| Revision as of 17:47, 14 May 2015 editKhirurg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,687 edits →Edit-warring POV material into the article.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:07, 29 October 2024 edit undoJheeeeeeteegh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,096 edits →Result of the War in summary box 28.10.24: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=y}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=no}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=60 |units=days }} |
|
|
|
{{Round in circles|archives=yes}} |
|
|
{{not a forum}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=start|B1=n|B2=n|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|Italian=y|Balkan=yes|WWII=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Greece|importance=High<!-- B-Class parameters -->}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Albania|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
| algo=old(60d) |
|
|
|
| algo=old(90d) |
|
| archive=Talk:Greco-Italian War/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive=Talk:Greco-Italian War/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter=4 |
|
| counter=8 |
|
| maxarchivesize=100K |
|
| maxarchivesize=100K |
|
|
| minthreadsleft=4 |
|
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadsleft=0 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{On this day|date1=2005-10-28|oldid1=26717046|date2=2006-10-28|oldid2=83789129|date3=2007-10-28|oldid3=167528998|date4=2008-10-28|oldid4=248218618|date5=2015-10-28|oldid5=687553138|date6=2018-10-28|oldid6=866116636|date7=2020-10-28|oldid7=985645259|date8=2022-10-28|oldid8=1118478788}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{MILHIST|class=start|B1=n|B2=n|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|Italian=y|WWII=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Greece|class=C|importance=High<!-- B-Class parameters --> |
|
|
|B-Class-1=n |
|
|
|B-Class-2=n |
|
|
|B-Class-3=y |
|
|
|B-Class-4=y |
|
|
|B-Class-5=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Albania|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Italy|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{On this day|date1=2005-10-28|oldid1=26717046|date2=2006-10-28|oldid2=83789129|date3=2007-10-28|oldid3=167528998|date4=2008-10-28|oldid4=248218618}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Another pro-Italian attempt== |
|
|
The specific edit ] is the epitomy of pov, "the Greeks were so hard pressed to hold the line against this latest Italian onslaught that General Pagagos "decided not to launch any further large-scale operations in Albania without Yugoslav assistance.". Not to mention that its completely out of the context of the primavera offensive, which, by the way, was another clear Greek victory. ().] (]) 10:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::For instance the claim that the Greek side was "running low on reserves of men and war material." is a result of the fact that "by early March German intentions have became increasingly apparent. The danger of the German thrust... was serious ". I'm afraid that the editor who's is eager to add about the Greek weakness intentionally (and systematically) ignores the German threat in the Balkan theatre of operations in order to overemphasize the supposed Italian military supremacy. Thus, I won't object to present the full picture on each paragraph.] (]) 21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm still puzzled why you would object to my relevant and interesting edits on the logistical problems the Greek Army of the Epirus faced. The reliability is not an issue as they are quotes taken from Craig Stockings and Hancock's "Swastika over the Acropolis". So how can it possibly be a POV issue?? It adds to the article, doesn't subtract from it, and is perfectly relevant because it reveals the state of the Greek Army on the Albanian front. |
|
|
|
|
|
The section deals with the Tepelene offensive that commenced on the 10th March. Is there another Offensive I don't know about? The Telepene offensive failed to dislodge the Greeks, but one can hardly call it a "victory" for the Greeks, if by "victory" you mean that the boxer getting the heavy blows from his opponent is "still standing"? |
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't understand what your objections are Alexikoua. Can you please explain them more clearly and perhaps we can reach a consensus of sorts? Do you want me to include something about the German threat in the rear? |
|
|
|
|
|
You can't just revert edits without a good reason Alexkiou and then seek a compromise if you have a valid point.] (]) 12:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It appears you have a quite weird interpratation of the facts (apart from cherry picking), since the Primavera offensive, as the Tepelene offensive is widely known, was a clear Italian defeat. As for the supposed Italian gains as you claim: .] (]) 14:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Something that may appear quite informative, is the conclusion drawn by Musolini himself about the so-called Italian victory you claim: .] (]) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But Alexikoua, you really aren't making much sense. The two quotes above have nothing to do with whether the Tepelene offensive was a defeat or not. Stockings and Hancock are merely stating that while the Tepelene offensive failed to dislodge the Greeks, they (and not me!) were only pointing out that "the Greeks were so hard pressed to hold the line against this latest Italian onslaught that General Papagos "decided not to launch any further large-scale operations in Albania without Yugoslav assistance." How on earth could you even object to this mild and matter of fact quote from Stockings and Hancock, I don't know. And the Greeks were running out of their reserve of men and materials, and that the Italian Army continued to pose: "an existential threat". |
|
|
|
|
|
What in heaven's name are you actually objecting to? The truth?] (]) 14:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Their very interesting links to authors Alexikoua, but hardly relevant. I mean, you have your authors who make certain claims, and I have my authors who make certain claims that either agree or conflict. Isn't this what Misplaced Pages is all about, providing a cross section of views and debate? Why would your references over-ride my references? Let's have both!] (]) 14:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually, to be precise you are cherry picking your own authors, have you ever reliazed that "by early March German intentions have became increasingly apparent. The danger of the German thrust from the Bulgarian border was serious"? Off course not, but Stockings and Hancock have realized it very well and the quote is from the same paragraph you are eager to add (2-3 lines below). Thus, to sum up, the problems of the Greek general stuff were due to the strong German presence in the Bulgarian Greek border in early March. Did you ever realized that Germans run the show? I doubt, but your favorite authors are very clear on that, in addition to a mountain a WWII bibliograpgy as presented. Italy did nothing more than 'zero', as Musolini admitted. You don't believe that zero means victory right? On the contrary it was defeat and humiliation of Musolini's regime.] (]) 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Alexioua, you are starting to sound like a revolving record and getting more and more desperate. One author you quoted states that the Italians achieved "zero" but while the Italians failed to push back the Greeks in the Tepelene offensive, Dr Stockings and Dr Hancock are merely stating that while the Italian offensive failed to dislodge the Greeks, the Greeks suffered 5000 casualties and were running low on reserves of manpower and munitions. Here is what Stockings maintained: "Despite the fact that the Greeks held off the Telepene push, from mid-March it was clear to Papagos that there were not enough Greek troops to hold against both the Italians and a potential German thrust on the Bulgarian front." (p.78). Why is this so hard to understand and accept? Please put aside your strident Greek nationalism and start to accept reality and historical truth for a change.] (]) 22:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Actually all accounts agree that the offensive was a failure. It appears you are on a clear agenda. To say it simple, if an attack was a disaster then the victory goes to the other side. By the way it's the first time you mention the Germans, it's a big step since you tried to hide the German intervention ]. The Greek army was out of troops due to the German intervention, not because of the (pathetic) Italian performance.] (]) 20:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Stockings and Hancock === |
|
|
|
|
|
'''According to Stockings and Hancock, by the first week of March, "the General Greek staff were facing a number of serious problems." Not only was the conflict intensifying with the Italians, but they were running low on reserves of men and war material. The Italians presented what they called, an "existential threat" that continued to pin down the bulk of the Greek Army'''<ref>{{Cite book|title = Swastika over the Acropolis|last = Stockings, Craig|first = Hancock, Eleanor|publisher = |year = 2013|isbn = |location = |pages = 71}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''However, the Greeks were so hard pressed to hold the line against this latest Italian onslaught that General Pagagos "decided not to launch any further large-scale operations in Albania without Yugoslav assistance."<ref>{{Cite book|title = Swastika over the Acropolis|last = Stockings, Craig|first = Hancock, Eleanor|publisher = |year = 2013|isbn = |location = |pages = 79}}</ref>''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What exactly is wrong with the above? Can you explain your objections more clearly Alexikoua and propose some sort of solution?] (]) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Your repeated attempts to try and spin this article into some sort of "victory" for the Italians run counter to the literature on the subject and are highly ]. Launching into personal attacks against other editors is the final straw. Further disruption will be dealt with ]. ] (]) 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: I keep having to repeat myself - while not a great victory, it was certainly not an "abject" defeat either. It was a qualified and compromised "victory". But it certainly wasn't the great defeat that is is made out to be. And by the way, when editors launch personal attacks against me, can I come to you to lodge a complaint, Athenean? |
|
|
One has to maintain neutrality and impartiality here because it also works both ways you know.] (]) 20:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- reply above this line to keep the references at the bottom of this section --> |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit-warring POV material into the article. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Three times now POV material about the logistical problems of the Greek army has been inserted into the article. The edit starts with the conjunction "However" which is a sure sign of ] and is also POV and ]. It is POV because it seeks to diminish the size of the Greek victory during the Primavera offensive by using synthesis and conjunctions like "however" which does not exist in the sources quoted. For instance another way to add this materrial would have been "Despite the logistics problems the Greek army faced it still was able to achieve a decisive victory against the Italians". But that too would have been POV and SYNTH since no source alone makes these connections. Therefore the editor who is trying to diminish the victory of the Greek army by edit-warring his/her SYNTH into the article should discuss how this material should be inserted into the article without using his SYNTHesis and POV. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 21:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I couldn't agree more. This editor is by now deep into ] territory. ] (]) 22:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::A good way to find out what people find problematic about your edits is to ask, in an open and non-confrontational way. If an edit is rejected, try something along the lines of: |
|
|
:::According to {citation of source}, the following is the case: {statement from source}. You have disputed its addition. How do you think we should express this assertion?https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BRINK] (]) 23:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Well, I am ready and willing to hear how you think "we should express this assertion?" I am ready and willing to cooperate at all times.] (]) 23:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Fellas fellas, calm down. Dr K and Athenean, I am merely trying to bring back a semblance of balance within this article. This article has already been tagged: "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2014)". |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I am not trying to diminish any great Greek "victory" here. I am only drawing the reader's attention to the fact that even though the Greek Army was "victorious" in repelling the Italian Primavera Offensive, it did so at some cost, as Stockings and Hanson have pointed out to their credit. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::However, personally I think it is rather ludicrous to describe repelling an offensive as a "great victory" by the other side. It seems that every time the Greek army withstands a major (or even a minor) assault, it is hailed as a "great victory"! The greatest ever in the history of the war! But that's just my personal opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=29 May 2021|destination=Italian invasion of Greece|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1026807962#Requested move 29 May 2021}} |
|
The material I added was fully referenced to Stockings and Hanson, so they are not my words or opinion, but the balanced and scholarly opinion of professional historians. Why shoot the messenger? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024 == |
|
All views and counter-views should be included in Wiki articles. You are acting like a heavy-handed censor. What have you to fear? That the "great victory" of withstanding the Italian Telepene Offensive will be slightly tarnished? Are you really that insecure? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Greco–Italian War|answered=yes}} |
|
Well, I am open to suggestions. Apart from merely reverting or deleting fully referenced and relevant material Dr K because you simply don't like it as it might detract from the "great victory" of the Greeks, let us work together on how we can synthesize the material and weave it into the article. ] (]) 23:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
In the phrase in the footnotes "Some of the Greeks' weaponry was also superior to the Italian; the Czechoslovak-madeHotchkiss machine gun" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A space is needed between "Czechoslovak-made" and "Hotchkiss" ] (]) 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{tq|Well, I am open to suggestions. Apart from merely reverting or deleting fully referenced and relevant material Dr K because you simply don't like it as it might detract from the "great victory" of the Greeks, ...}} Leave the silly accusations and don't try to attack my motives by disingenuous and sloppy comments while completely bypassing my substantive comments as a mere case of ]. That's either a low blow or an inability on your part to understand what I wrote. {{tq|Fellas fellas, calm down. Dr K and Athenean...}}: Another sloppy attack designed to make it look as if your perceived opponents are not calm. These sloppy attacks are the biggest sign that your arguments are poor. Now read my reply to you calmly and seriously and come up with a serious answer without silly or sloppy attacks or both and address my well-made points one by one and using quotes so that I am sure you read them. Start first with your use of the conjunction "however" and explain if the conjunction is in the citation or it is simply your ] invention. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 00:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Result == |
|
::Second that. Annales, your reply consists of trolling, sarcasm ("great Greek victory"), and condescension ("calm down"). If you want to be taken seriously around here, you would be well advised to tone those down, and instead address the points raised by Dr. K. ] (]) 01:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{blockquote|result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.}} |
|
: I don't see a problem at all and have to disagree with the points you have raised. No victory comes without a cost, and that cost was spelt out by Stockings and Hancock. The quotes I used came from the same chapetr and pages of Stockings, was connected to the Primavera Offensive, because Stockings wrote this: '''One important aspect of the telepene offensive of early March, masked to some degree by the fact that it was defeated - was what it revealed of the condition of the Greek Army."''' (p.81) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Removed the overly detailed entry for result on the basis of the above. Editors might wish to consider 'See Aftermath section' instead. Regards ] (]) 19:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
So I am not trying to deny or tarnish the "great Greek victory" of all time! By all means, let's maintain and spell out clearly that it was the greatest of great Greek victories! It is simply that Stockings and Co are pointing out that while the Greeks had a "great and glorious victory", it revealed or masked some weaknesses in the "condition" of the Greek Army. I see no conflict here. The sources are reliable and referenced, and they have to do with the subject at hand, the Telepene offensive, and its consequences to the "condition of the Greek Army". Again I do not wish in any way to "tarnish" the great and magnificent victory of the Greeks - simply point out what Stockings is pointing out, that the "great victory" came with a certain cost to the Greek Army. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:], this keeps being a problem. Obviously your version saying "Axis victory" was correct. Now some have done a 180 and changed it to say that the war ''ended'' with a Greek victory, which is just wrong. Surely Greece was able to stop the initial invasion and launch a counter-offensive into Albania, but the campaign ''continued'': the Greek offensive stalled, an Italian counter-offensive was launched, the Italian counter-offensive also stalled, further actions occurred with the British sending also a land expedition while the Greek forces were being gradually depleted, and finally Germany coming in to help the Italians occupy Greece. Given that ''all'' these events form the war, how can one say the end of the campaign was an Allied victory? Calling it as such confuses a part of the campaign with the whole campaign. Similarly the territorial change is Greece being occupied by the Axis, not southern Albania occupied by Greece, that is an ''intermediate'' phase of the front. I don't understand why this is so difficult for some.] (]) 14:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
So, perhaps we can reach a consensus here and change the wording to include the above phrase by Stockings so that the reader is absolutely clear that it was and will forever be the "great victory" of the Greeks over the Italians, but perhaps explain to the reader that this greatest of great victories did come with a certain cost to the greatest army in the world, which as we all know, is the Greek Army.] (]) 15:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I have noticed it has been changed again with a summary of the events, obviously it's better than "Greek victory"...but I think the intro already summarises that sequence of events and we do not need the infobox replicating the intro. So, ], probably just "Axis victory" is better and more coincise and the occupation part should just link to ].] (]) 14:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:What are you hoping to achieve by taking a sarcastic tone? ] (]) 03:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Dear all, please read ] before contemplating an alteration to the result criterion. A discussion of the difference between the Italian invasion and the German invasion should be in the Aftermath section and briefly noted in the lead. "'''result''' – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say." Seems straightforward to me. Regards ] (]) 14:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hi. For your information, I did not put the Axis victory in the result infobox. It was Keith's edit. Recently a Greek editor put a Greek victory in the infobox instead of Axis victory. But to avoid edit conflicts. I edited it to the See Aftermath section..Ciao! ] (]) 02:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::] I see. What about the territorial change part, it says "Greek occupation of southern Albania until April 1941" but that is not a final result, and it does not say when this occupation started and that it followed the Italian invasion. So it's an intermediate phase. If we need to put all phases in, then we should put first an Italian occupation of Greek Epirus until the Greek counter-offensive succeded in pushing the Italians out of Greece, then a Greek occupation of southern Albania, and finally an Axis occupation of Greece....but I don't think that's needed. I think it should be only the latter. The various stages of the war should not be put there, they are already in the intro. The front being moved up and down during the war should not be put in the territorial change section, that is for the final result. ] (]) 04:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: I just want to make it clear that my insert on the "condition of the Greek Army" after the Telepene Offensive will not in any way, tarnish the great reputation of the greatest victory in the war. That's all. So if there are no objections, I will proceed to insert the original edit with the one above so that the reader is absolutely clear that the victory was not in any way compromised by the depletion of men (5000 dead Greeks) and artillery resources (one month supplies left)] (]) 09:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::The problem is, readers only needs a immediate outcome of the war. An X victory or a See Aftermath Section would be the only 2 options. I will delete the part where the Greeks occupied Southern Albania until April 1941. The purpose of the campaignbox is to summarise and finalize what did happen. But for my opinion (of course irrelevant) but I'm just stating my opposition here. An Axis victory here would be the only result here as the Greeks didn't dislodge the Italians out of Albania. If that really happened that would be a Greek victory. But in reality, the Greco-Albanian front from January 1941 to April 1941 was stalemate until the German intervention at the same time the ] brought Greece to collapse as well the bulk of the Greek forces in Albania. ] (]) 05:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2024 == |
|
:::So now you are swinging from silly and sloppy personal attacks to silly and sloppy exhibits of crass sarcasm. Until you learn to modulate yourself sufficiently well to stop exhibiting this behaviour and to start abiding by the policies of ], ], ], etc. etc. don't expect me to reply to your intemperate and AGF-defying tantrums. You can still try to modulate yourself sufficiently to reply to the concerns I raised above in a civil manner. Better still, you can demonstrate your goood faith by erasing your ] incivilities that you attempted to subject us to. Let me put this in simple terms to you: Until you sober-up and discuss the issues posed to you in an appropriate and civil manner without abuse and sarcasm your edit as proposed is unbalanced, ] and ] and it is not going into the article. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 11:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Greco-Italian War|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Oxford commas required. ] (]) 05:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I meant comma. ] (]) 05:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: By starting off like this: According to Stockings and Hancock, "one important aspect of the Telepene offensive of early March, masked to some degree by the fact that it was defeated - was what it revealed of the condition of the Greek Army." This will avoid any synthesis or POV issues. It can be placed in the original section, or in consequences. My sarcasm was to get the message through, which it achieved. ] (]) 13:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 14:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ''Result of the War'' in summary box 28.10.24 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited, to give people a brief quick results summary, like most wikipedia war pages do, in the results section, in the summary box, rather then having to read a whole section instead. Simply writing, ''see aftermath section'', is not sufficient I don't think. Many people may not bother reading it, and simply want a quick answer. And a brief sentence detailing the result of the war, provides that necessary answer. ] (]) 12:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: Dr K, you must put a stop to this edit warring. If my last reasonable suggestion on how we might insert the reference from Stockings and hancock into the article is not accepted and you become totally unreasonable, then there is no choice but to arbitrate this.] (]) 16:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:We discussed this above various times: per wiki rules, the course of operations or intermediate moments of the conflict do not belong in the result section, you have to look at the end of operations and give a concise sentence. "Initial victory of of X followed by final defeat" or longer sentences like the ones you reintroduced to give further infos on how the results came about are apparently not an accepted parameter. The summary you want belongs in the intro of the article, and it's already there. What happens is that admins and other users remove this kind of stuff over and over, because that's the rules Wiki has. ] (]) 18:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
(unindent) By all means, feel free to "Arbitrate" to your heart's content. A word of warning though, your sarcasm, anger and aggression will be apparent to all involved and may end up costing you dearly. By the way, could you please learn to properly indent your comments? Poorly indented comments make it harder for others to follow the discussion and are also one of the hallmarks of ]. ] (]) 17:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Per Wiki Rules: ] the result of the infobox can be only a "X" victory, Inconclusive, or See Aftermath section. We already discussed it at the top and we already decided to use the result "See Aftermath section" at the infobox so the readers can understand its result for both opposing parties. ] (]) 21:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
In the phrase in the footnotes "Some of the Greeks' weaponry was also superior to the Italian; the Czechoslovak-madeHotchkiss machine gun"
Removed the overly detailed entry for result on the basis of the above. Editors might wish to consider 'See Aftermath section' instead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Edited, to give people a brief quick results summary, like most wikipedia war pages do, in the results section, in the summary box, rather then having to read a whole section instead. Simply writing, see aftermath section, is not sufficient I don't think. Many people may not bother reading it, and simply want a quick answer. And a brief sentence detailing the result of the war, provides that necessary answer. Aristotle1991 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Structure: criterion met
Done Jamedeus (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)