One again, China's participation is discredit at WW2 wikipedia page.

Discussion in 'Military History' started by Phead128, Jan 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Phead128
    Offline

    Phead128 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the WW2 Info Box, here: World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This is what 3 people on Wikipedia proposed and changed:

    Belligerents table:
    Allies: UK, USSR, USA (Show others: China, France, etc.. do not appear, but appear under the "Show Others..." link)
    Axis: Germany, Japan, Italy

    China is not even Shown on the list of belligerents, and these Western/Eurocentric fools ONLY put the "Big 3" of Allies/Axis, but put CHINA in the collapsable menu.

    This is ridiculous! I need your help and support to support China, as these asshats Western/Eurocentric fools have no right to create a list of belligerents in WW2 without China's appearance.

    PLEASE HELP ME HERE:

    Template talk:WW2InfoBox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    That is where the talk/discussion is happening on the infobox shortening (which removed China), and placed China's WW2 entry date as 1941-1945. NO, China was fighting Japan since 1937-1945! These stupid idiots on Wikipedia, PLEASE HELP ME.

    ROC fought between 1937-1945, which was what WW2 Wikipedia said forever, but now these asshats changed it to ROC fighting between 1941-1945, and removed ROC all together in the list of belligerents, in order to "shorten" the info box. BULLSHIT.

    These people removed China, and forced China into the "Show Others" menu, with 1941-1945 as WW2 participation date! That is wrong!

    PLEASE HELP ME HERE:

    Template talk:WW2InfoBox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    PLEASE HELP ME HERE:

    Template talk:WW2InfoBox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    #1
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2013
  2. luhai
    Offline

    luhai Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    0
    wikipedia... seriously
     
    #2
  3. ABC78
    Offline

    ABC78 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    27
    A New York Times article on Wikipedia's Western bias.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/b...owledge-at-wikipedia.html?_r=2&ref=technology

     
    #3
  4. solarz
    Offline

    solarz Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    336
    Wikipedia is a great, but I don't trust it on anything with a political context. It's a primarily english-language resource, so of course it's going to be somewhat west-biased.

    It's pretty pointless trying to start edit wars.
     
    #4
  5. ahadicow
    Offline

    ahadicow New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    The wiki might not give the most accurate representation of events of WWII, but I don't understand why it matters to Chinese.

    There were numerous brave chinese died fighting the Japanese in those dark days. They sacreficed their lives. What did they die for? what is so valuable that they would rather save instead of their lives? I don't think it is the "Alliance", or "world peace" or "humanity".

    I think they fought for a much simpler reason: The land that is their home was invaded by Japanese. And they died defending it.

    So what matters if the Alliance and the world overlook their "contribution" or "participation". China never meant to contribute or participate, it meant to defend itself, as simple as that. There is a (western)narritive that WWII is a good war, a necessary war and a war of good against evil, I don't think it is necessary nor honest for Chinese to join that narritive. The rest of the world might be fighting for "good", Chinese, they fought for their country.


    What I know of that war was that our fathers defended this country. They sustained grave losses but they did it. They were fighting among themsalves but they did it. There were helps from Americans and Russians, but they would've done it without their help or die trying. These are enough reasons for me to feel proud of them.
     
    #5
  6. airsuperiority
    Offline

    airsuperiority Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,041
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Vancouver, Hong Kong
    I don't think the problem is as sinister as we want to make it seem. It's written in English and culturally more Western, so of course more academic studies that are done would be focused on the Western theater. If the article is written in Chinese or from Baidu or whatever, can we say it's biased?

    Availability of sources and information would naturally permit more allocation of an article for that particular subject. Nothing special really.
     
    #6
  7. Ju-Ju
    Offline

    Ju-Ju Just Hatched
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ha Ha Ha... Wikipedia!!! Seriously though, Wikipedia is useful in getting a (very) broad background to events. But you simply must augment this with other sources. Relying on Wikipedia alone will give you a greatly distorted picture of historical events.

    If Wikipedia was available on nice, soft absorbent paper the it truly would be of great service to humanity... or at least to me & my stomache complaints...

    As an aside, I thought the second world war started for the Chinese with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.
     
    #7
  8. bd popeye
    Offline

    bd popeye The Last Jedi

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    18,586
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Wikipedia is not an 99.9 accurate sources of information. More like 80-85%.. And we know why. I thought I closed this thread? Reason: This topic will go nowhere. No matter, it's closed now.

    Use this thread below for this sort of discussion;


    [h=3]Why "the West" gets China wrong[/h] THREAD CLOSED

    bd popeye super moderator
     
    #8
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page