Talk:Inter-Allied Women's Conference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleInter-Allied Women's Conference is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
June 16, 2019WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
May 12, 2019Good article nomineeListed
November 11, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 10, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Inter-Allied Women's Conference, which opened in Paris 100 years ago today, marked the first time women were granted formal participation in an international treaty negotiation (conference organizer Marguerite de Witt-Schlumberger pictured)?
Current status: Featured article

Pre-FAC copy edit queries[edit]

  • "The fact that the women were allowed to participate validated that women could take part in international policy making and globalised the discussion of human rights." 1. Is that "women were allowed to participate" in the Paris Peace Conference, or in the League of Nations organisation (the subject of the preceding sentence). I assume the former, but wanted to check before tidying it up. 2. "validated that" is poor grammar. How would you feel about 'validated women's right to take part'? Or can you come up with something? 3. How did their participation "globalise[] the discussion of human rights"?; it seems unconnected to me. (I realise that this is sourced in the main article, but that is not the same as being clear to a reader as to what the mechanism was.)
1) in the peace conference  Done SusunW (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
2) Oh, I'm not sure they thought it was a right for them to participate, more like "validated women's ability to take part"  Done SusunW (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
3) Not sure I understand this. From the paragraph above it already says "...resolution to the League of Nations Commission. It covered the trafficking and sale of women, their political and suffrage status, and their inclusion in international education with a focus on the humanitarian rights of all persons of each nation." Repeating that their resolution introduced these things seems overly redundant to me. SusunW (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "As world leaders prepared to gather for negotiations to draft peace terms after the armistices" This would be the peace conference, explained in the previous paragraph. Is there a reason why this is explained out of chronological order?
I don't think it is out of order. The official conference convened on 18 January 1919. That same day she wrote the letter. Maybe it works better to say "As world leaders gathered" ... SusunW (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "participate in the peace process" A tricky point, but what is meant by "peace process"? Maybe replace with 'negotiation of the peace treaty'?
I don't think that women had any belief that they would be allowed to negotiate a treaty, heck, they only had the right to vote in a handful of countries and weren't citizens in their own right (I'm fairly sure not anywhere until 1933). More like they wanted to take part in the discussions that would inform the negotiations.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "French suffragists alerted Wilson again" "alerted"? Maybe 'wrote to'?  Done SusunW (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "they would support a democratically-formed League of Nations, including women's participation in the Paris Peace Conference" "including"? Either needs explaining or replacing with 'and'.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "They posted invitations to organisations in all Allied Nations involved in the suffrage movement" Just to be clear, there were some Allied nations which did not receive invitations? Yes?
No. "First, they sent out invitations to suffrage organizations in all the Allied nations, asking them to send delegates Paris" (Siegel) Modified to "organisations involved in the suffrage movement in all Allied Nations".  Done SusunW (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not happy with "Inter-Allied Women" being used to mean 'delegates to or participants in the Inter-Allied Women's Conference'. It may be simpler to go with 'women delegates', or 'Conference delegates'. In other cases, perhaps use the full title, eg "many of the labour standards and workers' rights guarantees that the Inter-Allied Women had proposed" → 'many of the labour standards and workers' rights guarantees that the Inter-Allied Women's Conference had proposed'.
It makes for much longer sentences to distinguish the women's conference delegates from the peace conference delegates, but I think I got them all.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "agreed to allow the women an audience with ... and the League of Nations" What am I missing? I thought that the League of Nations wasn't formed, and didn't meet, until 1920. (Later you refer to "a presentation to the League of Nations Commission".)
Commission  Done SusunW (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sometimes a serial comma is used and sometimes it isn't. It should be consistent.  Done (or maybe not, always hard to spot them all, but I tried.) SusunW (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "international education" Umm? Does this mean 'education in each country'? (Or 'education in each country on international affairs'?
Neither to my mind. They wanted the League of Nations to transform education and internationalize it so that young people were taught about general culture, history, and the moral and societal development of each nation to instill "in each individual conscience the sense of human solidarity, and the respect due to the liberties and rights of each nation". (Oldfield, p 106) Not sure how to concisely say that. SusunW (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I have had a go at this. See what you think.
Fine by me :) SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "They argued that if people were allowed to have self-determination, women should share in the right to choose their own path" I doubt that this will be clear to most readers. (Even now I have linked self-determination.) Could you work in a little explanation of the parallel intended?
Modified text to "women should have equal opportunity and the legal right to make their own life choices"  Done SusunW (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "were deemed far too radical" In this context, "far" is probably a word-to-watch. I suggest deleting it.
I put it in quotes as Pietilä says exactly that. I think it is incredibly important to stress how forward thinking these women were 100 years ago. Stuff that in the present, we take for granted — citizenship, equal protection under the law, fair pay, safe working environments, illegality of trafficking, world news, etc. — are not new concepts. (Maybe had anyone in power listened, world history would have played out differently?)  Done SusunW (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The final Covenant of the League of Nations" I assume that you mean 'the final draft of the', or 'the final version of the'?
I'm confused, but I inserted version (and linked to the Covenant)  Done SusunW (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
That's me being unclear. There was only (ever) a single Covenant, so there couldn't be a "final" Covenant. Perhaps go back to the original version, but delete "final"? (If that matches what you mean.)  Done SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was determined by the heirs of the feminists" "which "feminists"? The delegates to the Inter-Allied Women's Conference?
There were more papers stolen than just those involved in the conference. Women in Nazi Germany were expected to be incubators of new German citizens and have no focus other than that of being the best wife or mother that they could be.[1] Feminists were considered radicals and like communists and other anti-social groups, were in danger of being either sterilized or murdered.[2] From everything I have read on the looting of the French and Dutch records, the Nazis took all of the records they could find associated with feminist organizations — libraries, correspondence, business records, etc. It sounds clunky to me to say the heirs of the feminists whose papers were stolen. Any ideas? SusunW (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Hows about something like 'It was determined by the heirs of the feminists involved in the various historical organisations that ... '?
Still sounds like a lot of words. I just added "whose works were stolen"  Done SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That's good. (I wish I'd thought of it.)
Gog the Mild I answered all of them, though some are still unresolved. Please let me know where we go from here. Did you read the explanation on my talk about the table? SusunW (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Really good work on my queries. Thanks. I hope that it went/goes without saying that if you disagree with any of my comments or queries you should say so. I think that it reads more smoothly now. Time is a little limited right now, so I have flagged up the (last?) three issues either you or I would like to discuss below and will try to get back to them tomorrow. If not, Tuesday. Feel free to add to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm fairly flexible, but have people coming in on the 3rd. SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Things to come back to[edit]

  • Table.
What you are talking about I think, is a "list", the other common mainspace feature, alongside the "article". Eg List of cyclists with a cycling-related death; just the first I stumbled across. It is currently undergoing review to become a FL, something entirely different from a FA. If you were to do what you propose, I virtually guarantee that someone would insist that you split out the list and the article, and replace the list in the article with a Wikilink. They would have a good point, and you may wish at some stage to write a separate list. However, presenting the two run together for your first FAC is something I would recommend you avoid.
Fine with me, I just find going back and forth between the list and the photos somewhat cumbersome. SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "globalise[] the discussion of human rights"
I don't know just what this means in practical terms. And I suspect that your average reader wouldn't. Can you break it down into a concrete action or actions? As you changed "participate in the peace process" to the more specific 'participate in the discussions that would inform the treaty negotiations'. Is my concern any clearer now?
Nope, sorry, I'm still not getting what you mean. Women realized very early on that because they weren't citizens they had issues in common with any/all marginalized group(s) and that these were not confined by national borders but were international issues. If a medieval king married a princess, he did not come to her territory, she went to his. Anything that was familiar to her, became a private matter (and if she wanted to keep language, customs, network, she had had to bring books, traditions and people with her to retain her cultural identity), because publicly she was expected to adopt the customs of his territory. Later, all classes of women realized they shared these same types of problems. (Not a citizen in UK, you still weren't one in the US, or Japan, or Cameroon, or anywhere else; not able to obtain an education, you still weren't likely to get one anywhere else; not protected by the laws of your country ...) People in power tended to look at what they wanted in a bubble, without regard to how their actions would impact the broader world. (I want to invade, I will invade; oh, oops, I introduced deadly viruses, not my problem as I don't live there; in any case, now that they are dropping like flies, it will be easier to control this new territory of mine.) Feminists wanted human rights to be dealt with as a global issue, not left up to each individual country to address when they got around to it, or decided it was relevant. They argued that human rights were inalienable and impacted every single person anywhere, as there were real consequences to real people, whether the powerful just ignored human rights abuses, or pretended that rights only applied to certain segments of society. SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I do understand what you're getting at. I am concerned that you will be picked up at FAC for using a vague, hand-waving phrase. But I may well be wrong. And if you are, well that's what FAC is for. And it's your article, so if you're happy with it, then fine.
  • Sources.
Have you added or substantially changed any sources since I did the source review at ACR?
Nope.  Done SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
OK. Looking good to go. I see no reason why you shouldn't smash a bottle of champagne over it and nominate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)