| Revision as of 01:24, 28 February 2020 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Western Front (World War II)/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:46, 23 June 2020 edit undoAstral Leap (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,157 edits →Lede inconsistency on Italy: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
| Nominally per lede and infobox this article claims to cover western front from 1939-1945. In practice it does completely subpar job on it, 1939-1940 is treated like a background section, with Battle of France covered by 2 sentences. Additionally I feel that there really should be a dedicated article for Western front 1944-1945 which we don't really have at the moment, doing a serious disservice to readers. That said, I am unsure whether this article should be simply converted into 1944-1945 campaign article, or should finer details of "1944–1945: The Second Front" section split into separate article, while turning this into more general theatre article like for example ]. That said, we already have ], so I don't really think another general article just for France, Benelux, and Scandinavia is warranted.--] (]) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC) | Nominally per lede and infobox this article claims to cover western front from 1939-1945. In practice it does completely subpar job on it, 1939-1940 is treated like a background section, with Battle of France covered by 2 sentences. Additionally I feel that there really should be a dedicated article for Western front 1944-1945 which we don't really have at the moment, doing a serious disservice to readers. That said, I am unsure whether this article should be simply converted into 1944-1945 campaign article, or should finer details of "1944–1945: The Second Front" section split into separate article, while turning this into more general theatre article like for example ]. That said, we already have ], so I don't really think another general article just for France, Benelux, and Scandinavia is warranted.--] (]) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC) | ||
| == Lede inconsistency on Italy == | |||
| The first sentence of the lead defines the front as "encompassing Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Germany". The last sentence says "The second phase consisted of large-scale ground combat (supported by a massive air war considered to be an additional front), which began in June 1944 with the Allied landings in Normandy and continued until the defeat of Germany in May 1945.". If Italy is included in the definition, where is ] that started in 1943? In my opinion, Italy usually is not part of the front, and the front is usually not defined in terms of countries but in terms of where the thrust or line of contact were between the Western Allies and Nazi Germany. | |||
Revision as of 12:46, 23 June 2020
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western Front (World War II) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met.svg)
 | It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help! |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western Front (World War II) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Western Front (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080911034851/http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf to http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 23:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The 1944–45 campaign in hindsight section
I've just rather WP:BOLDly removed the "The 1944–45 campaign in hindsight" section . My reasons for doing so were:
- It read like an amateur editorial rather than a serious work of history. It was focused on a narrow range of incidents, backed by a small range of sources, and didn't acknowledge the significant differences in views on this issue.
- In particular, it was highly biased. Despite acknowledging that the Allies achieved a significant victory, the material largely attributed this to errors made by the Germans and then went into great detail on supposed mistakes made by the Allied forces which lengthened the war. That the Allies also shortened the war through many good decisions and the quality of their forces wasn't mentioned.
- The whole thing seemed rather one-eyed. For instance, Eisenhower's decision to not attempt to capture Berlin was argued to be a mistake. However, many historians - including Max Hastings who was referenced extensively but not here - have judged that it was correct. Similarly, the material was critical of Eisenhower's emphasis on a broad front, yet historians generally consider this to have been correct. The material also implied that the Allies somehow failed in that they didn't finish the war in 1944, but again modern historians generally regard this as having been impossible given their logistical constraints and the remaining capabilities of the German forces. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Most of the text you removed was added by W. B. Wilson in Revision of 16:43, 21 January 2007 -- PBS (talk)
- Your wording "but again modern historians generally regard this as having been impossible" implies that the previous views you have contradicted are supported by most modern historians. From my reading of general histories written to appear in or around the 70th anniversary of the War I do not think that by a large the views in the text you deleted are not widely supported by modern histians. While I agree that some historians have taken Hastings line most of those I have read in recent years have questioned that decision given the cold war that followed WWII. Similarly although I agree that most of the historians I have read would agree with you that the war could not have ended in 1944, they generally agree that the wide front was suboptimal, although the do not seem to agree on which army group should have got the lions share of the diverted supplies after the failure of Market Garden. Most also seem to think that not clearing the Scheldt estuary quickly was a mistake which by implication makes Market Garden a mistake rather than a gamble that did not pay off. -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Flag Order and dates
@ User:EriFr and User:Alexboy2622 I have protected this page for three days, to allow discussion on this talk page and if necessary escalation via WP:dispute resolution. Both of you read WP:3RR. I ought to block both of you but as one editor is new and has not been warned I will refrain. However User:EriFr you should know better.
Now both of you add a paragraph below this one explaining why your preferred version is the better one (include in those explanation any relevant policies and guidelines). -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
User:EriFr you changed the order back in Revision as of 22:57, 5 November 2009 with no explanation. Why is it better to put the US near the top and not in chronological order. Did you do it for weight of contribution? If so what was the correct ordering for the rest by contribution? -- PBS (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ User:PBS I am sorry for contributing to an edit war. I travelled by train when this began, and with just a smart phone at hand (those tiny buttons…), I feared that the article would become a complete mess If I didn't try to pause the edits. I should definitely have calmed myself down, and waited until I could send a message directly to User:Alexboy2622 instead.
- However, these are my explanations:
- Flag order: The flag order has been discussed (the latest discussion has not yet been archived), and I believe that the order has been stable for quite some time. I suggest that the flag order follows the size of casualties (primarily number of dead), or in second hand the size of contributions in terms of manpower and materiel. None of these orderings should put United Kingdom over the United States. (However, the total military deaths by United Kingdom is a mystery to me, as I have mentioned earlier on this page. I don't understand how total military deaths by United Kingdom in World War II add up, without a higher number of deaths on the Western Front than mentioned in this article. But I don't have any sources for a higher number.)
- Dates: Dates to participants make the info box messy, and I therefore think they should only be used when contributing with important explanations. I suggest that dates are only added to participants that changed sides during the war (see European theatre of World War II), or exceptionally for participants that only participated for a very limited time (however, such participants will naturally be put at the bottom of the order, why dates are rarely important in such cases).
- Kindest /EriFr (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see your second question now. I tried to do that by size of casualties. However, that was eight years ago. I probably only relied on the article World War II Casualties (and its sources) back then. /EriFr (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I find arguments for ordering by contribution in terms of manpower and material, I also find arguments for ordering by undertaking of decisive actions etc. However, all of these are difficult and have their flaws. Material and manpower without participating in active fighting? How do you quantify undertaking of decisive actions? I think order by casualties is the best. It is fairly easy to quantify, and it should generally weight contribution of manpower, undertaking of decisive actions etc. together. /EriFr (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see your second question now. I tried to do that by size of casualties. However, that was eight years ago. I probably only relied on the article World War II Casualties (and its sources) back then. /EriFr (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- The flag order follows the size of casualties (primarily number of dead), or in second hand the size of contributions in terms of manpower and materiel, I completely agree with @ User:EriFr but we have to understand that we are not talking about just United Kingdom it was the British Empire as well and also the support of the Commonwealth so if we see the man power or materiel is larger than the United States, and we also remind that UK was at WW II from it's beginning but the US joined from 1941 not from beginning so I suggest Flag Order that UK (British Empire) (country from the beginning of war and most man and materiel power as well) must take place first than US.
- Also the date of US(From 1941) Because we mention the soviet Union with a date (from 1941) in European theatre of World War II and we can also see in the article of World war I, We can see their a date is mention about US(1917-1918) so why not that repeat here?
- I also want to request that please erase the name Franklin D. Roosevelt from the Commanders and leaders section because that section is not for politicians so Dwight D. Eisenhower must be at the top of Commanders and leaders section as Supreme Allied Commander. I want to draw attention in this fact.
Thank You, Alexboy2622 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- 1. When you write “manpower and material”, do you mean possession of manpower and material or contribution in manpower and material to the war effort? The Commonwealth was undoubtedly huge in manpower and material (in population and resources), but I think that only contribution to the war effort (and on the Western Front) should matter here. And when we decide which participant we think contributed with the most manpower and material to the war effort on the Western Front, we must consider the whole time span (unless we split the flag order into two parts). When doing that, I doubt the Commonwealth actually contributed with more manpower and material than the United States. But I don't know. See the following discussion on the topic: Talk:European theatre of World War II#Order of flags.
- 2. The reason why I have added a date to the Soviet Union in the article European Theatre in World War II is because the Soviet Union appears on two sides in the info box (so that the reader can easily see when the Soviet Union participated on which side). The Soviet Union waged war against Poland and Finland (among other nations) in 1939-1940 before it fought Germany and joined the Allies. However, I don’t think it’s a big deal to add a date to the United Sates, but if we do that, we should probably add dates to France and Free France as well.
- 3. No opinion.
- Other comments:
- 1. Flag order: I am open to using a different order, than by casualties or contribution in manpower and material. Particularly for the type of conflicts that started as a conflict between two parties, and where other parties later joined one of the main parties. In such cases, I think the main parties should be listed at the top, and the rest could be listed in chronological order, as that would show the development of the conflict. However, I am not sure if I see the Western Front as that type of conflict. And if we use chronological order, where should we put Poland? Top or in fifth place? (Poland was the first nation to enter a state of war with Germany, and probably the fifth nation to fight Germany on the Western Front after France, United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway). I think I still prefer order by casualties for this info box, but maybe, we should split the flag order into two sections, 1939-1940 and 1944-1945, as have been mentioned in earlier discussions on this page?
- 2. The Commonwealth: I don’t really know how the Commonwealth worked as of 1939. I could be open to treating the Commonwealth as a unit, but I don’t know if that would be correct.
- Kindest /EriFr (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, User:Alexboy2622. I see that you have just changed the flag order in the article European Theatre in World War II. You have now put the United Kingdom (and the Commonwealth) above the Soviet Union. I would very much like to discuss this and will start a discussion at the talk page. I would be happy if you explained your views at the talk page (see link above)! Kindest /EriFr (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see you have already started a discussion! Great initiative, I will answer. Thank you. /EriFr (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
German figures?
The German figures seem unusually high after going through the individual campaigns of the western front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The article is a mess
Nominally per lede and infobox this article claims to cover western front from 1939-1945. In practice it does completely subpar job on it, 1939-1940 is treated like a background section, with Battle of France covered by 2 sentences. Additionally I feel that there really should be a dedicated article for Western front 1944-1945 which we don't really have at the moment, doing a serious disservice to readers. That said, I am unsure whether this article should be simply converted into 1944-1945 campaign article, or should finer details of "1944–1945: The Second Front" section split into separate article, while turning this into more general theatre article like for example Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II. That said, we already have European theatre of World War II, so I don't really think another general article just for France, Benelux, and Scandinavia is warranted.--Staberinde (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Lede inconsistency on Italy
The first sentence of the lead defines the front as "encompassing Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Germany". The last sentence says "The second phase consisted of large-scale ground combat (supported by a massive air war considered to be an additional front), which began in June 1944 with the Allied landings in Normandy and continued until the defeat of Germany in May 1945.". If Italy is included in the definition, where is Italian campaign (World War II) that started in 1943? In my opinion, Italy usually is not part of the front, and the front is usually not defined in terms of countries but in terms of where the thrust or line of contact were between the Western Allies and Nazi Germany.
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- C-Class Dutch military history articles
- Dutch military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- C-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- C-Class Italian military history articles
- Italian military history task force articles
- C-Class Nordic military history articles
- Nordic military history task force articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- C-Class Germany articles
- High-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- C-Class Netherlands articles
- All WikiProject Netherlands pages
- C-Class Poland articles
- Low-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- Misplaced Pages requested maps in Europe