Talk:World War I/Archive 18

The current image collage looks pretty good, but I also noticed that it seemed a bit Western Front-centric. I created an alternative collage to try and represent more of the fronts. Any thoughts or suggestions? XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@XTheBedrockX:I think the balkan theatre should replace to Vardar offensive ,not the Serbia retreat. After all,it is much important. Waylon1104 (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Should George V be listed at all? The UK by 1914 was a Constitutional Monarchy. The King was not a significant decision maker. Granted this may be seen as 'lopsided' if Wilhelm II and Nicholas II are left in the lists, but the contexts in each country was different. 91.84.189.190 (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Excuse 143.44.193.247 (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Editor 143.44.193.247, please use your words - what is it that you are attempting to communicate here? 14.2.202.12 (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not follow why the use of chemical weapons (gas) is listed under war crimes. Their use may have been a breach of the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases, however that would not be a crime but non-compliance with an agreement. The Western Allies also used Chemical weapons in World War I. 14.2.202.12 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello all

I'm sorry to reopen this so soon, but I missed the previous discussion on the lead sentence of this article, and would like to make a suggestion. @Thinker78 suggested I should start a new discussion here. In my experience, First World War is the most common term in Commonwealth countries, and World War I is the most common in the US. The following NGram shows that First World War is marginally the most common term in English worldwide.[2] So following MOS:BOLDSYN the lead sentence should be: World War I (WWI) (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), also known as the First World War...

This isn't cluttered or difficult to read, captures the two most important names for the conflict in English, and is the preferred form under policy. Would anyone object if this change were made? Thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect First imperialist war and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § First imperialist war until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to World War I has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

when you press show under france it shows the countries of the british empire, shouldnt this be under british empire 2A00:23C5:348D:4301:8DD1:1F35:7CBC:9A0 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The "show" feature of the drop down box refers to the information below. So it correctly refers to the combatants fighting as part of the British Empire. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Seems to be a problem with

template:clist. Don't think it can be fixed here. small jars tc

20:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheIranianSalafist simpler is not always better. This little footnote you put on the Ottoman sultan of "oh it's not only this guy, also this guy succeeded him" all because of your fixation on keeping it short makes it kind of ridiculous.

Also, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Ludendorff, but before tweaking around you should go read about him and his role in 1910s German politics. I didn't include him for potatoes. Synotia (moan) 15:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

In the summary box it used to say how much manpower each nation had. Personally I thought that was useful information. I just wondered how come it got deleted. Firestar47 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyone? Firestar47 (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The section on 1918 makes no mention of Russia's exit from the war. This should be included. Firestar47 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, we should probably mention that in the info box. 165.234.101.99 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

They exited then wear the year before. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

So should we add “Russia (Until March, 1918)” to the info box? 165.234.101.99 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary Box* 165.234.101.99 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that there needs to be an addition at the end of the lede section of the article which talks about the hyperinflation that Germany was suffering around that time. I tried, but was reverted, so I would like to hear anyone else's thoughts rather than starting an edit war. There are sources to support this as well: [3] [4] [5]
Please feel free to share your thoughts. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is already too long and we should be looking for ways to cut it. There is no need to add a sentence about the German post-war hyperinflation. This article is about WWI, not the post-war period. There are already several articles which deal with the German post-war hyperinflation. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I was just throwing out ideas. I consider the matter closed then for the time being. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

first world war 102.244.221.113 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes? Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Another point, I was reading the introduction and saw this: "Attempts to bypass the stalemate caused fighting to expand into the Middle East, the Alps, the Balkans and overseas colonies, bringing Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and others into the war." This sentence is factually wrong in numerous ways and really needs taking out. Firestar47 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

IN what way? Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is wrong because it is misleading -- the war spread in part because the Allies kept encouraging more neutral states to join the war effort, offering them territory in return. Italy joined to gain S. Tyrol, Trieste and Dalmatia; Romania joined to gain Transylvania, etc. Japan was offered various German island colonies. The "stalemate" in the Western front did not cause this to occur. The Allies caused it to occur -- again expanding the war. In fact, the entire war was unnecessarily expanded. A brief Austria-Hungary v. Serbia conflict over terrorism was expanded to a continental contest between France/Russia/Serbia and their territorial desires (i.e. regain Alsace-Lorraine, undo the restraints on the Black Sea from the Crimean War, take the straits from the Ottomans during their imminent collapse -- as shown by their huge territorial losses in 1911, 1912, 1913) and AH and Germany. And then again, that continental war was expanded into a global conflict when Britain entered. And that global conflict expanded again as the Allies encouraged Italy, Greece, Japan, Romania, the USA, etc. to join. The Central Powers added Bulgaria and Ottoman Turkey -- which did allow for expansion of the Allied war effort to the Middle East. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I will look at the sentence and see if it can be made clearer. I would point out "stalemate" refers to both the Eastern and Western Fronts, while Bulgaria, Greece etc were brought into the war specifically to open up new fronts due to that lack of progress. The entries of Japan, Italy and the Ottoman Empire are covered in an earlier paragraph.

Most of the subsequent argument is extremely contentious and seems to ignore the extensive literature on the causes of the war. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

One problem basically is it puts the cart before the horse, the fighting expanded geographically as new states joined not vice versa. Also the war didn't expand to the balkans it started there. Firestar47 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok how about the following "over time new states such as Italy, Turkey, Japan, Bulgaria and Romania, entered the war and the fighting expanded to Africa, the Middle East, East and Southeast Asia, the Alps and other parts of the balkans". Firestar47 (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The Black Tom Explosion is not mentioned as a reason why the US joined WWI. Despite it being a major event. I think it should at least be mentioned. 69.204.59.102 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

While the incident may have been a major event in July 1916, I don't think you can argue it was a significant contribution to the US entering the war. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

At the moment the article lists two start dates; 28 June 1914, when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, and 28 July 1914, when Austria declared war on Serbia. Either of these may be appropriate, but the most appropriate will be the one most commonly cited by historians; have we determined this previously? BilledMammal (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Start date should be 28 July Robinvp11 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This article has been tagged with a recommendation that it be considerably reduced. I think this can be done fairly easily by moving most of the content from Section 6 onwards into sub-articles or significantly reducing it.

However, the remaining content is still too wordy and the Lede remains too long, which means people won't read it. I can put a draft up but it needs to only include what is essential, not what would be nice. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to shorten this major event in the history of many countries. Readers can easily find the section that interests them. If they want the whole story they can read it in parts. Rjensen (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Professor Jensen. The article well summarizes events and topics that are subjects of entire books much less an overview. There may be a little repetition and some editing may be possible but none of the covered topics and events should be entirely omitted. I think that readers of an article on a topic this detailed are probably not turning to the article for an incomplete version of some of the summaries of some of the key events and topics. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this misses the point. The article is hard to navigate, so it needs restructuring, and the whole point of an online encyclopedia is to break up a large topic into manageable bits. Otherwise, people don't read it.

Reducing content is not the same per se as leaving stuff out. But (for example) Wikipedia has an entire article on Romanian participation in WWI; so why do we need four paragraphs on what is a minor theatre for most readers? Robinvp11 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your second paragraph. I was trying to express that I agree with Professor Jensen's main point about comprehensiveness, but I do not disagree with some editing and reduction of content as long as anything of significance is mentioned and links to articles devoted to the subject in more depth are provided. Looking back, the mention of omitting "nice to have" content might have been taken as a suggestion for wholesale pruning that would result in omission of significant events and content. This article may be the only look at an overview of World War I for many readers, or their introduction to a large and interesting subject. That introduction could spark their further interest if it has enough information. As I suggested, I think many readers who turn to an article like this one are looking for a little more than an outline of a few major events. Romanian participation appears to be one of the good candidates for reduction of content on the subject in this article, as you suggest. Adept editing can keep much of the content in fewer words, unlike this note. Donner60 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at your interesting user page. This seems pertinent here: "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead. Blaise Pascale (or Oscar Wilde, depending)." I've probably written a few things along these lines and I am reasonably sure I have quoted this a few times, or came up with it independently. Happy editing. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe make more headings so people can find what they need faster 97.64.154.100 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There are already 19 headings. If there were anymore, the paragraphs will be very short. DDMS123 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a portal to World War I at the bottom of this page, and I received a warning message. Although I'm auto-confirmed, I wanted to let you know so you can check it out and see if it's appropriate. Lord Milner (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The portal is already in the article in the right section

WP:PORTL. Moxy-

11:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

there is minor thing where it says that germans where the first to use gas but acourding to the kumc the french where the first to use gas? Kaydenbalch (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

kumc? Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

kansis unvisty medical center Kaydenbalch (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Where did they claim this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The claim is for the use of tear gas see Patton, James. "Gas in The Great War". Medicine in the First World War. KU Medical Center. Retrieved 21 April 2023. Several chemicals were weaponized in WWI and France actually was the first to use gas - they deployed tear gas in August 1914 DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, so if we say the germans were the first to use gas we can change that, where do we? Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

As stated on our main article Tear gas: "None of the belligerents believed that the use of irritant gases violated the Hague Convention of 1899 which prohibited the use of 'poison or poisoned weapons' in warfare. Use of chemical weapons escalated during the war to lethal gases, after 1914 (during which only tear gas was used). ... Use of tear gas in warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925: it prohibited the use of 'asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials', a treaty that most states have signed." Germany is still generally considered to have been the first to breach the then-binding international law by using lethal gases, starting with chlorine and eventually escalating to the use of mustard gas.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I can see how people can get confused. The French and Russian forces both trialed irritant gases, but these didn't have a big impact and thus these efforts were largely forgotten about. German troops were the first to deploy chlorine, a lethal gas. The German chemical industry was world-leading and Germany was a major chlorine producer at the war's beginning; Fritz Haber, chemist who is one of the most important people of the 20th century, threw himself into the German war effort and was a principal figure in German military use of gas. Maybe the article should note this in some way to help dispel reader confusion? Maybe a footnote would work here? 47.155.41.201 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Where the lead sentence reads "often abbreviated as WWI", it should say "often abbreviated as WW1 or WWI". "WW1" is the more common version in my personal experience, and I find a higher Google hit count for it; in any case it's certainly common enough to mention here. --142.112.220.184 (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

In the "Belligerents" list, for the main Central Powers leaders, Mehmed V and Mehmed VI are listed for the Ottoman Empire. However, this is misleading because in reality the three pashas (Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha, Cemal Pasha) were truly the ones who held power, rather than the Sultan (which was the case after the Young Turk revolution of 1908). 73.231.202.92 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The Battle of Baku was one of the last wars of World War 1 and is not mentioned on this page. "The Battle of Baku (Azerbaijani Bakı döyüşü, Russian Битва за Баку, Turkish Bakü Muharebesi) from June to September 1918 was a battle between forces of the Ottoman Empire and the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic on the one hand and Bolshevik Dashnak forces of the Baku commune the other side, who were replaced later in the war by troops from the British Empire, the White Movement, and Armenians led by Lionel Dunsterville (British officer who led Dunsterforce)." 2003:EC:701:1700:5459:4ED2:9315:2B2B (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There are problems with the new wording of the intro. Greece did not enter the war til 1917. Before that it had 2 governments one pro entente one pro central powers. The entente one let the allies occupy Salonica and use it thus creating a new front but Greece didn't enter the war itself til 1917. Firestar47 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

These 2 sections alone account for ~43,400 bytes of this article. I don't know if they should be moved somewhere else or simply condensed, but either way, this probably needs to be dealt with in some form for this page to meet the

Deaths during WW1 has numerous times been proven to be greatly underestimated by not just the general public, but also some historians. I am amazed that we still use the old and proven-low estimate of 9 million combat deaths! The actual figure could be 1 and a half times that. 94.145.14.14 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide

reliable sources for your assertions. DuncanHill (talk

) 08:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

2) "Too long to read and navigate comfortably." No text should be deleted, this is a major event in world history. For World War II, a more major event, some topics are given their own page. I would put "war crimes" on its own page, as the World War II page has. Does anyone else have ideas on to shorten the page so the tag can go away?Telecine Guy (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

On 1, the referencing tag was added with the rationale that Technology onward is lacking citations. On 2, detailed information can be decanted to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me. Sorry I didn't post more in the talk page about this. In any case, I've brought up this issue regarding the size of this page before. I brought it up as recently as last month, and didn't get any kind of response back, so I took it upon myself to try and meet

WP:SIZERULE without removing unsourced content. I have no issue with there being no citations in the lead (that's fine in a page like this), but I have added "citation needed" to paragraphs that don't have in-line cites, so I still think there's work to be done here. XTheBedrockX (talk

) 06:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

This edit request to World War I has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please, in the section regarding the U.S. getting involved in World War 1 there is a typo. It's in the first or second sentence; material is spelled "materiel", which is incorrect. I literally only created an account to edit that. Change materiel to material. Tygera15 (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done I can tell you're asking in good faith, but the use of the word here, "materiel" (as in military supplies) is actually correct in the context of the paragraph. It's an easy thing to get mixed up with, though (since "material" can also be used in a similar war), so I understand the confusion. XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I am removing Siam (China), Brazil, Armenia, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Romania, Portugal and Hejaz from the infobox as they were minor ally of the Entente powers. The six main ones, stated on the Allies of World War I are France, United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, Italy and the United States. Ayubist (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

These have since been re-added. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Just created Timeline of World War I (1917–1918) and linked it directly under "1917; Timeline of major developments." hopefully, that means the 1917/1918 sections can be better summarized. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The telegram reading "Disgraceful! 62,000 Serbs decided the war!" is mentioned twice in the article, which given the length seems not great. But I'm not sure which mention to chop; it's possible the general narrative for the later part of the war needs to be reworked. -- Beland (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking it over, I think the first mention of it can probably be removed. In fairness, though, the article in general needs better summarizing overall. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I just wonder could you change the photo description from "From the top, left to right" to "Clockwise from top left"? User:GreatPersonLikeMe 10:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Why? That description would be incorrect. Did you ever look at the pictures?

WP:CIR. The Banner talk

12:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The introduction paragraph missing the WW1 abbreviation. It is highly recommended to add it according to the style of an encyclopedia. Also, it makes other people understand about how "World War I" could be spoken in different variants of short-form-referred word. 222.254.140.185 (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to add some my own words. I think the First World War is also an alternative name to call World War I. That's my minor suggestion. No problem to turn down it. I would highly want to contribute notable sights. 222.254.140.185 (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Please join the discussion The Great War, above. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

you should add in the "See Also" section World War II could be a litte detail you could add W!kipedista (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned and linked appropriately in the article text, so should not appear in See also. DuncanHill (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that Germany's war debt should be mentioned in the lede, as it definitely contributed to the outbreak of World War 2. I added it more than once, but every time it was deleted, so I decided to bring it up here. There are may reliable sources that talk about the war debt: [6] [7] [8] [9], as well as its contribution on the fall of German democracy: [10] [11]. Thoughts? Professor Penguino (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is about World War One, not the causes of World War Two. The article is already too long and needs to be cut back, not lengthened by tangential information. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

My proposition is that the last sentence of the lede be changed from its current version, "The dissolution of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires resulted in the creation of new independent states, including Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. The inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939." to this new revision: "The creation of new independent states after the dissolution of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires, as well as war reparations imposed on Germany after the war, contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939." My version would actually be shorter while conveying more information. Besides, just because an article is long does not mean very important information should not be excluded. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The current version is better. "The inability to manage post-war instability" better covers a range of complex factors. Reparations is only one factor, and probably not one of the most important, despite what Hitler said and many neo-Nazis still say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

“Despite what Hitler said”? You don’t think extreme hyperinflation which destroyed family’s savings wouldn’t enable a despotic, murderous leader to emerge (in this case, Hitler)? Yes, it was a big factor. The Nazis used the war debt to stir up anger among German people. The debt imposed on Germany was, in my opinion, a big blunder for the allies. If Germany’s economy hadn’t been so crippled the Nazis probably wouldn’t have had so much leverage. I’m not suggesting adding that; that’s just context for what many reliable sources say. If you think it’s better to say “post-war instability” somewhere in there, I can integrate it into my proposal. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't the reparations that caused the inflation, or the war. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

From Business Insider: “Not only did the Treaty of Versailles impose reparation demands that Germany would never realistically be able to repay, but it also annexed German territory and required the army to fire hundreds of thousands of soldiers”. It goes on: “The implications of these truncations for the German economy were of course enormous: and so were those of the requirement to reduce the German army to a quarter of its size, for it meant that over a quarter of a million more disbanded soldiers were to be thrown on the labour market. Work had to be found for them at any cost, or so it was calculated. What spelt doom were the clauses that made Germany responsible for the war and demanded colossal reparations — in money and in kind — to meet the Allies' costs.” You can find it here: [12]. Professor Penguino (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your quote that states that the reparations clause of the Treaty of Versailles caused the Second World War. As for the other point I made, that the reparations clause did not cause the German inflation, you might like to read this: From which I quote: "Above all, however, the Weimar government shot itself in the foot, as economist Jutta Hoffritz explains to DW. When the young republic was lagging behind with its reparations payments, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr Valley to secure the rich coal mines in the region. The local population went on strike to resist the occupation, and the government in Berlin fired up the money printing presses so that it could keep paying the "patriotic" strikers their wages. With this "patriotic measure," the government fueled the depreciation of its own currency, Hoffritz says. The economist published the book "Totenanz — Das Jahr 1923 und seine Folgen" ("Dance of the Dead — The Year 1923 and Its Aftermath") this year in German, in which she explores the causes of hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic 100 years ago."

In any case, this isn't about WWI, It's about the causes of WWII. You are simply posting in the wrong Talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for teaching me something I didn’t know before. Genuinely. Cheers! Professor Penguino (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the Business Insider source omits a number of salient points;

- Reparations due is not the same as paid; Germany ultimately paid a total of $468 million in reparations, or roughly three days of funding WWI (for comparison, Britain only finished paying WWI debts due to the US in 2007);

- "Firing soldiers"; in 1913, German defence spending as a % of GDP was 3.5%; in 1922, it was 0.20%. Various historians have argued that on this basis, Versailles should be seen as a net economic gain;

- "Annexing territory"; Germany had to return Alsace-Lorraine to France, annexed in 1871, and which contained 60% of French iron ore reserves, and 30% of coal. They lost territory in East Prussia to Poland but retained the industrial heartland of Silesia;

- "What spelt doom were the clauses that made Germany responsible for the war and demanded colossal reparations — in money and in kind — to meet the Allies' costs". This is one of the most successful and widespread pieces of propaganda and myth-making in modern history, peddled by right-wing apologists for much of the last century. I'm still amazed by how often I hear it trotted out by people who should know better;

- The Nazis and other fringe parties were the only ones to even mention Versailles throughout the 20s, and their main objection was that it accepted German defeat - that's what they meant by "Versailles criminals". They didn't like reparations (who would) but as someone whose degree includes a specialisation in inter-war Germany, I can tell you it is an issue conspicuously missing from German politics of the period. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The World Health Organization advises against using geographic names (such as ‘Spanish Flu’) when labeling ‘common’ non-scientific diseases and disease events. Whilst this event is commonly referred to as the Spanish Flu, it is also known as the ‘1918–1920 flu pandemic’ and ‘the Great Influenza epidemic’. Moreover, it is known that Spain’s scientific reporting of the epidemic was due to transparency for the benefit of the global scientific community and global humanity’s health, and that the origins and spread were not in Spain. Sources: https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-practices-for-naming-new-human-infectious-diseases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu TazzieM (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the common use regarding to naming. And Spanish Flu is the common name for that disease. Beside that, the WHO link you give is talking about new diseases, not a disease a 100 years old. The Banner talk 07:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/World War I has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.244.127 (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to World War I has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Historians claim that the ambiguity with the assassination of the archduke Ferdenez that there is no proof of a direct involvement this states that your writing which you claim to be "facts" are factually incorrect please correct yourself and update this page asap thank you sARAH tHATCHER Common Watchfire Office , Bridlington YO15 7XJ 213.249.241.137 (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Which states do we say carried it out? Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2023 (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. Liu1126 (talk

) 15:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The current wording (which I wrote :)) says this; "Supplied with arms by extremists within the Serbian Black Hand intelligence organisation..."

There is some debate among historians as to the collective responsibility of the Serbian state (not least because the Serbian government was divided between pro-Russian and pro-German elements), versus individual players within it. There is very little dispute the weapons came from the Black Hand, but most agree the assassination was not Serbian government policy. I think the wording accurately reflects this. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There are tags on this article that it is too long to read comfortably. I did a quick look around, and I think some pieces can be split off. I think splitting off the sections World War I#War crimes, World War I#Soldiers' experiences and World War I#Legacy and memory should be possible. The section World War I#Technology could be reduced or merged into Technology during World War I. What do you think? The Banner talk 13:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Certainly in favour of it. Mentioning the technology should be fine, but it should also definitely be scaled back. Splitting and summarizing the war crimes and solider experiences also seems like a good idea. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. I think there might be scope for a separate article on the "Social and Cultural Impact of WWI" which could include these sections, plus maybe others eg the role of women. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

(*My 5 August 2023, post- feedback on this topic was deleted (I was told in the past this should not be done?). Re-posting:)

No text should be deleted, this is a major event in world history. For World War II, a more major event, some topics are given their own page. I would put "war crimes" on its own page, as the World War II page has. Does anyone else have ideas on other topics that came be moved, so the tag can go away? Is there a way to move the page edits with the text? Telecine Guy (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the Soldiers' experiences and Technology.Telecine Guy (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The article states "Russia considered itself the protector of Serbia and other Slav states", and then little more is said on this aspect. This is a major key to the war, but it is not covered very well. It could benefit from further explanation, perhaps from other expert secondary RS. Additionally, "Once the German ultimatum to Russia expired on the morning of 1 August, the two countries were at war" How so? Who declared war on who? 182.239.152.166 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to World War I has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello i would like to edit Kingdom of Serbia on main page of this post and not in the others. I think its pretty shamefull not to include it but to have Japan and Greece who joined one year before end of the war. Also it is very disrespectful and its revision of history when the state that was attacked first in this war is side tracked when our population lost almost 30% of population . Its realy sad to se that when even Spanish and French wiki post have it but English one that is most read. Change Kingdom of Greece with Kingdom of Serbia in participants list for this post and add King Peter I Karadjordjevic and Regent Aleksandar Karadjordjevic in leader's list . 178.148.33.74 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk

) 19:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

New Infobox Events Leading Up to WWI

Events leading to World War I
Unification of Germany 1866–1871 Franco-Prussian War 1870–1871 Second Concert of Europe 1871 Great Eastern Crisis 1875–1878 Campaign in Bosnia 1878 Dual Alliance 1879 Boer Wars 1880–1902 Austro–Serbian Alliance 1881–1903 Triple Alliance 1882 Berlin Conference 1884 Bulgarian Crisis 1885–1888 Reinsurance Treaty 1887–1890 Franco-Russian Alliance 1894 Anglo-German naval arms race 1898–1912 Fashoda incident 1898 Anglo-Japanese Alliance 1902 Russo-Japanese War 1904–1905 Entente Cordiale 1904 First Moroccan Crisis 1905–1906 Pig War 1906–1908 Anglo-Russian Convention 1907 Young Turk Revolution 1908 Bosnian Crisis 1908–1909 Racconigi Bargain 1909 Second Moroccan Crisis 1911 Italo-Turkish War 1911–1912 Balkan Wars 1912–1913 Assassination of Franz Ferdinand 1914 July Crisis 1914
v t e

I'm not sure who inserted this, but I've removed it from the article because I cannot see the relevance of these events to WWI. It also seems misleading, because surely the implication is that these are all steps on the road to war, and I don't think that's the case.

Where do we stop? Because you could create similar "lists" for every single war, and they'd be equally helpful/unhelpful.

Putting this out there for others to consider; if its just me, ok. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox clutter. Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not see the need for that box either. The Banner talk 19:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It is known that until the outbreak of World War II, the first war was called the Great War. It would be interesting to determine the date when the name World War II was first used in the media and when the name was changed from The Great War to World War I. Who and when? Mir.Nalezinski (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m surprised that the article does not use the original and still widely used name for the conflict ‘The Great War’. There’s a redirection but it’s not mentioned in the intro. I found this peculiar. Is there a reason why it’s not used here? SteadyJames (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why it's not in the lead, if I were to guess it's to keep clutter to a minimum.

Add it if you think you can make it work. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs

) 16:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking that at least a footnote would appropriate as it was (and to an extent still is) a commonly used name for the war. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's covered in detail in the "Names" section, but I added mention in the intro. -- Beland (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Before seeing this section here, I amended the lead which said use of the term was contemporaneous because it wasn't - it was the standard term until WW2 came along and is still used often after that. Inexplicably, User:XTheBedrockX tried to remove it from the lead but it has been put back. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger There was a whole discussion about this late last year. Admittedly, I didn't change it to what the final suggestion was, but I was still basing my decision on that precedent. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. My attention was first drawn to the use of the incorrect desciption "contemporaneously" rather than whether of not to use the phrase 'The Great War' in the lead. FWIW, I think it should be in the lead alongside WWI and the First WW. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest more natural English would be: World War I (also called the First World War, The Great War. " I don't think "major" global conflict is necessary either. Global conflict is major enough. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

That'd make sense. These are two names that are often used or seen. The Great War has been historically used and is important to note. Coulomb1 (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robinvp11, Professor Penguino, Slatersteven, TheTimesAreAChanging, and Tunakanski: The discussion about the first sentence has been opened again. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

After noticing back and forth in the lead sentence, I restored the version of the previous discussion cited by XTheBedrockX because a rough consensus was reached after a thorough discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

"...also called the First World War" should definitely be included in the first sentence as a significant alternative name. See

MOS:BOLDSYN. Also see this NGRAM which shows that First World War is as common as World War I. Aemilius Adolphin (talk

) 06:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I am neutral about which alternative names to include. My issue about them would be mostly

MOS:ALTNAME. Regards, Thinker78 (talk)

21:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe my original proposal would help with redundancy/clutter concerns. See below:

World War I[a] (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was one of the deadliest global conflicts in history. It was fought between two coalitions: the Allies and the Central Powers. Fighting took place throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia.

~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a nice option. I think that World War I is a known enough name that doesn't need alternative names to be in running text. By moving the alt names to the superscript note the text flows better. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty good, and I'm in favour of an option similar to this, although I was thinking more in the format of World War II:

World War I or the First World War^[b] was a global conflict that lasted from 1914 to 1918.

Also, in my opinion, I think "was one of the deadliest global conflicts in history" being in the first paragraph is a bit redundant, since it's already in the final paragraph of the lead. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Great War should be mentioned in the first sentence. In a nutcheel (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I can see clutter is an issue. How about starting the second sentence with: "Also known as the First World War and the Great War, fighting took place throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia."

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@

I don't understand why you unilaterally modified the first sentence without even proposing a specific change. Per

@Thinker78 May I ask why you didn’t mention this earlier if you had such a strong opinion about this? I can’t know what other people think if 10 days go by without a response. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion simply stalled without anyone replying anymore. But if you analyze what was discussed yours was not the only proposal and not the most complete one. I mean you didn't mention what you just added to the page. It was not a matter for me to point out, it was to check what was discussed and if relevant offer specific proposals, in my opinion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with waiting for a consensus on whether or not to include alternative names in the first sentence, that's fine. But when it comes to "was one of the deadliest global conflicts in history", given how the rest of the lead it structured, it seems pretty redundant to have this phrase mentioned multiple times. XTheBedrockX (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to point out that phrase was not unilaterally added but it was a result of a long discussion that you are aware of. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I support the suggestions made by XTheBedrockX. Namely:

World War I or the First World War^[b] was a global conflict that lasted from 1914 to 1918.

I also support the removal of the redundant phrase about the war being one of the deadliest in world history. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the change by XTheBedrockX is the new

presumed consensus for the first sentence: World War I (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), often abbreviated as WWI, was a global conflict fought between two coalitions, the Allied Powers and the Central Powers. Regards, Thinker78 (talk)

03:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, there is no consensus for this at all. Unless I have become lost in the thread, the most recent proposal from @XTheBedrockX was this one:

"World War I or the First World War was a global conflict that lasted from 1914 to 1918." ^ Often abbreviated as WWI or WW1; also called the Great War.

This is the one I support, as I made clear above. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You missed XTheBedrockX bold edit of more than a week ago that didn't get a revert, change, discussion, even though this page is watched by more than 4,000 editors. But, given that it wasn't reached through discussion, it has presumed consensus, not outright consensus. Also, you are I guess one of those editors who is only until now noticing. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You guess wrongly. I didn't miss XTheBedrockX's bold edit, I simply didn't want to engage in an edit war while the matter was under discussion. I have also been engaged in this issue for some months and in my contributions above I have bent over backwards to achieve a compromise. There is no consensus, presumed or otherwise, although it seems to me that three editors are in favour of including the First World War in the first sentence as an alternative name (indeed, it is the most common name for the conflict, particularly in British English which this article is supposed to adhere to.) A RfC might be necessary, but I will wait to see if XTheBedrockX clarifies what his preferred option now is. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin yeah, I agree on the lack of consensus for alternative names. There may be an implied consensus to have the first "deadliest conflict" line removed, but when it comes to the main topic here (the names), I agree there doesn’t seem to be a consensus yet.

In any case, I'm still in favour of my proposed change (the one you mentioned earlier). XTheBedrockX (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I would strongly argue against using the term "Great War". I don't think it's widely used anymore, and the term has been applied to any number of conflicts. For example, 19th century Brits often referred to the Napoleonic Wars as the "Great War"; until recently, for Germans, "Great War" meant the Thirty Years War. It's not unique. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I also support an RfC to try to clarify things, given that this discussion is veering differently and had been abandoned without reaching compromise. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Wording a RfC will be tricky. I suggest we avoid multiple options and propose replacing the current wording with the option XTheBedrockX and I support. But I don't have much experience with RfCs so I'm open to suggestions by editors with more experience in these matters. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What is that option you and XTheBedrockX support? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I am thinking of this one. Written out in full, it would be:

World War I or the First World War ^[b] was a global conflict that lasted from 1914 to 1918. It was fought between two coalitions, the Allied Powers and the Central Powers. Fighting took place throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't like much the change to dedicate more emphasis on the years range. I favor keeping it in parenthesis. Also, for notable info in the lead sentence, between your version and the current one, I favor the current one.

World War I (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), often abbreviated as WWI, was a global conflict fought between two coalitions, the Allied Powers and the Central Powers.

I am neutral about the alternative names, as long as they don't clutter. And I would be neutral as well about the range being only the years (1914–1918), which would render it more concise.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I know I've been absent for a bit -- just wanted to hop in and say that I agree with you on the lede. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

How about: World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between two coalitions, the Allied Powers and the Central Powers."? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the bit about there being two coalitions necessary? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because those are the two principal military alliances of the war. XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean that saying "between two coalitions," is unnecessary. It could just say it was between the Allied Powers and Central Powers. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning that they are coalitions gives context to what "the Allied Powers" and "the Central Powers" are to people who don't already know what they are. I'd say that's fine to include. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding that option, maybe it would be better, World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between the Allies and the Central Powers. I think that when we establish that it was a conflict between the Allies and the Central powers, it is directly implied to the abstract understanding of the readers that they were two opposing groups. And their names further implies they are coalitions. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I can live with that. If we can get a consensus on this wording there might not be a need for a RfC. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus proposal for first sentence

@SteadyJames, AquilaFasciata, Freedom4U, Beland, Roger 8 Roger, XTheBedrockX, Aemilius Adolphin, Robinvp11, and Professor Penguino: After analyzing the thread, I propose for the first sentence,

World War I or the First World War

Allies and the Central Powers

.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

1. YgY I support this change. (Edit: I also support Beland's suggestion to keep "two coalitions.) XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
2. YY I also support this change. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
3. YgY I support the addition of the footnote, but would prefer to retain "two coalitions, " before "the Allies and the Central Powers". -- Beland (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
4. YY I support this. Professor Penguino (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
5. YgY I support this, but like Beland (talk · contribs) would retain "two coalitions" Robinvp11 (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
6. NgYNg The Great War is a redirect and needs to appear clearly per
   principle of least surprise in the first paragraph, and not buried in a note. So consider that an objection. GraemeLeggett (talk
   ) 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
7.    Ng Goods point so I object as the last thing we need is peole asking "why does great war redirect to here"., Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
8. YY I support the change in that it's an objective improvement over the current lede sentence (no comment on whether "Great War" belongs in the footnote or not). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• @
  MOS:ALTNAME, If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Regards, Thinker78 (talk)
  20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A hatnote may be another necessity but that does not mean ignoring documented practice. I also said first paragraph not first sentence so question of "clutter" is not an issue.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who types "The Great War" into wikipedia will be "shocked, surprised, or confused" to find themselves redirected to an article on World War One. I just did it and the range of results makes it clear that it refers to the First World War, a documentary on the First World War and a couple of movies about the First World War. We have to assume that readers are of average intelligence, can click a note, and have come to wikipedia to learn. The essay you linked to is not a policy or guideline and unless I missed something, nowhere does it say that all redirected terms must be explained in the first sentence of the lead. Nor do I think it is standard practice and in this case it just causes unnecessary clutter. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, the Great War name already appears in the Names section. Per MOS:ALTNAME, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere [from the first sentence] in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section. My proposal means the alternative names are footnoted and included in the Names section. Thoughts? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm proposing somewhere in the first paragraph, not the first sentence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

World War I or the First World War^[d] (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between the Allies and the Central Powers. It has been called the Great War also, but the term has been applied to other conflicts as well. Thinker78 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This reads awkwardly and is putting too much emphasis to a name which is no longer very common or specific. I suggest it would be more natural to put the reference in the final sentence of the lead: "To contemporaries, the conflict was 'The Great War' or 'The War to End all Wars,' but the inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939."

This reflects the content of the article which states that these terms became popular immediately after the War, and also creates a neat segue into the statement about WWII. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett@Slatersteven, thoughts on ? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally like the first sentence, but the second one is just a bit awkward. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Aemilius proposal is one I can get behind. It's a good phrasing that brings the term into use and describes contemporary feeling. But I'd say it was more a start to the ultimate paragraph of the lede which should mention League of Nations etc as part of the post-war settlement. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the League of Nations should be mentioned in the lead. How about, "Fighting ended with the Armistice of 11 November 1918, while the subsequent Paris Peace Conference established the League of Nations and imposed various settlements on the defeated powers, notably the Treaty of Versailles." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest starting a new thread about said sentence to avoid complicating the first sentence discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Second consensus proposal for first sentence

@XTheBedrockX, Aemilius Adolphin, Beland, Professor Penguino, Robinvp11, GraemeLeggett, Slatersteven, and Freedom4U: After analyzing the thread, I make a second proposal for the first sentence (and the Great War),

World War I or the First World War

Allies and the Central Powers

.

About The Great War, in the final sentence of the lead: "To contemporaries, the conflict was 'The Great War' or 'The War to End all Wars,' but the inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Proposed lead sentence is fine, but trying to explain "Great War" in the lead is clunky and unnecessary. The Names section already exists to address things like this. XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above ie leave out "Great War" Robinvp11 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@GraemeLeggett: I tried to accommodate your objection but two editors objected as you can see above. Given that 6 out of 8 editors seemingly support the second consensus proposal for first sentence, for the sake of compromise, would you be willing to accept as a compromise to include as in the first proposal, in a footnote, "Often abbreviated as WWI or WW1; also called The Great War (although this last term has been applied to other conflicts as well)"? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have not asked for "Great War" in the First Sentence. I said, citing Least Surprise it should be somewhere in the lede and not buried in a footnote and not to rely on readers getting as far as the "names" section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett I understand, but the objections to your request refer to the lead in general. The second consensus proposal for first sentence included a provisio to add the Great War at the end of the lead. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Third consensus proposal for first sentence

@SteadyJames, AquilaFasciata, Roger 8 Roger, Coulomb1, In a nutcheel, XTheBedrockX, Aemilius Adolphin, Beland, Professor Penguino, Robinvp11, GraemeLeggett, Slatersteven, and Freedom4U:, after further analysis,

1. considering that the compromise that I proposed to accommodate the objections of among other editors, SteadyJames, GraemeLeggett and Slatersteven (that is, the second consensus proposal) didn't pan out due to further objections,
2. considering Wikipedia:Consensus, Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines,
3. considering the guideline
   MOS:ALTNAME
   , If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section,
4. considering there seems to be at least three alternative names,
5. considering there is a Names section,

I recommend for the first sentence,

World War I or the First World War

Allies and the Central Powers

.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 I reiterate what I said before: saying "(although this last term has been applied to other conflicts as well)" is completely unnecessary. Great War (disambiguation) is in the hatnote at the top of the page for this exact reason. XTheBedrockX (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand but it is to accommodate to some extent the objections of the aforementioned editors who want The Great War in the lead, with an accommodation of the concerns mirrored in the comment by Robinvp11, "I don't think it's widely used anymore, and the term has been applied to any number of conflicts". A little flexibility for the sake of consensus? Thoughts?

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 typing "great war" into Google almost universally bring in English language results for World War I. Almost every media property in the "Great War" disambiguation page relates in some way to World War I. No other result comes close. "Great War" is unambiguously a very common synonym for this war in English. Calling it the "Great War" without qualification should not be controversial. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

aGRRED. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact you type "Great War" into Google and get a bunch of links to WWI does NOT prove it is commonly used, only that the phrase is most commonly associated with it in English.

"Great War" was used until the 70s - by the Brits, its persistence largely being due to the influence of surviving veterans and the seminal TV series. I cannot offhand think of a single example of it being used in any history book written since then (although I'm sure someone will provide me with an exception).

It is no widely longer used in the UK, if at all, and as someone who has lived in Australia, the US and Canada, that is also the case in those countries. English Wikipedia is not just for middle aged Brits was my point.

We're arguing about whether it should be in the body of the Lead or part of the FN which includes various other names. Enough energy has been spent on this, so I can live with whatever. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robinvp11 That it's commonly associated with this war in English is exactly my point. Considering we're using English language Wikipedia, "Great War" being redirected here makes complete sense, middle-aged Brits or not.

I think it makes sense for Great War to be mentioned in the footnote, but putting that aside, I simply don't think adding "although this last term has been applied to other conflicts as well" is a productive or necessary use of space. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"The Great War" should be included as an alternative name of note. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, as soon as I say that, Adam Hochschild publishes "American Midnight: The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis" :) :) Although tbf he is 82. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 I am happy with this proposal. I also think the clause "(although this last term has been applied to other conflicts as well)" is unnecessary, but it is true and I can live with it for the sake of compromise. It might be worth my repeating my earlier link to the this NGRAM which shows the relative use of the term "Great War". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Fourth consensus proposal for first sentence

Considering the last round of discussion, I propose for first sentence,

World War I or the First World War

Allies and the Central Powers

.

I just removed the phrase of discord from the footnote and left The Great War in it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@SteadyJames, AquilaFasciata, Roger 8 Roger, Coulomb1, In a nutcheel, XTheBedrockX, Aemilius Adolphin, Beland, Professor Penguino, Robinvp11, GraemeLeggett, Slatersteven, and Freedom4U: Thinker78 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Most agreeable variant of this lead change so far. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The only trouble I have with this proposal is I don't think that people call it the Great War anymore. It's more that people used to call it that. If, in the footnotes, you instead said, "Often abbreviated as WWI or WW1; previously called The Great War." I think it'd be perfect. Coulomb1 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I am still in support. If my concern holds back the consensus, ignore me. I believe it would be much better with it like this than without. Coulomb1 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

People still fall the Great War. The Great War: 1914-1918

Peter Hart was first published in 2021. It remains the literary and historic name for the conflict. SteadyJames (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. I support this then. Coulomb1 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

People still call it the Great War. The Great War: 1914-1918 Peter Hart was first published in 2021–there are many other example of its contemporary use. It remains the literary and historic name for the conflict. SteadyJames (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I see no need to change what we have. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I support Coulomb1's suggestion to do the proposed footnoting but also indicate that "The Great War" is an archaic term. The proposed "previously called" is good because it is clearer than the existing "in historic contexts". Moving the excess alternatives and also the archaic name out of the intro does seem to be required by

MOS:ALTNAME, which also requires that archaic names be noted as such. The anti-clutter argument made by that guideline does seem sensible. -- Beland (talk

) 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s not an archaic term. The book The Great War: 1914-1918

By Peter Hart, was published in 2021. There are many other book with the Great War in their title published in recent years. It remains the literary and historical name for the war. SteadyJames (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It makes sense to use an archaic term as a title for a history book, but I never hear it used in, say, modern news reports referring to WWI. -- Beland (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say archaic—but simply inserting the word "historically", to make it state historically called the Great War. would be good. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 03:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

People today in the English speaking world still call it the Great War. History book, monuments and tv shows refer to it as the same. There are contemporary books published with the Great War in it title. It’s is it original name and is concurrent to First World War and World War One. I’m not sure how much more clearly the case can be made for something that it so obviously and well cited. SteadyJames (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a strange thing to argue; people "historically" called it the Great War because relatively few called it the World War (although that was the more popular name in the States from the start) and no one called it "World War I". Using the word "historically" doesn't mean no one uses it today, just means it was historically used that way ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - why The Great War rather than the Great War? NGrams seem to indicate that the definite article is more often decapped than capitalised, meaning the conditions of
  The First World War. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk
  ) 16:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreeing with this. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Coulomb1 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, definitely fits the manual of style better. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@SteadyJames, AquilaFasciata, Roger 8 Roger, Coulomb1, In a nutcheel, XTheBedrockX, Aemilius Adolphin, Beland, Professor Penguino, Robinvp11, GraemeLeggett, Slatersteven, and Freedom4U:,  Implemented the change. I hope it is acceptable. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Haha the change has incorrectly linked "Allies" to the page Alliance, instead of Allies of World War I. I've fixed it now 🙃 ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 03:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Whoopsie! :D Thinker78 (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an instance of the term "her" being used to refer to Britain in the following passage: "Britain turned to her colonies for help". This should be replaced with "its" to retain neutrality. (Somewhat unrelated, but there is a typo in this passage: " Herincreasingly incompetent rule and food shortages in urban areas") 2600:1006:B15B:951D:5C63:FBFB:E4D7:9C63 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to World War I has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just before the section of "Prelude" it would be useful for the completeness of the page to add the non standard explanation to the war but which deserves all due respect since it comes from at least two established historians: one German: Fritz Fischer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Fischer

and the other one British: John Röhl. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._G._R%C3%B6hl By the way, these two historians are mentioned in wikipedia page on the origiins of WW1.Frédéric Nataf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_causes_of_World_War_I

Historians such as

To be true, it is unclear to me what change you want. Please rephrase your request in the form of "please change X to Y". The Banner talk 22:37, 1 January 2024 (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. Shadow311 (talk

) 15:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939.

change to

post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. Mbnieuwenhuis (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hezaj being listed as a main belligerent in the infobox along with the main allied Powers France, UK, Italy, Russia, Japan, USA seems undue to me. According to the source used Sachar "The Emergence Of The Middle East 1914-1924" the entire Hejazi population was about 600,000 (pp. 121-123). (Hohum ^@) 18:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hejaz was a principal belligerent in the Middle East theater of the war. Japan is listed in the infobox, it was a principal belligerent in the Asian Pacific theater of the war. Hejaz forces saw more combat than the Japanese did. To include Japan but not Hejaz is creates an NPOV issue. To remove both creates an NPOV issue, since it then shifts the slant to only western states.XavierGreen (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to state your case more fully, citing reliable sources, details of military strength, major operations etc. Hejaz is not commonly cited as a major allied power in the major scholarly works I've read. There is also a case for cuttng back the info box which is too detailed in my opinion. But that can be a separate issue. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Talk:World War II

2405:4802:64C7:BF70:B50C:773B:1A40:16BA (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)