Talk:Interwar period

2007

Frillystevens (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Page organisation

I don't understand why there's links to a bunch of history articles? -b 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed the opening to refer to the period as between wars, being WWI and WWII. Since WWI started in Europe and WWII started in several places, but also in Europe, the context is that between 2 wars can only refer to the European theatre and thus the years 1918 to 1939. I removed wording as it being known as the period between the wars as the title is obvious, which doen not go for the word interbellumPrudentia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Editorializing?

"The idea behind the creation of the League was a good idea because its primary aims still remain important in today’s society however it was badly administered."

I'm not promotign debate on whether or not the ideas behind the League of Nations were good or not, but rather pointing out that such editorializations do not belong on Wikipedia. Could be rephrased to:

"Though the League of Nations was continually undermined and ultimately dissolved, many of the original goals of the League are still pursued by the United Nations, the spiritual successor of the League of Nations."

Not only does it remove the editorializing, it also provides needed reference to the comparison between the League and the UN.

67.160.175.115 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Mic check —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.94.145 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by 212.85.28.237

Can someone revert this article to it's previous version, as it shows clear signs of vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.7.8.219 (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

hmm. interbellum

just a thought, but shouldn't that be interbella? (generally, words ending in -um have a plural ending in -a and interbellum means between the wars, which is plural.) is there an established grammatical consensus that it is indeed interbellum?

Maybe Bellum is being used in a more abstract, all inclusive fashion to mean warfare in general, so by being between two world wars, the Interbellum period is between periods of war, hence Inter-Bellum. D Boland (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it anything to do with the case of "bellum"? Also - is it just american english - i'm sure i've seen it referred to as interbellum in (english) history books194.209.8.142 (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

~~Interbellum is Latin, so it can be used in English regardless of dialect. In fact, I'm removing that reference, because it is unverified that it is exclusively used in "American English". As a speaker of British English I can tell you that it is certainly used in Commonwealth nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.15.187 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

More info..

The interbella was a time of great social change. This is crucial and should be included. yeee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.104.127 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

The Spanish Civil War was one of the most important events in the period and it isn't even mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.58.98 (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Intrawar

I don't think it's important to include a distinction of "interwar period" from the infrequently used "intrawar" in this article. In any case, surely the lead is not where to put it. Per the nutshell statement at WP:LEAD, "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Since the brief mention of "intrawar" is never addressed again, I'm going to remove it, on second thought. Here is the last version of the text I am removing: In contrast to the interwar period, historians refer to the time of the First World War (1914–1918) and the Second World War (1939-1945) as "intrawar" periods.^{[citation needed]} -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is standard disambiguation (but for not having its own topic): "intrawar" is most commonly a typo. I am also of opinion that all dictionary words should link to topics (if not to Wiktionary). But this is a continuation of a faraway conflict, as a third party says. I could stub "intrawar" if you want. JJB 16:56, 3 Oct 2010 (UTC)

That "third party" reasonably suggests that the conflict over "intrawar" in this article should be resolved before dealing with the fate of the redirect intrawar. User:Bridgeplayer's words at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_2#Intrawar include this statement: "The way forward is to close this RFD, copy the discussion to Talk:Interwar period and await the resolution of the edit material." I hope my link is sufficient rather than copying the full discussion. In any case, that editor's words hardly refer to a "faraway conflict", since they refer to this very article, interwar period.

As to your claim that "intrawar" and "intra-war" are "most commonly a typo", the fact that you spent ten minutes and found nine instances of an incorrect usage does not mean that it is usually a mistake. I'm sure there are countless correct uses of the word as well, and they are probably far, far greater in number.

I hope we can now return to the matter at hand: resolving what, if anything, to do with "intrawar" in this article. I don't think you are addressing my objections. I do not see the value of briefly mentioning the antonym "intrawar" in the lead of this article, especially since it is not discussed further in the body of the article. Therefore, it seems to me to violate WP:LEAD. Are there reliable sources that discuss "intrawar" as more than a dictionary definition? I have my doubts on that point, which I tried to indicate in my edit summaries to this article. Your Google link is simply a dicdef of the vaguely related term "intrawar bargaining", not "intrawar" itself. Neither Wiktionary nor Dictionary.com has an entry for "intrawar".

To clarify: I have no problem with intrawar having its own article/stub, as long as there's sufficient detail in reliable sources to discuss the term as more than a dictionary definition. But do you believe that can be done? I don't see how. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

About Finland

I would add a link about Heimosodat to Finland section because it was pretty important part of Finnish Interwar period. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Other interwar periods/events

This list seems like OR to me. Any period between wars could be so called, but I think that to avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE and OR this list should only contain common usage as verified in reliable sources of the term "interbellum" or "inter-war period" to describe periods between wars. -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)