Talk:Italian Mare Nostrum/Archive 4

Straw poll
Can I suggest a straw poll to see where we are with this?

The options seem to be :-


 * Keep : this would leave the article pretty much as it is.
 * Merge : this entails parcelling the content out ( or back) to various articles, leaving just a re-direct.
 * Delete : this would dump the whole lot in the shredder.

Can I also suggest, in view of the sock allegations flying around, that the poll be limited to those who’ve already contributed; and maybe it should exclude anonymous contributions also.

Xyl 54 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, my choice: Merge, with an option to Delete if that’s the consensus.Xyl 54 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite as needed. I've heard lots of arguments about how bad this article is. I have no idea - I'm not competent to judge that. Yet none of these arguments have convinced me, or few even tried to argue, that the concept "Italian Mare Nostrum" is wrong. There ought to be an article in the Wikipedia namespace at that location. Yes, the concept was perhaps (I make no claims here) never a valid territorial claim (the "Mare Nostrum" was never "Italian", in a strategic sense), but the concept existed in the mind and propaganda of Mussolini and that itself means we ought to explain the facts behind it. I would welcome an article called "Italian Mare Nostrum" that did nothing other than disprove its existence.

I oppose merging because that removes the concept from the namespace. That would be a bad move, IMHO, regardless of discussions about the content that ought to be there. There seems to be an awful lot of this on wikipedia - arguments to delete (or otherwise remove) articles, when the real problem is that the current implementation of that content at that place (which is always changeable) is bad, not that there's a good reason for it not to exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. This is a content fork of Mare Nostrum (pray tell who else had a Mare Nostrum? Spain? Nope. Greece? Erm, no. And so on. So why two articles?). This subject can and should be most excellently and appropriately included in a new section, two or three paragraphs, at Mare Nostrum entitled 'Revival of the concept by Mussolini' or some such. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I just plain like the content, which is why I !voted keep in the AfD. It needs trimmed- a lot of the info on Italy's forces is off topic, but the battles that occurred seems relevant. Also, there's a propensity for a lot more information on the term's role in Fascist propaganda. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Firstly, the Italian nationalist and subsequent fascist revival of the term is inseparable from original Roman usage (because they wanted to revive the glories of the Roman era), so it makes complete sense to discuss the three on the same page, and a total nonsense to have separate pages. Secondly, this is an article about a political term and therefore it should restrict itself to discussion of the political term (ie what it meant, by whom it was used, when it was used, for what purposes it was used), not the nitty gritty of how it was implemented.  There are plenty of other military/colonial history articles which should deal with that.  See Lebensraum for a target of what this article should become.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. Completely agree with The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 's comment. Nothing more to add. It's wrong to have title "Bananas" and article about the monkeys just because they love bananas. Bananas should be about bananas and "Monkeys" about monkeys. Zenanarh (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In principle, merge but there is still some worthwhile material in the last full version of this article which ought to appear in the merged version. I think the view, that a lot of material on the Italian naval and air war does not belong, is correct, but there should be a cross-refernece to where it does appear.  Certainly there should be some discussion of the extetn to which Mussolini's ambitions were (temporarily) partially realised.  Who else had a Mare Nostrum? The Romans: they coined the term.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Peter, I'm perfectly well aware that the Romans coined the term. The point is that Mussolini deliberately revived their idea and used their term. And the whole idea of a 'merge' is exactly that. A merge. Worthwhile material is taken from one article and appropriately added to another to make a better unified article. Otherwise if nothing from this article goes to the other it is called a deletion. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There was a merge done before, but I think it was too terse.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The various sockpuppets of that Brunodam guy aside, all the interested parties have now made their opinions known and it seems to me that the consensus is merge. I suggest the next step is to add to Mare Nostrum whatever relevant information people feel is missing and we can discuss there whether it should stay. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we have a consensus yet?


 * Andy, Jeremy: you've both said you wish to keep this, but with a re-write: That really is the crux of the problem, for me; it doesn't lend itself to re-writing. Much of this is has been taken from elsewhere, given a pro-Italian spin, and put together here to produce this fairly revisionist view. A re-write to unspin it would give you what is already there on other pages; and just having that stuff altogether here is still revisionist.


 * Given that, would you still want to keep it just as it is?


 * Andy: The concept is explored at the Mare Nostrum; do you think that could be enough?
 * Xyl 54 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say, going by the last standing revision, keep the top, sections "The Mare Nostrum of Mussolini", "Italian-controlled seashores", and "Main naval battles in the Italian Mare Nostrum". "Italian-controlled seashores" should probably be placed in the previous section, in more prose than the current list form. "Battle of the Mediterranean in WWII" and "Regia Marina and Italian Mare Nostrum" are quite off-topic and should probably go. I also think there's potential for a new section explaining the term's significance relating to the propaganda of Italy, which is covered more generally at Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946). Mare Nostrum is pretty empty right now, but I'd think expansion of that article should focus more on the older Roman usage; there's a big difference between the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Italy. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (I've deleted the post that was here; it was an anonymous, unsigned contribution from 70.90.59.74, who hasn't edited here before, which are excluded for the reasons given above. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Please do not rely on me: my latest view is as above (and next comment). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been re-debated several times now. The clear consenus (above) is to make what is kept of this article as a section of Mare Nostrum, two sections of which deal with the post-risorgimento (probably misspelt) and fascist periods respectively.  WP does not need duplicate articles.  Articles on the Italian navy and air force in WWII also exist.  If Luigi 28 thinks there is more to say, after rather more material has been merged into the target, he is of course free to add it, but it is only likely to be retained if it is WP:NPOV in tone, and not merely duplicating what appears elsewhere.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This was a response to the comments Now deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(Anonymous poster readding comments from a permanently blocked sockpuppet) *Keep Italian Mare Nostrum is related to WWII while Mare Nostrum is related to the Roman Empire. They are not duplicate articles. It is the same like an article on Communism and an article on Chinese Communism. Communism deals with all the history of Communism from XIX century to our days, while Chinese Communism deals only with Communism in China after WWII. The following Web sites speak about Italian Mare Nostrum:, , , , , , ...--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.59.74 (talk)
 * In response to JeremyMcCracken, I think there might be a case for expanding all sections of Mare Nostrum modestly, but I will leave this to those who know more of the subject than I do. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If we are agreed, is there a particular way to close the discussion and record the outcome? I'm conscious we've been here before. And if so, should we move to discussing how and what to merge? I've started a new section for that purpose, in anticipation. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposals
Jeremy:

Your proposal, as I understand it is:-
 * Introduction: move to Mare Nostrum
 * Section 1 : MN of Mussolini : move
 * Sec 2: Italian controlled seashores: move, with a re-write to prose
 * 3 : Battle of the Mediterranean : lose
 * 3.1 R A : lose
 * 3.2 R E : lose
 * 4 Regia Marina & IMN : lose
 * 5 Main Battles in IMN : move

This isn’t a million miles from the previous proposal, which was:-


 * Section 1 : move paras 2 + 4 (this was done )
 * 2 : Sea shores : lose ( but actually moved to here
 * 3+5 BotM/Main Battles : move whatever is worthwhile to Battle of the Mediterranean (in practice not much)
 * (3.1, 3.2 and 4 were deleted as irrelevant in May by Ravichandar, but found there way back during the de-merging process).

Can we find some common ground here? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

PS Your suggestion for a new section on the significance of the term in the Kingdom of Italy is fair enough; can I suggest copying it to the MN talk page and discussing it there? I'd be interested in any connection with Italy's colonial expansion prior to Mussolini, which I'll also raise there. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not heavily invested in the article or anything, so if the consensus is to merge that's definitely what ought to be done. I wasn't saying to merge those sections; I thought that IMN could be kept separate if those were retained. It's not so much from what's there now that makes me think it should be separated, it's the future potential- if a lot were to be written on both the Mussolini usage and the Roman usage, a combined article may grow pretty large. But as I said, I really don't care that much about it, just throwing the idea out. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Xyl 54. In merging, a link should be retained to Battle of the Mediterranean, whether as a formal cross-reference or a link in the text, I leave it to your discretion how to do this.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Section 2: I've looked at the Italian controlled shore section. It's a bit smoke and mirrors: Italy already held Libya and the Dodecanese; when she acquired Tunisia, etc on the fall of Vichy the Axis forces in North Africa were already in full retreat; and the occupation of the Balkan countries was contested throughout the war. So the impression of widespread control is more apparent than real, on examination. But it could be covered by the paragraph:- "When Italy entered the war she was already a major Mediterranean power, controlling the north and south shores of the central basin. The fall of France removed the main threat from the west, while the invasion of the Balkans, and Egypt, sought to extend Axis control to the east. But this supremacy was challenged throughout the campaign by the Allied navies at sea and the Allied armies and resistance movements on land, until the Italian surrender in 1943." Section 5 (and 3):this could be covered in the sentence:- "The establishment of an Italian 'Mare Nostrum' was one of Mussolini's war aims on joining the Second World War in June 1940, but despite periods of Axis ascendancy during the Battle of the Mediterranean it was never realized, and the dream died with the Italian surrender in September 1943." If there are no objections I'll put these in the MN article. Section 4: There is a paragraph here about the RM's proposed attack on New York (which apparently is on the shores of the Italian Mare Nostrum) that isn't in the Regia Marina article, so I'll move it there; also the picture gallery, which would fit there better. If no-one objects I'll do this in a couple of days. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- I think we are now satisfactorily resolving this argument. It might be useful (if not already in the text (which i have not checked) explicitly to mention possession of Albania and the Dodecanese: I think Yugoslavia and Greece were in German hands Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Perfectly acceptable and encyclopedic. Italy did in some form or another control most of the Balkans coast (Yugoslavia and Greece). Part of the Yugoslav coast (Dalmatia) was annexed by Italy and the rest was under Italian military administration (though nominally part of various puppet states). Most of Greece was under Italian occupation, but the Germans were running the show on the whole, much more so than in Italian-occupied Yugoslavia, and were controlling strategic zones. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I like that version. If it grows too large, it can be split out later. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. And perhaps, as this is going so swimmingly, group hug?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeeeeey! :P -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Suggest we all meet on the panoramic sun terrace of the Wikipedia bar for beer and peanuts once the proposed changes are implemented. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll carve the turkey, then. Should we take any further editing discussion to the MN talk page, to keep things together? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we have to move to MN some time, don't we? :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When that has been done, might I suggest that this talk page should be archived. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)