Talk:World War I

Proposal to tweak first sentence

I was reading the source markup and noticed the note requesting we discuss any changes to the first sentences, so that it exactly my aim here. There is nothing wrong with the opening lines of the article, I just feel they could be better.

Currently, the opening lines of the article read:

" World War I (sic) was a global conflict between two coalitions: the Allies (or Entente) and the Central Powers. Major areas of conflict included [list]. "

I am proposing the following amendment:

" World War I (sic) was a global conflict frequently hailed as the first true modern war. It was fought between two coalitions; the Allies (or Entente) and Central Powers; and major areas of conflict included [list]. "

While functionally not very different, I believe that this amendment would represent an improvement on two counts:

A), while the current formula implies the bit about how WWI represented a fundamental shift in how wars were fought by later mentioning 'the war saw important developments in weaponry including [list],' I feel like it would be better to explicitly express this fact rather than imply it, as I believe it represents an important and fundamental element of the way we view the first world war. I believe that the later elaboration is still important and distinct, but that the explicit mention of the war's significance to the changing face of war should be centrepiece in the opening sentence.

B), less importantly, I believe that the mentions of the two coalitions and the theatres in which the war was fought are of the same vein (geopolitical descriptions of the war) and thus could be slightly better served if mentioned simultaneously, in the same sentence. This is less important, I just thought it improved readability and made a little more sense.

What are your thoughts? Orholam (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Where does the body tell us it is frequently hailed as the first true modern war? Also frequently hailed tends to editorialising. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence is fine as it stands. And "to hail" something also means to celebrate it. Which isn't what scholars of the war wish to convey. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Also we can say the same about half a dozen other wars. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

As MOS:LEADSENTENCE says, "the first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." The current one doesn't quite fit that ("coalitions" could be improved upon), but it's better than your proposal which introduces, before establishing what the subject is, a point-of-view which is neither in the article body nor referenced and, as others have pointed out, is factually incorrect in its wording. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

"World War"

The claim that "Before World War II, the events of 1914–1918 were commonly referred to as the Great War or simply the World War." is not found in the cited source (page 8 of "Evidence, History, and the Great War: Historians and the Impact of 1914–18") ~2026-62296-5 (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

NO it will however be found in other sources we use in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. No need to remove OP’s contested phrasing.

Gobucks821 (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

As the person starting this topic notes, the cited source does not support the content. I have replaced it with a citation to Leonhard (2018), p 3, "Soon after its outbreak, people experiencing the war had already begun searching for the right words to describe what was so vast, novel, even monstrous about it: in Britain they spoke of the Great War, in France of the Grande Guerre ("Great War"), in Germany of the Weltkrieg (World War)." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I have also removed the following sentence, "That same year, Maclean's noted, "Some wars name themselves. This is the Great War.". The cited source does not mention this quote at all. Anyway, the sentence repeats the same information as the previous sentence and is therefore unnecessary. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Change intro “Spanish flu” to accurate scientific term

I recently changed the intro paragraph to remove the phrasing “Spanish flu” in favor of “1918-1920 pandemic flu”, but that was reverted claiming common terminology is preferred.

I wholeheartedly object to that revision. The term “Spanish flu” is racist and factually incorrect. It didn’t originate in Spain, and it has essentially zero connection to the country.

The wiki article that covers “Spanish flu” correctly refers to it as pandemic flu. I’m a member of various medical groups here, including Medicine and Pharmacology, which is my professional and educational background.

Please comment so that we can overturn the decision to revert the change back to a racist, inaccurate phrase.

Edit: We shouldn’t have to bow down to or sink to the level of stupidity to entertain readers. An encyclopedia ought to be accurate. This is absolutely ridiculous. This isn’t a political statement. It’s a scientific reality. The pandemic flu originated in the U.S.

if not responses within 30 days, I’ll make a good faith change to remove the racist, scientifically incorrect phrasing. Gobucks821 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand your frustration but you need to bring on the table a better argument. Per WP:COMMONNAME as you can see in Google NGRAM the term "Spanish flu" is much more popular than "Influenza Pandemic of 1918"; I tried other combinations but those were even less popular. Please familiarize yourself with the WP policies, because with ultimatums won't work. FWIW. A.Cython(talk) 06:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Just about all the scholarly history books on WWI that I've read call it the Spanish Flu. Gilbert (1994) notes that the pandemic was called the "Spanish flu" at the time. German historian Jörn Leonard (2018) calls it the Spanish Flu throughout his history of the war. Meyer (2006) also calls it the Spanish influenza, as does Nick Lloyd (2013) in his book Hundred Days: The Campaign that ended World War I. While this might not be the official name of the pandemic in medical literature, this is an article on history and we should be using the common name used by historians. After all we don't call the Battle of Lone Pine "the Battle of Lone pinus bruta." I also don't see anything racist in it. My understanding is that it was called Spanish Flu because a member of the Spanish Royal Family caught it early on and this was given great publicity. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposed adjustment to Russian flag in belligerent list

In the list of belligerents in the Allied Powers, the flag displayed for Russia is that of the Russian Republic instead of the Russian Empire, which played a much larger role in World War I than its successor. I think the flag should be changed accordingly. Spoilerlogic (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Both had the same flag. In fact, the template uses the flag of the Russian Empire. Mellk (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I didn't realize that they had stopped using the black-yellow-white tricolor in 1896. Thanks! Spoilerlogic (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the flag with the double-headed eagle actually (but this did not replace the state flag). Thanks for clearing that up. Mellk (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Change to more appropriate word

Under Progress of the war -> Final years of the war -> United States enters the war, in the first sentence: Change "The United States was a major supplier of war material to the Allies..." to "The United States was a major supplier of materiel to the Allies", probably with 'materiel' linked to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiel Spoilerlogic (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done @Spoilerlogic: Good spot; thanks. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)