Jump to content

Talk:World War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 days ago by Flounder ceo in topic Allies and the Axis powers
Former featured article candidateWorld War II is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleWorld War II has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 23, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
April 14, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 10, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
April 25, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
January 13, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of December 18, 2005.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article


Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2026

[edit]
Mateo3332212323 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

i learnd this all my life i am a world war 2 professer and i love this i found many erros on the sources thatg i can fix give me acces

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. meamemg (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Do you have a specific edit suggestion? Maybe one of us can make it for you. Flounder ceo (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Consensus not to add tags

[edit]

@Cinderella157: Regarding this revert: OK, but may I please ask where and when this consensus was established, and where it is documented? Is it just for this article, or others too? Elrondil (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

It has been proposed repeatedly on this talk page, and the consensus has always been to not include these symbols. They are generally not used in military history articles these days,as they are confusing. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK.
Might be a good idea to update the manual page for these tags then to say that, or update the tags to be less confusing, but to at least add a comment into the page here. Elrondil (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

"WWⅡ" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect WWⅡ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 23 § Precomposed Roman numerals until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:21, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Consensus to put the main countries in the belligerents section

[edit]

Simply putting Allies and Axis in the belligerents section in the infobox doesn't provide any information about the countries that participated in the war, i am not saying that we should literally put every Allied countries and Axis countries into the infobox but we should put the main countries that participated in the war in the infobox and an additional "…other states" and the end of the listed countries. My proposal would look something like this;

Allies: Soviet Union United States United Kingdom China …other states


Axis: Germany Japan Italy …other states

So yeah, i believe we should discuss to include the countries in the belligerents section in the infobox. Josephgoy15 2.0 (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it is fine as it is. We already specify the main Allied and Axis leaders, and adding the main allies and Axis in the info box will just reignite endless arguments about who the main ones were. Readers can click on the links as see who the major belligerents were. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This has been repeatedly proposed, and the consensus has always been to leave things as-is for the reasons Aemilius Adolphin notes. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Discused many times, nothing new has been presented here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Usually it's France that becomes the sticking point, then what order you put the Allies in. It was agreed by the regulars here to delete that info from the infobox. They got tired of having the same argument over and over again. Flounder ceo (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Allied Leaders

[edit]

I feel like Chiang Kai-shek might not've been one of the major allied commanders, but rather only FDR, Stalin, and Churchill. Timmy8426 (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please search this talk page's archives to see how the infobox was developed. Also, your personal views carry no weight - Wikipedia operates under WP:V, where references to reliable sources are needed. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Starting date

[edit]

The starting date should be from 1937 instead of 1939 when the Second Sino-Japanese War begun Dadimaa (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

RS disagree, but here are a few reasons why.
The Second Sino-Japanese War was a war between China and Japan, it was fought exclusively in China (Asia). When the UK and France declared war on Germany, it involved two global empires, and from day one troops from more than one continent served. With battles well outside Europe occurring as early as 1939. In other words, one was a localised war, the other involved the world. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
But biggest empires far away from Japan and China joined the war , which includes United States and United Kingdom Dadimaa (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, as Japan did not join the war untill 1941. Slatersteven (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2026 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
The overwhelming majority of sources date the start of WWII from Germany's invasion of Poland. It does not matter what you or I think, only what the consensus of reliable sources say. The various alternative starting dates proposed by a minority of historians are already discussed in the article. This is sufficient. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Peer review

[edit]
Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review to identify areas for body about WW2 with a possible current GA and future FA candidate. This is my first Peer Review on English Wikipedia.

I would particularly appreciate the veteran editors on:

  • Does this article meet the FA criteria?

Thanks, Hzy0402 (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be more productive for a small group of editors with good topic knowledge to undertake a check of the current citations as some of them do not look to be the best available. I have been meaning to do this for some time and it is still on my "to do" list. If any other editors are willing to help me out on this, that would be much appreciated. Until this is done, I don't think there is much value in a peer review. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Antisemitism, Nazi ideology, Social Darwinism, Aryans

[edit]

This article really needs to explain these terms. They are important for a basic understanding of World War II. I'm trying to help, yet I keep getting reverted. Please explain here why, or stop reverting. Flounder ceo (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why? After all they only apply to one of the 3 Axis main partners. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
These topics are well-described in hundreds of sources. The history of Germany, its politics and ideologological conflicts, is very relevant to the World War II article. Flounder ceo (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
And we have any number of articles where this content deserves to be, but that is not here; this is about WW2 not Nazi Germany or The Holocaust or the Nazi Party nor Adolf Hitler. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
Keegan (1989), Beevor (2012), and Shirer (1960) all wrote broad overviews of World War II that included descriptions of Nazi ideology. Why do you think Wikipedia should be different? Flounder ceo (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
These are whole books; this is more like a chapter of a book, so I see no need to include this. And this is now bordering on bludgeoning, so I will wait for others to offer an opinion and leave with a firm no. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
If that's all you have, could you please self-revert? I'm happy to let others chime in, but your quick reverts are disrupting my work. Flounder ceo (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is what we currently have:
Adolf Hitler, after an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the German government in 1923, eventually became the chancellor of Germany in 1933 when President Paul von Hindenburg and the Reichstag appointed him. The Nazis soon abolished parliamentary democracy, espousing a radical, racially motivated revision of the world order, and began a massive rearmament campaign.[1]
This is Flounder ceo's proposes wording:
"In Germany, Adolf Hitler became the leader of the National Socialist (Nazi) party in 1921. He combined pseudoscientific Social Darwinist theories with antisemitism and anti-Slav themes to create a virulent hypernationalist ideology that elevated ethnic Germans, the so-called "Aryan race", to a position of supremacy. After an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the German government in 1923, eventually Hitler became the chancellor of Germany in 1933 when President Paul von Hindenburg and the Reichstag appointed him. The Nazis soon abolished parliamentary democracy, espousing a radical, racially motivated revision of the world order, and began a massive rearmament campaign.[1]"
I agree that Nazi needs to be explained in the first instance. I don't think we need to go into the Nazi ideology because the linked articles already do this and we say that the Nazis abolished democracy and sought to establish a radical, racially motivated new order. (And ethnic Germans were not the only members of the supposed Aryan race.)
I suggest the following wording:
" Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party, after an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the German government in 1923, was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 by President Paul von Hindenburg. The Nazis soon abolished parliamentary democracy, espousing a radical, racially motivated revision of the world order, and began a massive rearmament campaign.[1]" (Hitler wasn't appointed Chancellor by the Reichstag, although the Nazi-Conservative coalition had a majority there.)
happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
What's so notable about the prime minister being appointed by the head of state? That's what always happens in a parliamentary democracy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:04, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agree. That can go. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • I would support the proposed edit by Aemilius Adolphin. I do not support the proposed edit by Flounder ceo. That edit reads like somebody swallowed a dictionary and spat out all the large words. It fails on readability. The phrase radical, racially motivated revision of the world order is sufficient given this is the high level article for this event and the target (New Order (Nazism)) is an appropriate place for detail on this particular aspect. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • I also support Aemilius Adolphin's edit, but would suggest removing the reference to the Beer Hall Putsch given it occurred a long time before Hitler took power, and historians generally noted that it was counterproductive for the Nazis. The material Flounder ceo has been edit warring into the article are largely outside of its scope - while the Nazis' ideology was very important in explaining why Hitler launched a world war in 1939 and then escalated it further by invading the USSR and declaring war on the US, this material didn't really go to those issues, which are probably too complex to be explained here. The ideologies of the other key countries were also important and would need to be covered if we went down this path (for instance, why the UK decided it needed to oppose German expansion and ran its Empire, FDR's views on grand strategy, and all kinds of things about the USSR), leading to quite a lot of material. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Agree. We can removed the beer hall putsch too. That leaves us with:
    "Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party, became chancellor of Germany in January 1933. The Nazis soon abolished parliamentary democracy, espousing a radical, racially motivated revision of the world order, and began a massive rearmament campaign.[1]" Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
I tend to agree with Aemilius Adolphin here. While Nazi ideology was obviously important in shaping the course of the war, I don't think the WWII article needs to go into a detailed explanation of it, especially when we already have dedicated articles covering these subjects.
The exitsing wording gives readers the basic context without making the introduction unnecessarily complicated. I would support keeping it concise and leaving the more detailed ideological background to the relevant articles. We should also keep in mind that this is an article about World War II as a whole, not just Nazi Germany. Axiom IV (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Very well. Flounder ceo (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Allies and the Axis powers

[edit]

This phrasing is irritating to the nervous system.

Current

[edit]
  • Allies and the Axis powers

Alternatives

[edit]
  • Allies and Axis
  • Allied Powers and Axis Powers

Flounder ceo (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Aemilius that 'Allies' is the most common term, as is 'Axis powers'. With apologies to your nervous system, "consistency" shouldn't be the overriding factor for the article's terminology. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, and no one should be edit warring over this. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:30, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
No one is edit warring, unless you consider normal wiki editing to be a war. Flounder ceo (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
  1. 1 2 3 4 Brody 1999, p. 4.