Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/World War II

The easiest compromise is just to list links to the relevant Axis and Allies articles. Some may argue that other war articles don't do it that way, but WWII is unique in the number of countries that were involved. One issue is that not all countries were directly involved in the all the theaters of WWII. For example, Japan didn't have much of a presence in the western Europe theater of the war. To avoid the hassle of trying to decide which countries should be listed in the infoboxes for the major theaters (for example, should Brazil be listed in the infobox for the Battle of the Atlantic?), the same Axis and Allies links should be used. Cla68 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

:It may be the easiest compromise, but it is the worst. World War 1 involved a similar number of countries too. We are listing the MAJOR countries. By the way, are you getting Brazil confused with Uruguay. The Graf Spee went there, not to Rio. As far a theaters are concerned, this artcile encompasses all theaters.

::If I remember right, a Brazilian cargo ship carrying the crews and equipment to constitute a Brazilian fighter aircraft squadron in Europe was sunk by a U-boat off the coast of South America as it began its journey with heavy loss of life. This illustrates my point, that numerous countries have some degree of participation in various theaters of the war. Brazilians would probably argue that their sacrifice in this instance is not minor and their country should be listed in the infobox. How to resolve this other than listing every country in the infobox? By linking to the Axis and Allies articles instead. Cla68 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

:::If that's all Brazil did during the war (as I recall reading, the then-Brazilian president was an excellent fence sitter who stayed neutral until he could side with what he perceived to be the eventual victor, but whose government most closely matched that of fascist Italy, putting him in the orbit of the Axis), that sounds like a "minor" contribution. Xaxafrad 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::No, World War 1 did not involve a similar number of countries. --NEMT 07:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

:Most people here know exactly who the major participants were. It is only a few nit-pickers who want their own little country included, who are causing the problem. I have no doubt that common sense will eventually prevail. It always does. Wallie 07:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

:I completely agree. --NEMT 07:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

::I disagree, if it were that simple, we'd be done. The problem is what is a minor country. Take the following: China, France (3R), Canada, Finland and Italy. Which of them are major or minor? I could potentially say that I think China is minor because it had no real air force, navy or armored presence, and no contributions outside of its theatre; I could also say it's major due to the sheer size of their forces, the amount of Japanese troops they kept tied down and the length of time China was in combat. We can make similar arguments for and against the others I mentioned as well. France (3R) was one of the two principle Allies at the start of the European Theatre, with a modern and sizable military roughly comparable (on paper) to Germany's; it was however, knocked out of the war quite quickly.

::For this reason, I think it'd be best to keep it as Allies and Axis for the main article, and then list major nations for each campaign and battle. At this time, I can't think of any where we'll have more then four nations involved, especially considering that we are encouraged to use the actual forces involved (ie. "U.S. Third Army") instead of the nations where feasible. Oberiko 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Which four nations? Maybe we could call those 4 nations the major ones. But for a twist, instead of labeling every other nation minor (and it has become apparent that nobody wants that label), let's call them non-major and avoid nit-picking? Xaxafrad 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::::I think you miss my point. If we include those four, then why not Poland (major player at the start, first Allied combatant) as well? Why not Norway? Why not Romania and Hungary? It becomes a slippery slope as there is always someone who has done more then at least one of our listed nations (depending on which metrics we use) and therefore requires entry. Each entry then opens the door for two others until we have all 50+ nations listed, making the infobox worthless. Oberiko 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief. I am in favor of the infobox with individual countries because:

1. The encyclopedia is more useful if a reader walks away knowing the major players.
2. The distinction between major and minor is possible to make using objective criteria.
3. Historians prioritize this information all the time.
4. Previous versions of this article mentioned the major countries in both the lead and the infobox.
5. Links to subpages will rarely be followed.
6. Avoidance of edit warring and disruption is no excuse for a poor article.

I'm sure I will think of more reasons but I hope this will get the ball rolling. Haber 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

:I think I can honestly say I wholeheartedly agree with Haber. Has anyone scanned through the article's history to see if there were any significant periods of time when the list of combatants remained stable? I think I'll do that next, while I ask if I should butt out of this discussion since I'm not on the list of mediation adherents (not that that's hard to fix). Xaxafrad 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::I have just added you and Wallie. If anyone objects they'll say so. Haber 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to grab at least 4-5 samples from every month; this list far from exhaustive. For instance, the addition and removal of Poland was many times not noted in the sampling, but noticed in scanned-over edit summaries. I also did not look into the actual articles linked to from any given list of combatants, so some ambiguity probably exists regarding specific names of polities (UK/GB/CW, USSR/SU, China/ROC, France/FFF/F3R, etc).

As I compiled it, I couldn't help but wonder why the wordy "and others" was chosen over "et al". Also, some edit summaries made reference to using the UN Security Council as a standard for defining "major", which sounds kinda lame, to me (it's a solution in the same vein as not listing any powers, but in the direction of including individual nations, rather than away from). It would be a better objective standard to use the number of troops sent to battle, or died, to determine majority contribution.

Further, I noticed a change in the labeling of the combatant list that occurred at the end of January, when heated discussions on the talk page became referenced to in edit summaries. Specifically, it seems that when the list of combatants was first replaced with links to the main Allies/Axis articles, the label "Major .... powers" was taken off. More arguments against this label include the article to which they were linking was not an article about the major players, but ALL the players, thus requiring copyediting. Add to that the fact that the Allies/Axis articles were linked by the "Major powers" text, as well as the "and others" text at the bottom of the list. That said, I think passing judgement on major/minor is unneccessary, but a link to "and others" is sufficient to appease the nationalists from the smaller nations. (note: "major" was not in the list label as of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&oldid=91361762 1 Dec])

At one point, the "and others" links were included in the list of powers, but neglected in the list of commanders (the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&oldid=94536131 disparity] looks funny when you notice it).

More random comments: while the list of Allied combatants seemed especially unstable, the list of Axis powers changed very rarely. If it is decided to include an expanded combatants list, Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary will likely be added as signatories to the Pact of the Axis, or whichever treaties they were.

class="wikitable" ! Date !! Allies !! Axis
21 March	Allies	Axis
14 March	Allies	Axis
7 March	Allies	Axis
28 Feb	UK, SU, US, China, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
23 Feb	UK, SU, US, China, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
15 Feb	Allies	Axis
7 Feb	UK, Free French Forces, SU, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
1 Feb	Allies	Axis
29 Jan	UK, SU, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
22 Jan	UK, SU, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
15 Jan	UK, Free French Forces, SU, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
6 Jan	UK, SU, US, France, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
29 Dec	UK, Free French Forces, USSR, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
22 Dec	UK, Free French Forces, USSR, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
15 Dec	UK, USSR, US, China, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
8 Dec	UK, USSR, US, China, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
1 Dec	SU, UK, US, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&oldid=89690051 23 Nov]	SU, UK, US, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
15 Nov	UK, SU, US, ROC	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others

It took me a while to scan through 17 previous revisions spanning about 4 months, and I'm not sure how to add in the changes to the list of commanders. The first revision where I noticed a significant difference was on 23 Nov, when it seems supreme field commanders were included with political leaders (6 total powers, with 14 commanders). Xaxafrad 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just had the thought: I'll bet Hitler thought France was major. Probably a more major opponent than Poland. And even after conquest, France was probably a major territory, in his mind. The occupied French were probably a major source of intelligence regarding German positions, resources, etc. China, Thailand, India, Poland, Finland, and Libya should be included as major players for similar reasons. I believe the UK/Commonwealth distinction is sufficient for the sake of some brevity, but just for fun, let's see what the list looks like with Canada/Australia/India/etc. (after some clicking around, I found Dominion#Foreign_relations which seems to describe the evolution of the status of the Dominions in the first half of the 20th century; from what I read, I would urge the inclusion of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa in the list of combatants, then ask if the troops from said nations mostly served together, and if so, then recommend the Commonwealth of Nations be listed as something like: "UK and CN") Xaxafrad 03:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

;Mediator comments

I dont find the argument to include all countries compelling. WWII involved too many countries to include in such a small box. A much better idea would be to list the major ones, and indicate others with an others link, that leads to a section or footnote in which all countries are listed. -Stevertigo 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Have you read the debate on Talk:World War II? Badgerpatrol 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:I have come to the view that the major participants in World War II were decided both during, and shortly after, World War II. Have we gained some additional hindsight in the intervening 60 years to overturn the decisions of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin? Contrast the commonly seen picture of those three leaders of the Allies with an image of Hitler (vs Churchill), Mussolini (vs Roosevelt), and Hirohito (or Tojo?) (vs Stalin). I can give some easy reasoning for those particular associations. I could argue that, although the US didn't officially enter the war until 2 years after Canada, the lend-lease agreements at least equal Canada's status as a sub-major country under the leadership of Churchill (I'm not implying Canada was under the direct leadership of Churchill, but only in the sense that Canada, Australia, etc can be considered "sub-units" of the disintegrating British Empire (was the term British Empire still in use in 1945?)). Xaxafrad 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::Parts of it. And just because 3-5 people might be frustrated enough to wipe out all the coutries from a list because they can't agree with 3-5 other people, doesn't mean I'm frustrated enough. I don't find the argument that the infobox is small to be very compelling. How about this: we start with an list of combatants that is incredibly long, and when random, new people (like I used to be) complain about how long it is, or when random people boldly delete countries from the list, then the list can be pruned. With such a long list, alphabetical or date entering war strikes me as the best ordering.

::I've heard a few people say the infobox is too small for such a long list, but I've never seen an example of an overloaded infobox. How can including some/most countries be POV? ...Especially if there's a big discussion on a talk page over the efforts some people went through to avoid POVness. Xaxafrad 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, to clarify, I meant that question for Stevertigo- apologies for any confusion. It is not a question of 3-5 people not agreeing on who goes in the infobox- I personally have never (to the best of my recollection) suggested who should go in the infobox at all. The question is- is it actually possible to come up with a stable, NPOV list of "major" combatants? I suggest not- implicit to the very word "major" is an entirely subjective inference. The only lists that are actually acceptable in the infobox are- a) everyone (that's what, 60-80 combatants for the Allies and a smaller but still large number for the Axis) or b) Nobody. The other day, someone wanted to exclude the USSR as a major combatant from the infobox. Some others have wanted to exclude France and China, or include Canada, or Australia, or exclude Italy. On other language Wikis, countries like Brazil are listed or not listed as major combatants, or Romania, Or Hungary, or Poland. There does not seem to me to be a way to arrive at a stable list and by assigning countries as major or non-major we are inescapably imposing our own, subjective point of view. You ask "How can including some/most countries be POV?"- that's why. I don't see any discussion on the talk page about anybody coming up with objective criteria. Saying "let's only include countries who contributed more than 2 million troops" or whatever is obviously not defining an objective criterion. If you can point towards the big discussion where people figure out a way to avoid POV then I'd be grateful. Badgerpatrol 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the succinct response. Respectfully, how is some arbitrary number of troops subjective? I would pick an arbitrary number that created a cutoff point of 5-15 countries (you wouldn't say 15 is too many, would you?). That sounds objective to me. It doesn't really favor any country over another, except perhaps the populous ones. Israel wasn't populous, and I'm sure there're plently of Israel supports editing this wiki, so Israel's troop contribution will probably be a good arbitrary number to pick (that's not a serious suggestion, just as my suggestion of leave the Soviet Union off the list of combatants, while accompanied by some reasoning, wasn't serious; call it playing the devil's advocate).

:::: ^^ vv -->> The discussion all around here. Actually, I had the idea to cut-and-paste the bulk of the infobox discussion to the template talk page, and leave a note (and a link) on the WW2 talk page about the move.

::::Finally, I fully agree that any kind of major/minor division is contentious. Therefore, I would like to assert that by placing 1, or 5, or 10 countries above 70-80 other countries, we are not passing judgement as to who contributed a major or a minor part to the war effort (for goodness's sake, an infobox isn't serious like that). By including a handful of countries in the infobox, we are saying that many countries were involved in the conflict, but the list is too long to be complete, as testified by the final link to the other combatants. Xaxafrad 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::OK. "How is some arbitrary number of troops subjective?". That says everything I think needs to be said at this point, really. Sorry if I offended you by mentioning the USSR- I honestly didn't register that it was you who originally made this suggestion when I mentioned it (egg on my face...) Your edit at the time appeared serious [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=114418458] and I didn't realise you were only joking (egg on my face II....). Apologies. ;-) Badgerpatrol 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::First, I should clarify: I was half serious. It was one of those desperate suggestions to save some small bit of information from getting erased, or a reaction against the extreme of omitting everything (I knew it would be extreme to omit the USSR, but I was unsure of how people would react to it, thus the (harmless?) suggestion), or something like that, y'know what I mean? I'm not offended at all, but I would like to apologize for the ambiguous statements.

::::::Second, I think you need to educate me on subjectivity. I always thought of something as subjective when it comes down to a personal opinion, taste, point of view, etc. Something would be objective if it depended on some external, impersonal thing. All of us can apply a number-of-troops-filter to the 90 countries involved in the war, and, provided we use the same filter, we would get the same list, an objective list, no? Xaxafrad 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::So you don't think that arbitrarily deciding an abstract number (e.g. of troops) as a cut-off is subjective? Why is that reliant on some "external, impersonal thing"? I might think that 1 million people is a large number- you might think that 5 million is a suitably large number. Bob Smith might think that 100,000 is a large number. Which of us is "right"? And why is that system "objective"? Badgerpatrol 10:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::The main problem with that Vertigo is deciding which countries are major and what metrics (and metric weighting) we are to use to determine them. Sounds simple, but there's dozens of ways to measure a nations significance. Oberiko 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the Invasion of Poland (1939). It's a featured article, and has an infobox that looks worse than the one under discussion, due to it's wordiness in commanders, and strength lists. Below the infobox, in the place of WW2's {{tl|Campaignbox}} listing the 7 theaters of the global conflict, is a box for the whole invasion of Poland, listing every city that was taken over by Germans or Soviets, including 10 redlinks. Redlinks in a featured article? Why didn't any editors before, and along the FA process, pick on that nit? On second thought, I should use that as a reason to start the former-FA process, but I like to try to think on the positive side of things. Xaxafrad 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:I have now seen the infobox for the Battle of Britain, very parallel to this case, IMO. If you don't want to view it yourself, I'll describe it: UK vs. Germany, followed by "Including combatants from:<:ref>This list is in descending order of number of people from that nation. For a detailed breakdown of the various countries contribution see Battle of Britain Foreign Contribution.".

:For ideas of suggestions, please keep this footnote reference in mind, as well as the slightly different footnote in the Eastern Front (World War II) infobox.

:I've noticed breakdowns of the strength of each side in these two battles, and wonder if a summary of Allied and Axis strengths would be possible, while I already see the difficultly in compiling such a summary. Maybe I should go over all the articles in :Category:Military operations of World War II.... Xaxafrad 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm sorry! I edited the list of combatants against the warnings posted all about. I'll revert it, if it really pisses somebody off, but I don't think the list is too long (21 vs. 10), unless we try to add commanders for every power, and I don't see why that would be necessary. But I'll still revert it anyway. In case you missed it, it looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WW2infobox&oldid=116823861 this]. Xaxafrad 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:I didn't note it on this page, but I grabbed those 31 combantants (not truly 31 as some countries are listed twice, Thailand and Free Thailand, for example) from the {{tl|World War II}} infobox at the bottom of WW2 (and a lot of other articles). Their list of combatants is equally contentious, but isn't in as visible a location as "our" list, and so hasn't gotten the kind of traffic that lob POV accusations when somebody disagrees with them. See Template_talk:World_War_II#Belligerents.3F, Template_talk:World_War_II#List of Participants, and Template_talk:World_War_II#Compression for discussions of a different kind regarding who gets listed and who gets slighted ("Compression" is a longish discussion about which events to call major or minor; this list won't get the same kind of nationalistic objections from descendants unless somebody's ancestors died in a supposedly "minor" event).

:On the topic of POV, I decided to look at WP:NPOV. In a nutshell, it says "articles and other encyclopedic content" must be written from a NPOV. Are infoboxes "other content"? Or are infoboxes a part of "other content" that is not encyclopedic, and therefore exempt from NPOV? Xaxafrad 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

;Mediator comment

Oberiko said: "The main problem with that Vertigo is deciding which countries are major and what metrics (and metric weighting) we are to use to determine them. Sounds simple, but there's dozens of ways to measure a nations significance." - I find this argument to be utterly lacking. The 'either or' argument is not found in NPOV at all. We represent "significance" by a simple method: largest involved nations are in, the smallest are out (in this case, out of the template, but in a separate section).

Here is what I want: Make a list here, and take two votes: First vote will be on the order of countries from largest (or most significant) to the least. The second vote will be on where the cutoff should be. Those below the cutoff will be included in a separate section, but not in the topicbox. End of story.

Somewhere in the middle is a compromise - I don't care if its five or fifteen, as long as its not excessively short or large. Note, that by "largest" there may be some disagreement about large nations versus large numbers of participants. It doesn't matter though, as these criteria are for the most part related.

This compromise is called "consensus." Consensus is a social guideline which handles what little NPOV does not cover. It assumes that reasonable people can be reasonable and not just quibble about little details which are subjective in any case. Just because there is some subjectivity involved, doesnt make it POV, and likewise it doesnt validate the 'either or' argument.

The other argument about NPOV appears to be fraught with misconception. NPOV is not about representing views equally, in the sense that they can cancel each other out, but rather in order of acceptance. For example the most accepted view on Intelligent Design is that its a religious-political argument, not a "scientific theory," as its proponents claim.

Please note that my blunt tone here is due to two factors: 1) I dont have time to read all the back and forth discussion on what for all intents and purposes is a trivial matter, requiring simply that people compromise. 2) That there are a number of people who are unfamiliar with our policies and conventions, such that they completely misstate and misrepresent them. By stating a simple ruling, I hope that those unfamiliar with our conventions might better learn their value, saving their energies for work, as well as for discussions of more importance. -Stevertigo 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for that interesting perspective, Steve. Can I just ask- why is this "vote" any more valid than the well-formed and appropriately carried out one that we have already [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II#Vote_on_Allies.2FAxis_vs._Nationality_in_the_infobox recently had] on the WWII talk page which resulted in a 69% majority for excluding judgements about "major" nations. I would say that it appears that we will be continuously voting until we reach a conclusion favourable to the (forgive the term) "inclusionists", but since you appear to have rejected one side of the argument a priori one can't even say that. You also admit that you haven't actually read the arguments on the talk page, which I admit are long and at times tortuous but are surely an essential prerequisite to any mediation exercise. Your solution is not a "compromise" in any way shape or form. What you have in fact done is ignore one side of the argument completely. Is this how mediation works? I'm a bit confused by this: Mediators are not Advocates. Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person. It's fairly obvious that you have immediately sided with the "inclusionists" and ignored from the outset the (super?) majority view that individual countries should be excluded from the infobox. Badgerpatrol 10:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::I assume it is I and Haber who are the inclusionists. Let me try to make a reasoned appeal to you: I don't think you're truly opposed to the idea of including individual countries in the list of combatants. I think you're opposed to an overly long list, and I think that you think that if we put a few "major" countries (you know, they called them major and minor in Axis powers of World War II, so what's the big stink about the Allies? Wait, I've got: it's because nobody wants to pipe up and say "My country was a major member of the Axis during WW2!") it will become inevitable that extra countries will creep in over time. After two RFCs and a mediation case, I think that if anybody tries to add to the list, they can be told a resounding "NO" and to read all the pages of discussion. In fact, I recall a notice near the list of combatants about "do not edit this section while mediation is in progress", which can be easily changed to "do not add to this section without consensus on the talk page". With that comment in place, one can simply revert an addition, leaving the one who added it the option of starting a talk page section titled "Add to list of Allies". Think about what the situation would be like if such a comment had been in the infobox since 8/06 (the starting date of the first archive of combatant discussions). Xaxafrad 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't want to label anyone as "inclusionists" or "exclusionists", it sounds adversarial- I use both as a form of shorthand for easy reference. You're not correct- I am truly opposed to the idea of including any list of combatants in the infobox that is not complete- i.e. any that doesn't include either every combatant, or none at all. I am opposed to any partial list, and I am opposed to using the terms "major" and "minor". (I think I've made my position pretty clear on this in the past - it's becoming increasingly clear that many people have not read, or not paid attention to, the previous discussion, which is in fairness fairly dull, very long, and frustratingly torturous at times). If it is possible to include all 60 or so Allies for example, and all the Axis nations (and perhaps it is) then this may be a suitable compromise to end this mess. Then we can get started on discussing the order they should be placed in (mama mia....). Reaching consensus on the talk page does not solve the issue because that consensus would be based on the subjective point of view of the editors concerned, as described and exemplified ad nauseum. Badgerpatrol 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::::That's fair, and in turn I should state that I find a list ended with the statement "and others" to be quite acceptable, but that's what I might be mistakingly be referring to as my subjective preference. What does subjective really mean, anyway (Subjective, Subjectivity, Objectivity (philosophy))?

::::However, I agree with you in opposition to the terms "major" and "minor", but I don't feel a major/minor distinction must be made in order to truncate a list. Granted, the truncation creates a distinction, but this distinction should not, in anyway, be viewed as creating or conferring major or minor status.

::::In spite of that, I managed to skip over the following exerpt in all my scanning for lists of countries and descriptions of those countries' war efforts (from the lead section of Allies of World War II, emphasis mine). Xaxafrad 02:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Within the ranks of the Allied powers, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom

and the United States were known as "The Big Three." U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt referred

to the Big Three and China as the "Four Policemen".[1] France, in 1939-40 and after its liberation

in 1944, was also once again considered a major Allied power. At the Potsdam Conference of

July-August 1945, Roosevelt's successor, Harry S. Truman proposed that the foreign ministers of

China, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and United States "should draft the peace treaties and

boundary settlements of Europe," which led to the creation of the Council of Foreign

Ministers.[2]

I agree with Badgerpatrol. Have we already decide that there SHOULD be a country listing with major countries ? It looks that the decision is only which country should be in the Infobox. However, if we agreed to go to mediation, it is precisely because the question was much more difficult than that and precisely because, in long term, there will always be someone who'll want to include HIS country in the Infobox. I suggest we get one step back.

--Flying tiger 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for your comments. I will be catching up on reading them. One thing does strike me as odd in the earlier voting is that several of the nation-based votes were falsified. It would be a simple matter to run a checkuser on these to see if they have the same IP, and whom it matches. In any case, such abuse of good will is good enough for me to go with supporting just the Axis/Allies version. Those opposed to this can try to convice me otherwise. Discrete concrete proposals would be nice. -Stevertigo 06:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::Does "earlier voting" refer to events prior to this mediation case? Xaxafrad 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::I dont seem to have noticed mention here (apologies if i missed it) of what to me is the most difficult aspects of establishing what is a major/minor power. And that is the interaction of chronology and size. Certain states are by nature capable of fielding disproportionate power in the field of war. So there is a tendency to give them "major power" status. Yet when one looks at the chronology of the war it is notable that several of these states either switched sides during the course of the war (France and the USSR) or did not join the conflict until it was several years under way (USA). Other states however, say Australia or Canada, who contributed for the full duration of the war and contributed heavily (when analysed in a contextual fashion) are by their nature unable to field comparable armies. In such a situation raw numerical judgements seem to me to be misleading.

:::Australia and Canada were probably considered subordinate to the United Kingdom, or Great Britain, or whatever, by the international community of the mid 1940's. Xaxafrad 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::It seems to me that using such a simple metric as number of men-at-arms it is easy to construct a scenario where the results would be clearly absurd. For instance two small nations fight for years, then a large nation gets involved, rattles its sabres, sends some troops to the field and soon after the war is finished. Who is a major power in such a scenario? The nations that fought for years or the nation whose very presence on the field brings the conflict to an end? Anyway, its because of this kind of reasoning that I object to the 5v3 breakdown, and why I think that if we must have a bunch of flags in the infobox why I think that the list should be biased towards including as many participants as possible, especially if they were involved in the conflict from the beginning and why I think that the flags should be ordered by date of entry and not size of army.

::I think the solution has to be nuanced to take into account the capability of the country to wage war, when it entered the conflict and its impact on the course of the war. For instance if Canada joined a war on Monday and the USA joined on Tuesday then I have no problem in considering the USA to be a major power and Canada not, but when Canada joins the war on day 2 and USA joins on day 500 then i have a serious problem with the USA bumping Canada off the list. In regard to WWII specifically, I think its quite reasonable to argue that had the former colonies decided to abstain from entering the war (like the USA did) that the UK would have been unable to continue to fight the war and there very likely wouldnt have been a war for the USA to join.

:::Canada is on the list in the spirit of the British Empire. Did the former colonies significantly contribute to staving off a land invasion of the British Isles? Had they not gone to war (even though the fact is, they did), maybe Germany would've had a slightly freer hand in conquering Europe, but the failed Russian invasion still would've occurred, and the Pacific War still would've been waged, no? Xaxafrad 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::Id also like to make a last point: earlier in this section Haber posts a list of what he considers important for the infobox and wikipedia as a whole. A list that I have to say I dont entirely agree with. Especially the entry "The encyclopedia is more useful if a reader walks away knowing the major players." I think it is potentially counterproductive to reduce a conflict of such impact and such a global nature down to what is to me a mere caricature of the actual history involved. If people view the article, see the infobox and decide thats all they need to know then we are actually doing people a disservice. They wont know for instance that some of the "major powers" actually didn't join until part way through, or changed sides during the conflict, they might even be persuaded to think that a country which made major contributions was not even involved! And to me that isnt a desirable outcome at all. If reductionism results in notable omission then the reduction isnt appropriate in my book. Anyway, thanks for listening. Demerphq 12:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:::If people are viewing the article, they would read the sentences that say Canada and everybody else joined the war on such and such a date. The fact is, the whole article doesn't hang on this infobox. If random readers don't feel like educating themselves enough to notice which nations changed sides (detailed in the long chronology section of WW2), that's their problem, it's not up to the infobox to correct that. Xaxafrad 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Actually, in the vein of shortening WW2 from 160+ KB, the chronology section could be compressed to quickly and simply describe all the countries involved in the various theaters and the dates and reasons for joining whichever side, with lots of links to the plethora of {{tl|main}} articles. (I'll cross post this comment on the appropriate talk page.) Xaxafrad 23:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

;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

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)

;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)

• A5 vs B4 Blueshirts 18:06, 23 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)

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

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)

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

• Xaxafrad 23:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC

;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)

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:

• 22x20px United Kingdom (major, because it was one of the Big Three)
• 22x20px Soviet Union (major, one of the Big Three)
• 22x20px United States of America (major, one of the Big Three)

;Possibly major powers:

• 22x20px Indian Empire (possibly major, due to contributions in keeping the road to China open)
• 22x20px Australia (possibly major, due to military contributions)
• 22x20px France (possibly major)
• 22x20px Canada (possibly major, due to military contributions)
• 22x20px Republic of China (possibly major, as one of the Four Policemen)

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

• 22x20px Poland (not major, ineffective military)
• 22x20px Norway (not major, due to ineffective military; naval power was overshadowed by the navies of other Allies)
• 22x20px Belgium (not major, ineffective military)
• 22x20px Luxembourg (not major, ineffective military)
• 22x20px Netherlands (not major, ineffective military)
• 22x20px Greece (not major, ineffective military)
• 22x20px Kingdom of Yugoslavia (not major, ineffective military)
• 22x20px Ethiopia (not major, ineffective military)
• 22x20px Iran (not major, ineffective military)
• 20px Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (not major, ineffective military)
• 22x20px Bulgaria (not major, ineffective military)
• 22x20px San Marino (not major, ineffective military)
• 22x20px Albania (not major, ineffective military)

;Not major, due to incomparability to major countries:

• 22x20px New Zealand (not major, overshadowed by Australia)
• 22x20px Crown Colonies‎ (not major, due to overshadowing by the United Kingdom)
• 22x20px Nepal (not major, due to overshadowing by the United Kingdom)
• 22x20px South Africa (not major, due to UK dominance, and political disunity)
• 22x20px Tannu Tuva (not major, overshadowed by the Soviet Union)
• 22x20px Costa Rica (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px Dominican Republic (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px Honduras (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px American Samoa (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px Guam (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px Commonwealth of the Philippines (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px Puerto Rico (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px U.S. Virgin Islands (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px other unincorporated territories (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px Czechoslovakia (Government-in-Exile) (not major, because not a great power)
• 22x20px Peru (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px Brazil (not major, overshadowed by the United States, see Brazilian Expeditionary Force (FEB))
• 22x20px Iraq (not major, overshadowed by the United Kingdom)
• 22x20px Italy (not major, overshadowed by other Allies, see Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force)
• 22x20px Liberia (not major, overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px Romania (not major, contributions to the Allies overshadowed by the Soviet Union)
• 22x20px Hungary (not major, contributions to the Allies overshadowed by the Soviet Union)
• 22x20px Turkey (not major, like Brazil, straddled the fence until as late as possible before siding with the perceived eventual victors)
• 22x20px Lebanon (not major, overshadowed by Free France)
• 22x20px Saudi Arabia (not major, tried to remain neutral, except for oil sales to American countries)
• 22x20px Finland (not major, overshadowed by the Soviet Union)
• 22x20px Argentina (not major, indecisive, undoubtedly overshadowed by the United States)
• 22x20px People's Republic of Mongolia (not major, overshadowed by the Soviet Union)

;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)

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)

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)

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)