Talk:World War II/Archive 18

message: Couldn't find a section with changes, so just do it here: 
a. Changed Biowarfare (in the technology section) to chemical warfare. Correct me if i'm wrong, but biowarfare was not used in WW2, no?
b. in the same section, only some technologies and/or weapons were crucial. The effect of the V2 missile was for example not relevant anymore to the outcome of the war...Sikkema 11:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  small changes 

message: A pie-chart would be best to compare casualties. Needed for my report. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VulcanMak4017 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty info needed

message: Can't revert - protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.145.206 (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I'd like to suggest that the opening article for this reference is a tad on the weak side in regards to susinctly defining what WW II was. I'd be more then happy to present a draft of something that is a little less vague and perhaps sums up the subject better. An example would be the OPs immediate jump from a general description of the events at the begining of the war to a reference to Adolph Hitler without any connection. Assuming one had never heard of WW II, you might not grasp who Hitler was by reading these first two paragraphs. There are other examples as well. Commnents? Finfyd 01:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at the To-do list and what I suggest is already mentioned. Finfyd 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the assumption was made that the reader has a general idea of what happened; however, this is not necessarily the case, and I think nobody would object to any changes you made, as long as you don't do anything crazy. Ahudson 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "opening article" is an introduction or summary. The Overview covers the subject in more depth. The "opening article" could explain that the war was in three parts, namely Europe (Germany, France, North Africa, Italy, etc.) Eastern Europe (mainly Soviet Union and Germany) and Asia (Japan, China, India, and various Pacific Isand). However any attempts to expand it will probably involve the Overview creeping back in, and different people weighting it towards one viewpoint or another. Therefore it is best to leave it simple. By the way, doesn't anyone read beyond the intro these days? Wallie 15:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Not with an article this long.... Ahudson 16:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very drole... Wallie 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak and vague opening article 

message: Random reason I came across this, but not once in the artical is Eisenhower mentioned, (I used find tool) is it just me or is that a very stupid complete oversight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frenzy54 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Where do you think the best place to put him is? Haber 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good spot. There is not much mention of personilities, mainly event focussed. Ike should defintely be mentioned one, two or maybe more times. Wallie 09:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: i don't know, just mentioning him for the mention's sake seems kind of redundant. i think we shouldn't just count how often people are mentioned, but rather if they fit in context. 84.184.221.132 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget, if we mention Ike, we also have to mention MacArthur, Zhukov, Montogomery, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. things have a way of snowballing around here. :-) Just wanted to mention that. --Sm8900 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, some relatively more obscure generals are mentioned. Actually, the list you mention plus a few others isn't a bad idea. I don't think we should be influenced by the inevitable squabbles not to put information in at all, or to rationalise the article. MarkThomas 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is completely wrong to not mention Eisenhower.  But, if a general did something worth mentioning, it shouldn't be hard to find their name and insert it into this article.  What there should be is a list of generals, or leaders of some sort... war heroes maybe... but there should be a list and a brief (very brief) description about why they are worthy of inclusion in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bendersgreat (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Ike is mentioned around D-Day.  Feel free to edit the article if you think there is a better way to introduce him.  You might also like this article: Commanders of World War II. Haber 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What no Ike? 

message: Correct answer: Because of Political Correctness you guys try to evaluate all topics even. You have to set priorities. Example: Europe is more relevant than Asia, so write more about Europe. Battle of Britain is more relevant than Battle of Iraq, so write more about battle of Battle of Britain. Some years are more relevant than others, so write more about the relevant years. To link everything is not the best solution at all. Have a look at the this. Greetings from German Wikipedia....--Prisoner 911 22:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's just me, but I smell arrogance ... Rex 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say this article is better than the German one. But who is to say that I am right, or you for that matter? As far as being important, Asia or Europe, depends on where you live. For France or Poland, Europe is more important. For Australia, Vietnam or the US for that matter, Asia is more important. For example, the US was directly threatened by Japan, whereas Germany posed little threat to the US. Wallie 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure every country's view is to be the most important one in this conflict. But I believe one can rate the importance in an objective way. For example by death tolls or by it's influence on the progress of ww2. Anyway, I was just trying to help, didn't want to seem arrogant.--Prisoner 911 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the "arrogant" comment was meant as a silly joke. The whole aim of these discussions, as you rightly pointed out, is continuous iomprovement. The German article is also very good, and this article could be improved by adding ideas from it. (I have also referred to the German article myself, and carried ideas from it here. Wallie 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, for the article to really be considered "good," it has to cover all the bases.  Prisoner makes a good point about objectives and everything else he said, but the article should contain information that is available, not just what points out the importance.  I'm sure there are people in the Battle of Iraq, as an example, who do not appreciate their efforts belittled as such.  Basically, if it is worthy of being in the article, then it's worthy, but being under a certain topic, again like what battle it was, doesn't make the information more important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bendersgreat (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the german ww2 article much better? 

message: Couldn't find a section with changes, so just do it here: 
a. Changed Biowarfare (in the technology section) to chemical warfare. Correct me if i'm wrong, but biowarfare was not used in WW2, no?
b. in the same section, only some technologies and/or weapons were crucial. The effect of the V2 missile was for example not relevant anymore to the outcome of the war...Sikkema 11:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably used to kill Heydrich in Prague too. Wallie 12:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  small changes 

message: Shouldn't an article of this importance have more reliable sources?--Winterus 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 21 refs?