Talk:Siege of Malta (World War II)

"Allied victory"?

Which other allies took part in this? Malta was part of the British Empire, so it should read, British victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.253.223 (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Malta should be considered an Allied victory, not just a British victory for three important reasons; 1. RAF forces were instrumental in not only saving Malta, but also launching offensives against Rommel's supply line to North Africa...among their service members were outstanding pilots not only from Great Britain, but also Canada (top Spitfire ace George Beurling), New Zealand (aces Ray Hesselyn and Jack Rae), Rhodesia (Johnny Plagis), and the U.S. (Reade Tilley and John Lynch),among others. 2. More importantly, you are overlooking the fact of the very important role played by the U.S. carrier Wasp in twice getting Spitfire aircraft to Malta's defenders, and 3. the role that Merchant Marine vessels from a number of countries(including the British-manned American tanker Ohio) played in keeping the island's supply lines open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.57.45 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to put my nose where its really not wanted but in the West I can't think of a single battle to which the allies -including the Commonwealth and free European forces didn't contribute. Wasp & Ohio were essential. It was a decisive allied victory in that Malta wasn't challenged again and it stopped a southern attack on Russia though it definitely didn't end the war. FWIW my father spent 3 unpleasant years on Malta arriving as part of Operation Substance. JRPG (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What decisive are you using, big or war-determining? Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GeorgeCrossObv.jpg

Image:GeorgeCrossObv.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

About some critical facts

The article lacks some important information regarding the siege. It mentions, that the civilian casualties, but really, the Axis bombing was more directed towards Malta's military targets, so British (and maybe Axis too) military casualties (killed, wounded, missing) would be far more important, than the surprisingly low civilian casualties. Also, Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe are really very different quality opponents, I would think, that Luftwaffes effort must have been both more important, and with comparatively smaller casualties, I would prefer their casualties to be separated, instead of just giving compined figure. For the last point, article mentions that Malta had less than 4000 UK soldiers in the beginning, but I would prefer it to give also some mentions of troop increases? Surely, the troop numbers must have been maybe 10 times bigger at the more heated state of the siege? I would like the article to give answers to these questions too, since I see these as very important issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.94.158.217 (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Response: While the Axis bombing effort was, in theory, aimed at "military" targets, the small size of the island made it inevitable that non-military targets would also be hit, and they were. The towns surrounding Grand Harbor, as well as the villages surrounding the airfields at Hal Far, Takali, and Luqua were hit hard, and there is no evidence that the Italians or Germans gave this any thought, and surely viewed this destruction as furthering their aim of conquering the island. The civilian casualties ARE important, because the people of Malta are often the unsung heroes in the drama of the battle and siege. They not only endured with great fortitude, but many Maltese took an active part in the defence of their homeland, whether it was service in local defense units and anti-aircraft batteries, as seamen in the Royal Navy, as dockyard workers unloading and /or repairing battered British Navy ships or damaged merchant vessels, or local government and medical officials managing affairs under difficult conditions, to mention just a few activities. There's a reason the Maltese people as a whole were awarded the George Cross...because of all these efforts! As to casualty figures, I agree that it might be useful to list all these separately...as to troop increases, these were important (in terms of additional pilots, machines, and artilley regiments), but the figures are really not important for several key reasons...the RAF was ALWAYS outgunned in terms of numbers, but with better aircraft (the Spitfire) in greater (but still inferior) numbers were able to hold off Axis raids. Likewise, even though the number of anti-aircraft guns on Malta were increased, its defenders were often limited by the intermittant supply line that in many critical cases left gunners short of ammunition...again, there are many published sources that document this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.57.45 (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the Maltese?

I find the lack of regard for the native population in this page on Malta's history very distressing - the whole emphasis is on the British-Axis conflict and little is mentioned of the suffering to which the Maltese people were subjected (this also applies to the German wikipedia page, which at least mentions the destruction inflicted on the Maltese - "Im Laufe von etwa 3.000 Angriffen gegen die Insel fielen ungefähr 14.000 Tonnen Bomben und zerstörten unter anderem fast 35.000 Häuser; auf die Fläche Maltas bezogen, fielen hier die meisten Bomben pro Quadratmeter dieses Krieges."). In English, this says "in around 3.000 air attacks, around 14.000 tonnes of bombs were dropped and around 35.00 houses destroyed - the most bombs per square meter dropped in the war" (although they are probably only referring to German bombing targets, as Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden etc probably have first place in this unenviable league table).

I did some Google research on Malta and it's civilian deaths, typing in "Malta killed" and was awarded with the suggestion "Did you mean: Malta called", followed by a list of various historical, military and tourist deaths on Malta! - try it yourself and see what I mean.

Given the island's limited strategic significance - the British Mediterranean Fleet had moved to Alexander and there is no mention in the article of what effective aggressive action was carried out by the Allies from the island up to the end of the North African campaign (it seems to me that the main war effort in relation to Malta was purely defensive) - and it's essentially non-British population, I suggest it is time to honour the real heroes of Malta in this artice, and I don't mean just giving them a British medal.

RESPONSE: The above paragraph demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the Malta campaign in a number or aras...while at first the battle was indeed defensive in nature, within a relatively short time Malta based Wellington, Blenheim, and Beaufort bombers were carrying out anti-shipping strikes against Italian and German shipping, eventually wreaking havoc on German supply lines to North Africa. Too, Fleet Air Arm Swordfish Squadrons based on Malta, as well as British carriers that made port, also devastated enemy shipping. Furthermore, even in January/February 1941 when German air raids were at a high level, the British submarine Flotilla 10 was established on Malta, and from here carried out a great many succesful missions against enemy shipping, though at a heavy price. There are numerous published works out there that document these activities. Finally, the statement of "limited strategic significance" of Malta is just plain incorrect! Why do you think the Germans and Italians tried to bomb it into oblivion, and came close to an actual invasion (OPeration Hercules)? Indeed, the opposite is true...Malta was the lynch-pin in the Mediterranean...had it fallen, North Africa may have been lost, and future operations against Sicily and Italy, if contemplated, would have been much more difficult, if not impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.57.45 (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the British surrendered the Channel Islands in 1941 without any attempt to defend them; because they were of no strategic significance. The propagand blow of allowing German troops to occupy British soil without a fight could not possibly be made up by defending Malta. If Malta had been strategically worthless, it would have been surrendered without a fight to spare the civilian population just as the Channel Islands were.Shrikeangel (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Before independence the 'Maltese' were all British subjects and therefore classed as 'British' citizens and not differentiated from any other 'British'.

So when the 'British' are mentioned it includes the Maltese as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.72 (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

" ... the British surrendered the Channel Islands in 1941 without any attempt to defend them; because they were of no strategic significance." - The islands were 'surrendered' because they were militarily indefensible. The islands were within the range of any big guns that the Germans could have sited on the French coast and it would have been impossible for the Navy to re-supply the islands without heavy and prohibitive losses. The British evacuated all the Channel Islanders who wanted to leave and relocated them to the mainland before the islands were 'surrendered'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Roman numeral in article title

I reverted Lee Carré’s move to a page title that didn’t reproduce properly in my browser. Using whatever font that was on this and every other WWII page would be absurd. I absolutely don’t agree with moving away from the traditional and established “double-eye” roman numeral 2. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion to the points made on my talk page (where some background/theory/examples are explained). Binksternet, I believe you’re missing several significant issues here. Firstly, beyond your own browser-choice/configuration issues, what are your reasons for this reversion? Could you cite a source which recommends “double-eye” over the correct U+2161 character? Secondly, assuming I am interpreting it correctly; your statement “Using whatever font that was on this and every other WWII page would be absurd.” is flawed. The changes I made had nothing to do with fonts at all. I merely substituted the correct character. Font-issues were perceived from your own, particular experience. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough on my talk page, that my suggestion was to resolve the particular problem/issue you-specifically were having (with poor glyph-support in your chosen fonts), but that in general, this wasn’t an issue, especially as modern browsers have continuly-improved font substitution. “Meaning” or semantics is the core issue here. I see you’re familiar with music; perhaps a more relatable example: in standard notation, just because the glyph for a flat note ‘looks’ like a lower-case Latin letter “B”, doesn’t mean that it is a lower-case Latin letter “B”. This goes for many other characters; Musical sharp (U+266F) vs Number Sign (U+0023), Ohm Sign (U+2126) vs Greek Capital Letter Omega (U+03A9). Unicode actually specifies that the glyph for U+2126 should be the same as U+03A9, but they are still separate characters because they have different semantics (or meaning, if you prefer). Ignorance of fonts is not an excuse; use of correct characters breaks the self-proliferation–cycle of ignorance about characters/fonts, and completely mitigates the need to continue, incorrectly, using look-alike characters in place of the correct ones. A significant point here is that many other Wikipedia article titles and content are now using non-ASCII/non-ISO-8859-1 characters. The notion of abolishing all of them because of some people’s choice of font/browser is absurd. If someone’s browser lacked sufficient support for Unicode character encoding schemes, does this justify reverting MediaWiki back to a legacy character encoding? No, they’d likely be told to use a modern browser with adequate support, or put up with it. What exactly is preventing you, or anyone else, from aquiring a font with more suitable glyph support? More details about effects on related disciplines, such as accessibility and usability (i.e.; clarity instead of similicity) are detailed in the discussion on my talk page. — Lee Carré (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME states that the name of articles should generally be the most common name and one which makes linking to the article easy. Using characters which can only be added with standard keyboards by using a code and which aren't generally used is not in line with this. Please note that this is a discussion of this at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Strange new fonts for Roman numerals which you are very welcome to contribute to. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lee Carre continues to expect Wikipedia readers to acquire a font with suitable glyph support. I expect they will not choose to. That's the crux of the disagreement here. I am reverting any instance of glyph appearance that doesn't render on my machine because I expect that my machine's default condition is going to be the same as a lot of other people's. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the points/issues being raised, however the proposed solution (reverting to pre-edited version), seems to ignore or prevent other, more desirable solutions. I will try to address these on the WikiProject page instead, but for one, there is the ‘insert character’ box below the text-entry edit box which allows you to insert non-keyboard. Solution one would be to add Roman numerals (“Number Forms” block, although interestingly there’s already the first half of this block; the various ‘vulgar fractions’) to this editing tool (and other Unicode blocks, such as “Letterlike Symbols”).

Assisting users (in a way that they don’t have to do anything) with aquiring/using suitable fonts is also entirely possible. Common fonts have good support for non-Latin Unicode blocks; just specify that they be used in the style-sheets, such as font-family: "Arial Unicode MS". MediaWiki already has the capability offer additional fonts to browsers (such as providing DejaVu fonts via style-sheets), this is a user-preference, so perhaps it should be enabled by default. Several browsers already support this feature, and more are adding support. This, surprisingly, includes the most popular browser in use today. Some related questions: What about articles in other non-Latin languages? How are these ‘default’ users supposed to view them without suitable fonts? — Lee Carré (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not seem to have consensus for your proposals and certainly not for the arbitrary changes you are making. FWiW, the font used doesn't look very attractive to begin with and is decidedly less readable. Bzuk (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Photo reconnaissance flights

I removed a bit added by IP editor which mentioned Spitfire photo planes arriving at Malta in May 1942. The bit made it seem as if the Spitfires filled a void, however, there were other photo planes such as Martin Marylands flying from Malta a couple of years earlier, notably detecting the Italian fleet in harbor at Taranto to facilitate aerial torpedo attack.

Any mention of photo recon based on Malta should paint a more complete picture of the early and late efforts. A brief glimpse of May '42 is not satisfactory. Takers? Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

MTO

The infobox makes mention of Axis losses in the "MTO", but given they are sourced from British books in part is it not more likely thet refer to the general Meditteranean theatre rather than the specifically US operational definition of the Med. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Per Binksternet, i am opening up a discussion on the subject. The infobox is quite clearly in breech of the guidelines laid down by Template:Infobox military conflict, which states:

combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article.

None of the list are in any order other than alphabetical, with the exception of Malta. The guidelines make it very clear that exceptions are not to be made and that the list should be in order of those who provided the largest military contributions, political power or chain of command. While Malta provided the battlefield and its people bore the brunt of the Axis bombing, they did not provide the chain of command or any political power. The rest of the empire (with a few exceptions), as Malta was part of the British Empire, provided the logistics, supplies, guns, planes, ships, and men. Therefore the list needs to be reorganised so that it is historically accurate and limit the POV pushing. It should be noted that practically all other articles follow these guidelines for example the Battle of Waterloo (fought in then, the Netherlands but with the list in order of militaly importance) and Operation Overlord (France providing the battlefield, however the Americans taking the first position due to chain of command, political importance and militaty contribution).

It should be further noted that the use of "bold" should not also be used in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never ever heard of anyone disputing that a country that is under military attack should not be listed first.

Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. Where does this say the country being attacked should not be listed first in the combatant box, as claimed by the IP?

The guidelines make it very clear that exceptions are not to be made and that the list should be in order of those who provided the largest military contributions.

No it doesn't. If it did it, it would read something like this: "In all info boxes the dominant combatants should be listed in order of their contribution, irrespective of whether the country being attacked was part of those combatants and had made a lower contribution".

* Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945); UK listed first as the campaign was designed to defeat the British, despite the fact the US was the greater contributor.

* Battle of Belgium? Battle of the Netherlands? Did not contribute the greatest forces, but are listed first. And both are good articles. Many more besides these examples.

The IP thinks his suggestion should be followed to limit the POV pushing. This is nonsense. Listing them in alpha' order, regardless of their contribution is pot luck and non POV by definition. As opposed to the option of the IP, which brings to the surface the very POV it claims to avoid. Dapi89 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the above argument: Malta was not a country but part of the British Empire. Malta was attacked due to the British military presance, the island was important to British militay control of the Med, it was a stragetic asset of the British Empire. The United Kingdom provided the vast majority of the resources needed for the island to survie a seige and be used as an offensive base. The fact that the island lasted so long was entirely dependant on the United Kingdom and the British Empire. The location of the fighting is irrlevent.

Battle of the Atlantic is a strawman, the article makes clear that the British were involved from the get go and played a very significant role in the fighting along with command and control (from Liverpool) so it would appear entirely approbirate. The others, French forces really outnumbered the Dutch and Belgians fighting in their countries; if so you have highlighted new breeches of guidelines.

Following the guidelines is not POV pushing, it is presenting the facts of who provided as they states the most military might, leadership and political force. If you agree that alphebetical listing is "non POV by definition" by did you revert my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear. Malta was not a country - jeeeeeeez

Inadequate response to the Battle of the Atlantic. The point still stands. By your logic it should not be first!

Question already answered: It was the "home country", its the only country exempt.

Just some further points. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article

1) Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict - and what is more important than the country being attacked, given they are the strategic objective which transcends everything else.

2) If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article........say no more. Dapi89 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm largely with the IP on this one. I wouldn't put Malta at the top, far less in bold. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats disappointing. Better yet, why bother having it there at all if its part of the British Empire right? Dapi89 (talk)

It is disapointing that you contuine with the personal attacks, this is not "my" logic but the logic of MILHIST, which you are a member of yes? As far as your logic goes please see Battle of Crete. Greece being the country under attack but not first in the list due to the number of her soldiers involved in the fighting per the already mentioned examples. If you have information that the Americans provided complete command and control and more military contribution to the Battle of the Atlantic i would suggest you go and change it instead of using it as a strawman here.

Your logic in regards to the strategic importance is flawed, Malta alone was worthless in a military sense. It stragetic value came from the British Empire defending it for the Empire for use as an offensive base, control of the med, and a base along the supply line from the UK to India, or the Axis capturing it to secure their convoy routes.

Your second point is also flawed since articles are now owned by the editors WP:OWN, your opinion has been questioned, the relevent guidelines have pointed out to you etc. The article on the history of the island quite clearly points out that the island was a colony within the British Empire and depended on the United Kingdom and apparently did not, according to the article, acheieve self rule until after the war.

Since am pretty sure local troops were raised to help defend the island, your sarcastic response that we should get rid of Malta altogther is just a bit pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I havn't attacked you here at all. Stop making things up.

Battle of Crete, a bad article which can't get the infobox straight - you'll note that Australia and New Zealnd are not in order of those that sent the greatest forces. Typical of the defective and selective interpretation of things I have seen from you.

You have failed to argue why. And you have interpreted these 'guidlines' of yours into a way that suits your claim. It does not mean as you claimed, the home country should be shipped to the bottom owing to the number of its forces not being as high as foreign combatants. It says the most important combatants should be listed. I say again, it was Maltese soil that was the objective, its entire population was in the frontline. Given the Axis tried to starve them and destroy their morale to force a peace (among many strategies tried), they can be considered combatants. Under those circumstances, they outnumber the British personnel and all the other Allies put together.

Irrelevant. So what? According to you, Malta was "not a country". Only it was a country, long before, during and after the passing of the British Empire. I don't think I'll be taking logic lessons from you.

Pathetic? I was following on from your example - 'Malta is not a country' QED, they are really British...aren't they? You keep chaning your mind. Dapi89 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Making things up, really? You have deliberatly misquoted me time and again, engaged in strawman arguments and acted in a completly undignifed manner considering the two admin who stepped in suggested a civilised discusion should take place. The simple fact is, it is not "me" misintrepreting the guidelines to suit my own needs, they state quite clearly what i have argued. The fact that you keep saying i needed to explain or argue why, is ignoring the fact i have repeatly stated this information to you since yesterday morning and you have ignored the argument: you have not engaged the argument, you have wriggled around it.

The simple fact is, per the guidelines the country that provided the significant militay contribution to the siege, the political clout, the chain of command, logisitics, and supplies was not Malta. This is the fact, engage it.

So drop the attempts at sarcasim, drop the pathetic straw man and accept the fact people differ on opinions to you and you need to learn to engage them in a civilised manner rather than act in this pathetic manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken you apart and I'm getting bored of it. I have not misquoted. In fact, I have copied and pasted the quotes, so stop pretending I'm not being honest. Nothing in the literature argues against the home combatant appearing first. You have catastrophically failed to prove this. And STOP claiming that it does. Not to mention you selectively ignored the last line, which effectively gives an editor the right to order his own list in a consistent manner. So it isn't fact, so ditch the pretence. Pathetic? No. I’m here to improve the article, unlike some transient piss artist I know. Dapi89 ([[User t alk:Dapi89|talk]]) 00:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets see what we have so far:

1. breech of 3 revert rule
2. numerous and contuined personal attacks across this page, the edit summaries and other talk pages
3. failure to adbide by wiki guidelines laid down by the MILHIST project
4. appearance of breech of WP:OWN
5. contuined misquoting and strawman arguments, dishonest engagement in this entire afair
6. inability to engage in a civilised conversation asked by the admin
7. complete and utter lack of engaging the simple fact that the British provided the major military, political, logistical, and command of the entire battle and that the guidelines state they should be top of the list due to these factors. The home "country" you contuine to talk of was a colony of the British Empire that did not achieve self rule till post 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk • contribs)

I'm not seeing the big deal with the anon IP changes. Bolding Malta is not needed nor is it one of the MILHIST standards, and listing it first does not exactly fit with the instructions found at Template:Infobox_military_conflict which say: "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command." Malta was important from its location, not because of military or political clout. I took a look at Dapi89's sandbox version here and it has first UK then Malta, none bolded. I do not understand why this argument is taking place. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Garbage Mr IP. The IP claims - central to his argument that a) Malta is not a country and b) The guidelines make it very clear that exceptions are not to be made and that the list should be in order of those who provided the largest military contributions. This is not at all true since it also says If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article - this alone disproves his claim and makes it clear that in now way shape or form does wikipedia not allow exceptions. The other metric being alphabetical order. So this person is just a troll, making claims he can't back up. And he won't listen.

To B': My sandbox was a copy and paste job which is incomplete and has not been touched for months. Hardly evidence of a contradiction. I decided not to do it in the sandbox, as good edits from other editors on the main page were likely to be lost during a copy-paste of it. So that was the rationale. Dapi89 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dapi, am sorry but you are again engaging in strawman arguments. Per my original edits, the very first post on this page, and the debate on your own talk page the central argument is that Malta did not provide the major political, military, logistic contribution to the battle nor the chain of command. The argument has zero to do with your point a.

You have once again engaged in personal attacks and have once again refused to engage the central argument, which even point b on your list fails to fully engage.

There are now three people who agree that the current list is flawed and only yourself arguing that the status quo should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not going around in circles with you. It is evident that your claims are not right, and it is acceptable to do the way I did it. And you are transient. You have contributed nothing to the article aside from an edit war. Dapi89 (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Again with the personal attacks, just how many wiki guidelines have you now breeched?

Actually you commenced the edit war and breeched the three revert rule. You are now editing agaisnt concensus which has reached agreement that the current status quo is not approbiate and you have still failed to engage the central argument.

Since the article, historians, and pretty much common sense provide evidence that: a) British military power was the main allied factor in defending the island and using it as an offensive base b) That British military power was the primary factor in supplying the island c) That it was a British military and geopolitical decission to fight for the island d) That the British military provided the chain of command for the length of the battle

This is the central argument, since you are claiming that it is incorrect the onus is on your to provide evidence in the contary: evidence that shows who actually provided the predominate military force, political power, chain of command, ability to reinforce, and supply the island

Don't be silly. I've no interest in following all that up again as I've already dealt with it quite easily.

In the interests of other editors, who will not want to follow an endless argument, I am going to extend an olive branch. Will you accept Malta, non-bold (I don't actually and never have cared whether it was in bold or not) first, with the following combatants listed in order of contribution starting with the British Empire? It meets you half-way. Dapi89 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any pressing need for this article to be one of the few exceptions to the instructions given at Template:Infobox_military_conflict. Belligerents should be listed in order of military or political clout, either of which puts UK at the top of the Allied side. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I need to draw your attention to If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. Would you argue that the Battles in the Netherlands and Belgium should follow the same notion? Dapi89 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But no differing metric is supported, the only rationale you have provided is that Malta was the battleground and hence should be at the top of the list regardless of the fight others provided the leadership, men, materials, supplies, logistics, and political backing that resulted in this battle bring fought and ultimatly won. You have not engaged this argument and have simpley ignored it with strawman arguments and petty insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Useless points. I've engaged. It doesn't have to be agreed upon, Its there in black and white: optional. Finally you've acknowledged the existence of the last sentence, which categorically proves you were not being honest when claiming that Wikipedia supported the order of the list in the manner you want it written. It does not reject all alternatives. Malta was in the front line; by definition it deserves its place first.

Please stop using my phraseology and come up with your own. It’s likely you hadn't a clue what straw man was. And please learn to spell (they clearly are not typos). Dapi89 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Dapi, you OWN the term Strawman .... sigh. Furthermore you have engaged in more unrelenting personal attacks.

I suppose by your new definition, Malta being the frontline we should further change other articles to suit these new guidelines you have inventet: Egypt and Libya being the top of the lists for various battles of the desert war, and France top of the list for the ones fought in her colonial holdings? As already noted The battle of Crete, provides a perfect example of an island being the frontline under attack and its mothercountry not being first on the list. As alredy noted Operation Overlord and The battle of Waterloo provide further examples of the major military powers or leader of colations being at the top of the list regardless of the frontline country

The simple fact is, you have not engaged the argument put forward, you have not engaged the fact other people have voiced their support for the rationale, have insisted on arguing points that were not the argument (the basic definition of a straw man argument): i.e. your point "Its there in black and white: optional"

To once again quote the guidelines:

• combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article.

Concensus on this talkpage is that the guidelines need to be followed since your "differing metric" is not supported, the only thing "optional" about the guidelines is the use of "Combatant3". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Belgium and the Netherlands might be argued as being two stronger cases than Malta. They each contributed significant fighting forces and they each were invaded by the enemy, their land taken. Malta did not have significant fighting forces and it did not get invaded. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Significant forces, but not the majority. The existence of aircraft makes an island nation more vulnerable than ever. I could argue they were invaded by air. Nowadays, aircraft flying in unauthorised air space is considered tantamount to an invasion - or would this be stretching the definition. Dapi89 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Before independence the 'Maltese' were all British subjects and therefore classed as 'British' citizens and not differentiated from any other 'British'.

"Malta did not have significant fighting forces" - just exactly what do you think the British Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force were. The inhabitants of Malta - the Maltese - were British subjects and had the right to be defended by the above services just as any Londoner had. The Army, RN and RAF were the Maltese's own fighting forces.

BTW, Malta was British territory and as British subjects inhabited the islands they would have been defended whether the island had any strategic significance or not. If the islands had at any time subsequently proved indefensible the majority of the civilians who wished to would have been evacuated. As they had been in the Channel Islands.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.163 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Messerschmitt version

In the paragraph "German air superiority" it refers to Bf 109F-4 and the profile of a Bf 109F-4 is pictured aside. But at the time Jagdgeschwader 26 was involved in operation on Malta (January-June 1941) the version operated was Bf 109E-7. The picture and the description are wrong. Bf 109F-4 arrived in Sicily only in December 1941 with the renewal of the offensive against Malta lead by Jagdgeschwader 53. I corrected only the description in text because all the profile pictures I've found depicting Bf109E-7 of 7./JG26 seems to be copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariusGermanicus (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

The casualties listing in the infobox/article ist very large, but has two problems: At first it gives the losses of Axis shipping, but not the Allied shipping losses (except of warships). Surely the Allies also lost some ships in resupplying Malta. As addition, even with the Allied shipping losses added, the comparison of Allied shipping losses at Malta against German/Italian total shipping losses in the whole Mediterranean is also somehow faulty. I suggest to add at least Allied shipping losses too and add the note that Axis shipping losses are for whole Mediterranean. StoneProphet (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect location for Axis summit conference of April 29-30 1942

As written, the article says the Hitler/Mussolini summit conference of late April 1942, which saw discussion of Malta, as well as many other topics, was held at Berchtesgarten. It was in fact held at Salzburg, where Mussolini and Ciano were quartered in the famous Schloss Klessheim. See Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp 1189-1190; Shirer himself gives the Ciano Diaries as the primary source for this information.

Will make the change in a few days if no one objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.9.13 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Restored background

I have restored (in better places, I hope) what User:Dapi89 had deleted with the summary "nothing to do with siege". I think that it adds to the background to know that, while Malta was a British colony, it was claimed by Fascism and there was some proclivity towards Italy among the Maltese. The Malta at War exhibition in Valetta mentions this. I would also add that historically Malta has been dependent on imports for food and metals and as such the siege was more stressful for civilians, but I don't know where to insert this in the narrative. --Error (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it still doesn't. Above all its unsourced. As one editor who has gone to great lengths to source all relevant information in this article I expect the same from others. Regards, Dapi89 (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Initial Aircraft On the Island

I believe the reference to "six .. Gloster Sea Gladiators" is incorrect.

The National War Museum of Malta cites a number of four. Three on active duty, Faith, Hope and Charity, and one kept for spares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorich123 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Over-emphasis on Erwin Rommel

I've noticed in this article that Rommel's name appears 26 times. There is a general misconception that the North African campaign was primarily a German affair, and that Rommel was its great leader. In fact, he was subordinate to the Italian high command and that the North African and Central Mediterranean was primarily an Italian theater of operations. The Germans, though significant and needed, were still the junior partner. The bulk of Axis supplies to North Africa came from Italy, were transported in Italian merchant vessels and escorted by Italian warships. Axis supplies were not principally for the benefit of Rommel, but of the mainly Italian and to a lesser extent, the German forces fighting in North Africa. (See James Sadkovich's 'Of Myths and Men:Rommel and the Italians in North Africa' and Robinson's 'The Rommel Myth'). Therefore I propose this article be revised to de-emphasize Rommel's significance, especially as the article is primarily about Malta rather than North Africa. AnnalesSchool (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a question of Rommel as shorthand for the Axis force. I've reduced the number of uses, but where it actually is Rommel as a influence on strategy or as the directing force of the Axis ground forces in North Africa then it's not really replaceable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits!AnnalesSchool (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Germans were not the junior partner and I think that is painfully obvious through the course of the historiography.

It also makes little sense to erase him on the basis that this article was about Malta. The greater effort was made here by German arms in his support. Btw, the overwhelming majority of supplies for German forces came by via Italian shipping.

Without Rommel there would have been no African theatre to fight in after 1941. 'De-emphasizing him' is absurd. He was the greatest obstacle to the Allies. Dapi89 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you have been reading too much popular historical fiction about Rommel. Read what Sadkovich and others have to say about him. The Italians wanted and needed German weapons and equipment, just as the British desperately needed American arms and equipment. AnnalesSchool (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Axis shipping losses-- tons and tonnage

The section on Axis shipping losses appears to use units of weight (metric tons, long tons, and short tons) for all vessels, naval and merchant. While displacement tons are used for naval vessels, merchant ships typically use tonnage, which is a measure of volume, not weight. (For example, SS Ohio measured 9264 gross register tons but was carrying 11,500 tons of petroleum products on her final voyage.) It is likely that the Axis merchant ships sunk we measured by register tons, and no weight conversion shouuld be given. Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a ''dubious'' tag to the article in connection with the post above. It was deleted, and I have put it back, as the text clearly measures shipping lossed in metric/long tonnes of displacement. Merchant ships were not measured by displacement, and in most cases displacement figures are not available for merchant ships. Before removing the tag the improper use of displacement figures for merchant vessels needs to be corrected. Kablammo (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the displacement/weight figures as unsupported, and use instead tonnage/tons. Kablammo (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

editing needed on StG abbreviations and 1941 operations Tiger and Slice facts

This article is a great accomplishment, very readable and interesting! However I find one passage to be impossible for readers to understand, as written now, and some facts on Operation Tiger and Operation Slice are unclear, and the article might be improved by editing throughout regarding abbreviations for German air force groups.

The passage that I have trouble with is the following:

Further success was had by the Malta Convoys. An urgent supply convoy from Gibraltar to Alexandria (Operation Tiger) coincided with reinforcements for the Mediterranean Fleet, two small convoys from Egypt to Malta, and 48 more Hurricanes flew off HMS Ark Royal and Furious in Operation Splice. The only loss was one transport, the SS Empire Song, which hit a mine and sank. The ship took 10 Hurricane fighters and 57 tanks with it. Tiger was transporting 295 Matilda II tanks and the new Crusaders and 24,000 tons of oil needed for operations in North Africa. They were completed on 12 May. I., II., and III.; StG 1 made a determined effort against Tiger and Malta without result.

• Smith, Peter C. (1974), The Battles of the Malta Striking Forces, Littlehampton Book Services, ISBN 978-0-7110-0528-0
• Weal, John (1997), Junkers Ju 87 Stukageschwader 1937-41, Osprey, ISBN 1-85532-636-1

(Hmm, note Weal 1998 is used in the inline citations here (and perhaps throughout the entire article?), but the bibliography lists it as Weal 1997. One should be fixed.)

Specifically:

• The second sentence runs on with a list of noun phrases but the last phrase is not a noun phrase and doesn't make sense within the sentence. Would the following rewording (with strikeout and bolded wording substitution) be consistent with the actual facts? If so, i would prefer:

An urgent supply convoy from Gibraltar to Alexandria (Operation Tiger) coincided with reinforcements for the Mediterranean Fleet, two small convoys from Egypt to Malta, and 48 more Hurricanes flew offflying in to Malta from HMS Ark Royal and Furious in Operation Splice.

• "They were completed on 12 May. I., II., and III.; StG 1 made a determined effort...." does not appear to make any sense.
  • What does "They" refer to? If it is supposed to refer to the Malta Convoys, that is incorrect because the convoys kept going. If it is supposed to refer to the list of noun phrases in the 2nd sentence of the paragraph, that is not clear (especially because the last phrase is not a noun phrase). I am not sure whether Operation Slice is just about the delivery of 48 Hurricanes or if Operation Slice consisted of 3 elements (1. reinforcements for the Mediterranean Fleet, 2. two convoys to Malta from Egypt, 3. supply of 48 Hurricanes). Either way, that should be clarified. It the latter, and those elements of Slice are what "They" refers to, then it would be better to reword all as, say:

An urgent supply convoy from Gibraltar to Alexandria (Operation Tiger) coincided with Operation Slice, which delivered support to Malta. Operation Slice consisted of (? or included?) reinforcements for the Mediterranean Fleet, two small convoys from Egypt to Malta, and supply to Malta of 48 more Hurricanes flying from HMS Ark Royal and Furious.

• • The "I., II., and III.; StG 1 made a determined effort ..." looks at first like "I., II., and III." is a misplacement of some footnote/source information, followed by a proper sentence about StG 1. I eventually see that earlier in the article there was introduction of German air force groups as:

The first was I./Sturzkampfgeschwader 1 and II./Sturzkampfgeschwader 2 (I and II Group Dive Bomber Wings 1 and 2). The units numbered some 80 Ju 87s. This led to a notable increase in the bombing of Malta. A Stabsstaffel of Sturzkampfgeschwader 3 (StG 3) arrived. Oberstleutnant Karl Christ, Geschwaderkommodore of StG 3 gave orders to ...

However in that it appears clear that henceforth "StG 3" will be the abbreviation used. I don't understand there why "I./" and "II./" are used at all, particularly outside of the linking phrases that they precede. If "I." and "II." are the names themselves, or are part of the names, they should have been included in the linked phrases. E.g. perhaps as "I./Sturzkampfgeschwader 1 (StG 1) and II./Sturzkampfgeschwader 2 (StG 2)". And then why not include "III." with the introduction of Sturzkampfgeschwader 3 in the passage? If "I." and "II." are just part of a Wikipedia editor's writing, in enumerating a list, which seems possible, then I think it would be best to drop that usage entirely. Anyhow, much later in the article, referring to "I", "II", and "III" as if those are known terms doesn't work; to me they seem never to have been defined fully and it is simply confusing.

Wouldn't it better, throughout the article, to refer to the German air force groups as StG 1, StG 2, and StG 3, after introducing those abbreviations parenthetically with the first mentions of those groups?

No matter what, I cannot see how "I., II., and III.; StG 1 made a determined effort..." makes sense. What is meant is perhaps "StG 1, StG 2, and StG 3 made a determined effort...". Or "I., II., and III. made a determined effort..." if the roman numerals followed by periods had been explicitly defined to mean the groups (which would not be best; I would prefer "StG 1" etc. instead). There is no way that a stray "StG 1" should be there, without "StG 2" and "StG 3" also.

• Finally, perhaps due to the sequencing of sentences, it is confusing about how many tanks are getting to Egypt. Is it 295 Matilda tanks plus some Crusaders delivered, or 295 M + some C less some mixture of losses? The current passage is:

The only loss was one transport, the SS Empire Song, which hit a mine and sank. The ship took 10 Hurricane fighters and 57 tanks with it. Tiger was transporting 295 Matilda II tanks and the new Crusaders and 24,000 tons of oil needed for operations in North Africa.

but, would it be correct to say, instead:

Tiger was attempting to transport 295 Matilda II tanks and the new Crusaders and 24,000 tons of oil needed for operations in North Africa. The only loss was one transport, the SS Empire Song, which hit a mine and sank. The ship took 10 Hurricane fighters and 57 tanks with it.

which would imply that 295 Matilda tanks plus some Crusaders less 57 losses got delivered (which I suspect is correct). Also I think some more precise information oughta be used in the related article Malta Convoys, where what is currently stated is:

Tiger was transporting tanks (Matildas and the new Crusader tanks) needed for the operations in North Africa, these had been intended to be sent via the Cape but were diverted via the Mediterranean. Over 200 tanks reached Alexandria on 12 May.[without any direct, inline citation]

I hope these comments are helpful. Again, I really like the article. --doncram 16:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The dual purpose of history.

Recently I tried to point out to the reader that Wavell's forces during Operation Compass, though a great success, could not have succeeded in expelling the Italians entirely from North Africa and that therefore it is erroneous to believe that it was only the timely intervention of the Germans under Rommel, which stopped that from happening.

The wording was:

In February 1941, the Deutsches Afrikakorps (German Africa Corps, or DAK) commanded by Generalfeldmarschall Field Marshal Erwin Rommel as sent to North Africa to prevent an Axis rout. I wanted to reword it to to bolster Axis forces there which would be more accurate.

In February 1941, the Italians still had an entire army and several divisions in Tripoliana with more arriving. Wavell did not have the resources to "rout" the Italians from North Africa. So the phrase "to prevent an Axis rout" is misleading to the reader. Besides, the Germans under Rommel did not begin arriving in full strength until April.

However, my proposal was rejected on the grounds by two editors that:

"Cannot apply hindsight. The Afrika Korps mission was defensive to prevent an Italian collapse"

and

"The sentence says why they were sent, which is a reason set in the past." (hohum)

As stated, there was no imminent "rout" of Italian forces in North Africa, even with the disaster of Operation Compass. But what I want to impress upon, is the dual purpose of history. There is some confusion here. History is meant to explain why events occurred in the past, to see things through the eyes of the participants (ground level view), BUT also with hindsight, to explain to the present day reader, why they saw things in that way, and if they were right to see things that way. In other words, to explain historical events, and then, because we know more and better today, to evaluate or re-evaluate the actions and events of the past.

So, to the first editor, the answer to "Cannot apply hindsight" is wrong. Historians can and do apply hindsight because historians in theory, have a bird-eye view of the past, more so than the actors in the past who were involved in the events and could not have known all there was to know when making the decisions they made.

Therefore, historians have to write two histories at the same time: (1) "the Africa korps was defensive to prevent an Italian collapse" BUT with hindsight, (2) no Italian collapse was imminent because today we know that British forces in 1941 in North Africa were no where near strong enough to make routing the Italians, a reality.AnnalesSchool (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a lot of spiel. Properly trained historians do not change the context of history by applying hindsight. They state the facts and provide anyalsis: neither is what you did. Not to mention you are removing the context of the Afrika Korps mission. It was not to bolster, it was to prevent the collapse the axis powers feared (of course, at the same time the Italians were sending desert suitable troops in the form of proper motorized and armored divisions. That is despite there already being several remaining infantry divisions of the Fifth Army, which Compass and hindsight show were not suitable for desert operations.). Finally, if one was attempting to emulate a historian you would have made mention of how - despite geopolitical opposition, the lack of logistical backing or military might to do so - the British thought they could have routed the Italians out of Africa had they not had to divert attention to Greece.165.166.215.220 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not our role to decide if the British could, or could not have driven the Italians from North Africa. Nor can we state that British forces were insufficient to defeat the Italians, whether the British had, or had not, the resources it diverted to and expended in Greece and Crete. Our article should reflect the sources, and where there is disagreement, give due weight to the respective positions. Kablammo (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you both show a great deficiency in understanding the role of history. History is not solely concerned with facts, but with the analysis of facts, and an evaluation and if necessary, a reevaluation of those facts. One of the roles of an historian is to present a more complete picture to the modern-day reader than simply "presenting the facts". Indeed, one could argue "the fact" that the British did not have the resources to expel the Italians from North Africa, neither in 1941, nor 1942. It was only American intervention in late 1942 under Operation Torch which actually prevented a British rout in North Africa by Italo-German forces.

Moreover, an historian must do his best to prevent nationalistic partisanship and ingrained racism to cloud one's analysis. This would apply to Wiki editors as well, many of whom seem hell bent to portray the Italians as "useless ballast" (to quote one rabid anglo historian). Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Younger historians today are starting to realize this. Unfortunately many Wiki editors are still living in the past clinging on to outdated, prejudiced and ultimately, futile beliefs about the Italian war effort.

AnnalesSchool (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a seminar in the role, uses, and abuses of history. Nor is it a place for editors to present their own analyses of history. It simply reports; it should not, as Wikipedia, draw conclusions.

I agree that both historians and Wikipedia contributors should strive to keep their own preconceptions out of their writing. I am therefore surprised at the certainty with which you assert that Italians, by themselves, could have avoided defeat by the British, and that only US involvement prevented a British rout in North Africa. Perhaps, as you claim, my knowledge of history is deficient, but in my (apparently inadequate) readings I have yet to see any mention of US forces at El Alamein.

Kablammo (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that Wikipedia is no "cutting edge" of history and that university students are warned by their professors and lecturers never to add a wiki article in their essays and theses, and to do so would elicit a stern warning. I myself have had to warn my students to avoid quoting from Wiki historical articles if they wished to pass. Even it seems, Wikipedia advises readers not to depend on its own articles for accuracy and balance. The best Wiki articles can do is to give undergraduate students a basic intro into a topic and some valuable links.

My original suggestion, that writing: "to prevent an Axis rout" insinuates that the Italians were on the point of losing North Africa and the British were about to kick them out. This is totally erroneous. The British did not have the means to "rout" anyone in 1941 and 42. To go on to take Tripolitania would have been almost suicidal for the British.

When you write that Wikipedia's role is simply to report and not draw conclusions, wording is important - very important, to avoid giving the wrong conclusion to the reader. To write in February 1941, the Deutsches Afrikakorps (German Africa Corps, or DAK) commanded by Generalfeldmarschall Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was sent to North Africa to prevent an Axis rout. gives the reader the impression that the Italians were on the verge of losing North Africa and that it was only the timely intervention of the Germans that prevented it from happening, is in itself, drawing a conclusion. My suggestion to change the wording to "bolster Axis forces there" is more neutral, less fanciful and avoids giving the reader the wrong impression that the Italians were on the brink of being "routed" out of North Africa in the wake of Operation Compass.AnnalesSchool (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not stated disagreement with your edit. It it undoubtedly is correct; the question is whether the statement goes far enough. (And there is a difference between stating that the German forces were sent to avoid a rout, and whether British has the ability to inflict one; the first speaks to motivation.) In any case, as it has become a subject of disagreement, there should be a cite to the assertion, and I have added a request for a cite. If it is supported by AJP Taylor (he is cited after the next sentence), it may be best to ascribe that claim to him, unless its further sourced to a work which relies on Axis sources. Kablammo (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"It was only American intervention in late 1942 under Operation Torch which actually prevented a British rout in North Africa by Italo-German forces." - and it was only American 'intervention' that caused the British to be in such a difficult situation in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations

If you use sfn citations {{sfn|Shores|1985|p=3}} you need to do the reference as below.

* {{cite book |ref={{harvid|Shores|1985}}|last=Shores|first=Christopher|title=Duel for the Sky: Ten Crucial Battles of World War II|publisher=Grub Street|year=1985|isbn=978-0-7137-1601-6}} (without the nowiki bookends, obviously). If you have importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); like here User:Keith-264/common.js the failed links show up red so that you can put them right. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Decisive

Template:Infobox military conflict as per the infobox guide: result – optional – 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.

I took out decisive from the infobox result criterion but I fear that I failed adequately to explain why. There's a perennial debate about it on other article talk pages should anyone want to delve.Keith-264 (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you point to some of those debates, or at least give a more clear explanation? I'm not quite following your decision. It appears that "decisive" was cite in those two sources, and I don't think we can just start altering all the infoboxes because of some unresolved arguments on various pages. -Indy beetle (talk)

[1] [2] Wiki writers aren't the only ones to divide on whether decisive is a synonym of big or technical language derived from Clausewitz meaning "war-determining". Bungay and Taylor aren't rubbish but they are tertiary sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight

I personally concur with Sadkovich's and Caravaggio's conclusions that the confrontation between the Royal Navy and the Regia Marina was a draw, at least at strategic level (the RN never achieved the command of the sea by itself), but I guess that there are other authors whose assessments are quite different. I just tagged the statement as undue weight, though I am for adding other sources without suppressing the current "draw" line.---Darius (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Cannot parse this sentence

I cannot parse this first sentence of the Allied Reinforcement section, "With the exception of coal, fodder, kerosene and essential civilian supplies were such that a reserve of 8–15 months was built up."

Is this saying kerosene and essential civilian supplies were built up but coal and fodder were not. The smallest edit that clarifies such a meaning could be "With the exception of coal and fodder, kerosene and essential civilian supplies were such that a reserve of 8–15 months was built up." Clarity would be further improved with "A reserve of 8–15 months was built up for kerosene and essential civilian supplies, but coal and fodder remained in short supply."

Another interpretation might be fodder, kerosene, and essential civilians supplies were built up but coal was not? This could be clarified as "While fodder, kerosene, and essential supplies were such that a reserve of 8-15 months were built up, coal was in short supply." Note I also added a serial comma between kerosene and essential supplies. Similarly to above, clarity would be further improved with "A reserve of 8–15 months was built up for fodder, kerosene, and essential civilian supplies, but coal remained in short supply."

FAbTtEn (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)