Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Mare Nostrum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Few if any problems have been asserted with respect to this article that cannot be addressed through rewriting, merging or redirecting it. These actions do not require deletion.  Sandstein  20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Mare Nostrum

Italian Mare Nostrum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The whole thing is non-existent as a fascist propaganda tool, capitalizing on the old "Mare Nostrum" tendencies of Italian irredentism that never materialized. The real existence of an Italian "zone of control" is extremely doubtful considering real WW2 events were a string of Italian strategic defeats. The article is just another in a series of articles trying to increase the appearance of Italian control over Corsica, Malta, Dalmatia, and even the Mediterranean sea as a whole. The article title can be compared to something like "German Greater Reich", or "Greater German Lands" in Nazi Germany. The real history of the Mediterranean War is that of a list of stalemates and minor Italian losses, interrupted now and again by a really catastrophic defeat (the Battles of Taranto and Cape Matapan being more famous examples).

  • Delete, per above. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article does not appear to be a hoax. It is well-referenced and abides by NPOV. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    The article does not address the real historic use of the phrase "Mare Nostrum", but instead speaks about fictional Italian control over the Eastern Mediterranean in a highly biased way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to your point here. Do you claim that the article is "a fascist propaganda tool", or that Italian use of the term in period was never intended as "a fascist propaganda tool"? The use of it by the Italian Fascists is well-documented, and well cited here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Cleaned up most of the article. I feel that the sections on the wartime army, navy and airforce are not needed. The article is about a territory subject to Italy during the Second World War. Hence, apart from a brief gist of Italy's conquests in thje Mediterranean, not much is required.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the Mediterranean sea was at no point actually controlled by the Axis, but parts of it were at best a "no man's land" for a brief period after the evacuation of Crete and that mostly due to the German Luftwaffe. The article does not address the use of "Mare Nostrum" as a propaganda tool during WW2, or a Roman phrase, but instead speaks of it as if it were an actual territorial entity. If one should create an article about the extent of WW2 Italian control on the Mediterranean, then it should be entitled something like "WW2 Italian control of the Mediterranean", if it was to be about the use of the phrase "Mare Nostrum", then it should be entitled "Mare Nostrum" (Romans are not Italians). But these are totally different articles we're talking about. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would find it easier to believe that renaming was the only issue here if the article hadn't been tagged for deletion instead. I simply cannot believe that the real issue here is that the article's tone is non-neutral by being too credulous towards the Italian Fascists. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, the article is not about "Mare Nostrum" or "Italian control of the Mediterranean" its a POV hibrid, and if we were to rename it and rewrite it, wouldn't that be a whole other article? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What's a "POV hybrid" ? If you claim POV issues, then we work to fix it - That's no reason to delete. I simply to fail to see what your core issue is here, one that is so strong as to demand the deletion of a non-trivial article. Here's the opening para for starters:
Italian Mare Nostrum was the name given, during World War II, by Benito Mussolini and his fascist propaganda to the Mediterranean Sea under the domination of the Kingdom of Italy, mainly in 1942.
Now what's the problem with that? I see this as a genuine name or concept in period, a notable concept worthy of discussion, and a reasonable scope for such an article. What am I missing here? I'm no historical expert on it - there may be subtle name-changing issues, there's clearly as much rancour floating around here as there is on British Isles/islands/countries, but I see the core concept of this article as being sound.
If we have an issue with "Romans vs. Il Duce", then we disambiguate appropriately. As it stood, this article seemed to have avoided such issues and was clearly defined in its time, politics and geography.
Incidentally, Do you have any similar such problem with Greater Italy?
Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's the thing: (feeling kinda alone over here on the Delete side :)
Italian Mare Nostrum was the name given, during World War II, by Benito Mussolini and his fascist propaganda to the Mediterranean Sea under the domination of the Kingdom of Italy, mainly in 1942.
First of all, "Mare Nostrum", does not apply only to parts of the Mediterranean under Italian control, it is another name for the whole of the Mediterranean sea used by the Romans and Italian fascists, with the latter never achieving anything close to it. This is an important distinction, which shows that Mare Nostrum never actually existed, even sections of the Mediterranean that are stated in the article as "under Italian control" are a highly disputable point.
Second, "Italian Mare Nostrum" was never the phrase, but "Mare Nostrum". I have no problems with the "greater xxxx" articles, they are about pretensions, whereas this article is apparently about a real-live (huge) area of the Mediterranean that was never under "Italian control". If we change the article so much that it no longer talks about a "real" territorial entity (and move it to "Mare Nostrum"), but about territorial pretensions (Roman era-Mediterranean, and fascist propaganda) then I would not see a problem, but of course this would more or less be a new article. How can I clarify my point further? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
So there are two issues: Geographical size of the controlled area was smaller than the area named (accepting that "control" was pretty flakey too), secondly that the name might have been better as "Mare Nostrum (WW2 Italian Fascist period)". I can't see either of these as supporting deletion. I don't even see enough to support a rename - with a good introduction to avoid possible ambiguity, the name "Italian Mare Nostrum" has simplicity to commend it. I accept that Il Duce's eyes were bigger than his belly over this one, but the contradiction between his geographical hopes and the achieved actuality wasn't so different as to make this choice of name harmful, given a suitable into para. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(Perhaps I should have explained more thoroughly in the intro, my apologies, please see my reply to User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick below) Like I said: if someone was to create an article dealing with the Roman/Italian concept of "Mare Nostrum", fine by me, if someone was to create an article dealing with the extent of Italian control in the Mediterranean, fine by me, if someone was to create an article about Italian (historic) pretensions in the Mediterranean, also fine, but this article uses selective representation of real facts to present an incorrect picture of a period of Italian control over the Mediterranean Sea and calls it Mare Nostrum in a strange bid for justification by showing the whole thing off as an article about a propaganda tool, which it is not. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a genuine article on a genuine term of the time. NPOV is obviously tricky here, and a need to make changes could well be identified (if appropriate), but this is no candidate for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Even as a fascist propaganda tool it is a historical fact, well referenced. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article does not fail WP:POV. I agree that it is not about the ancient use of Mare Nostrum, and was in my opinion an unhistorically correct use of the term, but that is my POV (as well as, perhaps, that of the nominor). However this is a serious article about an aspect of Italian fascist propaganda. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not the best article I've ever read, but I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. It's pretty NPOV and is referenced. What's the problem? Coemgenus 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Well referenced; appears to be a real concept. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep? I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. The concept was a fascist idea? So surely it would be expected that the content would reflect this? However, I have not looked at the article in detail, but if it is written in a POV, then change it. If it is referenced, then I see no reason for its deletion. ItaliaIrredenta (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Brunodam :) I see you have a new alter-ego. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. :) I conduct myself good. ItaliaIrredenta (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. My problem with this article is that it takes a legitimate concept, that of the mare nostrum, but it is not an article about how that concept was viewed in Fascist Italy, it is mainly just a list of "stuff that happened in the area that Mussolini and his cronies viewed as the Italian sea". (I mean, come on, what is that photo of Teseo Tesei doing there?) Imagine Lebensraum being a list of all the battles that happened in the area that Hitler considered his countryfolk's living space - that would be ridiculous. So I feel that two thirds of the article should just be binned. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, perhaps we all of us have a misunderstanding on our hands: I do not claim that:
1) "Italian Mare Nostrum" did not exist as a propaganda tool (and perhaps a goal) for the Italian fascists
2) Italy didn't control areas of the Mediterranean coast and perhaps even a section of the Mediterranean Sea. These facts are, as everyone says, well referenced in the text and we all know that they are true (of course)
It is the fact that this article takes actual historical events, represents them in a selective and POV manner, and then uses them along with the fascist propaganda tool to create the image of an actual territorial entity spanning roughly along the borders of the (largely incorrect and imprecise) map at the start of the page.
If someone was to create an article dealing with the Roman/Italian concept of "Mare Nostrum", fine by me, if someone was to create an article dealing with the extent of Italian control in the Mediterranean, fine by me, if someone was to create an article about Italian (historic) pretensions in the Mediterranean, also fine, but this article uses selective representation of real facts to present an incorrect picture of a period of Italian control over the Mediterranean Sea and calls it Mare Nostrum in a strange bid for justification by showing the whole thing off as an article about a propaganda tool, which it is not.
All in all, this is not a simple matter as it may appear at first glance, I did not nominate for no reason or out of some "POV fit". The article looks rather large, well referenced and fine at first consideration, but this is a pretty clever idea for selective representation of info. In any event, if the article were to be changed so that it only and fully centers on any of the real subjects I mentioned above I would not mind, but this would be a nearly complete rewrite, so I nominated for deletion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect the title, split the content. Redirect to article Mediterranean Sea. To avoid any problems: user DIREKTOR informed me about this discussion, since I was often involved in similar topics. My opinion is, that there's no need for special article about this, since this is just another name for Mediterranean Sea. We don't have to make special articles about e.g. Nizza and Nice or about Straßburg and Strasbourg. It's bad to dedicate whole article to the fascist (!) renaming of particular toponym - that should deserve few lines in the article "Mediterranean Sea"; otherwise, it may look that we give veiled support to such ideology (if we keep the specialized article). Further, the article doesn't speak a lot about the sea itself: it speaks more about Italy's ideology and expansionism, and military campaigns. According to that, we can split the articlecontent (not delete it) into several articles, that are listed in the section "See also" (*Military history of Italy during World War II, Italian Empire, Regio Esercito (WWII), Regia Aeronautica, Regia Marina), and to articles Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946), Italian Social Republic and Italian Fascism. But, if this "Italian Mare Nostrum" was a special administrative unit, that we can keep the article. Since it's not the case, let's just make a redirect. Otherwise, we're making bad ...precedent (have I used the proper iurist term?): e.g. in that case Adriatic Sea may get new articles, Mare nostrum dalmaticum and Golfo di Venezia. Kubura (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I strongly disagree with a redirect to Mediterranean Sea. The "Mediterranean Sea" is the universal name of a geographical entity. Mare Nostrum is a political viewpoint about that geographical entity, first held by the Romans, then later revived by the Italians. I don't know much about how it was viewed in Roman times, but it was definitely a key factor in Italian expansion, before and after the rise of fascism. Just like lebensraum, it deserves its own article. It is clearly a term that historians use [1]. The problem is that on Wikipedia, it is a project page for "stuff that happened in the Mediterranean during Mussolini's rule". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Kubura may have a point here, though I also disagree with a merge with Mediterranean Sea, national pretensions should be left out of there. Mabe we ought to simply move the article to "Mare Nostrum" and write abou the phrase's use as both a Roman concept and a fascist propaganda too, while also removing all non-related military history info to the Military history of Italy during World War II. This would remove the selective use of info and would create a worthy Wiki article about a historical concept, sans the WW2 control implications. We would of course have to de-POV-ize the military history part, Italians actually made a rather poor show in the Mediterranean. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and start again. This is a concept that is notable and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. There should be an article on this subject. However, the article as it stands - presenting the concept as something that existed - is too far from the truth to be salvageable. Yes, Wiki is about verifiability, not truth, so let's try verifying what the article says. Just try. Comments above that it is well referenced are sadly misled. The reason that there are no online sources (the written references are dubious, to say the least) is that there are no sources that support what the article says, especially its claims that "in 1940, Mussolini started to expand the Italian maritime control on the central Mediterranean" (entirely untrue) and the "ensuing Battle of the Mediterranean had many changes of fortune" (untrue) and "the Italian Navy obtained for some months the nearly complete control of the central Mediterranean" (entirely untrue). If any of the above had been true, Malta, in Italy's backyard, would have fallen. It didn't fall, despite Luftwaffe dominance of the skies. Why not? Because the Allied navies dominated the seas. Ergo, there was no Mare Nostrum. QED. Yes, Malta was a close run thing, but nobody outside this Wikipedia article claims anything close to what this article says. Google it and see. So this article is not what it should be - a passing reference to an abstract concept - but a claim that this thing existed. Sorry, no. It should go, and let's start again with a blank page. However, given all the above opinions (I'd ask you all to review your comments after looking into the subject, not just the article) I suspect that it will be kept. Pity, as this article does Wikipedia a disservice. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename/Cleanup. Delete because of wrong concept. Key words are "Mare Nostrum". This Latin phrase deserves an article about its usage through history. But that's all. There are already articles about Italian navy and air forces. Zenanarh (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment lol am I dreaming or is the Battle of Cape Matapan not even mentioned here, just some insignificant Italian victories... glorification of the (in reality rather poor) Italian war effort. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It was there a few days ago, but was removed when one editor took it upon themselves to delete three major sections. These ought to be reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I agree with that. ItaliaIrredenta (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
And when I say "guff", I mean all but probably two of the sentences in Italian Mare Nostrum! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with that. ItaliaIrredenta (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
But I do. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If someone worked much on this, it is unfair for delete it. ItaliaIrredenta (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes it must have demanded a lot of work, its a very clever "ploy". Selective use of info should not be allowed, whether hard-worked for or not. The article is dedicated to the glorification of the Italian war effort, however it may have been, and uses only parts of history, forgets others or mentions them in a POV way, and covers it all by calling it an article about a fascist slogan or catchphrase. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Come on, ItaliaIrredenta, we need some quality control here. If hard word is all that is required for inclusion in this encylopaedia, then why don't we invite the five year olds at our local primary school to put some articles up? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable period propaganda concept that helps explain Italian actions during WWII. Edward321 (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
omg, is anyone listening: the article is not about the propaganda concept, if it were I would not have nominated. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly not, but the result of this is obviously going to be keep as there is no consensus, so how about we close it and then put merge tags on the two articles? By the natural process of editing and review by others, the crap should get weeded out in time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The following Web sites speak about Italian Mare Nostrum: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]...--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Once again, I do not contest the fact that "Mare Nostrum" was a propaganda phrase used by Italians, i.e. the fascist government. I contest the article's representation of the phrase as a name for the Mediterranean Sea being under Italian domination. Mare Nostrum (and "Italian" Mare Nostrum) is not a name for a part of the Mediterranean under Italian control, it is a colloquial name for the whole of the Mediterranean. And though that might have been Mussolini's ambition, it was never achieved. I repeat: I would at all mind an article about the propaganda phrase, but this is selective represenatation of facts. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Mentions in passing on websites do not equate to notability. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • sigh* looks like I blew it with the intro on this one, will try something else... the article cannot stay in this formulation. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Google is giving 18.900 results for Mare Nostrum Mussolini.--Rjecina (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)--Rjecina (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


  • I see I’ve been overtaken by events: I found this article following a link from Second Battle of Sirte a couple of days ago, and was lost for words. But now we are here, I support deletion. The only value I could see in the page is as a discussion of the term, which I see has been addressed here . The rest of it is just a POV fork, and says nothing not said more clearly at Battle of the Mediterranean. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Read Battle of Cape Matapan. Italians had 3 heavy crusiers, Zara, Pola and Fiume, the most biggest battleships of that kind in the world in that moment, pride of Regia Marina. Two of them (Zara and Fiume) sank in that battle in just 3 minutes in very funny circumstances. Not equiped with radars, these ships were attacked by the Britains during the night hours from very close distance. Per some analysis these giants rapidly sank not because of the direct hits (impossible in 3 minutes), but rather because of its bad construction. Not prepared to attack and "invisible" enemy, these giants tried to escape by sharpe angle manoeuvre in full speed. Problem was that the heaviest cannons were placed as first at the bows of the ships. So monsters simply made double axel jump and dissapeared, both in the same moment. It seems Italian Mare Nostrum was controlled by anyone, but not Italians; they were not able to control even their own ships. Zenanarh (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. It's pretty NPOV and is well referenced. The concepts help explain Italian actions during WWII. Definitively: Keep. --Popovichi (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.