Talk:World War II/Archive 16

message: A big revert from Ironplay. 
Ironplay:
#What specifically do you not like?
#What about the table. Do you not like the table itself, or just the format?
#Do you think too much has been deleted. If so what?
#Is there some section you really want left alone? 
You know that big reverts never work. However, that doesn't mean to say that you can't get what you want. 
Thanks. Wallie 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The graph from 1988 it is from 1988 and I hate the fact that it only shows Items made it dosent show that the Axis had 5 times yes 5 times yes that is right 5 times as many raw materials then the Soviets and it dosent show that the Axis had 2 times sometimes 3 times larger labour force then the Soviets yes that is right 3 times as large. All it shows is items built. Look at the graphs on the eastern front article. And above all lets try and keep this article slim and trim make sub-catagories where all information can be gathered because such bits pieces with scraps of information is bad bad bad. Ironplay 23:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironplay does not seem to have any facts or sources of his own. He better start doing some reading--rather than delete the results of sophisticated economic history published by leading scholars in leading journals. His numbers ("3 times as large") are very interesting but he invented them himself. Rjensen 23:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look here Eastern Front (World War II) under industrial production it is all sourced just look Ironplay 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that a vandal changed the numbers -- adding an extra zero to multiply German output by 10. I think it's fixed as of this afternoon but let's keep a lookout for vandals there. Rjensen 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ouch 

message: I've noticed that the Battle of the Atlantic is all over the place, and seems very fragmented and redundant in places.  Would anyone be opposed to breaking it out from the chronology and treating it separately?  Haber 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of the Atlantic 

message: I have requested mediation on this edit war via  Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-25 World War II Economic data  Rjensen 03:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Maybe the table could be a bit smaller and "prettied up" a bit. Maybe we could have a compromise here. Leave a prettier and smaller version of the table with the same data, and also leave the bit in about Mussolini's mistress. There is surely room for both. Thank you. Wallie 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request re Munitions data 

message: In the participants section:
 "The British Over 50 countries on every continent were involved at various times in the conflict." 
Anyone know what this should say? --NEMT 03:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows? Probably an editing foulup caused by someone (maybe me). I'm sure someone will get rid of "The British" and all will be OK. Thanks for noticing this. Wallie 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Awkward sentence - typo?

message: The term "Commanders" in the top table should be replaced with "Leaders". Pavel Vozenilek 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The headings could be improved. However, the table seems pre-formatted, which seems to mean you have the headings given to you by the "system", and can't change them. I may be wrong of course, in which case, just change it. Wallie 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree except for Donitz.  I'm not sure about Hirohito, but if you feel strongly that he should be in go ahead and add him. Haber 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Dönitz was in charge of Germany for the last days of the war.  Removing Hirohito would leave us without a Japanese figure for the last year of the war. john k 03:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (On the other hand, trying to cover the whole war would force us to include Chamberlain, so never mind - I'd say just Hitler, Churchill, FDR, Tojo, Hitler, and Stalin is fine.  But no Truman, either. john k 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It is best to have one leader for each of the six countries, who was leader for the longest time.  Wallie 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.  Haber 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Of course he needs the consent of the Emperor. So what? Churchill would not act without the King's approval too. Are you proposing that we put the King of England up there too? Wallie 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It also shows that you have little knowledge of the system in the UK either. I will just ask you one question. Who is the leader of Japan now? Wallie 20:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "Commanders" in table 

message: As a non-historian I was somewhat thrown when I came across "SU".  I had to take a moment to stop and figure out it was an acronym for Soviet Union.  Nowhere in the 57k Soviet Union article is the abbreviation SU used - not a single time.  However USSR is used 35 times in that article, and only twice in this article.  It is extremely inconsistent to use different acronyms in different articles to refer to the same thing.  Since Soviet Union is an abbreviation of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, SU is then an acronym of an abbreviation -  a little too indirect for my taste.  Couldn't we use "USSR", "Soviet Union" or "Soviets" instead of SU?  --Dan East 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Thanks for bringing that up. I've never heard of "SU" before ever. Oyo321 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SU / USSR 

message: I feel that the link to the Western betrayal article, in the section relating to the invasion of Poland, ought to be deleted.  It is a totally POV article that is also intellectually and conceptually incoherent: to link to it from here undermines the credibility of one of the most important articles on Wikipedia.--Stonemad GB 20:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not completely incoherent, it just needs to be rewritten, cleaned up, and standardized - much like another article we're all familiar with. --NEMT 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Western betrayal

message: Hello
I have begun to transfer some sections to separate pages. Do we need a main index for all those new World War II pages? World War II Aftermath Auroranorth 11:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to at least leave a link to the subpage and also make sure that no content is lost. Haber 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transferral of some pages 

message: This site  is a really good and detailed day by day account from the German side up until Crete. I don't understand why it was taken off. I'll put it back after a day if nobody can tell me why it shouldn't be on here. Richard Cane 08:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't need much citation. Around a billion people lived through this period and were directly imvolved. So there were plenty of eye-witnesses and the text written here is pretty much "common knowledge". I agree that some of the more obsure facts may warrant a quote, or if the factual data was being disputed. However, I don't think you need a citiation to show that D-Day or the dropping of the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima happened. Wallie 14:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Oyo321 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every article always needs more citations. This article needs lots, lots more. VERIFIABILITY, not "truth". Badgerpatrol 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: Has anyone noticed on the | Chinese Wikipedia version of this article they used the Chinese Communist Party flag in the info box with the war description whereas in the english article we use the Republic of China Flag?  Does this indicate a point of conflict, where the ROC believed that they were fighting a war against the Communists Chinese and the Japanese at the same time, whereas the Chinese article possibly claims that the ROC was ineffective as a government and thus the PRC came about to fight the Japanese?Xlegiofalco 03:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zhongwen Wikipedia flags 

message: In the box at the top right of the article, there is a section of commanders of each of the countries.  For the United States, FDR is the only one listed.  Shouldn't Truman be listed also?
In addition to this, keep the article long, but, if anything, have a summary.
:Id say yeah BUT there looks like no room.Opiner 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should also add Chamberlain for UK, maybe also Dönitz for Germany and also there are quite many potential japanese who could be added(Staberinde 16:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman 

message: The formal surrender of Italy was signed by Marshal Badoglio and Eisenhower on the battleship "Nelson" on September 29, 1943. This article about WWII ignores this FACT.
It is an other FACT that 180,000 Italian soldiers rejected the surrender.
It is an other FACT that the Italian surrender hindered the attack to New York City by midged submarines, which the Royal Italian Navy wanted to start in December 1943.
Read the Italian books about WWII and you will see this is no phantasy. (unsigned)
:If you read the section entitled Allied invasion of Italy you will find that we do talk about the Italian surrender. The other things you mention are probably too detailed for this overview article. You are welcome to add them to other articles (perhaps Allied invasion of Italy) assuming you have sources for them. DJ Clayworth 15:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER OF  ITALY 

message: In the upper right corner, you have the country flags. I think you have the wrong Japanese Flag. You should use the on with the red rays coming out of the red circle. 
Oops, can some one make this flag smaller for me?
:just did Mercenary2k 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Current japanese flag is correct as its state flag. You are proposeing a naval flag. (Staberinde 10:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Gotta say this flag looks a lot cooler.Opiner 06:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese Flag

message: In this article of Wikipedia there is almost no word about the maritime war in the Mediterranean Sea. Battles like Punta Stilo (July 1940), the British attack to Tarent (blueprint for the Japanese attack to Pearl Harbor!)(November 1940),Cape Matapan (March 1940), the Italian attack to Alexandria (December 1941), The battles of Syrte (December 1941 and March 1942), the battle of Pantelleria (June 1942), the battle of August 1942 in the western Mediterranean, the battle of West Sicily (April 1943) (= end of the destroyer "Pankenham") are forgotten! Forgotten is also the end of the brave admiral Carlo Bergamini (September 1943).
Forgotten is also the role of the 144 Italian submarines.
Hi, you can sign your posts (so that everyone knows who you are) by adding four tildas to the end of your post. I suspect that what you are seeing here is a lack of knowledge on the part of the (mainly) English-speaking contributors. I looked up Bergamini and it seems he attempted to sail his fleet to North Africa to attempt to remove the Italian fleet from Allied control 1; I'm puzzled why you view this as heroic, in the context of postwar Italy, he was an anti-Allied traitor, although I see he was subsequently honoured by the Italian government, so evidently Italians don't look at it that way. I looked this incident up in Churchill's works and he described it as the "pitiful termination of a useless, demoralised and under-equipped tail-end of a Navy bowing to the inevitable". So I'm sceptical that it was that big a deal that it needs special mention on this page. MarkThomas 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no problem. let me know if there is anything else that is missing which needs to be covered.Mercenary2k 11:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE MARITIME  WAR  IN THE  MEDITERANNEAN. 

message: All Numbers whether its casualty estimates, number of troops deployed, number of tanks destroyed, etc..., need to be cited. Mercenary2k 10:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Numbers need to be cited 

message: We record that 2.5% of the world population died in the war. Are we sure that this is only the deaths due to the war? We would typically expect around 10% of the world's population to die in any five year period. DJ Clayworth 15:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm. Interesting comment. Does this mean that war is good for you? Wallie 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Percent of world population

message: Relocating from our user talk pages:
Why are you replacing instances of WWII with World War II?  WWII is a valid redirect, so replacement isn't necessary, and sometimes using the abbreviation is preferable (and replacing with a pipelink is also not necessary). See WP:R#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. -- JHunterJ 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My interest was not in eliminating redirects.  My interest was in making sure the article text reads 'World War II'.  WHY: 1) World War II is the WP agreed upon name for the war so I think that name should be used in WP articles; 2) As time moves on, how many readers are going to immediately recognize that multiple names/links really are about the same war?  To me, it is less confusing to all readers to use a single name for a single war. Hmains 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The World War II article itself still uses the well-known abbreviation WWII.  WWII isn't a different name, it's just an abbreviation of the same name.  Relocating this to Talk:World War II -- JHunterJ 11:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of WWII abbreviation 

message: This Article is split on a year by year basis but I think it would be better to split this Article by a campaign basis. A year by year split is very choppy and interrupts the flow of the article.  Here is how I propose the Article should be split up...
*The Western Front (September 1939 - May 1941)
*Sino-Japanese War (July 1937 - September 1945)
*Mediterranean & North Africa (September 1940 - May 1943)
*The Eastern Front (June 1941 - January 1942)
*South East Asia (July 1937 - December 1941)
*The Western Front (May 1941 - June 1944)
*South East Asia (December 1941 - September 1945)
*The Eastern Front (January 1942 - February 1943)
*Italian Campaign (July 1943 - May 1945)
*Central and South West Pacific (December 1941 - October 1944)
*The Eastern Front (February 1943 - December 1943)
*The Western Front (June 1944 - May 1945)
*The Eastern Front (December 1943 - January 1945)
*Atlantic (September 1939 - May 1945)
*The Eastern Front (January 1945 - May 1945)
*Central and South West Pacific (October 1944 - September 1945)
*Defeat of Germany
*Defeat of Japan
All the information to fill up these sections is already here, we just need to re-organize it. Let me know if you guys agree with this proposal. Mercenary2k 09:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your idea but I think it can be compressed even more.  For example, why does the Eastern Front have to be fragmented into five sections?  Defeat of Germany and Japan can also be shifted to aftermath (with the bunker stuff and the a-bomb included under eastern front and Pacific.  Also, it might be nice to just say "Pacific".  That way you leave room for a blurb about the Aleutians. Haber 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the idea. Of course splitting article by campaing basis makes it easier to read certain campaing. But it makes harder to have overview of the whole war at the same time. Year basis makes it easier to have overview what was going on at the same time on different campaings like Eastern-Front, Pacific, Mediterranean etc..--Staberinde 07:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-structuring of this Article 

message: Hey guys I've noticed on the article's fact box the contemporary flag of japan, thus during ww2 they used the red shining sun one. --Walter Humala |wanna Talk? 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article's infobox flag is correct and its already discussed in this same discussion page.Staberinde 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan's flag 

message: In the section about this, the term 'Fall Gelb' is noted parenthetically as CACA.  I feel as though this was not an official term of any historian or government. Wally 08:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall Gelb 

message: I removed Truman from the summary box. It's supposed to be a summary. Chamberlain made some pretty important decisions too, and commanded for longer than Truman. DJ Clayworth 02:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truman

message: I would question the recent re-write that has been made to the "Causes" section. It is not very well written and repeats some content/facts from elsewhere in the article (as if it was written in isolation). The previous version is, by and large, more suitable. Adrian M. H. 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert? 

message: I found this - http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm. I dunno if using it would go against copyrights, so perhaps a copy of it with graphical alterations should be made. I like it because 1)it is fairly accurate, although the german casualties are in their lows, not even mediums. 2)it shows pretty clearly (except in manchuria) which Front was decisive, and which fronts were auxilary.
The map contains a great many innacuracies, some of them making me wonder about the biases obvious or otherwise of it's maker. For example, it shows much-lower-than-is-generally-accepted numbers of deaths for Jews in various territories; the generally accepted figure for example for Einsatzgruppen mass-murder of Jews in the Soviet areas is 1.5 million yet the map shows "only" 1m - it reports no Jewish deaths at all in the Balkans yet there were camps in Yugoslavia alone where more than 200,000 Jews died - I could go on. The death figures for the Soviet Union are much too low generally. I suggest a new map should be made. MarkThomas 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphical representation of casualties