Talk:World War I/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

World War 1 in Africa

Under the Africa subtopic, it is said that German forces from South West Africa attacked South Africa. What sources are there to prove this? I know that small German forces entered South Africa to conduct sabotage raids to hamper the looming South African invasion of their colony. Calling this an attack might be an exaggeration of German intentions and will be misleading to less well-informed readers to the point of being, if I dare say so, propaganda.

Perhaps consider looking into this information, perhaps expand the Africa subtopic to contain more detailed history of the situation between the German colonies and the Entente powers. A few sentences are not enough to cover this quite extensive history and are too cryptic and could lead to misinterpretation.

Thank you Aksiram —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksiram (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tasks from A-class reviewers

Initial comments from the A-class reviewers have identified a number of tasks to tackle. I've added them to the To-Do list (see top of this talkpage). In order to make headway on the list I'd suggest that editors pick a listed task that fits their interests and/or abilities and just dig in. If you'd be willing to coordinate work on a specific subtopic, just click "edit" on the To-Do box and add your username by the respective entry. Thanks for stepping up. LeadSongDog come howl 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Main picture change time?

World War II article recently underwent a picture change, so did the Vietnam War. All these seem to have their pictures updated once in a while, so maybe we should think about giving World War I an efficient picture change. --121.72.209.221 (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The World War II main picture was changed because of copyright problems with the previous collage. That said, I do agree that periodically changing the lead photos for high profile articles like this where there are lots of photos to choose from is a good idea. Do you have any suggestions for what could replace the current collage? Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Berligents

I made an alternative, and I hope it becomes the article. Simply because its annoying to have to click or open a tab just to see who fought eachother

User:Splinter1044/World War I --Splinter1044 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Extracted references

A November 2009 edit removed from the wikitext a hidden comment listing references that had no explicit inline citation. I'm not certain at this time, but cannot exclude the possibility that some of these were in fact used as references by editors who simply did not provide the inline citations, as was common once. In an abundance of caution, I'm including them below on this talk page so that we may have a reasonable opportunity to recreate those citations using wikiblame.

• Ashworth, Tony (2000) [1980], Trench warfare, 1914-18 : the live and let live system, London: Pan, ISBN 0330480685, OCLC 247360122
  • added in this edit
• Bade, Klaus J; Brown, Allison (tr.) (2003), Migration in European History, The making of Europe, Oxford: Blackwell, ISBN 0631189394, OCLC 52695573 (translated from the German)
  • used in lede to support 60 million figure
• Barrie, Alexander (1961), War Underground: The Tunnellers of the Great War, London: F. Muller, ISBN 9781862270817, OCLC 2322776
  • added in this edit
• Blumberg, Arnold, ed. (1995), Great Leaders, Great Tyrants?, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, ISBN 0313287511, OCLC 30400598
  • added in this edit
• Cecil, Lamar (1996), Wilhelm II: Emperor and Exile, 1900-1941, vol. II, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, p. 176, ISBN 0807822833, OCLC 186744003
• Coffman, Edward M (1998), The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I, Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, ISBN 0813109558, OCLC 38842092
• Cornish, Nik; Karachtchouk, Andrei (ill.) (2001), The Russian Army 1914-18, Men-at-Arms, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, p. 48, ISBN 1841763039, OCLC 248331622
• Coulthard-Clark, Christopher D (2001), The Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles, Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, pp. 320pp, ISBN 1865086347, OCLC 48793439
• Cross, Wilbur (1991), Zeppelins of World War I, ISBN 1-55778-382-9
• Cruttwell, Charles Robert Mowbray Fraser (2007) [1934], A History of the Great War, 1914–1918, Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, ISBN 0897333152 general military history
• Dupuy, Trevor Nevitt (1979), Numbers, Predictions and War, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, ISBN 0672521318, OCLC 4037624
• Eksteins, Modris (1989), Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age, London: Bantam, ISBN 0593018621, OCLC 19455240 an analysis of cultural changes before, during, and after the war
• Ellis, John; Cox, Michael (2001), The World War I Databook: The Essential Facts and Figures for All the Combatants, London: Aurum, ISBN 1854107666, OCLC 46506978
• Esposito, Vincent J (1997), 1900–1918, The West Point Atlas of American Wars, vol. II, New York: Henry Holt, ISBN 0805053050, OCLC 39644150 despite the title covers entire war
• Falls, Cyril Bentham (1959), The Great War, New York: Putnam, ISBN 0399501002, OCLC 8664179 general military history
• Fischer, Fritz; Jackson, Marian (1975), War of Illusions: German Policies From 1911 to 1914, New York: Norton, OCLC 221830012 (original German title "Krieg der Illusionen die deutsche Politik von 1911 - 1914")
• Fischer, Fritz (1967), Germany's Aims in the First World War, New York: Norton, OCLC 1558559 (original German title "Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914/18")
• Fussell, Paul (1975), The Great War and Modern Memory, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195019180, OCLC 1631561 on literature
• Gray, Edwyn A (1994), The U-Boat War, 1914–1918, London: L Cooper, ISBN 0850524059, OCLC 59816503 (original title The killing time : the U-boat war, 1914-18)
• Hardach, Gerd (1977), The First World War 1914–1918, London: Allen Lane, ISBN 0713910240, OCLC 3174153 (original title Der erste Weltkrieg) economics
• Henig, Ruth Beatrice (2002), The Origins of the First World War, Lancaster Pamphlets (3rd ed.), London: Routledge, ISBN 0415262054, OCLC 59470456
• Herrmann, David G (1996), The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691033749, OCLC 32509928
• Herwig, Holger H (1996), The First World War: Germany and Austria–Hungary 1914–1918, London: Arnold, ISBN 0340573481, OCLC 60154404
• Higham, Robin DS; Showalter, Dennis E, eds. (2003), Researching World War I: A Handbook, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, ISBN 031328850X, OCLC 51922814, historiography, stressing military themes
• Howard, Michael Eliot (2002), The First World War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 175, ISBN 0192853627, OCLC 59376613, general military history
• Hubatsch, Walther; Backus, Oswald P (1963), Germany and the Central Powers in the World War, 1914–1918, Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas, OCLC 250441891
• Hull, Cordell; Berding, Andrew Henry Thomas (1948), The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, vol. 1, New York: Macmillan, p. 81, OCLC 228774232
• Isenberg, Michael Thomas (1981), War on Film: The American Cinema and World War I, 1914-1941, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, ISBN 0838620043, OCLC 5726236
• Joll, James (1984), The Origins of the First World War, London: Longman, ISBN 0582490162, OCLC 9852205
• Kennedy, David M (1982), Over Here: The First World War and American Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195032098, OCLC 9906841, covers politics & economics & society
• Kennett, Lee B (1992), The First Air War, 1914–1918, New York: Free Press, ISBN 0029173019, OCLC 22113898
• Lee, Dwight Erwin, ed. (1953), The Outbreak of the First World War: Who Was Responsible?, Boston: Heath, pp. 74pp, OCLC 8824589, readings from multiple points of view
• Marsden, William Edward (2001), The School Textbook: Geography, History, and Social Studies, London: Routledge, p. 177, ISBN 0713040432, OCLC 46836724
• Meyer, Gerald J (2006), A World Undone: The Story of the Great War 1914 to 1918, Random House, ISBN 9780553803549
• Neiberg, Michael S (2005), Fighting the Great War: A Global History, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674016963, OCLC 56592292
• Pope, Stephen; Wheal, Elizabeth-Anne, eds. (1995), The Macmillan Dictionary of the First World War, ISBN 033361822X, OCLC 60238536
• Robbins, Keith (1993), The First World War, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192891499, OCLC 26402515, short overview
• Ross, Stewart Halsey (1996), Propaganda for War: How the United States was Conditioned to Fight the Great War of 1914-1918, Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, ISBN 0786401117, OCLC 185807544
• Gilpin, Robert (1989), Rotberg, Robert I; Rabb, Theodore K (eds.), The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 225, ISBN 0521379555, OCLC 123169187
• Schindler, J (2003), "Steamrollered in Galicia: The Austro-Hungarian Army and the Brusilov Offensive, 1916", War in History, 10 (1): 27–59, doi:10.1191/0968344503wh260oa *Silkin, Jon, ed. (1996), The Penguin Book of First World War Poetry (2nd ed.), New York: Penguin, ISBN 0141180099, OCLC 37105631
• Smithers, A J (1986), A New Excalibur; The Development of the Tank, 1909-1939, Leo Cooper, ISBN 9780436475207, OCLC 246675397
• Snyder, Jack L (1984), Ideology of the Offensive, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ISBN 0801416574
• Southgate, Troy, The Fischer Controversy
• Stokesbury, James (1981), A Short History of World War I, New York: Morrow, ISBN 0688001289
• van der Vat, Dan (1988), The Atlantic Campaign, London: Grafton, ISBN 0586206957 Connects submarine and antisubmarine operations between wars, and suggests a continuous war
• Venzon, Anne Cipriano; Miles, Paul L, eds. (1995), The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 0824070550
• Winter, Jay M (2005), The Experience of World War I (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195207769, topical essays; well illustrated

Using http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php Wikiblame can help identify when the refs were added and the editor who did so. In most cases, the content change will be by the same editor and about the same time.LeadSongDog come howl 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Map

I suggest adding a map which shows where actual fighting was done. This would make it more easy to understand the scale of the war. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 13:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly what you're after, but the article used to include this image, still used on :de: and others:

Green for Allies and Associated Powers, Orange for Central Powers, Grey for Neutral Nations.LeadSongDog come howl 20:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest a couple of "medium scale" maps: 1 of Europe, 1 of Mespot; maybe 1 of CAfrica (where I bet most readers coming to the page don't know there even was fighting). The trouble I see is, since the trench war was static, it's really only a map of France without really adding too much. The Mespot situation was a bit fluid AFAIK for 1 map to really do the job. And the African ops were pretty minor in the scheme of things. Then there's the Atlantic, which ends up being a map (chart?) of water. ;D (Somehow, I don't think that's useful. ;p) On the broader point of wanting to illo the scale, I agree, tho. Just one cmt on the pic'd map: that leaves a very misleading impression of the scale of fighting, IMO; while empires were involved, there was no actual fighting in India, Siberia, or Oz, for instance. My $0.035. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it doesn't reflect areas of combat, it reflects the places raising troops, funds, and materiel, the caption would have to reflect that.LeadSongDog come howl 21:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The "allies" of WWI were the central alliance powers. UK/Fr etc were the entente. This article is actually falsifying history by using such grossly incorrect definitions. DW75 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I partialy agree, the entente powers should be caled that not allied. I do not agree that the central powers should be called the Allies, both sides were allied to thier allies.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, the central powers are often referred to as the central alliance, which why they´re also not seldomly referred to as the allies or more commonly the alliance(which might indeed be more proper than "allies" in this case). And that both sides were allied to their allies isnt really an argument here i think, simply because noone seems to care that the same is true in many other cases as well. The Axis powers in WWII are also allied... DW75 (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Structure of article

As someone seems to have seriously undertaken the gargantuan task of getting this article into better shape, I repeat what I said in this talk page many months ago. I seriously believe that this article should be fundamentally restructured along the lines of World War II for better readability, so that war would be explained through specific time periods, instead of current theatre based approach that treats all fronts individually from beginning to end. Also having sections "fighting in India" and "Entry of the United States" larger than "Eastern Front" is just hilarious.--Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course we need more Eastern Front content. By all means help expand (with sources of course). I've been gradually restructuring, but I'm not rushing that part of the work. It's too easy to get disoriented in an article this large.LeadSongDog come howl 21:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Other names for World War I

{{editsemiprotected}} World War I is also known as the "Third Balkan War."

 Not done: Third Balkan War refers to the Yugoslav Wars. Intelligentsium 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

bad comma placement

{{editsemiprotected}} Request for authorized user to correct

Bad:

was a military conflict which involved most of the world's great powers,[1] assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies of World War I centred around the Triple Entente and the Central Powers, centred around the Triple Alliance.[2]

Good:

was a military conflict which involved most of the world's great powers,[1] assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies were centred around the Triple Entente, and the Central Powers were centred around the Triple Alliance [2].

Note: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. I wouldn't have chosen the current punctuation, but it seems reasonable. I like that your change removed the redundant "of World War I", but I think that "were" would also be redundant here. As a compromise, I've changed it to read:

was a military conflict which involved most of the world's great powers,[1] assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies, centred around the Triple Entente, and the Central Powers, centred around the Triple Alliance.[2]

Celestra (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Main pictures

I'm stunned there isn't one of any artillery. This was an artillery war! I suggest including one. Dapi89 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(Potential) billion controversy

Please read Long and short scales for a discussion of the subject - particularly UK usage. Please always take such matters to the talk page, and don't indulge in edit wars - no matter how correct you feel your own usage may be. First usage in the article should be linked to a definition of the base unit used - i.e 10^9. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Really not looking for an edit war. There is, however, a conflct between MOS accepting "billion" as 10⁹, & Engvar using it as 10¹².... BTW, I use billion as 10⁹; this, however, is a page where Engvar would use 10¹². TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, "billion" formerly meant 10¹² in English and French, however now means 10⁹. Therefore WP:ENGVAR isn't relevant here. Nev1 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I withdraw my correction. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Kbthompson (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

allied photographs

whole article is covered by allied pictures. there is only one central picture, and its an EXECUTION!! lol i smell propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.1.10 (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Small typographic inconsistency

At one point in the article, "ceasefire" is used, in another, "cease-fire". I am unable to make edits since the page is locked.

"Roumania" and "Roumanians" are used in the text. "Romania" is correct.

"Roumania" is a variant spelling and not incorrect, although it isn't common these days. Its use here may reflect the spelling used by the author of the cited source work Bessarabia, Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammar error

The word "successfully" in paragraph 3 should be "successful."

Fixed—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammar/spelling suggested change

{{editsemiprotected}} Request for authorised user to correct

I have a suggested rewrite of the first paragraph in the section "Allied superiority and the stab-in-the-back legend, November 1918". The original has a misspelling of "material" and is not particularly concise.

My suggestion would be:

Allied superiority and the stab-in-the-back legend, November 1918 In November 1918 the Allies had ample supplies of men and materiel that could have provided for a complete invasion of Germany but at the time of the armistice no Allied soldier had set foot on German soil in anger and Berlin was still almost 900 miles (1,400 km) from the Western Front. The Kaiser's armies had also retreated from the battlefield in good order which enabled Hindenburg and other senior German leaders to spread the story that their armies had not really been defeated. This resulted in the stab-in-the-back legend[115][116] which attributed Germany's losing the war not to its inability to continue fighting, (even though up to a million soldiers were suffering from the Spanish Flu and unfit to fight) but to the public's failure to respond to its "patriotic calling" and the intentional sabotaging of the war effort, particularly by Jews, Socialists and Bolsheviks.

Many thanks.

--JMBarrett (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

See materiel and material — they're two different concepts, and "materiel" is more appropriate here. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that Nyttend, I now understand why that was used - I suggest a 'materiel' hyperlink for clarification to be added to my rewrite above. --JMBarrett (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Rise of Anti-semitism in Germany

England France wouldn't able to win the war without the help of the USA. (Due to the fact of their backward industry, France and Britain were the losers of second industrial revolution. The entering of the USA into the war caused the antisemitism in post-war Germany. The strong legend of nazi government: The German Jews "betrayed the German vicory" for the Balfour Declaration of 1917

First off, you are not very coherent. Second, you're taking bits and pieces of different things and sttching them together into a garbled mess that makes no sense. Jersey John (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your argument isn't making much sense, Antisemitism didn't start at the end of World War I or exclusive to Germany for that matter, it was present throughout Europe for centuries. --Elven6 (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

weapons

the weapons they jused were k-p45 which was a rifle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.34.123.77 (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Poland fought on the Eastern Front

Poland fought on the eastern front as well, shouldn't they be listed. Look up the battle of Kaniow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.39.97 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Poland as an official nation did not exist until the end of World War I, see Poland for more information. --Elven6 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

More concise paragragh rewrite - Request for authorised user to correct

{{editsemiprotected}} Request for authorised user to correct

I have a suggested rewrite of the first paragraph in the section "Allied superiority and the stab-in-the-back legend, November 1918" as the original is not particularly concise.

My suggestion would be:

Allied superiority and the stab-in-the-back legend, November 1918.

In November 1918 the Allies had ample supplies of men and materiel that could have provided for a complete invasion of Germany but at the time of the armistice no Allied soldier had set foot on German soil in anger and Berlin was still almost 900 miles (1,400 km) from the Western Front. The Kaiser's armies had also retreated from the battlefield in good order which enabled Hindenburg and other senior German leaders to spread the story that their armies had not really been defeated. This resulted in the stab-in-the-back legend[115][116] which attributed Germany's losing the war not to its inability to continue fighting, (even though up to a million soldiers were suffering from the Spanish Flu and unfit to fight) but to the public's failure to respond to its "patriotic calling" and the intentional sabotaging of the war effort, particularly by Jews, Socialists and Bolsheviks.

JMBarrett (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nested TOC

This edit removed without edit summary the {{TOC limit|limit=3}} template. Seemed like a useful feature for this long and complex article. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Flagwaving

Conceding complete ignorance on the subject, shouldn't Aut flags in the infobox be deleted, as it was part of AHE? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Poland

poland was not indipendant until after the war, they should not be listed ans a biligrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.107.131 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Operational Plan Three"

I would like to bring this article to the attention of those with more in-depth knowledge. Not only is the article's relevant source rather suboptimal and no further results on Google for any "Plan Drei", there is also no mention of such plan in the German Wikipedia. I do not doubt that German military leadership may have had plans for a myriad of scenarios, but this article seems bogus for said reasons. -- 91.11.202.154 (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Small inconsistency

I noticed a small inconsistency when I was looking at the World War 1 page. - World War 1 page, BACKGROUND section, second to last paragraph, third to last sentence says "When Serbia acceded to only EIGHT of the TEN demands..."

Whereas in the BLACK HAND link page, it states that NINE of the demands were met.

Follow... - World War 1 page, section at top of page, second paragraph, second sentence, link to KINGDOM OF SERBIA. - Kingdom of Serbia page under section ASSASSINATION IN SARAJEVO, first paragraph, second sentence, link for BLACK HAND. - Black Hand page, IMPACT section, first paragraph, second to last sentence says "Serbia accepted all but one of the (10) demands..."

McJet (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)McJetMcJet (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents: Allies (Funny pattern)

Just wondering why Russia is first now on both WWI and WWII? WWI Russia left the war in 1917, WWII the Soviet Union didn't enter the war until 1941, coincidence? --SuperDan89 (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain. There is a controversy in {{WW2InfoBox}}, which order should be used - chronological or by military contribution. Chronologically British Empire should be before Soviet Union in WWII, but by military contribution should be after Soviet Union. Here it's look like chronological order was applied. I'm for order by military contribution. In WWI Russia should be after France, UK and USA.--El gato verde (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents order

I rearranged order from chronological to military-political contribution. Germany is obvious leader of Central Powers. It seems to me that Austria made little more than Ottoman Empire. Let's look at more complicated case: Entente. Ferdinand Foch was a Supreme Commander of Allied forces in the end of war (and template {{Military infobox}} offers to list combatants by military contribution, political clout or by recognized chain of command). So that is why France is on the 1st place. Why USA is after UK, I think it's obvious. Why Russia is after UK: Russia entered the war against Germany despite it was against it interests, but Britain could manipulate Russian goverment by financial investitions. Therefore Russia was politically inferior to UK. It may be a question, should Russia be put after USA or not (but I think it should: Russia surrendered, USA won), should Canada be listed just after UK or only after USA, Russia and Italy.--El gato verde (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The only neutral way of arranging the countries is by date of entry into the war. As for Russia I find it strange that after holding the entire Eastern Front,which by no means was less important than the Western Front, for 3 years on its own, causing huge casualties to Austria-Hungary and Germany and indirectly affecting events on the Western Front, it is placed after the USA which took real part in the war for less then one year,mobilized a fraction of what Russia mobilized during the war and engaged and defeated far less Central Powers forces or rather German forces because the USA weren't really fighting against the rest of Central Powers unlike Russia which had troops from the Western Front,through the Macedonian front,the Caucasus, to the Eastern Front.Also Japan won the war too but does this mean it should be put before Russia? Obviously not.--Avidius (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: The only neutral way of arranging the countries is by date of entry into the war. It's neutral but dummy.

Maybe about Russia you're right, and I add to argumentation personal feelings: it was very unpopular war in our country. OK, I'll rearrange belligirents.--El gato verde (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you can also put Italy before USA. Sincerely, Italy fought for 3 years, before the States, and suffered 650 000 casualties (even with major failures like Caporetto they eventually hold fast). American involvement was decisive to end this war, but italian contribution was quite significant. And for the information, I'm not italian. Ghislain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guigui169 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For information, in Russia WWI isn't considered glorious or something that country may be proud of :) So by default Russian will not seek any nationalistic feelings in the this "military contribution"-controversy, even if there are ones :)--El gato verde (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of Memory - needs a minor edit or two...

"they rejected the values of the society that had sent them to war, and in doing so separated their own generation *fro* the past and from their cultural inheritance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.10.118 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Wording

[1]

Any opinions? I'm personally against the new wording (in my reverted edit in the above diff), personally I don't see the need. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 02:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise - no reason for the edit. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the previous wording. The new wording suggests that the "memory of the First World War ... becom[ing] a self-perpetuating idea" is a minority or otherwise not-widely-held viewpoint, and may consequently give undue weight to alternative viewpoints. This is, of course, unless sources supporting the connotations of the new wording. Intelligentsium 03:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As one of the users that reviewed the edit, I'm going to pop in and say that there isn't a citation to the statement that "Historians have argued", which is probably the problem. That deserves a {{who}}. Citing one historian as if he were the only one is giving undue weight to his opinion imho, unless his opinion is really the majority opinion, in which case there should be a citation that says that this opinion is the majority opinion. --Izno (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer the older wording, but I'd suggest a few changes. Firstly, I don't like the word 'summed' - it would be good to change it to something like 'described'. Summed is a bit strange to use in that situation. I would also like to change 'historians' (but not to some), as Izno mentioned above. Prodego ^talk 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Execution of Serbians Picture Description

"Austrian troops executing captured Serbians in 1917. Serbia lost about 850,000 people, a quarter of its prewar population, and half its prewar resources."

What exactly is the last part supposed to mean? Loss of resources is normally described as loss of Mines/Forrest's etc. Since Serbia belonged to the victorious side they didn't lose any of this and it's utterly inconceivable that Austria mined 50% of natural resources in the short occupation...

The source also doesn't give any more detail so I'm deleting it for now. If someone can give a better description of what is actually meant and provide sources for it, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.92.254 (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

American Army in WW1 and the British war propaganda

A film about the British government decoyed the Americans in the war. Leading American academic historians and experts of the era about president W.Wilson and untrue British War propaganda.

Secrets of World War I (1 of 5) It contained five parts.

starting part1 here: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.143.148 (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new in it, unless you don't know the Brits produced propaganda. The better question is, did the propaganda actually lengthen the war, by making it harder for both sides to come to an agreement. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Western Powers + USA did not aid the White Army - The Western Powers "provided these governments (counterrevolutionary / red army / Bolshevik Leon Trotsky) gernerously with funds and war materials, as well as with military advisers, and small detachments of troops on certain fronts. ..further more, by the end of 1918, as revolts broke out in all parts of the country, the allied forces landed in coastal areas for support of the 500,000 strong Red Army -- The above is from L. S. Stavrianos, _A Global Historyt: From Prehistory to the 21st Century_ (Uper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 1999) , 562-564 Please fix history books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enc2048 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The landings in Murmansk and Vladivostok were meant to aid, if in a small way, the movement AGAINST the Bolsheviks. Instead of you asking people to "fix history books," I would ask you to fix your ignorance. Jersey John (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Error - no explination to why Germany wanted peace

A reference (among houndereds) HP Wilmott "World War One" swedish ISBN 91-0-0-010761-1 Germany had defeated Tzar-Russia, the short regime of Kerenskij and the new Bolsjeviks in the east. The peace in Brest-Litovsk. Germany now 1. Allowed a smaller, but free polish state (at ex-russian territory - it became later extended on german territory) 2. Germany helped the "white" against the Red Army in both Finland and Ukraine. Very succesfull in the latter case, and Ukraine would never had became communistic if Germany had not later surrendered in the west. 3.In the summer of 1918 the Autrian-Hungarian army were about to crush the Italians, the italian army had to retrite 250 km and the whole north was threthened. 4. After the Brest-Litovsk victory, germany could move close to 2 million men to the west and in june start their only third big attack on the western front (after the beginning in August and September 1914, stopped at "the wonder at Marne"; the Verdun offensive under Falkenhayn in 1916 - and this summer campaign in june 1918, wich Germany hoped would finish the war. And it did, but not the way the germans had hoped. After gaining some terrain (more then at the Verdun offensive 1916) - but after 5-6 weeks the germans had to take a break. The western front now got a slightly different shape, with several weak points that the allied could take advantage of. And they did, and at the same time the US had gathered enough men (president Woodrow Wilson hade declared war on the Central Powers in april 1917, but only slowly built up their forces in France) But by the summer of 1918 the americans had now given the "Entente" (the Allies) a major contribution. An other importaint factor was that all allied command now were under the french fieldmarshall Ferdinand Foch (and not one brittish and one frensh commander as before). 5. In late July 1918 the germans come across their new opponants (wich were not tired of the-western-front-stand-still-for-four-years) At the 8:th of August (known as the Black Day of the German Army) allied forces caused panic in the german trenches and stabs for the first time. Only by very hard achievement the germans could close a gap in their lines. At this point also the number of tanks shall not be forgetted, the germans had no such contrapments. And somtime in late September or early October 1918, general Erich Ludendorff admitted to fieldmarshall and german commander of the western front Paul von Hindenburg that Germany now was unable to win the war in France and Belgium - wich thow was not the same as a defeat - on the contrary , no foregin soldier stood on german territory (The only time Germany it self was under attack was at the beginning of the war when the 1:st and 2:nd Russian armies (under Samsonov and Rennenkampf) attacked East Preussia - wich ended in deep disaster for the russians. Samsonovs army were taken prisoners and the general shot himself. Rennenkampf got away with parts of his army - but apart from that inside the German borders of 1914 no bullits were fired. And trying to invade Germany would - based on the standard tempo of the western front would have cost X million young men more, with no guarantees what so ever. 6. And Ludendorff ("Hindenburg's brain")wanted a deacent peace traty based on the american president Wilsons 14 points, his (quite fare) terms for peace, also known as the Wilson doctrine. 7. When the bad news from the front reached a starving population riots occured, many of them wanted to join the new Sovietunion, but the Social Democrats had now at least the key to the Emperer in their hand, and after have fled Berlin Kaiser Wilhelm II (cousin of brittish King George V by the way, and grandson of Queen Victoria herself !) he abdicated and moved to the Netherlands. Meanwhile the Austrian-Hungarian state fell apart (wich had a very connection to their Italian opponants). Germany signed the end of the war in Fieldmarshall Fochs railroad-wagon at the Compiegne forest at the 11:th of November 1918. Where it should come into use a second time only 21½ later, when the french had to surrender to nazigermany. 8. The sad reasons for both Hitler, NSDAP, the Jewish holocaust and a Europe divided in two parts with an "iron curtain" could all been to nothing - if president Wilson became ill at the Versailles "conference". Germany had by layin down the arms for a deason peace (like Germany had given France after the French-German war 1870-71). But without Wilson and the 14 terms for peace, in wich Germany had belived in, Clemenceau took over the conference and made it to an extreme humiliation of Germany and it's people. It is just to compare Wilson doctrine with treaty of Versailles. After that it was written in the stars that Germany now would bide it's time - but strike back someday. Unfortunatly this process went a lot faster then anyone could expected, and the treaty of Versailes is lika a schoolbook in humaliation and a motorway for the next war.

(the last lines, after comparation wilson doctrine - and the Versaille-Treaty) is not from HP Wilbott's excellent book, they are only my own logic - but everything else is to be found in Wilmotts book (and others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.37.56 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Shorten article

This article is far to long, way beyond Wikipedia's length allowed. I would suggest shortening it by half. To much detail, just use brief summaries and link to the subarticles. WritersCramp (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

War to End All Wars?

Both in the first paragraph of the lead, and in the first sentence of the "Etymology" section, it says that the war was "also known as...the War to End All Wars". It would be useful to know: who called it that, when (at the outset of, in the course of, or after the war) and what precisely it was intended to signify. Can anybody shed some light on this? Additionally, I am not convinced that "war to end all wars" is the exact term that was used. On Google, "war to end war" (quotes included) gets ten times as many hits - 2m against 200k - as "war to end all wars". Scolaire (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I've created a new article, The war to end war. I'll edit this one appropriately. Scolaire (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Strachan quote

Did Strachan really say "Whether an equivocal and early response [would have helped is hard to say]"? "Unequivocal" would make more sense there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm sorry, but this needs a rewrite as it's not educational --88.109.15.70 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? If you are going to make such broad, sweeping claims, at least provide some rationale. Otherwise, your complaints are 100% meaningless and will not be taken seriously. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Brazil in World War I

Hi to everybody, I'm dfdc and I'm a brazilian user. I've already put some informations about Brazil in this page, but someone or a probleme is erasing them. What should I do? I 've tryed to talk about the atlantic mission with brazilian participation an about the almirant Pedro Frontin Dfdc (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)dfdcDfdc (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles have (recommended) maximum lengths and if we were to discuss in detail the specific actions of every country involved in the war, this article would be far too long. Instead it should discuss the main developments in the war. I suggest you contribute to the Brazil during World War I article instead, and if you think anything Brazil did was of major importance to the war, add a sentence or two about it on appropriate places in this article. I also recommend you cite sources for your contributions, as unsourced material is likely to be deleted. 96T (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Four Powers Defeated

I don't agree with the introductory bit about the 'German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires' being defeated, the 'last two ceasing to exist'. After WWI, all of these ceased to exist - the German Empire was replaced by the Weimar Republic by the November Revolution, an immediate corollary of WWI, and the Russian Empire was replaced by the Soviet Union mid-war. Also, though the Russian Revolution took place during the war, and was intimately connected to it in many ways, it is misleading to imply that they were defeated in it - they had to make some capitulations to Germany, but when Germany lost the war itself this became academic. The Russian Revolution was internal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.117.226 (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Russian Empire ceased to be and withdrew from the war, signing an armistice and treaty with the Central Powers. For all intents and purposes, this is a 'defeat'. The circumstances of the Russian defeat are not dissimilar to the circumstances of the German defeat: an armistice followed by a treaty, which strips the vanquished power of land, resources, and status. Internal factors also forced Germany to capitulate-- have you forgotten the Wilhelmshaven mutiny? Any arguments against the fact that the Central Powers defeated the Russian Empire sound to me like Western reluctance to award wartime Germany with the honour of defeating an enemy country. Regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference to blacklisted site dailyreckoning.com.au

The article contains a reference to site dailyreckoning.com.au which apparently is on the Wikipedia site blacklist. Should the ref be removed, or is it an exception that needs to be added to the blacklist? Thanks Rjwilmsi 07:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As it's been dropped into the 'references' section without actually being used as a reference for anything I've just removed it Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

USA Supplying Both Sides with Arms

Before USA got involved in the war, did they supply both sides with arms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.247.233 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the US traded almost exclusively with the Allies: "[American] trade with the Central Powers declined from $169 million in 1914 to $1 million in 1916 and during that same period trade with the Allies rose from $824 million to $3 billion" -- The Guns of August, page 337 Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Order of declarations of war

I was thinking it would be useful to include a declaration of who declared war with whom in what order. What do others think? -Helvetica (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems sensible - such a list would help to clarify the events of late July - Early September 1914.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Support The war was primarily supported by nationalists, industrial producers, and imperialists.

No support is provided for the contention "industrial producers" supported the start of the War, nor any clarification of whether this refers to all manufacturers, or specific ones.

This damages the credibility of the article as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.86.52.36 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a minor edit is in order, striking "industrial producers". Going to the related article "Causes of WWI" there's nothing there about industrial producers at all.

Commanders

The commanders section in the infobox is more than a little overcrowded - the guidelines at Template:Infobox military conflict suggests that "for wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended" and the infobox currently lists 25 Allied and 19 Central Power commanders. That's far too many for an infobox, which is supposed to give only a brief overview - especially since extensive listings are available on the articles on each alliance, and since some of these people played minor parts in the war. I'm not an expert on the war so I won't commit any drastic action without consulting the talk page, but I suggest removing:

• Nikolai Yudenich: Judging by his article, he seems to be the least important of the Russians, having been "only" Chief of Staff of the Russian Caucasus Army and commander of the Caucasus Front.
• Luigi Cadorna: The Italian war effort was less important than that of the main three European allies, so they shouldn't really have four commanders listed. The three Prime Ministers will do.
• Hugh L. Scott: Retired from the post of Chief of Staff in 1917, before the American armies were deployed in a large scale.
• Yoshihito: Little de facto power.
• Hara Takashi: Prime Minister for only the last few months of the war.
• Ferdinand of Romania and Peter of Serbia: Rulers of comparatively minor states.
• All seven Austrian and Hungarian Prime Ministers: Austria-Hungary played a minor part in the war compared to the other Great Powers, and listing heads of its federal units isn't reallly necessary. But again, I'm not an expert - if someone other than the two Emperors were the de facto political leaders of Austria-Hungary they should be listed, of course.

It would be nice to mention, only the Hungarian prime minister, István Tisza was against the war within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He signed the ultimate after 2 weeks than the others. He's will was only formal, because the minister of the foreign affairs and the chief of the army were austrians.--Fehér János aka Aries (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Georg von Hertling and Friedrich Ebert: For the last years of the war, the de facto leaders of Germany were the military commanders (Ludendorff and Hindenburg) ([3], [4]). Listing the civilian chancellors of 1917-18 therefore isn't necessary.
• Mehmed V: A figurehead with no real power. The actual leaders of the Ottoman Empire were the Three Pashas.
• Nikola Zhekov: Bulgaria was a minor player, so listing one Bulgarian leader (or zero) is enough.

If all these men are removed, we're left with 18 Allied and 8 Central Powers commanders - still far over the recommended 7/7, but at least it makes the infobox a little less crowded. Also we should remove the years - such details can be accessed by following the links to each commander's article. 96T (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would delete the Japanese entire. Their contribution was comparatively very small, even in relation to (say) AHE or Italy. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Serbian contribution was much greater.--Alexmilt (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take into consideration these statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualties_by_1914_borders. Bulgaria had 187,500 deaths and it is listed, while Serbia (725,000 deaths) and Romania (680,000 deaths) are not.
Also Austria- Hungary has only the emperors in the list (and no Prime ministers ), while Italy only Prime ministers (and not the King) (Umumu (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Not only that, Serbia was very important in 1914, 1915 and 1918. First Allied victory was Battle of Cer. In 1918 every Allied victory on Macedonian front was only were Serbian Army was involved. Battle as Battle of Dobro Pole had the key role in kicking Bulgaria out of war. --Alexmilt (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Umumu is right. Austria-Hungary had a very important role in the war effort, being the single ally of Germany with realistic military capabities. Austria-Hungary was able to withhold Russia, of course not alone, which was, is, and will be a military achievement for any power. I do not really undertand the ground for the over-respresentation of the French and Italians, anyway, the war decided by the US. Basically, the war was the crucial point triggering the decline of traditional European powers, including Britain, France, Germany, Habsburg-EmpireRokarudi--Rokarudi 16:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I will list only presidents + emperors, because the infobox would be overloaded if it would be written Prime-Ministers here (Umumu (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

But in UK, Italy, France and the Ottoman Empire, the Prime Minister - not the head of state - was the leader of the country. I think that for these countries, the most important Prime Minister should be listed instead of the monarch/president if we are only to list one commander per country. 96T (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added all of the supreme commanders of each belligerent, as per the standard of other infoboxes. It doesn't seem overcrowded to me, but revert my edit if by consensus it's a bad idea. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The commander template doesn't work very well for wars, as opposed to battles. Calling Asquith or Briand or Salandra a "commander" is a major stretch on what a "commander" is. And including so many civilian leaders leaves you without enough room to include many of the most important military commanders. Thus, looking at the article now, Pershing and Foch are the only actual military leaders included on the allied side, and Hindenburg and Ludendorff the only ones on the Central Powers. Important military commanders like French, Haig, Joffre, Pétain, Grand Duke Nicholas, Alexeev, Moltke, Falkenhayn, Conrad, and Cadorna are not included. It is hard to understand why Pershing deserves mention, but Pétain and Haig, who held precise analogous positions in 1918, do not. The listing of political figures is also haphazard. Why Briand rather than Poincaré? Why the Italian prime ministers rather than Victor Emmanuel? Perhaps it would make sense to have separate boxes for political leaders and military commanders for wars? john k (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I had added most of the supreme commanders, but somebody commented that the box was now too bulky and thus reverted it to how it was prior to that (here's what it looked like). Though as for France and Italy: the head of government is the one who makes military decisions (i.e. the Prime Minister), not the monarch or president. So that's justified, I think. - LightSpectra (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is true that the prime minister was making military decisions in France and Italy. Clemenceau was also minister of war, and was, in general, given unprecedented authority during his premiership, so he makes sense. The same cannot be said for Viviani, Briand, Ribot, and Painlevé, who can barely be considered heads of government, but were rather primer inter pares; Poincaré actually was a significantly more important figure in leading those cabinets than the theoretical prime minister. At any rate, it's probably not right to say that anyone in the cabinet had much control over military decisions. The minister of war would be the exception, but Joffre had far more authority than whichever ephemeral minister of war was in charge at the moment. The French army was an institution unto itself, and the politicians had very little control over it for virtually the whole length of the Third Republic, save the ability to choose who would run it. As to Italy, I'm not an expert, but my sense was that military decisions would have been made by the king, as commander-in-chief, in consultation with the chief of staff, and that the civilian government's authority over military decision-making was close to non-existent. Certainly Victor Emmanuel was far more involved in day to day military operations than George V. john k (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why these sections were repopulated in the infobox. We had neatly encapsulated the problems in the linked Central Powers and Allies of World War I articles, but a drive-by editor seems to have reinserted them here in late 2009. Since then it has once again become a magnet for unneeded nationalist bickering and for schoolboy vandalism. Any serious objection to restoring the indirect approach? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"building up the Imperial German Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine), established by Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, in rivalry with the British Royal Navy for world naval supremacy"

According to Tuchman this decision was driven by the Kaiser personally, under the influence of Mahan, and against the advice of his diplomats in England and the historic recommendation of Bismark. The purpose (again, according to Tuchman) wasn't so much "rivalry with the British Royal Navy for world naval supremacy" as to be able to challenge the British Fleet to avoid blockade. Tuchman points out that by creating this rivalry with the British, Germany alienated the only power really capable of enforcing an effective blockade of Germany in the first place, thus creating a threat where none previously existed. ADiff (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8029948/First-World-War-officially-ends.html

First World War officially ends The First World War will officially end on Sunday, 92 years after the guns fell silent, when Germany pays off the last chunk of reparations imposed on it by the Allies.

The final payment of £59.5 million, writes off the crippling debt that was the price for one world war and laid the foundations for another.

Germany was forced to pay the reparations at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 as compensation to the war-ravaged nations of Belgium and France and to pay the Allies some of the costs of waging what was then the bloodiest conflict in history, leaving nearly ten million soldiers dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.136.148 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The conflict opened with the German invasion of...

Oh really?? For my taste quite a revisionist statement. What year are we in: 1926? I always thought there was a more than universal consent among historians today, that the conflict opened on 28. July 1914 with Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia!? ...for some "academic" research, read: Österreichisch-ungarisches Rotbuch. Diplomatische Aktenstücke zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges 1914. Volksausgabe. Manzsche k.u.k. Hof-Verlags- und Universitäts-Buchhandlung, Wien 1915, Dok. 37, S. 117.--IIIraute (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A little cronology: 28 July Austria declares war on Serbia. 28 July, Russia orders 'partial' mobilisation of four western military districts. 29 July, Austrian artillery shells Belgrade. 30 July, Russia orders general mobilisation for following day. 30 July Austria orders general mobilisation for following day. 31 July, German ultimatum to Russia. 1 August, Germany declares war on Russia. 1 August, France orders mobilisation. 2 August, Germany issues ultimatum to Belgium. 3 August, Germany declares war on France...... and then, on the 4th of August, German troops cross the Belgian frontier and Britain declares war on Germany the same day.--IIIraute (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming of the war

I added a brief note on the name of the war, particularly reflecting US/British & Commonwealth differences, as this hasn't been covered so far. Might also be interesting to know what other involved nations call it, I don't know if there are common alternatives in other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymnophoria (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a typo:"whereas US media preferred simply the the World War" Davexvi (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

this refers to naming in 20s/30s ie before the second world war, ergo it was just world war. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, World War 1 was a tragic War. Rest in Peace people.

French Empire

Like the British Empire, many French colonies were forced to fight and contribute to France during WWI. So in the inforbox, let replace 'France' with 'Frecnh Empire'. Qajar (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It was the French Third Republic, though it doesn't say so in the infobox (or intro)!120.18.207.56 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The role of panslav factor

The role of panslav factor

Panslavism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.228.120 (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The most important nationalism in the topic is the panslavism. Panslavism had the direct interest to ruin the status quo of Europe. But it is not mentioned in this article. The enter of Russia against Austria-Hungary in the war,(due to panslavic-ideology) escalated the local war into a real world war.

The world's first race-based identity and ideology was the panslavism. Slavic nations believed that they are descendants of common forefathers, they believed that they are "racialy clear". Thus the race-based identities and societies were exclusionary. See: Genocides Ethnic cleanisings and forced deportations against Hungarian and German speaking populations after ww1 and ww2. However the romantic naive panslav beliefs and myths collapsed in scientific levels (remember : population genetics of 1990s and 2000s). However these false nationalist beliefs survived amongst the lesser educated common people of slavic countries until this day.

The Black Hand society was a state-supported terror organization of the Serbian government. Panslavism and slavic nationalism had a key-role in the extension of a local conflict to a real World War. The supporter of panslavism, Tzar of Russia Nicholas II would had been the first Hitler, he started progroms genocides against Jews before ww1. It's awfull to imagine what would happend with non-slavic nations if Nicholas II had won the war. However Tzarism couldn't survive the ww1. The new Soviet regime was strongly internationalist. After the WW1, the collapse and lack of a great slavic nationalist Empire (Russian Empire) prevented a large-scale new tragedy in the European continent.

"the collapse and lack of a great slavic nationalist Empire (Russian Empire) prevented a large-scale new tragedy in the European continent." Uh, no it didn't. Please take at least a cursory look at the history of the Soviet Union and WWII and re-evaluate your rather ridiculous assessment. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mexican co-belligerence

I was reading the article on the Battle of Ambos Nogales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ambos_Nogales) and it is listed as part of World War I, due to the presence and deaths of German advisers during the battle. On the War of the Second Coalition page, the United States is listed as a co-belligerent due to the Quasi-War. Should Mexico be listed in the battle box as a co-belligerent alongside the Central Powers due to them being involved in a battle that involved, to some extent, a nation from each warring faction? 164.68.28.138 (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.68.28.138 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary was not the only multinational state in 1867

Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic minorities were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900.

Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.153 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Prejudices

Everyone, or most of people, think that Brazil is a country dominated by animals and natives. What I can see is that people (from USA, England, French and more Europeans) think this. So (now to the point) I want to put more about the contributions of the Brazilians, so please stop taking off the things I put on the page. Every doubt about Brazilian contributions, and also about Brazil and Brazilians you can ask me or go to the page Brazil, Brazilians or Brazil in World War I.

EVERYBODY AGAINST PREJUDICE--Dfdc (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for portraying your country in an intentionally positive manner. Seeing as how Brazil played a relatively minor part in World War I (even though it has its own page on that), don't be surprised if many of your additions to the page are deleted. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The changes you have made do not improve the article. Fixing Brazil's entry date to the war in the infobox is good; but the head of state of Brazil, nor the two paragraphs written about Brazil's participation are not significant enough to warrant the article's extended length. Thank you for your contribution. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

LightSpectra is right. The text which you added did not show Brazil to have contributed anything significant to the war effort. This is not "prejudice", this is giving credit where credit is due in a limited amount of space. If no real credit is due, then there is no space for it in the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

World War I Social History?

There's not much mention in the article of social history in WWI. How about including elements like the Christmas Truce of 1914 or the role of women, especially nurses? Vera Brittain's memoir, "Testament of Youth" is a spectacular account of Great Britain's nurses and provides a glimpse into the social dynamics of Britain in during the war years. Rearnold22 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Rearnold22

War to End all Wars

One of its initial names war War to End all Wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.132.190 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 204.40.1.129, 21 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please delete one of the two commas after "neurasthenia".

204.40.1.129 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 204.40.1.129, 21 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The the following sentence makes no sense: "Germany finished paying off the Americans in 2010[263] and the rest in 2020.[264]" It cannot have finished (past tense) something in the future. I cannot understand the source cited at footnote 264 because it's in German, but either the sentence should be edited to agree with the source, or the words "and the rest in 2020" should simply be deleted.

204.40.1.129 (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done The sources made sense, but were out of date. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

It strikes me that we don't need this:

"The term World War One is particularly common in American English, whereas in Britain and the The Commonwealth, it is more commonly called the First World War. This term was first coined in 1920 as the title of Charles à Court Repington's book, but references to it being the first war did not become popular until World War II. The terms World War One and Two were first used in Time magazine in 1938. During and in the aftermath of the conflict it was called the Great War, particularly in British newspapers, whereas US media preferred simply the World War. It was also known as the War to End All Wars.[9]"

. . . before we start discussing what the thing actually is. Can we not just remove this paragraph and trust that interested readers will skip down to the etymology section? Slac speak up! 03:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to keep something like this. When I was teaching the war, the first question many students had was about the name -- do they call it the first world war/WWI? (no, not until later, and Brits and Yanks use different terminology)Rjensen (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we leave it to etymology (i.e. just one paragraph down) though? Exposition is tough enough with a topic as big as this, and we need to be able to give key details first with more nuance and detail in relevant sections. Otherwise we go into a potentially interminable tangent. That being said, if we can get a bloat-free, simple sentence in the intro maybe? Any suggestions? Slac speak up! 03:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

good suggestions and I applied them (and also dropped a discussion of the second usage of the term--surely the first usage is enough). Rjensen (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I had to revert your second edit..as it was messing up the page because of ref tags. Was going to fix it but see spelling mistakes etc and think its best you just redo it...You may want to preview and/or review your edits before walking away from the page.Moxy (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

right--my mistake, which I have now repaired. Rjensen (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymologies

I have noticed that the "Etymology" section only gives the names for the war of the Western allies. If we are to give foreign-language names (which we should, IMO), shouldn't the section include the names from other languages? We should include at least one name from a Central power and the Russian name as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommended Books

I fully realize that this is not the purpose of the discussion page, but can anyone with a lot of knowledge about WW 1 please recommend a good book about the war? I'm looking for an overall history rather than a history of a specific theater or aspect of the war. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Map

Perhaps I am blind, but what is so "atrocious" with this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_1914.png)? It is used in many articles in Wikipedia and there should be at least one map in in article like this one... StoneProphet (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the map from all articles on the English Wikipedia (excluding sandboxes) because it is terribly inaccurate. The reasons are all given in the file talk, but I'll summarise them here:

• Italy was neutral in 1914. The map shows Italy as Allied at this time, which is incontrovertibly false.
• Bulgaria was neutral in 1914. The map shows Belgium as Central at this time, which is, again, incontrovertibly false.
• Greece was neutral in 1914. The map falsely depicts Greece as Allied at this time.
• Rumania was neutral in 1914. The map shows Rumania as Allied at this time. Once again, WRONG.
• Portugal was neutral in 1914. The map shows it as Allied– yet another blunder.
• Albania was neutral (and in political turmoil) for the duration of the war, not Allied, as the map depicts.
• Luxembourg was neutral throughout the war; it was only occupied by the Germans. The map makes yet another error in colouring it as a Central power.
• The Ottoman Empire is labelled as "Turkey" on the map. Turkey is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire.
• Bosnia is misspelled as "Bosina".
• Iceland was not independent in 1914; it was a territory of Denmark. The map, however, seems to depict it as independent.
• Montenegro is mysteriously hyphenated to "Monte-Negro" on the map.
• Technically speaking, Belgium was neutral as well, though it fought alongside the Allied powers.
• If you look to the lower right corner of the map, Persia (though not named) is coloured as a Central power. This is false; Persia was officially neutral.

If you find a better map, please feel free to add it. In the meantime, you might want to consider getting a vision test ;) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

Well ok, that are some valid points. I just thought that is map was supposed to show just the Central powers and the Allies and found it somehow correct for this purpose when i looked on it. What do you think about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WWI-re.png ? Its the only other map on this matter. StoneProphet (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That one looks fine. Go ahead and add it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done. StoneProphet (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have some doubts about the accuracy of that one. Wasn't much of North Africa (Egypt & Libya, at least) part of the Ottoman Empire at the time? In which case they'd be yellow, not green. (I don't recall if Abyssinia or points south on the east coast of Africa were, but...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Egypt was British, and Libya Italian at this time. There are some small mistakes on the map, but it's better than no map. --Otberg (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a significant improvement over that miserable "Europe 1914" map, and the article really should have a map, so let's keep this one at least until we can obtain a better one. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't beef, seeing it was faulty memory on my part. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be Romania - not Rumania. --Alexmilt (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is the United States Entry such a large section?

Surely it should be briefer. The American Entry section is also written like a story, not an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.107.131 (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

good point. I trimmed it down. Rjensen (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm II declares victory

Really did he? Where is the source for this extraordinary claim? This 1970 article does not mention this. This was just an ordinary proposal (ofc a very vague one and with a possible hidden agenda) for negotiations. Neither the German text of the proposal nor the German answer to the failure of the negotiations (which can be read on the linked poster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Franz_Stassen_-_WWI_-_An_das_deutsche_Volk.png) contains a statement which declares Germany as winner of the war. I will change the headline according to this. StoneProphet (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Triple Alliance excluding Italy

Revision 409880378 was by me and I said that the Central Powers were also called the Triple Alliance, however, Lothar von Richthofen undid and said it excluded Italy. Thanks for pointing that out however, is there any conflict in putting "(also called the Triple Alliance however including Italy) or something along those lines? --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

add north sea catagory to Theatres of World War I

The atlantic ocean theatres links to submarine warfare in the atlantic/north sea but there are no other naval options for the atlantic/north sea. The battle of Jutland has an extensive list of battles that could be used as a new theatre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.50.70 (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bvoeten, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

leaders and commanders :

King Albert of Belgium

(note : during a state of war the king of Belgium becomes automatically Commander in Chief of his armies)

Bvoeten (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Already done Looks like someone already changed this. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see it in the infobox on the right side... (official proof from the belgian government: http://www.belgium.be/en/about_belgium/government/federal_authorities/king/political_role/index.jsp ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvoeten (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not in the infobox because only a limited number of the commanders are listed there. At the bottom of the "Commanders and Leaders" section of the infobox, you should see a link that says, under Woodrow Wilson's name, "and others." This links down in to the article. My guess is that editors of the page decided to limit the number of listed leaders in order to not make a massively oversized infobox. In order to add Belgium there, you'd need to get a consensus that it is important enough to be one of the limited number there. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Joe453joe, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In 'Naval war', there is a picture of a German U-Boat, captioned "First U-boat of the German fleet surrendering near Tower Bridge, London, 1918.", however, according to the image description it was "Uboat 155 exhibited in London after World War I.". This is very different, as the former caption implies that the U-Boat had reached central London and only surrendered there!

Joe453joe (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

While searching for early occurrences of First World War, it became apparent that World War is more prevalent than any of the terms. In publications after 1920, it surpasses The Great War. See this Ngram graph. We may need to revise the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Chriswylie, 27 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Spelling error, first paragraph:

"...the Allies (CENTRED around the Triple Entente) and the Central Powers..."

Change to:

"...the Allies (centered around the Triple Entente) and the Central Powers..."

Chriswylie (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: WP:ENGVAR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

October 1918 telegrams

[On 1 September 2009 I added the following, and it was immediately deleted by Skinny87]

The telegrams that were exchanged between the General Headquarters of the Imperial High Command, Berlin, and President Woodrow Wilson are discussed in Ferdinand Czernin's Versailles, 1919 (New York: G. P. Putnam's & Sons, 1964).

The following telegram was sent through the Swiss government and arrived in Washington, D.C., on 5 October 1918 [p. 6]:

The German Government requests the President of the United States of America to take steps for the restoration of peace, to notify all belligerents of this request, and to invite them to delegate positions for the purpose of taking up negotiations. The German Government accepts, as a basis of peace negotiations, the Program laid down by the President of the United States in his message to Congress of 8 January 1918, and his subsequent pronouncements, particularly in his address of 27 September 1918. In order to avoid further bloodshed the German Government requests to bring about the immediate conclusion of an armistice on land, on water, and in the air.

— Max, Prince of Baden, Imperial Chancellor

In the subsequent two exchanges, Wilson's allusions "failed to convey the idea that the Kaiser's abdication was an essential condition for peace. The leading statesmen of the Reich were not yet ready to contemplate such a monstrous possibility." [p.7]

The third German telegram was sent on 20 October. Wilson's reply on 23 October contained the following:

If the Government of the United States must deal with the military masters and the monarchical autocrats of Germany now, or if it is likely to have to deal with them later in regard to the international obligations of the German Empire, it must demand not peace negotiations but surrender. Nothing can be gained by leaving this essential thing unsaid.

— [Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm Hohenzollern (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1927), p. 489]

According to Czernin [p. 9]:

... Prince Hohenlohe, serving as councilor in the German Legation in Berne, Switzerland, cabled the German Foreign Office that 'a confidential informant has informed me that the conclusion of the Wilson note of 23 October refers to nothing less than the abdication of the Kaiser as the only way to a peace which is more or less tolerable.

Wilhelm's abdication was necessitated by the popular perceptions that had been created by the Entente propaganda against him, which had been picked and further refined when the U.S. declared war in April 1917.

A much bigger obstacle, which contributed to the five-week delay in the signing of the armistice and to the resulting social deterioration in Europe, was the fact that the Entente Powers had no desire to accept the Fourteen Points and Wilson's subsequent promises. As Czernin points out [p. 23]:

The Allied statesmen were faced with a problem: so far they had considered the 'fourteen commandments' as a piece of clever and effective American propaganda, designed primarily to undermine the fighting spirit of the Central Powers, and to bolster the morale of the lesser Allies. Now, suddenly, the whole peace structure was supposed to be built up on that set of 'vague principles,' most of which seemed to them thoroughly unrealistic, and some of which, if they were to be seriously applied, were simply unacceptable.

The Kaiser himself wrote:

Nevertheless, it must be noted that John Kenneth Turner, in his [. . .] book, Shall it Be Again? gives extensive proof that all Wilson’s reasons for America's entry into the war were fictitious; that it was far more a cause of acting solely in the interest of Wall Street high finance. My Memoirs: 1878–1918 by William II, London: Cassell & Co. (1922) p. 310

Subsequently, this was substantiated by the findings of the Nye Committee, which studied the causes of United States' involvement in World War I.

Edit request from Vanguard15, March 10, 2011

Currently the article states that, "The Germans introduced poison gas;" however this is technically inaccurate as our own article on, "Poison Gas in World War I" states. Gas was initially used by French soldiers in August of 1914, but the Germans were the first to use poison gas on a wide scale. I suggest the sentence, "The Germans introduced poison gas; it soon became used by both sides, though it never proved decisive in winning a battle." be changed to, "In August of 1914, French soldiers introduced poison gas as a weapon which would later see its first widespread use by the German army. Poison gas would later be used to great extent by both sides of the conflict but failed to be a decisive force during any battle." or some variant thereof. -Vanguard15 20:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Given 1st use of "gas" (tear gas) was, IIRC, by France in 1912, I'd say, "The Germans were 1st to use gas in the war" or "The Germans introduced poison gas" (since that's the common understanding of "gas"). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with mentioning that the French were the first to use tear gas but the Germans were the first to use lethal gas. -User:Vanguard15 23:52, 10 March, 2011 (UTC)

The no-matter what, even follow aggression pacts should be mentioned in the beginning, we need much deeper and wider political analyse in this article

One special thing about the WWI was that the pacts made before the WWI was total alliances despite no consensus in foreign politics. It meant that even if one of the members started a war without consulting their partners, the partners were bound to the pact to participate. Something that made a headless start of the war without having a direct political backup to the situation at that time, all parties were at war like the domino game. This is also an aspect of real odd politics of that time. Perhaps to us odd politics of the time was considered effective at that time. Also here some political research would find its place in an article like this under its own chapter. Like the previous topic why/how the war could continue when it was an obvious flop for all sides? One of the more interesting political parts is to explain how political statements were formed at that time and from what background views? It is a from a time before the democracies in Europe really formed their character of the 20th century and we have a mixed time of 19th century views.

One could think of having one main article about politics and the military aspects of WWI in a special article and perhaps special biased in memory of articles (from different sides) beside, many of the sub topics of WWI is quite possible to describe just and right from completely different views. And most likely there is a strong need for them (due to so much engagement on spiritual grounds). I think that would be a better solution than having one major article including the biased topics. I think such a layout could be very well scientifically defendable. There is a need of explaining how the madness could start and never end, to such costs and suffering without any obvious success plans. Obvious success plans that must be a demand politically motivating war, the main lesson to be learned from WWI and we need help learning here. There must be no doubts the WWI was a political mistake, a complete failure on all parties side (however with some lighter weight on the US government). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.226.29 (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.86.28.3, 29 March 2011

Under Strength - Allies on right hand side with flags - Japan is listed - and no Canada!!!! Please change, embarrassing, many thanks. Linsey Keats

24.86.28.3 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible the Canadians were still fighting under the British flag at the time? Monty₈₄₅ 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, they'd be British Empire... It also includes Australia & New Zealand, neither represented separately, nor (independent) Newfoundland, either. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:53 & 23:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done:Then I think any change needs to be by consensus, not by edit semi tag Monty₈₄₅ 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Translate

[5] Can someone translate this telegram from French to English? And to put it on the description.[6] This is important because it is the first day of war. Thanks.--Свифт (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The General view of the WWI in this article is not focusing on the political collapse in the fall of 1914, instead is focused on biased war heroism and the action history

The intro to this article should describe the WWI major characteristics and impact, it made about all parties except the US completely broke. Theta a loosing gambler mentality was running the war for about 4 years. Its main effect beside of collapses of regimes in central and eastern Europe was the end of the British empire. Britain could not afford to keep it together anymore. And for instance the rapid Japanese defeat of Britain in Asia in the WWII was due to the economical disaster of the WWI. The remarkable thing was that the economical costs of the war made it impossible for any party winning the war despite the military result. The missing part in this article is the political responsibilities in each of the participating countries of this devastating political and state financial development of the WWI.

The remarkable thing was that after about only a few months when the western front stabilized it was absolutely clear all parties were losers. The machineguns shot everyone storming the other party. The present technology was stuck and the armies coasted a fortune, devastating sums to the entire society. What happened was not that the politicians got all parties out of the war, not bankrupting the governments. But that in fact the militaries took over on all countries and were running a kind of hidden dictatorships to hide the fact the entire war was a total military flop. They acted like gamblers around the table, all making losses to the void (the devil or what?), they could not keep their faces with, officially. So they tried to keep the face up, gearing up the propaganda (of much we can read here) with another push with higher stakes on credit, and odds of making it next push were minimal, and the entire operation from 1915 was completely insane. As an example after the Russian separate peace the German army tried a last push in the west with all they got, and of course it ran into nothingness and void results as everything else. There is absolutely nothing making any party of the WWI more or less responsible or higher or lower moral ranks. It is just stupid to compare, who is worst and who got the rights and so on, because all are complete and full loosers. All parties were victims of a gambling craziness in mass scale, all parties to let their nations down that much and that long. It must be a political historical low water mark.

The interesting question and lesson about WWI is how could this insanity go on for four years, nobody stopping them? I mean in other situations gambling insanity is normally stopped by one or another way? Loosing the empire or the nation on poker?

I do not want to take out any sections of this article, but the main point of the WWI must be in in the beginning. And the heroism and biasedness in this article must be limited slightly.

Look, the real bad smell about it is the heroism talk when all participating were real suckers, fooled or dragged into a horrific terror, regardless if they made personal military success and got medals, they were slaughtered like ants and the remarkable thing is that it was politically allowed on all sides? They were not heroes they were victims of the largest serial killing of the history. We are talking about a deliberate massmurder of millions in a much larger scale than the holocaust (not making the memory of the holocaust milder however), what made this politically take place? Were is that in this article? Isn’t there any research to relate to there?

Aren't we talking about the worst large scale cvollective war crime ever? Who could claimn the right of politically believe that the management of WWI was just? In the WWII Hitler made the same crime to Germany at least after the Ardenne invation. There could not be any just arguments how it possibly could be halted, any new stakes were 100% in vain. As the perspectives by new year 1915, the war could not be won. Like Milosevic responsibility to the Serbian people of loosing 5 wars straight without a plan, a reasonable polirtical idea on how to win them, before the first shot was fired. Who were the political responsible for WWI? Not the Kaiser and Georgie, how did they fail making the right political turns? (might be a Swedish perspective but I think worth listening to). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.178.199.122 (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it certainly may be a topic for discussion, but just as a piece of friendly advice: If you're looking to see changes in the article, the best approach is to make specific suggestions. Keep in mind they must be backed by reputable sources, and cannot be drawn from personal opinion or represent original research or synthesis.Jbower47 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

Can anyone put Brazil redirect page for "República Velha", not for "Brazil"? --Dfdc (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

done. StoneProphet (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion at Talk:Brazil#Expansion, in that Brazil played a very minor and inconsequential role in the war. This article confirms it: search for "Brazil" and you will only find the "Wars involving Brazil" category. It's better to leave it out of the infobox, then, and keep only the strongest countries involved. Brazil is listed in Allies of World War I, which already does the work of listing all countries that took part in the conflict, and it is linked in the infobox as "and others". The minor Brazilian role clearly define it as an "other" for the list. Cambalachero (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with World War I was previously called the Great War

This is actually a geographic phenomenon, in France it's still called the great war as in many places in Europe. Darkwand (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see wp:UE. Usage in other languages is of secondary importance. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I hate to break it to you but this isn't just an English Language thing. I think you'll find a good number of historians and intellectuals throughout the non-American anglosphere still use the term "The Great War" to describe the conflict. Just Sayin Xlh (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are the results of a few rough Google searches:

Google Scholar:

118,000 results for "the great war".

15,600 results between 1918 and 1945.

1,110,000 results for "world war i".

1,370 results between 1918 and 1939.

Google Books:

817,000 results for "the great war" in the 20th century

333,000 results between 1918 and 1939.

228,000 results for "the great war" in the 21st century.

1,350,000 results for "world war i" in the 20th century.

10,800 results between 1918 and 1939.

599,000 results for "world war i" in the 21st century.

Yes, "The Great War" is still used, but nowhere near as much as "World War I". "World War I" became the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources after the interwar period. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made some wording improvements that address this issue. Swarm ^X 18:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Poland's loss of life during war

Its stated that Poland had the largest loss of life per head of population during th first world war but, during the war Poland was not independent. Other records indicate that Scotland suffered the largest losses yet this isn't accounted for as it was part of the British Empire during the war. How can the losses of a country that hadn't existed in a hundred years before have their losses calculated when a country that had existed and played an active role be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.82.89 (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Polish nationality

it is enough to change that to losses among the Poles or people of Polish origin, etc.

The Last U.S. Memorial

Approximately 24 million men who registered in America for the World War I draft in the years 1917 and 1918. The last U.S. veteran of World War I, Frank Buckles, is to be buried Tuesday, March 15, 2011, with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery. Buckles' body will lie in repose at the cemetery's amphitheater in Washington. Buckles enlisted in the Army at age 16 after lying about his age. He died in February 2011, at his home in Charles Town, West Virginia at age 110. Hrndfrg13 (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)hrndfrg13

Dead Link

The link to http://tech2classroom.com/Edw11/Edw11.html under Animated Maps - A collection of vintage maps from all theatres of World War I has the page not existing anymore.

It is at the bottom of the article. Could someone fix it up?

By George Morgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgesmorgan (talk • contribs) 07:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request introduction; 6/21/2011

In the introduction it reads: On 28 July, the conflict opened with the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia,[11][12] followed by the German invasion of Belgium, Luxembourg and France; and a Russian attack against Germany.

Chronologically it was: 28 July: A-H invasion of Serbia 1 August: Russian attack against Germany 2 August: German invasion of Luxembourg with subsequnt invasions of Belgium (4 August) and France.

So either add the dates or change the order in the introduction to make things chronological. 159.41.1.23 (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Intro

'The European nationalism spawned by the war and the breakup of empires, and the repercussions of Germany's defeat and the Treaty of Versailles led to the beginning of World War II in 1939' This is stated as historical fact when in actuality it is a much debated issue (especially the Versailles claim) amongst historians. Margaret MacMillan's book Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War provides a very different point of view to this, some might say, simplistic interpretation. I suspect it violates some kind of POV rule. The grammar is also a bit dodgy. I'm not sure what level of detail people like to have in these little introductions so I haven't changed it. Dalisback1 (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

One book by Lloyd George's great-granddaughter (POV/COI?) does not make the topic "much debated". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is quite a significant piece of revisionist history much celebrated at the time of publication, and Margaret MacMillan is respected historian. Just because it is 'one book' doesn’t mean it can't have a significant impact on how an area of history is approached (e.g. The Origins of the Second World War by Taylor). I also fail to see how the fact she is Lloyd George’s granddaughter has much relevance. Furthermore other historians have debated the treaty issue, Alan Sharp, for example, in his The Versailles Settlement. The economic impact is an area that has defiantly been 'much debated', with many historians (e.g. Mantoux) questioning the predictions made in The Economic Consequences of the Peace. The old sentence claimed that the First World War caused the Second, completely ignoring other factors (Hitler, The Great Depression and so forth). I'm just saying some appreciation of the complex historical debate surrounding the origins of the Second World War (and within that the role played by the First World War and post war treaties) might be useful. Dalisback1 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A revisionist book can cause a stir, but that does not necessarily indicate that it displays a prevailing viewpoint. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying the role the First World War had in the origins of the Second is not a matter of serious historical debate? Dalisback1 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not AFAIK. The debate seems to be, were they two wars, or one with an intermission? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The origins of the Second World War is a highly debated topic amongst historians. There are many different strands to this debate of course; the old sentence (which I have now changed) said the First World War 'led' to the Second; it suggested that, in the words of AJP Taylor, the Second was 'born out of' the end of the First. So as you say the twenty years of peace were an 'intermission'. However as you rightly point out this is only one view; many other historians ('weight' is not an issue here; this debate is certainly not comparable with the one cited about Stalin's role in orchestrating the war) believe the Second World War was not inevitable in 1919 and only became so in 1929, 1933 or whenever for whatever reason (rise of Hitler, the Great Depression and so forth). Dalisback1 (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"nevitable in 1919"? That's far from the same as saying the causes of WW2 are found at the conclusion of WW1 & Treaty of Versailles, which is the common view: namely, had the Treaty terms been different, the conditions of the '20s & '30s would've been different, the Nazis wouldn't have arisen, & WW2 wouldn't have happened. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be the common view across the population but, having studied the issue in some depth (albeit sometime ago), I would say it is far from being such in academic circles. MacMillan sums up the counter argument to the one stated in the old introduction rather well - 'to blame the Treaty of Versailles and the First World War for the outbreak of the Second ignores the actions of everyone –political leaders, diplomats, soldiers, ordinary voters- for the twenty years between 1919 and 1939.' Wikipedia, in all their wisdom, state 'Avoid stating [uncontested] opinions as facts' as I hope I have established (but would be happy to provide more evidence for) the view the First World War was wholly responsible for the Second (whether this is different from the Second being inevitable at the end of the First depends, I suspect, on your view of History) is heavily contested. As Bell states, in his rather good The Origins of the Second World War in Europe, 'The origins of the Second World War have exercised the minds of generations of historians, and have filled thousands of pages, without exhausting either the fascination of the subject or the stamina of their readers.' If you are in any doubt that it is not a 'seriously debated issue' please take a look at this book, which sums up the vast array arguments excellently. Dalisback1 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This article mentions Serbia 54 times. The terms Serbian or Serb is mentioned 24 times. France, a major world power in this war is mentioned only 48 times, and French, 57 times. It seems to me, along with several pictures of serbs being massacred as oppossed to one of some other nationality that this article is too heavily focused on the Serbian "cause" as opposed to the world conflict that it was.Cillmore (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

wrong date on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk picture?

as the treaty was signed Mar 3, the February date in the picture description is suspect ... I am not knowledgeable enough to correct this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.200.51 (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

materiel -> material

pity the article is locked, it is not even possible to correct misspellings such as "materiel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.200.51 (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Materiel is a word. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right Lothar indeed. However, this must be a super-low-frequency word that most people will take as a bug. I am sure. Esp. that the whole sentence is suspect: "The manpower required for German occupation of former Russian territory may have contributed to the failure of the Spring Offensive, however, and secured relatively little food or other materiel.". Which has the pragmatic interpretation to "manpower secured little food and OTHER materiel". Not nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.200.51 (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's actually quite common when one is reading about military matters, hence its inclusion in this, a military article. Not sure what point you are trying to make with the sentence. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary has it right: "military equipment, apparatus, and supplies...not to be confused with material". Materiel is absolutely the standard usage in this context: it's material that will have the revert requests flooding in! The OED notes that material is the "original" usage. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to rv, too, but I've seen "material" used, too. I could live with it, if it meant avoiding an edit war over it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose: "The manpower required for German occupation of former Russian territory may have contributed to the failure of the Spring Offensive. The occupation secured little food or other materiel." The proposition comes from the fact that we do not say "manpower accomplished sth" as it is a resource, not an intnent entity. If my proposed sentence is correct, then it will not look like "suspect English" and will give more incentive to click on the materiel link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.200.51 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting theme that I have seen arise elsewhere on Wikipedia. That is, cases where words are used correctly but they also present a challenge to segments of the readership that are not as advanced in their English vocabulary (for example, schoolkids, or ESL or EFL adults). I have been finding that such usages get challenged eventually by someone who insists on avoiding them. One interesting facet of the process is that most often, the challenge is initially presented via a misinterpretation of the usage as a "mistake", whereas it actually is not a mistake. (As opposed to a challenger who says "I realize that this is not a mistake, but I would nevertheless like to do something to address the fact that some readers will not understand it easily enough as currently written.") Anyhow, I have been finding that one of the best tactics to resolve the problem, in cases where people do not care to dumb down the sentence by painstakingly avoiding an apt word choice [which can sometimes involve awkward circumlocution], is simply to link the word—either to its Wikipedia article (if it has one, which in this case materiel does), or, if not, then to its Wiktionary entry (e.g., [[wikt:materiel#Noun|materiel]], materiel). It's interesting how this painless solution usually successfully preempts any future challenges. The reason I find it interesting is that I think I can surmise the interesting mechanism by which it defuses later challenges: the challenger sees the word and immediately seizes upon it, e.g., "aha! that word's not real!" or "aha! that word's too big and unfamiliar"; but, because it is linked, they click through, and they find out that there is no good reason to challenge it that will pass muster against likely defense. This because yes, the word *is* real, and yes, it *is* aptly used, and yes, any reader who needs help with it can simply click the link to get the help. Thanks for tolerating this long rambling about Wikipedian content development. An interesting field of thinking and experience sometimes. — ¾-10 23:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to thank ¾-10 for the insightful approach to pre-empting this sort of problem. Bravissimo. ;p If adopted as practise, it can only avoid future headaches for all of us. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

typo: immenence should be imminence

Wogon (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Original Names for what we now call world War 1

The 1928 edition of the World Book (Encyclopedia) calls World War 1 the "War of the Nations" and uses that name as the primary identifying name for the war. It is followed by the terms, "Great War" and "World War". So if you looked up information on WWI back in 1928 it would have been called the "War of the Nations" by the World book. The reference is found on page 6151 of "The World Book", edited by M.V. O'Shea, Dept of Education, Univ of Wisconsin, located in Madison Wisconsin. Published 1928 by Roach and Fowler Publishers Kansas City. MO. I find no mention of the "War of the Nations" in the current Wikipedia article on World War 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldRaider76 (talk • contribs)

No doubt that the World Book Encyclopedia 1928 edition used that name, but I don't think it ever caught on more widely, probably because it's such a vague name that it's almost a bit silly. Here's what I mean by that: There have been hundreds of wars between nations, so capping it into a proper noun, "War of the Nations", seems a bit futile. Which war and which nations? That's the question that seems to follow. I would bet that this is the reason why it never caught on strongly, and why it has probably been almost entirely disused since WWII occurred. I would argue that there's no need to mention it in the Wikipedia article. Not that I'm adamant that it be "covered up"—that's not my intent at all. Rather, the reason I argue against including it (at least in the lede) is that adding it (especially if to the lede) would constitute giving it a form of undue weight (WP:UNDUE). Thanks for considering, anyway. Regards, — ¾-10 00:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The name for WWI before WWII wasn't nearly as uniform as people tend to assume today. Even if the 'great war' was the most significant name the other names also were quite significant. Most of the pre-WW2 sources I've seen have called it many varied names, such as 'the European war', 'the war', 'the world war', 'the recent war in Europe,' the '1914 war', etc. There wasn't any one convention.

As an aside, if you got the Google Ngram viewer, the term 'the world war' appears much more frequently than 'the great war' in the 1920-1940 period. A similar trend could be seen when the word 'the' is ommitted, though the results are, nevertheless, different. I think we need to get some actual experts advice on this issue because it doesn't seem to be true at all that 'before ww2 ww1 was generally called the 'Great War'. It's too much of a simplification.theBOBbobato (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ngram comparison to support what Bob is explaining.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Good contributions to the topic, all. For what it's worth, there are half a dozen momuments honoring the war's veterans in my region that I've stood next to and that were erected in the Interwar Period, and they all call it "the World War". They tend to be neoclassical momuments with all-caps inscriptions such as "TO ALL THOSE OF OUR CITY WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES IN THE WORLD WAR". I am in the US. No idea which term was more frequent in the UK or Commonwealth. Regards, — ¾-10 21:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some consensus on this matter I'll go ahead and edit the article. No big changes are neccessary, just an addition that there wasn't a very strong conventional name before 1939 or so.theBOBbobato (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Lible Article

The article has a lot of references to refuted writings by many official documents. The most obvious error is the description of Romanian participation. The territorial organization, treaties and involvement in war are erroneous every step of the way. (An example of how this territory was organized through time can be seen here: http://www.gid-romania.com/Romania_Mare.asp ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.85.0.107 (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sixth deadliest conflict in Western history... not

To ascertain that "It was the sixth deadliest conflict in Western history" is as easy as clicking on the very link contained within that sentence, to a list of deadliest conflicts in history. WW1 is indeed sixth, but three of the conflicts whose toll is higher took place entirely in China, and hence are in no way part of "Western" history. So it is either the second (or third, since Mongol invasions are part of "Western" history in some sense, though not in the sense of the vas majority of the casualties) deadliest conflict in "Western" history, or, better yet, the word "Western" should be removed altogether as an ambiguous and awkward, not to mention quite useless, categorization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.112.107 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I found your explanation so clear and convincing that I just changed "in Western history" to "in world history". Thanks for your suggestion. — ¾-10 00:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on link shows that high estimate places it at 2nd. Also I find it silly to consider conflicts that lasted for many decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.88.179 (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

War crimes in Serbia and Romania

By page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties There are 300,000 civil deaths in Serbia and 330,000 in Romania. There is also photo of some killed Serbian civilians. There should also be written some text about this there must be some genocides happen.

Date and time of post 26/08/2011 12:09 by CEST (UTC+2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.123.233 (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Corrections

• The result was a victory of the Triple Entente or "The Entente"; The Allies were WW2.
• It was not the Versailles Treaty that ended the war, but the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. See Paris_Peace_Conference,_1919#Overview for the different treaties (St. Germain, Trianon, Neuilly, Sèvres). "Versailles", though it contributed a great deal to WW2, was only the part of the conference that dealt with the German Empire/the Weimar Republic. --Hornsignal (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• In the fourth paragraph of the section entitled German Spring Offensive of 1918, the Doullens Conference date was incorrectly given as 5 November 1917. It was actually March 26, 1918. You have only to click on the link to the Doullens Conference to verify.JoeGiblin (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 28 October 2011

Hello: I am a history teacher from Saskatchewan, Canada. I was recently going through the article on World War I and came across the following obvious error, e.g. In the second paragraph, the following line appears "...the Russian Empire, the British Empire, France, and Italy, played a major role. Ferdinand's assassination by a Yugoslav nationalist resulted..."

Gavrilo Princip was the individual responsible for killing the archduke. He was a Serbian (not Yugoslavian) nationalist. Yugoslavia DID NOT exist in 1914; rather, Sarjevo was the capital city of Serbia which was a protectorate of Austria-Hungary. Yugoslavia is literally carved out of the former Austrian and Turkish empires in the Balkans. My recommended change would be "...assassination by a Serbian nationalist..." (more accurately stated Princip was an anarchist).

Kudos.

Killugh (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely correct. See Yugoslavism. The notion of Yugoslavia (Land of the South Slavs) was not as artificial as you seem to think it was. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that "Yugoslav" is easily read as "Yugoslavian". Would calling him a "Yugoslavist" rather than "Yugoslavian nationalist", with a link, work? Shimgray | talk | 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The current wording is linked to Yugoslavism, but.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not simple, perhaps, but I've seen him described more often as a Serb. Can we link "Yugoslav nationalist" as Yugoslav nationalist without being accused of easter egging? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's how it is now and nobody has as of yet formally accused us of "easter egging". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition to "Backgraund": July 29, (1914) Nicholas II sent a telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion "to transmit the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference"

Consensus (9 participants) for non-inclusion of material took place until June 21 -- while there was represented only one RS (now we have 12 sources that one editor asserts to be RS)

July 29, Nicholas II sent a telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion "to transmit the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference" [28][29] (in an international arbitration court in The Hague) [30][31][32]. Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram.[28][30][31][33]. [28]: ref>The Willy-Nicky Telegrams (From World War I Document Archive)</ref [29]: ref>Telegram July 29, 1914: “Tsar to Kaiser, July 29, 8:20 P.M. Peter's Court Palace, 29 July 1914 Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship. Your loving Nicky”</ref [30]: ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian). 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII)</ref [31]: ref>Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs, Volume 1 - Octagon Books, 1972</ref [32]: ref>Quote: (Palaeologus M.G . Tsarist Russia during World War . Chapter XII. The Forgotten Tsar's telegram to Emperor Wilhelm): "Sunday, January 31, 1915 Petrograd “Governmental Herald” publishes the text of the telegram dated 29 July last year in which Emperor Nicholas suggested that Emperor Wilhelm convey the Austro-Serbian dispute the Hague tribunal. Here is the text of the document: "Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship." - The German government has not seen fit to publish this telegram to the number of messages that are exchanged directly, both the monarch during the crisis preceding the war. ... - And what a terrible responsibility assumed the Emperor Wilhelm, leaving without a word of reply sentence of Nicholas! He could not respond to an offer otherwise than agreeing to it. And he did not answer because he wanted war".</ref. [33]: ref>The Willy-Nicky Telegrams (From World War I Document Archive)</ref. Борис Романов (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov nothing came of these minor telegrams. We don't have space for this level of non-event. (it's also based on OR -- the major scholars pay little attention to this) Rjensen (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC) We see (from the book by Maurice Paleologos 1922 published), that the French ambassador in Russia, Maurice Palaeologus saw this telegram as a very important effort to prevent war. He devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 12) in his book to this telegram. Modern "WWI Document Archive" (http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Main_Page ) has devoted an entire section (separate page) for pre-war correspondence of Nicholas II and Wilhelm II (http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Willy-Nicky_Telegrams ) Борис Романов (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov Meh, if you read down the list of telegrams after that, a different story emerges. The telegram directly after the one you provided reads "Thank you heartily for your quick answer." Unless the tsar was being facetious (which I somehow doubt), this would indicate that the kaiser did indeed respond to the telegram, but that the response has been destroyed or lost. Your requested addition is a minefield of WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations, and is not important enough for inclusion in the main article anyway. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC) The assumption that the Wilhelm's response was lost - that is your speculation ("Original research" - in terms of the Wikipedia), and this your assumption is absolutely unfounded. In addition, if Willhelm agreed to the proposal, it certainly would have been published. In addition, "WWI Document Archive" (http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Main_Page) is not a Russian web-siteБорис Романов (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov There is one key difference between my OR and your OR: I am not proposing that my OR be included in articlespace. Unfounded? Hardly. It is natural to assume that a friendly "thanks for responding" means that there was most likely a response (not that it matters for this article). Also, in response to your "not a Russian web-site" statement: this is only partially true. The website itself is not Russian. However, if you will direct your attention to the top of the telegrams page, you will notice that they have been "copied from the government archives in Petrograd, and brought from Russia". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC) It is clear that indirect (not direct) Wilhelm's response (refusal) on Nicholas's offer is contained in the telegram: "Kaiser to Tsar, July 30, 1:20 A.M. Berlin, 30. July 1914 ...my rôle as mediator you kindly intrusted me with, & which I accepted at you[r] express prayer, will be endangered if not ruined ... " Борис Романов (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov How is the tsar "intrusting" the kaiser with a "rôle as mediator" "at [the tsar's] express prayer" a "refusal"? Seems more like a mutual agreement to settle the dispute on their own. Again, not that it matters for the article, as this is still all OR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC) For the article it is important the text that I proposed (the text that removed by Drmies). Everything else are your (and my) assumptions (OR). I see no obstacles to return the text into the article. Your opinion? (And, if not, why?)Борис Романов (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov No, because this is a primary source, and Wikipedia is based off of WP:SECONDARY sources. This is an inconsequential and incomplete exchange of telegrams which has not been reviewed extensively in the best recent scholarship. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC) The book of M.Paleologus (the member of the French Academy) is SECONDARY source (with respect to these telegrams). It was reviewed extensively in a lot of scholarship. Борис Романов (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov 1922 is Versailles-era and can hardly be considered "best recent scholarship". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC) This article has space only for very important events, as evaluated by the best recent scholarship. Nothing came out of this telegram and it's pretty unimportant. Rjensen (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Drmies wrote two hour ago: (diff | hist) . . World War I‎; 14:52 . . (-2,575) . . Drmies (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 434025518 by Spellcast: these are pretty serious changes in content and (citation) style. please take up on talk page". (TW)) Борис Романов (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov While I'm normally inclined to keep just about everything, I have to ask what resulted from the putative exchange. AFAI can tell, nothing. That being so, this exchange is inconsequential, & unworthy of inclusion. Until, unless, you can demonstrate a substantive, significant outcome, IMO, it should stay out. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I think, Drmies correctly identified the proposed addition as pretty serious changes in content. As a result of the discussion I see no reasonable objection (based on the rules of Wikipedia), against my additions. As Drmies made no new objections, I'll restore this addition in the paper. Борис Романов (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov That's not how it works. You took the issue to the talkpage to determine consensus on the matter. Consensus is that your addition does not belong in the article. Drmies is not God; his word is not the deciding one. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia's rules do not require consensus for publication (for addition). Your former link to the rules of Wikipedia (about a "secondary sources") has been refuted by me (because the book of French academician Maurice Paleologos is a secondary source relatively discussed telegram of Nicholas II). I see no reasonable objection (based on the rules of Wikipedia), against my additions.Борис Романов (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov WP:CONSENSUS. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC) We read there:"consensus seems to offer the best method to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability." Nor you neither other opponents say nothing about neutrality and verifiability - because my addition is neutral and verifiable. I see no reasonable objection (based on the rules of Wikipedia), against my additions.Борис Романов (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Dear Trekphiler, you wrote (in reason of your "undo"): “this is trivial & getting far in excess the attention it deserves” – However: 1. this is your personal opinion (not based on WP's rules); 2. This is your original research (OR – against WP's rules) -- and this your opinion is obviously wrong. In fact Nicholas's II suggestion was the important attempt to prevent the war -- it is impossible to deny this fact. -- So, I'm restoring my addition. Борис Романов (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov it's a non-event--no RS in last 75 years considers it important. (Hague had never settled any major dispute--it was a forum for endless talk; note the Czar did not bother to himself submit anything to the Hague). Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Dear Rjensen, you wrote also (in reason of your "undo"): “drop trivial non-event (see talk) (Hague would take years and had never settled any major disputes))” - However, 1. This cannot be a reason (based on WP's rules) to undo my addition; 2. Now we really know that “Hague would take years and had never settled any major disputes”, but Nicholas II don't know it so well (or, maybe he just wanted for “Hague would take years” – to prevent the war). - Anyhow, your reasons is not based on WP's rules - So, I'm restoring my addition. Борис Романов (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Boris Romanov is being deliberately disruptive. He has a trivial episode with no RS to support it. A memoir written by a diplomat at the time who did not have access to the secret papers is not a RS. But no major libfraryu seems to report any such book by Paleologos ????? so who was he, what EXACTLY did he say about the telegram, and give a link to the book. Rjensen (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Dear Rjensen, you probably do not pay attention read the note [31](an excerpt from the book by Maurice Palaeologus). He refers to a Russian newspaper and the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs (this is in the Russian text). He also wrote that correspondence of Nicholas II and Wilhelm II was not published in Germany just because Wilhelm II did not agree with the suggestion of Nicholas. As to M.Paleologus's books, it is well-known in Russia, and it is RS, of course. And English Google give a lot refers to it. Борис Романов (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov This has a strong smell of Russian partisanship to me, if not trying to rehabilitate Nicholas' rep. BTW, Борис Романов, it's nothing like OR, since I'm not putting it in, & if it wasn't, in fact, trivial, it would've gotten more attention before now. As for the weight, that's covered here, & while I don't know it well, I do recognize when a minor event is getting way more play than it deserves. The declaration of war got less than you want to give this. Which leads me back to partisanship, & to wonder why. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:39 & 22:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Dear Trekphiler, I am not a member of any party or public organization. I am a pensioner and an old lover of history (old historian-fan) :) Борис Романов (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov You mistake my meaning: "partisan" meaning "supporter of a point of view". As for your passion for history, I share it, since about Grade 6. :) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Stumbling in here to give my 2 cents, I agree that this does seem like a minor non-event. Just because something can be sourced, doesn't mean its inclusion in Wikiepdia is appropriate. In this case, we have a minor fact which has not been included (as far as I can tell) in the major works on WWI I have read. If it is not significant enough to be included in these thousand-odd pages of scholarly work on the subject, there is no reason to include it in an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to be a brief summary of important aspects. We could literally cite thousands of facts about WWI, expanding this article to many times its current length, but that does not mean they all get added unless someone can cite a specific rule about why they aren't. This simply isn't significant enough. -R. fiend (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC) A large number of messages in this thread and five undoing (made by three users per day) of this my addition - all this suggests the opposite: probably, opponents believe this addition is pretty important and at the same time unwanted (unpleasant?) for them. I also believe this is an important addition: Wikipedia's readers should be aware that Nicholas II wanted to prevent the war, and 29 July, he suggested to Wilhelm II to transmit the Austro-Serbian problem to the Hague Tribunal. Борис Романов (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov. If I'm "a supporter of a point of view" (as TREKphiler asserts) - in this case my opponent is "a supporter of opposite point of view". I think we should not blame each other here in such things. I think we can admit my addition as substantial and discuss it, based on the rules of Wikipedia. Борис Романов (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Or perhaps its being reverted not to suppress unpleasant information, but because it's viewed as insignificant, inconsequential, trivial, a non-event, etc., as several of us have been saying. The fact that you see its removal as proof that it is important sounds somewhat delusional. If I were to add to the article that the war started on Beatrix Potter's 48th birthday, I would not interpret multiple reversions of it as some sort of anti-Potter conspiracy. In any case, if this factoid is as important to the war as you seem to believe it is, why isn't it covered in the dozens of well-known books that have been written on WWI? Articles such as this get bloated enough with semi-relevant facts that we don't need irrelevant ones clogging up the works even more. -R. fiend (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I see that my opponents have reached consensus among themselves: now they write that my addition is of no interest ("insignificant, inconsequential, trivial, a non-event, etc"). Moreover, today Lothar von Richthofen deleted my addition «as a minor edit» (!)(Revision history of World War I). However: The Hague Conventions are mentioned in the article three times. Any actions and appeals related to the Hague Convention (the Hague Conference, the Hague Tribunal) is always referred (and should be mentioned) in the Wikipedia articles. I do not understand why very important attempt of Nicholas II to prevent war with the Hague Tribunal should not be mentioned in this article. My addition has three important aspects: 1. The article WWI has not any mention about any attempt to prevent war, 2. This attempt was made by head of one of the great states, 3. This attempt was connected with the Hague Tribunal. I think these three reasons are very significant. Борис Романов (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Борис Романов (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov "the war started on Beatrix Potter's 48th birthday" Did it? :) I'd want to know that. Just not here, necessarily. Which reminds me there are lots of WP pages. So, while this particular exchange may not be appropriate here, what about mentioning it on the pages of the leaders exchanging missives? Or Diplomacy before World War One? Or Russo-German relations in the 1900s? Or something? There must be somewhere this belongs. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC) In the article World War II (with label "good article"), we see five references to the League of Nations, including as appeals to the League Nation, so and (for example) the following: "Both Italy and Ethiopia were member nations, but the League did nothing when the former clearly violated the League's own". – Thus, a good article on Wikipedia mentions all cases of action and inaction of the World War IILeague of Nations. Why did the article World War I never mentions the Hague Conference and Hague Tribunal (the predecessor of the League of Nations)? (though several times referred to the Hague Convention). Why the unique known attempt (of Nicholas II) to apply to the Hague tribunal is not worthy of mention in the World War I article?Борис Романов (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov the issue is adding trivial non-event material to the WWI article without any scholarly secondary source that says it's important. (The Tsar did NOT submit anything to the Hague--he said somebody else should so it--and no one did any such thing). Rjensen (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 1. I have several times earlier explained that the book French academician Maurice Peleolog is RS, and this book is widely known in scientific circles. Many historical studies of the events of those years contain references to this book. Search in Google (“Paleologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre”) gives many thousands of links. Search in the Russian search engine Yandex (the book's title in Russian, search for "exact phrase") gives the 190,000 options. 2. Maurice Palaeologus believed discussed events (telegram of Nicholas II, dated 29 July) is very important in the chain of events on the eve of WWI, and he devoted an entire chapter to this telegram in his book (Chapter XII). 3. In the article World War II (with label "good article"), we see five references to the League of Nations, including as appeals to the League Nation, so and (for example) the following: "Both Italy and Ethiopia were member nations, but the League did nothing when the former clearly violated the League's own". – Thus, a good article on Wikipedia mentions all cases of appeals to, action and inaction of the League of Nations ("non-events"). Борис Романов (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Not a reliable secondary source. The Maurice Palaeologus book is not cited by any scholar and is not owned by major libraries specializing in the field. We still do not have an accurate title, publisher, place of publication--or even what language. The snippet quoted says that Palaeologus got his information from a Russian newspaper--which is not a very good source for a scholar. He obviously did not have access to the key documents which all RS use (when did he write the passage and exactly how did he say the episode was important??? Rjensen (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Not to mention that Versailles-era French writings are likely going to have a heavy anti-German POV. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC) well the book turned up see google. It is a memoir written at the time and it gives as couple sentences to the episode, and says the Tsar neglected to mention it to anybody in his foreign ministry. Se we have a weak primary source (based on a newspaper article published by the Russian government after the war began) -- pretty low quality from a strongly anti-German source. Maurice Paléologue was a seniort French official in the war against Germany. As Ambassador Paléologue could have suggested the case to Hague, but he never suggested that to Paris. we are left with weak OR by Boris Romanov phrased so as to praise the Tsar. Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC) In addition to the book by M. Paleologos, I gave the link (online) for the two primary source (Willy-Nicky Correspondence). Text of the telegram is the same.Борис Романов (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Rjensen, thank you for the link Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs, Volume 1 - Octagon Books, 1972Борис Романов (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Use of primary sources is generally considered original research, which is prohibited. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC) First, it is not prohibited, but is not recommended. Second, in this case, the primary sources of information only confirm the book by Maurice Palaeologus (and not vice versa). Third, I can put the primary sources in footnote (remove them from the text of the article), or even remove them altogether (and leave only a link to the book by Maurice Palaeologus). It will look like this: July 29, Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to transmit the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram.[28][29][30]. The data of M.Palaeologus's book are confirmed by primary sources (texts of telegrams from well-known Willy-Nicky Telegrams July 29 -1 August 1914). [28]: ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian). 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII)</ref [29]: ref>Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs, Volume 1 - Octagon Books, 1972</ref [30]: ref>Quote: (Palaeologus M.G . Tsarist Russia during World War . Chapter XII. The Forgotten Tsar's telegram to Emperor Wilhelm): "Sunday, January 31, 1915 Petrograd “Governmental Herald” publishes the text of the telegram dated 29 July last year in which Emperor Nicholas suggested that Emperor Wilhelm convey the Austro-Serbian dispute the Hague tribunal. Here is the text of the document: "Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship." - The German government has not seen fit to publish this telegram to the number of messages that are exchanged directly, both the monarch during the crisis preceding the war. ... - And what a terrible responsibility assumed the Emperor Wilhelm, leaving without a word of reply sentence of Nicholas! He could not respond to an offer otherwise than agreeing to it. And he did not answer because he wanted war".</ref. **** The last words in the text (above) can be give as link Willy-Nicky Telegrams July 29 -1 August 1914 Борис Романов (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Going a touch OT, I continue to object to the inclusion of quotes in footnotes. They're completely unnecessary. Anybody wanting to know what the souce actually sez can look it up. If it doesn't support the claim, it'll get removed; if it does, the quote is needless verbiage. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC) I think we can put the text to the following: July 29, Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to transmit the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram.[28][29][30]. [28]: ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian). 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII)</ref [29]: ref>Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs, Volume 1 - Octagon Books, 1972</ref [30]: The data of M.Palaeologus's book are confirmed by primary sources (texts of telegrams from well-known Willy-Nicky Telegrams July 29 -1 August 1914). What are your opinion? Борис Романов (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov I don't think anyone's opinion has changed; this is not worthy of inclusion in the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC) I think you need to drop this now, consensus is against inclusion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC) To drop what? - I respond to comments and questions opponents rather than "talking to myself". Борис Романов (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov "Drop it" means stop debating the matter further. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Fundamentally, the issue is that there is no consensus to include this one particular telegram (one of many which were being sent between the leaders and diplomats of Europe in the lead-in to war) in an article covering the whole of the First World War. Inclusion of this on its own, without giving the whole picture, would give rise to WP:WEIGHT issues.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC) We read in WP WEIGHT (WP: Neutral point of view) (WP: Due and undue weight): “As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.” “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint” Obviously, Russia (represented by Foreign Minister Sazonov) and France (represented by the French Ambassador to Russia Maurice Palaeologus) believed the telegram Nicholas II an important fact in the chain of events on the eve of the war, and their point of view was published in reliable source (the book Maurice Palaeologus). Therefore, it is significant viewpoints. Борис Романов (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Nonsense--they are NOT reliable secondary sources. Actually Palaeologus says the Tsar told neither of them about the telegram--it was discovered months later and publicized as Russian propaganda, which is where Botris picks it up. Rjensen (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Why do you think that the book of the Ambassador of France and the French Academician Maurice Palaeologus is "NOT reliable secondary sources"? Борис Романов (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov because he says himself it is a memoir--his personal recollections of what he saw at the time. He is not a scholar or historian and did not have access to the archives which all scholars now use. Using him is original research into a primary source and that is restricted territory. Hundreds of real scholars have looked at the telegram and have NOT considered it important enough to emphasize or even mention. Furthermore the Ambassador was a leading enemhy of Germany and was a supporter of the Tsar (an ally of France). Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC) You do not hear my earlier arguments: the primary sources (letters of Nicholas II and Wilhelm II) confirm M.Palaeologus's memories. Everything else - your personal opinion, and and your personal opinion contradicts the rules of WP WEIGHT (see my post above). Борис Романов (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Personal memoir of a French ambassador + letters copied from a Russian newspaper ≠≠≠≠≠≠≠ RS. This is not going to be added to the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I do not know the RS which would prove that Palaeologus's book and the correspondence of Nicholas II and Wilhelm are fake or propaganda (the biased sources). But more than that, even if you find such sources, the rules of Wikipedia is not recommended to delete my text (once more,see WP WEIGHT (WP: Neutral point of view) (WP: Due and undue weight)): “As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. ...” Борис Романов (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov "Everything else - your personal opinion, and and your personal opinion contradicts the rules of WP WEIGHT" No, it doesn't. Your desire to add a trivial communication simply for the fact it exists, or for the fact it paints Nicholas as a notional peacemaker, does. I also suspect the effort to launder Nicholas' rep violates NPOV. Nor do you have consensus. Nor are you likely to have, by appearances. And continuing to beat this dead horse is only going to buy you trouble. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I see no point in continuing this debate, as opponents are again and again repeating the same old, inconclusive (and contrary to the rules of Wikipedia) arguments against new and more new of my arguments, and opponents are ignoring my reference to the rules of Wikipedia. All the old arguments of opponents also were denied and rejected (by me) on the merits. I'll answer further only to new arguments (or questions) opponents. Борис Романов (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov THREE NEW RS . 1. G. Buchanan. «My Mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories», L. 1920/1923. (Chapter XV). - G. Buchanan. «My Mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories», 1923 (P.200) Quote: “To this the Emperor Nicholas replied: “Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship.”” 2. The Evidence in the Case by James M. Beck (p.81, p.106) Quote (p.81): “...the Czar, with evident sincerity, suggested to the Kaiser that "with the aid of God it must be possible to our long tried friendship to prevent the shedding of blood," and proposed a reference of the question to the Hague.” Quote (p.106): “THE SUPPRESSED TELEGRAM FROM THE CZAR. It is a curious and suggestive fact that the German Foreign Office in publishing the correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar omitted one of the most important telegrams. The Russian Government on January 31, 1915, therefore, made public the following telegram which the Czar sent to the Kaiser on July 29, 1914: "Thanks for your conciliatory and friendly telegram. Inasmuch as the official message presented to-day by your Ambassador to my Minister was conveyed in a very different tone, I beg you to explain this divergency. It would be right to give over the Austro-Servian problem to The Hague Conference. I trust in your wisdom and friendship." The German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "_unimportant_" for publication. Comment is unnecessary. It thus appears that the Czar at the beginning of his correspondence with the Kaiser suggested that the whole dispute be submitted to The Hague Tribunal for adjustment. Servia had already made the same suggestion. As the world owes the first Hague Convention to the Czar's initiative, it can justly be said to his lasting credit that he at least was loyal to the pacific ideal of that great convention of the nations.” THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium. BY JAMES M. BECK, LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. Author of "The War and Humanity." 3. "History of Russia. XX Century "(Volume I, 1894-1939). - M., 2010, (P.291) "History of Russia. XX Century "(Volume I, 1894-1939). - M., 2010, 1023 pages. Written by 45 historians led by Andrei Zubov, a professor at the institute that serves as university to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the weighty history — almost 1,000 pages per volume — was published this year by AST Publishers. We read on p. 291 of this book: “During the entire period of the Balkan crisis, Russian diplomacy feverishly sought to avoid the possibility of a large European conflict. Emperor Nicholas II took an active correspondence with the Kaiser Wilhelm II, trying to convince him to make his Austrian ally, think again. “It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship”,- Russian Tsar wrote to Kaiser.” Next, the authors write that the Tsar's advisors (Sazonov, Sukhomlinov and Yanushkevich) considered war inevitable, and insisted on a general mobilization; Nicolas II hesitated, and had hoped to agree with Wilhelm II - but the correspondence gave nothing, and Tsar ordered a general mobilization. You may read also NY Times book review: "History of Russia. XX Century" (A History of 20th-Century Russia, Warts and All): ”Eminent historians in the United States and Poland who often take a critical view of Russia’s passionate, partisan discussion of history lauded its balance.” You may read there also the opinion of Richard Pipes: “Nothing like it has ever been published in Russia,” - Richard Pipes, the Harvard University Sovietologist, wrote in an e-mail message, noting that he was trying to raise money for a translation and publication in English. “It is a remarkable work: remarkable not only for Russia but also for Western readers. For one, it has gotten away from the nationalism so common in Russian history books, according to which the Russians were always the victims of aggression, never aggressors.” So, we have now four RS (four - with M.Paleologus's book). Once again, I ask opponents to change their position and bring it into conformity with the rules of Wikipedia. Борис Романов (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Борис Романов (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov After a very long read - I also don't see any merit for inclusion on any level here.Moxy (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC) This is becoming tedious. I'm tempted to close and hat this discussion, as it will never go anywhere. These telegrams were inconsequential and will never merit a mention in the already-swollen main article. Please, WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC) We read there (WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass): "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy." - So, you appeal to a certain essay, which does not represent the policy of Wikipedia, and at the same time you ignore the existing rules Wikipedia that contradict your position (Earlier I wrote on these WP's rules).Борис Романов (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov I know that it is not policy. However, what you are doing (attempting to use the letter of policy to circumvent a clear consensus) can be considered WP:WIKILAWYERING and is highly frowned upon. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) We read there the same thing: "this essay does not represent the policy of Wikipedia". Worse yet, instead of answering on the merits of my new sources, you are referring to the essay, which now (in this case) has been working against you personally. :) The essence of the problem is this: earlier, you (and other opponents) have justified the removal of my addition in that it contained only one reference to a secondary source (and not the RS, - in your opinion). Now I give three more secondary source (all RS!). Instead of an answer and comment on the essences of these RS, you yourself have started WP:WIKILAWYERING :) Борис Романов (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov I think, now we can put the text to the following: July 29, Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to transmit the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram.[28][29][30][31][32][33]. [28]: ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian). - 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII)</ref [29]: ref>Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs, Volume 1 - Octagon Books, 1972</ref [30]: ref>G. Buchanan. «My Mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories», 1923 (P.200)</ref [31]: ref>[The Evidence in the Case. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium. by James M. Beck, LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. Author of "The War and Humanity."] (p.81, p.106)</ref [32]: ref> History of Russia. XX Century/ edited by Dr., Prof. Andrei Zubov.(Volume I, 1894-1939). - M.: AST Publishers, 2010 . (P. 291)</ref [33]: The data of all secondary sources are confirmed by primary sources (texts of telegrams from well-known Willy-Nicky Telegrams July 29 -1 August 1914). What are your opinion? Борис Романов (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov So, none of the former six opponents have not yet commented on the essence (merits) of my new RSs. Is your silence is consent and now you acknowledge that all four sources are RS? Борис Романов (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov I doubt if there will be many editors interested in searching through primary or foreign language sources to find an assertion that backs up your statement, especially when the upshot is obvious. There was no agreement, the question was not refered to the Hague, and the war went ahead, so the exchange had no effect. Now if you find a quality secondary source, preferably in English, discussing Willy's reasons and showing that he had a viable alternative then you just might be able to persuade someone that it is worth including. If you do have such sources, please cite them precisely (e.g. provide page numbers) and make it clear which ones they are. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 1. RS [29, 30, 31] (in English) provide links directly to the texts with information on the telegram of Nicholas II. Links to Russian RS [28, 32] contain references to page numbers. 2. You write: "There was no agreement, the question was not refered to the Hague ..." . I have already alluded to earlier, that in the article World War II (with label "good article"), we see five references to the League of Nations, including as appeals to the League Nation, so and (for example) the following: "Both Italy and Ethiopia were member nations, but the League did nothing when the former clearly violated the League's own". – Thus, a good article on Wikipedia mentions all cases of appeals to, action and inaction of the League of Nations ("non-events"). 3. Had Willhelm II has a real alternative (could he accept the offer of Nicholas II)? - As ambassadors of France (M. Paleologos – RS[28,29]) and of England (J. Buchanan - RS[30]) in Russia at that time as well as a modern scholar James M. Beck (Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. - RS[31]) believe that Wilhelm II could (and should) accept the proposal of Nicholas II. They all believe that Wilhelm has not responded to a telegram to Nicholas because he wanted a war - because by 1914, Germany had already completed his military rearmament, but Russia and France were planning to finish upgrading their armies only to 1917. Even such Germanophile as Vladimir Lenin wrote about this in one of his articles (in September 1914). However, we don't need in OR in this question: M. Palaeologus [28, 29] wrote: “The German government has not seen fit to publish this telegram to the number of messages that are exchanged directly, both the monarch during the crisis preceding the war. ... And what a terrible responsibility assumed the Emperor Wilhelm, leaving without a word of reply sentence of Nicholas! He could not respond to an offer otherwise than agreeing to it. And he did not answer because he wanted war.” James M. Beck [31] wrote: “It is a curious and suggestive fact that the German Foreign Office in publishing the correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar omitted one of the most important telegrams. … The German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "_unimportant_" for publication. Comment is unnecessary. It thus appears that the Czar at the beginning of his correspondence with the Kaiser suggested that the whole dispute be submitted to The Hague Tribunal for adjustment. Servia had already made the same suggestion. As the world owes the first Hague Convention to the Czar's initiative, it can justly be said to his lasting credit that he at least was loyal to the pacific ideal of that great convention of the nations.” Thus, we have all the information that you deem necessary, in the RS [28-31]Борис Романов (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov You wrote: “Now if you find a quality secondary source, preferably in English, discussing Willy's reasons and showing that he had a viable alternative then you just might be able to persuade someone that it is worth including.” Well... James M. Beck wrote (The Evidence in the Case. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium. - by James M. Beck, LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. )Chapter VIII The Intervention of the Kaiser : “Before proceeding to analyze the very interesting and dramatic correspondence, which passed between the rulers of Germany, England, and Russia--doubly interesting because of the family relationship and the unusual personal and cousinly intimacy of these dispatches--it is well to inquire what the Kaiser could have done that would have immediately avoided the crisis and saved the situation. So far as the published record goes, he did not send a single telegram in the interests of peace to his illustrious ally, the Emperor Francis Joseph. Let us suppose that he had sent the following: ”I have just returned to Berlin and find Europe on the verge of war. I sympathize entirely with you and your country in its demands upon Servia. I agree with you that the Servian reply is not satisfactory. In accordance with the obligations of our alliance, I shall in any event support with the full power of the German sword the cause of Austria. Servia has by its reply admitted its responsibility for the murder of the Archduke and has unreservedly accepted certain of your demands, and as to others has agreed to submit them either to The Hague Tribunal for arbitration, or to a concert of Powers. You will decide whether Austria is satisfied to accept either of these suggestions, but as England, France, and Russia have asked that time be granted to consider a peaceful and satisfactory solution of the difficulty, and as the questions reserved by Servia can be used as the basis for further discussion without prejudice to the rights of Austria, and as it is to the interest of every country and the entire world that its peace should not be broken unnecessarily, I shall be gratified if you can agree that a reasonable time shall be granted as a matter of courtesy to Russia, England, and France, in order that it may be determined upon due consideration whether it is not possible to preserve peace without sacrificing in any respect the legitimate demands of Austria, which have my full sympathy and support. WILHELM.” Would the Austrian Emperor, himself a noble-minded and peace-loving monarch, have refused this reasonable request? A little time, a little patience and some forbearance for the rights of other States and the youth of Europe need not have perished.” END QUOTE ::Chapter VIII The Intervention of the Kaiser Борис Романов (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Please stop including the Paléologue memoir; there is general agreement that it is not reliable. The Buchanan source is just another memoir and is not the best recent scholarship; moreover, it does not support your assertion that the telegram was not answered. The telegram received only a brief mention in Evidence in the Case, nowhere near important enough a mention to include it in the main article; it also does not support your assertion that the telegram was not answered. You have not provided any link to the History of Russia source, so I can't make any comment on it as I am unable to read what it says in full; in addition, the text you provided from it does not give any confirmation of your assertion that the kaiser did not respond (yet again). Finally, saying "The data of all secondary sources are confirmed by primary sources" is just pure original research. When I look at the primary sources, I do not see any "confirmation" that the tsar's telegram was not answered, I see an incomplete conversation. This telegram is, as the German Office put it, "unimportant", and I continue to oppose its addition into the article. No quality source has treated it with any significant depth for it to be considered as being of any large-scale importance. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Please, see my answer to LeadSongDog (above). As to M.Paeologos's book: 1. Please, give here WP link (general agreement) about "there is general agreement that it is not reliable"; 2. As RS [31] directly confirm M.Paleologos's info, so therefor the info reliable. Борис Романов (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov You wrote: “This telegram is, as the German Office put it, "unimportant", and I continue to oppose its addition into the article. No quality source has treated it with any significant depth for it to be considered as being of any large-scale importance” However, in opposite, Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov, the ambassadors of France and England in Russia (M. Paleologos and James Buchanan), James M. Beck (assistant to the Attorney General of the United States) - all of them believed the telegram as very important, and they all had accused Wilhelm II that he had not replied to this telegram. Moreover, M. Paleologos devoted an entire chapter to the telegram in his book, and James M. Beck has paid much attention to the telegram in his book. Thus, as Wikipedia should reflect all the important points of view, we must mention the telegram in the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Борис Романов (talk • contribs) 11:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I have to agree with Lothar. I don't see this message as anything but trivial, & I frankly can't understand the insistence on including it unless there's some underlying factor I don't see. Prima facie, this is trivia, unworthy of inclusion; at best, it's contrary to undue for such a minor matter.. If there's something partisan, it would seem to be NPOV. In any case, it's pretty clear to me there's enough opposition to keeping it out, & far from sufficient evidence to support inclusion. The claim for "4 reliable sources" is nonsense; a book review of one of the quoted sources does not qualify as independent confirmation nor a separate source. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC) You wrote: “a book review of one of the quoted sources does not qualify as independent confirmation nor a separate source” - what do you mean? 1st Edition of M.Paléologue's book (La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre) was in 1922. The book of James M. Beck has copyright 1915 The Evidence in the Case. The War and Humanity. P.1 and his sources were so-called English and German _White Paper_ , Russian _Orange Paper_ and France _Yellow Book_ – all were published in 1914 (soon after the start of WWI) The Evidence in the Case. The War and Humanity. Chapter II The Record in the Case. James M. Beck refers on documents and other publication of 1915 too. Борис Романов (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov @Boris, I wonder if you are familiar with wp:PSTS, wp:NPOV and wp:SYNTH? The English-language Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not primary ones, in order to avoid the unguarded introduction of assertions which are not generally accepted by the academic mainstream or unbalanced points of view. It is hardly surprising that diplomatic telegrams and other writings by representatives of one side in a conflict would point blame at the head of the other side. That does not constitute reliable sourcing for anything more than "Writer x said y in source z". What x said might be complete or partial fiction, utterly accurate, or simply slightly biased - we can't reasonably make an assumption that it is accurate and neutral. That leaves for discussion only your [32] (Zubov et al.). The fact that it is written in Russian limits our ability to readily assess it. Can you find similar assertions in an impartial English-language history in the same subject area, so that we can verify the authors consider it significant and present it neutrally? Perhaps OCLC 419798177 or OCLC 153916302 might address it? If not, we'd have to find some Russian-reading editors willing to examine the reliability of that source. That could be done by posting on a few noticeboards, but it is a less desirable choice as it leaves the source opaque to the majority of our readers. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC) LeadSongDog, in this case we can clearly distinguish primary and secondary sources: Willy-Nicky Telegrams July 29 -1 August 1914), and diplomatic documents (English, German and Russian "White Paper" of which James M. Beck writes in his book as about his primary sources) - all its are the primary sources. The books themselves (of James M. Beck, M. Paleologos and J. Buchanan) are obviously the secondary sources. Of course, these books are secondary RS. As for the book by A. Zubov (History of Russia. XX Century/ edited by Dr., Prof. Andrei Zubov.(Volume I, 1894-1939). - M.: AST Publishers, 2010), then it can be regarded as secondary or tertiary RS. Another thing is that all three of these books might appear to someone as "biased secondary sources" - in the sense that their authors believe Wilhelm II as instigator of the war, and they accuse of Wilhelm II that he has not responded to the telegram of Nicholas II. However, Wikipedia does not recommend the removal from the article the information of "biased sources," but WP recommends that supplement this information with other points of view. We read in WP WEIGHT (WP: Neutral point of view) (WP: Due and undue weight): “As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ” - From the very beginning I talked about this to opponents. He did not do it, but just removed my information from the article. However, we can add my former information by the known point of view of the German Foreign Office (from James M. Beck 's book: “the German Foreign Office in publishing the correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar omitted this telegrams. The German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "_unimportant_" for publication.”). I think the addition might be the following (this text can be given in a footnote (as a footnote)): According to the James M. Beck's book, the German Foreign Office in publishing the correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar omitted this telegrams. The German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "_unimportant_". On the contrary, Russian Foreign Ministry (Minister Sazonov), as well as French Ambassador to Russia (M. Palaeologus) believed the telegram very important. M. Paleologos (and James M. Beck) in their books accused Kaiser Wilhelm that he had not supported the proposal of the Russian Tsar to submit the Austro-Serbian problem to The Hague Tribunal for adjustment, and thus Kaiser abandoned the chance for a peaceful resolution to this problem . The bold test can be excluded, if opponents think it biased. P.S. As to me, I don't think that these three books (of James M. Beck, M. Paleologos and J. Buchanan) are the biased – because even such Germanophile as Vladimir Lenin wrote (in September 1914) that Wilhelm II wanted and started the WWI. However, I understand that these three books might appear to someone as "biased sources". Regards Борис Романов (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov 26 JUNE 2011 A further four secondary RS on the Nicholas's II telegram to Wilhelm II. 1. “Fighting for peace” by Henry Van Dyke. – New York. Charles Scribner's sons. 1917 (P.132-133). Henry Van Dyke wrote: “On the first point, I do not propose to retell the long story of the efforts supported by France, England, Italy, and Russia herself, to get Germany to consent to some plan, any plan, which might avert war by an appeal to reason and justice. To these efforts Germany answered in effect that she could not "coerce" her ally Austria. But one document in this line seems to me particularly interesting--even pathetic. It is a telegram sent by the late Czar Nicolas to his Imperial Cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm. It is dated July 29, 1914, and reads as follows: "Thanks for your telegram which is conciliatory and friendly, whereas the official message presented to-day by your Ambassador to my Minister was conveyed in a very different tone. I beg you to explain this divergency. It would be right to give over the Austro-Servian problem to The Hague Tribunal. I trust in your wisdom and friendship." "NICOLAS." – This telegram is not contained in the German White Book. But Professor von Mach gives it in his Official Diplomatic Documents (p. 596). I have been unable to find in any book, pamphlet, or collection of papers a trace of the Kaiser's answer. Probably he did not send one.” 2. We read in “International Judical Settlement Trends” by James Oliver Murdock, Harold J. Tobin, Henry S. Fraser, Francis O. Wilcox and Willard B. Cowles Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969) Vol. 34, (MAY 13-15, 1940), pp. 125-148 that Nicholas II “suggested that "it would be right to give over the Austro-Serbian problem to the Hague. Conference. [sic].” 3. We read in Arthur L. Frothingham. Handbook of War Facts and Peace Problems: “Russia's Final Efforts at Conciliation. . . . It would be right to give over the Austro-Serbian problem to the Hague Tribunal. I trust in your wisdom and friendship.[The Tsar to the German Emperor, July 29, 1914.] If Austria, recognizing that the Austro-Serbian question has assumed the character of a European question, declares herself ready to eliminate from her ultimatum the points which are an infringement of the sovereign rights of Serbia, Russia undertakes to cease her military preparations.---[Revised form of same proposal, transmitted the next day, July 31, as follows.] If Austria agrees to arrest the advance of her troops on Serbian territory, and if, recognizing that the dispute between Austria and Serbia has assumed the character of a question of general European interest, she will allow the Great Powers to examine how Serbia can give satisfaction to Austria-Hungary without impairment of her rights as a sovereign and independent state, Russia will undertake to maintain her waiting attitude.[Russian Orange Book, Nos. 60, 67.]” 4. We read in War Cyclopedia – N: “Nicholas II, Efforts to Maintain Peace. On July 29, 1914, Czar Nicholas sent the Kaiser the following telegram from -Tsarskoe Selo: "To H. M. the Kaiser of Germany: Thanks for your telegram, which is conciliatory and friendly, whereas the official message presented to-day by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. I beg you to explain this divergency. It would be right to give over the Austro-Serbian problem to The Hague Tribunal. I trust in your wisdom -and friendship.-Nicholas." Not only did the Kaiser not answer that telegram but he suppressed it. And in the official German White Book, giving the documents about the war, this, the last-telegram of the Czar, has disappeared. The reason subsequently given by the German official-s for suppressing the telegram was that it was not interesting. Americans, however, are apt to think that the Czar's proposal to submit the whole Austro-Serbian problem to The Hague Tribunal was very interesting. The fact that the German Government was interested -In war may explain such tampering with the records. See Grey and British Policy in 1914; Mobilization Controversy; "Potsda7Th Conference"; Serbia, Austrian Ultimatum; William II.” War Cyclopedia: A Handy Reference on the Great War, published in 1918 So, we have a total of eight secondary RS. Dear opponents, I ask you again: please reconsider your not constructive (and contrary to the rules of WP) position - or provide here new intelligible arguments against the inclusion of my information in the WP. Борис Романов (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov I think, now we can put the text as the following: July 29, Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to submit the Austro-Servian problem to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. [28]: ref>[The Evidence in the Case. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium. by James M. Beck, LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. Author of "The War and Humanity."] (p.81, p.106)</ref [29]: ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian); 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII); Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs (Volume 1, Chapter VIII(see Sunday, January 31, 1915)</ref [30]:ref>G. Buchanan. «My Mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories», 1923 (P.200)</ref [31]: ref>“Fighting for peace” by Henry Van Dyke. – New York. Charles Scribner's sons. 1917 (P.132-133)</ref [32]: ref>“International Judical Settlement Trends” by James Oliver Murdock, Harold J. Tobin, Henry S. Fraser, Francis O. Wilcox and Willard B. Cowles Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969) Vol. 34, (MAY 13-15, 1940), pp. 125-148 [33]: ref>Arthur L. Frothingham. Handbook of War Facts and Peace Problems</ref [34]: ref>A Handy Reference on the Great War, published in 1918 (War Cyclopedia – N)</ref [35]: ref> History of Russia. XX Century/ edited by Dr., Prof. Andrei Zubov.(Volume I, 1894-1939). - M.: AST Publishers, 2010 . (P. 291)</ref [36]: ref>The data of all secondary sources are confirmed by primary sources (texts of telegrams from well-known Willy-Nicky Telegrams July 29 -1 August 1914).</ref [37]: ref>The German Foreign Office in publishing (the fall of 1914) the correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar omitted this telegrams (the German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "_unimportant_" for publication). On the contrary, Russian Foreign Ministry (Minister Sazonov), as well as French Ambassador to Russia (M. Palaeologus) believed the telegram very important. M. Paleologos (also James M. Beck and others authors) in their books accused Kaiser Wilhelm that he had not supported the proposal of the Russian Tsar to submit the Austro-Serbian problem to The Hague Tribunal for adjustment, and thus Kaiser abandoned the chance for a peaceful resolution to this problem .</ref What are your opinion? Борис Романов (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Moxy (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC) We read there: " It is not a Wikipedia policy." Борис Романов (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Get over itMoxy (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC) We read there the same: " It is not a Wikipedia policy."Борис Романов (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Really time to just drop it last post about this from meMoxy (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Hmm... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Dear Moxy, why are you giving me the third time in reference to the WP's project pages which (quote) "It is not a Wikipedia policy"? - No one of my former seven opponents till now don't answered on the merits of my new redaction (with 8 RS!). May be their silence is a sign of agreement with my new proposal? Or, may be, they are thinking now? Anyhow , "a silence is a sign of agreement. ":) Борис Романов (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov "silence is a sign of agreement" I assure you, it's not. It's a sign of recognition of the futility of trying to persuade you, akin to trying to persuade the conspiracy loons FDR didn't arrange the attack on Pearl Harbor or convince Greens PV cells don't actually work at night. Marcel Marceau who are you telling to shut up? 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC) So, three weeks have passed since I presented the three RS, and another two weeks have passed since I presented the four RS in addition. All these RS confirm that the telegram of Nicholas II was considered in the WWI (1914-1919) in Allies (France, Great Britain, Russia, USA) as an important proposal. Famous people have written about the telegram in his articles and memoirs. This telegram is mentioned even in the American Encyclopedia, 1918. Earlier, my opponents argued their position by that fact that I gave one single reference to RS (M.Paleologos's book). Now we have 8 RS. And what? Where are your new arguments? Борис Романов (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Boris, you continue to confuse primary with secondary sources. Just because someone quotes or reprints a primary source (such as the telegrams) does not cause it to gain reliability. We use secondary sources because the publication of credible, independent, informed analysis by experts tells us what we can believe and what is verifiably significant amongst all the divergent primary sources out there. And wp:V most definitely is policy. Now please, either bring real secondary sources with modern academic analysis, or let it drop. This campaign to change your namesake's reputation is misplaced.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Dear LeadSongDog, regarding primary and secondary sources, I have answered you in detail earlier (June 25). Famous Diplomats (M. Paleologos, J. Buchanan), Deputy U.S. Attorney General, the well-known foreign and Russian historians (including the modern ones — Dr. Zubov and others) - all of them are the experts on the theme. Even just the fact that they mentioned the telegram - this indicates its importance. And some of these experts have devoted entire sections of this telegram in their studies. Finally, I remind you again that this telegram is mentioned even in the American Encyclopedia, 1918. Regarding your comment that «this campaign to change your namesake's reputation is misplaced», then this observation has nothing to do with the merits of the topic and the rules of Wikipedia. Similarly the same, I would might blame all of my opponents is that they want to save the reputation of Wilhelm II, and so opponents do not want to include a reference to the Nicholas's II telegram in the Wikipedia entry.Борис Романов (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov It seems that you still have not grasped why wikipedia considers primary sources to not be reliable sources in most cases. Your desire to use politicians, diplomats, and other first-person actors as experts is not what wikipedia does. We would use secondary sources that discuss the ideas they advanced, but pseudonymous wikipedia editors can not be trusted by readers, and so we must not substitute our own judgement for that found in the highest quality sources published: that would be wp:Original research. This principle pertains to the weight applied to different subject material as much as it does to simple assertions of fact. Out of all the sources you list, perhaps Zubov might be useful, but the others are all blatantly primary. You have not indicated how much emphasis Zubov gave this topic, or what he had to say about it. A translated quote might be helpful in conveying that to the primarily anglophone editors here. If you don't feel able to provide the translation, we can find a translator, given a succinct quotation. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC) We read in Wikipedia (Primary source): «For example, if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source; but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary"» We also read in Wikipedia (Secondary source): “a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation...” In this case, the primary sources are the official "White Books" of Russian Foreign Ministry and of the German Foreign Ministry (1914-1915), which was published diplomatic correspondence on the eve of war, including the discussing telegram. A post of Russian government newspaper (January 31, 1915 Petrograd "Governmental Herald", referred to by M. Palaeologus, in his book), is also a primary source. Accordingly, the memoirs of M. Paleologos, J. Buchanan, as well as all other listed my sources are secondary sources. Thus we have 8 secondary RS. As for the book edited by A. Zubov, the events before WWI described there on two pages (pp. 290-291). The authors write about the telegram into the following content: "The Emperor Nicholas entered into active correspondence with the Kaiser Wilhelm, trying to persuade him to make his Austrian ally, think again. "It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship" - wrote Russian Tsar to Kaiser. Advisers of Tsar (Minister of Foreign Affairs Sazonov, Minister of War Sukhomlinov and Chief of General Staff Yanushkevich) considered war inevitable, and insisted on general mobilization. They regarded the Kaiser's maneuvers as an attempt to to delay the mobilization of the Russian Army to the outbreak of war in Germany was in a better position than Russia. However, Nicholas understood the consequences of announcements of general mobilization, and he continued to fluctuate and was hoping for a chance to negotiate with Wilhelm. Germany demanded that Russia give up a general mobilization, threatening war otherwise. The feverish correspondence between the Tsar and the Kaiser did not lead to anything. 17 (30) July Nicholas II ordered a general mobilization." History of Russia. XX Century/ edited by Dr., Prof. Andrei Zubov.(Volume I, 1894-1939). - M.: AST Publishers, 2010 . (P. 291) Борис Романов (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov ♠You've gone to enormous length proving the existence & authenticity of the telegram, which AFAIK nobody disputes. You have yet to say word one that I've noticed, despite more verbiage on a more trivial matter than I have seen on anything, anywhere, in my time on WP, about why it has significance. For this, you will need actual reliable secondary sources. Your continued, stubborn assertions of it notwithstanding, such evidence has not appeared. Two pages in one source do not establish significance. Something like, I don't know, an entire book on the importance of the telegram would be a start. Or even an entire article in a scholarly journal. Mention by the Smallville Crow or an appearance on the Wall of Weird doesn't get it. ♠Moreover, I continue to be perplexed by your fixation on this issue. I fail to see how it could possibly be worth the effort. Unless you have some other agenda I don't follow. This is really beginning to make me tired. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC) (BTW, I'm not your "dear" anything, so you can quit with that, too.) So in essence, all this has been summarized by Zubov as "The feverish correspondence between the Tsar and the Kaiser did not lead to anything." Is that really worth including in the article?LeadSongDog come howl! 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, that is really worth including in the book by Zubov (p.291) Yes, the feverish correspondence between the Tsar and the Kaiser did not lead to anything – we all know this, and this is seen in all eight secondary RS, I have listed. Nevertheless, all eight well-known authors of these RS wrote about this telegram of Nicholas II (one single telegram!) - from the many hundreds of documents MFA of Russia, Germany, Britain and France, which were published in the "White Papers" of the Foreign Ministry in these countries in 1914-1915 . Why are all these authors identify this single telegram? - The answer is obvious: because they think it was very important suggestion of Nicholas II, which would could pave the way for a peaceful solution of the Austro-Serbian problem. Therefore, we must also mention this telegram in Wikipedia. Борис Романов (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Please remove the fingers from your ears. You have shown at most one reliable source. Secondary sources are not necessarily reliable. These ones you list are clearly not independent, as explained above. If you still think they are, I suggest that you take the matter to the reliable sources noticeboard for further discussion. Continuing to repeat the same thing here is nonsensical.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC) If I understand correctly, you now acknowledge my list (all 8 sources) as secondary sources, but do not consider them reliable and independent (except book by Zubov). Why do you think that my seven secondary sources are not reliable and independent? Please explain this for each of seven of my sources: [1]: ref>[The Evidence in the Case. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium. by James M. Beck, LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. Author of "The War and Humanity."] (p.81, p.106)</ref first person, contemporary, not independent [2]: ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian); 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII); Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs (Volume 1, Chapter VIII(see Sunday, January 31, 1915)</ref [3]:ref>G. Buchanan. «My Mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories», 1923 (P.200)</ref first person, not independent [4]: ref>“Fighting for peace” by Henry Van Dyke. – New York. Charles Scribner's sons. 1917 (P.132-133)</ref first person, contemporary, not independent [5]: ref>“International Judical Settlement Trends” by James Oliver Murdock, Harold J. Tobin, Henry S. Fraser, Francis O. Wilcox and Willard B. Cowles Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969) Vol. 34, (MAY 13-15, 1940), pp. 125-148 might have some value, will need closer review, but written during the dawn of WW2, so suspect on that grounds as advocating a US-centric position [6]: ref>Arthur L. Frothingham. Handbook of War Facts and Peace Problems</ref contemporary, US-centric [7]: ref>A Handy Reference on the Great War, published in 1918 (War Cyclopedia – N)</ref blog Борис Романов (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Really, did you even think these would be reliable? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC) 1. What do you mean “first person”? 2. Please, give refer to WP rules that forbid to use books of “first person, contemporary, not independent”. Please, give refer to WP rules that mark such books as not RS. Please, give refer to WP rules that mark books by G. Buchanan, M.Palaeologus and other famous diplomats and politics as not RS. May be you declare Winston Churchill and his “The World Crisis 1916-1918” as “first person, contemporary, not independent” too?! :) – this source is such the same as books of G. Buchanan, M.Palaeologus. WP contains many thousand refers on such sources! 3. As to item 7 of my list (A Handy Reference on the Great War, published in 1918) – this is not a blog. This book was published in USA by Division of Civic and Educational Cooperation of the state Committee on Public Information. Борис Романов (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Would you PLEASE read and understand wp:PRIMARY? This repetition is growing very annoying. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC) There (wp:PRIMARY) are no terms "first person", "contemporary", "independent" (or "not independent”). Борис Романов (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Try wikt:first person, wikt:contemporary, wikt:independent, or your friendly desk dictionary. I'm attempting to convey to you that your proposed sources are ones that do not have editorial independence from and neutrality about the subject matter. Diplomats and politicians argue for the interest of their states or their constituents. Where they know something that would harm those interests, they rarely publish that knowledge. That means they are not reliable sources. We normally only trust what they say when it works against those interests, paradoxical as that may seem. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Your arguments are beyond the scope of the rules of Wikipedia. You are not able to give references to the rules of WP. According to the rules of WP, all my sources are secondary RS (and item 7 – tertiary RS). Two out of eight of my RS can be considered as biased (books of M.Paleologos and James M. Beck), but the rules of WP are not recommended to delete text only for this reason (I have given appropriate references to the rule above). Six out of eight of my RS did not contain political assessments of the telegram of Nicholas II, and only report the fact of sending it to the Kaiser. The proposed additions don't now contain political assessments of the telegram Nicholas II (I do not give it quotes from the "biased" estimates of M.Paleologos and James M. Beck). Finally, M. Paleologos and J. Buchanan published his memoirs in 1920-th, after WWI and after the fall of the monarchy in Russia. Since they are both warmly welcomed the fall of the monarchy, they had no reason to mention the telegram Nicholas - but only because they considered it an important event - objectively. Politically it was disadvantageous for they, to protect Nicholas in 1920-th. Thus, it is just the same case when «We normally only trust what they say when it works against those interests, paradoxical as that may seem.» So, I do not see any rules of Wikipedia, which prevents the publication of a short text on this telegram. Not to mention plain common sense that should prevail in the end to this protracted debate.Борис Романов (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov (EC)"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability." Secondary and tertiary sources, ie not first person, not contemporary, and independant. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC) ♠"plain common sense that should prevail in the end to this protracted debate"? Are you serious? You've shown no sign of recognizing "plain common sense", let alone listening to it. The term "primary source" isn't a WP term, it's widely understood in hisoriography, & you are refusing to acknowledge its meaning, or even its existence. WP refuses to accept primary sources for their notorious unreliability: factual errors & biases are commonplaces. ♠In addition, & I repeat, this all has a very strong smell of POV & somebody with an axe to grind. IDK what it is, but believe me, I would oppose any mention of anything connected to this telegram simply because you're trying so damn hard to get it in, no matter what sources you had. It's policy to assume good faith; I'm past that, now. You're trying way too hard for this not to have something else connected to it. ♠Beyond that, you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence in this mountain of verbiage on the significance of this blasted telegram. Show secondary sources--plural, more than one--which illustrate how it changed the course of events. Show sources that do more than mention the damn telegram in passing: one lousy line in a couple of sources is not evidence of significance, unless said line expressly says, "This telegram changed the outcome". ♠Failing that, & I expect you'll fail, do us all a favor: knock it off. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed. I return from two weeks' holiday to find that you have continued this inane little circus, and I find it downright obscene. You clearly are a single-purpose account here to push a POV, and it will not be tolerated. I repeat: drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC) The mention of Nicholas 's telegram in no way violates the principle of NPOV and other rules of Wikipedia. Conversely, persistent obstruction mention this violates the principle of NPOV and other rules of Wikipedia. Some opponents have written that they "will not permit to protect Nicholas II" - and it is a direct violation of the principle of NPOV, the more that my addition does not contain a single word in his (Nicholas II) defense or the "glorification". Only the fact of sending of this important telegram. I wrote earlier, that charges against me may be deployed against you: your persistence can be explained by the desire to protect the Kaiser Wilhelm - and it is a violation of the principle of NPOV. Note also that I have never insulted opponents, while many of you do it against me.Борис Романов (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov You've "never insulted opponents"? Don't you realize that is an insult? Wikipedia is a collaboration, not a wp:BATTLEGROUND. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC) wp:BATTLEGROUND:"Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. <...> Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely." I fully and faithfully implement the recommendations. You and other opponents do not do. Борис Романов (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov If you were to stop thinking of us as "opponents" and start thinking of us as "collaborators", "mentors" or even "coaches" we might make more headway. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC) One more RS: ninth in the list (and the second a modern RS, in addition to the book of A.Zubov): [9] D.C.B. Lieven. Russia and the Origins of the First World War. L., 1984 Professor Dominic C. B. Lieven, Russia and the Origins of the First World War Unfortunately, I can not tell right now the page of this book, in which the author writes about the telegram of Nicholas II (I don't have this book close at hand), but I hope to clarify this in the foreseeable future in one of the fundamental libraries in St. Petersburg. If one of opponents has now this book, I would be grateful for a info of the desired page and the exact quote.:) Борис Романов (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov I think I'm conversing with a wall. Anyhow, it would be ISBN 0-312-69608-6, OCLC 9111246. Held in many university libraries. Amazon shows one copy, used hardcover, for $190. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC) "I think I'm conversing with a wall." Word. I'll be interested to see how few lines this alleged new source contains on this matter. It does appear my prediction was correct, however. (Not a surprise. :( ) "Do not insult, harass, or intimidate" I invite you to show any of these. Frustrated refusal to concede your point does not constitute any. Karnak of Burbank the envelope, please 06:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC) And else two more RS: tenth and eleventh in the list: [10] Robert K.Massie. Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: 1967 p.320 in Russian edition (Massie gives the full text of the telegram of Nicholas II)Борис Романов (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov [11] Winston Churchill. The unknown war. L.: C. Scribner's Sons, 1931 p.170. The unknown war. p.170 Борис Романов (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov I was wrong. Three lines. Karnak of Burbank the envelope, please 21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC) And else one more RS: [12] Richard F. Hamilton, Holger H. Herwig. Origins of World War One. Cambridge University Press, 2003 (P.514) So we have three primary sources (White books of Ministries of Foreign Affairs 1914-1915, and the Russian government newspaper, January 1915), and 12 secondary RS, including the 7 RS of 1915-1923, 1 RS of 1931 (the book by Winston Churchill) and 4 modern RS. I reiterate my call for all participants of the discuss to give specific comments on the sources. I think we have enough RS to include information about the telegram of Nicholas II in the text WWI.Борис Романов (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov Honestly, what part of "insignificant" do you not understand? The issue isn't the existence of the telegram. The issue is it's importance. Three lines each in 12 sources, or in 100 sources, do not amount to significance. Show me one source dealing in its entirety with the telegram. Otherwise, will you just stop? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I wrote earlier that M. Paleologus has devoted (in his book [1]) the entire chapter for this telegram. Deputy U.S. Attorney General, in his book ([2]) - several pages. He even wrote what (in his opinion) Kaiser Wilhelm should was to answer to Nicholas II. "Insignificant" – this is only your personal opinion:Authors of these (12) RS have the opposite opinion: The fact that just only this telegram (one out of twenty) is mentioned in the 12 RS on WWI, proves that this telegram should be mentioned in the WP article on WWI. Борис Романов (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov Clearly no consensus for inclusion of this material so I suggest that the discussion is closed with no consensus for inclusion. Continually repeating the same point can be considered disruptive behaviour so unless anything new is raised I think this discussion can be closed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

«Continually repeating the same point»? - since 21 June, a few times I quoted more and more RS, and now we have twelve RS. Let me remind you that the initial (up to 21 June) consensus of seven my opponents was based on the fact that I quoted (up to 21 June) only one RS (M. Paleologos book). After 21 June, only two or three of former opponents (out of seven) continue to believe the telegram as "insignificant." It is their personal opinion clearly contradicts to opinion of the authors of 12 RS. Борис Романов (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov

Could you please read over Wikipedia:Single-purpose account - not sure your here to help the encyclopedia but rather to simply further this point.Moxy (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing research from the reign of Nicholas II, and has published two books on the subject. I do not see anything wrong in what I wrote on Wikipedia that I know well. I don't advertise (PR) my books here. I write in various WP's articles what I know. Борис Романов (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov

• Its unbelievable that this discussion is still dragging on. In an attempt to finalise it once and for all I am asking for a vote, to reach a consensus.

Should the details of the telegram or any mention of the telegram being sent be included in the article? A simple support or oppose is required.

• Oppose Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Moxy (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and have a hunch it won't stop friend Boris arguing the point. :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose LeadSongDog come howl! 05:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I vote "yes". I'm glad to inform colleagues that the the book ([7] from my list) published in 1918, the newly re-released recently (in 2004):

A Handy Reference on the Great War / by F. L. Paxson, E. S. Corwin, S. B. Harding and G. S. Ford. Honolulu Hawaii USA: University Press of the Pacific, 2004 (1st edition=1918)

Although indirectly, but it demonstrates the relevance of the topic.

And two more books from my list ([1], [4]), which were published in 1915-1917, now (in 2006-2010) published as E-book in a part of the projectProject Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ( www.gutenberg.org.) Борис Романов (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Thus, only four of the former nine participants reaffirmed their previous position (Oppose), and one new member joined to the previous four. We can say that the consensus of nine members (which took place prior to June 21) broke up.Борис Романов (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

The consensus is clearly against inclusion for the reasons given above.Moxy (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone here would agree at least that information about the telegram of Nicholas II certainly should be placed in Article WP Nicholas II of Russia. Meanwhile, July 30 Moxy has removed (diff 30 July, undo) from the section Nicholas II of Russia the following text:

July 29, Nicholas II sent a telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to transmit the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference[1] (in an Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague). Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram.[2][3][4]

The fact of removing this information from the article Nicholas II of Russia shows unequivocally that the reason for the reluctance of some participants to see the information about this telegram in the WP's articles is not its supposedly "insignificant", but - contrary - rather in its importance. Once again, the authors of the 12 RS considered this telegram as the main important one, and particularly distinguishes it from all 20 of telegrams exchanged between Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm 28-31 July 1914.Борис Романов (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov

I can't begin to tell you how unhappy I was to see your name appear on my watchlist once more... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

•facepalm• Some people just don't know when to quit... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Both of your posts are offensive and violate the WP's rule of the inadmissibility go on personality (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Both of your posts also show that you do not have any objective arguments against my evidence of the importance of the discussion telegram.Борис Романов (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

No, we've presented all of our arguments and continue to stand by them. Nothing you have said changes anything. You are operating under the erroneous assumption that you can "win" an argument by dogmatically thrashing a dead horse and yelling WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at the top of your lungs. In reality, all this does is erode your position. This tomfoolery has been shamelessly dragged out over several months now, and to tell you the truth, the rest of the editors here have gotten very tired of it. It's over. You can go home now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Once more insult (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks) that once again proves me right. For all time of the discussion, none of you could not say anything except "this telegram is insignificant." These your words mean nothing against opposite opinions of the authors of 12 RS.Борис Романов (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Wikipedia is a collaborative community, users whose personal agendas and actions appear to conflict with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed. Are you here to build an encyclopedia. Moxy (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Still, after all the above, we await a single modern, independent, reliable source. Repeated mischaracterizations of low-value sources as RS do not advance the discussion. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What are the sources of this list do you think are not the RS (low-value, etc.)?

Winston Churchill is "low-value"? G. Buchanan? M.G. Palaeologus? James M. Beck (LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S.)? Henry Van Dyke? James Oliver Murdock, Harold J. Tobin, Henry S. Fraser, Francis O. Wilcox and Willard B. Cowles? Arthur L. Frothingham? Robert K.Massie? D.C.B. Lieven? Richard F. Hamilton and Holger H. Herwig? Andrei Zubov, and almost forty of his co-authors (mostly with the degree of doctor and candidate of historical sciences)?

Here's the list:

[1]: ref>[The Evidence in the Case. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium. by James M. Beck, LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. Author of "The War and Humanity."] (p.81, p.106)</ref

[2]: ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian); 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII); Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs (Volume 1, Chapter VIII(see Sunday, January 31, 1915)</ref

[3]:ref>G. Buchanan. «My Mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories», 1923 (P.200)</ref

[4]: ref>“Fighting for peace” by Henry Van Dyke. – New York. Charles Scribner's sons. 1917 (P.132-133)</ref

[5]: ref>“International Judical Settlement Trends” by James Oliver Murdock, Harold J. Tobin, Henry S. Fraser, Francis O. Wilcox and Willard B. Cowles Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969) Vol. 34, (MAY 13-15, 1940), pp. 125-148

[6]: ref>Arthur L. Frothingham. Handbook of War Facts and Peace Problems</ref

[7]: ref>A Handy Reference on the Great War, published in 1918 (War Cyclopedia – N)</ref

[8]: ref>Winston Churchill. The unknown war. L.: C. Scribner's Sons, 1931</ref

[9]: ref>Robert K.Massie. Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: 1967</ref

[10]: ref> D.C.B. Lieven. Russia and the Origins of the First World War. L., 1984</ref

[11]: ref>Richard F. Hamilton, Holger H. Herwig. Origins of World War One. Cambridge University Press, 2003</ref

[12]: ref> History of Russia. XX Century/ edited by Dr., Prof. Andrei Zubov.(Volume I, 1894-1939). - M.: AST Publishers, 2010 . (P. 291)</ref

What kind of these RS you reject and why? Борис Романов (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

♠Yet again, you have utterly, abjectly failed to demonstrate the significance of the telegram. You can, as I said before, have 100 sources showing its existence. That proves nothing. AFAIK, nobody here doubts the telegram exists. (I have a strong conviction it would have been aired before now if anyone had.) What remains in dispute is its importance, & you are nowhere close to showing that. You aren't even in sight of showing that. Nor, it appears, will you ever be.

♠I continue to be dubious of your motives in doing this, especially since you keep coming back to it, as if you're hoping nobody will notice. (FYI, this is pushing the limits on NPA, I think, & I will take the heat if it is. I stand by this.) The more you do this, the more I wonder why, & the more strongly opposed I become to it ever being added.

♠This has a smell of willful blindness. Do us all, & yourself, a favor. Show me I'm wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote earlier that M. Paleologus has devoted (in his book [2]) the entire chapter for this telegram. Deputy U.S. Attorney General, in his book ([1]) - several pages. He even wrote what (in his opinion) Kaiser Wilhelm should was to answer to Nicholas II. And the fact that only just this telegram (one out of twenty from the correspondence between Nicholas II and Wilhelm 28-31 July 1914) is mentioned in these 12 RS on WWI, proves that this telegram was very importance - and now it should be mentioned in the WP article on WWI (and in Nicholas II of Russia).Борис Романов (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Not to mention the fact that your blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING on Talk:Nicholas II of Russia#July 29, (1914) Nicholas II sent a telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to submit the Austro-Serbian problem to the Hague Conference makes your motives look even more suspect. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

TY. That reassures me my nose for bullshit is as good as ever. :) Can't always say how I know, but I'm really good at knowing it's there. :) (Modesty is one of my better qualities. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This telegram is directly related to the themes of World War I ("Backgraund of WWI") and also Causes of World War I(Web of alliances) and also Nicholas II of Russia (World War I). Therefore, the information about this important telegram should be placed in the relevant sections of these WP articles. These obvious considerations have nothing to do with WP:FORUMSHOPPING (much information is repeated (duplicated) in these three sections of these articles and all these duplicate are needed in all three articles.) If you think that is enough to place the information on this telegram in only one of these WP articles, I am ready to discuss it. Борис Романов (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

"This telegram is directly related to the themes of World War I." This telegram is a trivial incident. And your failure here, & subsequent attempt elsewhere, is as clear a case of forum shopping as I can imagine. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion coincides only just with that of the German Foreign Office of the fall of 1914 (see [1]: ["The Evidence in the Case. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium" by James M. Beck, LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. - p.106). However, even the German Foreign Office yet changed its position in 1915 and published this telegram. So, you still (!) stand on the position of the German Foreign Office of the fall of 1914! :))) Борис Романов (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

I think that the information about the telegram of Nicholas II should be placed also in WP-articles Causes of World War I (section "Web of alliances") and Nicholas II of Russia (section "World War I")Борис Романов (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Борис Романов

Still no change from two/three months ago. No need to go through this again Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

During the time since the beginning of the discussion I have presented nearly 10 new RS about the telegram of Nicholas II, dated July 29, 1914. During this same time, opponents have not raised any new arguments against the publication of information about this telegram in the Wikipedia article (World War I).Борис Романов (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

" I have presented nearly 10 new RS" And not a single source explaining why this is anything but trivia. Which position you've wilfully ignored in pushing your own POV. Stop, already. This was really old in September. It's not gotten more attractive. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed this from 2 other articles - Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.Moxy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Over 10 RS describe this telegram of Nicholas II as an important document. Your opinion of this telegram ("unimportant", "minor event", etc.) is only match with the position of the German Foreign Office of autumn of 1914 ! Борис Романов (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

"Over 10 RS describe this telegram of Nicholas II as an important document." No, they don't. I've looked at them. They give it passing mention as a fact in the diplomacy around the war. Show me just one source written entirely about the telegram. There are books about the Zimmermann Telegram. There are substantial portions of books (I haven't seen an entire one) about the 14-Part Message. These are substantial, important events. If the telegram you're offering is important, show me the coverage. I've asked this a couple of times. You've failed to demonstrate it. Your belief in it does not make it so. Until, unless, you can show this item has had substantial coverage, it's trivia. That's not my view: that's what the historiography says, or there would be more coverage of it. Show me, or stop. You're persuading nobody. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote earlier that M. Paleologus has devoted (in his book [2]) the entire chapter for this telegram. Deputy U.S. Attorney General, in his book ([1]) - several pages. He even wrote what (in his opinion) Kaiser Wilhelm should was to answer to Nicholas II. And the fact that only just this telegram (one out of twenty from the correspondence between Nicholas II and Wilhelm 28-31 July 1914) is mentioned in these 12 RS on WWI, - this fact proves that this telegram was very importance. Борис Романов (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Will you just drop Paleologue already? We have been over this again and again and again and again: he is not a reliable secondary source. What will it take to get that through your head? You've been at this for months now; do you really think that rehashing the same weak arguments over and over again ad infinutum is going to change anyone's mind? Bottom line: your pet theory will not make it into this article. It is insignificant. Nobody cares. Now leave. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File this one under "some people never learn"... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness, it should probably be pointed out that this telegram is discussed by both Martin Gilbert (The First World War: A Complete History, 1994, p. 27) and John Keegan (The First World War, 1998, p. 63) and the result of the telegraphic correspondence between the Tsar and the Kaiser (sc. the cancellation of full Russian mobilization on 29 July, the day this telegram was sent) by Hew Strachan (The First World War, Vol I: To Arms, 2001, p. 85). Incidentally, there is confusion in the References section between this latter book (published by OUP) and Strachan's confusingly similarly titled The First World War, published by Viking in 2003. Wally Wiglet (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Wally Wiglet, thank you very much for the information. So, we have now 15 RS in supporting my point of view (see my post of September 4, 2011, with listing twelve RS, plus three new RS in the message of Dr. Wally Wiglet). It should be noted that six of the fifteen RS written and published after 1984 (in 1984-2010), and three RS which were written and published in 1915-1918, were reprinted in 2004-2010 (see my post of July 29, 2011).

So, I once again urge the last four participants of the discussion (Moxy, TREKphiler, Jim Sweeney and Lothar von Richthofen) to show objectivity and agree with the obvious needing to complement the Wikipedia articles with information about the telegram of Nicholas II to Kaizer (July 29, 1914) with proposal to submit the Austro-Serbian problem to The Hague tribunal. Борис Романов (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

I would suggest discussing it in the article that already exists on the subject of the telegrams. A short link in this article, along the lines of "A flurry of telegrams between the Kaiser and the Tsar led to the cancellation of Russian general mobilization by the Tsar on 29 July, but this was resumed on 31 July. (Refs: Strachan (2001), p. 85; Gilbert (1994), p.27; Keegan (1998), p. 63)" might prove unexceptionable. Wally Wiglet (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No Boris, we have three RS that Wally Wiglet identified, not fifteen. Your continued effort to push a long list of unreliable, primary, and first-party sources does not help your argument. Thank you Wally for identifying these sources for our attention. So, what do Keegan, Strachan and Gilbert each have to say on the subject? Do they give it more than passing mention? Do any of them conclude it was really a turning point? Your point about Strachan's titles is quite an understatement: it appears looking through cataloguing data that the massive Vol 1: To Arms was never followed by the intended Vols 2 and 3, but rather by various subsets of To Arms in more saleable 300 pp chunks. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the fact that these telegrams are mentioned by three of the standard works on the subject makes them, almost by definition, notable. As to what is said in these sources, Strachan mentions the telegram from the Kaiser on 29 July (which prompted the Hague conference telegram) as the reason for the Russian return to partial mobilization. Keegan is dismissive, describing the Tsar as "pathetically" suggesting giving over the Austro-Servian [sic] conflict to the Hague conference. Gilbert is more generous in his assessment of both the Tsar's and the Kaiser's actions and devotes almost a page to the issue. In my opinion, the fact these telegrams led the Tsar to cancel general mobilization (and to try, unsuccessfully, to cancel partial mobilization), even thought he was later persuaded (on German partial mobilization) to reverse this decision, makes them notable. Was it a turning point? No, but it might have been. As Lloyd George said, "We all muddled into war." Wally Wiglet (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, "primary, and first-party sources" in this case are "The White Books" of Foreign Offices of Russia and Germany of 1914-1915, and also "The Willy-Nicky Telegrams" (The Kaiser's letters to the Tsar, copied from the government archives in Petrograd, and brought from Russia by Isaac Don Levine, ed., with an introduction by N.F. Grant. London, Hodder and Soughton Ltd, 1920) and also "The Official Messenger of Petrograd" of January 31, 1915, where the telegram on Nicholas II of July 29, 1914 was published at first time in Russia.

Thus, all my 12 sourсes (and 3 sourсes of Wally Wiglet) are secondary RS. And I repeat once more: three of my 12 RS are written and published after 1984 (in 1984-2010), and else three of my 12 RS which were written and published in 1915-1918, were reprinted in 2004-2010 (see my post of July 29, 2011).

As to "unreliable sources", - Winston Churchill is "unreliable" or "low-value" sources?! G. Buchanan? James M. Beck (LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S.)? Henry Van Dyke? James Oliver Murdock, Harold J. Tobin, Henry S. Fraser, Francis O. Wilcox and Willard B. Cowles? Arthur L. Frothingham? Robert K.Massie? D.C.B. Lieven? Richard F. Hamilton and Holger H. Herwig? Andrei Zubov, and almost forty of his co-authors (mostly with the degree of doctor and candidate of historical sciences)? Борис Романов (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

No, Boris, we've been over this before, but you seem not to listen. There is no way that we can consider Churchill (1931) as impartial in describing an exchange between his recent ally and his recent foe. He later admitted in 1948: "For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all Parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history." (usually this is misquoted as "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.") It is just as silly to think that a contemporary ambassador or attorney-general for a belligerent would be impartial. A categorical compendium of correspondence does not constitute a secondary analysis of that correspondence: it does not aid us in assessing its accuracy or significance. For that we rely on serious scholars' works written after many years had passed. A.B. Zubov OCLC 636388546 might be useful, but this is the English Wikipedia, and few here are equipped to translate reliably from Russian works. We'd need a published translation, at least of the relevant part. Hamilton and Herwig (2003) are RS, but their conclusion on p.180 is: "The telegrams at best served to maintain the policies of deception." In other words, they were inconsequential. I'm not seeing how that reinforces your position. Perhaps you'd like to consider Wally Wiglet's suggestion? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not recommend the removal from the article the information of "biased sources," but WP recommends that supplement this information with other points of view. We read in WP WEIGHT (WP: Neutral point of view) (WP: Due and undue weight):

“As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ”

- From the very beginning I talked about this to opponents. You (Moxy and others) did not do it, but just removed my information from the article. However, we can add my former information by the known point of view of the German Foreign Office (from James M. Beck 's book: “the German Foreign Office in publishing the correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar omitted this telegrams. The German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "_unimportant_" for publication.”).

I think the addition might be the following (this text can be given in a footnote (as a footnote)):

According to the James M. Beck's book, the German Foreign Office in publishing the correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar omitted this telegrams. The German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "_unimportant_". On the contrary, Russian Foreign Ministry (Minister Sazonov), as well as French Ambassador to Russia (M. Palaeologus) believed the telegram very important. M. Paleologos (and James M. Beck) in their books accused Kaiser Wilhelm that he had not supported the proposal of the Russian Tsar to submit the Austro-Serbian problem to The Hague Tribunal for adjustment, and thus Kaiser abandoned the chance for a peaceful resolution to this problem .

P.S. As to me, I don't think that these books (of W.Churchill, James M. Beck, M. Paleologos and J. Buchanan) are the biased – because even such Germanophile as Vladimir Lenin wrote (in September 1914) that Wilhelm II wanted and started the WWI in 1914. Борис Романов (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Thus, taking into account the valuable message and comments of Dr. Wally Wiglet, I propose to include in the article The Willy-Nicky Correspondence the following:

July 29, 1914 Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to submit the Austro-Servian problem to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram [1-12].

According to the James M. Beck's book [1], the German Foreign Office in publishing the correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar omitted this telegrams. The German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "_unimportant_". On the contrary, Russian Foreign Ministry (Minister Sazonov), as well as French Ambassador to Russia (M. Palaeologus) believed the telegram very important [2]. M. Paleologos (and James M. Beck) in their books accused Kaiser Wilhelm that he had not supported the proposal of the Russian Tsar to submit the Austro-Serbian problem to The Hague Tribunal for adjustment, and thus Kaiser abandoned the chance for a peaceful resolution to this problem [1,2].

A flurry of telegrams between the Kaiser and the Tsar led to the cancellation of Russian general mobilization by the Tsar on 29 July, but this was resumed on 31 July. (Refs: Strachan (2001), p. 85; Gilbert (1994), p.27; Keegan (1998), p. 63)

In the articles WP Causes of World War I, World War I and Nicholas II of Russia I propose that the abbreviated text:

July 29, 1914 Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II (The Willy-Nicky Correspondence), with the suggestion to submit the Austro-Servian problem to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram [1-15].

Борис Романов (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Is it your belief that by ignoring the majority of editors and constantly returning to this issue that somehow you will gain consensus? It would probably be better to drop this issue and look for more plausible ways to improve the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Now the detail information of the Nicholas's telegram is posted in the article The Willy-Nicky Correspondence - in the wording of User: LeadSongDog (dif). Therefore, this article (or\and the Causes of World War I) is expedient to place the abbreviated information about this telegram:

July 29, 1914 Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II (The Willy-Nicky Correspondence), with the suggestion to submit the Austro-Servian problem to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram [1-15].

Борис Романов (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

OMG again? Besides that its not relevant. You are aware that he did reply right? He simply did not mention the Hague Conference in his reply. So why do you keep saying he did not reply to the telegram when he did do you mean to say that a part of the telegram was not reply to? I have change the text you have added in the other artile to "– Wilhelm II did not address the question of the Hague Conference in his subsequent reply"Moxy (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your clarification. I'll post the text in the article in your edition. Борис Романов (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

I did not mean to add it here at all...I fixed the info were its relevant at The Willy-Nicky Correspondence. I still dont think we need it here. We have no need to regurgitate the same thing all over. Its at Nicholas II of Russia because it is linked in the article to The Willy-Nicky Correspondence were its some what relevant (this could also be debated). I also dont see the need at to add to Causes of World War I. Could we get you not to spam this all over pls Moxy (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the short information on this telegram must be located or in this article (World War I) or\and in Causes of World War I Борис Романов (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Short, as in "Nicholas II and Wilhelm exchanged several telegrams in late July 1914, at most delaying the Russian mobilization by two days." More than that would give it unfounded wp:WEIGHT. Cites to the three modern academic sources only. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That was what my "A flurry of telegrams..." sentence was supposed to do, but somehow it got into the wrong article. Wally Wiglet (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Wally Wiglet: let be reference to The Willy-Nicky Correspondence ("A flurry of telegrams...") in this article (World War I) - However we read in Causes of World War I:

• July 29: Sir Edward Grey appeals to Germany to intervene to maintain peace.

Do you think that this appeal of Sir Edvard Grey deserves a mention in the article Causes of World War I and the appeal (telegram) of Nicholas II is not worth mentioning in Causes of World War I? I think, it is "double standards" for the article Causes of World War I Борис Романов (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

That's not a question for here, it is for Talk:Causes of World War I. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, LeadSongDog, - I propose to put this information (about the telegram) in Causes of World War I (see Talk:Causes of World War I) - and in this case, I'll not push to put this information in this WP article (World War I), and we will finish the discussion in this thread. Борис Романов (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Boris Romanov

Date Correction for Doullens Conference

In the section entitled "German Spring Offensive of 1918", it states, "A Supreme War Council of Allied forces was created at the Doullens Conference on 5 November 1917." However, the actual date for the Doullens Conference was March 26, 1918. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeGiblin (talk • contribs) 01:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)