Talk:History of the United Kingdom during the First World War/Archive 1

Censorship
"The DORA ushered in a variety of authoritarian social control mechanisms, such as censorship." Hmm. The ref tag placed immediately after suggests that this is being sourced, but I can't really find that in the source. I think we sure either try to make sure its sourced properly - probably meaning a clarification of other "authoritarian" measures, or we have to make the statement a little more balanced and/or move the ref tag. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the act I am still trying to wade through it --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Price controls
I'll check Beckett, but I'm pretty sure he said that price controls were minimal. Maybe there isn't a contradiction here, just a differing point of view. We'd better be careful in that case. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed section
I don't think there's much here isn't mentioned somewhere else in the article. Possibly a comment on lasting anti-German mentalities / foreigners could be added to Social change though, which would facilitate the use of. Just a thought.

Prior to 1918, society had been changed by its wartime experiences in other ways. In the early years of the war the state had concentrated on security issues such as the Defence of the Realm Act, censorship and aliens. It now intervened in new areas. It also heralded the collapse of the Liberal Party, the rise of Labour Party.

In 1915, rent control which was introduced as a temporary measure following the Glasgow rent strike and to prevent further civil disturbance, it was also identified as a means to prevent profiteering by landlords in wartime. In 1916, conscription with the introduction of the Military Service Act. In 1917, price control was introduced which set the price of potatoes, peas, beans, milk, wheat, oats, barley, wood and coal, and in 1918, rationing and even alcohol dilution.

- Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title
I think per the Manual of Style we shouldn't have "The" at the start of the title. Thoughts? David Underdown (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, have a look at the navbox. That's quite a hotpotch of naming conventions we've got going on there. I guess I would say "maybe", because it sounds better with it than without (because the title is an extended phrase). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree United Kingdom in World War I or what about History of the United Kingdom during World War I would be a better title --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've closed your italics Jim, hope you don't mind. Reluctantly, I must admit that the former is MoS and fits with the category and some of the other articles. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 07:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I've changed my mind. If we have "Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II", Jim's second suggestion might be better. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 14:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finally be bold and done something about this. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Image review (FAC-style)
Overview

Oppose for multiple image concerns:
 * File:Tsar Nicholas II & King George V.JPG: taken by Ernst Sandau (http://www.wgbhstocksales.org/images/?html=category/portraits - search for "Ernst Sandau"), this image's copyright is still in force. Note his photo of George V in the same uniform.  Sandau was still active up to 1960.  If this photo is claimed to be published before 1923 (allowing storage on Wikipedia, not Commons), then proof must be given that Sandau has sold or made copies available to the public before that time.
 * File:A Good Riddance - George V of the United Kingdom cartoon in Punch, 1917.png: move to Wikipedia. This caricature is by Leonard Raven-Hill (1867–1942)&mdash;see signature (L Raven Hill).  Hence, it is copyrighted in UK until the end of 2012.
 * File:British recruits August 1914 Q53234.jpg - IWM states "Commercial photograph"; efforts should be made and documented to find which employee of Sport & General Press Agency Ltd took this photo (a search on Google shows that it was operating as of 1970s and likely still operational; hence calls or mails should be made).
 * File:Rememberscarborough.jpg: Lucy Kemp-Welch's work. She died in 1958, hence this poster is still copyrighted to her until the end of 2028.  Move to Wikipedia.  Furthermore, point the source's link to the page the image was displayed on, not to the image itself.
 * File:Scarborough, North Yorkshire - WWI poster.jpg: this poster is of two parts: a colourised image of F. Foxton's photo and words of the poster's creator. Words (typeface) are ineligible for copyright; hence the coloured image is the only thing that can be copyrighted.  As its copyright belongs to F. Foxton, it is not correct to say that the work is by "an unknown author".  Efforts should be made to establish Foxton's lifespan and hence UK copyright status.  It would be more appropriate to move this poster to Wikipedia.

Not opposable but could be improved on:
 * File:Daddy in the great war.jpg: from where was this gotten?
 * File:'Breaches of the Rationing Order' poster.jpg: obvious PD-UKGov, but it will be nice to have the IWM record number.

The others are verifiably in the public domain.

Method

Generally, I start with a quick use of Tineye. It throws up quick hits but it is limited as the pool it searches through is very small compared to the sites out there. Google is the key source to find the history of the images. Image search is the primary tool. Search terms would be the subject names, or authors. Book search is the secondary tool to determine if any images were published before 1923 (adding the search term "date:1900-1923" is a great help here). Googling by web (instead of images or books) is the last stage to catch any possible information that Image or Book searches fail to locate. It often turns up useful information (this is how I found the author of the Nicholas V-George II photo). A more detailed account of my search on this photo is as follows:

Tineye threw up 5 images for the Nicholas V-George II photo. My suspicions are aroused since one of the hits is a book, published in 2002; the photo is the cover. Worldcat shows that the book was published as early as 1981, but has no images of the cover then.

Googling images reveal http://www.talismancoins.com/servlet/Detail?no=610, which states, "A photograph of King George V (right) with his first cousin Tsar (Czar) Nicholas II (their mothers - Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom and Empress Maria Feodorovna of Russia - were sisters). Taken in Berlin, 1913" in the Alt field. This contradicts the image uploader's assertion of "Photo of Tsar Nicholas II and King George V. London, circa 1905." Furthermore, Corbis has this photo in their collection. Although there are quite a few claims of Corbis as a "copyfrauder", several of its photos are copyrighted in the country of origin (either first publishing of a previously unpublished old photo or the author was not dead beyond 70 years); hence their holding of the photo is a good impetus to do further investigation. Art.com indicates their version came "from the archives of LIFE magazine", which I found at here. This would hint that the image was published (the photographer sold the image to a media entity besides to the royal families), but does not tell when was the publishing date (creation does not equal publishing).

Googling books to check if it had been published before 1923 yields no results. Instead I found that the image was published on p. 155 of Royalty and diplomacy in Europe, 1890-1914, which was first published in 2000. Preface and caption reinforces the photo's location as Berlin in May 1913. Furthermore, author obtained the photo from the royal family (p. viii). Hence, the photo cannot be PD-US as claimed. I suspect the uploaded image is not a scan of a photo but a scan from this book. In fact, this photo was uploaded to Internet forums as early as 05-20-2005; Corbis put their image up on the web then. All before the uploader's original upload on 2006-12-03.

Further googling landed me at http://www.wgbhstocksales.org/images/?html=category/portraits and a search for "Nicholas II" reveals E23103, which states this to be of Ernst Sandau Portraits. In commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Leni Riefenstahl 1930, by Ernst Sandau.jpg, Lupo shows that Sandau was still alive in 1932. Sandau took Kaiser Wilheim's photo in 1938 even., and was still active in 1939.

In fact, he was still alive in 1943. Searching for "Ernst Sandau", this book reveals, "Von 1937 bis 1943 veröffentlichten aus Deutschland, Erich Balg, [...], Ernst Sandau, [...] und Pressefoto Yva." or "From 1937 to 1943, published in Germany, Erich Bellow, [...], Ernst Sandau, [...] and Pressphoto Yva." More googling reveals his activity in 1950, 1955, and 1960. The picture of George V in same uniform affirms Sandau's authorship of the photo.

All efforts to check the images took around 6 hours. Time that an FAC nominator could spend a portion of which to perform a less than thorough but still fruitful checks. Editors should check claims of a PD image.

Note that I am not entirely in favour of PD-Bain (would be more happier if there is a statement of the photos' publishing before 1923 or no copyright registration); however, a concensus on Commons (see Village Pump and Commons talk: Licensing archives for Bain collections), and that the majority of the images are from 1900 to 1920s and if Bain bought those photos from freelancers, then they were published (by virtue of their selling to him for distribution) makes the acceptance of this template more pliable. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review, Jappalang, which I shall be sure to review more thoroughly myself when I get longer. Working through the easier points then - I can easily get the proper images moved to Wikipedia where they are still in UK copyright, that should be fine. What does surprise me are your comments about the two George V images (cartoon, and him next to the Tsar). The fact that these had not been investigated before, despite their use in a Featured Article (George V of the United Kingdom, from which I merely copied them, assuming they were properly investigated), intrigues me. Looking at the FAC though, it seems to have had an easier ride in that department. If I remember, I shall update their caption as well. Anyhow, thank you for your review, and I'm sure you, I and everyone else involved can help improve the situation no ned. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, older FACs were less strict on source and image checks, but the FAC process is getting more stringent in checking these non-prose issues as since then. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

To do

 * File:Tsar Nicholas II & King George V.JPG: taken by Ernst Sandau. Move to Wikipedia. Verify pre-1923 publication.
 * Aha! A lead http://books.google.co.uk/books?pg=RA1-PA540&id=xg8DAAAAYAAJ&q=Sandau,%20Ernst&q=Sandau%2C%20Ernst . How much more proof do we need? - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 14:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good find. Non-US authors are unlikely to register a US copyright unless they intend to publish it in the States.  Jappalang (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:A Good Riddance - George V of the United Kingdom cartoon in Punch, 1917.png: ✅
 * File:British recruits August 1914 Q53234.jpg: research individual photographer - who?
 * Have emailed potential successor institution, alphapress.com. Hopefully they can help. Have tidied /clarified image desc in meantime.
 * Apparently all handled by the Press Association these days. Confident of getting a response from them.
 * File:Rememberscarborough.jpg: Move to Wikipedia. Point the source's link to the page the image was displayed on, not to the image itself.
 * Apparently no longer used on any other pages; can't find duplicate image elsehwere (different colouring). - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 14:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we do not need the same old link; as long as another link (providing details and the same object) can provide the details, it is okay. I added another site (handling reprints of the poster) for the details; Miscellaneous Man probably sold its copy(s) and no longer put it on their site for sale.  Jappalang (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Scarborough, North Yorkshire - WWI poster.jpg: establish Foxton's lifespan. Published by a governement organisation, eligible for PD-UKGov?
 * I believe publication by a government body would not count if Foxton was not their employee. By crediting the photographer, it seems more likely that the UK government used his photo with permission, or as a form of "fair use".  Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem that way, wouldn't it? We'll work on the basis it's ineligible for now, at least. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * F. Foxton proving hard to track down. Fred Foxton listed on old directory sales listing (could have been based anywhere). John Frederick Foxton (1870 - ????), photographer living in Scarborough (1901), but no death date available. Have asked the National Archives who keeps old PRC records (presumably payment was once made). - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 14:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

File:National Fund for Welsh Troops2.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:National Fund for Welsh Troops2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 11, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-11-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 19:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration
Did any such thing exist? The article doesn't look like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.233.47 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Scotland role?
I have deleted this section it was/is obviously written by a Scottish nationalist with the accompanying agenda,no other home nation has its own "special"section and if an English person started " waving their willy" the scots simply wouldn't like it,your role in ww1 was no differant to any other home nation,Englands role here is once again being down played at the expence of nationalist's so don't pretend you died more than the Irish or that you did more than the welsh,and if the English weren't here you would have known about it......fair's fair!Bullseye30 (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the section. I wrote the Scotland section and I can assure readers that I am an American, have no agenda besides accurate history, and am completely neutral regarding politics in Britain & Scotland. The fact is the reliable secondary sources for 100 years have covered this topic with no allegation of any bias one way or the other. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

its gone,if you want to write one on the other home nations by all means feel free,but this war has been the subject of so much myth that its become almost biblical and pieces like that dont help,regardsBullseye30 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

My agenda is fairness its title is clear and your agenda is clear write one about England,Wales and Ireland or i will delete it within a week and we can just go tit for tat,Bullseye30 (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's back. You are new here and have not learned the rules about WP:NPOV but if you blank it again you will be charged with vandalism. You have not identified any "myths" that need correction. All the material is based on noncontroversial reliable scholarly sources--all of which was published long before the current debates about a Scottish vote next year. England gets about 80-90% of the coverage so it's not exactly left out. For  example all of the text deals with the UK as a whole, or with England. England gets 100% of the coverage in the sections on German raids, newspapers, news magazines, music, & poetry.  Outside the short Scotland section, Scottish topics gets two sentences. Rjensen (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This site influences a lot of people including youngsters and reading that gives the impression that Scotland was somehow distinct from the other nations in this war,it wasn't...the reason there is so much frankly bullshit about this war is articles like that,there was enough death and misery for everyone,and are you going to do an article on the other nations?probable not and your stat is wrong scotland recruited 557,618 men and as for the deaths and casualty rate even Scots cant come to the same agrement ie does it include Englishmen,welshmen in scots battalions,does it include Scots in English or Irish Battalions,and is there any account of the mass amalgamation after the massive battles of 1916,1917 or 1918?and as for "the most significant area of ship building and arms production"this needs to be clarified,ship building was a massive industry outside scotland but as for the arms industry this absolutley needs some proof,after all the north of england was THE heavy weight champion of empire heavy industry not to mention Woolwich Arsenal,so please explain?Bullseye30 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Scotland played a role indeed. As for the last snide comment, please note that I have in fact been working on articles on the economic and social history of all the major countries in the war (and include subregions, as in the case of France). See Economic history of World War I and Home front during World War I.  Rjensen (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

i'am not suggesting that Scotland didn't play an important role!but i am saying that we can ALL manipulate facts and stats for our own arguement,i have selected several areas for you to check AND MATCH LIKE WITH LIKE.....for instance its known that ALL home nations recruited around 22% of its eligable man power,and that the Woolwich Arsenal was THE largest of its kind in Europe,it employed eighty thousand people had something like twenty five miles of rail track!this of course is in the south of England......

as for the north what about Birkenhead or the Tyne for ship building not to mention the Belfast shipyards and what about the massive steel mills of Sheffield,and type in armament factorys in Nottingham during ww1 you will see a picture of WOMEN standing amdist thousands and thousands of shells.....and how important was shipbuilding DURING the war?after all the RN perhaps fought three major battles engagements and even then it was still by far the largest in the world...as for wales what about their massive contribution in terms of coal and steel?......

as for the casualties it was ALL relative for instance bradford Nothern England alone lost around three hundred men in one day on the first of july 1916 the proportion of Northern Irish men Was similar,sorry to come across rude you do seem a reasonable type and well read, but the war even now is a touchy subject,and its fair to say i didnt know the rules and i know you have probable worked hard to present this piece so i apologise i wont make ANY more changes without agreement or permission,regards...Bullseye30 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. The general policy is that Wikipedia is a work in progress and is never "complete." There is always more material that can be added.  So if topics G, H & I are missing we try to add them, we do NOT delete D,E,F.  As for the exaggerated claims re shipbuilding & munitions you mention, I deleted them and rewrote the section with a better source (the Lenman book).  As for # of casualties, that is a topic for the experts (who spend hundreds of hours of research on topics like that) and the role of Wikipedia editors is to report what the experts have said. Rjensen (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Bullseye here, young people will be reading these pages and you clearly have a hidden agenda here. Not only does it not fit with the article lay out but some of your citations are impossible to find anywhere. This section needs to be removed, please keep it all neutral.MrCromwell (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Britain Needs You at Once - WWI recruitment poster - Parliamentary Recruiting Committee Poster No. 108.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Britain Needs You at Once - WWI recruitment poster - Parliamentary Recruiting Committee Poster No. 108.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 24, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-03-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is Scotland Special?
Clearly we have had this discussion before,however it needs to be explained i have no interest in adding "Englands" role during this war where would a person even start? or for that matter Ireland and Wales so why are you still insisting on making Scotland a exceptional case,England had a population of around forty million people as opposed Scotlands Three million or so,do the mathmatics!...this piece needs either removing or the person writing it needs to be fair and do likewise for the other nations,....i would like an explanation.Bullseye30 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I find this section very strange too, with the same bit of text copied and pasted into another article. What's the point in this section? It should be in an article for Scotland specifically in the First World War because it doesn't fit with this article at all. Could you get someone to look this over as if there's one thing I dislike the most on Wikipedia it's manipulative history. MrCromwell (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Been bold and removed it. Suggest if the user wants to they can create the Scotland in the First World War article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * that leaves the article 95% about England, and has as much on a couple thousand Belgian refugees than on all of Scotland. That is a poor way to cover all of Britain. I restored Scotland and trimmed the Belgian coverage. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Restore (which I might just do now): (1) Best counter-argument is Ireland and World War I, almost as long as this article. Although I might know just enough to boil WW I Ireland down to a paragraph or two, I'd far prefer that someone better-versed in both islands' Great War rôles condense it with proper balance (both internally and with the rest of the UK article). Leading to (2) One of the Great War's more significant effects was indeed on individual regions and their relation to each other, so it deserves a major section with subsections on overall movements of people and economic activity, Town vs. Country, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the North, Greater London and perhaps if warranted the Midlands, the Southwest, the Southeast and/or East Anglia. When tenant farmers, farm labourers and domestic servants left the country estates, along with yeoman farmers, rural craftsmen and village shopkeepers, to join the war effort, they didn't all come back to the countryside after 1918, any more than American sharecroppers returned to the South. Although major changes in the franchise undoubtedly played a greater rôle, this must have affected the Parliamentary balance enough to preclude any repeat of the 1918 "Coupon" election. P.S. (3) User:Rjensen, as I've learned from interacting, although not always agreeing, with him on articles such as War of 1812 and Mayors of New York City, isn't just some Scots nationalist fanatic (a few of whom I've also encountered), but a professional American historian and an experienced, respected Wikipedia editor. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies for wandering into this discussion late. I think Bullseye30's comments were not resolved - the existence of an article on Ireland during the period is surely an argument for the creation of a parallel Scottish article. To have a section on its own here is, as has been noted, a bit odd and potentially looks like WP:UNDUE WEIGHT if left on its own. The fact that the section's first line talks about the Scottish contribution being "integrated" into the British one makes it look all the more bizarre and some of the spelling/referencing is not up to par with the rest of the article. Can it the relevant statistics not be incorporated more naturally into the article elsewhere? It is already rather massive. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, please at least attempt to reach an agreement here before reverting! Purely from the discussions above, it does seem there is a majority of users against it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the question you asked is why Scotland is special, & the answer is that historians & reliable sources treated that way. Our job is to follow the reliable sources. No one is proposing this information on Scotland's distinctive roles be deleted, the question is Whether to have a separate section or to integrate it in another section.Rjensen (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence of lead
What does it mean? "Pressured into developing throughout the war"? Makes no sense to me, and certainly does not add to the sum of knowledge. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can certainly answer the first part of that question, though the second (and obviously the question of how to improve it) look a little tougher. :) Basically, change did not come easily to Britain. To pick one example, women had been complaining about getting the vote for well over a century; to pick another, most farmers were reluctant to trade in their tried and tested horse-drawn ploughs in favour of more "modern" machinery. These were changes forced through because a war happened; without the war, they may not have done so, but without them, Britain would have had a much harder fight on her hands. I hope that clarifies what I meant by that; maybe you could suggested something that put ^ that both succinctly and understandably? Despite writing it, I never did think the lead was very good, and I know a number of editors have been improving it in recent weeks; it seems obvious now that our attentions ought to be turned to that awkward first sentence. CHeers, - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 16:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we come to bouncers like: "From Robert Graves, through 'Oh! What a Lovely War'" or did he write the first version?
 * But first! When did WW1 end?

Weatherlawyer (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of the United Kingdom during the First World War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215182305/http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151104004037/http://www.cwgc.org/learning-and-resources/publications/annual-report.aspx to http://www.cwgc.org/learning-and-resources/publications/annual-report.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219130455/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305091036/http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20issues/CMH/volume%201/issue%201-2/Pierce%20-%20Constructing%20Memory%20-%20The%20Vimy%20Memorial.pdf to http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20issues/CMH/volume%201/issue%201-2/Pierce%20-%20Constructing%20Memory%20-%20The%20Vimy%20Memorial.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting news item - miles of trenches in England
Miles of forgotten first world war trenches unearthed in England ... The Guardian

22 hours ago - The full extent of the networks of trenches and defensive fortifications built in England during the first world war has been revealed in the first survey of its kind ... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/05/miles-of-forgotten-trenches-dug-in-england-during-first-world-war-unearthed-again Peter K Burian (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)