Talk:Treaty of Paris (1815)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I havent found any areas annexed by France 1790-1792. Which exactly areas were subject of change?

Cautious 17:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is this considered a Swedish Peace Treaty? They aren't even mentioned in the article? Swedish Petrograd 19:46, 15 Nov 2006 (CET)

Most Holy and Undivided Trinity[edit]

I have removed:

The treaty is promulgated "In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,"(ref name=BFO-280) a foretaste of the return of the exiled Jesuits and the renewed role of religion, especially of Roman Catholicism, in the reaction to the Napoleonic Era.

Because it is true that "The treaty is promulgated "In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity," but the analysis needs a source.

See page 191 of A collection of treaties between Great Britain and other powers; (1790). It shows the start of the "The Definitive Treaty of Peace and Friendship between his Majesty the King of Great Britain, and their High Mightiness the States General of the United Provinces of the Low Countries. ... In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So be it. ... Done at Paris the 20th of May, 1784" (Peace of Paris (1783)#Peace with the Dutch republic). If the wording indicated a "foretaste of the return of the exiled ..." then why would two Protestant states use such wording? --PBS (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Church of England is not a unitarian church.Eregli bob (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Second treaty of Paris[edit]

I am moving the wording into a footnote, because some American sources use the name "second treaty of Paris" to refer to the Treaty of Paris (1783).[1] --PBS (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Epoch event[edit]

"and is widely regarded as an Epoch event separating the period of history known as Early Modern Europe from the Modern Era. There was no doubt in the mind of any competent statesman that the events of the prior 65-75 years had cast the European world into untraveled territory."

This recently added text expresses a POV and need a source. So I am removing it until such a source is provided. --PBS (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also removed this opinion piece which was recently added for the same reason:

"his short-lived resurgence was the death knell signal for Monarchism and Authoritarianism for the average people no longer felt they needed to maintain their station; though the process would take the larger part of two centuries to complete.

--PBS (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The table of content[edit]

I have reverted this edit for the second time because the TOC I put in place is a copy of that used by the British Foreign office when it published the treaty. As such the TOC is both a useful navigation tool and simultaneously a quote of what one party to the treaty considered to be the pertain points. -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That Table of Contents was a table of contents for the Treaty, not for the actual Wikipedia article. As a TOC for the article, this form would seem to be contrary to other WP articles. I have instituted more of a MOS-TOC, moved the BFO version to a standalone section (preserving the pertinent clauses as published by them in 1815) and welcome any further discussion on this matter. Also, a reference is needed for the statement that this information(headers+clauses) is what the BFO published at the time. Shearonink (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the change you asked for a citation so let me set that concern to rest. The first is is you look at the Wikisource link you will find the same layout, the second is that if you were follow the link at the end of the "These were listed by the British Foreign office as:" you could check for yourself -- here it is for convenience:
  • British and Foreign State Papers, p. 280
you write "As a TOC for the article, this form would seem to be contrary to other WP articles". while that may be true as the MOS points out: "Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole". -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be two issues under consideration for this article...there is a Content box for the actual Treaty - that is what is presently at the article. Then there is a Table of Contents as understood for Wikipedia articles. If a reader looks at the present "Contents", the reader will see no navigational headers for the following sections of the article: See also, Notes, and References. I think that changing Contents to Treaty Contents or Contents of Treaty should at least be considered. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem[edit]


This edit on 9 September 2004, introduced this sentence:

"Although some of the Allies, notably Prussia, initially demanded that France cede major territory in the east, rivalry among the powers and the general desire to secure the Bourbon restoration made the peace settlement less onerous than it might have been."

among others. At such an early date no explicit source was given but an external link was provided: "Treaty of Paris,: e-text"

The link is no longer current and the WaybackMachine is down at the moment [2] S so I can not check if this wording appeared in that article.

The 2004 text for this sentence is still in this Wikipedia the article. But it also appears in

  • Ian Bickerton (2011). The Illusion of Victory: The True Costs of War. Melbourne Univ. Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 0522856152. 

However an examination of the copyright status at the start of the book "First published 2011. Text © Ian Bickerton 2011" So the text that appears on the Wikipedia page is not a copy of the text from The Illusion of Victory. Whether it is a copy from another copyrighted source is not yet clear. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The is now the and it has a file on it which prohibits WaybackMachine searches however AFAICT the original "Treaty of Paris,: e-text" is now under Treaty of Paris 1815 and is a partial quote of the full treaty with no analysis. So the sentence in question was probably not copied from the website. -- PBS (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dab hatnote[edit]

see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage guidelines:

There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris".

--PBS (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There are dozens of treaties of Paris and evidently (based on article feedback) the year only is not sufficient to clearly distinguish the specific treaties. While it might be sufficient to produce a unique article title, unless you already know the year of the treaty you are looking for, the year alone is not very helpful to distinguish them. OTOH, I don't feel all that strongly about the hatnotes, but there is little reason to remove the hatnote from one Treaty of Paris article and leave them on the others. User:Shearonink began adding the hatnotes, I standardized the format. I've left a note for asking for input. olderwiser 12:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
"unless you already know the year of the treaty you are looking for, the year alone is not very helpful to distinguish them" in which case the dab page Treaty of Paris would be the first call, one will not arrive at this page by accident. -- PBS (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Except when you are misdirected by incorrect links (yes, shocking, but it does happen in Wikipedia articles) or through external search engines or even "guessing" wrong when picking one from the options presented from the progressive listing in Wikipedia's internal search box. It's quite easy to arrive at the page by accident. olderwiser 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The guidance is clear and if that happens then the link needs fixing, (a sticking plaster in the form of a hatnote is not the solution). I wait with interest for User:Shearonink to provide a link to the conversation User:Shearonink mentions when adding a hatnote to this and other treaty of Paris articles, as presumably the guidance was discussed during that conversation and it was decided that the confusion was so great in this specific case that this guidance should be ignored under IAR. -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, here I am being all interesting... I was going off of some Article Feedback from a reader, one of our "customers" you know? They had ended up at the wrong individual Treaty of Paris article, posted something kind of along the lines of "the year is wrong Wikipedia!". There was nothing at the individual article itself to let them know that there are many different 'Treaty of Paris' articles in Wikipedia. It seemed like a nice thing to do to me, to give them a signpost to point the way. Shearonink (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that we need to check the links to that article so which article was it? -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The particular AF I was going off of is located at the AF for Treaty of Paris (1898). However it happened, this user/reader/customer somehow did end up at the wrong article, looks like they had no idea that there were so many different agreements known as a "Treaty of Paris". From my reading of their response, I don't think it was the internal WP linkage so much as probably this reader seeing & clicking on a 'Treaty of Paris' from an outside search engine such as Google and then ending up at the wrong one from that outside referral. I figure if there was one person who took the time to post AF, then there are probably others who didn't post AF who also ended up at the wrong article for their purposes & maybe just went away quietly or gave up. This hatnote to the dab page is a matter of accessibility to me, making as much of the information as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
If you think it is a legitimate concern, then the place to discuss it is at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation because it if affects this particular set of articles then what about all the others where this problem may occur? Until such time as the guidance is changed, I do not think it appropriate to place hat-notes on these treaty articles because of one observation by one person. Apart from anything else this change will be repeatedly reverted by editors such as my self, explaining that the revert is based on the guidance on the dab page. -- PBS (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. See Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Treaty_of_Paris. My original intent in all this is just trying to help readers who seem to need additional guidance. I admit to being puzzled about your initial reference above to Solaris (1972 film), since that article actually does have a hatnote with linkage to Solaris (which is a disambiguation page). Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I am surprised that you are (were?) confused. I would have though that before you went change dozens of articles in quick succession you would have been aware of the guidance on the issue and I would have thought that the sentence I quoted made it perfectly clear what that guidance is. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with PBS. If hatnotes linking to "X" are wanted for every "X (Y)" that should be a central decision. And WRT "the year is wrong Wikipedia!" - what will Shearonink do next if that pops up again? Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I am only here in this matter because I wanted to help a reader find their way to the Wikipedia article that they wanted to read.
I also suggest all of us, per 'Wikipedia talk page guidelines', stick to discussing edits, not other editors. The recommendation further upthread to open a thread about this specific issue was followed and the pertinent discussion can be found on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation at Treaty of Paris. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you please wait until discussion concludes before deciding you are correct and [unilaterally implementing your decision. First there are legitimate concerns about the supposed policy and 2) if the policy is to be enforced, there needs to be consistency -- all of the treaty of paris articles currently have hatnotes. olderwiser 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not deciding I am correct, I was just implementing the current guideline, and I did so like PBS before, considering these two things, to call it unilateral is way off, isn't it? And maybe you could stop reverting to an anti-guideline version? Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
As evidenced by the discussion, your interpretation of the guideline is not the only interpretation. Please do not make WP:POINTy edits. olderwiser 01:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
From the history "(1) this is being discussed, wait for the conclusion 2) there are hatnotes on all of these articles and no reason for this to be inconsistent" It is only on all of these articles because because Shearonink added them (all?) in quick succession between 02:22, 26 January 2013 and 02:44, 26 January 2013. OW Your logic of "this is being discussed, wait for the conclusion" is against BRD as a bold edit was made, it was reverted by me now we are discussing it so no further revert after mine should have been made. "and no reason for this to be inconsistent" can be turned on its head, there are 1,000 of articles without such hatnotes leaving them here is against guidance and inconsistent. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That presumes your interpretation of the policy is correct. I don't agree. And yes, depending on the outcome of the discussion, this might affect other articles, but consistency within these several articles is of a different sort than extending the practice to other articles. olderwiser 13:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Where have I presumed anything about policy in my statement last statement? -- PBS (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The purportedly bold edit you reverted was only reverted by you based on your interpretation of policy. Your edit made this one Treaty of Paris article inconsistent with the dozens of other Treaty of Paris articles. Rather than leave one odd man out, it seemed more sensible to leave the set consistent while the discussion was ongoing. At this point there is no reason to extend this beyond this set of articles (although the outcome of the discussion at WT:DAB and WT:HATNOTE may have ab impact on other articles). olderwiser 14:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth...[edit]

Does "a like ram of 100 millions" mean? It's been in the article since the article took its present form and so obviously is not vandalism. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Guess they mean "a like sum" (the same as the sum awarded to the four nations just above): Noyster (talk), 16:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but there's no definition of "ram" I know of that is a synonym for "sum". Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Parsecboy well spotted. It was an OCR error I missed when extracting the text from the copyright expired article. It should have been sum (as can be seen in the original article). The wording of articles like this are not fixed in stone and even if it had been a archaic technical term, there no harm done in updating such language. -- PBS (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)