Thank you for contributing this thoughtful article. I agree that getting involved in topics which are targeted by POV-pushers is pretty grating, and like you I've found that the payoff from providing readers with an unbiased view is generally worth the effort. From my involvement in articles on Nazi Germany, it's depressing how many Holocaust deniers and Hitler groupies attempt to use Wikipedia to present their nutty views as being factual. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the effort to present balanced views of Second World War events, particularly those of the Russo-German War, often seemingly more trouble than it is worth. While I agree that Wikipedia should disseminate information from reliable sources, at times academic notions can approach the absurd but have powerful traction on Wikipedia because they are considered reliable. I sympathize with the difficulty of writing balanced articles on recent history in the Balkans -- dealing with partisan warfare in the editing sphere is quite frustrating. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is really a matter of point of view. A bunch of edits to a talk page is a mere nuisance. Edits to the actual article are problematic. If the POV-warriors would just stick to the talk pages I'd be a happy camper. I think you also have to consider the fact that whatever it says on Wikipedia is what really happened. Those are pretty high stakes. I also know how hard it is to rest when someone's wrong on the internet. The phrase that I find most useful is the old adage, "anything that happened after 1850 isn't history, it's journalism." WWII is still a very recent event to attempt to write about. We're still in prime time to examine the Napoleonic Wars and cooler heads can prevail about the Second World War sometime in the mid-22nd Century. Chris Troutman (talk)23:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
