Talk:World War II

Seeking consensus to implement change in lead sentence

I am trying to modify the lead sentence. Given the notice appearing to seek consensus, I present my proposal hereby.

The lead sentence currently reads,

World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945.

My proposal is to change it to,

World War II (WWII, WW2, or the Second World War; 1939–1945) was a global conflict and the deadliest in human history, with tens of millions people killed.

Also, a connected edit later in the paragraph to avoid redundancy. This part currently reads,

World War II was by far the deadliest conflict in human history; it resulted in 70 to 85 million fatalities, mostly among civilians. Tens of millions died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease.

The new edit for said later part of the paragraph would be,

It resulted in 70 to 85 million fatalities, mostly among civilians. Millions died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease.

Edit summary explaining the change: edit summary: moved alternate names to parenthesis for conciseness per MOS:FIRST, "global war" >> "global conflict" per MOS:REDUNDANCY, added a top notability (the deadliest in human history), copyedited relevant part later in first paragraph to avoid redundancy with first sentence. --Thinker78 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I like your first half of the sentance, but the rest could be fixed

"with tens of millions people killed"

Poor grammer, and very poor word choice

A better sentance would be

"World War II (WWII, WW2, or the Second World War; 1939-1945) was a global conflict and the most destructive in history."

Better, more to the point, and quicker for the intro. It also flows better. Panda0317 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Panda0317, Jack Upland Considering the feedback and MOS:ALTNAME that calls to only have up to two alternative names, I make another proposal:

World War II (WW2 or the Second World War; 1939–1945) was the most destructive conflict in human history. It was also the deadliest, killing tens of millions of people.

Although "most destructive" can include destruction of objects and human life, it doesn't necessarily has that effect on readers mind, who may only think of objects. Therefore, adding also immediately after the first sentence the number of people killed illustrates better the magnitude of the conflagration. Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think some readers might find that redundant: "most destructive" and also "deadliest"...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The question is, would most readers find it redundant? I know I wouldn't because when I think of destruction I think of objects mainly. When someone says "the city was destroyed" it doesn't necessarily mean that people were killed. "Most destructive" may also include destruction or killing of human life but even if so, it doesn't necessarily is a synonymous for "deadliest". Thinker78 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wars do tend to kill people and hyperbole in the first sentence is a bad sign. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the hyperbole.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264 I don't understand why do you say hyperbole. WW2 is the deadliest conflict in human history. That's not hyperbole, that's seemingly a historical fact and one of the main notabilities of the subject. Thinker78 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wars are not football scores, sweeping claims like this (the Tai Ping Rebellion could have been bloodier) need to be quantified and not necessarily mentioned in the lead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264 The number of people killed is quantified. Destruction amount is more subjective. Although these two are among the main characteristics of the war and maybe the easier to place in the first sentece. They also set apart this war from other wars. Thinker78 (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm highly doubtful that the death toll of the Tai Ping Rebellion even came close. Among other things, WW2 saw the mass bombing of civilians at a level unparalled before or since.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC about World War 2 first two sentences

{{rfc|pol|hist}} Should the first two sentences of WW2 in the lead be, "World War II (WW2 or the Second World War; 1939–1945) was the most destructive conflict in human history. It was also the deadliest, killing tens of millions of people."? (See discussion above). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• 'Oppose I agree with the rest of the users that the second sentence seems redundant.Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: The current second sentence (" It involved the vast majority of the world's countries—including all of the great powers—forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis powers") would become the third sentence in the lead. Also, some tweaks in later sentences to avoid redundancies. Thinker78 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Not essential but reasonable. Tweaks to avoid redundancies would, as you have said, be required. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support first sentence. Second sentence is redundant.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current opening sentences seem both fine and superior to the suggested alternative(s). Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild why? Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As Lukewarmbeer says, the proposed second sentence is redundant, which only leaves the first for me to consider. And, this may just be personal aesthetics, I prefer the version with both full names followed by both abbreviations and with no parentheses. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that MOS:ALTNAME is a guideline not a tight rule, but I will quote it so you can weigh it with your stated opinion. Let us know your analysis. "The title can be followed in the first sentence by one or two alternative names in parentheses." Thinker78 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I was aware of it, and that it says that this "can" happen. It just happen to think that the current version works better than the particular alternative proposed here. YMMV. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above. Silikonz💬 16:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral/Somewhat Oppose. The modified first sentence is fine, but I don't see anything wrong with the first sentence as it currently stands, and I prefer the current version, perhaps because it lacks parentheses. In any case, I don't think there is a redundancy in the second sentence. "Most destructive" and "deadliest" aren't the same thing. The first refers to destruction of property, buildings, assets, and so on. The second refers, obviously, to loss of human life. Scapulus (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC-7)
• Neutral/Lean oppose - The proposed first sentence looks okay, but the current first sentence without the alternative name in parenthesis looks fine to me, so I have a more of a preference towards the current first sentence. Second sentence could use tweaking but as Scapulus mentioned, "most destructive" and "deadliest" are different. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 04:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current first sentence is vastly preferable imo. The proposal is tantamount to saying how bad WWII was before saying when and what it was and who fought in it. The 'most destructive' and 'most deadly' elements are certainly important, but they are more than adequately covered in the next para at present imo. The job of a first para is to define the topic, not to pass comment on the subject of that topic, even if it is pertinent comment - as in this case. Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the reasons given by user:Pincrete, which pretty much sum up the thinking I was formulating. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

About women

Hi i an going to tell u about womens 2001:8F8:183D:5593:6953:2646:5357:B85D (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

We already mention women, what do you want to add? Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

Under Axis in the world war 2 page, my friend noticed that Vishy France is missing, from 1940 to 1942. I would really appreciate it if you could add them. Thank you so much! Abuk2801 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong page to ask. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: what do you mean by this? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"under Axis in the world war 2 page" seems to refer to this Axis powers, which is not what this talk page is here to discuss, and nothing can be done about that here. Even if we decided to add it, any discussion about it needs to be on its talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? Did you even look at the article? It's in the infobox. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is if they want an edit to be made at Axis powers they need to ask there, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not what they're asking though. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Then I must have misread what they wrote. So if they want to add it to this page, we need RS saying they were party to the Axis. Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Here (by the way) is why this should be discussed in the article we link to in this infobox [[1]], [[2]]. There are more in the archive of that talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Per the links provided, this would be a contentious change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Socialism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): StinkyGremlin (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Stinky Gremlin (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Collage

I reverted the recent addition of the Iwo Jima flag. There are three reasons for that. First, by doing that, we shift a balance from Europe to Asia (there were two Asia-Pacific photos, and four Europe photos, the new change made it 3 and 3). Second, Iwo Juma picture would be too US-centric. Third, capture of Iwo Jima was not the most critical event of the was. I agree that Keitel's photo is not the best one, but, as soon as we are talking about iconic images, the image below is teh best candidate.

First, it is a picture from the European theatre, so the balance is preserved. Second, it shows the event that was a symbolic end of the LAST major battle of WWII in Europe. Third, its publication was the symbolic evidence that the WWII in Europe is over.

I recently learned that the picture was published by Russian Ministry of Defence under CC-SA (previously, all versions of this picture were non-free). That gives us an opportunity to use this file in a collage instead of Keitel. I propose to do that. What do you think about that? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree. The current photo isn't very well known or visually interesting, and the proposed replacement is the iconic photo of the end of World War II in Europe. This is also one of the undoctored versions, as the soldier in the foreground has a looted watch on each arm. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Support the new photo.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been waiting for an outcome of the discussion at Commons to make sure this image is really under CC-SA. It seems it is safe to use it.

I also have a couple of additional questions.

First, for many years, the top left collage image was different [:File:Infobox collage for WWII.PNG]. It was replaced relatively recently. Do we all agree that was an improvement? Personally, I don't think so: in contrast to the previous image, the new one has almost no big details, so it is hardly suitable for a collage.

Second, instead of a single image, a current version of the collage is assembled from six separate images, and they are not properly aligned. I think, from aesthetic point of of view it would be better to make a single, properly aligned image. I can do that if there will be no objections. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

The start date of WWII is widely regarded as September 3, 1939, the date upon which the United Kingdom and France declared war on Nazi Germany. Therefore, I am requesting that the Date of "September 1, 1939" as the start date be changed to September 3, 1939, along with the length of the war being changed to "6 Years, 0 Days" to account for one Leap Year adding one day to 5 Years and 355 Days. 2600:8807:8080:18D0:E564:6725:4685:795D (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The starting date of World War II is regarded as 1 September 1939, the date which Nazi German troops entered Poland, not when the UK and France declared war. This is backed up by thousands of sources. Also, in the future, please do not submit two semi-protected edit requests in a short period of time that are requesting the same thing, an editor will answer as soon as possible. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Archived

I archived a couple of discussions infested with HarveyCarter socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Can you please update the "Chronological archives" box above? Maybe ask the maintainer of the "OneClickArchiver" you used if they could change that tool so it did that automatically?

The recent discussion of Chiang and the infobox has since been archived, and it wasn't easy for me to find it. I think that automatically updating the "Chronological archives" box might make it easier for people to find material that was recently archived. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Soviet troops in the Battle of Stalingrad

Sixth photo isn't Soviet troops in the Battle of Stalingrad. 109.252.128.135 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's described as such. Is the description wrong?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think what the IP means is that in the collage used as the main picture for the article, the sixth photo is of US navy ships, not Soviet troops. The collage may have been changed without the caption updated. TylerBurden (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I mean it. 109.252.128.135 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)