Talk:World War I/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Reversing the order of belligerents in the infobox

Someone has recently changed the order of the belligerents in the infobox and put the British Empire above France. This change was made the 12 August at 00.29 am and would need to be reversed. It conflicts with the previous versions of the page, the general historical consensus and any other version of the page written in another language.

Dyadique78 (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Undone. There is no factual reason given to supersede the alphanumeric ordering, just an edit history, reference to "other versions" and a claimed, but doubtful "general historical consensus". Purgy (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't an "alphanumeric ordering" but an ordering of importance, otherwise Belgium would be the first in the ordering on the left side and Austria-Hungary would be the first on the right side. Dyadique78 (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not really sure we have the "order of importance" quite right, but of course Dyadique78 is correct about the order never having been "alphabetic". Reversion to "Britain first" has no rationale whatsoever other than ignorance driven by patriotic fervour - no place whatever in an encyclopedia! By every possible overall measure France was by far the main Allied combatant - although it is possible to see the final victory as largely "British driven". --WWIReferences (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ignorance and patriotic fervour aren't attributes which are normally ascribed to me, but no matter. Could one of our two, rather coy, objectors explain what their criteria are? Perhaps it should be considered that this is an English-speaking article and that the French equivalent might cater for its separate readership. Perhaps. I'm fairly sure that the text explains the relative contributions of the combatants. Hengistmate (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is the one that makes a rather important change to something that was existing for years in a major article (i.e. you) that should argue for it. Yet you sneakily made the change without even writing a line of justification in the change history. Furthermore this sentence of your comment : "Perhaps it should be considered that this is an English-speaking article and that the French equivalent might cater for its separate readership." has nothing to do with the matter we are discussing here. Portugal is not the first on the list on the Portuguese "World War 1" article and it wouldn't make sense if it was the case precisely because an encyclopedia is supposed to feature objective content. Dyadique78 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

May I humbly suggest to introduce an alpha-numerical order, even when such was never heard of before? My interest in undoing was triggered really only in avoiding such arguments as "wave-ruling" of Britannia, and some Grandeur de la France. Please, put the Belgians in front of the Brits. I am in the heritage of the losers of both WWs, but always at the front, because of an "A". Should we start therefore any ordering with "Z"? :p Purgy (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The infobox's countries list is ordered according to a 'contribution and leadership principle' superseded by an approximate "time of entry into the war" principle on every article featuring a war with the purpose of informing the reader. The way the list is to be ordered can sometimes father legitimate discussions. Dyadique78 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

As this argument has proceeded to a "my country is more important than your country" argument - the participants field should be removed. This is why we can't have nice things.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dyadique78: I haven't made any alterations to this part of the article. Perhaps you should check that, and then apologise. I asked you to state the criteria, but you have concentrated on name-calling instead. All par for the Wikipedia course. I'll invite you again and see if you can be more constructive: On what should the order of belligerents be based? Number mobilised? Date of entry into the War? Size of population? Number mobilised as percentage of population? Casualties? Dead? Losses as percentage of population? And so on. Or something less tangible but more to your liking, which you would probably call "objective content"? I look forward to your collaborative contribution to the discussion. And apology, of course. Hengistmate (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This, Hengistmate, is a classic case of a solution looking for a problem - what order to select? what about alphabetic order? that can be a useful way of ordering a list, especially a long one. What about here? Nah, just order the belligerents on each side alphabetically - it just doesn't work, does it? What about putting Austria and Serbia first? They started it in a way? Nah again - all very well for the people already well versed on the subject - but most unhelpful for new players? General importance? now that's promising. How to determine this - well, you could just have a look at the things you mentioned - add a point or two, perhaps, for have the bulk of the fighting taking place in your territory? Or being the first to be defeated? Oh look, gee whizz, that's exactly what we already did years and years ago! Resulting in a nice sensible order that no one wanted to alter until someone decided that Britain is always and in every context more important than France. I think that one is dead by now, but why exactly do we need to change the order anyway? So much that really and truly NEEDS fixing on Wikipedia without messing around with something that's already quite neat and logical? BTW and nothing to do with the case - but I can't see there being anything insulting to you, personally, anywhere on this admittedly rather unedifying thread - unless you are talking about MY remark about "ignorance driven by patriotic fervour". This very plainly refers to the initial EDIT that got this going in the first place (sticking Britain over France) - and in this context is pretty spot on - I certainly have no intention what ever for "apologising". Did you even make this edit (or request it)? Oh dear - this is the longest post I have made on a Wikipedia talk page and all for what? WWIReferences (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Entities that declared war!

If we wanted to substitute "Britain" for "British Empire" in the context of the list of combatants at the top of this article - then we'd need, to be at all consistent, to list "Germany" for "German Empire", "Austria" for "Austro-Hungarian empire", "Turkey" for "Ottoman Empire" and so on - In 1914, states, provinces, colonies and dominions of a "Great Power", whether they were "internal" (e.g. Bavaria) or "overseas" (e.g. German New Guinea) were Not sovereign states, any more than (say) California or New South Wales are now, but integral parts of the entity concerned. To put it another way, several of the entities that declared war in 1914, including the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, British and Russian empires, and for that matter, France and her "overseas departments" all counted as a single entities.

There are places in this article where we may use specific country names as shorthand for the "empire" of which they were a part, but not here. WWIReferences (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Country A having sovereignty over country B does not mean that country B is part of country A. This relates to Britain: closer examination of the legal situation for the other European states and their empires might be needed before coming to an across the board approach. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Originally I thought Roger 8 was wrong :) but then figured out I was :). It helps if you look at the Declarations of War, because that shows which legal entity declared war and on whom (www.loc.gov/law/help/digitized-books/world-war-i-declarations/foreign.php.

There was no such country as Turkey pre-1919, so Ottoman Empire is correct; I'd say German Empire - because until 1918, the monarchies and armies of Prussia, Wurttemberg, Bavaria and Saxony were separate entities and a key factor in why Wilhelm had to abdicate. Maybe 'Imperial Russia' because historians often use that to distinguish between the different regimes. 'Austria-Hungary' works for me because it was a union between Hungary and the Austrian Empire - but in such a widely used article, common sense and common usage should prevail so these aren't interpretations I'd fight to the death for.Robinvp11 (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for "common sense and common usage" - but by any measure it was the "British Empire" that declared war. What are now separate countries such as Australia and Canada were then (and even in 1939!!) as much a "part of the empire" as Scotland and Wales and did not declare war separately (or need to). Mr Menzies, the Prime minister of Australia in 1939, stated on the radio that "Great Britain has declared war on Germany, and Australia in therefore also at war with Germany". And no one argued with him that I know of! Didn't look that quote up - but that's certainly the substance of it! and that's in 1939 - at which date the empire was a much looser "federation" than it was in 1914. Parts of the "entities that declared war" like Bavaria and the other German States, and parts of the British Empire like Australia lost, proportionally, as many of their young men as the "home country". WWIReferences (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki's entry gets it right: The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. In other words the "British Empire" is not a legal entity and is used to refer to the domains outside of the British Isles. In British history the king always declares a war. The Empire was run by two (one for colonies one for India) of many cabinet members who reported to the prime minister. The P-M told the king when to declare war. We need to keep the empire separate from the UK legally and conceptually--this became an issue in Canada in Sept 1939. Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I've put some suggested wording in the Lead which I think is a reasonable reconciliation; plus the Allies of WWI article (which I've also updated) provides the detail of who was involved.

Robinvp11 (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Queries on Lead raised by User Slatersteven

This one [[1]] looks like it contains unsourced opinion. As may this [[2]].Slatersteven

I'm not seeing which bit of this you consider 'unsourced opinion;' [[3]]

Or indeed, this; [[4]]. If you can be more specific, I'll do my best.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you to provide sources for your edits, I fail to see why you are unwilling to do so. I am asking you to provide sources for all the claims you have made, all of them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent change to the lead

Robinvp11 recently rewrote large parts of this article's lead; some of the changes are not, in my opinion, an improvement. In particular, consider the treatment of the German invasion of Belgium and Britain's subsequent declaration of war on Germany. The long-standing previous version states:

Over forty years earlier in 1870, the Franco-Prussian War had ended the Second French Empire and France had ceded the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine to a unified Germany. Bitterness over that defeat and the determination to retake Alsace-Lorraine made the acceptance of Russia's plea for help an easy choice, so France began full mobilisation on 1 August and, on 3 August, Germany declared war on France. The border between France and Germany was heavily fortified on both sides so, according to the Schlieffen Plan, Germany then invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg before moving towards France from the north, leading Britain to declare war on Germany on 4 August due to their violation of Belgian neutrality.

By contrast, Robinvp11's revised proposal reads:

The 1871 Treaty of Versailles imposed on France by Germany after the Franco-Prussian War required them to pay an indemnity of 5 billion francs ($479 billion in 2011 values) and cede the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine. A desire to reverse that defeat plus their obligations under the Franco-Russian Alliance meant France began full mobilisation on 2 August in support of Russia. German offensive plans in the West required an invasion of neutral Belgium before moving towards Paris from the north and on 2 August, they issued an ultimatum, demanding free passage through Belgium; when this was refused, on 3 August Germany entered Belgium and declared war with France. In response, the Belgian government invoked the 1839 Treaty of London, bringing Britain into the war with Germany on 4 August.

There are several reasons why Robinvp11's summation is inferior to the consensus text—it includes too much detail regarding the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War (there is no comparable discussion of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles in the leads of World War I or World War II), it does not name the famous Schlieffen Plan, and it removes any mention of Luxembourg—but the major problem is that it understates the agency of all of the nations involved. "The border between France and Germany was heavily fortified on both sides so, according to the Schlieffen Plan, Germany then invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg before moving towards France from the north" has very different connotations than "German offensive plans in the West required an invasion of neutral Belgium before moving towards Paris from the north"; while technically true, either France or Germany might have benefitted from bypassing their militarized shared border through neutral territory, and Germany was in no sense forced or "required" to do so. More seriously, "the Belgian government invoked the 1839 Treaty of London, bringing Britain into the war with Germany on 4 August" is a rather silly assertion—the "rape of Belgium" was obviously Britain's primary motivation for going to war when it did (although it had its own, Empire–related reasons to tilt towards the French/Russians over the Germans/Austrians), but it still declared war after careful deliberation rather than being "brought into" the war by Belgium. I argue that Robinvp11 exaggerates the importance of treaties, which did not come into existence in a vacuum or compel action in quite the way that he implies: Britain could have ignored its pre–war commitments as easily as Italy did if its leaders had determined that doing so would have been more advantageous to the national interest—and the same caveat applies to every party to the conflict. Does anyone else concur, or am I off-base here?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I rather tend to agree with you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy to discuss and thank you for not simply pressing Undo :); in general, the original Lead Paragraph has a number of statements that were either debatable or essentially wrong eg the idea Russia 'pleaded' with France to go to war. I think a lot of this article is (still) long-standing and arguably out of date.

Schlieffen Plan; the revised wording still links to this while it is also covered in the body of the article. However, many historians disagree as to whether Moltke's modified plan can be described as Schlieffen at all, while the traditional focus on it comes from the outmoded AJPT theory of we all went to war because of train timetables. German military planning was a function of logistics, terrain and strategic objectives, not Schlieffen and for me, your objections underline that confusion. Germany invaded Belgium because that was the only way to defeat France, not because Schlieffen thought it was a good idea.

Your suggestion that Germany was in no sense forced or "required"; Schlieffen or Moltke absolutely required a violation of Belgium and the implications of 'bringing' Britain into the war were accepted (most recently in the 1912 General Staff planning). It was continually revisited because as the German Army grew in numbers (eg the 1913 law), the right wing grew bigger and so did the extent of the incursion into Belgium.

Flanders had been fought over since the 16th century because it was the easiest route into France; that's a simple and indisputable strategic reality. The loss of Alsace-Lorraine and the natural border in 1871 meant French defences south of the Ardennes were designed to channel the Germans into killing grounds (as they later found out at Verdun); the French assumed the Germans would come through Belgium (as did the Belgians) and planned a war of manoeuvre in the North. After 1905, these were dumped in favour of Grandmaison's 'a l'outrance' lunacy but was largely recreated in 1940. Suggesting 'choice' ignores both these facts and actual events.

France's commitments to Russia; those made by the 1894 Convention plus additions since made it a binding agreement; I agree the same is not true of the Anglo-French and Russian ones but I suggest reading Margot Asquith's 'Dairies' (which I've referenced) and particularly the introduction by Michael Brock, which is one of the best overviews of why the generally isolationist Liberals went to war.

The myth of choice has been used by the British Right since 1919. You may want to reconsider describing my point as 'silly' as this ignores long-term British strategic imperatives and domestic politics. Since Elizabeth I first sent troops in 1583 to help the Dutch, the primary British strategy in Europe was to deny control of Northern Belgium to a foreign power; without trying, I can provide multiple examples of this. That was the whole purpose of the 1839 Treaty and why in 1870, Britain told the Prussians if they came any nearer to the coast, they'd go to war. Pre-war commitments to France meant remaining neutral would have left the French Channel ports at the mercy of the German navy. German violation of the Treaty was vital only because Asquith needed it to sell the war to the isolationist element in the Liberal Party. Historians see Bulow's ultimatum as Germany's biggest diplomatic mis-step for that reason and I've used the word 'bringing' because all sides (except the emotionally challenged Kaiser) accepted entering Belgium would bring Britain into the war.

Whether the Treaty was legally binding; that's akin to saying I don't have to bother buying petrol for my car; technically true but in reality absurd. Britain's informal agreements were very very different from Italy's presence in the Triple Alliance, while the Cabinet recognised British strategic interests plus commitments made to France (eg RN looked after North Sea in return for France doing the same in the Med, BEF etc) meant they could not escape entering the war. The problem was very few MPs understood the extent of those commitments.

The slowness of the response; had nothing to do with whether to not to go to war (both Grey and Asquith agreed they had no choice) but the assumption of a short war. The debates in the British cabinet were driven by the desire to keep the Liberals (especially Lloyd George) united because by mid-1915, the long-running sore of Home Rule would be back at the top of the agenda.

The 1871 Versailles Treaty; I've added a link to the Treaty and expanded on reparations which I isn't unreasonable and makes it far easier to understand why France went to war than the previous 'made the acceptance of Russia's plea for help an easy choice.' One of the biggest fallacies that still dominates discussion of the 1919 version is that Germany had a uniquely raw deal, whereas every single one of the clauses was designed to replicate that of 1871. Since this is an Encyclopedia for those who are not experts per se, I put it in because I'm constantly stunned by how few people are even aware of it and it should be more visible. Even the current Wikipedia article doesn't really communicate that Bismarck designed terms he hoped would enfeeble France for 30-40 years.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

We do not want examples, we want RS saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an important article and changes should be discussed; I've provided a fairly detailed explanation of my thinking and I'm happy to debate.

However; We do not want examples, we want RS saying it; I'm not going to provide sources for points introduced as background on a Talk Page but if there's part of the revised Lead you consider does requires additional sourcing, let me know.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It is down to you to show RS support your edits.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you tell me which edits I've made you consider require additional sourcing, I will happily comply.

This one [[5]] looks like it contains unsourced opinion. As may this [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused; this discussion was about the specific changes identified by TheTimesAreAChanging ie

The 1871 Treaty of Versailles imposed on France by Germany after the Franco-Prussian War required them to pay an indemnity of 5 billion francs ($479 billion in 2011 values) and cede the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine. A desire to reverse that defeat plus their obligations under the Franco-Russian Alliance meant France began full mobilisation on 2 August in support of Russia. German offensive plans in the West required an invasion of neutral Belgium before moving towards Paris from the north and on 2 August, they issued an ultimatum, demanding free passage through Belgium; when this was refused, on 3 August Germany entered Belgium and declared war with France. In response, the Belgian government invoked the 1839 Treaty of London, bringing Britain into the war with Germany on 4 August.

I've answered the points in some detail. You've now raised queries on a different part of the Lead; that's fine but a different question, so I'll open a new section. Let's finish this discussion first; do you have questions or comments specifically on the queries raised by TheTimesAreAChanging?

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

And I am asking for sources to back up those points.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Robinvp11, as far as I can tell, your addition to the lead is the only mention of the 1871 Treaty of Versailles in the entire article. Given that the lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, your addition appears to give significant UNDUE weight to events that happened forty years before World War I in order to hit readers over the head with the implied conclusion that the Treaty of Versailles (the terms of which are not even discussed in the lead!) was not uniquely harsh on Germany. The terms of Franco–Prussian peace in 1871 may well belong in the "Background" section of this article, and merit discussion (along with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) in Treaty of Versailles proper, but adding something to the lead (without supporting citations) that is not a major part of the article (or even a part of the article) simply because you feel that "it should be more visible" is not good form. As a general point, the lead should never be contentious or a place for BOLD editing, as it should simply summarize what has already been agreed to elsewhere; to put it another way, if the lead is "arguably out of date," as you suggest, that may well be true of other parts of the article—and you probably shouldn't start with the lead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll reword it; the Lead spends a lot of time on the causes and I have edited those, plus the Allies of WWI article as well, so it does now reflect changes elsewhere. But the wording of the last paragraph on 1919 needs looking at.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am satisfied by your changes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That was a good discussion, I enjoyed it and shows how effective collaboration can improve edits :).

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Events leading to World War I

Near the top of the article is a textbox entitled Events leading to World War I. In the box the assassination of FF and the July Crisis are listed as seperate entities however one was actually part of the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:86b:4a00:a4d5:23b5:de79:2a8 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Changes in "Sarajevo assassination" second to the last sentence needed

The second to last sentence is ambiguous, and it's presented as a historical fact, where it's just a quote from an opinion of a historian on a radio show... It also seems stuffed with info and a link to paint a certain narrative without any grounding in historical facts.

I would propose an enhancement of the sentence in question by naming the historian whose quote is used in the text, and making it clear it was a quote based on his opinion stated on the radio show, not a historical fact. Similar to what was done here (my edit; later confirmed and cleared up by a member): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Austria-Hungary_edges_towards_war_with_Serbia_(29_June_%E2%80%93_1_July)

Original sentence in question:

Nevertheless, the political impact of the murder of the heir to the throne was significant and has been described as a "9/11 effect", a terrorist event charged with historic meaning, transforming the political chemistry in Vienna.

Proposed resolution:

Nevertheless, the political impact of the murder of the heir to the throne was significant and has been described by historian Christopher Clark on the BBC Radio 4 series Month of Madness as a "9/11 effect, a terrorist event charged with historic meaning, transforming the political chemistry in Vienna."

Also, the "9/11 effect" part is linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Effects which describes wide variety of topics related specific to 9/11, from health issues from the derbies to economic situation, none of which has to do anything with Sarajevo assassination and subsequent events that followed. Therefore I would propose removal of the link to final shape of the problematic sentence:

Nevertheless, the political impact of the murder of the heir to the throne was significant and has been described by historian Christopher Clark on the BBC Radio 4 series Month of Madness as a "9/11 effect, a terrorist event charged with historic meaning, transforming the political chemistry in Vienna."

Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.237.5 (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2018‎

This seems reasonable to me, and so I have made the suggested edit. DuncanHill (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

References

I reinstated the link explaining "9/11". This is a coinage, partly already inapprehensible outside of mdy-date-zones. Of course, it may be questioned how ruining symbols of the decadent western world in 2001 compares to murdering the heir apparent in divine right roughly a century earlier, such that another explication might be required. Whatever, Clark said it so ... Purgy (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the political impact of the murder of the heir to the throne was significant and has been described by historian Christopher Clark on the BBC Radio 4 series Month of Madness as a "9/11 effect, a terrorist event charged with historic meaning, transforming the political chemistry in Vienna."

I think the inclusion of Clark's reference to 9/11 is mis-leading and should be removed for a number of reasons.

First, 9/11 has very different connotations, both in the English-speaking world and outside; it is not a neutral POV statement.

Second, as far as I'm aware, it does not appear in Clark's book 'The Sleepwalkers;' using sound-bites from a radio show is not the same.

Third, the suggestion that like 9/11 it suddenly transformed the situation is not one I've seen elsewhere; since Clark is only one of many historians writing on this topic, outlier statements should not appear in the body of the article. Unlike 9/11, political assassination was not unusual in this period; other significant examples include Tsar Alexander II (1881), President Carnot of France ((1895), Empress Elizabeth of Austria (1898), Umberto I of Italy (1900), William McKinley (1901), Alexander and Draga of Serbia (1903), PM of Bulgaria Dimitar Petkov (1907), George I of Greece (1913) etc. That's just the most senior ones, there are many more.

Fourth, it is extremely mis-leading, since one of the fundamental puzzles about the war was why it started in 1914 and not say October 1913 or over Agadir. In his book, Clark himself says the protagonists seemed to 'sleepwalk' into war, precisely because they've managed to avoid it so often before and 1914 didn't seem any different. The Austrian C-in-C Conrad urged the government to declare war on Serbia 14 times between 1912 and 1914. Unlike 9/11, there was no sense among the public that 'something had to be done' and the change of mood within the various political elites that led to war had very little to do with the assassination itself.

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, as I said it: Of course, it may be questioned how "blahblahblah" compares to "blablabla", ... I am just after sourcing "9/11", in case it occurs here.

The selection of which text-bite or sound-bite belongs to a neutral formulation of a history article is absolutely beyond me. Furthermore, I do not even believe in the existence of any neutrally formulated history, it is always the one of the victorious. Respectfully, Purgy (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think dismissing it as "sound-bites from a radio show" is a bit poor. It's a commissioned series from an expert on the subject specifically examining the reaction to the assassination. And it came out two years after The Sleepwalkers, so why should it have appeared in that? DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And Clark does say in The Sleepwalkers "Lastly, it is perhaps less obvious now that we should dismiss the two killings at Sarajevo as a mere mishap incapable of carrying real causal weight. The attack on the World Trade Center in September 2001 exemplified the way in which a single, symbolic event - however deeply it may be enmeshed in larger historical processes - can change politics irrevocably, rendering old options obsolete and endowing new ones with an unforeseen urgency". (Introduction, page xxviii). DuncanHill (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that the full quote above from Clark should be incorporated into the text, in note form, to give full contextual clarity to the association. Irondome (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think removing the link has to do anything with "decadent western world" vs. "divine right" narrative, it's just a bad comparison of the events; no "9/11 effect" thing happened after the assassination. As I've already said: 9/11 effect article describes wide variety of topics related specific to 9/11, from health issues caused by the derbies to economic situation, none of which has to do anything with Sarajevo assassination and subsequent events that followed.

Furthermore, it might be even better to remove the sentence altogether, as suggested above by Robinvp11, since the two events happened in totally different environments hundred years apart and it could have not been possible for events to cause the same effects even theoretically (no debris from falling skyscrapers and therefore health issues caused by it etc.). Also, another reason for removal would be the nature of the claim, which is made by one historian (respected but still) and has no consensus in the community. 93.86.237.5 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Following these last specific arguments would

• incorporate personal thoughts, favouring them to sourced statements, and
• render all research in history meaningless.

Don't count on me. Purgy (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I was not gonna say anything about removing the sentence altogether, but it sure seems reasonable.

• I'd appreciate if you could expand a bit on "personal thoughts favoring over sourced statements".
• If you were to include every historian's research and opinion, no matter how outlandish, the article would've been a sh*tshow full of loaded quotes, with no regard for larger consensus.

Anyhow, if we put removing the sentence aside, what do you think about arguments for removing the 9/11 link comparison as it's not pointing to related events? 93.86.237.5 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• "I don't think ...", "... it might be even better ..." are to me obviously arguments that are not based on reliable sources, but represent "personal thoughts favoured over sourced statements", such as Clark's comparison doubtlessly is to me.
• I deny to consent to calling Clark an outlandish historian (emphasized, since this is verbally cited from 93.86.237.5 11:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)), I prefer to contrast in the article diametrically opposed opinions, instead of silencing reliably sourced opinions and the addressed context, publicly stated by an expert of high renown, just because this might hit an arbitrary, perceived vulnerability, or is considered as "irrelevant, excessive, disconnected, ..." in the vain of sculpting the "one, true, neutral, complete, and objective" picture of human history; but mostly I stated my opinion about history-related articles already above.

Please, accept that for the time being I stop to comment on this matter. Purgy (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I hope these were sincere mistakes not efforts to convolute what I said and put words in my mouth.

• The "I don't think..." sentence was in relation to your claim about "decadent western world vs. divine right" narrative you were trying to push as a made-up reason of mine for asking link removal, you came up with; and it was not in relation to the subject matter (therefore it can't be "personal opinion favoring over sourced statements" as you said, since it was personal opinion vs. personal opinion). Further, the "...it might be even better..." sentence is a concurrence with similar logic stated above by others and is not favoring personal over sourced statements, but stating another POV, opposing to your personal opinion you've expressed as a reason for reinstating the link.
• Similarly, I never said Clark is an outlandish historian, you're either constructing or overlooking, as I clearly said the opposite (I said Clark is a respected historian)! For you to say that is verbally cited by me is not fair, at best. If you read the sentence again, you'll see that it states that "outlandish" is in relation to research and opinion (of every hypothetical historian who would've been included), as a reply to your claim that my suggested solution is "rendering all research in history meaningless". As a retort I had given an example, a mental exercise if you will, what would have happened if you were to include outlandish (maybe it would have been better had I used the word 'outlier' as Robinvp did) views of every historian. Regardless of the word used, the example stays: If you were to include every historian's research and opinion, no matter how much of an outlier they were, the article would've been a sh*tshow full of loaded quotes, with no regard for larger consensus.

Please, be more careful next time in quoting other people's sentences, as I refuse to believe you've done any of this in bad faith by trying to spin my statements. Thanks! 93.86.237.5 (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Give the quote, attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

keep. There is no doubt that Clark is one of the world's leading authorities on the topic, and his spoken comments carry weight. he is not talking about assassinations in general, he was saying that this particular assassination had a world-shaking effect, as did 9-11. If readers of the English Wikipedia are unaware of the events of 9-11, probably they are too young to remember it. They should learn about it, just as they should learn about world war I, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

With respect, the question is not whether people know about 9/11 but whether it is (a) a fair comparison of events and (b) interpreted the same way by Wikipedia users - 'English-speaking' does not confine it to the West and I know from personal experience the idea 9/11 was 'transformative' as in everything suddenly changed sparks heated debate about Western arrogance.

I used the word 'outlier' rather than 'outlandish;' yes, Clark is a respected historian. So is Dominic Lieven. Gordon Martel. Sean McMeekin. Gary Sheffield. Alexander Watson. Gary Tozee. Robert Gerwath. Eugene Rogan. Misha Glenny. I've restricted these to ones I've read, specifically look at why the Balkans led to war in 1914 and were published after 2001 (ie when 9/11 made sense). None of them make a similar claim. Clark is perhaps the only historian I've come across who argues Austria's demands were entirely reasonable or who downplays the idea it was Germany's blank cheque that changed 1914 from yet another localised storm into a global conflict. That doesn't make him wrong per se - but it does make him an outlier.

I'll leave aside my other objections that its misleading, because that's my view but I think they're reasonable, since you will not find the same claim made elsewhere. Even Clark - elsewhere in Sleepwalkers, he points out Berthold expected the Serbs to back down, because they had done so in October 1913 over Albania.

Remove; the use of 9/11 is highly charged, interpreted differently and not a neutral POV. I don't think that can really be argued with.

If kept; it should be qualified ie this is not a claim made by other historians.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

In fact Clark's book on the Sleepwalkers did discuss 9/11, stating on page xxix that it "exemplified the way in which a single or symbolic event – however deeply it may be enmeshed in larger historical processes – can change politics irrevocably, rendering old options obsolete and endowing new ones with an unforeseen urgency." This is very serious scholarly analysis by a top expert, and it certainly belongs--he summarized it in an interview or we can quote his book. Please note that issues of POV relate to Wikipedia editors, they do not apply to reliable sources. WP:BIASED states reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Rjensen (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've raised some points. I don't expect agreement, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, I learn a lot through discussion and it helps me understand Wikipedia process. However, with respect, I've now explained why I disagree three times and so far what I've heard are variations on 'Clark said it, he's a respected historian, end of discussion.'

It hasn't addressed my point; Clark's work is very lucid and I've used him as a reference elsewhere but on some points, he is an outlier; in particular, in claiming Austrian demands were utterly reasonable and dismissal of the idea the (as per most other historians), Germany's 'blank cheque' was not an issue. That's not just me eg a review of 'Sleepwalkers' by the Australian Naval Institute (there are others); ....the reader is virtually required to suspend knowledge of all previous scholarship and accept his version as the most plausible explanation. There is a problem with his tactical selectivity of primary and secondary sources...he avoids those in which the evidence...runs counter to his assumptions. In short, the suspicion is aroused that he is more of an advocate arguing a lawyer’s case rather than a clinically objective historian. If you're curious, here's the link; https://navalinstitute.com.au/clark-and-the-german-historians-telling-it-how-it-essentially-was/

We cannot simply argue that because Clark compares it to 9/11, it must be accepted and placed in the article without context because he's a 'reliable source, who wrote a book on it.'I have provided nine equally reliable historians who don't make the same claim, as well as other points made by Clark which are somewhat contradictory. I have also explained why I think its misleading. That doesn't make me right but so far no one's explained why they disagree.

Using assessments of whether a source is 'reliable' to determine POV is in itself biased; for example, are David Irving, Pat Buchanan or John Mosier 'unreliable' because they're clearly barking mad (Irving), have a specific political position (Buchanan), need to sell books (Mosier) or because they make statements not supported by others?

Supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject implies those other views are recognised, which so far does not appear to be the case; we either include those or as I suggested, qualify this one.

If its just me, fair enough but this is an important article; I think its reasonable to raise these points and to have them answered. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018

Change "

"World War One", "Great War", and "WW1" redirect here. For other uses, see World War One (disambiguation), Great War (disambiguation), and WW1 (album).

" to "

"World War One", "WW1", "WWI", and "Great War" redirect here. For other uses, see World War One (disambiguation), Great War (disambiguation), and WW1 (album).

" Moonlight137 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moonlight137: Why? Per WP:HRULES: Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind. There's no separate article or DAB page for WWI, just more redirects that either point back here or to the WW1 album. I see no need to expand this hatnote any further. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Can someone verify this citation? Appears to be a non-verifiable citation promoting anti-semitism

In the section Russian Revolution, this line appears:

Following the Tsar's abdication, Vladimir Lenin was ushered by train from Switzerland into Russia 16 April 1917. He was financed by Jacob Schiff.[142] Footnote cite: Cholly Knickerbocker. New York Journal American. 3 February 1949.

Cholly Knickerbocker was a gossip column pseudonym. This claim has never been verified. Jacob Schiff, an American Jew, was a known anti-Bolshevik. The idea that he would finance Lenin ia far fetched, but it is the kind of anti-semitic line (you know, "Jews created communism" kind of thing) that gets snuck into these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffb714 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It's fine to query whether the citation is verifiable, adding appropriate reasoning (ie. Knickerbocker being just a gossip columnist, although some evidence such as a link or a quotation describing Knickerbocker would be better than a simple counter-allegation). But it's not a good idea to muddy the water by adding an "anti-Semitism" slant! It's pointless to even suggest it, because if it's "anti-Semitic" to say a Jew supports a Russian politician, then it must be equally "anti-Semitic" to say a Jew supports an American politician (you know, "Jews created Senator Clinton" kind of thing, to paraphrase by the same logic), and thus ultimately "anti-Semitic" to say any Jew supports anybody!! And by extension, "anti-Catholic" to say any Catholic supports any person. And "anti-Microsoft" to say Bill Gates supports any person or anything!! Etc etc... The "anti-Semitism" addition just turns the initial query (a valid one) into an unnecessary muddy POV remark, which is probably why the underlying query's been ignored ever since, rather than investigated. Pete Hobbs (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Spanish Flu victims

Re the opening paragraph calculation of deaths, most studies of the 1918 Pandemic (including the Wikipedia article) include the war as a factor eg movement of people around the world, fatigue, cramped conditions etc. A recent BBC programme on the Pandemic used details from the HMNZT Tahiti and the Brazilian navy (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559139) while flu deaths in South Africa were attributed to labourers returning from France.

As it already refers to genocides, I think this is reasonable. I've included some wording, because it's easier to edit actual words, rather than 'What ifs' but I'm happy for others to change it.

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The war certainly changed the date that the virus arrived in different places, but the number of locals affected would have very little difference based on that date. The starvation and reduced immune status of populations in conflict affected areas, on the other hand, would have increased both the infectivity and overall mortality rates. It is, however, nonsensical to blame the returning carriers, as they had little or no choice in their movements and had little or no impact on the results. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've read this several times and I think you're disagreeing but I'm not entirely sure.

The war certainly changed the date that the virus arrived in different places, but the number of locals affected would have very little difference based on that date. Do you have supporting literature for that statement? I've read several studies of the pandemic and I've not seen this claim before but I'm always open to new ideas.

Saying the virus was spread by people returning home from infected areas ie from France to Cape Town is hardly blaming the returning carriers and seems an odd interpretation. Following the Wikipedia policy of Assume Good Intent, I myself try to avoid referring to other editors as 'nonsensical' but then adding had little or no impact on the results did make me waver for a minute. That seems to be saying returning carriers of the disease had no impact on the number of people infected by one of the most virulent and contagious pandemics in recorded history. Which of course would be completely nonsensical.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, @Robinvp11:, I just now read this. First off, I would never refer to a person as nonsensical. I referred to a statement that way. The returning soldiers were not free agents, moving about as they wished. They were still under orders. They were no more to blame for carrying influenza than this week's Romaine lettuce was to blame for the e-coli it carried. One might reasonably assign blame to the medical officers who allowed them to be sent home sick, but not to the rank and file soldiers. I doubt I could find a source for that, but it is blue sky obvious.LeadSongDog come howl! 00:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

German and Arab Leadership

Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff held near absolute and complete control over the German Empire and its military from August 1916 until October 1918 wielding an influence in Germany similar to the influence wielded by the Three Pashas in Turkey, to the point where even the article for the German Empire refers to the government of the Reich at that time as being under a "Military dictatorship". Should they be included in the infobox beneath Wilhelm II as principle commanders and leaders of the Central Powers? It seems odd to me the Three Pashas would be but Hindenburg and Ludendorff wouldn't. From "Haig's intelligence. GHQ and the German Army, 1916–1918":

"Hindenburg was also appointed as Supreme War Commander of the armies of the Central Powers, with nominal control of six million men."

Likewise, while perhaps not as overall influential as Hindenburg and Ludendorff, Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca led the Arab Revolt which one of the most crucial and important events of the Middle Eastern Theatre of the war. Is there any reason he wasn't included on the Allied side of the infobox? Salociin (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The list has been established after multiple discussions by many different editors. See archive. See archive. One might make a case for every senior officer of every army but that would make the list far too long and cumbersome; so the decision was to include only the highest status leaders. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I simply do not understand how Hindenburg and Ludendorff could fail to be considered "highest status" leaders when there are plenty of reliable sources which attest to their absolute and complete domination of the German Empire and the German Military in a manner which is equal to that of the Three Pashas in Turkey, who are included. This isn't simply "my opinion", but the "opinion" of every single World War I historian and scholar that I have ever read. Dismissing them merely as "senior officers" seems inappropriate, but very well. If the matter is permanently settled and the case closed, and there is no chance of reopening this discussion, then there is no purpose in bothering to continue to argue any further, and I will concede. Salociin (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Border war, Zimmerman Telegraph inclusion

I've attempted to note, with nothing more than a linkless sentence, that the United States and Mexico were embroiled in a border conflict, the tensions of which combined with the British intelligence intercept of the Zimmerman Telegraph from Germany to Mexico played key roles in the American declaration of war on the German Empire. How anyone views this as unimportant is beyond me, but I'd like to gather opinions and proceed accordingly. Much obliged. MarkMcCain (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Howdy: thanks for starting this up. It's not that I view the information as unimportant: it's that I view it as unimportant *for the lead*. The lead is the absolute most essential information for a reader to get a quick overview of the subject, the material without which they would not have a full understanding of the subject. Everything in it should be a) very important to the topic, and b) already contained in the body. The Zimmerman Telegram mention is good--classic information, well known, doesn't take up much space to mention, essential to understanding the U.S's entry into the war--as is the submarine war mention (and the Belgium issue for the British entry, also mentioned). The border war, however, isn't even mentioned in the main body of the article. Considering that it's a complete side issue to the war, I see no reason why it should take precedence over, for instance, a mention of the Battles of the Isonzo or something much more relevant (but also not in the lead).

With a topic this enormous and an article this sprawling, I think it's essential to be ruthless in the lead so as to make it manageable. I've worked hard over the past month to do so, and while I'm in no way the article's keeper, I think the logic as to why it should be left out, *of the lead only*, is clear. Palindromedairy (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to give detail and explain your point of view, you'd be surprised (or you may not be, actually) how many people ignore other Wikipedians when they start a talk page. As if we don't take this seriously. Anyway, to be clear, it wasn't that I thought it took precedence over anything in particular - just that I have a knack for detail and figured it should be included in the passage. Sort of a, "this is the situation all around" type of deal. But that makes sense, the page is incredibly long and detailed as it is. I reckon if someone looks well enough, they'll find the Border war. MarkMcCain (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019

In Legacy and memory § Historiography, please link 1st instance of historiography. 2606:A000:1126:28D:B13A:2CC7:857A:2750 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2019

World War I was a horrible War with too many things happening. 147.0.30.210 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What is your request?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

The links of the two maps in the External Links category "Animated Maps" are nonfunctional. Replace existing links with the following.

For "Europe plunges into war" replace existing link with this one: https://www.the-map-as-history.com/First-World-War-1914-1918/Sarajevo-Europe-plunges-into-war

For "Europe at the end of the war" replace existing link with this one: https://www.the-map-as-history.com/Europe-first-half-20th-century/Europe-after-the-first-world-war 2A01:E35:2FD4:7570:244A:6C39:52D:FFEC (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I oppose your second replacement proposal, since it shows incorrectly and mistaken the Romanian-Bulgarian border.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC))

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Template:American conflicts (i.e. {{American conflicts}} ) is missing from this article. As it is protected, I cannot add it at this time. -- 155.95.90.241 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarify the text

Under the section "Cultural Memory", the article states, "Though these views have been discounted as "myths",[404][406] they are common." It is not clear which views are "these views", as the preceding couple paragraphs mention contrasting views. Clarity on which views are myths would be helpful, since the disagreement between the views seems to be a significant point in how the war was experienced vs. remembered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.24.63 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers, not on the side of Allies as stated in text.

. Wikiball28 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The text states Alliance, which is not to be confused with Allied Powers. Suggest using term Central Powers instead of Alliance to avoid any possible confusion. Wikiball28 (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Urban legend

According to some contemporary urban legends: The Russians were like Christmas trees advancing towards German territories in Europe.

They managed to secure The Slavic people of Czechoslovakia and its populace.

But their greatest achievement yet was against the Ottoman Empire and the threat it posed to the area of Europe. Fjgdh5 (talk)\~\~\\\~ —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Opening intro

There is this line "while the grouping of Austria-Hungary, Germany and their allies would become known as the Central Powers. " probably worth mentioning that it is due to their home territories' geographical position in the European theatre. Smalltime0 (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Grammer

The grammar is somewhat off in the second paragraph, I think everybody should be able to understand this text. DeanBlox122 (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

German Leaders and Hussein bin Ali

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff be added as leaders for Germany and Hussein bin Ali be added as leader for the Kingdom of Hejaz--Havsjö (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff should be added to German leaders, I know the consensus and talks etc have concluded that only the highest status leaders should be included, but these 2 guys were the leaders of the ENTIRE German Empire, ENTIRE German economy and ENTIRE German army from 1916-1918. The article for the German Empire even lists the country as a "military dictatorship" during these years because of this situation. They are not just "very high (military) leaders", but the definitive top rulers of Germany 1916-1918. They should be included in the same way as the 3 pashas are.

Hussein bin Ali was the King of the Kingdom of Hejaz from 1916-1924 and leader of the Arab Revolt, which was the most major part of WW1 in the middle east and arguably the (or one of the very top) most important events in the modern history of the middle east. Since he both the "top leader" of this country and played such an important role, I propose he should be added to the leader section for the allies.

Are there any real arguments against these additions? They definitely are important and 110% the Highest leaders of their respective Country (i.e. not army-leaders). These (in-fact, exact same people!!) were previously brought up here, with largely the same reasons, (although I feel he did not fully empathize Hindenburgs and Ludendorffs roles as Country rulers and not just "high-ranking military leaders". So would regard this suggestion as already having some support--Havsjö (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mediatech492: @RandomGuy2018: @Havsjö: please discuss changes to the leaders list here rather than edit warring over them on the article, as has been happening in the last two days. I have restored the list to the version of 30 January, which seems to have been stable prior to that. This does *not* include any of Hussein bin Ali, Paul von Hindenburg, Erich Ludendorff, Robert Borden, Joseph Cook, or Robert Nivelle. For now, additions or removals should be made only if there's clear consensus here until this dispute is over. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 24 hours, as RandomGuy2018 continued to insert changes despite the above message. Please discuss changes here first.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

While I (of course) support my own suggestion (and which the previous person in the archive also suggested), regarding the Germans and bin Ali. I cannot support Nivelle, he was the Chief-of-Staff of the French army 1916-1917. Okay, but as has been established only the highest country leaders are to be included, which he was not. His counterpart in other countries are not included for this reason, and neither is his (more successful) successors, such as Philippe Petain and Ferdinand Foch.
The Prime minister of Canada and Australia are also quite bad inclusions, the Australian PM was only PM for a few months at the start of the war!! and leaving only the Canadian PM is quite strange, making him the only dominions PM on the list (no South Africa, Australia etc...) The dominions at this time were also much more "entrenched" (no pun intended) into the British Empire, which the overall commanders off, are included. I would support the inclusion of King George V though!!
Please voice your support or opposition towards the inclusion of any of these people!--Havsjö (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry about the edit i did after the message on my talk page left by Amakuru. I hadnt noticed it before i did the edit. About the entire edit war happening over the page of World war I - I hope the consensus will be brought forward to this. This edit war is completely unnecessary. I am sure both i and Hasvjö wanted to expand the information on Wikipedia so that people can get maximum information on the topic. Thanks.-- RandomGuy2018(talk) 22:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @RandomGuy2018:, so I will also ask you to lay out support/opposition for the 6 people brought up by Amakuru (and possibly 7, with George V), so we can get somewhere! :D--Havsjö (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey all, I am quickly coming through to also bring forward this. After the message left on my talk page i did another edit (which I did because I hadnt noticed the message yet), where I brought forward two other leaders of Australia, that leaded Australia after Joseph Cook. I would like these leaders to also be looked at in the consensus, and anything else that may have been left out. After all, I think the leaders of all participant countries in the war should be included including the leaders of Australia and the leader of Canada, and maybe any other country that may have been left out. Also, i was never against inclusion of Husein bin Ali, in case anyone is wondering. It doesnt matter what happens after the consensus, I will just be glad that this ludicrous edit war has ended. After all, I would better do something nice now like going out with my girlfriend or something other than participating in this edit war. I think this can be said about all of us involved in it. I agree with Havsjö and encourage supporting or opposing of the leaders brought forward by Amakuru and I hope we can get somewhere. After all, i am for expanding the Wikipedia so that people can get maximum information about the topic. I hope the consensus will end this edit war so we can all finally rest. Have a nice day everyone. :)---RandomGuy2018 (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

What is your brief and neutral statement? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Should Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff be added as leaders for Germany and Hussein bin Ali be added as leader for the Kingdom of Hejaz--Havsjö (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as is for the moment at least. Despite the heading of "Commanders and leaders", this field currently holds only the kings, emperors, presidents or prime ministers of the warring countries. Whether this is the best use of the field – whether it ought to contain Sir John French, Joseph Joffre and General Pershing as well as Hindenburg and Ludendorff – might make an interesting discussion. Arbitrarily adding some military leaders and not others makes no sense, however. The idea that Hussein and the Arab revolt are of top importance seems to me a very subjective view, one that does not appear to have consensus and one that is not borne out by the article, where they only get one small sentence. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Havsjö:, could you keep your use of bold for "support" or "oppose" !votes, and refrain from using it to shout at people. Nothing prejudices people against an argument more than being shouted at. Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Scolaire: Okay, I will stop that. I actually did it to make it seem like I was not shouting at people by using it instead of Caps and stuff, hehe... Also, I totally agree the Kings, Emperors, PM's should be on the list, but that is why Ludendorff and Hindenburg should be there, they were the de-facto dictators of Germany 1916-1918 (not just the army, the country and its whole economy(!), not unlike the already listed 3 pashas). Again, the article for German Empire even unrelated'ly of this discussion is listed as "military dictatorship" 1916-18 because of this. During that time they ran the whole show and were definitely "the top leaders", with Wilhelm II not really having any power.
I guess the Hussein bin-Ali is more subjective, but considering this was the first time in 600-700 years that the Arabs were independent of the Ottoman Empire (to this day even), largely due to Hussen bin-Alis "arab revolt" (and he was the King of Hejaz which was officially part of the allies), I would say he deserves a spot if, say, Greek PM Eleftherios Venizelos can be there for Greece's involvement at the end of the war--Havsjö (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't change my position. De facto dictators are not in the list by convention. I see no need to change the convention, unless there is an RfC to discuss the wider question of infobox format and content. I'm sure many people have favourite leaders that they think "deserve a spot", but they can't all go in, hence the "and others..." link at the bottom. I would have no problem with Eleftherios Venizelos being removed. Scolaire (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean "De facto" as they didn't have a title like "Führer" or "Head of State", but they were as much dictators as Enver, Talaat and Djemal Pasha (whos positions were minister of war/finance/navy)--Havsjö (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I know what "de facto" means. Let's just leave other people to have their say. Scolaire (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree with Scolaire...we need to keep the distinction between those who wield power and those who don’t just wield power but also hold high office. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I fully support inclusion of King George V, Robert Borden, Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff. King George deserves to be added because he was the king of The British Empire, Robert Borden because he led Canada through WW1 at the same time insisting that Canadian soldiers fight as an independent unit which, in the end he achieved, as well as headed Canadian delegation at the Paris peace conference and signed the treaty of Versailles as the leader of Canada, separate from the British Empire and also supported Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and was willing to provide Canadian soldiers to support forces of Russian white movement. Hindenburg and Ludendorff deserve to be added because they, as another user already mentioned, were the leaders of the entire German Empire, entire German economy and entire German army from 1916-1918. TheBritishVampire (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Change Especially since from late 1916, they effective lead the war effort. At the very least, it keeps the wiki consistent. King George V isn't listed, even though he is at least equally as authoritative as Wilhelm II from 1916. Smalltime0 (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Change, but... the list should include those who played a key role in directing war policy and strategy for the major players, rather than simply head of states or leaders of peripheral players. Hindenburg and Ludendorff are essential, because from 1916, they effectively acted as dictators (which is key to understanding what happened beyond 1918, because until early September, the civilians believed Germany was about to win). Lloyd George but not George V; Clemenceau, not Poincare; Enver Pasha, not Mehmed V. Jan Smut, because he was a key member of the Imperial War Cabinet in both wars, not as a South African and not the PMs of Canada, Australia or NZ (their lack of input led to the 1931 Statute of Westminster). Not Venizelos, certainly not the 'King' of Hejaz; I grew up in the Middle East and still work there, so that's not simply a reflection of Anglo-centric views.Who signed at Versailles is not a measure of importance. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

Hello. Romania exited the war in 1917, but re-entered on november 10 1918. You should incorporate at least the first one. Also, Greece entered the war in 1916, not 1917. Thank You 100.15.209.162 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Classification of Outcome

While Germany, Austria-Hungary, etc. did lose to France, the UK, and the US, they defeated Russia, which asked for an end to the conflict in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Russia, as the first ally to enter the war, as one of the allies with the largest army, and as the main ally on the Easter Front lost to the Central Powers, and that should be reflected in the outcome of the War. For this reason, I propose that instead of "Allied Victory," the war be classified as a "Partial Allied Victory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.177.26 (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

that change will just confuse readers. The Treaty of Brest Litovsk was revoked and Germany's "victory" was reversed. All the Central powers lost very badly which is the main result. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

WW1 was not Russia Vs Germany, any more then the American revolution was a war between Britain and France. Germany and AH lost the war, even if they may have won in a theatre of operations.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2019

world war 1 was before world war 2 AlexxelA123479179 (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 Already done aboideau^talk 12:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

HMHS Britannic

Why is it not on WW1 KyleBoney1 (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Why should it be?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Deaths specifically military

Every source I can find put the military casualties far higher in many countries than what is displayed Meme 1738 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What are those sources? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Beginning of hostilities

The opening paragraph doesn't make it clear exactly where military hostilities began. It mentions the shelling of Belgrade on the 28th, which seems to be July. But that event isn't mentioned later on in the article. This seems like an big omission. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

" was a global war originating in Europe that lasted from 28 July 1914 to 11 November 1918. ".Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

German-occupied Europe during World War I

I've noticed a detailed article regarding WWII at German-occupied Europe describing German occupation of several countries from about 1938-1945. However, I can't find a similar article or section for WWI, although there are lots of articles about various things during WWI, including:

• German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I
• German occupation of Belgium during World War I
• German occupation of Estonia during World War I
• German occupation of north-east France during World War I

There is also mention of German occupation of western modern-day Poland (Russia occupied the east), although Poland was not an independent country at the time, in History of Poland during World War I. Also we have Romania during World War I.

Can anyone point me in the right direction or care to start a summary article or section?

Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think they key difference is that the Germans occupation during WW2 was a major part of the conflict, which saw a number of significant events (the Holocaust, the resistance movements).Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019

w"hen it join the Allied Powers after its relations with Austria-Hungary deteriorated" to "when it joined the Allied Powers after its relations with Austria-Hungary deteriorated" 2604:2000:1342:C36A:B1E3:DAF0:4F73:329 (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit request 11 September 2019

Please change "Posen 1984", #135 in the references, to

<ref name=Posen 1984>{{cite book | last=Posen | first=Barry | title=The sources of military doctrine : France, Britain, and Germany between the world wars | publisher=Cornell University Press | publication-place=Ithaca | year=1984 | isbn=978-0-8014-9427-7 | oclc=892910298}}</ref>

thanks.173.217.182.134 (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire alliance in the lede

The lede states the Ottoman Empire joins the "Alliance" which is confusing both contextually within the paragraph and also because the faction it did end up joining is by convention often called the "Central Powers" and its opponents the "Allies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeperColony (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Big error.

I can't edit this article since it's semi-protected but I wanted to let you all now that German Offensive in Belgium and France. There is this in text

German soldiers in a railway goods wagon on the way to the front in 1914. Early in the war, all sides expected the conflict to be a short one.

If someone can correct that for me, that would be great thank you.

Sorry for the bad english, i am still learning the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxime12346 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you want changed? Please put in format Old text -> New text, or 'Please change "old text" to "new text", reason why' KillerChihuahua 20:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect World Map

The map objected to

I notciced, while browsing through the article, a map that supposedly showcased the "world empire and colonies around 1914" which is clearly outdated and NOT world war 1 related as it for example shows Norway as a part of Sweden. If I had the right, I would have it deleted immediately, as it fails both to keep the date and have any relevance with the topics it is being lined next to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birkebeiner Harald (talk • contribs) 11:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, any have have an explanation?Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Morocco looks wrong too, omits the Spanish bits. I'm removing it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be some alternative reality map.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2019

101.98.63.140 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Please

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

no mention of colonialism/imperialism as a cause of the war?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.3.137 (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2019

It is stated that the war finished on 11th November 1918. Technically it finished on 25th November 1918, as German forces in Africa didn't surrender until then as they weren't aware of the armistice in Europe. 86.2.197.22 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. I understand what you're saying, but the formal end to hostilities occurred on 11 November. If there is consensus, perhaps we could add a note or something to indicate that fighting continued in parts of East Africa beyond 11 November? Aoi (青い) (talk)

New collage for the infobox

It seems reasonable to me that there is room for improvement on both the WW1 and WW2 infoboxes, their montages specifically. I propose this new one for World War I.

File:Ww1montage.jpg

high res. ww1 montage

The purpose of the infobox montage should be to show some of the important events and battles. And also to bring attention to striking images, most images should be on the fighting and the men involved. Both add more photos but no to the point I feel dilutes it. Both the new ones I suggest are chronologically order from clockwise top-right. I previewed it with the new description below and same image size as the previous montage, it did not convolute the infobox.

I would like a consensus on this, Slatersteven and Aoi (青い) -- Roddy the roadkill (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have

@Roddy the roadkill: can you please provide a description to the images in your collage, or at least link to the new images you're adding? Beyond the pictures that are being recycled from the current infobox image, I'm not sure what I'm looking at. Thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I have the same objection here as in a similar discussion at Talk:World War II#New collage for the infobox; I'm reproducing it here:

Although the images by themselves may be fine, there's too many images in this proposal. Even 6 is really more than necessary, but us the result of compromises of calls to include multiple editor-favored viewpoints. Remember the sole purpose of the lede image: to immediately inform the reader they have the right article. The lede image should contain what's needed to uniquely depict and identify WWI distinct from any other possibly related subject, and no more. If that takes a montage, then so be it, but more than 4 images starts to shrink their size beyond easy immediate recognition, and produce more clutter and distraction than help to the reader. Unless there's a specific problem with the current lede image that can be stated and debated here, I see zero benefit, and some harm, in this proposal. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Australia is not listed as a belligerent in the info box

Per the article itself, Australia contributed 416,000 soliders of whom 60,000 were killed. Also, as noted in the article, the conflict was of seminal importance to Australia's national identity as well as that of New Zealand. As a consequence, it seems like a serious oversight that neither country is listed as an Allied Power in the infobox, even though both country's inputs and significance to the conflict were more substantial than many of the minor participants. I recommend that Australia and New Zealand be explicitly listed. 124.171.105.253 (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)P Pounds

Neither is any other part of the British Empire as far as I can see listed separately.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the IP may have a point. Australia was not bound to declare war in 1914, so it is not correctv to link its participation with that of Britain. Also, the British Empire was not a combatant: Britain was. The means of participation of the various parts of the empire was different. The empire was not an entity capable of declaring war. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

But Australia was not alone in that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Foreign policy, including declarations of war, was the responsibility of the Imperial government, that is the UK. See ‘To the last man’—Australia’s entry to war in 1914 from the Australian Parliament website. DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Soccer stopped the war

I can't edit this page because it is semi-protected, but I wanted to say this war stopped for a day for people to enjoy the game of soccer. It was December 25, 1914 and the soldiers were getting ready for Christmas in their trenches. You had the Germans on one side and the Scottish on the other. They both began to sing and decorate their trenches for Christmas. Someone finally brought out a soccer ball and both sides began to play. They became friends, but the next day they had to go back to shooting one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antcol10 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The Christmas truce already has an article. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't as simple as that, the war did not "stop for a day". Some units, by various means, arranged a cease fire for a few hours on Christmas Day. A few did have some sort of interaction between adversaries. However it was not a universal experience by everyone. For most of the front line soldiers in the war it was just another day of violence to be survived. Perhaps a link to the Christmas Truce article can be provided, but I don't think it is a priority. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2019

Please amend the statement on the ethnic composition of the Austro-Hungarian armies.

"The effect of this at the start of the war was that well over a quarter of the rank and file were Slavs, while more than 75% of the officers were ethnic Germans." This should read "was that over 40% of the rank and file"

I looked at the source that's cited here, and it says that out of every 1000 soldiers, there were:

• 267 Germans
• 233 Hungarians
• 135 Czechs*
• 85 Poles*
• 81 Ukranians*
• 67 Croats and Serbs*
• 54 Romanians
• 38 Slovaks*
• 26 Slovenes*
• 14 Italians

Asterisks indicate Slavs, who add up to 412 out of every 1000. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing this out. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019

The part of the lead mentioning WW1 casualties, along with the infobox, needs to be changed to match with the Wikipedia article it links to. The present text uses numbers that aren't represented by the World War I casualties article. This edit would be logical and not OR, unless a source is used as a citation to back up the numbers used in the lead. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Interstellarity (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2020

Oolapade (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

can i edit this paper? i have some good factual evidence to add to this paper.

What edit do you wish to make?Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

I do not feel that the "Four dynasties, together with their ancillary aristocracies, fell as a result of the war: the Romanovs, the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburgs, and the Ottomans" sentence is correct, as the Hohenzollern dynasty has survived in Romania until after the WW2. What do you think? --Diana wiki2 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

There was a great deal of very specific information regarding non great power combatants as well as details about the mechanics of battlefield advancements and strategy. I believe the introduction sounds better now, but some more revision is still most likely very helpful. I'm going to remove the "introduction may be too long" on the top of the page. If anybody feels it's still long, please add it back. Thank you. Myownworst (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

I think that in the first paragraph, it should be mentioned that World War I saw the introduction of the term "Total "War", and the fact that all countries threw their entire economies behind the war effort. I saw this type of language on the WWII page, and I feel it just as relevant here. Interestedinmanythings (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests must be precise. Moreover, if you intend to add material to the lead, it should reflect material in the body of the article as well; see WP:LEAD. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

"2w1" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2w1. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Macedonian Front

I propose that Macedonian Front should be in 4 as:

4 Allied victory: summer 1918 onwards

4.8.1 Hundred Days Offensive

4.8.2 Allied advance to the Hindenburg Line

4.8.3 Breakthrough of Macedonian Front - Vardar Offensive (This could have some other title)

4.8.4 German Revolution 1918–1919

4.8.5 New German government surrenders

4.8.6 Armistices and capitulations

After Battle of Dobro Pole and Vardar Offensive (15–29 September 1918) was Macedonian Front broken and Bulgaria signs an armistice with the Allies (30 September). That was the only such broken Front in WWI. State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs proclaimed (4 November) on territory of Austria-Hungary. Alexmilt (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Why, who ultimately won?Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Allied won, but this battles accelerate end of WWI. Alexmilt (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

Currently in the lede (first paragraph), it states "an estimated nine million combatant and seven million civilian deaths as a direct result of the war." This is unsourced and links to the World War I casualties page. I request a modification of the wording, using this Britannica source (an RS): https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing. Britannica estimates 8.5 million military dead and 13 million civilian dead.

Perhaps change to "an estimated 9 million combatant deaths and 13 million civilians deaths as a direct result of the war" Or maybe a mention of the cumulative total of ~21 million dead with a breakdown of civilian and military afterwards (those who may make the edit could decide on the wording). 2601:85:C101:BA30:D817:D462:DF3:A884 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC) 2601:85:C101:BA30:D817:D462:DF3:A884 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It would be a self-contradiction to the article it is referring to. IF you wish to change, please coordinate with the folks at World War I casualties. Also see Template:Self-contradictory if you do decided to change.

The users at the article (check the talk page last section) are fine with adding Britannica's numbers (an RS) to the article. I made such an edit in compliance with the users' wishes and the article now mentions the 22 million dead number (as part of a range). There no longer will be any contradiction. Can the edit be made now? 2601:85:C101:BA30:9047:B5F5:878B:1137 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request

The section on the signing of the Armistice states that it was signed at 5 am and took effect at 11 am. Actually it was signed between 5 and 6 am, but the time was recorded as 5 am for simplicity since it was to take effect in 6 hours. This is partly covered at the article on the armistice (although it somewhat contradicts itself as to the time of signing), but revised wording is needed here: I suggest omitting the time of signing altogether. In addition, the time zone is not stated, which matters since German time was an hour ahead of British and French.

I suggest:

On the morning of 11 November 1918, an armistice with Germany was signed in a railroad carriage at Compiègne. At 11 am (French and British time) that day—"the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month"—a ceasefire came into effect.

--76.71.5.208 (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't need the quote. It's an interesting one, but who said it, and why is it here? It's not encyclopedic. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

Currently in the lede (first paragraph), it states "an estimated nine million combatant and seven million civilian deaths as a direct result of the war." This is unsourced and links to the World War I casualties page. I request a modification of the wording, using this Britannica source (an RS): https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing. Britannica estimates 8.5 million military dead and 13 million civilian dead.

Perhaps change to "an estimated 9 million combatant deaths and 13 million civilians deaths as a direct result of the war" Or maybe a mention of the cumulative total of ~21 million dead with a breakdown of civilian and military afterwards (those who may make the edit could decide on the wording).

The users at the article (check the talk page last section) are fine with adding Britannica's numbers (an RS) to the article. I made such an edit in compliance with the users' wishes and the article now mentions the 22 million dead number (as part of a range). There no longer will be any contradiction. Can the edit be made now? 2601:85:C101:BA30:D475:54CE:FC6C:FDD (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 2601:85:C101:BA30:D475:54CE:FC6C:FDD (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Acknowledged: You make a valid point but due to the linking of the article and citations, please coordinate this with editors at the World War I casualties article, preferably on their talk page. It looks like there is a dialogue happening at Talk:World War I casualties#Two changes made without consensus reverted. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 04:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The users at the talk page are in agreement that Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source, and if you read the World War I casualties article lede, the change has been made and kept to put 22 million dead as a total (as part of a range). The dialogue was about an error in editing I made, I had forgot to keep the range. The users there do not dispute the adding of this number as part of the range. An edit to this page would thus not violate any of the concerns of any users on that page. So can it be done? 2601:85:C101:BA30:D475:54CE:FC6C:FDD (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Implemented: Okay, in accordance with this discussion on this talk and the one at World War I casualties, your edits have been added to the article. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 05:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

"After World War II began in 1939"?

This seems questionable, given how "World War II" started in 1939 (Japan and China had been at war for years, and Russia and America would not join for some time), and the current source (a guide to Canadian English writing style) seems sub-optimal for this historical question. Are we meant to interpret it as "the two wars were already being called World War I and World War II, respectively, during the course of the latter war"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The general start date for WW2 was September 3 1939.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please Ctrl+F the above quote in the article, or read my comment in full, before responding. I am talking about a specific piece of information that is almost certainly wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Although the wording could be improved, it's my understanding that the statement is true; at some point early on in the second global war (~1941), it was indeed being termed "World War II", and the "Great War" got retroactively numbered as the first. But, I don't have a source for this handy. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If I have not understood the question: when did the Great War start being called the First World War?

Charles Repiington, in 1920, published The First World War, 1914-1918.

A.J.P. Taylor, English History 1914-1945, p. 2, footnote: wrote "In contemporary parlance, the war of 1914-18 was always, not surprisingly, the Great War. It did not need the war of 1939-45 to change it into the first World war. Repington devised the phrase at the time of the armistice..."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Is the capitalization in that quote accurate? The colloquial term "the first world war" was used even in 1914, but that's just a description, not the common name for the war. The article's statement in question is about when the proper noun -- capitalized as "First World War" -- began to be commonly used as the name of the war. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the capitalization is correct. Google Books has the quote available here.

I think all this could be wrapped up as something like: "The term 'First World War' was coined shortly after the armistice, attributed to Charles Repington, and first used in a publication in 1920.(cite to Taylor and Repington) However, this term was not in general use until after World War II began... (per the article at present, and with current sources)"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This source also states Repington was the first to coin the term. The author cites The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Michael Dockrill and John Fisher (editors); in particular referencing page 14 of the 2001 edition. However, it appears to have first been published in 1942. I cant find an online version, of either edition (Google Books has the 2001 edition, but does not include page 14 on preview), to see what the author states in regards to common usage etc of the time period (which I doubt). At any rate, just another couple of works that at least acknowledge the term has been floating around, even if it was not in regular use.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Still cant find a version online that has full access, but I was able to play around to see what Dockrill/Fisher said, nothing really pertinent to the subject other than Repington used the term first for his work; its a mere sidenote, from what I can see.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, that explains where "First World War" comes from. If it was coined as early as 1919, it must have meant "the first ever war that could truly be called a global war" rather than distinguishing it from the "Second World War" (which is what it usually means now, as shown by the fact that popular culture insists that it was called "the Great War" back when there was no second World War); but I don't think "World War I" can have that meaning.

Our article currently implies it acquired that name and signification in 1939, when World War II started, but there was nothing "world" about the new war in 1939 -- Russia, Japan, China and the US weren't formally involved until 1941, so it seems highly unlikely that an awareness of "World War I and World War II" would have emerged as early as 1939.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Side note, initially: the British Dominions declared war independently of the UK (off the top of my head, I want to say British India did so as well). So on 3 September 1939, there was countries from Europe, North America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania at war with Germany. Small scale fighting soon broke out in Africa, and naval actions subsequently took place across the high seas.

What do the sources say? I cant access the full papers on [www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk], but the snippets that do appear clearly indicate that the British press saw, in early 1939 during the build-up of tension, that any war with Germany would be a world war. The term comes up repeatedly, as well as after the war broke out. The Birmingham Mail, on 14 Feb 1940, ran a story quoting the Chinese ambassador as stating "There is no European war, there is no Asiatic war, there is a world war" (a position that would be generally at odds with historians who see, IIRC, the Japanese joint attack on the US and UK as linking the separate conflicts). On a more formal footing, Hansard (the official report of all British parliamentary debates) shows various politicians referencing events, in passing (prior to Operation Barbarossa), as a world war. I don't see anything, at the moment, where people suddenly started calling the fighting the Second World War, but it does seem clear they recognized it as such prior to and after it broke out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I cant access it, but apparently this British 1919 newspaper was the first to suggest another war with Germany would be "World War No. 2". According to our World War article, the New York Times described the conflict that broke out in September 1939 as "World War II" in their September 11, 1939 edition: potential broken link/behind a paywall.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I suspect professional historians would view a Chinese ambassador, no doubt hoping to get British support for a war against Germany's putative ally Japan, would be a biased source. The fact that a British newspaper included such a quote in 1940 doesn't disprove the (not highly likely, but conceivable) possibility that contemporary German papers reported that Chinese diplomats in Germany were telling the Nazis precisely the opposite. This is why it is necessary to get reliable secondary sources, preferably that specifically discuss when this topic first started to be called "World War I (as opposed to World War II)". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Note we are looking for when "First World War" became the common name for the war, replacing "Great War". The fact that Repington coined the term "First World War" in 1920 means little to nothing for this, as he had no control over the whole of historical sources that followed, who apparently mostly continued to use "Great War". So, rather than focus on first uses of "First World War", we should focus more on the last uses of "Great War" as the dominate name in sources. Book titles and headlines are poor indicators of this, as they may be purposely using uncommon terms for promotional effects. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I do find it interesting. Obviously, it would be WP:SYNTH if we tried to add to the article the claim that Originally, when coined by Repington in 1920, the term "First World War" simply meant "the first ever war that could truly be called a global war"; later, after the declaration of World War II, it became more common, and was used as a means of distinguishing it from the latter war. without a reliable secondary source explicitly verifying it, but if we could I think it would be a fascinating bit of information to add to the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

In 1934, Laurence Stallings published a book about. The war entitled The First World War. It was then basically turned into a a silent movie/documentary. That moves beyond the obscure, a memoir published in 1920, into mass culture. It should also be noted that newspapers during the 1914-18 period were referring to the fighting as a world war.

Personally, I think you are both being too narrowinded (and potentially goal post moving about this). The sources show that both ears were referred to as world wars, the sources show the terms World War I/First World War were coined pretty early on, and sources show the terms coming into popular usage in the 30s (in addition to what the one in the article states). It would appear the fact that multiple terms were being used interchangeably to describe the same conflict had already arisen by the time the Second World War broke out, so what are we actually discussing? I do not believe we are going to find a source that states "there was a grand meeting on February 1st, 1942 were it was decided the Great War would hence be know as the First World War and the current fighting will be known as the Second. Signed the elders of historian society."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you are talking about at this point. It would violate NOR to insert into the article discussion of the history of the term based on this or that book having used the term in this or that year without a secondary source explicitly making the connection. Your research -- for which I have already expressed my appreciation -- has shown that the term was in use before 1939, but it obviously had a different meaning from the one it later acquired, except in prophetic writings addressing the possibility of a second world war. The It did not need the war of 1939-45 to change it into the first World war quote is proof enough of that (for the talk page, not necessarily for the article).

As for the dubiousness of saying that a "world war" "began" in 1939, this appears to be a fairly standard view among contemporary historians; I only took a few history classes in college, most of them not relating to modern history, but I recall "French Culture & Society" textbook that I used -- maybe France since 1800, but it's not really important -- pointing out the various issues with dating the start of WW2. I know the standard historiography that was fed to me in school says "1939 to 1945" and I'm not arguing we should get into that mess here of course.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No one suggested inserting a discussion into the article. No one suggested we don't need a source. The only suggestion I made was that Repington calling it "First World War" is not a sufficient source for it being a common name when he published. If someone has an authoritative source stating "in year 19XX, the most common name changed to First World War", that would be great. If we can't find that, then we can base it on when a majority of sources stopped using "Great War" as the primary name.

If we don't have either of these, then we cannot say when it became the common name, and we have to reword the statement in question to avoid implying an specific date.

(I don't see how the date of the start of WW2 has anything to do with this discussion. "Great War" may have fallen out of use before or after any such date proposed.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Your final, parenthetical, statement is exactly what I have been trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to convey throughout this discussion; I was just adding that the reason I [Hijiri88] don't see how the date of the start of WW2 has anything to do with this discussion is that the 1939 start date of World War II is an arbitrary conclusion decided upon by historians basically for the purpose of teaching it to schoolchildren, and wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for the term "Great War" to have fallen out of usage in favour of "World War I" at the time Britain and France declared war on (but didn't start actively fighting) Germany, following the latter's umpteenth military invasion of another country. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

So, we can stop discussing the start date of WW2. Good.

Back on topic, does anyone have any sources along the lines described above? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

- Its all relative. I'm pretty sure the Napoleonic war was called the great war, and then it was used for ww1. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

the spelling of mobilization is wrong. Hassan Taimur (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the note at the top of this page, the article uses British English. See WP:ENGVAR. RudolfRed (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A mistake in the introduction paragraph

Theres a line in there which says that the “allied powers were defeated” whereas it was the central powers that were defeated. Please correct it someone. Xeone007 (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It does? full quote please.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Why Britain entered

The reliable sources agree The main reason Britain entered the war was to prevent France from being defeated, Belgium played a secondary role--it won over antiwar Liberals. Rjensen (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Care to provide one of these sources?Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

yes: see British entry into World War I#Decision for war. More in a minute. Bentley B. Gilbert, "Pacifist to interventionist: David Lloyd George in 1911 and 1914. Was Belgium an issue?." Historical Journal 28.4 (1985): 863-885. and Zara S. Steiner, Britain and the origins of the First World War (1977) pp 235-237. Rjensen (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That says that the concern was greater German strength. So its a question of how we word it. Moreover the section in the lede is correct, Britain declared war after the treaty was invoked, it makes not claim for that being the reason for war. It has been argued that without the violation of Belgium neutrality Britain could not have declared war, no matter how much one party wanted to.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The old text here ty says the old treaty was the real reason and that is not true. Here is the abstract for Bentley B. Gilbert, "Pacifist To Interventionist: David Lloyd George In 1911 And 1914. Was Belgium An Issue?" Historical Journal. Dec1985, Vol. 28 Issue 4, p863-885. Abstract: Recounts the internal political maneuvering that took place among England's leaders in the years leading up to World War I. Though British statesman David Lloyd George continued to make pacifist pronouncements in line with the views of his Liberal Party constituency up until the German invasion of Belgium in 1914, he had actually decided as early as 1911 that Britain must support France militarily to prevent Prussian domination of Europe. Rjensen (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said, it was not to defend France, but to stop Germany. In fact a major factor that caused hostility between Britain and German was the building of a German high seas fleet, not invading France. All of which is to detailed for the lede, but the declaration of war was (officially) due to violation of Belgium, which we OK for the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

please cite your sources....the statement "Britain could not have declared war, no matter how much one party wanted to." -- i think that is false--what reliable source supports it? Belgium played a role in posters & rhetoric convincing antiwar Liberals AFTER the king declared war. Clark, Sleepwalkers p 545 says decision came BEFORE Germany invaded Belgium: "by the close of the following day – Sunday 2 August – the British government had taken the crucial steps towards intervention. At the first cabinet meeting of that day, from eleven in the morning until two in the afternoon, Grey was authorized to inform the French ambassador that if the German fleet crossed the North Sea or entered the Channel in order either to disrupt French shipping or to attack the French coast, the British fleet would extend full protection. Walter Runciman, president of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, later described this as ‘the Cabinet which decided that war with Germany was inevitable....Recognizing that the writing was on the wall for the proponents of non-intervention, Burns announced his retirement after the first meeting; at the end of the second, Viscount John Morley, too, gave notice of his imminent retirement. The ‘peace party’ was in disarray." Rjensen (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, the above is selective quotation by Christopher Clark to peddle his case. Keeping the German fleet fleet out of the North Sea/Channel was only one prong of British policy. Had the Germans not invaded Belgium (or had stuck to the SE corner, east of the Meuse, like everyone had always assumed they would), any British intervention would very likely have been pretty nominal, at least at first. More detailed comment below.Paulturtle (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Another factor: collapse of Liberal coalition at risk. Clark, Sleepwalkers p 545 = "Other factors must have catalysed the transition from neutrality to intervention, especially for those waverers among the ministers whose support was necessary for the passage of a cabinet resolution. Within this more circumscribed setting, party-political anxieties about how the Liberal government would survive the resignation of Grey and Asquith were surely crucial. Given the support of the Conservative opposition for intervention (which was in turn powered in part by attitudes to the Irish Question, the assumption being that intervention would necessitate the indefinite postponement of Home Rule), the collapse of the Liberal cabinet would simply have resulted in the slightly belated adoption of Grey’s policy. For those who remained unmoved by Belgian neutrality and the Anglo-French naval arrangement, this was a powerful argument against allowing the intervention debate to break the government." Rjensen (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said it was a complex issue, to complex for the lede, but Belgium was the excuse for war. But you will note, none of these sources talk about some noble commitment to France, but rather fear of growing German power.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Well no, the sentence in the lede cites Martel --no quote--and gets him wrong: James Joll and Gordon Martel, Origins of the First World War (3rd ed 2007) p 65 "Yet the question of Belgian neutrality, important as it was to be in reconciling liberal opinion in Britain to the war, was not the immediate reason for the decision to support France. There was still some doubt about what would actually require British intervention under the 1839 treaty of guarantee." Rjensen (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It also cited another source you have chosen to remove. Now I oppose any change at all and would rather others now stepped in.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

the Evans book is for teenagers. --he's not a scholar or reliable source. and it was not quoted. You demanded I give qujotes--ok now I have done that and now you can give quotes from your reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding Bermuda underneath British Empire on Belligerents.

Hi, my request is to add Bermuda to the British Empire belligerents as 500 odd people from Bermuda fought on the Western Front for the British Empire. My source: http://www.bermudaregiment.bm/about/history ThePaganUK (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC) ThePaganUK (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done We only list the Dominions and India in that section. Bermuda was not a Dominion. To list all the British colonies would overwhelm the infobox. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Picture in the infobox

Seriously? Was WWI, a British-German War? Nobody could find any pic of the Russians, French or Austro-Hungarians in WWI. You even managed to find a spot late arriving Americans but not the original belligerents? (Jules Agathias (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC))

The purpose of the lede image is to quickly assure the reader they have the right article. Showing no-mans land, those iconic rhomboid tanks, machine guns, gas masks, and biplanes with iron crosses does this. Trying to balance nationalities is perhaps more politically correct, but focusing on that would likely dilute the primary purpose of the images. Of course, any editor is welcome to find images that do both. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

In the fourth paragraph of the introduction there is a mention of the Central Powers, before it is explained what these Central Powers are. I suggest changing the phrasing there from:

In November 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the side of the Central Powers, opening fronts in the Caucasus, Mesopotamia, and the Sinai Peninsula.

to

In November 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the side of the Alliance, opening fronts in the Caucasus, Mesopotamia, and the Sinai Peninsula. 2A02:1811:2C20:C900:B0DB:5922:DA84:4E0C (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Which alliance?Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Effectively answered with this edit. As noted above "alliance" is even more ambiguous than "Central Powers". Instead, changed to "Austria-Hungary and Germany", leaving the term "Central Powers" defined at the end of the same paragraph, after the listing all the nations joining. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vladimir Lenin Leon Trotsky Lev Kamenev 1920.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Discontent in Germany and Austria (as of 2020/11)

The single source given for the first, very broad, generalized and vague paragraph [424] is, much in contrary to the information in the article, extremely limited in scope (Tirol) and completely insufficient to back up these claims; claims which likely include original research and (in addition and in my opinion), as they are, are downright stereotyping or perpetuating bias. Some of the things mention in said first paragraph obviously have a basis in reality or are worth mentioning, but not overgeneralized in this manner, cherrypicked or out of context. As such, instead of trying to find sources for this as is, it should probably be rewritten. The rest of the section also exhibits bias or passes judgement in some cases ("justify acts of aggression due to perceived injustices"), which should probably be changed or omitted as well, until finally we get to this completely unrelated holocaust quote by a Mr. Rubinstein? Do we need this in a WW1 article? It's a very long road from "discontent in 1918/19 Germany" to "genocide in general arises from totalitarianism". It does not belong here. 93.225.143.158 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I count 4 sources in that whole section, not one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The whole section actually has 6 sources; but as far as sources are concerned I am worried only about the first paragraph, which only has a single poor one, especially considering the sweeping claims made there. Beyond that it's mostly a question of the writing itself. 93.225.143.158 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That first paragraph seem to be a summery and overview of the section, thus can be argued to be supported by all the oterh cites as well. The cite in question is being used for one line.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Murderer of Franz Ferdinand

It could be a good thing to give a link to the name of the murderer of Franz Ferndinand, Princip. In the Sarajevo assasination part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joris987 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

We link to him in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Joris987: He's linked, along with his co-conspirators, in the second sentence of the section. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I would believe the Black Hand, who In May, Gavrilo Princip, Trifko Grabez and Nedeljko Cabrinovic traveled to the Serbian capital of Belgrade, where they received six handheld bombs, four semi-automatic pistols and cyanide suicide capsules. Credit to HISTORY for information. Androneacus Vicero (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

major new book online free

See Cornelissen, Christoph, and Arndt Weinrich, eds. Writing the Great War - The Historiography of World War I from 1918 to the Present (2020) online free -- full coverage for major countries. Free download. Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Andorra's supposed participation

When looking at original Catalan/Andorran sources, it appears as though the supposed 1914 declaration of war by Andorra never actually happened. The Catalan Wikipedia article "Andorra durant la Primera Guerra Mundial" cites eight different sources for its assertion that there is no evidence of Andorra ever participating. A screenshot of the translated appropriate section can be found here:

https://imgur.com/a/28QsWMg

I tried to remove this apparently false info from the article, but it got reverted. I'm looking for the opinions of other editors on whether this should remain.

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

None of the "sources" used in this article to support Andorra's participation were Reliable Sources, and indeed they contradicted each other, and in one case even itself, on the alleged end date. I have removed them and added a "citation needed" template. DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find Andorra mentioned in the indices of any of my books about either the First World War or the Peace Conferences, including the 33 volumes of the Makers of the Modern World series. DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The story originates in a New York Times article from 25 September 1958, entitled "World War I Ends in Andorra". But there seem to be no sources from the same time from Andorra or in Catalan stating this, and there is no evidence of the supposed original 1914 Andorran declaration of war ever existing.

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless someone finds any more evidence that Andorra actually ever participated in World War I, here is my proposed passage to replace the current one:

A 1958 New York Times article claimed that Andorra failed to sign a peace treaty until that year, but there is no contemporary evidence of this, or of Andorra's supposed participation in the war in the first place. Mainstream Andorran scholarship indicates that Andorra was left out of the war. In 2014, the news outlet Ràdio i Televisió d'Andorra investigated and could find no documentation of any original declaration of war. Historian Pere Cavero could only find an exchange of letters between the German consul in Marseilles and the Catalan Ombudsman, where the former asks if there is a state of war with Andorra and the latter responds they could find nothing in their archive to indicate this. However, there were three Andorran volunteers in the war: Valentí Naudi, Josep Estany and René Huguet.

References

Either that, or just remove the passage entirely like I originally tried to do.

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you've set it out very clearly there, I would incline however to simple removal, with a note in the edit summary pointing to this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I will wait a few days to see if anyone raises any objections, and if not, I will remove the paragraph from this article, then to the page "History of Andorra" I will add the above paragraph of my own creation. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Qmwnebrvtcyxuz: Agree with just removing it entirely. Even if true, there's a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue about including anything about Andorra in the War. The quirk of having forgotten to include mention of the country in the Treaty of Versailles is the only (slightly) notable thing about Andorra and the war, afaict. Conceivably, it could be a footnote at Treaty of Versailles, or at Andorra. Here, it simply doesn't belong per WP:DUE WEIGHT, even if it were true that they participated, which seems doubtful. If you want to go the last mile, years ago in order to resolve a conflict about Andorra on another article, I communicated with an official in government there, and actually got a response, which settled the question. I don't think that's necessarily worth doing for this case, but it is an option. Any response wouldn't be considered a reliable source (because not published) but might point us in the right direction, or a surprising result might indicate whether there was a need for further research. Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot--remove entirely. (Else it will turn up in thousands of student papers.) Rjensen (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

In paragraph 4, where it reads "In 1915, Italy joined the Allied Powers" it should read "In 1915, Italy joined the Central Powers"

Thank you. Wikitor74 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Because they did join the Allied powers in 1915. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

George V during WWI

There are numerous sources of King George V of the British Empire would lead as the figurehead of World War I? but questions unanswered. --Frontman830 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox military conflict, the info box should aim for "only prominent or notable leaders" for wars, "with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended." Currently we are way over the suggested limit. With that in mind, I dont think George V should be the box: the UK was ran by Parliament during his reign and he was pretty much just a figurehead with no real power. Several of the leaders, in my opinion such as the post-revolution Russian ones, should be removed in favor of more prominent people (likewise, the list of combatants probably should also be dramatically shortened to just the major players).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree--the prime minister ran the government and George V was a figurehead good for ceremonies., Likewise the Kaiser in Germany. Rjensen (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

What about Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, and other territories of the British Empire who lead the government? --Frontman830 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In WWI London was in charge of their warfare and their diplomacy (ie Asquith at first then Lloyd George from late 1916) Rjensen (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Cleanup

Should the infobox be changed and made smaller. It seems quite busy for an infobox. It could be better if it was similiar to the World War Two infobox. It could benifit from removing some info for example removing minor countries and leaders and cleaning up the casualties. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary's flag

I recommend using the dual ensign instead of the seperate flags of Austria and Hungary. TheIndianPianist (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Genodice

Armeian,Assyrian and Greek Genodice is not true.These genodice allegations are propaganda and lies.I can prove. TR-Buraq24 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

So then please present your sources, RS saying these are fasle.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Old and New Styles

Is it possible to add Old Style dates? Per MOS:OSNS "Dates after 4 October 1582 in a place where the Julian calendar was observed should be given in the Julian calendar.". Since Serbia (until 1919), Montenegro (until 1919), Romania (until 1919), Russia (1918) and Bulgaria (1916) used Old Style the article should use the Old Style too. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

Where, in the sidebar, it says "Fall of all continental empires in Europe (including Germany, Russia, Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary)", it should be changed to something like "Fall of all continental empires in Europe (including Germany, Russia, Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary), with the exception of the Portuguese Empire." Portugal is a continental country in Europe and it kept the empire after the war, therefore it is an exception to the statement. Ruimpcraveiro (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It was not a continental empire, it was a continental country with overseas colonies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

In the 'Commanders and Leaders' section of the infobox, both Franz Joseph I and Mehmed V have "†" symbols next to their names. Both these men seem to have died of natural causes, but the KIA template states that natural causes should be represented with a "#" symbol; the '†' symbol seems to be reserved for battlefield deaths. Furthermore, both uses of the '†' link to the page Manner of death, which doesn't seem informative enough to justify a link (but this part is conjecture, the symbol inconsistency is the main issue). 24.178.40.49 (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Done, after a bit of messing around to ensure our readers can understand what we are trying to tell them. The link to the page Manner of death is due to the replacement of the specific manner of death pages with a redirect; I think we may need to reconsider those deletions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

My request is removal of so-called ethnic cleansing of Armenian population speculation from the core theme of Turkish Independence War which contradicts with the rightful sovereignty of Turkish people and its congress back then for their unimaginable struggle against Allied countries and their forces. As there was no verifiable or valid solid proof for the subject for such genocide, in a war time like that there was too many engagements between all parties, and it is impossible to think there was only Turkish movements against Armenians or any other ethnic classes, let alone as in the article notes there were Armenian bands which brought massacres on countless Turkish villages in the same period. However neither Armenian genocide claim nor such massacres has no direct proof but only 3rd degree claims. Thus smearing and/or undermining Turkish Independence War with a core article of yet or never to be proved Armenian Genocide is just non-sense and disrespect to the Turkish Republic and its citizens so forth. This article is about Turkish resistance and its rightful triumph against imperialist ideals of Allied countries and it will stay like that in the pages of history and trying to put shades over its validity will not go unnoticed as of this claim here and now.

Many Thanks, Sevenhillist Sevenhillist (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

See wp:soap wp:forum and wp:NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also seek consensus for this contentious change before opening a request. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021

The total mobilization numbers in the infobox are wrong, probably because of a mathematical error (the numbers don't add up that high). Change the bolded total mobilization number "68,208,000 (Total all)" to "68,034,000 (Total all)." Also change total strength for the Allies in the infobox from "Total: 42,950,000" to "Total: 42,786,000." This should fix the addition errors. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:79AE:15B3:C72E:A7C4 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What? No RS are needed... it is simply a mathematical correction, I am only using the numbers provided in the infobox, nothing else. The numbers need to add up, that's all. My request stands. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:79AE:15B3:C72E:A7C4 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, obviously, the numbers in the infobox are not just the total of the listed nations but also include a few thousands from other minor participants (some of which are listed in the infobox)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure we should be using the numbers provided in the infobox for anything, as some of these figures vary considerably from the source for Greece, Portugal, Romania, and Italy.

The infobox also gives 8,842,000 for the British Empire, which reflects neither of the sources; the general source, when summed, gives 8,741,541, while the specific source gives 8,689,467. Meanwhile, the decision to group Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa under the "British Empire" seems questionable, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. BilledMammal (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

So what you're getting at is the numbers in the infobox are unreliable, insofar they do not reflect the source used? If so, then why not fix the numbers to match the source, or provide better RS? I cannot do this since I am an IP. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D145:C3F1:B220:1D4 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Did that, and split out the Dominions + India. If anyone has any objections to that last part, lets discuss it here. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Moxy; the number changes weren't random, they were done to match the numbers provided in the source - take a look, you'll see the original does not match what the source says. As such, I'm going to re-add my changes, though if you further object to these new numbers I'll let a subsequent revert stand for further discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey BilledMammal, thanks for the fix! Just one small thing, the Allied total (at least using the numbers now in the infobox) would total 42,928,000, and and thus Total mobilized to 68,176,000. That's it, otherwise the issue is fixed. :) 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D145:C3F1:B220:1D4 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. While I note RandomCanadian's objections, and believe they have substance (total figure not including smaller participants), we have to follow the sources provided, and the sources provided give the total the IP has calculated. Additional sources for the smaller nations in question would of course change this. BilledMammal (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks! 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D145:C3F1:B220:1D4 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Flag of Russian empire

There is some persistent push in World War I articles to use for Russian Empire but I am yet to see any sources stating that it was actually officially adopted as state flag. List_of_Russian_flags#Historical_flags_of_Russia describes it merely as "Flag for private use; also planned State Flag".--Staberinde (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've switched it over. Forgot to mention about this talk page discussion, but hopefully they will come here if they dispute my change. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Table of contents missing?

I'm not sure how but it appears that the article is now missing a table of contents as of the last edit dated 31 October 2021, while the table was still present in the edit preceding that last revision, dated 30 October 2021. I have compared that edit and the edit preceding it from edit history and can find no reason why the table of contents is now broke. Any ideas about this? I should note that this is observed on Mozilla Firefox. --Legion (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

So it turned out that using {{note}} instead of {{efn}} for the note broke the table of contents as I suspected. It is now fixed and the table of contents is restored. --Legion (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Now the tablet of contents, oddly enough, also works in the 31 October 2021 version via Edit History, where it previously did not even before I edited the article itself as I described above. I don't get it. A possible bug with the MediaWiki software? Baffling. --Legion (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Scholars have raised entirely new questions regarding ...... the male body?

Under the section on Historiography the text says "Scholars have raised entirely new questions regarding military occupation, radicalisation of politics, race, and the male body." . The cite links to https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/as-the-centenary-approaches-the-regeneration-of-first-world-war-historiography/9ACF08470038779A6F92CBDD9B60A9E8

The source says "military occupation, radicalization, race, and the wartime body".

So I would switch "male body" to "wartime body", except that I don't know what either really means in the context of the article.

Seems to be from this original edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I&diff=next&oldid=623887180

Chernobacon (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chernobacon: thanks for bringing this up. I have full access to Heather Jones' article and while I understand why the editor who originally wrote that paragraph summarised "the wartime body" as "the male body", you're right that it's still unclear to readers what this actually means, and after reading the relevant paragraph in the article I don't think it's an accurate summary of breadth of what the author means by the phrase "the wartime body". The relevant paragraph explains this a bit more clearly : "...the final important theme visible in the current historiography, particularly in anglophone countries: the wartime body. Increasingly, the ways in which the body was gendered, disabled, and reconstructed in wartime have become the focus of fresh attention". Its partly about gender – not only male identity, which is important, but also the war's impact on femininity too (e.g. "american cosmetics manufacturing profits soared during the war from seventeen million to sixty million dollars between 1914 and 1919"). However, this is only one aspect of what Jones encompasses under "the wartime body". She actually says the main historiographical development relating to "the body" is related to medical aspects: "above all, wartime medical care and post-war rehabilitation of the body has been the subject of innovative new work". She outlines scholarly work about the war's impact on medical science, shell shock and public stigma/consciousness, public views on the responsibilities of the state and the role of "the popular image of the ideal body" on "surgeons working on reconstructing facial war wounds".

The problem is how to summarise all of that! I don't think "the wartime body" really cuts it. I think we need to expand the sentence to explain what's meant more clearly. How about something like: "radicalization, race, medical science, particularly reconstructive surgery, and the impact of the war on society, including on gender and mental health". Anyone have better suggestions? Jr8825 • Talk 17:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to summarize everything in a single sentence, if a source actually covers multiple aspects of a topic. And summarizing political radicalization as simply "radicalization" seems misleading. Radicalization involves religious and social ideologies as well, and the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I is rather infamous for religious purges and genocides. Dimadick (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits–Failed verification

Robinvp11 recently claimed that Macmillan 2013 supports the statement that the French government "counted on German violation of Belgian neutrality to ensure Britain entered the war on their side". That is incorrect—there is no such statement in the source. The relevant excerpt is as follows:

The French military took the prospect of an invasion of Belgium seriously. With each revision of their military plans they increased their forces north and northwest of Verdun. In the years just before the war, French staff officers made regular tours of Belgium and in 1913 a question in the final exam at the military college at St. Cyr asked how French and Belgian forces could block a German invasion. (Belgium itself in a doomed attempt to stay out of a major conflict stepped up its defense preparations and made it clear that it would defend itself against any power that violated its neutrality.) Joffre did ask his own government whether he could move troops into Belgium before Germany did but was turned down. He would only be allowed to move into Belgium once the Germans had made the first breach of its neutrality. The French government did not want to alienate the British whose help, particularly at sea, they saw as essential in a war with Germany and important too in reassuring French public opinion that France would eventually triumph.

The source suggests that one reason why France did not preemptively send troops to Belgium, despite anticipating the likelihood of a German attack, was that "The French government did not want to alienate the British". However, that is quite different from Robinvp11's otherwise unsupported inference that France "counted on German violation of Belgian neutrality to ensure Britain entered the war on their side". Since this content fails WP:V, I will remove it, unless and until a valid source for it can be found.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead too long?

I am wondering if the lead is too long. I say this because, according to MOS:LEAD, "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs". This article's lead is six paragraphs. If we think it is of reasonable length, then I would suggest adding an FAQ to this talk page explaining why this is the case. Needforspeed888 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I have thought about this before, but I do think the length is necessary for the amount of content this complex topic has. I do agree with adding an FAQ, so stuff does not get brought up multiple times. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it could be considerably shorter - I've just finished rewriting the article on the Thirty Years War, which is far more complex, and the Lede is four paragraphs, as requested during the A class review. I don't mind having a go and then people can comment. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Although I think it is an alright size, I am always open to new ideas. You could possibly re-write it first on a sandbox? We could discuss it there. Or even just post it in the talk page. Thanks, have a good day! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather just rewrite it and then people can decide what's missing. I've tried the TP route before and each time it turned into a s%^tshow - because people start arguing with each other, rather than saying "Yeah, it looks ok" or "This needs to be back in". I've looked at a couple of other encyclopaedia entries - the main thing is the second paragraph, which is far too detailed for the general reader and most of which is available in the article etc. Anyway, I'll knock it out and people can comment. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I preferred the second paragraph starting with Franz Ferdinand's assassination and a link to the July Crisis – is it possible to restore the order so it's mentioned before the alliance chains? Jr8825 • Talk 20:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded; I think it still has to start with the Alliances, since WWI did not happen because Princip assassinated the Archduke. For most historians, the question is why did it start a war in 1914, when it could just as easily have happened in 1913 or 1912 - and for that you have to look at the Alliances. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

Could you please add a flag map of Europe pre-World War One DoctorAce08 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If you upload it to the commons and link to it here, reopen this request at that time so other editors can take a look at your proposed map Cannolis (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Moxy - pls bring unsourced chart to talk....pls read over WP:PROSE

Yes, what about it? TheGoldAge (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Moxy

What is the reason for your disagreement? TheGoldAge (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I think this is needed because it's relevant to the article, it expands an already-existing section of the article. TheGoldAge (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your expansion to the lede was not needed. We do not need a blow-by-blow account of when various nations joined there. We already have a wiki link to Austro-Hungary in the lede, we do not need it twice. That for a start would be my objection (and that was just in the lede).Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not? In an article about World War I, the time when various nations joined is one of the most crucial informations about World War I. That was the lead, what about the rest? TheGoldAge (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of major parts of the article, it is not a repository of "crucial information", it is a vague overview, no more. And (by the way) no I do not agree that it is "crucial information".Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The actions that various nations took in the war is present in the article, and the lead makes a summary of that by merely explaining the time they began to participate in the war. The participation dates for Germany, France, Britain, the Commonwealth, the Ottoman Empire, Germany, Austria and Italy are already present in the summary. Why are the joining dates of the mentioned nations considered relevant for the summary and but not Romania and Bulgaria? What about the rest of the information you disagree with? TheGoldAge (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Well let's see, Germany (Well it was their support of Austro-Hungary that pushed Russia into war, which pushed France into war). The British and French Empires were major works powers whose participation made it a war on a global scale. That is why they are there., the same can be said of the Ottomans, who opened a whole, new theatre, the middle East. Italy I agree may be out of place, I will let others make a case for her.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Italy, just like the Ottomans, opened a whole new theatre at Isonzo. Bulgaria's entrance into the war took Serbia out of the war, a new balkan front wouldn't be opened until Greece joined the war. Romania opened a new theatre against Austria-Hungary just like Italy. Greece's entrace reopened the balkan theatre and into the war and shortly after led to Bulgaria's capitulation which was the beginning of the end for the Central Powers. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

But we are really talking about how the war started (as I pointed out). So this is not an argument for adding nations but removing those who were not part of the web of alliances that led to war. That is all the reader needs to know in the lede, why the war started.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Simply put WW1 and WW2 articvles are not the place to learn the Wiki ways.....way to much detail added about eestern europe....mass over linking....sandwick of text because of images added....copy pasting with source that are mising the info ....gramatical mistakes etc. Best propose any chnages here first Wikipedia:Competence is acquired.Moxy- 13:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:The Ottoman Empire was not part of the the web of alliancies that led to war, and neither was Italy (which you already made a case for being out of place). If the 2nd paragraph is only meant to describe how the war started, then I agree it is out of place. But the 3rd and 4th paragraphs in the lead describe the major events in years 1914-1917, a nation's entry to the war in a major event in the war.

@Moxy: I agree that the World War I and World War II articles contain an over amount of info about western europe compared to the other places in the war. But that is because the most popular culture in today's world is west-anglosaxon.so the majority of historic researches are made by that perspective. Which I don't fundamentally find wrong and I don't think the solution should be removing western europe content but adding content from other parts as well. "mass over linking....sandwick of text because of images added....copy pasting with source that are mising the info", I agree with that, but rather than remove them I believe a more productive thing to do is to rewrite the paragraphs in a way which fixes the mass overlinking sandwick of text because of images and broken sources hyperlinks, feel free to edit such mistakes in my edits. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Err yes I know they were not, hence why I said "So this is not an argument for adding nations but removing those who were not part of the web of alliances that led to war.". I agree that maybe they should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but then what about adding them in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs in the lead that describe the major events in years 1914-1917? TheGoldAge (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Err, we do mention Bulgaria, Romania and Greece in that paragraph, so in fact you are adding stuff, we already say?. A this stage I have to ask, have you even read the lede?Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but it doesn't explain the reason they entered the war. The web of alliances is explained in the 2nd paragraph, although I would argue mentioning that "Germany came to Austria-Hungary's defense and France executed the Franco-Russian Alliance against Germany. Germany invaded France through Belgium which had a British guarantee of independence" would ofer an actual short explanation of the web of alliances itself, which could be relevant for a lot of readers. And in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs "while the Ottoman Empire attacked Russia wanting to regain its Caucasus possessions, Bulgaria would join the Central Powers on 14 October 1915 to retake the territory lost to Serbia in the Second Balkan War and Romania join the Allied Powers on 27 August 1916 to take Transylvania, Bukovina and Banat, regions with an ethnic Romanian majority under the Austro-Hungarian Empire." again shortly explains the reason the other nations entered the war. TheGoldAge (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The body is not for explaining the complexities, the lede is literally "this is Ww1 and this is who took part". If anything the lede is too long.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead explains how the war started, Germany's strategy in the war, a short chronological description of the war on the western front, the blockade led Germany to initiate unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917 which cause USA to the war (so no merely explaning "this is Ww1 and USA took part too" but explaning the cause), the communist revolution and peace treaty with Russia, the final offensive and the armistice as well as the causes of defeat. So it seems it's a bit more than "this is Ww1 and this is who took part". TheGoldAge (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hence why I said "If anything the lede is too long".Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with that, you can read the lead in 2 minutes, it hardly makes a difference whether it has 5 paragraphs or 4. Wikipedia is a place mainly about learning information, not manily about micromanagement of minuscule details. But since your reply would be "no, is too long", rather than having a yes-no discussion, okay, that's the reason for your disagreement about my edits in the lead, what about the edits on the rest of the article? TheGoldAge (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I never got past the lead, others objected directly to the other stuff. Your response seems to be "well you fix it". That is asking us to do your work, and when its a wall of text that is not acceptable. So lets look at some other issues, again, there is the addition of way too much material which really adds nothing (that is what other articles are for) to our understanding of WW1. Changes to cited contents (which may be wp:or), or way too much for one comment to deal with.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If you get an essay of 1.000 words, and out of those 1.000 words you only disagree with 100 words, does that mean you should remove all those 1.000 words solely because of those 100 words? Best case scenario, you edit those 100 words to make them good, worst case scenario you remove the 100 words and leave the 900 others alone. Everything from the World War I page can be found on other articles, you want to learn more about Germany? History of Germany during World War I, you want to learn more about Britain? History of the United Kingdom during the First World War, so your argument that "that is what other articles are for" is nonsense. Chances are you will find 5 other articles with the same information that is in this article, that's no basis to not add information in this article. The added material is relevant to our understanding of World War I, that you don't care about it, that's entierly another matter. So you decided that it's much better to remove my hours of work than spend 10 minutes fixing the broken links, too many images added or spend 3 minutes telling me how to do it in the talk because it's "way too much for one comment to deal with"? wow. TheGoldAge (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if we do not think those 1,000 words add anything we need to add. It takes far less time to type this than to read 1,000 words, and if it is so easy you could fix it.It is not down to us to fix content we do not even think is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Very well, you told me about the overlinking problem, I will fix that, and the too many images, I will fix that too, what else do I need to fix? TheGoldAge (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

copy-pasting with sources that are missing the info ....grammatical mistakes...too much information about eastern Europe. All stuff Moxy said.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by missing the info? the pop-ups from the soruces? I can add them. Grammatical mistakes, I'll take another look and correct them. Too much information about eastern Europe. Over 50% of the article is describing western europe in-depth, the article has numerous in-depth sections about western europe while only briefly mentioning the eastern front. TheGoldAge (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said, that was Moxies objection. Have you addressed it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I said: much detail added about eestern europe -> Over 50% of the article is describing western europe in-depth, the article has numerous in-depth sections about western europe while only briefly mentioning the eastern front. mass over linking -> I will not link to every instance of a name, and certainly not more than once a sentence. sandwick of text because of images added -> I will remove images. copy pasting with source that are mising the info -> I will add the info. gramatical mistakes -> I will double-check for grammar errors. TheGoldAge (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You did not even wait for me to post my new edit, I addressed all the issues Moxy was talking about. What is the new issue now? TheGoldAge (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There are or issues, but let's deal with those below first.Slatersteven (talk)

Will you allow me to revert back to my version, only to start working my edits compliant to your objections from there? TheGoldAge (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No, as we do not need so much detail about one combatant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking

We do not need to link to every instance of a name, and certainly not more than once a sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Done TheGoldAge (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

We should only link once in an aritcle.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Done TheGoldAge (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You are still adding wikilinks to the article when we already have them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed TheGoldAge (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You had not, you liked to, you still added wikielinks we already had.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The edit was not yet complete, that was only what I could do before you undo-ed my edit, I removed pictures and fixed grammatical mistakes. I also need to add hyperlink to sources. TheGoldAge (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

copy-pasting with sources that are missing the info

Moxy what did you mean?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No Wikipedia:Attribution....Was copy pasted from other articles causing " Cite error: The named reference ropeace was invoked but never defined (see the help page).".--Moxy- 12:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems to have been fixed, so no idea where it was in the wall of text.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lede

You have been told this is too much detail, yet you have left it unchanged.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole text that you reverted is unchanged because I only reverted to that version so I can start working from that version, the lead was about to be reverted to the original version before you undoed it. TheGoldAge (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Or you could put suggested text here and save time for us. as there are other issues as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I do that? given that I will have to put minor modifications from different parts of the article. TheGoldAge (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Well for a start, you stop adding huge walls of text, and first start off with the less controversial changes. Which you post here for comment, hell your declaration of war by Bulgaria seems to be correct, but that gets obscured by your huge wall of text.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Expansion

You have already been told we don't need to expand our coverage of the Eastern front. It has a main article to cover this kind of detail (especially when it only seems to be about one nation).Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

And I already told you that everything from the World War I page can be found on other articles, you want to learn more about Germany? History of Germany during World War I, you want to learn more about Britain? History of the United Kingdom during the First World War. Chances are you will find 5 other articles with the same information that is in this article, that's no basis to not add information in this article, the added material is relevant to our understanding of World War I. As for the ratio, over 50% of the article is describing western Europe in-depth, the article has numerous in-depth sections about western Europe while only briefly mentioning the eastern front. If anything, it's an overly expansive coverage of the Western front when compared to the rest. TheGoldAge (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said, that is an argument to reduce the western front content, not expand the content on one nation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In fact your expansion seems to add more material about one nation than we have about Russia, a far more important nation on the eastern front.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Why should we remove content? this is an argument to expand the content. Yes, I added information under Romanian participation because that is the nation I know about. But I am in favor of adding more information about the Russian participation as I agree there is too little information about Russia in the article which was an important nation in World War I. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No need to have duplication of articles.--Moxy- 13:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Also this is an overview, it is meant to only give the most important events.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not a duplicate of an article, it is a summary the size of one paragraph of the Romania in World War I article. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait you have only one paragraphs your propose now....what is it? pls review WP:DETAIL also keeping in mind Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.Moxy- 13:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You expanded it to about 14 paragraphs, it has 3, you did not only add one paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say of one subsection. What I am aiming for with the Romanian participation sub section is the 2nd point from WP:DETAIL

- Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section).

- Others need a moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points (a set of multi-paragraph sections).

- Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles).

A moderate amount of information that summarizes Romania's participation in World War I. What I wrote on the World War I page had a total of 14 paragraphs. The page Romania in World War I already exceeds 14 paragraphs with the lead and before the war section. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Which we have, what you wanted to add was a far more in-depth section than I think we have for any other participant, including the big 5.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's more information than about UK, France, Germany, US and Austria-Hungary. The "progress of the war" is filled with information about them. It is more information than Russia, but that is because Russia has too little information and should be expanded upon. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

We also have information about Romania in other sections. And there is a reason we have a lot of information about the big 5, and the war in the east ended a year before the war in the rst.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You can count on fingers the information about Romania in other sections. The war did not end in 1917 on the eastern front, the peace negociations and many other notable events happened in 1918. But even assuming that, that 1 year difference does not explain the huge discespancy between the west and east. The west-east overview ratio is not 100:80 as your comparison would imply it should be. TheGoldAge (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Well they did not enter the war till 1916, two years after Russia, Britain, France, Germany, and Austro-Hungary. So there is one reason, two years of war that have no Romanian participation. They signed an Armistice in 1917, one year before the end of the war. Only reentering the war in the month (in fact 1 day before) it ended. So (in effect) in 4-year war they were only active for one year of it. So of course they would get far less coverage than participants who were on the wear for longer.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In fact (and if anything) the amount of coverage we give them now may violate wp:undue, your expansion most certainly does.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Romania should get more coverage than the big 5, I'm saying it's not overlyrepresented. But even with a 4:1 ratio Romania still gets far less than 25% coverage than any of the major nations if you consider all the other sections of the article. Outside the "Romanian participation" section, Romania is presented only in 9 other sentences. While, by the time you reach the actual war, "Progress of the war" section, any of the big 5 are already more talked about than Romania is in the whole article. TheGoldAge (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinons requested about this addition @Rjensen:, @Robinvp11:, @Nick-D:...Moxy- 14:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Would you agree to it if I make the section shorter, say 7 paragraphs instead of 14 ? TheGoldAge (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm negative on expanding the brief treatment Romania deserves. Rjensen (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that makes 3 people, I'm withdrawing my request. TheGoldAge (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheGoldAge: as others have said, trying to make big changes to an extremely broad article on a major international topic such as WW1 isn't easy for newer editors to do. I hope you're not discouraged by this – it doesn't mean you shouldn't participate here, but it does mean it's a good idea to start on the talk page (this page has 3,883 other editors watching it for updates, who can give you feedback) and build experience on smaller topics you can improve more easily. Also, avoid edit warring!

Regarding the content itself, I agree with the others that it added too much information about Romania, and was largely duplicating the existing section on Romanian participation. Looking closely at the changes, I can't see anything which jumps out at me as important and not already covered somewhere; for example, Greater Romania is touched upon in the "Peace treaties and national boundaries" section, so doesn't need a new paragraph in "National identities" (although perhaps the existing sentence can be expanded on and moved into "National identities", if it's more appropriate there). The rest of the detail was inappropriate for an overview article such as this, per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOFF. WW1 is an extremely important event in Romanian history, but the precise details aren't crucial to a reader's general understanding of the conflict as a whole. One question I do have, though (directed to anyone here, including @Moxy and @Slatersteven): I see the date that Bulgaria declared war on Serbia was changed by TheGoldAge from 12 to 14 October, and a quick google search seems to indicate that this is correct (Britannica seems to use 14 Oct), perhaps this change should be restored? Jr8825 • Talk 15:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I had already drawn attention to that. The problem was it was hidden in their wall of text. Yes that should be changed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, I'll start with smaller things until I get more experience. TheGoldAge (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

Canada was also in ww1 209.171.88.195 (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It's already mentioned Cannolis (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

time between dates

theres an error in the time between the start of ww1 and signing of the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine, it says 4 years, 1 month, 1 week and 6 days which is wrong Preussenfan123 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

We do not mention the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Useless references

The following references are undefined: "Gilbert 2004", "Kurlander 2006", "Posen 1984", and "Axelrod 2018". This means that nobody can check them, and also puts the article in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I have fixed Gilbert, Kurlander, and Axelrod. These were removed here by Robinvp11. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• FURTHER UPDATE: I have replaced "Posen 1984" with {{cn}}. It was identified as undefined in July 2013. A reference that has been undefined for so long is worse than no reference at all. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

Dreadnoughts would be a nice addition 50.207.170.22 (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

We mention HMS Dreadnought.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

World war 1 was the first war in history of earth but then came WW3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaSnail09 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

World war 1 definitely wasn't the first war in history. 182.1.108.38 (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This need closing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Start of world data

The date is wrong. It's not in July but in June.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria assassination is on 28 June 1914 NachorodWiki (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That was not the start of the war, it was the pretext for it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

maybe word it different?

It was very good, but I was a little confused. Could you add a summery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.82.102 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Question about Infobox

I noticed in the infobox that it says WWI resulted in the "fall of all continental empires in Europe". Given that the British empire didn't collapse, is that a true statement? Or is it referring to nations that explicitly labelled themselves "empires"? Just wanted to ask!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 14:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Continental" usually means "on the mainland of Europe". In this case those nations whose empires were mainly in Europe. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense! Thanks for that explanation.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Aralin panlipunan

sino si Archduke Francis Ferdinand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.176.68.125 (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand. What do you want us to do? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)