|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armistice Day article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on 11 dates. [show]|
What time zone does the 11 o'clock refer to?
- IME, it's usually observed according to local time. --Calair 12:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- You are thinking of this in the wrong way. The armistice came into force six hours after it was signed, in France. This was recorded as 5am French time. French time was the same as UK time, so far as I can determine - the CET article says that France did not adopt CET until 1940 under German control. --AJHingston (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Talk regarding proposed merged is here Talk:Remembrance Day
Not The Official End
Armistice day was not the official end of the Great War.. That happened in bits and pieces when the various nations ratified the Treaty Of Versailles, with the exception of the United States, which has never ratified the treaty of Versailles. Instead, the United States concluded a separate peace with The German Empire's successor state, the so called "Weimar Republic", on August 25, 1921. Meaning that, technically, the war didn't "officially" end until almost 3 years AFTER Armistice Day. Which is why I removed the reference to it being the official end of the war.
Is the top "See Also" really needed as there is also a "See Also" section at the bottom of the page? The article is short enough that it may not be needed at the top of the page.
I wonder whether the [[Image:1918Toronto BayandKing Armistace Day.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Armistice Day Celebrations in Toronto, Canada in 1918]] it adequate for the beginning of the article, as it depicts the celebrations of the winners, rather than the Armistice Day, the day of Remembrance of the millions of dead of the 1st World War.--FocalPoint (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2009
Invitation from Buckingham Palace NOV 10 1919
I'm not sure what I should do with this.... I have taken pics of an original invitation to Buckingham Palace for a Banquet held in honor of the President of the French Republic for the evening of Nov 10th 1919. This invitation would have been sent to every name mentioned inside it's 6 pages. (Approximately 100 invitations were sent out and approximately 100 guests and dignitaries were present on the eve of the First ever Armistice or Remembrance day of Nov 11th 1919).
I would like to post pics here but am wondering how to protect the images in order that 'a hundred invitations' don't show up on eBay all claiming to be the real thing. I am not so much worried about copyright as I am worried about people creating fake copies (for sale)
How can I work with Wikipedia to protect the contents of the image without distracting from the historical nature of the actual large format invitation?
I would like to show and/or exhibit the unmarked original pics of the invitation as part of Wikipedia but the historic and very rare nature of this document might lead some to copy it for unscrupulous reasons.
What avenues Can I explore here?
here's a link to watermarked images of the original invitation. http://s201.photobucket.com/albums/aa296/moefuzzz/WORLD%20WAR%201%20ARTIFACTS/
(hope the links works)
This is the Front page of the invitation... http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa296/moefuzzz/WORLD%20WAR%201%20ARTIFACTS/fe26c860.jpg
Please note, I have not and will not release unmarked large format photos for free use (anywhere) until I can be assured that nobody will be able to just print a 1000 off on there laser jet printers.
I do feel that the original unmarked pics (in high definition)would be a rather interesting addition to the remembrance day and armistice day pages and would therefor like to share.
Remembering the dead or the war itself?
Could we open a discussion on what Rememberance Day is about?
Is it about remembering the atrocities of war with the view that if we remember what went on we'll make an effort to avoid a reoccurance? "Lest we forget" etc.
The common understanding seems to be about highlighting the heroism of the people who fought in said wars, but I understand this to be counter the above. Hailing people who were involved in the war is a bad way to make us avoid a reoccurance.
It is a topic for discussion, certainly, but a tricky one for Wikipedia. Broadly, I think the general picture is that the primary emphasis at the outset was to provide a collective opportunity of remembrance at a time when the great majority of the adult population in many of the participant countries would have their own memories of a family member, acquaintance or comrade who had died in war. This was in addition to individual acts of remembrance which became more or less customary such as on the anniversary of the death or birth or acts such as placing bridal bouquets on a war memorial, and influenced by the fact that in most cases there would be no opportunity to visit a grave. Nevertheless, there is evidence that from the beginning some felt that the event tended to glorify war, whilst others thought that an excessive emphasis on suffering and death underplayed the sense of duty, heroism and sacrifice of many who fought. After the second world war in particular, at least in the UK, some veterans believed that dwelling on the past distracted attention from the need to create a new order in which nations would be reconciled and new wars unnecessary, and this may have influenced the lesser importance attached to memorials to the dead of WWII compared to WWI. As the immediacy of the conflict(s) receded then attention has swung away from remembrance of individual dead to collective awareness of the suffering consequence on war, but arguably in the UK stress is now being placed on the dead of recent conflicts (eg Afghanistan). But this is written largely from a UK perspective, and other countries' experiences will be different.
To cover this appropriately in the article it would be necessary to cite a range of good sources (including official statements at different periods) not just individual opinions, and from different countries. I suspect that this would then be challenged as original research. Tweaking individual sentences may be appropriate (for example, I don't think it is now correct to imply that Remembrance Day/Sunday in the UK commemorates the dead of the two world wars alone, but I am unable off-hand to cite a suitably authoritative source). AJHingston (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Armistice Day or Remembrance Sunday aren't about highlighting the heroism or glorifying war in any way. It also isn't especially about remembering the atrocities of war, there are other events for that. It's mainly a local ceremony for local people to remember those ordinary people, friends, family and acquaintances whose names are inscribed on the local memorial or who were caught up in a war not of their making. The national ceremony held in London has the same aims, just on a much bigger scale -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Whilst I think that is right for the majority of people certainly in the immediate aftermath of the major conflicts, the remembrance ceremonies and other associated activities have been controversial. In the UK Robert Graves, in Good-Bye to All That (if memory serves) reacted to the way it was marked locally where he was living soon after WWI, there was the Peace Pledge Union and the white poppy campaign, and there have been others who have also been uncomfortable with the way the day is marked or the emphasis within it. Those criticisms have not come from people who were uncaring about those who died, rather the reverse. I also think that the significance for participants will have changed as memories of those named on memorials passes away. I doubt that many of us who take part in such ceremonies today have any personal knowledge of the people listed on the memorial near which we gather. We should not forget, either, that different countries will have attached varying significance to remembrance depending, in particular, on whether they counted themselves victors or defeated. As I comment above, the problem is in finding appropriate sources, and picking on statements by particular individuals will not necessarily do because of the danger of giving undue weight to their opinion unless they were, for example, speaking in an official capacity or on behalf of a group. We do have to be careful in Wikpedia to distinguish between what we think ought to have been the case and what actually was, and this topic covers many countries over more than 90 years so generalisations are dangerous. --AJHingston (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's also a difference between the attitude in the aftermath of WWI, 90+ years ago, and the attitude of people now. Sadly, there is no shortage of people killed in various conflicts and they are often recorded on local memorials so there are still plenty of people who remember them -- SteveCrook (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Remembering the dead through a public holiday would surely interfere with profit. Does this answer your question? 22.214.171.124 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There have been a couple of attempts to change the date citation in the introduction to US style. I am not clear of the reasons, and Wikipedia policy is clear - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) . If there is a good reason for using the US style it should be discussed here first. --AJHingston (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's strictly true to suggest that Armistice Day and Remembrance Day are the same (as in the first sentence). In the UK, for example, that is only the case if the latter happens to fall on 11 November. IXIA (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think Remembrance Day and Armistice Day are one and the same - it's Remembrance Sunday that is different, unless it happens to be Sunday 11th. I always refer to 11th November as Armistice Day if it isn't on the Sunday, as it differentiates mroe readily. Either way it's nice to see people marking both days. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
NYT front page
Armistice Day in New Zealand
The page is misleading because it implies that the day is a public holiday in New Zealand. In fact it's not. Please could someone rewrite the page. Akld guy (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC) - edited Akld guy (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)