Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/World War II


Well, this has been fruitful so far. --NEMT 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:I find your lack of faith disturbing.

:I have taken this case. The issues as presented are here. Because the mediation is on multiple articles, we will discuss things here and transclude this page into the relevant articles. -Stevertigo 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What does itbm mean? Xaxafrad 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

: Issues to be mediated

;ITBM

  • Should the individual countries making up the Axis Powers and Allies of World War II be listed in the Combatants section of the infobox, or should only links to the relevant articles be provided?
  • If countries are to be listed, which countries are appropriate to list for each side?
  • If countries are to be listed, should commanders for those countries also be listed?
  • If commanders are to be listed, which commanders are appropriate for each country?

List order

;List A1

  1. Allies of World War II

;List A2

Allies (largest to smallest): (thanks Cla68) (38 countries)

  1. 22x20px Soviet Union: 1941 22 June
  2. 22x20px United States of America: 1941 8 December (including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other unincorporated territories)
  3. 22x20px United Kingdom: 1939 3 September (included Indian Empire & Crown Colonies)
  4. 22x20px Republic of China: 1941 9 December (in war with Empire of Japan since 1937)
  5. 22x20px France: 1939 3 September
  6. 22x20px Poland: 1939 1 September
  7. 22x20px Australia: 1939 3 September
  8. 22x20px New Zealand: 1939 3 September
  9. 22x20px Canada: 1939 10 September
  10. 22x20px Norway: 1940 9 April
  11. 22x20px Belgium: 1940 10 May
  12. 22x20px Luxembourg: 1940 10 May
  13. 22x20px Netherlands: 1940 10 May
  14. 22x20px Greece: 1940 28 October
  15. 22x20px Kingdom of Yugoslavia: 1941 6 April (formerly a member of the Axis)
  16. 22x20px Tannu Tuva: 1941 25 June (annexed by Soviet Union in 1944)
  17. 22x20px Panama: 1941 7 December
  18. 22x20px Costa Rica: 1941 8 December
  19. 22x20px Dominican Republic: 1941 8 December
  20. 22x20px El Salvador: 1941 8 December
  21. 22x20px Haiti: 1941 8 December
  22. 22x20px Honduras: 1941 8 December
  23. 22x20px Nicaragua: 1941 8 December
  24. 22x20px Guatemala: 1941 9 December
  25. 22x20px Cuba: 1941 9 December
  26. 22x20px Czechoslovakia (Government-in-Exile) : 1941 16 December
  27. 22x20px Peru: 1942 12 February
  28. 23px Mexico: 1942 22 May
  29. 22x20px Brazil: 1942 22 August
  30. 22x20px Ethiopia: 1942 14 December
  31. 22x20px Iraq: 1943 17 January (occupied by Allies in 1941)
  32. 22x20px Bolivia: 1943 7 April
  33. 22x20px Iran: 1943 9 September (occupied by Allies in 1941)
  34. 22x20px Italy: 1943 13 October (formerly a member of the Axis)
  35. 22x20px Colombia: 1943 26 November
  36. 22x20px Liberia: 1944 27 January
  37. 22x20px Nepal: 1939 4 September
  38. 22x20px South Africa: 1939 6 September

;List A3

(from the original signatories of the Declaration by United Nations on 1 Jan 1942) (26 countries)

  1. 22x20px United States of America (including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other unincorporated territories)
  2. 22x20px United Kingdom (included Indian Empire & Crown Colonies)
  3. 22x20px Soviet Union
  4. 22x20px Republic of China
  5. 22x20px Australia
  6. 22x20px Belgium
  7. 22x20px Canada
  8. 22x20px Costa Rica
  9. 22x20px Cuba
  10. 22x20px Czechoslovakia (Government-in-Exile)
  11. 22x20px Dominican Republic
  12. 22x20px El Salvador
  13. 22x20px Greece
  14. 22x20px Guatemala
  15. 22x20px Haiti
  16. 22x20px Honduras
  17. 22x20px India
  18. 22x20px Luxembourg
  19. 22x20px Netherlands
  20. 22x20px New Zealand
  21. 22x20px Nicaragua
  22. 22x20px Norway
  23. 22x20px Panama
  24. 22x20px Poland
  25. 22x20px South Africa
  26. 22x20px Kingdom of Yugoslavia

;List A4

(from Allies of World War II#United Nations, "leading nations" statement)

  1. 22x20px Republic of China
  2. 22x20px France
  3. 22x20px Soviet Union
  4. 22x20px United Kingdom (included Indian Empire & Crown Colonies)
  5. 22x20px United States of America (including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other unincorporated territories)

;List A5

(Country names in alphabetical order, short form GB from Churchill's 2nd World War)

  1. China
  2. France
  3. Great Britain
  4. Soviet Union
  5. United States

;List B1

  1. Axis powers of World War II

;List B2

(from Axis powers of World War II) (28 countries)

Major powers:

  1. 22x20px Greater German Reich
  2. 22x20px Empire of Greater Japan
  3. 22x20px Kingdom of Italy

Minor powers:

  1. 22x20px Kingdom of Hungary
  2. 22x20px Kingdom of Romania
  3. 22x20px Slovak Republic
  4. 22x20px Kingdom of Bulgaria
  5. 22x20px Kingdom of Yugoslavia
  6. 22x20px Independent State of Croatia

Co-belligerents:

  1. 22x20px Kingdom of Thailand
  2. 22x20px Republic of Finland
  3. 22x20px Kingdom of Iraq

Japanese puppet states:

  1. 22x20px Manchukuo
  2. 22x20px Mengjiang
  3. 22x20px Reorganised Government of China
  4. 22x20px Burma
  5. 22x20px Second Philippine Republic
  6. 22x20px Provisional Government of Free India

Italian puppet states:

  1. 22x20px Albania
  2. 22x20px Ethiopia

German puppet states:

  1. 22x20px Italian Social Republic
  2. 22x20px Kingdom of Serbia
  3. 22x20px Independent State of Montenegro

Axis collaborator states:

  1. 22x20px French State

Controversial relations with the Axis:

  1. 22x20px Kingdom of Denmark
  2. 22x20px Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
  3. 22x20px Spanish State
  4. 22x20px Estado Novo

;List B3

(alternate)

;List B4

  1. Germany
  2. Italy
  3. Japan

== Comments ==

Mediator note: We can agree on a list in general, or if necessary take a vote on each country, deciding whether it belongs in the top or bottom piles. One important way to define relevance is to adhere to the particular spheres of conflict. There are understandably caveats. Was France an allied combatant? Or was it for the most part taken over by Germany? We can sort all of this out methodically I think. Another way to define a cutoff point would be to let the smaller list, in this case the Axis list, define the number of Allied parties represented. Can we have an Axis list added, someone?

Regards, -Stevertigo 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:Axis list added, as well as two extras for the Allies. Xaxafrad 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Excellent. 30px -Stevertigo 07:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Vote ==

;For

  • A5 and B4. Note that I don't really see this vote as binding, nor do I like Wikipedia votes very much in principle, but I do think we should cooperate with the mediator and see where it takes us. Haber 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A5, B4 - 5vs3. I wouldn't look at it like a vote; I think it's more like a poll to determine consensus, but it's easier to just say "vote". Xaxafrad 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment For the list of commanders, I would vote for 6v3 (2 US presidents) off the top of my head, since I haven't familiarized myself with the specific players. Xaxafrad 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:* More comments These are probably my final statements on this matter, as I'm not sure I can say anything that I haven't said before. I have just read about the creation of the Allies in chronology section covering the war in the Pacific (1941-1943):

The Allies were officially formed in the Declaration by United Nations on 1 January 1942. Soon

afterwards, the American-British-Dutch-Australian Command (ABDACOM) was formed to unite Allied

forces in South East Asia. It was the first Allied supreme command of the war.

:* In looking at the Declaration by United Nations, I followed the link to the online text of the original document. In the original document, the nations are listed in a curious order: the USA, the UK of GB and NI, the USSR, and China, followed by an alphabetical listing of the remaining countries. This signifies to me the delineation, in the mind of the writer of the declaration of 1941, between who was major and who wasn't. Notably, France is not on the list, as France was a conquered nation and a collaborator state in 1941. In 1939, at the war's beginning, I believe they considered France a major member of the British-Franco-Polish defense alliance. After the war, with a reinstated French government, the Council of Foreign Ministers probably thought they were the big boys in the winners' circle (sorry Canada, Australia, and all the rest, it's nothing personal). Xaxafrad 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:* Even more... Sorry, I thought of something else to say. If one wanted to accuse the writer of the UN declaration to have a biased POV, I'd like to point out the fact that representatives from each country agreed to the ordering by their signatures. They had a chance to disagree with the "ladder of importance" when the declaration was being drafted. Xaxafrad 04:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

;Against

  • I do not support any combatant or commander listings in the infobox beyond Axis and Allies. --NEMT 17:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How did we come to Cla68's list? Number of troops fielded I assume? Why that metric and not, say, length of time officially at war or citizens killed? Also, could I see the figures used for Cla68's list? Oberiko 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:*I assumed the "largest to smallest" was referring to land area, but I can't say from which period of time (1945ish?). Xaxafrad 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, I only meant "largest to smallest" for the top part of the list. I didn't try to actually put the entire list in descending order by land size or population or anything like that. Cla68 09:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I also do not support any combatant or commander listings in the infobox beyond "Axis" and "Allies", and since that option does not appear to be available (thus mischaracterising and obfuscating the whole debate), it's difficult to see this vote as valid- especially since a less malformed iteration of this idea was recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II#Allies.2FAxis_or_Nationality_listings_poll_.28Started:_February_23.2C_2007_-_Ends:_March_2nd.2C_2007.29 tried] and resulted in a clear result (which might be taken as a consensus by some anyway). However, I'd like to hear further comments from the mediator (and anyone else, of course). One avenue we might explore as a compromise is including all combatants in a redesigned infobox. I think we had all perhaps thought this as impractical on space grounds, but examples such as Invasion of Poland (1939) (I'm thinking of the city listing in the lower box, below the main infobox) offer a possibilty that even large lists can be included. Badgerpatrol 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:I took the {{tl|Campaign}} infobox from Invasion of Poland (1939) and copied a bunch of stuff to a subpage just to see how it would look (55vs28 countries). I used the list of participants from the respective Allies and Axis powers articles. More formatting is probably desirable (here's a link to the template in case anyone's interested: User:Xaxafrad/WW2combatants). Xaxafrad 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:Note, Ive moved your boxes to a different format at the bottom of this page. My thinking is that the make fine full lists for the bottom of the WWII article, but the war box at the top should only include a short number, linking of course to the section you've composed. -Stevertigo 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks Xaxafrad fr doing this. Buuuut.....Ooh...in fairness, it looks fairly horrendous. I'm not sure if it's possible to clean that up to a decent listing. I'm certainly inclined to stick with just "Allies" and "Axis". Badgerpatrol 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I also do not support listing combatants and commanders in the infobox. Listing only some countries and not others is inherently POV. Parsecboy 13:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

:*With all due respect....Is it really? What part of listing the top 3 or 5 major countries (as decided by Churchill and other political leaders in 1945, for the Allies, and Wikipedia editors, for the Axis) is biased? How can a point of view be biased when there's a link to the remainder of the list at the bottom of the list? When the remainder of the article (briefly) describes the roles the US, Canada, Hungary, and others played? Is the problem here that some people are assuming readers are going to only read the infobox to learn everything they want? I don't know what information everybody is looking for when they come to WW2, but they probably read more than the infobox, or are at least aware that more than 8 countries were involved. If a reader doesn't care to follow the links, what are we really supposed to do about it? Xaxafrad 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

:*I don't think it's "inherently pov" to include some and exclude others. There are definitely some political and military criteria that one can use to rank the countries and some historical consensus on who the major players were. Blueshirts 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

= Cutoff point =

Mediator note: Vote here on the cutoff point, after agreeing on the nation order above. The cutoff point could be represented by a simple number, representing the first entry which does not belong in the topicbox. -SV

width="100%"
valign=top

| width=50% |

Allied powers during World War II


1939

22x20px Poland

22x20px Australia

22x20px New Zealand

22x20px United Kingdom (included Indian Empire & Crown Colonies)

22x20px France

22x20px Nepal

22x20px South Africa

22x20px Canada


1940

22x20px Norway

22x20px Belgium

22x20px Luxembourg

22x20px Netherlands

22x20px Greece


1941

22x20px Kingdom of Yugoslavia (former Axis power)

22x20px Soviet Union

22x20px Tannu Tuva

22x20px Panama

22x20px Costa Rica

22x20px Dominican Republic

22x20px El Salvador

22x20px Haiti

22x20px Honduras

22x20px Nicaragua

22x20px United States of America (including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other unincorporated territories)

22x20px Republic of China (in war with Empire of Japan since 1937)

22x20px Guatemala

22x20px Cuba

22x20px Czechoslovakia (Government-in-Exile)


1942

22x20px Peru

23px Mexico

22x20px Brazil

22x20px Ethiopia


1943
'

22x20px Iraq (occupied by Allies in 1941)

22x20px Bolivia

22x20px Iran (occupied by Allies in 1941)

22x20px Italy (former Axis power)

22x20px Colombia


1944

22x20px Liberia

22x20px Romania (former Axis power)

22x20px Bulgaria (former Axis power)

22x20px San Marino

22x20px Albania (formerly occupied by Fascist Italy)


1945

22x20px Hungary (former Axis power)

22x20px Bahawalpur

22x20px Ecuador

22x20px Paraguay

22x20px Uruguay

22x20px Venezuela

22x20px Turkey

22x20px Lebanon

22x20px Saudi Arabia

22x20px Finland (formerly an Axis co-belligerent, de facto co-belligerent of UN in Lapland War)

22x20px Argentina

22x20px Chile

22x20px People's Republic of Mongolia

| width=50% |

Axis powers during World War II

Major powers

22x20px Greater German Reich

22x20px Empire of Greater Japan

22x20px Kingdom of Italy


Minor powers

22x20px Kingdom of Hungary

22x20px Kingdom of Romania

22x20px Slovak Republic

22x20px Kingdom of Bulgaria

22x20px Kingdom of Yugoslavia

22x20px Independent State of Croatia


Co-belligerents

22x20px Kingdom of Thailand

22x20px Republic of Finland

22x20px Kingdom of Iraq


Puppet states

22x20px Manchukuo

22x20px Mengjiang

22x20px Reorganised Government of China

22x20px Burma

22x20px Second Philippine Republic

22x20px Provisional Government of Free India

22x20px Albania

22x20px Ethiopia

22x20px Italian Social Republic

22x20px Kingdom of Serbia

22x20px Independent State of Montenegro


Collaborator states

22x20px French State


Controversial affiliation

22x20px Kingdom of Denmark

22x20px Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

22x20px Spanish State

22x20px Estado Novo

What's going on?

It's been some time now. Is everyone still interested in this mediation? Haber 03:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

:I'm still here :) Parsecboy 12:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

::I guess now that American Idol is heating up, people have better things to do. Motion to exclude them from the infobox about this mediation. Haber 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm here, too. I'm been waiting for Stevertigo to weigh in, but he seems to be a busy Wikipedian (and that's probably only when he isn't busy in real life). Until he has the time to come to a decision and make some comments about it, I'd like to summarize the basic arguments. I'll start a new section for it, but I think it shouldn't take the form of a discussion (with signatures, and what not). Xaxafrad 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Too bad, I tought for a moment this section was refering to Marvin Gaye. Maybe that would have been more interesting than a remake of the previous discussion on the WWII page...

--Flying tiger 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed. Haber 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone anywhere. Obviously this mediation exercise has gotten us absolutely nowhere and went wrong almost from the very start. Since this issue is surely too insignificant for the ArbCom, since some are unwilling to accept the result of the previous poll, since we've surely discussed every permutation fairly exhaustively over the many weeks (months?) of debate both here and on the WWII talk page, and since people (not least the mediator) appear to be losing interest, I'm really not sure how to resolve this. Any ideas as to a possible compromise? Badgerpatrol 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary of arguments

It is obvious that no one has convinced any one else of anything in this issue. Since there has been so much discussion, I think a brief summary might prove beneficial.... Xaxafrad 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

;ITBM

  • Should the individual countries making up the Axis Powers and Allies of World War II be listed in the Combatants section of the infobox, or should only links to the relevant articles be provided?
  • If countries are to be listed, which countries are appropriate to list for each side?
  • If countries are to be listed, should commanders for those countries also be listed?
  • If commanders are to be listed, which commanders are appropriate for each country?

;Parties who have contributed to this section

;Arguments for listing only "major" countries

  • More informative
  • The major countries were agreed upon in 1942, in the Declaration by United Nations
  • Links to articles listing and describing the nature of each countries involvement in their respective alliances are sufficient for Wikipedia readers

:;Counter arguments

:*"Major" is not defined

:*The UN Declaration reflects the timing of signing, not importance.

;Arguments for listing only "Allied powers" and "Axis powers"

  • A previous poll supported this position, and it's logic is "obvious"
  • If all countries cannot be listed, then no countries should be listed
  • Any partial list will inevitably be expanded by random editors (mostly for reasons of nationalistic pride)

:;Counter arguments

:*Illogically unfounded

;Some lists to vote on

(I took the liberty of transposing the votes previously logged on this page) (Also, let's quibble over the sequence in a separate section, or edit them in place if you please)

  1. Allies vs Axis
  2. United Kingdom, Soviet Union, United States, and others vs Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
  3. China, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, and others vs Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
  4. United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Poland, China, Soviet Union, United States, and others vs Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
  5. or half a dozen other permutations if one of the above lists is, for some reason, insufficient
  • 3 - Haber, Xaxafrad, Blueshirts
  • 1 - NEMT, Badgerpatrol, Parsecboy
  • Comment I'd vote for an expanded version of #4, if others would do it too; the infobox has enough room this many items. Xaxafrad 05:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

=Comments=

The 1942 Declaration by United Nations was signed by 26 countries, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Luxembourg and Cuba (just a random sampling...). Do you mean to say that you consider this to be a definitive and incontrovertible list of "major" powers? And what about the Axis? You claim (unilaterally) that the order reflects some agreed upon scale of importance between the signatories (it would be very useful if you could point to your source for this- this [http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/history/declaration.shtml article] from the UN suggests that the list reflects simply the timing of when the signatories signed. I find it quite hard to believe that the USSR for example voluntarily ceded primacy to the US and UK in any meaningful sense). It is obvious that any one of us will easily be able to come up with another source that includes other parties (e.g. France, and others)- a good example being the actual United Nations Charter, signed after the war in the context of the final outcome, which clearly orders the permanent security council members alphabetically starting with China and France and ending with the UK and US [http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/]. My point is not, before it is misrepresented, "France in", my point is "No-one in". Any partial list based on whatever source is going to be indefensible (because either the list itself, or the selection of the source from which such a list is taken, is going to be POV), whereas (despite your claim above) the logic of a list that includes no countries whatsoever (or all countries as a whole) should be obvious to everyone. This mediation is going nowhere and, with the best will in the world, the way the process has been handled certainly hasn't helped move the debate forward and may actually have hindered it. I can only appeal to everyone to accept the fair outcome of the previous poll (and of course majorities (or supermajorities) do not always equal consensus, but in this I see no other available substitute) and leave the box as it is. Badgerpatrol 01:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:It would've been nice to have that kind of response when I first raised the UN Declaration topic, but better late than never. If the list in that document reflects timing rather than importance, I'll move on to the current statement in the Allies article referring to the "informal Big 3" which emerged in the second half of the war: UK, SU, and US, in that order. Now, what about the name "Allies"? When was the alliance formed? Would the UK, France, and Poland have been considered the Allies at some date in 1939? China? Given the overall length of WW2, I can't think of any reasonable argument against having a list of 5, 7, or 8 countries fighting 2, 3, or 8 other countries, provided links to the remaining allies are included (twice, at that: once at the top in the list heading, and again as the last item in the list)

:And as for the Axis, the axis was a line running through Europe, starting in Germany and ending in Italy. I don't doubt that the Soviet Union and imperial Japan were little more than convenient, and temporary, allies (see also: Tripartite Pact, for somebody else's judgment on the major Axis powers). However, without the addition of Japan (on one side, and the US on the other), the two regional conflicts could not have been called a global war. Wouldn't you say that the other European Axis powers were undoubtedly "non-major" in this global context?

:Finally, I apologize for the unilateralness of this presentation. It was my hope others would edit the outlined arguments for a more complete view, but I'll work with what I've got. Xaxafrad 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::I did not respond at the time because there is absolutely no point in restating the same argument over and over again- the point has been made almost ad infinitum. There is no definitive and incontrovertible list of "major" belligerents. No response is necessary when the contention effectively seems to be "OK, I see your point about the impossibility of a definitive list....but what about this new one that I just found?". With respect, and I hate to be direct, you still haven't grasped the fundamentals of this debate. You claim that "in this global context" the other European belligerents were "non-major". You're probably right- it would still have been a World War without Hungary and Romania. But so what? The whole point is that in that context you may be right- but what about all the other "contexts"? What about the huge numbers of casualties suffered by e.g. those two powers and the enormous numbers of troops committed? What about the political context? What about the economic context? What you are saying is in your opinion other European "Axis" co-belligerents were non-major because in your opinion the only meaningful context is whether or not the addition of said combatants escalated the conflict from a regional to a global war. Unfortunately, your opinion doesn't matter, or at least it doesn't matter any more than the opinion of anyone else, who might wish to compile a list based on number of troops, or number of casualties, or population, or wealth and economic contribution, or any number of other factors. (Your argument is particularly interesting btw because you appear to be implicitly suggesting that World War II started in 1941 with the advent of the US to both theatres. Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Trinidadians etc etc will no doubt be amazed to hear that in the late 1930s their countries were part of Europe- is this the amazing power of plate tectonics in action, I can only wonder?). By the way, I didn't accuse you of being unilateral with regard to the summation- I don't see the point of it, but I was actually referring to your statement that the order of signatories to the DecbyUN was specifically chosen and represented something more than circumstance. No-one else appears to have raised this point and no-one else has made any argument that that document is somehow definitive (to the best of my recollection). If you have the reference, or can expand on your supportive argument with more facts, I'd like to read it, for my own interest. Badgerpatrol 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I appreciate your directness; if I don't learn and grow because of it, that would mean I'm truly stupid, rather than simply ignorant. I have no references, only opinions. I'm mostly just grasping at straws here, as best I can. I'm sorry this has been such a long standing issue, but if you're just frustrated because of it, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

:::You spoke of global contexts, and economic and political contexts, but I don't see why the infobox should necessarily portray all of these aspects. It should only be a short, concise summary. The very clearly linked articles, Allies of World War II and Axis powers of World War II, have the scope to properly expand on the various intricacies of this global conflict.

:::And fwiw, I think WW2 started whenever the Axis powers entered into treaty negotiations with Japan, or when Japan first made their multi-pronged blitz all around greater southeast Asia. And what of New Zealanders and Trinidadians being considered part of Europe just because they're theoretically grouped under "United Kingdom"? Would Canada and Australia be approvingly listed as "major" sub-list items under the UK?

:::And why not go to the Axis article to contest the majority status of Hungary and Romania? Doesn't Wikipedia strive for some kind of harmony? Nobody editing that whole article ever contested the placement of those two countries as minor allies. And for the allies that eventually won, even those editors have not yet straightened out the problem with "major" status, as they state, with so much apparent bias and a narrow point of view, "The Big Three", China, and France (after liberation), were major players. Why can't we take a clue from them, or upset their article with petty bickering over status. If I felt like using Wikipedia to make a POINT, I'd delete the sentence calling France a major ally, and challenge somebody else to come up with a verifiable reference (or just add a {{tl|fact}} tag).

:::But truly, what is so contentious about the big 3 Allies (and others) versus the big 3 Axes (and others)? I use the plural of axis purposefully: when considering great powers, other, lesser powers can be said to revolve in an orbit around one of the great powers of their choosing. The international political field has always be hierarchical, ever since politics were invented.

:::And just for fun, Wiktionary says "major" means: of great significance or importance. To have been a major ally, means one country made a greatly significant or important contribution. Does anyone think it possible to check off some countries one by one using this decidedly abstract definition, or would anyone even care to humor me in such an exercise? Xaxafrad 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider this: the list of combatants in the infobox is supposed to be a brief summary of the long list of allies on either side of the conflict. Let us take those countries which were significant enough to warrant mention in the lead paragraphs of the two articles which are dedicated to expounding on the full list of participants on either side: Allies of World War II and Axis powers of World War II: USSR, US, UK, China, France, and others vs Germany, Italy, Japan, and others. Or even the more general Participants in World War II, which doesn't have a specific lead section and could result in two different lists, depending on how much content one considers introductory. If future editors, who are unaware of the massive amounts of discussion generated by this issue, wish to change the infobox list, they should be pointed in the direction of the primary articles. If someone can get Hungary or Poland added to the lead, it should be similarly included in the infobox list. It's easy for people to edit infoboxes, but adding a new sentence to the lead section usually requires a reference of some sort. What do you think? Just another bad idea? Xaxafrad 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Allies, copied from that article (originally listed by date of entry into the Alliance):

;Major powers:

;Possibly major powers:

;Not major powers (due to lack of comparable military with other major/great powers):

;Not major, due to incomparability to major countries:

;Not major, due to lack of mention of contributions in Wikipedia:

  • 22x20px Panama (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px El Salvador (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Haiti (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Nicaragua (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Guatemala (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Cuba (not major, "did not significantly participate militarily in World War II hostilities")
  • 23px Mexico (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Bolivia (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Colombia (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Bahawalpur (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Ecuador (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Paraguay (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Uruguay (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Venezuela (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)
  • 22x20px Chile (not major, no mention of WW2 contribution in Wikipedia article)

The Flags are no longer on the French version of WWII

For those interested, the little flags and lists of "major" countries have been deleted for some weeks on the french article and nobody objected. [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconde_Guerre_mondiale]--Flying tiger 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (Oooops, signed my comment...)

:Indeed. The edit summary for that diff [http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seconde_Guerre_mondiale&diff=15539718&oldid=15538443] uses a word that I don't recognise ("avusives"?) but the jist seems to be that per the military history standard, oversimplifications are unwise and that it is better to have nothing at all than include misleading or partial information. Sensible words. That edit was made nearly two weeks ago and I can't see any dissenting arguments on the talk page or elsewhere. Badgerpatrol 11:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it is the word "abusives" which is mispelled, and there is still no dissent...

--Flying tiger 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

::I agree that oversimplifications are unwise, especially in military history and planning, but this is an infobox in an online encylopedia. I noticed the French lead section is actually well developed, in contrast with a dry series of approximately eight facts. I'll take some notes when I have more time (later this evening, probably). Xaxafrad 20:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:::After attempting to translate the French lead into English (with the help of Babelfish), I wondered what all those interwiki FA versions of WW2 looked like. WW2 has become a featured article in 11 different wikis; a good question is: are other language FA standards similar to en FA standards? I'll assume they're not far off....

:::*ast:Segunda Guerra Mundial is less than 32 KB, and might be an example of a good, short treatment of this war

:::*eo:Dua mondmilito is longer than ast:, but still lacks an infobox

:::*hr:Drugi svjetski rat uses a 5vs5 list of combatants, and 18vs18 commanders, plus an almost purely chronological layout

:::*ka:მეორე მსოფლიო ომი doesn't have any infoboxes, also looks largely chronological

:::*no:Andre verdenskrig lists Allies vs Axis, and 4vs3 commanders

:::*pt:Segunda Guerra Mundial lists 7vs3 combatants, and 6vs3 commanders

:::*sr:Други светски рат lists 7vs5 combatants, no commanders

:::*sh:Drugi svetski rat lists 7vs5 combatants, no commanders

:::*sv:Andra världskriget lists 6vs8 combatants, 4vs3 commanders

:::*vi:Đệ nhị thế chiến lists 3vs3 on both lists

:::*zh:第二次世界大战 lists 4vs3 on both lists

:::Xaxafrad 04:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation over

This is done. I formally withdraw, and I intend to open the infobox back up to any editor who wishes to work on it. Haber 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:Ah, yet another triumph for your inclusive, consensus-building style of doing things! In fairness, it's obvious that this mediation is going nowhere and much of the blame for that must go to the mediator, who turned up without actually even reading the arguments, totally misunderstand the issue, tried to dictate some changes that completely missed the point and that very few people wanted, made little or no effort whatsoever to encourage the disputing editors to compromise or come together, and then quickly disappeared completely. If this is how mediation works, it's fair to say that I at least won't be going back down this route again in a hurry. Now, Haber- are you going to actually make any attempt to contribute a substantive argument to support your views, or are you just going to ignore everyone else as usual and provoke another stupid edit war over this issue? Badgerpatrol 09:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::Are you still trying to win? Who do you think is even listening? Haber 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh dear. The only person who has ever characterised this debate in terms of "winning" and "losing" is YOU. I (and, in my opinion at least, everyone else on BOTH sides of this debate) have been trying to have an honest (if stupidly long-winded) debate to decide how to improve the article. If no-one's listening, it's because your unilateral, frustrating and stroppy behaviour has served to stifle the legitimate debate. Badgerpatrol 09:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::All I said was that the mediation was over, and you unloaded with the same tired distortions and personal attacks. What purpose do you think this serves? Haber 14:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

: So, would you be willing to continue if another mediator from the Mediation Committee took the case? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::Yes. Provided they are actually committed to doing a decent job. Badgerpatrol 02:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Waiting for response from Haber (and anyone else with this page still watchlisted)....Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I agree with Badgerpatrol. Parsecboy 09:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

::If anything, this has shown the merit of a pure Axis vs. Allies listing. --NEMT 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No thanks to more mediation. Haber 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:What's your preferred alternative, Haber? Badgerpatrol 14:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

: In that case, I am sorry to close this mediation as unsuccessful. For the Mediation Committee, Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::in america --NEMT 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::: What do you mean? By "unsuccessful" I mean that it does not look like all the participants are happy with the result, something the Mediation Committee strives for. I am not judging whatever result you reached in any other way. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm also a bit puzzled- what do you mean, NEMT? Badgerpatrol 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::::a non sequitur --NEMT 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Ah, were you by any chance singing along to Kim and got over excited? If so, don't worry about it- happens to me all the time....;-) Badgerpatrol 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::No, it's actually a reference to a character from a youtube video series, he says it after everything. --NEMT 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::: : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that as of right now, things have settled down a bit and there is no need for a mediator. No one's really been making any big discussion on the talk page for a while. But if we ever have a mediation on it again, I would be 100% against having stevertigo as the mediator. Before I became an editor I used to read the talk page (now in the archives) and I used to wonder where the "heck" stevertigo was in all of this. So he should definantly not be the mediator the next time we need one. --LtWinters 15:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

: Since mediation requires the consent of all parties, the parties may reject any mediator they do not feel comfortable with. For the Mediation Committee, Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

wwii mediation

I noticed on your project page it says you are the mediator of WWII... that ended like a month ago. Might want to erase that.--LtWinters 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

:Actually the atom bomb is the mediator of WWII. --NEMT 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me the link to his talk page. I can't find the a-bomb's. --LtWinters 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

: Well, if you find any more mediation templates or transclusions of the mediation on these pages, feel free to remove them. And if you all change your mind about trying mediation again with a different mediator, you are welcome to file a new request. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)