The comments below explore various aspects of the same question If no reliable published source as yet affirms a marginal Italian victory how does that claim meet Wikipedia s threshold for inclusion see Wikipedia Verifiability How can the reliability of four published sources be put in doubt without evidence How would updated sources distance themselves from war propaganda In the article and on this talk page the convoy battle of MW10 3 21 3 26 1942 is conflated with the Second Battle of Sirte 3 22 1942 References that would corroborate that unity are p ractically all the books previously cited item 2 04 May 2007 and all the reliable sources cited here second bullet 22 June 2007 Why not more specific citations By contrast that the convoy battle and the Second Battle of Sirte are separate events is supported by specific citations from eight reliable published sources item 2 17 June 2007 With this 0 8 record how does combining the convoy battle and the Second Battle of Sirte meet Wikipedia s threshold for inclusion The claim that the Second Battle of Sirte was a marginal Italian victory seems to be not a synthesis of facts or sources but rather an analysis of established facts ideas opinions or arguments in a way that builds toward a particular case favored by an editor without attributing that analysis to a reputable source see Wikipedia No original research Further Bragadin and Woodman seem to use fatal in a limited sense Bragadin to refer to the March 23 Axis air attacks that sank Clan Campbell and contributed to the sinking of Southwold 166 and Woodman to refer to just the latter 308 More to the point though which reliable published sources credit the Italian fleet s intervention with having had any but the most indirect effect on the fate of the remaining three ships of the convoy Also how is it just a research if no primary or secondary sources state the Italians won a marginal victory On a related topic the U Boat analogy seems strained since the circumstances bear little resemblance to those at issue here Moreover the analogy seems to assume without proof that some other sources are biased in favor of the allies point of view and therefore editors should not be compelled to cite only the allies version of the facts But how is this position consistent with verifiability On another tack if reliable published sources expressed no opinion about who won the Second Battle of Sirte or if sources were divided about who won the article could simply reflect that non opinion or divided opinion However in this case six reliable published sources state the British won while none as yet affirms a marginal Italian victory The full Macintyre quote also includes this Vian had gained a tactical and moral triumph In this context how is Iachino s partial achievement the equivalent of a marginal victory