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

Not open for further replies.


Junior Member
On the WW2 Info Box, here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Last edited:


Junior Member
A New York Times article on Wikipedia's Western bias.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When Knowledge Isn’t Written, Does It Still Count?
Published: August 7, 2011

“MAKING fun of Wikipedia is so 2007,” a French journalist said recently to Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation that runs the Wikipedia project.

And so Ms. Gardner, in turn, told an auditorium full of Wikipedia contributors and supporters on Thursday in Haifa, Israel, the host city for the seventh annual Wikimania conference, where meetings and presentations focus on the world’s most used, and perhaps least understood, online reference work.

Once routinely questioned about its reliability — what do you mean, anyone can edit it? — the site is now used every month by upwards of 400 million people worldwide. But with influence and respect come responsibility, and lately Wikipedia has been criticized from without and within for reflecting a Western, male-dominated mindset similar to the perspective behind the encyclopedias it has replaced.

Seeing Wikipedia as The Man, in so many words, is so 2011.

And that’s a problem for an encyclopedia that wants to grow. Some critics of Wikipedia believe that the whole Western tradition of footnotes and sourced articles needs to be rethought if Wikipedia is going to continue to gather converts beyond its current borders. And that, in turn, invites an entirely new debate about what constitutes knowledge in different parts of the world and how a Western institution like Wikipedia can capitalize on it.

Achal Prabhala, an adviser to Ms. Gardner’s Wikimedia Foundation who lives and writes in Bangalore, India, has made perhaps the most trenchant criticism in a video project, “People are Knowledge,” that he presented in Haifa (along with its clunky subtitle, “Exploring alternative methods of citation for Wikipedia”).

The film, which was made largely with a $20,000 grant from the Wikimedia Foundation, spends time showing what has been lost to Wikipedia because of stickling rules of citation and verification. If Wikipedia purports to collect the “sum of all human knowledge,” in the words of one of its founders, Jimmy Wales, that, by definition, means more than printed knowledge, Mr. Prabhala said.

In the case of dabba kali, a children’s game played in the Kerala state of India, there was a Wikipedia article in the local language, Malayalam, that included photos, a drawing and a detailed description of the rules, but no sources to back up what was written. Other than, of course, the 40 million people who played it as children.

There is no doubt, he said, that the article would have been deleted from English Wikipedia if it didn’t have any sources to cite. Those are the rules of the game, and those are the rules he would like to change, or at least bend, or, if all else fails, work around.

“There is this desire to grow Wikipedia in parts of the world,” he said, adding that “if we don’t have a more generous and expansive citation policy, the current one will prove to be a massive roadblock that you literally can’t get past. There is a very finite amount of citable material, which means a very finite number of articles, and there will be no more.”

Mr. Prabhala, 38, who grew up in India and then attended American universities, has been an activist on issues of intellectual property, starting with the efforts in South Africa to free up drugs that treat H.I.V. In the film, he gives other examples of subjects — an alcohol produced in a village, Ga-Sabotlane, in Limpopo, South Africa, and a popular hopscotch-type children’s game, tshere-tshere — beyond print documentation and therefore beyond Wikipedia’s true-and-tried method.

There are whole cultures, he said, that have little to no printed material to cite as proof about the way life is lived.

“Publishing is a system of power and I mean that in a completely pleasant, accepting sense,” he said mischievously. “But it leaves out people.”

But Mr. Prabhala offers a solution: he and the video’s directors, Priya Sen and Zen Marie, spoke with people in African and Indian villages either in person or over the phone and had them describe basic activities. These recordings were then uploaded and linked to the article as sources, and suddenly an article that seems like it could be a personal riff looks a bit more academic.

For example, in his interview with a South African villager who explained how to make the alcoholic drink, morula, she repeatedly says that it is best if she demonstrates the process. When the fruit is ready, said the villager, Philipine Moremi, according to the project’s transcript of her phone conversation, “we pry them open. We are going to show you how it is done. Once they are peeled, we seal them to ferment and then we drink.” The idea of treating personal testimony as a source for Wikipedia is still controversial, and reflects the concerns that dominated the encyclopedia project six years ago, when arguably its very existence was threatened.

After a series of hoaxes, culminating in a Wikipedia article in 2005 that maligned the newspaper editor John Seigenthaler for no discernible reason other than because a Wikipedia contributor could, the site tried to ensure that every statement could be traced to a source.

Then there is the rule “no original research,” which was meant to say that Wikipedia doesn’t care if you are writing about the subway station you visit every day, find someone who has written reliably on the color of the walls there.

“The natural thing is getting more and more accurate, locking down articles, raising the bar on sources,” said Andrew Lih, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Southern California, who was an early contributor to Wikipedia and has written a history of its rise. “Isn’t it great we have so many texts online?”

But what works for the most developed societies, he said, won’t necessarily work for others. “Lots of knowledge is not Googleable,” he said, “and is not in a digital form.”

Mr. Lih said that he could see the Wikipedia project suddenly becoming energized by the process of documenting cultural practices around the world, or down the street.

Perhaps Mr. Prabhala’s most challenging argument is that by being text-focused, and being locked into the Encyclopedia Britannica model, Wikipedia risks being behind the times.

An 18-year-old is comfortable using “objects of trust that have been created on the Internet,” he said, and “Wikipedia isn’t taking advantage of that.” And, he added, “it is quite possible that for the 18-year-old of today that Wikipedia looks like his father’s project. Or the kind of thing his father might be interested in.”



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.


Junior Member
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.
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.


Just Hatched
Registered Member
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.

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
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
Not open for further replies.