Talk:World War I

WW1
In ww1 Germany and France declared war on each other despite both their armies being where they're supposed to be. Both Germany and France had the security system that has every power.

Britain didn't declare war on Germany until the German army had gone through Belgium. The German army is not supposed to be in Belgium. Britain had mi5 that does agent handling and surveillance, and then police that display badges and arrest people. 211.29.202.35 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @user:211.29.202.35 Write this again, making it intelligible and say what your point is, otherwise it will be removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we can be more tolerant and welcoming of people whose first language may not be English and what they say is reasonably intelligible even though some clarifications may be needed. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that tolerance should be encouraged, but contributors do have a basic responsibility to be reasonably articulate and concise. It's not the responsibility of other editors to puzzle out the meaning of an incoherent submission. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand but there is a way to be more welcoming and tactful in how we approach users, specially if they may be new. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * or wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CIR also states "We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently".
 * Asking (politely) to clarify the point would achieve the same thing, as well as modelling effective behaviours for others. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Dss 2001:9B0:2FF:F600:9818:D2F1:A13D:CA99 (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * agree 2A02:C7C:40FC:800:B59C:C975:F87E:A4BF (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe rather than complaining about how some of us acted, user's time would be better spent doing what they are telling us to do, as this is about WW1, not any editor. Comment on content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contribution; unexpectedly enlightening in various ways. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead suggestion re: middle east
I would like to propose the following addition to the article's lead paragraph on the results of the conflict. It would highlight the new middle eastern order dominated by France and Britain in place of the Ottoman Empire and the end of the Islamic Caliphate, both very important historical developments unmentioned in the current lead. This edit would also help move the lead to be less eurocentric. I would like to establish a consensus first before going through an edit. The following paragraph is the current lead paragraph of the result of WWI, and the paragraph after my suggestion.

>The fighting ended with the Armistice of 11 November 1918, while the subsequent Paris Peace Conference imposed various settlements on the defeated powers, notably the Treaty of Versailles. 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.

>The fighting ended with the Armistice of 11 November 1918, while the subsequent Paris Peace Conference imposed various settlements on the defeated powers, notably the Treaty of Versailles. The dissolution of the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian Empires resulted in the creation of new independent states in Central and Eastern Europe based on the principle of national self-determination, including Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. In the Middle East, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire resulted in a new Middle Eastern order dominated by Britain and France, as well as the end of the Islamic Caliphate. The inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. Benlittlewiki (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, this suggest that the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire led to instability causing WW2. I do not think this would be an improvement. The Banner  talk 16:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Truth Social video
Part of this article (specifically part of the first sentence of Arms race) appeared, unattributed, in a video posted on Truth Social. Since the word "Reich" is plainly visible there is naturally a widespread negative reaction, without general realization that it's referencing Bismarck's Reich. Not that it makes it much better. I tried using Press, but can't identify any RS that mentions WP. David Brooks (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I already added a press mention template (to this AP article) earlier today. Funcrunch (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed my original wording to more accurate reflect the meaning and context. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This edit seems entirely gratuitous. There are several mentions of a "unified German Reich" after 1871
 * "It was only during the 1871 unification of Germany that the newly unified German Reich was first assigned an official capital."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_of_Germany
 * "The classic expression of Bismarck’s approach to diplomacy was his 'Kissinger Diktat,' which laid out his foreign policy maxims for the unified German Reich."
 * https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-iron-revolutionary/
 * "Not only was it an independent kingdom until 1871, when it became part of the newly unified German Reich; this southern state is also home to the Alps,"
 * https://macleans.ca/news/world/no-more-bavarian-separatism/
 * And in fact is the "second" reich, preceding Hitler's Third Reich. Thus removing context around the term "third reich" instead of adding context. 108.35.187.202 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

GA and infobox collage
In light of the GA request, I would raise concerns about the use of a collage as the lead image as it relates to prevailing P&G. The purpose of the lead image is not to be a photo essay of the article subject. WP is not a picture encyclopedia. Per the WP:LEADIMAGE, the lead image should carry a representative image ...to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. We might think of a representative image as one which is emblematic. Per WP:COLLAGE, Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative [emphasis added]. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us we should not try to write the article in the infobox. This applies equally to text and images. Mutiple images stacked togeather are smaller and more difficult to see (making them more of a distraction rather than a benefit) while extensive captioning bloats the infobox when WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is better. I would observe that the placement of these images togeather is not necessary and that the collage here tends to being decorative in function and intent. WP:OTHERCONTENT is not of itself a sound rational for use. I would suggest that the present tank image is suitably emblematic. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with the collage. We cannot represent World War I with one image; that's impossible. We instead use a collage to showcase the focal points of this global conflict. Using a single image on this article is like representing the animal kingdom with a pig, which obviously serves no one. My point is that certain subjects cannot be represented by one image and this is one of them. So if we were to use a single image, what would it be? Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 10:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but the problem is that you can't capture a global conflict with six small pictures either. On my (fairly large) screen most look like pictures of lines of tiny figures in a landscape that could be anywhere in the world. You have to read the lengthy captions and click on links to figure out what the hell they are. If you need an image that seems typical of WWI, I remember one that AJP Taylor used: it shows a headless soldier lying in a trench. It's pretty graphic but it captures the horror of the war far better than the current six pictures. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

GA request
A couple of editors have worked hard to tidy up this article and I understand one has put in a GA requests. It looks like they have made considerable improvements, but I think there are still quite a few problems and it probably would have been more productive if there was more discussion of the recent changes on the Talkpage before the GA request was made. Some concerns I have are:

1) Overlinking. The lead has too many links making it look like a sea of blue. There is no need to link common words like "machine gun" and the names of well known countries etc. There are also multiple examples of the same thing being linked more than once.

2) Some of the sourcing looks dubious. There are some pretty controversial assertions which are linked to websites or media articles rather than scholarly sources.

3) I have concerns over the balance of the article: with some relatively less important events with their own articles getting too much space in what should be a high level summary article.

4) The collage and other aspects of the info box needs improvement and more input from interested editors would be valuable.

I don't have the time at the moment to make detailed edits but I would be interested in comments from other editors with good knowledge of the subject. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Is this article stable enough for an enhanced status? I doubt that. The Banner  talk 15:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have removed the GAN per WP:GANI: the edits made by the nominator were not significant contributions in terms of content, and the discussion on this page makes it clear that there are substantial issues remaining. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I QFed it but the nominator seemed to complain so I ended up G7ing it. xq 12:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders
I think the Italian leader should be changed to Victor Emmanuel III since he was King of Italy for the whole duration of the war. Orlando was only Prime Minister for about the last year of the war. Also, since both British leaders are listed, I also think that Charles I of Austria should also be listed since Franz Joseph I died about halfway through the war. Does anyone have any thoughts? 2601:84:847F:2DF0:8C37:7D5:223:722 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, entries need to be supported by the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The representative for Italy
I temporarily added Orlando as Prime Minister for Italy. But there has been changes for Prime Mimister for Italy during the war. Like Salandra then Boselli until to Orlando. Regards from Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * See comment/thread immediately above. Entries should be supported by body of article. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)