Talk:Italian Mare Nostrum

If this was actually...

If this was actually used in propaganda, what was the Italian gloss? "Il mare nostrum italiano"? – Kaihsu 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Starace, Dino Grandi, Ciano and other fascist leaders used the words "Italian Mare Nostrum" when communicated with the English (and American) Embassy in Rome, according to the english historian Dennis M. Smith in his books on Mussolini and Fascism. Even Richard Lamb in his book "Mussolini as Diplomat" (Fromm International Editors, London, 1999 ISBN 088064244 0) writes that the "...Italian Mare Nostrum was used by the Duce as a diplomatic propaganda in 1942...". Regards.--Brunodam 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HMS Queen Elizabeth (Queen Elizabeth-class battleship).jpg

Image:HMS Queen Elizabeth (Queen Elizabeth-class battleship).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this article supposed to be?

The idea of reviving "mare nostrum" was being floated around before Mussolini was even born, in the 1870s. So what is this article supposed to be about? It seems to be a bizarre collection of information, with a "belligerents" list, a list of areas controlled by Italy, a list of battles fought in the waters of mare nostrum, and then some random photographs. Fine, if this article is about the historical concept of mare nostrum, but as it stands it is just a random page with a lot of information that does not belong here. I am tempted to nominate this article for deletion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is non-existent as a fascist propaganda tool, capitalizing on the old "Mare Nostrum" tendencies of Italian irredentism that never materialized. The real existence of an Italian "zone of control" is extremely doubtful considering real WW2 events were a string of Italian strategic defeats. The article is just another in a series of articles trying to increase the appearance of Italian control over Dalmatia, Corsica, Malta, and the Mediterranean sea as a whole. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm even more minded to nominate for deletion after reading your comment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Italy never achieved the control over the area that they claimed doesn't reduce the notability of the historical term. At most it shifts it from the well-filled list of "areas of battle" into the rather narrower but perhaps more interesting list of "claims for propaganda purposes" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article title can be compared to something like "German Greater Reich", or "Greater German Lands" in Nazi Germany. The real history of the Mediterranean War is that of a list of stalemates and minor Italian losses, interrupted now and again by a really catastrophic defeat (the Battles of Taranto and Cape Matapan being more famous examples). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think, Brunodam will respond. Should we nominate? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable, this is for speedy deletion. Zenanarh (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Its more comparable with Pax Britannica than anything, perhaps the article name is at fault.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article was on the general concept of mare nostrum, both in the Latin usage and then in the Italian revival usage, that would be fine, but it's really just a rambling list of "stuff that happened inside the place that Mussolini called 'our sea'". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mare Nostrum is a Roman idea, as far as I remember, and was revived by Italian irredentists and again Mussolini. The article text addresses only Mussolini's use and does not talk about it as an idea, or propaganda tool, but an actual existing territorial entity, which is laughable. The title is incorrect as well (it should be simply "Mare Nostrum" if we were trying to really address the phrase's historical use). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mare Nostrum (our sea) and Mare Internum (inner sea) were terms used by the Romans in the Roman Empire Ages, concerning Mediterranean Sea. AFAIK these terms were not official or administrative names of it, it was only in vernacular usage, but became popular or known as many other Latin phrases, terms or names. Here it's not related to all Mediterranean.

Italian nazi expansionism in WWII was fed in large part by ideas of forming something similar to the Roman Empire and supposed "rights" of the "Italian" people on half of Europe, just because it was under control of the Roman Legions 2.000 years ago. This article text is rubbish - "glorification" of an army mostly known for its defeats (in some cases very funny defeats) hidden under such revived term from Antiquity (enriched with Italiana) is nothing but neo-nazi propaganda - reffering to the territories of the neighbbouring countries, BTW it's edited by an user whose almost all contributions are of irredentistic nature.

If this article is about naval forces of Fascistic Italia it should be named properly... in that case it would be nice to read here about glorious escaping maneuver of 3 Italian battleships (the biggest in the world in that moment) who sank all in the same time because of its "fantastic" navigation characteristics :)

Whatever, name, map with inserted borders of "Italian Mare nostrum" and finally text about the navy is... what... ? Zenanarh (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, objectively speaking, Italian exploits in the Mediterranean are one of the most comical episodes of WW2, obviously if one ignores the tragic aspect of it. I can't remember any victory of the Italian navy or Air force in the Mediterranean Sea, at all, if we exclude the daring raids by their human torpedoes.

Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, I don't think we'll get a talkpage response, would you nominate for deletion? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of large sections

I consider the deletion by Ravichandar84 of large sections of an article that's already tagged with AfD to be a highly partisan act and far from good faith. [1] [2] I would revert these changes, except that I have no wish to start what would obviously become an edit war. These sections are detailed and well-referenced. They may possibly be irrelevant to the article, but that's a subject for consensus, not for unilateral immediate and complete removal, particularly not at such a contentious time. The same editor had already tagged them as NPOV, yet deleted them anyway, a manner which is far from how such NPOV issues are supposed to be resolved by consensus before acting. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of "decorum" it is probably wrong to do whilst an AfD is open. However, if we are concerned with having a good encyclopaedia, I fully support the material that was removed. It was total and utter guff. Total and utter guff. To pick a few sentences, how is this relevant, at all to the concept of mare nostrum? "The Italian Regia Aeronautica entered the war with 3296 airplanes (1332 Bombers and 1160 "Caccia", as were called the Fighters in Italian) distributed in all the Italian Empire, but only 1796 were in perfect fighting conditions. Most were old "wood" models, and could not match the British aircraft in 1940." Just because something is detailed and well-referenced does not mean it is relevant or worthy of inclusion: often, quite the opposite. There are only two things this article should discuss: (1) Roman usage of "mare nostrum" (2) Italian revival of the term, both in the 1870s and under Mussolini. For details on Italy during WW2, link to the relevant articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all forgetting that "Mare Nostrum", though translated as "Our Sea", does not mean "sea under Italian (or Roman) control", but is another name for the whole of the Mediterranean. In other words, Italian "Mare Nostrum" never really existed, and in WW2 terms can only be viewed as a fascist propaganda tool or catchphrase. Largely unsuccessful Italian military exploits in the Mediterranean are not relevant when discussing what was little more than a fascist catchphrase and unrealized dream. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge

Where, out of interest, is the discussion of the redirecting of this article to Mare Nostrum? I see someone's done a ring-around-a-rosie of discussion pages and redirects, but I can't see a proper discussion anywhere which in light of the "Keep" verdict on the AfD is odd to say the least. --Harlsbottom (talk | library)

Noone was interested in discussion apparently, the merge template was there for days. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The merge tag was added on this article less than forty-eight hours ago; you think that counts as "days"? That aside, you could have at least made a statement on the merge discussion. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 12:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could have, but I must've explained the whole thing a number of times in the deletion discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this is out of order. This is not the way we should do things. As the outcome is probably what I would have sought, I do not want my name attached to this kind of action. You need to to put things back the way they were, make a statement of intent, and set a reasonable deadline. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(copy to User talk:DIREKTOR)

I think that it's important to remember that the top priority here is to have a quality encyclopaedia, not to get bogged down in procedural detail and rules. Perhaps Harlsbottom and Xyl54 could begin by suggesting what parts of the ex-Italian Mare Nostrum article - [3] should be readded to Mare Nostrum? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted redirect. I agree, consensus is necessary in this. Should I copy-paste the reasons from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Mare Nostrum? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem is I don't see why there need be ONE Mare Nostrum article. I would have Mare Nostrum as an outline of the concept and then have an "Italian Mare Nostrum" and a "Roman Mare Nostrum" article. I understand perfectly your above stated desire "to have a quality encyclopædia". I happen to think that quality referenced articles could be written on both subjects. I fully recognise that the previous incarnation was full of "guff", but there is enough academic materiel out there for a decent article to be produced. And if you want a quality encyclopædia I just don't think one Mare Nostrum page will be enough.

And DIREKTOR, I read your comments on the AFD and while of course it made perfect sense, I fail to see a consensus on following through on it. My apologies, DIREKTOR, I just saw the revert. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about two separate articles: the very fact that mare nostrum was a Roman term revived by Italians is the sine qua non, so an Italian Mare Nostrum article must begin by stating its origins, which is going to basically duplicate the Roman Mare Nostrum one. And, how much mileage can you really get out of one mare nostrum article, let alone a separate Roman and Italian "mare nostrum"? It was just a loaded term, after all, it wasn't an ideology in and of itself. The ideology of the Italians thinking of themselves as the successors to the Romans, and where this slotted into their imperialist ambitions, should really be dealt with in Italian Colonial Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed what I consider the "guff" to be, and the references associated with the guff [4]. Anyone disagree with that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t is right. "Mare Nostrum" was just vernacular Latin phrase reffering to the Meditteranean Sea under control of the Romans during Antiquity, one concept copied later by Italian nationalists and fascists in their propaganda. How many relevant articles can be written about it? Let's be real. How many articles can be written about next Latin phrases: Anno Domini, de Facto, deux ex machina, et hoc genus omne, et tu Brute?, festina lente, Gloria Patri, homo homini lupus, Magna Europa est Patria Nostra, Mea Culpa, Tempora Heroica, etc... from List of Latin phrases (full), which includes Mare Nostrum too. For example: should we write seperate new article for every case in history when sombody repeated that well known et tu Brute? (And you Brutus?). If that's so, God help us. Zenanarh (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another reason for the merge would be that the Italian Mare Nostrum did not actually exist. Also, the phrase used by Mussolini was not "Italian Mare Nostrum", but simply "Mare Nostrum". (No objections to the removal of the guff, all that is irrelevant in an article about a phrase and is covered much better in other articles.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want these actions to be beyond reproach

My proposal for a merge would be (or I agree to) moving anything of value in the "MN of Mussolini" section to Mare Nostrum (which is probably the 2 paragraphs already repeated there), and move anything of value in the 2 "Battle.." sections to Battle of the Mediterranean (which is probably precious little), and I’m happy if whatever is left is deleted.

But I also think anyone with a different view should have a chance to say something, and I suggest a time limit of one week for this. Then there’s no room for argument at all. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll happily go with a deadline. It would be nice if someone with a detailed understanding of these things weighed in though - I have a good grasp on Roman and Italian Fascist history but Is uspect compared to the original author of the article.

Zenanarh, with all due respect, I think your point above is rather useless. Yes, Mare Nostrum may be a vernacular Latin phrase, but, as I thought would have become blatantly obvious by now, it achieved a cultural significance on two separate occasions. You can not possibly lump Mare Nostrum with all the other Latin phrases you mentioned, which are either one-offs "Et tu, Brute?" or very common sayings. How often is Latin used for political or social gain nowadays? --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 11:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it was sarcasm, maybe useless, my apologise. The best part is already written at this talk page. BTW it achieved a cultural significance on two separate occasions is a little bit shaky. Actually it achieved a cultural significance on one (1st) occasion (Antiquity). Then this term was reflection of reality and became known and popular. In 2nd occasion (19th century irredentism) and 3rd (WWII) it was used only in political pamphlets, absolutely not related to reality. As already said here, Italian MN simply didn't exist in the Mediterranean in 40's of 20th cent. Zenanarh (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Zenanarh, sorry. My understanding is that "Italian" Mare Nostrum formed a part of the burgeoning nationalism which occured in Italy at the turn of the 20th Century. D'Annunzio was already writing of a new Mare Nostrum before the First World War, and later acted on it by occupying the port of Fiume to try and claim it for Italy. The journal of the Italian Naval league, a semi-governmental organisation established in 1897, was named Mare Nostrum and was subscribed to by a great many nationalists. What I'm getting at is that the initial scope of this article had it all wrong. Instead of focussing on the Second World War where the RM achieved little, this article would focus on the nearly 40 years of burgeoning nationalist/fascist feeling in Italy. Quite apart from the political side, we have the very real rebuilding and expansion of the Regia Marina, which did not happen with or after the establishment of the "Italian Empire" in '36. A cursory glance at the sources available on the Internet tells me there's enough for a full-blown article here, which can be both relevent and interesting. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything which you mention, Harlsbottom, should appear on the Italian Colonial Empire page. "Mare nostrum" wasn't an end in itself - it was just a phrase used in propaganda. It should simply suffice to mention on this article when and where it was used, and a few quotes here and there, but the meat should be in articles that discuss Italian nationalism/colonialism. Analogy: Pax Britannica and British Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I add that there are also other articles covering the rest, like Regia Marina and others (concerning WWII). I must repeat, we are editing an encyclopedia: the key words of this article are: Mare Nostrum. A reader, who wants to read about it, must receive information about phrase and its usage, but nothing more. The rest is covered by at least ten other articles. We don't have to copy content of one article (ie Italian Colonial Empire) to another differently titled (ie Mare Nostrum) since we have links for that. The nearly 40 years of burgeoning nationalist/fascist feeling in Italy focused under title Mare Nostrum would be more poetic than encyclopedic approachment. Zenanarh (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One final hurrah I suppose; "nooone objected or provided reasons why it should not be merged". I would have thought the above was testament to the fact that someone did object and give reasons why. Would any reasons have been good enough to save the article from being merged? --Harlsbottom (talk | library)

There are plenty of good reasons. There are 22000 bites of good reasons, reduced to the teenager stupidity of "nooone objected or provided reasons why it should not be merged". What about the posts of Harlsbottom? He doesn't exist? And all those who posted against deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.16.9 (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to completely ignore this guy, he's banned. It's just another sock of a banned irredentist User (namely User:Brunodam/Marigiove/Giovanni Giove) trying to write his opinion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I guessed as much from his edit history and had gone as far as to remove his very uncivil comment, but someone felt it important enough to be put back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, case closed it would seem. I've had worse abuse hurled at me on discussion pages before which are still on record. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 02:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge, again

(I've separated this, because it looks like we are abouot to have this argument again. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

I have reverted the ABUSE of merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.224.112 (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here? Can everyone who is edit scrapping on this page bring their argument to the talk page? The consensus in the discussion above was to merge: that has been done; what's the objection now? And who is making it? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We have the odd spectacle of a couple of IP addresses, exercising their right not to open accounts, but nonetheless fighting tooth and nail to keep this Wikipedia article. Who are they exactly, one wonders. Meanwhile, as if the result of the AfD was not clear enough already, I'd like to point up the participation in it of three socks, ItaliaIrridenta, Luigi 28 and Popovichi all of whom voted keep. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, see here:[5]

Keep:

1. Ravichandar
2. User:Andy Dingley
3. User:Richhoncho
4. User:Peterkingiron
5. User:Coemgenus
6. User:JeremyMcCracken
7. User:ItaliaIrredenta - First sock
8. User:Edward321
9. User:Luigi 28 - Second sock
10. User:Rjecina
11. User:Popovichi - Third sock?

Delete, Merge or Redirect:

1. User:DIREKTOR
2. User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
3. User:AlasdairGreen27
4. User:Xyl 54
5. User:Zenanarh

The result of the AfD discussion was: "The result was keep [my emphasis]. 8 vs. 5.

Please, show me the consensus to redirect, merge or delete. Thank you.

"Popovichi -> sock?"... where is the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please?--87.28.126.85 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, IP 87, I have no idea who you really are, but it seems pretty clear that you are no casual newcomer to this project who has just kind of decided not to bother having an account. And yes, Popovichi is a sock who has edit warred to keep on an article an image that was created by my old friend Bruno. Other than one rogue edit since, Bruno retired him after the 19 June when I politely pointed out that Popovichi had been uncovered. So shut up about Popovichi.

Next, if you want to talk about the AfD which had so many smelly socks in attendance, let's look at what the closure actually said. It said "The result was keep. Few if any problems have been asserted with respect to this article that cannot be addressed through rewriting, merging or redirecting it [my emphasis]. These actions do not require deletion". Thus, explicit consensus to merge or redirect.

Now, perhaps you might do us the courtesy of telling us who you really are, as it is absolutely damn clear from your behaviour that you are not simply "IP 87". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bruno old chum, forgive my slowness, but I've finally twigged that it's you. It's your habit of spelling 'italian' with a small 'i' that gives you away. How are you these days? In Italy on your hols, or is it business? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said! My name is: "Shut up and eat your spinach!" :-))). But... I repeat: "Popovichi --> sock?": where is the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP)? Then read here, please: [[6]]: "Keep". Thank you for your kind attention.--87.28.126.85 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to IP 87...

Re this [7], no, as a historical fact Mussolini's dream never existed, it never came to reality, and not a single one of those Google hits claims that it does. Oh, sorry, with the lone exception of the Wikipedia article. End of story. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)