Talk:Nemi ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale
Vernet's Shipwreck This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:
  • "The size of these ships was not rivaled until after the Renaissance...", what about the Chinese Treasure ships? --124.82.11.49 11:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That may be correct. I will change the article to- "...not rivaled until the 15 century".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion regarding the destruction of the ships

Moved from talk page:

Hello, I see that you have edited the article on the Nemi ships and written "however the ships were destroyed by the Nazi German army". This is widely disputed, do you have any reference to support your view? Regards, 20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Kon-Tiki001

Hi Kon-Tiki001, yes I did provide (a reference) proof for the Nazi Germans destroying the ships. However, it seems a certain User:Drknow2000 edited the section, still saying the Germans

destroyed the ships (as they did, there is little dispute actually) but leaving out the reference I provided.Rex 14:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rex Germanus. The web page you're refering to can't be considered "proof", this is just one persons opinion. The fact that we're actually discussing this problem proves that the issus is disputed. I've been a part of an excavation team excavating at Nemi a few years ago and the general consensus among scholars is that it's neither possible to prove that the fire was cause by the Germans nor by squatters. Both are equally possible and as long as we're able to find real facts about this, and not just some random web page that says that it was caused by the Germans, we're Ibetter off leaving both options open. I suggest we revert the edits to include both options. Kon-Tiki001 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well that page is at least something, and it's a university page, not someone personal opinion. If you have a source that clearly says the Germans didn't burn the ships, then we're open (if the source is reliable/unbiased) to make clear the burning is disputed. Rex 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if some info is posted on a university page doesn't necessarily mean that it's peer reviewed and unbiased. I can put something on my web page at my university and link to that. See the point?. Any way, I'm not going to use more time on this. Kon-Tiki001 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But it is a reference from a non-personal website, and up until now you have provided no counter-reference that supports your version. Once that's set, we can discuss which source is more reliable.Rex 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. First of all, check out this web page: [1], quote: "Some do not think the Germans committed this act of historical irreverance, but that it was caused by Italian refugees fleeing the fighting between the Germans and the Allies. The refugees were known to have taken up refuge in the structures housing the ships and could have inadvertently torched the ships through a campfire or some other means." Secondly, in an article in May/June issue of Archaeology by Deborah N. Carlson "Caligula's Floating Palaces" she states regarding the fire "An official report filed in Rome later that year described the tragedy as a willful act on the part of the German soldiers. A german editorial blamed the destruction on American artillery fire. The true story of what happened that night will probably never be known". Not surprisingly German and Italian views differ on this point. But as long as one is not establish for a fact what really happende, it's better to include both possible explanations in an unbiased article. Kon-Tiki001 12:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree that the destruction was a consequence of WWII. I would suggest something like
Between 1927 and 1932 they had been pulled out of the temporarily drained lake. After 19 centuries the hulls were found to still be mostly intact. However during the later stages of World War II the museum housing the ships burnt to the ground and the ships with it. Whether this was an act of war by the retreating German army, or an accident caused by refugees from the fighting will probably never been known. The sad fact is the same, the ships which had been preserved intact for 19 centuries were destroyed by human interference only 17 years after being found.
Or is the last overly dramatic? Arnoutf 12:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think your suggestions sounds good. Just one minor detail, the museum wasn't burnt down and still stands today. Thanks for your suggestions. Kon-Tiki001 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! The museum is a reinforced concrete structure and stands intact today. Only the museum exhibits were torched. It is highly unlikely, that artillery fire could have ignited the ships, as they do not even seem to have damaged the building. -- Petri Krohn 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I'm more eager to trust an official Italian document, than a wartime nazi German editorial.Rex 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
An official Italian document written during Mussolinis fascist regime should be taken cum grano just as much as Nazi propaganda. Do you have a special aggenda since you're very eager to just promote one side of the argument? If you talk to the local inhabitants of Nemi of today you'll discover that they also belive that the fire could have been started accidentally by the squatters that had taken refuge in the museum building. The view that the ships were burned deliberately by the Germans was established during the highly politicised post-war years. Kon-Tiki001 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
And naturally you have sources to back these claims up. Btw, it is impossible for the italian document to have been written under/by mussolinis regime, as it ended in 1943. If he actually did write it it would have been incredibly stupid as the Germans were protecting the italian fascists in 1944.Rex 15:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains that there are no unbiased contemporary sources that enables us to conclude either way in this question, and my view is that this should be reflected in an entry in an encyclopedia. Why are you ignoring the information in Archaeology stating that "The true story of what happened that night will probably never be known". You're right in correcting me about Mussolini and 1944, but any official document written during or immediately after the WWII is highly politicised. If you're familiar with Italian historiography from the 1870s to mid c.20th you should also be familiar with the anti-German/Germanic tradition. And, no, I'm in no way pro-German, it's just that I think an entry in an encyclopedia should be unbiased and reflecting both sides of an argument, but you seem to be of a different opinion on this issue. Kon-Tiki001 16:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
On what do you base that there are no unbiased sources? Just because some (I've yet to see them) contradict eachother, doesn't mean it can't be correct. Rex 19:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Unbiased sources are sources not written within a highly politicised era, as the post-war Europe was. You're asking a lot of questions, but you've still got to answer mine: Why are you ignoring the information from the Archaeology article? Secondly, why are you so obsessed with just presenting one side of the argument? Having spent some time in the Nemi area I've met locals that suggest that it's possible that ships wasn't deliberately torched by the Germans. Unfortunately I didn't think of recording this info, but with hindsight I realise I should have. Check out these web pages: [2], quote: "per un incendio doloso, forse ad opera delle truppe tedesche in ritirata.". [3] "Il 31 maggio 1944, mentre le navi si trovavano ricoverate nell’apposito museo allestito sulla riva del lago, rimasero preda di un incendio doloso le cui cause sono tuttora ignote." Do you now see that this topic has more than one side to it? Kon-Tiki001 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Again just because you say that doesn't make it right, it's still Original Research. You can say you were in Italy and spoke to locals, but after User:Essjay who can be sure of such authority?Rex 14:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile:

Rex 14:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Againg you're refusing to comment on the questions I ask you. Could you please expain why you're ignoring the information in the Archaeology article, and the other italian sources I've quoted saying that it's more than one possible explanation. And, I wouldn't call Time from 1944 unbiased. We could go on citing sources after sources with both sides of the argument. Don't you think this article should reflect both views? Scholarly publications like Archaeology claims that the cause of the fire is still uncertain. But you don't seem to acknowledge that.

Could anyone else give their view on this? Kon-Tiki001 16:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need more views, we need sources that support views. As for me supposably "avoiding" your questions. I haven't seen any of your questions, and if I'm supposed to read the link (archaelogy?) you provided, let me remind you that it is in Italian, and I (along with the overall majority of the world) do not read or speak Italian.Rex 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I've asked you many times why your are ignoring the information I've quoted from the article in the journal Archaeology from May/June 2002 published by the Archaeological Institute of America, stating that: ""The true story of what happened that night will probably never be known"". Regarding the Italian articles, the first one says that the ships were "destroyed in a tragic fire, maybe the works for retreating German forces". The second one says that the ships were destroyed "in a tragic fire, whose cause is still unknown". Kon-Tiki001 19:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Comments

  • @Rex. One of your two sources are a touristic site. (I would like to disregard that one without further comment).
  • The second source is an article in Time magazine dated 1944. KonTiki001 makes a reasonable case that any English reporting in 1944 maybe biased. But IMHO even more importantly: Interpretation of history changes, hence; even if the Times article was written with the best knowledge of that day; more modern insights have preference. If the Archaelogy article is indeed as clear, that should get priority (KonTiki, please provide the coplete reference to the exact page number where the statements are found (consider using Template:Cite_journal).
  • @KonTiki001. Rex has a point that collecting eye-witness testimonies (wahtever their worth) is original research. If you think their accounts are worthwhile for publication it should be in a (scientific) journal, not in Wiki.
  • Also, if you have english language sources, these are vastly preferred over Italian sources, for exactly Rex's reason: Not everyone reads Italian. However, if the Italian sources are very strong and beyond susicion of bias and no English sources can be found, Italian sources are accptable (Rex: You use Dutch sources for articles on the Netherlands as well).

As it looks now: the evidence of a German war crime is not beyond reasonable doubt; hence the statement should be changed. (PS Sorry about the museum, I am not familiar enough with the topic to know that; but you ot the idea behind my suggestion all right)Arnoutf 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Arnoutf 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What Do you mean with Nazi German Army ???? The correct name is "Deutsche Wehrmacht" or German Wehrmacht!Even the Allies did not regard the "Wehrmacht" as a National Socialist organization!This whole article seems very biased and Anti-German! It is meanwhile a tradition to blame the Germans for everything happened in WW2. There is no evidence that the Germans have done it! If the Italians maintain, the Germans had the act committed, then they have to bring the evidences: Which german military unit put the fire. Who is responsible for this instruction. What was the name of the commander of this unit. Where are relevant witnesses for it? Otherwise it is only "hearsay"!! In our juridical system the plaintiff has to prove the debt of the accused and not the accused its innocence. "In dubio pro reo" as the Romans said! Giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt. And last but not least, why should the Germans burn down the ships? These ships where a prestige object of her "friend" Mussolini. The recovery of the ships was a large propaganda success for the Duce and its fascistic state. He used them to link Italia under his rule with the Roman Empire, and himself as a Successor of the Roman emperors. Therefore it would be more logically to assume, that these ships were set on fire(as a symbol of the hatred Neo Roman-fascistic Ideology) by the Italian Communist Resistance or by accident. Ask yourself why the Italian Goverment after the war never demanded a compensation for this so-called warcrime from Germany! So would like to see your evidence that proofs unquestionably the german debt!!!! Regards Christos Chanos

[edit] It's amazing what some people will edit war about

SInce the Archaeology article says the site was destroyed during the German retreat, that's enough to say. Whether it was a deliberate act of the German army (as stated in Time) or from the American artillery (as alleged in a German editorial referenced in the Archaeology article) is not really important. (Although I note that at the very least, it was a deliberate act of the German army to set up an artillery battery near the museum. However, that is my opinion, not something that can used here.) This is an article about an archaeological site, not an article about German war crimes or German nationalism or Italian pride. This is not the place for that dispute. Thatcher131 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The problem with "possibly on purpose" is that someone could also say "possibly accidental" and both statements have equal support from sources; this is a case where we should avoid weasel words. Your source is a notation in a museum catalog, which I do not consider definitive in the same way that a scholarly article is. Apparently there is a German report that blames US artillery and a Time magazine report that blames the Germans--they cancel each other out as far as I am concerned. The Archaeology article looks to be balanced and neutral, and if the author could have said for sure what happened I'm sure she would have. At some point we may find a scholarly article that more precisely states what happened but until then I think it is best to leave it undefined. What this article really needs is a more thorough description of the ships, the artifacts that were found, the technology (suction pump), and so forth. We don't even have the dimensions, for heavens sake, just "huge". As far as the archeological importance of the find is concerned, the exact circumstances of the fire are totally uninteresting. Thatcher131 16:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine, perhaps more clear articles or sources will one day emerge.Rex 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Rest assured that if I was comfortable saying as a fact that the ships were deliberately destroyed by the retreating German army, I would. What we could do here is describe the ambiguity being fair to both sides, but I think that would give disproportionate weight to the destruction, rather than focusing on the significance of the ships themselves. Thatcher131 17:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soooo, how big?

The article, and others that talk about the ships, keep saying how big they are. Ok, so how big are they? How is it that this isn't mentioned? Maury (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)