Talk:World War I/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Regarding this edit on Romanian participation

[[1]] I reduced the content from 14 paragraphs to 6 paragraphs. Which is similar to the Ottoman Empire and Italian participation sections. The answer against this was that "We do not need this much about one nation in an overview of the war" but we already have this much about the Ottoman Empire and Italy. If you want, I can remove the Romanians in Austria-Hungary paragraph, reducing the total number of paragraphs to 5, which is not very different from the original 3. TheGoldAge (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat all the arguments we have had before about this (as nothing has changed since the last time you tried to expand this section), But you added 4,482 bits of data, you expanded it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I know your arguments, that it was too long. Which is why I more than halved it. TheGoldAge (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No that was not my only argument (or to be more precise it was not my argument as to why it does not need expanding, so I shall repeat it here). The Italian front lasted from 1915 till 1918 (3 years). The Turkish fronts (yes multiple fronts) lasted from 1914 to 1918 (4 years). Romania was in the war from 1916 to 1917 and then reentered the war for 2 more days so (in effect) were in the war for a year. That is why it does not need expanding, they were neither as significant as Italy or Turkey. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Romania entered the war on 27 August 1916 and signed the Treaty of Bucharest on 7 May 1918; then rejoined in 10–11 November 1918, that's 2 years. An armistice was signed on 9 December 1917 but from the time of the armistice until the signing of peace, Central Power troops still remained on Romanian soil, so they wouldn't be used elsewhere. But even if you count the armistice as the end, that's still 1.5 years of battle.

It's not only the years but also the significance that counts. On the Romanian front, up to 1.000.000 Central Powers troops were present, fighting against combined German, Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian forces. Germany had to cancel an offensive in France to send troops to Romania. The Central Powers plan was to take Romania out of the war ASAP thus the combined offensive, which they failed to do in 1917. After the big 5: UK, France, Italy, USA and Russia; Romania was the 6th Entente power with the largest number of troops.

Would you be okay with 4 or 5 total paragraphs? That's not a significant difference from the original 3 and would be less than Italy or the Ottomans. TheGoldAge (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The Armistice of Focșani was signed in December 1917. I am OK with what we have, it does not need expanding, I have said that more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"An armistice was signed on 9 December 1917 but from the time of the armistice until the signing of peace, Central Power troops still remained on Romanian soil, so they wouldn't be used elsewhere. But even if you count the armistice as the end, that's still 1.5 years of battle. It's not only the years but also the significance that counts. On the Romanian front, up to 1.000.000 Central Powers troops were present, fighting against combined German, Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian forces. Germany had to cancel an offensive in France to send troops to Romania. The Central Powers plan was to take Romania out of the war ASAP thus the combined offensive, which they failed to do in 1917. After the big 5: UK, France, Italy, USA and Russia; Romania was the 6th Entente power with the largest number of troops". The unnamed armistice is the Armistice of Focșani. Why does one extra paragraph make such a big difference to you? TheGoldAge (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly there were five allied nations (6 if you include India) more important than Rumania, on the other side 3 of the 4 combatants were larger. So in the top 10 combatants Romania comes 10th. This is my last word. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so what is your point? As I said previously: "That's not a significant difference from the original 3 and would be less than Italy or the Ottomans". All the other 9 nations in your top 10 would still have more content than Romania. @Moxy: what do you think about adding one more paragraph to the "Romanian participation" section, raising the total number of paragraphs from 3 to 4? TheGoldAge (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It's only 1 extra paragraph, Slatersteven why you got to be so stubborn about it? I see the point with 14 paragraphs, but what he's requesting right now is not so much of a difference. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of it. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Your edit kind of shows why, its the thin end of the wedge, one paragraph then just one more then just one more. We do not need this kind of detail on what is an overview of the whole war. Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

If it gets too much, you can complain about it and see what the community thinks about it. But frankly, your argument that I can't allow an edit right now because then I will allow other edits in the future is frankly ridiculous. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

What I meant is you said "I can't see why we can't add 1 paragraph" and then added more than one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

×→ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.40.131 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted -- while the Romania front was a small theater in the larger war, the 1 million Central Powers forces that were delayed and distracted in the defeat and occupation of Romania might well have tipped the balance of the war. An additional 1 million men on either main front might have changed the outcome -- on the Eastern front, they might have led to Russia's collapse a year earlier; on the Western front in 1917, they might have led to France and/or Italy losing their governments to revolution. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Photo montage in Infobox

Images aren't my area of expertise but the current collage seems very Anglo-centric. Should include at least one photo from the Eastern Front, Verdun rather than the Somme etc. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

At least 1 image from Eastern Front and one form Middle Eastern or Italian or Balkan should be present Crecy1346 (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

I think the Austria-Hungary flag needs to be changed from the Austrian Empire flag to the Austro-Hungarian one. The Austrian Empire was not the Austro-Hungarian empire. 66.178.160.166 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Qhnbgjt (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

ludendorff and hindenburg should be commanders

from 1916 on the German Empire was a military dictatorship under the control of ludendorff and hindenburg so they should be commanders TheBritishDoge (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

iran's casualties during world war 1

Iran has suffered more than 8-10 millions casualties as a result of Russia and British empire attacks on them(even though Iran officially stated its neutrality during ww1)

so how come Iran's name is not even mentioned in this article, let alone number of its death?

source:Persian famine of 1917–1919 Lsorooshl (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an RS, and famines also occur outside of war. You need a source saying that these casualties were the result of the war. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"The famine took place in the territory of Iran, which despite declaring neutrality was occupied by the forces of British, Russian and Ottoman empires whose occupation contributed to the famine."

It's literally said on the Wikipedia page I mentioned.

for more assurance, you can check these sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_famine_of_1917%E2%80%931919#Sources Lsorooshl (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

1914-1918-online, is it a reliable source?

@Slatersteven:, @SamuelRiv:, and @Longsars:, as I'm not allowed to reply to the thread at the bottom of this page as I used an emoji in my signature years ago and as I would rather keep the discussion on the relevant talk page and not here (at the bottom) I am posting this here.

I am honestly quite surprised that the reliability of this source has been called into question as it's a fully academic website. The entry at the page "Call for Papers" reads: "1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War is an English-language online reference work on World War I dedicated to publishing high quality peer-reviewed content. Each article in the encyclopedia is a self-contained publication and its author receives full recognition." This specifically mentions that all articles submitted and vetted by the 1914-1918-online International Encyclopedia are peer-reviewed, which is something we'd expect from a reliable source. So the question remains whether or not the website is a good usable source or not, right?

Well, later the page specifically states that: "All articles receive a distinct URL address as well as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and are fully citable as scholarly publications. 1914-1918-online is an open access publication, which means that all articles are freely available online, ensuring maximum worldwide dissemination of content." (Emphasis added). I did notice a number of contradictions within the encyclopedia myself (for example one page will state that a number of soldiers were recruited from a specific region and then another will contradict that), but overall I see little reason to doubt the reliability of this publication. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not just the RS question, as I said on my talk page I am not sure what this adds, or why every single line needs to be sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The users are being pinged because the source was asked about at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which has a little bit of discussion on the matter. I have nothing more to add to my comments there, which were basically just about how other commenters were qualifying the source. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The authors in the articles of this website are high rank academic authors in universities. Check their CVs one by one. After that, it is not important to raise furher questions. --Longsars (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

By why do we need to have every line cited, why do we need to change Entente to allies? Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In general, Important mass-viewed articles of Wikipedia uses less educated, thus less competent authors for references. I mean authors with low academic rank or with a simple university degree (which is not so reliable as the real scholars in the 1914-1918 online.)--Longsars (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What sources are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The references are from these persons:

Stephen Gross: Associate Professor of History & European Studies Stephen Gross.

Prof Ágnes Pogány: Professor of econonomic history, Corvinus University of Budapest

Prof Martin Horn Professor in the History department at McMaster University

Assistant Professor Nicholas Mulder Cornell University Assistant Professor of Modern European History in the Department of History.

Mr. Slatersteven, May I ask you, which university do you teach at and what is your title? Longsars (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I am asking what sources you do not think are adequate. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The First World War was a battle of materiel, and the economy decided the fate of the war. The British naval blockade was only one of the most important stages in this. Just as important was the private American loans the British received to finance their own war and that of their allies. The loans were private, which is why the British needed the infamous and lying war propaganda campaign on American soil called "save civilisation", because that was the only way the British could get American sponsors to continue the war. You know, for example, German soldiers raping women naked in broad daylight in the streets, stabbing babies alive with bayonets, cutting off babies' arms, etc.

It is therefore very important to mention this financial event, even if it "offends" the national pride of, say, some (nationalist) British people.--Longsars (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We do, even after I reverted your edits. Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but I pasted three more references about German situation and Austro-Hungarian and British situations, because originally just a general (all participants) war finance was pasted as reference in the first edit.--Longsars (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You also made some textual changes, why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Here is the full story about the topic, a short video, maybe the best on the internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cktr__ZSuNc What is your opinion after you watched the short video? --Longsars (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That this does not answer my questions, any of them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

But it can increase your knowledge.--Longsars (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This talk page is not about me, it is about improving THIS ARTICLE. So unless it addresses any of the points raised here it is irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's use an approach that is closer to reality. An article is not just about the article itself, it is about the people who write and shape the articles too, and they are people. So, as an active editor, your opinion, your personality and your knowledge of the subject matter are important for this.--Longsars (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"The initially neutral Italy switched sides"

I have brought the issue to the talk page as a more elaborate explanation for my changes made. In the second paragraph of the lead, it is mentioned that "the initially neutral Italy switched sides" to join the Allies, however I changed it to "the initially neutral Italy joined sides with" etc.. This change was reverted before, which is fair enough, but I disagree with the wording, so I have changed it once more with another added tweak further up in the prose. Yes, Italy was initially part of the Triple Alliance, a defensive pact with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Italy never once joined their official side of the Central Powers in World War I, though, and even refused to join when they requested they become involved. Secondly, this sentence is not grammatically correct. Being neutral and then "switching" to join a side does not make grammatical sense, as you were never on an initial side. This may cause confusion for first-time readers as well. Thus, I have also changed further up in the lead where it says "By 1914, the European great powers were divided into the Triple Entente of France, Russia, and Britain; and the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy" to "By 1914, the European great powers were divided into the Triple Entente of France, Russia, and Britain; and the defensive Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy". Thank you. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Champagne

change ((Champagne)) to ((Champagne (province)|Champagne)) 2601:541:4580:8500:7CB4:36C8:2C93:894 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

In the “Events leading up to World War 1” the “Great Eastern Crisis” is dated 1975-1978 this should be 1875-1878 98.115.243.25 (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It does, what section? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Events leading to World War I ... ... ... Great Eastern Crisis 1975-78 24.92.26.152 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The error is in the template {{Events leading to World War I}}, and I fixed it there. RudolfRed (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"Indian support for the Allies"

I have multiple objections to this section. 1. The statement "However, contrary to British fears of a revolt in India, the outbreak of the war saw an unprecedented outpouring of loyalty and goodwill towards Britain" is questionable and concerning. As you know India was under British Rule at the time and had no free will.

2. The statement "Indian political leaders from the Indian National Congress and other groups were eager to support the British war effort since they believed that strong support for the war effort would further the cause of Indian Home Rule." is pure speculation and is already marked for citation. I think we should remove this.

3. "The Indian Army in fact outnumbered the British Army at the beginning of the war;" - Again, India was under British rule and Indians had no will regarding whether to participate in the war or not. So the large number of Indians in the British army was not by their own will. I think this statement needs to be removed as well since it doesn't prove anything.

coolk (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Britain did not have conscription in India. Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Points (1) and (2) have merit - I've left them for now, as a reminder.

Point 3 seems a simple statement of fact. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The Indian contribution to the war was significant. The three points all add value. Wallie (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Italy removed

Italy was removed from the involved countrys tab. Add on axis, Italy until 1914 and Allies, Italy from 1915 MilitaryHistoryFox (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Never mind MilitaryHistoryFox (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022

Hello editor,

I took notice that Italy was on the axis side until 1915. It only shows on the allied side. Please fix that if you can. MilitaryHistoryFox (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. See the Central Powers article. Graham87 05:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct "2014" to "1914"

In the lead section, "28 July 2014" should be corrected to "28 July 1914". 84.216.129.95 (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. My bad, that's a bit embarrassing. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

In the second paragraph where it says: "the Triple Entente, comprising of France, Russia, and Britain" the "of" should be removed as it is grammatically incorrect to write "comprising of". 86.4.208.159 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aoidh (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

US Role.

This assessment completely and a historically fails to discuss the significant role of the fresh 400000 US troops that stopped the German phase two offensive led the breakout. The aggressive expert marksmen and fresh energy es hat won the day 2600:1700:8440:35B0:6D0A:E77D:2B4A:2B94 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

YOu need to provide sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

im going to need a source for that chief That Prussian1872 (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The Racist and ridiculous nationalist WW1 propaganda Quote must remain

"It has always been my dream that the two English-speaking nations should some day be united in a great cause, and to-day my dream is realized. Together we are fighting for the greatest cause for which peoples could fight. The Anglo-Saxon race must save civilization." George Frederick Ernest Albert about the American entry into World War I.

The ANGLO-SAXON "RACES", the great savior of the HUMAN CIVILIZATION against the primitive German barbarian hordes. It is a ridiculous nationalist and blatant RACIST statement, but clearly depicts the conteporary WW1 beliefs and racist war propaganda of the era. It is part of history. Don't hide it, just because it is unconfortable in the 21th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csataelőkészítő (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a random quote that really adds nothing (and you need to read wp:soap and wp:rightgreatwrongs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition because to my opinion it adds nothing to the article making it superfluous. The Banner talk 13:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

To be true, after reviewing a number of your edits, I get the idea that you are not standing neutral in this case. The Banner talk 14:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I not sure we should be whitewashing the essentially racist appeal by George V, though probably it belongs in American entry into World War I. This wasn't a one-time thing, a "random quote". It was a personal appeal from George V to General Pershing; the context was the British trying to convince the US to place the AEF with the British army rather than with the French. The racist probably fell on deaf ears, given that Pershing was of French and German ancestry. A good source for this incident is A Fraternity of Arms. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We are not, we are failing to see what this tells us about WW1 (or come to that American entry, the USA was already in the war, and the comment seems to have had no effect). Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to remove the term "whitewashing" from my comment. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"World War I crimes" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect World War I crimes and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3#World War I crimes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Socialism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): StinkyGremlin (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Stinky Gremlin (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

ww1

captain oswald johnson 142.54.9.116 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes? What about him? Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence could use changing

Summary

The current lead sentence could use changing to be more mindful of Wikipedia guidance.

Main problems

1. It overly emphasizes alternative names, to which it devotes 22 words, whereas only 4 for its actual description.
2. Duration of conflict could be just a parenthetical range (compare to Spanish-American war—example in MOS:LEADSENTENCE).
3. Extra wording makes it unnecessarily long.

Suggested text

World War I (WWI or The Great War; 28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict in which millions of people were killed.

Relevant guidance

Per MOS:FIRST, The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.

Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, [...] use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

Per MOS:LEADCLUTTER, Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere.

Per MOS:ALTNAME, The title can be followed in the first sentence by one or two alternative names in parentheses. The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability. Use this principle to decide whether mentioning alternative names in the first sentence, elsewhere in the article, or not at all.

Discussion

Thoughts? (Let's focus our attention in this thread to the first sentence, otherwise the discussion might become too unwieldy and overly long). Thinker78 (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Edited Thinker78 (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Partially implemented I have made some revisions to the lede. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Professor Penguino, a new account (created less than one month ago) with fewer than 500 edits, is himself responsible for many of the most contentious changes to the long-standing lede, some of which have already been reverted (including his inaugural WP:BOLD edit stating that World War I is "considered as one of the worst slaughters in history" in the opening sentence). If these edits do not have consensus, then we can restore the last stable version of the lede, which I would argue provides a better overview of the topic. After all, new users do not need to cut their teeth by making BOLD edits almost exclusively to the ledes of extremely high-profile articles such as this one, especially if longtime contributors/page watchers feel that said changes are problematic or fail to adequately reflect the content of the article body.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino, lol, thanks, but I am seeking instead comments and consensus for a lead sentence. There have been many changes and we all need to discuss how to proceed instead of editing warring. Thinker 78 (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC).

I don't see any reason to include "War to End All Wars"; a propaganda phrase used primarily by the British press to justify the sacrifices made, it is not used by any modern historian, and last appeared as the title of a US High School text book in 1959. I did make this change but it was reversed by Slatersteven. This could be moved into the section on "Nomenclature".

Ditto "Great War"; more common but only for English historians (for Germans, the Thirty Years War is still "The Great War");

No need to include "millions of people were killed" in the opening sentence, given there are two lines on casualties in the same paragraph.

Also remove the sentence New technology, including the recent invention of the airplane, trench warfare, and especially chemical weapons made it one of the deadliest conflicts in history, partly because I don't think its needed, but also because its not really true. The invention of the airplane did not per se make the war bloodier (or no more so than the invention of the telephone), trench warfare was not new (look at any picture of the siege of Petersburg in 1864 or Port Arthur in 1905), and chemical warfare while memorably nasty "only" accounted for 91k deaths out of 9 million. It doesn't even align with the article content, which (correctly) includes advances in artillery technology and machine guns as the reason for enormous casualties.

That would make the first paragraph;

World War I, often abbreviated as WWI or WW1, was a global conflict spanning the period July 1914 to November 1918, considered one of the deadliest conflicts in history. Belligerents included much of Europe, the Russian Empire, the United States, and the Ottoman Empire, with fighting occurring throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia. An estimated 9 million soldiers were killed in combat, plus another 23 million wounded, while 5 million civilians died as a result of military action, hunger, and disease. Millions more died in genocides within the Ottoman Empire and the 1918 influenza pandemic, which was exacerbated by the movement of combatants during the war.Robinvp11 (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"The War to End All Wars" was used by later authors such as Edward M. Coffman (1968), Russell Freedman (2010) and Adam Hochschild (2011). Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Providing three examples over 50 years doesn't make the phrase common usage or address the question posed here, ie is it significant enough to be in the opening sentence? Amazon provides a list of over 300 titles related to WWI, only a handful use this phrase (although Hochschild actually only says "To end all wars", and having read the book, he uses it to describe family conflicts, not the war as a whole).

All three authors quoted are American (as was the 1959 textbook) - no one else uses it. Why can this not simply be included in the section on Nomenclature? Robinvp11 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It demonstrates that A, no it did not stop being used in 1959 (your claim) B that it was a British Propaganda term (as Americans are not British). Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

...as Americans are not British...; yet another example of experienced Wikipedia editors not modelling the behaviours needed to have reasonable discussions, rather than simply fighting their corner. Referring to WWI as "The War to End All Wars" is not common usage in 2022 and nothing you've said so far (eg "I disagree" etc) has addressed that point. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robinvp11, regarding "millions of people were killed" in the lead sentence, I think it is a particular notability of just a minority of wars, including this conflict. According to this article, at least 14 million were killed in World War 1. The New York times writes about an estimated total tally of death of all wars in history of between 150 million and 1 billion.

This would mean that the dead of just WW1 constitutes the mortality of between 1% and 10% of all wars fought. Given that the text I suggested is short enough, there is room to include said information. Thinker78 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think moving "one of the deadliest conflicts in history" into the first sentence addresses this concern. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I support trimming the lede paragraph to Robinvp11's proposed version (minus the recently-added wikilink to Exacerbation, which is IMHO a jarring example of overlinking). Furthermore, I agree with Robinvp11 that both the current and longstanding versions of the lede incorrectly summarize the body of the article regarding the technological causes of the high casualties incurred/inflicted during World War I. While chemical weapons almost certainly should be mentioned somewhere in the lede (perhaps in relation to the popular memory of the war), we should avoid perpetuating an inaccurate impression that they were responsible for a disproportionate number of deaths relative to conventional munitions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a potential compromise:

"World War I (July 28, 1914 – November 11, 1918), often abbreviated as WWI or WW1, and known to some Anglophone authors as The Great War or The War to End All Wars, was a global conflict spanning four years. Belligerents included much of Europe, the Russian Empire, the United States, and the Ottoman Empire, with fighting occurring throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia. New technology, including the recent invention and development of the airplane, trench warfare, and especially chemical weapons, made it one of the deadliest conflicts in history. An estimated 9 million soldiers were killed in combat, plus another 23 million wounded, with 5 million civilians dying as a result of military actions, hunger, and disease. Millions more died of genocides within the Ottoman Empire and the 1918 influenza pandemic, which was exacerbated by the movement of combatants during the war."

Any thoughts? Professor Penguino (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

This "compromise wording" doesn't address the original concern about too many descriptors in the opening sentence, or the misleading statement about "new technology". Robinvp11 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

As a final point, it's not unusual for wars to change names. Until the early 20th century, the "French Revolutionary Wars" and "Napoleonic Wars" were known in Britain as "The Great War with France". Until fairly recently, despite objections by historians, the 1650 to 1652 conflict between England and Scotland was routinely called the Third English Civil War. It is now commonly referred to (within Wikipedia as well) as the Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652). Robinvp11 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I would take out "and known to some Anglophone authors as The Great War or The War to End All Wars," as that should probably only be mentioned later in the article, and I would certainly not link the word exacerbated. Also, I wouldn't say "especially chemical weapons" as that pushes the idea that chemical weapons were responsible for a vast amount of deaths when, in fact, they weren't, at least compared to the usage of conventional weaponry. ― TUNA × 15:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

So something more like this?

"World War I (July 28, 1914 – November 11, 1918), often abbreviated as WWI or WW1, was a global conflict spanning four years. Belligerents included much of Europe, the Russian Empire, the United States, and the Ottoman Empire, with fighting occurring throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia. New technology, including the recent invention and development of the airplane, trench warfare, and chemical weapons, helped make it one of the deadliest conflicts in history. An estimated 9 million soldiers were killed in combat, plus another 23 million wounded, with 5 million civilians dying as a result of military actions, hunger, and disease. Millions more died of genocides within the Ottoman Empire and the 1918 influenza pandemic, which was exacerbated by the movement of combatants during the war. It has been referred to by some Anglophone authors as The Great War or The War to End All Wars."

Thoughts? Revisions? Professor Penguino (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It is redundant to state that it was a conflict "spanning four years" if the duration of the war is already in the parenthesis. Also probably redundant to write practically the same iteration of the abbreviation. Thinker78 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. More like this?

"World War I, often abbreviated as WWI, was a global conflict spanning four years from July 28, 1914 to November 11, 1918. Belligerents included much of Europe, the Russian Empire, the United States, and the Ottoman Empire, with fighting occurring throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia. New technology, including the recent invention and development of the airplane, trench warfare, and chemical weapons, helped make it one of the deadliest conflicts in history. An estimated 9 million soldiers were killed in combat, plus another 23 million wounded, with 5 million civilians dying as a result of military actions, hunger, and disease. Millions more died of genocides within the Ottoman Empire and the 1918 influenza pandemic, which was exacerbated by the movement of combatants during the war. It has been referred to by some Anglophone authors as The Great War or The War to End All Wars." Professor Penguino (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Although improved, the range is still mentioned twice. In my opinion, it is better to provide the range in parenthesis in a concise form without additional wording. Also, per Robinvp11, "I think moving one of the deadliest conflicts in history into the first sentence addresses this concern" (about the death toll notability). Btw, I only read the first sentence. Thinker78 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion (as I understand it) is whether we need to include The Great War or The War to End All Wars in the Lede at all, not simply whether we should move the phrase further down - what's the point? Plus the article is written in British English, hence the dates need to conform to that. I know we're focusing on the first sentence but I think we're close enough to be able to agree on the first paragraph, rather than do this again :). So;

"World War I, often abbreviated as WWI, was a global conflict that lasted from 28 July 1914 until 11 November 1918. Belligerents included much of Europe, the Russian Empire, the United States, and the Ottoman Empire, with fighting occurring throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia. One of the deadliest conflicts in history, an estimated 32 million soldiers were killed or wounded in combat, with another 5 million civilian deaths from military action, hunger, and disease. Millions more died as a result of genocides within the Ottoman Empire, while the movement of combatants during the war increased the severity of the 1918 influenza pandemic." Robinvp11 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I am neutral about including or not including "The Great War or The War to End All Wars" in the lead. Regarding the duration range, why not using a simple parenthetical range (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) for conciseness? Thinker78 (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it looks good! I would maybe put the date in parentheses. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robinvp11@Professor Penguino@Slatersteven@TheTimesAreAChanging@Tunakanski, can we use the following first sentence?

World War I (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), often abbreviated as WWI, was a global conflict and one of the deadliest.

I know that "one of the deadliest" also appears later in the lead but we can copyedit said part to avoid the redundancy. Thinker78 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't put "one of the deadliest" in the first sentence, but since other editors think it should go there I'd write it as:

World War I (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), often abbreviated as WWI, was one of the deadliest global conflicts in history. ― TUNA × 15:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks good to me, Tuna. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Implemented Diff. Best regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Collage

From the top, left to right: British Cheshire Regiment at the Battle of the Somme (1916); Ottoman Arab Camel Corps leaving for the Middle Eastern front (1916); SMS Grosser Kurfürst during Operation Albion (1917); Aftermath of the Russian siege of Przemyśl (1914–15); German soldiers at the Battle of Verdun (1916); Serbian retreat into Albania (1915–16).

The current image collage looks pretty good, but I also noticed that it seemed a bit Western Front-centric. I created an alternative collage to try and represent more of the fronts. Any thoughts or suggestions? XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@XTheBedrockX:I think the balkan theatre should replace to Vardar offensive ,not the Serbia retreat. After all,it is much important. Waylon1104 (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

List of Leaders /Commanders

Should George V be listed at all? The UK by 1914 was a Constitutional Monarchy. The King was not a significant decision maker. Granted this may be seen as 'lopsided' if Wilhelm II and Nicholas II are left in the lists, but the contexts in each country was different. 91.84.189.190 (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Argumentative essay

Excuse 143.44.193.247 (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Editor 143.44.193.247, please use your words - what is it that you are attempting to communicate here? 14.2.202.12 (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Chemical weapons - "War crimes"

I do not follow why the use of chemical weapons (gas) is listed under war crimes. Their use may have been a breach of the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases, however that would not be a crime but non-compliance with an agreement. The Western Allies also used Chemical weapons in World War I. 14.2.202.12 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence revisited

Hello all

I'm sorry to reopen this so soon, but I missed the previous discussion on the lead sentence of this article, and would like to make a suggestion. @Thinker78 suggested I should start a new discussion here. In my experience, First World War is the most common term in Commonwealth countries, and World War I is the most common in the US. The following NGram shows that First World War is marginally the most common term in English worldwide.[2] So following MOS:BOLDSYN the lead sentence should be: World War I (WWI) (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), also known as the First World War...

This isn't cluttered or difficult to read, captures the two most important names for the conflict in English, and is the preferred form under policy. Would anyone object if this change were made? Thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"First imperialist war" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect First imperialist war and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § First imperialist war until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2023

when you press show under france it shows the countries of the british empire, shouldnt this be under british empire 2A00:23C5:348D:4301:8DD1:1F35:7CBC:9A0 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The "show" feature of the drop down box refers to the information below. So it correctly refers to the combatants fighting as part of the British Empire. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Seems to be a problem with template:clist. Don't think it can be fixed here. small jars tc 20:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Oversimplification

@TheIranianSalafist simpler is not always better. This little footnote you put on the Ottoman sultan of "oh it's not only this guy, also this guy succeeded him" all because of your fixation on keeping it short makes it kind of ridiculous.

Also, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Ludendorff, but before tweaking around you should go read about him and his role in 1910s German politics. I didn't include him for potatoes. Synotia (moan) 15:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Manpower

In the summary box it used to say how much manpower each nation had. Personally I thought that was useful information. I just wondered how come it got deleted. Firestar47 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyone? Firestar47 (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

1918

The section on 1918 makes no mention of Russia's exit from the war. This should be included. Firestar47 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, we should probably mention that in the info box. 165.234.101.99 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

They exited then wear the year before. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

So should we add “Russia (Until March, 1918)” to the info box? 165.234.101.99 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary Box* 165.234.101.99 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hyperinflation in Germany

I think that there needs to be an addition at the end of the lede section of the article which talks about the hyperinflation that Germany was suffering around that time. I tried, but was reverted, so I would like to hear anyone else's thoughts rather than starting an edit war. There are sources to support this as well: [3] [4] [5]
Please feel free to share your thoughts. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is already too long and we should be looking for ways to cut it. There is no need to add a sentence about the German post-war hyperinflation. This article is about WWI, not the post-war period. There are already several articles which deal with the German post-war hyperinflation. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I was just throwing out ideas. I consider the matter closed then for the time being. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

History

first world war 102.244.221.113 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes? Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Intro

Another point, I was reading the introduction and saw this: "Attempts to bypass the stalemate caused fighting to expand into the Middle East, the Alps, the Balkans and overseas colonies, bringing Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and others into the war." This sentence is factually wrong in numerous ways and really needs taking out. Firestar47 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

IN what way? Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is wrong because it is misleading -- the war spread in part because the Allies kept encouraging more neutral states to join the war effort, offering them territory in return. Italy joined to gain S. Tyrol, Trieste and Dalmatia; Romania joined to gain Transylvania, etc. Japan was offered various German island colonies. The "stalemate" in the Western front did not cause this to occur. The Allies caused it to occur -- again expanding the war. In fact, the entire war was unnecessarily expanded. A brief Austria-Hungary v. Serbia conflict over terrorism was expanded to a continental contest between France/Russia/Serbia and their territorial desires (i.e. regain Alsace-Lorraine, undo the restraints on the Black Sea from the Crimean War, take the straits from the Ottomans during their imminent collapse -- as shown by their huge territorial losses in 1911, 1912, 1913) and AH and Germany. And then again, that continental war was expanded into a global conflict when Britain entered. And that global conflict expanded again as the Allies encouraged Italy, Greece, Japan, Romania, the USA, etc. to join. The Central Powers added Bulgaria and Ottoman Turkey -- which did allow for expansion of the Allied war effort to the Middle East. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I will look at the sentence and see if it can be made clearer. I would point out "stalemate" refers to both the Eastern and Western Fronts, while Bulgaria, Greece etc were brought into the war specifically to open up new fronts due to that lack of progress. The entries of Japan, Italy and the Ottoman Empire are covered in an earlier paragraph.

Most of the subsequent argument is extremely contentious and seems to ignore the extensive literature on the causes of the war. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

One problem basically is it puts the cart before the horse, the fighting expanded geographically as new states joined not vice versa. Also the war didn't expand to the balkans it started there. Firestar47 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok how about the following "over time new states such as Italy, Turkey, Japan, Bulgaria and Romania, entered the war and the fighting expanded to Africa, the Middle East, East and Southeast Asia, the Alps and other parts of the balkans". Firestar47 (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Black Tom Explosion

The Black Tom Explosion is not mentioned as a reason why the US joined WWI. Despite it being a major event. I think it should at least be mentioned. 69.204.59.102 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

While the incident may have been a major event in July 1916, I don't think you can argue it was a significant contribution to the US entering the war. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Start date of the war

At the moment the article lists two start dates; 28 June 1914, when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, and 28 July 1914, when Austria declared war on Serbia. Either of these may be appropriate, but the most appropriate will be the one most commonly cited by historians; have we determined this previously? BilledMammal (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Start date should be 28 July Robinvp11 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Recommendation to reduce/merge content

This article has been tagged with a recommendation that it be considerably reduced. I think this can be done fairly easily by moving most of the content from Section 6 onwards into sub-articles or significantly reducing it.

However, the remaining content is still too wordy and the Lede remains too long, which means people won't read it. I can put a draft up but it needs to only include what is essential, not what would be nice. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to shorten this major event in the history of many countries. Readers can easily find the section that interests them. If they want the whole story they can read it in parts. Rjensen (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Professor Jensen. The article well summarizes events and topics that are subjects of entire books much less an overview. There may be a little repetition and some editing may be possible but none of the covered topics and events should be entirely omitted. I think that readers of an article on a topic this detailed are probably not turning to the article for an incomplete version of some of the summaries of some of the key events and topics. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this misses the point. The article is hard to navigate, so it needs restructuring, and the whole point of an online encyclopedia is to break up a large topic into manageable bits. Otherwise, people don't read it.

Reducing content is not the same per se as leaving stuff out. But (for example) Wikipedia has an entire article on Romanian participation in WWI; so why do we need four paragraphs on what is a minor theatre for most readers? Robinvp11 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your second paragraph. I was trying to express that I agree with Professor Jensen's main point about comprehensiveness, but I do not disagree with some editing and reduction of content as long as anything of significance is mentioned and links to articles devoted to the subject in more depth are provided. Looking back, the mention of omitting "nice to have" content might have been taken as a suggestion for wholesale pruning that would result in omission of significant events and content. This article may be the only look at an overview of World War I for many readers, or their introduction to a large and interesting subject. That introduction could spark their further interest if it has enough information. As I suggested, I think many readers who turn to an article like this one are looking for a little more than an outline of a few major events. Romanian participation appears to be one of the good candidates for reduction of content on the subject in this article, as you suggest. Adept editing can keep much of the content in fewer words, unlike this note. Donner60 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at your interesting user page. This seems pertinent here: "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead. Blaise Pascale (or Oscar Wilde, depending)." I've probably written a few things along these lines and I am reasonably sure I have quoted this a few times, or came up with it independently. Happy editing. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

More Headings

Maybe make more headings so people can find what they need faster 97.64.154.100 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There are already 19 headings. If there were anymore, the paragraphs will be very short. DDMS123 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Portal added at the bottom of the main page

I added a portal to World War I at the bottom of this page, and I received a warning message. Although I'm auto-confirmed, I wanted to let you know so you can check it out and see if it's appropriate. Lord Milner (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The portal is already in the article in the right section WP:PORTL. Moxy- 11:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

first gas use

there is minor thing where it says that germans where the first to use gas but acourding to the kumc the french where the first to use gas? Kaydenbalch (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

kumc? Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

kansis unvisty medical center Kaydenbalch (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Where did they claim this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The claim is for the use of tear gas see Patton, James. "Gas in The Great War". Medicine in the First World War. KU Medical Center. Retrieved 21 April 2023. Several chemicals were weaponized in WWI and France actually was the first to use gas - they deployed tear gas in August 1914 DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, so if we say the germans were the first to use gas we can change that, where do we? Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

As stated on our main article Tear gas: "None of the belligerents believed that the use of irritant gases violated the Hague Convention of 1899 which prohibited the use of 'poison or poisoned weapons' in warfare. Use of chemical weapons escalated during the war to lethal gases, after 1914 (during which only tear gas was used). ... Use of tear gas in warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925: it prohibited the use of 'asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials', a treaty that most states have signed." Germany is still generally considered to have been the first to breach the then-binding international law by using lethal gases, starting with chlorine and eventually escalating to the use of mustard gas.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I can see how people can get confused. The French and Russian forces both trialed irritant gases, but these didn't have a big impact and thus these efforts were largely forgotten about. German troops were the first to deploy chlorine, a lethal gas. The German chemical industry was world-leading and Germany was a major chlorine producer at the war's beginning; Fritz Haber, chemist who is one of the most important people of the 20th century, threw himself into the German war effort and was a principal figure in German military use of gas. Maybe the article should note this in some way to help dispel reader confusion? Maybe a footnote would work here? 47.155.41.201 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Where the lead sentence reads "often abbreviated as WWI", it should say "often abbreviated as WW1 or WWI". "WW1" is the more common version in my personal experience, and I find a higher Google hit count for it; in any case it's certainly common enough to mention here. --142.112.220.184 (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Main Central Powers Leaders

In the "Belligerents" list, for the main Central Powers leaders, Mehmed V and Mehmed VI are listed for the Ottoman Empire. However, this is misleading because in reality the three pashas (Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha, Cemal Pasha) were truly the ones who held power, rather than the Sultan (which was the case after the Young Turk revolution of 1908). 73.231.202.92 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Baku

The Battle of Baku was one of the last wars of World War 1 and is not mentioned on this page. "The Battle of Baku (Azerbaijani Bakı döyüşü, Russian Битва за Баку, Turkish Bakü Muharebesi) from June to September 1918 was a battle between forces of the Ottoman Empire and the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic on the one hand and Bolshevik Dashnak forces of the Baku commune the other side, who were replaced later in the war by troops from the British Empire, the White Movement, and Armenians led by Lionel Dunsterville (British officer who led Dunsterforce)." 2003:EC:701:1700:5459:4ED2:9315:2B2B (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Intro

There are problems with the new wording of the intro. Greece did not enter the war til 1917. Before that it had 2 governments one pro entente one pro central powers. The entente one let the allies occupy Salonica and use it thus creating a new front but Greece didn't enter the war itself til 1917. Firestar47 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"1917; Timeline of major developments" and "1918; Timeline of major developments"

These 2 sections alone account for ~43,400 bytes of this article. I don't know if they should be moved somewhere else or simply condensed, but either way, this probably needs to be dealt with in some form for this page to meet the WP:SIZERULE. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Deaths during WW1

Deaths during WW1 has numerous times been proven to be greatly underestimated by not just the general public, but also some historians. I am amazed that we still use the old and proven-low estimate of 9 million combat deaths! The actual figure could be 1 and a half times that. 94.145.14.14 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your assertions. DuncanHill (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

July 2023 Tag

I wish that when someone tags a page, they would put a note on the talk page, so we know what they are thinking. Tag and run is not good.

• Tag
  • This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Its current readable prose size is 134 kilobytes. (June 2023)
  • This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2023)

1) There are 468 References on the page, but additional citations are requested. I think the request was made as there are no citations in the opening.

2) "Too long to read and navigate comfortably." No text should be deleted, this is a major event in world history. For World War II, a more major event, some topics are given their own page. I would put "war crimes" on its own page, as the World War II page has. Does anyone else have ideas on to shorten the page so the tag can go away?Telecine Guy (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

On 1, the referencing tag was added with the rationale that Technology onward is lacking citations. On 2, detailed information can be decanted to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me. Sorry I didn't post more in the talk page about this. In any case, I've brought up this issue regarding the size of this page before. I brought it up as recently as last month, and didn't get any kind of response back, so I took it upon myself to try and meet WP:SIZERULE without removing unsourced content. I have no issue with there being no citations in the lead (that's fine in a page like this), but I have added "citation needed" to paragraphs that don't have in-line cites, so I still think there's work to be done here. XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

Please, in the section regarding the U.S. getting involved in World War 1 there is a typo. It's in the first or second sentence; material is spelled "materiel", which is incorrect. I literally only created an account to edit that. Change materiel to material. Tygera15 (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done I can tell you're asking in good faith, but the use of the word here, "materiel" (as in military supplies) is actually correct in the context of the paragraph. It's an easy thing to get mixed up with, though (since "material" can also be used in a similar war), so I understand the confusion. XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Including main participants

I am removing Siam (China), Brazil, Armenia, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Romania, Portugal and Hejaz from the infobox as they were minor ally of the Entente powers. The six main ones, stated on the Allies of World War I are France, United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, Italy and the United States. Ayubist (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

These have since been re-added. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

New subpage

Just created Timeline of World War I (1917–1918) and linked it directly under "1917; Timeline of major developments." hopefully, that means the 1917/1918 sections can be better summarized. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Same quote repeated

The telegram reading "Disgraceful! 62,000 Serbs decided the war!" is mentioned twice in the article, which given the length seems not great. But I'm not sure which mention to chop; it's possible the general narrative for the later part of the war needs to be reworked. -- Beland (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking it over, I think the first mention of it can probably be removed. In fairness, though, the article in general needs better summarizing overall. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

How about changing the photo description?

Hi, I just wonder could you change the photo description from "From the top, left to right" to "Clockwise from top left"? User:GreatPersonLikeMe 10:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Why? That description would be incorrect. Did you ever look at the pictures? WP:CIR. The Banner talk 12:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Add an abbreviation of WW1

The introduction paragraph missing the WW1 abbreviation. It is highly recommended to add it according to the style of an encyclopedia. Also, it makes other people understand about how "World War I" could be spoken in different variants of short-form-referred word. 222.254.140.185 (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to add some my own words. I think the First World War is also an alternative name to call World War I. That's my minor suggestion. No problem to turn down it. I would highly want to contribute notable sights. 222.254.140.185 (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Please join the discussion The Great War, above. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

See Also little detail

you should add in the "See Also" section World War II could be a litte detail you could add W!kipedista (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned and linked appropriately in the article text, so should not appear in See also. DuncanHill (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

German War Debt

I think that Germany's war debt should be mentioned in the lede, as it definitely contributed to the outbreak of World War 2. I added it more than once, but every time it was deleted, so I decided to bring it up here. There are may reliable sources that talk about the war debt: [6] [7] [8] [9], as well as its contribution on the fall of German democracy: [10] [11]. Thoughts? Professor Penguino (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is about World War One, not the causes of World War Two. The article is already too long and needs to be cut back, not lengthened by tangential information. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

My proposition is that the last sentence of the lede be changed from its current version, "The dissolution of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires resulted in the creation of new independent states, including Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. The inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939." to this new revision: "The creation of new independent states after the dissolution of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires, as well as war reparations imposed on Germany after the war, contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939." My version would actually be shorter while conveying more information. Besides, just because an article is long does not mean very important information should not be excluded. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The current version is better. "The inability to manage post-war instability" better covers a range of complex factors. Reparations is only one factor, and probably not one of the most important, despite what Hitler said and many neo-Nazis still say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

“Despite what Hitler said”? You don’t think extreme hyperinflation which destroyed family’s savings wouldn’t enable a despotic, murderous leader to emerge (in this case, Hitler)? Yes, it was a big factor. The Nazis used the war debt to stir up anger among German people. The debt imposed on Germany was, in my opinion, a big blunder for the allies. If Germany’s economy hadn’t been so crippled the Nazis probably wouldn’t have had so much leverage. I’m not suggesting adding that; that’s just context for what many reliable sources say. If you think it’s better to say “post-war instability” somewhere in there, I can integrate it into my proposal. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't the reparations that caused the inflation, or the war. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

From Business Insider: “Not only did the Treaty of Versailles impose reparation demands that Germany would never realistically be able to repay, but it also annexed German territory and required the army to fire hundreds of thousands of soldiers”. It goes on: “The implications of these truncations for the German economy were of course enormous: and so were those of the requirement to reduce the German army to a quarter of its size, for it meant that over a quarter of a million more disbanded soldiers were to be thrown on the labour market. Work had to be found for them at any cost, or so it was calculated. What spelt doom were the clauses that made Germany responsible for the war and demanded colossal reparations — in money and in kind — to meet the Allies' costs.” You can find it here: [12]. Professor Penguino (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your quote that states that the reparations clause of the Treaty of Versailles caused the Second World War. As for the other point I made, that the reparations clause did not cause the German inflation, you might like to read this: From which I quote: "Above all, however, the Weimar government shot itself in the foot, as economist Jutta Hoffritz explains to DW. When the young republic was lagging behind with its reparations payments, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr Valley to secure the rich coal mines in the region. The local population went on strike to resist the occupation, and the government in Berlin fired up the money printing presses so that it could keep paying the "patriotic" strikers their wages. With this "patriotic measure," the government fueled the depreciation of its own currency, Hoffritz says. The economist published the book "Totenanz — Das Jahr 1923 und seine Folgen" ("Dance of the Dead — The Year 1923 and Its Aftermath") this year in German, in which she explores the causes of hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic 100 years ago."

In any case, this isn't about WWI, It's about the causes of WWII. You are simply posting in the wrong Talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for teaching me something I didn’t know before. Genuinely. Cheers! Professor Penguino (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the Business Insider source omits a number of salient points;

- Reparations due is not the same as paid; Germany ultimately paid a total of $468 million in reparations, or roughly three days of funding WWI (for comparison, Britain only finished paying WWI debts due to the US in 2007);

- "Firing soldiers"; in 1913, German defence spending as a % of GDP was 3.5%; in 1922, it was 0.20%. Various historians have argued that on this basis, Versailles should be seen as a net economic gain;

- "Annexing territory"; Germany had to return Alsace-Lorraine to France, annexed in 1871, and which contained 60% of French iron ore reserves, and 30% of coal. They lost territory in East Prussia to Poland but retained the industrial heartland of Silesia;

- "What spelt doom were the clauses that made Germany responsible for the war and demanded colossal reparations — in money and in kind — to meet the Allies' costs". This is one of the most successful and widespread pieces of propaganda and myth-making in modern history, peddled by right-wing apologists for much of the last century. I'm still amazed by how often I hear it trotted out by people who should know better;

- The Nazis and other fringe parties were the only ones to even mention Versailles throughout the 20s, and their main objection was that it accepted German defeat - that's what they meant by "Versailles criminals". They didn't like reparations (who would) but as someone whose degree includes a specialisation in inter-war Germany, I can tell you it is an issue conspicuously missing from German politics of the period. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Spanish Flu vs 1918–1920 flu pandemic

The World Health Organization advises against using geographic names (such as ‘Spanish Flu’) when labeling ‘common’ non-scientific diseases and disease events. Whilst this event is commonly referred to as the Spanish Flu, it is also known as the ‘1918–1920 flu pandemic’ and ‘the Great Influenza epidemic’. Moreover, it is known that Spain’s scientific reporting of the epidemic was due to transparency for the benefit of the global scientific community and global humanity’s health, and that the origins and spread were not in Spain. Sources: https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-practices-for-naming-new-human-infectious-diseases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu TazzieM (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the common use regarding to naming. And Spanish Flu is the common name for that disease. Beside that, the WHO link you give is talking about new diseases, not a disease a 100 years old. The Banner talk 07:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/World War I

Template:Editnotices/Page/World War I has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.244.127 (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

Historians claim that the ambiguity with the assassination of the archduke Ferdenez that there is no proof of a direct involvement this states that your writing which you claim to be "facts" are factually incorrect please correct yourself and update this page asap thank you sARAH tHATCHER Common Watchfire Office , Bridlington YO15 7XJ 213.249.241.137 (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Which states do we say carried it out? Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The current wording (which I wrote :)) says this; "Supplied with arms by extremists within the Serbian Black Hand intelligence organisation..."

There is some debate among historians as to the collective responsibility of the Serbian state (not least because the Serbian government was divided between pro-Russian and pro-German elements), versus individual players within it. There is very little dispute the weapons came from the Black Hand, but most agree the assassination was not Serbian government policy. I think the wording accurately reflects this. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Article too long

There are tags on this article that it is too long to read comfortably. I did a quick look around, and I think some pieces can be split off. I think splitting off the sections World War I#War crimes, World War I#Soldiers' experiences and World War I#Legacy and memory should be possible. The section World War I#Technology could be reduced or merged into Technology during World War I. What do you think? The Banner talk 13:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Certainly in favour of it. Mentioning the technology should be fine, but it should also definitely be scaled back. Splitting and summarizing the war crimes and solider experiences also seems like a good idea. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. I think there might be scope for a separate article on the "Social and Cultural Impact of WWI" which could include these sections, plus maybe others eg the role of women. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

(*My 5 August 2023, post- feedback on this topic was deleted (I was told in the past this should not be done?). Re-posting:)

No text should be deleted, this is a major event in world history. For World War II, a more major event, some topics are given their own page. I would put "war crimes" on its own page, as the World War II page has. Does anyone else have ideas on other topics that came be moved, so the tag can go away? Is there a way to move the page edits with the text? Telecine Guy (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the Soldiers' experiences and Technology.Telecine Guy (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Russia

The article states "Russia considered itself the protector of Serbia and other Slav states", and then little more is said on this aspect. This is a major key to the war, but it is not covered very well. It could benefit from further explanation, perhaps from other expert secondary RS. Additionally, "Once the German ultimatum to Russia expired on the morning of 1 August, the two countries were at war" How so? Who declared war on who? 182.239.152.166 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2023

Hello i would like to edit Kingdom of Serbia on main page of this post and not in the others. I think its pretty shamefull not to include it but to have Japan and Greece who joined one year before end of the war. Also it is very disrespectful and its revision of history when the state that was attacked first in this war is side tracked when our population lost almost 30% of population . Its realy sad to se that when even Spanish and French wiki post have it but English one that is most read. Change Kingdom of Greece with Kingdom of Serbia in participants list for this post and add King Peter I Karadjordjevic and Regent Aleksandar Karadjordjevic in leader's list . 178.148.33.74 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

New Infobox Events Leading Up to WWI

I'm not sure who inserted this, but I've removed it from the article because I cannot see the relevance of these events to WWI. It also seems misleading, because surely the implication is that these are all steps on the road to war, and I don't think that's the case.

Where do we stop? Because you could create similar "lists" for every single war, and they'd be equally helpful/unhelpful.

Putting this out there for others to consider; if its just me, ok. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox clutter. Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not see the need for that box either. The Banner talk 19:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Names World War I and World War II

It is known that until the outbreak of World War II, the first war was called the Great War. It would be interesting to determine the date when the name World War II was first used in the media and when the name was changed from The Great War to World War I. Who and when? Mir.Nalezinski (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The Great War

I’m surprised that the article does not use the original and still widely used name for the conflict ‘The Great War’. There’s a redirection but it’s not mentioned in the intro. I found this peculiar. Is there a reason why it’s not used here? SteadyJames (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why it's not in the lead, if I were to guess it's to keep clutter to a minimum. Add it if you think you can make it work. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking that at least a footnote would appropriate as it was (and to an extent still is) a commonly used name for the war. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's covered in detail in the "Names" section, but I added mention in the intro. -- Beland (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Before seeing this section here, I amended the lead which said use of the term was contemporaneous because it wasn't - it was the standard term until WW2 came along and is still used often after that. Inexplicably, User:XTheBedrockX tried to remove it from the lead but it has been put back. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger There was a whole discussion about this late last year. Admittedly, I didn't change it to what the final suggestion was, but I was still basing my decision on that precedent. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. My attention was first drawn to the use of the incorrect desciption "contemporaneously" rather than whether of not to use the phrase 'The Great War' in the lead. FWIW, I think it should be in the lead alongside WWI and the First WW. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest more natural English would be: World War I (also called the First World War, The Great War. " I don't think "major" global conflict is necessary either. Global conflict is major enough. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

That'd make sense. These are two names that are often used or seen. The Great War has been historically used and is important to note. Coulomb1 (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robinvp11, Professor Penguino, Slatersteven, TheTimesAreAChanging, and Tunakanski: The discussion about the first sentence has been opened again. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

After noticing back and forth in the lead sentence, I restored the version of the previous discussion cited by XTheBedrockX because a rough consensus was reached after a thorough discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

"...also called the First World War" should definitely be included in the first sentence as a significant alternative name. See MOS:BOLDSYN. Also see this NGRAM which shows that First World War is as common as World War I. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I am neutral about which alternative names to include. My issue about them would be mostly MOS:FIRST, redundancies, repeated words, length, clutter, MOS:ALTNAME. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe my original proposal would help with redundancy/clutter concerns. See below:

World War I (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was one of the deadliest global conflicts in history. It was fought between two coalitions: the Allies and the Central Powers. Fighting took place throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia.

~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a nice option. I think that World War I is a known enough name that doesn't need alternative names to be in running text. By moving the alt names to the superscript note the text flows better. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty good, and I'm in favour of an option similar to this, although I was thinking more in the format of World War II:

World War I or the First World War was a global conflict that lasted from 1914 to 1918.

Also, in my opinion, I think "was one of the deadliest global conflicts in history" being in the first paragraph is a bit redundant, since it's already in the final paragraph of the lead. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Great War should be mentioned in the first sentence. In a nutcheel (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I can see clutter is an issue. How about starting the second sentence with: "Also known as the First World War and the Great War, fighting took place throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia."

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@XTheBedrockX: Although indeed per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change", this discussion seemed to had been stalled and if you notice there were specific proposals for first sentence that don't include your changed wording and that didn't receive objection either. Then the proper thing to do was to further discuss.

I don't understand why you unilaterally modified the first sentence without even proposing a specific change. Per WP:CCC, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Also, "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 May I ask why you didn’t mention this earlier if you had such a strong opinion about this? I can’t know what other people think if 10 days go by without a response. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion simply stalled without anyone replying anymore. But if you analyze what was discussed yours was not the only proposal and not the most complete one. I mean you didn't mention what you just added to the page. It was not a matter for me to point out, it was to check what was discussed and if relevant offer specific proposals, in my opinion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with waiting for a consensus on whether or not to include alternative names in the first sentence, that's fine. But when it comes to "was one of the deadliest global conflicts in history", given how the rest of the lead it structured, it seems pretty redundant to have this phrase mentioned multiple times. XTheBedrockX (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to point out that phrase was not unilaterally added but it was a result of a long discussion that you are aware of. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I support the suggestions made by XTheBedrockX. Namely:

World War I or the First World War was a global conflict that lasted from 1914 to 1918.

I also support the removal of the redundant phrase about the war being one of the deadliest in world history. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the change by XTheBedrockX is the new presumed consensus for the first sentence: World War I (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), often abbreviated as WWI, was a global conflict fought between two coalitions, the Allied Powers and the Central Powers. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, there is no consensus for this at all. Unless I have become lost in the thread, the most recent proposal from @XTheBedrockX was this one:

"World War I or the First World War was a global conflict that lasted from 1914 to 1918." ^ Often abbreviated as WWI or WW1; also called the Great War.

This is the one I support, as I made clear above. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You missed XTheBedrockX bold edit of more than a week ago that didn't get a revert, change, discussion, even though this page is watched by more than 4,000 editors. But, given that it wasn't reached through discussion, it has presumed consensus, not outright consensus. Also, you are I guess one of those editors who is only until now noticing. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You guess wrongly. I didn't miss XTheBedrockX's bold edit, I simply didn't want to engage in an edit war while the matter was under discussion. I have also been engaged in this issue for some months and in my contributions above I have bent over backwards to achieve a compromise. There is no consensus, presumed or otherwise, although it seems to me that three editors are in favour of including the First World War in the first sentence as an alternative name (indeed, it is the most common name for the conflict, particularly in British English which this article is supposed to adhere to.) A RfC might be necessary, but I will wait to see if XTheBedrockX clarifies what his preferred option now is. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin yeah, I agree on the lack of consensus for alternative names. There may be an implied consensus to have the first "deadliest conflict" line removed, but when it comes to the main topic here (the names), I agree there doesn’t seem to be a consensus yet.

In any case, I'm still in favour of my proposed change (the one you mentioned earlier). XTheBedrockX (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I would strongly argue against using the term "Great War". I don't think it's widely used anymore, and the term has been applied to any number of conflicts. For example, 19th century Brits often referred to the Napoleonic Wars as the "Great War"; until recently, for Germans, "Great War" meant the Thirty Years War. It's not unique. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I also support an RfC to try to clarify things, given that this discussion is veering differently and had been abandoned without reaching compromise. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Wording a RfC will be tricky. I suggest we avoid multiple options and propose replacing the current wording with the option XTheBedrockX and I support. But I don't have much experience with RfCs so I'm open to suggestions by editors with more experience in these matters. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What is that option you and XTheBedrockX support? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I am thinking of this one. Written out in full, it would be:

World War I or the First World War was a global conflict that lasted from 1914 to 1918. It was fought between two coalitions, the Allied Powers and the Central Powers. Fighting took place throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't like much the change to dedicate more emphasis on the years range. I favor keeping it in parenthesis. Also, for notable info in the lead sentence, between your version and the current one, I favor the current one.

World War I (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), often abbreviated as WWI, was a global conflict fought between two coalitions, the Allied Powers and the Central Powers.

I am neutral about the alternative names, as long as they don't clutter. And I would be neutral as well about the range being only the years (1914–1918), which would render it more concise.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I know I've been absent for a bit -- just wanted to hop in and say that I agree with you on the lede. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

How about: World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between two coalitions, the Allied Powers and the Central Powers."? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the bit about there being two coalitions necessary? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because those are the two principal military alliances of the war. XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean that saying "between two coalitions," is unnecessary. It could just say it was between the Allied Powers and Central Powers. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning that they are coalitions gives context to what "the Allied Powers" and "the Central Powers" are to people who don't already know what they are. I'd say that's fine to include. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding that option, maybe it would be better, World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between the Allies and the Central Powers. I think that when we establish that it was a conflict between the Allies and the Central powers, it is directly implied to the abstract understanding of the readers that they were two opposing groups. And their names further implies they are coalitions. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I can live with that. If we can get a consensus on this wording there might not be a need for a RfC. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus proposal for first sentence

@SteadyJames, AquilaFasciata, Freedom4U, Beland, Roger 8 Roger, XTheBedrockX, Aemilius Adolphin, Robinvp11, and Professor Penguino: After analyzing the thread, I propose for the first sentence,

World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between the Allies and the Central Powers.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

1. YgY I support this change. (Edit: I also support Beland's suggestion to keep "two coalitions.) XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
2. YY I also support this change. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
3. YgY I support the addition of the footnote, but would prefer to retain "two coalitions, " before "the Allies and the Central Powers". -- Beland (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
4. YY I support this. Professor Penguino (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
5. YgY I support this, but like Beland (talk · contribs) would retain "two coalitions" Robinvp11 (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
6. NgYNg The Great War is a redirect and needs to appear clearly per principle of least surprise in the first paragraph, and not buried in a note. So consider that an objection. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
7.    Ng Goods point so I object as the last thing we need is peole asking "why does great war redirect to here"., Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
8. YY I support the change in that it's an objective improvement over the current lede sentence (no comment on whether "Great War" belongs in the footnote or not). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• @GraemeLeggett and Slatersteven: Regarding Great War, what about adding a hatnote "Great War redirects here". There are other articles that have redirects but don't feature the alternative name. There has been objection to its inclusion in this discussion and a previous one. Also, per MOS:ALTNAME, If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A hatnote may be another necessity but that does not mean ignoring documented practice. I also said first paragraph not first sentence so question of "clutter" is not an issue.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who types "The Great War" into wikipedia will be "shocked, surprised, or confused" to find themselves redirected to an article on World War One. I just did it and the range of results makes it clear that it refers to the First World War, a documentary on the First World War and a couple of movies about the First World War. We have to assume that readers are of average intelligence, can click a note, and have come to wikipedia to learn. The essay you linked to is not a policy or guideline and unless I missed something, nowhere does it say that all redirected terms must be explained in the first sentence of the lead. Nor do I think it is standard practice and in this case it just causes unnecessary clutter. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, the Great War name already appears in the Names section. Per MOS:ALTNAME, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere [from the first sentence] in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section. My proposal means the alternative names are footnoted and included in the Names section. Thoughts? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm proposing somewhere in the first paragraph, not the first sentence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between the Allies and the Central Powers. It has been called the Great War also, but the term has been applied to other conflicts as well. Thinker78 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This reads awkwardly and is putting too much emphasis to a name which is no longer very common or specific. I suggest it would be more natural to put the reference in the final sentence of the lead: "To contemporaries, the conflict was 'The Great War' or 'The War to End all Wars,' but the inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939."

This reflects the content of the article which states that these terms became popular immediately after the War, and also creates a neat segue into the statement about WWII. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett@Slatersteven, thoughts on ? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally like the first sentence, but the second one is just a bit awkward. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Aemilius proposal is one I can get behind. It's a good phrasing that brings the term into use and describes contemporary feeling. But I'd say it was more a start to the ultimate paragraph of the lede which should mention League of Nations etc as part of the post-war settlement. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the League of Nations should be mentioned in the lead. How about, "Fighting ended with the Armistice of 11 November 1918, while the subsequent Paris Peace Conference established the League of Nations and imposed various settlements on the defeated powers, notably the Treaty of Versailles." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest starting a new thread about said sentence to avoid complicating the first sentence discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Second consensus proposal for first sentence

@XTheBedrockX, Aemilius Adolphin, Beland, Professor Penguino, Robinvp11, GraemeLeggett, Slatersteven, and Freedom4U: After analyzing the thread, I make a second proposal for the first sentence (and the Great War),

World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between two coalitions, the Allies and the Central Powers.

About The Great War, in the final sentence of the lead: "To contemporaries, the conflict was 'The Great War' or 'The War to End all Wars,' but the inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Proposed lead sentence is fine, but trying to explain "Great War" in the lead is clunky and unnecessary. The Names section already exists to address things like this. XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above ie leave out "Great War" Robinvp11 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@GraemeLeggett: I tried to accommodate your objection but two editors objected as you can see above. Given that 6 out of 8 editors seemingly support the second consensus proposal for first sentence, for the sake of compromise, would you be willing to accept as a compromise to include as in the first proposal, in a footnote, "Often abbreviated as WWI or WW1; also called The Great War (although this last term has been applied to other conflicts as well)"? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have not asked for "Great War" in the First Sentence. I said, citing Least Surprise it should be somewhere in the lede and not buried in a footnote and not to rely on readers getting as far as the "names" section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett I understand, but the objections to your request refer to the lead in general. The second consensus proposal for first sentence included a provisio to add the Great War at the end of the lead. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Third consensus proposal for first sentence

@SteadyJames, AquilaFasciata, Roger 8 Roger, Coulomb1, In a nutcheel, XTheBedrockX, Aemilius Adolphin, Beland, Professor Penguino, Robinvp11, GraemeLeggett, Slatersteven, and Freedom4U:, after further analysis,

1. considering that the compromise that I proposed to accommodate the objections of among other editors, SteadyJames, GraemeLeggett and Slatersteven (that is, the second consensus proposal) didn't pan out due to further objections,
2. considering Wikipedia:Consensus, Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines,
3. considering the guideline MOS:ALTNAME, If there are three or more alternative names, they should not be included in the first sentence as this creates clutter. Instead, the names may be footnoted, or moved elsewhere in the article such as in a "Names" or "Etymology" section,
4. considering there seems to be at least three alternative names,
5. considering there is a Names section,

I recommend for the first sentence,

World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between two coalitions, the Allies and the Central Powers.

This would include language already accepted by the editors, except the editors who objected The Great War not being in the lead or first sentence. It includes the footnote accepted in the first consensus proposal for first sentence, which includes The Great War—as opposed to the footnote in the second proposal for first sentence which doesn't have it. This footnote is to accommodate to some extent the objections of the editors who wanted the Great War in the first sentence or in the lead but given the considerations stated, seems to be better not to include there. Thoughts?

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 I reiterate what I said before: saying "(although this last term has been applied to other conflicts as well)" is completely unnecessary. Great War (disambiguation) is in the hatnote at the top of the page for this exact reason. XTheBedrockX (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand but it is to accommodate to some extent the objections of the aforementioned editors who want The Great War in the lead, with an accommodation of the concerns mirrored in the comment by Robinvp11, "I don't think it's widely used anymore, and the term has been applied to any number of conflicts". A little flexibility for the sake of consensus? Thoughts?

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 typing "great war" into Google almost universally bring in English language results for World War I. Almost every media property in the "Great War" disambiguation page relates in some way to World War I. No other result comes close. "Great War" is unambiguously a very common synonym for this war in English. Calling it the "Great War" without qualification should not be controversial. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

aGRRED. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact you type "Great War" into Google and get a bunch of links to WWI does NOT prove it is commonly used, only that the phrase is most commonly associated with it in English.

"Great War" was used until the 70s - by the Brits, its persistence largely being due to the influence of surviving veterans and the seminal TV series. I cannot offhand think of a single example of it being used in any history book written since then (although I'm sure someone will provide me with an exception).

It is no widely longer used in the UK, if at all, and as someone who has lived in Australia, the US and Canada, that is also the case in those countries. English Wikipedia is not just for middle aged Brits was my point.

We're arguing about whether it should be in the body of the Lead or part of the FN which includes various other names. Enough energy has been spent on this, so I can live with whatever. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robinvp11 That it's commonly associated with this war in English is exactly my point. Considering we're using English language Wikipedia, "Great War" being redirected here makes complete sense, middle-aged Brits or not.

I think it makes sense for Great War to be mentioned in the footnote, but putting that aside, I simply don't think adding "although this last term has been applied to other conflicts as well" is a productive or necessary use of space. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"The Great War" should be included as an alternative name of note. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, as soon as I say that, Adam Hochschild publishes "American Midnight: The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis" :) :) Although tbf he is 82. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 I am happy with this proposal. I also think the clause "(although this last term has been applied to other conflicts as well)" is unnecessary, but it is true and I can live with it for the sake of compromise. It might be worth my repeating my earlier link to the this NGRAM which shows the relative use of the term "Great War". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Fourth consensus proposal for first sentence

Considering the last round of discussion, I propose for first sentence,

World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between two coalitions, the Allies and the Central Powers.

I just removed the phrase of discord from the footnote and left The Great War in it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@SteadyJames, AquilaFasciata, Roger 8 Roger, Coulomb1, In a nutcheel, XTheBedrockX, Aemilius Adolphin, Beland, Professor Penguino, Robinvp11, GraemeLeggett, Slatersteven, and Freedom4U: Thinker78 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Most agreeable variant of this lead change so far. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The only trouble I have with this proposal is I don't think that people call it the Great War anymore. It's more that people used to call it that. If, in the footnotes, you instead said, "Often abbreviated as WWI or WW1; previously called The Great War." I think it'd be perfect. Coulomb1 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I am still in support. If my concern holds back the consensus, ignore me. I believe it would be much better with it like this than without. Coulomb1 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

People still fall the Great War. The Great War: 1914-1918

Peter Hart was first published in 2021. It remains the literary and historic name for the conflict. SteadyJames (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. I support this then. Coulomb1 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

People still call it the Great War. The Great War: 1914-1918 Peter Hart was first published in 2021–there are many other example of its contemporary use. It remains the literary and historic name for the conflict. SteadyJames (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I see no need to change what we have. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I support Coulomb1's suggestion to do the proposed footnoting but also indicate that "The Great War" is an archaic term. The proposed "previously called" is good because it is clearer than the existing "in historic contexts". Moving the excess alternatives and also the archaic name out of the intro does seem to be required by MOS:ALTNAME, which also requires that archaic names be noted as such. The anti-clutter argument made by that guideline does seem sensible. -- Beland (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s not an archaic term. The book The Great War: 1914-1918

By Peter Hart, was published in 2021. There are many other book with the Great War in their title published in recent years. It remains the literary and historical name for the war. SteadyJames (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It makes sense to use an archaic term as a title for a history book, but I never hear it used in, say, modern news reports referring to WWI. -- Beland (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say archaic—but simply inserting the word "historically", to make it state historically called the Great War. would be good. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 03:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

People today in the English speaking world still call it the Great War. History book, monuments and tv shows refer to it as the same. There are contemporary books published with the Great War in it title. It’s is it original name and is concurrent to First World War and World War One. I’m not sure how much more clearly the case can be made for something that it so obviously and well cited. SteadyJames (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a strange thing to argue; people "historically" called it the Great War because relatively few called it the World War (although that was the more popular name in the States from the start) and no one called it "World War I". Using the word "historically" doesn't mean no one uses it today, just means it was historically used that way ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - why The Great War rather than the Great War? NGrams seem to indicate that the definite article is more often decapped than capitalised, meaning the conditions of MOS:THE for capitalisation are not met. Arguably it's not part of the title either, if this were the actual title it would be the Great War not The Great War. Similar to how it's the First World War, not The First World War. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreeing with this. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Coulomb1 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, definitely fits the manual of style better. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@SteadyJames, AquilaFasciata, Roger 8 Roger, Coulomb1, In a nutcheel, XTheBedrockX, Aemilius Adolphin, Beland, Professor Penguino, Robinvp11, GraemeLeggett, Slatersteven, and Freedom4U:,  Implemented the change. I hope it is acceptable. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Haha the change has incorrectly linked "Allies" to the page Alliance, instead of Allies of World War I. I've fixed it now 🙃 ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 03:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Whoopsie! :D Thinker78 (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Change "her" to "its" referring to Britain

There is an instance of the term "her" being used to refer to Britain in the following passage: "Britain turned to her colonies for help". This should be replaced with "its" to retain neutrality. (Somewhat unrelated, but there is a typo in this passage: " Herincreasingly incompetent rule and food shortages in urban areas") 2600:1006:B15B:951D:5C63:FBFB:E4D7:9C63 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024

Just before the section of "Prelude" it would be useful for the completeness of the page to add the non standard explanation to the war but which deserves all due respect since it comes from at least two established historians: one German: Fritz Fischer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Fischer

and the other one British: John Röhl. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._G._R%C3%B6hl By the way, these two historians are mentioned in wikipedia page on the origiins of WW1.Frédéric Nataf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_causes_of_World_War_I

Historians such as Fritz Fischer or John Röhl highlight the fact that the war had been desired by German leaders, who were convinced that it was preferable to a perceived humiliating and dangerous status quo in the medium term for Germany  · . Nataf (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

To be true, it is unclear to me what change you want. Please rephrase your request in the form of "please change X to Y". The Banner talk 22:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

end main introductory paragraph, double denial

The inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939.

change to

post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. Mbnieuwenhuis (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hejaz as belligerent in infobox

Hezaj being listed as a main belligerent in the infobox along with the main allied Powers France, UK, Italy, Russia, Japan, USA seems undue to me. According to the source used Sachar "The Emergence Of The Middle East 1914-1924" the entire Hejazi population was about 600,000 (pp. 121-123). (Hohum ^@) 18:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hejaz was a principal belligerent in the Middle East theater of the war. Japan is listed in the infobox, it was a principal belligerent in the Asian Pacific theater of the war. Hejaz forces saw more combat than the Japanese did. To include Japan but not Hejaz is creates an NPOV issue. To remove both creates an NPOV issue, since it then shifts the slant to only western states.XavierGreen (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to state your case more fully, citing reliable sources, details of military strength, major operations etc. Hejaz is not commonly cited as a major allied power in the major scholarly works I've read. There is also a case for cuttng back the info box which is too detailed in my opinion. But that can be a separate issue. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead sentence needs to be modified

1. REDIRECT Talk:World War II

2405:4802:64C7:BF70:B50C:773B:1A40:16BA (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

"Serbia's defeat in the 1914..." Should be: "Austria-Hungary's defeat in the 1914..."

See the main article of the 'Serbia' campaign for confirmation, there is an almost identical line there, but written correctly with 'Austria-Hungary'. 2A02:1811:D05:D500:236E:43DC:C923:68FF (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done You are quite right, I think an editor must have misread the source as it does say "Serbia's defeat of Austria-Hungary". This has been amended now, thank you. Irltoad (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Death toll

Hello all This section needs to be thoroughly checked and made consistent with the lead. I removed all the content regarding deaths through disease and starvation in Russia from 1918-22 because this was obviously affected by the Russian civil war. It is also highly dubious to claim that pandemics in the 1920s were "caused" by WWI. As for the lead, it quotes figures for deaths which aren't to be found in the article. For example, nowhere does the article can I find separate estimates of deaths by genocide and other civilian deaths. Estimates of death tolls vary widely between authors and depend on what they consider to be a death caused by the war and this needs to be briefly discussed in the article and used consistently throughout. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"that pandemics in the 1920s were "caused" by WWI" The Spanish flu (1918-1920) is thought to have spread from American troops to European populations. Other pandemics of the era could have followed the path of mass military transports. Dimadick (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove the content on the Spanish flu. Stating that typhus pandemics in the 1920s were caused by WWI is an entirely different matter and requires far better sources than are provided. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Patterson, K David (1993). "Typhus and its control in Russia, 1870–1940". Medical History. 37 (4). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 361–381. doi:10.1017/s0025727300058725. ISSN 0025-7273.....

Moxy🍁 01:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The summary of the article quoted above does not claim typhus epidemics in the 1920s "were caused by WWI". In fact, it suggests typhus was a long term problem in Russian rural society (hence the article starting in 1870), but one which was actually disappearing in the 1920s. I can't see the whole article, so a page reference would be useful. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

Well i have found atleast 1 but there might be more words with no links like in 1 place "Germany" isnt linked to the germany wikipedia page World War I LostThisGame (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that I look at it a bit more it is probably made like that so it is not just a bunch of link everywhere.

Please decline my edit request im sorry for being a problem. LostThisGame (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries @User:LostThisGame! Articles don't tend to link every time something is mentioned – typically just the first time, maybe more if there is distance between them. See MOS:OL for some more details on that. I'll also put some useful links on your talk page in a minute which you might find useful. Thanks for the request all the same! Irltoad (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

Serbia was one of the most important nations in ww1 and you didnt even put it in "entante" list, no u have to click "expand list".... thats so dissrespectfull, the war was won because of the push on Salonica/Thessalonici front, and u didnt even put us on the list but there are Japan and Italy that didnt do shit in war... Please put us in main countries Markosrbija10 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. While there doesn't seem to be previous discussion on this, I presume that the determination of principal powers is based on the text of the Preamble of the Treaty of Versailles, plus Russia which was a member of the Triple Entente. It's a waste of time trying to debate things like "who were the top five contributors to winning WWI", and that would probably constitute original research anyway. Liu1126 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the war actually began in Serbia, I agree with Markosrbija that it deserves inclusion in the main list of Allied Powers, especially as Bulgaria is listed for the Central Powers.

While we're on the topic, surely it should also be "British Empire" and "French Empire"; I understand the various sensitivities around this, but (unlike 1939), Australia and the other Dominions were committed to the war by virtue of being part of the Empire. And if you suggest to modern Egyptians, Indians or Sri Lankans they entered the war voluntarily, you'll get a pretty sharp response.

Since none of these can be considered separate Belligerents, which is a closely defined term, both legally and per Wikipedia, I'd argue the current Infobox is actively misleading on this topic. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the heading in the box simply says: "Belligerents" and no criteria is stated for the decision to only display a small number of them. We could avoid this by displaying none of them except through the links. (This is the way the WWII article does it.) Of course, then we would have the problem of deciding who are the "Main Allied Leaders" and "Main Central leaders" (whatever that means). This is a bigger problem than whether or not we add Serbia. In my view, info boxes aren't designed to handle such complexities. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is nearly as complicated as you suggest. The primary participants on both sides are easily identified, and inserting "British" and "French" empires (for example) actually simplifies the list. But I'm not dying on this hill. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Potentially wrong year

It says "In 1911, the Russian Stavka agreed with the French to attack Germany within fifteen days of mobilisation...". Isn't it 1914 and not 1911? Frogeater1 (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 17:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Request to review Central Powers leaders of infobox

To some extent there is a consistent simplification of leadership in the infobox which is completely necessary, and for this reason I believe the Allied side of the leaders makes sense. I don't share this sentiment for the Central Powers Leaders listed. Like George V who is not on the infobox, Mehmed V was not calling any shots during his reign and was totally out of power, I would instead replace Sultan Reshad with Enver and Talat, they were the key decision makers on the Ottoman side during WWI. I would also advocate putting von Hindenburg, von Bethmann Hollweg, Ludendorff, or von Hotzendorf there as well but I don't have as much confidence to back up this request. I would appreciate input from a Bulgarianist in this discussion to verify whether Tsar Ferdinand was the leader of Bulgaria during the war or if there was a massive power behind his throne. Benlittlewiki (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• In listing leaders, we should be aiming to list no more than seven leaders a side (per template documentation). Furthermore, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE any entry must be supported by the article - ie, why they were key or significant should be evidenced by the article, otherwise a listing would be meaningless to the reader. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Given this criteria, Mehmed V doesn't have a single mention in the article, at least Enver has one mention. Presumably we can at least replace the Sultan? Perhaps someone can add more information about the Ottomans during WWI in this article. Benlittlewiki (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify the criteria we are using. The heading in the info box is "Commanders and leaders" which sugget a distinction between political leaders and military commanders. However, given the importance of the home front and political aspects of the war, I'm not sure that such a distinction in meaningful. There is a huge historiography on the question of "who was really in charge" of Germany alone (and of course the answer often changes over the course of the war). Perhaps we should first settle the issue of who the major allied and central powers were. If we can do this we can then list the nominal head of government and the nominal head of the military for each major power. I suspect that this will be a lengthy process. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe the current list of Allied and Central powers is sound. I am sympathetic to adding Serbia and/or Belgium to the infobox, but I would also like to hear arguments against this. Benlittlewiki (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

After a week there hasn't been any more input. Since no one objects to not adding Talaat to the infobox, I'm thinking of going through with this edit soon. To answer a likely FAQ, Djemal Pasha was not a key decision maker like Talaat and Enver were, and was principally a soldier on the Syrian front. He had a lot of political authority in that sector, but he did not have national decision making power. Talaat was Interior Minister, CUP leader, and then Prime Minister; he was basically running the civilian government, it doesn't make sense to exclude him from the infobox. German, Austrian, Hungarian, and Bulgarianists should do a similar inspection of the infobox. Benlittlewiki (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the implications of what I said. Enver is at least supported by on mention in the body of the article. Wheter such a passing mention is sufficient to place them in the infobox is another issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case I can add some information of the dynamics within the Ottoman Empire's government to the article. This said, given this criteria Vittorio Orlando, Poincaré, Franz Joseph I (who is mentioned not as a war leader but in the context of the July Crisis), and Yoshihito should never have been listed in the info box either, given that they are never mentioned in the article. Benlittlewiki (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that other commanders/leaders not supported by the article or with a minor passing mention should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Ottomans and WWI

@Benlittlewiki If you wish to add more information about the Ottoman Empire please ensure that your contributions are properly sourced and do not just represent your own interpretation of events. It might be better if you discuss your proposed additions in Talk and seek consensus before adding them to the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A Small Misunderstanding

Although Japan did occupy Germany’s colonies, It did not further fight Germany or the Central Powers, And was not in the Triple Entente either. I would request an edit to fix that problem, have a nice day! ;) DogeofWisdom69 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect - Japan sent destroyers to the Mediterranean for anti-submarine duties in 1917 - see Japan during World War I#Events of 1917.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

easy war

the first world war starts for a hungariyan king who was killed by a small teneger 61.2.121.248 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated by Serbian nationals. Alexeyperlov 15:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Was not a king. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Never implied he was. Alexeyperlov 15:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So what has this to do with the OP's question about a kings death starting WW1? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I mistook your confusion about a "king" for confusion over the start of ww1. Alexeyperlov 16:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

As no king was killed by a small teenager and that did not start Ww1, both. As this is now fruitless you may have the field. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s 2 misspellings I can see, and some more in the other paragraphs.

are you still in primary school or were you just too lazy to correct yourself? DogeofWisdom69 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:Civility Alexeyperlov 11:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead suggestion re: middle east

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

>The fighting ended with the Armistice of 11 November 1918, while the subsequent Paris Peace Conference imposed various settlements on the defeated powers, notably the Treaty of Versailles. The dissolution of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires resulted in the creation of new independent states, including Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. The inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939.

>The fighting ended with the Armistice of 11 November 1918, while the subsequent Paris Peace Conference imposed various settlements on the defeated powers, notably the Treaty of Versailles. The dissolution of the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian Empires resulted in the creation of new independent states in Central and Eastern Europe based on the principle of national self-determination, including Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. In the Middle East, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire resulted in a new Middle Eastern order dominated by Britain and France, as well as the end of the Islamic Caliphate. The inability to manage post-war instability contributed to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. Benlittlewiki (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm, this suggest that the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire led to instability causing WW2. I do not think this would be an improvement. The Banner talk 16:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WW1

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

Britain didn't declare war on Germany until the German army had gone through Belgium. The German army is not supposed to be in Belgium. Britain had mi5 that does agent handling and surveillance, and then police that display badges and arrest people. 211.29.202.35 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@user:211.29.202.35 Write this again, making it intelligible and say what your point is, otherwise it will be removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we can be more tolerant and welcoming of people whose first language may not be English and what they say is reasonably intelligible even though some clarifications may be needed. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that tolerance should be encouraged, but contributors do have a basic responsibility to be reasonably articulate and concise. It's not the responsibility of other editors to puzzle out the meaning of an incoherent submission. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand but there is a way to be more welcoming and tactful in how we approach users, specially if they may be new. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

or wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIR also states "We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently".

Asking (politely) to clarify the point would achieve the same thing, as well as modelling effective behaviours for others. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Dss 2001:9B0:2FF:F600:9818:D2F1:A13D:CA99 (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

agree 2A02:C7C:40FC:800:B59C:C975:F87E:A4BF (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Truth Social video

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

I already added a press mention template (to this AP article) earlier today. Funcrunch (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I changed my original wording to more accurate reflect the meaning and context. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit seems entirely gratuitous. There are several mentions of a "unified German Reich" after 1871

"It was only during the 1871 unification of Germany that the newly unified German Reich was first assigned an official capital."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_of_Germany

"The classic expression of Bismarck’s approach to diplomacy was his 'Kissinger Diktat,' which laid out his foreign policy maxims for the unified German Reich."

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-iron-revolutionary/

"Not only was it an independent kingdom until 1871, when it became part of the newly unified German Reich; this southern state is also home to the Alps,"

https://macleans.ca/news/world/no-more-bavarian-separatism/

And in fact is the "second" reich, preceding Hitler's Third Reich. Thus removing context around the term "third reich" instead of adding context. 108.35.187.202 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

GA and infobox collage

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

@Cinderella157: There's nothing wrong with the collage. We cannot represent World War I with one image; that's impossible. We instead use a collage to showcase the focal points of this global conflict. Using a single image on this article is like representing the animal kingdom with a pig, which obviously serves no one. My point is that certain subjects cannot be represented by one image and this is one of them. So if we were to use a single image, what would it be? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 10:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but the problem is that you can't capture a global conflict with six small pictures either. On my (fairly large) screen most look like pictures of lines of tiny figures in a landscape that could be anywhere in the world. You have to read the lengthy captions and click on links to figure out what the hell they are. If you need an image that seems typical of WWI, I remember one that AJP Taylor used: it shows a headless soldier lying in a trench. It's pretty graphic but it captures the horror of the war far better than the current six pictures. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

GA request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed the GAN per WP:GANI: the edits made by the nominator were not significant contributions in terms of content, and the discussion on this page makes it clear that there are substantial issues remaining. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I QFed it but the nominator seemed to complain so I ended up G7ing it. xq 12:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The representative for Italy

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

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

@Cinderella157 Are you saying that Orlando has to be mentioned in the body paragraphs to be in the infobox? Alexysun (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Not only must they be mentioned in the body of the article but in a way that evidences that they were a key or significant commander in the context of the article - ie it would not be sufficient for the article to just mention their name or that they were a prime minister. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jheeeeeeteegh I did not see you make an edit? Alexysun (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Philippe Pétain has an RfC

Philippe Pétain has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Clemenceau led France (and not Nivelle)

Georges Clemenceau should be listed under commanders and leaders. Yes, one could argue that a military commander (such as Nivelle) should be listed instead, but by that logic we would have to replace a lot of the leaders with military commanders (for example, Woodrow Wilson would have to be replaced with John J. Pershing). For the pages about the individual theaters, the military commanders make more sense. But political leaders and heads of state make more sense for the page about the entire war. (I also believe that the same should be done with Italy.) And if Clemenceau isn't on there because he isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, then add him to there. He was a significant morale booster who played a significant role in the final years of the war, I'd argue more than Poincaré. Clemenceau advocated for the unified allied command and was a major architect of the Treaty of Versailles, and so much more. Overall Clemenceau's role in World War I, should be listen in the article so that he can be listed as leader of France on the infobox, and not Nivelle. BrickIsGone (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

See the above thread. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

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

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

So based on this policy, it seems Yoshihito for Japan should be removed as well because he is not mentioned in the article anywhere. Alexysun (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Raymond Poincaré is also not mentioned in the article anywhere. Removing from infobox for now. Alexysun (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 Though there is actually this rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) Alexysun (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:IAR comes with caveats. Without the body of the article evidencing why the a commander/leader was key or significant, the reader has no idea why a particular person appears in the infobox. The caveats of WP:IAR would not be met. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 Would you like to remove Raymond Poincaré from the infobox then? Alexysun (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You should only ignore rules if you have a good reason. We're saying the rule exists for a good reason and you don't have a better one, unfortunately. Remsense诉 02:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

We should stop restricting certain people from being on the infobox because of the article and instead add certain people to the article so they can be on the infobox. In no way am I saying that random people can be added to the article and as a result be added to the infobox, but people significant to the war, such as Victor Emmanuel III, should be added. That way we can have Italy's actual leader instead of a general like Cadorna who's placement alongside the other allied leaders is very out of place. BrickIsGone (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to improve the balance of the article, that's great. The issue is an overfixation by editors on the infobox without care for how it's meant to summarize the article. Remsense ‥ 论 00:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. But we don't go putting the horse before the cart. Furthermore, the article should evidence how they were key and significant and not just a passing mention that they held a particular position. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well yeah, that's exactly what I mean. Adding the actual leaders to the article in a meaningful way that shows how they were important, so that they can be put on the infobox. BrickIsGone (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I am thinking similarly. I was wondering why the leader of Italy is not listed in the infobox. Alexysun (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I would remove all commanders and leaders from the info box. The info box is meant to be the highest level summary of key information. It isn't meant to present complex and disputed information. Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The very fact that we have knowledgeable editors disputing who were the most important commanders and leaders for most belligerents indicates that this is a matter of opinion. Where are the citations from reliable sources supporting each of the people included? For example, the consensus of historians is that Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the real leaders of Germany during WWI so why aren't they top of the list in the info box? We either have no commanders and leaders in the info box or we have a section in the article on commanders and leaders with full citations which then can be summarised in the info box. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

My position has been that the article (and how often an individual is mentioned) indicates who should be in the infobox. But this and other parameters in the infobox are optional. I don't have a problem with your position either - ie that (in this case) it is too complex for the infobox to simplistically capture. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)