Talk:Allies of World War I

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: African / Asian / South Pacific / Balkan / British / Canadian / Chinese / European / French / Indian / Italian / Japanese / Middle East / North America / Russian & Soviet / South America / South Asia / United States / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Asian military history task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) British military history task force Canadian military history task force Chinese military history task force European military history task force French military history task force Indian military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Japanese military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force North American military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force South American military history task force South Asian military history task force United States military history task force World War I task force International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 3 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Entente Powers. The result of the discussion was not moved.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jesselees2016. Peer reviewers: Jesselees2016.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first map in the infobox seems to be badly wrong or wrongly labelled, and it should probably be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.23.33 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first map is confusing - it uses three shades of green which are difficult to distinguish, and has several insets in the lower-left that are unlabeled. (Also, it includes Antarctica, which I don't think is even relevant to WWI?)

See Cornelissen, Christoph, and Arndt Weinrich, eds. Writing the Great War - The Historiography of World War I from 1918 to the Present (2020) online free -- full coverage for major countries. Free download. Rjensen (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I contest the chronology given here that he commanded the Cdn Corps from January 1915 to September 1915; in fact in January 1915 until the summer that year the Canadian Expeditionary Force solely comprised the 1st Canadian Division which Alderson did command. The Canadian Corps was formed when a 2nd Division joined the field in September 1915 when Alderson stepped up to command the Corps and was not relieved of his command until May 1916. I will amend the detail accordingly but give time for any comment first.Cloptonson (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference used clearly said that Andorra did not declare war, so I have removed the claim that it did. DuncanHill (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:World War I#Andorra's supposed participation for further discussion of this. DuncanHill (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The third paragraph of the section labeled "Background" starts, "In the East, between 7–9 August the Russians entered German East Prussia on 7 August, Austrian Eastern Galicia." I suspect an editing mishap, but I don't know this history well enough to trust myself to fix it. I think it might be right to say, "In the East, the Russians entered German East Prussia on August 7-9 and Eastern Galicia on August 18." -- at least, that's how I read Russian invasion of East Prussia (1914) and Russian occupation of Eastern Galicia, 1914–15. Any opinions? DSatz (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah when I read it, it was so confusing. We should change it to what you said above. Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 14:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Since most history books and history related TV stuffs use the Entente or Entente Powers instead of "Allies of WW I" It is even more confuseing, since the simple "allies" term is oftren used rather for WW2 military block against the Axis Powers.

Do you support the usage of "Entente Powers" instead of the "Allies of World War I" title due to the popularity of "ENTENTE" in the books of academic historians? --Szudar (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. When I was teaching the topic the university students were baffled by the strange term "entente." I think Allies works fine. Rjensen (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, "allies" does not work fine because it is blatant and grave falsification of history. If i look in my old encyclopedias, the ones from 1928, and the ones from 1970s, the central ALLIANCE is the one referred to as the "allied powers". And variations on "entente", "entente powers" etc refer to the entente. When i went to school in the 80s and 90s, there was the entente and the central alliance, sometimes also referred to as the allied powers. Schoolbooks and SERIOUS history books today still use the same names.

And the cause of this falsification appears to be that some people, mostly in USA appears unable to distinguish between WWI and WWII, or worse, seems to think it is effectively the same. And some, again mostly in USA appears to default to "USA is part of a multinational whatever, then they MUST be -the allies-, because that's what we always call them".

Are you going to let the standards of ignorant people rule? And falsify history in the process?

I cringe every time i see it. University students being "baffled" merely shows that their prior education was subpar, and has absolutely no bearing on whether you are justified in falsifying history. DW75 (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Entente Powers" tends to commonly refer to the France/Britain/Russia entente with USA being an allied power to that entente. It would also be incumbent to show evidence that Entente refers to all the allied nations and was the WP:CommonName. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the opinion of academic historians the most important thing? I see the ENTENTE term muc much much more often in their WW1 oriented books than the "Allies of World War I".--Szudar (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC) And it is very confusing with the WW2 Allies term... So the "Allies of World War I" is confusing and very rarely used term by academic scholars. I found only 60 results for the "Allies of World War I" term in Google Books, but even most of these books also write about it as ENTENTE more often. However ENTENTE had thousands of hits on Google Books. So "Allies of World War I" is not an accepted term for general use among academic scholars.--Szudar (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iused google scholar to get academic journals & books -- and got far more results for "Allies": a) "entente" and "World War I" = 22,900 hits; b) "Allies" and "World War I" gives 242,000 hits = over ten times as many. Rjensen (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong logic. Simply type of Allied can mean alliance gang band of children musicians polticians , business companies etc. in books. For the exact results type it with " " like that: "Allies of World War I" 60 hits on Google books. Not really much. here is the RESULT: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Allies+of+World+War+I%22&client=firefox-b-d&channel=nrow5&sxsrf=AOaemvLqTvcdEmz7kjGDddAytgXQ0NuWUg:1641839409325&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje8JS26Kf1AhWMiv0HHW3tCNUQ_AUoAXoECAgQCw&biw=1971&bih=1249&dpr=1

--Szudar (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to open up the search terms to include alternatives eg "Allies of the First World War" (because not everyone calls it WWI), "Allied powers" rather than "Allies". And of course both Entente and Allies may appear side-by-side in a work and mean dissimilar things. By way of diversion, at the Treaty of Versailles, the terms used are "Allied and Associated Powers", the US, British Empire, France, Italy and Japan being the "principal" ones. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea-- the search "Entente Powers" "World War I" gives 4,300 hits while "Allied powers" "World War I" gives 21,100 hits -- and I looked at the first few pages to validate the result. see this result and that result. Rjensen (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MAybe the Google works "differently" in your country, but I can not see the "Allies of World War I" term so often on Google Books, However Entente is often mentioned in Google Books. How can you explain that Allies of World War I is so RARE in the Books?--Szudar (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google books includes mostly popular books -and google scholar is limited to scholarly sources. "Allied powers" "World War I" in Google books gives 45,000 cites see this link. That is FAR more than "Entente powers" "World War I" which gives only 8400 hits accoring to this search result. (to get the totals you have to click on "TOOLS" Rjensen (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "Allied Powers" "WWI" includes ww2 sources too. Google Scholar did not include books just short essays of researches and short papers, publications. --Szudar (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC) The best way is to inclue "Trench warfare" "Allied Powers of world war I" in the search. In this way you can avoid most of the ww2 stuffs. You have only 2 results:[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22allied+powers+of+world+war+I%22+%22Trench+warfare%22&client=firefox-b-d&channel=nrow5&biw=1971&bih=1249&tbm=bks&sxsrf=AOaemvIQ1sdrXqyIkKPE5UPfnnsRmoKm2Q%3A1641980498016&ei=UqLeYY4_59zv9Q-fwa_ABQ&ved=0ahUKEwiOsL-C9qv1AhVn7rsIHZ_gC1gQ4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=%22allied+powers+of+world+war+I%22+%22Trench+warfare%22&gs_lcp=Cg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzEAM6BAgAEBM6BAghEApQmAlY5UdgsVNoAHAAeACAAWeIAewTkgEEMzAuMZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-books

"Allies of ww1" with "Trench Warfare" have only a SINGLE BOOK!!!!!!

check: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Entente%22+%22Trench+warfare%22&client=firefox-b-d&channel=nrow5&biw=1971&bih=1249&tbm=bks&sxsrf=AOaemvLOLj1fp1yrTAwHb1mNVvDkAd6w0g%3A1641980528875&ei=cKLeYefuNIjYsAffkoWIDw&ved=0ahUKEwjn5pqR9qv1AhUILOwKHV9JAfEQ4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=%22Entente%22+%22Trench+warfare%22&gs_lcp=Cg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzEANQ3gdY9hBgxxNoAHAAeACAAWWIAZMFkgEDNy4xmAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-books

However Entente and "trench warfare" have hundreds of results:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Entente%22+%22Trench+warfare%22&client=firefox-b-d&channel=nrow5&biw=1971&bih=1249&tbm=bks&sxsrf=AOaemvLOLj1fp1yrTAwHb1mNVvDkAd6w0g%3A1641980528875&ei=cKLeYefuNIjYsAffkoWIDw&ved=0ahUKEwjn5pqR9qv1AhUILOwKHV9JAfEQ4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=%22Entente%22+%22Trench+warfare%22&gs_lcp=Cg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzEANQ3gdY9hBgxxNoAHAAeACAAWWIAZMFkgEDNy4xmAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-books

You can admit that it is a shocking huge difference! --Szudar (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that those last two search links are identical. Use of "trench warfare" to separate the two wars sounds like a dubious technique - you could be exlcuding lots of reference works about naval matters. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad suggestion to use "entente" instead of Entente powers" because the proposal on the table is to use Entente powers instead of Allied powers and if we asdd trench warfare we get about equal numbers of books. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Armenian Army and british Army in Baku Azerbaijan 1918.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World war1 members of group 1 103.14.90.130 (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that the Big Four from another page was France, Britain, Italy and the USA. Anotherwise known as the council of four, shall we eliminate Japan and Russia from the "Principal Allied Powers" and rename "Principal Allied Powers" into "The Big Four" or "The Council of Four"? 44naytions (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of WWI, Big Four only really applies to the negotiation bloc at the Paris Peace Conference. Russia was one of the major Allied powers from the beginning of the War to its separate peace at Brest-Litovsk. Place Clichy (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and so was Japan 2600:1700:3680:8B70:300C:71F9:6E13:C11F (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox threatens to grow like a cancer. It already lists 21 Allied powers and now some editors are adding two or three "leaders" for each one. Under policy an infobox is supposed to: "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" I propose that we cut the info box back to the bare minimum of key information. I suggest we just list the principal allied powers and the historical era. The info box is not the place to list all the Allied powers and all the their "leaders". This can be done in a table in a separate section of the article. Please discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Alliedpower has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 26 § Alliedpower until a consensus is reached. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historians use this term more often Nguyen280405 (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name was already kind of confusing with WW2 allies, but now it’s just ridiculous.

Can we go with Entente Powers? That’s been the norm to use for like a decade. The recent spike in usage of Allies or Triple Alliance for the central powers just makes it worse 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:9AF:6605:D8E9:8785 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also want note that the raw numbers argument above is flawed in that it assumes a degree of dliberateness.

Let’s be real, a lot of people in the West, especially the US, don’t know a ton about WW1 and often mix up the two. Or it could be stuff like ‘were the allies in WW1 too?’ type googling. The actual number of people using it who mean it is probably quite a bit lower than 23 k. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:9AF:6605:D8E9:8785 (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I checked, the bulk of Entente usage in books is in the last decade or so. 3100 of that 4800 is just from 2010 onward. Allies in WW1 is a lot more spread out.

The ratio is also notably shifting. 1990-2000 was 10-1 in favor of Allies. 2014-2024 is only 3.5-1. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:601A:A2FC:7C71:A37C (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying there's still a prohibitive supermajority among recent works for preferring the use of "Allies"? Remsense诉 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014-2024 is a decade long period. It’s higher than 3-1 at the start and lower at the end. It’s closer to 2-1 now.

I was moreso trying to point out the trend. It went from 95% Allies over Entente in the 90s to something closer to 60-40 in the last year or two. The trend is rapidly growing for Entente 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:5C3C:888C:5EDD:A2CC (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]