Template talk:Campaignbox World War I

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: World War I This template 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 Associated task forces: /  World War I task force

I believe GoegAvachelli was correct to fold the Macedonian front into that of the Balkan theatre, given a number of fronts existed in the Balkans. The North Africa campaign firmly took place in Africa (in what is now Libya, Morocco with an incursion into Egypt) and never crossed the Suez Canal and is therefore not part of the Middle East theatre. The Arab Revolt was in support of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The North African Campaign (World War I) geologically located as North African but the African theatre of World War I rightfully does not include it as part of its operations. As rightfully, it was a different operation waged as a side operation in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. The Middle Eastern theatre of World War I includes the operations in this geographic location. The readers who want to learn Middle Eastern theatre could not see North African Campaign under the operations as somebody without knowing what they were doing classified wrongly. This has to be fixed. It needs to be classified where the operations belong to. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template includes Arab revolt as part of Middle Eastern theatre. It is part of Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. The exclusion injects biase against the Middle Eastern theatre. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to a claim: Removing parts of operations in a theatre on the basis "this is not a big enough" is a biased activity. These links are there to show what constitutes the specific "theatre." Rather than an individual authors' perceptions regarding what is important or not. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned at Template talk:World War I I don't believe it’s appropriate to include revolutionary / nationalist movements in the campaignbox. Beyond the fact that I only seen their influence noted in relation to how they affected ongoing campaigns, (ie Easter Rising on the Western Front (World War I) and Arab Revolt on the Sinai and Palestine Campaign) but never as standalone campaign or sub-theatres themselves. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This campaignbox has one link for the West African Campaign (World War I) which includes the Kamerun campaign and Togoland campaign. They are two almost completely separate campaigns with almost no link other than that some of the British units that fought in Togoland also fought in Kamerun. Would it be appropriate to amend this campaignbox in order to include links to these two articles or would it be unnecessary?

Over the past couple of days there has been some activity that involved the expansion of the campaignbox and before we do so it would seem prudent to discuss. I don't see the inclusion of rebellions as relevant within the context of overarching campaigns but am happy to deviate from that view if others feel it's necessary. It think it would be prudent to have a seperate box for this material.-Labattblueboy (talk)

@Labattblueboy: I had previously added Kurdish rebellions to the navbox as part of the Middle Eastern theatre, but i was reverted by Havsjö, who did not consider the Kurdish rebellions part of ww1. Since IP editor 98.221.136.220 added the contemporaneous wars section back in March, i believed that the Kurdish rebellions would fit in there as well. However, User:2601:85:C101:BA30:39EB:29A4:9175:7668 then reverted me, saying that the Kurdish rebellions were part of ww1 and that i should have not added them to the contemporaneous wars section. So then i make a new section for "Rebellions in participating countries". Many of these rebellions have been overlooked in popular accounts of ww1 and i hope that giving them a spot on the World War I Wikipedia page in the form of the Navbox would give them the attention that i feel they deserve. If this navbox has to strictly focus on campaigns of World War I, then i would be willing to accept that, but then i also feel that the "Contemporaneous wars" section should be removed. An argument might then also be made for removing the "Contemporaneous wars" section from Template:Campaignbox World War II as well. However, i would be against that as i don't see these links as doing any harm, but as helping readers in learning about more obscure aspects of both wars. Koopinator (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be part of among the campaigns of WW1 since the rebellions, as per its own article, are not related to the allies vs central powers war that is WW1, but just happened at the same time. So this largely unrelated rebellion cant be added among these big WW1 campaigns just because you want some more spotlight on Kurds --Havsjö (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Havsjö: I don't think it should be added to the big ww1 campaigns per se, this discussion is about the addition of a "Rebellions in participating countries" section, like this. If such a section is not added due to being unrelated to ww1, then i believe we should also delete the "Contemporaneous wars" section that currently exists in both the ww1 and ww2 navboxes. Koopinator (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually support the latter since those infoboxes are supposed to be about WW1/2 specifically, not all wars etc during that time-period --Havsjö (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Labattblueboy, what do you think about the "Contemporaneous wars" section? Koopinator (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am IP 98 as well as the long-number IP. I added the contemporary war section in this campaignbox to match the WW2 one. I was confused seeing it in the WW2 one but didn't think much of it at the time. I would support removing the section for both campaignboxes if everyone here agrees since they're irrelevant to the wars themselves (if there could be a way to mention that these conflicts are unrelated somewhere else, that would give much needed clarification).

On another note, it would be helpful to compare the Kurdish rebellions to the Central Asian revolt of 1916 or maybe even the Easter Rising, and decide afterwards if they are part of the war. Personally, I agree with Koopinator and I'm inclined to believe that the rebellions (sans the 1914 one, which seems personal in nature) were part of the war, as their timing and conduct were influenced by WW1 and the Kurds hoping that by rebelling during that specific time they would attract intervention. This reasoning would match the reasoning for adding the Somaliland campaign or even the Arab revolt, which is mentioned here as "Hejaz & Levant." How exactly we would add it to the campaignbox, I would leave up to discussion. My opinion is that it should be added in the theater group itself, or maybe have a "Other campaigns" section like in the WW2 campaignbox. Maybe "Other rebellions?" What do you guys think? 2601:85:C101:BA30:39EB:29A4:9175:7668 (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Labattblueboy: Hey, i was reading The Central Asian Revolt of 1916: A collapsing empire in the age of war and revolution, and i came across this paragraph on page 159. Do you think this quote would warrant counting the revolt as one of the war's fronts?

An explanation that one of the rebels offers for the uprising is revealing: “We started the war with the Russians because they wanted to [forcibly] recruit us as soldiers and because we would be killed by Germans.” A telegram of the head of the Turkestan military district, Mikhailovskii, corroborates this perception: “The Kirgiz refer to the actual rebellion as the war.” The administration too saw the rebellion as an act of war. The telegram of the head of the Kazan military district, Sandetskii, for example, insists that

"there was no murder of Kirgiz [Kazakhs] in the Turgai and Irgiz districts. The forces … did not execute the Kirgiz, but engaged in battle with the organised hordes, which assumed military formation and set as their aim the resistance to the state power, the destruction of the cities of the province, communication lines, and the telegraph."

Perceptions, as I stated in the beginning of this chapter, are important. The perceptions of the war in Semirech’e suggest that we ought to view the rebellion as an integral part of World War I. The war in Semirech’e was a war on the domestic front brought about by the war fought on the foreign front. (emphasis mine)

Koopinator (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP that made the original addition of the revolt to the campaignbox, I agree with Koopinator. The rebellion was a campaign of WW1 waged by the Russians due to wartime stressors. As to User:Labattblueboy's reasoning: "Part of WWI, yes; Theatre of Operation or a campaign, no. At least not by the British (official history) or the German records.", I would respond that it would make more sense to check the Russian "official history" (and not the Brit or German history of the war, since they were not militarily engaged in that particular fight anyways). At any rate I don't think that that's necessary, since Koopinator's above source and reasoning is sufficiently good reason to include it as a campaign in the box, especially since it entailed heavy fighting and casualties and diverted Russian focus from the Eastern Front. 2601:85:C101:BA30:2DA4:4FA7:B4E0:A6B1 (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]