Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:59, 26 May 2013

Military history Unassessed

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history ??? This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Archives

Archive 1 (Aug–Oct 2007) Archive 2 (Nov '07–Apr '08) Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The template is used in this article: World War II.

References

Footnotes

ar:قالب:معلومات الحرب العالمية الثانية pl:Szablon:II wojna światowa si:සැකිල්ල:තොරතුරුකොටුවදෙවනලෝකයුද්ධය simple:Template:WW2InfoBox

Thailand

Hi! I suggest to add Thailand as a co-belligerent with the Allies in their war with Vichy France in 1940 until their surrender to Japan in 1941. After that it should be indicated as puppet state of Japan.--Anixx1 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fighting Vichy does not make one an ally. Thailand's internationally-recognised legal government declared war on the Allies in 1942, so I wouldn't call it a puppet state, although its decision was made under duress. 216.8.154.254 (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It was under Japanese occupation. The occupation was complete. The declaration of war by the Japanese-controlled government was not procedurally valid as it was not signed neither by the king, nor by the regent (which was mandatory). The regent refused to sign it and the king was not in Thailand. This was the reason why the Thai ambassador in the US regarded this declaration void and did not deliver it to the US government. The US did not consider Thailand in a state of war.--Anixx1 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Plaek Phibunsongkhram was in power not the king. Many of the allied powers (for example South Africa, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand) declared war on Thailand. Plaek also purged all anti-Japanese ministers from his government and invaded Burma. Unlike the puppet states listed in the infobox, Thailand was a widely recognized independent state during world war two. The various puppet states were only recognized by a mere handful of nations. They were clearly co-belligerents in the same manner as the Finns were.XavierGreen (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible list

We've discussed collapsing the very long list of countries before but leaving the major ones; can we try (instead) collapsing all of them, as seen here? The infobox is currently far too long, if you'll oblige and look at it in the context of the main article. Thanks, Ed  23:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Opposes - should not hide content or have multiple steps involved in deriving serviceable information. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Users with limited CSS/JavaScript support. Moxy (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Now now, that's not true at all: "consideration for users without CSS or JavaScript should extend mainly to making sure that their reading experience is possible; it is recognised that it will inevitably be inferior." Those without Javascript would simply see the list expanded by default. Ed  19:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content.Moxy (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Moxy's comments and MANY other previous to this. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

China and Japan

Some idiot decided to remove the (1937-1945) tag on China and Japan. Do you know history? Do you know that TOTAL WAR between China and Japan started in 1937, so why do you delete it constantly? If you have 1941-45 tags for US, UK, Italy, Bulgaria, etc... there is absolute NO REASON to remove 1937-45 tag.Phead128 (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, no one here is an "idiot" besides yourself. Secondly it was reverted because this is infobox about WW2, not the fighting leading up to WW2. The war officially started in 1939, not 1937. By having no date it implies they were involved for the entire war. Lastly, judging by your edit history you have a keen interest in Asian affairs and this is clearly a "promotional" edit. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

By utilizing 1941-45 tags in US, UK, Italy, Bulgaria, etc... the infobox has set the precedent of specifying exact intervention times of each participant. Since not all events in WW2 fit seemlessly into black/white start/end dates as evidenced by 1941-45 tags and it's incredibly naive to remove information because it doesn't fit seemlessly into your black/white theory, as majority of historical events evolve slowly over time. Phead128 (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The dates your imputing is for Second Sino-Japanese War - I will revert as not proper info.Moxy (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's incredibly naive to rigorous impose 1939 as the standard of active force particiation when the WW2 Picture Collage box showing Chinese forces in the Battle of Wanjialing (first major defeat of full Japanese division by China in WW2) which occurred in Oct 1-11, 1938, and this picture of Chinese forces has been on the WW2Infobox collage since the dawn of time when the first WW2 picture collage was created. Phead128 (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Never noticed the image - think we should talk about changing it as its mislelading and will lead to edits of this nature that are not related to the time frame of WW2. Will bring this up on the ww2 article.....Moxy (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus on Misplaced Pages to preclude the existence of total war (which overlaps the vast majority of Pacific theatre combat) by the German invasion of Poland date of 1939. There is a difference between outbreak of total warfare in continents across the world and initiation of a local total war that is a subset of WW2. One does not preclude the existence of the other.Phead128 (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not pick the date 1932 because of the Soviet–Japanese border conflicts - not sure we should confuse our readers with wrong dates added by false logic. Historians have given dates for these conflicts for a reason. Any source that say WW2 started in 1937?Moxy (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know the definition of World War? World War is generally characterized by total wars involving the majority of nations in the world. Note that fact it says: TOTAL WAR. Are you stupid to believe Soviet–Japanese border conflicts constitute TOTAL WAR? It's Border Conflicts for godsakes, pick a better example please, thank you very much. Phead128 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've protected the page for one day due to the edit warring here. Note that while protecting this version is not an endorsement of its current state, I do think it is a bit silly to include clarifying dates for half of the Allies and most of the Axis, just to leave out China and Japan's special case. It's trivial to say (at war 1937–45) to explain the discrepancy. Otherwise, why do we have dates at all? Ed  23:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess the dates are not clear to all and leads to confusion - perhaps your right no need for dates at all. Would be best to not confuse editors - read the article to see all that info were it explains things.Moxy (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm split. While I do think no dates would be simpler, what you think would be the article to find that information (Timeline of World War II) is subset into different years, and the main article has that information buried in prose, if at all. We could end up confusing readers more by removing all of them. Ed  23:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree hard one but we should not give dates that historians agree is a separate conflict started before the world wide conflict - many nations were at war before 1939 - not just Japan and China. The date of 1937 is the Marco Polo Bridge Incident that is the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War - not there entry into the worldwide conflict of WW2 that started later.Moxy (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the dates are needed for the countries that were not belligerents during the whole period from 1939 till 1945. You Phead128 probably noticed that no date is given for Britain, Poland, Germany, etc. That is because they were belligerents since 1939 till 1945, so the dates, in contrast to, e.g. the US or the USSR, would be redundant. I think the same is true for China and Japan: by 1st Sept, 1939 there already was a full scale war between them, although unofficial one (China did not declare a war of Japan because western powers asked it not to do so). To summarise, the absence of the year near Chinese or Japanese flag implies they were at war during the whole 1939-45 period. Whether they were at war before that, or not is hardly relevant to this infobox, because this article does not go into details of pre-1939 SSJW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus within Misplaced Pages to rigorously impose the rigid date of 1939 as the standard of inclusion or exclusion of regional total war that is a subset of WW2. It's a dangerously naive proposition to impose black and white boundaries as exclusion of (at war 1937-45), as the official start date of 1939 does not preclude the existence of total war within a subset region of WW2, as readers may believe China has been at war since 1939, which is a total white-wash of the entire history of China's active participation dates in the Pacific theatre of WW2. Phead128 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

All this is explained in the article and at Causes of World War II - so not sure what you mean by white washing. Anyways no support for the wrong dates in the box thus far from anyone but you - lets give it a few more days get some more feed back.Moxy (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So you are telling me China and Japan was been at war since 1939, because 1939 was the date Germany invaded Poland. Right, 1939 was when WW2 started, but not the date China and Japan has been at war. The two are not mutually exclusive, but without clarification of (at war 1937-45), you are asserting that China and Japan was been at war since 1939, which is absolutely not true.50.136.53.17 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No. The absence of the date near ROC or Japanese flags implies they were at war (at least de facto) during the whole period this article covers (Sept 1939 - Sept 1945). It does not imply there were no hostilities between them before that date. Similarly, Lake Khasan incident, a proxy war between the USSR and Germany in Spain, and other events are also left beyond the scope of this infobox, and that is absolutely correct. Again, this infobox covers the period between 1st of Septermer, 1939 and 2nd of September, 1945, and it is clear from this infobox that Japan and China were belligerents during the whole that period. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

By utilizing 1941-45 tags in US, UK, Italy, Bulgaria, etc... the infobox has set the precedent of specifying exact intervention times of each participant. Since not all events in WW2 fit seemlessly into black/white start/end dates as evidenced by 1941-45 tags and it's incredibly naive to remove information because it doesn't fit seemlessly into your black/white theory, as majority of historical events evolve slowly over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.17 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated numerous times before, those countries have date tags because they were not involved for the entire war. The countries without tags were involved for the entire war 1939-45 or more. It's not that complicated. UrbanNerd (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what we can do here User:Phead128 (50.136.53.17) could care less about the consensus here. Best we ask to get the template locked up I guess.Moxy (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

TThere is no consensus on Misplaced Pages to preclude the existence of total war (which overlaps the vast majority of Pacific theatre combat) by the German invasion of Poland date of 1939. Even in your futile attempt to remove 1938 Battle of Wanjianling picture in the WW2 official article, users see past your attempt to draw black & white boundaries which is tantamount to exclusion of materials related to WW2 as a exercise in failure. Phead128 (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pls read all that was said to you above. No more kid games - time to respect ALL those here that dont see it your way. We have basic conduct expectation that all are expected to follow. Pls read over WP:EDITCONSENSUS Moxy (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the WW2 Picture Collage Infbox shows Chinese forces in the Battle of Wanjialing, which occurred in Oct 1-11, 1938, has been on the Misplaced Pages WW2Infobox collage page since forever shows you the extreme double standard you guys set. You guys have NO RIGHT to discredit China's participation WW2 by refusing to acknowledge that China has been in total war since 1937, just because China didn't initiate total war exactly when Germany invaded Poland does not mean China cannot merit an exact tag of period where it has been at war, just like US and USSR with their 1941-45 tags as well.Phead128 (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• After an ANI thread, prompted no doubt by yet another revert from Phead, I have blocked them for edit-warring. Consensus here is clearly not with them, and thus their revert was against consensus, disruptive. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Newcomer comment I've just seen the ANI thread and I'm puzzled. What exactly is wrong with the dating suggested by Phead128? No doubt he became frustrated etc. but putting the dates of the Second Sino-Japanese War seems reasonable enough. Am I missing something? --Kleinzach 12:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait a sec

So lets look at the template closely - to be honest I think Phead128 may be correct here after receiving an email from a friend that works for the Canadian War Museum and edits here but did not want to get involved. We all agree Phead128 is correct in pointing out there is an image in the box from 1938 ... and subsequently the email I received noted that the Casualties and losses section are dated starting in 1937. So we need to look at all this much closer. Are these totals correct for the time period - do they match the article. Should we use 1937 all over or not. The article does cover long before 1939 - consistence would be best here.--Moxy (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. I didn't notice that before when I commented wanting consistency—the problem is actually two-fold. Ed  13:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The numbers we see for deaths etc...are they from 1937 onwards and is everyone included? There is no ref saying the time period or whos counted.Moxy (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that as long as there is a 1938 image in the infobox, then the conventional date of the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War should appear somewhere. Srnec (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I propose we restore the dates (1937-1945) for China and Japan. Do other editors agree or disagree? Thanks and best to all. --Kleinzach 06:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. The dates for other countries are already in, so I don't see the big deal. Hot Stop 06:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree - If the causality numbers incorrectly include the fighting in China leading up to the war then they should be corrected. How many were killed in Europe before WW2 actually broke out ? UrbanNerd (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)