Talk:World War II

Names

The World War I article has a section titled "Names" that discusses the naming of the war. I think this article could also benefit from such a section. Based on a cursory glance at sources (such as 1 & 2), the naming of this war is noteworthy enough to be included with a brief mention. At the very least, an explanatory note stating that this war's name was chosen because of ww1. JasonMacker (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I should also note that it could be helpful to also include within the Names section wikilinks & explanations for Pacific war, Great Patriotic war, Second Sino-Japanese war (War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression), and other names used for either the conflict as a whole or a specific part of it. JasonMacker (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a worthwhile idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that would place undue weight on comparative linguistic trivia; think about how much value 100 words has in an article like this one. The "sub-conflict listing" idea seems more like redundant clutter than pure trivia though, but certainly best avoided in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 11:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Good idea Gaplow43286 (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The Axis leaders

Should the infobox not include the “KIA” template for Adolf hitler and the “executed“ template for Benito Mussolini? E4t5s.new (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Just because there exists a convention that is used on many articles does not mean it is logically necessary for every applicable article. I don't think there's a need to adopt it here, anyway. Remsense ‥ 论 11:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

But they are real historical events in the Second World War, and if not applied, it may lead people to believe that Hitler and Mussolini were alive for the duration of the war. E4t5s.new (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you have real justification to believe strongly that this would be the case. People are encouraged to read the actual article if they wish to know anything but the plainest possible facts at a glance. If we treated such an element as vital to presentation, it would be codified in the Manual of Style as a guideline. It is presently not, so it is subject to inclusion based largely on per-article consensus as per usual. Remsense ‥ 论 12:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No. Just because an option exists in a template it doesn't have to be used. And it is misleading: Hitler killed himself. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hitler was not killed in action with enemy (Russian) forces so definitely not KIA - if you apply KIA to Hitler you could also add it to Roosevelt. Arnoutf (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Page views chart among 'other banners'

Is anyone interested in having a temporary replacement for the page views chart that used to live among the headers at the top? There used to be one there, until the Graph software was deprecated two years ago for security risks; the collapsed bar lived on, with no chart inside it, until it, too, was finally removed a couple of weeks ago. You probably haven't noticed, but there is now an experimental bar chart banner at that location, collapsed among the 'Other banners'. Please have a look if interested, or remove it, if not. This is just a stop-gap until the original can be repaired or replaced. Mathglot (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Who should be listed at the top of the main Allied leaders?

Should Joseph Stalin be listed in order of precedence above FDR in the infobox? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nick-D, Paul Siebert, Parsecboy, E-960, Rjensen, and TheFreeWorld: In light of the significant extent of your contributions to the "William I, German Emperor" page (as well as relatively recent evidence of your continued interest in said article), you are invited to participate in a discussion regarding how the main Allied leaders should be listed. Should you feel so inclined, please share your thoughts below.

If you made me choose, I would place Stalin on top, but I am not presently inclined to insist on this with confidence. In a four-member list it's comparatively immaterial, and right now I'm thinking of arguments one could pitch for any possible ordering—some better than others, but all logically consistent. Remsense ‥ 论 04:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I would put them in alphabetical order by surname which is the usual practice for listing names in English speaking countries. Trying to list them by "order of importance" is subjective and has no support in the reliable sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think FDR should be listed at the top. While Stalin's Soviet Union was the most directly involved in the defeat of Nazi Germany, it must be remembered that he began the war initially as an ally of Hitler before the launch of Operation Barbarossa in 1941 whereas the U.S. began supporting Britain around a year earlier. Most significantly, the United States was the largest supplier of arms and material to the "Grand Alliance" without which neither Great Britain or the Soviet Union could have likely turned the tide against the Germans. Moreover, given the significant level of mistrust between Churchill and Stalin throughout the conflict, FDR played the most significant role in holding the Big Three intact; it's hardly a coincidence that the alliance began to quickly unravel almost immediately after his death. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You can plausibly narrativize any argument you want, but the point is there's no clear answer rooted in what RS would directly say. Remsense ‥ 论 04:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

What plausible narrative do you have justifying Stalin's listing at the top? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an RS saying Stalin was the most important leader of World War II, so I won't divulge. That's my entire point. Remsense ‥ 论 04:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

In that case, listing them in alphabetical order is probably the best bet. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a good reason to change it. Fiddling with extremely arbitrary but highly visible things is what I will deploy the WP:BEENHERE argument in earnest for. It is a four-member list, famously called the Big Four. They were all very important, and there is no advantage in deliberating on an ordering, nor in deferring to a lexicographical ordering that's rarely done on Wikipedia in these cases. Remsense ‥ 论 04:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no good reason to list Stalin, a mass-murdering dictator with a death toll that rivals that of Adolf Hitler, at the top of the Allied Powers. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

We need to keep moral arguments out of this. The only relevant argument is the consensus of reliable sources. Given the lack of such a consensus in this case, I think alphabetical order is the way to go. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve already indicated I would not be opposed to that.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I would place Stalin at the top due to his pivotal role.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That's hardly a justification to place him at the top. All of the Allied leaders listed played a pivotal role in defeating the Axis in some fashion. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed dozens of times. The infobox reflects the consensus of these discussions. The key factor in these discussions was the guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict that "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict" - surveys of references tend to conclude that historians regard the USSR has having made the largest contribution to the Allied victory. Any further discussions of this issue should involve fresh surveys of references, not the personal views of Wikipedia editors. @Emiya1980: there is also no need to you to reply to every single comment being made here: this is badgering other editors. The other editors involved in this discussion should also note that Emiya1980 appears to have a history of starting these types of disputes, and may want to comment at WP:ANI#Emiya1980's use of RFCs. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic

@Nick-D: First off, your accusation that I am engaged in badgering is somewhat misplaced. Jack Upland's comment was originally made in response to a previous comment I made in response to Aemilius Adolphin. I re-arranged the formatting because Upland's comment bore little relation to that post. When I first started this thread, I posted my opinion and said users engaged me; not the other way around. Second, your characterization of my conduct here as edit-warring is rather exaggerated; particularly when compared to what I've commonly seen from other editors. I started this discussion at the recommendation of Remsense after being reverted twice which is well below the three-revert rule. Moreover, the ANI thread which you are referring concerns my use of Rfcs, specifically in relation to lede images. The present discussion has little to no bearing to the current thread. Just because you feel such discussion is not constructive does not give you carte blanche to lump what happened on other pages with this thread and undermine its integrity by smearing my reputation in front of other editors. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC) While I wasn't ready to make the connection here myself, it's safe to say you haven't been smeared: it's not like ANI is a private forum. People are allowed to make connections between different incidents: I won't put words in his mouth, but "frequent, vigorous dispute concerning comparatively arbitrary matters that have already been subject to much deliberation on highly visible pages" is a connection one could make, I guess. Remsense ‥ 论 07:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "frequent, vigorous dispute concerning comparatively arbitrary matters that have already been subject to much deliberation on highly visible pages" I don't see how that's applicable to this case. When I first started this discussion, neither you nor any other editor gave meany kind of I had little notice from you or anyone else that this particular issue had been discussed as much as it previously had. My lack of familiarity with this page's history is only corroborated by my lack of prior involvement with editing this particular page (as pointed out by Nick-D himself on the ANI). Additionally, as I recently pointed out on the ANI thread, I actually reverted another editor only once prior to opening the present discussion. The original edit I made to the infobox shouldn't be counted as a reversion for purposes of edit-warring. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As this seems to be so controversial why not remove it altogether, what does it add? Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that it is actually controversial. The proposals to not list Stalin first tend to be from editors with little other interest in the article who are motivated by their personal beliefs. Oddly, I can't recall anyone ever suggesting that Hitler not be listed first for the Axis side, despite him being the most horrible of the horrible people who led the Axis nations. That said, I'd be quite comfortable swapping this to countries rather than individuals, which would also address the fact that the US had two leaders during the war and the UK three. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I am interested in the whole article and I believe listing Stalin first is indeed controversial because I am not aware of a single reputable historian who ranks the allied commanders in order of "importance". Some would argue that the Soviet Union made the greatest contribution to defeating Germany in terms of casualties inflicted, territory gained and materiel destroyed, but just about everyone states that the US and Empire forces made by far the greatest contribution in defeating Japan and that the USSR would have been defeated by Germany but for the food and materiel supplied to them by the other allies and the damage caused by allied bombing and the diversion of Axis troops caused by allied forces in the Middle East, Italy and later France. Nowadays scholars tend to emphasise the joint contribution of all Allies (including smaller ones). I still think that alphabetical order (for both the Allies and Axis) is the best from a NPOV. Hirohito is also controversial (although plausible) as a main Axis leader. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussions of this that established the current infobox included multiple surveys of reliable sources, and this reflected the consensus. These surveys revealed that quite a few historians note that the USSR played a major role in the Pacific War, even though it was only involved a few weeks of fighting, as the Soviet intervention was one of the major factors (in some historians' view the most important factor) that finally forced the Japanese leadership to acknowledge that they needed to end the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on my reading of most historians on the subject, the Japanese war effort had all but collapsed by the time of the Soviet intervention. If you want me to provide sources corroborating this, I'll be happy to list them.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The general consensus among historians is that Japan lost the Pacific War on 7 December 1941 as it had no hope of defeating the US. The issue is that it took until August 1945 for its leadership to admit defeat, hence the issue historians focus on is what prompted the Japanese to surrender when they could have continued the war at this time. This is a much debated topic. As noted above, when this was discussed it involved large scale surveys of reliable sources, so picking out sources focused on a single issue is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the argument that Japan sealed its fate the moment it launched an attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. However, despite the wide disparity in industrial power between Japan and the U.S. from the war's outset, the fact remains that the former's capacity to wage war remained more or less intact up to 1944. Conversely, by 1945, Japan's navy was all but destroyed and its war economy was on the verge of collapse primarily as result of American (not Soviet) forces. Taking these facts into consideration, the Soviet "August Storm" Offensive was more of the coup de grâce to the Japanese war effort, not the turning point against it. Again, what I am saying is pretty much common wisdom on the subject, but I am willing to give you sources if you feel I'm basing this on OR. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that there is disagreement among those who regularly edit or comment on this article, I suggest that the way to change the relevant part of the infobox is through a RfC. I won't initiate one because I have better things to do with my time on wikipedia. However, if you initiate one I would vote for listing the main allied and axis leaders either in alphabetical order or in the order that they were leader of a country at war against the other side: thus Churchill (May 1940 to July 1945), Stalin (June 1941 to August 1945) etc. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin While I do not object to an Rfc, I'm going to have to pass on opening it myself. As indicated in the link posted above by Nick-D, I'm currently on probation for how I've used the Rfc process in the past. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We've already had at least two huge RfCs on this issue ([1] and Talk:World War II/Archive 61#RfC: Main Allied Leaders), as well as many earlier and subsequent discussions. The current infobox reflects the results of these discussions over time. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nug, Dhtwiki, Adoring nanny, Bigeez, ThoughtIdRetired, Peacemaker67, Hawkeye7, Maleschreiber, Whizz40, Grandpallama, TheTimesAreAChanging, Qowert, K.e.coffman, Ali Ahwazi, Anne drew, Staberinde, Serialjoepsycho, KIENGIR, Buidhe, Wes sideman, and Pincrete: In light of your prior participation in an earlier discussion regarding the order of Allied leaders in the infobox, you are invited to take part in a new discussion on the issue. If you have any opinions on the matter, please share your thoughts below. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that you should drop the stick on this quasi-RfC instead of having the temerity to continue pushing this after the ANI discussion where numerous editors told you to knock it off and you received a formal warning. If you don't, I'm happy to unarchive the ANI thread and pick the discussion of sanctions right back up. I am pinging Cullen328 so he can see the continued and expanded waste of editors' time going on here. Grandpallama (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That's also my reaction here. It's very disappointing that Emiya1980 indicated in the ANI thread that they would stop these pointless RfCs in articles they're not otherwise involved with, only to try to re-open this discussion a week after it went dormant. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As I stated before, that ANI thread concerned my use of the Rfc process (specifically in relation to lede images). No Rfc of any kind has been opened here. Moreover, based on Wikipedia’s page concerning canvassing, it is permissible to notify editors involved in a prior discussion about a new discussion concerning the same topic.

Back to the topic at hand, I actually had time to review the thread pertaining to the infobox’s order of Allied leaders linked to by Nick-D above. Contrary to representations that have been made, there was not a snowball consensus in favor of listing Joseph Stalin at the top. As a matter of fact, there was no official Rfc on this specific issue at all. The discussion in question had no closing; that’s how I know. All I saw was a normal discussion thread where a relatively small group of editors unilaterally decided this particular issue was not open for further deliberation. Additionally, what certain shrilly objecting members of said group have conveniently failed to mention here is that a significant minority in the prior thread raised the concern that listing leaders in ANY order that was not alphabetical or chronological would only invite further dispute. Seeing as how more than one editor besides myself has raised that concern in this particular thread, it hardly seems to be a settled issue. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Having been asked for an opinion (above), I have always thought that the logical order for the national leaders in the info box is: who served the longest as a war leader? Quite simply count up the number of days that they were in office whilst they were leading a country that was at war. The weakness in this is there is no RS (of which I am aware) that supports this view. However, sources that compare the war leaders are trying to do something different from the information we put in the info box. Why should we or any reader presume that the order in the info box is a comparison of importance? Since it is a debatable point, as illustrated by the unending discussion, it is better for Wikipedia to present the information on a different principle. Many sources seek to avoid saying who was most important out of the big three (unless such an analysis is the major selling point of the book they have just written). We could deal with all this unending discussion if we simply listed the names of the leaders with a number against that name which indicated the number of days they were leading a country at war. That way we could possibly include Truman, who signed off on the single most influential bombing raids of modern times (Hiroshima/Nagasaki). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems more logical and neutral to me than insisting to have either Stalin or Roosevelt on top, apparently based on how much they "contributed". It's a bit funny how our "main" allied leader is pictured in the article body shaking hands with a Nazi Germany official. TylerBurden (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Two points to add to the "time served as a wartime leader" idea.
(1) The closest guidance on this in {{Infobox military conflict}} says "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article." (Referring to combatants.) I guess we are in the "different metrics" zone here.
(2) By my arithmetic, the days served as a war leader of the allied leaders are:
Churchill from 10-May-40 to 26-Jul-45 = 1,903
Stalin from 22-Jun-41 to 15-Aug-45 = 1,515
Chiang Kai-shek from 07-Dec-41 to 15-Aug-45 = 1,347
Roosevelt from 07-Dec-41 to 12-Apr-45 = 1,222
Interestingly, the order is suggestive to the reader that some other "metric" has been used, so highlighting that it is not listed by the debatable measure of influence.
The judgement points on this are: China was not in a world war until Japan expanded their conflict by attacking British and American forces; similarly Russia was not in a world war until invaded by Germany – the fighting in Finland was not part of the larger conflict until Barbarossa. The date of VJ day varies by time zone, but I have just stuck with one date, though you could argue it was the 15th August for Russia and 14th August for USA. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

A problem I have is that the reason for the ordering should be transparent to the casual reader. Otherwise it will look random and people will be inclined to change it. Alphabetical order should be used. It is also odd that Chiang is listed as a main Allied leader but China was not one of the Big Three which is about the only grouping of Allies that most historians agree with. Number of Allied conferences attended were: Churchill 18, Roosevelt 14, Stalin 7, De Gaulle 3, Chiang 1. Source: World War II Infographics, Lopes etal, Thames and Hudson, 2019 Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That arithmetic is problematic given that Chiang was fighting the Japanese from the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. Modern historians also stress that there isn't a clear date that the US entered the war given that the US Navy was involved in fighting the German Navy from about mid-1941 and was essentially a co-belligerent of the Chinese and Western Allies from much earlier due to the very generous military aid that was provided and a range of policies that explicitly favoured what became the Allied cause. I'm not sure why we'd be applying "other metrics" given that lots of sources discuss this issue, and they were consulted in previous discussions. The argument that people periodically make against the current ordering is always that they don't like Stalin rather than this being based on any assessment of sourcing. Modern historians tend to note that the fact that the Stalinist USSR played the key role in the war and it ended with Soviet dominance of eastern Europe is a why it can't be seen as simple good versus evil conflict. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The That arithmetic... point is explained with the answer to "when did China become involved in a world war?". (That answer is also used in determining the start date of WW2 for the article.) As far as the USA start date is concerned, I don't think the claims by historians that they were involved in the war before Pearl Harbor, whilst entirely reasonable, describes activity that members of the public, the US military or Winston Churchill (who was so keen to get the US involved) would have thought of as war (certainly when modified by their post 7 Dec 1941 experiences). The modern historians' claims are set in that context.

The "I don't like Stalin" idea (for want of a better label) should not conceal the argument that the USSR relied a lot on help from the other Allies. If the USA had not provided so many supplies (UK as well), the position might have been very different. See Richard Overy's Russias War and also Ewan Mawdsley's The War for the Seas on this. (Note that more supplies were sent across the Pacific than in Arctic convoys.) Similarly, Barbarossa was delayed by Germany fighting British troops in the Mediterranean area. Any "importance" ordering is always going to attract debate (the evidence is on these talk pages). So a different method resolves that completely. And to answer Aemilius Adolphin's point, the order you get makes it abundantly clear that they are not in order of importance. If we have a heading "ordered by days as war leader" (or something similar), it should be pretty obvious to the majority of readers. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I took part in a RFC, was summoned by a bot, and can't even care enough to remember what or when all of this was about as far as the controversy on this page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D and the majority. Cheers Bigeez (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(Responding to ping) I'm one of those in the previous discussion who tended to think that listing leaders in ANY order that was not alphabetical or chronological would only invite further dispute and was probably SYNTH anyway. The indisputable facts include that Soviet losses were enormous relative to any other ally, that USSR probably did more actual fighting than any other ally, certainly in Europe, they probably did more harm to Nazi fighting capacity than other allies etc … . But how does that translate into "was the leader of the Alliance"? Having read the whole of the previous discussion, I take exception to the argument that people periodically make against the current ordering is always that they don't like Stalin rather than this being based on any assessment of sourcing.. We all know that Stalin was utterly ruthless, devious, and odious morally, but that does not have any bearing on this question. I've personally never seen a source that put "Uncle Joe" as the leader of the wartime alliance, though of course I've seen tons that record the level of sacrifice paid by Soviet troops and Soviet civilians and other 'feathers in his cap' but equally plenty of sources deal with the enormous impact of US's productive capacity. How does one balance the importance of 'blood-price' and simple industrial output even in the simplest terms of postulated impact on outcome. Who needed who more? Modest suggestion is that whatever criteria is adopted (which could be alphabetical, chronological order of country joining war, size of country's armed forces or otherwise), whatever it is, the criteria should be included as a footnote to avoid future challenge.Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've personally never seen a source that put "Uncle Joe" as the leader of the wartime alliance Listing Stalin first is not equivalent to saying he was the "leader" of the Allies, and that's not why he's listed first now. He's listed first now because that's the guidance from our own MOS (The key factor in these discussions was the guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict that "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict"), and as you've acknowledged in your own comment here, historians agree on the "indisputable facts" about the primacy of the Soviet role in the war. Unless there is a discussion to be had about whether or not those indisputable facts are actually in dispute, our own WP:PAG make clear that Stalin is ordered first. Grandpallama (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Well I've personally also never seen a source that said that Stalin/USSR were more "important to the conflict", though sources acknowledge Soviets did more fighting (and a great deal more dying)in Europe. You are misunderstanding my point, what use are millions of Soviet soldiery, if they lack the weaponry or food supplies to enable them to do the fighting? My main point anyway is to say 'why not make clear what the criteria for the order are'? Why assume that people know about the sheer difference in scale between the war in eastern Europe and elsewhere? Pincrete (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I find my argument from four years ago is still apt--especially so, given that this revisit was prompted by a moral objection--so I'll just copy-paste it in. Oppose based on reams of historical research and academic publication that, like it or not, identify the Soviet Union and its contribution to the Allied war effort as more critical than that of any other. Weird OR arguments about the positioning of the leaders in photographs or about the the distastefulness of Stalin's authoritarianism should be given the (lack of) weight they merit. Grandpallama (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

World War 2 start date

I have a problem. It is controversial about the start date. Please include both the 1931, 1937, or the 1939. Thank you! 24.19.225.27 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

They are included. The first section in the article lists them, and is about all about the start (and end) dates of the conflict. 51.148.251.110 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Not to rehash old arguments, but it was not until Britain and France declared war on Germany that it became a war involving more than one continent. That is what made it a world war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@24.19.225.27 See "Start and end dates" sections. Even though Infobox said 1 September 1939 as start date, different views are presented in section. You might just see Infobox, not reading the page! Gaplow43286 (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Canadian involvement in WWII

I find it a little disappointing that this article, which outlines most major events of the war, practically excludes any mention of Canada. Canadians were responsible for liberating the Netherlands and advancing further inland than any other Allied force on D-Day. Canada was also a signatory to the Japanese instrument of surrender. 104.232.41.25 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The article's emphases reflect those of sources. We can't do anything about this unless you can put forth an argument that we're under-representing Canada in proportion to its mention in the whole body of sources about the war. Remsense ‥ 论 20:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Which we aren't.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Limited nuclear war

World War 2 was a global conflict AND a limited nuclear war. This should be in the first sentence in the lede. This was the only time that nuclear weapons were ever used and that should be further emphasized. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The lead already mentions the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the same link. I don't think your change improves the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The idea that it was limited seems incorrect to me, as nuclear weapons were to be used as they became available. Do you have a source for this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

But they were not used further, and no more became available in time. I guess it could've escalated further, but it didn't. Perhaps the word "limited" could be dropped, but that implies something far larger in scope than what actually occured. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems a manifestation of the impulse we sometimes have where we want to include some characterization of an article's subject that will make the reader go, "wow, never thought about it that way, but I suppose that is true!" That impulse often totally contravenes WP:ASPECT: tell me if I'm wrong, but you didn't propose "limited nuclear war" because it or a synonymous phrase appeared to describe WWII in something you were reading, right? Remsense ‥ 论 08:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Good points. Oddly enough (and surprisingly to me) there doesn't seem to be a single source on the web that describes World War 2 as a "nuclear war" even though it does technically meet that description.

Most sources that I found discuss this from a mostly theoretical perspective, which is actually a bit odd.

When I proposed this I had thought this would be in at least a few sources, but apparently I was wrong. I should have checked- my bad! TheAwesomeHwyh 23:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Whilst technically correct it seems to be a [[wp:fringe] description, it was also the first nuclear war, the only nuclear war, the only limited nuclear war, and no doubt dog knows how many other descriptors. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If it were to be included in the article (and that seems unlikely at the point) perhaps ALL descriptions are the best one.

"World War 2 was a global war, and is to date the first and only limited nuclear war ever fought."

But, it seems as though you're right. WP:FRINGE certainly applies.

So I guess the current description is the best description. The article doesn't need to change. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

list of references

list of references 216.247.89.25 (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are at the bottom of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)