Talk:Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Western Asia  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Duplicate references[edit]

Some of the books in the bibliography are duplicated. Is this an error?Keith-264 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure they are duplicates, and not different volumes? Hamish59 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ahem!Keith-264 (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Raw film footage of war should be allowed regardless of its origins.[edit]

Biased or opinionated sources See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources and Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources Shortcut: WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Italian propaganda film[edit]

I have reverted this twice. I do not want to fall afoul of WP:3RR. The presented film is Fascist Italian propaganda and is not a reliable source.Hamish59 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hamish, I think you are getting confused about what is a reliable source. The footage has not been used as a source for anything. Where in the article has it been cited or referenced.? It is simply a link to a YouTube clip that is freely available on the internet. Now, if I had quoted the footage and used it as evidence for an argument or point of view within the article, then that would constitute unreliability on the grounds that it was created as war time propaganda and therefore, violates the Wiki rule on biased sources. But even biased sources still have their place as long as the reader is made aware that it is inherently biased. Let's give the readers the benefit of the doubt here, shall we? Most readers are intelligent enough to realize that war time footage by any side, is biased. Besides Hamish, it's in Italian and most English readers wouldn't understand it anyway! It's the exciting visuals that they would be more interested in. You are free to include British and American footage if you like. I watch them regularly. As a reader, I know I would appreciate a link to them.AnnalesSchool (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
To avoid fragments conversations, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Italian war time footage, advise needed. Hamish59 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


Did a CE which got a bit elaborate. Happy to discuss.Keith-264 (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


Although the article uses British English, there are several places in which direct quotes of an American historian or the official US name for the theater occur. I have changed these instances (only) from "theatre" to "theater." --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bugger! I left them in. ;O) Some more sections could stand a severe pruning due to repetition and long-windednessKeith-264 (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we have the campaignboxes closeable?Keith-264 (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I can agree about th long windedness, it was various sections of duplicated articles - iirc - bolted together to show a campaign by campaign narrative that was then reorganized into a more chronological flow. Cutting, chopping, adding, and sourcing has been on the to do list!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that feelin'. Apropos the campaignboxes, it's Wiki not us apparently.Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)