Talk:World War II

Lead: problems

1) Grand strategy: war is essentially about fighting, and fighting is predicated by grand strategy. Grand strategy of main belligerents should be brought into the lead (and then amplified in article).

2) Partisans: involvement of partisan / guerrila resistance in support of Allied war effort should be mentioned (after identifying main Allied particpants at start of new / reworked para.2). Tentative wording could be: "The Allied war effort was militarily supported by communist, nationalist, and populist armed resistance groups and movements around the world, the most active and successful of which were the communist and/or communist-led resistance organisations."

(Editors note: The latter included: Maquis in France which provided valuable intelligence on enemy disposition, etc; Yugoslav partisans under Tito; ELAS-EAM in Greece; Italian communists in N. Italy; Mao's guerillas in China; Kim ilSung's guerrilas in north-east Korea; the Viet Kong and Vietminh against French Vichey and Japanese forces in Vietnam; and the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Army in Malaya. Foregoing assertions are self-evident / undisputed truths, and as such do not require source attribution. English language Sources are available for European resistance, less so for Far East / Indo China resistance, in respect of which many non-English language sources -- especially Mandarin -- ARE available, but with attendant translation problems for wiki and and other mainstream English-language publishers.)

3) The last sentence of 1st paragraph (which is too long, and same applies to preceding 1st sentence of same para) states ..."it has been estimated etc". Estimated by whom? Better wording would be: "Official estimates of fatalities range from 50-million to 70-million killed."

4) 3rd paragraph: "...setting the stage for the Cold War ..." Has been already agreed in earlier discussion that roots of CW were in WW2. Should therefore read: "escalated the Cold War which would last for ..." Communicat (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. IMO, many people take for granted that the Axis started the war because it was evil, so no additional explanations are needed. That is incorrect, so at least a brief overview of each party's plans and intentions, as well as of their change during the course of the war is needed. Since the article's The War Becomes Global section states that:

"Hitler's objectives were to eliminate the Soviet Union as a military power, exterminate Communism, generate Lebensraum ("living space") by dispossessing the native population and guarantee access to the strategic resources needed to defeat Germany's remaining rivals."

and

"Japan planned to rapidly seize European colonies in Asia to create a large defensive perimeter stretching into the Central Pacific; the Japanese would then be free to exploit the resources of Southeast Asia while exhausting the over-stretched Allies by fighting a defensive war."

a mention of Nazi New World Order, Japanese Great Asia Co-Prosperity Zone is needed in the lede (as well as probably the mention of the Axis' anti-Communism, Nazi anti-Semetism etc.) However, I would go further and added similar description of each party's global plans to every WWII section (probably, with subsequent modification of the lede).

Re 2. Since partisan resistance has been only briefly mentioned in the article, I don't think it deserves mention in the lede. Try to modify the article first (although I personally think on additional details about partisan movements are needed in such a summary style article).

Re 3. Removal of weasel words (as well as a passive voice) is welcomed. I propose "Estimates of fatalities range from 50-million to 70-million killed."

Re 4. Disagree. The present wording is more neutral, because not all sources agree that CW was an immediate result of WWII. The present wordings means that new players emerged that were a CW's key participants. It leaves the question about the CW's start date beyond the scope, which is quite neutral and does not contradict to any existing source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

re (I). What I meant was precis of military strategy per se; viz., along lines of "Britain's strategy was to disorganise and break the will of the German people through mass aerial bombardment, before attempting to launch any concerted ground attack on the European mainland. The Wehrmarcht's strategy against the USSR was an encircling movement aimed at separating Moscow from the rest of Russia. Italy's was blah blah. Japan's was (repeat as stated succinctly in the above quote you gave). Your other comments are valid.

re (2) Only Yugoslav communist resistance is mentioned in article, and it is refered to no less than six or seven times. No mention whatsover of very substantial Far East / Indo Chinese communist resistance. Conclusion: Eurocentric bias.

re (3) Agreed.

re (4) Okay then, leave the CW's start as is, but lead must mention start of the East-West nuclear arms race, which was of course a central feature of the CW. Communicat (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. Seems too detailed for the lede, although we can discuss introduction of that into the main article;

Re 2. Please, read a Second Sino-Japanese war talk page. Many Chinese editors question the role of Chinese Communists in resistance to JIA. IMO, the present article should not contradict to the SSJW article unless you provided a very reliable sources as a support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

re 1: Might strike you as "too detailed", but military strategy is highly relevant, conspicuously absent from current lead, and of central importance to any article on war, especially a lead intro. Hence, Lead should be expanded to accommodate military strategy, because lead is probably first thing people read and strategy is arguably the main thing they're interested in. Rest of article on related sub-issues should be substantially shortened to accommodate longer lead. As for Re 2, above: I think you'll find the "Chinese editors" referred to are in fact Taiwanese editors whose views are possibly tainted by biased anti-communist political agenda. Communicat (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

re 2: Eurocentric bias? Incidentally, this war was primarily a European war (a European proudly exclaimed while realizing that the two wars destroyed Europe beyond recognition or true recovery :). With all respect to the Second Sino-Japanese War, it can (and often is) easily be considered a separate conflict. No WWII history book I've read covered it in detail. Most you'll hear is "in Burma the British needed to keep the supplies running" or "a lot of Japanese resources were committed to the war in China". The Americans would easily have won without the Sino-Japanese War since the Pacific was won with naval and air power above all. Even if the Japs had occupied the whole of China, there'd be fighting in India but there wouldn't be any Japanese victory, but I digress. Even if we disregard all the above, to my knowledge the Communist Chinese primarily fought a "regular" war, holding their regions from the Japanese (albeit being more aggressive towards the Japs than the Kuomintang). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "knowledge" is faulty, re the 'Communist Chinese primarily fought a "regular" war,'. See:

Mao's Guerilla Warfare chapter six And yes, you do digress somewhat, but nobody's perfect, hey? Communicat (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Paul comment above: Please, read a Second Sino-Japanese war talk page. Many Chinese editors question the role of Chinese Communists in resistance to JIA. IMO, the present article should not contradict to the SSJW article unless you provided a very reliable sources as a support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is obfuscation and has no bearing on the matters at hand. There is nothing in this present discussion that contradicts the SSJW article in any way, though it may contradict some of the bellicose and UNsubstantiated TALK by dissidents on that article's talk page, which you are now presenting as a supposedly reliable source. I'm wasting my time trying to engage any of you in reasoned discussion. Communicat (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much any modern military strategy would disagree that grand strategy is about fighting, To refer back to Clausewitz, War is the delivery of foreign policy objectives by means of coercion. Initially the grand strategy was to force a withdrawal, although that very quickly became decapitation of the Reich.

ALR (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Following the Casablanca Conference the Allied goal was actually to force the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan by destroying their ability to continue the war. Any changes of leadership (via decapitation) wouldn't have had any impact on this. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler-Stalin Pact: Stalin invaded the Baltic Countries according to the stipulations he negociated with Hitler and alledgedly did in consent with his Western Allies. The crimes against the Baltic Nations is an important part of the total crime.

The article should reflect this crime as well and not duck the question of crimes against the Baltic population.

Additional the following attack of Stalinist Red Army on Poland an Finland must be mentioned.

Of course Hitler's totalitarian government, as well as lot of people in the Governments of Western countries such als GB and the USA were supporting Stalin's crimes, but wikipedia is not the right place to sugarcoat theses historic facts as happens now.

85.176.225.117 (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All those actions by the USSR are mentioned (with links to the specific articles) in the 'War breaks out in Europe' section. Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Re ALR posting above re "...disagree that grand strategy is about fighting..." You'll notice in preceding talk that I subsequently modified my wording "grand strategy" to "military strategy". A top-level and much visited military history article that omits any reference to military strategy does merit some constructive criticism, don't you think?. Communicat (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Direktor posting of 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC) above viz., "...the Communist Chinese primarily fought a 'regular" war,' and my rebuttal thereof, i.e. "read Mao's Guerilla Warfare chapter six ". I take it Direktor's subsequent silence on the issue indicates that he concurs. Communicat (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin pse dont archive; not dormant; may be subject to dispute mediation etc Communicat (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Communist-led resistance

Discussion has become so desultory and threatened by TL/DR, so I'm starting new section to revisit as yet unresolved issues previously raised. Here are sources / substantiation for communist-led resistance, (editors have questioned effectivness of communist-led partisans and/or berated me for not providing source references):

China: McArthur cited in Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, (9 vols) Tokyo and New York: Dondasha 1983, Vol VII, pp.201-2 describes anti-Japanese communist guerillas as "only body of fighting men in China worth mentioning." US president Truman, describing effectiveness of communist guerillas: "If we told the Japanese to lay down their arms immediately (after surrender) and march to the seaboard, the entire country would be taken over by the communists. We therefore had to take the unusual step of using the enemy as a garrison ...” Harry S Truman, Memoirs, (2 vols), New York: Doubleday 1956, Vol II, p.66.

Korea: Communist anti-Japanese resistance is described in Jon Halliday & Bruce Cumings, Korea: The unknown war, London: Viking, 1988, Chap.1

Greece: Bruce R Kuniholm, Origins of the Cold War in the Near East, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1980; Prokopis Papastratis, "The British and the Greek Resistance Movements EAM and EDES", in Marion Sarafis (ed.), Greece: From Resistance to Civil War, Nottingham: Spokesman 1980, p.36

Italy: Sources already provided.

Europe general: Sources already provided.

Malaya: Sources already provided.

Phippines: Nick-D has sources, no doubt. Communicat (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You make no suggestions for actionable improvements to the article, so I have no idea what you expect from this. Also a statement like "Italy: Sources already provided." has no meaning in this thread which should be understandable as a stand-alone discussion.

The previous discussion on this exact same topic (Anti-communist prejudice) seems to have died a natural death 5 days ago, so please do not try to revive this dead horse. Arnoutf (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it has not died a natural death. Far from it. Nor is it my problem if Nick-D and others have thus far been unable to deal cohesively with the unresolved points at issue -- see postings of Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC) and my responses Communicat (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC) under section "Editing dispute". I have made several actionable suggestions towards improvements. How about making some actionable / useful / thoughtful contribution yourself, towards improvement of the lead? Communicat (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not ever again change your posts AFTER a response has been given. This is unacceptable behaviour as you falsify the answer response structure of talk pages, and can, if you want to make look the editors you are talking to look as if acting in bad faith.

With regard to an actionable suggestion, where exactly in this thread "communust-led resistance" have you proposed an actionable action to the improvement of the article? Arnoutf (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK what is it your trying to change this time -- what are thsi refs saying??. Moxy (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• China: "McArthur cited in Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, (9 vols) Tokyo and New York: Dondasha 1983, Vol VII, pp.201-2 describes anti-Japanese communist guerillas as "only body of fighting men in China worth mentioning." - You would like to do what with this? as its a pov by one person..
• "Harry S Truman, Memoirs, (2 vols), New York: Doubleday 1956, Vol II, p.66." - we are to add what to were and how??
• "Korea: Communist anti-Japanese resistance is described in Jon Halliday & Bruce Cumings, Korea: The unknown war, London: Viking, 1988, Chap.1" Interesting and we do what whit this one??
• "Greece: Bruce R Kuniholm, Origins of the Cold War in the Near East, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1980; Prokopis Papastratis, "The British and the Greek Resistance Movements EAM and EDES", in Marion Sarafis (ed.), Greece: From Resistance to Civil War, Nottingham: Spokesman 1980, p.36 " - again not sure what we can do if we cant read the pages in question or are told what its for!

Response to Arnoutf re ... unacceptable behaviour as you falsify the answer response structure of talk pages, and can, if you want to make look the editors you are talking to look as if acting in bad faith If you read the history editing summary, you'll see that I merely added few more sources which I'd earlier forgotten to include. This change was in no intended to "falsify the response structure" nor was it intended to have a bad-faith effect on you or anyone else. There was a save-page editing conflict that prevented me posting the additions prior to your rapid response. In any event, please accept my apologies if I've hurt your feelings. My actionable suggestions which you inquire about were originally and clearly defined in related section headed "Anti-communist prejudice", which you might care to refer to. Those who've followed attentively / participated in the relevant discussion thus far should have no problem in understanding the pertinence of this present thread.

For the edification of Moxy above: I'm not trying to change anything "this time", as you irately put it. Instead, I'm still pursuing my earlier endeavours (see section Anti-communist prejudice, and later comment re Eurocentricism somewhere else above and other closely inter-related discussion about improvement of the lead). I'd proposed inclusion in a lead paragraph of the fact that the Allied side was actively supported by communist-led resistance groups around the world. My associated edit of the lead, (following Moxy's order of "don't put tags, just fix it") was rapidly undone and reverted by Nick-D. Further obstructionism from various other editors were to the effect that resistance was not communist-led, that resistance support was not worth mentioning because resistance was non-existent or negligible, and that I must provide sources to support any position to the contrary. I've now done all that. Take it or leave it. I'm outta here. Communicat (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose to split the issue onto 2.5 parts:

1. Was the contribution of the partisan movement as whole into the Allied war efforts big enough to be mentioned in this summarystyle article? (of course I exclude Yugoslav partisans, who in actuality was a serious fighting force that tied down considerable Axis forces, and Polish resistance; both of them do deserve mention)
2. Did Communists play a leading role in the partisan movement?

(and one subquestion): What about pro-Axis partisans?

IMO, the problem is that the dispute is mainly focused on #2, whereas I still am not sure if we need to discuss partisan movement (except Yugoslavs and Poles) at all (due to its relatively low military contribution), and, if we decided to do that, why should we restrict ourselves with pro-Allied partisans only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@communicat: 40 minutes between your post and my response can hardly be seen as a "rapid response" for a high traffic article like WWII. Also, this is not the first time you have been changing posts after responses to the post, so while in this case it was not very problematic, the pattern is seriously worrying me indeed.

@communicat: If you think this is part of another thread you should include it to that post. Treating the whole of a talk page as a single topic discussion smells a lot towards claiming ownership. The interested uninvolved editor should be able to respond to each single thread, and your claim that involved editors will understand goes against the idea that everyone can edit (THE main idea of Wikipedia).

@PaulSiebert, I agree with your arguments. Resistance movements were in general ineffective (although their after-war claims are rather more grandiose; with the exceptions of Yugoslavian and early Polish attempts).

More in general Even if communist resistance was perhaps stronger than most, they tended to be isolated in Western Europe and not leading. In the Netherlands (which did not have a strong resistance movement) for example, fundamentalist Christian and communist were among the fiercest resistance movements (as for both Nazism went against their core beliefs) but they did not like each other at all; let alone that either conceded leadership to the other. Arnoutf (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf, you are irritating and disruptive. Please stop your personal attacks on me, assume good faith, and get on with the more interesting business of improving the lead. Communicat (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To Paul: Not being an intelligence agency, it's impossible for me to quantify "proof" of extent of either non-communist or communist partisan contribution -- just as, by same token, it's not possible to quantity contributions of individual regular armies (see discussion at above section "US, USSR at top"). Besides, aside from actual fighting and tying down of enemy troops, how does one quantify the value of every shot-down Allied pilot rescued, every assisted escape of POWs, every piece of intelligence provided to Allied high command about enemy movements and disposition, and suchlike non-combatant resistance activities?.

The sources I've provided above and preceding, when considered collectively, indicate substantial communist-led resistance contribution that merits mention as proposed. Proposal does not suggest any fullblown discussion, just half a sentence, after identifying key belligerents, saying "Allies were supported by mainly communist-led partisans around the world". Polish resistance numbers are far outweighed by collective numbers of communist partisans.

I concur, Polish resistance was multifarious, was not fully communist-led, (and even included anti-communists and very active Jewish resistance group not usually mentioned in the literature). Chinese communist guerillas, by contrast, were very large and prominent factor in overall resistance equation. (To quote SSJW article, communist guerilla force estimated at more than a million combatants, and see also McArthur and Truman quotes provided above).

I think that answers your (1) and (2) above. As for pro-Axis partisans: now there's a relatively tiny and highly insiqnificant partisan grouping (including post-war nazi White Wolves) certainly not worth mentioning in summary. Communicat (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but your remarks and actions in this and other threads are uncivil, assuming bad faith, and disruptive at the same time towards me to a degree none of my justified questions and remarks are. So basically in the light of your most recent response I cannot say more than SHUT UP you re going all that is Wikipedia by accusing me of all the thing you are doing to me at least several magnitudes more.

Basically, I never assume bad faith, but if the editor is confusing rather than illuminating whatever (s)he is suggesting that is sometimes hard to keep to. In the light of this large and over-arching article you have done nothing to suggest that the rather marginal resistance movements (except perhaps (notice this word) Yugoslavian partisan) require any mention in the lead, so my suggestion would be to stop listening to any suggestion you make and leave the lead as it is (which is an actionable suggestion). PS in my experience editors blaming other editors being the first in a discussion to explicitly question good faith of other editors tend to act in bad faith in 99 out of 100 cases......... Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Get a life Communicat (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is a personal remark and has no relevance whatsoever to improving this article and as such has no place on Wikipedia. But of course, if you cannot distinguish between discussion here and personal remarks towards other editors perhaps you just do not understand the meaning of Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand perfectly your meaning, which is to impede progress by disrupting the cohesiveness of this section which, as you might have noticed, is headed "Communist-led resistance". If you (and others) don't like the message, don't shoot the messenger. If you want to attack me personally, you're invited to make use of my talk page. Otherwise, please cut it out and do some productive work here. Communicat (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ignoring all personal attacks against my person, I will ask again these productive questions:

1. What are your specific suggestions with this, as from your posts it is not clear what you think should be added/changed?
2. Where exactly in this (rather large and broad) article do you think such information should be added?
3. You seem to suggest that communist resistance should be added to the lead, is this correct?

• • In earlier discussions and in the present thread it has been discussed that resistance in general (including communist resistance) has only been of minor influence on the war effort (with the notable exceptions of Poland and Yugoslavia). If you indeed suggest to add resistance, or even more specifically communist resistance, I have not yet seen arguments to ustify that (but of course I may have misinterpreted you and you were not referring to the lead).

(PS Your edit summary is rather rude (quote) "reply to disrupter" and proves you do not assume good faith, if you do not see that you are at least a significant part of the problem you have with other editors you really should consider another forum than Wikipedia) Arnoutf (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's implicit in my suggested changes to the lead that appropriate changes / deletions / additions / corrections should be made to the main body of article wherever highly relevant and important article mainbody topics/subject matter have either been overlooked, understated or are otherwise absent from the article. For instance: role of signficant communist partisan resistance apart from Yugoslavs in supporting Allies; precis of belligerants' military strategies; decolonisation in aftermath of war; etc. I've several times already justified / substantiated / argued the rationale for all those changes in preceding discussion, together with supporting references, citations etc. I'm very sorry but I just don't have the time or energy to repeat myself yet again. (I've had to repeat myself for a couple of other editors already). If you're really interested and have the motivation, (I'll forgive you if you don't), you'll find everything you need to know in the current, unfortunately complex and convoluted discussion dispersed over the several inter-related sections above (i.e. flawed overview; editing dispute; anti-communist prejudice; communist-led resistance etc; and probably some more, unresolved and already in the archives, together with my undone and reverted edits concerning some of this. Communicat (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you put it like that I can only say that all my reasons why I think your suggestions go too far can be found somewhere in the British library. To paraphrase you "If you're really interested and have the motivation, (I'll forgive you if you don't), you'll find everything you need to know in the books and other resources of the British library".

Of course you can also just accept that repeating a point where you did not get agreement again and again and again will not change the majority view that your suggestions should not be incorporated in the article. Just like you, me and other editors do not have time or energy to keep repeating the problems with your suggestion.

Simply put, if you want to reopen a discussion that has ground to a stalemate, it is up to you to open it as a comprehensible stand alone discussion. Otherwise other editors cannot be expected to give any useful responses to your new thread. Arnoutf (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait another few days, if all foregoing outstanding issues are not resolved thoughtfully by then, I'll request mediation and declare a dispute tag at head of article. Communicat (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"All foregoing outstanding issues" - this is not workable. Each discussion point needs to be solved on its own merit (as I have said repeatedly before)

The dispute as it is seems to be the case of a U-1 consensus not to change, with one editor having a problem with that. If you put up a dispute tag make sure that you create a single talk page section that contains all relevant information to discuss the dispute (i.e. a section that does not point back to other threads).

Please read WP:mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Basically you will need agreement of the other editors here to take it to mediation. Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re your I can only say that all my reasons why I think your suggestions go too far can be found somewhere in the British library. That's not good enough. Please cite your sources, just as I've taken the time and trouble to do. Re your "paraphrasing" of "my" comments: "... you'll find everything you need to know in the books and other resources of the British library" ; please don't put words in my mouth, and/or don't alter the meaning of what I've said to suit yourself. And don't presume to have the authority to speak on behalf of "other editors", e.g. your "... me and other editors do not have time or energy etc ..." PS: If I stop responding to your silly remarks from now on, please don't interpret my silence as agreement with anything further that you might still feel the need to say to me. Communicat (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To Paul: In view of your silence thereto, I take it that you concur with my posting of 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC) above, which responds to yours of 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC) above, before Arnouft started butting in with raving diversions. Communicat (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, explain what concrete text do you propose to add into the article (with sources), and explain where it is supposed to be inserted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes please do as most of my "raving" have been requests to do just that. Give a concrete proposal supported by reliable sources, a specific location where to change the text, and a rationale why you think it should be so? Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Paul above -- Concrete text proposed: "Allies were supported militarily by mainly communist-led guerrilla movements around the world." (Source: Myron J. Smith, The Secret Wars, Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, 1988). To be inserted in lead, after identifying key belligerents, either in present lead or in new lead currently under revision (?). Communicat (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are three things. First of all, we have argued above that in some countries communist movements were leading but not in all, probably not even in the majority. (Note that I think communist movements were important in many countries, but your statement goes much further claiming that it was by far the most important (based on the word "leading") in the vast majority of countries (based on the word "mainly"). Secondly, most of the resistance were not guerilla but much more modest resistance movements. Thirdly, around the world needs rephrasing as that would imply there were important communist lead resistance movements in the majority of countries, including those of the Americas, Africa and Oceania. Arnoutf (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is premature to speak about this modification of the lede until at least one para about partisan resistance is added into the main article. Let's speak about modifications of the main article first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wish someone had said that in the first place, at the outset of topic. Would have saved lots of time and trouble. Thanks however for granting / recognising that one-paragraph mention should be made of partisans world-wide. That should dispel what could otherwise be construed as racist view that only white Europeans were capable of resistance. Comment by other editor is blinkered and effete, and can easily be countered if/when appropriate edit time arises. Communicat (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that we first have to work in partisan resistance before it can be part of the lead, which should indeed be a summary of the main text.

After we have created such a paragraph where there is much more space for information (e.g. where resistance movements were effective and where not, where they were communist led, where not etc (with references of course). We can revisit if and what should be in the lead about resistance movements, and whether the whole issue of communism is still relevant once we have contructed a main text about resistance movements.

The section "impact" or possibly the lower level section "occupation" seem relevant for resistance (although for Yugoslavia and China that were never fully occupied this may not be the best. Arnoutf (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin pse do not archive; not dormant; may be subject to dispute mediation Communicat (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

At this late stage...

Recently, Comunicat has been lamenting that attempts to change this article "at this late stage" are futile. Checking the history, I found an old copy of the article from late 2001. That was only the oldest copy still available. So, the article is probably MORE than 10 years old. Communicat, my friend, we're not at any more of a "late stage" than we were in January when you started editing. This article will continue to be edited as long as Wikipedia exists. We don't have to worry about a deadline after which no more edits can be made. The article should be continually edited and improved. We won't have a final version unless they pull the plug on Wikipedia. So, the removal of dubious sources and the addition of other POV sources (or, preferably, NPOV sources) can and should continue, with vigorous attention to detail for many years to come. Once more into the breach my friends! --Habap (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're gonna quote me, please do so in proper context and with relevance. My "lament" pertains to topic entirely separate and different from commendable revision of lead as currently underway. Said revision has my full support. In fact, and modesty aside, I believe it was I who instigated the currently ongoing revision in the first place (see topic sections Flawed Lead etc originated few weeks ago, somewhere above). So I'm certainly not complaining about any "late stage" in that particular context. Get over it.

As for your stated intention to add "other POV sources etc", good luck to you. My own experience has been that when any sources are submitted that deviate from the conservative / Western / mainstream paradigm, they are rejected, obstructed, or dismissed arbitrarily by certain self-styled "senior editors" using an unconvincing variety of pretexts / excuses / "justifications" etc,. The numerous marxist, Western revisionist, and other non-mainstream sources that I have submitted are all contained in foregoing sections where you can find them at your own convenience if you're really interested and want to put your bibliographic talents to good use. Communicat (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC) PS: The "late stage" I was referring to, and in relation to which you have quoted me completely out of context, was in fact the late stage of your entry into discussion, without your being properly aware of the facts and matters at issue. Why have you started this particular topic section here, with its curious heading, immediately below the ongoing lead discussion (to which you've evidently not contributed in any way), instead of commenting at the appropriate section in which my quote applies? Are you still busily trying to discredit me? I think so. Communicat (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Geez. I was trying to reassure you that there is plenty of time for changes, not trying to discredit you. You have sounded as though you lament any chance of making the article NPOV and I had hoped to reassure you that it is possible.

I did not include this in any of the other threads because it was intended to be a separate point and a reminder to all parties that continuing change in the article is certain and that no one should walk away out of frustration. The lamentations and despair are seen in many of the threads above. I have confidence in the editors here.

I have not contributed to discussion of the lead because I did not feel I had anything to add. As much as I like to hear myself speak, I did not feel cluttering the discussion was useful when others were handling it ably. --Habap (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well then. How 'bout putting your money where your mouth is? Just try coming up with some non-Western majority position sources and/or Western revisionist significant-minority position sources and/or any other sources that deviate from the dominant conservative mainstream position, and you'll see how the Old Guard reacts. Communicat (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at what you've previously posted, it appears that much of it was rejected only because of the link-spamming of Winer's book.I will begin looking to see if I can find any of the works you cited in that 8 August entry. --Habap (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's quite a lot that you've misinterpreted, and which it seems you're slowly coming around to understanding. While you're at it, have a look at the article reference to No, Kum-Sok; Osterholm, J. Roger, relating to "brutal North Korea." As the title states clearly, it's a memoir; memoirs are not allowed. Yes, I know, it was co-authored by an American journalist, but that was simply to overcome English language writing difficulties on the part of the Korean. Three down, 24 to go.

Or, if you're desperate to keep the "brutal North Korea" part, how about some balance by mentioning the brutal American-sponsored covert assassination programme that killed thousands of South Vietnamese civilians, viz., "Operation Phoenix". Or the American-inspired brutal massacre of around one million civilian communist suspects in Indonesia? All very well documented. No sourcing problem. Communicat (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to mediation committee + parties

Mediation request was filed to mediation committee on 21 August 2010. Request cites intertwined threads on discussion page. Some of the threads have since been moved to archives on 22 August. (Archiving dormancy procedure was suddenly reduced from 20 days to 15 days and now 10 days). Movement of relevant sections to archives may make it difficult and/or complicated for cohesive mediation request assessment and parties' participation, if any, relative to past discussion as referred to in request for mediation.

For ease of reference, the interrelated dispute elements are contained either wholly or partly under various talk topic section headings, either archived at archives #38 and #39 or still on this current page (as at 22 August), are as follows in more or less chronological order:

Link to www.truth-hertz.net

WW2 origins of Cold War

Flawed overview -- para 3

Anti-communist prejudice

USSR and USA at the top?

German surrender

Editing Dispute -- expressions of interest invited

Duplication / cleanup

Lead: problems

Communist-led resistance

At this late stage...

Communicat (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh you did make a mediation request. You probably should have told so here so that the involved parties can tell the committee whether they think mediation is in order.

I had a look and found your request here: Wikipedia:Request_for_mediation#World_War_II_.28overview_article.29

The following editors were mentioned as involved parties, so if your name is here, have a look at the link above.

1. Communicat , filing party
2. Nick-D
3. Arnoutf
4. Paul Siebert
5. White Shadows
6. Moxy
7. Hohum
8. Habap
9. Binksternet

I will do so soon Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The mediation committee itself notifies named parties within two days Arnoutf, likely to give them time to see if the request is valid. See WP:Requests_for_mediation/Guide#After_filing. (Hohum ^@) 18:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I use to notify users if I involve named persons myself, but fine I'll wait for their invitation then. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

For those who might have missed it, here is Observation by mediator: "I would express my disappointment at what seems to be the acutely partisan nature of the editing of this article ... it saddens me to know that there are articles with regular contributors who are either so devoid of a collegial outlook or who have not yet reported such a disruptive user for administrative attention." (AGK 20:10, 24 August 2010) Communicat (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Himeta's quote

One of the sources mentioned by Communicat as dubious was the quote on casualties from Mitsuyoshi Himeta that came from Sharon Linzey's speech to the Kurdish National Congress of North America with a citation directly to the study by Himeta. One down, 26 to go? --Habap (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Source so-called "dubious" in so far as it does not conform to alleged requirements demanded by some wiki editors in respect of "self publishing" without peer review mechanism. You will note that Kurdish National Congress is self publisher and apparently without academic peer reviewers. Meantime, before jumping the gun (again), how about waiting for committee to decide whether or not mediation request is admissable? Communicat (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Habap's full talk entry, with "Kurdish National Congress" as posted. Communicat, do not refactor others' talk posts, not to correct facts or spelling or anything. Per WP:TPO, only very specific changes can be made to others' comments. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring was not intentional. I'd meant to copy and paste words, but in late-night haze I copied and cut by mistake. Thanks for fixing & pointing it out to me. Communicat (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A better reason than self-publishing for removing it was that it was not a direct quote of Mitsuyoshi Himeta. If you search for Mitsuyoshi Himeta on the internet (I happen to use dogpile for my searches, since I prefer it to google), you'll find more than a dozen speeches and papers that all use the same quote from him. From a historian's perspective, it's better to quote directly from the source (i.e use a primary source) than to use a secondary source for what he said.

I'm trying to fix the article. You've stated that one of the problems is that there is a double-standard for evaluation of sources. I think that there isn't and it's just sloppiness. I think you said there were 27 self-published works quoted. Since they are likely dubious sources, I am trying to find them and replace them with sources that are not dubious.

Do you want the article improved or do you want to "win" at mediation? I think our goal should solely be the improvement of the article. --Habap (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note the subtle difference for the use of a primary source for a direct quote (as is the case here) but a secondary source to use for interpretation of these statements; as interpreting a statement is original research (but a direct quote is not). Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Winning" some stupid argument doesn't come into it. The whole point of going to mediation is, among other things, with a view to improvement of this and related wiki articles, as also to prevent any future fractious and time-wasting NPOV and similar disputes of this nature.

As for questionable sources, I don't have time to go into all that right now. It's a major undertaking which might or might not be handled in the fullness of time. You don't need me for that right now, if you want to make a start on your own. Maybe commence with checking out the several "Illustrated Histories", which use visuals to back up unverified and unsourced text, which text in turn is then quoted in WW2 article as supposedly reliable secondary source. I've mentioned this before; seems you missed it. (WW2 article, IMO, has vaguely similar problem: i.e. strong on visuals, fotos, graphics etc, but text is grammatically and stylisticaly a bit of a mess, even if highly sourced. All those irritating ellipses, for example).

Re Arnouft comment above: Can't make much sense of it. Rules are fairly clear in banning the use of primary sources. Communicat (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No they are not banning primary source, the rules state you should use utmost care and caution to use primary sources and only use them for non-controversial facts and not analyse their content. A verbatim quote (without analysis) is clearly non-controversial as a fact (because easily verified by looking at source, whether you agree with quote or not is of no relevance). Quotes are however often misinterpreted and therefore in the specific case of quotes (without analysis) the primary source in that specific circumstance is often more reliable. For example, if I were to quote the line "to be or not to be" (without further analysis) should I source that with Shakespeare play Hamlet (primary source) or any of the hundreds of analyses of the text (secondary source). I hope you agree the sourcing to Hamlet is far superior to "my high school textbook on English literature". Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have already done the hard work of identifying 27 dubious sources, listing them will be trivial, so that they can be checked, and the article improved. Thank you in advance. (Hohum ^@) 20:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for introducing the terms on sourcing. It has obviously confused the issue. The speech stated that Himeta said there a certain number of casualties. Rather than providing a citation to the speech, it is much more correct to point the citation to the article that Himeta wrote, so people can read what he actually said instead of a partial quote and interpretation of what he said. --Habap (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

To all the above: Okay, I'll read the primary source rules again. Must have misunderstood them in relation to what user arnoutf is now telling me. Thanks for pointing it out.

Re "hard work" of identifying 27 questionable sources, no it wasn't hard work. Most were self-evident from just a quick scan. By the way, I actually said "at least 27" questionable sources. There are possibly more, if one makes the effort and takes the time to analyse in depth each and every one of the source notations. The alleged dubious sources in question didn't make their appearance overnight, but accumulated gradually and fragmentarily over a period of 10 years, and they have become so ingrained in the fabric of the article that it's gonna take a lot of time and effort to clear them up. I'm not over-enthusiastic to become more involved in such a clearing up operation at this particular moment in time because, as you can see, dissecting even just one questionable source has already accounted for the expenditure by Habap of considerable time and number of words. Imagine what it's going to be like with 27 or more such questionable sources. In fact, I'm starting to regret I even raised the matter in the first place, but I guess someone had to do it. Communicat (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So, there is no list? --Habap (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It would seem not. I ran through the sources yesterday (my time) and could only see one which appeared unreliable - I replaced it with a reference to the Oxford Companion to World War II (and tweaked the text as I couldn't verify in the several sources I checked that Hitler ordered an end to the bombing of England on 11 May 1941; the sources I consulted said instead that the bombing campaign largely ended in this month as bomber units were transferred to support the invasion of the USSR but that limited bombing of England continued). 23:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re habap's, "So, there is no list". Read my posting properly and/or stop wasting my time. Where are all those NPOV alternative sources YOU were bragging about earlier? Communicat (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I stated that there must be some Soviet sources written by authors who perused the Smolensk archive. I do not read Russian, so have no way of reading them. I only own Western sources, so have to get to the library to find "other POV" sources. While you have stated that it should be obvious which are the dubious sources, it would be easier for everyone involved if someone created a list and we could all go through it, removing the dubious ones and replacing them with valid sources. I recently read someone posting that NPOV was "not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view." --Habap (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I posted that, about POV, which conforms in all major particulars with my own understanding of the rule.

Re Smolensk, not only Russians have perused the archive. Among others, a professor of defence studies at Edinburgh university also perused them, and if my memory serves me correctly, his findings are quoted on the basis of a personal interview in Winer's now apparently banned online book. So unfortunately that quote can't be used. But I digress. Yes, I agree, it would be easier if "someone" created a list for the purpose stated. But that someone is not going to be me at this time, because the list and the arguments for and against each case on its own individual merits would take up more time and trouble than I can presently afford to volunteer. Not to mention all the further discussion and debate necessary if/when any discovered reliable Soviet sources are ready to be appropriately reworked into article text. I'm snowed under with other, equally challenging projects in my other life.

What I can do, however, is feed you with bits and pieces of existing questionable sources, as I've done with a few already, (including the various "illustrated histories" already mentioned in talk). How about this one (ref 32): Chaney, Otto Preston (1996). Zhukov. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 76. ISBN 0806128070. It is a biography. Biographies are disallowed. As for the incorrect spelling of Georgy (Zhukov) in the aftermath pic caption, and also in the infobox, it should in fact be Georgi (source Georgi Zhukov, Reminiscences and Reflections, (2 vols), Moscow: Progress 1985), and no I'm not citing in the text a biographical source, just trying to prove spelling, because I'm fairly confident the author knows how to spell his own name. The text sentence to which said ref 32 refers is also incorrect in so far as part of it is contextually digressive and irrelevant (viz., "avoiding sacking"), and the rest is incorrect in so far as Zhukov was not only involved in defence of Moscow, but played a central role along the entire Russian-German front (or "Eastern" front as it is generally and confusingly referred to in the West), and other fronts too (e.g. Russo-Japanese front).

I correcteed the spelling of Zhukov's first name a few days ago, which you then reverted. If I remember correctly, you said it first had to be corrected in another article somewhere, before being corrected in the main article. So, I'll leave it for you to do the honours with correcting it wherever it appears, which will save me the time of having to look for it in other articles which you're already familiar with. (I still can't get my head around the concept that an inaccuracy in one article needs to be repeated in another for the sake of consistency. But that's just me.) Communicat (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PS I also use dogpile. I've seen they list several items near the top about Soviet historians relative to recent stuff about role of USSR in the Pacific, which I don't have time to follow up. Might be worth pursuing if you have the time and interest. Communicat (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PPS I will await your response to above, and also your response to Korean memoir source referred to at 23:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC) in section "Late stage" above, before proceeding to provide further instances of questionable sources on a case-to-case basis.

I would of course have been happy to prepare a fully itemised list with explanatory notes for mediation committee, had my mediation request not been blocked by Nick-D and others opposed to open mediation in this matter. Your voluntary initiative to go into the breach alone is appreciated by me, for one. I'll do my best to help on a case by case basis until such time, if any, that it becomes essential to provide a full, detailed and itemised list. Communicat (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

aftermath

I've made new 2nd para, no changes otherwise. RE clarification requested, will do when edit conflicts subside, and will also fix ISBNs if/when ref numbers revert to sequence, for some reason current sequence gone all over the place. Can anyone tell me consistent ISBN policy, i.e. 10-digit, 13-digit, spaces and/or dashes between numbers? Communicat (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For complete coverage it would be interesting to add how the denazification / war crimes programs of the USSR developed after the war. Is there any source information about whether the USSR similarly used high end former nazis in relevant postings and thus diluted their denazification programs in the same way UK and US did? (I know they were interested in Werner von Braun, but the Americans got him) Arnoutf (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't have sources for USSR. Why don't YOU look for them, seeing as its your idea? (You might want to add that USSR wanted British bombing of German civilians to be included in war crimes trials). Communicat (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A minor clarification, and some page numbers are needed. I have fixed the ISBN syntax. 10 or 13 digit ISBN work, 13 is preferred, WP:ISBN is the relevant wiki page for ISBN presentation. (Hohum ^@) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I did have a look and found a few interesting publications. Russian denazification lasted from 1945-1948. Older sources accuse the Russians of political cleansing of anticommunist sentiments, but modern sources (Vogt) does not agree and sais that denazification was relatively fair albeit slow. March 1948 denazification was halted/ called complete. All 'remaining' nazis were no longer pursued. So apparently no conscious Soviet intention to employ high level nazis in the new governmental structures, but acceptance that the task to continue finding "small" nazis could take forever and would disrupt the new situation, hence a stop on active persecution. In other words, the Soviets applied a similar kind of realpolitik as the US/UK except for those few case where US/UK actively used former nazis for their goals. [www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/Vol4Denazification.doc] [1] [2] Arnoutf (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. So, why don't you work it into topic with ref?

Re your "...few cases where US/UK actively used former nazis for their goals": No, there were not a few cases, especially in relation to US. Try reading the readily available works I've cited. Entire US-sponsored Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty network, operating from US, was run by numerous former Nazis including war crimes suspects. Plenty of sources, but the three sentences I've provided are sufficient to the task at hand, without needing to make a fullblown article out of it -- (but of course you're free to do so yourself if you're that way inclined). Communicat (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Collapse previous reflist

I've just removed the para. The lack of page numbers is highly unsatisfactory, and I'm not convinced that it's either neutral (as other sources emphasise the harsh treatment of Germany in the post-war years and Germany's rehabilitation as a democracy) or about topics notable enough to be covered in this high-level article on the war (and not its aftermarth). As per the convention, it should also have been discussed here first. I've posted the para below to aid further disussions of it.

When the divisions of postwar Europe began to emerge, the war crimes programmes and denazification policies of Britain and the United States were abandoned in favour of realpolitik. Germans who were classified as ardent Nazis were chosen by the American secret services to become "respectable" American citizens. Secret arrangements were concluded between American military intelligence and former key figures in the anti-communist section of German military intelligence or Abwher, headed by General Reinhard Gehlen, to advise the Americans on how to go about establishing their own anti-Soviet networks in Europe.

In addition to the clarification request, and page numbers. Links to Operation Paperclip and Operation Osoaviakhim would seem relevant. Were Nazi Scientists gathered by the USSR too? - I believe Bower's The Paperclip Conspiracy covers this as well. The text starting "Secret arrangements were..." to the end of the paragraph goes into too much detail for an overview article IMO. (Hohum ^@) 23:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D you could see that at the very time of your deleting my contribution, I was in the actual process of working on the paragraph you were busily deleting. If it wasn't for all the edit conflicts I was experiencing as a result of your interference, the required page number and "clarity" query would have been completed.

I have read and understand the rules and therefore see no need to first discuss with you what I propose to edit, except in the case of significant changes. I have not performed any significan change to existing text. I have inserted three sentences of new content, which editors can examine at their leisure and respond accordingly, as Hohum and others were in the process of doing before you butted in and acted arbitrarily without discussion. You're being extrememly objectionable and obstructive, and this latest instance will also be brought to the attention of arbitrator, in addition to other matters already filed today, of which you are no doubt aware, and of which you will no doubt be hearing further. In the meantime, please stop being retaliatory; you're only damaging your own case. Communicat (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D has edited the article exactly twice in the last twelve hours. That is not a lot of edit conflicts. The WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is normal practice. Please stop making threats, knuckle down, and discuss edits constructively, like anyone else manages to do. (Hohum ^@) 00:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

re Nick-D has edited the article exactly twice in the last twelve hours. Exactly. Isn't it quite odd then that he should remove my edit just a few minutes after I'd filed items containing edit summaries that made it obvious I was in the very process of methodically fixing the section at issue (page numbers, clarity query)? Coincidence is all very well when it happens, but this, given the circumstances, was IMO no coincidence.

Besides which, his remark about "aftermath" in relation to the article is quite incoherent. I've read it several times and still can't figure out what the blazes he's talking about. Perhaps he knows what he's talking about? Never mind.

By the way, I'm not making threats. I'm making promises. Arbitration request has already been filed. In the meantime, the aftermath item is easily fixed on basis of your observations, and I was in fact doing so before disruption ocurred. Doesn't seem much point in proceeding further with that edit under present conditions. I'll just let arbitration run its course before attempting any more wasted effort here. You can do what you like with Tom Bower et al. If the boss lets you. Communicat (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish you spent your time on improving edits instead of non-constructive argument and tilting at windmills. (Hohum ^@) 01:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, if you genuinely wish to discuss changes to articles it would be helpful if you'd stop your personal attacks on other editors - I'm not going to engage with them. Nick-D (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If we want to go further with this para I would add a line immediately after the first: "Followed by an end to denazification by the Soviets in early 1948 " In any case, if we discuss the denazification we should fairly discuss US, UK AND USSR efforts otherwise we give an incomplete image which necessarily leads to a POV by omission.
I would also be perfectly happy to drop it, as I think the aftermath section is already very long for a high level overview article like this. So my preference would be to shorten rather than expand it. Arnoutf (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dropping it is my preference. If Germany is covered, all the other Axis countries need to be covered and this topic isn't particularly relevant to the subject of the article (the war). Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, in case you didn't check that RfA, please read Wikipedia:TINC. I found it amusing and quite relevant. --Habap (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:OWN. As for Rfa decision, read Response to assertion in statement by Nick-D regarding "... proposed changes to and complaints (by Communicat) about the World War II article ... are generally not supported by the balance of mainstream sources ..."

The article relies exclusively on mainstream sources, to the total exclusion of other available non-mainsteam sources / positions, and this is the specific reason why NPOV dispute arose in the first place. See Observation by mediator in this specific regard, which is as follows: "I would express my disappointment at what seems to be the acutely partisan nature of the editing of this article ... it saddens me to know that there are articles with regular contributors who are either so devoid of a collegial outlook or who have not yet reported such a disruptive user for administrative attention." (AGK 20:10, 24 August 2010)

As Moxy has recognised, there are some wide and advanced issues involved here, and I'm definitely not gonna let it go. Sorry to disappoint you all. Communicat (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an overview article. It should rely on reliable mainstream sources. Further exploration should be on the hundreds of linked articles. (Hohum ^@) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lame excuse. Tendentious reasoning. Read the rules that require alternative positions to be stated in interests of NPOV, which rules I've already cited several times. I'm not going to repeat them endlessly for the benefit of a few editors apparently exhibiting "I can't hear you". It's clear the issue cannot be resolved via discussion with editors of that ilk, otherwise it would have been resolved a long time ago. I see not point in trying to discuss it further, and will pursue my options, of which there are still one or two. Communicat (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently, every other editor who has expressed an opinion disagrees with you on your novel interpretation of wikipedia policies and guidelines. You are flogging several dead horses simultaneously with your current behaviour. (Hohum ^@) 20:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You have evidently missed my posting, (two postings above), re Observation by mediator, now repeated again for your edification: "I would express my disappointment at what seems to be the acutely partisan nature of the editing of this article ...." (AGK 20:10, 24 August 2010) In short, if as alleged no other editors agree with me, the quoted mediator for one does in fact agree with me. If you don't like it, take it up with the mediation committee.

As for your tendentious "It's an overview article." Firstly, wherever did you people get the idea that it's an 'overview'? Nowhere is it said in the article itself that it's an "overview". The article is a main article, with various separate sub-articles. As a main article it should contain the main points about WW2, regardless of whether or not the sub-articles elabortate further, and if they don't, it's the sub-articles' problem, not the main article's problem. And a main point, among others, that should be mentioned in the main article, is that significant alternative positions exist as to the causes and courses of the war. The article itself need not go into a fullwinded saga about the alternative positions. That's a separate story. For the main article, just mention that fundamental difference exist between Western mainstream, Western revisionist, and non-Western i.e. Soviet positions. That's all that's needed. No more than two or three sentences with reliable sources, as I've already provided and which were rejected out of hand.

Secondly: your "(the article) should rely on reliable mainstream sources." You're defeating your own argument. "Reliable mainstream sources" to the exclusion of reliable alternative and/or revisionist position sources is vcompletely out of line with NPOV, and even Habap has recognised this by now. And so has the mediator as quoted above.

So how come you're still having so much difficulty in grasping this very basic historiographic concept? I would suggest it's because of ideological conservatism on your part and on the part of some other editors; conservatism by its very nature is highly resistant to change; and that includes editorial changes to the article by any editor with a fresh perspective, in this case me.

You conservatives, having achieved "good article" status, now apparently want to rest on your laurels and protect "your" territory against perceived intruders like me, i.e. anyone who proposes any meaningful and progressive change to "your" article. Well, I'm not intimidated by your sort. Communicat (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

AGK was clearly talking about the process of collaboration and not the content, of the article. And I would perfer to work together, but I think we should first agree on some basic issues about this article.

1. This article covers the whole of WWII. WWII was an extremely complicated conflict. To cover all of it and keep it at a readable size each issue should be treated extremely briefly.
   
2. If there are conflicting interpretations/theories, the most dominant should get more attention more or less in proportion to how dominant these are in todays literature. This is overall an encyclopedia where an overview of the body of current knowledge is presented and not a scientific journal where new opinions are advanced.
   
3. Since the issues are treated extremely briefly (point 1) there is limited scope to present minority views unless these are very broadly supported. The more detailed articles can be used to present these theories in more detail.
   

Can you agree to these arguments? To be honest, if you cannot I do not see how we can cooperate. Arnoutf (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All I wanted to know re my posting above, was whether or not it was appropriate for me to submit the page numbers earlier requested by Hohum as supported by Moxy.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the mediator's observation re "the acutely partisan nature of the editing of this article". Communicat (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ATG clarified on his talk page that he was saying that the "approach to editing is partisan", and wasn't commenting on content. (Hohum ^@) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@Communicat and others, with my 3 points above I am trying to come to agreements within which I think we should be able collaborate. Can you please respond whether you agree to these 3 points. (Looking back to the past and what AGK said (or intended) is not helpful to the future in any case so I would prefer to leave that be.) Arnoutf (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Arnoutf's three points. I agree. To keep this already long article as brief and readable as possible, we can't go into much detail, this means leaving most alternative viewpoints to their main articles (and linking to them), yet keeping the wording open enough to encompass them here without being over specific, if possible.

Re page numbers. Even if a whole book is about a point being made, there will doubtless be an identifiable reference on a particular page, or a few pages, which should be used as a reference. (Hohum ^@) 12:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you, or do you not want the page numbers? That's all I want to know. At this stage I do not want to be further involved in the aftermath topic nor any other WW2 topic until such time, if any, that certain ongoing policy matters are finally resolved.

As regards AGK clarification of "partisan editing", I have posted the following at AGKs talkpage:

Thanks AGK for clarifying what you meant by "partisan editing". The primary matter at issue as stated in my mediation request concerned partisan editing, so I surmised on that basis your comment was in direct reference to the issue of partisan editing, and not the now clarified "approach to partisan editing".

I agree with your disappointment that mediation was not allowed to take its natural course, viz., was blocked by those who did not want impartial mediation to occur. If mediation had indeed proceeded as intended by me, you would also have become better acquainted with the different points of view that exist on the article in question. You might further have understood how and why there is no discernable desire on the part of those who are opposed to mediation to consider alternatives or compromise, relative to partisan editing as complained of by me. Communicat (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In answer to my direct question to you I interprrt this as that you do not explicitly agree with the 3 points above (and choose not to edit WWII anymore.) Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Read my posting properly. Communicat (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I asked a direct question, and in none of your posts do you explicitly respond. So clearly you do not explicitly agree. Your tendency to confuse your own posts by lengthy texts with little relevance to the issue does not hide that. But I can ask you again. Do you agree to the 3 points I raised above, a simple Yes or No will do. Arnoutf (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised to see that the para has been restored to the article before there's agreement on whether it should be included, how it should be worded or even page numbers for some of the references. I still regard it as a POV mess - in essence it argues that the west quickly papered over its opposition to the Nazis in order to gain access to German technology and intelligence networks. The suprisingly rapid democratisation of post-war Germany is ignored, as is the continuing western military-led occupation of the country. Moreover, it leaves out the substantial transfers of technology to France and Britain. The claim that "Britain and the United States soon abandoned their war crimes programmes" is plainly nonsense given that hundreds of key Nazis were successfully prosecuted and war crimes trials of individuals continue to this very day (including many conducted by Germany during the 1950s and 1960s). The statement that "large numbers of former Nazis" moved to Britain and the US is also very dubious - what's a 'large number'? All up, this para is attempting to push a fringe interpretation of post-war events and I still think it has no place in the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a fair bit of work. It is possible that the editor reintroducing it is having trouble finding the right thread on this cluttered and rambling talk page. (Hohum ^@) 03:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just in case there's any confusion about the unnamed editor and/or further discrediting of myself: I was not the mysterious editor who reintroduced the evidently disputed material. The editor responsible, more than likely, was the esteemed Hohum, who rightly observes that the talk page has become practically unmanageable.

As for Nick-d's observations: apart from selectively quoting out of context etc, his level of insight seems to be reflected by his own words: "The suprisingly rapid democratisation of post-war Germany ..." Post-war Germany consisted of Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and German Democratic Republic (East Germany), each of which disputed the legitimacy of "democracy" in the other. Neither of them turned out to be truly democratic. (Sources available) Nick-d himself does not source or define his own meaning of "democratisation".

Semantics aside; regarding Nick-d's assertion The claim that "Britain and the United States soon abandoned their war crimes programmes" is plainly nonsense given that hundreds of key Nazis were successfully prosecuted ... Those prosecutions were essentially token prosecutions and they were conducted on a very selective basis. (Copious Sources available). Consider for instance the celebrated case of Kurt Waldheim, who went on to become secretary-general of the United Nations. Another celebrated case is that of the war criminal (can't remember his name right now) who went on to become head of Interpol, and other very well documented cases for which numerous sources are also available. And speaking of sources, I have repeatedly offered to submit reliable sources and clarifications as requested by Hohum before Nick-d objected to the topic and reverted my edits while I was in the process of providing clarification and page numbers. I then repeatedly asked whether or not it was worthwhile providing the said clarity and page numbers, to which no response was forthcoming.

Re Arnoutf posting above: I seem to recall you're the same feller who earlier told me to "SHUT UP" (sic) and "find another forum". Now you are laying down itemised preconditions for my continued participation. I am unaware, (unless I've missed something), that you Arnoutf have any authority whatsoever to dictate to me or anyone else any conditions or preconditions for participation. I have already made it clear, and I repeat: I want nothing further to do with editing the aftermath or any other WW2 topic until such time as certain key policy issues are conclusively resolved. The rest of you, including especially you Arnoutf, are free to fight it out among yourselves. There is an unfortunate tendency, when descended upon by the equivalent of a pack of editorial wild dogs, to reduce oneself to the same level. You don't emerge intact from such attacks by being Mr Nice Guy; and I for one am thoroughly fed up with having to reduce myself to that level. It's all yours (for the time being, at any rate), and good luck to you. I trust I've made myself clear. Communicat (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just asking

What triggered the Japanese to attack the Pearl Harbor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.215.222 (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The article didn't tell about that clear enough. The attack was triggered primarily by the US oil embargo. I fixed that, and now the article says:

"German successes in Europe encouraged Japan to increase pressure on European governments in south-east Asia. The Dutch government agreed to provide Japan oil supplies from the Dutch East Indies, while refusing to hand over political control of the colonies. Vichy France, by contrast, agreed to a Japanese occupation of French Indochina. The United States, United Kingdom, and other Western governments reacted to the seizure of Indochina with a freeze on Japanese assets, while the United States (which supplied 80 percent of Japan's oil) responded by placing a complete oil embargo. That meant Japan was essentially forced to choose between abandoning its ambitions in Asia and the prosecution of the war against China, or seizing the natural resources it needed by force; the Japanese military did not consider the former an option, and many officers considered the oil embargo an unspoken declaration of war."

Thank you for pointing my attention at that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers

Page numbers are really helpful for verifying what a writer actually wrote. If the "entire book narrates content of relevant sentence text", then, surely the thesis of the book is in a sentence or paragraph on some page. Provide that page number so that people can go to the book, look and say, "Ah, yes, he does say exactly that!" Otherwise, you force someone to read an entire book and decide if they interpret the author's meaning in the same way. You'd never be able to submit a paper for a history class and simply footnote it with "entire book". --Habap (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you say the ones that are missing because i see page numbers all over.Moxy (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Up in the aftermath section, Communicat cites several sources without page numbers, as he did in this diff, stating that page numbers are unneccessary because the entire contents of the books support the statement, kind of like the British library comment above. --Habap (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

O i see ..It has been removed ...yes we should have them for a 501 page book. (as as per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Identifying parts of a source) ..they also need to be in the proper templates. However that said this can simply be fixed in most cases and if not a tag added as done here will do or replace it all together......i Dont believe they should be removed (if not replaced) because an editors is not up to speed on layout...However this additions are part of a greater issue as see above, that i have backed away from some time ago...Moxy (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the current situation here? If I understand it correctly, Moxy says my aftermath contribution should remain. HoHum, took the trouble to fix the ISBNs for me, before Nick-D butted in, so he appears to be implicitly in favour of the sentences at issue. Nick-D of course disagreed at the very outset and tried to strangle it at birth. Others seem noncommital. I would like to see it remain, since IMO it's a key aftermath issue. So, what to do? Should I take the time and trouble to provide relevant page numbers without pondering the probability or possibility of the whole thing being undone again? (as per usual) Communicat (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please ask Moxy to confirm your interpretation of what you think was said. I read Moxy's response as a context free statement that edits should not be merely removed because page numbers are missing. However, page numbers were not given as reason for removal, so in my view Moxy does not comment on this specific removal. Of course Moxy would have to clarify. The same with HoHum, correcting stuff can also be noncommited and in my view is not support of a sentence (but also no clear objection). Here we need HoHum to ake the interpretation explicit. Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in your assumptions of what i was saying Arnoutf ...thank you for making it clear for others :) ..Moxy (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the ISBN links meant that I prefer to have working links to enable easier verification of sources. I made more explicit suggestions regarding content at the time - In essence, I think a sentence mentioning the US and Soviet attempts at grabbing Nazi scientists is relevant, but not exactly essential, the rest was too much detail for an overview about WWII. (Hohum ^@) 22:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Describing other editors actions as "butting in" and to "strangle at birth" is not assuming good faith, and hardly helps to repair relations. (Hohum ^@) 22:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Communicat and fringe-POV pushing

(copied on Talk:World War II and Communicat's talk page. Please primarily respond on Talk:World War II)

Having reviewed the Arbcom case filing and the talk pages here and at the Strategic Bombing article that Communicat also was intensively involved in last month, I am intervening as an uninvolved administrator.

Communicat - It is evident that you are disrupting the article here. It is also clear that you do not understand or will not agree to abide by our policies on neutral point of view (one of our core / pillar values), and to some degree our policy on original research. Out of those flow our policies against overly emphasizing minority viewpoints (WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE). You are steadfastly fighting against normal community application of our reliable sources policy here and attempting to insert fringe viewpoints.

We are not here to post original research or be a battleground or advocacy site for new ideas. We are an encyclopedia. We reflect consensus (in verified, reliably sourced external publications and references) of what the world has already concluded.

Additionally, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's an encyclopedia that everyone edits together. We value both our core policies and values of community discussion and working together to improve articles and build a better encyclopedia. Using process and discussion as a stick to attempt to push radical change, ignoring all feedback given and refusing to discuss in good faith, is disruptive activity. It's inherently disrespectful to the rest of the community when you do that.

Nobody has yet complained (that I noticed) on an administrators noticeboard such as WP:ANI, however there's no reason for us to wait for that to happen. The conversations with you have gotten increasingly nasty, you're attempting to use process as a stick (the Arbcom case filing), it's evident that you don't agree with Wikipedia's core values and aren't respecting the community here. The short description for all that is "Disruptive editing". Disruptive editing is a blockable offense here on Wikipedia. We don't do it lightly, and we are particularly aware of not wanting to club minority viewpoints into submission or interfere with content discussions arbitrarily. But there are limits, when things become disruptive.

Communicat - you are nearing or at the limits for acceptable behavior now. I would like to warn you that you need to at least tone down your behavior and reconsider how Wikipedia works, and whether your goals in coming here match our goals and core values of producing a neutral encyclopedia. If you continue down the confrontational course you currently have set, I or another administrator may well block you from editing for disruption. That is not my goal or intention. It would be much preferable if you reconsider on your own, and continue engaging in a less confrontational and more collaborative manner. I don't ask or expect you to change your historical opinions. But you can hold them and edit collaboratively and collegially, cooperating with everyone else here.

If you chose not to, again, this behavior is disruption, and disruption is blockable.

I respect your interest here and want to be honest here. You deserve the chance to stay engaged and do so in a more cooperative manner, and to work with us to understand what our community standards are and how to do so. If you are willing to listen to criticism going forwards you are likely to succeed within Wikipedia.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and for your comments as an uninvolved administrator. On the face of it, there seem to be some things with which I am not entirely in agreement, but I shall study your posting more carefully and respond accordingly in due course. In the meantime, just to ensure that we're both on the same page, I'd be much obliged if you could clarify for me the following:

(1) Am I correct in assuming that you are not a formal arbitrator or formal arbitration reviewer?

(2) Am I correct in assuming that you have no forml history or military history qualification? (Your userpage does not mention any).

(3) I'm a bit baffled. You refer to "intensive" contributions that I made to Strategic Bombing article. I have no recollection of any such contributions, with the exception only of a brief submission quite a long time ago, around maybe six or more weeks back, citing author Max Hastings. Can you kindly clarify specifically which other of my contributions in that article, if any, you are referring to? (I shall meanwhile endeavour to study the bombing article and its editing history myself). 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not on Arbcom. I'm just one of the many (thousand-ish) administrators. Very few issues go to Arbcom, most are handled within the community or by administrators.

Formal training in history, military or other? No, not particularly, though I'm reasonably well read in the field.

The reaction to your source and edits at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net were relatively enthusiastic. I count 14 edits by you to the talk or article there. It was for a while your major point of contribution. If you disagree with the description as "intensive" that's fine; the wording is immaterial to the larger issue.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to be overlooked - general breakdown in collegiality

In response to the Arbcom case filing, AGK has noted that there has been a breakdown in collegiality on the article talk pages in general, and he made the comment with a wide brush and about many not few contributors.

Having reviewed here (and the Strategic Bombing article) I also wanted to agree with AGK's comment on that issue. Our policy on collegial, civil, and collaborative editing expects that people will treat the community here - and all editors within it - with respect and by default assume good faith about their contributions. Even in the face of significant disagreement, we expect people to continue to be graceful and cooperative.

This is necessary to keep the community and collaborative aspects of Wikipedia working smoothly.

I can point to recent edits by Communicat here on this talk page which show the breakdown. I could also list at least a dozen, probably as many as 50 other diffs by other editors between this page and the Strategic Bombing talk page. This breakdown was general and not one-sided.

We expect better of everybody. The point of having uninvolved administrators is that when things start to break down, you come get us, and we work to calm situations down. Since we're not already tangled up we can be fair and independent arbiters. We are here to keep the encyclopedia working, the community working, and to keep the big picture in mind. Writing a great article tomorrow is no solution for communications degrading so that we can't write good other articles next week and into the future. We need to be able to do both.

Please keep this in mind. I don't think I need to do any warnings for personal attacks; but there's a wide range of behavior that corrodes and degrades the community and makes it harder to solve problems and move forwards, that falls short of personal attacks.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these and the above comments George - I agree completely. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall respond in due course, upon receipt of your valued answers to my queries at bottom of above section "Communicat and fringe-POV pushing". Communicat (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Please don't get me wrong where I inquire above regarding your formal historical qualifications. I'm not trying to be a smart-arse. I'm trying to establish the level of your understanding of historiography, so that I may choose my words appropriately in responding to your comments. Some technical and advanced concepts may be involved. Again, thank you for your interest and concern. Communicat (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion, I am not a professional historian (military or otherwise) but have on the order of 250 military history books in my personal collection, have read a number more, have done some original source research in documentation and interviews on points of interest. I am a defense and military analyst part time. I am also reasonably well read in geopolitics and modern military policy areas. I have not studied the process of doing academic or analytical history at a university, per se. If you're referring to technical concepts of the process of doing historical research you need to explain it in general terms for the well-read, not professional jargon. If you're referring to the output materials, in terms of actual military or geopolitical history writings, you can use the terminology found in them and assume I can follow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. A man after my own heart. Your book collection is noted with envy.

I've checked the strat bombing edit history, and see you're referring in fact to a few edits of about six months ago, not last month as stated. The intensive editing to which you're possibily referring was even before that, concerning article Western Betrayal which morphed into "Controversial command decisions, World War II" and which was then AFD'd and reverted back to original Western Betrayal by Nick-D et al -- despite well-founded objections from the late Tony Judt who described my edits at that time as "valuable work". (His view was supported by at least one other respected editor). The beginnings of current furore can be traced back to that time. Of which more later. I'll soon be making my position clear, when I have some breathing space. Communicat (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to "uninvolved" intervening party

Georgewilliamherbert, in response to your postings above of 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC) & 00:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC), I am unable to accept your intervention is that of a neutral and impartial party.

Your stated intervention, at the very outset, alleges "fringe-POV pushing" by me, thus supporting unequivocally the claims of other involved parties, as though those claims are a settled and unquestioned premise, which they are not. In so doing, you have prejudged the issues at hand, and you obviously support the views of those opposed to me, which views I contest. Nor, before jumping to your own wrong conclusions, have you invited my point of view in relation to the partisan editing of the article as complained of by me.

Moreover, you have not familiarised yourself with the full recorded background to this dispute, which runs into many thousands of words. Nor have you exhibited any discernable desire to establish why the editors opposed to me are not prepared to compromise their unyielding positions or to consider alternative historiographic positions, which positions are at the heart of the dispute.

In addition to prejudging the matter and exhibiting bias and prejudice even before acqainting yourself with my side of the story, you have come into this dispute with all guns blazing, in an intimidating fashion and issuing loud threats to ban me. For these and other reasons, you have made it very difficult for me to assume good faith on your part, or to engage with you in reasoned discussion. Communicat (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I spent about four hours reading and looking at diffs; I'm not sure how much more familiar you want or expect. Most admins would have waded in with far less due diligence.

If this were purely about historical disputes and you had provided adequate high quality references and resources to the dispute we would not be here. I intervened due to behavioral issues, and in the process concluded that you're not providing adequate evidence to establish that you aren't working from a fringe viewpoint.

You are welcome to ask additional uninvolved administrators to intervene here. However, I am what you have now. Administrators aren't disqualified by dint of having established an opinion on the incident or behavior they are responding to. They're only disqualified if they have been personally involved beforehand either with the articles or with the persons involved in a significant manner. In this case, I have not been previously involved in any significant way in either manner.

Your statement that you find it difficult to engage in reasoned discussion is somewhat at odds to our perfectly reasonable exchange where you asked additional questions of me. You asked entirely appropriate context setting questions and I think I answered entirely reasonably. I am perfectly happy to keep discussing reasonably; your response above is somewhat discouraging but doesn't rule out ongoing constructive engagement.

If you would like to continue arguing the underlying issue of whether you represent a reasonably mainstream or sufficiently well supported minority viewpoint on the underlying history issues, please feel free to do so. That discussion should ideally be on article talk and not article edits per se, until you are able to find some consensus on the points you are supporting. I would especially like to see more survey evidence and a widening of your presented references and resources, rather than continued arguing over single sources. Good information usually is multiply reliably referenced, with multiple reinforcing sources in areas of both factual data and critical commentary regarding the conclusions. There has been a lack of healthy breadth to the source discussions here so far. If you'd like to open it up that would be an entirely reasonable way to discuss things going forwards.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your effort is very much appreciated, and from your balanced, nuanced comments (with fair criticism on all parties involved) the first time around it became clear you spent a lot of time looking through this murky issue. Thanks for all the effort. Arnoutf (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)