Talk:World War I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for World War I:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Verify : From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/World_War_I: Add inline citations. Reference list needs auditing. First thing checked was Fromkin2004, p.94. One hopes he is authoritative, because the claim that military expenditure rose by 50% needs to be explained in a little detail, since there could be so many different variables. (see David Fromkin)
  • Other : Make sure that all images are properly sourced, or replace unsourced ones. For example, the information about the "Austrians in Tyrol" isn't sufficient.
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.

War Crimes: Chemical Weapons[edit]

Do we have a source that states the use of such weapons, at the time, constituted a war crime?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how literally you want to read the Hague Convention. It outlawed the use of projectiles to deliver gas. Germany got around the loophole by simply opening the lids on thousands of containers when their enemy was down wind. "Sorry ref. Bad call. The Hague didn't say anything about just letting it float over. It's really the wind's fault when you look at it." Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
With the widespread use of such weapons, by both sides, surely there is a source that discusses the legality and if their use constituted a war crime, otherwise the article just points out that it breached the treaty leaving the section open to attack on a OR front (as have you pointed out both sides appear to have utilized in loopholes in the treaties).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The article on the Hague Convention uses this citation: Telford Taylor (1 November 1993). The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0-3168-3400-9. Retrieved 20 June 2013. 
From page 4: "However, the use of poison gas was much less defensible [as a war crime compared with submarine warfare and aerial bombardment], as the Hague Convention on land warfare explicitly forbade the use of 'poison or poisoned arms.' But even here, questions might be raised under the Hague Convention on "asphyxiating or deleterious gases,' which was limited to their diffusion by the 'use of projectiles.'"
So it looks like Germany skates around "deleterious gasses", but failed to account for the prohibition against "poisoned arms". Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Too long?[edit]

Tpbradbury added a too long template to the page stating "too long, 20,000 words readable prose". Opinions? WWII is over 26k words. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been brought up before. Considering the massive scale of the subject being covered in this article the length is not unreasonable. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is not too long. WWI was one of the two or three largest and most complex events in world history. And is perhaps the single most studied, with tens of thousands of scholarly books and articles and hundreds of thousands of popular publications. It's amazing it got condensed to such brief format. Rjensen (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
agree with Rjensen
Gravuritas (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like there is general agreement then. I'm going to remove the tag and if Tpbradbury wants to come to the talk and discuss specifics we can give it a go. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The article could use a trim...410th biggest article here...but this trim would just be of fluff...that has creped in and is a bit misleading. For example in the "Conscription section" it mentions Canada's problem alot..then goes on to list numbers that are not related to conscription. The fact is Canadian Conscription did not impact the war to a great extent....thus only need a passing mention in one sentence in my opinion (As a Canadian) . There are other examples that I am sure Rjensen could point out. -- Moxy (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Moxy has a very good suggestion. I revised the section on conscription, put it in the context of the Anglo-Saxon world, and added fresh citations. Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not against a bit of a rework. As can be seen above, I myself was quite confused when I first came here and didn't realize the article didn't follow a chronological order. WWII seems much more intuitive. Also some of the content here could possibly be spun off into other articles. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting info[edit]

This article says, " More than 9 million combatants and 7 million civilians died as a result of the war..." but another wiki article for WWI says "over 17 million deaths and 20 million wounded, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history." Could someone reconcile the numbers please? e.g. 9 million combatants; over 17 million deaths and 20 million wounded...doesn't add up. If it does add up, it's confusing the way it's written (since it specifies one as "civilians", then combatants should be soldiers). Combatants plus civilians is 16 mil (9+7) in one article, but the other article says over 17 million.

Lifesnadir (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)LifesnadirLifesnadir (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The numbers are perfectly compatible with one another. "More than 9" could be 9.6, and 'more than 7' could be 7.6. 9.6+7.6= 17.2, which is 'over 17'. There's no problem, and I don't see how this is confusing.
Gravuritas (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Map inconsistency[edit]

In the map Military alliances leading to World War I, Italy is shown as one of the Central Powers, but in the list of Belligerents it is shown as an ally of Britain, France, etc.TCLongChplHl (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)