Talk:World War II/Archive 24

message: The five captions for the pictures in the infobox are in the wrong order. Could someone fix please?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, again. What's going on here? Who keeps disarranging the captions? I'm inclined to believe two different groups of people have differing interpretations on what "clockwise from the top" means. The first caption should go to the first picture, that is, the one on the upper left. Subsequent captions should follow a clockwise pattern: upper right, center right, bottom, center left. Alternately, I could reluctantly agree with starting with the upper right image (1 o'clock) and ending with the upper left (11 o'clock), but that violates most people's reading inclination to start on the upper left of things (and yes, I'm aware of other scripts that go right-to-left and other various directions). Xaxafrad 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not all that familiar with how Wikimedia-tech works, any chance it might be a caching issue with some people's browsers? Oberiko 03:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No guys, I don't think these faults origin on this page and the captions; there are some people who have persistently tried to rearrange the montage itself at Wikimedia by swapping the images (they seem to be be itchy about having the D-day pic on top). I have told them to lay it off without consulting me first, so let's hope it works... Regards, (orig.creator of the image) --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Who agrees with me that the caption for this image should be trimmed and the death rate of Soviet POWs in German captivity should be discussed in the article itself, rather than than an overly extended caption?  It's a good image, but  Ilya1166 keeps removing figures by Grigoriy Krivosheev used in this article and World War II casualties also see [] these figures are disputed. Bleh999 11:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all explained in the references - Christian Streit: Keine Kameraden: Die Wehrmacht und die Sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen, 1941-1945, Bonn: Dietz (3. Aufl., 1. Aufl. 1978),  - "Between 22 June 1941 and the end of the war, roughly 5.7 million members of the Red Army fell into German hands. In January 1945, 930,000 were still in German camps. A million at most had been released, most of whom were so-called "volunteers" (Hilfswillige) for (often compulsory) auxilary service in the Wehrmacht. Another 500,000, as estimated by the Army High Command, had either fled or been liberated. The remaining 3,300,000 (57.5 percent of the total) had perished." These facts are echoed in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum reference. Even Woogie said on that page that where you said the figures are disputed that Krivosheev's figure is wrong - "The true number of Soviet POW dead is not 1.3 million but about 2.5-3.0 million."--Ilya1166 13:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grigoriy Krivosheevs figures are actually newer than those sources, his were based on declassified Soviet archives in the 1990s, the German estimates for Soviet causalities on the other hand may have been incorrect and subject to bias (although so could the Soviet estimates), the fact is that the figures are disputed and you can't claim the range from 2.5-3.0 is accurate with any degree of certainty Bleh999 14:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly known that around 3 million Soviet POWs died in German captivity. Krivosheev is critisized in Russia for being an amature and checking a minimal number of sources. During the war many cities with their archives were distoroyed, and the number Krivosheev gave is a number which is of those about who the Soviets foumd information "on the spot". Nevertheless, the Germans had a regestration of the exact number of those who came from the USSR, and the number was about 3 million. You dont chose the smaller number, you chose the correct one, and the correct is avout 3 million. M.V.E.i. 15:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually some Russians approve of Krivosheevs figures, but the ironic thing is that the same people who want to use Wehrmacht estimates for Soviet POW deaths also disapprove of German estimates for Soviet soldiers killed in action during the period of 1941-1942, you also didn't provide any sources for your criticism of his research Bleh999 15:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I explain: The USSR has lists of its soldiers. After every-battle they write the number of soldiers killed. They are the ones who count it, they are the ones who care, they are the ones who need the number, and they are the once who have the detailed numbers. The Germans could have only a "we guess...", "it could minimum be..." number.  Nevertheless, in the second case, the one we are arguing about now, who could count them? Who has regestration and all? Who wants those people as workers? Who will have a detailed counting of those numbers? The Germans. M.V.E.i. 15:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet POWs and Image:775 144844401 big.jpg 

message: In the Overview section I feel that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor should be emphasized, as it was the trigger for the USA entering the Pacific War. Currently it reads, rather blandly as the Japanese attacking the USA and British possessions in S.E. Asia. It surely stands in equal stature to the invasion of Poland as a 'trigger'. I'm currently studying war as part of a uni degree and will be visiting the article often, so will insert something in the main article in due course if nobody else does. Cheers. --MichaelGG 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it warrants much more (if more) then the Japanese attack on South-East Asia, which brought the United Kingdom into the Pacific War.  It could be argued that the attack in SE Asia was more important as it was a unifier between the previously separate Asian and European wars.  PH by itself is, IMO, more like a scaled-down Barbarossa in terms of importance. Oberiko 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this article has really gone to crap since I've been away.  Michael, of course you are right.  Before Pearl Harbor, victory was still up for grabs.  After, well Churchill for one breathed a sigh of relief, and I'm sure a lot of other people did too.  But I wouldn't recommend spending too much time on this article.  People are likely to tear it all apart and put some ridiculous spin on it within a few months, whatever you do.  Like now, it doesn't even have a Holocaust picture.  Way to miss an important point, dumbasses.  Maybe some more pictures of tanks, boats, and airplanes would make you all happy. Haber 14:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try and keep it civil there Haber.  Oberiko 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Haber's first point, it wouldn't be a bad idea to emphasize it a bit more. --LtWinters 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack on Pearl Harbor 

message: Should we list both as commanders of Japan? I personally think Tojo should only be listed, but I wouldn't mind if Hirohito was also listed. Pretty much the entire world knows Tojo gave all the orders during the war. TheGoodSon 4:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hirohito/Tojo 

message: I was reading the article and I realized a lot of the dates are not linked. I was going to fix it but the article is locked. Also, in section "Japanese offensives (1941–1942)", the fifth paragraph starts with "Disaster struck the British on December 10. 1941, when they lost(...)" which should read "December 10, 1941". There's also an issue of conflicting licensing statements in :Image:AkagiDeckApril42.jpg that I'll post in its discussion page. Repolho 04:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was going to post the issue with :Image:AkagiDeckApril42.jpg in its discussion page until I found out that I am not sure how to create one. Anyway, the issue is that the uploader's description says that it's a "Imperial Japanese Navy photo" and that makes it public domain, but the licensing tag says it's "a work of the United States Federal Government". I believe the uploaders version to be the correct one. Repolho 05:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll be able to edit the ww2 page after 4 days of being a member--LtWinters 11:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to MOS DATE only full dates should be linked, not partials, like, December 6 of which there are many instances in the article, so maybe add the year or remove the links. Cheers ww2censor 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for the tips. I'll go look for unlinked full dates.--Repolho 04:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date linking 

message: Hi- reference to the picture showing a bombed German column. describes P47 Thunder-bombers. Better P47 'Thunder-bolts' or fighter-bombers
thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.248.49 (talk) 09:39, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
:Got it. Thanks! Binksternet 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure how to edit, but small correction needed to one of the picture captions. P47 Thunderbomers?