Talk:Second Battle of Sirte/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Substantial Victory?

The introduction calls this battle "a substantial victory for the Italians," but nowhere does the article explain why the battle should be counted as an Italian victory, let alone a substantial one. Since the Royal Navy succeeded in getting its convoy through to Malta, and the Italians failed to stop said convoy, perhaps this battle should be judged a victory for the British, albeit a costly one given the damage to the escorts and the losses inflicted by later Axis air attacks. (Kraken7 02:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Every cargo ship in the convoy was sunk. That's a substantial victory by any measure. The only potential source of complaint I see is is that it isn't really "Italian" but "Axis". Maury03:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're both right! The convoy was a failure, although some supplies were landed - but the sinkings were by air attack in Valletta Harbour - not by the Italian Fleet. If this article is about the naval battle, then the Italians, once again, failed to defeat an inferior allied force and failed in its objective. What is the scope?Folks at 137 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If sinking cargo ships is the measure of victory, then how many did the Regia Marina sink? And how many did the Regia Marina damage, with said damage contributing directly to their later sinking by German aircraft? According to the article, the answers are zero and zero, thanks to the courage and initiative of the Royal Navy's heavily outgunned escort force. On the other hand, since most of the escorts had to turn back to Alexandria after the battle and the convoy was thus deprived of those ships' anti-aircraft support, the Regia Marina may have contributed indirectly to the sinking of Clan Campbell. But that's one cargo ship, not four. Regarding the success or failure of convoy MW10, a convoy by definition is responsible for the safety of its charges only while at sea. Since three of the four ships made it to port, the convoy was a success (that is, assuming Clan Campbell was not larger than the remaining ships combined or that Clan Campbell's cargo was no more valuable than that of the remaining ships combined). Off-loading the surviving ships and defending them from air attack was the responsibility of Malta's stevedores and defense forces, not the convoy. Also, the fate of the individual ships in convoy MW10 once they reached port seems beyond the scope of this article, whose subject is a naval battle. (Kraken7 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

• From the point of view of the Italian Fleet, the battle definitely wasn't a "substantial victory" to the Italians in any way.

However, almost all sources agree that, had the Italian Battleship and Cruisers remained at anchor, or had the Italian ships failed to make contact with the convoy, the British delivery of supplies would be completed according to schedule, namely, before sunrise. This disruption of the Royal Navy plans, along with the damage inflicted upon the escorting units, made the cargo ships an easy prey for the German and Italian torpedo-bombers the morning after the battle. The only cargo ship to make Malta undamaged by the bombs was theTalabot, largely overdue from the original timetable. All the other were hit in some degree by axis aircraft BEFORE reaching the harbour (not just Clan Campbell, which means that the Royal Navy was still responsible for the steamers fate), further hampering the escorts effort to disembark the supplies in time. Also from the naked tactical point of view, by putting out of action three destroyers (HMS Havoc,Kingston and Lively) and one AA cruiser (HMS Cleopatra), with the loss of more than 40 seamen, the clash was "won" by the Italians, who suffered zero casualties. So, despite the remarkable skills of the British units to save the merchantment from an attacking Battleship, the naval engagement should be considered a marginal victory to the Italians. On the other hand, had the British deceived their enemy or in some way avoid major contact with the Italians in open seas (i.e. using a decoy force to engage the Italians with the convoy continuing its march according to schedule) and reached La Valetta at dark, yes, the Royal Navy success would be undeniable. DagosNavy 00:52 February 28 2007 (UTC)

"Almost all sources"? Which sources are those?Kraken720:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• You can read general texts about the war in the Mediterranean I already mentioned (Bragadin, Greene & Massignani, Sandkovich). All of them agree with that. Even sources written from an exclusive British point of view (See Woodman, Richard: Malta Convoys, 1940-1943 or Thomas, David A.: Malta Convoys) acknowledge the strategic failure of the Royal Navy in this operation, triggered by the intervention of the Regia Marina. The latter authors also assert that the only merchant vessel to enter the Grand Harbour undamaged was the Talabot. I insist, I agree with you on the flawed depiction of the battle as a "Substantial Italian Victory". However, the fact that the contact between the fleets led to the disruption of the convoy and the attrition of their anti-arcraft escorts, thus allowing the Axis aircraft to attack before the convoy delivery, is a crystal-clear truth.

DagosNavy 00:03, 09 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of sources identified according to the format suggested Kate L. Turabian's Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, which would include name of author, title, facts of publication, and page numbers of specific citations (p. 123). I apologize for not being clearer. Kraken7 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How many Royal Navy destroyers?

The textbox mentions 18 destroyers, but the order of battle at the end of the narrative shows only 11 while the roster of Royal Navy destroyers has 12. (Kraken7 02:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

What of HMS Southwold?

According to the Malta Marine Foundation, HMS Southwold, a Hunt-class destroyer, was sunk in the course of the convoy battle (on March 24, 1942), but no ship of that name is mentioned in the narrative or found on the roster of Royal Navy destroyers. (Kraken702:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

What about Italian casualties?

The textbox provides casualties in terms of ships damaged or sunk. Thus, Italian casualties are listed as "None." Yet, the narrative maintains that the battleship Littorio was "hit with minimal damage" and "another [unnamed and second damaged?] cruiser was on fire." Why are these Italian casualties not identified in the textbox? Also, how can a cruiser be "on fire but not damaged"? (Kraken702:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

• According to most sources (Bragadin, Greene & Massignani, Sandkovich), the only hit on an Italian warship during the battle was scored by an unidentified destroyer's 120 mm shell on one of the Littorio's 152 mm secondary turrets, with no effect. None of the British torpedoes struck home.

DagosNavy 02:08, 28 February 2007

A marginal Italian victory?

Six sources (de Belot, 159; Bradford, 207; Playfair, 172; Roskill, 54; Thomas, 152; and Woodman, 316) affirm that the Second Battle of Sirte was a British victory. Which reliable, published sources affirm that it was a marginal victory for the Italians? Kraken7 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• You have the already cited Bragadin, and, if you like a British source, Thomas, 154, who asserts that From the British point of view, the convoy was a failure: of the 25,900 tons of store fought through Malta only about 5,000 tons finally came ashore. Woodman himself, 316, only mentions a tactical victory (in disagreement with other non-British authors), but acknowledges the strategic fiasco: Althought a notewhorthy tactical victory against considerable odds, as Vian's immediate knighthood attested, Operation MG1 as a whole had been a strategical failure. He fell short of analyzing the origin of this, which was undoubtly the disruption of the convoy by the intervention of the Italian Navy, which left the cargo ships exposed to theLuftwaffe, as Bragadin explains. I think the outcome of this battle resembles the case of the Graf Spee; the Germans could claim that they prevailed during the ship to ship engagement, but the battered British squadron was able to force the battleship towards Montevideo, thus preventing her for limping away. The strategic situation (favourable to the Royal Navy) made the rest, theSpee was scuttled, and that battle is considered a victory for the UK forces.

DagosNavy 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The March 22, 1942, engagement between Italian and British surface units near the Gulf of Sirte, known as the Second Battle of Sirte, is the subject of this article and not Operation MG1 or convoy MW10. Keeping this distinction in mind can help avoid further confusion on this matter. In regards to the points made above: 1) Bragadin vigorously defends the Italian fleet's conduct of the battle (165-166), but where exactly does he explicitly credit the Italians with a marginal victory? 2) The "failure" Thomas refers to is that of convoy MW10, not that of the British effort at the Second Battle of Sirte. Indeed, Thomas praises Admiral Vian's "successful defence of a convoy in the Gulf of Sirte" (152), and as if to remove all doubt about whom he thinks won that engagement the title of the relevant chapter (11) is "Admiral Vian's Success at Sirte" (142). 3) Woodman, too, acknowledges "Operation MG1 as a whole" was "a strategic failure," but when he notes that the British "had achieved a noteworthy tactical victory against considerable odds" he is referring to the Second Battle of Sirte (316), the ostensible subject of this article. What reliable, published sources, British or otherwise, disagree with that judgment? Kraken7 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1) I think Bragadin (page 164) and the outcome of the surface engagement (one cruiser, three destroyers disabled or heavy damaged for no damage on the Italian side [a fact acknowledged by all updated sources]) support the case for an Italian marginal victory, no matter if they attacked with torpedo boats or battleships or if they failed (as they did) to wipped out the convoy, the facts are the facts. Bragadin affirms: As far as the balance sheet of the shooting is concerned, no Italian ship was damaged in the least, disregarding some scratches on the Litttorio's deck caused by shell fragments. On the other hand, the Italian gunfire, in spite of the disavantage under wich it was carried out, caused considerable more damage to the enemy. Woodman himself (page 305) reported that: The Italians were virtually untouched, whereas the British had two destroyers badly damaged... (He fails to account Cleopatra and Lively, althought he describes the gunfire hits on them earlier in the chapter). The Italians also managed to disrupt the convoy schedule effectively scattering it. The dispersal of the MW-10 is also mentioned by Woodman. He explicity says:The detour was to prove fatal. (pp. 307-308).(see also Bragadin citation in the article).
• 2) On the other hand, as far as I know, this battle was part of WWII, many years after Jutland, the last great naval battle fought without air support, and with no notewhorthy submarine action. The things had changed dramatically by 1942. So, the air attacks against the British convoy were definitively part of the battle. Practically all the books previously cited analyze the Axis surface and air attacks as a whole. At least I’ve never read an author splitting the surface action and the further Axis bombings in two chapters, so I see no reason to make that in Wikipedia. According to your criteria, the sinking of American carrier Yorktown was not part of the Battle of Midway, since the US warship was sunk by a submarine, not by the main Japanese fleet. Also, if your claim about a British victory is to be reflected in this article, you must also change the outcome of the Battle of the River Plate article by claiming a German victory there, for the sake of unifying criteria and despite that the Spee was finally scuttled. Obviously, this would be absurd.
• 3) The British failure, as maintained by a reliable source such as Bragadin's book, suggested by Green & Masignani (pages 217 and 220), and transpired by other 'pro-British' narratives (Thomas, Woodman), was undeniably the result of the Italian Fleet intervention, despite the non less undeniable courageous and skillful defense of Admiral Vian. Green & Massignani state: If he (Adm. Vian) turned south, he could delay this encounter, but it would also delay the convoy's arrival at Malta.The arrival of air cover from the Island was vital (217). They also add (page 220) that: The convoy would arrive the following day but not under the cover of night, having all been ordered to make best speed to Malta with whatever escort could be managed, while Vian retired on Alexandria. I've already cited Woodman, and Thomas (page 150) clearly asserts that: By driving the convoy south, The Italian fleet had given the Luftwaffe a longer journey that last morning. Therefore, I think the article must be pointed out to the reader from the big picture, and not purely focused on the surface engagement. However, I am not opposed to change the infobox data from Italian victory to Axis victory, since the final blow to the convoy was delivered by the Luftwaffe's Fliegerkorps X.

DagosNavy 17:22, 04 May 2007 (UTC)

The above seems to argue that a marginal victory for the Italians at the Second Battle of Sirte on March 22, 1942 (from 2:27 P.M. until about 6:55 P.M., see Playfair Map 23), can be inferred from the damage each side suffered (point 1 above) and MW10's failure to re-supply Malta (points 2 and 3 above). Why this inference appears not to be cogent per Wikipedia's policies of no original research and verifiability is explained below.

• 1) Comparing relative damage has traditionally been one way to tell a close battle's winners from losers. But, if the heavier damage suffered by British warships on March 22 supports "the case for an Italian marginal victory" that would be "unpublished analysis . . . that appears to advance a position" or a "novel narrative or historical interpretation" (see Wikipedia: No original research). It would also be original research, and "Wikipedia is not a place for original research." This is "an official policy on the English Wikipedia," and "a standard that all users should follow" (ibid.). True, Woodman reports that several escorts were damaged, MW10 dispersed, andBreconshire took an unfortunate detour. However, if these three events "support the case for an Italian marginal victory" that would be original research (ibid.). It would also ignore Woodman's crediting the British with victory (316).
• 2) If "further Axis bombings" refers to the subsequent Axis air attacks that sank not only Clan Campbell, but also Breconshire,Talabot, and Pampas, then which reliable published sources state that the Second Battle of Sirte continued to Malta and did not end until March 26? Reliable published sources that distinguish between a) the March 22 engagement of Italian and British surface units near the Gulf of Sirte, and b) the subsequent Axis air attacks on MW10 are: Bragadin (164, 165, 166), de Belot (162), Greene & Massignani (220, 221), Playfair (169), Roskill (54), Sadkovich (245), Thomas (150), and Woodman (305).
• 3) Bragadin mentions no British failure at the Second Battle of Sirte, but he does refer to the Italians' inability "to establish contact with" let alone destroy MW10, "the primary target" (165). Whatever the above quotes from Greene & Massignani might suggest (seeWikipedia: No original research), they do not corroborate the claim of British failure at the Second Battle of Sirte. On the other hand, Greene & Massignani do mention that even at the battle's end "the Italians were still far from doing any damage to the convoy" (220). As noted above, Thomas and Woodman are referring to the British failure to re-supply Malta not to Admiral Vian's performance at the Second Battle of Sirte.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability: material that "has already been published by a reliable source" (seeWikipedia: Verifiability). Six reliable published sources state that the British won the Second Battle of Sirte. No reliable published source (as yet) affirms the Italians won a marginal victory. With this 0-6 record, how do "a marginal Italian victory" and "Result: Italian victory" meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion?Kraken7 23:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, first of all, I already made some changes in the narrative according to what we were discussing here. I put in doubt the 6-0 figure of sources claiming a British victory outright. Of all updated sources (by updated I mean not only recent, but those which distance themselves from war propaganda), only Woodman and Thomas assert that the surface engagement was a tactical victory for Vian. More than this, they eventually concede that the overall action was a British failure (therefore, an Axis success), openly citing the Italian fleet role in this (I will not repeat the citations again).
• The fact that the further successful air attacks on the convoy are linked to the earlier naval action as the main consequence of the battle is recognized by all the reliable sources cited here. Therefore, any serious article about the Second Sirte must include its aftermath.
• And for the case of alleged Original Research: I am not making a synthesis of facts or sources to advance a position beyond what the sources say. And what the sources say about the naval engagement is that the Italian fleet inflicted more damage to their enemy than the damage their enemy did upon them. Most of the authors (I insist, I will not to repeat the citations) also agree that the delay and dispersal of the convoy proved to be fatal (both Bragadin and Woodman use this term). So, what I was doing by mentioning a marginal victory is just a research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources, which is not only allowed but strongly encouraged under Wikipedia policies (the text in italics come from the Wiki guidelines about Original Research). Otherwise, the editor would be limited to a copy and paste exercise, and some infobox statistics, collected by the editor from different reliable databases but no present as a bloc from a single reliable source, would be impossible to be posted without risking Original Research. Let to suppose the following example: an article about a U-Boat operational history. Suppose that all known sources mention an attack upon an allied convoy, which resulted in a cargo ship and a destroyer damaged. Suppose that some other sources (from the allies point of view), claim that the submarine attempt was fought off by the escort after the cargo ship and the destroyer were torpedoed. No other data available. If we have an editor who asserts that this U-Boat executed a partially successful attack, should we accused him of Original Research or PoV just because no source mentionspecifically a partial success?. On the other hand, if the editor also cites the allied claim of a successful counter-attack (as I did in my latest edits of the Second Sirte narrative with the British claim of victory), why we must compel him to cite only the allies version of the facts?.
• And finally, I found a textual quotation from Macintyre (page 136, cited by Sadkovich, page 246) where in an explicit way, he concludes that Iachino had partially achieved his aim, the equivalent of the so controversial marginal victory, I guess.

DagosNavy 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The comments below explore various aspects of the same question: If no reliable published source (as yet) affirms "a marginal Italian victory," how does that claim meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion (see Wikipedia: Verifiability)?

• How can the reliability of four published sources be "put in doubt" without evidence? How would "updated" sources "distance themselves from war propaganda"?
• In the article and on this talk page, the convoy battle of MW10 (3/21 - 3/26/1942) is conflated with the Second Battle of Sirte (3/22/1942). References that would corroborate that unity are "[p]ractically all the books previously cited" (item 2, 04 May 2007) and "all the reliable sources cited here" (second bullet, 22 June 2007). Why not more specific citations? By contrast, that the convoy battle and the Second Battle of Sirte are separate events is supported by specific citations from eight reliable published sources (item 2, 17 June 2007). With this 0-8 record, how does combining the convoy battle and the Second Battle of Sirte meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion?
• The claim that the Second Battle of Sirte "was a marginal Italian victory" seems to be not a "synthesis of facts or sources," but rather an "analysis . . . of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds toward a particular case favored by an editor, without attributing that analysis . . . to a reputable source" (seeWikipedia: No original research). Further, Bragadin and Woodman seem to use "fatal" in a limited sense: Bragadin to refer to the March 23 Axis air attacks that sank Clan Campbell and contributed to the sinking of Southwold (166) and Woodman to refer to just the latter (308). More to the point, though, which reliable published sources credit the Italian fleet's intervention with having had any but the most indirect effect on the fate of the remaining three ships of the convoy? Also, how is it "just a 'research'" if no primary or secondary sources state the Italians won a marginal victory? On a related topic, the U-Boat analogy seems strained since the circumstances bear little resemblance to those at issue here. Moreover, the analogy seems to assume (without proof) that "some other sources" are biased in favor of the "allies point of view," and therefore editors should not be compelled "to cite only the allies version of the facts." But, how is this position consistent with verifiability? On another tack, if reliable published sources expressed no opinion about who won the Second Battle of Sirte or if sources were divided about who won, the article could simply reflect that non-opinion or divided opinion. However, in this case, six reliable published sources state the British won, while none (as yet) affirms "a marginal Italian victory."
• The full Macintyre quote also includes this: "Vian had gained a tactical and moral triumph." In this context, how is Iachino's partial achievement the equivalent of a "marginal victory"? Kraken7 00:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• I repeat; another editor (Folks at 137) already made a sub-edition of his own, reflecting what you are expressing bydivided opinion in the section Assessments, so I have nothing to add or further discuss about this issue. The footnote about Macintyre (and the other six sources you mention) asserting a Britishtactical and moral triumph in the narrative has been posted by myself, so I'am not denying or ignoring that, but I want to note also that he acknowledged that the Italian fleet's admiral partially achieved his aim (a strategic victory, we can infer). Therefore, I'am only taking account (along with the other editor) of allpossible reliable references and their conflicting assessments about the battle. A selective reading or omission risks a NPOV violation. I mean by selective reading to pick up only the sources that favor a position (Roskill, Macintyre [in part], de Belot and Playfair [footnote # 6]) and disregarding others (as Bragadin, Thomas, Woodman, Macintyre, Sadkovich, Weichold and De La Sierra [footnote # 8]). Another selective POV would be to separate the fate of convoy MW-10 from the battle itself, since all published, reliable sources set up both issues as a whole. Do you know a reliable, published source that divides in different chapters Operation MW-10 from Second Battle of Sirte?. Same thing for the employ of the adj. fatal by some authors; sinceall of them regard the British operation as a failure, I think that any semantics about that word and context are pointless, andfatal cleary defines the fortune of the convoy (Indeed, Bragadin and Woodman both refer not just to Clan Campbell or HMS Southwold, but to all the cargoes comprising MW-10). What published and reliable sources depict the British operation as a success?. Everybody agree that it was a fiasco. And I guess that in this background, British failure=Axis success.

DagosNavy 6 July 2007, 12:45 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to conclude that no reliable sources affirm an Italian victory at the Second Battle of Sirte? That after four rounds no such sources have been found would seem to argue against their existence.

• True, the article has been edited lately for brevity and coherence. Moreover, it now mentions that the battle was a "British tactical victory." These changes are to the good. Yet, the emphasis in the new "Assessments" section is on "a marginal Italian victory." How is that emphasis (assuming for the moment that "a marginal Italian victory" is a verifiable claim) consistent with the fundamental principle of "representing fairly and without bias all significant points of view" (see Wikipedia: Neutral point of view: Undue weight)?
• What "divided opinion"? Seven published reliable sources (see 26 May and 6 July) offer a judgment on the Second Battle of Sirte, and their verdict is unanimous: the British won. No source as yet claims the Italians won.
• How is a "strategic victory" inferred from "partially achieved his aim"? Further, if "all possible reliable references and their conflicting assessments" are to be taken into account in the article, then does not an Italian strategic victory also merit inclusion? Is it not as "verifiable" as an Italian marginal victory?
• "[T]o pick up only the sources that favor a position and disregarding others" is said to risk "a NPOV violation." But, what position is supposedly being favored? How can the seven "others" be called "disregarded" when five of them have been cited in the previous rounds? Bragadin was cited on 4 June, 17 June, and 6 July; Woodman on 26 May, 4 June, 17 June, and 6 July; Macintyre on 6 July; and Sadkovich on 17 June. As for the remaining two sources, they have not been cited to date because they are not easily available in the United States (not even the Library of Congress has a copy of Weichold), and both are in languages other than English, making verification difficult.
• In regards to whether the convoy battle of MW10 and the Second Battle of Sirte are an identity or separate events, how is "all published, reliable sources" a more specific reference than "[p]ractically all the books previously cited" or "all the reliable sources cited here"? By contrast, eight published reliable sources have been specifically cited (item 2, 17 June) that deal with the two as separate, albeit related events. Surely, if the fundamental principle cited above means anything, then multiple reliable published sources should qualify this as a significant point of view that should be represented in the article fairly and without bias, should it not? Also, since "updated sources" has not been used again, is it safe to assume that the charge of "war propaganda" (see 22 June) has been dropped?
• What is a "selective POV"? And how would making specific reference to eight reliable published sources qualify as one?
• The formula "British failure = Axis success" seems to apply to convoy MW10 but not to the Second Battle of Sirte, the ostensible subject of this article. Kraken7 00:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, after four rounds, I think we have reached two main conclusions:

• • A) None of all reliable and published sources about the subject (Second battle of Sirte) splits in two chapters the naval engagement and its consequences (i. e.: the destruction of the convoy by axis aircraft). Therefore, splitting this article in two would beOriginal research, according to Wikipedia policies. The ostensible subject of the article must be then the naval engagement and its aftermath (Remember the Battle of River Plate example).

• • B) All reliable and published sources about the subject (including those who claim a tactical success for Vian) agree on the failure of convoy MW-10, so labeling the battle as an ‘’axis victory’’ is entirely legitimated. This also responds to your question if it is reasonable to conclude that no reliable sources claim an Italian victory, and the answer is "yes", since the overall action was not an Italian, but an axis success, though helped decisively by the Italian Navy sortie.

• • We have also three statements posted on the Assessments section by another editor:

• • 1) The claim of a “British tactical victory” by several sources (in the first line of the section).

• • 2) The recognition by other sources (some of them are actually the same that claim a RN tactical success) that the Italian Navy action, albeit disappointing by its failure to sink a single cargo ship, inflicted severe damage to the enemy and “partially achieved its aim” (by disrupting the convoy).

• • 3) The failure of the overall British operation (admitted by all sources).

• • We have three different reports about the battle, each one compatible with the two others; so the text represents fairly and without bias all significant points of view. The success of Vian, avoiding an immediate disaster, the delay and dispersion of the convoy by the Italian intervention and its eventual destruction by German and Italian bombers, all three events are established and published facts. For that reason, I see no basis for your assertion about an “undue weight” in the cited references. Moreover, the sources claiming an Allied tactical victory are cited in the first place. The undue weight in Wikipedia rely in the numbers of sources supporting a position; we have 7 authors claiming a British tactical success in the naval clash (Playfair, Macintyre, DeBelot, Thomas, Roskill and Woodman); we also have another 7 (Bragadin, Thomas, Woodman, Macintyre, Sadkovich, Weichold and De la Sierra) recognizing the key strategic role played by the Italian Fleet and ALL known sources stating that convoy MW-10 ended in disaster. Thence, where is the undue weight?. What makes you wonder when I mention a divided opinion?.

• • As for the other details:

• • By common sense (I guess it’s also welcome to Wikipedia) we can infer that Macintyre suggests a partial strategic success for Iachino; the admiral actions were not an outright Italian triumph, but led to a strategic victory for the axis.

• • If you wish, I can translate De La Sierra remarks (page 365): La batalla, pues, había terminado. No sin sufrir algunas importantes heridas en el grupo de apoyo, el convoy británico se había salvado, de modo que Vian y sus hombres podían felicitarse.
  • Translation: By then, the battle was over. Not without undergoing some important wounds in their support group, Vian and his subordinates could congratulate themselves for saving the convoy. Then, in some way, De La Sierra also reflects how Vian skillful maneuvers saved the cargo ships.
  • But at the end of the paragraph, De La Sierra adds: Sin embargo, los esfuerzos y los riesgos corridos por los italianos no resultaron inútiles, pues aparte de los daños logrados en cuatro buques británicos-dos de lo cuales serían después hundidos precisamente por no poder escapar a tiempo del infierno de Malta-, el retraso impuesto al convoy iba a resultarle fatal.
  • Translation: Nevertheless, the efforts and risks taken by the Italians were not in vain. Besides the damage inflicted upon four British warships –two of them (Kingston and Legion) later sunk in Malta, unable to escape the hell there- the delay imposed to the convoy would prove to be fatal.

• • I didn’t drop the “charge” of “war propaganda”, I simply think that this is secondary to our discussion. De La Sierra, a Spanish Navy officer, (in a book other than La Guerra naval en...) criticizes some allied sources written before the sixties, claiming the authors seem to show a blatant bias. The works and essays from the 70s and 80s apparently took more seriously the other side point of view. However, I have no trouble to see those authors cited here.

DagosNavy 20 July 2007, 16:42 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to cut to the chase. Regarding the March 22 Second Battle of Sirte, no reliable published sources specifically state: 1) "the naval action was a marginal Italian victory" because the Italians inflicted more damage; or 2) the Italians won because they disrupted the convoy; or 3) the Axis won because their aircraft eventually sank all four cargo ships; or 4) considering 1), 2), and 3) together, the Italians/Axis were victorious (see Wikipedia: No original research: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position). Therefore, consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (see particularly Wikipedia: Neutral point of view: Achieving neutrality: Fairness of tone), the current two paragraphs in the "Assessments" section should be replaced, maybe with something like this:

Of twelve reliable published sources that have more than one full page about the battle: Seven maintain the British won (1); three express no opinion (2); one awards the Italians "a [qualified] moral victory" (3); and one avers the Italians were "not defeated" (4).

1. Bradford: "a tactical and moral victory (205), "brilliant naval action" (207); Woodman: "a noteworthy tactical victory" (316); Macintyre: "a tactical and moral triumph (136); Belot: "one of their most brilliant naval actions (159); Playfair: "successful action" (172); Thomas: "successful defence" (152); and Roskill: "defeated [the Italians'] purpose" (54).

2. Bragadin, Holland, and Greene & Massignani.

3. Sadkovich, 247.

4. Sierra, 365.

One more thing: "Examining the reliability of references" (seeWikipedia: Talk page guidelines: Central points: How to use Wikipedia talk pages) seems to be what a talk page is for, so the charge of "war propaganda" is not secondary to this discussion. If that charge is true, then Belot, Bradford, Playfair, and Roskill would be unreliable sources and so excludable from Wikipedia. Yet, it is "no trouble to see those authors cited here." Why is that? How is it not irresponsible to impugn these authors based on an unnamed book in which Sierra allegedly "criticizes some allied sources written before the sixties, claiming the authors seem to show a blatant bias"? Besides, how can the charge of "war propaganda" based on Sierra's testimony be sustained against either Bradford or Playfair whose books were published in 1986 and 1960 respectively? Kraken7 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well man, I also getting bored of this fruitless talk, so I hope we can reach some sort of agreement. The edits you are proposing has not chance of stand, since Wikipedia’s policies establish that:

• (Compilation:) Wikipedia is not a simple collection or list of facts. There is a process of summarizing, grading, organizing and collating involved, to ensure that the resulting articles are as useful as possible for readers seeking both detail and overview.(Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief). Remember that edits in Wikipedia are not a 'copy and paste' exercise.

• Short lists in articles to list something relevant is informative. But a long one that requires a reader to roll down to see the rest of the article would be an impediment for people to read the article. In these cases either the list should be shortened or should be separated into an independent list entry (Article aboutreadability). A source’s listing of that kind could compromise the readability of the article.

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples(Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). It will be too schematic for an encyclopedic narrative to make such a tabulation of sources.

I've already introduced new changes in the Assessments section, softening in some way the 'infamous' assertion about the Italian marginal victory. The mention that most sources claim a British tactical success remains (and will remain, at least from my part) unchallenged, so you have no need to insist on that point. I want also to make clear that the first editor of that section was another user, not me. The quotes I added (from Bragadin and Woodman) show that those authors clearly suggest that the Italian side 'won' the gunnery battle. The data about the damage suffered by the British can be considered what Wikipedia regards as 'primary sources'. Wikipedia's policy on primary sources asserts that:

• An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions(Wikipedia:No original research).

Therefore, as yourself acknowledge in point 1), posting of June 17:Comparing relative damage has traditionally been one way to tell a close battle's winners from losers. I think your conclusion is within the boundaries of what is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person. So the Italian success (from the exclusive point of the gunnery engagement, NOT the whole battle) is just a descriptive claim, and not an explanation, interpretation or synthesis. That the Italians damaged 4 British units for no damage of their own is afact, not an interpretation. However, I understand your concerns regarding a possible case of original research, or an analysis to advance a position by using the word 'victory'. So, I offer to change the current statement for something like:

• Consequently, these references suggest that the Italian fleet prevailed in the gunnery engagement, but also that the action represented a failure on the Italian's part to exploit their advantage.

On the other hand, you are continuing to ignore systematically the much more strong evidence about the consequences of the Italian sortie. Indeed, you failed to mention in the proposed list of sources those which specifically describe the fatal delay that the naval engagement supposed to the convoy. Have I to repeat Bragadin, Woodman, Thomas, De La Sierra, Weichold and Macintyre’s quotes again and again? If you still have any doubts, I've added another citation, this time from Llewellyn's book, which supports the same conclusion (footnote #9).

You also seem to despise the strategic outcome of the battle; remember that all published and reliable sources agree on the British ultimate failure (a fact also recognized by other users). I will not further discuss De La Sierra remarks about Allied propaganda pervading some texts published before the sixties, since we have reached a consensus on that; Wikipedia edits rely on consensus. You must also remember that talk pages are not forums: Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. (What Wikipedia is not). De La Sierra made those conclusions about a subject wider than the second battle of Sirte, and attempting to judge other sources from his point of view would be also to give an undue weight to one author over many others (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Just in case you have time to research it, he raised the issue at the book Buques suicidas, (suicide crafts), first published in 1960, Ed. Juventud, pp. 242-243. I hope you could find a good translator.

DagosNavy 23:32, September 6 2007 (UTC)

I have added three Italian authors (shown in the Bibliography/Sources) who support the opinion that the Second battle of Sirte was a partial Italian victory, because the main objective of the Italians was to "block" Malta and destroy the four merchant ships. I have even translated (read the first note of the article) what writes about the battle one of the three, Bernotti. Regards.--Brunodam04:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is implied that the proposed edits (see 19 August) violated threeWikipedia policies so egregiously that they have "not chance of stand." Yet, the second "policy" (i.e., Short lists in articles . . .) is no policy at all. Rather, it comes from an essay that "is not a policy or guideline" and "simply reflects the opinions of its authors" (User: Wooyi/Readability). In any event, the violation of two actual Wikipedia policies in the space of just four lines of narrative and four footnotes would be of some concern, if it were true. But is it? Hard to tell because missing is an explanation of how the proposed edits supposedly contravene the two policies. Specifically, how do the proposed edits constitute a compilation? And, how does listing sources in footnotes resemble "leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions"?

Withdrawing the claim of "a marginal Italian victory" shows a commendable Wikipedia spirit. But, which reliable published sources specifically state "the Italian side 'won' the gunnery battle"? And, how can "data about the damage suffered by the British" be primary sources when the "data" are themselves derived from secondary sources? Also, is it fair to take words out of context to make them appear to say the opposite of what was intended?

What exactly were "the consequences of the Italian sortie"? Do they include the sinking of all four cargo ships? If so, which reliable published sources explicitly state the Italian sortie was the necessary cause of their sinking? The Llewellyn quote makes no such explicit statement.

What "consensus"? How, when, and among whom was consensus built? Also, since no specific evidence has been presented that Belot, Bradford, Playfair, and Roskill are guilty of "war propaganda" or "Allied propaganda," the accuser has not met the burden of proof.Kraken7 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The accuser has not met the burden of the proof. Though I partially agree with de la Sierra, I already acknowledged the value that sources like Belot, Playfair and the others have for this article. The accuser is de la Sierra, not me. He is now 87 years old (if still alive), so try to discuss about "Allied propaganda" with him, not with me. Or if you want to raise the issue, please, propose me a forum to talk about elsewhere, not in Wikipedia.

Well, after TEN cites (including that introduced by user Brunodam) mentioning the key role played by the Italian Fleet in the ultimate fiasco of MW-10, I think you need to search the article "Second battle of Sirte" in "Wikipedia for slow learners", if it does exists. My apologies for the irony, but your fussy denial of what these sources clearly suggest, is the equivalent of disputing the fact that the Royal Navy sank the Bismarck on the basis that the ship was ultimately scuttled by her crew!. Please, also read footnote #5, where Llewellyn describes how Vian squadron lost trace of the cargo ships after the battle, gave up and went back to Alexandria, dramatically reducing the defensive capabilities of the convoy as an obvious consequence of the Italian sortie.

Same thing if you put in doubt FACTS like the damage on the British escort (you have what Wikipedia defines as a primary source in theLondon Gazette, Suplement of 16th of September, 1947). I guess you can also put in doubt the sinking of Yorktown, Hood, Tirpitz or Yamatobecause almost all that we know of their fates relies on secondary sources. On the other hand, where in the article is something like "the Italian side 'won' the gunnery battle"?.

May be that the proposed guidelines for readability are not an official policy, but since the article comes from Wikipedia, it certainly establishes what is suitable for making an edition and what is not. Furthermore, a large listing of citations within the narrative is contemplated by What Wikipedia is not in the sub-section Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You can read there that: Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. (point number 4).

At least three other users agree on the current version ofAssessments section and the facts displayed in the infobox, so the 'burden of evidence' is that a consensus has been reached, by a 3 to 1 ratio.

DagosNavy 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be more helpful to make point-by-point responses from most to least important issue. Also, if a Wikipedia policy or guideline must be quoted at length, it would speed things along to explain how the quoted material is relevant. Regarding specific issues:

1) The claim of "Italian victory" has returned to the Assessments section (see first sentence). But, how do the purveyors of "fascist propaganda" qualify as reliable sources? Further, how is a claim from an unnamed publication verifiable? And, how is a claim of "some Italian authors" verifiable for English speakers who do not speak Italian? Moreover, if these authors have not been translated into English, why should they be referenced on the English-language Wikipedia?

2) Yet, even if this sentence were deleted, the Assessments section would still be less than perfect because its tone and emphasis lend at least equal prominence to an Italian/Axis victory as they do to a British victory. This despite the eight reliable published sources (adding Shores, p. 140) that state the British were victorious versus only one that states the Italians won a qualified "moral victory" (seeWikipedia: Neutral point of view: Achieving neutrality: Undue weight).

3) A proposed revision (see 19 August) of the Assessments section to more accurately reflect this 8-1 verdict has been vehemently rejected because said revision allegedly violates three Wikipedia policies (see September 6). However, on closer examination this rejection does not seem well-founded. Regarding the first policy, how the proposed revision is a "compilation" is unexplained. The second "policy" is not aWikipedia policy (see 1 October), yet it "certainly establishes what is suitable for making an edition and what is not" because it "comes from Wikipedia" (see 2 October). How does this make sense? Further, how can four citations constitute "a large listing"? And, how can four lines of narrative and four citations be accurately described as "[l]ong and sprawling lists of statistics" when they contain no statistics whatsoever? Regarding the third policy, how the proposed revision amounts to teaching a subject in a textbook-like fashion is also not explained.

4) Of the "TEN cites," three refer to the author only and are thus unverifiable. The remaining seven (see 20 July) refer to convoy MW10 as a whole, not to the Second Battle of Sirte in particular. Thus, the "TEN cites" appear to conflate the Second Battle of Sirte with the fate of convoy MW10. However, no source explicitly makes that linkage while nine (including five of the "TEN cites"; adding Mcintyre, p.135) distinguish between the two by noting the Second Battle of Sirte ended around 7 P.M. on March 22 while the convoy sailed on toward Malta (see 17 June). This is no "fussy denial" of Axis success in ultimately preventing convoy MW10 from completing its mission, but rather a recognition of what these sources actually state. On the other hand, to include in the article "what these sources clearly suggest" (i.e., an Italian/Axis victory) would be original research (see Wikipedia: No original research: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position).

5) Concerning the Italian fleet's alleged "key role" in MW10's failure, the damange suffered by the British escorts, and the Italians' "reducing the defensive capabilities of the convoy," no reliable published source, including Llewellyn, states explicitly that any of these conditions, either singly or in combination, earned the Italians/Axis a victory at the Second Battle of Sirte. To include a claim of Italian/Axis victory (beyond a qualified "moral victory") in the article without such an explicit statement would be original research.

6) Also, "the Italian fleet prevailed in the gunnery engagement" (Assessments section, second paragraph, second sentence, first clause) seems similar to "the Italian side 'won' the gunnery battle."

7) How is it possible to "partially agree" that Belot, Bradford, Playfair, and Roskill are guilty of war/Allied "propaganda" and still find them of "value . . . for this article"? Is there any corroboration of the propaganda charge in an English-language source?Kraken7 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Point by Point:

• 1) You can disscuss the question with Wikipedia member Brunodam, who actually made those edits, at his talk page.

• 2)& 4) You continue to understate the sources by despising those written in non-English languages. If Wikipedia in English has to rely only on references in English, then some important articles (such as that about Caesar invasion of Britain, or the text about Dante'sDivina Comedia) whose primary and even secondary sources are written in a language other than English should be deleted. Remember that even authors in English, like Woodman, Mcintyre, Thomas, Llewellyn, Sadkovich and Bragadin agree on linking the strategic failure of the British convoy to the battle (implicitly or explicitly).

• 3) I'am not a loyal, and Wikipedia have no laws, only guidelines. Readeability, however, is one of the basic principles of any encyclopedia.

• 4) Partially answered by #2. Yes, the Battle of Sirte was over by evening on 22 March 1942, just as the Battle of the River Plate was over by noon on 13 December 1939, both of them indecisive or with both sides claiming victory at that stage. Nevertheless, the consequences of both battles was clearly, in one case, the destruction of the convoy MW-10 due to its dispersal and in the other, the scuttling of the Spee due to the strategic and 'psychologic' situation. So both actions should be considered under the same pattern.

• 5) There is not need of an 'explicit' statement; If it were the case, hundreds of infobox data in Wikipedia should be strongly disputed. For example, as recently as yesterday, I started an article about theBattle of the Espero Convoy. Of all the published sources I know (the same of this article), barely one (Green & Massignani) hints a British success, and none claims a victory in an explicit way. However, by common sense, is obvious that the battle was an Allied victory. I guess common sense is also welcomed here. Furthermore, you can check: Wikipedia:Use common sense.

• 6) Really? Is the resemblance 'explicit' or not?. Does it seem similar to The Italians were virtually untouched, whereas the British had had two destroyers badly damaged (Woodman, page 305) or to As far as the balance sheet of the shooting is concerned, no Italian ship was damaged in the least, disregarding some scratches on the Littorio's deck. On the other hand, the Italian gunfire, in spite of the disavantages under which it was carried out, caused considerably more damage to the enemy. (Bragadin, page 164)?. Does it resemble the primary sources stating the fact that four British warships were badly struck, for none on the Italian side?.

• 7) I partially agree with De la Sierra about a general opinion regarding WWII sources; he never mentioned specifically Bradford, Playfair or others. However, since consensus has been reached (I don´t object those authors, no matter the reason), this discussion must be kept outside of Wikipedia. If you will, propose a military forum, or arrange a meeting with De la Sierra, either in a Spanish geriatric care center (if he is still alive), or by a seance (Sniff! He was my favorite naval author when I was a teenager). Good luck!. If you want an English language book criticizing Allies prejudices, try Sadkovich. Also, read the tag I will post at the head of this discussion page. If you further insist on discussing 'allied propaganda', I will feel free to delete your post. Thank you.

DagosNavy 17:24, 18 November 2007, (UTC)

1) Why is this talk page not the proper forum to discuss the verifiability of non-English language sources?

2) Why should sources in non-English languages be cited on the English language Wikipedia? Whether Woodman, et al., "agree on linking" convoy MW10's failure to the Second Battle of Sirte misses the point: Which reliable published sources have the precise analysis that the convoy's failure entails an Italian/Axis victory at the Second Battle of Sirte?

3) What is a "loyal"? How is not being a loyal relevant? How isWikipedia's not having laws relevant? Which specific parts of the proposed revision violate which standards of "readeability"?

4) Which Wikipedia policy or guideline states that a given article "should be considered under the same pattern" as another article?

5) If "hundreds of infobox data" are not supported by explicit statements/precise analysis, then they should be "strongly disputed" (Wikipedia: No original research: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position). Whether they are strongly disputed is irrelevant (Wikipedia: Argumentum ad populum). Therefore, how does "common sense" justify "not need of an 'explicit' statement"?

6) That Italian gunfire inflicted more damage on British warships than vice versa is already mentioned in the article. However, if comparative battle-damage assessment entails an Italian/Axis victory at the Second Battle of Sirte, then which reliable published sources have that precise analysis? Kraken7 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the points here were already settled by the infobox changes, or are currently discussed in another section. Sorry for the mistake; by "loyal" I wanted to mean "I am not the loyal opposition to Wikipedia", just to show that WKP is not a political or legal entity, just an online encyclopedia.

• The preference of English-language sources stands only for the reader’s benefit, but there is no other restriction in using foreing-language bibliography; the documentary value of an English-language source and a foreing one is, according to Wikipedia, the same: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

This article is about a battle between the navies of two nations whose languages are different, then, any sources from the Italian side should be welcome in order to understand the big picture.

• Your skeptic an fussy attitude toward quite explicit citations about the strategic outcome (by far the latest from Simpson's book), is not a defense of Wikipedia principles (i.e. against an "Argumentum ad populum"); it's only your own POV in order to advance a position (to depict a heavily contested battle, both in the field and in the paper, as an outright Allied victory).

• I cited the pattern of another article just to show you an example of a "tactical defeat" followed by a "strategic victory", not to establish a guideline. (See also Battle of Coral Sea).

• We still need the source with the long-overdue 'precise analysis' of a published and reliable source about a "MW10 convoy battle" and a "Second Sirte Battle" as separated and unrelated events. Have you found it?DagosNavy 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding point by point would be helpful, but it is nonetheless correct to say that the topics above have either been superseded or can be addressed elsewhere, with two exceptions.

1) What does "I am not the loyal opposition to Wikipedia" mean? Why is it relevant?

2) One similarity between the Wikipedia articles on the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Second Battle of Sirte is that neither cites reliable published sources regarding which side supposedly won a strategic victory. Kraken7 (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Don't worry, it's not relevant at all.

2) Go to the Talk page about the Battle of the Coral Sea and express your opinion there.--Darius (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Three British destroyers "out of action"?

What published, reliable sources support the idea that the Italians put three British destroyers (HMS Havock, Kingston, and Lively) "out of action"? Bradford, Playfair, and de Belot do not mention even one British destroyer put out of action. Yet, Bragadin claimsHavock was "left dead in the water for some time" (164), and Woodman states that Kingston "came to a stop" after being hit by a 15-inch shell but "was able to get under way a little later" (305). In any event, Havock and Kingston made it to Malta under their own power on March 23 (Woodman, 310). So, even if both Bragadin and Woodman are correct, the Italians put only two (not three) British destroyers out of action and these two for but a limited time.Kraken7 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• The original after-action destination of the three damaged destroyers (Kingston, Havock and Lively) was Alexandria, but they were not seaworthy to make the long trip back to Egypt; so they were diverted for repairs. Kingston and Havock, as you know, reached La Valleta, while Lively, with a bulkhead holed and floodings, was forced to lay anchor at Tobruk. The damage onKingston was so heavy that she had to be put in dry dock, where she was finally destroyed by German Ju-87s.

The details about Lively come from Llewellyn, M.J.:The Royal Navy and the Mediterranean convoys, page 50. You also can browse the following webpage:HMS Lively.

DagosNavy 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bragadin, Fairplay, Greene & Massignani, and Woodman agree that HMSHavock, Kingston, and Lively were damaged. Woodman saysHavock and Kingston were "badly damaged" (305), and Bragadin states that Lively "suffered heavy damage" (164). But, were they also put "out of action"? What published, reliable sources state that their being "not seaworthy enough to make the long trip back to Egypt" (but able enough to fight their way through to Malta and Tobruk) qualifies as putting these three ships "out of action"?Kraken7 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I insist, I've never asserted in the narrative that the three destroyers were out of action; but the degree of damage on those warships certainly diminished their combat capabilities. If you have a destroyer with a boiler and an engine crippled, unable to accomplish her mission (i.e. to go back to Alexandria with the remainder of her Flotilla), you can conclude the vessel is in some way incapable to face further combat. For the case of Havock, Thomas (page 148) says: At 1720 Havock was near-missed by a 15" shell. Seven men were killed, Nº 3 boiler room was flooded, her speed fell away and she was ordered to join the convoy (another seaman died later of wounds in Malta). About theKingston, he states (page 152) from a first hand witness (Able Seaman M. Wally) that We were till closed up at action stations when our destroyer was ordered by Admiral Vian to attack with torpedoes...The second attack was not so good for Kingston as we took a shell amidships in the engine room and we came to a standstill...a sitting duck for the Italian ships. Admiral Vian (on board Cleopatra) stood off our starboard side and engaged the enemy until we got under way again...We were ordered to make for Malta at best speed. We entered Grand Harbour next day and secured alongside the quay. On looking around our ship the damage seems devastating. As you know, the warship entered in dry dock. A good account about the last days of Kingston can be found in the following webpage:Memories of Leading Seaman William Davinson. As for Lively, the seriousness of the floodings downed her speed to 17 knots and forced her to make for Tobruk. I already added a good citation (from a suplement of theLondon Gazette) to the footnotes.

DagosNavy 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

One British light cruiser "out of action"?

What published, reliable sources support the idea that the Italians put one British light cruiser (HMS Cleopatra) "out of action." Bragadin, Playfair, and Woodman state that Cleopatra suffered some damage, but neither they nor Bradford nor de Belot have Cleopatraout of action at any time. Kraken7 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please, tell me where in the article is something depicting theCleopatra as out of action. The text only mentions serious damage (a fore turret crippled, and 16 men lost). If I employed the phrase out of action in the talk page, is because I read that the cruiser lost her antiarcraft fire control (Sandkovich, James: The Italian Navy in World War II, page 244), what seems to be corroborated by Woodman, page 301. The Cleopatra was designed as an antiaircraft cruiser, after all. However, I never asserted that she was out of action in the article's text.

DagosNavy 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Info Box Questions

According to which reliable published sources:

• 1) is the Second Battle of Sirte an "Axis victory"?
• 2) did three Allied submarines as well as Spitfires, Hurricanes, Beaufighters, and Albacores participate in the March 22 battle?
• 3) were "4 British merchant ships" sunk during the battle on March 22?Kraken7 20:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1) The issue about the "Axis victory" and the sources supporting the idea were accepted by another editor, so that discussion is over for me. If you want we can post "marginal Italian victory", but I know you have difficulties with that statement.
• 2) For the submarines, they are included by Thomas (pp. 144-145) as part of the British forces. The aerial assets come from Shore, Cull and Malizia:Malta:The Spitfire year, 1942, Grub Street, London, 1991. (pp. 137-154). The fighters operated against the Ju-88s and 87s, but the Albacores failed to find the Italian Fleet. If you want, I can add the book to our extensive list of references.
• 3) As we were talking here about, the 4 cargo ships were sunk as consequence of the battle (a documented fact also accepted by another editor), so I think they must be present at the infobox.

DagosNavy 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Whatever another editor may have accepted, only one reliable published source calls the Second Battle of Sirte an Axis victory, a qualified "moral victory" (Sadkovich, 245) to be precise, while seven other sources assess it as a British victory (see "A Marginal Italian Victory?" 23 August). Given this 1-7 disadvantage, how would it not be giving undue weight to a minority view (see Wikipedia: Neutral point of view: Achieving neutrality: Undue weight) to proclaim the battle an "Axis victory"?

2) Submarines. Neither Thomas nor any other reliable published source includes 3 submarines as part of British forces. Actually, Thomas lists 4 submarines (143) plus 1 more in the narrative (145). Woodman (294-295) and Greene & Massignani (216-217) also count 5 British submarines, but 8 other sources (Roskill, 166; Playfair, 165; Macintyre, 134; Bradford, 201; Bragadin, 160; Sierra, 357; Belot, 160; and Holland, 245) mention only 1 British submarine. Given this 0-11 disadvantage, how would it not be original research (see Wikipedia: Original research) to state that 3 British submarines participated in the battle? Aircraft. It would appear that Shore, Cull, and Maliza is the only reliable published source to maintain that Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Beaufighters "operated against the Ju-88s and 87s" during the battle. However, according to Thomas, Bradford, Woodman, Greene & Massignani, Roskill, Playfair, Macintyre, Sadkovich, Bragadin, Sierra, Belot, and Holland, no British aircraft of any type took part in the battle. Therefore, how would listing these British aircraft in the infobox not be giving undue weight to a minority view (see Wikipedia: Neutral point of view: Achieving neutrality: Undue weight)? As for the Albacores, none of the 12 other reliable published sources named above has Albacores participating in the battle, so how would their inclusion not be giving undue weight to a minority view (ibid.)? Or, the inclusion of British aircraft may depend on a theory that the battle did not end on March 22 or at the Gulf of Sirte, but rather continued through March 26 and across the Mediterranean to Malta. Since no reliable published source has this precise analysis, this theory would appear to be original research (see Wikipedia: Original research). Therefore, if this theory is being applied here, how can it justify the inclusion of these British aircraft?

3) Whatever another editor may have accepted, whether "the 4 cargo ships were sunk as consequence of the battle" is not at issue, rather it is which reliable published sources have the precise analysis that their loss was part of the battle proper and not merely its aftermath? Further, how is it not misleading to list "4 merchant ships sunk" when no reliable published source states they were sunk: 1) by the Italians (the only other combatant), 2) on March 22 (the battle's "Date"), or 3) at the Gulf of Sirte (the battle's "Location")? Kraken720:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is about consensus, so another editor/s agreement has an enormous value at the time of the edition of any article.

2) There is no undue weight by citing Shore, Malizia and others since the topic about the air aspects of the battle and its aftermath is simply not included in the sources you mention, so there is not a case of contradictory claims. In order to denounce undue weight, you must cited sources denying the matter described by the book The Spitfire year. Think that any editor could take a number of summary but reliable references about whatever encyclopedic issue and claim undue weight against other more detailed sources. Same thing for the British submarines (Originally, I have posted 3 submarines by mistake/Shore & Malizia mention the Albacores in page 141).

3) Following the pattern of the article about the Battle of the River Plate (please, see the infobox and Aftermath section there), the infobox incorporates the final outcome for the British convoy (Have I to repeat the assertions about the final British failure asserted by several sources?). Imagine, for example, the narrative about the Graf Spee in Wikipedia claiming a German tactical victory, and ignoring the ultimate fate of the pocket Battleship 72 hours later. So, even if the battle of Sirte took place on March 22, its consequences continued the following days (nine sources cited in footnote #9, Assessments section!).

4) You are in some way right about the lost cargo's inclusion; if you browse the River Plate's page, there is no mention in the box of the sinking of the Spee, which is instead in the narrative, as an indivisible consequence of the battle (nobody raised the case for Original Research there). Therefore, I will remove the cargoes from the infobox, but the result statement must stand.

5) I will also replace the controversial phrase marginal Italian victory in the way I promised on September 6 entry.

DagosNavy 00:22, September 17, 2007

I believe the battle was not a "marginal" but a "partial" italian victory. From the military point of view there were only "damaged" British ships, but the final result was nearly fully obtained by the Italians: only less than 5000 tons were delivered. As I have written above: "I have added three Italian authors (shown in the Bibliography/Sources) who support the opinion that the Second battle of Sirte was a partial Italian victory, because the main objective of the Italians was to "block" Malta and destroy the four merchant ships. I have even translated (read the first note of the article) what writes about the battle one of the three, Bernotti." Regards.--Brunodam 04:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Consensus may exist around the idea of an Axis victory, but there appears to be only one published reliable source that agrees, and even that one calls the battle a qualified "moral victory" (Sadkovich, 245), hardly a ringing endorsement. On the other hand, seven reliable published sources assess the battle as a British victory (see "A Marginal Italian victory, 19 August). Thus, "Axis victory" would appear to be a minority view and so should make way for British victory with perhaps a footnote for the lone dissenter (see Wikipedia: Neutral point of view: Achieving neutrality: Undue weight). Yet, this change has been resisted on the grounds that an Axis victory at the Second Battle of Sirte is evident because the Italians inflicted more damage, they contributed "decisively" to the convoy's destruction, and the overall operation was a British failure. However probable these points might be, it appears no reliable published source has that precise analysis (see Wikipedia: Original research: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a point of view). Therefore, it would seem "Result: Axis victory" is unjustified, consensus or no.

2) Four British submarines or just one? It's a minor point, really. Even so, all eleven sources cited above agree that only one British submarine played anything close to a meaningful role in the battle (see 16 September). So, why not replace "4" with "1" and make the noun singular?

3) Contrary to the assertion above (see 28 June), Shores, et al., reports no British fighters of any type "operated against the Ju-88s and 87s" during the battle, from 1410 to 1900 on March 22, 1942 (139-140). Further, although five Albacores and three Spitfires did take off from Malta at 1755 on March 22, none reached the battle zone (141). Also, the Beaufighters that had been accompanying the convoy turned away more than four hours prior to the Italian battle fleet's being spotted (139). After that, not until dawn on March 23 did British aircraft again come in the vicinity of a convoy ship (141). Thus, while there was an air battle, it was entirely one-sided in favor of the Axis. So, to list Spitfires, Hurricanes, Beaufighters, and Albacores under "Strength" on the British side would be misleading. Removing these aircraft will fix the problem.

4) The removal of the four cargo ships is a good thing.

5) The removal of "marginal Italian victory" is also a good thing.Kraken7 23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Point by point:

1) There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia that rely in both consensus and reliable sources; so there is not need of a 'precise analysis' to arrive to conclusions. You are also understating the sources; according to Brunodam, there are three more sources (in italian) claiming a Regia Marina partial victory there.

2) Already corrected info.

3) I will only remove (reluctantly) the Beaufighters and the Hurricanes. However, the Albacores and the Spitfires should stand, as they were searching for the Italian Fleet obviously under orders of torpedoing the Littorio. If you want to remove these planes from the infobox, I guess you also must remove all the Italian destroyers (except the Aviere), since none of them took an active role in the Battle. Remember that we should erase some of the British escort too, this according to your own edit of July 18.

4) & 5) The good thing is that consensus has been reached, not that a position is 'good' and another supposely 'bad'.

DagosNavy 15:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To summarize, the Infobox originally contained these assertions:

Result: Axis victory.

(UK) Strength: 4 Allied submarines, Spitfire fighters,Hurricane fighters, Beaufighter fighter-bombers, and Albacore torpedo-bombers.

(UK) Casulaties: 4 British merchant ships sunk.

Consensus having been reached on the italicized items, points #1-3 deal with "Axis victory," and #4 with the Spitfires and Albacores:

1) Allegedly, "there is not need of a 'precise analysis' to arrive at conclusions" (i.e., of "Axis victory") because "there are thousands of articles in Wikipedia that rely in both consensus and reliable sources." This line of reasoning appears unsound because:

a) No evidence is presented for the existence of these "thousands";

b) Even if "thousands" did exist, they would represent at most only 0.4% of the total;

c) The No original research policy admits of no exception for "both consensus and reliable sources" that would make unnecessary the requirement for precise analysis; and

d) Absent an exception to the No original research policy on precise anlaysis, it is irrelevant whether there are thousands, millions, or billions of such Wikipedia articles.

2) The thesis of Axis victory relies not on "reliable sources," but rather on one source that avers a qualified "moral victory." On the other hand, eight sources (adding Macintyre, p. 135) assert a British victory.

3) Where is the evidence that "the three more sources (in italian)" are better than English-language sources? And, why shouldn't English-language sources be preferred on the English-language Wikipedia(see Wikipedia: Sources in languages other than English)? Also, even if the "three more sources (in italian)" were accepted, that would only make four sources for an Axis victory versus eight for a British victory.

Thus, taking the three points above into account, the Infobox should read "British victory" with a footnote to acknowledge the Axis' qualified "moral victory."

4) That the three Spitfires and five Albacores were "searching for the Italian fleet" seems insufficient reason to include these aircraft in the Infobox. Instead, it might be more relevant to ask if they found it. Therefore, what reliable published sources state that the Spitfires and Albacores found the Italian fleet? Kraken7 (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the footnote that has lately been added to "Result: Axis victory," where exactly does Thomas have the precise analysis that the "convoy battle" is either the same as the Second Battle of Sirte or entails an Axis victory at the Second Battle of Sirte? And, what about Thomas' precise analysis of Admiral Vian's "successful defence" at the Second Battle of Sirte (p. 152) and the heading for Chapter 11 that reads "Admiral Vian's Success at Sirte" (p. 142)?Kraken7 (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wan't to repeat the same again and again: ALL sources analyse the second Sirte from the point of view of the convoy, the real target of the axis forces (aerial and naval), so their conclusions INCLUDE the naval engagement AND its consequences. The claim of British victory came from a pure naval and tactical analysis, and not from all sources; the strategic victory was clearly for the axis (I insist, i will not to repeat why). My last offer; I propose to meet your concerns by adding the claim of "British tactical victory" to the infobox, but also I will reflect the opinion of all sources about the British STRATEGICAL FAILURE. Take it or leave it.DagosNavy 23:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The addition of "British tactical success" improves the article. That leaves the question of "Axis strategic victory." No one likes unneeded repetition, so maybe if just one source could be quoted (including page reference) with the precise analysis of "strategic victory . . . for the axis" or of "British strategical failure" then this controversy can be concluded forthwith. To be clear, at issue is not the MW10 convoy battle, but rather the March 22 "naval battle between most of the escorting warships of a British convoy and the bulk of a Regia Marina squadron." Kraken7 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

These citations largely deal with an strategic victory to the axis as a consequence of the naval battle: 1- The failure of the British convoy to steams towards Malta according to schedule due to the Italian intervention (Baragadin, Llewelyn and Bernotti) and 2- The destruction of the MW10 (the same convoy attacked by the Italian fleet, I guess) is acknowledged by all sources, even those claiming a British tactical victory (Woodman, page 316: Operation MG1 as a whole had been a strategic failure or Thompson, page 154: From the British point of view, the convoy battle was a failure; again, I guess the convoy battle necessarily includes the naval engagement of March 22 [Remember the Battle of the River Plate example]).

You must also keep an eye on the fact that NO source analyses "The naval encounter of March 22" and "MW10 convoy battle" or "Air attacks on MW10 convoy" in separate chapters; rather they describe the latter as the outcome of the former in a single narrative. And Wikipedia relies on those sources.DagosNavy 01:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What about specific page citations for Bragadin, Llewellyn, and Bernotti? Could "Thompson" be a reference to Thomas? Which reliable published sources have the precise analysis that the British defeat in the MW10 convoy battle means they also lost the Second Battle of Sirte?

Which events are the former and which the latter?Kraken7 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

1- Which reliable and published sources make the precise analyse of the "MW10 convoy battle" as a separate and unrelated event from the Second Battle of Sirte? Which sources cover both issues in separate chapters?

2- Did you read the article in detail? There you can find the citations for Bragadin, Llewelyn and Bernotti I mentioned above. Yes, "Thompson" is Thomas. For more, see the new section below (A British strategic defeat).

3- The air attacks on the convoy (the latter) are described by all sources as the outcome of the naval battle (the former), both of them as part of the same narrative.

4- This discussion is finished for me. The infobox article matches now the Assessments section with the inclusion of the claim of a British tactical victory. Since that section was edited by three different users, I think there is enough consensus to consider the citations supporting the conclusions there as valid.

5- Please, if you want to continue, raised the issue with other users, not with me. Thank you and by. DagosNavy 3:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If the 19 February and 20 February responses had cited reliable published sources with the precise analysis of Axis strategic victory at the Second Battle of Sirte, they would have demonstrated that the claim of Axis strategic victory is not original research (see Wikipedia: No original research). But, they didn't. Instead, they declared the discussion "finished" (20 February: #4, #5), offered premises to support the unpublished conclusion of Axis strategic victory (19 February: #1; 20 February #2, #3), and conflated the March 21-27 MW10 convoy battle with the March 22 Second Battle of Sirte (19 February: #2, #3; and 20 February: #1).

Re: 19 February

1. Yes, Bragadin (166) and Llewellyn (52) mention the convoy's delay, but neither accord the Axis a strategic victory at the Second Battle of Sirte on that account. If Axis strategic victory can be inferred from that delay, how would that not be an unpublished analysis? Without a published English translation, how is Bernotti verifiable?

2. a) Yes, all sources acknowledge convoy MW10's destruction, and it is generally agreed that the Second Battle of Sirte was part of the convoy battle. But, how would it not be an unpublished analysis to infer an Axis strategic victory at the Second Battle of Sirte from those two circumstances? b) Yes, Woodman calls Operation MG1 a "strategic failure," but where does he apply that to the Second Battle of Sirte? Yes, Thomas calls the convoy battle a "failure," but where does he apply that to the Second Battle of Sirte? Yes, the MW10 convoy battle includes the Second Battle of Sirte, but which reliable published sources call the latter an Axis strategic victory? And, what is the relevance of the "Battle of River Plate example"?

3. Yes, every reliable source recounts the convoy's destruction and the Second Battle of Sirte in the same chapter. But, how is that relevant to an Axis strategic victory at the latter? As for "the latter as the outcome of the former," see 20 February: #3.

Re: 20 February

1. a) Reliable published sources with the precise analysis of the Second Battle of Sirte as a separate part of the MW10 convoy battle: Belot (159-162), Bradford (202-205), Bragadin (160-166), Greene & Massignani (216-221), Llewellyn (34-54), Playfair (166-169), Sadkovich (242-245), Simpson (117-120), Thomas (147-150), and Woodman (297-305). How so? By giving the March 22 naval engagement a name, by defining it in space, and by specifying that it began and ended on March 22. Likewise, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, the article itself distinguishes between the Second Battle of Sirte and the overall MW 10 convoy battle. Furthermore, the infobox makes the same distinction. b) No source in English claims the Second Battle of Sirte was unrelated to the MW10 convoy battle. c) As for sources that "cover both issues in separate chapters," see 19 February: #3.

2. Yes. Regarding the citations for Bragadin, Llewellyn, and Bernotti see 19 February: #1.

3. No, not all sources: Neither Thomas nor Holland describes the "air attacks on the convoy . . . as the outcome of the naval battle." Indeed, Thomas (150) complains that "by driving the convoy south, the Italian fleet had given the Luftwaffe a longer journey" for its March 23 attacks. As it happens, only Sadkovich (245) describes the Second Battle of Sirte as the cause of the convoy's subsequent sinking. More to the point, though, which reliable published sources declare the March 22 Second Battle of Sirte was an Axis strategic victory ex post facto because the March 23 and March 26 air attacks were successful?

4. The Assessments section has no mention of the battle as an Axis strategic victory. And, how does a section's being edited by "three different users" make the "citations supporting the conclusions" valid? Also, when did "three different users" become "enough consensus"? And, does "enough consensus" trump verifiability?

5. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Wikipedia: Verifiability: Burden of evidence.

In light of the above, one way to improve the article would be to either remove the claim of Axis strategic victory or demonstrate that it is not original research. Kraken7 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since at least three differents editors "added or restored material" on the Assessments section, the "burden of evidence" lies also with them. You're free to raise your PoV with the other two or three users. If you are serious about 'improving the article', I also recommend you to discuss about valid sources with the established Wikipedian that assessed the article as B class.

Do you know the differences between tactic and strategic? ALL strategic victories are "post factum", since all of them are consequences of the tactical outcome. When the Assessments section mentions that "When the main objective, to re-supply Malta, is included in the assessment, however, the outcome is clearer.", the text means no other thing than the "strategic" consequences of the battle. And this statement is not OR, since the claim about an strategic defeat is strongly supported by Simpson (although your PoV dissmisses him). If you have already acknowledged that the 22 March engagement is part of the of the 'Convoy battle' or the 'March Convoy', and several sources concluded that the final global result was a British strategic failure, I think that the claim of an Axis strategic victory in the infobox is perfectely valid according to Wikipedia guidelines.

P/S: This is also my last warning before reporting you to an administrator regarding WP:IDHT. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Twelve questions were posed on 15 June, but only one (see #4 below) was addressed, sort of. It might serve to advance this discussion to answer (or at least give a reason for not answering) the other 11 questions.

1) The "'burden of evidence' lies also with them" assumes "the other two or three users" agree that the Second Battle of Sirte was an Axis victory. Their silence to date suggests that assumption is in error.

2) The invitation to "discuss about valid sources with the established Wikipedian that assessed the article as B class" seems to be based on a misunderstanding of 20 February: #4. The question was not about valid sources, but rather about how editing by other users supposedly makes conclusions valid.

3) Is "[d]o you . . . and strategic?" a rhetorical question? If not, why is it relevant to this topic?

4) 20 February: #3 refers not to "post factum," but rather to ex post facto. That is, no reliable published source (or at least none yet) looks at the successful air attacks of March 23 and March 26 and on that basis declares the March 22 Second Battle of Sirte an Axis strategic victory.

5) "When the main . . . is clearer" might mean almost anything, including the alleged "'strategic' consequences of the battle." Instead of leaving it up to readers to guess the author's intent, it might improve the article to explain clearly what is meant by that sentence.

6) That the March convoy was an Axis strategic victory is "strongly supported by Simpson": "The March convoy represented, therefore, a strategic defeat . . ." (119). However, the claim that the Second Battle of Sirte was likewise a strategic defeat for the British is not what Simpson said. To the contrary, no fewer than five times on the same page (ibid.) Simpson said the Second Battle of Sirte was a British victory. And, nowhere did he say the Second Battle of Sirte was also a strategic defeat. Instead, Simpson reserved the term "strategic defeat" for "the March convoy" (ibid.) of which the Second Battle of Sirte was indeed a part but to which he did not extend that particular analysis.Kraken7 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A) Regarding the infobox dispute, I think we need to leave behind all this confusing junk and focus on A British strategic defeatsection.

B) You can claim silence from an editor only after posting a message onhis own talk page.--Darius (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

B) The issue here is not silence, but rather an assumed consensus that lacks evidence to support its existence. Kraken7(talk) 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking about silence: I want to know your answer to point 'A'.--Darius (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A) How long would it take to answer a few simple questions?Kraken7 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A British strategic defeat

Just to meet the concerns of another user regarding the strategic outcome of the battle of 22 March 1942 between British and Italian naval forces, I have added a source which makes the 'precise analysis' this user asked for. The author is Michael Simpson, who became the leading authority on Admiral Cunningham career in recent years. This historian remarks in the pages 119 and 120 of his book A life of Admiral of the fleet Andrew Cunningham:

However, Vian's triumph was only a tactical victory (even that is disputed by italian apologist). The action had delayed the convoy and pushed it far to the south, thus bringing it well within the range of enemy bombers on the following day.(...) The March convoy represented, therefore, a strategic defeat; though the Italian fleet had failed to locate it, its pressure had placed the ships in the palms of Axis airmen. The collective gunfire of the warships might have saved ships which, supported by a single warship, became easy targets.

Simpson makes clear that the cause of the British strategic defeatwas the naval encounter known as Second Battle of Sirte, which is the subject of this Wikipedia article. DagosNavy15:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The above excerpt is not the precise analysis asked for:

1) Simpson appears to provide a precise analysis of the "March convoy," not of the Second Battle of Sirte specifically, which he calls a "triumph" and a "tactical victory."

2) Nowhere in the above excerpt does Simpson call Second Sirte "the cause" of the "strategic defeat," although he does seem to partly credit the battle for making the convoy ships "easy targets."

3) Third, even if Simpson is "the leading authority" on the career of Admiral Cunningham (who was not present at the battle), that alone does not necessarily make him an authority on the Second Battle of Sirte. Also, does Simpson really cite "italian apologist" or is that parenthetical an interpolation? Kraken7 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You have already acknowledged that the battle made the convoy ships easy targets, thus there is NO MORE to discuss about; "the battle" (the cause), had its consequences: the ships "became easy targets" (the effect). This also ended the attempts to split the convoy operation's fate from the naval encounter. 'Strategic victory' means that, the long term advantage taken by one of the contenders as consequence of the fighting. So necessarily any 'tactical' engagement (the 22 March battle in this particular case) must be at least 'partly credited' for the following success in any "strategic victory", even if that success is not a part of the main event.

The sentence after the semicolon is the explanation why the convoy represented a strategic defeat; semicolons usually replaced conjunctions, "because" in this case. And the mention of the Italian navy pressure in this sentence is key to understand why there was a strategic failure. In plain words, according to Simpson: no Italian pressure, no strategic defeat.

Yes, Simpson mentions the Italian apologist, I'am not sure if there is a specific footnote or not (Don't worry, he didn't include you as long as I know).

Tell me, Kraken, were you present at the battle to put in doubt Admiral Cunningham's, or even Simpson's reliability? If so, I think you also are free to put in doubt ALL the sources at this article, since none of the authors seem to have been there; go ahead man, erase them.DagosNavy 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: Simpson implied (119-120) that a cause of the convoy's "strategic defeat" was the Italian fleet's pressure. However, and this is the key point, he did not on that account call the Second Battle of Sirte a "strategic Axis victory." In this context, how is claiming that "necessarily any . . . the main event" not an unpublished argument?

The business about the "Italian apologist" (footnote #2) is a minor detail. The May 12 version of the article read: "even that is disputed by italian apologist." That a clause this short should contain two consecutive solecisms is highly unusual for reputable publishers, like Routledge and Frank Cass. However, it would appear Routledge (2004) at least is blameless: "even that is disputed by Italian apologists." The fault, then, must lie with Frank Cass.

More trivia: Neither Admiral Cunningham's nor Simpson's "reliability" was "put in doubt." Rather, the question was whether Simpson's reputed expertise on the life of Admiral Cunningham automatically extended to the Second Battle of Sirte. That is all. Kraken7(talk) 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A) You did recognize that Simpson (a published and reliable source) implied that a cause of the British strategic defeat was the Italian intervention; his statement is clear enough to sustain the claim of an Axis strategic victory in the infobox according to Wikipedia policies, since this author is quite assertive about the role played by the Italian action in the final failure of MW-10. Frankly, I see no ground for another interpretation.

B) Wikipedia relies on published arguments or data, but it doesn't mean that we need a literal quote for each edit we make. I found an essay (not an official guideline, but a complement of the NOR policy) that could help in cases like this: WP:NOTOR. The first section deals with Obvious Deductions. The second paragraph says:

Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable source. The concerns are similar to the issues with complex mathematics.

The conclusion that the British strategic defeat was, at least in part, the consequence of the 22 March action according to Simpson is indeed within the boundaries of an obvious deduction or syllogism. I found no complexity nor deep analysis here beyond the author's statement.--Darius (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide informationdirectly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. -- Wikipedia: No original research

"Result Axis strategic victory" in the infobox has been challenged as lacking a reliable published source with that precise analysis as required by Wikipedia: No original research: Synthesis of published material serving to to advance a position. However, it has been claimed that Michael Simpson's "A Life of Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Cunningham" has that precise analysis. Whether the actual text of Simpson's book supports that claim is examined below:

A.

1. Recognizing that Simpson implied the Second Battle of Sirte was a cause -- and not a necessary or decisive cause -- of the March convoy's strategic defeat is not the same as acknowledging the Second Battle of Sirte as a strategic defeat. Why not? Because that is not what Simpson said: "The March convoy, therefore, represented a strategic defeat . . ." (119). He did not say strategic defeat also applied to the Second Battle of Sirte. In view of this, how is "Simpson's statement" about the March convoy a precise analysis of Axis strategic victory at the Second Battle of Sirte?

2. Where exactly was Simpson "quite assertive" about the Italian fleet's role in the March convoy's strategic defeat? And, even if he was, how would that be relevant to whether the Second Battle of Sirte was an Axis strategic victory?

B.

1. Who has argued that a "literal quote" is required "for each edit"? If a reliable published source can be found with the precise analysis of British strategic defeat at the Second Battle of Sirte, then the converse (i.e., Axis strategic victory) would be acceptable. However, since WP:NOTOR is an essay and essays are not actionable or instructive (Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines: Procedural questions: The difference between policy/guideline/essay/etc), it does not complement WP:NOR, but rather is a proposed complement. OnceWP:NOTOR attains policy or guideline status, it will be taken into account.

2. If Axis strategic victory at the Second Battle of Sirte is as obvious a deduction or syllogism as x's strategic defeat = y's strategic victory, then why not demonstrate it? If it has already been demonstrated in the first and second paragraphs of the 22 February post, then why not answer the question from the 19 June post? And, on what page did Simpson state "no Italian pressure, no strategic defeat"? And, if he did not make that statement, then how is it not original research? And, even if it were not original research, how would it necessarily make the Second Battle of Sirte into an Axis strategic victory?

C. For the sake of argument, imagine Simpson did say the Second Battle of Sirte was a British strategic defeat and therefore an Axis strategic victory. How would having "Axis strategic victory" (attested to by one source) in the infobox alongside "British tactical success" (attested to by no fewer than ten sources) be consistent with "[w]e should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view" (Wikipedia: Neutral point of view: Achieving neutrality: Undue weight)?Kraken7 (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A.

Your quote of Simpson is incomplete. Simpson says that The March convoy represented, therefore, a strategic defeat; though the Italian fleet had failed to locate it, its pressure had placed the ships in the palms of Axis airmen. I will not repeat the 22 February post about the value of semicolons. Read it again, please. What another thing, different to the so called Second battle of Sirte could have Simpson in mind when he speaks of "its (the Italian fleet) pressure"?.

The entry "Result" in infoboxes could include a number of situations, even if the battle is not the decisive or necessary cause of the resulting' statu quo. There is no official guideline or policy about whether or not the result must include only decisive or necessary consequences. In our case, the battle itself was 1) One of the causes of the British strategic defeat and 2) The result foreseen by Iachino. No doubt of that not only in the words of Simpson, but also in those of Llewellyn, Macintyre, Bernotti, Bragadin, Weichold and Sierra. No matter if the battle was concomitant with another factor (i.e.: further air attacks) or if the battle itself is part of a major engagement (i.e.: your attempts of splitting the so called convoy battle from the 22 March clash); the 2nd battle of Sirte is relevant to the British strategic defeat, or in other words, the Axis strategic victory.

B

1. Simpson quote is enough, according to WP:NOTOR. The Italian sortie was one of the causes of the British strategic debacle, as explained in point A. It's not true that the essay is a 'proposed' complement; it is a supplement of an official policy:

While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Original research.

The essay also is offered as a contribution to the ongoing discussion — and as an attempt to help avoid Wikilawyering.

Frankly, I think all this issue is a blatant and protracted case of Wikilawyering from your part.

2. I already answered the 19 June question on 20 June post. I repeat, no need of the 22 March battle to be the necessary or exclusivecause of the British strategic defeat in order to include the latter in the infobox.

C

We could have hundreds of authors claiming a British tactical victory; however, if none of them denies in an explicit way an Axis strategic victory, they don't count as a 'majority view'; they simple remain silent about the issue. There is no basis then for a case of "undue weight" of sources.

By the way, Simpson is not the only author speaking about a British strategic defeat; we have also Woodman (page 316). Thomas, Bernotti, Weichold, Sadkovich and Macintyre also left little ground for doubts about the overall failure of the convoy, even if they didn't mention the word "strategic".--Darius (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Simpson's "A Life of Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Cunningham" is the only reliable published source cited for "Result: Italian strategic victory" (infobox, footnote #2), yet that precise analysis (as required by WP:NOR) does not appear in Simpson's book.

A.

Simpson said the March convoy (the convoy) "represented . . . a strategic defeat" (p. 119), which is a precise analysis of Axis strategic victory over the convoy. Whether that analysis also includes the Second Battle of Sirte (the battle) is discussed below:

1. The 13 August post misquotes Simpson: "strategic defeat" is not bolded. And how is "the 22 February post about the value of semicolons" not an unpublished argument per WP:NOR?

2. By "its pressure," Simpson presumably meant the Italian fleet's sortie, but how would interepreting "its pressure" as a precise analysis of strategic defeat at the battle not be an unpublished argument?

3. Agreed: "The entry 'Result' in infoboxes could include a number of situations," but shouldn't "Italian strategic victory" be traceable to reliable published sources per WP:Verifiability? Also agreed: Per Simpson, "the battle itself was 1) One of the causes of the British strategic defeat, and 2) The result foreseen by Iachino" leading to "Axis strategic victory" over the convoy. But how would applying Axis/Italian strategic victory to the battle not be an unpublished conclusion? And, how would intepreting what Llewellyn, Macintyre, and Bragadin had to say about the convoy's failure as a precise analysis of Axis/Italian strategic victory at the battle not be an unpublished argument?

B.

It is also argued that an Axis/Italian strategic victory is an "obvious deduction" and thus not original research per the essayWP:NOTOR. However, since one party to this discussion does not accept WP:NOTOR, this argument seems moot.

1. Offering WP:NOTOR as a contribution to the discussion is welcomed. Yet, WP:NOTOR is neither policy nor guideline. Also, since WP:NOTOR provides no criteria for distinguishing between simple and more complex logical deductions, it might lead to more Wikilawyering, not less. Therefore, perhaps it would be best to adhere to Wikipedia policy (WP:NOR) for now.

2. Where in the 20 June post was the 19 June question answered?

C.

1. Agreed: A British tactical victory would not necessarily exclude the possibility of an Italian strategic victory, if a reliable published source with that precise analysis existed.

2. Agreed: Simpson stated the convoy represented a strategic defeat, but how would applying that analysis to the battle not be an unpublished conclusion? And, how would interpreting what Woodman, Thomas, Sadkovich, and Macintyre had to say about "the overall failure of the convoy" as a precise analysis of Axis/Italian strategic victory at the battle not be an unpublished argument? Kraken7 (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Miscount

"Four more destroyers, Sikh, Legion and Lance, suffered lesser damage from 8" cruiser fire." Was there a ship called the and, is there one missing, or were just three damaged?Clarityfiend 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessments section: undue weight?

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. . . . We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a tiny minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.

--Wikipedia: Neutral point of view: undue weight

The Assessments section compares two views from various sources and in so doing devotes more attention to the view of Italian/Axis victory:

• By sentence count, 65% (6.5 sentences: paragraph 1, sentence 2; 2/1; 2/2 first clause; 3/1; 3/2; 3/3; and 3/4) touts an Italian/Axis victory, but only 35% (3.5 sentences: 1/1, 2/2 second clause, 2/3, and 2/4) a British victory.
• By word count, 75% (168 words) of the text argue for an Italian/Axis victory, but only 25% (55 words) for a British victory.

Yet, an examination of 14 reliable published sources in English reveals three views of the battle's outcome and gives a different picture of which view is the most popular:

• 10 (Belot, Bradford; Llewellyn; Macintyre; Playfair; Roskill; Shores, Cull, and Malizia; Simpson; Thomas; and Woodman) grant a British victory,
• 3 (Bragadin, Holland, and Greene and Massignani) do not mention a victor, and
• 1 (Sadkovich) maintains the Italian admiral won a qualified moral victory.

Per the above, the view of Italian/Axis victory is in the minority while that of British victory is the majority view. And, if the Assessments section were to reflect these views according to popularity:

• 71% (vice 25-35% now) of its text would be about a British victory,
• 21% (vice 0% now) would not mention a victor, and
• 7% (vice 65-75%) would acknowledge a qualified moral victory for the Italians/Axis.

Given the above, how is the Assessments section's emphasis on Italian/Axis victory not a case of undue weight?Kraken7 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The tactical British victory is already mentioned in first placeboth in the battle infobox and in the Assessments section, so the discussion is pointless. You're forgetting the cited foreign language sources too, given as valid by the B class assessment. By ignoring those sources you are risking WP:POINT and more specificallyWP:IDHT. I wish also to warn you of becoming a Single-purpose account.--Darius(talk) 13:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not priority, which view gets mentioned first, but rather emphasis, the majority view should receive proportional attention. At present, since the minority view receives disproportionate attention, the question of undue weight remains. Please clarify point regarding "foreign language sources." Also, since "Single-purpose account" is neither a Wikipedia policy nor guideline, it is of no consequence. Kraken7 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

As long as I know, no native speaker of English has published a line from the Italian side, so for an Italian prospective (as valid as the British one, I guess), we have no other choice than Italian sources. The preference of English sources is for no other reason than the benefit of the readers, but this article is a two sides story: thus the foreign language citations are unavoidable in order to achieve a NPOV narrative. I think the undue weight would be to rely only on British or allied bibliography.

I also insist, the foreign language sources were given as valid by theB class assessment.

Yes, SPA is not official policy, but it's risky for an user suspected of sockpuppetry like you.--Darius (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is whether the claim of Italian/Axis victory at the Second Battle of Sirte has undue weight in the "Assessments" section.

1) What does "no native speaker of English has published a line from the Italian side" mean? How is it relevant? What is the evidence for it?

2) The "preference of English sources is for no other reason(emphasis added) than the benefit of readers"? No, that is false. Two other reasons are given in the very same sentence. First and foremost, English-language sources are preferred "[b]ecause this is the English Wikipedia." The second reason to prefer English-language sources is "so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." Besides, English-language sources are preferred not for the "benefit of readers," but rather for their convenience. Of course, published English-language translations (Belot from the French and Bragadin from the Italian) are also welcome. In any event, since Wikipedias in other languages than English are available, why shouldn't foreign-language sources be cited in the corresponding foreign-language article?

3) What policy or guideline states that "foreign language citations are unavoidable to achieve a NPOV narrative"? Without fluency in Italian, for example, how could untranslated Italian-language sources be easily verified?

4) How is a B-class assessment relevant to undue weight? What does "given as valid" mean? How is it known that the "given as valid" applies to each and every foreign-language source?

5) Point taken: That Bragadin, Holland, and Greene and Massignani did not designate a victor is not the same as their saying there was none or that the battle was a draw. So, these three sources should be excluded from consideration of undue weight. Thus, a British victory is the majority view of 91% (10 of 11 sources that name a winner and have more than a full page on the battle) and a qualified moral victory for the Italians remains a minority view of 9% (1 of 11 sources). Therefore, to justify the percentage of text currently dedicated to touting an Italian/Axis victory in the "Assessments" section (75% by word count) would require citing, in addition to Sadkovich, at least 32 other reliable published sources with that precise analysis.

It would be helpful in any response to make sure answers or comments correspond to the appropriate number above. Kraken7(talk) 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

1) What It means is that we should rely on Italian-language sources for an Italian prospective of the facts, unless we could find the published memories of a mole, spy or turncoat onboard Iachino's ships. The exception may be Bragadin, who spoke English almost as his mother tongue. It's relevant for the reasons already exposed, in order to avoid an exclusive British point of view in the article.

2) Err...Nope, you didn't get the point. "Because this is English Wikipedia" means only that most of the "readers" are native-speakers of that language, and not that foreing language sources in English Wikipedia should be avoided "because this is English Wikipedia". Yes, verifiability is more difficult for these readers regarding non-English sources, but there is no guideline or policy that explicitly bans foreing authors citations from the articles.

3) The common reader, besides assuming good faith from the ocassional translators, could rely on some online translation programs, like Babelfish, for example. And, I insist, since the Second Battle of Sirte is a two-side story, we need Italian and other foreing sources for this article (see point #1).

4) Go to the talk page of the user that assessed the article and raise the case of "undue weight" and foreing language sources with him.

5) You must have noticed that I performed a "tweak" on the section. I changed the phrase "partial victory" for "partial achievement"; this matches not only with the Italian authors' claims, but also with those of Weichold and Macintyre. Thus I think we have now no claim of an "Italian victory" in the text, praeter the discredited fascist propaganda. We have then no "undue weigh" or PoV push; the only victor explicitly mentioned in the Assessments is Vian (11 sources). The other sources (7) explicitly mention a "partial achievement" of Iachino, but not a "victory", perhaps with the exception of Sadkovich and Gigli. Sierra is a case apart: according to him, the Italians left the battlefield "not defeated" (no vencidos). I guess there are too many sources about this fact to be ignored in the narrative. And ignoring them would be also "undue weight".

Same case for the dispersal of the convoy as a consequence of the battle; 13 authors (only two of them -Sierra and Bernotti- not translated to English) agree with that, and I have not found yet a single source expressly contradicting this view.--Darius (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is undue weight: Whether the minority view of Italian/Axis victory at the Second Battle of Sirte receives more detailed treatment in the Assessments section than the majority view of British victory (see 20 May).

1) It has been alleged that "no native speaker of English has published a line from the Italian side" (15 June); therefore, "we should rely on Italian-language sources" (7 July). But, what evidence supports this impugning of native-English speaking authors?

2) One possible interpretation of "Because this is the English Wikipedia" might be "that most of the 'readers' are native-speakers of that langugage." But, how is it known that this is the only interpretation? Agreed: No guideline or policy bans foreign-language citations; however, per "official policy on the English-language Wikipedia" (Wikipedia: Verifiability), "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources."

3) From 6 July: Which Wikipedia policy or guideline states that "foreign-language sources are unavoidable to achieve a NPOV narrative"? As for relying on "occasional translators" or an online translation program, where are the clear citations of foreign-language originals (per Wikipedia: Verifiability: Sources in languages other than English) so that readers not fluent in Italian could check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation?

4) Where on the WikiProject Italy and the Military history WikiProject webpages is it stated that a B-class assessment of an article means "foreign langauge sources were given as valid"?

5) a) How does changing one word eliminate undue weight when 75% of the text in the Assessments section still touts an Italian victory/partial achievement?

b) When the second sentence in the Assessments section states: "some prominent members of the Party (Starace, Grandi, Ciano) called the battle an 'Italian victory,'" how is there "now no claim of an 'Italian victory' in the text" and the "only victor explicitly mentioned in the Assessments is Vian"? Further, as purveyors of "discredited fascist propaganda," how do Starace, Grandi, and Ciano meet the threshold for inclusion per Wikipedia: Verifiability?

c) If Sadkovich and Gigli are exceptions, how can there be seven "other sources" that "explicitly mention a 'partial achievement'"? Also, where do Llewellyn and Weichold "explicitly mention a 'partial achievement'"? And, how would anyone not fluent in Italian and not versed in Italian historiography be able to tell whether Trizzino, Giorgerini, Bernotti, and Gigli are reliable sources and not "discredited fascist propaganda"? Kraken7 (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are free to add 25 or so times the phrase "British victory", if you think it needs a more extensive treatment. The consequences of the battle were more favorable to the Axis, and since the header of the section reads "Assessments", thus no wonder if the analyse focuses on those consequences and not in the brief engagement won by the Royal Navy.

1)What evidence supports the impugnement of foreing-language sources?

2)If you agree that no guideline bans foreing-language authors, Why your insistence on discrediting them?. Wikipedia states that we should use English sources in preference, not that we must.

3)I promise to include those citations as soon as possible.

4)The first criteron for an article to become "B" class, as perWikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, is that the text It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.. And the page already meets that point.

5)a)When I included the phrase "British tactical victory" in the "results" entry at the infobox, your reaction was quite entusiastic about the "improvement" in the article. How does including a three word phrase makes an article better than before?

b)The paragraph only depicts the "mood" of the regime after the battle (hardly they could have claimed victory after Taranto or Matapan), and is explicit in qualifiying the statement as "propaganda."

c)Llewelyn wrote that "the Italian fleet, by forcing the convoy south of its route, had given the German bombers a second chance, as Admiral Iachino had foreseen.", while Weichold, according to Sadkovich, "credited Iachino with delaying the British so that Axis aircraft could attack on the 23rd". They mean that even if he was unable to destroy the convoy, he achieved the goal of exposing it to the Luftwaffe. I have already talk enough on foreing sources; it's clear now that they are perfectly valid, no matter other considerations. On the other hand, How the exclusive use of English sources would make the article unbiased and not the subject of undue weight?--Darius (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Selective sourcing in "Follow-up actions" section?

In the second paragraph, first sentence of the "Follow-up actions" section, do all reliable published sources maintain that "all three of the remaining ships" were hit on March 24? Also, in the same paragraph, third sentence, do all reliable published sources maintain thatTalabot and Pampas were sunk on March 24? If not all, then how many have this precise analysis? Kraken7 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

— Kraken7 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Darius (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But how is it relevant to selective sourcing?Kraken7 (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for using this space Kraken, but I found no other place to post this tag. Oh, and the text has been already edited in order to meet your concerns.--Darius (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HMS Kingston (F64).jpg

The image Image:HMS Kingston (F64).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2