This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Monte Cassino article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 15, 2004, May 18, 2004, May 18, 2005, May 18, 2006, May 18, 2007, May 18, 2009, May 18, 2010, and May 18, 2013. |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I reverted this edit, adding the bear to the list of combatants. Note that I did so solely based on this being Aelimian21 ( talk · contribs) acting inappropriately (see WP:SOCK). I take no stance on whether or not the bear should be included in the list, and my revert should not be understood as me advocating any position on that subject. I do really like the story of the bear, though. -- Yamla ( talk) 11:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
So im gonna raise this again, the bear, why can't he be a fixture of the page? or can he, i think this needs revisting. Lindwigtoon 00:24, 28th September 2020 (BST)
I find it astonishing that there is almost nothing about the impact and the almost total destruction of the abbey (especially the building) itself. That especially since this abbey is and was so much important as one of the original abbeys of the Benedictine Order. This historical importance is nowhere emphasized.
Compared against the great amount of detail and wealth of information of the battle itself, the destruction of the abbey's building itself is nowhere actually described. The battle is explained and described in every possible detail - but the actual destruction of the building - and what has actually been destroyed - is almost silenced to death.
Even more disturbingly, there does not even exist an English-language article about the abbey's building itself; there is only one single artice titled "Monte Cassino", and´the article begins as a description of the hill, not of the abbey. It does contain an description of the abbey - but the overall article's wording is always about the hill, not the actual abbey's building. Through this downplaying, readers can get the impression as if this special Benetictine founding abbey was "just another target" and didn't have any importance in Christian history at all.
I can also see no article on the destruction of the town of Cassino, nothing about its bombing, and no article how much of the ancient roman town of Casinum was destroyed through the bombing. And nothing about the fact that many civilians lost their lives there.
There is also almost no mentioning of the Marocchinate and its reasoning. That an Ally officer apparingly implicitely allowed the mass rape (or so I understand its article) is something that should be within the Battle article. Although this is clearly a part of the actual war, it is never mentioned within the main article, and the proposed thousands of cases of rape (if the numbers of the Marocchinate article are true) are thus downplayed as some kind of minor collateral damage. There is no mention of an scientific approac to the event, only the mention of an "claims of exaggeration" by a French Marshal, but this claim does not look to me like an the result of a scientific study.
When I compare the sheer amount of words of the paragraph called "the Battle" with the paragraph about the Marocchinate, then the reader can see how unimportant actual civilians are. Even the paragraph about "troop honours" is placed higher than the paragraphs about the civilians.
The article "Battle of Monte Cassino" is an military article. It should, however, show *everything* about the battle, and not downplay aspects of it, like the destruction of the actual, Abbey building, the mass rape called Marrocchinade, and the destruction of the town of Casino.
On the page about the town Cassino there is a picture of the destroyed town "ruins of Cassino after the bombing". What I do not understand is that it is not shown within the "Battle of Monte Cassino" page, although its destruction was clearly a part of the whole battle. Alrik Fassbauer ( talk) 13:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The simple reasons for your first two questions is that this is an article about the battle in the context of the campaign in Italy and not about the building or town except where that has relevance to the fighting. And that's where the focus of the article lies. That does not preclude anyone writing an article about the buildings or the town but if volunteer editors don't have resources or inclination to write about those then they won't. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
From the article as it stands: " Cardinal Secretary of State, Luigi Maglione, bluntly stated to the senior U.S. diplomat to the Vatican, Harold Tittmann, that the bombing was 'a colossal blunder … a piece of a gross stupidity'." That should clearly be (in correct English) "a piece of gross stupidity". Is Maglione being misquoted, or was his English poor? Can anyone check the cited source: Hapgood & Richardson, p. 225? Thanks. GrindtXX ( talk) 18:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Quote is correct. In Hapgood & Richardson, New York: Congdon & Weed, Inc., 1984, it is, however, on p. 227. TrinityGate ( talk) 16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC) x
If Polish forces captured Monte Casino why is the Polish unit not mentioned, only the British and Americans. Surely the Polish unit had a name and a leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.121.235 ( talk) 21:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It wasn’t a separate country in 1944. Boscaswell talk 01:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Ive been reading lack of consensus here on the mentioning of Wojtek the bear in the Strength Section of the Infobox.
Perhaps a compromise could be reached by adding a note on the 240k men to make note of Wojtek, given that they didnt fit the commonly understood notion of "men" in a military context.
Given that Wojtek is of notoriety for his combat in the battle, especially given how unusual it is for a bear to fight in a human war, I think it should be at the very least, a footnote Cheese 122 07:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Monte Cassino article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 15, 2004, May 18, 2004, May 18, 2005, May 18, 2006, May 18, 2007, May 18, 2009, May 18, 2010, and May 18, 2013. |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I reverted this edit, adding the bear to the list of combatants. Note that I did so solely based on this being Aelimian21 ( talk · contribs) acting inappropriately (see WP:SOCK). I take no stance on whether or not the bear should be included in the list, and my revert should not be understood as me advocating any position on that subject. I do really like the story of the bear, though. -- Yamla ( talk) 11:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
So im gonna raise this again, the bear, why can't he be a fixture of the page? or can he, i think this needs revisting. Lindwigtoon 00:24, 28th September 2020 (BST)
I find it astonishing that there is almost nothing about the impact and the almost total destruction of the abbey (especially the building) itself. That especially since this abbey is and was so much important as one of the original abbeys of the Benedictine Order. This historical importance is nowhere emphasized.
Compared against the great amount of detail and wealth of information of the battle itself, the destruction of the abbey's building itself is nowhere actually described. The battle is explained and described in every possible detail - but the actual destruction of the building - and what has actually been destroyed - is almost silenced to death.
Even more disturbingly, there does not even exist an English-language article about the abbey's building itself; there is only one single artice titled "Monte Cassino", and´the article begins as a description of the hill, not of the abbey. It does contain an description of the abbey - but the overall article's wording is always about the hill, not the actual abbey's building. Through this downplaying, readers can get the impression as if this special Benetictine founding abbey was "just another target" and didn't have any importance in Christian history at all.
I can also see no article on the destruction of the town of Cassino, nothing about its bombing, and no article how much of the ancient roman town of Casinum was destroyed through the bombing. And nothing about the fact that many civilians lost their lives there.
There is also almost no mentioning of the Marocchinate and its reasoning. That an Ally officer apparingly implicitely allowed the mass rape (or so I understand its article) is something that should be within the Battle article. Although this is clearly a part of the actual war, it is never mentioned within the main article, and the proposed thousands of cases of rape (if the numbers of the Marocchinate article are true) are thus downplayed as some kind of minor collateral damage. There is no mention of an scientific approac to the event, only the mention of an "claims of exaggeration" by a French Marshal, but this claim does not look to me like an the result of a scientific study.
When I compare the sheer amount of words of the paragraph called "the Battle" with the paragraph about the Marocchinate, then the reader can see how unimportant actual civilians are. Even the paragraph about "troop honours" is placed higher than the paragraphs about the civilians.
The article "Battle of Monte Cassino" is an military article. It should, however, show *everything* about the battle, and not downplay aspects of it, like the destruction of the actual, Abbey building, the mass rape called Marrocchinade, and the destruction of the town of Casino.
On the page about the town Cassino there is a picture of the destroyed town "ruins of Cassino after the bombing". What I do not understand is that it is not shown within the "Battle of Monte Cassino" page, although its destruction was clearly a part of the whole battle. Alrik Fassbauer ( talk) 13:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The simple reasons for your first two questions is that this is an article about the battle in the context of the campaign in Italy and not about the building or town except where that has relevance to the fighting. And that's where the focus of the article lies. That does not preclude anyone writing an article about the buildings or the town but if volunteer editors don't have resources or inclination to write about those then they won't. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
From the article as it stands: " Cardinal Secretary of State, Luigi Maglione, bluntly stated to the senior U.S. diplomat to the Vatican, Harold Tittmann, that the bombing was 'a colossal blunder … a piece of a gross stupidity'." That should clearly be (in correct English) "a piece of gross stupidity". Is Maglione being misquoted, or was his English poor? Can anyone check the cited source: Hapgood & Richardson, p. 225? Thanks. GrindtXX ( talk) 18:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Quote is correct. In Hapgood & Richardson, New York: Congdon & Weed, Inc., 1984, it is, however, on p. 227. TrinityGate ( talk) 16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC) x
If Polish forces captured Monte Casino why is the Polish unit not mentioned, only the British and Americans. Surely the Polish unit had a name and a leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.121.235 ( talk) 21:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It wasn’t a separate country in 1944. Boscaswell talk 01:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Ive been reading lack of consensus here on the mentioning of Wojtek the bear in the Strength Section of the Infobox.
Perhaps a compromise could be reached by adding a note on the 240k men to make note of Wojtek, given that they didnt fit the commonly understood notion of "men" in a military context.
Given that Wojtek is of notoriety for his combat in the battle, especially given how unusual it is for a bear to fight in a human war, I think it should be at the very least, a footnote Cheese 122 07:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)