Athenean (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that better?Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "The defeats against the British". In Egypt and Libya I assume? The way it's written now it makes it seem that the defeats against the British took place in Greece. Athenean (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Greeks counter-attacked, pushed the Italians back over the Albanian frontier, then occupied southern Albania.. I wonder if there is a good reason for 3and1/2 months of war operations, i.e. the article's core, to be represented in 1 line. For obvious reasons the battle of Elaia Kalamas and Pindus should be part of this paragraph. Same with the fall of the Morava Ivan heights as well as the end of the offensive with the capture of the Klisura pass.Alexikoua (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the lead is a summary, the less detail the better but that always leaves the feeling that something important has been omitted. If anything can be summarised in one line rather than two, all the better, it means that the right words have been chosen. Since it's a synoptic article, I suggest that the big detail needs to go in the sub-articles and this one needs more detail on context, strategy, diplomacy, economics and consequences, touched upon in the lead. How does it look now? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Alexikoua is on to something. We have all this stuff about Ethiopia, the Spanish civil war, and Romanian oil fields, and only one sentence about the war itself. I agree there is too much detail (Ethiopia, Spanish civil war, Romanian oil fields, British RAf squadrons that never came), but the one area there isn't sufficient detail is the actual war.  We can easily make room for some more detail on the war by removing the other excess detail. Athenean (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've stripped some of the detail but if we add too many facts about the Greek side, we risk unbalancing the article the other way by losing context. What would you put in?Keith-264 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 'The Italian attack was repulsed in the Pindus and Elaia-Kalamas sectors. The following Greek counter offensive launched at November 14, secured a strong bridgehead in southern Albania and culminated with the capture of the strategically important Klisura pass at January 10, 1941.' I believe that's the shortest version posibble for almost 3 months of core events.Alexikoua (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That takes us back to description rather than a simple win-lose comment; if we put that in we can't oppose more context and more Italians, British and Germans. It also leaves out the fact that the Greek success wasn't decisive and that the war effort began a deterioration in the Greek economy which could have been decisive if the outsiders hadn't intervened. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I wont object some rewording but the conflicts that concern 3 months of core events should be part of a 4 para lead: 'this war started with battles X and Y, then the other side counterattacked and this offensive ended with battle Z.' I admit it will be too weird to mention a lot of background events that occurred in Ethiopia, Lybia, Romania etc., but not a single line about the core battles of this war.Alexikoua (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * This is a mixture of information on this article, and the Battle of Greece article (i.e. disclaimer, I have probably just overly simplified why the Germans attacked). It is short and sweet, and provides an actual conclusion to the Italo-Greek conflict while noting the long term ramifications: occupation and the political consequence for Italy. An additional disclaimer, I note that this article provides the end date of the conflict not as the date the fighting merged with the German invasion, but with the date the Greeks surrendered.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a fairly good compromise but a little wordy so I have put it through the laconic-iser. I added 140,000 because it's in Mazower, a pretty good source but as you point out, we lack some basic information about both armies and the economic effects of the inconclusive nature of the war. Mentioning the Germans and British as interveners is good but also adds to the amount of detail to explain why (oil and Barbarossa). Keith-264 (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When did the British send in their contingent? It should be mentioned.  I also think there is way too much detail about oil and Barbarossa and such.  Also as far as I know, the Greek surrender to the Italians was solely due to the sheer insistence of Mussolini.  The Germans were initially reluctant to allow this so as to not embarass the Greeks, but eventually relented so as to not alienate Mussolini.  I also think it should be "greatly diminished Italy's status and reduced it to...".  Otherwise looks good. Athenean (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Something like this?Keith-264 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still think there is way too much detail here. Also please see my point here . Athenean (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I fear we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Either we ignore the Second World War that came to Greece in 1941 or have to put something in for context - why the British and Germans were interested in the Balkans. Are my amendments any better?Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Context is fine, but we are talking about the lede here. Operation Lustre and the stuff about the Romanian oil fields is fine for the body of the article, but it's too much detail for the lede.  I think this paragraph should just begin with "On 6 April 1941, the Germans launched Operation Marita...".  Athenean (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If we're going to mention the British and Germans at all, we have to add the reason for them interfering. If we start with the date, the B of G will look like it came out of nowhere, like an exploding cigar.Keith-264 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Operation Marita can be very easily introduced in a number of ways: "To avoid a total debacle in the Balkans, the Germans...", "As a result of the Italian failure, the Germans...". The Romanian oilfields are really overkill for the lede. Athenean (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How now?Keith-264 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is sn issue with the 'British forces on the Bulgarian front'. In fact there was not a single British unit located there, even in the entire region of eastern - central Macedonia and Thrace. The closest British units were located some hundreds kms southwest and they didnt take part in the border conflicts of the Metaxas line. I assume some rewording is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Revised lead redux

 * Opening para

Everything looks good here, except I would change "Greek" to "in Greece". Athenean (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tried escalated to for turned into. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good here, we are good to go on this one. Athenean (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, I stronly object to the total absence of the keywords Axis and Allies from the first and/or the second paragraphs of the lede. These keywords are very important to be present in at least one of the two paragraphs, (besides the keyword World War II which is already present but not enough by itself), and therefore, this needs to be fixed. Because the Greek-Italian war was not unimportant to the rest of the Axis powers and Allied powers, but one of their battle fronts. and, please can we have the keyword Axis and the keyword Allies (or Allied) added at least once in this paragraph (or in the second one below) otherwise it will give the false impression that this war is not part of the fights between Axis and Allies, or imply that Greece was not an Allied power? Thank you -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  05:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, good point, I hadn't realized that. I'm sure it will be possible to accommodate that. Athenean (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Me neither, how now?Keith-264 (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Second sentence is run-on, I split it in two. Athenean (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ and, now that the Allies and Axis are added, it is perfect and covers anything. Thank you very much. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  09:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 2nd Para, background

I believe Mussolini asked for the surrender of Greek territory, that should be mentioned. The 15th August is a major (the most significant after Easter) religious holiday. Also, it's an Orthodox holiday, not just a Greek one. Otherwise looks good. Athenean (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for nitpicking, but I have the following observations on second thought: 1) Mussolini not only occupied but also annexed Albania. 2) "World War II began on 3 September 1939", 3) Metaxas line was the Greek-Bulgarian border, not the Greek-Albanian border, I don't think it's that relevant here, 4) "In 1940, a hostile press campaign in Italy and a series of provocations culminated in the sinking..", 5) the "Greek Prime Minister", instead of just Prime Minister, and 6) Metaxas did not actually use the word "Ohi", he actually replied, "then, it's war".  So I propose: On 28 October, Mussolini issued an ultimatum to Greece demanding the cession of Greek territory, which the Greek Prime Minister, Ioannis Metaxas, rejected. Athenean (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 3rd para, the meat and potatoes

I believe the Italians invaded right on 28 October, within hours of Metaxas rejecting the ultimatum. That should be mentioned. Athenean (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wont object some rewording but the conflicts that concern 3 months of core events should be part of a 4 para lead: 'this war started with battles X and Y, then the other side counterattacked and this offensive ended with battle Z.' I admit it will be too weird to mention a lot of background events that occurred in Ethiopia, Lybia, Romania etc., but not a single line about the core battles of this war.Alexikoua (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to put detail like this in the lead, I will want to put the German and British strategic concerns back in too. Do the RS agree on what the significant battles were? Keith-264 (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually here's a version of the 3rd paragraph that I propose:


 * 3rd para, the meat and potatoes - Athenean's version

I've added some military details, and I think Metaxas' refusal of the RAF squadrons is not lede-worthy (although it is certainly article-worthy). Also, the stuff about the debacle exposing the failings of the fascist regime does not belong in this paragraph and is somewhat redundant with what is in the 4th paragraph. This paragraph should end with the stalemate in the Albanian front. Athenean (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 4th para, ending


 * What's "casualties" and "losses"? Dead and wounded? If so let's use that instead. Athenean (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Used synonyms to avoid repetition; in the infobox they are called total losses because they include hospital cases for frostbite etc. I used the global figure for brevity. Any better? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Redid lead proposal as the thread was getting a bit long. Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Another try. Keith-264 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

See below for my proposal for the 4th para:
 * 4th para, ending


 * Owzat? Keith-264 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks great. We are very close now. Only one thing:  Why did you remove the sentence explaining the reasons for the stalemate?  It's not a must for me, but am curious. Athenean (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought about the difference between general and particular. Stalemate is a general term so adding the details seems to only echo what it means. How about we add the three battles you mentioned to something like  the battles of A, B and C led to a stalemate until an Italian spring offensive....? Keith-264 (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine the way it is actually. I was just curious. Athenean (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent!Keith-264 (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is sn issue with the 'British forces on the Bulgarian front'. In fact there was not a single British unit located there, even in the entire region of eastern - central Macedonia and Thrace. The closest British unit was located several kms southwest and it didnt took part in the border conflicts of the Metaxas line. I assume some rewording is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I took it that a difference between frontier and front was enough. Would Thrace &/or Macedonia be better? Keith-264 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question that, Keith-264. Although I am unsure what is best. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  18:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Macedoniaor Northern Greece is both fine.Alexikoua (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just popping in real fast to say the ongoing discussion to iron out the remaining details looks good. Looks like we are nearly there. Well done everyone! :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please tone down the rhetoric and let's get back to real history!
Really, this article is going from bad to worse. Something drastic needs to be done an done soon I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.104.189 (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Comment made by suspected block-evading IP sock of indeffed master
 * How about provide actual examples, so you can be taken seriously and so a productive discussion can be add? You have removed a lot of material and claimed you would discus it, yet all you have offered up is an opinion with no substance.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's our old friend AnnalesSchool I'm afraid. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I tagged the sock. As a general rule, the sock comments should be reverted instead of replied to. Dr.   K.  17:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft lead
The Greco-Italian War (Italo-Greek War, Italian Campaign in Greece; in Greece: War of '40 and Epic of '40), took place between the Kingdoms of Italy and Greece from 28 October 1940 to 23 April 1941. This local war began the Balkans Campaign of World War II between the Axis powers and the Allies. It turned into the Battle of Greece when British and German ground forces intervened early in 1941.

In the mid-1930s, the Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini began an aggressive foreign policy and annexed Albania in the spring of 1939. World War II began on 3 September 1939 and on 10 June 1940, Italy declared war on the Allies, invaded France, British Somaliland and Egypt by September and prepared to occupy Greece. In the late 1930s the Greeks had begun the Metaxas Line opposite Bulgaria and from 1939 had accelerated defensive preparations against an Italian attack from Albania. In 1940, there was a hostile press campaign in Italy and other provocations culminating in the sinking of the Greek light cruiser Elli by the Italians on 15 August, (the Christian Dormition of the Mother of God festival). On 28 October, Mussolini issued an ultimatum to Greece demanding the cession of Greek territory, which the Prime Minister of Greece, Ioannis Metaxas, rejected.

The Italian army invaded Greece on 28 October before the Italian ultimatum expired. The 140,000 troops of the Italian Army in Albania were poorly equipped, had to cope with the mountainous terrain on the Albanian–Greek border and tenacious resistance by the Greek Army, which stopped the invasion just inside Greece. The Greek army counter-attacked, pushed the Italians back into Albania and occupied the south of the country. The Italian defeat and the Greek counter-offensive of 1940 have been called the first "first Axis setback of the entire war" by Mark Mazower, the Greeks "surprising everyone with the tenacity of their resistance". The war continued and in December, to avoid provoking Germany, Metaxas rejected a British offer of troops to join the Royal Air force (RAF) already in Greece. After reinforcing the Albanian front to 28 divisions, the Italians conducted a spring offensive in 1941, which also failed. By February, despite the second Italian failure, the 14 Greek divisions in Albania were under great strain and had run short of artillery ammunition. The Greek economy began to falter due to reduced imports of imports and food shortages and the economic and military failings of the Italian Fascist regime were exposed by the Greek débâcle and defeats against the British in Africa.

In the spring of 1941, the failure of the Italian counter-offensive and the arrival of British ground forces in Greece led the Germans to invade on 6 April. During the Battle of Greece, Greek troops on the Bulgarian border and British troops in Macedonia were overwhelmed and the Germans advanced rapidly into Greece. In Albania, the Greek army made a belated withdrawal to avoid being cut off by the Germans, was followed up slowly by the Italians and surrendered to German troops on 20 April 1941 (then to Italy for propaganda reasons several days later). Greece was occupied by Bulgarian, German and Italian troops. The Italian army suffered 154,172 casualties from all causes and the Greek army about 90,000 losses. The economic and military failings of the Italian Fascist regime were exposed by the Greek débâcle and defeats against the British in Africa, which reduced the Italian fascist regime to dependence on Germany.

OK?Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Just one thing, from where the surrender for propaganda came, because I was unable to find it. Actually, all the surrender of the greeks seems to be removed from the article. Uspzor (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Keith: That looks like an older version of the proposed lede with respect to the 3rd paragraph. See below for what I believe we had agreed on. @Uspzor: There used to be a large section  on "surrender for propaganda" stuff that was removed under unclear circumstances. Don't worry though, I will work to reinstate it after we are done with the lede. Athenean (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it also looks the "raised morale in Allied Europe" bit is missing, too. Athenean (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't remember which was the current paragraph so I guessed...oops. Keith-264 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Right then, if there are no further objections, I will replace the current lede with the proposal above. Athenean (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes please.Keith-264 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pasted in the consensus lead without prejudice to more editing, due to not wanting this task to be affected by the sockistry below. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of objectionable material
I would really urge Wiki editors to please remove the derogatory quotation describing the gallant Italians who fought well and hard in the campaign as "macaroni boys" in the Analysis Section. It is both unnecessary and defamatory whether or not it is a quote from a "respectable author". "Respectful authors" are a dime a dozen these days anyway. The remark does nothing to add to the Analysis at all.

Furthermore, while it is good to see that the article does not endorse the erroneous view that the campaign was a Greek victory when in fact, the Italian Army ended up occupying two thirds of the country, it is important to add a reference concerning the Greek surrender and surrender terms of the Italians. I think this is important so that the reader is left in no uncertain terms about the Campaign's final outcome.

And why am I being accused of being a sock when I am not? Who was this AnnalesSchool anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.77.168 (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Too much partisanship in this article.

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

"from the very first hours of the war a strong national feeling was quite evident "to teach a lesson to the macaroni-boys" (Greek: Μακαρονάδες, "Makaronades"), as the Italians were pejoratively called" SHOULD BE deleted or at the very least, the term, "macaroni boys" deleted.

Reference should be made in the Analysis section in one statement that the Greek Army surrendered to the Italians at a certain place and a certain time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.87.226 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Comment made by suspected block-evading IP sock of indeffed master
 * In regards to the "macaroni" reference, and the comment earlier that it is against policy: the wiki is not censored in regards to language. Furthermore, it is in a quote. We (students of history) do not edit quotes (unless noted and to increase clarity).
 * However, that area does need improving. It is clearly an attempt to reinforce the previous sentence in regards to Greek morale. Yet the quote is not attributed in the text to any particular author or paper, and it is not as clear as it could be. The other two mentions are much clearer on this issue although they are buried in the footnotes.
 * So, in an effort to clear this issue up, does anyone with access to those sources? Can you rework the information so it does not appear as a random slur, and it is more clear in its intention? RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this passage in the article? I thought it was only in the talk page. Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an obvious sock of . I don't think it helps to engage this WP:LTA sockmaster and his IP socks. Dr.   K.  15:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While that may be, it is still an area of the article that needs to be improved at some point otherwise it will be held up at review until done so.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I naturally agree on this obvious point but we should also realise that we should not need to periodically consult the LTA socks to guide us to improve the article or start a conversation with them to help us fix it. Dr.   K.  22:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I left a message for Cannoli.Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like this has been responded to - not sure why it was still pending as unanswered. Reopen when a change is ready? -- Dane 2007  talk 02:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It was changed by the IP sock. Dr.   K.  03:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Rollback
I was given the use of the rollback feature for rapid reverting of dodgy edits, which I've used several times in the last couple of days on this article, under the impression that there have been nuisance edits by a banned editor. If I was wrong and they were good faith edits please let me know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Analysis
Went through the analysis section after a complaint about citation and found the source. Moved some of the quotations to the notes section since they look like understandably comprehensive justifications (in the circumstances) for the sources' conclusions, not necessarily needed in the text. Quite happy to change this if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

State of the article
With a certain degree of temerity I would like to know if we're satisfied that the lead and analysis are at least good enough for now? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

? impostor
Reverted edits by 89.140.171.112 possible sock.Keith-264 (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good call. I tagged the IP. Dr.   K.  21:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

comments
This should be named the Helleno-Italian War because the name of the country is Hellas, and Greece is just a misnomer. CocoaSummer (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017
War begon on 1.september 1939 and not on the 3.september 1939 Michumich (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  12:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

First Axis setback?
The Axis had already lost the Battle of Britain, and the Italian invasion of France was repulsed. (MikeyFinn (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greco-Italian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212000034/http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_6.asp to http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_6.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212000034/http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_6.asp to http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_6.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Start date
This article claims World War II started on 3 September while World War II claims 1 September.

Either one of these two is wrong or there is some nuance that requires additional explanation. I tried changing this article to match the more establish World War II article and it was reverted. If the World War II article is incorrect it should be corrected, but if this article is correct it needs a citation for the date.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * France and Britain declared war on 3 September; if you want sources there are plenty available. Keith-264 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I want someone to change World War II if it is wrong. It is a GA, so I assume things were checked. I don't pretend that this means it is error-free, but if it is wrong, it is more important to get that one right.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we start with the point that I hope is unassailable – if a reader searches in Wikipedia to identify the start of World War II, there should be one date not more than one date. Agreed?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends on the RS, the WWII page had a footnote but most of the sources I've seen have 3 September. Keith-264 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Commas before or after conjunctions
Hello, Keith-264. I have reverted your last edit here because, first and foremost, neither my version, nor the version in place before you and I changed it, is ‘grammatically incorrect’, as implied by your edit summary, since there is no universal agreement over what constitutes ‘correctness’ in the use or the non-use of commas in such a situation. So I have reverted your edit which suggests that there is, and that the rule you espouse is ‘correct’ and that anyone who disagrees is ‘incorrect’.

In the present context, as I stated before, I think the punctuation with the adverbial phrase should be as with a parenthetical phrase: two commas or none. Otherwise, it is like using only one parenthesis, and in this situation makes it appear that the adverbial phrase “from 1939” is part of the preceding clause. Other options would be replacing the connecting “and” with either a semi-colon or a full stop. Incidentally, I have just noticed a similar example earlier in the same paragraph, in the statement that “World War II began on 3 September 1939 and on 10 June 1940,” which is just nonsensical without a comma after “1939”.

In respect of your specific rule, "no commas next to conjunctions", I have never previously encountered this, through a grammar school education in England in the 1950s/1960s and in subsequent acquaintance with Fowler’s Modern English Usage (2nd Edition). Indeed, Fowler's cites various contexts in which the use of a comma before 'and' is not just allowed but recommended, while there is no mention of a bar on using a comma after ‘and’. The Wikipedia article on ‘Commas’ states that: “Some style guides prescribe that two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) must be separated by a comma placed before the conjunction.” The website of the University of Bristol states that: “A comma should be used before these conjunctions: and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so to separate two independent clauses.”  I could add several other sources which all say the same.

I would be interested to know your source for the rule you are invoking. The only English grammar and style source which advocates it which I have been able to find is Strunk & White, but that is an American guide and so presumably one that you would regard as “not germane”.

Since your mention of this ‘rule’, I have been paying particular attention to the punctuation in a wide variety of texts, informal and formal, encountered in my everyday reading, both in print and on the internet (including Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style), and I have seen many examples of commas used both before and after conjunctions. So I see virtually no support for this 'rule' in English style guides nor in general usage. Best regards. Blurryman (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble; it took ages to find your edit and the comma you removed wasn't something I'd object to. I broke a long sentence in my ce to remove to avoid several "ands" while I was looking for it. You have given a comprehensive description of why you think commas can go next to a conjunction but that really isn't the point for me. The only authority for never putting a comma next to and comes from O level English language (1978). It's quite a common dispute in England where some people like me treat written English as a form with structure and others don't. I believe in writing in sentences that scan, although I'm not as good at it as I'd like to be. I do what I was taught, which is to treat a conjunction as a hybrid of a word and a punctuation mark, which makes a comma redundant. Others think that written English should be a rendering of conversational English, to be punctuated as such. Mind you, I went to a comprehensive. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)