Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/History

Hi,

I am finding a lot of bias against the Italian involvement in WW2. The bias appears endemic and systemic. I think the bias stems from these areas:

1. A heavy Anglo-American perspective.

2. The use of authors/historians/writers who are bias.

3. A type of advocacy approach to history writing, in which the Wiki editor is trying to build a case for something, like how and why the Italian military failed in an attack, an incursion, a strategy or some other endeavor. This advocacy approach often means cherry pickling information that will help "win" the editor's argument, and ignoring other material that may actually prove the contrary.

4.Quoting and paraphrasing biased authors as a type of defense to bias. Just because "an author said it or wrote it" doesn't make it right or suitable to the article. The excuse: "but I've read several books about that battle, and they all say the same thing - the Italian invasion was a fiasco!" But if the secondary sources one is using are themselves already biased and ill informed and often borrow and paraphrase each other like parrots, then whether you quote one book or 50 really makes no difference. If I read 50 books written by Klu Klux Klan members about blacks, and they all pretty much say the same thing, have I actually read wisely? Does it prove my argument that all blacks are inferior because, well... I read 50 books and they all agree!

5. I mentioned the word "fiasco". In reading many of the articles dealing with the Italian involvement, "fiasco" is certainly one word that keeps cropping up. But there are many others like:

"a disaster", "incompetent", "imbecilic", "military incompetence", "treacherous surrender", "abject surrender", "rout" (as if the British didn't have their fair share of this!), "lack of will", "harebrained plan", "the singularly inglorious record of the Italians in what little fighting they had done ... facilitated German policy" and on and on... .

AnnalesSchool (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * With all respect, this is not particularly unusual. Italy is actually lucky, in many respects, that it has existant articles which can be biased. If I may:


 * 1) This is surely not surprising. Wikipedia is not for Righting great wrongs but instead for reflecting the current scholarship. From a strictly academic perspective, virtually all Wikipedia's articles stink because they are written as if there is a "true version" of events (hardly postmodern...). Basically, Wiki reflects the sources it's based on and, while I know that's irritating, until the Anglophone scholarship changes, there's no prospect of any kind of across-the-board change.
 * 2) Ditto. But unless they don't meet WP:RS (i.e. aren't neo-Nazi/racists - there's still plenty of Richard Landwehr on SS articles...), there's nothing anyone can do about it except re-write it with the sources you believe to be better.
 * 3) This is fundamental to the whole wiki project and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
 * 4) See point 2. KKK sources would not meet WP:RS, but if these authors don't have any formal or biased allegiance, then you're actually arguing against the academic consensus.
 * 5) WP:BEBOLD and deal with it, this should be fairly easy to avoid...
 * Practical suggestion: why don't you produce an umberella article ("Italy in World War II") for example, in which you work with "better" sources. This would allow you to hopefully get your point across while still being a manageable sized project... Brigade Piron (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Brigae Piron. I;m pretty new at Wiki editing, so you can imagine my shock, when I started getting involved. I'm also university trained in history and teach it, so it came as a bit of a double shock. I don't mean to sound superior, and I am sure the editors are doing their best, as it is all voluntary and takes plenty of time, to create articles like the "Italo-Greek War" for example. Even though I teach history, I don't claim to be an expert on WW2. There are far more knowledgeable editors around who really know their stuff: who attacked whom, the number and size of tanks involved, the strategic objectives and types of artillery used, etc,. So I don't claim to be an expert in that way. But I do know bad history when I see it. I recognize bias and glossing over when I see it. For example, it isn't enough to write that a certain battle was a "fiasco". Why was it a "fiasco"? How do you define "fiasco"? and who or what are you comparing it to? Too often, editors will take a statement from a secondary source, like a German one for example, where the German general is blaming the Italians for a defeat. They would take a statement like: "Italians make good wine, but are poor soldiers", quote it, give it a citation and a reference, and then hold it up as "evidence" of yet another Italian failure. They don't seem to even imagine other possibilities such as: a)the author may have made it up; b)the author may have misquoted or taken it out of context; c)the German general was looking for a scapegoat and blamed the Italians for his incompetence, etc,. One Wiki editor was fond of quoting from the Ciano diaries, especially when Count Ciano was describing Mussolini in unflattering terms, as that "strutting dictator" being "jealous" of Hitler's successes. When I suggested that there was no need to use such quotes because it added nothing to the article in question, he took great offense and exclaimed: "But that's what Ciano wrote!" I replied that there is some suspicion that it may not have been what he wrote because the diaries were tampered with, he was speechless.

Finally I will just finish with this point. The articles dealing with the Italian involvement almost invariably stress the so-called "weaknesses" almost to the point of fetishism. The equipment was poor; the tanks were without adequate armor; the artillery was obsolete; lack of motor transport, the troops were demoralized and lack the will to fight, the officers were incompetent, communications were poor, Mussolini was a buffoon who didn't know what he was doing, etc,. However, these things may be true to a point, but why continue to stress the Italian military's weaknesses, and not their strengths and successes. There is this incredible double standards, where even if the Italians do have some successes, they are still portrayed as failures, and if not failures, the Germans must have helped them, and if they can't find any Germans, then the Italians must have just got lucky that day.

And finally again, there is this unfair comparison with the Germans. For example, one editor compared the German conquest of France to the very modest gains the Italians achieved in southern France. Two totally different scenarios and war aims, and quite unfair to compare. They just don't seem to understand that the Italian military effort should be seen in the context of Italian politics, industrial base and culture. Germany was in an entirely different league. It's like comparing a light-weight boxer unfavorably to a heavy-weight one; who in their right mind would blame the light-weight boxer for not beating the heavy-weight?

I'm afraid to say that there is a strong undertone of prejudice against the Italian that borders on racism pure and simple. The language, the structure and content, reflect it.

AnnalesSchool (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I can see from some of the comment, some of this is directed at myself. The following diff highlights AnalesSchool's academic background and his own lack of bias: if you do not agree with his interpretation "you really have it in for the Italians, don't you? Look, why not give the "eyeties" a bit of a rest and flog the Hungarians, or even better, the Bulgarians! They were members of the Axis too. So how about it? Can you give those poor dago bastards a bit of a break? Please."
 * AnnalesSchool, as since he started editing on the wiki, complained about bias against the Italians, but has done little to actually back his claims up. His standard argument is that there is an over reliance on Anglo-American sources and that is the problem (although ironically, he often quotes an American historian as evidence of all the other Anglo-American historians problems. The historian he uses as been labelled a revisionist and noted for taking the evidence too far than it can support). However, as the following diff will highlight he removes Italian sources that also talk about the problems the Italians faced during the war. Yes there may be problems with Ciano, however not a single source thus far seen supports AnnalesSchool's assertion that anything bad he has to say about the Italians is a post-war fabrication. He has created quite a list of quotes of historians who he claims are bias, although some of the ones he has quoted are leading world-renown historians, and he has provided little evidence to suggest they are wrong or historians who have called them wrong. His own version of presenting a balanced argument is the following, where practically everything ever written on the Italian invasion into France is ignored for an obscure book on the Italian economy during the war and post-war years written by economic historians. When asked to provide a full quote and context, he refuses. So AnnalesSchool can say a lot about being academically trained and seeking to route out bias, but his actions speak louder than his words. He is replacing what he calls bias, with his own which lacks the consensus of the majority of historians.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me state from the outset I am not Italian. If anything, my ancestors come from Scandinavia, so I have no axe to grind here. I teach history, but I am no expert on WW2. But I do know biased and poorly written history when I see it. I stand by my assertions above. The Italian war effort, when compared to the Hungarians and the Bulgarians, is certainly put under the microscope and "dissected" piece by piece. One example: when the Italian king sacked and arrested Mussolini, and began to sue for peace with the Allies in 1943, there is no end to describing it as the cowardly surrender, the stab in the back, the basest treachery ever committed in the history of warfare! However, the Hungarians were looking for a way out too, and when under Horty, they tried to open up negotiations with the Allies, Hitler invaded and installed a puppet regime. But this is a good example of double standards: the Hungarians are allowed to surrender, but when it comes to the Italians, it's described as the "basest treachery" and further proof (if proof was needed), of Italian perfidy. And yet, these so-called "historians" overlook the fact that Mussolini remained loyal to Hitler, right to the end, when he set up his north Italian regime.

Enigma is a very good example of this type of writer. His one page "analysis": (30% of the article itself- Italian invasion of France) is disjointed and incoherent. It reads like the closing argument of a prosecuting barrister. It brings in quote after quote such as "overwhelming historical consensus", the invasion was a "fiasco" (they really love this word!), "ignominious", and all the other stock phrases such writers use. As proof of how gutless the Italians were, they had the temerity to "bypass" a fort and go on to take the city of Menton. Rather than see the "bypass" as common sense, this author sees it as further proof of Italian timidity! God help the troops if Enigma was their general! "No men, we can't bypass that heavily fortified bastion. That would be seen as cowardice! We must attack it head on!"

Another example of how bad his analysis is and how bad the whole article is. The French called an armistice to cease fighting the Italians. Therefore, the French were never defeated. But isn't an armistice a sign of defeat? By this logic, the Germans never defeated the French too.

Another example: on the 20th June, the Italians attacked (some Wiki articles mention the 10th June, but heck, what's 10 days, eh? - 10th, 20th, it's Wiki precision!). By the 25th June the French call it quits and ask for an armistice with the Italians. As a reader, I would be thinking, "Hey, that's not bad going. In five days of fighting, the French sued for peace with the Italians. Also, they received a number of concessions from the French. Not bad going for 5 days of fighting at the cost of 700 dead." Rather than look at the "end result" and ask the question: did the Italians gain from this attack, they look at it from the wrong end of the telescope and dissect in loving detail, the "means". They get caught up in so much useless detail (like gratuitous quotes from Ciano), they lose focus on the important issues. This looking down the wrong end of the telescope only produces articles with lots of "detail" but somewhere along the way, they lose themselves in this forest of detail. In other words, they have the "pieces" of the toy airplane, but assemble it looking like an elephant.

And yet, the achievements of the Italians are slighted and ignored and given short shrift.

I am seriously considering writing a new wiki article warning wiki readers about such wiki articles, and to take what is written with a teaspoon of salt. Better still, I would try to encourage visitors to Wikipedia, NOT to read such articles. AnnalesSchool (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet again AnnalesSchool highlights his own bias and provides no sources to back up his assertions. Anything that attempts to inform the reader of what the historical consensus is (that the Italian invasion was not a military success, and that the armistice demands had to be lowered due to a variety of reasons stemming from the lack of success) is "incoherent". Rather, he argues. that the article should reflect what an amazing achievement the attack into France was, despite the fact that "Anglo-American" and Italian historians all agree to the contrary (apart from an obscure economic history that he refuses to fully quote).
 * Rather, the article should highlight how in 25 days the Italians forced the French into surrender. Yet AnnalesSchool fails to highlight (and in fact the changed the article to reflect his bias) that while the Italians declared war on the 10th, and launched minor attacks, their main offensive did not start until the 20th (by which point the French had already requested an armistice).
 * You can continue to launch personal attacks on me all you want, all they are straw man arguments. The analysis reflects what the historical consensus is, not my own personal opinion nor a fringe theory that the invasion was a complete success. Likewise, I have contributed to articles covering Italian forces before, which once finished presented the historical consensus of their actions during the battle. Anglo-American and German sources, some of which are sources you have already lambasted for being racist and pseudo-histories (again your own opinion), calling the Italian troops well-trained, brave, and having fought with great courage. So you can stick you unfounded accusations of racism.
 * As I said on the talk page for the article in mention: take your own advise, take a step back and reflect for a moment. You should eventually realize that your attitude and your own cherry-picking of sources is replacing one bias (or so you claim) with another.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Enigma, I am not attacking you personally at all. I am questioning and criticizing your articles like The Invasion of France. You claim I should be producing my own evidence to the contrary. I already have contributed in a small way. However, you are the expert, not I! I am asking you to do your job better. In fact I am going to present to you a challenge: and it is this:

After completing a section on the many weaknesses and failures of the Italian military, I would like you to sit back, reflect and balance your arguments by including evidence of Italian successes, whether they be political, economic, strategic or diplomatic. Do you accept my challenge?AnnalesSchool (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You are not attacking me personally? You have already insinuated that I am a racist, anti-Italian, you have called my editing incoherent, not to mention the sarcastic quips. Considering you claim to be academically trained, I am surprised that irony eludes you.
 * Your own contributions have been nothing but vandalism. Your challenge is yet another distracting straw man, I am not editing the article by inflicting my own personal interpretation upon it. The article is getting built on what historians have said. Talking of which, and before you are more than likely banned for edit warring, when are you going to provide a full quote - and the context behind - to the economic historian who believes (despite every other historian disagreeing) that the Italian invasion was a complete success (thus providing "balance"?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Enigma, I believe that your articles are heavily biased against the Italian war effort, verging on racism. Just merely quoting a list of sources, isn't enough. It's how you structure it. But I am sure you are doing the best you can, in the way you think is best. Regarding that economic historian, it is really up to you to produce the evidence that I have intentionally misquoted it. I'm not here to do your bidding.AnnalesSchool (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I implore you to go and look up what racism means. According to you, any historian who calls the Italian military unprepared is a racist.
 * As for the source, I have already identified the problems with it: it is a economic history that, from the intro, does not deal with the military side of the war. You have refused to provide a direct quote, or context. Considering your misrepresentation of sources, as highlighted by other editors, your distortions of facts to suit yourself, and the comments you have made elsewhere suggesting an outright change of established historical consensus based on no evidence, everything points to you needing to back up what you have stated not just dodge around the issue. So much for attempting to banish bias, when you will not even work towards that goal.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Bible stories represented as "History"
There is a consensus that the Bible is a "reliable source". I can't take this talk of "Countering systemic bias" seriously. Keith McClary (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Edits to counter systemic bias are needed. There is one section 'Transition to civilization' at Human article containing a template that requires compatibility with systemic bias since May, 2015 or a year. The section repeats the word Western or West five times in the section. The section contains disproportional coverage towards specific regions dealing primarily with the West and not representing a worldwide view. Since no solution occured for a large period of time, optimization attempts on the text are requested here, or otherwise blanking of the section as the transition to civilization is already described in the intro, as well as its aspects throughout the article. Have a look. Thanks. 2001:B01:2401:0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)