![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archiveツ1 | 竊 | Archiveツ3 | Archiveツ4 | Archiveツ5 | Archiveツ6 | Archiveツ7 | Archiveツ8 |
The first section of the Campaign (Italian offensive) needs to be restructured. I believe a split in 2 sections is the best option: "Pindus" and "Epirus front", since the penetration attempt concerned two seperate sectors: 1. towards Ioannina and the coast (B. of Elaia Kalamas) & towards Pindus in order to cut the Greek forces of Western Macedonia (B. of Pindus). Alexikoua ( talk) 18:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Why does it go on about North Africa and the opinion of the German naval Staff? Can the Aftermath be somehow improved and focusing more on Greece? What about the terms of surrender to the Italians and Germans? That could be expanded more. There's a quote from Sadkovich, but no follow through. Far too general. Why tie in the loss of Libya that happened two years later and Taranto?
Also there is still this tendency to view the Italians through the eyes of the Germans as if Italy herself could do nothing without the "blessing" of Hitler. The Triple Occupation section doesn't quite add up and is unsatisfying. 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 21:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
People are making the war itself less than 10% of the article. Just my 2 cents. Bertdrunk ( talk) 06:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That's ok Keith. There needs to be context. But my fear and the fear of others, is that the article could end up becoming a soapbox for Greek revanchism and nationalist jingoism. The article is much improved from how it used to be, but please be on guard for creeping revanchism. History mustn't be a soap opera of assumed intentions, but relate the facts objectively, impartially and balance. This is difficult to do because for the Greeks, the Greco-Italian war is placed in their history as an heroic deed equal to the feats of their mythical gods and battles. Greek school children are taught that the war was an heroic effort equal to none. This approach has to be avoided. 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 10:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not AnnalesSchool, but someone who has been following the debate with growing interest and concern. It is interesting to see the horse-trading and give and take involved in writing Wiki articles like this one. History by committee!!! But I do agree with a lot that AnnalesSchool has written, including his observations and criticisms of the original article. He's obviously of the opinion that the war was not a defeat for Italy because his definition of victory is basically one of "who's left standing in the field?" "who got what they wanted - control of Greece." Whereas I'm of the opinion that it was neither a victory nor a defeat because of German intervention that allowed the Italians into Greece. So there's a difference of opinion between us. But we do tend to agree that the Greeks are going a little overboard by claiming it was a resounding victory for them. It certainly wasn't because while they used up all their resources to hold one wolf at bay, it allowed another through the back door. That is not a victory.
92.234.202.8 (
talk)
13:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears you share the very same obssesion with Annalles who was eager to overexpand the Aftermath section in order to show that this was in fact an Italian victory (such as the Italian parade argument). Alexikoua ( talk) 14:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I have temporarily removed mention of this from the background section as i am unable to locate a source that supports this. Any editors have a source that supports reinsertion? Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 22:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Added section and rm cites from infobox. 64 aircraft (another 24 claimed) is this a discrepancy between RHAF claims and Regia Aeronautica records and does it include RAF claims? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 17:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll just throw in my two cents worth. Having scanned the article, it could do with a few more images of Italian troops or military in action, fighter planes or navy involved in the actual war. Just having a pic of a stern-faced Mussolini isn't enough. An image of an Italian military parade in front of the Acropolis would be ideal. I am ready to upload some images if requested. 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 10:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
竏 竏 Also, it's not "el Duce", but "il Duce". "El" is Spanish! Sorry Enigma. 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 10:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
竏 竏 I'm afraid the article is already as Italian as it can be (map of the Italian dream-empire, entire section dedicated in the background etc). However, a picture of Musolini observing the performace of his Primavera initiative, which sent thousands of soldiers to death will be quite good. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
竏 竏 Ok, let's do it. You include a pic of Mussolini (two "ss") and I'll include Italian troops on parade in front of the Acropolis. Do we agree? 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 13:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
OK I will try to upload some better images of Mussolini and throw in some extra images of the Italians in the fighting. 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 17:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I can remember that in the past the article contained a couple of Italian pics (Alpini troops etc.) but they were deleted due to c-v issues. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
An image of an Italian military parade in front of the Acropolis would be ideal.s/he means the now deleted file File:La Conquista di Atene.png which was uploaded by AnnalesSchool without valid permission. The file is still hosted at the website commandosupremo.com, which is associated with Annales. ホ煩.ホ.ツ ホサマ湖ウホソマ ママ∃ャホセホケマ 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Added section on RAF and air operations; I've nothing for the RHAF though. Keith-264 ( talk) 14:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I can find some piece of info about that: formations, operations etc. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Another impostor? Keith-264 ( talk) 12:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You guys are getting very paranoid. Bertdrunk ( talk) 16:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I've decided to keep out of the way for now to avoid toe treading. ;O) Keith-264 ( talk) 12:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
separate third level ones so shouldn't have text under them Keith-264 ( talk) 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I added some additional information to the article and several books. The text shows up in the article as well as the in-line cites. However, the books - despite showing up in edit view - do not appear on the actual page: Weinberg 1994, p. 210; Paoletti 2008, p. 174; and Duignan & Gann 1995. What the heck did I do? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Keith-264/sandbox5 is there anything here which anyone else would accept nem con? Keith-264 ( talk) 16:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I think 2 and 3 should be combined as the Prelude. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
[2] La Campagna di Grecia e la fine della guerra parallela ツゥ Enrico G. Dapei Keith-264 ( talk) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't be better if they have their own sections? They are not in chronological order after all. Vinukin ( talk) 17:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all! I've managed to secure a copy of Cervi's work in its original Italian version from 1965. I'll start (slowly) to introduce more stuff from it where necessary, but although I can usually understand Italian most of the time via French and Spanish, I'd like to know if anyone with an actual working knowledge of the language would be willing to help if (or rather when) I will encounter a problem Google Translate can't solve. Cheers, Constantine 笨 13:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Is Thelematarios you know who? Keith-264 ( talk) 20:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Here I am, lets talk about it Thelematarios 窶捻receding undated comment added 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Template:Infobox military conflict
result 窶 optional 窶 this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
Keith-264 ( talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh well, ok then, thanks mate Thelematarios 窶捻receding undated comment added 19:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I Think it's time to request this page to be blocked by some time. Hong Tray ( talk) 22:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If the results is showing 'see aftermath', it's almost certainly controversial, hence this section. I would've expected to see some discussion if not on the talk page then at least in one of the archives for why the results is 'see aftermath'. I found that there is such a discussion, in archive 3, but two of the people in that discussion have since been blocked for abusively using multiple accounts, so I'm no longer sure that applies (besides it was 3 years ago).
I think this should be classified as a Greek victory because they did defeat the Italians. They would later be defeated by the Germans, but that has its own article, Battle of Greece. Notably the Germans are not mentioned at all as a belligerent in this article. The aftermath section also states that the Italians had suffered a serious setback.
It might be better to excise the later German intervention from this article and redirect the reader to Battle of Greece. The two phases of the war are clearly different, and if we are to include the German intervention into this article, then perhaps both articles can be merged to one, the Germans included as a belligerent, and the results listed as "Axis victory". All or nothing, not half-and-half. Banedon ( talk) 03:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
result 窶 optional 窶 this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
please read it. Earlier discussions are in the archive where this was gone into exhaustively. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree this can be considered a Greek victory. The article is not about the battle of Albania or who push 10km the other around, it's about the entire conflict, the one which didn't end good for Greece. Hong Tray ( talk) 11:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
There's enough of a lack of consensus here that I think I'll begin an RfC. Two options right now, one being to classify this as a Greek victory and remove mention of the Battle of Greece to its own article, and the other is to maintain the status quo. If anyone has more options to add, please share. Banedon ( talk) 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there consensus among the RS? What seems to bedevil this criterion in the infobox is the definition of decisive. Not everyone uses the Clausewitzian sense of a battle which has political results. Does anyone treat the German arrival in Libya as a development in a war or a new one? Keith-264 ( talk) 07:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm going ahead with the RfC with three options: in addition to the two mentioned above, the third option would be to merge the Battle of Greece article with this one, and call it an Axis victory. 00:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
In the box it is stated that 77 aircraft on allied site were involved in the conflict? On what is this number based, considering that there were 4 to 5 RAF Squadrons and also greek aircraft! From this statement "At the outbreak of the war the operational combat fleet of the Greek Air Force counted 24 PZL P.24 and nine Bloch MB.151 fighters, as well as eleven Bristol Blenheim Mk IV, ten Fairey Battle B.1 and eight Potez 633 B2 bombers.[83]" the number of aircraft would be 62(?), so 15 fewer than the 77 mentioned above, or were the 15 the RAF aircraft from the 4 to 5 squadrons -- 151.136.147.179 ( talk)
窶板Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 ( talk 窶「 contribs) 17:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How should we proceed with this article?
Option 1: Write mostly about the Greece-Italy conflict, with a small mention in the aftermath section for the subsequent German invasion and a redirect to
Battle of Greece. Label this war a Greek victory.
Option 2: Treat the Greece-Italy war and the later German invasion as part of the same war. Merge the two articles, label it as an Axis victory, and include Germany as a belligerent.
Option 3: Maintain the status quo.
Option 4: Any other options?
Banedon ( talk) 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Constantine. Best to avoid the use of terms like "victory" or "defeat". But one thing is clear: Greece and Britain were defeated in the end by a joint German and Italian Axis effort. However, to unilaterally say that the Greco-Italian war ended on the 5th April is not entirely true as the Greeks and Italians were fighting until the 20th April I believe. 46.11.225.84 ( talk) 01:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Peacemaker, although I'm not impressed by quantitative analysis from Burgle (Google to you) which doesn't appear to be limited to RS. If the title is to be changed, then Italo-Greek War might be better, since the Italians started it. The German invasion seems coincidental to Italian aggression, rather than complementary. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 05:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh what a tangled web we weave -
When first we tried to deceive!!!
My sincere advice: avoid binary all or nothing words like "victory" "defeat", win/lose etc, as they are unhelpful. Simply describe the course of events and let the reader work it out. 46.11.225.78 ( talk) 22:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Keith-264 ( talk) 22:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)result 窶 optional 窶 this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
Note to everyone here, can we leave the discussion to the sections above (or make a new one below) and leave only concise summaries of intent in this section? It's getting pretty formidable to read.
Support Option 1 It doesn't make sense to me how a clear Greek success (even if not outright victory) is diminished by the fact that the Germans - who aren't even listed as a belligerent in the war - intervened later. Banedon ( talk) 00:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The abortive Italian invasion of Greece (from Albania) which commenced on 28 October 1940 was quickly countered by the Greeks with some British air support, and ended in a stalemate inside Albanian territory. The German-led Axis invasion (over the Greek borders with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia) commenced on 6 April 1941 and led to the rapid defeat of Greek and British forces in Greece, and Greek forces in Albania. Greek forces surrendered on 23 April, and British forces began evacuating the same day. A separate article exists which focusses on the German-led Axis invasion. What should be the scope (ie the matters included in the main body) of this article be? Should it:
Option 1: include the German-led Axis invasion of Greece that commenced on 6 April 1941, or
Option 2: end at 5 April 1941 and reference the Axis invasion that commenced on 6 April 1941 only in its "Aftermath" section.
The abortive
Italian invasion of Greece (from Albania) which commenced on 28 October 1940 was quickly countered by the Greeks with some British air support, and ended in a stalemate inside Albanian territory. The
German-led Axis invasion (over the Greek borders with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia) commenced on 6 April 1941 and led to the rapid defeat of Greek and British forces in Greece, and Greek forces in Albania. Greek forces surrendered on 23 April, and British forces began evacuating the same day. A separate article exists which focuses on the German-led Axis invasion. What should be the scope (ie the matters included in the main body) of this article be? Should it:
Option 1: include the German-led Axis invasion of Greece that commenced on 6 April 1941, or
Option 2: end at 5 April 1941 and reference the Axis invasion that commenced on 6 April 1941 only in its "Aftermath" section.
Banedon (
talk)
13:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Paging all editors who commented on the previous RfC: EnigmaMcmxc, Peacemaker67, Cplakidas, 46.11.225.84, Keith-264, Alessandro57, Hong Tray
The Aftermath section appears disjointed, rambling and lacking relevance in parts. Is there any way we can improve upon it. For example, this section appears entirely out of place:
"When Operation Compass, the British counter-attack in Egypt began in December 1940, the 10th Army was destroyed. On 14 November 1940, the German naval staff criticised Italian strategy, "Conditions for the Italian Libyan offensive against Egypt have deteriorated. The Naval Staff is of the opinion that Italy will never carry out the Egyptian offensive". Had the Egyptian offensive succeeded, it would have strengthened the Axis military position in North Africa with control of the Suez Canal.[187]"
German Naval Staff??? Egypt? Suez? North Africa? What exactly have they to do with the outcome and "analysis" of the Greek campaign. There are links, but they are superficial and tenuous. The analysis here is very skin-deep. 90.174.2.100 ( talk) 23:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Fill yer boots Keith-264 ( talk) 09:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone, It's been a while, I've got a copy of Cervi so used it for a bit of editing. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 16:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Keith, hope the pains that were ailing you have cleared up. 'Greco-Italian War' is very well done, just needs a little work here and there. Tomseattle ( talk) 06:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
rv 窶捌immy200518, possibly our resident impostor. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
A user seems to conveniently forget how much drama there was before stablishing the current consensus, so I will refresh him, so look here [3], here [4], here [5], here [6] and here [7] (read the results discussion).
Of course anyone is free to start it all over again, but at least pretend you're discussing it at least. Uspzor ( talk) 09:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
how many more times? Keith-264 ( talk) 19:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It's really weird for a reader who's interested about this war to simply see a link to aftermath section, instead of a result on the correspondent infobox field. I assume there should be a good reason why the infobox should avoid to mention the fact that the Italian invasion was a defeat and "then" came the German intervention. What's also weird is that the aftermath section isn't focused about the results of this war, because the result is mentioned in the previous sections.
Thus, according to the former version, a reader who's interested to find out what's the result of this war needs to click the aftermath link (since ib sayd nothing) and then he needs to read 10k of analysis/quotes by various historians. Not to mention that this analysis takes for granded the historical stages of the battle: Italian defeat & German intervention. Alexikoua ( talk) 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
result 窶 optional 窶 this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
how many more times? Keith-264 ( talk) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
[8] Stone & Stone bibliography, in case it hasn't already been pasted. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't make things worse by restoring a contentious edit, when the accuracy of the edit has been questioned and the source has been questioned on grounds of validity and reliability. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What were they? Keith-264 ( talk) 09:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archiveツ1 | 竊 | Archiveツ3 | Archiveツ4 | Archiveツ5 | Archiveツ6 | Archiveツ7 | Archiveツ8 |
The first section of the Campaign (Italian offensive) needs to be restructured. I believe a split in 2 sections is the best option: "Pindus" and "Epirus front", since the penetration attempt concerned two seperate sectors: 1. towards Ioannina and the coast (B. of Elaia Kalamas) & towards Pindus in order to cut the Greek forces of Western Macedonia (B. of Pindus). Alexikoua ( talk) 18:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Why does it go on about North Africa and the opinion of the German naval Staff? Can the Aftermath be somehow improved and focusing more on Greece? What about the terms of surrender to the Italians and Germans? That could be expanded more. There's a quote from Sadkovich, but no follow through. Far too general. Why tie in the loss of Libya that happened two years later and Taranto?
Also there is still this tendency to view the Italians through the eyes of the Germans as if Italy herself could do nothing without the "blessing" of Hitler. The Triple Occupation section doesn't quite add up and is unsatisfying. 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 21:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
People are making the war itself less than 10% of the article. Just my 2 cents. Bertdrunk ( talk) 06:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That's ok Keith. There needs to be context. But my fear and the fear of others, is that the article could end up becoming a soapbox for Greek revanchism and nationalist jingoism. The article is much improved from how it used to be, but please be on guard for creeping revanchism. History mustn't be a soap opera of assumed intentions, but relate the facts objectively, impartially and balance. This is difficult to do because for the Greeks, the Greco-Italian war is placed in their history as an heroic deed equal to the feats of their mythical gods and battles. Greek school children are taught that the war was an heroic effort equal to none. This approach has to be avoided. 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 10:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not AnnalesSchool, but someone who has been following the debate with growing interest and concern. It is interesting to see the horse-trading and give and take involved in writing Wiki articles like this one. History by committee!!! But I do agree with a lot that AnnalesSchool has written, including his observations and criticisms of the original article. He's obviously of the opinion that the war was not a defeat for Italy because his definition of victory is basically one of "who's left standing in the field?" "who got what they wanted - control of Greece." Whereas I'm of the opinion that it was neither a victory nor a defeat because of German intervention that allowed the Italians into Greece. So there's a difference of opinion between us. But we do tend to agree that the Greeks are going a little overboard by claiming it was a resounding victory for them. It certainly wasn't because while they used up all their resources to hold one wolf at bay, it allowed another through the back door. That is not a victory.
92.234.202.8 (
talk)
13:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears you share the very same obssesion with Annalles who was eager to overexpand the Aftermath section in order to show that this was in fact an Italian victory (such as the Italian parade argument). Alexikoua ( talk) 14:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I have temporarily removed mention of this from the background section as i am unable to locate a source that supports this. Any editors have a source that supports reinsertion? Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 22:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Added section and rm cites from infobox. 64 aircraft (another 24 claimed) is this a discrepancy between RHAF claims and Regia Aeronautica records and does it include RAF claims? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 17:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll just throw in my two cents worth. Having scanned the article, it could do with a few more images of Italian troops or military in action, fighter planes or navy involved in the actual war. Just having a pic of a stern-faced Mussolini isn't enough. An image of an Italian military parade in front of the Acropolis would be ideal. I am ready to upload some images if requested. 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 10:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
竏 竏 Also, it's not "el Duce", but "il Duce". "El" is Spanish! Sorry Enigma. 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 10:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
竏 竏 I'm afraid the article is already as Italian as it can be (map of the Italian dream-empire, entire section dedicated in the background etc). However, a picture of Musolini observing the performace of his Primavera initiative, which sent thousands of soldiers to death will be quite good. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
竏 竏 Ok, let's do it. You include a pic of Mussolini (two "ss") and I'll include Italian troops on parade in front of the Acropolis. Do we agree? 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 13:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
OK I will try to upload some better images of Mussolini and throw in some extra images of the Italians in the fighting. 92.234.202.8 ( talk) 17:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I can remember that in the past the article contained a couple of Italian pics (Alpini troops etc.) but they were deleted due to c-v issues. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
An image of an Italian military parade in front of the Acropolis would be ideal.s/he means the now deleted file File:La Conquista di Atene.png which was uploaded by AnnalesSchool without valid permission. The file is still hosted at the website commandosupremo.com, which is associated with Annales. ホ煩.ホ.ツ ホサマ湖ウホソマ ママ∃ャホセホケマ 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Added section on RAF and air operations; I've nothing for the RHAF though. Keith-264 ( talk) 14:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I can find some piece of info about that: formations, operations etc. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Another impostor? Keith-264 ( talk) 12:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You guys are getting very paranoid. Bertdrunk ( talk) 16:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I've decided to keep out of the way for now to avoid toe treading. ;O) Keith-264 ( talk) 12:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
separate third level ones so shouldn't have text under them Keith-264 ( talk) 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I added some additional information to the article and several books. The text shows up in the article as well as the in-line cites. However, the books - despite showing up in edit view - do not appear on the actual page: Weinberg 1994, p. 210; Paoletti 2008, p. 174; and Duignan & Gann 1995. What the heck did I do? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Keith-264/sandbox5 is there anything here which anyone else would accept nem con? Keith-264 ( talk) 16:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I think 2 and 3 should be combined as the Prelude. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
[2] La Campagna di Grecia e la fine della guerra parallela ツゥ Enrico G. Dapei Keith-264 ( talk) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't be better if they have their own sections? They are not in chronological order after all. Vinukin ( talk) 17:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all! I've managed to secure a copy of Cervi's work in its original Italian version from 1965. I'll start (slowly) to introduce more stuff from it where necessary, but although I can usually understand Italian most of the time via French and Spanish, I'd like to know if anyone with an actual working knowledge of the language would be willing to help if (or rather when) I will encounter a problem Google Translate can't solve. Cheers, Constantine 笨 13:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Is Thelematarios you know who? Keith-264 ( talk) 20:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Here I am, lets talk about it Thelematarios 窶捻receding undated comment added 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Template:Infobox military conflict
result 窶 optional 窶 this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
Keith-264 ( talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh well, ok then, thanks mate Thelematarios 窶捻receding undated comment added 19:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I Think it's time to request this page to be blocked by some time. Hong Tray ( talk) 22:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If the results is showing 'see aftermath', it's almost certainly controversial, hence this section. I would've expected to see some discussion if not on the talk page then at least in one of the archives for why the results is 'see aftermath'. I found that there is such a discussion, in archive 3, but two of the people in that discussion have since been blocked for abusively using multiple accounts, so I'm no longer sure that applies (besides it was 3 years ago).
I think this should be classified as a Greek victory because they did defeat the Italians. They would later be defeated by the Germans, but that has its own article, Battle of Greece. Notably the Germans are not mentioned at all as a belligerent in this article. The aftermath section also states that the Italians had suffered a serious setback.
It might be better to excise the later German intervention from this article and redirect the reader to Battle of Greece. The two phases of the war are clearly different, and if we are to include the German intervention into this article, then perhaps both articles can be merged to one, the Germans included as a belligerent, and the results listed as "Axis victory". All or nothing, not half-and-half. Banedon ( talk) 03:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
result 窶 optional 窶 this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
please read it. Earlier discussions are in the archive where this was gone into exhaustively. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree this can be considered a Greek victory. The article is not about the battle of Albania or who push 10km the other around, it's about the entire conflict, the one which didn't end good for Greece. Hong Tray ( talk) 11:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
There's enough of a lack of consensus here that I think I'll begin an RfC. Two options right now, one being to classify this as a Greek victory and remove mention of the Battle of Greece to its own article, and the other is to maintain the status quo. If anyone has more options to add, please share. Banedon ( talk) 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there consensus among the RS? What seems to bedevil this criterion in the infobox is the definition of decisive. Not everyone uses the Clausewitzian sense of a battle which has political results. Does anyone treat the German arrival in Libya as a development in a war or a new one? Keith-264 ( talk) 07:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm going ahead with the RfC with three options: in addition to the two mentioned above, the third option would be to merge the Battle of Greece article with this one, and call it an Axis victory. 00:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
In the box it is stated that 77 aircraft on allied site were involved in the conflict? On what is this number based, considering that there were 4 to 5 RAF Squadrons and also greek aircraft! From this statement "At the outbreak of the war the operational combat fleet of the Greek Air Force counted 24 PZL P.24 and nine Bloch MB.151 fighters, as well as eleven Bristol Blenheim Mk IV, ten Fairey Battle B.1 and eight Potez 633 B2 bombers.[83]" the number of aircraft would be 62(?), so 15 fewer than the 77 mentioned above, or were the 15 the RAF aircraft from the 4 to 5 squadrons -- 151.136.147.179 ( talk)
窶板Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 ( talk 窶「 contribs) 17:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How should we proceed with this article?
Option 1: Write mostly about the Greece-Italy conflict, with a small mention in the aftermath section for the subsequent German invasion and a redirect to
Battle of Greece. Label this war a Greek victory.
Option 2: Treat the Greece-Italy war and the later German invasion as part of the same war. Merge the two articles, label it as an Axis victory, and include Germany as a belligerent.
Option 3: Maintain the status quo.
Option 4: Any other options?
Banedon ( talk) 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Constantine. Best to avoid the use of terms like "victory" or "defeat". But one thing is clear: Greece and Britain were defeated in the end by a joint German and Italian Axis effort. However, to unilaterally say that the Greco-Italian war ended on the 5th April is not entirely true as the Greeks and Italians were fighting until the 20th April I believe. 46.11.225.84 ( talk) 01:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Peacemaker, although I'm not impressed by quantitative analysis from Burgle (Google to you) which doesn't appear to be limited to RS. If the title is to be changed, then Italo-Greek War might be better, since the Italians started it. The German invasion seems coincidental to Italian aggression, rather than complementary. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 05:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh what a tangled web we weave -
When first we tried to deceive!!!
My sincere advice: avoid binary all or nothing words like "victory" "defeat", win/lose etc, as they are unhelpful. Simply describe the course of events and let the reader work it out. 46.11.225.78 ( talk) 22:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Keith-264 ( talk) 22:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)result 窶 optional 窶 this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
Note to everyone here, can we leave the discussion to the sections above (or make a new one below) and leave only concise summaries of intent in this section? It's getting pretty formidable to read.
Support Option 1 It doesn't make sense to me how a clear Greek success (even if not outright victory) is diminished by the fact that the Germans - who aren't even listed as a belligerent in the war - intervened later. Banedon ( talk) 00:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The abortive Italian invasion of Greece (from Albania) which commenced on 28 October 1940 was quickly countered by the Greeks with some British air support, and ended in a stalemate inside Albanian territory. The German-led Axis invasion (over the Greek borders with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia) commenced on 6 April 1941 and led to the rapid defeat of Greek and British forces in Greece, and Greek forces in Albania. Greek forces surrendered on 23 April, and British forces began evacuating the same day. A separate article exists which focusses on the German-led Axis invasion. What should be the scope (ie the matters included in the main body) of this article be? Should it:
Option 1: include the German-led Axis invasion of Greece that commenced on 6 April 1941, or
Option 2: end at 5 April 1941 and reference the Axis invasion that commenced on 6 April 1941 only in its "Aftermath" section.
The abortive
Italian invasion of Greece (from Albania) which commenced on 28 October 1940 was quickly countered by the Greeks with some British air support, and ended in a stalemate inside Albanian territory. The
German-led Axis invasion (over the Greek borders with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia) commenced on 6 April 1941 and led to the rapid defeat of Greek and British forces in Greece, and Greek forces in Albania. Greek forces surrendered on 23 April, and British forces began evacuating the same day. A separate article exists which focuses on the German-led Axis invasion. What should be the scope (ie the matters included in the main body) of this article be? Should it:
Option 1: include the German-led Axis invasion of Greece that commenced on 6 April 1941, or
Option 2: end at 5 April 1941 and reference the Axis invasion that commenced on 6 April 1941 only in its "Aftermath" section.
Banedon (
talk)
13:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Paging all editors who commented on the previous RfC: EnigmaMcmxc, Peacemaker67, Cplakidas, 46.11.225.84, Keith-264, Alessandro57, Hong Tray
The Aftermath section appears disjointed, rambling and lacking relevance in parts. Is there any way we can improve upon it. For example, this section appears entirely out of place:
"When Operation Compass, the British counter-attack in Egypt began in December 1940, the 10th Army was destroyed. On 14 November 1940, the German naval staff criticised Italian strategy, "Conditions for the Italian Libyan offensive against Egypt have deteriorated. The Naval Staff is of the opinion that Italy will never carry out the Egyptian offensive". Had the Egyptian offensive succeeded, it would have strengthened the Axis military position in North Africa with control of the Suez Canal.[187]"
German Naval Staff??? Egypt? Suez? North Africa? What exactly have they to do with the outcome and "analysis" of the Greek campaign. There are links, but they are superficial and tenuous. The analysis here is very skin-deep. 90.174.2.100 ( talk) 23:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Fill yer boots Keith-264 ( talk) 09:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone, It's been a while, I've got a copy of Cervi so used it for a bit of editing. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 16:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Keith, hope the pains that were ailing you have cleared up. 'Greco-Italian War' is very well done, just needs a little work here and there. Tomseattle ( talk) 06:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
rv 窶捌immy200518, possibly our resident impostor. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
A user seems to conveniently forget how much drama there was before stablishing the current consensus, so I will refresh him, so look here [3], here [4], here [5], here [6] and here [7] (read the results discussion).
Of course anyone is free to start it all over again, but at least pretend you're discussing it at least. Uspzor ( talk) 09:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
how many more times? Keith-264 ( talk) 19:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It's really weird for a reader who's interested about this war to simply see a link to aftermath section, instead of a result on the correspondent infobox field. I assume there should be a good reason why the infobox should avoid to mention the fact that the Italian invasion was a defeat and "then" came the German intervention. What's also weird is that the aftermath section isn't focused about the results of this war, because the result is mentioned in the previous sections.
Thus, according to the former version, a reader who's interested to find out what's the result of this war needs to click the aftermath link (since ib sayd nothing) and then he needs to read 10k of analysis/quotes by various historians. Not to mention that this analysis takes for granded the historical stages of the battle: Italian defeat & German intervention. Alexikoua ( talk) 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
result 窶 optional 窶 this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
how many more times? Keith-264 ( talk) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
[8] Stone & Stone bibliography, in case it hasn't already been pasted. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't make things worse by restoring a contentious edit, when the accuracy of the edit has been questioned and the source has been questioned on grounds of validity and reliability. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What were they? Keith-264 ( talk) 09:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)