Talk:Second Battle of El Alamein

message: 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.
Decisive is as gone as Secretary Green.Keith-264 (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed my edit because this battle turned the tide of war into Allied favor in Africa. It was therefore a decisive victory. The Battle of France, for instance, was more a campaign rather than a battle. That's why it could be allowed to be removed there. Still, I think BoF is decisive as it decided the campaign for the Western Front of mainland Europe in 1940. KevinNinja (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No babe, that's ORKeith-264 (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please get your obnoxious edits out of Wikipedia. Thanks! KevinNinja (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

text: WP:civil really Kev, you can do better than this. Keith-264 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

text: What did I tell you? KevinNinja (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You've broken 3RR; stop edit warring.Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

text: You're the one edit warring, honey. KevinNinja (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop vandalising the article and keep your insults to yourself. I suggest you begin listing the views of the RS instead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Says the guy who started with the obnoxious comments. You make it too easy, Keith. Like a game. KevinNinja (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite agree; Kevin, you should be trying to make your case here, not posting sarcastic comments every time you edit war. Please start by disclosing your RS. Keith-264 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The result parameter 

message: One of the things that strikes even as a casual reader is the number and tone of the references to the fighting qualities of the Italian soldiers. I counted no fewer than half a dozen testimonials to their bravery, fighting spirit etc. We are told they “fought with exemplary courage”, “with great spirit”, that Rommel sad they “astonished the German soldier”, that the tank regiments “fought with great audacity” and much else. Now I suppose the Australian and NZ troops had a pretty good reputation as fighting men, as did many Indian units, not to mention the Germans of course. But only the Italians are mentioned in such glowing terms. We even have a whole sub-section titled “performance of Italian troops during the battle” with gushing quotes from Rommel and Churchill. And the trouble is that some of the most striking quotes are unverifiable. The Rommel quote is given a source in a book by Arrigo Petacco, which hardly inspires confidence. If Rommel really said it, we should be given the quote from a reliable source, say in his diaries. An attempt to verify the Churchill quote comes to a similar dead end. We’re told he uttered the words in a speech in the Commons “a month after El Alamein”. The source cited is an Italian news report, which gives no primary source. I suggest that the tone of panegyric should be turned down to encyclopaedic level and solid references found for the quotations, otherwise we might as well eliminate them as well as the section on “performance of the Italian troops” from the article, where they certainly stick out incongruously. Even if someone feels a psychological need to boost the Italians, this boosterism really defeats its purpose.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A few years ago a spammer was uncovered who had been bigging up the Italian contribution. Several editors went through the Desert War articles taking out the hyperbole; some may have been overlooked. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that WP:NPOV undue weight should cover it. Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian bravery 

message: For some reasons people keep labeling the main image of this article here and in other articles as it was recently added as the main image for the Western desert campaign as being Australians in this case directly said to be the Australian 9th division who where involved in the Western Desert campaign. From looking at the original source this assumption that the soliders in the photograph are Australian is incorrect as the Imperial War museum who holds the photograph has a caption saying the soliders are British so unless  somehow they put Australians in the same category as British troops the soldiers in the photograph are British meaning the caption on the image is incorrect as this was stated to be the case by the photographs owners who I assume are correct. I have already corrected the caption this image has on the western desert campaign article to British troops charging as this is what the source says they are. I will do the same with this next day if nobody tells me why the soliders are Australian and not British as the photographs owner the Imperial War museums says they are. I am doing this solely for historical accuracy no bias intended simply want the information about the photographs to be correct Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image caption I believe is incorrect

message: Changing the image caption now people have had more than enough time to challenge me on it Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  changing the image caption

message: "Rommel ordered the Italian X and XXI Corps and the 90th Light Division to hold while the Afrika Korps withdrew approximately 6 mi (9.7 km) west during the night of 3 November. The Italian XX Corps and the Ariete Division conformed to their position and Rommel replied to Hitler confirming his determination to hold the battlefield. The Desert Air Force continued its bombing and in its biggest day of the battle it flew 1,208 sorties and dropped 396 long tons (402 t) of bombs.[105]
On the night of 3/4 November, Montgomery ordered three of the infantry brigades in reserve to advance on the Rahman track as a prelude to an armoured break-out. At 17:45, the 152nd Infantry Brigade with the 8th RTR in support, attacked about 2 mi (3.2 km) south of Tel el Aqqaqir. The 5th Indian Infantry Brigade was to attack the track 4 mi (6.4 km) further south during the early hours of 4 November; at 06:15, the 154th Infantry Brigade was to attack Tel el Aqqaqir. The 152nd Infantry Brigade was mistakenly told the Axis had withdrawn from their objectives and unexpectedly met determined resistance. Communications failed and the forward infantry elements ended up digging in well short of their objective. By the time the 5th Indian Brigade set off, the defenders had begun to withdraw and their objective was taken virtually unopposed. By the time the 154th Brigade moved into some artillery-fire, the Axis had left"
This entire paragraph appears to have been copied from [here]. Or vice versa. Can anyone edit it so it isn't just paraphrasing?--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: see here Template:Infobox military conflict for rules on infobox usage. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Keith.
Would you stop Changing the Results as British victory . Allied victory is only the solution. There were many Allied and Commonwealth countries fought in this battle. It would be like saying that Operation Overlord was all but American victory alone. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the 'British' label, as it had been changed back to Allied by a single-edit IP, and there is nothing in the above talk page discussion that seems to indicate a change in consensus from calling it a British victory. Loafiewa (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistakes . I thought it was Keith's edit. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  British victory again