User talk:Marco.natalino

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for updating the article on Debt. Steven Walling • talk 22:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cuito Cuanavale wording

Howzit,

I noticed some of your recent edits to Battle of Cuito Cuanavale reference the South African Defence Force's apparent philosophy of apartheid and white supremacy. Myself and most of the other contributors who regularly edit military history articles have an issue with this, not because we disagree with the facts but simply because talk about ideologies has little place in an article about a battle.

I'm going to propose we remove all references to ideologies from the lead of Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, including describing SWAPO as "Marxist-Leninist" and the SADF as "white supremacist". Note that most articles on military conflicts here omit excessive references to ideology (see, for example the Battle of the Bowling Alley...notice how we do not say "capitalist American", "anti-communist American", or "communist North Koreans". We simply state, "Americans" and "North Koreans".)

Part of that has to do with contentious wording, but it's also the fact that once we start mixing and matching a strictly tactical summary of a battle with a political discussion we start losing focus about what we're really supposed to be summarising. If you want to edit in information about the SADF's beliefs or philosophy, do it at South African Defence Force instead.

Again, this has more to do with Wikipedia precedents and the generally accepted layout of existing articles rather than any attempt to whitewash or deny apartheid.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Katangis. I suppose this must be tiresome to you and others. I am tired already of discussing this. Now, I believe you agree, the community of users that have helped make wikipedia a good starting point for information on military history is not supposed to be insulated. Excessive references to ideology should be suppressed in the name of good prose, of course. But, on this case, as in other historical cases (the most obvious being nazi germany, but there are others), such references help the reader understand the subject at hand better. Also, as is the case with that particular article, the very interest of the military event is intertwined with its historical-political interest (that is the reason the Cold War is discussed there, btw). I believe that it was with a good intention that someone first mentioned the marxist quality of FAPLA. If I didn`t know Angola history, I would like that information to be in the article. The same goes for SADF. So I will revert the change. Regarding the SADF article, I found it well written. Now, if you or others have an issue with the concept of white supremacy, I suggest you discuss it in the homonymous article.

Regardless of whether or not the SADF was a white supremacist force, my point stands that apartheid - and indeed, the concept of white supremacy - had nothing whatsoever to do with the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. It had nothing to do with the actual battle, how many casualties there were, or how where the fighting took place. So that's why I'm proposing we exclude it accordingly.

On a related note, I don't believe you really read the SADF article, because it makes explicit mention of the fact that there were many nonwhite officers and black soldiers in the army of the day. Just a heads up. --Katangais (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Marco.natalino. You have new messages at Katangais's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		I spotted your comment on Katangais's talk page and looked at a number of your contributions, all of which struck me as thoughtful, constructive, and worthwhile, without clamouring for attention. Therefore, this is the barnstar for you! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. (Please remember to sign your talk page messages, though!) zazpot (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]