Talk:World War I/Archive 15

Relevant and referenced material being removed
The following paragraph was added under the Opposition heading of this wikipedia page on the 13th of December 2011, it was then removed, and has since been added again. Is there any explanation why this material was removed? I will leave the paragraph here, as all the references check out:

The discussion of the opposition to the War in Ireland must include the controversial experience of an Irish Soldier fighting in the British Army. An experience that has been described as one of institutional discrimination, on average one British soldier out of every 3,000 was court martialed and executed by firing squad during the war, in comparison to the much higher, one out of every 600 Irish Soldiers. The disproportionate number of Irish executions began in 1914, before the outbreak of the Irish Easter Rising of 1916.

Boundarylayer (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The deletion was justified. The whole addition is MOS:OPED and gives undue weight to the topic; this is a general article, after all. Furthermore, the accompanying image is off topic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Old Moonraker, and have removed the material. This article is about the global war, and including that material here adds undue weight to the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the deletion. I've now done the Easter Rising image, as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Too long
I suggest adding to the page wih the hope of decreasing the length of the article, thereby improving the ease of navigability, and appropriately summarising the key points of the article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there some argument for this that has not already been discussed in the archives of this talkpage? This article is ranked at 163 on the wp:Long pages, behind many less significant ones. In any case, few users are still running IE6 or Firefox 2.0, which had problems when pages reached 400k. LeadSongDog  come howl!  07:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether it has been discussed or not, is not the issue. There remains problems which have not been solved despite all that discussion. Decreasing the length, is simply a means to an end, and not the main focus. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag, leaving a detailed edit summary. As it was reverted without so much as a word of explanation, I undid the revert. As I said in the summary, certian articles are naturally going to be longer than others; the 2 World Wars particularly so. If you truly feel the article is "too long", you should either begin making some bold edits to reduce it, or propose some ideas here as to what exactly you think should be removed. Simply slapping a tag on it is lazy, sloppy editing. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't like being called lazy, it would do you well to actally read the comments here rather than ignore them, a comment was also left in the tag itself. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you lazy. I called one specific incident of your editing lazy. Big difference. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

An incident of editting is an inanimate, intangible object; it cannot be lazy or hardworking. In any case, this is besides the point. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also quite pedantic. I'm sure you know what I meant. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. My work is what it is because of me; you're calling me lazy. Are you actually going to discuss the issue of the tag, or whether or not you insulted me. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already discussed the tag and I've already stated that I didn't call you lazy. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You're still obsessed with the lazy issue. You have not discussed the tag, you just made a statement (which does not take account of the preceding comments in this section, nor the comment in the tag.) Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion of the article, not for petty quibbling or chat. Please stick to the topic, thank you.Mediatech492 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So, you don't have an legitimate reason for contesting the template? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * the article is not too long--it covers one of the most complex events in world history--one that involved many countries and has a huge amount of RS to sort through. It is divided up so that most people can find what they want quickly enough. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You are not listening, I don't care about the length of the article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "I don't care about the length of the article." Then what possible reason could you have for a "too long" tag?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As the tag suggests, the article is a challenge to navigate effectively. The artcle looks like a pot-luck of sections and sub-sections. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * that's a poor reason--anyone with a high school education can easily handle the navigation. Rjensen (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Then why don't list the template for deletion then? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When there are few or no sections and sub-sections at all things are very hard to navigate. Were good sections and sub-sections are much more helpful to navigate. What is your proposal in detail? Moxy (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a detailed plan, but I recommend a better selection of sections and subsections than the current overspecified and obscure ones. Perhaps some with main article redirects can be removed and mentioned as a wikilink in a sentence instead. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.monbiot.com/2008/11/11/lest-we-forget/ and http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWudc.htm and was added in this edit. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The removal the section "Addition to "Backgraund": July 29, (1914) Nicholas II sent a telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion "to transmit the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference"
See diff "the removal the section by Moxy" and diff "the removal the section by Lothar von Richthofen"

Moxy and Lothar von Richthofen, the fact that you (and a few other users) do not consider the discussing telegram of Nicholas II as important document of the last pre-war days - it's your personal opinions and it does not give you the right to remove this section of the discussion. Your actions (removal of the section) contrary to the rules of Wikipedia, and should be classified as vandalism. Борис Романов (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov


 * Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!  Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass!!!!.Moxy (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on April 10, 2012
Please change

to

as link is currently nonfunctional

Cheers

--Aezia (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

✅. Good eye! Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Markup mistake
In the reference Documenting Democracy there are superfluous ]]. I can't edit the article. --88.69.214.97 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sixth deadliest conflict
By what reckoning is WWI the sixth deadliest conflict? In "List of wars by death toll" it comes out (joint) fifth, and in "List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll" it comes out 8th (by lowest estimate) or 3rd (by highest estimate). 88.208.232.63 (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Artificial accuracy
Whenever you combine an estimate with an exact number, you no longer have an exact number. This problem is inherent in the numbers on the infobox. For example, it is laughably amateurish to claim that the total strength of the Central Powers = 25,248,321. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad 1st impression
Besides the problem with numbers (see above), upon reading "[war]...began on 28 July 1914" the credibility of the entire article becomes dubious. Which nations declared war on that date? (None?) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * July 28, 1914: Austria declares war on Serbia.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry (my bad) -- nevertheless, the lead just doesn't leave me with confidence in the veracity of the article, with such as: "Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovin" (no such place in 1914). -- Just saying, that in my opinion, the lead needs work. Sorry. Rather than providing a non-productive drive-by opinion, I should give suggestions that might be helpful.

The lead should be a more concise, linear summary of the article. Perhaps part of the problem is that it seems to be written ad-hock by a number of editors -- maybe all it needs is a copy-edit by a single editor. ~Thanks, E 184.76.225.106 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Central Powers in infobox
The Senussi should be included in the infobox under the central powers. They were allied with Germany and the Ottoman Empire during the great war and launched a major offensive against the british in egypt in 1915 and fought campaigns agains the French and Italians as well as arming proxies in Darfur and Mali spurring revolts in those countries as well. A third of the african continent became engulfed in conflict once the Senussis allied themselves with the ottomens and germans in 1915.XavierGreen (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No source I've seen describes the Senussi as a "Central Power". Aligned with them yes, but not one of them. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that they belong in the Other movements section of the Central Powers page. Just like the Hindu–German Conspiracy, Polish Legions, Kingdom of Finland, Kingdom of Lithuania, the Ukrainian State etc.--Avidius (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. If the Senussi are to be listed as CP allies, what about the Arabs in revolt against the Ottomans? Do they become official allies?  T.E. Lawrence   do I look like a bloody Arab?  06:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Senussi and the Central Powers had a common enemy, but having a common enemy does not automatically make you an ally. They shared no common cause with Germany and were certainly not part of the CP's overall strategy. I doubt the German High Command even knew of their existence. I think it would set a bad precedent to list them as Central Powers, since it would arguably make other rebel and counter-faction groups such as the Irish Republicans and the Soviet Bolsheviks and the Mbenga pygmies of the Belgian Congo includable as well though these groups shared no common objective with Germany at all. Like the Senussi their conflict was a separate war, the fact that it was simultaneous with World War I is only coincidental. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The German High Command encouraged the Senussi to join the war as part of a two front approach to taking egypt. They supplied the Senussi with vast amounts of arms and advisors along with support from submarines. It was not coincidental at all. I encourage you to read up on the subject, as the Senussi at the start of the war were very neutralist and only committed their forces to the conflict after being spurred to do so by Germany and the OttomansXavierGreen (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have read extensively on the subject where such reliable information is available. Total British casualties in the entire campaign against the Senussi amounted to 21 men killed. By World War I standard that is barely a sideshow at best. The Senussi campaign deserves a reference, but ally status? I don't think so. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would love to see what source your getting that from because that figure is entirely inaccurate. At the Battle of Halazin alone the British suffered 312 casualties [] The Frnech and Italians suffered large numbers of casualties in the conflict. Australian and New Zealander units were also engaged and suffered casualties. This source [] states that the South African contingent in Egypt fighting the Senussi suffered 261 dead. Virtually all of North Africa erupted in war because of Senussi influence in the region, it was no more a sideshow than any of the other african campaigns. The First World War was just that, a world war. And to fail to include non-western beligerents gives the article a non-neutral point of view.XavierGreen (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Casualties" includes killed, wounded, missing and captured. Check you numbers again. I only said "killed", check you numbers again and get it right next time. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The numbers i presented are sourced, yours are not. The 21 total killed figure you present is a complete fallacy. The 32 killed the British Dorset Yeomantry suffered at the Battle of Agagiya alone is more than that []. I believe Michael Clodfelter's "Warfare and armed conflicts: a statistical reference to casualty and other figures, 1500-2000" has information on total british deaths for the campaign but i dont have access to that source at the moment.XavierGreen (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Senussi were co-belligerents, not allies, of the Central Powers. In the infobox of the article about the French Revolutionary Wars, cobelligerents are separated by a horizontal bar to distinguish them from the coalised states. The same solution could be apply to this article. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes i think co-belligerence would be one way to describe it. And cobelligerents are typically listed to infoboxes, such as Finland and Iraq in the world war 2 infobox. The Senussi were drawn into the conflict by the Central Powers, they strived to be neutral with the allies until the Turks and Germans provided them with support and advisors that pushed them to attack the British. The Turks also had some 20,000 regular army soldiers fighting along side the Senussi. XavierGreen (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

War crimes section
I commented out most of the "Russia" subsection of the "War Crimes" section, because the references given were to unreliable sources. All of these were websites, some of which were merely "timelines" that did not cite their own sources, and others were polemical websites. Only one of the sources cited listed an author and a citation list of its own, referencing published works. I left this source and the facts cited to it.Wwallacee (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Australia?
I was reading this article when I didn't find Australia in the infobox as list of Allies? Unless I am retarded but I am almost certain that Australia was involved in WW1? In fact we had more men killed than America, so why are we not important enough to be put there? Its insulting really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * She's considered Empire, same as Canada.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  13:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No she's not, she is Australia thats the name for it not Empire. Australia lost more men than America in WW1 so why aren't we included??? Its racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.192.240 (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Australia, India, New Zealand and other countries which fought as part of the British Empire during WW1, have been added to articles describing various conflicts in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. 'British Empire' was correct then, but for the purposes of Wikipedia in the 21st century, it is more informative for general readers if all the countries which took part, can be shown. --Rskp (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ♠In 1914, Australia was part of the British Empire. She's now part of the British Commonwealth. Get over it.
 * ♠Refusing to mention a majority white nation separately from a white-led Empire is racist? That's both absurd & pathetic.
 * ♠British Empire was correct in 1914, & what opinion is now really doesn't bear on the issue. Nor is using an anachronistic term "more accurate". It may be easier to understand for a modern reader, but it is demonstrably, obviously, less accurate than using the term applied at the time.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Trekphiler, I used the phrase "more informative" - "more accurate" is your own invention - entirely. If Wikipedia used the "term applied at the time" the Battle of Katia would be known as the Affair of Katia. But "affair" is now considered anachronistic, so we have to have "battle". --Rskp (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 June 2012
World War I (WWI) was a major war centred in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. Just a typo: Please change 28 July to 28 June. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/archduke-ferdinand-assassinated

Not done: The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand led to the start of the war, it wasn't the start of the war itself. The actual war started with the invasion of Serbia on 28 July. Ryan Vesey Review me!  21:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Trench warfare
The article only mentions the problems of trenches and how both sides lacked the means to effectively break through each others lines. However, it fails to mention the benefit of them. At uni the point rammed down our throats was that trench warfare saved lifes. The casualty information presented to us showing French and German casualties on the Western Front showed higher losses in 1914 and 1918, during the periods of mobile warfare, when compared to the losses sustained during the predominantly trench based years of 1915-17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 07:00, 12 June 2012‎
 * saved lives? well it delayed your death or serious injury until a shell finally hit your trench or you were ordered over the top to attack. Rjensen (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fairly obvious, isn't it? It prevented splinter & fragmentation (& blast) from killing you as easily as it would if you were standing in open ground. It also made it harder for the enemy to see you. Concealment worked like dispersal in reducing lethality.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  12:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * the response is to lob a lot more shells, which both sides did. The problem is that you can not win the war by sitting in the trench--to win somebody has to get out and charge. (The Germans found the solution in 1918 with storm trooper tactics)Rjensen (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but not relevant to the question of benefit. The answers to greater lethality are, of course, greater protection, mobility, or dispersal. Protection tends to be the first choice.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  13:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * the troops were in the trenches under a doctrine that called for winning the war by offensive action, and therefore greater protection, mobility, or dispersal were not attempted. The point is that you were in the trenches till you got wounded or killed, which had a high probability of happening sooner or later. Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, did the massive bombardments that were employed prior to the big battles result in destroying the frontline forces? No. Lobbing more shells does not equal more dead soldiers. Otherwise your position is a straw man, having to go out and attack does not prove or disprove the fact that some - in this case my uni - made the case that trenches saved lifes (for the particular side sitting in them). At any rate, the trenches were designed to minimise casualties if a section of it was hit. The German 1918 "solution" was not the only one, the entire war was a learning curve of developing creeping barages, utilising gas, surprise, tanks etc. Your final point, isnt a point at all; it is an opinion based on popular myth it would seem. The frontlines were not manned by every soldier the army had, waiting for a shell to land and wipe them out, and untis were rotated in and out of frontline duty (The British iirc, rotated units - or attempted to - every few weeks and even them iirc the battalions holding sections of the front rotated what companys or platoons etc. were actually on the frontline).
 * At any rate:
 * French dead: 1914 (5 months) 306,585; 1915 (12 months): 334,836; 1916 (includes the battle of verdun): 217,502; 1917 (included a munity): 121,733; 1918: 225,733
 * German dead: 1914 (5 months) 240,805; 1915: 424,123; 1916 (inc the Somme and Verdun): 332,774; 1917: 310,876; 1918 (the move back to more mobile warfare for the Germans and British): 445,776
 * Source: Wall and Winter, The Upheaval of War, 1988
 * Anyalsis by Bernard Waites in uni course material, i have added the emphasis:
 * "The statistics demonstrate that the period of open warfare at the beginning of the was, proportionately, the most lethal of the whole war. Twenty-five per cent of all war-related deaths amongst Frenchmen occurred in those five months when France lost far more men than throughout the whole of 1916 – the year of Verdun. The opening months were not quite so lethal for the German forces, for 14 per cent of all their losses took place in 1914; but had their rate of loss during these five months prevailed over a whole year it would have resulted in 580,000 deaths. Armies entrenched to save lives and to exploit the superiority of the defensive a superiority much enhanced by the use of barbed wire and the deployment of machine guns in ever greater numbers. The statistics actually mask just how horrendous the initial battles were, for the French casualties were heavily concentrated in August and September. The figures should dispel once and for all the misconception that casualty rates were highest during the ‘classic’ confrontations at Verdun, on the Somme and Passchendaele."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * yes trenches extended the life expectancy of a front line soldier. The generals wanted to save their men for the attack. The policy was to rotate a unit out for a few weeks and then rotate it back in again. The number of men in the trenches was about 1.5 million on each side in 1918 [Ayers, The War with Germany: A Statistical Summary table 45 online) and these men suffered the great majority of those millions of deaths (and were of course quickly replaced when killed or wounded) -- until by summer 1918 the Germans could no longer replace their losses. If we take 1.5 million deaths on each side in 1918, say, then we have a life expectancy of six months. That's with less use of trenches than in 1915-16, so I think the life expectancy would be a bit higher in 1915-16. Rjensen (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any RS?Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * yes we have casualty totals for years for both sides and strength for 1918 for both sides (Ayers online). Surprisingly there so not seem to be statistical studies using the monthly data, or not that I have come across. Has anyone seen any? US historians only in the last few years have done the statistical work on the Civil War, so it's about time some scholar did it for WW1. The demography of life expectancy is very easy to do when you have monthly data on casualties & number of men at risk. You also want to separate out illness rates.  There is a book that claims the life expectancy for British officers was 6 weeks: Six Weeks: The Short and Gallant Life of the British Officer in the First World War by John Lewis-Stempel online but that was probably an urban legend not no statistics are actually given. Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we woud need an RS that clearly states that the Trenchies reduced casualties (after all thre are many reason why casualties may be lower from oone month to another).Slatersteven (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Slatersteven that we need good RS with good statistics--the one I cited on 6-weeks life expectancy seems to be based on an urban myth (it contains no statistics). Enigma asks, "Rjensen, did the massive bombardments that were employed prior to the big battles result in destroying the frontline forces? No." Oh no, but the generals thought it killed enough of the enemy to make an attack worth while, so they attacked. Then they did another barrage and another attack, and they all failed. To knock out the enemy you probably have to take out 30-50% of his force. That did not happen in a barrage. But suppose a barrage did take out 3%. Then the attack is a failure, but two barrages like that every week means 6% of the enemy are taken out every week and in 8 weeks half the enemy is taken out. That gives a life expectancy of 8 weeks. (Life expectancy = time in which half the starters survive --ie half are taken out by death or wounds.) Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, i agree a more RS is needed in regards to the trench situation. However, if one is saying it and it is being put forth as a solid opinion by acedemics at uni level, surely he is not alone. Where that kind of information is available, i do not know. Consulting with the wider MILHIST community may be in order.
 * Rjensen, that sure is a lot of opinion being thrown around.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * the purpose here is to a) figure out what the statistical info we want looks like and b) find a RS, if any exists, that gives it. It is not an "opinion" to say that if a general loses 1%  of his force every week (to death, prisoner, serious wounds) then he loses 50% in 50 weeks (and the typical soldier has a life expectancy of 50 weeks or about one year). That's the arithmetic of a war of attrition. What was the actual weekly casualty rate per 1000 frontline troops?? -- that's what we need & I have not seen it in any RS. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "we woud need an RS that clearly states that the Trenchies reduced casualties" Has anybody got a copy of Dupuy's Evolution of Weapons & Warfare? (I can't find mine... : I'll wager it's in there. That won't, however, go so far as to say what the weekly or monthly rate is. His Numbers, Predicitions, & War might.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * English and Gudmundsson, "On Infantry", Praeger, 1994. P. 16 "... the most widely-used projectile of 1914 (time-fused shrapnel) was deadly to men in open fields, but a mere irritant to those in trenches": So that gives you a source to say that the trench was a useful defensive technique. Whether "trench warfare" resulted in higher or lower casualties than "open warfare" given the different operational situation, I don't know; that is a different question (and a slightly imponderable one). The Land (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Algerian dragoons
At this edit an editor has removed an image based on his disagreement with the description, which is taken from the Dutch Nationaal Archief's description. I think we need to see a higher quality source to support the deletion.LeadSongDog come howl!  04:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There has never been a unit called "Algerians dragoons". It is historically inaccurate in many respects:
 * "Algerians" in 1915 designated the French settlers established in Algeria, while the natives were called "Indigènes".
 * There was no "dragoons" in the Army of Africa. In the Army of Africa, there was African Chasseurs, Spahis or Compagnies Méharistes but no dragoons, which was a term reserved to the metropolitan army.
 * There's no other reference of Algerian dragoons anywhere... Even if the "Nationaal Archief" says the earth is flat, we must keep a critical mind.
 * And what does a damn picture of cavalry, charging in a full open space, in the "trench warfare" section ??? DITWIN GRIM (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That "we must keep a critical mind" statement indicates the problem. We need citable sources. No one but you is capitalizing "Dragoons". The source describes them as dragoons, but they might have had any of several proper names. The lowercase "dragoon" description can be used in English more or less interchangably with "light cavalry", "mounted infantry", "mounted rifles". The term would definitely be broad enough to include the Chasseurs d'Afrique or the Spahis, but that isn't the term the source uses. They're pretty clearly not riding camels, so Meharistes would need some extra explanatory sourcing.
 * If you don't understand the reason the beach at Nieupoort was significant to the trench war, I'll offer the simple observation that trenches across a sand beach don't survive the tide, making them the obvious place to try and "turn" an adversary's defensive line. However, if there's another position in the article that fits better, fill your boots.LeadSongDog come howl!  19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The generic term dragoon was the one I preferred, in part because the exact term might be variable, & in part to avoid them being considered cavalry (which I'd expect the non-specialist to think). Also, BTW, if the pic stays in, IMO it would be better so described (per this edit, for which I admit some bias... ;p ).  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:15 & 23:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)French
 * This is not original research, I can give you the complete order of Battle of the French army during the First World War, with sources, and there's no mention of "Algerian dragoons". This would not be the first time that a good faith description of a picture would be erroneous. Would you mind if we change this descritpion by "Algerians irregulars", or something like that. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The horsemen illustrated are certainly Algerian spahis - note the distinctive cloaks and turbans which these French-officered light cavalry continued to wear when serving on the Western Front during 1914-15. They were however seldom used as mounted infantry and it might be misleading to retain the original dragoon caption.Buistr (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above, we need citable sources. So far, we still haven't seen citations.LeadSongDog come howl!  13:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a splendid picture and I hope that it can be retained in the article under a slightly modified caption. The Dutch Nationaal Archief has made an error in describing them as dragoons and this actual wording has been challenged by a commentator on their website - though the mistake is an excusable one when describing a hundred year old subject from another country. In common with other units from the French Army of Africa, Algerian spahis were deployed in Europe from the  very early stages of the war - though their role was reduced to such functions as escorting prisoners once trench warfare began. They did not have the training, experience or equipment to be employed as infantry and in one emergency when this had to be done are recorded as needing an hour of basic rifle drill before being thrown into the front line. So clearly not dragoons in any sense.  I don't imagine that we can come with a citable source stating that "Algerian dragoons" did not exist - they just didn't.  Buistr (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

,
A whole bunch of citations had , added in this bot edit. This does not appear useful. We shouldn't be peppering the article with pseudo-warning tags just to collect metadata - many/most of these citations do not have named authors anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Live and let live" and the Christmas Truce
This article would benifit from some mention of the "live and let live" cooperative activity between soldiers of opposing sides as well as the Christmas Truce. Wikipedia has separate articles for each of these, yet no mention is made in the WWI article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.224.124 (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

misspelling of Hapsburg family
I'm not an editor but I did notice that "Hapsburg" was spelled "Habsburg" the first time it is used in the article.


 * Habsburg is the correct spelling. Hapsburg is a variant, used in the English language for hundreds of year, but now unpopular.Eregli bob (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

spelling
I noticed mobilized was misspelled as 'mobilised' in the first paragraph. It may be an American spelling I am unaware of though.


 * This article uses British spelling, so "mobilised" is correct.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Map of the participants
If Arabia was neutral in World War I (  gray on the map ),  then what was "Lawrence of Arabia" all about ?Eregli bob (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Arab revolt did make Arabia a beligerant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In this time period it is wrong to speak of Arabia as a coherent political Unit. Parts of Arabia were under direct Ottoman control, particularly the Hejaz, while the rest was ruled by semi-independent sheiks who were nominal vassals of the Turks. There was no central authority in Arabia that all Arab leaders acknowledged. The Sharif of Mecca was regarded as preeminent among them, but held no authority over the others. It was not until 1932 that a central government was established by the Saudis. The Arabs who fought against the Ottomans were rebels, not a belligerent nation. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * yet we show parts of Arabia as beligerant.Slatersteven (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The areas marked as belligerent in Arabia were the British colonies of Yemen and Oman. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And the red sea/gulf of Arabia coast of ArabiaSlatersteven (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

German occupied territories in WWI?
Can we talk about German occupied territories in WWI? See question at Talk:German-occupied_Europe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Flamethrowers and subterranean transport
Is "subterranean" a typo?Keith-264 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Subterranean" is the correct spelling. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In context, it's "below the land surface".  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not spelling, meaning. Roads, railways, field railways, tramways and the vehicles that ply them aren't underground. Shouldn't it read "land transport"?Keith-264 (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Except, as noted, a lot of them were below the surface. Not "underground", as in "totally buried" or "tunnelled", but "below land surface", which does fit the definition.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Serbian army, fighting on two fronts and facing certain defeat, retreated into northern Albania (which they had invaded at the beginning of the war)
(which they had invaded at the beginning of the war)

This is the first time that I hear about this. Furthermore there is no reference to this in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Campaign_%28World_War_I%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_army%27s_retreat_through_Albania_%28World_War_I%29

D.milivojevic (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In Sept-Oct 1914 forces invaded Albania from both Serbia (central region) and Greece (in the south), according to Rjensen (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"An Ethnic History from Prehistoric" Ethnicity in prehistoric times :) It's not right to judge a book by its title but this is ridiculous. Anyway from that book: "Many Albanians, who are descended from the Illyrians and Pelasgians, trace their roots to Achilles and other heroes of the siege of Troy, and claim Alexander the Great as their own"

How ridiculous is that? Anyway the author (Edwin E. Jacques) has written 7 books, out of which 5 are about Albania (one in Albanian) other two about Mobile Medical Work ??? and Christian Missions. That source is... I mean really ??

Simple logic defies the author statements. In the time frame stated by the author Serbia was busy defending itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kolubara. Attack from Greece newer happened. Greeks were busy with internal political problems. Greece joined the war in 1917 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I. Serb forces retreated to Greece try Albania in 1916.

The only time that the (territory of current day) Albania was invaded by Serbia and Greece was in the 1912 during the Balkan wars. Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Albania#Independence_of_Albania_.281912.29 "The territory of what is now Albania was invaded by Serbia in the north and Greece in the south, restricting the country to only a patch of land around the southern coastal city of Vlora. The uprisings of 1910-1912, and the Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania, led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912. The independence was recognized by the Conference of London on 29 July 1913.[40][41]"

Until 1913 Albania wasn't even a state.

Since I don't have the necessary permissions I ask the editor to delete that sentence which is clearly a malicious lie. D.milivojevic (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the author cited is quite detailed and specific about what happened in 1914 -- D.milivojevic should realize that Wikipedia cannot be used as a RS. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since that particular passage is cited, do you also mean the cited sources are no good, either?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * no I mean that wiki article A can't cite Wiki article B as a source. But it is allowed for A to cite an item in B's footnotes. Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'd agree. What it looks like is, the sources attached to the quote above would appear to support the contention by :D.milivojevic. (IDK, I haven't read them.) So...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Will someone please delete that sentence "(which they had invaded at the beginning of the war)".

By now it's obvious that it is false and it has no reputable sources. (D.milivojevic (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * no the citation is . D.milivojevic has not cited his sources --how does he know what happened? Rjensen (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So you quote a obviously laughable source and in return I have to find a source that states that something did not happen?

What kind of logic is that?. I already referenced the wikipedia articles. So if you are right then those articles are wrong and they should be updated.

Lets update those articles then. D.milivojevic (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the source is not "laughable" about wwI it cites specific names, dates and places for numerous events, in a calm, neutral voice.  which is exactly the info historians need. Rjensen (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC).

Oh man. Last attempt.

About the author:

The Reverend Edwin Everett Jacques (1909-1996) was an American writer and Christian minister.

He attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, graduated from Gordon College and Divinity School,

and was awarded a Master of Arts Degree from Boston University. He also received an Honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree

from Denver Theological Seminary. As a missionary to Albania and Italy he was a teacher in Korçë, Albania, from 1932 to 1940.

Hardly a historian.

Quotes from Dr. Robert Elsie (a real expert) review of the referenced book.

"Jacques makes the fundamental mistake, as do many scholars from Albania itself, of

confusing the history of Albania as a geographical entity with the history of the Albanian people

as we know them today."

"Subsequent chapters of The Albanians are a substantial improvement. Even though they

are traditionalist in outlook and composition, they nonetheless present a wealth of valuable

material previously inaccessible to the English-speaking reader. Here again though, historical

realities are at times veiled by popular legendry and the various sacred cows of Albanian

tradition."

Anyway this is pointless. I guess nobody cares.

D.milivojevic (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that definitely does look like a low-quality source. I'd favour its removal. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2012
More than 9 million combatants were killed largely because of enormous increases in lethality of weapons. Due to new technology, improvements in protection or mobility were scarce.

Kristenjaehnert (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ as requested. Current wording is weird, but the proposed wording is incorrect. New technology didn't make improvements in protection or mobility "scarce", there was just a disproportionate amount of offensive improvement in comparison to defensive improvement. I'll try and work out a clearer wording, though. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, IDK if there's a better way to put it. It's a balance between lethality, mobility, & protection, & has been for centuries. In the 1890s, firepower & lethality spiked & the other two couldn't remotely keep up.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2012
In the third sentence of the second paragraph under Background there is a grammar error. It should read system of alliances was (not were).

24.14.164.250 (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Nice catch.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

WW1 was a very bad and horrible war here are some of the causes of world war World War 1

Imperialism was high back then China was high in Trade in silver The British started selling drugs that the Chinese really wanted The Chinese started naval battle with British with many forces The Portuguese had also taken towns from Britain British wanted lots of territories so they could have the materials/resources they wanted to trade and market At the time the US was a big moneymaker and had gotten much money from raw coal First, the Europeans wanted land from Africa in order to get more territory Next they wanted it’s recourses then many sicknesses happened to men and horses then people found an answer: technologies so they used steamboats and medicines Many countries got the word on technologies from the US to Belgium it was spread quickly and so the Industrial revolution spread by guns machinery and many more At the time Britain had conquered most of the world leaving out very few countries And also if you think that ww2 was worse you where wrong ww1 was worse because the US dident have any medican and things we had in ww2 THE END — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.211.26 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

economic results
This should be a separate subsection, not combined with health, for completeness and also for completeness it should have a table showing the amount of reparations demanded by each Allied nation. That will hammer in why Germany's economy crashed. Another completeness issue is value of damages in the Allied nations as well as Germany. 108.45.122.74 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Typos and grammer mistakes
This section:

At the outbreak of the First World War, the German army (consisting in the West of seven field armies) carried out a modified version of the Schlieffen Plan, designed to quickly attack France through neutral Belgium before turning southwards to encircle the French army on the German border.[10]. Since France had declared that the would "keep full freedom of acting in case of a war between Germany and Russia", Germany had to expect the possibility of an attack on two fronts. For such cenario the Schlieffen Plan stated that Germany must try to defeat France quickly (as had happened in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71). It further suggested that to repeat a fast victory in the west, Germany should not attack through Alsace-Lorraine (which had a direct border west of the river Rhine), the idea was instead to try to in a hurry cut Paris of from the English Channel (independant of Great Britain) (this is an awkard setence). Then the armies should be moved over to the east to meet Russia. Russia belived to need a long time of preparations before they could becomea real threat to the Central Powers.

Germany wanted free escort through Belgium (and originally Holland aswell, which though Kaiser Wilhelm II rejected) to meet France by its borders. The answer from the neutral Belgium was of course "no". Then Germany needed to invade Belgium instead, since this was the only existing plan in case of a two-front war for Germany. However also France wanted to move their troops into Belgium, but Belgium originally rejected this "suggestion" aswell, in hope of avoiding any war on Belgian soil. In the end, after the German invasion, Belgium did though try to join their army with the French (but a large part of the Belgian army retreated to Antwerp where they were forced to surrender when all hope of help was out).

Has many errors. I have bolded the errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.59.161 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Maps and urban legends
I once 'came across' a story that Germany declared war on the US because each was shown on one page in an atlas so it was thought that they were roughly the same size. Are there any other references to this? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a typical war propaganda myth. It was the United States that declared war on Germany in 1917. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox currently lists the Unitied States under "Allied (Entente) Powers" - technically isn't this misleading as the United States was explicitly not a member of the Allies and definitely not a member of the entente., but rather an "Associated Power" or co-belligerent. Should this status be reflected in the infobox?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. You're right. The United States were rather an "associated power", like you said, than members of the Allies. I believe that this should be signaled with a mere note, rather than overstocking the infobox with it. After all, most people nowadays believe that the United States were members of the Allies, I even saw once a textbook classifying them as such. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please use objective and globally accepted sources..
This section:

"In the aftermath of World War I, Greece fought against Turkish nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal, a war which resulted in a massive population exchange between the two countries under the Treaty of Lausanne. According to various sources, several hundred thousand Pontic Greeks died during this period. "

- True fact is in the early 1900's Greece made an invasion attept over the western Anatolia as a part of Greek Megalo-idea. (Greece did not fought with Turks, Greece and Turkey fought and eventually Greece lost the war. Turkish side defended their territories.)

- This section does not mention Turkish casualties. Also Turkish citizens living in Balkans also lost their homes. Mustapha Kemal was born in Thesaloniki, not in Turkey.

Objectivity is what everybody is looking for. That is just decreasing the reliability of the passage.

Thank you for your contribution

— comment added by Kutaycelenk (talk) 17:21, 07 January 2013 (UTC)

Massive article
This article is so large it is difficult to navigate. Is there an objection into splitting it up into multiple pages, particularly the sections on theaters of conflict and legacy? They are each large enough to be their own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickthewhite (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Lfstevens (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed many times before. Before !voting, please review prior discussions in the archives above.LeadSongDog  come howl!  19:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To help get started on previous discussions, here's one I found in the archives:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_I/Archive_12#Parsing_this_necessarily_LARGE_subject
 * --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Gas was used first by the FRENCH, not Germany
It's more than noteworthy that the first GAS attack itself in WW1 was carried out by the french. There is no reason for obscuring/not mentioning this fact, unless there's a biased agenda and one-sided portrayal at work here.

"It is generally assumed that gas was first used by the Germans in World War One. This is not accurate. The first recorded gas attack was by the French. In August 1914, the French used tear gas grenades containing xylyl bromide on the Germans. This was more an irritant rather than a gas that would kill. It was used by the French to stop the seemingly unstoppable German army advancing throughout Belgium and north-eastern France. In one sense, it was an act of desperation as opposed to a premeditated act that all but went against the 'rules' of war."

Source: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/poison_gas_and_world_war_one.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.43.97 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is obscuring anything. The first poison gas was used by the Germans at the second Battle of Ypres. Try reading Chemical weapons in World War I to see that this is true.


 * That article actually does confirm what the IP is saying, if you'll read the 1914 section. Perhaps the first large-scale use of lethal poison gas was by the Germans at Ypres, but the French were indeed the first to use a poisonous chemical gas in warfare. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * tear gas then and today is NOT considered poison gas; it does not kill. You can see it used on TV ebery week. Rjensen (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Poison gas redirects to Chemical warfare, which includes lachrymatory agents. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Lachrymatory agents can be either toxic or non-toxic depending on formula and concentration. Tear gas can be lethal. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That rather misses the point. Tear gas was not intended to be lethal and was very far from being a reliably lethal weapon. One could as easily say that ether was used even earlier, but that would be just as irrelevant. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If that is the point you want to make you will need an RS that shows that the French gas was intended to be non-lethal. The issue of lethal or non-lethal is hardly an irrelevance when talking about poison gas. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Conversely, you'd need an RS for an assertion that tear gas was intended by the French to be lethal, a rather more surprising assertion.LeadSongDog come howl!  06:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ethyl bromoacetate, which was used by the French in 1914, has an NFPA 704 health-risk ranking of 3—the same as chlorine—and has an EU classification of T+ (very toxic) with risk-phrases R26/27/28 (very toxic by inhalation, skin contact, or if swallowed). Put simply, it is a dangerous poison gas, and the French were first to use such a weapon in the war. No way around that. Now, the Germans were indeed the first to employ chemical weapons on a large scale and to significant effect, and I have changed the wording of the article to reflect that. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable wording. Though I still find the discussion above misdirected (the danger of ethyl bromoacetate is chiefly one of blinding by eyes contacting the liquid), per wp:NOTFORUM I see no point in further pursuit of the question.LeadSongDog come howl!  20:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

German starvation caused by blockade alone?
"About 750,000 German civilians died from starvation caused by the British blockade during the war." Might the diversion of labor and food into the German military have had any effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.95.62 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * the blockade prevented imports of one-third the usual food supply, and prevented the import of extra food needed by the army and to replace lost farm labor. No blockade = no severe food shortages.Rjensen (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Prisoners of war
" Over half of Russian losses (as a proportion of those captured, wounded, or killed) were to prisoner status" - it's too questionable statement, as far as I know the number of Russian losses was 24-31 %, "over half" sounds unconcrete and is close to fantasy. The totale number of the Russian losses as POW was 2 417 000 men, you can see the figure of 3 350 000 only as a pure theoretical calculating of the number that "could have been", but it is not prooved at all. Where from comes this figure - 2 900 000 POW held by Russians? Mostly it is stated that Russians took 2 200 000 captives. The figures of the died in the Russian camps (here it is commented to be 15-20 %, in German Wikipedia 25 %, in some other sources - even 40 %) is very unclear and sounds also like a guess - after Revolutions in 1917 it was not possible to control the figures or statistics, lots of Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks were "missed" but they did not die in inprisonment, they went away during unorder and took part in the Civil War (on the side of bolscheviks or on the side of the White army). Here - http://profismart.ru/web/bookreader-115250-24.php - it is stated that only 2,5 % of POWs died in Russian inprisonment, and in the Central powers imprisonment the number of died Russians was 8,3 %. (Farmount1989 (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC))

"The deaths of nearly one million men"
In World_War_I, the article says this...


 * World War I further compounded the gender imbalance, adding to the phenomenon of surplus women. The deaths of nearly one million men during the war increased the gender gap by almost a million; from 670,000 to 1,700,000.

I'm pretty sure that WWI had tens of millions of casualties, and most of them were men, so this statistic must refer to a specific country. The US maybe? The articles doesn't mention and there is no inline citation for this statement. I've tagged for clarification. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that the US's losses during the war were only a fraction of what the European powers lost, I'd say it's almost certainly not the US. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect that figure refers to the United Kingdom's casualties, not including those from British Empire and Dominion contingents. The total for the UK itself is just under 1 million. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire
this was not a war crime, this was internal affair. Also only 14 people died, its a joke being along the armenian genocide where 1 million people died. Trotsky killed more Russians than these pogroms.--Quandapanda (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Dominions?
The Dominions became independent in 1931; before that their foreign policy was controlled by Britain. In 1914 none of them had ambassadors or a ministry of foreign affairs. The decision for war was made by the British Prime Minister and announced by the king and the dominions had no choice or voice in the matter. It was veru different in 1939, when they did have a choice. Tucker (Ency WWI p 258) says "Canada did not make an individual declaration of war in August 1914"; Pimm (Leo's War  p 21) says "in 1914 no declaration of war was required of Canada to enter the war." Gough (Hist Dict Canada p 439) says "won the right to declare war independently in the 1931 Statute of Westminster."; Encel (Equality & Authority p 421) says, "In 1914, a declaration of war by the British government automatically committed Australia." Perry (Commonwealth armies p 123) says "When Britain declared war in 1914 she did so on behalf of the Empire as a whole.... the Dominions' Armies saw themselves as Britons from overseas increasingly they began to see themselves as Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders." Rjensen (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with whether or not the dominions were belligerents? The infobox shows them indented from Britain to indicate the partial subordination, but they were clearly countries with their own parliaments. They each made their own choices as to how extensive their participation would be (how many troops, how much to spend, whether to conscript, etc.) and some (Canada and Australia iirc) had their own signatories at Versailles. In any case, the infobox has a long history of edit warring. Please don't become part of that history. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Only Britain itself was a belligerent--it called the shots and set the terms for war and peace and all its possessions automatically went along. Lots of British possessions sent soldiers and none of them were in any way independent. Flying their flag is no doubt motivated by local patriotism but that's not how the war happened. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This argument is nothing new, check the archive and you find this topic has been discussed before. There is no need to repeat it again ad nauseum. The consensus to date has been to include the Dominions in the list. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC. I note that Southern Rhodesia is listed in the box even though it did not become a self-governing entity until 1923; the appropriate (i.e., extant) analogous entity would be BSAC-chartered Rhodesia. Clearly there needs to be some rethinking here. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No objections have been raised, so then-nonexistent Southern Rhodesia has been removed. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the links for each of the dominions in the infobox.. they are inconsistent (maybe?) the links for the British Raj, Dominion of Newfoundland, and the Union of South Africa all link to the articles for the respective governing bodies during wwi.. but Australia, Canada, and New Zealand link to the articles for those countries general articles.. shouldn't they link to the articles for those countries during wwi (if they exist)? &asymp; Sensorsweep (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's apples and oranges. The British Raj, Dominion of Newfoundland, and the Union of South Africaare all political entities the existed at the time but now been revised into a different form; whereas Canada, Australia, and New Zealand still exist in the governmental form they had at the time. Linking only to the military history pages would be only telling half the story as the War was not just on the battlefield. The politics of the day and efforts on the home front are vital parts to the story too. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to take the time to suggest adding this photo. Credited to: "Maxim machine gun". Photograph. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Web. 10 May. 2013. . I believe that this article was executed very well and covered the general events of the war as well as provide the necessary details. Additionally the images provided within the article captivated the destructive outcomes felt on both sides during this War. the only reason why I would like to add this photo is to enhance the information already apparent. I loved that this photo was a more closer view of the soldiers who fought in the war versus a wide scenic type of photo. I hope you will consider such changes. PGiddy (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is free content. You can't simply take any picture from the internet and post it to Wikipedia. Doing so may violate copyrights, which is taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Please make sure the picture you are referencing is free to use and distribute before uploading it. Thanks anyway, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Names of the countries
In 1914 "Russia" offcially called Russian Empire, as well as "Germany" called German Empire and "Austro-Hungary called" Austro-Hungarian Empire. What is more, British dominions became independent in 1931, so why the British empire is divided into dominions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.139.44.132 (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This question is answered in the Article on Dominions. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Trench warfare continues (1916–1917): Cleanup
I've been making a few edits to sections to improve flow and lower the detail level for this high-level, generalist article, but I think this section needs a bit more attention - additions as well as subtractions - than I'm comfortable making without comment here first.

The first paragraph is mostly good info (except for the last sentence, which is needless detail at this level), but it's entirely British-focused. The section should have a overall Allied approach instead, adding in French and other Allied forces and if possible, balancing this with German lines on the other side. There's also no cites for this stuff.

The line "Most of the casualties occurred in the first hour of the attack" is not needed.

French and German casualties for Verdun should be added, as that was easily equivalent to the Somme, and would go nicely with the Somme casualty mentions.

The quotes by Ludendorf really don't appear to accomplish much of anything. They're too specific (and unaccompanied by outside explanatory commentary) to illustrate any larger point, which is what we should be doing at this level. If it is desired to say that the Germans felt artillery was supreme or that German troop quality was beginning to decline heavily in 1917, the section should just state that outright, and leave the bulky quotes for subpages.

Lastly, Vimy Ridge was of relatively minor significance in the war, but is incredibly important as a foundational Canadian event. I think the reference to that battle should be framed as such: otherwise it continues to keep the door open to a mention for every small battle and nationalist contribution. The true significance of Vimy (which, to Canada, is large) is in myth, not its impact on the war. Palindromedairy (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

/* Trench warfare begins (1914–1915): Detail on gas usage
Hi. Some of my edits on this section were reverted, restoring detail regarding the initial gas attack at Ypres. I would assume the basic criteria for inclusion in the WWI article as a whole would be "does the reader need to know this to have a broad understanding of the First World War?". I would argue that the material I had cut is not that sort of knowledge. Stating that it was the Algerians who were gassed and ran away, and the Canadians who plugged the gap, doesn't tell the reader of a generalist WWI article anything of importance. Certainly, knowing that a few battalions fought in Kitcheners' Woods is completely unneeded. The significance here, IMO, is that


 * a) gas was first used at this date in this battle, and
 * b) it was not decisive.

Mentions of individual units and nationalities don't really serve to actually explain anything suitable to this level of detail, and, I think, should therefore be preserved in the sub-level articles expressly set up to be more exacting. I feel it's exactly this sort of detail which has made the article so long and unwieldy as it is. Thanks. Palindromedairy (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Terms
Can I get others to watch out for the deletion in the lead about how WW1 is also called the great war. For some odd reason someone keeps deleting the alternative names from the lead ...they are not doing so to the section on names or the main article - thus have no clue what there intent is. I think they believe the term great war is wrong or perhaps they have a problem with the source.... anyway to me this is comomknowledge .. is there even been a scholarly dispute about the terms? Need to know why a section of the lead that has been there for 10 years us now being deleted? Moxy (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Irrespective if it's true or not, QI is not a reliable source for the information. ( Hohum  @ ) 23:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your saying - but I assume you see the 6 sources that have been here for 10 years right. What could the editor have a problem with? the word "great"?Moxy (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see one reference in the lead for the naming of the war, it is a link to an episode of QI. ( Hohum  @ ) 23:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok moved the refs so there is no more confusion.  We have no need for sources in the lead when its covred in the article - but added them anyways so all can read them... but as i said before have no clue what the concern is ?Moxy (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of terms, I reverted an earlier edit which claimed that the war was generally called WW1 (instead of "The Great War" or "The World War") between WW1 and WW2. This is contradicted by two of the sources cited (Tomb of the Unknowns, and Those Extraordinary Women of WW1). The article does mention some cases where someone referred to "World War One" earlier than 1939, but that doesn't prove it was GENERALLY called that. Pfalstad (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Pfalstad on this point ("some cases where someone referred to "World War One" earlier than 1939, but that doesn't prove it was GENERALLY called that"). Sometimes people focus blindly on "First-Ever"-type occurrences (such as "the first time anyone ever called the 1914-18 war the first world war"), but human history is not substantially about those. Just because a few people occasionally called the Great War "World War I" or the "First World War" before 1939, when it was merely a cynically accurate prediction about human proclivities for war, does not mean that the opening of this lede should be shaped by that usage. Thus the word "predominantly" in the current version of the lede. — ¾-10 18:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Extra references and help needed
Some of the references don't appear to be used, so I've moved them here instead (they may be suitable for the List of books about World War I article): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , reviewed at
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres
 * , tells of the opening diplomatic and military manoeuvres

Also, the references "Keegan 1968" and "Keegan 1988" don't match up the works in the bibliography (we only have a Keegan 1998) - could someone please have a look at this? Similarly for "Fromkin 1989", "Posen 1984" and "Wheeler-Bennett 1956". Thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding further references made redundant after my recent series of edits: Palindromedairy (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Effect on religion
There is actually a very great deal of writing about the despiritualizing effect World War I had on religion -- I simply added a quote which was handy, as it appears already on the Pandeism page. But there is much, much more to be found -- enough I would suggest to have an entire page just on this subject. DeistCosmos (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * yes there is enough for a separate article on the long-term impact on religion. Neo-orthodoxy is an example. But a poor quote from a very obscure magazine that appeared early in the war (in the USA, which was neutral) won't be useful. Rjensen (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The naming of the World War I
I had looked at an episode of QI before coming to the wikipedia site, and whether or not it's true, I'm not sure, but here's what they said: It was in 1918 that a man named Charles à Court Repington, a war correspondent and a British army officer, that on the 10th of September attended a meeting at Harvard University to discuss what historians were to call the war. They agreed upon "The First World War". He also published a book in 1920 called "The First World War".

Therefore, I'm a bit sceptical as to "From the time of its occurrence until the approach of World War II in 1939, it was called simply the World War or the Great War, and thereafter the First World War or World War I." is entirely correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.69.158 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Background and the 1870-71 war
I think several issues are missing under the Background headline. *It simply jumps from 1815 (without mention the Vienna congress) to 1873. Jumping over f.i. the "revolutionary year"s 1830 and 1848. And above all no mention of the Franco-Prussian war 1870-71. The French Emperor Napoleon III declared war on Prussia in July 1870, was defeated at Sedan in September. The new French Third Republic was formed and Germany got united as an Empire etc. France lost Elsass/Alsace and a part of Lothringen/Lorraine. This was indeed a matter that caused revanchistic feelings in the Third French Republic. It also led to the Boulangerism, antisemitism and the Alfred Dreyfus process, which lasted for more than a decade and lacks known parallells (of that magnitude). It caused French nationalism to prosper more than what elsewise would have been the case. I don't give the entire blame of the war on France, not at all. But France was well as "guilty" as Germany was. Or any other of the large European Nations. (While the United States cannot be blaimed at all) The Background part calls for huge improvements. Boeing720 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to reiterate the entire geopolitical history of western Europe in the 19th century, there are other articles for that. There is an entire separate article dedicated specifically to the Causes of World War I Repeating it all here would be unnecessary redundancy. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not the entire geopolitical history of western and eastern (not to forget) Europe in the 19th century, but most certainly all wars between the Vienna congress to the Balkan wars of 1913. The rising of nationalism as such, and indeed within the Habsburgian Empire, the weakening Ottoman empire made Austria-Hungaria less importaint. (When The Donau-monarchy no longer was needed as a defender against islam and the Ottoman empire, actually led to (southern) Slaves no longer needed fear the Turks. Hence their own independencies became more importaint. This was cynically used in pan-Slav Russian propaganda - but at the same time Russia concidered northern Slaves (Poles) as something completely different. Why else having a Background headline ? In that case - we must look for low importance parts in the backgroud, and replace them with the most imperative events that led to the outbreak. All involved Nations ougt to be presented from 1815 to 1914 (if there are significant matters that's forgotten there now.) Surely the Franco-Preussian war, and its outcome is an essencial factor. I'm not impresed by the current Background headline. Coming to think of it - Causes of World War I should deal only with the last year or so before August 1914. And everything else actually belongs under the Background Headline. Britain had problems with France during the African colonization, but the German Nave became gradually stronger under Tirpitz. That scared the Britittish, but why ? Wellington and Blücher had joined forces at Waterloo. The Prince of Wales was indeed cousin (and friend) with German Empereror Wilhelm II, the grandson of Queen Victoria etc. Common Encyklopedias (book) usually gives a good background in thematter. Especially Encycklopedias that was edited during the 1920's and 1930's. Why schould Wikipedia not follow this it up to (the same) standard as older Encyclopedias. Shall of course have a look at suggested page though Boeing720 (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All those facts are mentioned in Causes of World War I. That article is about the causes of the war, this article is about the war itself. This article is already extremely large and we have therefore created separate sub-articles so that these topics can be given the attention they deserve without making this article ponderously large and unreadable. Nobody it trying to to oppose the inclusion of any information, it just needs to be included in the right place. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Humiliation
The lede ends with ".....weakened states, renewed European nationalism and the humiliation of Germany contributing to the rise of fascism and the conditions for World War II." It's clear that the conclusion of WW1 was represented in some quarters, particularly in Germany, as the humiliation of Germany. By comparison, however, with the end of the Franco-Prussian war and the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, is it correct for the article to, in effect, represent humiliation as an undisputed fact? As far as I can see, the body of the text does not do so. Gravuritas (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Historians are agreed that the great majority of Germans felt humiated. I added this:  Schulze says, the Treaty placed Germany, "under legal sanctions, deprived of military power, economically ruined, and politically humiliated." Rjensen (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source, but effectively that was my point. I think there's a difference between the way the lede sentence is phrased (=humiliation was inflicted on Germany) and a statement that the great majority of Germans felt humiliated.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important in the top to say that the League of Nations failed because the United States never actually joined because of political arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.93.15 (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead image: DR
The collage in the infobox has been nominated for deletion, because it contains a non-free image. I suggest that this image is replaced with another one that is free; I'll leave it to the community to decide which one should be this. --Eleassar my talk 18:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please update the missing title image with the one provided
Please Update the title image of the article with the one provided below as it is currently missing. I managed to retrieve the original image and upload it at the location below:



or

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WW1_TitlePicture_For_Wikipedia_Article.png

Holostarr (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Holostarr, the image was actually missing from the template WW1InfoBox.
 * I have updated it there. Best Regards -- Marek  . 69  talk 23:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have updated it there. Best Regards -- Marek  . 69  talk 23:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2013
The beginning date isn't July the 28th bt it is June the 28th 1914

86.136.177.180 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As I understand it, while Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated a month earlier, war was first declared—and shots were first fired—on July 28. Rivertorch (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in World War I
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of World War I's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "history": From Warsaw:  From Austria-Hungary:  From Guelph:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not Gavrilo Princip
The picture does not show arrest of Gavrilo Princip but another man, Ferdinand Ber. This mistake has been discovered and discussed here, here, here,... I propose to change its caption.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting...although it seems like we'll never know for sure which one of them is on the photo. There seems to be very few literature sources mentioning both Ferdinand Behr and Gavrilo Princip. Perhaps we should say "This photograph is usually associated with the arrest of Gavrilo Princip, but some[source ref] believe it depicts Ferdinand Behr, a bystander." I think it could be a good idea to start a short article about this photo, and explain the discussions about it. Then all the caption texts could have an embedded link to it, so that further information can be reached quickly, without having a "wall of text" below the image. - Anonimski (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=ferdinand+behr&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22ferdinand+behr%22+%22gavrilo+princip%22&tbm=bks
 * Thanks for your reply and interesting idea about new article. If there are enough sources and material it might be really feasible.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Antidiskriminator, how about something like this? With 250px width, the explanation fits on three rows of text. Anonimski (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

5th or 6th?
Article says WWI was the 5th deadliest war in history, but linked article says it was 6th. Please update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.4.215 (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect link
In the lede of this article there is this statement: "Although a resurgence of imperialism was an underlying cause" with "resurgence of imperialism" linked to the article on Neocolonialism. This does not seem to be an appropriate article to link to, as in the lede of the Neocolonialism article it is characterized as a post-World War II phenomenon. Aside from one single image of World Empires of 1898, the rest of the Neocolonialism article also seems to deal with it as a mid-to-late 20th century issue, indeed pointing out the term was coined as late as 1965. I suggest the Neocolonialism link attached to "resurgence of imperialism" be removed (perhaps linked to a more appropriate article if anybody can think of one).--146.90.245.55 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The image depicting the arrest
There's an image described as being taken at the arrest of Gavrilo Princip. There is a problem with it, as User:Antidiskriminator noted, and it's that it may actually depict another person, Ferdinand Behr. Right now, there are four usages of the image. Earlier, I devised a new caption that also reflects the fact that it is, and has historically been, commonly associated with the arrest of Princip.


 * This picture is usually associated with the arrest of Gavrilo Princip, although some believe it depicts Ferdinand Behr, a bystander.

(References)

I'm going to update the four captions now. If anyone has further suggestions on the issue about this image, please write here in this thread. Anonimski (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for edit in the section on the July Crisis
In the second paragraph of section 3.3, there is what appears to be a typo: "However, Germany refused to negotiate, declaring war against Russia on 1 August 2014." I'm pretty sure that this happened in 1914, but I can't edit this page. When someone has the time, could he or she please fix the typo?

Thanks, Van Guldar (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ thank you for taking the time to point this out. -- Moxy (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Images
I'm taking the following two images out of the article:

The first one is a bit redundant, since there already is another picture from the same hospital. The remaining one shows the inside of the ward, and may have more encyclopedic value than just the royal couple standing outside.

The second one is not a photo, but a sketch of an event. Perhaps a photograph should be selected for that section, but I'm removing the image for now, since it makes this article look rather bad.-Anonimski (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing a bit of image repositioning now, in order to improve the look of the article and make it less crowded. If anyone has suggestions/complaints, do tell. - Anonimski (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(post by unsigned user)
I'd suggest someone might want to add Japan's 1902 military alliance with Britain to the section on military alliances. Although Japan didn't play a significant role in the European war, the alliance and subsequent military action against German colonial possessions in China were used as a pretext for military action against China as a whole. prefix:Talk:World War I/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.195.1 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gavrilo Princip a Yugoslav
Why is Gavrilo Princip called a Yugoslav nationalist, is there any question that he was a Serbian nationalist? Is it really realistic to look for a common Yugoslav cause or was it only a vehicle for a greater Serbia? Somehow it is difficult to imagine a common cause between all the nation mentioned in Yugoslavism, even the groups as there are Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrins and Muslims having the same language have seldom seen things the same way. Especially the Serbs were only interested in a "Yugoslavia" under Serbian Leadership.Jochum (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had the same thoughts when I started to look up publications on WWI and expand articles about that era, because the high school history I had in Sweden stated the same things as you're talking about, without much further details. However, the description here on Wikipedia has (roughly) its foundation in the following information:
 * Princip has described himself as a Yugoslav nationalist, supporting South Slav unification
 * Princip's political focus was anti-Austrian rather than pro-Serbian
 * Also, the movement he was in (Young Bosnia) was not purely Serbian, not even the group of assassins was mono-ethnic
 * In the article Yugoslavism, there is actually a sourced reference related to what you're talking about. There, it says that people in Serbia had ideas about a "centralized Yugoslavia that would in effect create a Greater Serbia within it" - but it would be incorrect to copy that description and apply it to Princip himself. - Anonimski (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think we get with this a biased view of this history with calling Gavrilo Princip a Yugoslav nationalist.
 * Gavrilo Princip was a Serb living in Bosnia.
 * Gavrilo Princip tried to join the Black Hand, clearly a Serbian organisation, and failed.
 * Gavrilo Princip moved to Belgrad in 1912, after the rejection of the Black Hand he trained with Chetniks, a Serb nationalist and paramilitary organization.
 * I see a lot of reasons to call Gavrilo Princip a Serb nationalist rather than a Yugoslav nationalist, he associates with Young Bosnia after he failed to integrate into the plain Serbian organisations.194.144.89.8 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Black Hand consisted of both Yugoslavists and those that supported a Greater Serbia. All the information we have about Princip points to the fact that his political opinions were centered on the Yugoslavist ideas. We can't synthesise some other ideological labeling for him here on Wikipedia, from these things that you presented. Anonimski (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be pretty easy to synthesize the fact that he was a Yugoslav nationalist. Regarding the all, it would be interesting to see some facts, quotes anything regarding the Yugoslav nationalist. Yes the Black Hand had the aim to unite all South Slavic areas... under the Leadership of Serbia. It was founded by members of the Serbian army, the clear aim was a greater Serbia.Jochum (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, a good example can be found in the lead part Gavrilo Princip article. Anyway, I don't really know what you're arguing about now, the Black Hand or Princip? The article about the Black Hand already describes the different political interests that could be found among the members - both Yugoslavism and Greater Serbia (and you can also see the same in the article Young Bosnia). Anonimski (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

de:Titus Türk (german version)
In relation with this you may be also interested in this guy and create an own avatar about him.1970gemini 10:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean an article? If you think it would be good to have it in English too, be bold and start it here: Titus Türk. Just make sure that you include the sources while doing the translation. A good idea would be to start the work in your personal Sandbox page, and then move the content to Titus Türk when it's done. Anonimski (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I did it in german and I think it'll be also interesting for you too. But my english is far away from being good enough for this wiki. And to put it to google-translation would perhaps give you only an idea... Regards 1970gemini 18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The map


I am removing the picture with the map (see thumbnail), since it is a bit problematic. Right now it is rendered in the sections "Background" or "Prelude" (depending on screen resolution), but many of the participating countries joined a long time after it started.

Some other discussions about the map can be seen here:


 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:WWI-re.png
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:WWI-re.png

This article's infobox contains a good enough overview of the involved countries, and the map is more suitable for the article Participants in World War I which has the purpose of providing more detailed information.

- Anonimski (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014
Please change: World War I (WWI or WW1), also known as the First World War, was a global war centred in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. From the time of its occurrence until the approach of World War II, it was called simply the World War or the Great War, and thereafter the First World War or World War I.[5][6][7] In America, it was initially called the European War.[8] More than 9 million combatants were killed; a casualty rate exacerbated by the belligerents' technological and industrial sophistication, and tactical stalemate. It was the 5th-deadliest conflict in history, paving the way for major political changes, including revolutions in many of the nations involved.[9]

To: World War I (WWI or WW1), also known as the First World War, was a global war centred in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. From the time of its occurrence until the approach of World War II, it was called simply the World War or the Great War, and thereafter the First World War or World War I.[5][6][7] In America, it was initially called the European War.[8] More than 9 million combatants were killed; a casualty rate exacerbated by the belligerents' technological and industrial sophistication, and tactical stalemate. It was the 6th-deadliest conflict in history, paving the way for major political changes, including revolutions in many of the nations involved.[9]

The last sentence is wrong by saying it is the 5th-deadliest conflict in history... and if you click the Hyperlink you have prove that it is the 6th and not the 5th.

Thanks

CDRR123 (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC) ✅. Changed phrasing to "one of the deadliest conflicts in history", since exact numbers are impossible to establish in situations like this. Anonimski (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

British, not US English
Fairly cheeky to try to change to US spelling for WW1- try looking up the number of theatre(s) vs theater, for instance. Gravuritas (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Gravuritas: Why do you think it’s cheeky? The US had just as strong national ties to the article as the Brits. The theater v. theatre is the same issue and proves nothing. see here I think a better word would be mobilization – whoops I meant mobilisation. It is not worth edit warring over so I’ll just let it go. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no cause for dispute here. Per Wikipedia policy: WP:ENGVAR the article was orignally written in British English and therefore this article is mantained in that style. There is no national or linguistic issue at stake, it's just a precident was set at the beginning and there is no cause to change it. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting point: if true. I found that the earlier versions bounced back and forth with both spellings used for mobilization(US) / mobilisation(UK). I could not find the creation article, did you? Nowhere in Wiki Policy does it say that the original version sets the style. Believing a precedent was set is your interpretation: not Wiki’s. There certainly is no evidence this article has been maintained in British English, in fact I would say for the bulk of the time from 2003 to 2013 the article used US spellings – not that carries any weight. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been a few very small talks in the past with UK English winning out.. the first being  7 years ago Talk:World War I/Archive 3  and again in 2008 Talk:World War I/Archive 12. That seen we have many more editors involved now a days and things can change. I personally agree with the statement  "British English as WW1 is mainly a European affair and British English is the European variant of English" and the fact the war did not involve the US as full participants for sometime and were not part of the original military alliances or arms race. -- Moxy (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the British words fit better in this article. Certainly the Brits did more fighting and produced more scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It makes no nevermind to me which variety is used in this article, but I felt it worth replying that Manual of Style does indeed provide for using the first non-stub edit as a sort of arbitrary tie-breaker. Therefore it's incorrect that "Nowhere in Wiki Policy does it say that the original version sets the style." The original version can set the style if no other factor (mainly, years of consistent style during an era long after the earliest edits) supersedes, per Manual of Style. But as for what consistent style this particular article ever had or didn't have, I leave the history-combing to others who care sufficiently in this instance. — ¾-10 00:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath/Legacy
Im a little surprised that neither section really covers the post-war cleanup in France and Belgium to restore land to cultivation, rebuild villages and towns and so on. And the fact that casualties are still caused by First World War munitions even today (2 killed, and several wounded in Ieper just yesterday). I see there is a brief mention in the standalone Aftermath of World War I which also links to Iron harvest. Deatisl ofthe clear up might also fit under ecomnomic impacts, as it was the ehavy industrial areas of France and Belgium that had some of the greatest impacts. David Underdown (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The German Empire
May I ask if it's necessary to add the German substates like Prussia and Saxony in the info box? Germany was united as one nation, they didn't have separate military's.Cowik (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, to a reasonable extent they did. There was a unified command sure, but then that also applies to the British Empire.  David Underdown (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not long ago I read some interesting reading about the 1918-1933 period, and it told of how the Bavarian army, although obviously a part of the unified pan-German Reichswehr, was nonetheless a subculture of its own with plenty of Bavarian separatist sympathies. Some officers dreamed of seceding from the Prussian-led Empire and restoring the Bavarian monarchy. Of course many Prussians and other strongly pan-German groups (including the Nazi Party) found this separatism quite annoying. Anyway, it's an interesting illustration of how an empire or federation retains some separateness among its pieces. — ¾-10 22:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"First World War" supposedly not used until 20 years later
The assertion that it wasn't called the First World War until just before WW2 is manifestly wrong. Repington's The First World War was published in 1920. This article is locked, so perhaps someone with administrator rights could correct this howler? Thanks.


 * As far as I can tell, the article says that Repington's 1920 book was called "The First World War." It also says that the expression was used in September 1914. I'm sure if we were to look hard enough we would find earlier examples.


 * The point is that Repington et al used the term to differentiate this war from other wars of a different nature, i.e. the first global, as opposed to non-global, war. The common usage is a simple ordinal, to distinguish this war from other wars of a similar nature (of which, as it happens, it is generally agreed there has been only one): the first global, as opposed to the second global, war.


 * In other words, Repington & co are using the word in the sense of "never before": first love, first spaceflight, The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face, is this your first child? etc. It does not presuppose a second. People like Churchill, Bloch, Wells, Robida, and so on predicted a first world war without using the expression. This football season could be the first in which Manchester United fail to finish in the top three of the Premiership. You cannot deduce from that that there must be a second occasion, because it hasn't happened yet. Although I'm sure it will.


 * I think this passage has been protected because some people couldn't or wouldn't accept the subtleties of the difference, and were not really grasping the situation. It should be possible to write a paragraph that explains the above quite succinctly. No howler. Hengistmate (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on major conflict infobox
A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk</i> 06:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Prisoners of war
In subsection "Prisoners of war", paragraph 2, this sentence suffers from punctuation:


 * "However, conditions were terrible in Russia: starvation was common for prisoners and civilians alike; about 15–20% of the prisoners in Russia died (in some researches it is stated that 2.5% of prisoners in Russia died, and in Central powers imprisonment—8% of Russians."

Better might be:


 * "However, conditions were terrible in Russia where starvation was common for prisoners and civilians alike. 15–20% of the prisoners in Russia died (though some sources state only 2.5%). Of Russian prisoners in Central Powers' camps, 8% died."

That is: eliminate unnecessary colon, firm up the weak phrase "about 15–20%", and fix that half-parenthesis.

I didn't actually change the article, however, because the underlying facts seem extraordinarily extreme and I have no reliable resource to verify prisoner casualties. From 15–20 percent died, ranging down to only 2.5 percent according to some researcher. What are the sources and why such a vast discrepancy? John Sinclair (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Misinterpretation
"The suffering engendered by the war, as well as the failure of the British government to grant self-government to India after the end of hostilities, bred disillusionment and fuelled the campaign for full independence that would be led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and others" This line makes it out to appear that the reason for the campaign for full independence was fuelled by the disillusionment of the world war and not because of the "the draconian rule of the British who had embarked on a project of rather rapid expansion and westernisation that was imposed without any regard for historical subtleties in Indian society." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Indian_Rebellion_of_1857

Change it to this: "The suffering engendered by the war, as well as the failure of the British government to grant self-government to India after the end of hostilities, bred disillusionment and further fuelled the campaign for full independence that would be led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and others"

117.221.182.245 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Morche

Canadian Soldiers
Canada a country of only about 8 million sent 600,000 people into the war. Just wondering why this page is being so disrespectful and not listing them under the "strength" column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.I. Historian (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no disrespect in fact or implied. As you will note the number listed for the British under strength is the number for the entire British Empire, including Canada. If you have a more accurate breakdown of Strengths for the Empire and Dominions then please add it. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Orthographic Correction
In the section "Support" you can see "Fasci Riviluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista". It's wrong, I can say so because I'm Italian, the correct name is "Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista".

--93.42.84.100 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Personal observations and Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Also, the article on it.wikipedia.org is unreferenced. We have an article, Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria, which suggests this is not the right name for the organization which ever way it is spelled, but without a source I am reluctant to change this article. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I changed the -vol- syllable, which had a mere typo for the Italian word rivoluzionario. The 'i' key and the 'o' key are next to each other. As for masculine plural vs masculine singular, though, I wouldn't know without research. — ¾-10 15:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

reason for the non inclusion of British India in the Infobox.
Why is British India not listed in the list of Allies of WWI? Considering that the Indian Army contributed over 1 million men who served overseas and saw action in some of the bitterest battles in all theaters of the war, their non inclusion seems either like a gross oversight or a downright malicious act.

That the fact that other countries and dominions of the british empire, which contributed less than a 10th of the indian contribution, are listed under the allies column , just makes this far more degrading than it already is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.173.63 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * fixed Pvpoodle (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

World War I end date
The article states that the war lasted until November 11 1918. It is true that the vast bulk of the fighting ceased at 11am on that day, but the declarations of war, the first of which was issued on 28 July 1914 (by Austro-Hungary upon Serbia), were not legally rescinded until the treaty for peace, the Treaty of Versailles, was signed on 28 June 1919. Even as late as May 1919, the German government were baulking at the developing treaty into which they were denied any real input and there was a real danger of a return to fighting. The date of the armistice is just that, an armistice, not peace.WelbeckLincs (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, Versailles only ended the war between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany. Austria signed the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 10 September 1919, and it was a further year until Hungary signed a peace treaty. Not to mention a final peace was not established with Turkey until 1923.
 * As for the "real danger of a return to fighting", that is pure hyperbole and not supported by any established history of the Paris Peace Conference. The Allied and Associated Powers may have threatened to go back to war if the treaty was not signed, yet by that time they had already occupied the Rhineland and established bridgeheads on the east bank of the river. Germany was in no position to resist.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Peace treaties
Since the US signed separate peace treaties w/the Central Powers, should those be mentioned in the infobox w/the other peace treaties? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * yes i think they should be included. Rjensen (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Rape of Belgium"
This passage does not reflect the tenor of the main article "Rape of Belgium" - where it is quite clearly stated that the whole term was a trick of the British "Anti-Hun propaganda". - It was a terminological substitution, from "violation of Belgian neutrality" to "violation of Belgium" to "rape of Belgium". - The typical scheme of hate mongers at all times in history - to represent the enemy as a ferocious, vile an all in all sub- or under-human monster.

"Over half the German regiments in Belgium were involved in major incidents." - And the other half in minor incidents?

What kind of incidents were these. A sinister spree of crimes against peaceful, completely non-combatant civilians? - Or were these incidents caused by attack of regular Belgian forces and even more paramilitary vigilante type of belligerents?

There has been a breech of violation of Belgian neutrality, no doubt. But it appears very obvious that the Belgian King, who was very much in charge, had taken sides already before the German invasion with France and Britain. And from the moment of the German inroad his Belgian acted as an anti-German warring party.

Within hours after the first German troops had entered Belgium the British Army started to deploy in full combat readiness on the side of the French. - There is no reason to believe that they would not have done that if the Germans had not started their action in Belgium.

The material that underpins the article "Rape of Belgium" gives reason to assume that "Over half the reports of German war crimes and atrocities committed in Belgium" were the result of a frantic, dissolute and almost rabid British propaganda against the "Huns", a propaganda which is known to have directly appealed to British soldiers to "wipe off the Huns from earth".

And it has to be said that there have been no reports of similar propaganda deliriums on the German side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry362 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 January 2014


 * the Rape of Belgium article clearly states that the atrocities against Belgian civilians were real, massive, deliberate and by the Germans. Schoilars in the last 30 years have proven this without a doubt using the records of the German army. Rjensen (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2014
Typo where "Russians" should be changed to "Germans" "In the east, the Russians" should be changed to "In the east, the Germans". (Pertains to the opening of hostilities on the Eastern Front and the two German Armies which were involved, and is an obvious mistake -- as written it talks about Russian armies that were in reserve to attack France being moved across the German Empire by train...

Xmbecker (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit-undo.svg Undone: This request has been undone. Refer to Special:Diff/618534751  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 14:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is probably WP:RD/H material, but the text after your reversion (or before my edit) seems a bit strange. "In the east, the Russians invaded with two armies. A field army, the 8th, was rapidly moved from its previous role as reserve for the invasion of France, to East Prussia by rail across the German Empire. This army, led by general Paul von Hindenburg defeated Russia..." Unless I'm terribly confused, presumably this "field army" belongs to Germany? If so, does that mean this a different army from the two Russian armies described in the first sentence (in which case there should be some sort of transition)? Anon 126  (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 14:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Russians invaded East Prussia with two armies. In response, Germany rapidly moved the 8th field army from . . . " Is that better? Hengistmate (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Much better. Should I add it or let you do it?  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Do_It Hengistmate (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Responsibility for the outbreak of the war
This article places the responsibility for the outbreak of the war during the July Crisis squarely on the Central Powers. I think this is wrong. See what the corresponding text on the French Wikipedia says:

"After consultation with Germany, July 23, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia in ten points in which it required that the Austrian authorities investigate in Serbia. The next day, after the Council of Ministers held under the chairmanship of the Tsar at Krasnoe Selo, Russia ordered general mobilization for Odessa, Kiev, Kazan and Moscow military districts and fleets of the Baltic and the Black Sea. She also asked for other regions to accelerate preparations for general mobilization. Serbia decreed general mobilization on 25 and at night, declared that they accept all the terms of the ultimatum, except the one claiming that Austrian investigators visit the country. Following this, Austria broke off diplomatic relations with Serbia, and the next day ordered a partial mobilization against this country for the 28th day, the refusal to approve its ultimatum five days earlier, she declared war on Serbia.

On 29 July, Russia unilaterally declared - outside the conciliation procedure provided by the Franco-Russian military agreements - partial mobilization against Austria-Hungary. Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg was then allowed until 31st for an appropriate response. On 30th, Russia ordered general mobilization against Germany. In response, the following day, Germany declared a "state of danger of war." This is also the general mobilization in Austria on August 4. Indeed, Kaiser Wilhelm II asked his cousin Tsar Nicolas II to suspend the Russian general mobilization. When he refused, Germany issued an ultimatum demanding the arrest of its mobilization and commitment not to support Serbia. Another was sent to France, asking her not to support Russia if it were to come to the defense of Serbia. On August 1, after the Russian response, Germany mobilized and declared war on Russia."

- Owain Knight (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2014
World War I (WWI or WW1), also known as the First World War, was a global war centered in Europe that began on 28 June 1914 "Please Change to 28 July 1914, which is the same date that is on the sidebar of the article (along with being the correct date in general)",[5] and lasted until 11 November 1918.

209.201.113.4 (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

✅ - I think the confusion may be that the shooting at Sarajevo was on 28 June, but the actual War did not start until 28 July, when Austria declared war on Serbia - Arjayay (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

British English
I think it would be the correct thing to do by adding British English to the requirement section of the talk page. This has long been on ww2 and should be done on ww1.--9999 (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The first revision of the article uses both American and British varieties of English. Since there are no strong national ties (both countries participated in the war) you can't declare one variety by fiat. Just because World War II uses British English has not effect on which variety of English is used on this article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No strong national ties? Entry date April 1917 vs August 1914? Number of casualties? It's got to be British English- no contest.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Entry dates are irrelevant and it wasn't a British war. It was a war that involved many countries around the world, including the US and the UK. That is why it is called a World War. Both countries have ties to the war. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It was a war that did not involve the US for two and a half years. Both countries have ties to the war, but the British ties are much more important than the US ones.  Take a tour around some villages in Britain and find the war memorials- everywhere.  Entry dates are clearly important in determining the strength of the national ties.  Firstly you assert baldly that there are no strong national ties, and then when two determinants are cited you dismiss one and ignore the other.  Comparing the involvements, Britain was in it for more than twice as long and had more than six times the casualties.  And that amount of blood constitutes a significant national tie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravuritas (talk • contribs) 20:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Gravuritas (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If there are no national ties, and the original article had a mix, the choice is down to consensus and fairly arbitrary, by fiat is as good a way as any. Unless you have a better argument for American English than British. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * How about that the previous stable version was American English, and per WP:ENGVAR, should not be changed without gaining a consensus first? —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oxford English- covered before.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What format is more popular for English speaking Europeans?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * How about dying in the war being a strong national tie? What is a stronger national tie than that?
 * Gravuritas (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the script-assisted change of English variant from US to British, because the script also changed someone's name. And also because I agree with the above, there is no compelling argument based on national ties that would require use of British English here. However, having looked at the oldest version preserved in the history (it seems clear that this is one of the articles where the oldest revisions were lost in a server crash), I disagree that it is in a mixture of national variants: it uses "mobilized" and "armoured"; that is Oxford spelling. At present the article is in US spelling (once more), useing for example "sizable" and "airplane". I submit that under WP:ENGVAR it should be returned to the Oxford variety of British English. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been talked to death. See the archives. For 1914-17 the US involvement was at most peripheral, except as a merchant profiteer. The rest of the English-speaking world was in it up to the neck. Hence the vast majority of the English-language source material was written in BrEng. Any justification for using AmEng would have to be based on either the highly dubious proposition that more US readers are interested in the topic or the nearly as questionable one that the 1918 engagement of the US was decisive. In short, the article would belong in BrEng even if ENGVAR didn't say so. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please actually look at WP:ENGVAR. All of the examples of strong national ties are things that are entirely part of a country. The UK does not have exclusive connections to the war, and therefore has no claim under WP:ENGVAR to have the variant changed. WP:ENGVAR also requires that the article not be changed, so this article must be restored to its version before the initial illegitimate English variant change. Otherwise it seems like we would need to use Canadian English, given that they were in the war every bit as long as the UK...  Oreo Priest  talk 20:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which harks back to the point, what variant of English is the most used across Europe when utilizing the English language?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is irrelevant to ENGVAR.  Calidum Talk To Me 22:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would argue it is very relevant. ENGVAR states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation."
 * In this case, we are talking about than just the UK and USA. The "European Commission Directorate-General for Translation" argues that British English should be used in EU publications. That would be a strong argument for the article, about a war for the most part fought by Europeans, being in what is the standard variant of English in Europe. Which, it would seem, is British English. I am not cementing myself on that position, although that is the way I am leaning at the moment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the fact that part of the first world war was fought in territory that speaks British English that is the United Kingdom it would give it strong national ties to the event. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a rule (tho not an abolute one, since I don't always remember ;p ), I use Britlish when writing on a European subject. Not least because, in what I've read, non-English-native speakers will default to Britlish. My $0.05. ;p  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  16:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly support British English here. The Brits did the fighting and they wrote most of the histories--it's far more central to them (& to Australia & NZ & Canada) than to USA, where it gets fare less attention. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that Canada doesn't use British English? And it's far more central to Canada than the UK; the two most recent sets of Canadian banknotes each had one only five denominations be about WWI:, . Of course, all of this is moot, because the subject isn't exclusively British, and therefore had no claim to British English under WP:ENGVAR.  Oreo Priest  talk 07:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There are stronger national ties to Canada than to the US for WW1, but there are far stronger ties to Britain. I suspect that your 'exclusive' criterion has been invented by you: please provide a specific reference for this.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you even read WP:ENGVAR? Every single example of strong national ties is a topic completely exclusive to one country (or two in the case of the EU). There is no policy or precedent in support of it being in UK English because "it mattered slightly more to them".  Oreo Priest  talk 15:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, because of the examples, a strong national tie means an exclusive national tie? For goodness sake, even American English is surely capable of distinguishing between 'strong' and 'exclusive'!  You are asserting that, if it isn't exclusive, it isn't strong.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that British English does have the better claim here. The United States was always the junior partner among the Entente Powers in the Great War. That said, this discussion is starting to get repetitive and silly. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But WP:ENGVAR makes no provision for slightly better claims. As an Entente Power, which lost over one hundred thousand men, the US also has a strong national tie.
 * Regardless, I agree that it's clear that there's no consensus to change, which means this article will stay at US English.  Oreo Priest  talk 07:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Slightly better? An extra half million dead? Phooey.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong national ties? How about the French, Belgians, Germans, Austrian-Hungarians, and the Brits all of whom were in the war from the start. Currently, there appears to be policy in place stating that British English should be used. Considering the Europeans, it would appear, have standardized on British English then it seems that should be the answer, and the squabbling over who has the better claim (the Americans or the Brits) is irrelevant.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Europeans don't have any national variety of English (except for of course the British, Irish and possibly Maltese). And what policy would it be that states that "British English should be used"? I am not aware of any, as WP:ENGVAR certainly says nothing of the sort.  Oreo Priest  talk 15:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Europe these days = EU and it uses British English. Rjensen (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I quoted the policy above. The EU stipulates anything translated into English should be in British English. Considering the French, Germans etc have stronger national ties to he war than anyone and there governments abide by policy that states British English to used, that checks practically everything on the engvar list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Furthermore, the vote appears to be 8:2 (I am on my cell so that apologize in advance for any miscount) in favor of change. Regardless if you disagree with the argument that Europe uses British English, consensus has been established.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the EU stipulates British or Irish English should be used. As in any national version that is part of it is equally legitimate. But you appear to be correct about the consensus; see below.  Oreo Priest  talk 21:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The EU style guide, from the European Commission Directorate-General for Translation (http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf ) only refers to British English.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoting from that very document: "For reasons of stylistic consistency, the variety of English on which this Guide bases its instructions and advice is the standard usage of  Britain and Ireland  (for the sake of convenience, called ‘British usage’ or ‘British English’ in this Guide)."  Oreo Priest  talk 07:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Which you will note does not say anything about "Irish English".
 * This ones a no brainier to anyone that has read-up or studied this topic. Its obvious what should be chosen - should do best by our readers...as in the spelling of terms they will see in the sources - not modern videos but real academic sources. To put it simply "it was a  global war centred in Europe " Most would tend to use British English for European subjects, but that is a matter for Wikipedia-wide consensus.  -- Moxy (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This should definitely be in British English. I used the ENGVAR script to change this article into UK spelling a few weeks ago and am still getting grilled from it. Oreo is also suggesting that Commonwealth Realms (which have nothing to do with the US whatsoever) be in American English. World War I should be in British English with accordance to WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. Everything else is irrelevant. Should we hold a vote on this? ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 11:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You changed this page (and dozens of other pages) without establishing a consensus which was an obvious violation of ENGVAR, and everyone at AN/I agreed. You still haven't cleaned up your drive-by ENGVAR switching (which you have been required to do on pain of block), which is why you're "still getting grilled from it".

Conclusion
Let us be very clear. The fact that Britain is in Europe emphatically does not mean that all European subjects should be in British English.

That being said, as the lone remaining dissenting voice participating, I think I am permitted to declare that there is a consensus in favour of British English. Though I in no case agree with the reasoning (ENGVAR does not call for a measurment of to whom it mattered most; countries that do not speak English have no national variety of English) at this point that is moot.

suggested Oxford spelling would be most appropriate. I've taken the liberty of adding a template to that effect to the header of this talk page, but if anyone disagrees they can of course say so.  Oreo Priest  talk 21:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * May I ask whether, when WP specifies that the variety of English used is British English, it is usual that it specifies the sub-type of British English- in this case Oxford English? As far as I can see there are only about 200 pages in WP that specify Oxford English.  As this is an unusual degree of specificity, why are you suggesting it in this case?
 * Gravuritas (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I explained my reasoning above, but I have no strong feelings on the matter. Yes, WP:ENGVAR does make allowances for that level of specificity. The point of the template is to promote consistency and prevent edit warring, and intra-British English edit warring is no more productive.  Oreo Priest  talk 21:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't explained any reasoning beyond quoting someone else's suggestion. I haven't seen any intra-British edit warring in this article on Oxford vs non-Oxford, so that's a straw man point.  As so few pages in WP have been set to Oxford English, either such edit wars are extremely rare or the Oxford enthusiasts have lost virtually all of them.  Now accept the defeat of American English in good grace and stop trying to make things difficult.  Setting the engvar to British is good enough.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't any reasoning beyond Yngvadottir's suggestion. I don't mind if you change it.  Oreo Priest  talk 21:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014
The Great War began 28 June, not 28 July! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-27978407

78.149.161.168 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * June 28 is when the Archduke was assassinated, war wasn't declared until July 28. The date that war was declared is the official starting date.Dkspartan1 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per above. Sam Sailor Sing 07:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does the opening sentence state firmly "...(WWI) began on 4th of August 1914..." when this was the merely the date we joined the fray? Chrysippo (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014
Reverting incorrect change in dates.

Tbrien88 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

✅ - again - Arjayay (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - Gavrilo Princips
Article incorrectly states the assassin of Archduke Ferdinand, Gavrilo Princips was a Yugoslav nationalist. This is rather difficult when Yugoslavia didn't come into being until following WWII, largely due to the efforts of Marshal Tito [& almost immediately began falling apart upon his demise, ultimately leading to the Balkan Crisis in the '90s.] Princips was a *SERBIAN* nationalist, as other conspirators in the plot are correctly identified as elsewhere in the article. Can someone make this update? TIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.102.29 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - read more about Princip's political aims as he described them while in court. The group of assassins wasn't even mono-ethnic. And there was a Yugoslavia before WW2, it was a monarchy that came into existence shortly after WW1. - Anonimski (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The kingdom that was created after WWI was called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, illustrating the fact that Yugoslavia was a composite federative state, not a national state, and the breakup of Yugoslavia is further evidence of that. - Owain Knight (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It existed under the name Kingdom of Yugoslavia for the majority of its duration. Also, we're talking about a man who died in the late 1910s - a war that occured during the 1990s can not be "evidence" in this context. - Anonimski (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Momčilo Gavrić
I don't think the following paragraph on Momčilo Gavrić, the youngest known soldier of World War I, belongs in this article (it's currently in the "Serbian campaign" section in "Opening hostilities"). It's too specific for such a broad article; it doesn't make sense to mention individuals unless they are iconic leaders or representative examples of a trend. Gavrić is not very well known, and I don't think his example illuminates any broad reality about the Serbian campaign. He might fit better in a section about youth in the war, but even then he wouldn't be a great representative example since he's literally an extreme case.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"This campaign had the youngest known soldier of World War I. Momčilo Gavrić, born in Trbušnica, joined the 6th Artillery Division of the Serbian Army when he was 8 years old, after Austro-Hungarian troops killed his parents, grandmother, and seven of his siblings in August 1914."


 * Agreed. Inclusion doesn't seem warranted.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura
 * Agree. When the article covers the battles on the Western front in a summary level of detail, the "Serbia" section is far too detailed by comparison Slac speak up! 21:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, removing! —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind—Lacrimosus already took care of it. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is 4 August a hallowed date?
I'm glad our article says the war started on 28 July 1914, the date of the first declaration of war by one state against another (Austria against Serbia). Then on 1 August, Germany declared war on Russia. Only on 4 August did the UK declare war against Germany and enter the fray. Yet, certainly in Australia and, I suspect, throughout the anglo world, the centenary of World War I is being celebrated tomorrow, 4 August 2014. This would be like dating World War II to 8 December 1941, the date of the entry of the US into the war, ignoring the earlier declarations by other countries going back to 1939. So, why does the anglo world appear to ignore the declarations of war by Austria and Germany, which predated the entry of the UK to the war? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In a sense, you've already answered your own question - it's the action of the "Anglo World." But you can also make the following argument: Because that's when it became important for the British Empire, and it was a vague possibility even up to days prior that Britain would not join the war and it would thus be far more limited in scope. So 4 August was when a "World War" began. I'm not necessarily advocating this line but you could argue it if you were so inclined. Slac speak up! 21:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * brilliant point, Jack of Oz. Does the article reflect your wisdom? I hope it does, and the end date too needs to be given flexibility as English Wikipedia is'nt just for Anglo-World. Meanwhile, I think the whole BBC approach has been rather too western-front & trenches centric.Rodolph (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014
Concerns: section "German Forces in France and Belgium".

The following sentence puzzles me : "France also wanted to move their troops into Belgium, but Belgium originally rejected this "suggestion" as well, in the hope of avoiding any war on Belgian soil. In the end, after the German invasion, Belgium did try to join their army with the French, but a large part of the Belgian army retreated to Antwerp where they were forced to surrender when all hope of help was gone."

1. From my own readings, the general Belgian plans were to resist an invasion and retreat in Antwerp in waiting of the guarantors of Belgian Neutrality. I'm not aware of any intention to join their army with the French although it is true that the forces in Namur (1-2 division size) retreated with the French. They eventually joined the main Belgian army in Antwerp by sea (TBC).

2. The Belgian Army in Antwerp did not surrender. The city surrendered with its garrison but most of the field army was able to retreat to join the front before the battle of Yser. Some retreated in the neutral Netherlands where they were interned in camp for the duration of the war.

If need be I can provide additional source sources but the wikipedia page on the siege of Antwerp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Antwerp_%281914%29) gives sufficient details for a correction. In any case, I think the sentence lacks references.

JCVdS
 * Yes check.svg Done Removed the entire paragraph. I'm no history expert but

1) there is no source for this paragraph in a otherwise well sourced section. 2) I can find no mention of Germany trying to move their forces freely through Beligum or France wanting to do the same in the Western Front, Schlieffen Plan, or Siege of Antwerp (1914) pages. 3) as with JCVdS, I see discrepancies between this paragraph and the more detailed and referenced information in the Antwerp page.

Feel free to restore the content with sources. Cannolis (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

1914-1918, or 1914-1919?
Christ Church college, Oxford has a Roll of Honour (means " Benjamin Veje Smolt sutter den" in danish ) to those who fell in the Great War 1914-1919. If it is 1914-1919 for a learned and great UK institution such as that, please someone tell me why does Wikipedia have the Great War as 1914-1918? Could I change the Wiki page to 1914-1919?Rodolph (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We'd need something a little more substantial than that to overturn the massive collection of cited evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you misread the plaque? LeadSongDog come howl!  00:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Christ Church College Roll of Honour includes men killed in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.Mediatech492 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * They're not alone. Over the years I have seen a few semi-official references to the war ending in 1919.  But it's clear it ended in 1918, on 11 November to be exact, which is why that date is remembered annually.  There were 50 days of peace in the remainder of 1918, before 1919 arrived. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * OTOH, that was when hostilities ceased, but countries were still officially at war with each other until peace treaties were signed, which did not occur till 1919. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Which treaty does one pick? One might even argue for the entry into force of the Treaty of Lausanne as the real end, in 1923. Perhaps this explains the focus on Armistice Day.LeadSongDog come howl!  03:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen a few like this myself, and gravestones for soldiers who died in late 1918 and into 1919 (presumably of wounds?). However, the vast majority of the he literature on the subject shows that the war ended in 1918 following the collapse or surrender of all the central powers. 1918 has to be the end date and as the article shows now, that the peace process was sorted out starting the next year. So a vote for the status quo.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Most memorials (I am being generous, every one I have seen) say 14- 16 18, Technically the war did not end until the last belligerents made peace, and that I believe was 1941. Just how "technical" are we going to be?Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * please re-read- for 14-16 I think you meant something else.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Typo, altered.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies, just about the right side of dismissive or rude. In my travels I have seen 1914-1919 if not almost as often as 1914-1918 certainly enough times to have it taken seriously. Here's an extract from something called the War Memorials Trust which has a sound and tolerant perspective:


 * First World War dates on war memorials. 1914-1918 are the most common dates for the First World War found on war memorials obviously commemorating the year the war commenced and the year the armistice was declared, on 11th November 1918. However, it is not unusual to find the dates 1914-1919 on First World War memorials. The 1919 date refers to the year when the Treaty of Versailles was signed. This was the peace treaty drawn up by the nations who attended the Paris Peace Conference and officially ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers when it was signed on 8th June 1919. Some war memorials also feature the dates 1914-1921, although this is less common. On 25th August 1921 the United States of America signed a separate peace treaty with Germany, the Treaty of Berlin. As explained above, there are no ‘rules’ for war memorial inscriptions so any of these dates are correct as the local community decided to use the dates which were most appropriate.''Rodolph (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote says 1914-1918 is most common on memorials, and likewise in history books. Amazon lists 1805 history books with "war 1914-1918" in the title vs 445 for "war 1914-1919" --that's a ratio of 4:1 by the experts who pay attention to the titles of their own books Rjensen (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about this, Victory Medal (United Kingdom)? Victory-Reverse.jpgph (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * May I ask, why the addition to your previous comment suggesting that those of us who disagree with you are being "dismissive or rude"?
 * As for the latest suggestion, the article in question does not support your point. Assuming, as the article is without many inline citations, the article is correct, it states:

To qualify for the Victory medal one had to be mobilised in any service and have entered a theatre of war between 5 August 1914 and 11 November 1918. ... It was also awarded to members of the British Naval mission to Russia 1919 - 1920 and for mine clearance in the North Sea between 11 November 1918 and 30 November 1919.
 * Not exactly a ringing recommendation to change the dates within the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * EnigmaMcmxc, I did'nt say what you said I said, I did say that some of the comments were almost 'dismissive or rude', but not quite dismissive & rude, which is different from saying they were. I'm very sorry if I myself appeared rude, especially as I am grateful for the time people have taken to answer the question. The point about Amazon is very interesting, I really like it, but perhaps a bit A priori and a posteriori? I'm not saying that it should be 1914-1919, but 1914-1919 ought to be given due credence in any writing of the War ; why else would that official UK medal given to hundreds of thousands call it The Great War for Civilisation 1914-1919, the copy I have of it was given to someone killed in 1917?Rodolph (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason for the 1919 on the medals is they are given for service in the unit -- most units in UK and US were disbanded in 1919. That is they were disbanded AFTER the war ended. The article is about the war, not about the regiments that served. Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See: Christchurch war memorial, note 1914-1919.Rodolph (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It really isn't just churches that do this. For example, the The Cenotaph, Liverpool's cenotaph, and the war memorial across the river in Birkenhead, and nearby small towns such as Widnes, to name a few example.
 * On the flip side, the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior notes the war being 1914-18, as do other major and minor towns and cities such as Chester, Southport, Runcorn and private memorials (pals battalion?) such as this to name some more examples.
 * Without evidence to back the following opinion up, I would be inclined to suggest it is not just a variant of the official end date (1918 for the armistice and 1919 for Versailles), but also a reflection of the impact on the various local communities that the war had* (as mentioned earlier, people dying of wounds**, the various campaigns that took place in 1919 etc). Hence, I still think that the dates should be reflected by what the general consensus of historians is. Thus far, I believe that is 1918. Not to mention, thus far, this discussion is very British-centric.
 * (*)I am not sure if you are from the UK, if not then it should be pointed out that every city, town, village, and community has a war memorial to the First World War (later, generally, added to for the Second World War). There would literally be thousands of examples for both sides. **As an example, there is a very solemn cross to a soldier, just outside of Liverpool, who died on 17 Feb 1919. One can only assume he died of wounds inflicted during the final campaign.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Italy
In the 'belligerents' list in the upper righthand part of the page. Italy was a Central Power during WWI. Not Allied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.93.48 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, while Italy had been allied, and technically - if I am not mistaken - was up until 1915, with Germany and Austria-Hungary as a member of the Triple Alliance they did not join the war on the side of the Central Powers. Rather, they sided with the Triple Entente/Allies and entered the war in 1915 against Germany and Austria-Hungary. See, for example, some of the titles available on the subject: here and here. Furthermore, Italy formed one of The Big Four who played a decisive role in the formation of the peace treaties at the Paris Peace Conference. I hope this has helped to clear up some confusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

July crisis
Zedshort wishes to add that Austia-Hungary's declaration of war was for ..."for its [Serbia's] refusal to approve the ultimatum of five days earlier". However, a couple of sentences earlier there is an assertion backed up by a reference that the "... ten demands that were intentionally made unacceptable to provoke a war with Serbia". So A-H's declaration of war was not for the reason that Zedshort is trying to insert- that was just an excuse. Gravuritas (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ultimatum means take it or leave it. As the Serbs rejected one of the demands, it means they rejected all of it.

Better word choice might be:: " for after its [Serbia's] refusal to approve the ultimatum of five days earlier" Zedshort (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Either AH declared war because Serbia rejected one of ten demands, or they declared war for another reason.  As the referenced claim explains that the demands were "intentionally made unacceptable", then the reason for AH's declaration of war existed before the demands were made.  You are confusing the stated reason for the declaration of war with the actual reason.  Your desired clause implies that the reason was the rejection of one demand.  It wasn't, so the clause should not be in the article.  The maundering above about what the Serbs did or did not do suggests that you don't understand this distinction.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You've made a distinction without a difference. Precisely what the motivations for AH to present such demands were and precisely why Serbia rejected those demands is of interest to academics that want to go very, very deep into the subject. This however, is an encyclopedic article that needs to be written at a simpler level and to say the war was declared as Serbia rejected AH's ultimatum is perfectly reasonable. If you want to write an article on the subject of AH's ultimatum and why Serbia rejected it you should do that, but for the purpose of this article it is reasonable to say that AH declared war on Serbia after the ultimatum was rejected; keep it simple. I suppose at this point I will have to find a quote from a history of the war and insert it into the article that states explicitly the reason for the declaration of war. That ought to be sufficient. If the source says the reason was Serbia's rejection of the ultimatum that should be good enough. Zedshort (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Septemberprogramm
"On 9 September 1914, the Septemberprogramm, a possible plan that detailed Germany's specific war aims and the conditions that Germany sought to force on the Allied Powers, was outlined by the German Chancellor, Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg. It was never officially adopted."

The above has just been removed with the following diff. I think this needs to be discussed. The Septemberprogramm is one of the more discussed documents regarding the motives of Germany. In my humble opinion, it deserves mentions (not necessarily in the above wording if that was the intent of the removal).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it as it seemed to be of questionable purpose and seriousness even at the time written. The amount of space devoted to the "document" seemed out of place in this simple article. Perhaps a simpler mention and a link to the source would be of value. I am sure there are many thousands of similar documents that would explain or qualify why this or that was done before or during the war that if inserted would clutter this article beyond usefulness. Zedshort (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are underestimating the significance of the document. The document has been a focal point of debate for over sixty years and has been argued that it not only outlines Germany's prewar aims (a debated point in itself), but that Germany followed the overall guideline of what was put to paper until the end of the war.
 * While I am sure there are editors who can write up a sentence (or more) and source it much better than I can, the removal from the article with the argument provided seems rather weak. I would suggest reinserting it into the article - as it stands above - with the intention that its inclusion can be better worded and sourced.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again I will say, articles need to be kept simple and the amount of writing done on a particular subtopic should be kept in proportion to its importance to the subject. Other authors have questioned the document from different angles. If they find it questionable then it's reasonable to class it as being of little value to this article. Keep it simple. Zedshort (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I dispute your line of reasoning. I honestly do not see how an additional sentence, which shows that Germany historically came up with a list of war goals, is over complicating the article? The above paragraph, while it needs sourcing and perhaps work, avoids the debate that surrounds the document (did it show pre-war goals, was it over optimistic ambition at the height of success, was it followed throughout the war, never mind the whole Fischer-Ritter argument). It was simple. Its removal takes away part of the war's narrative and has not even been inserted into the See Also section. How is the common reader suppose to be aware of its existence?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should they be aware of its existence if it is of little consequence? The list sounds like something drawn up as a schoolboy exercise: If I was King. Unless it was adopted as a statement of war goals by some very high authority, then it is of only peripheral interest. If the document is of debate among scholars of the subject, then it really has no place here. Zedshort (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-war plans are very important to explain the motivation and strategy of the leadership. Compare the enormous attention given to the postwar plans of the winners (Wilson's 14 points). Historian Jonathan Steinberg has argued: "Had the Schlieffen Plan worked, a German victory like that of 1870 might well have occurred on the Western Front and Bethman Hollweg’s September Memorandum would have been realized. [cite: Jonathan Steinberg, "Old Knowledge and New Research: A Summary of the Conference on the Fischer Controversy 50 Years On," Journal of Contemporary History (April 2013) 48#2 pp 241-250, quote on p 249] Rjensen (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And your point is? Zedshort (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Steinberg's point is that the Germans nearly won in the war in September 1914 and they would have enacted their September program. That's very important in history. Rjensen (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite clearly, removal was unwarranted. It is not just some random item thrown into the article to cause confusion, it is a key part of the German story.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the document is mentioned in published books, and encyclopedias, and is not subject to great debate among scholars of the subject then it should be mentioned for what it appears to be, a wish list of what they would do if they won. As it was it stuck out like a sore thumb and seemed of peripheral interest. Keep in mind there are probably many similar documents that could be mentioned but is there appropriate room for all those also? This is a very brief treatment of WW1 and you need to ask how much weight each sentence should be given. Put it back in if it meets the criteria for an encyclopedia. Zedshort (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Similar documents??? none for the Central Powers & it's hard to think of any such for the Allies in 1914. I think it is quite important for it shows what top German leaders were fighting for shortly after the war began, and at a time the goals seemed realistic because they were apparently winning. Compare the Atlantic Charter of August 1941 for WW2 goals. Rjensen (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * removal is absolutely unwarranted. It illustrates the causes for which Germany wished to go to war, and the treaty of brest-Litovsk shows that Germany intended to implement the programme, or something like it.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
Bulgaria and Romania are switched in the fourth paragraph. In the 4th paragraph last sentance, it reads "Italy and Bulgaria joined the Allies in 1915, Romania joined the Central Powers in 1916, and the United States the Allies in 1917." Romania and Bulgaria should be switched Icook1723 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The rest of the article says Bulgaria joined in 1915, not 1916. Stickee (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The requested change has been made by a different editor via the following diff.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the view on the war after its conclusion
It is mentioned in the article that the war was a struggle between militarism and liberal democracy. Britain was not a democracy, it was an empire, just as Germany was, and none of the countries had universal suffrage. How was Austrian-Hungary's response to the Serbian national movement any different to how Britain and France handled uprisings in their respective territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.62.75.204 (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your premise is flawed. Britain was, and still is, a constitutional monarchy. While Britain held an empire and its rule differed across it, the ideas of liberal democracy were core and had been around for several hundred years. Parliament held power and over the centuries who was allowed to vote slowly increased. The last general election prior to the war saw a turnout of around 5 million voters whereas the vote after the war (which also saw some voter reform) saw a 60 per cent turn out and over 10 million votes. Universal suffrage (which even ancient Athens - the "home of democracy" - did not have) did not come into play for another decade (and even then the current system took several more decades to come by). Simply put, Britain was a liberal democracy at home.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How does this differentiate from German Empire which had universal male suffrage for the Reichstag and how does this make Britans war effort a struggle for liberal democracy. Did they intend on establish liberal democracy in german colonies and they just realized what consequences that would have for their foreign possessions. --126.62.75.204 (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)andreas t. Petersen 1.07 gmt plus 9 0 September 2014 (UTC)--126.62.75.204 (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In regards to the first part, a difference in ideology (among many other things). As for the second, the only section that actually utters the phrase "liberal democracy", or just democracy, - as you have pointed out via your section title - is in the cultural memory section, which you seem to be taking out of context. A cultural perception is not necessarily why the country went to war or what her war goals were. Perhaps someone here can expand on the paragraph to further explain the ideas of Daniel Todman, John Terraine, Niall Ferguson and Gary Sheffield on why the cultural view is of militarism vs. liberal democracy?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I cant really understand your argument regarding difference of ideology. Germany was by all means sociopolitical closer to western countries of today than GB was, national healthcare, employee insurance ect. Further, Todman, Daniel´s quote relate not to the reasons of Britans war, but how its war should be perceived, as he states it, as " a struggle between aggressive militarism and more or less liberal democracy". The same GB which had and would continue to use violence to suppress struggle for national independence in its colonies, where the indigenous population where treated as second class citizens.--126.62.75.204 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * if you wish to understand, you could try understanding that Serbia was not part of Austria-Hungary; that the Reichstag had very limited powers; that all Western European countries treated their colonies and home populations differently. And to get a handle on 'aggressive militarism', try to understand the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Then please explain with reference how the german empire differ from the british empire, when it came to its use of military power to assert its geo-political interest. Any talk of britain as a defender of liberal democracy fails short when one considers it treatment of the civilian population in south africa during the boer wars and the fact that from the time that the german empire was formed, it engaged itself in 1 war, where britain had been in 6. Regarding your patronizing statement about me not understanding "aggressive militarism" and my lack of knowledge on the Brest-Litovsk treaty, explain how it differentiate from treaties made by britain in the same timeframe. Your statement "Serbia was not part of Austria-Hungary" is nonsensical when you make the following statement that "all Western European countries treated their colonies and home populations differently.". I can refer to the historian Dominic Sandbrook whom very much debunk the myth set forth in this article.