Talk:Protocol of Sèvres

protocols of sèvres
actually protocol was used in its plural form for its 7 points, as "protocoles (secrets) de Sèvres" written in french for all sides. the article could be renamed to "protocols of sèvres". [http://education.france5.fr/programmes/index.cfm?espId=61&objId=14326&pageId=82579&discId=77 2006 documentary feat. a reacting according to witnesses Shimon Peres, Mordechai Bar-On, and british historian Avi Shlaïm] Shame On You 21:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Attention!
Hi there, I have done a major copyedit of this article to make the writing clearer and the entry more encyclopedic. I have no interest in or opinion of the information presented other than to have it conform to Wikipedia's standards.

If you feel I have changed the meaning or facts here, discuss it on this talk page. I have added Fact tags to statements I feel need to be sourced but I am not disputing these facts. I am also not going to find sources or enter into debate on the issue, my only interest is that the entry is accurate and well written. --killing sparrows 08:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, The section now entitled Consequences remains unclear to me. I do not know what the creator was specifically trying to say so I may have messed it up. Again, I don't care about the issues here, only the facts and the writing. If I got it wrong, explain to me what you want to say and I will fix it. Thanks, --killing sparrows 08:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF?
what is this purge for? you have changed facts to tell a different story!!

"The forced French abandonment of Indochina, followed by its humiliation during the Suez Crisis, despite the military success of Operation Musketeer, and the Algiers putsch, led by General Maurice Challe, all were blows to France's international standing."

what is this? this has nothing to do with what was written by me in the first place. this is totally false and unencyclopedic. actually you have removed every critics about the british to protect their prestige or something. it deserves a full revert. i have currently no time to do it. damn british their propaganda is still living, always trying to hide the dark side of their history and rewriting it with myths. Shame On You 03:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith and don't launch personal attacks on other editors. Please also note that the editor you're complaining about is North American, not British. Further to this, the editor was clearly attempting to copyedit your writing since it was obviously written by someone for whom English is not their first language. Finally, I don't see what your problem is, since as far as I can see, the replaced version is a reasonably close paraphrase of the version you wrote, despite your diatribe above. --Aim Here 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just what I was afraid of...
Hi There, I was hesitant to even touch this article, the reaction above shows why. I certainly have no reason to try to hide anyone's involvement in this affair, I am no supporter of Britain's, France's or my own country's participation in underhanded maneuvers such as this. I have found a reference that outlines the story in some detail, sparing no criticism of the parties involved and would welcome anyone to use this or other sources to expand this article. It includes a transcript of the actual Protocol of Sevres and an extensive bibliography. If no one is interested in doing the expansion I have put it on my 'to-do' list and will work on it as time allows. The source can be found at... this site. -- killing sparrows  (chirp!) 20:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Who was Sir Philip?
The section headed "British Denial" mentions a "Sir Philip". Sir Philip who? Please will someone add his surname? Thank you :-) Motacilla (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)