Talk:Paris Peace Conference, 1919
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject International relations / law|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on January 18, 2011, January 18, 2012, January 18, 2016, and January 18, 2017.|
- 1 Stub
- 2 wikipedia editors alert!
- 3 please fix this, someone
- 4 Making some additions: Racial Equality Proposal
- 5 Yea
- 6 France?
- 7 OK
- 8 Rewrites
- 9 WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
- 10 title
- 11 Contradiction Tag
- 12 Litigation = hi
- 13 Chart?
- 14 Brittipedia
- 15 File:Council of Four Versailles.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 16 Suggested move
- 17 Close paraphrasing of "Peacemakers"
- 18 Box of the bottom: Paris Peace Conference, 1919
- 19 Ho Chi Minh
- 20 Duplicated Paragraph
- 21 External links modified
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)
wikipedia editors alert!
This article is filled with mistakes and deliberate errors.
please fix this, someone
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.
Warro mike 16:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As of now (August 2011) the British are described in this article as total angels, free of any wrongdoing in the post-war period, unlike their partner-in-crime France.. You should be pleased.
Yes. Wretched article. The French position is key. 220.127.116.11 22:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
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 18.104.22.168 (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
It just occurred to me that this article has kind of a strange format. Wouldn't Paris Peace Conference (1919) or Paris Peace Conference of 1919 be more consistent with general wikipedia style? I'm not too concerned, but I thought I'd mention it. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2009 (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)
Litigation = hi
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems a name-change is in order, since every single article seems to be written with a totally non-neutral British bias & point of view.
File:Council of Four Versailles.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Council of Four Versailles.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
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.
Close paraphrasing of "Peacemakers"
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)
This box, where its written a section League of Nations, a section Treaty of Versailles n Subsequent treaties n Treaty of Sèvres does have a strange title, that is not wright. Please make it more clear. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ho Chi Minh
Perhaps a connection to his attempt at this conference to see Vietnam independent would be warranted. See [education in France]Jplvnv (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)jplvnv, 11:08 am, pdt, Tue 27 Sept, 2016
As of today (5/6 August 2017), the second paragraph of the lead section and the fourth paragraph of the Overview Section are identical, and one of the paragraphs should be removed. My personal preference would be to keep it in the lead and remove it from the labelled Overview Section, but as my preference isn't strong, I hope someone else will read this and fully grasp the wiki-meaning of "Be bold". With thanks in advance from ChrisJBenson (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Paris Peace Conference, 1919. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327062139/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS094.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS094.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201061016/http://nfb.ca/film/paris_1919_clip_1/ to http://www.nfb.ca/film/paris_1919_clip_1/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110624075413/http://www4.uwm.edu/libraries/AGSL/index.cfm to http://www4.uwm.edu/libraries/AGSL/index.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.