Talk:World War II/Archive 25

message: Article needs a wikilink to Blitzkrieg. Binksternet 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is one. Hit Ctrl+F and type it in; 3rd one down. Parsecboy 12:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Control F? That's my browser's "Find" feature with which I can most certainly locate the Blitzkrieg heading. What I'm referring to is the Wikipedia page Blitzkrieg which doesn't show a link to it coming from World War II as shown when one hits Alt-J from within the Blitzkrieg page. (Alt-J from within the WWII page shows a link back to it from Blitzkrieg.) Perhaps the Blitzkrieg heading on the WWII page can be made into a wikilink. Or, if the resulting header-as-link isn't good formatting, perhaps the term can be written into the following text. Binksternet 18:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Go to the WWII page, hit control+F, and then hit enter twice. You should be on the third instance of the word "Blitzkrieg" in the article, which is wikilinked. The first instance of Blitzkrieg you should find is in the TOC. The 2nd is the actual section title, and the 3rd is the first time the word occurs in the text, and is linked. Parsecboy 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blitzkrieg 

message: Why do we keep archiving so little so often? Some issues are still valid and I think we should wait till we have around 20 topics listed to archive, not 5. Anyone else feel the same?--LtWinters 13:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Let's get rid of miszabot. Parsecboy 14:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that something only an admin can do?--LtWinters 16:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so.  If you can find a policy that says only admins can remove it though, I'll take it down.  Oberiko 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I took it off right after I made that last post. It's not an admin thing at all. Parsecboy 17:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, OK. I'll archive the whole thing after a month(except active discussions). That OK?K14 13:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be time based, it should be based on when discussions are resolved and no longer require any attention.  Oberiko 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Hello.  We are discussing a proposed change to the main image at the template page.  Any input would be appreciated. Oberiko 22:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image discussion

message: Is like along list which is rushed. Tourskin 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: It is contrary to simple facts to state the WORLD War began on 1st Sept. On that day a war between Germany and Poland was started. The World war began on 3rd Sept when Britain, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany, followed later that day by France.62.141.104.190 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By your logic, we should use December 8th as the starting date, as that was when Germany declared war on the US, which united two separate, local conflicts, into a truly World War. However, the majority of historical works put Sept. 1 1939 as the start of the war, so that's what we use. Parsecboy 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The majority" is driven by propaganda cliches, whereas there are plain and undisputed facts: on 1st it was a bilateral conflict; on 3rd it became multilateral and with Britain being then a global empire -- an arguably world one.62.141.104.190 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How very Eurocentric of you. And what exactly is a "propaganda cliche"? No, after 3 Sept, it was still bilateral. Two sides fighting. Not 3, not 4. It was only sort of multilateral after Pearl Harbor, and the European war and Asian war became more or less one unified war. Parsecboy 16:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, it comes down to how one defines "a world war"; fear there is no clear-cut definition. But what is quite obvious to me is that to state The World War started 1st Sept 1939 is downright wrong. ("propaganda cliche" in this case is Churchill-Stalin-Roosevelt propaganda about Hitler being solely to blame for the whole affair -- you know, it always takes two to tango).81.211.44.171 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler attacked member of an alliance. He was specifically warned that GB and France will respect their guarantees. Nevertheless he attacked Poland, and he was surprised that France, for a long time Polish ally, and GB, which has just warned him, did exactly what they say they will do. Hitler was solely to blame for the whole affair    . If not for his absurd and impossible to fulfill demands (like that Poland should voluntarily make a referendum over whether Pomorze should go to Germany, in the same time demanding that in such referendum Poles who settled there after 1918 couldn't participate, but allowing to participate tens of thousands of Germans who were settled there by German Colonisation Commissions). Or for complaining about fate of German minority in Poland (e.g. that German schools were closed) forgetting that this was sole reaction for closing all Polish schools for Polish minority in Germany. Szopen 16:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm agreeing with Parsecboy and Szopen here.  The European Theatre of World War II started when Germany attacked a member of the Allied Powers.  France and the U.K. were slow to react (and slower to actually do something), but that doesn't negate the former point. Oberiko 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see: when Hitler had annexed part of Czechoslovakia he did not start a war, as he had been allowed to do thus by GB; but with Poland he was not. On a serious note, Wiki, I assume, is not a court of law adjudicating on one's culpability; it is a compendium of facts. Talk of the alliance does not prove anything -- countries enter into them and quit them as they see fit (that's what makes them sovereign powers). The simple fact is that on 3rd Germany was in a bilateral conflict with one country; by the end of that day a number of countries declared war on her making it thus a world conflict. These are plain and inescapable facts, whoever is to blame for that.62.118.179.117 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, on September 3rd, it technically was still just a localized, European War. If you want to argue in technicalities, the only acceptable date for the start of World War II (in terms of it being a truly global war) would be December 8, 1941, when Germany declared war on the United States, uniting two separate, local conflicts. However, the vast majority of historians state that the war started on Sept 1, 1939, no matter how Eurocentric that is. Therefore, that is the date we use, like it or not. Parsecboy 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious error 

message: Can anyone tell me when the term "World War II" was first applied to this conflict?
Ttenchantr 22:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to wordorigins.org, the term was first applied by Time magazine in their 1939-09-11 issue. —Adavidb 10:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the term was used by a local canadian newspaper on the day of the German invasion (1st September), and there were some legal documents such as the Kellog-Briad pact that were ratified "to prevent a second world war". There used to be a section in this article that detailed the origin of the term WWII. It seemed to have got chopped off during the last rewrite. Looks like it's time we started a Etymology of World War II page giving the full details. --Oshah 21:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh never mind, I see it has been discussed in World War --Oshah 08:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Use Of The Term

message: I'd like to delist this article as being a "good article" since I don't think it adheres to the following points:
* 3b - stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
* 4 - It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. 
Does anyone object? Oberiko 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object. I think the article could stand for a major cleanup. It's already a monstrous 154kb long. I think we need to start cutting it down in size. We don't need to duplicate sub articles that were created with the purpose of trimming too much detail from this article. Parsecboy 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No objections re 3b, but could you elaborate on what you see as the neutrality concerns? - Eron Talk 03:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Primarily in the Soviet-German War section.  The images mostly depict the Germans in a negative light (slave labour, massacres etc.) while most of the Soviet images are heroic (a teenage son off to join the partisans, Soviet propaganda posters etc.). Oberiko 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I rewrote the intro and the first few sections of the Western Allied section a few months ago, but haven't been able to get around to the rest of the article.  I don't think it needs to be longer as the goal was to be as concise as possible, like an executive summary. Oberiko 11:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisting from being a good article

message: I've given up on arguing against the inclusion of France as a major ally, even though it contributed more to the anti-Allied cause for the two most crucial years of the war (1941-43). But I'm removing De Gaulle from the leaders list in the infobox. He wasn't the leader in 1939-40, for one thing. Truman was infinitely more important and we don't even have him! Grant | Talk 17:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fully agreed with you on not having De Gaulle (or even France) in the major powers box (one of the "Allies and Axis" people), but I'm against the inclusion of Truman.  Having two leaders for one nation opens up a huge can of worms (such as the potential inclusion of  Paul Reynaud, Neville Chamberlain, Clement Attlee and others). Oberiko 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted. The Allied and Axis leadership is (even) more subjective than the issue of "major powers", because there were so many who played important roles. However; the difference between Chamberlain, Reynaud and Attlee on one hand, and Truman on the other, can be summed up, in Dennis Leary's immortal turn of phrase, by "two words: nuclear f*cking weapons!" Grant | Talk 07:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Gaulle 

message: Would anyone object to allowing the disputed quote, along with its source, to be a footnote in the article?  ie. "The Soviet-German War was the largest theatre of World War II"1
1According to historian X in the book Y, "it was here that the war was won"
Thoughts? Oberiko 13:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really admire your efforts on arbitration, Oberiko. I do not object to the wording "The Soviet-German War was the largest theatre of World War II". Yet, on inserting a footnote, I still would have to say no. If we include the disputed opinion in this article, we would in a similar way have to include other historians' opinions (for instance, those you mentioned above), in order to be neutral. Is this article at all a place for speculations? In my opinion, no - they belong on a page called something like Speculations on World War II. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dna-Dennis's reasoning here; if we include it for the Soviet Union, then we'd have to do one for each to avoid POV problems. This article is for facts, not a historian's speculation. Parsecboy 15:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who might not be aware, there is an article called Historiography of World War II. Haber 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll concede. The counter-argument of being able to include dubious information (such as material by David Irving) is significant one. Oberiko 16:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential solution?

message: We can't have constant reversions.  I'm going to have to start enforcing WP:3RR if this continues. Oberiko 16:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Revert-warring isn't going to get anyone anywhere. I think there is a strong consensus (here and on the page history itself) against inclusion of the line from Overy. Those pushing for its inclusion need to accept it and move on. M.V.E.i., you've already reverted 4 times today. Parsecboy 16:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversions

message: Due to the edit warring over images, I have full protected the article for the next 24 hours.  Tomorrow I will revert it back to semi-protected.  In the meantime, please talk on the talk page and try to work out your differences.
Further multiparty edit warring once the protection is listed will be subject to sanction.  Find a consensus here, please.  Georgewilliamherbert 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the relevant guideline pages are pretty clear on the issue here. I think an RfC would probably be the best option at this point. Parsecboy 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You agree", how nice. You started it. M.V.E.i. 13:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is pretty easy. This article has far too many images. Why is that a problem? Because it makes the page slow to load on a slow computer and sandwiches text, which is both against a policy and looks ricicolous and distracts the reader, making the text difficult to read. Therefore, to make the article easy to read, some images have to be removed. I can't see why anyone has a problem with that. 96T 13:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's understood, but no one stated that as a reason before. M.V.E.i. 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected due to edit war 

message: Well, for a start, the Manual of Style quite clearly states the following:
* Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
* If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery.
I believe the amount of images does not mesh with agreed styling, especially for a summary article.  We've tried discussion, so I suggest we go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment Oberiko 09:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the relevant guideline pages are pretty clear on the issue here. I think an RfC would probably be the best option at this point. Parsecboy 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You agree", how nice. You started it. M.V.E.i. 13:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is pretty easy. This article has far too many images. Why is that a problem? Because it makes the page slow to load on a slow computer and sandwiches text, which is both against a policy and looks ricicolous and distracts the reader, making the text difficult to read. Therefore, to make the article easy to read, some images have to be removed. I can't see why anyone has a problem with that. 96T 13:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's understood, but no one stated that as a reason before. M.V.E.i. 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The first image seen on the page does not match up with its accompanying text.
The image in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WW2_TitlePicture_For_Wikipedia_Article.jpg
The text in question says "Animation of alliances and territories controlled during the Second World War, every few months from September 1939 to September 1945. Axis in black, Allies in blue, and the Soviet Union in red."
No, it isn't an animation. It's a montage of various iconic images from WWII. Completely different, you see. May I suggest:
:Images clockwise from top: Allied soldiers landing on the Normandy beaches; The infamous motto "work makes you free" above the main gate of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp; a Soviet soldier raising his nation's flag over the ruins of the Reichstag; a nuclear bomb blast over Japan; German troops march through [where?].
That might be too long, but at least it'd match with the picture.
All with appropriate links, of course. I'd do it myself but I don't know how and I'm rather busy right now. Sorry. WikiReaderer 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it, the image has been reverted to the agreed upon animation to which the caption was referring. Parsecboy 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appologize for forgetting fixing caption. But, current animation is factually inaccurate, therefore it will stay out from infbox until mistakes are fixed(details at infobox discussion).--Staberinde 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image and text