Talk:World War I/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Result of the war, right bar

It says that a result of the war was the end of the Russian Empire, but this was not a direct result of WW1. It was a separate event with long-running causes. Furthermore, it was simply a move away from the monarchist system, as was evidenced in so many other European cases prior to and after the war. There was no such "empire", and if there was, it was certainly at its peak 40 years later, after the crushing victory in the Second World War.

Grammar, and the proper use of it.

L.S.

This article is unnecessarily difficult to read for a number of reasons, the main one being the excessive use of commas, moreover the incorrect placement of them. In paragraph three, we see:

On the Eastern Front, the vast eastern plains and limited rail network, prevented a trench warfare stalemate.

This early phrase signifies perfectly what is wrong with this article's prose. To the speed-reading eye, this sentence makes absolutely no sense, insofar as I can speak for all speed-readers. To those that read at a normal or leasurely pace, the phrase seems horribly odd, or so I would expect it. It is, at least, my fervent hope that the lecteurs of this mimic encyclopaedia are at least moderately appalled at this sort of low-brow writing. The more grammatically apt among us, of course, without a doubt recognise immediately what exactly the problem is. The reason that this redundant comma and the dozens others in like sentences persist, - and I do mean dozens - that they were not filtered out in the early stages of this article's development, strikes me as something of a conundrum. Perhaps those that are prone to recognizing errors like this are also those that are of a tendency not to involve themselves too much with something as ill-fated as Wikipedia. I would correct these matters myself, but I'm afraid I cannot count myself an exception to the preceding, despite what I proffer presently.

I would simply ask whomever be the main author of this article, if there is a main author at all, to seriously investigate what is proper grammar, and then turn a skeptical eye at his own commas, and where he's placed them.

I shall definitely not bother myself with using four tildes, at least not without being given the luxury of letters to place them on top of, so I'm afraid I'll scoff your irreverend convention and simply sign my name.

Yours truly,

I was, of course, not serious. You've no business at all knowing my name, and I refuse to invent a name for myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.29.158 (talk • contribs)

Too bad that you spelt "leisurely" wrong during the rant and used hyphens to represent dashes. Ashnard _talk 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While this is an unnecessarily hostile comment, the point about the article's grammar is valid. There are comma splices, incomplete sentences, etc. all over the page, which is detrimental to the overall quality. (I apologize, however, if I missed something. This is my first non-anonymous contribution.) Alpha Centauri 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the grammatical errors simply stem from the text having been edited so many times by different people with different ideas and differing standards. Please feel free to copy edit when and wherever you see such errors. That is exactly what wikipedia is about. --LiamE 09:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Scoff all you want, as long, as Google reigns, Wikipedia will be, where people turn to, for information. WP:SOFIXIT. Haber 19:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably, true, and, if, they've, never, used, a good, printed, encyclopedia, probably, better, than not, trying, to find, information through, other means, than asking, friends. People, used to making, good use, of books, can only, be rather critical of Wikipedia, notwithstanding the merits it has.141.91.129.5 13:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently editing the page for grammatical, punctuation and at certain points spelling errors. I hope that I don't have any impact on historical fact while I do so, and, since I'm editing it section-by-section, that is why there are so many minor updates. Thanks for your patience! Matsuya 21:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Galicia vs Ukraine

I changed the phrase western Ukraine to western Galicia to maintain a neutral point of view. Ukraine did not exist as a united political entity at the time. The former Austro-Hungarian province of Galicia did have defined boundaries, but was in the process of disintegrating. I added internal referrences to the two ephemeral republics that were in existence in western Galicia at the time. Their borders are unclear, may overlap, and are probably not congruent with modern borders. The Komancza Republic would have willingly joined a Ukrainian state, and the Lemko-Rusyn Republic had a specific aim of not joining such a state. Both ended up as part of Poland, a solution not sought by either republic. This becomes relevant to later history of the area after WW II.Pustelnik 15:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In Hebrew

File:In Hebrew it is Featured artical, can you sign it as one? 89.138.44.170 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

'Canadian' tank

As far as I am aware, there were no 'Canadian' tanks, as all the BEF's armoured vehicles were operated by the British Army's Tank Corps (formerly the Heavy Branch Machine Gun Corps). Am edititing therefore to change 'Canadian' to 'British', because this better reflects the reality and the close relationship of British and Dominion forces. 137.73.126.176 13:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hindenburg Line

Why is only the US mentioned specifically about the breaking of the Hindenburg Line? This section ought, at least, to include a mention of the BEF at the Canal Du Nord and the St Quentin Canal, and preferably of the Hundred Days as well. 137.73.126.176 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

He has a point, they were involved. --LtWinters 01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Haig handing control to Foch

"A supreme command of Allied forces was created at the Doullens Conference, in which British Field Marshal Douglas Haig handed control of his forces over to Ferdinand Foch."

I think this statement is quite misleading as it infers that haig moved aside and had no further involvement. In fact Haig retained full tactical control of the BEF. Foch's role was more co-ordination between the BEF and the French Army than anything else. He certainly had nothing like the control over British forces that Eisenhower enjoyed.

I would suggest something along the lines of "Foch was appointed as supreme commander of the allied forces, and empowered with strategic direction of the entire allied force. Haig and Petain retained tactical control of the British and French armies respectively". 62.136.121.128 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You’re right about that statement being misleading and I had wondered why it didn’t also say that Pershing handed control of his forces to Foch. I think some people might be of the opinion that Pershing was not under a Supreme Commander like Haig was and it was wrongly stated that Haig’s position was only symbolic. For those who have not read it here is the Doullens Agreement.

General Foch is charged by the British, French and U.S.American Governments with the co-ordination of the action of the Allied Armies on the Western Front. To this end all powers necessary to secure effective realization are conferred on him. The British, French and American Governments for this purpose entrust to General Foch the strategic direction of military operations. The Commanders-in-Chief of the British, French and U.S.American Armies have full control of the tactical employment of their forces. Each Commander-in-Chief will have the right of appeal to his Government if in his opinion the safety of his Army is compromised by any order received from General Foch.

Haig and Petain had both used this right of appeal once at different times. Petain had sometimes took matters into his own hands and changed orders made by Foch with which Foch sometimes either agreed or changed the orders back. Haig was usually able to discuss with Foch, sometimes loudly and sometimes quietly, and persuade him to see things his way the times the two were not in agreement. One instance was Haig’s concern and dissatisfaction about the St. Mihiel offensive on Metz that Foch had offered Pershing. Haig felt that since it was far from the main fighting and aimed in an opposite direction of the British point of attack it was of minimum use in the bigger Allied strategy and Petain happened to agree with Haig’s opinion. Foch realizing the error for his part, could only get Pershing to agree to not advance on Metz and to only reduce the salient and then move on Mezieres-Sedan through the Argonne Forrest and not on St.Quentin and east of the Argonne like Haig had first suggested for a closer converging attack. Brocky44 19:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?

In the US Entry section the following is mentioned:

"whilst trying to broker a peace, this resulted in an increase in tensions with both Berlin and London."

Any link or reference to the peace attempts and subsequent reaction would be nice?

Also, on probably anal point ;-) the use of America(n) as a catch all term for the U.S. which occurs in many places in this article would be more accurately replaced with the term U.S. ?

Pmcelroy77 14:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Pmcelroy77

It's quite common and acceptable English to use American to describe things related to the United States. Haber 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Common it may be; acceptable it is not. Latin Americans also regard themselves as "Americans". Paradoxically, it seems to be the reverse with Canadians, who would do anything not to be called "American". Grant | Talk 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your wisdom yet again. How about this: When the encyclopedia gets a mandate to rewrite the English language in the interests of fairness and inoffensiveness, then I'll consider this request. Until then the thousands of reliable sources that use the term "American" will be our guide. Haber 12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thousands of reliable sources use thousands of ambiguous terms all the time. Being reliable sources does not them infallible. Or unambiguous. See the article American:

American may refer to:

• A person or attribute of the Americas, the lands and regions of the Western Hemisphere
• A person or attribute of the United States of America

Grant | Talk 16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If I have you correctly, then you want to change the terminology to something more specific and less offensive, even though that will make the article inconsistent with the sources on which it is based. For example, in some of my contributions to this article, I have cited Keegan's The First World War. He has a chapter "America and Armageddon" and frequent references to "Americans". Why should we do things differently? Haber 00:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Keegan is an excellent source in regrad to military history, but if I remember rightly he refers to the Ottoman Empire as "Turkey", which is also incorrect. I'm not advocating changing direct quotations or using neologisms. Just that we use "United States", "U.S.", "U.S. forces", "U.S. citizens" (etc) wherever possible. I mean, I see and hear people from the U.S. using these terms all the times. Grant | Talk 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He mainly uses Turkey RESOURCES not anything else. It's in the index as "Turkey (Ottoman Empire)". If you're proposing combing through the article and replacing every instance of "American" with some variation on "U.S.", I must oppose for the above reasons. Additionally, we'd be denying the right of the American people to self-apply whatever name they choose, and using terms that sound stilted. It sort of reminds me of when I see "UK army" in places instead of "British army". I'm sure it makes some people happy but it just sounds odd and is inconsistent with most of the literature. Say some young kid reads our article and actually follows up by taking one of our recommended books out of the library. Do you want him to be confused? Haber 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask why there are only 10 footnotes for this entire article? The "Basic Bibliography" is a nice touch, but even as far as Wikipedia goes, this is lacking.129.97.180.232 23:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous railcar armistice photo

I have been looking everywhere on the internet and can't find a photo of the famous photo of the signers of the WWI armistice standing by Foch's railway car shortly after signing. If it helps, it was in Compiegne on November 11, 1918. The railcar is significant - it's the same one that Hitler used to dictate France's surrender terms in WWII. Many kudos to whoever can upload a pic, preferably high quality! Or if you can let me know if there's any books with the photo in it. Thanks! FranksValli 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Compi%C3%A8gne1918.jpg I don't know if we can use it from there. You may need to get a copy put on Wikimedia Commons. Regards, Grant | Talk 07:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the fast response. I'll put it on Commons later today. FranksValli 13:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

world war 1 was a reaction again people in the united states that helped kill bees

What? Were you actually trying to say something or just typing random things?Ryuugaki 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he's typing random crap. By the way, the railway carriage armistice photo is now available here: Image:Armisticetrain.jpg FranksValli 17:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the wagon was not "owned" by Foch (see wiki on trains) but granted to Foch for military use by the Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits. The French Wiki even has an article about the railcar (fr:Wagon de l'armistice). Tazmaniacs 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the info I updated the description on Wiki Commons. FranksValli 00:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Return to feature status

Is anyone interested in returning this article to "Featured Article" status? I just reviewed the de-listing archive.

The article was de-listed because there are almost no internal citations. Therefore, we need to add internal citations. Because the article is primarily an overview that refers to a (large) set of more detailed articles, I suspect we can glean citations from the detailed articles. When we have a valid citation for each paragraph, we can nominate the article for FA status again. The article has a huge collection of general references: so large that most of them have been moved to a separate article. The problem is that we need "internal" citations: a citation to a specific reference for each assertion in our article.

A secondary reason for de-listing was that the quality of the prose has deteriorated, but I think this is minor by comparison and we can upgrade the prose as we add citations.

A tertiary complaint amongst the "de-listers" is that this article is too long.

If a project (e.g. the military history project) would like to take over, please place a comment here and tell the rest of us how to help. When that occurs, This proposal is terminated.

Proposal:

• If anyone wants to help, please declare an interest in a section of the article by placing a comment here. Then, go read the detailed article for "your" section and add citations to your section of this article. When you think you are finished, please leave another note to that effect here.
• If you can make "your" section more concise, please do so. You can move information from this article into the more detailed article if it is not already there, and then delete the information from this article. Clearly, you will need to use your judgement as to what must stay in the overview: ask for help here if you are uncertain.
• If you have a better idea, please leave a comment here.

A note on internal refernce style: This article as already adopted a reference style. Please stay consistent with this style. to add a new internal citation, add something like this example:

<ref name=Evans>Evans, David. Teach yourself, the First World War, Hodder Arnold, 2004.p.188</ref>

Thanks. -Arch dude 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sections: (Please adopt a section here)

Before I say that I'll agree to this project or not, I want to know what you mean by "your section". Do we choose that or is that somehow already predetermined? Q E11even 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read through about half of this article (the first half), and have to say this is really a top notch read. In particular, I'm happy to see such a nicely sucinct description of the Schlieffen Plan - so often the basic concept behind the Plan gets lost in too much detail when discussed. All in all, a well done article! (the first half that I read, at least :P )Dxco 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Commanders

The defintion of commander will need to be cleared up. How do Wilson and Clemenceau qualify whereas Lloyd George does not (only Asquith is included for Britain). Additionally, these heads of governments didn't have official military capacities (at least not in their titles), so the heading needs to be re-defined as either military commanders or more general national leaders, both on the military and political front (which admittedly overlap in the case of World War One).

I think it's because the original authors of that section were trying to limit the commanders to the most significant? I don't know enough about WW1 to be sure though..Ryuugaki 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Having looked over the commanders list - perhaps it would be a good thing to distinguish between the political leaders and the senior military commanders by area. GraemeLeggett 08:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the template talk page about commanders for large, complicated wars. Because it would likely be same problem for other large conflicts (ie. World War II, Napoleonic Wars), we should probably try to find a standard to agree on. Oberiko 13:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this, but having just dipped my toes into the subject, the importance (negative) of Sir John French as commander of the BEF in 1914 seems to argue a case for his inclusion as a military commander. sorry, i am not logged in, (company computer) but will follow up.

The Great Gatsby

Is the any particular reason why The Great Gatsby is listed under WWI literature? IanW 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• None I can think of so I'm going to remove it.Lisiate 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

--I have added great gatsby back on, because it is relevant. To main characters Nick and the title character Gatsby fight in the Great War. Aslo, most of the novel is set right after the war is over, and makes some references and allusions to the war. .User:Udora

• • And I've removed it again. The list is for works that are actually about the war. Compare Gatsby to the other works listed. All of them are either novels set in the war itself or memoirs from participants. Making some references or allusions to the war is not sufficiently close to put Gatsby in with the novels and memoirs listed. No one would describe it as a "World War One novel" and it just doesn't belong here. Lisiate 03:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Bias in this and other WW1 articles

A typical example... "Allied soldiers closed this breach at the Second Battle of Ypres (where over 5,000 soldiers, mainly Canadian, were gassed to death) and Third Battle of Ypres, where Canadian forces took the village of Passchendaele."

What’s typical is the obvious American bias presented in this article. Two seperate paragraphs dedicated to the opinions of Woodrow Wilson and Cordell Hull. An entire block of information devoted to the entry of the US. If a Canadian provides a line or two about their country’s contributions it gets deleted but the glaring American favoritism is never questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LawPD (talk • contribs)

Now I really don't want to belittle the contribution of the Canadian forces but to me just looking at that sentence I would assume that the Canadian forces did most of the fighting at Passchendaele and took the heaviest casualties. However, if one looks at the casualty figures for the battle a different picture comes out. Allied losses were horrific even by WW1 standards. The British Empire lost around 300,000 men of which c.16,000 were Canadian - approx 5% of the losses. British losses at 2nd Ypres (the article on which is a particularly bad offender) were close on 60,000, French losses 10,000 or so, yet reading that article one would be surprised to know they were even there. Has someone, somewhere been adding large chunks from the "The Canadian History of the Great War" or some such? --LiamE 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed this to be pervasive. The ANZACs do it too. Please correct it when you see it. Haber 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? While I agree that the instance Liam has cited is a problem, I could find many articles where Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and/or South Africans should be mentioned and are not, or only one of these countries is. Unfortunately, members of Commonwealth countries are often as uninformed as most Brits or Americans, when it comes to each others' history. By the way Haber, what nationality are you? Grant | Talk

An example is Gallipoli. I corrected this[1] soon after I became interested in Wikipedia. I'm American. Haber 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone added Arthur Currie, who commanded the Canadian Corps, to the infobox. Removed -- if we added every corps commander, the infobox would have dozens, probably hundreds of names. What do they teach in Canadian schools? That the whole history of the Western Front turned on Canada's contribution of four divisions?

Grant | Talk 02:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as someone currently taking Canadian history in the public system... yes, thats what they're teaching basically. There is a lot of "Canadians were the most feared shock troops on the western front" and "Where Canadians stood the line never broke". Very exagerated descriptions of our valour.

Interesting, I thought perhaps the "(where over 5,000 soldiers, mainly Canadian, were gassed to death)" comment sounding odd was just me. I agree that, at least, that line in particular really stood out as kind of jarring. Is the significance of the Candian losses during this battle more noteworthy than the losses other nation's soldiers suffered from? If not, yank it. If so, then we should explain clearly how the Candian participation in this battle was a central element, and their losses a core component of a discussion of the conflict.Dxco 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I suggest that you add it back on. There is nothing wrong with more information, as long as it is relevant and correct. You never what someone wants to know, and you shouldn't restrict the knowledge or material that is presented on a wikipedia article. I suggest adding a list of officers (generals,lutenents,etc.) in the "Other Names" section. =) Udora
    • Currie is (or was) mentioned in the article, and that is the way it should be. We can't justify including him in the infobox and not including many, many more significant figures. The infobox is supposed to be as brief as possible and its already too big at present, IMO. Grant | Talk 07:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Allied soldiers closed this breach at the Second Battle of Ypres (where over 5,000 soldiers, mainly Canadian, were gassed to death) and Third Battle of Ypres, where Canadian forces took the village of Passchendaele."

I agree that the line is not right and should be changed but here is why both battles are noteworthy.

At the second battle of Ypres the Canadians “saved the day” when they moved to the left in their line to fill a breach that was left when a gas attack fell on and destroyed the Algerian division. This second battle of Ypres is also where the famous poppy poem was written by a Canadian.

British writer Richard Holmes described the performance of the Canadians at the second battle of Ypres as “an early indication of the quality of Canadian troops” General Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien in command of the British 2nd Army said that “it was only the gallant actions of the Canadians that saved Ypres, otherwise one of the greatest disasters in the history of the British Army might have occurred.” At Ypres the Canadians' enduring reputation as a formidable fighting force began to take form. An eminent British military historian Sir Basil Liddell Hart would later call them "matchless attacking troops".

At the third battle of Ypres, British and Anzac forces were fighting all summer and by October, although there were successes, were still trying to reach meaningless objectives. It wasn’t until October that the Corps received orders to move into the area. Currie protested but still respected Haig and relented when Haig said to him “some day I will tell you why but Passchendaele must be taken.” Currie had conditions. No British lieutenant-General could make terms with a Field Marshall but then the Canadian Corps were no longer British. On November 6 1917 Passchendaele was added to the list of Canadian victories.

Dxco says that what he is being taught in school is “Very exagerated descriptions of our valour” and that there is a lot of "Canadians were the most feared shock troops on the western front" I think I know where that stuff comes from. Here is another line like that.

“The Somme had cost Canada 24,029 casualties, but it was here that the Canadians confirmed their reputation as hard-hitting shock troops.” Not a Canadian exaggeration. A British Prime Minister. "The Canadians", wrote Lloyd George, "played a part of such distinction that thence forward they were marked out as storm troops; for the remainder of the way they were brought along to head the assault in one great battle after another. Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst."

After Vimy the victory established the Corps as elite shock troops trained and armed for the assault role and thereafter won all their battles.

For Amiens it was more important to conceal from the enemy the intentions of the Canadian Corps than any other formation. "Regarding them as storm troops," wrote Sir Basil Liddell Hart, "the enemy tended to greet their appearance as an omen of a coming attack." After Amiens they continued to be the spearhead of the First British Army until the end of the war. Canadians were called “Devils” and “Ladies from Hell” by the German troops and a few hints of their reputation are: A Wiki article about Vimy with a French soldier’s reaction to the victory. A radio broadcast during WWII with Goebbels saying that if the Allies really wanted to capture Berlin, they would give each Canadian a motorcycle and a bottle of whiskey, and declare Berlin to be off limits to Canadian troops, and they would be there in 48 hours. A televised documentary of a battle in Italy and a German SS major saying that he could not understand the rapid advance of the enemy until he saw the Canadians. Also in the second war Winston Churchill made the statement: “Give me an Army with American equipment, British Officers and Canadian soldiers.”

Canadian troops in WW2 were in the process of filling the large boots that were left them when Goebbels, the SS Major and Churchill based their thoughts and words on memories left over from the first war. The Corps earned a reputation as shock troops and rapid advance in the first world war and it lived on into the second. Dxco, as a Canadian you should be proud. At least you know now that people who lived through the Great War agree with what’s being taught in schools. Brocky44 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The torch, be yours to hold it high

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep,

Hey, this is my first contribution to a wiki discussion so bare with me. "Arthur Currie" is an iconic individual in Canadian eyes, in a war where there were few Canadian leaders, but a major contribution for a country with a small population. I think in this context, it's fair to mention him, as well as any other national leaders. --Nimnom 16:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Currie is indeed iconic. The chapel at the Royal Military College of Canada is Currie Hall. His superb standard of staff work was head and shoulders above the standard of his peers.

The reason Canadians and ANZACs views appear here disproportionately to others is quite simple. While this war was terrible for all the belligerents, it was formative for the national identities of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Until Vimy and Gallipoli these soldiers saw themselves as British first. Afterwards they began to regard themselves as Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders, capable of achieving what their mother country could not. IMHO, casualties are not and should not be the only measure of a nation's contribution to the effort. LeadSongDog 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the massive American bias in this article? America entered into the war almost 4 years after it begun, was not trusted at the front until the last few months, and did not have significant nummbers of battle ready troops until 1918...so why do their entry get a large paragraph? Why are Canadian and ANZAC contributions not only trivialized but marked down as "dominion troops"? We know only all too well exactly who those "dominion" troops were so why is it not pointed out? Why is no refernce made to "Canada's 100 days" the last 100 days of the war when it was Canadian troops making most of the last advances and is mentioned not only in Canadian, British, and Commonwealth books but also in German and American textbooks (American most suprisingly of all...oh boy someone knows that America did not single handedly win the war they entered into 4 years late) And why is Arthur Currie not mentioned in this article...the Commander of 600,000 troops, or the mere 4 divisions someone so disparagingly mentioned, let alone the fact that he pioneered aerial surviallance, making models of the battlefield that included topographical information and a genuine concern for not using troops as cannon fodder. But hey why not list the American President in the box instead because he is the nominal CinC of the American army, with absolutely no military background or role in planning, organizing, or specific deployments. Justinmcl 209.146.241.93 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Austria's individual flag shown for the Dual Austria-Hungarian state?

In the combatants section, Austria's national flag is shown as the flag of Austria-Hungary. The flag of Austria-Hungary was a split flag with the left half being the Austrian red-white-red horizontal tricolour while the right half being the Hungarian red-white-green tricolour. I tried to post this on the site but it has been changed back to Austria's individual flag and not that of the dual kingdom itself.

If the flag is to represent the nationality of the Austrian commanders, then why is there not the Hungarian flag of the time on the site to represent the existing Hungarian commanders and others of provincial nationalities in the Austro-Hungarian empire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Enormous numbers of missing military personnel?

Not a WWI authority, but at first glance the numbers given seem huge. 7.75 million missing soldiers? I had trouble finding online sources, but this one at firstworldwar.com lists under 2 million total missing personnel. Are we sure about the higher figures? Johnatx 07:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion of wiki philosophy

Who deleted the photo? My philosophy is to almost never delete material which was added in good faith? I feel Wikipedia is best served if all submissions are somehow given room, and those who feel something is wrong simply write their own response. Just wanted to note that. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oil

I just did a search of this page to find that the word 'oil' appears only once - and then only applied to Germany fearing the loss of oil resources! Is it just me that thinks it should be mentioned a little bit more - and a little less one sided --- Sir Maurice Hankey, powerful Secretary of the British War Cabinet, wrote to Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour during the war’s final stage, to argue that oil had become absolutely vital to Britain and that oil resources in Mesopotamia would be crucial in the future.“Control of these oil supplies becomes a first-class war aim” [2] sbandrews (t) 15:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sentence flow - para. 5 - suggested alteration of 'forced into the workforce'

Original: With the death or absence of the primary wage earner, women were forced into the workforce in unprecedented numbers

Suggested alternate: With the death or absence of the primary wage earner, women entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers out of necessity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wooster boy (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC). bbn vmngukgjngfvbgvjkgjvgkjgghgc

GA in zh.wikipedia

Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Military Personnel Attitude Towards the War?

Does anyone have any information about the soldiers themselves? As in more than the few instances of mentions of morale? I'm thinking it's pretty relevant to the war.. unless there's a page on this already? (Are my persistant question marks throwing anyone off?) Sorry about the poor layout skills, I'm new to doing this Talk business.. Ryuugaki 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How do u mean? There is something like the emancipation of soldiers rights, in the sense of eg. pow-laws, red cross and medical developments. The ranks of the different allied armys have become aware that their commands been ruthlessly spilling their lives, and in some cases rose up (the french esp.) it would be interesting to reflect what feedback caused the english to realise slightly earlier. There is no notion of how colonial troops got used and often wasted, or abused. Do you think of the notion of brothels for moral? Or do you wonder how 7 million russians marched to their desorganised deaths singing?, What i also miss is the realisation that the german use of gas in the east must be considered extremely inhumane. You may assume such deeds can only be driven by a racist attitude..77.248.56.242 13:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Gas Warfare

According to The encyclopedia of weaponry (Ian V. Hogg) the first gas attack was on 27 October 1914, at Neuve Chapelle. But it Failed. So ..can anyone support this?

(one more gas attack agaisnt russia also...)

"After a successful test, a batch of these shells was used agaisnt British troops at Neuve Chapelle on 27 October, 1914."

Knexxx 07:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mobilisation

Mobilisation != Mobilization. Please fix this embarrassing spelling error. Neodudeman

It's an acceptable variant, used by the British. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Haber 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On that Man. of Style page it says spellings within an article should be consistent, and that the article's original spelling should be kept as is. That means "mobilization" should be the spelling used here (and the z-spelling is certainly not incorrect in British English, most academic publishers still use it). --PeterH2 02:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Table is wrong

On your table, Italy chould be on the Axis side (or the German, Austria-Hungary side) Eisenhower 16:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. Italy was neutral during the beginning of the war, and then came in on the side of the Allies in 1915. It was never a central power. Parsecboy 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Create an article strictly for military history

World War I as a military conflict and as a social, economic, and political struggle are topics that can be separated. The article is getting very long, and that would be a good way to shorten it. (24.26.117.61 05:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC))—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.117.61 (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Request for cleanup

In the "Early Stages" section, under trench warfare, the information in the second paragraph is confusingly ordered. The statement that Germany used chlorine gas comes before mention of the hole in the front produced by the Germans. This hole was plugged by the Second Battle of Ypres, where the chlorine gas was first used. This seems to me to be somewhat confusing. Iain marcuson 05:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed Good Article

I have failed this article for GA status. When I glanced through the article I noted an absence of inline citations. For an article of this length it is important it is clearly referenced. As well, te article qualifies for a "quick fail" as per the criteria under 2 listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (it has a cleanup tag). I recommend this article undergo a peer review before nominating again. As well, references should be added, and maybe the massive lists at the bottom either culled, or removed. - Shudda ^talk 02:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Should this be moved to Aftermath?

The following phrase is in the section Causes, under 1.3 Militarism and autocracy.

"Wilson hoped the League of Nations and disarmament would secure a lasting peace. He also acknowledged that variations of militarism, in his opinion, existed within the British and French Empires."

Since the League of Nations did not even exist until after the war, should it be mentioned in the causes? Just curious.... CodeCarpenter 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved to the aftermath. It might be said that Wilson joined the war with those goals in mind, but they are not the same as being causes for the entry of the U.S. into the war. Parsecboy 12:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove "Too long" box?

It seems to me that as long as a good effort is being made to shorten the article, {{Verylong}} doesn't need to be there. It's a template aimed at editors anyway. Any ideas? -Phoenix 05:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In any event, it's World War 1, one of the most influential and important events/times/periods in the world. Having a long and comprehensive article on it is only fitting. - 76.23.43.246 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that this article should be shortened seeing as that WWI had a huge influence on world history affecting everything to come. Dividing the article into sub-sections doesn't make sense either because that's esentially like limiting an affective main article on WWI. Without a detailed general reference on WWI anybody who doesn't know there way around wikipedia could easily get confused. - User:Franky210 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

The following refers to 3.5.2 - Ukrainian Oppression.

I was looking through the Ukrainian Oppression section and I noticed that in the second line down, about half way through it says 'where' rather than were. It also says 'where' rather than were near the end of the first line in this section. This might confuse people so I was just asking whoever can do something about this, please do. Thanks. 86.4.31.201 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Why is this article semi-protected? I can't find any mention of it on this talk page. As others have noted above, the article has numerous grammatical errors. It seems unfortunate that any unregistered users that are inclined to correct these errors are prevented from doing so. Andrew Moylan 14:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

They can register a darned account, wait four days, and edit as they please. --Phoenix (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Profiteering

What about the subject of profiteering? There is no mention of it at all. For that matter, there ought to at least be a Wikipedia entry for the War Polices Board of 1930. Neoprote 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding miniseries to media section

An old Australian miniseries called ANZACS; about gallipolli, I don't see why it can't be added there is no wikipedia page for it, so here's the imdb page for it http://imdb.com/title/tt0088479/203.206.55.143 23:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Onthe spelling of Czar.

Pick one, as of today (04/27/2007) there are three examples of two different romanizations - Czar and Tsar. Padillah 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion, but since the word is derived from "Caesar", "Czar" would be the better spelling. Parsecboy 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How about throwing a Tzar in too? --LiamE 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think (although I may be mistaken) that Tsar is generally considered the best transliteration (note also that the derivation from "caesar" runs through "tsesar"). Carom 13:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Parsecboy 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Carom. For what it's worth, the Oxford English Dictionary says CZAR [is] formerly the usual spelling of TSAR. Roger 14:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, the seventh Concise OED has a redirect from czar to tsar, another from tzar to tsar. Under tsar it reads tsar, czar (z-),n.1. (Hist.)emperor of Russia; hence ~ISM(3), ~IST(2),ns. 2.person with great authority, f. Russ. tsar, ult f. L. Caesar. [3] [4] [5] doesn't shows this clear preference for one, but the three entries differ in quality, coverage, translations etc. LeadSongDog 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Militarism and Autocracy

I don't feel up to editing the paragraph in a way that does not involve major rewriting. Maybe someone can take care of that. The aim should be to get rid of the simplistic opposition of "democracies" (United Kingdom, France) on one side and "autocracies" (Germany, Austia-Hungary, Ottoman Empire) on the other.

The view of Germany (from 1871 to 1918) as an "autocracy" is wrong. The German Empire was a constitutional monarchy (like the UK), the "Reich" consisted of federal states (similar to the U.S.), it had a written constitution (like France and the U.S.) and a two-chamber parliamentary system (like the UK, France and the U.S.), the members of the one chamber ("Reichstag") being democratically elected and formally organized in parties (including an increasingly strong social-democratic party). Surely, one cannot call such a form of government "autocratic".

There are, of course, differences between the make-up of the British constitutional monarchy and that of the German Empire: the king of Prussia was automatically the emperor of the Reich (formally he was only primus inter pares among the Princes of the federal states). The Emperor had the right to declare war without parliamentary consent, the Reichskanzler (Prime Minister) could not be subjected to a vote of no confidence (as the American President cannot be removed by such a vote), the Emperor could take the legislative initiative (unlike the British King/Queen). Like the American Congress and Senate the "Reichstag" could exert considerable pressure through curbing budgets (like the military budget) and by doing so limiting the power of the Emperor to start whatever war he may have liked to.

Neither the German emperor nor the Reichskanzler (in the first years of the Reich that was Bismarck, of course) could govern in the way the French king Louis XIV or even Napoleon III could; their powers and prerogatives were stronger than that of the American president, but certainly not autocratic.

I believe the paragraph uncritically depends on views that were held by Wilson and his followers, who had an understandably low and hostile opinion of Emperor William II but confused the picture he presented with the constitutional reality of the German Reich.

I tried to make the necessary differentiations in the sentence that is concerned with grouping the Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire together, but it just doesn't work without making a number of further changes. Since English is not my mother-tongue, I suggest that someone else do the job.141.91.129.5 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what a paragraph is? It would make your (well-written) post easier to read. andreasegde 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

those claims should be more relativistic. Germany was certainly more authocratic than e.g. France as king and chancellor had more power but the whole assumption seems rather biased. It was contemporary sentiment, this doesn't make it true. Proposal:

There was some validity to this view, as the Allies consisted of Great Britain and France, both democracies, fighting the Central Powers, which included the more autocracic nations of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. <<<<<<<<<delete>>>>>>>>>Russia, one of the Allied Powers, was an empire until 1917, but it was opposed to the subjugation of Slavic peoples by Austro-Hungary(this is a joke. Russia just wanted to subjugate the Balkans themselves via proxy or themselves). Thus, the view of the war as one of democracy versus dictatorship had some validity(it has none), but it lost credibility as the conflict dragged on.

Photography in this article is strongly biased towards Allies

The images in this article are comprised entirely of Allied forces. Why is there nothing depicting Germany/Austria/Hungary? -71.51.51.120 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you have them not in article uploaded. Understand you me? I am a Englishman, but I understand you, because I in Austria live. Do it (find and then upload) and look what happens. andreasegde 21:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

A user keeps vandalising thispage. I have reverted 2 changes that they made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spacevezon (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is the place to go for consistent vandalism by the same user. --Phoenix 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In hebrew

In He it is Featured artical, can you sign it as one? 89.138.44.170 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• A good idea, basically all you need to do is include it in the list of other languages wiki's at the end, enclosed in double square brackets (see the end of the article in edit for the format). Unfortunatly as a non-hebrew speaker I can't do it personally but no doubt someone who is will be along to add it to the list of links. Lisiate 21:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Air War

This article has a section on Naval warfare, but none on the Air War. I would suggest that such a section should be added. Afterall, how can you talk about WWI and not mention famous figures like the Red Baron?--Hughstew 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. There is no talk about Aces of WWI either, such as the famous Italian Ace Francesco Baracca. Also we only see pictures of French planes but not Italian or German planes. Here is a link to WWI Italian planes with many pictures - http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/italy/ Italy was the first to use planes in war in 1911 and produced 12,000 aircraft during WWI. -- Datus 14:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Diagrams

I like Image:WWIchartX.png, but I also like Image:Causesworldwar1.png. Any reason why one is usd instead of the other? Also, one quibble about the images - they don't show the relationship between France and Germany very well. France and Germany had a land border and a history of war between them (the Franco-Prussian War). This is not reflected in the alliances or the alliances diagram, but was central to why the alliances formed. Carcharoth 13:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources needed?

When reading this lengthy contribution I found it intimidating. We need to shorten the length as to attract more people who might have just not even bothered to read it because of its length. I suggest that we look at the sources and see what is really critical or if information repeats itself lots, then we compile and minimize. Also the list of extras and suggested reading ect. is huge. We should make surethat all are relevent and worth while. If we got rid of the weaker versions that would shorten the list significantly. Thankx and i hope we find a solution to this problem. 209.107.103.164 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, we have already created an article for List of World War I books which has the added bonus of being categorised. Given that this page will always be a long one I think it is sensible to put all the reference works into the subpage. However, I'll wait for orhers thoughts on the subject before starting to remove anything. Lisiate 05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (PS. I took the liberty of removing all the redundant returns in your post)

I was surprised how much listing there was on this page too, most of which could go somewhere else within category:World War I media. In addition to List of World War I books, there's also an all-embracing Media of World War I. Lists of reference books, films and poems could also go into Category:World War I history books, Category:World War I films, and Category:World War I poems. Roger 06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly material that can go elsewhere, but I recommend that references be kept in place as they are helpful to determine the accuracy of many statements. After WWI there was a lot of governmentally generated misinformation as to the events that took place leading up to the war, and a lot of repainting of battles and outcomes. Some of this data still persists. Weeding it out is made a lot easier with sources attached to specific statements. I often provide many references when making additions, and would like to see the same from others.Aki Korhonen 07:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not suggesting moving the numbered references (labelled 'Notes') out of the article, just the long lists of books/movies/poems into subarticles. And you're right, we definitely need more actual references/notes for the statmeents made in the article.Lisiate 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't see anything wrong with it. Just a list of related books could stretch on for ever, so it's a good idea. Someone volunteering for the task? Ordinarily I'd have done it by now, but I've added only a little data to this topic, so I'm reluctant to cut&paste because I don't necessarily know to propose the best location to move things to.Aki Korhonen 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Finland

In this article their where multiple references to Russia's loss of finland as a territory. This occured during the revolution not as a result of the german-russian peace treaty. When the Bolshevik party took power Finland declared its independence and was allowed to by the Bolshevik party. Then instead of becoming a republic, Finland elected Frederick Charles of Hesse, a German prince, but as the Germans lost the war the idea was abandoned. Zaxzaxzax 05:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a bit more complex than that. I've not verified the information relating to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk so I'm not positive the characterization in the wwi article is accurate. However, it's generally consistent with my muddy recollections of the complex events of 1918. If we have someone with better knowledge, please chime in... Aki Korhonen 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Canada

why can't Canada be in the list of Allies. Canada did much more in World War 1 then the U.S., and the U.S. is in the list. -Nelro 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

By what measure other than length of official war involvement do you think Canada did more than the US? At the time, the population of Canada was less than that of Belgium, or New York State. It was not a leader as represented diplomatically or militarily. Surely Canada belongs in this article - just not listed as a leader in the opening paragraphs. Haber 13:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Canada gained a lot of awareness as part of wwi, but so did Australia, New Zealand, India, and many others that I'm neglecting to mention here. And while the sacrifices were real, they don't compare to that of the US or of the other main participants. Finland, for example, provided a volunteer unit to fight with the Germans, and even the existence of that group is not mentioned in this article (as it shouldn't). Aki Korhonen 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

what about Vimy,3rd Ypres, 2nd Ypres. discovering how to stop mustard gas. the Canadians did plenty. most American soldiers didn't arrive untill 1918. Then the American participate only a few battles. -Nelro 10:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with others, we do not need nationalist Canadian POV in this article, not as big of as other countries, per other users.Hetoum I 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Canadians need to be mentioned much more actively.-User:1337 AzN 19:39 24 June 2007 EST

Is that right Aki, Australia's sacrifices don't compare with that of the US? Perhaps a little flick through the history books are in order old bean. Australia lost 61,859 killed in action from 331,814 who served overseas. A casualty rate (killed or wounded) of 64 per cent. According to the US Dept. of Defense, the US had 53,402 killed in action. Nuff said.

Couldn't agree more with what has already been said above except to point out Haber's and Aki's obvious arrogance and ignorance. Canada mobilized approx. 600,000 men during the confict with 67,000 dead and 173,000 wounded. The Government declared war on Germany in August of 1914. Prime Minister Borden participated in the Imperial War Conference in 1917 and was solely responsible for Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa gaining seperate delegation seats during the Paris Peace Conference.

Yugoslav student

Gavrilo Princip was a Serbian Student. Yugoslavia was formed only AFTER the war! 90.186.176.39 16:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to Bosnian Serb. Kirkesque 05:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Allied Powers, led by France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Italy "

italy entered also later. First it was participant of the central power's agreement, later they changed to the entente... 90.186.176.39 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I just shifted Italy and added the year of entry so it's accurate.Aki Korhonen 18:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Disintegration of empires "

"The war caused the disintegration of four empires: the Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman and Russian. Germany lost its overseas empire and states such as Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Yugoslavia gained independence. "

I'd argue that neither the Russian nor the German empire really disintegrated as both entities retained the core lands of their former power. The loss of a few unprofitable African and Asian colonies certainly did not hamper Germany's power base and their loss in land in Europe was less than 10% of territory of which aside of Alsace and Lothringa it was not of any economical/industrial significance.

Equally the Russian empire did not disintegrated but fell into a civil war over control over said empire. Again their territorial losses were of little significance.

Compare that to the total disintegration of Austria Hungary into half a dozen nations or the loss of two thirds of territory by the Ottoman empire.

I don't agree with the conclusion that empire merely refers to territories. I agree that Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire underwent a large territorial change. But in Germany the Kaiser was out of a job, and in Russia the Tsar. The economic repercussions were enormous. The Germans also lost the navy that they had spent enormous sums building up over the prior 30 years, removing their ability to project power. In case of Russia, the internal turmoil that befell the citizens of that country was particularly nasty, and the loss of their institutions could probably be termed the loss of an empire.Aki Korhonen 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

External Media Link

I found an media Stream with over 60 minutes of original moving images from world war 1. The Video Consists of 4 parts wich you can find here:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid960365923

It seems to bee an sort of american propaganda video from 1919 containing scenes from the major battles of WW1.

I thought this link might be usefull for this Wikipedia entry as external Link.

German Infantry 1914 picture

There is a picture seen next to the "Asia and the Pacific" section and located in text at the bottom of the "German Forces in Belgium and France" section that depicts German infantry defending a position against a French attack. It is labeled "German infantry on the battlefield 08/07/1914", but the picture depicts the German soldiers adorned with the Stahlhelm, which did not begin to be phased in until 1916. German soldiers at the time period labeled in the picture would beyond any doubt have been wearing the Pickelhaube. As a result, this picture needs to relabeled and moved to a more appropriate section of the article chronologically. I will refrain from tampering with it myself in favor of the original posting editor or someone else who can appropriately re-date it. Patrolmanno9 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the dating of the photograph is drawn from the National Archives database entry, although I don't dispute what you're saying about the helmets, etc. Carom 01:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Even so, it is an undeniable fact that the Stahlhelm was not worn in 1914. I will look into the archives mentioned, but until the dating of the picture can be absolutely confirmed, it might be beneficial to relabel the photograph "German Infantry on the Western Front" or something similar, without a date, and place it in an area of the article where it can stand by itself without its date being a factor. As such, its true date wouldn't infringe upon historical accuracy, whatever it is later found to be. Patrolmanno9 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem at all problematic. I've edited the caption to something more neutral, pending some better information. Carom 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll continue to look into the photograph's history. Patrolmanno9 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the details for the picture following e-mail correspondance between myself and a member of the Still Pictures Reference of the NARA, which confirmed a mix-up between two pictures and their corresponding captions. Those details can be found on the image page here on wikipedia or on wikicommons. As it stands right now, the only source for my changes is that e-mail, so if anyone would like me to provide my sources I suppose I could forward the e-mail or publish it in someway. I'm not aware of any other method of verification at this point, so please let me know if there are any additional actions I should take if my corrections are to come under scrutiny. In the mean time I will correct the caption and place it more appropriately in the article, pending scrutiny or challenges. Thanks. Patrolmanno9 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What to call Britain

Its correct name was "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (1800: Act 39 & 40 Geo. III), which is clunky. Its everyday name was "England" "Britain" or "Great Britain". The short form "United Kingdom" is modern, and seems to be a conscious distancing from Empire. Throughout the text, it's referred to as "Britain", which seems best.  ← Roger →  ^TALK 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK.c'mon, we've fished a good one. Me Page Talk to me 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Roger but I disagree strongly with what you have said. I have seen the short forms "United Kingdom" and "UK" used in official documents as early as the 1860s (e.g. "UK Parliament"), so it is simply incorrect to say that it is a recent coinage.

Also, there is a persistent and unfortunate tendency, in military history circles, to use the word "British", when British Empire forces are what is really meant.

Therefore I think "Britain" and "British" should be avoided, in favour of "British Empire" or (if the specific country) is meant, "United Kingdom" or "UK". Grant | Talk 08:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Perhaps I phrased it clumsily. I did not intend to suggest that United Kingdom is a recent coinage. The thrust was that it has become the dominant expression relatively recently. (For instance, the Times Digital Archive only generates 38 items containing the expression "U.K." for the years 1785-1920 as against 2375 for the period 1921-1985.)
2. That arises, I suppose, because Dominion forces, on the Western Front at least, were part of the BEF. I personally prefer "British and Dominion forces" on first mention and thereafter I generally drop the "and Dominion" quite swiftly as otherwise it gets clunky and laborious.
3. Whatever your personal view, the fact remains that the "United Kingdom" doesn't get a mention in the indexes of any major WW1 history (AJP Taylor, Strachan, Keegan, Gilbert, etc), the usual form being "Britain". Yes, this involves a degree of conflation between Britain and her empire, but that's really just telling it how it actually was.

 ← Roger →  ^TALK 08:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No kidding about the major WW1 histories....that doesn't make it accurate. You need to bear in mind that we are writing for an international audience and many of us from the Commonwealth Realms (Dominions in WW1) regard being referred to as "British" as offensive, not because there's something wrong with being British, but simply because.....we aren't. Grant | Talk 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but does anyone seriously think that many Scots, Kiwis, or Canucks would conflate Britain or the British Empire with England? That offence was primarily committed by the English. Others would often call themselves British, British Subjects, etc, but never English. I have no doubt the other imperial seats had analogous behaviours, but that does not mean we need to replicate their errors here. The best practice must be to use the most specific name applicable to the group discussed. LeadSongDog 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish Rising

Shouldnt the Irish Easter Rising be included which one of the main reason of the rising was "Britains trouble is Ireland gain " the Indian rising is included on the possibility of "It is likely that the tribal leaders were aware that Britain would not be able to field the required men" (Gnevin 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Dual Maps

It is stated many times in the article that the war changed the face of Europa a lot. I see the map of the Ante Bellum Europa but it would be nice to see next to it the Post Bellum Europa so people can see just how big of a change was really affected.--122.249.63.246 09:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Films

Probably the best First World War based film is missing. I may have overlooked it but it seems 'The Trench' is missing. It is based on the lead up to th efirst day of the Somme battle.

add it,then!Kfc1864 04:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Technology

The line "The heaviest railway gun was the German Schwerer Gustav, that could fire 7 ton payloads up to 37 km (23 miles)." indicates that the Gustav was used or produced in WWI; it was made and used in WWII.Nosferatublue 14:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Names of the Great War

The opening paragraph begins:

"World War I, also known as the Great War and "The War To End All Wars," ..."

1. While at school in the early 60s, people generally referred to the 1914-18 War as the "First World War", the "First War", the "Fourteen-Eighteen War", and we typically wrote about the "1914-18 War".
2. Logically, names incorporating "First" or the arabic or roman numeral 1 or I could not have been contemporary with the 1914-18 War, and would not have been likely until the WW2, known initially / informally as the "Hitler War", especially as the Great War was supposed to be "The War To End All Wars". Can anyone find the first recorded uses of these retrospective names?
3. My grandparents who lived through / fought in it, referred to it as "The Kaiser War" or "The Great War".
4. The word "great" described its magnitude, not in its modern slang sense as a term of approbation as some people have indicated, evidently being unaware of the (non-slang) meaning of the word.
5. "The War To End All Wars" was used as a description of the 1914-18 War. Is there evidence that this was commonly used as its name, as implied in the opening paragraph (above)?

May I suggest listing and indicating the chronology of various names of the war, in the introduction or elsewhere, e.g:

World War I was referred to initially as "The War" or the "Kaiser War". As its scope widened it became known as the "Great War" ("great" referring to its magnitude). Once ended it also became known as the "1914-18 War", referred to colloquially as the "14-18 War". When the 1939 "Hitler War" was named the "Second World War", the 1914-18 War was named the "First World War" and was often referred to colloquially as the "First War".

In reaction to the horrors happening during the Great War, and the expectation that mankind could not possibly be foolish enough to repeat them, it was described at the time as "The War To End All Wars".

Subject to confirmation, editing to comply with style guidelines, & finding suitable citations of course. Expert help needed. GilesW 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now edited the article's opening sentence minimally, to clarify it in the light of the above. GilesW 16:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for reality of trench extending from English Channel to Switzerland

I've read that this is merely an oft-repeated myth; that there were sections were one trench system ended and the next began in an overlapping but unconnected fashion.

I didn't add a note to the article itself because I can't remember where I read this, and I don't know how to add a "citation needed" reference! :-) Critic9328 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it seems highly unlikely that a single trench system went from the Channel to Switzerland. Perhaps a series of trench systems like you suggest, but I seriously doubt you could walk from the coast to Switzerland and never put your head above ground. To add a "citation needed" tag, you just type {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Parsecboy 11:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim it was a continuous single trench. It says a system of trenches and fortifications separated by an area known as no man's land. These fortifications ran from the North Sea to Switzerland. In any event, there's no shortage of references for this and to set people's minds at rest will cite it shortly. --ROGER ^TALK 12:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've also inserted the word "breastworks" (which were used on swampy ground), between trenches and fortifications to clarify this entirely. --ROGER ^TALK 12:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Soldier's age record

I've studied about the youngest soldiers during the war who died, and the oldests who were in action and some of the oldests who even got killed in action. Should we add that in?--Willy, your mate 04:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine to me. Perhaps in the "Soldiers' Experiences" section? Parsecboy 04:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, added it. Feel free to improve it!--Willy, your mate 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

revolutionairy impact

The last paragraph of the article makes me wonder about the why's of it's protected status. It poses many nations call this war the great war , ... because of a recognition for it's relevance in the history of european imperialism. I think that is wishfull thinking. It is probably perceived the "great" war mostly, because of the stability of several of its major frontlines. WW2 can be thought of as the "great" occupation in many more european nations. That beside we owe the respect to the then soldiers who fought a war called the great war in their times (so before 1939). Also it is very doubtfull if ww1 can be viewed so remote from ww2 as a result of the ruling circumstances of the 19th, early 20th century. Not in the least because the decline of colonialism only started after 1946. IMHO in that sense the basic (racist and classist)system of colonialist exploitation have been influenced by ww2 , the russian revolution or even napoleon way more.77.248.56.242 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)