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)

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)

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)

You really want me to bust Popovichi? What about Cherso? I don't see much point as long as you don't use them anymore. What about this IP? Are you heading back to the States soon? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand a word of this.

My question is: 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 very much. "Mr. Shut up and eat your spinach!"--87.28.126.85 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Now now, Bruno, the cat's out of the bag, and "I don't understand a word of this" is a poor attempt at a retraction, if I may say so. I'll send it to SSP now, since you have thrown down the gauntlet. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, for anyone who isn't a sock, the issue isn't the deletion proposal, but the merge proposal, from 29 May. The result of that was 4 in favour of merging what was useful with other articles, 1 against. So that was what was done. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I got brought here by the IP user. The result was keep. Why is this being unilaterally redirected? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AFDs are decided on arguments, not strictly on a count of votes. Whether a couple of the participants are or are not sockpuppets is immaterial. I have placed commetns on the protector's talk page and placed a copy below. I was not aware of the merge proposal, as I do not watch every page on where I comment on an AFD. In respect of that my vote is for Revert to pre-merger article, which should haowever be linked by a "main" template to this one. Indeed after a clear AFD decision, to reopen the question by measn of a merger proposal, smacks of bad faith. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. This wasn't a close decision, or a no consensus close. It was a pretty solid keep. The "merge" appears to be the addition of two paragraphs from this article, which is leaving behind quite a bit of uncited material. If those two paragraphs had been the only content back when it was AfDed, I would have !voted merge, and I bet many others would have as well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am yet to see any supporting arguments as to why 95% of the content of the article (military details and photographs) is actually relevant to an article on a political concept - see my post below. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This was already discussed at the AfD; that simple. Consensus was clearly in favor of retaining it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

After another look at it, my advice is this: if you think the merge is acceptable in light of the result of the AfD, take it to DRV. With so little of it being merged, it's tantamount to deletion anyway. Therefore, you're basically arguing that the consensus to keep was incorrect, so have it reviewed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note the comment below: "A 'keep' outcome at an AfD does not rule out a merge or redirect." Most of the people writing 'keep' responses were not arguing for inclusion of the whole article as-is, and you are misrepresenting their comments. The relevant portion of the article was preserved at Mare Nostrum. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Two things: 1) while I'm aware of the relative irrelevance of this point, it should be noted by all involved Users that the "Italian Mare Nostrum" article was created originally by a sockpuppeteer known for his strong (Italian) nationalist/irredentist views. 2) While the AfD did have a strong Keep vote, the argument was, by my error, not fully explained in my first post of the proposal, resulting in something of a misunderstanding. By reading my later clarifications of the deletion reason, one will see that the majority of the "Keepers" did not address the issue. Also three socks of the page's creator voted, and his IP is stirring up trouble again. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, again

The merge proposal was to move the political content to Mare Nostrum and the military content to Battle of the Mediterranean.

2 of the 4 paragraphs in the political section were moved to MN:

"Italian controlled sea shores" was moved to Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II

and everything in the military section was already covered, more completely and with more neutrality at BftM, so none of it was needed. (see Irrelevance… section below). Xyl 54 (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest that there should be a short article, in the nature of a disambiguation page pointing to ALL the destination articles, either here or added to Mare Nostrum. I still think it to be bad practice for editors, immeidately after an AFD to seek to acheive a different result from the AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to set red tape aside and do what's best to maintain the quality of the encyclopaedia. What you suggest would be a total misuse of a disambiguation page. You are essentially proposing a page entirely devoted to what normally resides in a "see also" section. This can be accomplished in the "mare nostrum" page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept your criticism, and would suggest that you or the other participants in this discussion ensure that all the relevant cross-references do in fact appear in Mare Nostrum. Contrary to the banter below, between Xyl and others, I am not a sockpuppet. I am a historian (with a doctorate), but this is not my period. I am therefore reluctant to participate in the actual editing myself, but will be watching what the rest of you do. I still think that the Mare Nostrum article is a little too brief compared to what was formerly in this one. I think that you might be able to add a little as to the failure of Mussolini's dreams, probably summarising the content of fuller articles and cross-referring to them. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Noone's accusing you of being a sock puppet, you're clearly an established editor. Agreed that the article is brief, but we must be careful not to stray into WP:OR as we are dealing with something that did not come to fruition. Besides, I don't think it matters if this article is brief - remember that an encyclopaedia article is not a thesis. What is there to say? Mare nostrum was a political term first used by the Romans then revived by the Italians. Combined with the articles on military history and the Italian colonial empire, the reader can make up their own mind on how far Mussolini's project got. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A sockpuppet!? I was referring to the IP that started all this again. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:25, 12 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)

Musolini's dream, though never realised, is in my view a potentially encyclopaedic subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protected for a week

... due to ongoing edit warring over the merge. Please establish consensus here about what, if anything, should be done with this article. If the editwarring recommences after the protection expires, blocks may ensue.  Sandstein  17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• The following appears on User:Sandstein's Talk page. However this is a bettero forum for the discussion:

What would you like me to do about Italian Mare Nostrum? I've protected it for now to stop the edit warring. A "keep" outcome at an AfD does not rule out a merge or redirect, if there is consensus for that.  Sandstein  17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I participated in the AFD discussion, but this is not my specialism. Some one else has drawn my attention to this warring, which appears to be the result of some one not accepting the outcome of the AFD, claiming the consensus was Merge rather than Keep. The proper whay to dispute the closure of an AFD is a deletion review, but that is not what has been done. Having decided that the outcome was to Keep, you should be protecting the full text of the article, not the redirect, and I would therefore suggest that you revert to the full article and protect that. During that period of protection, discussion can take place on its talk page as to what should happen. That is difficult while it is a redirect, becasue of the automatic transfer to the redirect destination. I know how to get around that but others may not. The addition of a paragraph to Mare Nostrum is also appropriate, but this should be linked by a "main" template to that on Italian Mare Nostrum. That is a much fuller article, dealing with the Italian Naval War in the Mediterranean guring WWII. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevance of 95% of the "old" Italian Mare Nostrum

Peterkingiron, please explain why an article on a political concept has to go into military details? How is a photo of a "Macchi C.205 Veltro of Regia Aeronautica" relevant? How is it relevant that there was an "attack on the British base at Suda Bay, Crete by destroyers Crispi and Sella, both transporting explosive motor boats: HMS York beached and abandoned and one oil tanker sunk"? Do we need to know that "The Italian fleet also took advantage of the situation and moved onto the offensive, blocking or decimating at least three large Allied convoys bound for Malta" in order to understand what the term means? Or that "The Italian Regia Aeronautica entered the war with 3296 airplanes (1332 Bombers and 1160 "Caccia", as were called the Fighters in Italian)", on a page about a political concept? Do we see this same irrelevance at Lebensraum? No, we do not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that if all the irrelevant military stuff is ignored, we're left with a couple of paragraphs that can be highly appropriately covered under a section entitled "Revival of the Mare Nostrum concept by Mussolini" at Mare Nostrum. The notion of having two articles on the same subject is a blatant content fork. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical analogy: an article about French national football team players (list of 23 of them involved in recent Euro 2008 campaign with descriptions of their abbilities, talents, careers, etc...) titled "European champions 2008". They didn't make it, so why this title? Well, French journalists and football fans were expecting it from their undoubtly high quality selection. "European champions" was phrase sporadically used in the newspapers to describe expectations of the French publics before competition. Can I write such article? Zenanarh (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to knock on the head any idea that the encyclopaedia has lost something here.

Most of the military section is derivative; it already exists elsewhere.

The "Regia Marina in the Italian Mare Nostrum" section for example (good NPOV title!) is copied verbatim from the history section of the Regia Marina article. The only changes are, 2 paragraphs about Allied successes deleted, and 2 places where “Axis” is changed to “Italian”; which is pretty revisionist.

And the "main battles in the IMN" section (how NPOV is that?) only covers Italian successes (also highly selective/POV).

Xyl 54 (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Xyl, this is just another "irredentist" sock stirring trouble again, believe me there are at least TEN of them all told, all coming from a couple of kids. Its all getting pretty routine by now, and there aren't any real arguments for non-merging. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi. I would like to understand the meaning of this:

For me keep is keep. Ciao.--88.81.169.138 (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Now, I notice that this is 'apparently' your first edit to Wikipedia. Forgive my suspicious nature, but you'd have us believe that you were just innocently perusing this encyclopedia, happened to stumble across this article, happened to notice this discussion at the bottom of its talk page, and felt you ought to give us the benefit of your opinion??? Is that about it? Well, please forgive me if I find that a little hard to believe.

What is it about you irridentists that makes you sock so much? Is it that nobody else agrees with you, so you try to pretend that one or two lonely voices are a whole crowd? Pathetic. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, your answer is Irridentist?--88.81.169.138 (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I know my share of Italians and they are, in my experience, great, modern people, just like everyone else. I could not believe such a proportion of Italian Wikipedians were nationalist freaks. I guess I should have figured its all a couple of fanatical kids... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And your answer is nationalist freak. Wonderful!--88.81.169.138 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes isn't it... lucky for me you're a sock so I can call you names :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

People, please stop with the accusation of bad faith. It's a dynamic IP; they could have contributed under other IPs. For example, it was User:87.28.126.85 who'd asked for me to post here after the AfD (both IPs resolve to Italy). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

• KEEP.For the same following reasons of the delete discussion:

• Keep, it's a genuine article on a genuine term of the time. NPOV is obviously tricky here, and a need to make changes could well be identified (if appropriate), but this is no candidate for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Even as a fascist propaganda tool it is a historical fact, well referenced. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article does not fail WP:POV. I agree that it is not about the ancient use of Mare Nostrum, and was in my opinion an unhistorically correct use of the term, but that is my POV (as well as, perhaps, that of the nominor). However this is a serious article about an aspect of Italian fascist propaganda. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not the best article I've ever read, but I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. It's pretty NPOV and is referenced. What's the problem? Coemgenus 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Well referenced; appears to be a real concept. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable period propaganda concept that helps explain Italian actions during WWII. Edward321 (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The following Web sites speak about Italian Mare Nostrum: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]...--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 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)
• 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: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]...--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)