Talk:World War II Allied Leaders

Contradictions, and relevance in the lead of the article

The lead of the article appears to be full of weasel-word sentences which makes contradictory statement (states one fact, then refutes it in the next part of the sentence). Take the first few words: "World War II, also known as the Second World War". Furthermore, it can't even agree on a start date: "It began, by most Western accounts, on September 1 1939, ... (the pacific theatre began on July 7 1937) ... Some historians contend that the Italian Occupation of Ethiopia was the start of the war" (Hmm, what about those historians who consider WW2 to be the continuation of WW1, which never actually ended?). It was WP:LAME enough that these debates infested the Talk:WWII pages. But why are we bringing the debate into the main namespace, in an article where it has no relevance whatsoever? Are we discussing the Allied Leaders of WW2, or are we debating the start date of WW2, or even whether we should call it the second world war? Does it even matter? In one week's time, if no one can justify the inclusion of WP:V/WP:NOT/WP:WEASEL violating sentences in the lead, I'm going to be rewriting the lead of the article so it is more concise and to the point. --Oshah 15:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

over one week, and no response. I take it that means no one objects to me rewriting the start of the article.--Oshah