Moxy, I get rudely rapped over the knuckles when I refactor. But you get away with it. Never mind, because in any event there seems to be a WP rule for everything, and a WP rule against everything. The real intellectual challenge seems to be to find a balance between the two, which nobody inluding myself seems able to do.
Re unsigned editor above: Thanks. You have been the very first editor to provide helpful criticism and guidance, which I believe is supposed to be the function of administrator. Usually my work is simply undone and reverted by admin and others without discussion; a kind of slap in the face. Talk about civility. Hmmm. Nice people. 
 Suggestion: instead of administrators and others engaging in endless displacement activity, why isn't anyone prepared to address the real issue around here, namely the primary issue I raised (again) at Reply to uninvolved intervening party which bears repeating: 
 WP:FRINGE, (and probably other wiki rules as well), states that: "In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical prominence (and) ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." Please note that the rule does NOT state: Wikipedia should always give prominence to established WESTERN lines of research found in reliable WESTERN sources." Yet this is exactly what the existing WW2 article does do. Not even one non-Western source is cited among the 340 odd sources cited .... 
 On my bookshelf right here beside me are no less that seven English language non-Western histories of WW2, some of them by Soviet historians. So there's no question about the existence of English language non-Western histories. These are considered reliable and established lines of research in their respective non-Western countries of origin, just as the Western sources cited in the article are considered to be reliable and from established lines of research in the West. Therefore both Western and non-Western positions should be reflected in the article, if it is to claim that it's NPOV, which it is not. Forget about all the efforts to discredit me, some of which are perfectly valid. Just address the issue at hand, namely POV bias through omission as repeatedly alleged by me, and which has resulted in a lot of displacement activity that seeks to evade the central issue of NPOV. Even or especially the intervening administrator has managed to evade the issue. The unsigned editor in this section admits that he has reliable access to history library resources so, if he has the time and inclination, maybe HE can come up with some reliable non-Western sources in the interests of NPOV, which everyone claims I'm contravening (among other things).