Talk:World War I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War I article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Former featured article World War I is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2004.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified World War I as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Esperanto, German, Hebrew or Romanian language Wikipedias.
To-do list for World War I: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Add inline citations for everything
Archive
Archives
  1. December 2001–September 2005
  2. September 2005–May 2006
  3. May 2006–September 2006
  4. September 2006–December 2006
  5. December 2006–March 2007
  6. April 2007–July 2007
  7. August 2007
  8. September 2007–February 2008

Contents

[edit] Infobox Picture

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in it's own discussion, but I find it rather strange that out of the 5 pictures there is not a single one of Russian troops. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, the images show only Germans and the British (mainly the British), or otherwise just the Western Front as a whole. This cannot be due to lack of images of the Russians, because there are plenty of WWI images showing the Eastern Front. The infobox image needs to be redone, it is horribly unbalanced. --168.156.89.193 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The infobox is supposed to give a visual overview of some of the most important aspects of the war. So, there are photos of some of the important technology of the war: aircraft, the machine gun along with gas masks, a dreadnought, and of course, the tank. If you can find good quality photographs of say, Russians with a machine gun, or a good image of a Russian battleship in action, I (I can't speak for others who frequent this article of course) would be open to a discussion about changing the montage. Looking through Commons, I'm mainly seeing maps, or photos that don't really show what should be shown in the montage. Again, if you can find suitably licensed images, go right ahead and upload them, and we'll discuss them. Parsecboy (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciations

The word "Entente" needs to have a pronunciation thing. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC) ...

[edit] Usage tending back to "The Great War"?

Hey.

>>In many European countries, it appears the current usage is tending back to calling it The Great War / la Grande Guerre / de Grote Oorlog / der Große Krieg<< -- where does that come from? I'm in Germany and do never hear WWI referred to like that. And I spend time with French people every year, and they don't say it either. I suspect this to be a hoax. Cheers, Krankman (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Try 1, 2, 3 for a few examples in German. 1, 2, 3 for some examples in French. Here's 1, 2, 3 for some instances in Dutch. Clearly there's at least some usage of these terms in their respective languages. No hoax here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. OK, seems it's not all wrong. I'm really surprised. Thanks for the links and for clearing this up! Krankman (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could be of help. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't use the term Großer Krieg in German often (I never heard of it). One might bring up 100 examples for it, but I could bring up 10000 against it. This is another statement which should be removed to save some space for more important things. --217.83.54.56 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Why remove it? It helps to learn more. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sergio Acquaviva?

Heey, Sergio Acquaviva has to appear as a memorable soldier on the world war 1 wikipedia article, he was a Major in the world war and he freed south italy from different Mafia groups —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManagementF1 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There must have been many Italians of that rank during the Great War. What was pivotal about his role in combatting the Mafia, where is it documented, and what part did that campaign play in the overall war? --TS 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Just going off of google hits, I haven't been able to find anything about a Sergio Acquaviva outside of a video of someone by that name playing the flute, a notice of someone by that name having been killed in a car crash in 2005, and derivations thereof. Searching for the name along with "World War I" turns up 0 hits. Clearly, this is either a joke, or simply non-notable. In either case, Mr. Acquaviva has no place in this article; a broad overview of the First World War. Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Color Image

There is a color image, supposedly of a French soldier in 1917, that seems very out-of-place. Yes, color photography had been in existence since 1861, but this was mostly seems to have been hand-coloring or unreliable techniques. The claim by whoever posted this is that it is an autochrome lumiere, from the first series of widely-used colored photograph equipment. In checking the source, the page was returned not-found by the site it came from. Someone should check on the authenticity of this picture (i.e. it may be from a movie or re-enactment), and then make a decision regarding whether it should be kept, discarded, or re-captioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.30.146 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

First, a friendly reminder that new discussions go at the the bottom of the talk page. I don't think there's anything wrong with the image, or of it being an autochrome lumiere. The technique was patented in 1903, I believe. Here's an example of another AL image from the FWW: Image:Nieuport 17 C.1.jpg. The problem with the link seems to be that the website is experiencing technical difficulties. Either that, or the page has been moved, and the site failed to provide a forwarding address. Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There's further discussion on the commons (c.f.). It does seem to be authentic. Some clarification is needed on its free status.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dividing article

It's pretty good, but it's too long - needs to be divided up Johncmullen1960 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, at 140-ish kb, this article is far too long. If you're thinking about drastically reworking the article, you may want to take a look at the World War II article, where we (and when I say "we", I mostly mean Oberiko) pared it down from 162kb to 68kb. We worked out a basic framework for the article on the talk page, and then hammered out the prose on the talk page as well. Once each section was completed, it was added to World War II/temp. We found that process to be best, because it made the work more visibile (and thus drew more input) than if it were somewhat "hidden away" on a user's sandbox or the like. Another thing to consider is that this article is only B class, so we wouldn't be messing with a featured article or anything. Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of content about the entry/exit of individual nations that reasonably could move to the Allies of World War I and Central Powers articles. That would take a big chunk out. Yes/No/Alternatives? LeadSongDog (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That will work, another suggestion is to significantly trim the Fighting in India section. Most of that text should be moved to the sub-article, if it's not there already. The Ukrainian oppression section should be removed outright. It has little to do with WWI, more of the text is about the after effects of the Russian Revolution. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Was WP:Bold and moved the Ukrainian oppression stuff. More to follow.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I noticed. Looking forward to see what else you have in mind. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New National Identities - Palestine?

The discussion of creating Palestine seems out of place, especially since it is noted it happened in 1947. I believe this should be rewritten to allude to Muslim/Arab & Jewish difficulties in the Middle East, but not go into the creation of Palestine.

"Postwar colonization in the Ottoman Empire led to many future problems still unresolved today. Conflict between mostly Jewish colonists and the existing, mostly Muslim, population intensified, probably exacerbated by the Holocaust, which stimulated Jewish migration and encouraged the new immigrants to fight for survival, a homeland, or both. However, any new homeland for immigrants would cause hardships for the existing population, especially if the former displaced the latter. The United Nations partitioned Palestine in 1947 with Jewish but not Arab and Muslim approval. After the creation of the state of Israel, a series of wars broke out between Israel and its neighbors, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, in addition to unrest from the Palestinian population and terrorist activity by Palestinians and others reaching to Iran and beyond. Lasting peace in the region remains an elusive goal almost a century later." --71.202.112.73 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)S.Roland

S. Roland says, "The discussion of creating Palestine seems out of place, especially since it is noted it happened in 1947."
The Mandate of Palestine was created out of WW1, 25+ years before 1947, so its creation is very relevant to this article - especially since the situation with Palestine and/or the Palestinians is at the center of the greater Middle East conflict we are dealing with to this day. The effects of WW1, specifically the end of the Ottoman Empire, is an important proximate cause of the territorial disputes and the continuing conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, not to mention other disputes in the region. I think the facts are presented neutrally and cited very well in this whole article, but I also think it is a natural and appropriate implication to indirectly suggest that the way the end of the war was handled almost undeniably brought the world to further conflicts, some of which are continuing to this day.
It is very important that WW1 not only be looked at as a stand alone event, but that its predecessor causes and subsequent offspring problems be presented.

--24.15.249.123 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)JasonCWard

[edit] Factual error - Social trauma

This section talks about the poem, "In Flanders Fields" "In May 1915, during the Second Battle of Ypres, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, M.D., of Guelph, Ontario, Canada wrote the memorable poem "In Flanders Fields" as a salute to those who perished in the Great War. Published in Punch on December 8, 1918, ..."

According to other sources I found online including the Wiki article on McCrae the poem was published December 8, 1915 NOT 1918 as stated in the article.

DawsonLL (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Check markY Fixed LeadSongDog (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm not sure this article should be locked. I have already spotted two questionable entries.

Why is 3rd Ypres mentioned before The Somme in 'Trench Warfare Begins'? clearly it's out of sequence and why mention Canadian and ANZAC only? It implies their eventual success was not achieved after significant effort and sacrifice by British forces.

The phrase 'came at a high price for both the British and the French poilu (infantry) and led to widespread mutinies, especially during the Nivelle Offensive.' is highly misleading; it implies mutiny in the British and French forces whereas only the French mutinied.

Overall this article is biased and slanted, there is too much emphasis on American and colonial forces. The entry 'The Entry of the US' is actually longer than that covering 1914-1917 (or 'The Early Stages', as you have it). This implies that the first 3 years of the war were just a sideshow until the US got involved - a disgraceful attempt to re-write history.

The article as written implies that US forces alone broke the Hindenberg line - again a lie.

Whether you like it or not WW1 was primarily fought by France, Britain and the colonies against Germany on the Western front and secondly by Russia against Germany and Austo-Hungary on the Eastern Front. This article does not reflect the reality of history. It needs serious and drastic editing 80.6.147.186 (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it; "History is written by the winners". It's a horrible fact, but Hollywood has more scriptwriters. We can only stand, aghast, and wonder at the futility, and dishonesty, of it all.--andreasegde (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conjunctions

"He repeatedly warned the U.S. would not tolerate", should be, "He repeatedly warned [countries?] that the U.S. would not tolerate". If not, it seems that he warned the U.S. (his own country). These should be corrected.--andreasegde (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Way too long and scattered

If you compare this article to World War II, its way too long and the table of contents is scattered and overcomplex. We should start to think how to improve this article. There are many unsourced statements and paragraphs which could be removed or shortened. The table of content /structure should become more like the WWII article. --217.83.54.56 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it is a considerable amount of work to turn this article into something similar to the current version of the WWII article. It took quite a while to perform the alterations at WWII, and most of the heavy lifting was done by User:Oberiko, who is still working on the last few sections. I think earlier in the talk page listing, someone proposed doing a similar treatment for this article, but I don't know if we have enough people who have enough time and energy available for the project. I myself am too busy in real life to do much more than relatively minor tasks such as proofreading and the like. I would, nonetheless, offer any support I can if such a project is undertaken. Parsecboy (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the longish tag. It's not truly warranted. Using the criteria at WP:SIZE the article is only 101k characters, not the 153k shown. The difference is wiki markup and non-readable sections (seealso, references, categories...) For a Vital article on a topic of this complexity, this is not too long. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm opposed to trimming or restructuring, I just don't think the tag is sufficiently valuable in this case to justify its detraction from the impression the article gives a new reader.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allied Powers or Entente Powers?

Isn't the "side" that Britian, France, and Russia were on called the Entente Powers? I don't know of any other site that calls then the Allied Powers, that is known as a WWII term. It seems like we're just dumbing it down for the people who don't know what the Entente is. --PlasmaTwa2 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Declaration" of war

Now wait a minute, this is not a "declaration of war" (Evil foes! Hereby we declare war on thee!!), it's a technical thing, a proclamation to the subjects that a state of war has been declared for the Reich. Is the rest of this article as reliable or what? --145.253.2.238 (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Making the world safe for democracy"

I fail to see how my edit to this article violates NPOV. It simply states the facts: France and Great Britain may have called themselves "democracies," but people in Algeria, India or South Africa might have had a different opinion on the matter. It is not NPOV to prohibit the inclusion of any information that makes the Allies look less than saintly. As it stands currently, the article only serves to parrot Wilson's propganda, that we were "making the world safe for democracy" when we were really just making the world safe for Anglo-French imperialism.

Furthermore, the article makes no mention of Wilson's pre-existing Anglophilia, which made him predisposed to support the British cause in the war. It also asserts the authenticity of the Zimmerman Telegraph, which many people at the time suspected of being a forgery, created by the British to drag the U.S. into the war to replace the Russian allies whom the British had just lost less than a month before. The article also insists that Wilson was steadfast in his efforts to maintain U.S. neutrality, even though that was not the case; Germany resumed submarine warfare against the United States because they had reason to believe that Wilson was secretly supplying the British with weapons and supplies in direct violation of U.S. policy and law. Had Wilson been true to his word and honored U.S. neutrality, it's likely that he would never gotten the casus belli he needed to pull the U.S. into the war, which makes this an extremely important historical point that the article chooses to ignore.

In short, the article already suffers from serious POV problems, and I was trying to correct them. It's unfortunate that some editors have chosen to prevent me from doing so. This does not help bolster Wikipedia's reputation as a source for reliable and unbiased historical information. I respectfully request that my edit allow to stay.--Antodav2007 (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As the editor choosing to "prevent" Antodav2007 from presenting his/her point of view, may I copy in my reply to his/her complaint on my talk page?

If there are POV problems they should be corrected: you are right. The specific instances you offer would certainly repay a re-assessment. However, balancing the perceived POV of the article with the bald statement "although both also maintained vast overseas colonial empires that were ruled in a decidedly autocratic fashion" (or indeed, suggesting "people in Algeria, India or South Africa might have had a different opinion on the matter") seems to me to be replacing one unsourced opinion for another. As I understand it, you would have to reference your addition with a reputable, published author who holds the view. Of course if you start adding the detail I am suggesting, you may run the risk of going beyond the scope of this general article: you may find that the material rests better (or even is covered already) in one of the subsidiary articles. Finally, perhaps I should explain that the edit was made using an automated script from the utility WP:TWINKLE which, although useful, doesn't allow for much in the way of nuance. I hope this helps, suggesting a possible way forward for you to improve the neutrality of the article.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"It also asserts the authenticity of the Zimmerman Telegraph, which many people at the time suspected of being a forgery" The Zimmerman Telegram [sic!] is authentic. Unless you're prepared to demonstrate a serious historiographer today suspects it, what people at the time thought isn't the issue. (If you're inclined to add it was suspect then, do source it.)
"Anglophilia"? There's been raised the suggestion (Strachan's book on WW1, IIRC) U.S. investment in Br/Fr banks, & risk of massive losses, played a part.
"Had Wilson been true to his word and honored U.S. neutrality"? The Germans were offering to restore Texas to Mexico! Do you honestly believe any U.S. Administration would let that lie? Be serious. Trekphiler (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"It also asserts the authenticity of the Zimmerman Telegraph, which many people at the time suspected of being a forgery". Afer Zimmerman himself confessed its authenticity? (Haufler, Codebreaker's Victory, p.12) Geez... Trekphiler (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WW1, your imagination station

I added "though they captured the public imagination", & the Zep bombing certainly did, which makes me wonder how much the gas & Zep attacks influenced WW2 actions. Did the Brits continue bombing Germany thinking they'd get the same panicky results seen in London, despite no research on it? Did the Germans refrain from using gas fearing panics & mutinies? Can this be substantiated? Is this apt to mention, here? Trekphiler (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC) why do you fight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.137.254 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How many dead??

In the first line, it says that 40 million casualties resulted, including 20 million military + civilian... if not military or civilian, who were the other 20 million dead? cyclosarin (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Casualties aren't just deaths, but also wounded, and MIA. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] videos

The tank video is excellent, but surely there must be footage available of foot soldiers...Johncmullen1960 (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs full rewrite

Yes, thats pretty much it, its currently total mess. It should be rewritten along the lines as World War II is. Finding any useful information from current one is going to be total pain for the reader. Also it has resulted hilarious situations, like "Fighting in India" part being bigger than "Eastern Front". Some stuff, like Literature and movies part in the end, should be moved into separate articles.--Staberinde (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Start and end of WWI in historic New Tork Times pages

Can someone who has an account add the following fascinating links? They show the New York Times front pages on June 6, 1914 and November 11, 1911:

New York Times on June 6, 1914

New York Times on November 11, 1911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.27.57 (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gassing Soldiers who contracted Syphillis

What I am talking about is not pretty, has no corroborating evidence that I know of and is almost unbelievable 'News' but I feel it is important to not lose such an important historical fact if it is true.

This info comes from my mother who was told this by her step father Daniel Shaw Smith (Christchurch NZ 1964) when she was 19. He was a soldier in the WWI and fought in Gallipoli and was stationed in Egypt for a time.

He told my mother in a very matter of fact way the following which I am asking her to recount as I type this.

He said that in Egypt soldiers were lined up (at least once a week) for a 'Dangle Parade' where they had to expose their genitals for inspection to the medical officer who checked to see if they had any sores indicating that they had contracted the 'Black Pox' which was a particularly nasty strain of Syphillis not found in the western world. (He recounted how the medical officer used to say to the troops "You men put your dicks where I wouldn't put my umbrella.")

He said that the men who had Syphillis were put onto Ambulance/Hospital ships and were killed out at sea by gassing.

He said this was because the disease could not be brought back home.

The soldiers who were killed in this way were considered to have died in battle.

He didn't consider this scandalous and just recounted it quite casually.

My mother also feels he may have possibly worked on such a ship for a short time but can't fully recall.

It is worth noting that it is 'Possible' that it was just a deliberate rumor to discourage the men from having sex with Egyptian prostitutes although my mother feels that from the way he talked about it it was more likely true.

If this really happened I do not know if it was the practice of just the New Zealand Army or if other western military forces may have done much the same.

Aether22 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Without any corroborating reliable sources, this cannot be included in the article. Also, remember that new threads should go at the bottom of the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Still because I am aware of no other record of such a possibility at all I would ask that it remain in the talk page unless it is known to be untrue and only someone deeply involved with the NZ campaign could be assured of knowing (and if so could be complicit of such) or an acquaintance of Mr. Smith who may be aware of him telling tall tales. I would also add that while obvious the reason for the gassing was said by Smith to be due to this strain's virulent effects on westerners, he did not blame the army as he saw it as the only solution. I would also ask if anyone is aware of some place I could put this that may be more permanent. Aether22 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think he was pulling your mother's leg. From what I can tell, black syphilis is a myth. See a couple of references: a book by retired US Colonel David Hackword [1], where he states that myths of the disease were created specifically to deter soldiers from risky sex while deployed. Here's another book where it states the black syphilis is a myth. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be right but I doubt he was pulling her leg, he may have believed it. But your references are for a far more recent war in a different country, though I appreciate the references. Aether22 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is likely that he actually believed it. The reason things are classified as myths are that many people genuinely believe them to be true, despite the fact that they likely are not. I've yet to find any reliable authority stating anything about black syphilis, despite the fact that it's a fairly legendary disease. When one searches for plain old "syphilis" in Google, you get the CDC.gov website (as well as other .gov sites), references in the NYT, the Mayo Clinic, etc. As for the references above, yes, they are both for Vietnam, but it illustrates the fairly typical practices employed by military commanders who are concerned that their soldiers will lose combat effectiveness if they get VD, so they make up a story like black syphilis to scare them straight. Yes, Vietnam is the most well-known instance of this, but it apparently wasn't the first. Regardless, it's likely not notable (and still unsourced), so it won't make it into the article. As for this thread, it will always be stored here, until the page is archived at some point. Parsecboy (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of Germany's Declaration of War

Please have a translation to English (and others) of the German Declaration of War. When I clicked the link marked "text" under the graphic of the German DoW, the page comes up only in German and there is no "translate" option obvious. I did look over the whole of the page, esp near the text.

Further, please have texts of ALL the other involved nations' DoW. The points of view would be most illuminating to the subject. The justifications of America's (and many other's) "undeclared wars" after WW2 would be put into contrast with an era where national figures DID take responsibility for their actions. (Please note that observation when these texts are posted.) Thank you. Jopower (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for such translations? LeadSongDog (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
p.s. please read WP:POINT

[edit] Hitler wasn't a German in these years

In the Article is written: "Thus many Germans, including Adolf Hitler, were convinced their armies had not really been defeated."

At this time Hitler wasn't a German citizen. He was still an Austrian citizen at that time. He was just a soldier fighting for Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.114.204 (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)