This is an old revision of this page, as edited by E-960 (talk | contribs) at 21:02, 23 November 2014 (→RfC: Infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:02, 23 November 2014 by E-960 (talk | contribs) (→RfC: Infobox)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Axis powers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 |
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers
Links from this article with broken #section links : |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Axis powers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
"Serbia"
It is absurd and a-historical to have an entry here entitled "Serbia (XY)". There is no "Serbia" to speak of, nor was there any between the wars either. The article is called Government of National Salvation because there was no country, only a non-sovereign civil administrative authority in a German occupation zone - when you change that article's title to "Serbia", then come back and introduce the error here as well.
And personally I couldn't care one whit for the uniform appearance of the section titles. If there are similar erroneous titles I can only apologize for not correcting them as well. -- Director (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)So where was this state then, if not in Serbia? Are you suggesting that Serbia somehow did not exist as a place in 1941 or that this sub-section alone should not name that place? I can point you to 100 books that explicitly say something along the lines of "In Serbia, the Germans installed ...". Also, once challenged on your initial removal, you could have tried to justify it rather than edit-warring and relying solely on repeating the dubious assertion in an edit summary that use of the term is somehow "a-historical". N-HH talk/edits 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- The heading is "client states", not "places". There was neither any client state nor any pre-war state by the name of "Serbia". Nor was there any Serbian "client state" by any name whatsoever. I really really really do not wish to repeat the previous discussions over at the relevant articles, its all been said and every query has been answered several times.
- By the current organization of this article, the GNS should be up with the German colonies and dependencies. That's the actual discrepancy here. -- Director (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- That page is called Government of National Salvation because, er, it's about the government. Whether Serbia existed as an independent country or state has nothing to do with anything here. And as large numbers of history books will tell you, that government was established in and exercised its authority within an area known as Serbia, which is pretty basic information that this page and the relevant section heading should be imparting to any readers. If it's good enough for actual historians it's good enough for WP, regardless of any bid by individual editors here to will certain words and geography out of existence. If you think the description "client state" is incorrect, the solution is to move the entry relating to Serbia, not to leave it where it is but simply strike out any mention of the word "Serbia". N-HH talk/edits 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, "er", its a government, not a client state. I can't believe you've found a way to strt this thing again, it really can be viewed as disruption. Drop the stick please. -- Director (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- And where would you say that government exercised its authority? More importantly, where would actual historians say it exercised its authority? In Serbia. Removing relevant information is disruption, especially when it's being done on the basis of such idiosyncratic logic. The bigger problem is your applying that logic on multiple pages, not my trying to explain to you the problem with it. N-HH talk/edits 17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Others and myself have addressed this same argument of yours some dozen times by now, and that's just to you directly. Where did this government exercise power? It exercised very limited authority in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, a Nazi military occupation zone. Both of these can be described as having been located vaguely in a part of the geographic area generally referred to as "Serbia" (though that territory is usually viewed as significantly larger, and varied over time). How you manage to translate that into justification for listing a "Serbia" as a "client state", is beyond my comprehension. A source would not be wrong in saying the GNS "exercised power in Serbia", just as it would be correct in saying the NDH "exercised power in Bosnia" - that doesn't mean there was a Bosnian client state.. -- Director (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- And where would you say that government exercised its authority? More importantly, where would actual historians say it exercised its authority? In Serbia. Removing relevant information is disruption, especially when it's being done on the basis of such idiosyncratic logic. The bigger problem is your applying that logic on multiple pages, not my trying to explain to you the problem with it. N-HH talk/edits 17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, "er", its a government, not a client state. I can't believe you've found a way to strt this thing again, it really can be viewed as disruption. Drop the stick please. -- Director (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- That page is called Government of National Salvation because, er, it's about the government. Whether Serbia existed as an independent country or state has nothing to do with anything here. And as large numbers of history books will tell you, that government was established in and exercised its authority within an area known as Serbia, which is pretty basic information that this page and the relevant section heading should be imparting to any readers. If it's good enough for actual historians it's good enough for WP, regardless of any bid by individual editors here to will certain words and geography out of existence. If you think the description "client state" is incorrect, the solution is to move the entry relating to Serbia, not to leave it where it is but simply strike out any mention of the word "Serbia". N-HH talk/edits 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I said that a case could be made for moving it out of the "client state" section for those very reasons, and that that would be one actual solution to the problem you describe – not the erasing from history of the term "Serbia" – something which I see has now been done. It wasn't me that put it there in the first place you know. The problem I have is that when I look at any book on this topic, I see text and maps all explicitly referring to "Serbia" under German occupation and to "Serbia" as having a veneer of civilian government under that occupation. Yet come here and one or two random anonymous contributors appear, through some contorted but unfathomable private logic that they never deign to explain, to have declared this an "a-historical" error of terminology and that we shall strike all mention of "Serbia" and instead use a completely made-up and never-used-anywhere-else term for the entity/area in question. N-HH talk/edits 09:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Balkans are, and have always been, very complicated. To actually go into the essentially-meaningless details of the situation in occupied Yugoslavia, let alone that particular tiny scrap of territory, is more detail than most authors (dealing with WWII on a more general level) are prepared to bore their readers with. It is very much incorrect to call it "Serbia", but its also much easier and simpler and kind of accurate in a geographic sense. This should not deter us from researching sources with a more focused scope and figuring out what exactly was going on there: certainly not a country of any sort (client or otherwise). We must then be careful not to imply the existence of a state where there is none.
- As regards the current title over there I see it as an unfortunate necessity. "Military Administration in Serbia" would be more appropriate for a Wiki title Imo. -- Director (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well that's exactly as I characterised the situation: every historical and other book I have ever read, or since looked up online, refers to "Serbia" (whether they mean to suggest it is a "country", "state", an "area" or something else simply does not matter), none refer to the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", yet WP editors assert the right to declare the former term "incorrect" and/or to second guess why those books refer to it using that exact term. If you don't see quite how egregious a breach that is of pretty basic WP sourcing, editing and naming practices that's quite a problem. N-HH talk/edits 13:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, but you're forgetting other basic WP policy, or rather you're giving some of it too much weight. We do not simply copy down what the sources state verbatim - we present the sourced facts in an encyclopedic manner. If the sources state something is not a country (note: no second-guessing involved), it is a mistake to present it as a country. Such a thing would also be against policy: our titles must not be misleading. And when you inevitably add to this the quagmire of Balkans politics, and realize fostering such inaccuracy is in addition a breach of neutral coverage, you see other fundamental policies that come into play. -- Director (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually we do very much copy terminology. What we don't do is copy verbatim narrative text, as that is plagiarism. I don't understand where this obsession with the question of whether Serbia is (or was at that point) a country or not comes from. That's a totally separate point. Nor does simply using the term imply that it was. If that is the sole basis for this, it's on even weaker ground than I thought. And if you want to keep on insisting that it is "inaccurate" to use the term, please write to Jozo Tomasevich , Noel Malcolm, Tim Judah, Misha Glenny and 101 other historians and authors, who all quite happily use the term in this context, knowing exactly what they do or don't mean by it, and tell them quite how wrong they are. N-HH talk/edits 14:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- And you'll need to get stuck into the following examples too, since none of these were countries either before or during their respective occupations: Occupation of the Rhineland, Occupation of the Ruhr, Occupation of Smyrna etc N-HH talk/edits 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- I really wish I could again reply to all your points in detail, but, please understand, I've been discussing this for years. I get nauseated whenever its brought up. Everything's been said at least thirty times over by now. The sources do not really support you.. Your examples are not analogous.. Its a military occupation zone, not "Serbia".. etc. etc. -- Director (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- But there is no rational or source-based justification for not using the term Serbia or for not talking about the Occupation of Serbia or German-occupied Serbia etc. Yes it's a military occupation zone but it is also Serbia. Most of us can get our heads around the idea that the same entity can have more than one facet or more than one description, or that the same term can refer to different things at different times in history, and that when we talk about "Serbia" in the context of WW2 and the Nazi occupation we mean a slightly different thing, both territorially and in terms of status, from Serbia in 2013 or 1389. You've presumably been discussing it for years precisely because you and one or two others have gone off an idiosyncratic and rigid tangent and people keep having to point out to you the difficulty with maintaining the position that results. If you're constantly having to defend your stance, might that not lead you to reflect that there might a problem? And as for the sources, shall I just spell a few out? The idea that these don't mean what they say or are using the "wrong" terminology, which we have the right or even the obligation to dismiss, is fanciful.
- Tomasevich in War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, in a subsection titled "The German system of Occupation in Serbia": "Serbia proper, approximately within its pre-1912 borders, was the only area of dismembered Yugoslavia in which the Germans established a military government of occupation". He then goes on to repeatedly refer to "Serbia", including in phrases such as "German-occupied Serbia" and "civil affairs in Serbia"
- Tim Judah in The Serbs: "What was left was Serbia, more or less within its 1912 boundaries. Answering to the German occupation authorities, a Serbian caretaker regime was installed ..". Again, he goes on refer simply to Serbia when he mentions the area in question.
- Misha Glenny in The Balkans: "what had been a single country was now chopped up into at least nine units ... Serbia itself was under direct German military rule, although in August 1941 a puppet government under General Milan Nedic was established". Again, he used Serbia throughout this part of the book as above.
- Noel Malcolm in Kosovo A Short History: ".. the rump Serbian state, which was under German military occupation but governed by Serbian officials from Belgrade". He, too, repeatedly from then on talks about events "in Serbia".
- Anyone reading those – or myriad other examples – can see pretty plainly what these historians and authors are saying and what terminology they are using to say it, and hence whether the sources support my position or yours. I'm sorry, but WP user Director doesn't get to override that on the basis of their own convoluted existential meta-arguments or alleged fears about Serbian nationalist editing. N-HH talk/edits 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- But there is no rational or source-based justification for not using the term Serbia or for not talking about the Occupation of Serbia or German-occupied Serbia etc. Yes it's a military occupation zone but it is also Serbia. Most of us can get our heads around the idea that the same entity can have more than one facet or more than one description, or that the same term can refer to different things at different times in history, and that when we talk about "Serbia" in the context of WW2 and the Nazi occupation we mean a slightly different thing, both territorially and in terms of status, from Serbia in 2013 or 1389. You've presumably been discussing it for years precisely because you and one or two others have gone off an idiosyncratic and rigid tangent and people keep having to point out to you the difficulty with maintaining the position that results. If you're constantly having to defend your stance, might that not lead you to reflect that there might a problem? And as for the sources, shall I just spell a few out? The idea that these don't mean what they say or are using the "wrong" terminology, which we have the right or even the obligation to dismiss, is fanciful.
- I really wish I could again reply to all your points in detail, but, please understand, I've been discussing this for years. I get nauseated whenever its brought up. Everything's been said at least thirty times over by now. The sources do not really support you.. Your examples are not analogous.. Its a military occupation zone, not "Serbia".. etc. etc. -- Director (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, but you're forgetting other basic WP policy, or rather you're giving some of it too much weight. We do not simply copy down what the sources state verbatim - we present the sourced facts in an encyclopedic manner. If the sources state something is not a country (note: no second-guessing involved), it is a mistake to present it as a country. Such a thing would also be against policy: our titles must not be misleading. And when you inevitably add to this the quagmire of Balkans politics, and realize fostering such inaccuracy is in addition a breach of neutral coverage, you see other fundamental policies that come into play. -- Director (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well that's exactly as I characterised the situation: every historical and other book I have ever read, or since looked up online, refers to "Serbia" (whether they mean to suggest it is a "country", "state", an "area" or something else simply does not matter), none refer to the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", yet WP editors assert the right to declare the former term "incorrect" and/or to second guess why those books refer to it using that exact term. If you don't see quite how egregious a breach that is of pretty basic WP sourcing, editing and naming practices that's quite a problem. N-HH talk/edits 13:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
There was no sovereign state named Serbia during ww2, nominally or not. What did existed was only a puppet Government of National Salvation installed in Serbian region, similar to the one headed by Quisling in Norway and the ones in former Baltic states, civil governments with somewhat autonomy under German Occupation. This puppet government was not recognized as a sovereign state by the Axis, unlike Slovakia, Croatia, Albania under Germany and Italian Social Republic etc.. The Axis maintained no diplomatic missions in Serbia, only military occupational authorities. Thus by current 'sovereignty'-based standards Serbia was not qualified (same can be said regarding Montenegro, Albania under Italy, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia etc. which were non-sovereign puppet protectorates) On the other hand, does it really matter to distinguish puppet regimes by whether they were given nominal sovereignty or not? Puppets were puppets, no matter what they were called, they existed solely to assist Axis Occupation. Mycologicalfan (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- That Serbia was not sovereign is not really in dispute; the immediate issue here was more simply about the use of the term "Serbia", which is unquestionably used by sources to refer to, identify and locate the area/entity in question, such that we should too. As for broader terminology, whether to apply the terms "puppet", "client", "dependency" etc, the line between ally and client, and the extent to which even nominally autonomous entities actually exerted any real autonomy are all pretty subjective judgments. There are no neat and universally agreed boxes for all these things to fall into and, given that, I'm not sure the article as a whole follows any logical structure in that regard. N-HH talk/edits 08:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure what is the issue with Serbia. It's not listed as an axis country.--N Jordan (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Vichy France was obviously a co-belligerent power
i don't understand why Vichy France is considered so controversial. it was at war with the Allies from at least 1941 beginning with the Syrian campaign to the end of its existence. if it wasn't "officially" an Axis member, it was obviously a co-belligerent. I doubt any Allied commander on the field during the war would have any second thoughts on Vichy France's association with the Axis Powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.210 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Vichy France fought the Allies on several occasions e.g. Syria&Lebanon, Madagascar, Gibraltar, Dakar, French North Africa and crackdowns on pro-Allied resistance by Vichy paramilitary forces(Milice, Reserve Mobile Group and National Police), sometimes with German/Italian assistance. But, much like Soviet Union during the Invasion of Poland, some people simply don't want to see Vichy France counted as Axis co-bel despite what happened, thus making it "controversial". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.52.124 (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- It´s controversial because even though Vichy did act as a cobelligerent, it did not do so by it´s own free choice, and although it did fight at several occasions, it was generally wary about really taking part in the war on the axis side. Noticeably, it put up the serious fights when it was a matter of French/Vichy colony areas. Certainly not a clearcut case either way. If i categorised it, i would probably place it as a puppet state, but that´s not perfect either. So controversial is probably as good as it gets. DW75 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree : Vichy was officially neutral during the war, even though it did obviously collaborate with the Germans. It only fought back when its colonies were invaded by the Allies, and was never considered a co-belligerent by the Germans. Keep in mind that the Germans disarmed the rump French army when they occupied South France in 1942 : would they have deprived themselves of a potential ally if they had considered Vichy a real military partner ? It was not entirely a puppet government either (I wouldn't compare it with Quisling's Norway) since it did retain some degree of autonomy and had some legitimacy, as Pétain had not been put in power by the Germans. Granted, its autonomy was gradually reduced and, by the end of the war, it had become little more than a Quisling government, but it was still the most "autonomous" of all collaborationist governments. Even though Vichy is widely seen today as a reprehensible collaborationist governement - which it was - its status, legitimacy (or lack thereof), degree of autonomy and policies are a complex matter. It has been, in France, the subject of lengthy historical and political debates.
- By the way, I replaced the following sentence - "The non-occupied part of France and a large part of its colonial empire, known as the "Vichy regime" of Marshal Philippe Pétain, it collaborated with the Axis from June 1940 until November 1942, when the whole of France was occupied by Germany" - with another one. The "French State" (Vichy) was the nominal government of the whole French territory, including the occupied North. Pétain was the official head of state in Paris, and had nominal authority in the whole country, even though the government was residing in Vichy. "Vichy France" did not cease to exist in November 1942, either : even though its authority and autonomy were greatly reduced, it remained de facto in existence until August 1944 when its government members fled, or were evacuated by the Germans, in the face of the Allies' advance. We cannot let the reader believe that "Vichy France" only existed in the South, and was terminated in November 1942, that would be misleading.
- I hope the new version I wrote is correctly worded. If I made a mistake with the English grammar, feel free to correct me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that, even though it was never a co-belligerent, Vichy could go into the "Client states" section, since it actually evolved into that as the war went. Or at least, if it remains in the "controversial" section (the details are controversial, but nowadays few actually deny that it collaborated, so it's not that controversial) the text should clearly explain its evolution from 1940 to 1944. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- It´s controversial because even though Vichy did act as a cobelligerent, it did not do so by it´s own free choice, and although it did fight at several occasions, it was generally wary about really taking part in the war on the axis side. Noticeably, it put up the serious fights when it was a matter of French/Vichy colony areas. Certainly not a clearcut case either way. If i categorised it, i would probably place it as a puppet state, but that´s not perfect either. So controversial is probably as good as it gets. DW75 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia wasn't allied with Axis powers. -- Bojan Talk 13:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don’t see how Yugoslavia fit the following description: “States listed in this section were not officially members of the Axis, but at some point during the war engaged in cooperation with one or more Axis members on level that makes their neutrality disputable.” Yugoslav government that signed the Tripartite Pact with reservations was overthrown just two days after signing the Pact. Yugoslavia fought the war with the Axis countries for 12 days (April 6-17, 1941). (Keep in mind that Germany successfully completed invasion of France and Low Countries in just 1 month and 12 days. France army was fully mobilized and supported by British troops, over 3.3 millions of people. The poorly trained and equipped Yugoslav army had less than 700,000 people, without the chance to complete the mobilization.)
- The only real puppet state at the territory of Kingdom of Yugoslavia was the Independent State of Croatia, which is already listed. Italian attempt to create a puppet state in Montenegro resulted in general uprising in less than 24 hours. In Serbia (officially the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia), the local Serbian government was similar to the Czech government in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The protectorate had both president and prime minister, but the Territory of the Military Commander had only a prime minister. They didn’t have ministries of defense and foreign affairs. Ultimate authority within the Protectorate was held by the Reich Protector, within the Territory of the Military Commander that was held by the Military Commander. Also, POWs from Serbia were not released during the war. Slovenia was completely annexed into neighboring Axis countries.
- So, I think Yugoslavia should be removed from this section or the introduction of the section should be changed.--N Jordan (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Picture Italian Empire
.svg)
Victor Falk removed the adjacent picture with as summary "rmv map of all territories ever ruled by Fascist Italy, not "maximum extent in 1941" Plus, contains many inaccuracies". But at first sight, the map looks adequate and accurate enough for its size. If the picture is too bad to stay, I like to here the reasons. The Banner talk 01:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- The area in France is the occupation zone after Case Anton in November 1942. The occupation zones granted in June 1940 are way too small too be visible, and even the 50km demilitarised zone would be less than 1 pixel on this scale.
- Tunisia was also occupied after Torch in November, and Germany was calling the shots, not Italy.
- Territory in Dalmatia is grossly exagerated.
- Crete was occupied by Germany
- What's with the rectangle in Egypt? Taking the longitude of El Alamein, and then an arbitrary lattitude between the Mediteranean and Libya's southernmost point does not ipso facto create a "territory of the Italian Empire".
This map is "all the territories ever ruled by Fascist Italy at one time or another", and it might be useful in some contexts (if the errors are corrected) like in the Italian colonial empire article, but it would better to have a map that really shows the maximum extent in 1941 here. victor falk 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Infobox
 |
|
Should this article have a "former country" type infobox? This question equally applies to Allies of World War II. —Srnec (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- YES the infobox is a part of every major Misplaced Pages article, and it is a useful tool, easily allowing a new reader to familiarize themselves with the subject matter of the article. So, this article needs to keep its current infobox as is. --E-960 (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there some background to this RfC that I'm missing? The name of the infobox does seem rather unfortunate, but Template:Infobox geopolitical organisation redirects to Template:Infobox country, so this one might be appropriate. But then again, there's also Template:Infobox war faction which might seem more on-topic. --125.24.66.60 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Infobox added, removed, re-added. That's the background.
- The problem with the infobox is the way it tries to force such a complex thing into a box. Why is Pearl Harbour relevant in the map? Why not the start of Operation Barbarossa, for example? If Finland never signed the Berlin Pact, why is it in the infobox at all? Why are two events from the 1930s in the infobox when it says the Axis didn't come into existence until 1940? Why should we have to sort this out in a box? The article is difficult enough, and there we have the option of writing whole paragraphs. Srnec (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Listen Srnec, please stop making misleading statements... this RfC is going to be invalid because of how you characterize the issue. This is a long standig Infobox, and it was not "added, removed, re-added" as you describe it. You just went in and removed the Infobx without providing any explanation. Even in this RfC, you don't provided any reasoning as to why you don't think that the infobx is appropriate for this article. --E-960 (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You don't know what an RFC is. I worded the question impartially, as required. Srnec (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Listen Srnec, please stop making misleading statements... this RfC is going to be invalid because of how you characterize the issue. This is a long standig Infobox, and it was not "added, removed, re-added" as you describe it. You just went in and removed the Infobx without providing any explanation. Even in this RfC, you don't provided any reasoning as to why you don't think that the infobx is appropriate for this article. --E-960 (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with the infobox is the way it tries to force such a complex thing into a box. Why is Pearl Harbour relevant in the map? Why not the start of Operation Barbarossa, for example? If Finland never signed the Berlin Pact, why is it in the infobox at all? Why are two events from the 1930s in the infobox when it says the Axis didn't come into existence until 1940? Why should we have to sort this out in a box? The article is difficult enough, and there we have the option of writing whole paragraphs. Srnec (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Infobox added, removed, re-added. That's the background.
- yes, an infobox is of value here No need to remove the infobox as Srnec is trying to do. And the justification "revert infobox creep" is not a valid justification. And in fact, the actions bite with Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. The Banner talk 14:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The arbitration case clearly determined that there was no requirement or prohibition on infoboxes. I think the addition of an infobox should be justified. It almost never is. Srnec (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- But they also stated: A small number of editors have repeatedly behaved poorly and in a polarizing fashion in infobox-related editing and discussions. And that is exactly what is happening here. You have given no valid reason for removal nor did I see any attempt to discuss the issue. You were reverted and straight away started a RfC to bulldozer the way. The Banner talk 14:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? See WP:BRD. I boldly removed the infobox and when reverted I began a discussion in the form of an RFC. What "bulldozing" are you talking about? You have given no valid reason for the box besides WP:OTHERSTUFF. I have given you reasons why the box is bad: it is arbitrary, incomplete, confusing. The subject is too complex for a standardised box. Srnec (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. This issue is not that "complex"... really. --E-960 (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? See WP:BRD. I boldly removed the infobox and when reverted I began a discussion in the form of an RFC. What "bulldozing" are you talking about? You have given no valid reason for the box besides WP:OTHERSTUFF. I have given you reasons why the box is bad: it is arbitrary, incomplete, confusing. The subject is too complex for a standardised box. Srnec (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- But they also stated: A small number of editors have repeatedly behaved poorly and in a polarizing fashion in infobox-related editing and discussions. And that is exactly what is happening here. You have given no valid reason for removal nor did I see any attempt to discuss the issue. You were reverted and straight away started a RfC to bulldozer the way. The Banner talk 14:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The arbitration case clearly determined that there was no requirement or prohibition on infoboxes. I think the addition of an infobox should be justified. It almost never is. Srnec (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Germany articles
- Top-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- C-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- C-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- B-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- B-Class Italy articles
- High-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- B-Class Hungary articles
- High-importance Hungary articles
- All WikiProject Hungary pages
- B-Class Romania articles
- Mid-importance Romania articles
- All WikiProject Romania pages
- B-Class Bulgaria articles
- Mid-importance Bulgaria articles
- WikiProject Bulgaria articles
- B-Class Yugoslavia articles
- High-importance Yugoslavia articles
- WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
- B-Class Thailand articles
- Low-importance Thailand articles
- WikiProject Thailand articles
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment