Talk:World War II/Archive 6

message: Right now it says in the second paragraph that the war:
 
... continued in Asia and the Pacific until (...) the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945 (V-J Day). 
but September 2 was only the day for the formal signing of the terms of surrender. The war is much more frequently said to have ended on August 15, when Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam declaration and laid down her arms. And this day, August 15, is indeed the V-J day as it says in the V-J Day article. I was about to change the date, but thought I'd ask about it here first. 
Shanes 02:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  date for the ending of the war (V-J day) 

message: Article listed on peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/World War II. 119 05:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: World War II started in Europe, namely in Poland, in Danzig (Gdańsk), at dawn of 1 Sept. 1939. The German warship "Schlezwig Holstein" shot at the Polish coast-guard station. This is the fact that all educated children know as the beginning of WW2, which then spread nearly all over the world. No debate over this date, please!
:There are multiple views on this throughout the world. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 119 00:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you consider Japan to be a participant in the war? And if you do, is there any principled method for deciding which parts of Japan's expansionism are part of the war and which aren't? Arguably WWII was two separate wars that merged, giving various options for defining "the starting date". You can opt for when the first started (1931 or 1937), or when the two sub-wars merged (1941), or you can list the starting date of the two sub-wars separately. But there's absolutely no justification for picking the starting date of the second sub-war as the starting date of the entire war. — B.Bryant 12:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, mostly catering to the U.S. and British Commonwealth.  Being that the case, the generally accepted start date for the war in these nations is the invasion of Poland, leading the British and the French (the Allies) to declare war on Germany (principle member of the Axis).  Wikipedia's in other locales, such as East Asia, will probably state otherwise. Oberiko 12:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about WWII, not the West's involvement in WWII. — B.Bryant 13:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not, but our audience is Western.  Considering how many different interpretations there could be for a "start" date (The Winter War, The Norwegian Campaign, The Second Sino-Japanese War, The Attack on Pearl Harbour, The invasion of Poland, Annexation of Austria and Czechoslavakia... etc.) depending on whom you're speaking to, and then compound that with the belief some people have that it's the same conflict as World War I (which has it's own starting time debates) and there's not going to be any clear or 100% technically right answer.  Instead, we'll go by what is commonly accepted by professionals within our target audience (English speaking countries: ie. The United States and British Commonwealth) and use the Invasion of Poland which brought France, the United Kingdom, Poland and Germany into direct and declared war.  Oberiko 15:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather like to say that Wikipedia's audience is predominantly Western, or at least an audience that is used to Western sources. We have reason to have this in mind, pragmatically, when writing prominent passages of the text, as for instance the introductory sentence. But, and this is one thing I like about this project, Wikipedia strives to be an international encyclopedia, not geared towards common myths in specific nations such as the UK, the US, or Australia. We actively strive to get rid of biases, including pro-Western and pro-Anglosaxon bias. Hence I would be happier with some weaseling at places where the issue can't be carefully investigated. ...often held to have begun at September 1, 1939, when... could be one suitable wording. --Johan Magnus 16:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I myself am from the west and believe 1939 to be the year World War II started, I disagree with Oberiko.  Just saying that wikipedia's main audience is one particular group doesn't mean we should sacrifice our integrity by omitting other views simply to appeal to that group.  The day wikipedia does that I'd blow my brains out... Anyway, I think that the way the start of the war is shown on the article is perfect. --DA Roc 14:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of beginning 

message: 24.214.192.86 has revised the intro to state as fact that the war's starting date is 1932. Please note that this violates NPOV. If you are familiar with a reference which states the war's opening date as 1932, that would be very useful in attribution. However, Wikipedia does not assume one view is fact. 119 01:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 24.214.192.86 and 1932

message: The link points to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Bombing_During_World_War_II but this turns up as a untouched page. The link maybe should lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#World_War_II ? --macaddct1984 4:55, 8 March 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also's - Strategic Bombing 

message: I thought I changed "radar" to RADAR since it is an acronym; however, it doesn't look like the change is taking effect.--P Todd 03:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  radar vs RADAR 

message: Does anyone else see anything wrong with this statement?
"On December 7, 1941 Japan bombed the U.S. naval base called Pearl Harbor. Thus making the U.S. bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
:It makes some sense. It is referencing the US' counterattack with the A-Bombs, which was years later anyway. If it hasn't already, it should be removed. Also, it skips everything that hapenned in between that time. On another note, the grammar doesn't flow correctly. --Zeerus 18:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Zeerus.  That statement can be a little misleading, and really just does not look like encyclopedia material. --DA Roc 14:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pearl Harbor 

message: In the section on Pearl Harbor I found this: "The attack is widely seen as the final straw that drew the United States into the war." widely seen? I would have thought there was no need for this qualifier. Any objections? DJ Clayworth 13:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, though I think it should be mentioned that, for the European Theatre, it was Germany that declared war on the United States.  IIRC, the U.S. likely would not have become actively involved in Europe otherwise. Oberiko 15:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pearl Harbor

message: Romania and Bulgaria did not "surrender", they switched sides and fought the Nazis till the V-E Day and later. --Vladko 04:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are fighting against someone, and then stop and fight for them, that's usually a surrender (unless there is a negotiated peace). For example Italy surrendered, and then joined the Allied cause. Is there any evidence to show that Romania and Bulgaria behaved differently? DJ Clayworth 05:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Ally "Surrender"?

message: In the section regarding the Battle of Britain, the phrase "The war sucked major balls!" has been inserted at the end of the paragraph, but I don't see that line when I switched to edit mode. Not sure how this graffitit can be removed, but thought I'd pass this along.
:It was probably due to a delay in updating the article. Sometimes the displayed version gets behind the version in the database by a few minutes, so you don't see a change that was just made. When you edit the article it gets the most recent version from the database. The problem should correct itself after a few minutes. DJ Clayworth 13:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  graffiti on page that cannot be edited 

message: The article says 
:Still others argue that the two world wars are one conflict separated only by a "ceasefire".
One conflict separated by a 19+ year ceasefire in which Italy and Japan change sides?  Who argues this?  Clearly the wars are connected, but to say that they were one conflict seems very strained.  Quale 07:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When the Treaty of Versailles was signed, war was technically over. However, it's no doubt that parts and effect of that Treaty actually caused WWII to break out. One example of ceasefire that is still currently occuring is the Korean War. The two Korean nations are still technically at war. No peace treaty was signed so far. --Kvasir 07:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW I and WW II one conflict separated by a ceasefire? 

message: It seems that the article has been copied upon itself at the end, I don't have time to but someone should fix that.
:Thanks. I reverted back 9 edits to fix it. Shanes 14:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a slight fix 

message: Currently, the information given on the Italian Front is far from detailed.  At the moment, the entire section is one paragraph: 
"North Africa was used as a springboard for the invasion of Sicily on 10 July 1943. Operation control was, for the first few months, based on the island of Malta. Having captured Sicily, the Allies invaded mainland Italy on 3 September 1943. On July 25 Mussolini was fired from office by the King of Italy, allowing a new government to take power. Shortly before the main invasion of 8 September, the new Italian government surrendered. The German Army continued to fight from the Gothic Line and then Winter Line in Italy's mountains. The conflict would last until the spring of 1945."
Somehow, I think this is not up to Wikipedia standards.  It should say more on the major battles, such as the Battles of Monte Cassino and Anzio.  It should also include more on the situation with Mussolini and the fall of Rome, the first Axis capitol to be captured.
:Feel free to add. But let's not go too far. Remember this is already a very long article, and users can always go to the more detailed articles if they wish to know more. DJ Clayworth 21:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Italian Front 

message: In the section on Operation Torch: is there a source to back up the statement that it was the French Resistance who captured Darlan and Juin? All the English language sources I've been able to find did not say this; they also said that the Algiers coup was put down by the end of 8 November, at which time as far as I can tell Darlan was still at large. DJ Clayworth 21:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I've found some sources that pretty much discredit the 'coup' account. I'm going to erase all but the bare bones and then build up the Operation Torch article. DJ Clayworth 13:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The French Resistance and Darlan

message: Can anyone expand Naha, Okinawa#History section? Thanks. --Aphaea* 03:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okinawa (Pacific front) 

message: I've noticed that a number of articles will abbreviate this was as 'WWII', others will use 'WW2', and I'm sure that others are in use.  I'd like to try my hand at standardizing these across Wikipedia, but I'm not sure which is more popular.  Opinions? --Bletch 17:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannonical abbreviation for World War II?