Talk:Home front during World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

Should there be a section on the Japanese homefront?

Contents 1 Countries to Cover 2 CopyVio on Rationing Section? 3 Some possible additions for the German section 4 Cleanup needed 5 Missing Information?

[edit] Countries to Cover

• Burma - life under the Japanese
• France - Germans took the food
• Holland - eating tulip bulbs
• Switzerland - surrounded by the enemy
• Norway - Subjugated, resistance
• Singapore - no more dining out at Raffles.

these are just a small sample...

there are still gaps in WP.

Wallie 07:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CopyVio on Rationing Section?

In researching German rationing during the second world war, I came up with this link: http://www.youth.net/memories/hypermail/0313.html. It rang suspiciously familiar and I realized that much of this article has been lifted from this source. Can someone take on the task of removing or at least rewording the copyvioed content? Onlyemarie 04:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

there is no copyright violation. The main criteria is: does Wiki use hurt the copy-owner financially, and the answer clearly is no. The original author remembered some things but also relied on unspecified books. Rjensen 04:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullcrap. Copyright is inherent to all original works, even mailing list posts (although as a mailing list administrator I caution users that they must have some expectation their posts will be republished in archives and other forums, and they shouldn't post if they have a problem with that). In any case, you don't gain republishing rights just because you think there's no financial harm done; only the copyright owner can make that assessment. You especially don't have the right to republish something without crediting the source. In an encyclopedia we must paraphrase or quote without drawing conclusions, and we must cite reliable sources (or at least enable the reader to gauge the reliability of the source). All information must be verifiable. See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:OR.

I have addressed the issue, for now, by crediting the source of the lifted text, which should constitute Fair Use. It is now clear to the reader that part of the rationing information was posted to a mailing list in 1997, and that some of the text is directly quoting from the post. This is important not just for copyright reasons but also for verifiability: the rationing info is no longer being presented as an unverifiable statement of fact; it's now being presented as a claim made in a specific published work. The fact that the claim was made is much easier to verify than the claim itself. Deciding whether to accept the claim is the reader's responsibility; we're only obligated to facilitate that process, not undertake it ourselves. —mjb 15:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use means no copyright violation. It's fair use if there is no financial harm to original writer. Rjensen 09:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No financial harm for the orignal writer or publisher means that fair use claims are more likely to be accepted. It is not a license for copying everything. Andries 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some possible additions for the German section

• Bomber campaign hurt little production with the exception of fuel, especially in the last months/years of the war. Bomber campaign on transportation facilities did hurt the German economy significantly in the last years/months of the war. Source: I forgot
• Germany was never as good in mass production as the e.g. USA or USSR. They had too many projects and should have focused on e.g. two or three types of tanks or airplanes. They had crafts inductry. Source: Duffy, Christopher Storm on the Reich
• Germany did not use German women for production but forced labor from occupied countries or areas. Source: I forgot, but it is a well-known fact about forced labor.
• Speer mentioned as his biggest failure the V2/A4 project that used up too many resources. Source: I saw Speer saying this in a documentary about Speer broadcast a few days ago on Belgian TV.

Andries 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is actually quite false that the Germans never employed women for production. See R.J. Overy's "War and Economy in the Third Reich" where he critically undermines many conventional views about the Nazi economy, including this one. A greater percentage of German women worked in the paid labour force than in the UK or USA. In addition, Overy, Abelhauser, Eleanor Hancock, Neil Gregor, and many others have overturned the view - repeated in this article - that Germany initially favored civilian over military production until the Speer ministry final reserved things.

[edit] Cleanup needed

Tagged article for cleanup -- major work needed. Much of it reads like an essay, and the intro includes the horrible sentence: "More than 18 million women served on the homefront during WWII and we couldn't have survived without them." -- mervyn 13:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The order of specific countries seems a little esoteric. What are the rules of precedence on such matters? Should they be in alphabetic order, chronological order (of entry into the war), or what? Nick Cooper 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Information?

• Australia and New Zealand
• Canada
• France
• Italy
• Philippines
• Poland and Ukraine
• Warsaw Ghetto
• Scandinavia

Why is there references for these countries, but no information on the article about them? ^Talk User:Fissionfox 07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Because we want editors to get to work and add material, and to alert users these are important topics even if Wiki has not gotten to them yet. (We do have suitable bibliographical citations.)Rjensen 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)