Talk:World War II Allied Leaders

Military history: Biography / World War II C‑class

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	World War II task force

Contradictions, and relevance in the lead of the article

The lead of the article appears to be full of weasel-word sentences which makes contradictory statement (states one fact, then refutes it in the next part of the sentence). Take the first few words: "World War II, also known as the Second World War". Furthermore, it can't even agree on a start date: "It began, by most Western accounts, on September 1 1939, ... (the pacific theatre began on July 7 1937) ... Some historians contend that the Italian Occupation of Ethiopia was the start of the war" (Hmm, what about those historians who consider WW2 to be the continuation of WW1, which never actually ended?). It was WP:LAME enough that these debates infested the Talk:WWII pages. But why are we bringing the debate into the main namespace, in an article where it has no relevance whatsoever? Are we discussing the Allied Leaders of WW2, or are we debating the start date of WW2, or even whether we should call it the second world war? Does it even matter? In one week's time, if no one can justify the inclusion of WP:V/WP:NOT/WP:WEASEL violating sentences in the lead, I'm going to be rewriting the lead of the article so it is more concise and to the point. --Oshah 15:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

over one week, and no response. I take it that means no one objects to me rewriting the start of the article.--Oshah