This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South-East Asian theatre of World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wrote the Australian 8th Division page purely about that unit. It does not give anything like a full account of the Malaya campaign, which is why I removed the link. Grant65 (Talk) 09:20, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
After the Japanese success of 1941, it seems to me that for most of the rest of the Japanese war there were 2 land theatres and 4 campaigns. Pacific Theatre of Operations: Nimitz Navy Marines Island hopping in the Pacific; Macarthur US Army and Austrialian Army South West Pacific. The South-East Asian Theatre, Burma and China; which was administratively complicated by Stilwell wearing several hats all at once until he was moved on. As the Soviets did not declare war on Japan until after V-E day the Soviet-Japanese front only existed for three months 1945.
The British used "Far Eastern Theatre" to differenciate it from "Middle Eastern Theatre". I am not sure that "From March 1942, the ABDA command was dissolved and Wavell became Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia is correct because I don't think that that term was used until October 1943 when Winston Churchill replaced Wavell with Lord louis Mountbatten. I suspect that the remanets of the ABDA command (Burma) reverted to Indian GHQ command which Wavell was commander in chief. As the command by now involved more than "British Army of India" forces, that as a short hand the British refer to this as "Far Eastern Theatre", But I have not seen this in black and white and may be (probably am) wrong
[1].
Philip Baird Shearer 15:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think four five theatres is correct. China was always a separate campaign under
Chiang Kai Shek. Macarthur and Nimitz were totally independent from each other. As far I can gather Roosevelt and the bureacracy in Washington did not interfere, or attempt to co-ordinate the two, other than defining their respective areas of operations.
Grant65
(Talk) 01:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
The Soviet shindig with the Japanese in 1939 is not a conflict I am familar with. I would assume that it is not part of World War II. There were three Western Allied Supreme Allied Commanders of three campaigns Pacific Theater of Operations: Nemitz (Commander in Chief Pacific Ocean Areas) and MacArthur (Supreme Allied Commander South-West Pacific); South-East Asian Theatre: Mountbatten (Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia). We not talking about political control here, we are talking about chains of command. The Chinese forces not under SEAC control can be ignored in this article, (persumably they are covered in the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)), but some Chinese divisions were under SEAC eg 22nd and 38th Chinese divisions. This is no diffrent than Australian troops under the control of British or American Army groups or British forces under the control of SHAEF.
But leaving the last paragraph aside, the US forces in China, from Stilwell down, did come under SEAC. The CBI heading you changed in this article refered to US forces and I would like to see it to be changed back. Philip Baird Shearer 19:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:Joshbaumgartner has created a new category Category:World War II Southeast Asia Theatre and moved category links to it from Category:World War II South-East Asian theatre. The links he has put at the top of the category article suggest that he wants to rename this article as well. I for one am not in this because of the name SEAC suggests that we should keep South East in the theatre name and not use Southeast. I also think that we should keep the old category name as it matches the theatre name. What do others interested parties think? See also Category:World War II operations and battles of the Southeast Asian Campaign => Category:World War II operations and battles of the Southeast Asia Theatre => which I think is an improvement but should the name should be included in any standardisation Philip Baird Shearer 10:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For the record Google returns:
My spelling checker has a UK and a US setting. In UK mode it flags Southeast as a spelling error and suggests South-east while under US spelling it does not. It would explain the Google results. So it is possible that this comes under the the US British Spelling divide. If so then prior usage suggests we should stick with British/Commonwealth spelling (particularly as the topic is in the Commonwealth sphere of influence). What are your thoughts on this Joshbaumgartner? -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As stated above, I am not personally concerned whether Southeast, South-East, or South East is used. Per your point about spelling, it does make sense to use the South-East versus Southeast, as Southeast appears less acceptable in UK English than South-East is in US English. The search results back this up. Personally, I've no preference US vs. UK (I have no problem with theatre or armour) but I don't know that your sentiment is fully shared by others (see: Wikipedia:POV#Country POV).
Redirect links work fine for articles but not categories; as far as I know this is not yet fixed in the current version of Wiki.
The movement of commands was not geographically based. They belong in a geographic category, to be sure, and when it is decided which one, I will gladly put in the leg-work to put the articles there. Note, their inclusion under Allied commands does not preclude their inclusion under a geographical category. There may be some confusion because of the name of the article vs. the name of the theatre.
While I have no problem with classifying the theatre as the South-East Asian Theatre of World War II, I do disagree strongly with your contention that the English language basis of the encyclopedia should warrant a POV towards English speaking nations. This is specifically addressed in the article Wikipedia:POV#English language and in particular it notes that it is wrong to allow POV or bias in an article on based on "Accounts of conflicts and their outcomes providing the interpretation of the side most English-speaking nations supported." However, this is better dealt with as an issue aside from the choice of theatre name.
Conlusion: It sounds like South East is going to be a better compromise than Southeast. I'm not going to try and change it just yet, but it sounds like this is where we are leaning.
(edit: oops forgot my tildas...) Joshbaumgartner 23:22, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
I have moved all of the above task forces form China Burma India Theater of World War II as "CBI" was purely a US technical term and is not a general article about campaigns and battles. This is the appropriate article as it is about the theatre as a whole. Grant65 | Talk 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the different battles/operations under the Burma campaign (Chindits, Imphal, Kohima, Central Burma, and Dracula) should be placed in a separate "Burma campaign" box and removed from the South-East Asian campaign box. Cla68 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Vichy France cannot be put in Axis side in the Pacific War. They fought twice against the Japanese and against Thailand. It must be counted in Allies' side or as a third force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.93.165.249 ( talk) 20:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Japan invaded French Indo-China in 1940 and it had no alliance with France. So we should remove it's name from Axis to Allies. ShauryaOMG ( talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
South-East Asian theatre of 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on South-East Asian theatre of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South-East Asian theatre of World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wrote the Australian 8th Division page purely about that unit. It does not give anything like a full account of the Malaya campaign, which is why I removed the link. Grant65 (Talk) 09:20, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
After the Japanese success of 1941, it seems to me that for most of the rest of the Japanese war there were 2 land theatres and 4 campaigns. Pacific Theatre of Operations: Nimitz Navy Marines Island hopping in the Pacific; Macarthur US Army and Austrialian Army South West Pacific. The South-East Asian Theatre, Burma and China; which was administratively complicated by Stilwell wearing several hats all at once until he was moved on. As the Soviets did not declare war on Japan until after V-E day the Soviet-Japanese front only existed for three months 1945.
The British used "Far Eastern Theatre" to differenciate it from "Middle Eastern Theatre". I am not sure that "From March 1942, the ABDA command was dissolved and Wavell became Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia is correct because I don't think that that term was used until October 1943 when Winston Churchill replaced Wavell with Lord louis Mountbatten. I suspect that the remanets of the ABDA command (Burma) reverted to Indian GHQ command which Wavell was commander in chief. As the command by now involved more than "British Army of India" forces, that as a short hand the British refer to this as "Far Eastern Theatre", But I have not seen this in black and white and may be (probably am) wrong
[1].
Philip Baird Shearer 15:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think four five theatres is correct. China was always a separate campaign under
Chiang Kai Shek. Macarthur and Nimitz were totally independent from each other. As far I can gather Roosevelt and the bureacracy in Washington did not interfere, or attempt to co-ordinate the two, other than defining their respective areas of operations.
Grant65
(Talk) 01:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
The Soviet shindig with the Japanese in 1939 is not a conflict I am familar with. I would assume that it is not part of World War II. There were three Western Allied Supreme Allied Commanders of three campaigns Pacific Theater of Operations: Nemitz (Commander in Chief Pacific Ocean Areas) and MacArthur (Supreme Allied Commander South-West Pacific); South-East Asian Theatre: Mountbatten (Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia). We not talking about political control here, we are talking about chains of command. The Chinese forces not under SEAC control can be ignored in this article, (persumably they are covered in the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)), but some Chinese divisions were under SEAC eg 22nd and 38th Chinese divisions. This is no diffrent than Australian troops under the control of British or American Army groups or British forces under the control of SHAEF.
But leaving the last paragraph aside, the US forces in China, from Stilwell down, did come under SEAC. The CBI heading you changed in this article refered to US forces and I would like to see it to be changed back. Philip Baird Shearer 19:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:Joshbaumgartner has created a new category Category:World War II Southeast Asia Theatre and moved category links to it from Category:World War II South-East Asian theatre. The links he has put at the top of the category article suggest that he wants to rename this article as well. I for one am not in this because of the name SEAC suggests that we should keep South East in the theatre name and not use Southeast. I also think that we should keep the old category name as it matches the theatre name. What do others interested parties think? See also Category:World War II operations and battles of the Southeast Asian Campaign => Category:World War II operations and battles of the Southeast Asia Theatre => which I think is an improvement but should the name should be included in any standardisation Philip Baird Shearer 10:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For the record Google returns:
My spelling checker has a UK and a US setting. In UK mode it flags Southeast as a spelling error and suggests South-east while under US spelling it does not. It would explain the Google results. So it is possible that this comes under the the US British Spelling divide. If so then prior usage suggests we should stick with British/Commonwealth spelling (particularly as the topic is in the Commonwealth sphere of influence). What are your thoughts on this Joshbaumgartner? -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As stated above, I am not personally concerned whether Southeast, South-East, or South East is used. Per your point about spelling, it does make sense to use the South-East versus Southeast, as Southeast appears less acceptable in UK English than South-East is in US English. The search results back this up. Personally, I've no preference US vs. UK (I have no problem with theatre or armour) but I don't know that your sentiment is fully shared by others (see: Wikipedia:POV#Country POV).
Redirect links work fine for articles but not categories; as far as I know this is not yet fixed in the current version of Wiki.
The movement of commands was not geographically based. They belong in a geographic category, to be sure, and when it is decided which one, I will gladly put in the leg-work to put the articles there. Note, their inclusion under Allied commands does not preclude their inclusion under a geographical category. There may be some confusion because of the name of the article vs. the name of the theatre.
While I have no problem with classifying the theatre as the South-East Asian Theatre of World War II, I do disagree strongly with your contention that the English language basis of the encyclopedia should warrant a POV towards English speaking nations. This is specifically addressed in the article Wikipedia:POV#English language and in particular it notes that it is wrong to allow POV or bias in an article on based on "Accounts of conflicts and their outcomes providing the interpretation of the side most English-speaking nations supported." However, this is better dealt with as an issue aside from the choice of theatre name.
Conlusion: It sounds like South East is going to be a better compromise than Southeast. I'm not going to try and change it just yet, but it sounds like this is where we are leaning.
(edit: oops forgot my tildas...) Joshbaumgartner 23:22, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
I have moved all of the above task forces form China Burma India Theater of World War II as "CBI" was purely a US technical term and is not a general article about campaigns and battles. This is the appropriate article as it is about the theatre as a whole. Grant65 | Talk 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the different battles/operations under the Burma campaign (Chindits, Imphal, Kohima, Central Burma, and Dracula) should be placed in a separate "Burma campaign" box and removed from the South-East Asian campaign box. Cla68 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Vichy France cannot be put in Axis side in the Pacific War. They fought twice against the Japanese and against Thailand. It must be counted in Allies' side or as a third force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.93.165.249 ( talk) 20:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Japan invaded French Indo-China in 1940 and it had no alliance with France. So we should remove it's name from Axis to Allies. ShauryaOMG ( talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
South-East Asian theatre of 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on South-East Asian theatre of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)