Talk:World War II

Date of WAR query

The current date for the beginning of the war is 1st September 1939. This is when Germany invaded Poland. I propose that it should be changed to 3rd September considering that is when UK and France declared war on Germany. This is the date that is widely considered the star of the War. Please talk to me about the proposition below. Don't hate me it's only a proposition. WARNER one--9999 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no good reason for the change to the 3rd: the first act is seen by many reliable sources as being the German invasion on 1st. Just because Britain and France didn't join for two days doesn't mean the war hadn't started before their arrival. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Also agree with SchroCat, there is a significant amount of reference sources that list September 1st, and the invasion of Poland as the start of WW2. The significant point here is that German aggression started the war, not British and French response to the German invasion of Poland. --Factor01 (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the above, it is indisputable that Germany and Poland were in a state of war from the moment of invasion on the 1st of September. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Warner REBORN (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A war involving 2 countries(Poland and Germany)is not a World War, a war involving several countries and their empires is.--92.232.49.38 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a trivial argument. The war had been predicted and prepared for years prior to the invasion of Poland. Hitler knew that attacking Poland inevitably meant war with Britain and France; and this anticipated war was being called a "World War" by both media and official sources long before the first shot was fired. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

True and Prelude to War went as far as to claim WWII started on September 18, 1931 a date repeated in some of the contemporary works of the time. It should be noted that even now a handful of people use that date as the start of WWII. However the key word there is handful; the majority point to September 1, 1939.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits have moved away from 1 Sep '39, even as far as to say "usually" '31; I toned it down a bit while I'm asking for help here. Ignoring our opinions, do we have source(s) stating what the majority of WP:RSs use as the start date? --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, a country that was undoubtedly central to the conflict, September 3rd is regarded as the start. This date is taught in schools and used by the media. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• That is incorrect. Britain's declaration of war on the 3rd Sept is widely marked. Schools universally teach that the outbreak of war causally was on the 1st with the invasion of Poland. The two are distinguished very carefully. Irondome (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Netherlands it is May 10 1940. Every country probably takes it's own date of entry into the war as official starting point; which makes sense from the POV of that country. However, as Wikipedia we do not represent the point of view of a single country but should aim to represent a global POV. (in short - I support sep 1). Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think many historians would agree that Britain declaring war on Germany made the war global. It brought Britain's allies and colonies into the conflict. Maybe we should list 3 or 4 of the most widely used dates, that's the only way this article can achieve a global POV. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, we need sources for start date(s); our own observations, thoughts, reasonings, and opinions have no weight in Wikipedia. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

These sources were produced way back in May 2012 and ignored:

Prelude to War (May 27, 1942)

Liu Liang-Mo, Letter to the editor LIFE - Sep 21, 1942 - Page 6

Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific pg 45

Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116

Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7

Polmar, Norman; Thomas B. Allen (1991) World War II: America at war, 1941-1945 ISBN-13: 978-0394585307

Spencer C. Tucker (23 December 2009). A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East. ABC-CLIO. p. 1850. ISBN 978-1-85109-672-5.

Mike Wright (21 January 2009). What They Didn't Teach You About World War II. Random House Digital, Inc. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-307-54916-7.

We have been here before and it is annoying.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

World War II began on 3rd September 1939, when the British Commonwealth and Empire declared war on Germany. The German invasion of Poland did not start a world war. (Hls19 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

No more unsourced opinions, please.

@BruceGrubb, thank you for the many sources. Can you add what date(s) they specify for the start of WWII? --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

World War II began when the British Empire declared war on Germany. The UK and France could have ignored the German invasion of Poland, just as they ignored the Soviet invasion on 17th September 1939. (Hls19 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

This is a nonsense argument. The war had already begun on September 1. When Britain and France declared war on Germany they entered into an existing war, they did not start it. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I quoted several of those above sources back in May 2012 but here are the more quotable ones for those that missed it (and some others as well):

"Although we didn't realize it at the time, World War II started in the night of Sept. 18, 1931, when a small clique of Japanese officers secretly issued orders for Japanese toops to move from their barracks in Manchuria and Korea,..." (The China monthly review: Volume 98 1941:SEP-NOV pg 353)

"You think World War II began in 1933, by Hitler's seizing power, but the Chinese people shall insist that World War II began on Sept. 18, 1931 by Japan's invasion of Manchuria." - LIFE - Sep 21, 1942 - Page 6 letter to the editor

"remember that date: Sept 18, 1931 a date you should remember as well as Dec 7, 1941. For on that date in 1931 the war we are now fighting begun." - Prelude to War (1942)

"He knew the story well, because it had been he who transmitted the orders for the Japanese troops to march that snowy September 18, 1931, which is actually the date when World War II started." - Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific

"World War II began along a stretch of railroad track near the northeastern Chinese city of Mukden (now Shenyang). There, on Sept. 18, 1931,..." - Polmar, Norman; Thomas B. Allen (1991) World War II: America at war, 1941-1945 Dover Publications (part of the Dover Military History, Weapons, Armor series) ISBN-13: 978-0394585307

"Chronology September 18, 1931 — Japan invades Manchuria, a region of China. ... Some historians consider the invasion of Manchuria to be the actual start of World War II." - Stein, R. Conrad (1994) World War II in the Pacific: "Remember Pearl Harbor" Enslow Publishers Page 117

"He remembers being transfixed by the idea that 18 September 1931 was the real start of World War II" - Rollins, Peter (2008) Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History University Press of Kentucky Page 246

"A clash between Japanese and Chinese soldiers north of Mukden in Manchuria on the night of September 18, 1931, has come to be perceived as the opening shot of World War II" - Leuchtenburg, William E.; ‎Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., ‎Sean Wilentz (2009) Herbert Hoover: The American Presidents Series: The 31st President, 1929-1933 Macmillan pg 122

Many more examples can be found if one looks far enough. --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this approach at all; these are not authoritative sources, but books and magazine articles that focus on the war in the Pacific. We need well established sources for a high profile article like WW2. Anyone can find a bunch of books or magazine articles written by historians who propose an alternative view of WW2. Here are major English language encyclopedias that generally stick with 1 September 1939 as the start date, so unless someone can produce an academic journal which states that a major shift has taken place in how historians view WW2, the WP article on WW2 should stay as is. Anyone can check these sources online to verify the dates.

• Britannica Encyclopedia: German Invasion of Poland / 1939-1945
• Oxford Companion to Military History: 1939-1945
• Columbia Encyclopedia: September 1st, 1939
• Gale Encyclopedia of the Mideast & N. Africa: September 1st, 1939
• Encyclopedia of the Holocaust: September 1st, 1939
• Gale Encyclopedia of Espionage & Intelligence: Out break of hostilities on September 1st, 1939

--E-960 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You did note the publishers of my list, right?

Enslow Publishers, - "publishes high-quality educational fiction and nonfiction books for children and young adults in grades Pre-K, and K-12."

University Press of Kentucky - nuff said

Peter Lang - "international academic publisher"

Transaction Publishers - "major independent publisher of social science books and eBooks on political science, economics, history, sociology, psychology..."

ABC-CLIO - "publisher of reference works for the study of history and social studies in academic, secondary school, and public library settings."

Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government (1942) United State Holocaust Memorial Museum (present day)

These are the publishers of the works that present a September 18, 1931 start date for WWII. Please note the quotes did not say "war in the Pacific" they expressly said WWII. And if that wasn't enough here are some more:

"When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, World War II officially began, at leasts in the minds of some historians" - James Stuart Olson (2001) Historical Dictionary of the Great Depression, 1929-1940 Greenwood Publishing Group pg 160. "The Greenwood Publishing Group is one of the world's leading publishers of reference titles, academic and general interest books."

"Year later many Asian scholars and civilians pointed to 1931 as the actual start of the Second World War" By Flage, Thomas R. (2012) The History Buff's Guide to World War II pg 9

"World War II Began in Manchuria, 1931" Harry Brinton Henderson, ‎Herman Charles Morris (1942) "War in Our Time: A Comprehensive and Analytical History in Pictures and Text of the First Eleven Years of World War II, Beginning with the Invasion of Manchuria by the Japanese..." 1942-11 is indeed 1931.

Face it, there are as many sources that go for the Sept 18, 1931 date as go for the Sept 1, 1939 one. --BruceGrubb (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point, arguing in favor of a single particular date is just going to sound like a personal POV. Only WP policy is going to resolve this. Here's how I see that applies here.

We have multiple WP:RS sources for different start dates. Even if not all the sources are of "equal", I don't see how we could possibly dismiss all of the sources for any of the proposed dates, or even whittle any down to the point where WP:FRINGE might apply. That means we will never get it down to one date; we must accept and include the fact of the conflicting start dates in the article.

So the question just becomes one of balance; what order and relative prominence do we give to these dates? Like the dates themselves, this cannot be based on our own reasoning. If we state something like "most say WWII started on…", we need a source for that "most say". This means we need a WP:RS source that are a summary of many other WP:RSs – a tertiary source that is derived from secondary sources. A respected tertiary source basically means a general-purpose well-known encyclopedia -- Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, Funk & Wagnalls, and such. (We might include a few somewhat specialized military or political encyclopedias or other tertiary sources, but their scope should still cover all of WWII.) If these all agree on a particular date, that's the primary date we must go with. If they don't all agree, we must give the various dates more balance. For any dates not prominent in these, yet still given in several respected secondary sources, those dates must be included, but with lower prominence – "though others say…" or such.

Agreed? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This is what I proposed way back in 2012 to address this:

"While the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany and Italy by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth,(ref) there have been other dates presented. For example, during the war the United States Government in Prelude to War (released May 27, 1942) presented 18 September 1931 as the stating date (Prelude to War) a date repeated in some contemporary works by civilians and military alike (Liang-Mo) (Clark (1943)) and accepted by handful of modern scholars (Cheng, Ghuhl, Polmar, Tucker Wright). Other sources point to 1937 while accepting September 18, 1931 as the lead in to the conflict."

It was a first shot and would need refinement but it reflects what all the sources say. See Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources for some pointers regarding what to do when reliable sources conflict.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

All sources I have say the war began on 3rd September when the British Empire started a global war against Germany. (Hls19 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC))

And there are other equally reliable sources that say otherwise. As A D Monroe III says, we can't choose one group of sources over the other. Rather we have to reconcile them in a way that is not OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

NO. I do not agree with this proposition for the following reasons. First, did user BruceGrubb or anyone else bother to look at the Chronology section. It already lists and acknowledges other possible start dates for WW2... why would we be doing this again?? Also, there is the Diplomatic history of World War II page, which lists all the start dates for every individual country involved in WW2. So, given these facts, what's the argument here from the "date changer" camp? Not only that, user Hls19 argues that the date should be changed because the German invasion of Poland is not a world conflict, yet user BruceGrubb wants the start date to be Japan's invasion of China in 1931, again not a global conflict! Because of a lack of authoritative sources provided by the "date changer" camp, such as Academic journals which clearly define a new academic consensus on the WW2 timeline, such arguments are weak and incoherent, and clearly can not be compromised with, as they lack any true scholarly merit. Major English language encyclopedic sources (as provided above) generally point to 1 September 1939. The article requires no changing on this issue. --E-960 (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with E-960. Arnoutf (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

World War II began on 3rd September 1939. The UK and France could have ignored the German invasion of Poland, just as they ignored the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17th September 1939. Britain broke its pact with Poland and chose to only declare war on Germany, pretending there was a secret clause in the pact which actually never existed. (Hls19 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC))

Hls19, shows the problem with taking one group of sources over the others. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is quite clear on this: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". The start date for WWII falls under most important points part of that guideline and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section also states "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." . The start date of WWII varies depending on the source: Sept 18, 1931, Sept 1, 1939, Sept 3, 1939, and even Dec 7, 1941 can be found in a very small handful of sources. WP:Weight allows us to dispense with the Sept 3, 1939 and Dec 7, 1941 dates and possibly the 1937 mentioned above but not the Sept 18, 1931 one. That date simply has too many source both contemporary to the war itself and from modern historians to be anywhere but in the lede but with the proper weight.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The introduction should be changed to say "World War II began on 3rd September 1939 when France and the British Commonwealth and Empire declared war on Germany, two days after the German invasion of Poland". (Hls19 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

Every source I have read gives 3rd September 1939 as the date on which World War II began. (2.103.233.70 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

I propose the date is changed to the 3rd of September. A German invasion of Poland was not a world war, especially as the UK and France completely ignored the Soviet invasion. (PatrickO'Reilly (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

I agree with Bruce - different reliable sources give different dates for the start of the war. I suspect that there's a bit of sock puppetry going on above. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well looking around I did find a Sept 3, 1939 date in what I think are reliable sources:

"World War II began on September 3, 1939 when France and Britain declared war on Germany" - Marshall Cavendish Corporation (2004) History of World War II - Volume 1 - Page 168

"Attention is confined to events which happened between the beginning of World War II on September 3, 1939 and..." - Sir Henry Knight (1954) Food Administration in India, 1939-47, Issue 4 Stanford University Press pg 3

"The commencement of the Second World War on September 3, 1939, augured ill for the Yishuv." - Leslie Stein (2003) The Hope Fulfilled: The Rise of Modern Israel Greenwood Publishing Group, pg 227

My only question is what weight do these references have compared to the Sept 1, 1939 and Sept 18, 1931 dates? Do we need a source that gives us that?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The article World War I dates the outbreak of war to the 28th July. This was the declaration of war and assault by Austria-Hungary on Serbia. That sounds like a local war in SE Europe, just as the German invasion of Poland was a seemingly local war in Eastern Europe. However both seemingly localised conflicts were the beginning of an inexorable chain of diplomatic events, and escalating violence and numbers of actors. Should the outbreak of WW1 be dated to 4th August when the final great power entered? Of course not. WW2 began in the early morning of 1st September. Weight of sources seem to support 1st September. I would suggest the above sources quoting the 3rd, while perfectly sound, are seriously outweighed by the others. Irondome (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Germany invaded Poland first is meaningless, since the USSR had also agreed to invade Poland. A world war only started because the UK and France chose to only declare war on Germany, while not even acknowledging the Soviet invasion. In 1914 it was only the entry of the British Empire that began a world war on 4th August. Before that it was just a European conflict. (AlexisVlad (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC))

• A lot of new users popping up..Irondome (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Remember it wasn't just Britain and France but their empires as well. So the world war began on 3rd September. (AlexisVlad (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC))

This is a long discussion, and maybe not all have the patience to read all of it. I'll try to summarize some at least partial agreements so far.

1. Our own reasoning on when WWII started do not matter here -- only what respectable sources say.
2. There are respected sources for half-a-dozen different dates for the start of WWII.
3. There is no foreseeable way to discredit all conflicting sources to reduce it down to one date.
4. Per WP:DUE and WP:conflict between sources, we are going to have to list several dates.
5. Given this, all that's left to debate is the relative weight of the dates in the list.

Agree? --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. I think the 1 and 3 Sep 1939 are the vast majority. So my suggestion would be something like: "WWII started on 1 (German invasion of Poland)[ref] or 3 (France and UK declare war on Germany)[ref] September 1939, although other starting dates relating to entry into the war of other countries are also sometimes used[1 or 2 examples refs]." It is a bit lengthy but should solve the matter to some extent. Arnoutf (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• For the second time... NO. Did you bother to read the Chronology Section it already lists the other potential start dates for WW2. Also, the Diplomatic history of World War II list each individual start date for every country involved. Finally, stop proposing a "poison" compromise solution with potential sockpuppets who's profiles all have been created within the last week or so: User:Hls19, User:AlexisVlad, User:PatrickO'Reilly. If that does not raise the BS flag in your mind than I don't know what will! --E-960 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we not in need of a compromise?

I am not responding to any editors' opinion on dates – only to stated sources.

The Chronology section is what we're primarily discussing. It is currently in the form I last edited. As such, I'm naturally okay with leaving it as-is, but it's not up to just me; we're trying to come to some consensus on that.

Once we have Chronology wording agreed, maybe the existing link at Date in the infobox to "see Chronology" is acceptable, but that would have to be decided after the Chronology agreement.

This issue has been disputed for years. I'm looking for a path to consensus, so we don't have to keep going through this endlessly. I want to be able to tell new editors "it's been discussed and agreed here".

If there is a suggestion for a different path to consensus, I'm eager to hear it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You only need to look at the Archives to see that this has been discussed ad-nauseum before. As before, the standing consensus is what is currently written. If there was a consensus to change the article by editors who could show a valid reason for change then the article should be changed. However on this point the issue has been thoroughly an repeatedly discussed. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed, but without resolution. What is currently written is based on my edit in August, which followed different POV changes that were long after all those discussions. If we once again simply let this drop from exhaustion, the cycle will start again. I'd like to have something definite and formal to point to and tell the next cycle-starters "this is consensus".

Saying "just leave it alone" doesn't sound like getting consensus, but if I reinterpret that as implying "the current text fulfills WP policy and consensus", perhaps we are actually very close. Again, I'm certainly fine with current wording.

Is there any disagreement to current text based on WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, or other WP policy? If not, I think we can formally close this discussion as consensus. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to build a consensus with sockpuppets! The WW2 talk page discussions were recently flooded with them including the "Date of WAR query" discussion. Some profiles have already been blocked: User:Hls19, User:AlexisVlad, User:PatrickO'Reilly, User:SteveJessup, User:JakeMcPherson, User:TimMohoney. The premies of this discussion has been rejected by several established users… just go back through the thread. So, we are not going to re-start the debate just cause a potential sockpuppet got in on the act. I'm in favor of closing this discussion, with no changes to the current text.--E-960 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Irondome (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

World War II unquestionably began on 3rd September 1939 when the British Empire declared war on Germany. Germany and the Soviet Union had agreed to invade Poland at the same time. If the Soviets had invaded Poland on 1st September then the British Empire would have declared war on the USSR. Germany invading Poland did not in itself cause a world war. (RobbieGentry (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC))

• They do keep your feet warm though Irondome (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• • I fail to see why there is any dispute about this. Every book I have ever read about World War II says the conflict began on 3rd September 1939 when France and the British Commonwealth and Empire declared war on Germany. Japan invading Manchuria, or Germany invading Poland did not constitute a world war. If the Soviets had invaded Poland before Germany then France and the British Empire would never have declared war. The world war only began because the UK and its empire chose to break its pact with Poland by only declaring war on Germany, and not on the Soviet Union. (RobbieGentry (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC))

Irondome is right, it's getting cold out there. --E-960 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted edits which added no less than eleven references to support the statement that "The start of the war in Europe is generally held to be 1 September 1939". Aside from making the article look silly, there's no need to provide references to individual histories (some of which were low quality internet and news articles) given that there are a number of well respected works on the historiography around the war which would provide a far superior citation for this statement, which is about when the war is "generally held" to have started, rather than the date itself. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And I've just done the same for references for the statement that the war is sometimes held to have started on "19 September 1931". I was surprised to see really low quality references there, including wartime news articles and even a letter published in LIFE magazine in 1942! Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am ignoring all comments without sources; sockpuppet or not, they repeat the same biased opinions without referencing any authoritative support. Their entries inserted in this discussion have no bearing or meaning; they're just some clutter to ignore. There is still a discussion, though. We shouldn't allow this irrelevant clutter to get us angry at each other and disrupt this.

Respected sources differ on the start date of WWII; have we presented this properly per WP:DUE? Of the relevant comments in this discussion, while there have been a couple of questions asked, I have not heard any specific objection based on WP policy, or sourced proposals for any specific change.

@Nick-D; thanks for removing the reference mess. I think all that's left to do is add the best two or three refs for our most prominent date, 1 Sep 39. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There should not be any dispute about this. World War II began on 3rd September 1939. Germany invading Poland did not in itself start a world war. The UK and France had separate pacts with Poland, yet they only declared war on Germany - even though the Soviet Union also invaded Poland. It only became a world war because the British Commonwealth and Empire chose to declare war on Germany. One might speculate what right imperial powers like Britain and France had in objecting to Germany invading Poland. (RobbieGentry (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

There is no doubt about the starting date of WWII. It was 31 February 1289; which considering the number of provided sources should be taken as seriously as the last series of suggestions by RobbieGentry. Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Humour is not "trolling". I used rollback because that was damn near vandalism. Irondome (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My grandfather blamed Germany for the Second World War, yet even he agrees the war began on 3rd September when we declared war on Germany (and thus automatically committed all the countries of the Empire that did not have independence in foreign policy). (RobbieGentry (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

I think WW2 started in 22 August 1942 when Brazil formally declared war on Germany. You can't have a World War until South America finally joined the fight, and Brazil was the first country on that continent to do so… that's what my grandfather always said. --E-960 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

South America was already at war because the Falkland Islands declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939. (RobbieGentry (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

Unfortunately, the Falkland Islands are part of the Antarctic ecozone, so that would bring the Antarctic into the World War as a continent. --E-960 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Both South America and Antarctica were at war with Germany from 3rd September 1939, as British Guiana and the British Antarctic Territory were both committed by the King's declaration of war. (RobbieGentry (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

But, the British only started the Phoney War. This was a cold war style conflict, not a world war. --E-960 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The RAF bombed Germany on the night of 3rd September 1939 so it was hardly a cold war. (RobbieGentry (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

That was a limited air attack, not an all out world war. NATO is doing the same thing in Syria now and it's hardly a true war, they call it air strikes. --E-960 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Unlimited wars have been impossible since the invention of nuclear weapons in 1945, so any comparison between World War II and the US-led air strikes in Iraq and Syria is meaningless. (RobbieGentry (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

This whole date debate has gotten ridiculous. Wikipedia DOES NOT CARE that an editor has a source sample size so small that it only has the September 3, 1939 date; what Wikipedia cares about is what reliable sources as a whole say and for that the majority are Sept 1, 1939 with a few presenting September 18, 1931, and even fewer presenting the Sept 3, 1939 date. There IS debate between sources and claiming there isn't is silly; we need to debate weight and NOT choose once group of sources over the other.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead length

I write to suggest that we shorten this article’s lead, which currently consists of five dense paragraphs. This length has two detrimental effects: First, it intimidates the casual the reader (“a lead that is too long is difficult to read and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway” – wp:leadlength). Second, it buries the table of contents, making it more difficult for the reader to access the article’s content.

I also write to propose a simple solution that does not change a word of the current text: put an “Overview” heading just after the first paragraph (as shown here). Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion. While I agree that the lead should be reduced in length (by about a paragraph, or the equivalent), I still don't support this change. There's no reason to cut the lead down to one paragraph, which is much too short for a article of this length and complexity, and as the purpose of the lead is to provide readers with an overview of the article pushing the current lengthy material into an 'overview' section would not solve the problem you've identified, and would probably make it worse by presenting readers with an unusual and duplicative structure. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, cutting the lead down to one paragraph would solve the problem I've identified (and that is a reason to do it). It appears to me that you think the cure is worse than the disease, and that is fine. You don't need to question my reasoning to say that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see any major issues with the length of the current lead given the size of the article and the voluminous topic that it covers (the largest war in history). The cited policy - WP:LEADLENGTH - indicates the lead for an article this size should be four paragraphs, so a one paragraph lead would be insufficient (although at five it is admittedly one paragraph too long). The lead really should summarise the article so I don't see the value of an "overview" section as the lead should do exactly that. Not too convinced by the "reader losing interest halfway" argument either. The purpose of our articles is to provide information to those that want it, not to entertain. Such concerns may be necessary for commercial media but not Wikipedia. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, wp:leadlength gives the "suggestion" that the lead for a long article be three to four paragraphs and also provides the "general guideline" that leads not exceed four paragraphs. Articles do not "provide information to those that want it" when they present content in such a fashion as to make that information difficult to access (by, for example, having lead with five dense paragraphs that push the table of contents far from the landing screen). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that we could lose a paragraph at the very maximum. Thinking any changes should be within the context of a general article clean up. See thread above this. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the other users, we can shorten the intro section a bit, but not in such a drastic way. WW2 is a large topic, and readers who go to Wikipedia are looking for information… we don't want to make the article sound like a generic encyclopedia entry. --E-960 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the discussion below. I write here to wonder why we don't want the article to, as you put it, sound like a generic encyclopedia entry. I think you will agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What is there about leaving the first paragraph "as is" and making that the lead (keeping the information in the next four paragraphs and putting it into a separate section) that would cause the article to become "generic" in a negative sense? Is the first paragraph improperly generic? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be hard pressed to support shortening the lead, regardless of what LEADLENGTH says. The fact is not every article can be properly summarized in a 3-4 paragraph lead. The largest war in history, involving every major country in the world, clearly should be an exception to the guideline. -- Calidum 14:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We could still stick to the 5 paragraphs, but some judicious gnoming would in my guesstimation, having read through them twice, save 100 -200 words or so. Just by making certain statements more concise, without losing the original sense of the sources. It is a pretty good job in terms of summarising such a humungus subject on further inspection. But it can be pruned. I will start on it later tonight. Don't worry, I will not remove anything which may cause any controversy. Its just losing a few words. I do not propose exising any statements that already exist. Irondome (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Specific statements that could be taken out

Just to follow up, on my earlier comment... I read through the the Intro section again, and it's actually rather concise, and does not go off on tangents. Yes, it's one paragraph to long, but that does not make it grossly disproportionate given the subject matter. Rather then just starting a discussion thread for the sake of "shortening" a section, we should propose specific statements that could be taken out, because they cover subject matter that is secondary in nature. --E-960 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll propose the last sentence: "Political integration, especially in Europe, emerged as an effort to stabilise postwar relations and co-operate more effectively in the Cold War." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this is a legitimate statement, "political integration in Europe" was a very significant event that resulted from WW2, which directly led to the European Union in the decades to follow. So, based on my interpretation of this, I would recommend that the statement should stay. It is definitely not secondary in nature because it had significant implications for the future. --E-960 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Legitimate? Yes. Significant? Yes. Should be in the lead? I would say no. Why? Because it isn't about WWII, it is about post-WWII. But, you might say, it is a direct result of WWII. Well, I would respond, what isn't? Maybe the lead should be longer... Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree we could lose it. It would fit well into the aftermath section. I do tend to rather echo the "what isn't?" concern. But all things considered, the extant lead is a bloody good effort. Irondome (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with your last sentence. That is why my original proposal did not suggest that we change the text (as opposed to the location of the text) by so much as a comma. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

But it can be improved. Its still a bit bloated. I think we can just trim stuff if it is not disruptive to the "shape" of the original paragraphs. I am going by the idea of the "Spring clean" thread above. Irondome (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Gnoming the intro paras. Please comment here if issues emerge

Started some minor gnoming, mostly for brevity. Please yell here if any edits cause issues, and I will of course immediately stop and discuss. Irondome (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're doing well, however, it may not be a good idea to delete too much. Like what Butwhatdoiknow said, the overall intro is good, especially the first paragraph. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with your reversion B.T.W. My rationale was that total war as a link would suffice. The visceral understanding of the war's human toll I thought was covered in other opening statements in the para. It needs to be emphasised for a myriad of reasons. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Its excellent. I actually think we need 5 paras, but trimmed of unessential stuff. I am obviously comfortable with reverts but I would ask anyone to put a short note here? Some may require consensus. If colleagues are basically comfortable with my approach, I will continue beyond the intro. Then we can all pitch in as per spring clean thread above. Irondome (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The 4 para rule is really just a guideline. Few articles actually need that much. For a topic of this scale and importance a 5 para intro is quite forgivable. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Finished. You don't take a sledgehammer to a well designed building :) Cheers all for your advice. Irondome (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 opening. Move to Chronology? Too "controversial" for opening paras?

Do we need a qualifying statement as to Japanese actions prior to 39 in the second para? I would suggest we buff that off and join to the "it is genuinely considered that.." sentence. I think it belongs more comfortably in chronology, where it would actually flesh it out. It may attract socks and dickheads who pick on it as some kind of mea culpa for the Axis, and go on bizarre OR crap. We had experience of that a few weeks ago here. Maybe it is too controversial, too early? I see the first 5 paras as presenting the primary facts. They do a great job. This is the only slightly jarring note. Thoughts? Irondome (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this sentence could be trimmed. Thought, I'm not opposed to it being there, but if we want to trim some excess material this could qualify as secondary information related to pre-war events. --E-960 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment: WWII infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the last several years, the list of belligerents in the World War II infobox, which is used in this article but has been so contentious that it has its own separate page, has expanded to include 26 Allied states and subjects, 19 Axis states and subjects, and 12 explanatory notes (in context, the entire WWII article now has only one note).

An extensive !vote appears on the template's talk page, but it was never a formal RfC, and the consensus was not implemented until yesterday.

The questions posed to the community are simple:

1. Should World War II's infobox only have links to Allies of World War II and Axis powers? This is how it appears now, appeared in 2010, and was the consensus option chosen several months ago.
2. Should it include only the largest nations on each side, with links to Allies of World War II and Axis powers beneath?
3. Should it include a high level of detail, i.e. a total of 45 nations and 12 notes (current setup)?

To avoid splitting the !vote, please indicate your first and second preferences (if applicable). Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Option one: two links, Allies of World War II and Axis powers (10/1/0)

1. Second preference. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
2. First preference. Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
3. First preference. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
4. First preference. --Bye for now (PTT) 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
5. First preference. Aside from getting around the tiresome arguments over who should be in and who should be out and in what order they should be presented in, this more accurately represents how World War II was fought. None of the Allied powers could have gone it alone, and the middle-sized countries and British dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc) made important contributions to the war effort by providing the major powers with vital support. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
6. First preference. My concerns have been somewhat allayed by the highly detailed Allies of WW2 and the Polish contribution article, which is impressive. Ecclesiastes' was right. There is nothing new under the sun, especially in WP discussions. Irondome (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
7. First preference. Kierzek (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
8. First preference. Mainly because I had a look on a mobile device and the second option was too large for my taste MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
9. First Preference. In order to remain neutral, either every nation gets mentioned or no nation gets mentioned, and since the number of participating nations (ie the number to have declared for one side as apposed to neutrality) is in this case huge. From where I sit, this is the fairest way to settle the debate over the belligerents. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
10. First preference, largely per Nick-D. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
11. First preference per Nick-D. -- Shudde ^talk 11:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Option two: Big Three/Five (3/4/1)

1. First preference. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Second preference. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Second preference. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Second preference. --Bye for now (PTT) 17:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
5. First preference - with and others beneath each. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

   I've modified the option above to include "and others". I assumed that was implied, but it's best to be certain. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

6. First and only preference. China absolutely needs to be included. -- Calidum 23:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Third preference. Great potential for flag adding edit-warring. Either all or none. A poor compromise IMO. Irondome (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
8. Second preference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Option three: detailed "Country list" of most participants (current setup) (3/2/0)

1. Support - This is the only solution that is of a neutral point of view, as any other solution would leave out various countries of great importance to the conflict. To list merely allies and axis gives the reader who knows nothing about world war two no idea as to what that actually means upon glancing at the page. On virtually every other main page for a war, there is an infobox providing a detailed list of all parties involved in the conflict. I see no reason why this page should be any different.XavierGreen (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Second preference. Irondome (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
3. First and only preference. No need to change the format of the Infobox under a pretext that it's "too long" or "confusing" for the average reader. In fact, the Infobox list all the belligerents in a easy to view format, much easier to glance over then actually going through the respective Allies and Axis articles. --E-960 (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
4. WWII it more complicated than just Axis vs Allies. This is the largest war mankind has ever fought, and therefore the combatant list is quite large. I dont see where this is a problem. I see no point in removing/hiding information. Having a detailed infobox gives the reader lots of information at a glance. Otherwise he has to search for infos he doesnt even know they exist. This is never good. The more clicks needed, the the smaller the chance someone will read it... StoneProphet (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Second Preference. In order to remain neutral, either every nation gets mentioned or no nation gets mentioned, and since the number of participating nations (ie the number to have declared for one side as apposed to neutrality) is in this case huge. From where I sit, this is the second fairest way to settle the debate over the belligerents. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll note that the first option was the consensus version from 2007 to 2010, when it was changed unilaterally. And the reason those of us who were around at the time chose that option was because having any list continually caused pointless arguments about what countries should be listed (even when we had tried capping it at the 5v3 option), and more importantly, in what order (because, you know, that totally matters). Having simple links to the respective Axis and Allies articles is far cleaner and presents far less to argue about. Maybe I'm the crazy one, but keeping a magnet for stupid arguments isn't my idea of a wise choice. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want the RfC summary to come across as too POV, but Parsecboy is correct. I've also slightly tweaked the RfC, as I'd forgotten that the old standard was 5 and 3, not three and three. Parsec, please feel free to tweak the options and language above as you see fit. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer the first option simply because it would stop the arguments, but the second option could also work, with a link to "and others..." beneath. Showing the USSR, the USA, Britain, China and France on the Allied side would handily show the five countries that later became the five permanent UN Security Council members. If we went this way we could easily keep the Axis side down to Germany, Japan and Italy ("and others...") by explicitly only including the original Tripartite powers. So I'm not too fussed really. The third option is out though. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

STOP Why does everyone who starts a discussion, want to Sanitize the article. Why does this discussion demand a answer, by providing a False dilemma option, that only includes choices like the "Big Three/Five" (there is a reason why this is called a WORLD WAR, because more than five countries fought in it). THIS IS B.S. All of a sudden you have a faction that comes in saying that there is a big problem that must be resolved now, and now you must vote. Here are your option 1 or option 2. In my opinion you are putting the carriage in front of the horse. How about a first vote if we want to change anything in the first place, and stop trying to make this article so generic it reads like the Encyclopedia Britannica. --E-960 (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is most definitely not a new problem. Please see the archives at Template talk:WW2InfoBox. As for generic, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe in this less in more BS. I understand that there is a debate which wants to paint this issue in Black or White. But, how about the middle option which leaves things the way they are. Allowing, the reader to see in a glance (Infobox) the many nations that fought in WW2, and if they want to read about all the nuances they can follow the links and go the the other pages that detail every twist and turn of the war. ALSO, WHY THE HECK DID YOU ALREADY MAKE THE CHANGES IN THE ARTICLE AND NOW YOU ARE ASKING FOR A VOTE AFTER THE FACT??? --E-960 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please keep calm. I've linked to a previous discussion that established consensus for removing the countries; without a formal RfC, however, the discussion died, and nothing was done. Hence, here's this RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so change back the article, and then we can have a discussion in the WW2 talk page so everyone can notice it. And, start with the first question... do we want to change anything. Believe it or not there may be people that like the current set-up, so lets not make this a debate between the two options provided earlier by a faction of users who are all paining this debate in black and white. --E-960 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to revert to the previous version, since the earlier discussion established consensus for the change.

Regardless, this is not an issue of "less is more", it's an issue of cramming too much information into a very small space - one loses the ability to make cogent points because it's drowned out in what is effectively white noise. Listing Brazil or Cuba in the infobox alongside Denmark and Czechoslovakia creates the mistaken impression that their experiences in the war were in any way comparable.

While that example might seem clear cut, it only highlights the fundamental problem: where does one draw the line? One of the solutions we tried several years ago was a longer list with the Big Five under a "Major Allies" heading and several other countries under a "Minor Allies" section. Smashcut to near-constant complaining from nationalists of all stripes about their country being labeled "minor". Any way you slice it, someone is going to get their panties in a twist because Country X is included but Country Y is: the only alternatives (which is not a false dilemma, mind you) are to include all combatants (which is, frankly, ridiculous and out of the question) or none of them and simply link to the Allies and Axis articles. Trust me, we have been through all of the options over the years. Parsecboy (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Parsecboy "Trust me" you say? I did notice your user page, and it's nice to know you are interested in the German Navy, I myself also like maritime history. But, regarding the Infobox change it is clear that this is a attempt to sanitize the article, the Infobox was not an issue, this is a false dilemma deliberately created to remove key pieces of information from the article. --E-960 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sanitize only in the sense that the infobox was far too bloated as it was. And yes, you should trust me. I don't know when you started editing this article (nor do I really care), but I've been around since 2006 - you of course can go wade through the millions of empty words wasted on these arguments.

And do please drop the nonsense about this being a false dilemma, because it's not. Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I strongly feel Poland MUST be included in any contemplated grouping. She was attacked first and lost the highest percentage to population ratio of all the nations (I believe), to mention nothing of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany's usage of the "General Government" as Europe's place of slaughter. Her political importance vis a vis the emerging ideological rivalries which developed into the cold war alliances cannot be overstated. Re-position this comment as you wish, but I feel strongly about this. Irondome (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't totally disagree with you, but I feel I must play Devil's advocate here—if Poland, why not Czechoslovakia? If not Czechoslovakia, why not Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Australia, Canada etc etc? Then people will take exception to the order the various powers are listed in. Then we're back where we started with a list the length of a necktie down the right of the page, complete with reams of footnotes. Far better in my view just to have "Allies" and "Axis" and leave it at that—it's the only way to create any sense of stability in the box. People who want to know who was on the Allied side and who was on the Axis side can look at the respective articles, or even just do a ctrl-F search of the main WWII page and see where their country shows up. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yep. I hear you on that issue. Irondome (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Including every participant in an infobox could be described as a case of "Undue". The infobox is intended to summarize, and thinning down (focusing) its contents is not revisionism, or deprecating the individual contributions. I think some mention of participants over and above Allies / Axis is needed to match with the leaders of each side given in the next section below. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the 2007 consensus used the articles Allied leaders of World War II and Axis leaders of World War II instead of a laundry list of individuals. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• May I suggest a compromise solution? As has been done in other conflict infoboxes, why do we not include only bolded links to the articles about the Allies and Axis forces, and provide for a collapsible list of all the nations, so that way readers can either choose to click to the sub-articles, or to see the list in the infobox instead. This way both groups get what they want.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Agree, this debate should be restarted and include the collapsible list option. --E-960 (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There is the Manual of Style on use of collapsible sections. Due (in part to accessibility concerns) they "...should not conceal article content". Which I read as ruling them out as a solution. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, the next sentence states: Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text isn't the infobox a table that consolidates information?? --E-960 (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There's the rub. None of the sections in the Manual of Style or the Help that I have read so far dealing with tables and infoboxes makes reference to one being a kind of the other. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support that too. It would be a good compromise between option 1 and 3 of the RFC. StoneProphet (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this discussion over?

If so, I'll ask the Military History Wikiproject's coordinators to close the discussion and implement whatever they judge the consensus to be. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe so Nick. There's been no meaningful contributions for days. Let MILHIST make the judgement. Irondome (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If a coordinator takes this on, they should remove my request at AN (sorry, old chap! I didn't see this before.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on the tallies it would appear that the first option is by far the one most agreeable to the editors here. Now all we need is a milhist coordinator to close this thing. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: anyone want to take this? I'd love to, but I'm involved. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, i think a collapsable list has the most support. And quite frankly i object to having a military history coordinator close the discussion given that many of them were the people pushing for option one in the first place. I'd rather see a non-involved administrator do it from the dispute resolution people.XavierGreen (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Collapsible list was not in the options suggested. It has been proposed by one editor, with two more agreeing and opposed by one editor (me). The options that were given have higher support. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WWII Infobox - bias debate that created a False dilemma

I propose that the debate about the WW2 Infobox should be moved to the WW2 Talk Page, so everyone can notice it, and if they chose to, make their voice heard in this argument. The way this debate was structured in effect posed a False dilemma where a faction of editors decided that there a is "problem" and it will only have 2 possible resolutions. More importantly, I do not agree with the fact that the article was changed, and then a vote was posted on the Talk Page, that is not the order of how things should work. There are users who like the current set-up of the infobox (which allows a for a novice reader to see in a quick glance the many nations that fought in WW2). We do not need a hair splitting debate about the nature of involvement of every country which participated in WW2, and then say "the whole thing is so complicated" so lets just make the article generic where it actually stops informing people about anything. --E-960 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This IS the World War II article talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so why was the article changed and then a debate was posted??? --E-960 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate that a clear list of the many "small" countries involved in the WW2 was removed from the Infobox, and I can't help but wonder why? Because, when you remove any mention of those small countries you hide the fact that Germany and Japan were the aggressors first. Eventually, this article will sound something like this: Britain and France declared war on Germany... to avoid a war on two fronts, Germany had to invaded the Soviet Union before it allied itself with the Western Powers. Then, Japan was forced to bomb Pearl Harbor, because it was allies with Germany, and it was obvious that the US was preparing to go to war anyway, alongside Britain. The Western Allies went on a counter-offensive, and indiscriminately bombed all those German and Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilian. Because if you only make mention of the "Big Five" that's how you could interpret WW2, when you start to omit mention of all the "small" countries that were attacked first by the Axis powers. B.S. ALL THE WAY! --E-960 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And you think, you, me, Nick, Ed, Graeme, etc etc etc would just let that happen? Calm down a bit please. I hear your concerns, and a sense that some of us were slightly "bounced", but this discussion has obviously been going on for years. Relax. WW2 wont turn into some article edited by neo-nazi nutjobs Irondome (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also unfortunate that people are being accused of being neo-Nazi nutjobs, however indirectly! As Irondome said, let's all settle down and drop the hyperbole. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You were in the "etc's" Parsecboy :). It would be a good idea if some of us took time out to read the original discussions. They look interesting. I propose a 24 freeze to any other major edits on this subject while some of us get up to speed on this and can comment intelligently. I like the sound of the links argument at the mo. Can I have 24 hrs to read the history? Irondome (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think you were lumping me in ;) And I don't think anyone would object to pausing to give people time to read up on the archives. I don't remember when the infobox was split off onto its own page, but there are reams of discussions split between the two. Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, the archive index might be helpful in finding the old discussions. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:World War II/Archive 19 has several threads on this issue from 2007. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Parsecboy this argument that the World War II Infobox is "too long" is so STUPID, and fake! Look at the World War I or Vietnam War or Korean War Infoboxes… are they also to long? Yes, I'm calling out the editors who initiated this change, because the argument holds no merit when compared to other WP articles that cover similar topic!!! --E-960 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling us out as being neo-Nazis? You can't be serious. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please answer the above question regarding the length of other WP Infoboxes, and stop changing the subject that you were called a neo-nazi, because no one called you that, I'm calling you out for bias POV. --E-960 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the link I posted. And what is my bias, exactly? Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll explain again, the argument that the WWII Infobox is too long, has no precedent because as noted earlier World War I, Vietnam War, Korean War Infoboxes are just as long. So, why is this an issue on the WW2 page? Thus, you're POV is bias, because your argument is incorrect, since other articles have lengthy Infoboxes. Unless, your POV is based on something else and you think that only the "Big Five" matter, in which case you are ignoring a large portion of what happened during WW2. --E-960 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I gather English is not your first language. If by "biased" you mean I have an opinion, your are correct. But then you are also biased. That my opinion is incorrect is not objective fact. As for there being no precedent, I really recommend you read the link I posted above. It's not a long or difficult read. And I didn't post it for my health. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a strong argument to cut down those infoboxes as well. As I noted above, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Listing every participant is what we have Allies of World War II and Axis powers for. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added a section above to express support for a detailed list, as is on virtually every other war page. I don't agree with Ed and Parasecboy's arguement that there was consensus 5 months ago to change. Even if there somehow was consensus (which there was not), it is entirely irrelevant. What matters is what peoples opinions are NOW, not what they were 5 months ago. Consensus can always change, just take a look at the history behind the title of the page Russo-Georgian War for example.XavierGreen (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, that is what option 3 is for...Either way, please explain the benefit to readers to include Cuba in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That is option three. I've corrected the headers above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There was never a consensus, and the discussion was months ago. It is very much necessary to at least include the main combatants, this is crucial information. Literally no other war infoboxes fail to include the main combatants, and this is the most important war in history. DylanLacey (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I will again say that the arguments proposed for changing the Infobox format are highly suspect. Any of the editors who are so "concerned" about the length of the WW2 Infobox are encouraged to tackle the same problem with that beast of an Infobox in the Iraq War article. Anytime when ready… --E-960 (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Cut the crap E-960, and drop the thinly veiled accusations. If it keeps going we're going to have problems. Parsecboy (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Just stop with the accusations Parsecboy, you are the one that sarcastically questioned whether English is my second language, and started to belittle my contributions vs. your "years" of editing WP (not sure what all that had to do with the merits of the debate). Than you, started to play the victim card that you were called a neo-nazi, when no one called you that. So, stop accusing others of misconduct. Finally, let me get this through your head… I am not accusing you of being a neo-nazi, so get it. But, your arguments about the Infobox hold no merit; that it's "too long", or "someone added Cuba, so now we need to get rid of half the Infobox". They don't make any sense! So, possibly there is a different motive, it can be anything… and it does not mean that it's a neo-nazi agenda. In the end, just as an example: this change will not make it easier for some kid doing a school project to quickly understand what happened in WWII. They will need to go through two more WP pages just to understand who was fighting who. The mythical stateless Nazis as the Axis Powers fighting the West as the Allies coalition. --E-960 (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Either English is a second language for you or you're a poor writer - either way, it's difficult to parse what you write. And the comment on the length of time you and I have spent editing was to illustrate my point that you should trust me. I have been around the block on this issue, you have not. That's merely simple statement of fact. And as for the neo-Nazi nonsense, here you basically asserted that Ed (and presumably whoever agrees with him) are attempting to paint Germany and Japan as victims and reiterated it here, with an oh-so accusational "I can't help but wonder why" - it ain't hard to read through the lines, buddy, especially when you comment pointedly on my userpage and accuse me and others of "deliberately...[removing]...information" to "sanitize the article" and litter your posts with scare quotes.

As for the merits of my arguments, that you don't understand them does not mean they are incorrect, only that you have failed to understand them. Here is why the list of a few dozen countries is problematic: most of the countries listed there had a negligible part in the war—Cuba is but one example—for the novice, they might conclude that Cuba or Mexico or Luxembourg had a significant role in the war (why else would they be included in a very short summary, after all!). Including irrelevant information in what should be the boiled down, extreme basic info distracts the reader and obscures the actually important nuggets. That's the bottom line. And of course, preventing the constant, stupid arguments about including country X but not country Y is an added bonus. You are of course invited again to sift through the millions of bytes of hot air spewed in the archives on that issue. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying it's better for a kid who wants to understand what happened in WWII to not bother actually reading about it? Sure he'll get great marks on his school project. Utgard Loki got this spot on over six years ago: "A box suggests 'this is the real deal,' and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles. A box says, 'Here is your PowerPoint bullet point list, so you can find all the world reduced to a reductive summary; please do not strive to understand complexity, for that is for suckers.'" In short, little Sam doing his project does not need to go through two more pages to have a basic understanding of who was fighting who. He can easily look in the lead for an overview of the main combatants. If he's interested in more details he can read the whole World War II article, the Allies and Axis pages, or any of the other pages branching off. If all the complexities of World War II could be contained in a list like this there would be no point in the article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if someone want to read further and learn more about WW2 by all mean they should go ahead and do so. But, it's an issue of time, and sifting through pages of reading material. This is when an Infobox comes in handy. Albert Einstein said: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." in this case you guys want to make the Infobox simpler. --E-960 (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The infobox as it stands is simpler than possible. That's why it has explanatory footnotes all over it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Chiang Kai-shek form the Infobox Commanders and leaders

I recommend the removal of Chiang Kai-shek form the Infobox Commanders and leaders section. Reasons: During the war years, China was not a dominant power like the United States, Britain or Soviet Union. In fact, it played a role similar to that of France or Poland (defeated countries that had a significant resistance movement and assisted the Big Three allied powers). Perhaps, using a different approach we could include Charles de Gaulle and Władysław Sikorski in the list, highlighting major contributions of countries that had the three largest resistance movements of the war, and regular troops stationed abroad who fought the axis powers. --E-960 (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese armies were around two million. Keeping three-four million Japanese occupied (three-quarters of their manpower?) and causing about two million Japanese casualties sounds a reasonable contribution. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Manpower is the only thing China had. In every other respect China was even less prepared for war than Poland. China had no armaments industry, armored divisions, no real air force and a failed government. I think the only reason China gets such recondition is because of it size, and most people think that it must have contributed greatly during the war… but, it did not. As for man power, the Indian Army during WW2 had 2.5 million soldiers. If the argument is that China's contribution to the war was that they kept the Imperial Army distracted for 8 years, then I don't think it should have the same status as US, UK and USSR. Chinese effort was more along the lines of resistance (supported by the West), not a sovereign state at war. --E-960 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources you've consulted on this topic say about the contribution the major Allied powers made? It seems a somewhat western-centric argument to casually dismiss the huge Chinese Army as you're doing here, especially as historians are starting to focus on China's role in the war. From what I've read, the general consensus is that the Chinese war effort was huge and the theatre involve some very large-scale fighting, but that Chiang Kai-shek wasn't well regared by FDR or Churchill (for good reasons due to his incompetence). Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely, to exclude Kai-shek would be in favor of a western point of view. He had over 5 million troops under his direct command with no defacto authority superior to him. Of the troops under his command some 3 or 4 million were killed in some of the most intense fighting of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To say nothing of the often critical interventions which saved Allied arse during the Burma campaign. Chinese assaults were arguably critical in the latter stages of the British retreat from Burma in 1942, and Chinese forces fought highly effectively during the spring- summer Burma offensives of 1944, saving Merrill's Marauders in the process, I seem to recall. CKS was also a critical post war figure on the East Asian stage, especially in the final struggle for power in China, post war. A removal would be unwise. Irondome (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014

Hello, As a professor of French history, I do believe Charles de Gaulle should be named, like in the French article, as one of the "Allied leaders" in the "Commanders and leaders" section. Right now I can only read the names of : Allied leaders Soviet Union Joseph Stalin United States Franklin D. Roosevelt United Kingdom Winston Churchill Republic of China (1912–49) Chiang Kai-shek

Charles de Gaulle should be named for his fundamental part as the leader of the French Resistance and the Free French Forces : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle

Thank you ! Wolfffsss (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree - One sentance should do fine - lets get others to chime in on this before any action taken . -- Moxy (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, de Gaulle certainly didn't have millions of men under his command. They didn't even tell him about the Normandy invasion until the day before, as they didn't trust him. Nor did they seek his opinion. De Gaulle himself, as one of the most famously ungrateful and difficult-to-get-along-with people in history, is responsible for much of this. Such qualities do not a leader make. Perhaps he was a great symbol. But he wasn't in on the planning. SBHarris 01:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. For obvious reasons, until France was liberated the Free French forces were never particularly large (and it wasn't until the last months of the war that the Free French forces became truly substantial, and the war ended before they saw much combat). De Gaulle was not included in the key decision making forums in the war, and I haven't seen it argued that he was one of the key Allied leaders. Wolfffsss, what reliable sources support listing De Gaulle alongside Stalin, FRD, Churchill and Chiang Kai-shek? Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, de Gaulle isn't mentioned once in the article proper (the OP must be talking here about inclusion in the Infobox, as that is the only place with a "Commanders and leaders" section). Dhtwiki (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be the devil's advocate, De Gaulle is not mentioned because this is a Anglo-American centric article. The changes that appear, or the information that does not appear in this article, very much has an agenda. De Gaulle was important, after all the French had a occupation sector in Germany, and you did have the Free French Colonies. But, in the English speaking world who wants to talk about the French. The Chinese are listed as a "power" due to academic correctness, yet in 8 years they could not defeat the Imperial Army... example: Poland's Air Force at the start of WWII 1,369 aircraft. the Republic of China (with half a billion people) had 645 aircraft. Yet, you have dumb stereotypes that the Poles charged German tanks with cavalry (never happened), But, the Chinese literally fought the Japanese with farm tools. The average person living in the English-speaking world literally lives on misconceptions about the WW2. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, its the whole of the world that lives on misconceptions about WWII. We could spend our whole lives studying it and still not have a complete understanding of all the subtle nuances of the conflict. As to the edit request: I'm of the mind to decline it, as you can all see by the above section concerning powers, we are still unsure how to even handle the infobox on this article, let alone something far less trivial as the actual content, so I say we deal with the above crisis first, then concern ourselves with this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@E-960:This article probably is attuned to diplomatic niceties, rather than any anti-French mindset (after all, De Gaulle's importance was due in large part to the support of the Anglo-centric, but Franco-philic Churchill). De Gaulle was not a head of state or government. He represented at least a French government in exile, but not with the unity and legitimacy that, say, the Polish, Dutch, or Norwegians had. We shouldn't confuse De Gaulle's importance, or France's, after the war with his role during. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: There does not appear to be sufficient support for the change at this time. Perhaps you could open a separate thread to discuss this with the community. Biblioworm 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Debate: "Collapsible List of all the Nations" option

As first noted by fellow contributor, the Infobox debate should include the Collapsible list of all the Nations as currently in use on pages such as the Korean War's Infobox Belligerents table. The Manual of Style on use of collapsible sections states that "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text". Thus, I think that this is an appropriate option that can also see use here. I think the current RFC should be reworked, as from the start it was a flawed debate for the following reasons: initially the Infobox was changed to the Allies/Axis option and then the RFC was initiated; the wording strongly leans in favor of Option 1; and finally the options only include suggestions made by a small group of contributors, and as we see here other possible options to resolve the problem were not taken into consideration. --E-960 (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be amendable to this, i think it might also solve the problem of bias resulting from the listing of the term axis, since that term does not include Finland, Thailand, and Iraq which were co-belligerents who fought against the allies but were not part of the axis.XavierGreen (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently the article Axis powers does include Thailand as Axis (describes it as "...a formal ally of Japan from 25 January 1942"). Iraq is down as a co-belligerent. It was at war with the Allies (well the British) for about 4 weeks. A month before, it had had a generally pro-British regent (and a fairly one-sided treaty with Britain) and it was a coup looking for German assistance that changed things. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is generally understood by historians that the Axis powers were those that signed the Tripartite Pact. Finland, a significant belligerent in the war never signed the pact. To call Finland a member of the axis powers is a contentious suggestion. Thailand while indeed formally allied with Japan, also never signed the pact. Your assessment of Iraq is correct in my understanding. My main point is, that to merely list Axis powers in the infobox presents a clear bias against Finland, which although co-belligerent with the Axis was never actually an Axis power. To provide a collapsible list would be an easy solution to the problem.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this proposal is that the temptation over time will be to load up the infobox will all kinds of minor combatantants on the grounds that most readers won't notice. IMO, this raises issues of WP:UNDUE, and could also make the article look ridiculous (eg, heaps of countries jumped on the Allied bandwagon in 1944-45 but played no or virtually no role in the war, and there seems to be a temptation among some people to list the Axis puppet states as though they were independent countries). Given that this is one of Wikipedia's flagship articles, I think that we'd be better off keeping some form of strict inclusion criteria rather than using this as an easy solution. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, any solution that simply lists Axis powers in the belligerent section of the infobox is non-neutral, as Ffinland was a signifigant combatant in the war and was not a member of the Axis Powers.XavierGreen (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Look Nick-D, there is temptation all the time to change the article, and the Infobox is no different. Why all of a sudden do we have a movement to create a static Infobox populated with information so generic as to kill the debate process? As I said before, the "reasons" this group of editors put forth to change the Infobox are weak, and probably have to do more with some academic POV as to how WW2 should be interpreted at this time, than any objective need to clean up the article. --E-960 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you hoping to gain from making allusions about editors who happen to disagree with you here? I've made my suggestions here in good faith, and I'm sure that you're doing the same. Let's leave it at that, and consider how the article can be improved rather than throwing accusations around. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)