| Revision as of 03:53, 29 May 2013 editKleinzach (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,637 edits →Deletion of my messages by UrbanNerd: followup← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:19, 8 November 2021 edit undoJjfun3695 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,325 editsNo edit summary | ||
| (340 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Notice |This is a talk page that once belonged to the now deleted ]. The template was used in the ] article, but was merged into the article after ]. This talk page is kept as an archive.}} | |||
| {{WPMILHIST |class= |importance= }} | |||
| {{tfd end|Template:WW2InfoBox|date=22 February 2015|result=merge with the article}} | |||
| {{talk header |noarchive=yes}} | |||
| {{G8-exempt}} | |||
| {{Round in circles|archives=yes|faqlink=Talk:World War II/FAQ}} | |||
| {{Archives |auto= |
{{Archives |auto=long |search=no |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=4 |units=months |index=/Archive index |}} | ||
| * ] <small>(Aug–Oct 2007)</small> | |||
| * ] <small>(Nov '07–Apr '08)</small> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 12 | ||
| |algo = old(120d) | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |archive = Talk:World War II/Infobox/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| |archive = Template talk:WW2InfoBox/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| '''The template is used in this article: ''].''''' | |||
| == References == | |||
| ;Footnotes | |||
| {{Reflist|2|group=nb}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| == 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ? The infobox is currently far too long, if you'll oblige and look at it in the context of the ]. Thanks, ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 23:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Opposes''' - should not hide content or have multiple steps involved in deriving serviceable information. ]. ] (]) 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. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 19:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :].] (]) 15:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' As per Moxy's comments and MANY other previous to this. ] (]) 04:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - as Ed says this really is too long. It's no longer an efficient summary. --'']]'' 07:11, 27 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The dates your imputing is for ] - I will revert as not proper info.] (]) 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 ] (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. ] (]) 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.....] (]) 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.] (]) 22:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Why not pick the date 1932 because of the ] - 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?] (]) 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 ] constitute TOTAL WAR? It's Border Conflicts for godsakes, pick a better example please, thank you very much. ] (]) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I've protected the page for one day due to the edit warring here. Note that while protecting ] 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 <small>(at war 1937–45)</small> to explain the discrepancy. Otherwise, why do we have dates at all? ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 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.] (]) 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 (]) is subset into different years, and the ] has that information buried in prose, if at all. We could end up confusing readers ''more'' by removing all of them. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 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 ] that is the start of the ] - not there entry into the worldwide conflict of WW2 that started later.] (]) 23:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::All this is explained in the article and at ] - 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::::::::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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] ] (]) 23:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The fact that the WW2 Picture Collage Infbox shows Chinese forces in the ], 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]? No doubt he became frustrated etc. but putting the dates of the ] seems reasonable enough. Am I missing something? --'']]'' 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.--] (]) 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. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --'']]'' 06:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Makes sense. The dates for other countries are already in, so I don't see the big deal.'''<font face="Arial">]</font>''' 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 ? ] (]) 12:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is absolutely no way in living hell am I going to let you delete 1937-1939 war death/casualty information just because of your anal retentive desire to rigorously and rigidly impose the date of 1939 at the expense of Second Sino-Japanese war. The Second Sino-Japanese War was an INTEGRAL PART of WW2, and to suggest that Second Sino-Japanese War was irrelevant in 1937-1939 just because of your misinterpretation of what the official start date means is highly offensive to any semi-intelligent human being.] (]) 21:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''Really''? I unblocked you so you could make comments like ''this''? ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think we can solve this without Phead128 input - the person is not suited for this collaborative environment. So... Anyone have any info on the numbers??? -- do they include the The Second Sino-Japanese.] (]) 21:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Commanders and leaders == | |||
| OK. Let's all take a deep breath and calm down. ] : you shouldn't have removed the heading . That's edit war behaviour. Please put it back. .]: Please tone it down. If you are right, you will eventually get recognition. It just takes time. Assuming the other editors are ill-intentioned doesn't help. ]: once again you seem incapable of checking basic facts before get involved in controversy. Statements like {{tq|''"I think we can solve this without Phead128 input"''}} just aggravate the situation, besides which you actually ''don't'' appear to be able to solve this without other editors being involved. Right. Let's start with you ]. Please put back the heading. '']]'' 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I am just wondering why Neville Chamberlain (the war began during his premiership), Harry Truman (both VE and VJ day), and even the King (George VI) are not included. On the World War I page, King George V is listed as a leader of the Entente Powers. Was there a more uniting figure in the British Empire/Commonwealth than the King? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ===Moving forward=== | |||
| :The King played no significant role in directing the Commonwealth war effort - he was a ]. As I noted on my talk page, the other leaders you suggest would add clutter to the infobox for little gain given that they led their nations for only small parts of the war, with FDR and Churchill being the dominant UK and US war leaders. ] (]) 00:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|hist|rfcid=A2C862B}} | |||
| :Should the infobox contain the dates 1937 beside China and Japan under the section "Belligerents" as seen ? | |||
| Then the page for WW1 is very cluttered. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ====Comments==== | |||
| :Yes, I'd agree with that. It's a much inferior article to the one on World War II, and the infobox is a mess. ] (]) 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Moving forward beyond the useless posts above that are getting us nowhere. So according to the ] page - the sources are from the "official Chinese government statistics for China's civilian and military casualties '''1937–1945'''". We also in the article under the "Casualties and war crimes" talk about the ]. So after further thought - with egg on my face - I would say the edit to add the date 1937 is productive and factually accurate according to the article and its sources. I hereby support its inclusion after others chime in....... | |||
| *'''Support inclusion''' of dates of 1937 to match article coverage/ ] (]) 00:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' the date inclusion. Adding these pre-WW2 wars will start a precedent to add other pre-WW2 wars. I'm sure there is many other casualties pre-1939 (Italian invasion of Ethiopia, Anschluss, and many others) that should now be added to the totals. ] (]) 00:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is pretty standard to regard the Sino-Japanese War as an independent conflict which merged with the World War after 1941. That is not the case in any of these other conflicts. There was no ongoing major war in Europe or anywhere else that merged with the conflict begun by Germany's invasion of Poland—except that between China and Japan. The Sino-Japanese War was not merely an earlier conflict, but a full-scale war that was ongoing when WWII broke out and that eventually became a theatre of it. ] (]) 01:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The infobox will look ridiculous stating WW2 was from 1939-45 but then some countries dates start in 1937. Either leave them blank to imply that they were involved for the entire war, and sometimes more, or remove all dates from all countries. Having multiple dates for different conflicts will just confuse readers. ] (]) 03:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We already have 1937 in the infobox, though... so by your definition, it looks ridiculous already. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 04:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Where do you see that ? ] (]) 04:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::'''Total WW2 Deaths: 61,000,000 (1937–45''') So you are meaning to tell me, that ] (1937) shouldn't be included in WW2, because of your exclusively Eurocentric POV? ] (]) 05:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::So we're re-writting history because of your exclusively Asiancentric POV. So now WW2 was from 1937-45 ? Call the masses, we're changing history. ] (]) 23:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Strawman's argument, as nobody suggested the 1937-45 tag to be imposed on the entirety of WW2. Also, China and Japan was already under full-scale total war by 1939, and nobody disputes Second Sino-Japanese war was an integral part of WW2. So using the date when Germany invade Poland to determine relevant inclusion/exclusion in a black & white rigid fashion is totally ] (]) 00:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I won't be lectured on what is unacceptable on wikipedia by <s>someone of such low moral fibre such as</s> yourself. This edit is foolish and will confuse readers. But as long as it pushes your Asian bias, than that's all that matters. ] (]) 23:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' using the dates '''1937–1945'''" for the Sino-Japanese War, a part of the Second World War. I'm opposed to defining the war from an exclusively European POV. --'']]'' 00:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' because rejecting pre-1939 based on an exclusively Eurocentric POV is tantamount to rejecting the existence of ] (1937), which is unreasonable to say the least...as it's widely agreed upon that the ] (1937) is a WW2 warcrime/atrocity... ] (]) 05:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::It don't see it was "widely agreed" that the Nanking Massacre/Rape of Nanking was an element of WWII anywhere in the article. It's been added to WWII categories. ] (]) 08:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, the Rape of Nanjing occurred during the winter of 1937-1938, when the full-scale Sino-Japanese War was already underway. It would be very odd to claim it had nothing to do with WWII. --'']]'' 09:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per my comment above, I don't see this as a big deal. '''<font face="Arial">]</font>''' 13:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as the ] has its roots in the ], I see no reason not to list their belligerent dates as proposed in this RfC. While not changing the dates of what the majority of reliable sources recognize as the beginning of World War II, it does establish that both countries were belligerents before 1939, which is verifiable/factual.--] (]) 10:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I sort-of support this, but it's a shame that no-one has thought to link the infobox back to what's in the ] article (eg, the article this infobox is meant to provide summary data on), which notes that there's a debate over the start date of the war, with September 1939 being the most common view... ] (]) 11:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I have always thought about those dates not as an indicator for the start of WWII, but more of just an additional information during which times those parties were engaged in warfare. Since the Sino-Japanese war merged without interruption into WWII, I dont think its wrong to give the reader the additional information that those countries were actually fighting since 1937. ] (]) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I disagree with Harry Truman, Atlee and Chamberlain not being included, we are in fact giving an inaccurate story if they are not included on the leaders list. They should be added. George VI, I understand he was just a figurehead ] (]) 04:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ====WW2 1937-1945 ?==== | |||
| So if we're rewriting history to including "pre-WW2" casualties and wars in WW2 figures, should we not change the date of the war in the infobox to reflect this? Either the Chinese fighting is officially part of WW2 and the war actaully started in 1937, or the war started in 1939 and the pre-WW2 causalities and fighting cannot be included. ] (]) 23:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Strawman's argument, as the original position was 'at war' 1937-45 tags for China/Japan exclusively, not for the entirety of WW2. Please stop distorting the original position into a debate over the official start date of WW2, because that is a Strawman's argument. We are debating whether to rigorously impose the rigid date of 1939 in a black & white fashion at the expense of the Second Sino-Japanese war... It is NOT the debate about the official start date itself. Agreeing with the 1939 official start date does not preclude the existence of total war between China/Japan prior to 1939, 1939 merely signifes when Eastern/Western total wars overlap simultaneously, nothing more. ] (]) 00:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''My posting at this location has been refactored''' by ] under the edit title {{tq|remove vandalism by User:Kleinzach}}. See subsection 'Refactor by ]' below. --'']]'' 02:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not trying to be difficult, but how can we include pre-WW2 fights/casualties in China from 1937, yet say that WW2 started in 1939 ? And how can we not include other pre-1939 European fights/casualties ? ] (]) 00:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do we need to draw such a hard, black-and-white line? There is nothing stopping us from qualifying these two countries with <small>(at war 1937–45)</small>, which sidesteps the date argument while illuminating a casual reader that there is an additional dynamic beyond the 1939/41–45 dates. | |||
| :::As for the casualties, I suspect it would be extremely difficult to cut out the Chinese and Japanese casualties from 1937–39 from the overall count. We are certainly free to include a short, explanatory footnote pointing out that the total casualties include the other war. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 01:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd feel much better if there was a asterisk beside China and Japan with a note below explaining they were involved in wars prior to the start of WW2. It's just odd to say on one hand the war started in 39, and on the other these two countries were involved from 37-45. ] (]) 01:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I like the idea of a note - simple solution for those that wish to learn more on the fly. At this point I see a pretty clear consensus for the dates. A note does solve any questions/confusion that may arise by our readers ...to that end we should have a note to explain in the "Casualties and losses" that 1937 is used because of how China and Japan use 1937 to 1945 for stats.] (]) 02:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm in full support of that idea. ] (]) 03:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ====Deletion of my messages by UrbanNerd ==== | |||
| ] has once again deleted my posting, see . --'']]'' 03:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Further to this, I see that UrbanNerd reported ] to ] for disruption here ''']'''. Ed has blocked Phead128 for 31 hours. '']]'' 03:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:19, 8 November 2021
 | This is a talk page that once belonged to the now deleted Template:WW2InfoBox. The template was used in the World War II article, but was merged into the article after this discussion. This talk page is kept as an archive. |
 | This template (Template:WW2InfoBox) was considered for deletion on 22 February 2015. The result of the discussion was "merge with the article". |
 | This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Misplaced Pages. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion. |
 Archives | ||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Commanders and leaders
I am just wondering why Neville Chamberlain (the war began during his premiership), Harry Truman (both VE and VJ day), and even the King (George VI) are not included. On the World War I page, King George V is listed as a leader of the Entente Powers. Was there a more uniting figure in the British Empire/Commonwealth than the King? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnisome (talk • contribs) 00:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- The King played no significant role in directing the Commonwealth war effort - he was a constitutional monarch. As I noted on my talk page, the other leaders you suggest would add clutter to the infobox for little gain given that they led their nations for only small parts of the war, with FDR and Churchill being the dominant UK and US war leaders. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Then the page for WW1 is very cluttered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnisome (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd agree with that. It's a much inferior article to the one on World War II, and the infobox is a mess. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with Harry Truman, Atlee and Chamberlain not being included, we are in fact giving an inaccurate story if they are not included on the leaders list. They should be added. George VI, I understand he was just a figurehead Jjfun3695 (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)