This is an archive of past discussions about World War II. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago138 comments16 people in discussion
Hello,
The previous template was done in a way that the Normandy picture was so big that it "overshaded" everything else, and i turned to it's creator in request to enter the battle of Stalingrad, which was the turning point of the war, to the image, but she didnt agree. So i made a new one, so now the template looks like this. As you can see, the sizes are more fair, nothing from the previous template wasn't removed, and a new image was added. M.V.E.i.11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Stalingrad is MUCH more iconic then pearl harbor, its the turning-point of the war. If you want pearl harbor then only instead of the Atomic Bombing one or instead of the marching Nazis. Or instead normandy, it will be not so smart but even less smart is to remove Stalingrad. M.V.E.i.17:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes but the thing is that most of the war, it's most difficult and more importent part went in Europe. Thats why we need more European then Asiatic once. M.V.E.i.17:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether Stalingrad was a turning point or not could be debated; moreover, that image in the montage is the Battle of Berlin, not Stalingrad, and no one mentioned removing it (or at least I didn't). Also, whether Stalingrad is more iconic than Pearl is very much up for debate. If when you're talking about Stalingrad, you're talking about the bombed out buildings I advocate replacing, your arguments are baseless. It's a collection on nondescript, destroyed buildings. They could be from any bombed out city in Europe. They hold no real significance, other than to demonstrate destroyed civilian structures; the image is not iconic at all. Parsecboy22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Stalingrad was the turning point and it's not debaitable. My "baseless arguments" were excepted by a majority. The image shows the price given for the victory and how hard and destructful the battle was. They could be from "any bombed out city", but not "every city" is as importent and symbolic as Stalingrad. Anyway, Oberiko mede a nice proposal down here. M.V.E.i.12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The debatability of Stalingrad being the turning point lies in the fact that German defeat was not inevitable because of Stalingrad; regardless, this is not the place to argue it. Like I stated above, the image of destroyed buildings is far too vague to take up a spot in the montage. Parsecboy12:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Instead of discussing which particular pictures to use, let's try and agree on which six events (any more would make the picture to large or to difficult to see IMO) to use.
I think we can safely start off by stating that we should use three from the European theatre and three from the Asian theatre. In addition, the pictures should attempt to show the different means of warfare. IMO, the six events we should highlight (and the reason for doing so) are:
The Battle of Britain (direct attacks on the sole remaining major Allied power, the point where the Allies were closest to defeat)
The Battle of Stalingrad (among the largest battles of all time and frequently listed as one of the wars turning points)
The Battle of Berlin (the defeat of German forces)
Pearl Harbor (entrance of the United States into the war, the catalyst for unifying the two previously separate theatres)
The Second Sino-Japanese War (the main theatre of the Japanese Army and the conflict with the second highest casualties)
Atomic bombing (end of the war, first and only use of nuclear weapons in aggression)
I dont see a problem with the currenct image. Anyway, about your proposal, though we have two importent images out (Normandy and the Soviet flag over the reichstag), i don't object to your proposal. As i said, i think the current 6-image one is best. But your's is not bad two, and both of them are better then the 5-piece picture that used to be here. If you could get enough support here, then i wont object to it being uploaded, becaust the current one as you could see here was still excepted by a big majority. M.V.E.i.12:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet flag stays representing the Battle of Berlin, doesn't it? I personally think five images looks much better than six, but that'd perhaps lead to too many disagreements? Anyway, for five images, I'd support Britain or Normandy or the Battle of France, Stalingrad, China, Berlin, and nuclear bombs, with the mushroom explosion on top of it (Normandy's previous place). On the other hand, I don't support removing the Arbeit Macht Frei image either so I'm not that sure here. 96T13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem I have with the holocaust image is that it isn't a direct part of World War II, no more really then the Soviet purges. I would argue that the Nanking Massacre, a war crime perpetuated by one combatant against another, would be a better example of the atrocities of the war (and could also serve as our picture of the Second Sino-Japanese War). Oberiko13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it so that many sources don't consider the Sino-Japanese War before 1941 to be part of WWII? For that reason, an image from 1937 shouldn't be in the infobox. But you might be right, that the Holocaust image might not belong in the infobox as it wasn't directly part of the war ... but it should at least be in the article. 96T13:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It depends on how the war is perceived; potentially, it could be said that the battles in Poland, France and Britain were not part of World War II because the war wasn't global yet. Prior to 1941, it was the European War (among other names) and the war in Asia. But, I do have to admit, it's not unanimously part of World War II. To that effect, we could probably use a representative image of civilian deaths from post 1941. Oberiko14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually dear friend, he made a good point. I think it's more like the Fino-Soviet war. The holocaust shows one of the crimes of the Nazis, and it's the first attempt to destroy a nation. M.V.E.i.18:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
But now that i thought of it, and i had people murdered in the holocaust just for the record, your right. It wasn't a direct part of the war so i personaly wouldn't oppose to it's removal. M.V.E.i.18:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes sorry i got confused a little hhh. And the best idea is to have a 6-piece photo, once you have 5 one overshades the rest and that hurts NPOV. M.V.E.i.18:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Nah, not really - that'd be like saying picking any picture in favour of another to illustrate an article violates NPOV. But I won't protest that much if we stick to the 6-piece, I just think a 5-piece would look better. 96T19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Belive me the overshading was what started the scandal. It wont stick, the one who gets the one image that takes plase of two will be atacked and the image will be changed. Thats what happend in the first place. The situation is gentle and we must make shure that we have an argumant "in the name of NPOV" for every possible critisism. M.V.E.i.08:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems like we agree on most of the events to depict (Stalingrad, Battle of Berlin, Pearl Harbor, Atomic bombs). Does anyone object or have a better suggestion to the Battle of Britain (which I think can be our exemplar picture of strategic bombing) and the SSJW (which can be our exemplar picture of atrocities against civilians)? Oberiko20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
On reflection actually, I'd like to propose that we use the Battle of Kursk instead of Stalingrad. While they were both huge, epic battles, Kursk has the distinction of being heavily focused on armoured warfare, something none of our other images depict. Urban combat primarily focusing on infantry usage would already be shown with the Battle of Berlin. Oberiko20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Battle of Berlin, Pearl Harbor, Atomic bombs, i see thous are agreed. Now we have to decide: 1. Battle of Britain or Battle of Normandy. 2. Battle of Stalingrad or Battle of Kursk. I personaly think that Normandy is more symbolic then Battle of Britain in the western front, since it had both Britain and USA in it. Kursk might show the upperness of the Soviet military technology, but Stalingrad is the iconic turning-point of the War. But even after we decide on that, we have only 5 images, and we need 6. 5 will make a situation that one overshades the rest. We need 6. M.V.E.i.08:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The montage of images is fine as it is. The Auschwitz image has to stay, representing the Holocaust (how can you compare its relevance to the Soviet purges? The Soviet purges were conducted in the 1930's and conducted by a country on its own people, not on other nations, and it wasn't genocide like the Holocaust either. In addition, 11 times more people died in the Holocaust than the entire losses of Britain/US combined). The image of Nazi's has to stay to represent that the world was fighting against Germany/Nazism. Really I don't see how you can replace any images. It is not 'debatable' whether Stalingrad was the turning point in the war, it is a fact reitered in countless sources. The image of Stalingrad should stay rather than be replaced with Kursk, Stalingrad was the single most important battle in WWII.--Miyokan08:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that the current image is the best. Maximum we could find a better picture of Stalingrad, but one thing is shure, in anyway, Stalingrad must be here. M.V.E.i.09:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It's quite debatable if Stalingrad was more important then Kursk; roughly equivalent forces were utilized and the latter additionally represents the last great German offensive on the Eastern Front. Here are a few sources (from a quick Google book search) which claim Kursk to be the true turning point or even more important then Stalingrad [1] , [2] , [3], [4]. Naturally, there are those who think Stalingrad was the turning point instead, but I'm simply demonstrating that it's not a fact and can easily be seen as either. What Kursk does have over Stalingrad, from an imagery point of view, is armoured warfare, a tremendously important aspect of the war which none of our other pictures demonstrate.
In regards to the Holocaust, what exactly does it have to do with WWII? No nation declared war on Germany because of it, in fact it was relatively unknown until the war was almost over. An atrocity? Unquestionable. A central and defining policy of National Socialism? Without a doubt. A critical part of World War II? I can't see it. How is it more important then the genocides committed against the Chinese by Japanese forces (17.5 million Chinese civilians killed, see Unit 731 for some of the horrors they committed)? In the latter is was one active combatant against another, in the prior it was a nation executing its own citizens and those of its conquered / annexed territories (which, one could argue, was somewhat similar to Soviet policy during its purges and massacres).
The Nazi's don't symbolize what the world was fighting, they represent a strong member of the Axis Powers; quite a good deal of Allied resources were aimed against the Italians and Japanese as well. That's actually one of my main problems with the image, five pictures depicting the European Theatre, and one for the Asian Theatre. Was the European Theatre so much more important, if more important at all? Oberiko12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Every country involved suffered civilian losses. The difference was that the Japanese didn't have the complete extermination of the Chinese as their goal.
Stalingrad was the point where the Nazis started loosing, started going back west. About the image of the holocaust, i dont object to your proposal but i'm afraid many will and they might use it as a reason to revert the image. M.V.E.i.14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Stalingrad was where the Nazi's lost significant numbers of troops, but not when they started to retreat back west; indeed, Kursk demonstrates this as the Germans were still capable of mounting large-scale offensives post-Stalingrad. It was Kursk itself that eliminated German momentum and began the Soviet steamroller pushing the Axis forces westward.
Thus far, not many people have objected to the removal of the Holocaust image and I certainly welcome discussion on the topic. The possibility of someone feeling strongly about something and reverting consensus should never be a deterrent, otherwise those who are stubborn and determined would always have their opinions, and theirs alone, expressed. Oberiko15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The word Stalingrad is more symbolic. I support an image of Stalingrad.
Lets make a conclusion for what we agreed on for now: Battle of Berlin, Pearl Harbor, Atomic bombs. for the other 3 i propose: Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Normandy and Battle of Kursk. I would like to hear your opinion on my proposal and what would you change :-). M.V.E.i.17:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the 3 'agreed' images (Battle of Berlin, Pearl Harbor, Atomic bombs). Regarding the other three I think that the Auschwitz image present in current template should stay (see above). At least one of the remaining images should be about the Eastern front; personally I think that Stalingrad was more important than Kursk but I wouldn't mind if the template would contain any or both of these pictures. Alæxis¿question?18:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the 3 agreed upon images, and would prefer Kursk, Normandy, and one from the Pacific, perhaps either of the two images I proposed earlier: Enterprise or Yamato. I'd be open to other images from the Pacific as well to fill the 6th slot. Three images of the Eastern front, however, is unacceptably unbalanced. Parsecboy18:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Considering the amount of forces that fought in Europe and in Asia it would be unbalanced to have equal number of images representing these theatres. We have 2 images from Asia (Pearl-Harbor and bomb) and two from the Eastern Front (Stalingrad/Kursk and Berlin). Since I think that Auschwitz should be left the remaining image should represent Western front in Europe. My final choice would be thus Battle of Berlin, Pearl Harbor, Atomic bombs, Stalingrad or Kursk, Auschwitz, Normandy. Alæxis¿question?19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's also remember that the Asian theatre lasted for 8 years, twice as long as the Soviet-German war. I would prefer to replace the Holocaust image with one from the Pacific; other than that, your suggestion otherwise sounds reasonable. Parsecboy19:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any way that the Holocaust can represent the Western Front. And the amount of forces in Europe and Asia isn't all that unbalanced when you consider the population of China (17.5 million Chinese casualties vs. 20 million Soviet... not that large a difference) and the length of time that combat ensued.
Two images from the Soviet-German war, one from the Western Allies-German war, two from the the American-Japanese war and one from the Second Sino-Japanese war seems quite representative.
Before stating that any of the pictured nations/events are under represented, keep in mind that this still doesn't include the British-Japanese war, the early European powers (Poland and France) or anything involving the Italians. Oberiko22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I object to the Pacific Theatre having the same amount of images as the Eastern Front. It does not matter that the Pacific Theatre lasted 8 years because the 'main event' was on the Eastern Front (also the Pacific images we are discussing are all from the Japanese-American war, which lasted for only 4 years. The only way I see the Pacific Theatre getting 2 images is if one of the images is non-US, Chinese considering that so many died). The American-Japanese war casualties were miniscule compared to the Soviet-German war, not to mention that the German military was considerably stronger than the Japanese military. How can you possible compare the significance of the two? Military casualties of the Soviet Union were in excess of 20 times greater than US casualties. The problem with the large amount of Chinese casualties is it is not the amount of casualties you sustain, but the amount of casualties you inflict, which the Soviets almost single handedly destroyed the Germans. No less than 3 images from the Soviet-German war would be appropriate, considering that the Eastern Front contained more battle than all the other theatres combined (and it is appropriate that half the images come from the Soviet-German war considering that more than half the entire casualties of WWII occurred on the Eastern Front). 1 Image from the Pacific Theatre (be happy you get this, unless the 2nd image would be from the Sino-Japanese conflict, and assuming the Soviet-German war gets 3), 1 to represent the Holocaust and 1 for the Western allies-German war.--Miyokan00:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am addressing those users that are advocating for an equal amount of images for the both the Soviet-German and Japanese-American conflicts.--Miyokan05:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Miyokan is correct. Shure people died on the western front and in the American-Asian war, but yet it's all not compared to the Soviet-Nazi war. The most compromising suggestion i see is what Alaexis offered: Battle of Berlin, Pearl Harbor, Atomic bombs, Stalingrad or Kursk, Auschwitz, Normandy. Frankly i don't see why we need both Pearl Harbor and Atomic Bombs, they represent the same thing. Pearl Harbor it's the point America entered the war, and? The bombing of Kiev it's the point when USSR entered. I think that here Pearl Harbor should be changed to the Sino-Japanese war. M.V.E.i.07:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, why Aushwitz? We've already gone through that it was not directly part of the war. Above you agreed to Pearl Harbour, which was the catalyst event for uniting two previously separate conflicts. PH and the atomic bombs represent the same thing as much as Stalingrad/Kursk and Berlin, a major event during a theatre (both theatres actually) and then the end of the war in that theatre. But it looks like we're fairly close to agreement, thus far we have the following seemingly agreed to:
Battle of Berlin
Stalingrad or Kursk
Atomic bombs
Pearl Harbour
Hitler's war with the western allies (Battle of Britain or Battle of Normandy or Battle of France...)
So that leaves one more, and I can't see how the Holocaust is more important then the Second Sino-Japanese War. More people died in the latter plus it represent a direct conflict as opposed to an event that was not part of the Second World War. Oberiko14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
If we consider the involvement of main players than we have
Battle-of-Berlin => Germany and USSR - Eastern/Central Europe
Stalingrad or Kursk=>Germany and USSR - Eastern/Central Europe
Pearl Harbour => USA and Japan - Pacific
A-bomb => USA and Japan - Pacific
Battle of Britain (France or Normandy) => Germany, UK, France (and for Normandy USA)
In my opinion this gives an undue underrepresentation of the Western European campaigns,
Also this choice of images makes the pacific theatre look like a US-Japan only part. Although this is obvioulsy the case by the end of the war, the UK battled over its possessions with Japan in the pacific in the early stages. I would try to find a set of images which is more balanced on engagement between the different combatants
Although Europe and the Pacific/Japan were the most important theatres of War the selection of images does not include African campaigns, naval warfare (Bismarc, U-boot war), and unless battle of Britain is chosen no aerial warfare. Also the choice focusses explusively on military engagements while the Holocaust should be shown. I think it is actually difficult to limit this to 6 images, but see the need not to overdo it. Arnoutf15:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
M.V.E.i., as I said, I "understand" your reasons but I sincerely think you are wrong:
Your so-called consensus:
Your so-called "consensus" was formed by
User:M.V.E.i., User:Vihljun, User:Kalan, User:Ezhiki, User:TigerK 69, User:Ilya1166, User:Alaexis
within 5 days, and each supporter is Russian, each arguing for inclusion of a picture from Stalingrad! Please don't call this a serious consensus against an image selection which have stood stabile for years. I am sorry if I offend you, but this feels more like a Russian coup...hardly NPOV!
Stalingrad seriously unbalances the picture.
As I said before, the objective was not to cover different theatres of war. Now, the montage is seriously unbalanced with TWO images depicting the Soviet effort. What about those people who want one more Pacific image? Or China? Africa? Mediterranean? Atlantic? Now it is bad, and unfair, in my opinion.
The Stalingrad image is a bad selection.
A picture of bombed buildings which could be from anywhere in the world is certainly not a good selection. Furthermore, whether Stalingrad was the turning point of the war could certainly be debated (even though I agree it was one significant turning point). But what about Kursk? Invasion of Italy? Allied Strategic Bombing? Hell, even Pearl Harbor was a turning point, as Churchill said: "Now we have won the war".
The objective of the montage was ASPECTS, not THEATRES.
Please consider this, before you enforce your views.
The layout is in my opinion bad now.
Artistically I think the montage is hurt by 6 equally sized images. Furthermore, you open up a can of worms by your inclusion of Stalingrad. I wouldn't be surprised if it will yield more discussions of other things "left out", and I wouldn't be surprised if the montage will grow into 8 or more pictures, which would be a disaster. I'd suggest you seriously reconsider your views, and seriously consider using the original montage, Image:WW2_TitlePicture_For_Wikipedia_Article.jpg.
Judging from all the discussions above, we have no new agreement on a new montage. Therefore, I restore this template to the original montage, until (and if) a new agreement can be reached.
I reverted it back because the new image was nevertheless more balanced as it doesn't have that Normandy image overshadowing everything. I read the discussion you had about the montage 2 years ago and it is amazing that you were saying that the D-Day landings is the 'large' picture because it was the most important image and 'the beginning of the end of Nazi rule', haha. The Soviets had already destroyed the Nazi's by the time D Day began and the Germans suffered 80-93% of all casualties on the Eastern Front, Britain/US only landed to prevent the Soviets from reaching all the way to the Atlantic. If there should be any 'large' image in the montage it should no doubt be from the Eastern Front, as "It was here that the war was won or lost, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against all the odds in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, it is difficult to see how the western democracies, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire." (WWII historian Richard Overy)[5]. Leave the montage as it is now and replace the Nazi's marching image with a Sino-Japanese war image.--Miyokan00:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the montage, except for the bombed out buildings from Stalingrad. They're nondescript. It's not an iconic image, befitting a place in the infobox montage. It's just a collection of destroyed buildings that could be from anywhere. None of you who argue for it's inclusion have yet to address this argument. I have no problem with a picture from Stalingrad; however, it should at least be obvious where it's from. Maybe something from the fighting on the banks of the Volga, but not vague, half-destroyed buildings. Parsecboy01:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That photo of Soviet soldiers fighting in the ruins of Stalingrad was perfect, except that it was deleted recently, I'll try to find it again.--Miyokan01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I transferred it to a link to the page, so we don't have a picture on the talk page here. That image is much better than the buildings. Parsecboy02:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't return an image that was by a majority decided to be ovvershading and worst then the new one. Practically that is vandalism. M.V.E.i.08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats it the ruing building in Stalingrad was replaced with the Stalingrad image offered by Miyokan. The image offered by Miyokan shows both the battle and the ruined buildings! Exelent choice! M.V.E.i.09:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Miyokan, I ask you humbly but sincerely to stop speaking nonsense. You said: I reverted it back because the new image was nevertheless more balanced as it doesn't have that Normandy image overshadowing everything. I read the discussion you had about the montage 2 years ago and it is amazing that you were saying that the D-Day landings is the 'large' picture because it was the most important image and 'the beginning of the end of Nazi rule', haha. The Soviets had already destroyed the Nazi's by the time D Day began...ETC
1. First of all, I have never said that the D-day landings were most important nor it was the most important image. Please stop lying or insinuating. The main reasons for the broader image is artistic and for viewer recognition purposes. Furthermore, D-day was important as it was a rather unique multi-national battle, the largest invasion by sea in history, and one important beginning of the end of Nazi rule. Who can argue against that? I'd say, you are viewing my montage in the wrong way, and reading too much into it. It was NOT the intention that D-day "overshadows" the others, you are just taking it personal.
2. I am not particularly keen on going into a historical discussion with you, but I fear I can't avoid commenting on your edit. Mind you, I'm not ignorant; I know a lot about the Soviet part in WW2 and I am very well aware of the HUGE Soviet effort, and I sincerely do not underestimate it. But I think you are narrow-minded, talking about "Russia had already beaten the Nazis". By this, you ignore that it was a world war, and all politics and military decisions were intertwined. You say that Britain/US only landed to prevent the Soviets from reaching all the way to the Atlantic. What a load of crap! Stalin had called to the Allies for a second front for years, and the decision on how to divide Europe was already in place (Operation Eclipse). And your comment is a slap in the face to all Brits, who had previously stood alone against the Germans, fearing a very real German invasion - clearly, they wanted to get rid of this menace. Please, see it from a larger perspective. One, two, three fronts: Russian, Italy and France. I hope you also are aware that the US helped the Russians a lot with financing and military materials. Well, enough of the history lesson.
3. You do not answer or address any of my opinions/reasons, you just ignored them. Consider and reply to them: two Soviet pics bringing unbalance, bad image selection, and that the objectives of the montage is aspects, not theatres.
DNA! That was rude from your side. It doesnt matter what you thing because a huge majority decided your picture isn't relevant anymore. Feel free to take part in the argument. M.V.E.i.05:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not more rude than you. Does not my opinion count? Your so-called "huge majority" was formed by a handful of Russians. That's rude... I am taking part in the argument, but you are not addressing my views. Please do so. --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs18:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Not true, i asked you to make a batter picture and you refused. If i would ignore your opinion you would see the same image, but instead of Normandy as the big picture, the Red Flag as the big. What do you say, deel like doing that type of picture insted? For me the Red Flag is much more iconic. But nevertheless, i kept everything that you have, but fited it to NPOV. M.V.E.i.18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is as confusing as when we argue about the nations in the infobox. I think the new one proposed at the top looks better than the old one. --LtWinters15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
A majority chose one. SHE reverted it, SHE broke the law, and after that she will have it her way?? It's really not ok. A majority decided that her picture is bad, overshading and the new one is better. Please switch the picture to the new one. M.V.E.i.16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not choosing any particular image, I'm preventing a revert war which impacts a high-traffic page; if it was the other one that came up when I logged in, that would be what it would be frozen as. A bit of a game of chance, I know, but the rules state that I don't get to choose which one to pick-and-lock. If it makes any difference, I don't personally like the current image any more then the old one.
Right now it hardly seems like there is consensus so I'm keeping the protection on (remember, it's only temporary for three days, that's hardly permanent) to encourage more discussion. I strongly encourage agreement to be attempted on the following:
What is the purpose of the image?
What lets the readers, at a glance, get the most information about the war?
Should it even be kept as a montage? What other options are there? Is an informative and relatively NPOV image even possible?
If it is a montage, what images best reflect the war in its entirety (both events and aspects)?
What images can be agreed on?
What were the major events / theatres / campaigns?
What were the major aspects?
This isn't about anyone having their way or winning or losing or anything like that. It's about what best serves the readers. To that effect, we can't always go by rule-of-majority when dealing with such a small number of people like here. We've had cases in the past, and an accusation of such an occurrence brought up here, where a group of users from a particular community came and were able to swing votes by creating an instant tyranny of the majority situation.
As a non-existent example, consider the possibility of about a dozen people from a nation (since I'm Canadian, I'll use my own nation) coming in and deciding that the main image should be mostly pictures of their countries actions: Dieppe, Atlantic convoys, Ortona, Juno and the Scheldt. If they get their twelve people to state that its reasonable and balanced, then, by majority rules, it is and they can do it. Would that be fair? Representative? Balanced? No, hardly.
Then remove any picture, or put a map or something like a temporary sokution. You cant give a minority a price for starting a revert war, and wanting it or not, thats what you do. This Dana didnt join the discussion, she reverted to an image that it was decided it doesnt fit and THEN joined the argument. M.V.E.i.16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, Oberiko! I support your decision and views completely. If a real majority/dispute resolution will decide against the original montage, I will not oppose it.
Hi M.V.E.i.! First of all, FYI, I am a he. I have not broke any law - not more than you have. I am still defending the original idea of the montage, as I have on numerous occasions told you before, on behalf of many other opinions and two years of stability. The new montage is clearly debated, as we can see on this template talk page. I will gladly debate the montage, and if we can't agree, we should take it to a REAL majority voting. And once again, you ignore my opinions, while I am sensibly addressing yours. Reply to my issues:
1. The objective of the montage was ASPECTS, not THEATRES.
The emphasis is to primarily illustrate different aspects of the war (e.g. fighting, politics, civilian impact) rather than the various theaters of war. Thus, the intention of the montage is not to cover every theater or nation - it's IMPOSSIBLE. Furthermore are there no intentions to select - or position - the pictures in accordance with military casualties or general war effort. Why aspects, not theaters? Well, many things concerning WW2 has a tendency to get hardcore militaristic, and when it does, we miss the broader picture of the war - the background, the reasons, the people, the suffering etc. Therefore, the idea was to create a montage which addresses WW2 from a larger perspective - appealing also to all those who aren't particularly interested in the military aspects. If we should focus on theaters instead, I am convinced we would lose the "big picture" of the war, which was so much more than battles in various theaters. Furthermore, if we address the theater aspect and try to balance it, we open up a can of worms of debates on what theaters/battles should be included. With the Stalingrad picture inclusion, this can of worms has in a sense already been opened. Consider this.
2. One broader image at the top is for artistic reasons.
Artistically I think the montage would be hurt by 6 equally sized images. D-day (or rather the Battle of Normandy, was chosen since it is an iconic picture, easily recognizable, depicting a unique, important multi-national battle including USA, Britain, Canada, France, Poland, Germany and many other nationalities, even Russians. It was the largest sea-borne invasion in history, and one very important beginning of the end of Nazi Rule. It opened up the second front against Germany (or rather third front, considering Italy), which Stalin had called for for years. Its historical impact is undebated.
3. Stalingrad seriously unbalances the picture.
The montage gets seriously unbalanced with TWO images depicting the Soviet effort. What about those people who want one more Pacific image? Or China? Africa? Mediterranean? Atlantic? Two "Soviet" pics is bad, and unfair, in my opinion. We already have a Soviet flag in the montage, for goodness' sake!
4. Main reasons for the selection of images:
D-day: Very known & very important multi-national battle, including USA, Britain, Canada, Poland, Germany and many other nationalities. One important beginning of the end of the Nazi era.
Nazis marching: Easily recognizable & very important aspect, since this was the supreme main reason the war started. It also symbolizes the psychological factors and the indoctrinations of the totalitarian regimes.
Death camp: Easily recognizable & important aspect describing one of the greatest civilian impacts.
Atom bomb: Easily recognizable & very important aspect describing the huge development in weapon technology and the start of the Cold War. It also marks the battle between Japan and USA and the end of the war in the Pacific.
Soviet flag in Berlin: Easily recognizable & marks the battle between Germany and USSR, the huge Soviet effort and the end of the war in Europe. It is also a marker of the start of the Soviet influence in East Europe.
Not true, i asked you to make a batter picture and you refused. If i would ignore your opinion you would see the same image, but instead of Normandy as the big picture, the Red Flag as the big. What do you say, deel like doing that type of picture insted? For me the Red Flag is much more iconic. But nevertheless, i kept everything that you have, but fited it to NPOV. M.V.E.i.18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dna-Dennis; the montage should be aspects of the war, not necessarily battles. Those images can go in the text of the article. I don't have any problems with the image that has stood for a couple years now. The "consensus" is meaningless, especially since M.V.E.I. was canvassing Russian editors to come here and support his version 1, 2, 3, 4, 56, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Parsecboy22:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope at least we can all agree that the current 'supersized' Normandy image is unacceptable and should be changed to normal and another image added.--Miyokan00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
After reading DNADennis' arguments, I pretty much agree with him. Artistically, it looks MUCH better with five images than with six. It's not like the upper image represents "USA overshadowing all the others", as MVEi has claimed - I mean "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" isn't written all over it, is it? The Soviet effort is heavily represented with one image mainly showing a giant Soviet flag, so what are you complaining about? Stalingrad was the most important battle, but an image of Stalingrad won't add that much to the image - we already have images showing both bombed-out buildings (Berlin) and attacking soldiers (Normandy). As DNADennis has pointed out, showing all theatres is impossible - where is Africa, the Mediterrean, and the Atlantic in the suggestions? Representing theatres should be a job for the article, not for the image. The image suceeds in showing the main aspects of the war: large military operations (Normandy, Berlin), meaningless civilian casualties (Holocaust, Hiroshima), Axis occupation of the world (Nazi soldiers), patriotism (Nazi soldiers, Soviet flag in Berlin), the allied victory (Normandy, Berlin, Hiroshima) and last but not least the birth of a new world order and the beginning of the cold war (Soviet flag in Berlin, nuclear bomb in Hiroshima). 96T07:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The supersized D-Day image in unacceptable. Make it normal sized and add a Sino-Japanese war picture. Either way, the huge D-Day picture overshadows everything. People that do not know much about WWII will come and see the huge image of D-Day and it will merely help to enforce the western propaganda that was spread to them during the Cold War that 'America won the war'.--Miyokan07:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Oberikos behaviour is really unacceptable, puting the image that a majority oposses to. From him i really expected a more smart and respectful behaviour. M.V.E.i.10:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
MVEi, why don't you read this. It clearly states "pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in". Your side wasn't up, deal with it, and quit complaining. And no, there was no real majority advocating your image, only the users you canvassed to get here to say a line about how it's more balanced. Perhaps you need to review some rules and guidelines before you continue arguing here, or anywhere else, for that matter. Parsecboy15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me?? I didnt convass but asked to state opinion. A big part of those i didnt even call, like the guy who suported it on the WW2 article discussion page. And read the discussion that took place a long time ago after which Dana made her picture. Practically all people said Stalingrad has place to be to, yet she didn't include it. Check out the discussion here, the majority speaks out against. It's just, and i'm NOT afraid to say it, your western snobness beliving you decide everything and that you are in the centre of everything (Which is completely baseless). WHATS ICONIC FOR YOU IS NOT FOR OTHERS. I made an image that fits by the NPOV rules. I kept everything Dana had, except making Normandy a normal sized picture and adding a Stalingrad one. Dana's picture didnt loose anything it had. M.V.E.i.16:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(This is the reply to Dna's post of 17:42, 4 September 2007 and T96's post of 07:37, 5 September 2007) Actually I mostly agree about the images and rationales for their inclusion you've presented. The first problem is with image with marching soldiers since the Anschluss had actually been before the war started.
Another issue brought up by MVEI is the one large image overshadowing all others. The artistic aspect is really really subjective and I'm sure many people would argue that the image with the red flag over Reichstag is no worse than Normandy landing from this point of view. And it's certainly no less important. There have to be good reasons for one image to be twice the size of others. I propose either to have 6 equally-sized images or to put a map of the world with highlighted belligerents on the top. Alæxis¿question?15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Exaclly, for me thew image with the Red Flag is the most iconic one. It is al relative, depends if you grew up in the "western world" or in the "eastern world". thats why i made this nutral image. THE MOST ENOYING THING IS, that we already agreed that Danas picture is the most NOT sutable and it was decided by a majority, and nevertheless, she got a prise for starting a revert war and has her image kept. M.V.E.i.16:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
M.V.E.i., I think there is a risk of you confusing other readers in this debate, if you do not refer to me by my proper Wikipedia-name. Once and for all, my name is "Dna-Dennis", and I am male, not "Dana", or female. My regards, --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs19:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for that, it's just that your nickname starts with dna so i thought it's Dana, and thats why i thought your femaul. I'll call you Dennis. M.V.E.i.19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, i kept everything you had on your image and even wrote you in the authors just so you wont get hurt or wont feel you were "kicked out". Cant you see that i, Alexis, Miyokan, and others feel the Normandy is overshading and it hurts us by making us feel not comfortable? I could do an image like yours but with the Red Flag in Berlin being the big one above. But i didnt because i wanted it to be NPOV. M.V.E.i.19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Brief dispute history: Your "better" picture was your opinion and clearly debated. Yes, you asked me on my talk page here 11 August 2007 to change the image as you would see fit. I did not agree with you, and responded in a civil way. What you did after this - ignoring my opinions - was to download the original image, change it as you saw fit, and upload it as a new image, and then connecting it to this template. After this you campaigned among Russians for a "majority" support of your image. Your new image coup was thus kept from my knowledge, and I did not notice it until 2 September 2007, that's why I did not respond before.
Red Flag: Ironically, in the image discussion two years ago, Talk:World_War_II/Archive_6#The_Picture, I said ...if there is any one picture I personally would choose, if I had to, it would be the Soviet flag over the Reichstag...perfectly composed, it shows the brutality of the war and the victory - the devastated, still smoking Third Reich capital, the Soviet flag set down firmly in the heart of Europe, marking both VE and the start of the Cold War. But that was then, and I was only talking about one single image. Now, we have a montage, and my views have changed. A Soviet flag at the top would be devastatingly Soviet POV. So what I think about the Soviet flag as an iconic image, M.V.E.i. ? Well, clearly, I have already thought about it, and I very much like the picture, and found it important enough to include it in the montage, so skip accusing me of POV. I'm not personally hurt by your opinions, but I strongly disagree with your methods on Wikipedia. Regards, --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs20:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I KEEPT EVERTHING FROM "YOUR OPINION". You say it will be "Soviet POV", and i say that what you do is "Western POV". So i did a nutral image. M.V.E.i.20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that no more comments be placed in this section, I believe I can safely say it is not a productive discussion thread. Oberiko20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Proposals
Oberiko
Image
Description
Historical significance
Aspect of the war
Nanking massacre
The Nanking massacre was the brutal occupation of the Chinese capital and is still considered one of the most iconic war crimes. While taking place prior to the start of the European War, The judgments on the aggressors occurred during the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal after the end of the Second World War.
The aspect shown is atrocities against civilians in what would be now known as total war, something the Second World War uniquely exemplifies. This is also a picture to somewhat represent the Chinese, and is one of the defining moments of the Second Sino-Japanese War.
Pearl Harbour
Pearl Harbour was the catalyst for two critical events: uniting the Asian War with the European War, thus forming the World War, and bringing the United States (along with several other American countries) into the war as Allied combatants.
The aspect shown is that of carrier based warfare, something which totally restructured naval warfare, replacing the centuries old thinking of centering naval forces around heavily armed and armoured battleships. In addition it also shows a relatively typical military aircraft for the time period.
Kursk was the last major German offensive in the Soviet-German War and among the largest battles of all time; after Kursk the Soviets began one long, steady push into Germany. Several historical sources list it as the turning point of the war itself.
The aspect shown is that of armoured warfare, something which came to maturity during the Second World War and proved to be the dominant terrain-based method of warfare outside of urban centers.
Battle of Normandy
An iconic battle in Western culture, the landings at Normandy was the largest sea-borne invasion in history and began the liberation of conquered Europe. It was one of the first large joint operations by the Anglo-American led Western Allies.
The aspect shown is sea-borne invasion, a prominent feature in the Western European Theatre (Torch, Sicily, Italy, Southern France, Normandy) and during the island-hopping campaign in the Asia-Pacific Theatre (Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal etc.). It is also an image to represent the Western Allies battle with German forces.
The battle which captured the capital of Germany, prompting the surrender of the Third Reich and serving as the end of the European Theatre of the war
The aspect shown is that of urban warfare, again something which matured during the Second World War and was utilized in several of the most brutal battles during the conflict
The mushroom cloud from the atomic bombing of Japan
The first (and only) usage of atomic weapons during combat and the triggering event to end the war.
The aspect shown is the use of weapons of mass destruction and the peak of military technology at the time, it also serves as an introduction to the almost immediately following Cold War.
Overview
I chose these images in order to try and balance historical events and the various aspects of the war.
I've tried to show the chronological progression of the war, from the initial Axis invasions (Nanking, Pearl Harbour), the tide turning (Kursk, Normandy) and then the end of the war (Berlin, Atomic Bombs)
I've covered naval, aerial, infantry and armoured warfare, as well as strategic bombing.
I've tried to demonstrate the military equipment in use by showing carriers, tanks, planes and atomic bombs.
I've attempted to show the environments with naval, open plains/steppes, and urban combat (admittedly, this is my weakest area as I don't show snow, jungle/tropical or desert for maximum variety).
I've tried to pick events that were directly a result or part of the war, not somewhat unrelated things that happened at the same time
I've tried to keep the balance relatively similar to the war itself
Three images each from the European (two Soviet-German and one Western Allies-German) and Asian-Pacific theatres (two American-Japanese and one Second Sino-Japanese)
I admit it's not fully balanced, and not everything is covered, but I think that'd be near impossible
Comments
I request that any comments made aren't about how I've left some important event or aspect out; I readily acknowledge that I've left a very great deal out (and that it's impossible not to). I also request that comments do not focus on putting any one theatre into more prominence, as with only six images, there's not much room to properly allocate the number of pictures with the significance of a theatre, even if any of us here were qualified to make such judgment.
Instead, I'd appreciate if a comment were to state which pictures should be replaced and the pictures to replace them with. Please also include what the new pictures bring that the old pictures lack or exactly why the new pictures are better. Remember, if you don't care for my montage selection at all, I encourage you to make your own. Oberiko20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually this might be a good compromise, but i personaly have one problem with it. Wouldnt it be better to put the Red Flag image in the battle of Berlin? It's really representetive and symbolic. M.V.E.i.20:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason why I chose not to use the flag is that there are no flags anywhere, in fact, I believe it'd be rather difficult for the casual reader to point out exactly where any of them take place. I did that intentionally, as the images represent aspects as well as events, and precision hinders an images ability to cover the prior as readily. Additionally, I believe the image of soldiers storming a darkened fortification, running headlong into unknown enemy defenses, is far more indicative of the terror of actual urban combat then the flag being raised after most opposition has already been eliminated. Oberiko20:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Look leting the current photo stay is in favour of Danniels party, and it makes me, Miyokan and Alaexis feel bad about it. If you'll let our group to have the image, their party will revolt. Your image, belive me, wont bring reverts not from ours and not from theirs party. Why? Our party, and i belive Danniels to dont so in you an enemy (thats why all of our talking kind-off goes thru you). So please, upload your proposal. If anyone will have problems with a certain image in it, he will state it later. But the negotations will go much easier with your image here and not Danniels (or, as a have to admitt, with mine). Please. M.V.E.i.20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but, first of all, I don't have the image made yet, just the raw components. Second, I can't unlock protection at a whim. It was set for three days (which is a very short period of time that's nearly expired already) and I don't really have the authority (which is different then ability) to do it. Oberiko21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Look theres no way were gonna agree on Danniels image, or their gonna agree on ours. So the best will be if you put a map or somthing for now. M.V.E.i.14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Check out Miyokans proposal bellow, your's is good but i thing his is nicer (i wrote under his proposal why i think so). I see that mine and Danniels images lost all relevance and the voting is going to be between your's and Miyokans proposal. There's no way i'm gonna agree to have Danniels image while the debate goes on (just as he won't agree on mine), so i really propose to put a map as a temporary agreement. M.V.E.i.15:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, Aushwitz would probably have to replace Nanking. Here's what I see as the advantages of Nanking over Aushwitz
Nanking
Aushwitz
Second Sino-Japanese War (specifically the capture of the Chinese capital)
Brutality against occupied civilians
One active combatant against citizens of another active combatant
Nondescript picture can represent civilian suffering and war crimes everywhere
Specific chronological time within the span of the war
Brings a better balance to the montage, evening the number of European Theatre pictures with Asia-Pacific Theatre pictures; sole picture representing China in the war
Not part of any theatre of combat, victims were (primarily) citizens of nation committing the atrocity
No definitive time during the war, took place during entire thing
Did not occur because of the war, did not influence the war. Little known outside of the Nazi regime until the war was almost over
Gates of Aushwitz represent solely the Holocaust, can not represent suffering of any other citizens
Oberiko, I am amazed and impressed by your patience and sincere ambition here. I am however too tired right now to address these new images, but I will get back here tomorrow. Until then, good night and good luck! --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Miyokan
Image
Description
Historical significance
Aspect of the war
Nanking massacre
The Nanking massacre was the brutal occupation of the Chinese capital and is still considered one of the most iconic war crimes. While taking place prior to the start of the European War, The judgments on the aggressors occurred during the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal after the end of the Second World War.
The aspect shown is atrocities against civilians in what would be now known as total war, something the Second World War uniquely exemplifies. This is also a picture to somewhat represent the Chinese, and is one of the defining moments of the Second Sino-Japanese War.
North African Campaign
British Crusader tank passes a burning German Pzkw Mk IV tank during Operation Crusader. Adding an African campaign image unites this montage into a world war.
Stalingrad was the bloodiest battle in human history and the turning point in World War II. It was the first major defeat the Germans suffered, proving that they weren't invincible. Unprecedented for its ferocity and loss of life. An iconic image. The Battle of Kursk image that was here before was very poor, and there are no are no good images of that battle
Battle of Normandy
An iconic battle in Western culture, the landings at Normandy was the largest sea-borne invasion in history and began the liberation of conquered Europe. It was one of the first large joint operations by the Anglo-American led Western Allies.
The aspect shown is sea-borne invasion, a prominent feature in the Western European Theatre (Torch, Sicily, Italy, Southern France, Normandy) and during the island-hopping campaign in the Asia-Pacific Theatre (Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal etc.). It is also an image to represent the Western Allies battle with German forces.
The Battle of Berlin
An iconic image, symbolic of the fall of Nazi Germany, the beginning of the Cold War, and partition of Germany.
The mushroom cloud from the atomic bombing of Japan
The first (and only) usage of atomic weapons during combat and the triggering event to end the war.
The aspect shown is the use of weapons of mass destruction and the peak of military technology at the time, it also serves as an introduction to the almost immediately following Cold War.
Oberiko's is good, but i think that one is better. It has Stalingrad and the Red Flag which are symbolic. I liked your explanation on puting Stalingrad. Also having both Pearl Harbor and the atomich bomb on Japan is to much. If we have Pearl Harbor why not inserting Soviet images from Barbarossa?? So i agree with you placing the Britons instead. Both yours and Oberiko's are good, but i personaly belive your proposal is better and "nicer for the eye". M.V.E.i.15:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that there is no display of either the aerial or naval combat aspects, both of which were pretty important. Instead, we have both Stalingrad and Berlin, which, aspect wise, are almost identical (large scale urban combat). Oberiko15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Normandy shows the navy in action, and the atomic bomb shows bombing from the air. To show all the espects you mentioned we have the article itself. But, at least at my opinion, the picture should take more known photos, or more know names. It's a more symbolic/recognisable thing. M.V.E.i.15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I really propose you to put a map or somthing in the template while we have the discussion here. There's no way we will agree on Danniels image to be here while the discussion goes on, or they on ours. And as i said, now the only to relevant proposals are your's and Miyokans, mine and Danniels are out of the game, so for now a map or something like that will be nice. M.V.E.i.15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Oberiko here. If you don't like Oberiko's image of Kursk, how about this one? At this point, we have no images of the Germans, which, is highly POV. What, were the Allies fighting phantoms? That image takes care of two aspects; armored warfare, and the German side. Then, we can still have the image of the plane taking off for Pearl. MVEi, I can't help but think you're a bit biased here. Two images from the Pacific is too much? I've tried assuming good faith, but I can't help but think you're only here to push for the Soviet Union. Parsecboy15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If i would push the Soviet Union you would see Danniels picture but with the Red Flag being the big one. I could say the same about you pushing West. We have 2 images from Asia in Miyokans proposal, not one, so i dont see the proble. It's not the Kursk image, actually, i liked Oberiko's Kursk image and didn't likew what you offered, it's just that i think Stalingrad fits more. M.V.E.i.16:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you're a bit more subtle than that. Two images of America (or the Pacific in general) is unacceptable, but 3 of the Soviet Union is great. Miyokan was the one who didn't like the image of Kursk. In the grand scheme of things, Kursk was more important than Stalingrad. Parsecboy16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Both were importent, but Stalingrad was the point that showed the Nazis can be beaten, so i actually belive that Stalingrad fits more. 3 of the Soviet Union? We have Stalingrad and the Red Flag (or Kursk and the red flag), were do you see 3? America has Normandy and the Atomic Bomb, that's also two. Miyokan also proposed an image of Britons atacking, and a part drom the Sino-Japanis war. I personaly think it's an exelent offer. M.V.E.i.16:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
A different alternative
I doubt there's any single or small set of suitably iconic images that could be agreed upon for this infobox – and clearly the more added, the more cluttered it looks. Since this is about a world war, perhaps what we should use is a global map shaded to show the countries involved. That would, at a single glance, underscore its being a world-wide experience. Askari Mark(Talk)16:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be "too big"; it's "just" an infobox illustration. People can click on the image to see something larger (or, if editors want, at a larger size in the main article). You may be right that many will not support it, but I haven't seen much agreement on what the image should be ... other than a growing gallery of images intended for little more than to avoid a hint of NPOV. That's why I made the suggestion. It's not POV, simple, and can convey substance even though small. Simple color shading would suffice and it need not differentiate between combatants or allegiances. Note that I'm not recommending something like a detailed global map showing all the ebb and flow of conquered territories and shifting battle fronts over time, just a shaded highlight of the participants in a global event. To my mind, the iconic images and more detailed maps belong in the body of an article. Askari Mark(Talk)16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
We could try something akin to that used for the European Theatre of WWII (an animated image showing shifting alliances), or, we could potentially have no image at all. Oberiko11:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That is totally unacceptable. It only shows the European Theater. What about Africa? All of Asia and the Pacific? No, this will not do at all. Parsecboy15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[Reindent] I like it! I'm glad a reasonable "ebb-and-flow" map image could be found. I think it's a much better fit than an ever-growing montage of iconic photos (which would be better place in the article). Askari Mark(Talk)16:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The animated world map is really good, great work. In my opinion, however, I do not think it is as exciting as a montage, but I guess we can't find any solution which is more NPOV than a map. For this reason, and as a compromise, I support it. My regards, --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Image improvements
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Now that we've settled on the image, I'd like to suggest two improvements. My GIMP skills are a bit rusty, but I can probably handle most of what I propose myself if there are no objections.
1. Better colorization: I'm going to try and fix it so that there are multiple colors at first for the various factions within the two separate wars, until they are replaced by just two when the war is one unified conflict. They will be as follows:
Grey - Neutral
Light Brown - Unaligned warring factions, not officially part of the war (Finland etc.)
Light Blue - Allied Powers (1939 - 1945)
Dark Blue - China (Until joining Allies)
Green - Soviet Union (Until joining Allies)
Red - Axis Powers (1942 - 1945)
Dark Red - European Axis (until end of 1941)
Orange - Asian Axis (until end of 1941)
2. Magnification: I'd like to have a few magnifying globes (with the "lens" positioned in the oceans) to highlight areas like Central-Western Europe, and the Pacific Islands which at one point were under control of the Empire of Japan. Oberiko18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that will make it to complicated. Now it's simple and understood. Also, it may sound a little stupid, but i would prefer the Red colour to not be given to the Axis. M.V.E.i.20:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The color scheme I'm not concerned with (Red Allies and Blue Axis work fine for me as well), but an issue I have is that the Soviet Union is colored prior to its "official" entrance in the war in 1941, but China is not. I'm also not sure that the Soviet's should have a distinct color even after becoming a member of the Allies; Germany and Japan are given the same color and there was far less material support and collaboration between them then there was between the Soviets and the Western Allies. Oberiko20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok that i didn't notice, your right. P.S. But with the color thing be cerful, it might be confusing. The Axis should be green or brown, better brown. The allies should be red or blue. M.V.E.i.20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Red, Blue and Green; or Cyan, Magenta and Yellow; tend to be most recognized as the primary colors, so major map entities should try and fall into those. My revised would thus be:
Red - Allied Powers
Orange - China (Until Allied Power)
Green - Soviet Union (Until Allied Power)
Blue - Axis Powers (after war turns global)
Cyan - European Axis (until war turns global)
Teal - Asian Axis (until war turns global)
Grey - Neutral
Yellow - Non-aligned countries in conflict
Thus, it would start off as multiple colors and gradually shift to a two red-blue map, and eventually an (almost) fully red map. Oberiko21:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont mind as long the Red one is not Axis. Actually after i thought of it would be much more exact then the one that is now, so feel free to do it. M.V.E.i.14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago31 comments13 people in discussion
To be honest I was totally suprized to find out that this crappy map animation had been added to infobox. It looks fancy, indeed, but it had factual mistakes:
1) Belgian Kongo is showed as Alled territory from beginning, in reality it was neutral until Belgia was invaded
2) Western part of New Guinea island is shown as allied from beginning, in reality it was Netherlands colony and therefore neutral until Netherlands was invaded
3) Vichy France is shown as full member of axis, giving false impression that Axis states controlled whole east africa, and even had foothold at south america, which is bullshit, vichy should be neutral, or have its own completely unique colour
4) Japan is shown as member of axis from beginning, but nationalist china is shown as neutral at beginning, this is ridiculous, either both are neutral until pearl harbour or china is also as member of allies from beginning.
Please do not readd that animation until mistakes have been removed.--Staberinde17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If you scroll above to the section titled "image improvements", you'll see that Oberiko is planning on fixing the map. Perhaps make your suggestions to him directly, to make sure he sees it. As for Vichy, occupied France provided a great deal of supplies to the Germans, and there were numerous instances of combat between Vichy and Allied forces, so it's better to lump them in with the Axis than not. Parsecboy20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oberiko is planning fixing map? Great. Then put image to infobox then its fixed. Until that it is factually inaccurate and stays out from infobox until problem is fixed. That if there was some consensus earlier is pretty irrelevant as obvious factual mistakes will be removed no matter how many users support them. Btw, most of those mistakes have been pointed out at image discussion page for about year.
About Vichy, yes there was combat, but as far as i know it was practically always initiated by allies, i can't remember any cases where Vichy would had waged agressive war aganist allies. Also many states(Spain, Portugal, USSR) provided Germany with supplies and Spain even sent volunteers. Currently animation gives false impression that Germany and co. controlled whole east africa and even had foothold at south america, that is ridiculous, so Vichy should have separate colour or it should be simply gray like rest neutrals. Currently it just gives false imperssion to people who do not know so much about WW II.--Staberinde20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Then give Vichy some unique colour, like if Axis are black then let Vichy be brown or something. Currently it just gives false impression to people who know less about WW II, and I believe this map is actualy meant for those mainly because bgger WW II fans know most of it anyway. Simple Joe(no offence anyone) will look that map and think "oh shit, axis had like huge territory in africa and even got foot at south america". Vichy was not clear case of being neutral or axis, but somehwere between, map should reflect that.--Staberinde08:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Maye use shade of Axis' color. And maybe we should color only the colonies which were involved in the war. North Africa was a battlefield, and here it is important to underline who was with de Gaulle and who was with Vichy. Barraki11:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
We're in critical mode at work here, so I haven't been able to do much on the Wikipedia recently (a situation that doesn't look like it will change for the next little while either), but there are some things to consider if we're changing the image box to have more colors to increase accuracy and handle the vast number of special cases:
Separating the German-centric Axis from the Japan-centric Axis
Finland, which wasn't a formal member of the Axis (never signed the Tripartite Pact)
Countries that were "Axis-friendly" but not significant contributors (Spain, Vichy France, Iran, Iraq etc.)
And which Axis they were friendly towards. Vichy lent support (airfield usage etc.) to Germany, but was in conflict with Japan and Japan's Thai allies
Countries that were "Ally-friendly" but not members (USA prior to the Attack on Pearl Harbor)
The Soviet Union pre-Barbarossa
Italy before joining the war in 1940
Allied countries which were at war with either Germany or Japan, but not both (ie. China, Italy after joining the Allies, and the Soviet Union before Operation August Storm)
Nations where combat took place, but the government wasn't really at war (ie. Egypt etc.)
Yeah, and have you looked at the discussion over what images to include in the pic (it's over there)? That's why I prefer the map.
I think it should be as simple as possible. Why should only Vichy be separated from Axis? Let's also use then some other colours for Slovakia, Croatia and the likes (this is irony, in case someone does not understand). It did not just lend airbases but collaborated with Nazis in their crimes and fought against the allies. Yes, they were attacked by them but it takes two sides to have a fight. One can always choose to surrender. Alæxis¿question?14:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Marking "friendly" countries and making other niceties could be done in future if someone is interested in it. However even without this stuff the map (if obvious factual mistakes are corrected) is reasonably accurate and appropriate for the template. Alæxis¿question?14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Allies attacked Vichy does not automatically make Vichy member of Axis, Japan and Thailand also attacked Vichy(at Indochina), does that make Vichy member of Allies? World War II was helluva complex conflict, trying to simplify it too radically will only cause problems.--Staberinde16:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, what about this, we divide it up based on which country was fighting what Axis (European or Asian)? Here's the color scheme I propose:
European Axis - Vertical black stripes
Asian Axis - Horizontal black stripes
Western Allies - Blue
Soviet Union - Green (Blue after Barbarossa)
China - Red (Blue after Pearl Harbor and Japanese invasion of European colonies)
Vichy France - Purple
Non-aligned opponent - Yellow
In order to show who was at war with whom, we'd use the stripe orientation.
For example, China would have horizontal stripes throughout the entire war since they weren't at war with Germany, while the Soviet Union would represented with vertical stripes until Operation August Storm since until that time they were neutral against Japan. Allied nations who were at war against both Germany and Japan would be solid blue.
For cases where a non-aligned territory is in conflict with a non-Axis member (ie. Winter War, Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran) the non-listed nation (in this example, Finland and Iran respectively) in question would be shown in yellow with diagonal stripes the color of their opponent.
Vichy France is included as a special case due to the number of engagements and size of its territory. For cases like the Japanese invasion of Vichy territory, the same rules would apply: hence the assaulted territory would be presented as purple with horizontal stripes. If they are invaded by Allies, they would be purple with blue diagonal stripes.
Frankly, I don't think we'll need to show Vichy conflict or any yellow nations, as none of those conflicts were significant or long enough that we'd need a map image to display it. Oberiko17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oberiko. Great efforts and results. I figuratively tip my hat to you. I think the Western Allies and the USSR need to always be colored or shaded differently from each other, similar to what you proposed in the discussion above. I think it is clear that although the various members of the Allies cooperated with and had common goals with the other members to various extents, there is a clear distinction between the allegiances and goals of the Western Allies on the one hand and the USSR on the other. Effectively, there were two camps with a principal common enemy (i.e., Germany). The image here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armia_Czerwona%2CWehrmacht_23.09.1939_wspólna_parada.jpg> of German General Heinz Guderian and USSR General Semyon Krivoshein at a common German/USSR parade of Wehrmacht and Red Army in Brest, Poland, 1939, after Germany and USSR had cooperatively invaded and carved up Poland (first published in Soviet Union by TASS in 1939), 1956 Hungary, 1968 Czechoslovakia, and the discussion below from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II> at least partially prove the point. Thanks. 69.239.87.2322:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)IMS
I'm rather inclined to agree. Although the Western Allies and USSR had very different motives and political stances, I'm going to leave the exploration of their differences to the Cold War folks. For our purposes, they were allied to each other in the end, even if it was an "enemy-of-my-enemy" situation. Oberiko21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If World War II started in Poland in 1939, then, at least at the beginning of WW II, the USSR was on the same side as Germany.69.238.219.1415:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)IMS
It's quite a bit more complicated then that, and in a singular image we don't have the space to show all the shifting alliances. The USSR wasn't really on the same side as Germany, regardless of their various treaties (including the Treaty of Friendship). The early war is really set against five major powers: the Western Allies, European Axis, Soviet Union, Japan and China. Alliances between them were pretty fair game.
The Soviets initially wanted to form an alliance with the Western Allies against Germany, but that was halted due to mutual mistrust and the signing of the Munich Agreement between the Western Allies and Germany. Also keep in mind that at the time of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union was in a border war with the Japanese, you'll note that when they began to believe that they were going to have to fight the Germans, they concluded a neutrality agreement with the Japanese. Looking at their track record, Soviet agreements were usually about making sure that they would only be fighting one enemy at a time. Oberiko17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Good points, Oberiko. However, the USSR and Japan were in a de facto neutrality pact since September of 1939. Whether the USSR really "initially wanted to form an alliance with the Western Allies" or really was looking for an excuse for aggrandiizement at the expense of the independence of its neighbors is open to a debate (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact>). I'm in the camp of those who believe that history shows that the USSR sought aggrandizement. You are partially correct when you state that "Soviet agreements were usually about making sure that they would only be fighting one enemy at a time." However, I think the evidence shows that the USSR supported Germany's war against the West, even if only to ultimately support the USSR's own purposes. Also, I think the USSR's track record shows that its treaty demands with European powers were about giving the USSR free reign over its neighbors. See also <http://books.google.com/books?id=_u6RUrOZi8UC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=soviet+join+tripartite&source=web&ots=v7z7yvEDsM&sig=w7Sis4V7f3P26os1WC-QrGrEOBM#PPA202,M1> for evidence of the USSR's willing to join the Tripartite Pact as late as January, 1941. The USSR was significantly different from its Western Allies before, during and after WW II.69.238.219.1418:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)IMS
All this talk about motives is irrelevant. No country has ever acted in any way other than in their own best interest; to pretend otherwise is foolish. It's even more foolish to pretend that it's a bad thing when an opponent does it, but wave flags and cheer when "we" do it. Parsecboy18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The biggest issue is not the "pacts" or "motives", but real invasion on one of Allies in 1939. What more do you need to count someone as "anti-Ally" than invading half of its territory together with Hitler? In 20th century formal declarations of war or pacts do not seem to mean much, so we should rather stick to facts --EAJoe (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
EAJoe, this has been discussed to death. Somewhere on this page, someone, I believe it was Grant65, placed a quote from Winston Churchill, about his reaction to the Soviet invasion of Poland. It goes something along the lines of "The USSR has created an unassailable wall the Germans dare not attack [by invading Poland]". Until you provide reliable sources backing up your assertions, you won't be making any lasting edits in the matter. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
With the main exception that Vichy was neutral, not an Axis Power. If that can be fixed, then we might be good to go with it. Oberiko20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oberiko. Referring to Vichy as neutral is problematical. With various degrees of effort, the Vichy forces fought against the Western Allies in North Arfrica, the Levant and Madagascar. See, e.g., <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France>. On the other hand, Vichy France was really an occupied country, with up to 1 to 2 million of its people held hostage in Germany. (Given a free choice of whom to support, I am sure that at least 90% of the French, in Vichy or outside of Vichy, would have supported the Western Allies.) However, I do not think the animation at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_Powers> points one way or the other to Vichy's neutrality or not. It colors those areas under Vichy control as black because such areas were effectively under Axis control until they changed allegiance to the Free French or were occupied by Western Allied forces.71.128.4.14820:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)IMS
A big point to consider is that Vichy France was always the one being attacked, never the instigator. Also keep in mind that it was not only the Western Allies who attacked Vichy, but also Japan and Thailand. Lastly, in order to be a "true" Axis Power, the nation would have had to sign the Tripartite Pact. Even Finland, which actively fought with the Germans, is usually considered a co-belligerent, and not an Axis Power. Oberiko00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oberiko. I think the animation shows the areas under control of, respectively, the Western Allies (and their closely aligned allies), the USSR (and its closely aligned allies) and Japan. I think that keeps things accurate and relatively uncomplicated. So, Denmark is also colored black for much of WW II. Of course, if you want to show a static image, the idea you had of showing certain countries with stripes might work. Or, you could use the image you suggested in this heading, just color the USSR different from the UK. Since one could justifiably argue that there would not have been a Vichy but for the USSR's supplying Germany (in contradistinction to the USA's cutting off trade with Japan in its vain attempt to discourage Japan from continuing its war of aggression against China), it makes sense to color the USSR different from the Western Allies. In this regard, since at least as early as Operation Torch, the Western Allies, on the one hand, and the USSR, on the other, each feared that the other would make a separate peace with Germany. To understand WW II, I believe one must understand that there were three main camps, with, fortunately for the world, two of the main camps being against the most evil part of the other camp for most of the war.71.128.7.13202:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)IMS
Hi Oberiko. Here is another idea. A static image illustrating the real lineup of combatants (those who were making things happen rather than merely jumping on the bandwagon once it was clear that Germany had no chance of winning) would be an image of the combatants on July 1, 1942. The major combatants making up camp 1 would be the British Commonwealth, the USA and the Free French, whose holdings of equatorial Africa (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Equatorial_Africa>) were key at that time, and whose contributions later were key as well. The major combatant making up camp 2 would be the USSR. The major combatants making up camp 3 would be Germany, Japan, Italy and the European countries which more or less voluntarily signed on to the Axis to fight the USSR (e.g., Romania and Hungary). That is the lineup for the major part of the war. Oberiko, thanks for taking on the laboring oar in connection with this big project. 71.128.7.13203:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC))IMS
Animation is currently unacceptable as it has mistakes in it. Belgium Congo is shown as Allied in 1939, western half of new-guinea is shown as Allied in 1939, Japan is shown as Axis in 1939 but China shown as neutral at same time, Vichy is shown as Axis which gives inaccurate impression like Germany and co controlled whole east africa and had foothold in south-america, and finally i just noticed one more mistake: Italy is shown as Axis in 1939 although in reality it joined in 1940.--Staberinde10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
One image in the collage has been deleted
Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
I guess those images are just more fair-use images used only on pages directly related to the image, and where no other historic image can be found for the subject at hand. --Timeshifter04:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
left|thumb|200px::I think that this annexation of Austria image should be replaced on collage anyway. After all it was pre war event. I think it should be replaced with that --Staberinde18:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Or, instead of the obsession with Germany, and to reflect the truly global nature of the war, and the epic scale of fighting and suffering in Asia, it could be replaced with one from the China theatre. Grant | Talk20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, Grant. Right now, the only image from the Asia/Pacific theater is the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Surely one from the A/P theater should be included in the old picture's stead. Parsecboy21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of moving Staberinde's suggestion up and to the left and made a couple of my own on the right. The baby at Shanghai Station is a famous image and symbolises worldwide civilian suffering and the effects of bombing, in addition to representing mainland Asia. Grant | Talk10:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow guys, I am preparing my thoughts on this, and you are right in the middle of talking here... I'll soon post here. Regards, --Dna-Dennis10:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, just noticed this talk here! Since I've been thinking of improving the image quality of the montage, I might as well take your thoughts here into consideration. I am certainly not deaf to the issue of German obsession (3 pics connected to Germany; Anschluss, Auschwitz and Berlin - hmm... might be because they started the war). But, as you probably know by now, the issue I've stressed wasn't any geographical or military balance but rather a multitude of aspects - that's why I so strongly opposed to having two Soviet pics before.
A Nazi pic: That the Anschluss was a pre-war event isn't actually any good reason for not having it; it is firmly connected to WW2, and the WW2 article deals with background as well as aftermath. But Staberinde's suggestion of marching German troops in Warsaw is not bad at all. But, I'd actually be a little sad if the swastika isn't present in the montage (never thought I'd utter those words :) ), and you probably understand why, considering the implications. This is the 4th time (!) a nazi picture is requested to be deleted/replaced in the montage. Obviously, there are copyright issues regarding pictures from Nazi Germany, but I am having big troubles now finding a suitable nazi image with flags or swastikas. Sadly, I am seeing a future problem arising - a lack of images depicting this time in German history.
An Asian pic: Grant has brought up this issue before on my talk page, and his suggestion was Image:BattleOfShanghaiBaby.gif. IMO, this is the best suggestion yet, as this will be about suffering and include China. But I remember hearing somewhere that this photo might have been staged. Might be b*llshit, and it doesn't matter that much to me - it sufficiently illustrates what it's meant to illustrate.
My personal standing now is that I think the best modification is replacing Auschwitz with the baby. But remember - we will lose the entire Holocaust, as well as these aspects: concentration camps, slave work, deportations, political/racial oppression. A somewhat tough choice... but if we go for the baby, I'd rather lose Auschwitz than Nazis (never thought I'd utter those words either). I would love to hear your thoughts on all these matters (incl. the swastika matter). My regards, --Dna-Dennis11:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I support having German soldiers in warsav because the rest of images at collage represent allied victories(d-day, stalingrad, hiroshima) + holocaust. But I think that something depicting early axis success, and German army(which i think we can call without doubt most importnant axis armed force) itsself should be also there. Fall of France itsselfly would be better event but I havent seen so good picture about it.--Staberinde13:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Btw, one more interesting image. Depicts Luftwaffe(so we would get air warfare), and also should make eastern front fans happy. I dont have clear opinion about using it myselfly but maybe someone is interested.--Staberinde13:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding marching Germans with swastikas, I found this pic as well (to the right, also Anschluss). It seems to be public domain, and I might be able to work it into the montage. Regarding Axis success: it's already covered by Anschluss. Regarding Stalingrad: I do not favor it in the montage, and it's not present in my original montage, for a number of reasons stated here. Regarding air warfare: This is in a way already covered by the atom bomb, and by the baby, if it is incorporated. Anyway, this is IMO of much less significance than other issues (it's not about warfare, and we have no ships etc.). I'm still happy to hear opinions, particularly on swastikas and baby vs. Auschwitz. My regards, --Dna-Dennis13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont think having swastikas in infobox should be considered very importnant. Of course it may be little bonus if we have one but nothing crucial, as picture is going to be rather small anyway swastika will probably be very hard to see. And its little strange to have pre-war Anschluss then we are already clearly lacking room to depict all importnant events that happened during war. So I generally oppose using images of pre-war events in infobox.--Staberinde14:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If we don't want pre-war, then the Shanghai bombing picture shouldn't be used either as it is from 1937 - even before the Anschluss.
I think it is worth looking at the whole collage and determining what five major themes or images should be represented there. I also think we should consider ensuring that photos in the collage are not repeated in the body of the article as two of them - the Red Flag on the Reichstag and the mushroom cloud - currently are. I suggest that we deal with the immediate copyright issue by replacing the deleted image with a thematically similar one, like the Warsaw picture, and then take more time to discuss the collage as a whole as part of the current restructuring and rewriting of the article. - EronTalk14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't support removal of the Holocaust from the montage, as it was a crucial element of the context of the European theatre. If we could find an image which combined the Holocaust and German personnel, such as this famous one on the left, then that would be better, I think.
Also, I seem to recall there was a version of this template which reduced the D-Day pic. I think that Normandy 1944 deserves an image, but not one double the size of the others. Grant | Talk16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the Warsaw one, if used also has the advantage that it includes Poland, a nation central to the war. Grant | Talk14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
On the right is another one worth considering (right): Japanese aircraft preparaing to attack Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. Grant | Talk16:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have replaced the deleted Nazi pic with another. I've also improved (hopefully) the overall quality (Normandy - better crop, zoom; Atom bomb - better source, better crop, Soviet flag - better source, better crop, zoom). A note on Eron's issues of "duplicates": I don't consider duplicates a problem (but I've thought of it). If you think about it, the montage is a thematic pic, with adjusted photos - "thumbs" if you like - much like the text's table of contents and introduction is a "thumb" of the entire text. Furthermore, it's more complicated than this: this montage is in Commons, and not used only in the English main WW2 article; I checked today and it is used in 101 pages in 49 projects..! how to check: click image, click "commons" to go to commons, and click on the tab "check usage"). This is no reason for not altering the image, but definitely an issue to consider if we talk "duplicates". Now, I will visit a friend and afterwards sleep on the matter. Thanks again for all opinions and suggestions; I'll get back here tomorrow. See you guys! My regards, --Dna-Dennis17:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point on the duplicates; I hadn't considered the use of the collage in other articles where the duplicates might not exist. Thanks. - EronTalk18:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems someone has bad understanding, or brobably bad knowledge of English, so i'll try to make it clear
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
It was decided that a map will be here, it was the big concensus. If not a map, then the 6-photos image. NO WAY THAT THE IMAGE WITH THE BIG NORMANDY PHOTO WILL BE HERE, a majority already said it's ethnocentric. M.V.E.i.17:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that someone has reading problems so i will repeat it here for one more time. Please take your time and read it until you understand the point. Map has mistakes and will stay out from infobox until mistakes are fixed! I have already pointed out all mistakes here twice. Thank you.--Staberinde18:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah so you returned the collage that coused the whole conflict. Very smart. Couldn't you see Oberiko suggested another image for that case?? You could at least talk to Oberiko on that. M.V.E.i.18:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You smart one, next time actualy check if animation is allright before adding it to such place like WW II article infobox, most mistakes have been pointed out at animation talk page for about year. That if normandy photo is big or not is matter of taste, irrelevant for me, i picked first collage which i found on article history. And I havent edited infobox since removing the animation so everyone have been free to replace it if they have better one.--Staberinde19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok i see you really dont understand the case, so i owe you an appology and an explanation. This metter of taste, brought to a conflict about the images NPOV. People were blocked, it was areally big and brutal argumant. A huge discussion, whole history pages of reverts. The compromise was a map. If you would remove any image, it would be understood. There were two parties who weren't going to find a compromise, and the powers were equal by number. I started the first party claiming for replacement of the image you returned, and a second party defending the old one led by Dna-Dennis. And there was Oberiko who tryed to offer to form an image together, but the discussion wasn't going to well so it didn't help. Then someone proposed to insert a map insted (can it get more NPOV then that?). 99% of the first and the second parties (including me, Dna-Dennis and Oberiko) joined that third party. And since then the concensus was kept. What you did could have started a second war over the image, thats why i so brutaly came against it. Now i see that you just haven't known the story so sorry. M.V.E.i.13:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm just jumping in that I wouldn't worry about the map so much. We're working on a new summarized article structure (much shorter, much fewer pictures etc.) so we're going to have to do the whole infobox montage thing again anyway since we're not going to want to duplicate pictures in the infobox and article. Oberiko15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Image:WW2_TitlePicture_For_Wikipedia_Article.jpg){kind=link}
