World War II, The anti-US version Options

[Emperor]

When will Oberiko and his group stop?

He's won just about every argument he's had, and still keeps going.

He's got the article under constant semi-protection.
He's deleted the American picture from the lead montage, and now there are 2 Soviet, 2 Commonwealth, and 2 Japanese.
The Intro and infobox refuse to say that the war started in 1939, and the 1937/39 debate continues.
The Intro and infobox don't list the major combatants
The major commanders aren't listed anywhere in the article. (For fun, try to find "Eisenhower" or "Zhukov" anywhere on the page using Edit --> Find on this Page.)

The entire article is written in Oberiko's weird wiki-summary style where the proper names of events are hidden within Wiki-links. See the Normandy Invasion coverage, in its entirety:

In June, 1944, the Western Allies invaded northern France

And check my favorite passage:

The Soviets decided to make their stand at Stalingrad which was in the path of the advancing German armies and by mid-November the Germans had nearly taken Stalingrad in bitter street fighting when the Soviets began their second winter counter-offensive, starting with an encirclement of German forces at Stalingrad[94] and an assault on the Rzhev salient near Moscow, though the latter failed disastrously.[95

I've been following the article for years now, and seen people come and go but basically anyone who doesn't agree with Oberiko gets frustrated and leaves. He's not afraid to swing his administrator status and have people blocked who edit war with him or Parsecboy.

I could go through line by line and point out not only anti-Western and anti-American bias, but also outright errors. Take the first line of the Background section:

In the aftermath of World War I, the defeated German Empire signed the Treaty of Versailles.[7]

How does anyone not notice this for months and months? I've been watching it as an experiment to see if Wikipedians will ever get a clue, but, well, you see. Later in the background you'll find out that Germany's goal with Austria was to make it a "satellite state". Both of these statements are referenced too?

Insult to injury: the Holocaust is described as "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe". Well I'm pretty sure English isn't Oberiko's first language, but then why doesn't anyone help him? Oh right, because it's so obvious that the article is Owned that you'd be an idiot to try to help.

I know this breaks my rule of thumb not to help Wikipedia myself, but it is the number one search result and I'm feeling a bit of remorse just letting it fester, with it being around D-Day this week and having just recently talked to guy who was a B-29 pilot based in Saipan. I can't believe a generation of kids might be seeing their first encyclopedia article about WWII on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Emperor:

[Emperor]

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Another example of poor writing quality, error, and biased writing. (note redundant use of "colonial")

First, decolonization was mutual in many cases, not a result of the Europeans lacking prestige or resources.

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

[Fusion]

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

France has no colonies in any normal sense of the word. It has overseas territories that are an integral part of France and represented in the French parliament. If they are French colonies, Long Island is an American colony.

[Eppur si muove]

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

France has no colonies in any normal sense of the word. It has overseas territories that are an integral part of France and represented in the French parliament. If they are French colonies, Long Island is an American colony.

Algeria certainly regarded themselves as a colony but they were incorporated into France.

[Fusion]

Algeria certainly regarded themselves as a colony but they were incorporated into France.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nope.gif) Hey, that's crap! Algeria is an indpendent country!

[Emperor]

Algeria certainly regarded themselves as a colony but they were incorporated into France.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nope.gif) Hey, that's crap! Algeria is an indpendent country!

I think the point was France tried the same legal tricks with Algeria but the Algerians weren't having it.

Basically making the debate here about some hyperliteral definition of "colony", in order to argue that the statement in Wikipedia is somehow technically correct.

[Fusion]

Basically making the debate here about some hyperliteral definition of "colony", in order to argue that the statement in Wikipedia is somehow technically correct.

Hyperliteral? There is such a big difference between living in a colony and in an area that is fully a part of some other country and is represented in its Parliament. I can tell you that. Try going to an American colony like Puerto Rico and compare that with Hawaii (if you don't like Long Island as an example).

[Emperor]

Basically making the debate here about some hyperliteral definition of "colony", in order to argue that the statement in Wikipedia is somehow technically correct.

Hyperliteral? There is such a big difference between living in a colony and in an area that is fully a part of some other country and is represented in its Parliament. I can tell you that. Try going to an American colony like Puerto Rico and compare that with Hawaii (if you don't like Long Island as an example).

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Is your argument that this statement is 100% true and accurate?

[Fusion]

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Is your argument that this statement is 100% true and accurate?

How could you deduce such from what I have said? However, the following is true:

* Britain (under Churchill) and Russia did their best to retain an empire; I have no doubt that France did too. Russia went so far as to use military force against Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
* All three of these countries lost huge resources during the War. I do not know how much prestige they lost. Russia at least gained; it became one of the two superpowers.
* There was large decolonisation. As I understand it, France has no colonies at all. Britain has only very few, and in at least two cases (Gibraltar and the Falklands) the colonial citizens want their status to continue. In Russia's case, many people in its ex-colonies would like to go back to being colonies. Admittedly, these are mostly Russians.
* America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries, and certainly gained in prestige. Since then it has absorbed Alaska and Hawaii just as France absorbed some of its colonies. Other American colonies remain such.

Thus there is yes much truth in the statement but far from 100%.

[Emperor]

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Is your argument that this statement is 100% true and accurate?

How could you deduce such from what I have said? However, the following is true:

* Britain (under Churchill) and Russia did their best to retain an empire; I have no doubt that France did too. Russia went so far as to use military force against Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
* All three of these countries lost huge resources during the War. I do not know how much prestige they lost. Russia at least gained; it became one of the two superpowers.
* There was large decolonisation. As I understand it, France has no colonies at all. Britain has only very few, and in at least two cases (Gibraltar and the Falklands) the colonial citizens want their status to continue. In Russia's case, many people in its ex-colonies would like to go back to being colonies. Admittedly, these are mostly Russians.
* America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries, and certainly gained in prestige. Since then it has absorbed Alaska and Hawaii just as France absorbed some of its colonies. Other American colonies remain such.

Thus there is yes much truth in the statement but far from 100%.

My issues with the statement are:

1) "retain some" --> "unsuccessful"
Not true or there wouldn't be French in Guiana or British in the Falklands or Dutch in Aruba.

2) "losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful"

It was much more complex than lack of prestige and resources. India, for example.

[Fusion]

My issues with the statement are:

1) "retain some" --> "unsuccessful"
Not true or there wouldn't be French in Guiana or British in the Falklands or Dutch in Aruba.

2) "losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful"

It was much more complex than lack of prestige and resources. India, for example.

I am totally at a loss to know why you are arguing with me. Where do we disagree? You may disagree with what you thought I said. If so I do suggest that you acquaint yourself with what I actually did say.

America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries

And we all know why that is don't we children. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Because neither the Germans nor the Japanese were in a position to do serious damage to the American mainland.

[Emperor]

My issues with the statement are:

1) "retain some" --> "unsuccessful"
Not true or there wouldn't be French in Guiana or British in the Falklands or Dutch in Aruba.

2) "losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful"

It was much more complex than lack of prestige and resources. India, for example.

I am totally at a loss to know why you are arguing with me. Where do we disagree? You may disagree with what you thought I said. If so I do suggest that you acquaint yourself with what I actually did say.

I'm trying to criticize a specific statement in a Wikipedia article, to show that a top 20 article in Wikipedia can have errors and bias in it for years.

You seem to be trying to make some point about colonialism.

America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries

And we all know why that is don't we children. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Because neither the Germans nor the Japanese were in a position to do serious damage to the American mainland.

That and the fact they were somewhat late to a party they only reluctantly attended.

In terms of men killed, the USA lost more than Britain or France in absolute numbers. Only resource that really matters.

[Fusion]

In terms of men killed, the USA lost more than Britain or France in absolute numbers. Only resource that really matters.

Why do you confine yourself to Britain and France? Should we not compare Europe as a whole with the USA? Or shall we compare Britain to California? Not that I am saying that Europe was an integrated body, just that we need to compare potatoes with potatoes and not turnips.


And just to note that Russia is likely to get Belarus and Kazakhstan back as colonies.

[Emperor]

In terms of men killed, the USA lost more than Britain or France in absolute numbers. Only resource that really matters.

Why do you confine yourself to Britain and France? Should we not compare Europe as a whole with the USA? Or shall we compare Britain to California? Not that I am saying that Europe was an integrated body, just that we need to compare potatoes with potatoes and not turnips.


And just to note that Russia is likely to get Belarus and Kazakhstan back as colonies.

First let's just agree to exclude Russia from our discussion of post-WWII decolonization.

Second, the reason we are comparing numbers is because Wikipedia is asserting that decolonization was driven by wars of national liberation that the Europeans couldn't handle because of loss of prestige and resources.

It's a controversial assertion at best.

[Fusion]

First let's just agree to exclude Russia from our discussion of post-WWII decolonization.

What a good idea. Whenever someone comes up with a very good argument that defeats your argument, you can try to rubbish that argument. If that fails, you say "let's just agree not to use that argument". I must use that method next time I have a problem on Wikipedia. Thank you for suggesting it.

[Emperor]

First let's just agree to exclude Russia from our discussion of post-WWII decolonization.

What a good idea. Whenever someone comes up with a very good argument that defeats your argument, you can try to rubbish that argument. If that fails, you say "let's just agree not to use that argument". I must use that method next time I have a problem on Wikipedia. Thank you for suggesting it.

Russia's interactions with Eastern Europe and Central Asia are different than the post-WWII decolonization phenomenon which is the topic of discussion. I'm not saying Russia isn't an empire, just that in the context of this part of the Wikipedia article, they're clearly not talking about Russia.

[Fusion]

Russia's interactions with Eastern Europe and Central Asia are different than the post-WWII decolonization phenomenon which is the topic of discussion. I'm not saying Russia isn't an empire, just that in the context of this part of the Wikipedia article, they're clearly not talking about Russia.

Thank you for your brilliant master class in how to dismiss arguments that you cannot rebut. I am very impressed.

[Web Fred]

Russia's interactions with Eastern Europe and Central Asia are different than the post-WWII decolonization phenomenon which is the topic of discussion. I'm not saying Russia isn't an empire, just that in the context of this part of the Wikipedia article, they're clearly not talking about Russia.

Thank you for your brilliant master class in how to dismiss arguments that you cannot rebut. I am very impressed.

Something he excels at I'm afraid.