Talk:World War I

Archives
December 2001–September 2005 September 2005–May 2006 May 2006–September 2006 September 2006–December 2006 December 2006–March 2007 April 2007–July 2007 August 2007 September 2007

The Soldier's Blog

Is a very poor example to be referenced on a Wikipedia page. Upon inspecting the blog I found it to have very little information and was not done in 1st person. It's basically a clumsy high school assignment, and I think it needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.55.36 (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

New National Identities and Israel

This seems to be about World War II, not World War I, and should be re-written. Pustelnik (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Historians place sometimes differing weights on which world war was the more important event in the creation of the modern national incarnation of Israel, but almost all agree that the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WW1 was pivotal. Without Ottoman control, a variety of more localized nation identities assert themselves, including of course the Jews and the Zionist movement who at the end of the war campaign more heavily for a Jewish homeland.

It may be true that without WW2 and the Holocaust the modern state of Israel may never have been born, but it is also true that the defeated Ottomans in WW1 left the gate open for the eventual establishment of Israel. The border-drawing via lines on maps by the European powers are still problematic today, (e.g. the Iraq-American war, the Arab-Israeli conflict) and the fact that this in large part was a result of WW1 should continue to be present in this article where the example is most prominent - the birth of Israel. --24.15.249.123 (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)JasonCWard

"Headline" Rape of Beligium

This headline is too emotive, as this is revisionist history this phrase is too allied-centric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.40 (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What would be more appropriate? "Massacre"? S71elements 05:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't suppose you could fix the template so that it actually shows the American flag instead of linking to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My god, this is wikipedia not myspace! Why don't you replace "rape" with "razing" or something more appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertstryker1234 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the commonly used term for the events that took place in Belgium, just like the Rape of Nanking. For that reason, it's perfectly legitimate to use the term in this article. Parsecboy 15:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The rape of Nanking was precisely that. The rape of Belgium is meant to be emotive as Geramny violated Belguim's neutrality. The German army however used Belguim as a gateway to invade France. The geographical features of Belguim are basically flat and very easy to transport troops to the front line and to block British help on the coast. Tactical! Ok the Propaganda was very crude and less sophisicated than now. The use of words then and now have different contexts, despite their basic meaning.The 'rape' of Belguim was a term used to justify and create hatred against the "hun" the "bosche" etc.etc. Look at some anti-german posters and the headline makes sense to use this during "war". Look at the change in language by the media with the Gulf WAR and Iraq 2003 war?!! Best to keep the title, otherwise you are modifying history to be politically correct. The invasion of Belguim and reports of atrocities were half truths and liars which were created by the British newspapers.

Your argument about Belgium being a good route for the German army to take is irrelevant. We're not talking about the violation of Belgian neutrality, we're talking about war crimes committed by Germans once they invaded. Basically, unless you can provide reliable sources that prove the war crimes never took place, the header and section will remain, without mention of any kind of propaganda attempts by the Allies. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Creation and independence

I just wanted to point out that the statements regarding the "creation of new countries in Eastern and Central Europe" as well as the ones that state "many countries have gained independence" aren't exactly accurate. Some of those countries have existed well before the end of WWI. They were not "created" they were "reestablished", they also did not "gain independence" they "regained independence". I think this should be corrected but give that this is the lead and the infobox I await any comments on this subject. JRWalko 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you start by improving the applicable section. Lead should synopsize the body. It's questionable whether the lead should get into which countries gained or lost independence.LeadSongDog 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This Image

Hi! I have just been uploadinof the War--The Gillotine (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that a fact?

I deleted

"The infantry was armed mostly with magazine-fed bolt-action rifles,"

as irrelevant and

"but the machine gun, with the ability to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, blunted most infantry attacks."

as incorrect. Artillery was, contrary to myth, the bigger threat. (I also wonder at the need to link rate of fire...) I question

"There was chemical warfare and small-scale strategic bombing, both of which were outlawed by the 1907 Hague Conventions. Both were of limited tactical effectiveness."

In the first place, strategic bombing isn't tactical... In the second, the 1907 Hague Convention (can't speak to the 1899) prohibited bombing undefended cities, & given AA & fighters, cities weren't strictly undefended. Also, it didn't prohibit attacks on military targets or collateral damage in attacking them... Also, I question

"Fixed-wing aircraft were first used militarily during the First World War."

I've read they were used in the Mexican Revolution of 1911, & in Ethiopia in 1912-3. Trekphiler 12:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. 1911-10-23 in Libya by the Italians against Turkey.LeadSongDog 03:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How is the fact that the infantry were armed with magazine-fed bolt action rifles irelevent? It seems like a pretty significant piece of information to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.55.36 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in context of the trench stalemate, in which smallarms (infantry weapons generally) were of trivial importance, & why I removed it. Trekphiler (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do you know the effect of magazine-fed rifles during WWI, I'm no expert, but I think that was the first time they were widely used. I think it would be a big improvement, though not in trench warfare, but gunfighting altogether.--The Gillotine (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The first time magazine-fed rifles were widely used was the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"How exactly do you know the effect of magazine-fed rifles during WWI"? I'm relying on Dupuy & Dyer, mainly. Infantry weapons are generally far less lethal (& since the War of Southern Rebellion have made up a tiny fraction of total casualties) compared to artillery, which was the important factor in the trench war; even MGs, usually cited, were significantly less important overall, & even they were more important than smallarms. Trekphiler (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

At some point it's nitpicking. You can argue the guns are far less lethal until you add binoculars and field telephones, so maybe its them that are the real weapons. Fact is they all form part of a system, they aren't used independently.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Was the German Navy's shelling of the east coast of Britain(Scarborough,etc) in late 1914 a violation of the either of the Hague Conventions? And was the introduction of gas by the Germans a violation of the Hague Conventions?EdwardLovette (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Triple Entente changes to Allied Powers?

Reading down through the article, the Allied Powers morph into the Central Powers and the Entente becomes the Allied Powers. When does this change in titles occur? It is confusing because Allied Powers is used to refer to both sides in the conflict. I noticed this change in titles soon after the Russian Revolution section. I propose changing the article one of two ways:

1. Remove "Allied Powers" from describing members of the Triple Entente, and states that aligned themselves with them, and keep the consistency with Entente Powers. This will keep Allied Powers correctly describing the Germany/Austria-Hungary Alliance as the Allied Powers from beginning to end.

2. Create a section detailing how, when, and why the name change occurred.

--Gregarious greg 03:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Gregarious Greg

It is confusing, but "Allied" to refer to the Entente and "Central" to refer to the Triple-Alliance are widely used. I think it would be better to state explicitly that the Entente Cordiale was the name of the treaty, while they were commonly referred to as the Allies, and the Triple-Alliance was commonly known as the Central Powers. Parsecboy 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly we shouldn't use "Allies" to refer to the Central Powers. I think probably it is best to use "Entente powers" and "Central powers" to avoid confusion. Certainly the Triple Alliance, so far as I am aware, is never referred to as the "Allied powers". That one of the Triple Alliance powers, Italy, actually fought on the other side might have something t o do with this, but it's also certainly true that the Entente powers are frequently called "the Allies". john k 13:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Triple Entente

It is stated that Britain entered the war regardless of alliances because they had no alliances with France or Russia. This is false because Britain was in an allaince with France and then Russia called the Triple Entente —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.209.85 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Britain had no formal alliances. The Entente cordiale with France, signed in 1904, was an agreement regulating various issues between Britain and France respecting North Africa and fishing rights in the Grand Banks. The Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907 regulated British and Russian spheres of influence in Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet. Neither involved any military commitments of any kind. The British had also entered into certain naval agreements with the French which did, in fact, come close to being a military alliance, so the situation is rather complicated - Grey certainly believed that British honor was committed to the defence of France, but he had also been careful over many years to publicly claim that Britain had no formal alliance with either France or Russia (and certainly, in the case of Russia, Britain had no formal or informal military or political commitments). john k 13:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

American Bias in WW1 articles

The Second Battle of the Somme began on 21 August. The Third and Fourth British Armies and the American II Corps pushed the Second German Army back over a 55 kilometer (34 mile) front. By 2 September, the Germans were back to the Hindenburg Line, their starting point in 1914.

I see that there has been a slight improvement in the previous paragraph from saying that “130,000 US troops took part along with some British and French soldiers.” As I have said before there is no mention of US troops in this battle. During the Second battle of the Somme the American II Corps were attached to the Second British Army which was still north of the First British Army which was north of the Third and Fourth British Armies. The American II Corps didn’t join the Third British Army until September 7 well after the Allied advance at the Somme and north and south of it. If there are no objections I will add the Australian and Canadian Corps in place of the American II Corps along with the First British Army and French Armies that were employed to bring the length of front to 75 miles in which the Germans were pushed back.Brocky44 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

U.S. "isolationism"

Was U.S. trade regulaion sufficiently protectionist to characterize its position for most of the war as isolationist? It seems that neutral or non-interventionist is more accurate. (Ugh. I don't know how to link to the seciton, "Entry of the United States," where this caught my attention.)Entry of United States(Tried to add a link there. Didn't seem to work...)CsCran 23:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be giving isolationism its modern reading which is almost synonymous with protectionism whilst then it was taken to mean (and still can mean) non-interventionism. Isolationism was the term use at the time and so is correct in this context, though it might need clarification to remove any confusion. --LiamE 10:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson's Professed Neutrality Was a Sham

Woodrow Wilson claimed to be neutral in thought as well as deed, but his actions cleared showed that he favored the British position from the beginning. While criticizing Germany, Wilson did nothing to protest the hunger blockade imposed by the British on the civilians of Germany.

Further, Wilson had a very odd view of neutrality. He believed that a citizen of a neutral country (e.g. the United States) had the right to travel, through a war zone, on an armed ship flying the flag of a beligerent nation, without being molested. No other nation in the world had ever asserted such an outlandish view of neutrality, let alone gone to war to defend it.

Wilson failed to identify any legitimate interest of the United States justifying its entry into the European conflict that came to be known as the First World War. His Fourteen Points are dangerously simplistic and naive, and they were largely ignored at the Versailles peace conference. For example, he advocated open peace agreements, openly arrived at. The newspapers read that and asked to be invited into the Versailles conference. When Wilson had to tell them they would not be permitted to enter, the newspapers replied that he was not only a hypocrite, but a naive one at that.

Wilson would have surrendered the sovereignty of the United States to the League of Nations, and the United States Senate wisely rejected that effort.

All in all, Woodrow Wilson was, by far, the absolutely worst U.S. President of all time.

130.13.3.95 15:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.3.95 15:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.3.95 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 

Yikes! I'd say that American "neutrality" during WWI was definitely biased. Who was it that said "The most important geopolitical fact of our time is that Americans speak English"(or something like that)? I'm pretty sure he was German. However, that entire war was pretty shady as far as reasons behind it. Wilson might not have had a legitimate reason to go to war, but nobody really did. It's hard to justify 9 million deaths because of arms races, alliances, and imperialism. As for his view of the right to trave., Americans have always held freedom closest to our hearts in values. It's what our nation was built upon. So, it's not surprising that we would take offense at what others believe is common sense. "If you go through a war zone, you're going to get shot" is right, but so is "if you don't keep your mouth shut, you're going to get tazed". --The Gillotine (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... Wilson probobly did support the neutrality. wilson did use moral diplomacy when dealing with nations and if he really didn't want to be neutral, then as soon as the luistania was sunk he would've declared war on germany because he would have had a reason. But he didn't. Also, the league of nations was a great idea. If the us had joined, then maybe ww2 would be prevented. So dont go saying it was wise to reject it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.187.85 (talk • contribs)

Basically, both World Wars served the United States greatly. Without them, the USA wouldn't emerge as the hegemon of the modern world. American "neutrality" and role in starting both wars (especially WW2) awaits a comprehensive study. WIth respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Errata

I have noticed several errata or misleading statements in the article, but do not feel qualified myself to edit and correct:
i) In the Balance of Power section it states: "Britain had no treaties with France or Russia", yet britain had certainly entered into the Entente Cordiale with France by this point, and while this may not be regarded as a treaty per se, certainly deserves a mention. re: the talk below, as it stands it makes it seem that Britain had no ties to either nation, yet this is surely false and so deserves a re-wording even if it is the case that neither alliance Britain made explicitly stated any obligation in a future Euroean war
ii) In the July Crisis section it states: "On July 23, 1914, an ultimatum was sent to Serbia with demands so extreme that it was rejected.", yet Serbia accepted 9 of the 10 demands, and didn't "reject" this outright, but this is not at all referenced in the original sentence.

Hannaphrael 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, as a side note, new talk sections go at the bottom of the page, not the top. I don't know enough about the treaties before the war to comment on this, however, in regards to the second issue you raised, I believe I read once that the demands issued by Austro-Hungary were intended to be too extreme, but were surprised that Serbia accepted almost all of them. I don't recall where I read it, or I'd alter the sentence accordingly, with a source. Perhaps someone else can help here. Parsecboy 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry, I assumed the opposite. Second, I too believe I have read the same thing, viz. the July Ultimatum, though have forgotten the source so felt it inappropriate to mention. I maintain that the two sections do not accurately convey the reality and should be "tidied". Hannaphrael 00:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem about putting it at the top, just a friendly reminder. The introduction to the July Ultimatum states as much in regards to the demands, but it is, unfortunately, not sourced. Also, the article Powder Keg of Europe says the same thing, and is, again, not sourced either. Perhaps this weekend I'll see what I can find as far as a source for it. I'll likely be too busy during the remainder of this week to get to it. Parsecboy 01:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re the Ultimatum. I've read it too, but no idea where... Trekphiler 16:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Germany's Compliance to stopping unrestricted sub. warfare

Entry of the United States Section. "Germany Complied" is just too vague. In America: A narrative History (seventh edition, volume 2), it states more depth. I think more should be added with the situation. As stated in the book:

"Secretary of State [William Jennings] Bryan reluctantly signed a note demanding that the Germans abandon unrestricted submarine warfare, disavow sinking, and pay preparations. The Germans responded that the ship was armed, which it was not, and secretly carried a cargo of rifles and ammunition, which it did. A second note on July 9 repeated American demands in stronger terms. Bryan... resigned his post. Robert Lansing, signed the note to the Germans. In response to the uproar over the Lusitania, the German government had secretly ordered U-Boat captains to avoid sinking large passenger vessels... When, despite the order, teo American lives were lsot in the sinking of the New York-bound British liner Arabic, the Germans paid an indemnity and offered a public assurance on September 1, 1915 [stating]: "Liners will not be sunk by our submarines without warning and without safety of the lives of non-combatants, provided the liners do not try to escape or offer resistance.""

There is more about why Bryan resigned his post and such, but that is irrelevent. Anyways, I just thought more should be added, and an edition like this meant discussing it first anyways. IronCrow 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte

"World War I marked the end of the world order which had existed after the Napoleonic Wars" (at end of intro)
...stated as if (implies that) Napoleon I of France was directly implicated in the causes of the 1st WW. There'd been Otto von Bismarck since, you know? Of course one thing led to another (and this too is easy to say), but that sentence bugs me. Yeah i'm french (although no fan of Napoleon). --Jerome Potts 19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It implies nothing of the sort. The order which was created by the Congress of Vienna is generally considered to have existed in modified form up until the First World War. That is all the sentence is saying. Obviously, the unifications of Italy and Germany were major modifications to that "world order," but the concept itself is not terribly controversial, and does not at all imply that Napoleon was responsible for WWI. john k 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Christmas Truce is not mentioned

The Christmas Truce was a highlighted event in the war, it should be mentioned. This truce shows the difference in points of views of the entrenched soldiers from the officers (governments) that wanted the war to cease by defeat. The fact that the propaganda machine filled soldiers' mind with negative things about the opposing force and for them to find out they were all human with things in common like playing sports, drinking and smoking really had a lot to say about the governments' lies said throughout the war. Bvazq 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

B class checklist

I've (re-?)introduced the B class checklist above under WPMilHist (click Show). As has been recently pointed out to me, the article, while extensively referenced as a whole, does not consistently reference the statements made in each section. For a VITAL article, this is just not acceptable. This should be one of the very best articles in WP, yet it's nowhere near meeting WP:Cite. Lets get at it folks! LeadSongDog 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Many statements are false and therefore impossible to reference.Brocky44 03:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think a statement is false, just flag it as {{fact}}. If it can't be supported by cites, it will get removed. Some words here on the talk page explaining the issue may also help. LeadSongDog 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How come Canada is not Mentioned at all?

Canada was HUGE factor in the win for the Triple Entente, and was the deciding factor in battles like Ypres, Vimy Ridge, and Passhendaele.

At the start of the article, it lists all the countries involved in the war and Canada is not mentioned, I think this is an insult to the over 60,000 Canadian soldiers who died and over Canadian 600,000 soldiers who fought in this war.

This must be changed immeadiately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantdance (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. Here we go again. Haber will be along and he will fill you in. One day he'll wish he had a dollar for everytime this question was asked. Brocky44 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Cantdance, but what are you talking about...Canada is mentioned in this article. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cantdance, Nat is right. At the start of the article it does say "the United Kingdom and its colonies and dominions," which means Canada. That line wasn't there a while ago by the way. Also check out et al in the combatant box. Brocky44 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NOT TO MUCH CANADA MENCHIONED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.163.146 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, 'Britain and its Colonies' is Mentioned, but at the top of the article it lists all the entente members, excluding Canada, but including Russia (who left half way through) and the U.S (who joined halfway through). Canada fought for all four years as CANADA... not 'some British colony' So change it or I'll keep bitching.

Cantdance (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think Canada's war effort is somehow grander, or at least compatible to that of Russia by the simple virtue of Canada being longer in the war? Think again. Btw, we don't have neither Serbia, nor Belgium on the list, and those nations contributed at least as much as Canada did. Bitch all you want. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the introduction, Brocky, and Ko Soi for pointing out Belgium and Serbia, the previously cited excuses for throttling this insane Canadian nationalism. Still, I'm enjoying these gems that our northern friends added in between hockey games.

re:Amiens The Australian-Canadian spearhead at Amiens, a battle that was the beginning of Germany’s downfall,[49] helped pull the British Armies to the north and the French Armies to the south forward

and re:Vimy Canadians had proved themselves on the same battlefield where the British and French had previously faltered, and were respected internationally for their accomplishments

re:forcing back the entire German front On September 2nd the Canadian Corps outflanking of the Hindenburg line, with the breaching of the Wotan Position, made it possible for the Third Army to advance and sent repercussions all along the Western Front. That same day OHL had no choice but to issue orders to six armies for withdrawal back into the Hindenburg line in the south, behind the Canal Du Nord on the Canadian-First Army's front and back to a line east of the Lys in the north, giving up without a fight the salient seized in the previous April.[57] According to Ludendorff “We had to admit the necessity…to withdraw the entire front from the Scarpe to the Vesle.”[58]

And of course, my favorite, coming after finding out the effect of Gallipoli on the Australians and New Zealanders we find out that the "new national identity" effect is... This effect was even greater in Canada.

Proving that the Canadians are even more delusional than the ANZACs, which is a probably the greatest achievement any hypernationalist Wikipedian could ever hope to aspire to. Haber (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Concerns

There is an error on the side column at the top of the page: it has two sets of data, each with three sections labeled Military Dead, Military Wounded and Military Missing. Unfortunately the numbers don't line up. Perhaps the second set is supposed read Civilians Dead, Civilians Wounded and Civilians Missing?

Ianus Maximus 04:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This might be trivial, but in the first paragraph it says that Russia left WWI after the revolution in 1917. Maybe it should say "the Russian Revolution". It's kinda vague.--The Gillotine (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify things fully it should read "the second Russian Revolution of November 1917"--Blue Dwarf 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused; In the second sentence it says, "Over 40 million casualties resulted, including approximately 20 million military and civilian deaths." If 20 million were military/civilian deaths, where did the other 20 million come from? This could obviously just be a wording error, but...yeah. There it is. 172.137.54.16 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Casualties is a general term that includes deaths, injuries, and MIAs. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Further reading entries

This delete/revert cycle is unnecessary. Even if there are specific entries that you can verify are on both lists, not particularly referenced in this article, and not particularly useful for this article, so that it could go, but even then, there's no need to delete it, just comment it out in <!-- --> LeadSongDog 03:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, the books are already listed in a separate article. This was done to stop a long list of books from being posted in this article and save real estate. Why do you want to keep the some of the books in the main article ? Chessy999 12:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOTPAPER. This is basic to making WP work, especially for articles as complex and sometimes contentious as this one.LeadSongDog 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in it's own discussion, but I find it rather strange that out of the 5 pictures there is not a single one of Russian troops. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a total of 8 million deaths in world war one, not 40 million.

There was a total of 8 Million Deaths in World War One. 5 Million of these deaths, were from the military of Entente Powers, Allies. The other 3 Million were from the Central Powers Military. The world war one wikipedia articla is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlienJack (talk • contribs) 08:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

40 million casualties, not deaths. The topic is explained in more detail in the linked article World War I casualties.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadian General

The Canadian general Arthur Currie played a very influential role in many of the later battles. I just was wondering why his name was not mentioned on the major generals list on the page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.127.129 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

central powers- ? and what was the other one ?

(Yugioh1126 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Term "World War 1"

When was the term World War 1 or WWI or First World War, etc first used? Was it during the Second World War? Clearly during the 1914-1919 war it was not called "the First World War". Yodar Critch (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a book published in 1920 called "The First World War" in two volumes. you can download it into PDF for free at archive.org/details/text . the book was written by someone named Reppington. So the term might actually have been in use even in 1914. It does seem kind of strange title when no second world war had yet occurred.EdwardLovette (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)lovetteEdwardLovette (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the Central Power alliance was made up of only four nations, and the Entente consisted of five (one of whom, the U.S., entered only near the end), is this war even global? Is it fair to call it a "World" war? Most of the "Allied" nations were colony nations owned by either the Entente or Central Powers, and the vast majority of battles occurred in Europe. In WWII, major and decisive battles occurred in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, North America (Hawaii and Alaska), Oceania, and the Pacific Islands; involving sovereign nations from each of the continents. Also, the leaders of WWI were mostly related to each other, whereas in WWII, they were not.

Is there a way we can introduce a section in the article which talks about the possible inaccuracy of the terms "World War I" and "World War II"? Mintchocolatebear (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Battles were fought all over the world: the seizing of the German colonies in Africa and the Pacific; naval battles with those German ships that were at sea when the war started (notably the Emden); the campaigns in Mesopotamia, Arabia, Egypt and Palestine. And soldiers from the European colonial empires were brought to Europe to fight. Also, I seem to remember that at one point Britain was worried that Germany would penetrate so far into Russia that they could turn south and invade Persia and then India. Have a look at the map of participants on Allies_of_World_War_I. Yes, it was a "World" war. KarenSutherland (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

German War Aims

We know about the controversy regarding the Versailles Treaty, but what if Germany had won? There ought to be a mention of German war aims, perhaps referencing http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs34.htm . Vgy7ujm (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Much of Europe mourned ? I don't think that statement is fully correct or neutral.

"The experiences of the war led to a collective trauma for all participating countries. The optimism of the 1900s was gone and those who fought in the war became known as the Lost Generation. For the next few years, much of Europe mourned."

1-Trauma for all countries ? There was no trauma for countries that regained independence. First World War and its consequences are remembered quite warm in my country as event of regaining freedom. I would guess similar view is shared by other liberated countries 2-Much of Europe mourned. Rebirth of independence was celebrated in countries freed. The statement seems centered on West Europe but ignores celebrations and joy by nations freed from opressive Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian rule. --Molobo (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And the people who formed the Lemko-Rusyn Republic merely exchanged opressive Autro-Hungarian rule for oppressive Polish rule. They mourned, or left. Pustelnik (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm II Doesn't Just Flee Germany

In the article, it says that Wilhelm the second fled to the Netherlands. I think it should be mentioned why: my AP History teacher has a book with loads of old documents, and he taught us that Kaiser Wilhelm II fled to the Netherlands in order to help Germany. He thought that since he was in charge during the whole war, if he were to leave Germany, he would take part of the blame for the war with him and cause Germany to loose less credentials in the international community. It was a noble thing to do, and I think that this should be mentioned (I think the article makes him look like a scared idiot who was afraid for his life and abandoned his country). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.121.231 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rites of Spring : The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age (1989)

Please add this history book in the list! A great book by Modris Eksteins! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.14.187.75 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pershing offensive

Let me disagree with Parsec boy's edit summary. I'm not "going out of my way"; "Nigger Jack" is what Pershing was called. Denying (or ignoring) that is effectively rewriting history. WP's not in the biz of revisionism (is it?). Trekphiler (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we are not in the business of revisionism, but his nickname, whatever it was, has absolutely no bearing on World War I. It has no business being here, whether it was "Nigger Jack" or "Petunia Bill". It's totally and completely irrelevant to this article; moreover, we don't need to go out of our way to include offensive names. It adds absolutely zilch to the article; just drop it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Where nicknames are used, I suggest period-correct ones, even offensive ones, are appropriate; he was called that at the time; & he was the senior U.S. commander, so not "totally and completely irrelevant". Just not enough to make a production of it. Trekphiler (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're totally missing my point. I'm saying nicknames should not be used in this article, unless there is a direct link to the war (i.e., he got his nickname from something he did during the war). As I stated above, I could care less if it was "Nigger Jack" or anything else. It is totally irrelevant. This article is about World War I, not Pershing and whatever his nicknames from 20+ years previous might have been. It adds absolutely nothing to the article, and there is no direct, logical link; there's absolutely no reason to include it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the general question at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)#Personal nicknames. Please take further discussion of the policy there. Once there's a concensus on the general policy, we can make sense of a policy on this particular General. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about nicknames in general. I'm saying that nicknames should only be used if they are directly relevant; not because we feel like it. In this case, Pershing's nickname is not directly relevant to anything in this article, so it should not be included "for the hell of it". It is directly relevant to John J. Pershing and perhaps 10th Cavalry Regiment (United States). Just not here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the discussion should be in the right venue, not here.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is in the right are, because it is not about nicknames as a whole in Wikipedia, just this particular instance in this particular article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason evident that this article should have a unique policy on nicknames.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, no one is discussing policy here. It's a single instance of relevance to the greater article, as well as being intentionally offensive for the sake of being offensive. Note that I'm not saying Trekphiler is being intentionally offensive, I just think we should avoid the perception that that's what's happening here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, why should this article do something different from the rest of WP? (If it matters here, it matters elsewhere too.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So it's according to Wikipedia's naming policy to use nicknames for everyone in an article, whether it's relevant or not? Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody suggested anything of the sort. My assertion was that we should simply seek consistent style. That, in fact, is why WP:MOS exists. Simply put, I don't much care which way the decision goes, but it should not be unique to this article.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think the MoS for names is really important here; it's more of a matter of notability to the subject at hand, in this case, World War I. Pershing's nickname is in no way related to the war (i.e., he didn't receive it for actions during the war), nor did it have any kind of impact on any event during the war, so it's superfluous to the article. If anything were to be debated at the MoS, it would be part of my original point, that we don't need to go out of our way to include offensive nicknames when they don't add a single thing to the article, which is more of a general point than specific to this article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

An eminently reasonable point, which you really should make at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)#Personal nicknames. LeadSongDog (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I did just that a minute ago. Parsecboy (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Serbia in the infobox?

D1111 has readded Serbia to the infobox, arguing that based on casualties and the fact that it was the catalyst for the war merit it's inclusion in the infobox. I disagree, given that the traditional sources generally include France, the British Empire, Russia, Italy, and the US as the major powers, leaving Serbia, Romania, and others as minor powers. I believe that there was consensus at some point here to include the 5 countries I mentioned above, so that consensus should be overturned in order to include Serbia. Any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As a correction: Serbia was certainly not a major power, but the info box title is "Combatants" and not major powers. I think war effort should be measured to decide which country is to be mentioned as a major player. So, what should be criteria to distinguish war effort? I argue that the amount misery, especially number of deaths that one country has taken during one war should be decisive for inclusion in info box. Some country could have been a major or even super power at the time, but take symbolic action in the war (sending one company) - should it be included in info box "Combatants" then? --D1111 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me stress that it is not our decision to make. Any attempt to discern which country is a major power and which is not is a clear instance of original research. Reliable sources should be used to support either inclusion or exclusion of any country in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, we are not arguing about "major powers", but about info box "combatants". The discussion was started when you removed my inclusion of Serbia in info box. As there is no Wikipedia policy to distinguish importance of "Combatants" in one war, here is my logic:

• "Combatants" info box should include as more important countries that have taken bigger war effort first
• Obvious problem is how to measure "war effort": I'd say criteria should be a number of casualties, which is very logical criteria and is easy to compare as it is a plain number

Have you got a better criteria? --D1111 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case, major powers and major combatants are synonymous. You are incorrect though, it was you who disrupted the status quo, necessitating the discussion. Again, as I stated on your talk page, you need to review the core Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. They all go hand in hand; to make a change (especially a controversial one, as this one is), you need to have reliable sources to verify those changes. A reliable source in this instance would be, for example a book written by a respected historian with established standing within the field in question, a peer-reviewed journal entry, and so forth. Simply stating the number of casualties and taking your own judgements from them is a clear case of original research, which, as mentioned before, is strictly prohibited. As should be obvious, there is no need for a specific policy about picking which countries are major and which are not in a given war. By following these three policies, we arrive at the correct end-point: a product that matches more or less with the consensus of historians on a broad scale. Parsecboy (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you don't want to accept Serbian casualties in WWI as a reason for inclusion in info box, accept then casualties inflicted by Serbian Army to enemy. As the matter of fact, only in Battle of Kolubara, Austro-Hungarian army lost more then 270.000 soldiers, which is more then 6% of total military casualties of Central Powers. Mind you, this was only one battle, and Serbia was waging the war from the very beginning to the very end. If this is not the proof that Serbia was a "major combatant" I don't know what could be the proof. --D1111 (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point here. We cannot choose who goes in the infobox and who does not. We merely take reputable sources and use their definitions of the major powers during the war. If you can find some reliable sources that will support your claims, we can continue this discussion. Until you do that, however, you're more or less wasting your time, because edits without sources, based on our interpretation of specific statistics, constitute original research. This is strictly prohibited. Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand your point. I am talking about inclusion in info box titled "Major combatants". From the common sense, major combatants in the war should be those that took place in majority of hostilities. Have you found some research that says that Serbia was not a major combatant (I never said "major power")? Such research, if it ever existed, would've been a completely false, as row numbers and facts (even the facts in this very article) show opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I said this already; major power = major combatant. You're asking me to prove a negative; that's a logical fallacy. I can tell you that the majority of historians would state that France, the British Empire, Italy, and Russia were the major powers/combatants for the the majority of the war, and would likely include the USA as well. Let me repeat this, for the last time. Our opinions and or interpretations of the facts are totally and completely irrelevant. Why don't you read the policy pages I've been linking to throughout this entire discussion? Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have proven you above, major power is not equal major combatant, as some "major power" could have send one company to fight, and that would have not qualify it as more important then some small nation that had taken a majority of war effort. Policies you have linking too do not apply to this case, and stop trying to hide behind them, because we are not arguing about some fact that can be checked, but about importance of countries in WWI. I am pretty sure that US-historians would have include USA rather the Serbia, but this is, as row numbers and actual facts show - simply unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You've proven nothing. The policies are directly relevant to this case. If you think they're not, you might not be in the right place (i.e., Wikipedia as a whole). We report what reliable sources state. We don't take base facts like casualties inflicted and sustained, and come to our own research. I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you. That is original research. Read the first bold line in WP:OR:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.

What you're proposing is exactly that; your original research or original thought. This is totally incongruent with Wikipedia core policy. Please, read the policy pages thoroughly, understand how they apply in this specific instance, and when you are done with that, find some reliable sources, or just stop arguing, because until you provide sources, nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing, will change in regards to Serbia's status in/out of the infobox. Policy is policy for a reason, and it will be upheld here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want sources, every Serbian historic books about WWI mention Serbia as major combatant, and I could mention many of them. I am very well aware that this is same with US books, and so with a good reason (of course). So, should we start arguing which sources are "more reliable" (nonsense, "importance" is not a fact but somebody's judgment), or should we just take a look into facts that all sources more-or-less agree about? And the facts are: Serbia had (much) more casualties then U.S. of A. in WWI, Serbia inflicted (much) more casualties to common enemy, it fought longer then U.S.A.. All that facts qualify this country as more important as a combatant in WWI then U.S. of A., and that's pretty much obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course Serbian history books mention Serbia as a major combatant; every country produces nationalistic history. Look at the vast majority of American history books, and you won't see a shred of information about atrocities committed by American soldiers during WWII. I'm talking about sources that are widely accepted outside of the country of origin. If it's so universally accepted, you should have no problem providing information (i.e., the name, author, publisher, and ISBN) about the books. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we finally agree about something: every country produces nationalistic history. I would add - history is written by a great influence of politics, so why bother about Serbia and Serbia's casualties, when it is so small and unimportant. CONGRATULATIONS: This is exactly what I am talking about all the time!! So, let's put aside historians and look at facts presented above. If you have better logic (in measuring "importance"), present it here, and I will agree right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(Smacks forehead) The fact that many countries inflate their own histories is not a reason to discard history altogether. My point is that histories from reliable, neutral sources are perfectly fine to use. Therefore, find some, and then we'll talk. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I had my point; I explained why I think Serbia belongs in info box, I have explained the logic I have followed to decide that, and I have presented indisputable facts to support that logic. I have also repeatedly called you to prove my logic flawed, to present better logic that proves opposite, or to deny facts I have presented. This did not happen so far, so I am still convinced that I am fully right. At the end, I don't care that much, and I am giving up on this empty discussion, and I will not edit this article any more. Just so you learn something as you are still very young, Serbia won the brightest victories of WWI, and that was acknowledged by French, British and other top commanders of WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for being so condescending. The reason I have not been arguing based on the merits of your position is that it's totally and completely irrelevant if you're right or not. You still don't understand how Wikipedia operates, do you?. Both your and my opinions don't mean jack squat when trying to decide which countries go in any infobox. Only those of widely accepted, peer reviewed historians do. Until you accept that fundamental aspect of Wikipedia, perhaps this isn't the best place for you to be. Parsecboy (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few sources to consider:

• Twenty-Five Lectures on Modern Balkan History
• "Former Yugoslavia" Country Study by Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress
• "World War I: The birth of a killing culture"
• BBC

The inclusion of Serbia on the list of combatants may be justified simply on the basis of the cause of the war, being the first (or second) belligerant, or as being Russia's reason for joining the war. Serbia was key to Russian overland access to the Mediteranean, as the North Sea was full of Germans and the Bosphorus was controlled by the Turks. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope it is due to ignorance (can't remember when BBC was fair to Serbia in last 20 years though), but BBC number of Serbian deaths (45000 !!!) is totally out of line. --D1111 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the only BBC reference to Serbia in the article: "He was assassinated in protest because many Bosnians wanted to be free from the empire to unite with neighbouring Serbia. In retaliation and urged on by Germany, Austria invaded Serbia. Serbia called for help from Russia, which was suspicious of Austria's ambitions."

And that's it! Where is the first big battle and Serbia victory of 1914, with more then 400000 dead soldiers on both sides? And the victory of 1918? Where is 8% of total allied casualties of this tiny country? Thanks for your reference, I can now see clearly what's going on in so called British "sources". 45000 deaths? As I read the article, I am now sure it was not ignorance, it was malicious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See [this comparison]. The 45000 number is not new to the BBC. Where did you find 400,000? LeadSongDog (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at World War I casualties, sources are listed at the bottom. You are right - I was totally unaware about number of 45000 in most of English source (so it is not BBC). --D1111 (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You reference "World War I: The birth of a killing culture", especially last sentence on the first page is more like what really happened. I had a look with more attention to other English sources; for example, it is suspicious that first allied victory in Battle of Kolubara and Serbian front 1914 was completely ommitted at [1] --D1111 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor choice of example, Battle of Kolubara is a completely unreferenced article, even in other language wikis. It's also blatantly non-neutral POV.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If one world power, as Austria-Hungary was at that time, attacks one country and so starts the world war, and if this country defeats that world power crashing its army of 300000, so that it does not return to its soil for 10 months; if that was not an important event of that war, I really don't know what should important event of the war be. I don't know why this battle has been omitted from English sources, I am really wondering why. That's probably why I have started this discussion at the first place. One hint can be found in timeline of 1914:

• July 29 - December 9 Austria-Hungary repeatedly invades Serbia but is repeatedly repulsed

According to this source, Austria-Hungary was "repulsed" without a battle, or how does that work? --D1111 (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? When something attacks something, and is "repulsed", it implies that there was a battle, and the attacker lost. Just because the source didn't mention a specific battle doesn't mean there weren't any, or that the source is "wrong" somehow. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All of this is ignoring the fact that none of the sources provided by LeadSongDog state that Serbia was a major combatant. The argument that it was the casus belli is largely irrelevant; the majority of historians don't consider Poland to be a major combatant during WWII, even though it holds a similar distinction for the European Theater of the war. Again, casualties are irrelevant to this discussion. Any attempt to use a specific metric to judge whether a country should be included in the infobox as a major combatant is plain and clear example of original research. Originial research is strictly prohibited. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this blindingly obvious fact. Parsecboy (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, that list of sources was no argument on my part, except to demonstrate that there were sources available to consult for content. Perhaps someone can show us where it says that the entries in the list must be major combatants. Indeed, my preference would be to strike all the entries, leaving "Entente Powers" and "Central Powers" and simply link to the comprehensive lists. It's presently way out of hand for an infobox. If we must keep it, in the Commanders box we should show either head of state, head of government, or top military commander, but not some hash of all three. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that it would be best to just have Entente Powers and Central Powers, like in the WWII infobox. The list of commanders is indeed gigantic, and it continues to grow. Maybe it would be a good idea to create a separate article for leaders of the various combatants, again, like it's handled at WWII? Something like Allied leaders of World War II/Axis leaders of World War II/Commanders of World War II? Any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Also offers an EZ-to-find place to link out to the bios, for anyone interested. Trekphiler (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

YDone.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me; the set-up for leaders on the Allies/Central Powers pages is fine as a temporary fix, but I'd like to make a sub-article out of it, like it's been done for WWII. I most likely won't have sufficient free time until Thursday, so I'll probably start it then, unless you guys want to start it yourselves. Parsecboy (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

War crimes

Telford Taylor, who was Counsel for the Prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials, in an review of Kuper book Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century comments that:

In such an analysis, it should be noted that, as far as wartime actions against enemy nationals are concerned, the Genocide Convention added virtually nothing to what was already covered (and had been since the Hague Convention of 1899) by the internationally accepted laws of land warfare, which require an occupying power to respect "family honors and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty" of the enemy nationals. But the laws of war do not cover, in time of either war or peace, a government's actions against its own nationals (such as Nazi Germany's persecution of German Jews). And at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, the tribunals rebuffed several efforts by the prosecution to bring such "domestic" atrocities within the scope of international law as "crimes against humanity."...

My emphasis. If this was true for World War II then it must also be true for World War I so what reliable sources state that the Armenian Genocide and Assyrian Genocide were war crimes? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For a minute there, I was starting to wonder if you accidentally only typed one "I" instead of two ;) You do raise a good point though; the Armenians and Assyrians were Ottoman citizens, so it's not a war crime. The problem though, is where to put the section? It wouldn't fit better anywhere else, so I think the best solution is to make a new header for it. Maybe just a generic "Genocide" header, and add a paragraph about the Assyrian genocide as well? Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First World War vs WWI

This page should be renamed 'First World War' - as although WWI is a commonly used name, FWW is the acutal British English name for it. As a European Conflict, American English shouldn't be used as the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernsehturmaufzug (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go round this loop again. There are redirects in place already. There's no 'right' name.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

... Which means you can even call it "International Civil War II"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.200.81 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Or we could rename it Unternehmen Sickelschnitt... Trekphiler (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I just read that linked discussion. There's ten minutes I'll never get back.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Usage tending back to "The Great War"?

Hey.

>>In many European countries, it appears the current usage is tending back to calling it The Great War / la Grande Guerre / de Grote Oorlog / der Große Krieg<< -- where does that come from? I'm in Germany and do never hear WWI referred to like that. And I spend time with French people every year, and they don't say it either. I suspect this to be a hoax. Cheers, Krankman (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Try 1, 2, 3 for a few examples in German. 1, 2, 3 for some examples in French. Here's 1, 2, 3 for some instances in Dutch. Clearly there's at least some usage of these terms in their respective languages. No hoax here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, seems it's not all wrong. I'm really surprised. Thanks for the links and for clearing this up! Krankman (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could be of help. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't use the term Großer Krieg in German often (I never heard of it). One might bring up 100 examples for it, but I could bring up 10000 against it. This is another statement which should be removed to save some space for more important things. --217.83.54.56 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sergio Acquaviva?

Heey, Sergio Acquaviva has to appear as a memorable soldier on the world war 1 wikipedia article, he was a Major in the world war and he freed south italy from different Mafia groups —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManagementF1 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There must have been many Italians of that rank during the Great War. What was pivotal about his role in combatting the Mafia, where is it documented, and what part did that campaign play in the overall war? --TS 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just going off of google hits, I haven't been able to find anything about a Sergio Acquaviva outside of a video of someone by that name playing the flute, a notice of someone by that name having been killed in a car crash in 2005, and derivations thereof. Searching for the name along with "World War I" turns up 0 hits. Clearly, this is either a joke, or simply non-notable. In either case, Mr. Acquaviva has no place in this article; a broad overview of the First World War. Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Color Image

There is a color image, supposedly of a French soldier in 1917, that seems very out-of-place. Yes, color photography had been in existence since 1861, but this was mostly seems to have been hand-coloring or unreliable techniques. The claim by whoever posted this is that it is an autochrome lumiere, from the first series of widely-used colored photograph equipment. In checking the source, the page was returned not-found by the site it came from. Someone should check on the authenticity of this picture (i.e. it may be from a movie or re-enactment), and then make a decision regarding whether it should be kept, discarded, or re-captioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.30.146 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

First, a friendly reminder that new discussions go at the the bottom of the talk page. I don't think there's anything wrong with the image, or of it being an autochrome lumiere. The technique was patented in 1903, I believe. Here's an example of another AL image from the FWW: Image:Nieuport 17 C.1.jpg. The problem with the link seems to be that the website is experiencing technical difficulties. Either that, or the page has been moved, and the site failed to provide a forwarding address. Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

dividing article

It's pretty good, but it's too long - needs to be divided up Johncmullen1960 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, at 140-ish kb, this article is far too long. If you're thinking about drastically reworking the article, you may want to take a look at the World War II article, where we (and when I say "we", I mostly mean Oberiko) pared it down from 162kb to 68kb. We worked out a basic framework for the article on the talk page, and then hammered out the prose on the talk page as well. Once each section was completed, it was added to World War II/temp. We found that process to be best, because it made the work more visibile (and thus drew more input) than if it were somewhat "hidden away" on a user's sandbox or the like. Another thing to consider is that this article is only B class, so we wouldn't be messing with a featured article or anything. Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of content about the entry/exit of individual nations that reasonably could move to the Allies of World War I and Central Powers articles. That would take a big chunk out. Yes/No/Alternatives? LeadSongDog (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That will work, another suggestion is to significantly trim the Fighting in India section. Most of that text should be moved to the sub-article, if it's not there already. The Ukrainian oppression section should be removed outright. It has little to do with WWI, more of the text is about the after effects of the Russian Revolution. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Was WP:Bold and moved the Ukrainian oppression stuff. More to follow.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed. Looking forward to see what else you have in mind. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

New National Identities - Palestine?

The discussion of creating Palestine seems out of place, especially since it is noted it happened in 1947. I believe this should be rewritten to allude to Muslim/Arab & Jewish difficulties in the Middle East, but not go into the creation of Palestine.

"Postwar colonization in the Ottoman Empire led to many future problems still unresolved today. Conflict between mostly Jewish colonists and the existing, mostly Muslim, population intensified, probably exacerbated by the Holocaust, which stimulated Jewish migration and encouraged the new immigrants to fight for survival, a homeland, or both. However, any new homeland for immigrants would cause hardships for the existing population, especially if the former displaced the latter. The United Nations partitioned Palestine in 1947 with Jewish but not Arab and Muslim approval. After the creation of the state of Israel, a series of wars broke out between Israel and its neighbors, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, in addition to unrest from the Palestinian population and terrorist activity by Palestinians and others reaching to Iran and beyond. Lasting peace in the region remains an elusive goal almost a century later." --71.202.112.73 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)S.Roland

S. Roland says, "The discussion of creating Palestine seems out of place, especially since it is noted it happened in 1947."

The Mandate of Palestine was created out of WW1, 25+ years before 1947, so its creation is very relevant to this article - especially since the situation with Palestine and/or the Palestinians is at the center of the greater Middle East conflict we are dealing with to this day. The effects of WW1, specifically the end of the Ottoman Empire, is an important proximate cause of the territorial disputes and the continuing conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, not to mention other disputes in the region. I think the facts are presented neutrally and cited very well in this whole article, but I also think it is a natural and appropriate implication to indirectly suggest that the way the end of the war was handled almost undeniably brought the world to further conflicts, some of which are continuing to this day.

It is very important that WW1 not only be looked at as a stand alone event, but that its predecessor causes and subsequent offspring problems be presented.

--24.15.249.123 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)JasonCWard

Factual error - Social trauma

This section talks about the poem, "In Flanders Fields" "In May 1915, during the Second Battle of Ypres, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, M.D., of Guelph, Ontario, Canada wrote the memorable poem "In Flanders Fields" as a salute to those who perished in the Great War. Published in Punch on December 8, 1918, ..."

According to other sources I found online including the Wiki article on McCrae the poem was published December 8, 1915 NOT 1918 as stated in the article.

DawsonLL (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Y Fixed LeadSongDog (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article should be locked. I have already spotted two questionable entries.

Why is 3rd Ypres mentioned before The Somme in 'Trench Warfare Begins'? clearly it's out of sequence and why mention Canadian and ANZAC only? It implies their eventual success was not achieved after significant effort and sacrifice by British forces.

The phrase 'came at a high price for both the British and the French poilu (infantry) and led to widespread mutinies, especially during the Nivelle Offensive.' is highly misleading; it implies mutiny in the British and French forces whereas only the French mutinied.

Overall this article is biased and slanted, there is too much emphasis on American and colonial forces. The entry 'The Entry of the US' is actually longer than that covering 1914-1917 (or 'The Early Stages', as you have it). This implies that the first 3 years of the war were just a sideshow until the US got involved - a disgraceful attempt to re-write history.

The article as written implies that US forces alone broke the Hindenberg line - again a lie.

Whether you like it or not WW1 was primarily fought by France, Britain and the colonies against Germany on the Western front and secondly by Russia against Germany and Austo-Hungary on the Eastern Front. This article does not reflect the reality of history. It needs serious and drastic editing 80.6.147.186 (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it; "History is written by the winners". It's a horrible fact, but Hollywood has more scriptwriters. We can only stand, aghast, and wonder at the futility, and dishonesty, of it all.--andreasegde (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Conjunctions

"He repeatedly warned the U.S. would not tolerate", should be, "He repeatedly warned [countries?] that the U.S. would not tolerate". If not, it seems that he warned the U.S. (his own country). These should be corrected.--andreasegde (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Way too long and scattered

If you compare this article to World War II, its way too long and the table of contents is scattered and overcomplex. We should start to think how to improve this article. There are many unsourced statements and paragraphs which could be removed or shortened. The table of content /structure should become more like the WWII article. --217.83.54.56 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it is a considerable amount of work to turn this article into something similar to the current version of the WWII article. It took quite a while to perform the alterations at WWII, and most of the heavy lifting was done by User:Oberiko, who is still working on the last few sections. I think earlier in the talk page listing, someone proposed doing a similar treatment for this article, but I don't know if we have enough people who have enough time and energy available for the project. I myself am too busy in real life to do much more than relatively minor tasks such as proofreading and the like. I would, nonetheless, offer any support I can if such a project is undertaken. Parsecboy (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the longish tag. It's not truly warranted. Using the criteria at WP:SIZE the article is only 101k characters, not the 153k shown. The difference is wiki markup and non-readable sections (seealso, references, categories...) For a Vital article on a topic of this complexity, this is not too long. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm opposed to trimming or restructuring, I just don't think the tag is sufficiently valuable in this case to justify its detraction from the impression the article gives a new reader.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)