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)

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 Maltas 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)

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)

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.