Talk:World War II/Archive 30

Date of start and definition
I know the issue had been discussed, bur still, i cannot resist the question: Is there a date when this event can be deemed as having started. Also, related thereto, is the current definition ("Second World War,[1] was a global military conflict, the joining of what had initially been two separate conflicts. The first began in Asia in 1937 as the Second Sino-Japanese War; the other began in Europe in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. ") attributable to any sources? And the question remains: when did this global "merger" happen?Muscovite99 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also wish to point out that some consider the War to have started in 1931 when the Japanese took Manchuria. Emperor001 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the talk section at the bottom, right at the end of the Sino-Japanese war section; it's more fully discussed there and you can contribute if you wish. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Replace last section: Impact of the war
I'd like to replace our existing impact section with the following. Any objections or suggestions? Oberiko (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Well, my point is that this article is, most of the time, the first door by which an user is giving access to infos about WWII. So, there should be a summary about War trials like this one : ''From 1945 to 1951, German and Japanese officials and personnel were prosecuted for war crimes. Charges included crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, waging wars of aggression, and other crimes. The most senior German officials were tried at the Nuremberg Trials, and many Japanese officials at the Tokyo War Crime Trial and other war crimes trials in the Asia-Pacific region. Many other minor officials were convicted in minor trials, including subsequent trials by the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Dachau Trials, and the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials. No significant trials were held against Allied violations of international law (notably the Soviet Invasion of Poland in 1939), or against Allied war crimes, such as the bombing of civilian areas of Axis cities or alleged Soviet atrocities in Eastern Europe.
 * I'm thinking that I need to expand more on the "Casualties and atrocities" section. I would like to fill out the Holocaust section a bit more, but I'd like to keep ambiguous enough not to get mired down in conflicting definitions (i.e. includes Gypsies, homosexuals and other victims of German purging; or specific only to Jews?).  Any suggestions?
 * I agree that the casualties and atrocities section needs to be filled out. It is a bit small at the moment, though I understand why you don't want to get too complicated. I would include more information on the Holocaust and I think the main victims should be included. The rest of the impact section looks great. Woody (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oberiko, I disagree with your "Casualties and atrocities" sub-section. I think your proposition removes much important facts and, most of all, is to much related to Europe. One of the srenght of the actual version is that Europe and Asia are equally covered. Prisoners, chemical and biological weapons, bombings, war trials are all important topics. A reader should find here all the links related to these. However, I like the other parts. --Flying tiger (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've expanded out the section a bit to include an example of Japanese atrocities (Nanking) along with Axis usage of bio/chemical weapons. Any other suggestions? Oberiko (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are no other objections, I'd like to go ahead and replace. Oberiko (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know you've done much work on this article in the last months, but this time, I simply fail to see how your proposition of "Casualties and atrocities" is an improvement of the current version... There is still not any mention of the war crimes trials, neither of the fate of civilians or prisoners. I suggest we keep your part on the holocaust AND the current sub-section and add your three other sub-sections after it. --Flying tiger (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example? For the most part, IMO, I don't think we need that here at the summary level.  Right now I believe that those elements are given undue weighting within the article.  Oberiko (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There also should be a short summary/list on all the articles about bombing in WWII such as Strategic bombing during World War II, bombing of Dresden, bombing of Chongqing, Bombing of Berlin in World War II, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bombing of Dresden in World War II

We should also find here some summary and statistics about death rates in Prisoner-of-war camp, labour camps such as the current one. On biological weapons, there should at least be a link to unit 731 which is the most important producer of bioweapons in the war...

It is a good thing not to have undue weighting, however a summary article should at least be the first step to more specialized topics so a newcomer user would not have to go everywhere to find related infos. --Flying tiger (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's far to much information. That's more then we have on major operations/battles like Operation Barbarossa, the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of France.  We list that there were war crime trials (with a link to the list of them), there were controversial/war crime Allied actions (with link) and that bioweapons were used by who and when.  More detail is not needed to provide a summary. Oberiko (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, where a newcomer is gonna find those infos if he/she doesn't know the title of the main articles ? What sould be the goal of a summary article like WW II ? You argue that ii is "too much info" but your proposition of an Advances in technology and warfare sub-section is much more detailed... --Flying tiger (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps from either
 * The internal links
 * The "Main articles" header link
 * The see also section
 * The summary template at the bottom
 * The category tree
 * Other articles, like international law and so forth.


 * Having an all-in-one is exactly what led to the unreadable mess that we had last time. As for the techonology, you do realize that WWII contained and led to some of the greatest changes in military practices in human history right?  Right now I have a paragraph for each of the major areas (land, sea, air, communications/intelligence, other), with most things quickly blurbed on, and then moved past.  Considering this was a war which, by nature, revolved around warfare, how it changed the very nature of human conflict itself I think has enough to warrant, IMO, the barely (and not always) sentance-each for the quite major revolutions. Oberiko (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also realize that we are refering to an article about war and that in a war, there are prisoners, civilians and that criminal acts where committed against them and that for the first time in human history, the victors established international tribunals. The human aspect is much more important here than the technological one. There is already an article about Technology in WW II. Advances in technology and warfare should be a part of it.


 * I also realize that your argue about "undue weighting" but your proposal is 2 235 characters long while the actual section is 1 577 characters long.... --Flying tiger (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a bit on the International Military Tribunals, but I fail to see how the human aspect isn't covered, both by the main article (which barely touches on technology) and the sections here; we are quite clear on the number of people killed. Oberiko (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are no other objections I'm going to replace the last section with this. Oberiko (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I object to your proposal for the reasons above.--Flying tiger (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which I believe have been rectified. If we can't agree on this, I suppose we should take it to MilHist to try and get some third opinions. Oberiko (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I support. It is alway interesting to have the input of a third party. --Flying tiger (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to carefully examine FlyingTiger's objections to the inclusion of the above insert. My first worry was that the war crimes trials are insufficiently linked. That seems settled, just as long as all the main trials are in the list (I haven't checked each one). Oberiko, the fact that this was the first time international trials took place is an important point, and you might consider adding the phrase 'for the first time,' with, if you're aware of a source, a source further reading discussing of the nature of the victor's justice imposed (Yamashita & Homma being shot at MacArthur's instigation, despite apparently not being proved to be involved in any crimes, is the worst example I'm aware of. (Y&H were MacArthur's chief opponents)(William Manchester, American Caesar, Hutchinson, 1978, p.484-488)). The other point was coverage of all strategic bombing, and FlyingTiger's point about a link to the bombing of Chongqing was a worry. The strategic bombardment article does cover that, so that's OK too. So my vote would be to include the above section, but there should be some further views expressed, and this international tribunals for the first time phrase should be considered. Great work everybody - this is a really hard topic to get right. Buckshot06(prof) 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Buckshot. I've addressed that concern of Flying tiger's with the following "While many of the Axis atrocities were brought to trial in the worlds first international tribunals...". (emphasis mine). Oberiko (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor nit-picks, possibly aBritish/American thing, but I personally hate "Likely" being used instead of "Probably". Also since the leigh light is named after its inventor, shouldn't leigh take a capital?  David Underdown (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressed. Oberiko (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thans to Buckshot06 and David Underdown for their input. I however have a question for them and all the users interested, which I think is the main point here : Is Oberiko's proposal really better and more useful than the current section ? I personnally do not see the need to entirely replace the current section with a complete new proposal which, to my mind, is not better... Why not add to it instead of deleting all the stuff ? --Flying tiger (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I do prefer the new version. It covers more ground, and makes better use of summary style.  Sometimes you can only make limited progress by tweaking the existing version, and it's better to step away and start again from scratch.  David Underdown (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also endorse the replacement with the new proposal, for the same reasons. Which particular points do you believe are covered less well in the new proposal? If you can point them out, we can improve and fix them up. Your other point was on size. The article is 81k at the moment, and this will raise it to about 82k. However once the links list at the end is properly chopped down, this will fall off again, and 85-90 I believe would be entirely appropriate for a topic of this magnitude. Buckshot06(prof) 04:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One last point I should make. This proposed framework section was agreed upon quite some time ago with quite a bit of input from other editors.  Considering that we've had this planned for about eight months and we have some additional supporting third-opinions, I'm going to replace. Oberiko (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple list of section title is not an explanation of changes forthcoming.... user:El C's reaction proves that not everybody understood that it would mean deletion of ALL the section. I take notice of Buckshot06 and David Underdown's advices. Even if this is not mine, I however made some changes as a kind of compromise. --Flying tiger (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Brits in pics
There are two pictures of the British at war in this article: One as prisoners after Dunkirk, the other as prisoners after Singpore. Quite illuminating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.224.147 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You missed the one of British infantry at el Alamein in the infobox montage :p In all seriousness, when the article was rewritten, it was decided that there should be a minimum number of photographs, to avoid issues with text sandwiching and so forth. There are just too many photos for all the different participants of the war; the point is illustrating different aspects of the war, not emphasizing one nation over another, or making sure each country gets an equal number of photos. Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * His point does have some merit though. For the unitiated, we tried to keep photographes balanced as much as possible between the Soviet-German War, the European-Atlantic Theatre and the Asia-Pacific Theatre.  With that said, I think we do tend to have more of the Americans over the British in the later part of the war.  Perhaps we should replace the one in "Allies gain momentum" with either (A) or (B)? Both are fairly dramatic photos of British troops engaged in jungle warfare; this would cover the same territory as the American one used now. Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I like the second photo. The 14th army, turning defeat into victory, is arguably Britain's greatest achievment on land in the war. Certainly Bill Slim is Britain's greatet general since Wellington so some sort of representation of their efforts in the far east would be welcome, rather than just the debacle of singapore. You could change the picture of the german bomber into a piccy of a spit - a highly iconic image of the war - certainly from a UK/Commonwealth perspective - and improve the German picture showing the assault on crete. There's got to be a clearer image of German paratroopers somwhere, yes?88.110.243.252 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Either of the two photos Oberiko suggested would be fine, I'm not too hung up about the current picture there anyways. However, I really don't care for images with the "Imperial War Museum" and such on them, I just think it looks trashy. Do you think it's possible to find a different version of them? I do like the photo of the Heinkels however. Parsecboy (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Imperial War Museum" text isn't a problem, most images we use from there we trim to get rid of the watermark. I'm hesitant to change the other images though.  The Heinkels is our only image of strategic bombers, while fighter aircraft are shown for the Battle of Midway.  If you can find a better image, with a useable licence, for Crete, I have no problem with potentially replacing it. Oberiko (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion of the spit was an attempt to redress the balance. If I didn't know better, a quick glance at this article would suggest that the British spent 6 years surrendering. 79.71.192.99 (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do see the author's point above about having two photos of British soldiers surrendering. Are there any Battle of France-in-action photos (Frankforce?) we could substitute - bear with me for going over arguments you've probably had several times before. Buckshot06(prof) 04:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that wouldn't really match the content of the article. Our section on the Battle of France is, by necessity, very short (basically, Germans came, Germans conquered.)  Having a picture of the British / French forces putting up a fierce fight is less in-tune with our content then that of one showing a sweeping German victory.  I think having a picture of the Brits-in-action at Assam should be enough to fix any problem.  I'll swap them as soon as I can. Oberiko (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive changes need discussion
This is too high traffic of an article for you to rewrite a third of it in a few edits, without discussion, Oberiko. Thx. El_C 09:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please attempt to give us an outline of what you're trying to do — so other contributors can keep up. Thx again. El_C 09:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean like the discussion earlier on this page for a replacement we've had planned since last October? Oberiko (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh? Did that undertaking include removing the Concentration camps and slave work subsection? El_C 10:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering it was, as the name stated, replacing the section, yes. Oberiko (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been 9 months since "last October," after all. It's not unreasonable to expect a more detailed explanation. El_C 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And what explanation do you need that's not already covered above? We agreed earlier to replace this article section by section with the new framework, this is just the last piece. Oberiko (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose it just caught me by surprise; those are sweeping changes, and the edit summary did little to clue me in. El_C 10:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can accept that. I'll add "as per discussion" next time so as to better inform article-watchers and those on the CVU. Oberiko (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks again for taking the time. El_C 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko's ownership
You have surely made a great job on this article but other have too. After reading the advice of two users, I agreed with your proposal. However, you seem to claim ownership of the page. []. Me changes were read by user:David Underdown, one of the users who agreed with your "consensus"... --Flying tiger (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any discussion. All I saw was your adding specific, minor units in the war and adding undue weight for what appears to be your personal area of interest.  You attempted to add Unit 731 not once, but twice; consider that we don't include other, much more prominent organizations like the Schutzstaffel.  You attempt to disrupt statistics that are specifically sourced to 1938, making them inaccurate.  You add slavery (which is still there), but you wanted it, again, twice.  It's not ownership, it's just retaining summary style and attempting to stave off bloat. Oberiko (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this article throughout it's re-write, and at no stage has Oberiko claimed ownership - quite the opposite in fact. Every major change to the article has been first discussed here, even to the extent of drafting text and seeking comments on relevant projects' talk pages. I don't think that I've seen a better example of consensus editing and it's important that it not be disrupted. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to state here that I've never noticed Oberiko claiming ownership of this article or acting in any way as if he did own it. While I occasionally disagree with him, his edits or comments here, I feel he has been doing great work on this article and has sought consensus whenever necessary or possible.--Caranorn (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got to agree as well, I've long been watching this article for some time now, and never have I seen Oberiko acting as if he owned the article. There's nothing wrong with undoing a good faith edit if it is unhelpful to the article (i.e., to preserve summary style, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks we were both wrong as we were both blocked... I should have proposed my adjustments earlier on the talk page, but I would have appreciated if user:Oberiko, as noted by user:Nick Dowling would have discussed about those instead of deleting ALL my stuff, which he finally included in part (slave work) after three deletions. Meanwhile, I fail to see how simple changes like internal links to  Battle of Khalkhin Gol and Second Sino-Japanese war are "unhelpful to the article" : The Italians used mustard gas during their conquest of Abyssinia, while the Japanese Imperial Army used a variety of such weapons created by Unit 731 during their Second Sino-Japanese war-invasion and occupation of China and in Battle of Khalkhin Gol-early conflicts against the Soviets. However, they were deleted by Oberiko without discussion. --Flying tiger (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Beginning of World War Two
According to most authors World War Two started in September 1939. See for example 'A World in Flames' (1990) by Martin Kitchen, 'World War II' (1970) by C.L. Sulzberger, 'The Times Atlas of the Second World War' (1989) and 'A World at Arms' (1994) by Gerhard L. Weinberg. The Sino-Japanese conflict was a separate war which merged with the global conflict in 1941. Please provide references to books which say that it started at any other time. Colin4C (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have many such references listed right on this very page, twice. Oberiko (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please cite them in the article. You have provided no citations in the article stating that the war started in 1937. Asserting things in an article without providing sources is against wikipedia policy. I can cite four books and could cite a lot more. The vast majority of books on World War Two state that it started in 1939. Who else here believes that the war started in 1937? Note that editorial silence is not a 'consensus'. The wikipedia Timeline of World War II has World War Two starting in 1939. Is it wrong? Colin4C (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a hard date where we say when it starts or not? We've kept it quite generic so that we cover all plausible scenarios.  Check the archives and the discussion on the infobox template, we achieved consensus on this quite some time ago.  Plus, since you're bringing up wiki-policy, I assume that you're quite aware wikis are not considered a reliable source, which would include the timeline article; and that you're well aware of WP:NPOV, which specifically states "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Oberiko (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources you have cited such as "Searching for an American Jurisprudence" and "Asia in Western and World History: A Guide for Teaching", "American History the Easy Way" and a history of the Vietnam war are not histories of World War Two. In fact none of your cited books is a global history of World War Two:

"The case that Japan's 1931, (or 1937 at the latest) major resumption of imperial expansion was the true beginning of World War II can be made based on several factors. These invasions constituted the first major violations of the Washington Conference Treaties and the Kellog-Briand Pact. While Japan was condemned as an aggressor by the League of Nations and the United States, the West's reaction was restrained, due to post-World War I pacifism and the worldwide depression. The lack of a more forceful reaction likely contributed to Italy's decision to invade Abyssinia in 1935 and Germany's decision to attack Poland in 1939, thus expanding World War II from Asia to Europe and Africa. It is thus argued that 1939 was not the true beginning of World War II" (Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945: 1931-1945, pg. 30) "...World War II would not begin in Europe, like the first, but in Africa and Asia, with Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's invesiture of China..." (Roscoe Pound and Karl Llewellyn: Searching for an American Jurisprudence, pg. 281) "The global conflict we call World War II was in fact 'many wars, occurring at different levels and in widely separated places'... For Americans, World War II began in 1941 with the explosive Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But for the Japanese, the war began much earlier-in 1937." (The Rise of Modern Japan, pg. 132) "Japan invaded China in 1937, effectively beginning World War II in Asia." (A Companion to the Vietnam War, pg. 124) "What became World War II began in Asia in 1937 when Japan invaded China. Actions taken by Germany and Italy during the 1930s led to war in Europe in 1939. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan linking the Asian and European wars in what is known as World War II." (American History the Easy Way, pg. 236) "Aggression in Manchuria, 1931, followed by establishment of puppet state and Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations, signals the beginning of the 'fifteen-year war.' The end of multi-lateral diplomacy as Japan decided to 'go it alone' as territorial imperialist in Asia; instigation of all-out war against China in 1937, with atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking and without victory-1937 as the beginning of World War II in Asia." (Asia in Western and World History: A Guide for Teaching, pg. Colin4C (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the Sino-Japanese war remained a regional conflict, confined largely to the eastern and southern China for a decade. Even the clash between Japan and Soviet Union did not escalate into a wider conflict. And this, is the point. There is a vast difference, in military, economic, diplomatic and social terms between a regional and a global conflict--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong Colin4C, but are you evaluating which sources are valid or not? I think that's a bit beyond the role of an editor to say that one source/historian is superior to another. Oberiko (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures for impact section
Since the last section is up, now all that's left is to get the images for it. Here's what I'm thinking:


 * Home fronts and production: I think we'd be best suited to have a graph showing the oil/coal, iron ore and GDP for each of the major nations for each year. Either that or total planes, ships and AFVs for each nation by year.
 * War time occupation: Considering the sizeable contribution of Vichy France to the Nazi economy, I think this image would be best.
 * Advances in technology and warfare: We have, I think, a few choices here: either a two-four picture montage for each paragraph, or a gallery at the bottom. I lean towards the former myself. Oberiko (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I think that a graph of just GDP for the main powers would be better - this would tell the same story in a much simpler way. 2) Given that the dominant experiance of occupation was humiliation and oppression, a photo showing day-to-day life for civilians would be better (eg, German/Japanese troops in the middle of a city, etc) 3) I like the gallery option, perhaps showing early-war and end of war technologies? (eg, a Me-109 and a P-51D) Nick Dowling (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the GDP, especially since we already have that one and getting the others would be a pretty massive task. Any suggestions for which items we should show in the tech gallery? Oberiko (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a photograph of a radar tower would be good, perhaps this one. Most definitely an Me 262, maybe this one. How about a photo of a Hedgehog? Another suggestion could be the King Tiger or Jagdtiger or another late-war heavy tank. Also, maybe a picture of B-29s, which were the pinnacle of heavy bomber development during the war. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the tank, I'd like to put the T-34 since it is not only often cited as the best over-all tank of the war (usually by cost-effectiveness), but it is also the most heavily produced tank of the war as well. Also, I'd like to try and use non-German tech were possible, since we could potentially use them for most pictures anyway. Oberiko (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One other issue for the technologies, we should decide if we're going to use black and white or color. I'm going to suggest color, as most items are still around and modern, higher quality, photographs exist. Oberiko (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko's last edits
I disagree with your last edit about slave work.[] We should also refer to Germany but the fact about the number of people were important. We are talking about "millions" and I think it deserve a mention. You deleted Colin4C's edits [] arguing he "did not reach consensus" while I do not see any talka about your move. I also want to know why you deleted my links here :; The Italians used mustard gas during their conquest of Abyssinia, while the Japanese Imperial Army used a variety of such weapons created by Unit 731 during their Second Sino-Japanese war-invasion and occupation of China and in Battle of Khalkhin Gol-early conflicts against the Soviets. --Flying tiger (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection adding the word "millions", and thus propose to use my text, which puts slavery into production (which is what it was intended for) with the following:


 * Both Germany and Japan attempted to increase production rates through the usage of millions of slave labours.


 * This has several advantages:
 * It is more summarized
 * It gets more information across, as you don't mention Germany
 * Doesn't go into needless details about the ethnicity of the slaves (we don't say how many were Polish, Russian, French etc.) Oberiko (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that in the sentence juste before : During Japan's initial conquest it captured 4 million barrels of oil left behind by retreating Allied forces, and by 1943 was able to get production in the Dutch East Indies up to 50 million barrels, 76% of its 1940 output rate., you go to such details of numbers of millions of barrels, I think the number of deaths deserve to be refered to. I propose this : «To improve its production, Germany and Japan used millions of slave labours . Germany used about 12 millions people mostly from Eastern Europe while Japan abducted more than 10 million Chinese in Manchukuo and between 4 and 10 million Indonesians. » --Flying tiger (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't really compare the two, oil was the entire reason Japan attacked the Western Allies and started the Pacific War; it's the most important aspect of their production. One or two sentences on how much they got out from their primary objective can't be thought of as being excessive.  If you're going to distinguish between Asians, I think you have to do the same for Europeans, and, again, that's to much detail.  What about creating a Slave labour in World War II article which we then use as a link? Oberiko (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea but what about this : To improve its production, Germany and Japan used millions of slave labours . Germany used about 12 millions people mostly from Eastern Europe while Japan abducted more than 18 million people in Far East Asia. » --Flying tiger (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that looks fine, though I'd copy-edit it a little to the following: To improve their production, Germany and Japan used millions of slave labourers. Germany used about 12 million people, mostly from Eastern Europe, while Japan pressed more than 18 million people in Asia. Oberiko (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK; let's settle on this : To improve their production, Germany and Japan used millions of slave labourers. Germany used about 12 million people, mostly from Eastern Europe, while Japan pressed more than 18 million people in Far East Asia. --Flying tiger (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your last proposal. Oberiko (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the link, I already had that text sourced when you deleted my source to replace with yours. I use that source several times (your replacement caused reference errors), so I wouldn't mind if you could justify its replacement.  Is your source more accurate or appropriate? Oberiko (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are not talking about the same thing. I do not refer to a source but to the two internal links "SJW and BKG". --Flying tiger (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, the links. We already have both those articles linked above, and I didn't feel we needed to link them again here, especially since we've got so many links already that we're getting close to Overlinking (see also here). Oberiko (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The choice has been made of a general article and so, there must be internal links for clear understanding, as you just add about homosexuals. I think we must not presume that the user has read ALL the article. This is a new section and invasion and occupation of China and early conflicts against the Soviets must be clarified at this stage. As for the source, I generally prefer using specialized studies instead of general encyclopedia with one sentence about a topic. I have not read your source but essays like Hal Gold, Unit 731 testimony, Tuttle, 1996 and Daniel Barenblatt, Plague upon humanity are very well documented about the use of such weapons.--Flying tiger (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles I linked to on Homosexuality and Roma are actually specific to the Nazi purging of both, not general links. I'm not very strongly opinionated on pruning the wikilinks though, so if anyone else also believes that they should be wikilinked, I'll acquiesce. Oberiko (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Naaa... There is no difference. As your earlier proposal showed (in which I had to call for users adivces and only two answered), nobody's interested in such details. I would use the traditional way : I propose these links and will add them if there is no claim against it in four days. --Flying tiger (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Oberiko (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Starting a FAQ
I'd like to start a FAQ for this article so that we don't endlessly repeat going over the same issues (see here for an example in use).

The first entry I'd like to have would be the following:

Q: Why aren't we using a specific year for the start of the war? A: Different historians give differing dates for the start of the war, with 1939 being most common in European and American sources and 1937 being prevalent among Asian sources. To adhere to WP:NPOV, we are not determining which is "true".

My supporting evidence is as such:
 * Multiple authors and works (including those presented above) utilize 1937 as a start date
 * WP:NPOV states the following
 * The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. (emphasis mine)

Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea Oberiko. Go ahead and create the box and put a couple of first questions into it, then we can use it as a draft and revise it as required. I think it's a case of WP:BOLD for this. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 04:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very good idea. The FAQ should also stress the need for major edits to be discussed here first. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea. I might go start FAQs on other pages that always seem to be having the same discussions over and over again. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I support; could a similar process be used for the Infobox also ? --Flying tiger (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most definitely, our infobox could probably use this almost as much (if not more) then the main article. Oberiko (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FAQ draft
Here's the first "draft" I've come up with. Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good start Oberiko. Do you want to add links to the archives which discuss the dating issue - probably not just this current page(!)(included Archive 9, it seems). Also, judging from the archives, you need a note on photos and a note on the article length. Buckshot06(prof) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll get to the date issue once the heat's died down a bit. Probably have to go fairly slow due to the sheer level of contention, make everything air-tight. I'm thinking we'll need to start at WP:RELIABLE and get confirmation that the various sources used to justify multiple-potential start dates are reliable. From there, we'll need to go to WP:NPOV and get confirmation that they form, at least, a significant minority. Once that's done (which I think it already is, the sources follow the guidelines) it'll be inarguable that we have to follow WP:NPOV policies and not determine which interpretation is "true". Oberiko (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend adding an FAQ point concerning the title of the subsections, with a thrust toward not changing these unless consensus is established. I suspect most visitors here are not aware of the fact that changing those subsections breaks links to them from other articles, hence the suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)