I'm going to point out this is a stub and let someone beat me to it if they do it by tommorow. This page doesn't even have all the treaties. Where is Japan? Certainly not a huge player in WWI itself, but they made waves here, and regardless of what Woodrow Wilson thought about Racial equality, or if Vittro Orlando thought the United States should cede New York City to Italy based on italian population, it's definately a more interesting event than this. --Shanoyu 09:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is a really, really important page, and it's terrible. The Australian approach? Who cares? I'll do it myself if I have to, but I'm a newbie and I'd love to let someone more qualified do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 May 2006
Researchers care! I'm doing a college report/project on billy hughes right now. all the information is good. It just needs additions
As a retired history teacher and non-retired historian, I have to second the rebuttal to "newbie's" comment. The Dominions had their own views on world affairs, and did not simply plod along behind Great Britain, policy-wise. Australia and New Zealand were important "players" in the Pacific. Terry J. Carter (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Making some additions: Racial Equality Proposal
I just added some new material about the Japanese Racial Equality Proposal. Properly cited from [Shimazu (1998)], however I'm not sure about how to do a numbered citation linking. Anyway, I thought I would leave it for long enough that someone might have a chance to check the references. Since I know that responsible Wikipedians actually do care about citations, despite what all the critics of Wikipedia purport. --TensionWind 21:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on the statement in that section "It should be noted that the Japanese delegation did not realize the full ramafications of their proposal and the challenge its adoption would have put to the established norms of the (Western dominated) international system of the day. " I would like to have the article explicitly say what the full ramafications are, and what the actual challenge it's adoption would have put. I am not entirely clear on what is being said in the statement at this point. --188.8.131.52 09:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The article currently contains this suspect claim: Japan proposed the inclusion of a "racial equality clause" ... The defeat of the proposal influenced Japan's turn from cooperation with West toward more nationalistic policies. The Japanese and the Chinese have a very long history of animosity that continues till today, and it has a racial character, and it seems farfetched to me that Nanking Massacre among many other Japanese war crimes against other Asians was in any way a result of the League of Nations turning down an earlier Japanese "it's a small world after all" proposal. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
In the text following "The proposal received a majority vote on 28 April 1919. 11 out of the 17 delegates present voted in favor to its amendment to the charter, and no negative vote was taken. The votes for the amendment tallied thus:" the votes in favour are called 'yea' votes. This seems to me to be an americanism, or at least, I see no reason to use that word. Wouldn't 'yes' of 'in favour' be better, or just a list with yes? greetz, Nightworker 17:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not "yeah" as in "She Loves You, Yeah Yeah Yeah", it's "Yea" as in "Let your yeas be yeas and your nays be nays". AnonMoos 10:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Desperately needs a rewrite...
This article is subject to an appallingly American Bias, specifically the information under the heading "United States approach". To complain that:
"...the United States hoped to establish a more liberal and diplomatic world where democracy and sovereignty would be respected. However, Wilson's attempts to ensure that his Fourteen Points would lead to change ultimately failed, after France and Britain refused to adopt its core principles of liberty and self-determination, in part because of the control they wielded over their colonies around the world. The leaders of Europe were more interested in retaining glory for their empires"
is to entirely misunderstand the territorial security concerns of the French, or the perceived threat of Bolshevism in Central and Eastern Europe. Equally Lloyd-George was keen to offer a moderate solution to the Germans to avoid only securing a short term peace. The fourteen points were a set of high-minded ambiguous principles which were incapable of being formed into a concrete solution to the myriad problems affecting Europe in the aftermath of the war. It is also questionable to argue that the League of Nations was an entirely American construct, when it was an organisation they failed to join.
I find the 'America as bastion of democracy and freedom' message of this section of the article nauseating considering America's main aim in the Conference was to make sure its debts were paid, not forgetting that it was the American President who overturned the racial equality principle.
When I have more time (I am currently preparing for my Dissertation), I think this article needs to have a more global view, especially concerning the effects on the 'successor states' of Central and Eastern Europe, and to have its deification of Wilson removed.
This is really well written and researched for a non-traditional yet objective approach in writing history. If we can get more articles of this quality, we should have no problems with making Wikipedia a norm for academic writing. More less making history enjoyable for everyone rather than a propaganda tool for nationalism. ~~Anonymous M.A. History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with those who say this article needs a significant rewrite. I'm happy to join in, but perhaps we need a plan? I'll give it some thought. In the meantime I made a couple of brief additions to the French and British sections.Lufclufc (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
First time I saw the article and the same thing grabbed me, though I was thinking 1919 Paris Peace Conference would be better. But either of the options mentioned by Themightyquill or the one I just mentioned are far better than the current title as far as most readers would be concerned. IMHO (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I've read through the history to try to find the original placement of the "contradict" tag. It was placed on this article back in 2008. This page has undergone great changes since that time. After reading through the article several times, I'm at a loss as to what the contradiction may be as it is not apparent and has not been discussed at all. No indications as to the reason for the placement of the tag have been found. I am removing the tag due to the multitudes of changes (4 pages of history since it's placement) since the tag was first place on this article. If you feel a contradiction still exists, feel free to place a new contradiction tag on this article and then explain the reason for the placement here. Thank you for all your hard work on this article. Kjnelan(talk) 22:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I seem to remember there being a very useful chart listing all the countries and their respective delegates; does this sitll exist? I'm unable to find it anywhere now and I believe it definitely contributed to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. No consensus formed that the name of Paris Peace Conference is precise enough of a title to avoid confusion with other events that may be referred to as a Paris Peace Conference. The arguments for WP:COMMONNAME and the uncited (but implicit) WP:CONCISE were flummoxed by an implicit appeal to WP:PRECISE. I see no way that we could move the article, given the other possible results, unless this conference has primary topic. That assertion was made, but not convincingly proven in the discussion. Perhaps a later, better-sourced move request specifically intended to prove primary topic would be successful in raising a consensus. This move request, as much as I love WP:CONCISE and avoiding disambiguation pages, failed to garner any consensus either way. (non-admin closure) RedSlash 05:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This brings me to your second question: Without any other article existing with similar wording, we are retaining a naming convention that is unnecessary hence the request for move.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
That only repeats the question. The question is why? Why without any other article title existing with "1919," why is "1919" unnecessary? Says who? Based on what evidence? Is Hurricane (cocktail) unnecessary because there is no Hurricane title? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I do believe I have repeatedly, and clearly, laid out my argument answering your questions and presented evidence.
Your response would raise the following questions: Why not move the article? Why keep the article named as it is? Why is the 1919 necessary? What evidence supports the idea that the event that took place was called "Paris Peace Conference, 1919"?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't see any argument or evidence for why removing 1919 is beneficial. You're saying it is unneccesary to have 1919. Why? What is your reason.
The argument for keeping it is evident, there are other Paris Peace Conferences, who gains from disguising the one people are most likely to be looking for? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. Primary usage. Srnec (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. The absence of any other article incorporating this exact title indicates that the 1919 event was the Paris Peace Conference. bd2412T 19:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
When I search for "Paris Peace Conference" on GoogleBooks and then subtract results containing "1919", more than half of my results disappear. I lose less than 10% of my results if instead I subtract those that contain "1946" or "Cambodia". My argument had nothing to do with what Wikipedia does and everything to do with what I thought would be accepted as common knowledge: that the post-First World War conference was the primary meaning of the term "Paris Peace Conference". My searches bear this out. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
it's almost exactly half. Of course "1919" isn't the only thing we could add. But all in all we're not benefiting anyone by playing "hide the article" here. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This Ngram shows that the term was basically invented for the post-WWI conference. There was no increase in usage after 1945. Srnec (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand the repeated assertion of this would be playing "hide the article", if we were to move this page to the most common name of the conference. There is no other article on the wiki called "Paris Peace Conference" (other than the disambig page), so there would be no hiding of the article. People would be directed directly to the most likely place they were wishing to go. A mere casual look on the first few pages of Google Books further highlights this, that the vast majority of sources are talking about the conference that occurred in 1919. The second conference, of 1947, is clearly overshadowed by the terminology of "Paris Peace Treaties" and that is reflected on the wiki, on the net, and even in the likes of the Britannica.
Please explain how we would be hiding the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
OpposeIn ictu oculi is bang on in terms of the number of conferences that are referred to as the "Paris Peace Conference". I'm certainly not inclined to support the move without a demonstration that 1919 is the most common of the more than half dozen conferences by similar or same name. It might very well be in a modern sense because of MacMillan's book but I don't think there is a consistency of the same variety in history based journals. Treaty of Paris is an even clearer demonstration of this. I think users I still better served by leaving the date reference than removing it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe that's been demonstrated above. See my Ngram results and In ictu oculi's tacit admission that my claim about more than half of all results containing the year 1919 was correct. Srnec (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't really see that Ngram as definitive. I'm not saying it's not possible that 1919 is the lead, it just seems questionable. For instance, take this ngram that compares Paris Peace Conference 1919,Paris Peace Conference 1946 and Paris Peace Conference with data smoothing. It does show the term was created in 1919 but also shows 100% increase immediately following WW2. The comparison by date also shows that Paris Peace Conference 1919 isn't even close to the results for Paris Peace Conference, leaving some question as to date association. This being said, the view results for the 1946 link lead me to believe that there won't be an issue with users getting to the right source (which is good know) I'm just not convinced the removal of the date is the most appropriate idea.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Ngrams work with specific phrases. Nobody is suggesting that "Paris Peace Conference 1919" is a common phrase. The increase in the term's use in 1940–45 ends abruptly before the post-war peace conference began in Paris. So the term is unlikely to refer primarily to that. Is it not equally likely that many of those wartime mentions are to the WWI conference and not any other past conference or potential future one? Srnec (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title is precise, accurate and neutral. There are several Paris Peace Conferences, and this is just one of them. It doesn't matter that the others don't have WP articles as long as they are notable. I don't see any good reason to change the title to something ambiguous, which would require a reader to click through to a disambiguation page to get where they want to be. Personally, when you say "Paris Peace Conference" to me I think of the 1973 talks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Scrapping out the year doesn't make the 1919 event the primary term of the base name. George Ho (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Support I've always thought the 1919 conference is the most notable one. --Երևանցիtalk 21:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The French have a long history in international diplomacy, and 1919 was long ago. Many readers may misrecognize the topic without the year, and with the year the title is very much more recognizable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Much of the lead section appears to have been a very close paraphrasing of Margaret MacMillan's Peacemakers: Six Months That Changed The World, or at least the Amazon.com summary of that book - as I learned with some very basic googling. I've cleaned up the only obvious example I could find - the last paragraph of the lead - but I'm not sure how much of this article was taken directly from there. Beige.librarian (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
the passage was inserted on 12 Jan 2009 by an anonymous editor who then disappeared from Wikipedia --see his edit. Is there any more evidence of too-close paraphrasing? Rjensen (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Sellers from Amazon/alike often fork WP in product descriptions without proper attribution. I presume it's just another misforking case, considering nobody has complained since '09 and the suspected source isn't Britannica or a research page. GuyHimGuy (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)