Talk:Treaty of Versailles/Archive 2

Order of flagged allied Signatories
Italy and US came later in WWI after UK, France and Russia. Shouldn't we put the original belligerents first? I didn't find the discussion that settled the current order in the first place. (N0n3up (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC))
 * The article was a mess with no one looking to improve it, or really monitoring it. Some improvements were made, much was not done for various reasons. Improving the infobox was one of the improvements.
 * Not necessarily the template for this infobox, but similar ones suggest ordering countries in terms of importance. Does the entry date into the then ended war really provide a better understanding of the various power's roles in treaty? The Italians backed out several times from the peace conference, based on this idea should they remain where they are? Not to mention, the US played an extremely vital role in the overall construction (the opening ten clauses, reigning back French demands, the careful wording of the reparation clauses etc.). Should they be moved down due to their late arrival (despite some historian's assertions that it was a war winning arrival). To me, when they entered the war is irrelevant to the year long peace process.
 * We have a source that provides an exact listing of how the countries signed the treaty, and in what order the Big Four did so. It would appear to me, to be more beneficial to follow that source (until a better one comes along) rather than start a never ending edit war with random anons (not pointing fingers, just highlighting experience of seeing countless edits over the years of people thinking country x should go first etc.) over who is more important or why another format should be used.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained why the US should be on top. The United States was a vital ally but not not an original of the allies since they came late, being hesitant of even getting involved in the war at first. I hope this is not patriotically motivated. Not to mention, the US joined the allies even later than Italy. (N0n3up (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC))
 * 1) Am British 2) It has been explained to you, you just decided to ignore the above and again alter the article without gaining consensus. 3) As seen by the uninvolved editor who reverted your change, the order in the actual treaty works.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EnigmaMcmxc Forget my first comment. Perhaps president Wilson was among first to sign the treaty, but that claim can be countered with the fact that the US came late to the war, since the order of countries signed is as equally important as who entered the war first, to my eyes the latter being more important. And if you check the other languages of Wikipedia for both the World War I and Treaty of Versailles articles (French, Spanish, Italian, German) you'll see they have the US below France and Britain (unless the other Wikibabel languages are wrong as well). The US contribution is indisputably noted but the British effort was major compared to the US and you haven't provided a source for either of your claims aside that you say a "source exists". And if so why not move the US just below Britain? I suggest we put the order of countries based on the order on the World War I article and get others to agree or disagree. JuanRiley will probably disagree due to our past "personal" history between us but aside suggest we get others currently uninvolved to place their opinion. (N0n3up (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Not to mention Britain's dominion's played a role in both the war and the Paris conference. (N0n3up (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Just did it now. Just to be safe regarding the article, I'll leave this for others to decide. (N0n3up (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC))
 * "you haven't provided a source for either of your claims aside that you say a "source exists"." Inexpiable ignorance on your part! Have you actually looked at the article, and all those little footnotes in the infobox, which link to the actual source?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EnigmaMcmxcI've looked at them but want the actual source itself, not a Wiki mediate. One reason I've asked for outside opinion. Apart from the article, I count a personal attack on your part. And please, sign your posts and keep yourself logged in unlike your actions in Pound sterling as I recall, I will probably raise it to an admin. (N0n3up (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Do not bother with idle threats, bring an admin in right now! You have already questioned my integrity by claiming I am unable to be impartial (which I consider a personal attack) because you believe me to American, not to mention whatever your other comments were aimed at.
 * You do realize you are suppose to support your attack and argument against the status quo? You have provided zero sources to support your point other than what other wiki articles look like, then dismiss a verbatim copy of the treaty because it is on a wiki site?
 * Since you appear unable to do smiggden of research, additional source one showing the list of signatories, additional source 2, additional source 3. Unless of course, you mean you want me to go to Paris and photograph the original in the French archives?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EnigmaMcmxc You need to calm down. I at first didn't agree with you and as a result opened a discussion for other's opinion (except the ones already involved of course). I said I will let others decide, but now I acknowledged your stance, now that you brought your sources with you. And in response to your other comments regarding questioning your integrity you seem to have misunderstood my message. I never said you you're unable to be impartial for being American (which I am by the way). When I said "patriotically motivated", I was referring about taking sides as one sees fit. And regarding of bringing an admin, it has nothing to do with this article but for your anonymous edits in this article as an unregistered IP. (N0n3up (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

All I see is an edit war you were involved in, which is irrelevant to this. As for calming down, I hate dealing with trolls like you. I have looked at some of your latest edits, it is the same MO: accusing editors of patriotic bias, attacking the sources used without engaging them, not being able to play nice with others, and not bringing sources to support your position. You caused a huge fuss and wasted both our time over nothing, and especially because of your ironic stance on sources!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop the personal attacks EnigmaMcmxc. I gave my opinion regarding the sources you provided but at the same time said that I would leave it to the others involved, and if no-one shows up, then it stays. Honestly you're adding too much heat to this problem at the same time wasting time with although-reliable source but unsupportive cause and arguments. And regarding the unrelated edit-war in the other article I mentioned because of my suspicion that you've edited without signing in to your account while making anonymous IP edits and seemingly confirmable by the same actions taken by both of you (or you you if not mistaken). This post and the one below are my last posts here. I think you've took enough of my time. (N0n3up (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Heat to the fire? Well if certain editors did not make threats of admin action, post insults, act like they cannot grasp a simple argument (the military might and contribution of what took place nine months before hand had little to do with the political bargaining that took place afterwards), ignore reliable sources, offer nothing to support their argumentative opinion, and sprout absolute drivel about how the actual wording of the treaty is irrelevant compared to their own opinion (here and other talkpages I have noted), then maybe things could have been a bit more civilized. Alas, you charged in hollowing political/national bias and claiming nothing had been explained to you despite a simple and straightforward response to your - admittedly - polite first question: sources trump opinion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're STILL making personal attacks EnigmaMcmxc. Again misinterpreting my posts by shaming them and concentrating on my edit history rather than the topic in hand. I've posted my last argument below and hope that others will take it from here and let them decide. After posting my arguments and sources, apart from the unnecessary arguments, I think we're done here. (N0n3up (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC))
 * EnigmaMcmxc I respect your views and opinion, but DON'T vandalize my discussion as you did here. (N0n3up (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Nothing was vandalized, or like your unsubstantiated lie in the edit summary, deleted. It was a point by point rebuttal to your wall of text. You harp on about personal attacks, yet you have no issue with being dishonest in your comments or edit summaries.
 * I did not delete anything you posted (other thab your personal attack yesterday), so do not delete my repliesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

citations needed
3 consecutive paragraphs (split between 2 sections) have a total of 10 [citation needed] tags that have been there for 8 years. I think removing those paragraphs could be considered. It starts at the end of this section Treaty_of_Versailles Aaron Bruce ( talk ) 22:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should Britain go first and the US below

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Britain go first and the US below in infobox based on the discussion-section above? N0n3up (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, maintain the status quo: N0n3up's core argument is based on who joined the war first, and apparently who played a greater role in ending it (a very debatable subject; considering the greater blood shed by the French, why shouldn't they be up for debate in being above the UK while we are at it?). Neither of which are relevant to the Paris Peace Conference or the Treaty of Versailles.
 * Per WP: NOV and WP: RS, we should be impartial and base our articles off actual sources. As noted in the above section, the only source that currently lists all the signatories is the actual treaty: it places the Big Four and Japan in a particular order, followed by the other 20 something in alphabetical order. No solid argument has yet been presented as to why not to follow it, and clearly we cannot have them all listed in the infobox. Arguing over who goes first quickly spirals down national lines it would appear from the above, so again why not stick with the source over personal preferences?
 * If the actual treaty is not good enough for the ordering, how about the logic behind the fact that it was due to the American efforts that all the treaties opened with the 'The Covenant of the League of Nations' (regardless of the fact it was not ratified in Congress)? Or the American wording behind the most important article of the treaty, in an effort to appease everyone and reign in the harsh French demands? American influence on the treaty, and it's lack of support thereafter, cannot be mis-understated because an argument can be made for the United Kingdom playing the larger military role during the war, which ended nearly a year before the treaty was signed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In Favor, agree to the change: Perhaps president Wilson was among first to sign the treaty, but that claim can be countered with the fact that the US came late to the war, since the order of countries signed is as equally important as who entered the war first, to my eyes the latter being more important. And if you check the other languages of Wikipedia for both the World War I and Treaty of Versailles articles (French, Spanish, Italian, German) you'll see they have the US below France and Britain (unless the other Wikibabel languages are wrong as well). The US contribution is indisputably noted but the British effort was major compared to the US and you haven't provided a source for either of your claims aside that you say a "source exists". And if so why not move the US just below Britain? I suggest we put the order of countries based on the order on the World War I article and get others to agree or disagree. Not to mention Britain's dominion's played a role in both the war and the Paris conference.
 * And regarding the sources you provided.. this source and this source have nothing to do with the Treaty of Versailles but with the League of Nations, and this source is an article without any order whatsoever regarding the signatories. Again, if you look at the article in the other Wikibabel languages, they don't put the countries due to a certain page's random order but for the original Allies of the war. (N0n3up (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC))
 * So your argument over wheather four actual sources should be used or not is because you do not know anything about the actual event and choose to ignore what they say and show (I.e. the last source cited), and other wiki articles should be the basis of how this one should be organized... I think you need to learn the basics of the wiki and provide a source to support your position.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EnigmaMcmxc Stop the personal attacks. Instead of disparaging personal attacks, why don't you say your great concern of the order of countries in the infobox. The only thing you posted is the signatories and two unrelated sources. Your argument is like saying (and this is true) that because Lloyd George represented the middle ground between the idealistic Wilson and the vengeful Clemenceau should be placed on top (this is not an argument, this is just an example). This is not something many people place a great deal of concern as you are currently doing considering that the other Wikis placed the Allied European powers before Associate powers like the United States (which I believe to be the correct order). I think I've placed too much energy in this. If others others agree with me or you, fine with me. (N0n3up (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Unreleated sources? At least I brought a source to back up my argument. Here, at the wiki, WP:RS stands way above opinions. WP:RS stands above no sources.
 * As the actual treaty states, the original would remain in Paris and certified copies of the original would be presented to all parties. The source you so rudely dismissed out of hand, is a copy of the actual treaty as held by the Library of Congress. It, on the very first page of the pdf, shows the order the treaty was signed. How is that irreverent? If that does not meet your standards, I do not know what will. Although it should be noted, the same order can be seen on the copy held by the Australians. Likewise, an actual copy of the treaty in printed form (and partially scanned) is available on the Museum of Australian Democracy, which shows the order of signatories (which again, you dismiss as being irrelevant and for some bizarre reason you believe the "treaty of peace" is only to do with the founding of the League of Nations).
 * What is on other wikis is irrelevant, how other articles are organized is irrelevant. Bring Lloyd George up is a straw man to this debate. Now since Facts precede opinions why don't you finally back up your opinion with some facts, and heck ... after 12k of wasted bytes ... a WP:RS to back up your position.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EnigmaMcmxc Wrong. The other Wikis are as relevant to this discussion as you think. And if you think that your argument regarding Lloyd George is bogus, then the same can be said about your arguments that the US should go first because it simply shows up in two sources. You can find other sources that mention Britain first like these two:  disregarding who was first to have signed the treaties, like the other Wiki languages of this article. And you yourself admitted that the Treaty of Versailles relating League of Nations wasn't ratified by Congress, adding more to the argument that the US should be in second or below the infobox compared to the others that did concentrate, not to mention that not only was it regarding the "League of Nations" but also the Treaty of Versailles itself as this source shows. Not to mention the British contributions that often go unnoticed and the aside fact that Woodrow Wilson had to go to Europe to gain support for his idea of the league from the others, specially Britain and France. Concluding that either Britain should be mentioned first in the article, the US should be second or third. Either way, I've precipitated enough of my time. If it weren't for your personal attacks, I would've simply left this and moved on but since you seem to be too strict on yourself and others, I've added my last arguments and sources. (N0n3up (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Per Verifiability, they are not relevant.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And if you think that your argument regarding Lloyd George is bogus,
 * You are the only one who has brought up Lloyd George in the that contextEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * then the same can be said about your arguments that the US should go first because it simply shows up in two sources.
 * Not just two sources, the actual treaty.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can find other sources that mention Britain first like these two: disregarding who was first to have signed the treaties, like the other Wiki languages of this article.
 * Again, per WP:VER, the other wiki articles are irrelvent. Your first source is a school text book, and does not provide an ordering as you claim. The second is not a Reliable Source, the ordering provided is in regards to war and casualties (as the section notes, the background), and does not provide any references on the page.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And you yourself admitted that the Treaty of Versailles relating League of Nations wasn't ratified by Congress,
 * The ratification process came after the six months of political debate in Paris, which resulted in the writing and signing of the treaty. An important talking point for the latter stages I'd the article, irrelevant here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * adding more to the argument that the US should be in second or below the infobox compared to the others that did concentrate, not to mention that not only was it regarding the "League of Nations" but also the Treaty of Versailles itself as this source shows.
 * What?! What exactly is that (RS) suppose to show in regards to this debate?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the British contributions that often go unnoticed
 * Irrelvent. Unless the article talks more about the Versailles trrwty than the title and intro suggest (a focus on the LoN). EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * and the aside fact that Woodrow Wilson had to go to Europe to gain support for his idea of the league from the others, specially Britain and France.
 * All world leaders had to go to Europe, it is where the peace conference was held.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Concluding that either Britain should be mentioned first in the article, the US should be second or third.
 * You still have not provided a RS to suggest a new listing, other than the one in the treaty.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, I've precipitated enough of my time. If it weren't for your personal attacks, I would've simply left this and moved on but since you seem to be too strict on yourself and others, I've added my last arguments and sources. (N0n3up (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC))
 * You appear to ignore your own faults, but that is here or there.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The signatories should be listed in the order given in the preamble of the treaty. --Boson (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Signatories should be listed as they are on the document. Which appears to be sourced and it does not matter who entered war first. That should be reflected on the conflict's page, not the Peace Treaty's. Reb1981 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose list per document and we should not be adding interpretation (N0n3up this is the same problem as we had with you on British Empire a the use of 'superpower'. We do not interpret facts we report sources  Snowded  TALK 05:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not interpret facts we report sources Could you be a bit more clear?  . Btw, I already agreed that the Infobox should be kept as it was. (N0n3up (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC))
 * You are still arguing the superpower case (as recently as today) which is an interpretation to apply a modern term to the past. Similar issue, arguing a case rather than reflecting sources  Snowded  TALK 08:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we should close/terminate the RfC as withdrawn by proposer?--Boson (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Boson The answer is yes. (N0n3up (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC))


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"skeptical" is spelled wrong
ctrl+f "sceptical"

it should be "skeptical"


 * That is the adjective of skeptical it's fine in the context. Reb1981 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

bruary 2016 (UTC)

"sceptical" is how "skeptical" is spelled in the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.33.139 (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we add an useful hyperlink to the article ?
In section 3.1, paragraph 2, there is a line "The sovereignty of part of southern East Prussia was to be decided via plebiscite..." I can see there is already a Wikipedia page of the plebiscite, can we hyperlink it ? i'll just leave the link here "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Prussian_plebiscite_1920". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashpaul21 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong information in the article !
Have a look at Section 3.1, "Territorial changes", and search for the line "Pomerania, on historical and ethnic grounds, was transferred to Poland so that the new state could have access to the sea and became known as the Polish Corridor" in the second paragraph. I am pretty sure its not "Pomerania", instead the correct place name is "Pomerelia" (at least in the context of this discussion, its unambiguous that way.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerelia. It's also hyperlinked to Pomerania, which is incorrect. I cannot correct it since I am not eligible to edit semi-protected articles, I hope someone will! If you have any doubt, cross check it by clicking on "Polish Corridor", there you will find Pomerelia, which is the correct place. Akash (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Under Negotiations section, there is an error where Germany and Russia are flipped. Actual Text: "The terms of this treaty awarded GERMANY a large proportion of RUSSIA'S land and resources." Correct Text: "The terms of this treaty awarded RUSSIA a large proportion of GERMANY'S land and resources." Sunaverse (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌: The context of the two sentences is referencing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which did award Germany huge territorial gains.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2016
80.168.2.114 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect to say in Mandates section that "Togoland and German Kamerun (Cameroon) were transferred to France." Both these colonies were split between France (major portions) and United Kingdom (minor portions).
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 19:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017
hello im just asking that you say that canada also sign the treaty on the signatories please and thank you Ameen Aydan (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  08:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Billion
Is it a policy to use short-scale or long-scale billion in Wikipedia articles? I know that a reader from Britain tends to assume long-scale.ExpatSalopian (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NUMERAL:
 * "billion" and "trillion" are understood to represent their short-scale values of 109(1,000,000,000) and 1012(1,000,000,000,000), respectively. Keep this in mind when translating articles from non-English Wikipedias, or using material from non-English sources.
 * I believe use of long-scale billions in the UK is outdated. --Boson (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Who supported and who protested
"Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders condemned the treaty."

I would add Communists. See here: "Unser Kampf gegen den imperialistischen Krieg, gegen Versailles. Für die soziale und nationale Befreiung" that is "our fight against... the Versailles treaty ... for national liberation", etc. Zezen (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2018
In the text "To ensure compliance, the Rhineland and bridgeheads east of the Rhine were to be occupied by Allied troops for fifteen years" change "east" to "west" Mgn210 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The bridgeheads were from the Rhineland (west of the Rhine River) to the rest of Germany (east of the Rhine).  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018
change outmanoeuvered to outmaneuvered Jacob Maleszewski (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comparism of the reparation
The number 132 billion marks is relatively nondescriptive if the reader can't correlate these numbers accordingly.

According to german Federal Agency for Civil Education, a government acency, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Agency_for_Civic_Education, as listed on this site http://www.bpb.de/izpb/142137/1880-bis-1914?p=all , the german GDP in 1913 was 48 billion Marks.

So the reparations amounted to 275% of the german 1913-GDP

I think this should be included, as an orientation for the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.224.38.47 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * While that part of the article needs work, how does comparing the entire sum (to be paid over the course of decades) to the pre-war German economy aid the reader?
 * For example, historians Hantke and Spoerer wrote that reparations deprived the German economy "of between one and 2.2 billion Reichsmark (RM) annually, which amounted in the late 1920s to nearly 2.5 per cent of Germany's GDP". Surely that would be more useful of a comparison, although perhaps too much detail for this article?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018
Under "Rhineland Occupation" subsection, please change "In late 1918, America, Belgian, British, and French troops..." to "In late 1918, American, Belgian, British and French troops...". Thank you. Marysehile (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Canada missing on signatories
Canada earned their signing rights on the Treaty of Versailles. CanBac (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * During the war, Canada was still considered a Dominion (for example, they had little say in entering the war) and would not be granted self-autonomy until 1931 (hence their own declaration of war during the Second World War). At the Paris Peace Conference, while Canada had her own representatives, Canada was not listed as one of the nations who Germany was agreeing peace with. Rather, they were covered under the umbrella term of the British Empire. See the following online copy of the treaty (partially reproduced below):
 * "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY and JAPAN, These Powers being described in the present Treaty as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CHINA, CUBA, ECUADOR, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, THE HEDJAZ, HONDURAS, LIBERIA, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, THE SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, CZECHO-SLOVAKIA, and URUGUAY, These Powers constituting with the Principal Powers mentioned above the Allied and Associated Powers, of the one part; And GERMANY, of the other part; …
 * For this purpose the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES represented as follows: … HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND AND OF THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA, by: … AND for the DOMINION OF CANADA, by: The Honourable Charles Joseph DOHERTY, Minister of Justice; The Honourable Arthur Lewis SIFTON, Minister of Customs; ..."
 * In the annex, Canada is listed as thus:

":I. ORIGINAL MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS SIGNATORIES OF THE TREATY OF PEACE...
 * BRITISH EMPIRE
 * CANADA
 * AUSTRALIA
 * SOUTH AFRICA
 * NEW ZEALAND
 * INDIA"
 * This, of course, does not reflect or diminish the role of Canada or her contributions during the war but does explain why the nation is not listed in the infobox.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

overstated Italian outcome
The section about Itaian perception of the Treaty states that Italy did not achieve many of its main war goals, namely occupation of Dalmatia and Fiume. And that Wilson nullified the Treaty of London based on the principle of self determination It is an overstatement, POV of the "Vittoria mutilata", which was indeed a perception by many Italians after the war but far from truth. A more balanced statement would be "Italy did not achieve the occupation of Dalmatia, as promised in London Treaty, and Fiume" and add to the statement on Wilson "although he accepted to let German speaking southern Tyrol to be annexed by Italy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.194.4 (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed statement directly contrary to the facts
I have just removed the following "By the 1930s, Lloyd George's position on the treaty had changed. In 1938, he published his memoir titled The Truth About the Peace Treaties, in which he repudiated the terms of the treaty that bore his signature. ", as this is in direct contradiction to what Lloyd George actually did say in The Truth About the Peace Treaties. He actually wrote "It is not the Treaties that should be blamed. The fault lies with those who repudiated their own solemn contracts and pledges... It is not fair to charge the authors of the Treaties with these abuses or their consequences". Now, this is just one sentence which I found while looking for mentions of LlG's books. It is deeply concerning that such anti-historical claptrap should get into an article of this importance. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we add something about section 282, subsection 22?
The Treaty of Versailles included a part about standardization of concert A as 435Hz. Is this important enough to warrant putting it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomGuyDTB (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Article 282 provided for a number of previous agreements and conventions to be applied to Germany. Number 22 was "Convention of 16 and 19 November 1885 regarding the establishment of a concert pitch". I don't see this as being particularly significant in the grand scheme of things. Could be mentioned at concert pitch perhaps. DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Poles and Czechs
The article states  "Ewa Thompson points out that the treaty allowed numerous nations in Central and Eastern Europe to liberate themselves from oppressive German rule, a fact that is often neglected by Western historiography, more interested in understanding the German point of view. In nations that found themselves free as the result of the treaty—such as Poles or Czechs—it is seen as a symbol of recognition of wrongs committed against small nations by their much larger aggressive neighbours.[209]   but neither Poland nor Czechia  were  under German rule before 1914. Should this section be deleted? JQ (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

In the Partitions of Poland, the area was divided between the Habsburg Monarchy, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Russian Empire. The Prussian Partition was under German control since the Unification of Germany in 1871.

The main area of Prussia/Germany which used to be Polish was the Province of Posen (1848-1919). Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * From the looks of things Thompson has somewhat conflated the Treaty of Versailles with the wider Paris Peace Conference, 1919. I think that paragraph might need to be rewritten slightly, but I think the basic point about the Polish view of the treaty is valid. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Using PAZ as a source
The article is using Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung as a source for the claims made by Cartier. However, PAZ is considered by historians, political scientists, and journalists such as Wolfram Wette, Peter Oliver Loew, Fabian Virchow, Samuel Salzborn, Ute Vogt, Michael Lausberg, Alexander Geisler, Wolfgang Gessenharter, Anton Maegerle, or Stephan Braun as an untrustworthy source of the extreme right-wing fringe. It is run by the Landsmannschaft Ostpreußen (itself a member of the highly controversial Federation of Expellees), an extreme right-wing revisionist and revanchist organization seeking, at least up until its latest charter issued in 2015, to undo the outcomes of both world wars and restore either Nazi Germany or Imperial Germany. While not openly denying the Holocaust, PAZ is known to often marginalize and downplay it. --2003:EF:13C6:DC70:283F:9B24:BCE4:EA6 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"Champagne paragraphs" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Champagne paragraphs. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible spelling error in Page
I think I have found a spelling error on the Treaty of Versailles article.

In the section on french occupation, the article speaks of the Rhineland Bastards who would "latter be persecuted". This is surely supposed to read "later be persecuted", isn't it?

I apologize for not linking to the exact spot, I have never suggested an edit before on a locked page, and I am not sure how to point to a spot on a page. ImNotABotBeepBoop (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting that, I have corrected it. You can link to a section like this - Treaty of Versailles. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Categories of signatories
On a related note, I think that the terminology from the Treaty should be used to describe the categories of signatories. The Preamble describes the US, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan as the "Principal Allied and Associated Powers", while the other signatories are "Allied and Associate Powers", not "Others". As well, the Treaty is not with Germany as a representative of the Central Powers, but simply "Germany". I suggest that the Signatories be re-ordered to follow the order in the Preamble: first, the "Principal Allied and Associated Powers" (collapsible list); then "Allied and Associated Powers", not "Others" (again, collapsible list);  and then simply "Germany".Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No comment from anyone, so I went ahead and made the changes. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

British Empire signatories
I would like to re-open the discussion about including the Dominions in the infobox, which I see from the Archives was briefly discussed last year. The four Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) and British India were all signatories to the Treaty, separate from the United Kingdom. That is not immediately apparent from the Preamble to the Treaty, but it is clear from the signatures (which for some reason Wikisource omits). The full Treaty posted by the Library of Congress makes it clear that the British only signed for the United Kingdom, while the representatives of the four Dominions and British India signed separately. See p. 236. Since the four Dominions and India signed separately from the UK, they should all be included in the infobox. I would suggest doing that as listing the UK, the four Dominions and India under "British Empire", indented, with their own flags. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No comment from anyone for a week, so I was bold and changed it, after adding the signatories to the Wikisource text for the Treaty (taken from the Library of Congress version). Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks--good job . Rjensen (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks - glad you like it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we know why Newfoundland didn't sign? I think they sent a delegation. DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question, don't know. The wiki article on the Dominion of Newfoundland says they sent a delegation but didn't seek to sign it or have membership in the League, but no citation. It may be that because of their smaller size and financial issues they didn't want to play a role internationally, leaving it to the British government. Similarly, the Statute of Westminster didn't come into force for Newfoundland until they joined Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2020
I think it would be good over the next week if there was mention of the 100th anniversary of the coming into force of the treaty on Fri. Nicholasjscottmills (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: if there's some specific coverage of encyclopedia-worthy events commemorating it that warrant a mention, please do mention them with links and detail of how they might be incorporated into the article, but a request as vague as this isn't really actionable. ~ mazca  talk 01:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to edit word for more precise location
Hello

I'd like to remove 'Quai d'Orsay' from this sentence in the introduction:

'Although it is often referred to as the "Versailles Conference", only the actual signing of the treaty took place at the historic palace. Most of the negotiations were in Paris, with the "Big Four" meetings taking place generally at the Quai d'Orsay.'

It primarily refers to the road of the same name in an English-language context. I appreciate that it is a metonym but I think it would be more precise and also more accessible for non-conversant readers if the actual location of Versailles negotiations were used instead, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the Quai d'Orsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamcrisp (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * While I tend to think "Quai d'Orsay" in English primarily refers to the Ministry and not to the road, I agree that the sentence could be improved - I have changed it to read "...at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the Quai d'Orsay". DuncanHill (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles
Why was Germany blamed for the war if they were'nt the ones who started it? All Germany did was help it's ally Austria-Hungary when it went to war with Serbia. So the treaty should have been more tough on Austria-Hungary than Germany. So Austria-Hungary was the one who declared war on Serbia witch offically sparked WW1. Alarajas (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The war guilt article discusses the point in more detail. The same clause was in each treaty the defeated powers signed:


 * Article 117 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye: "... Austria accepts the responsibility of Austria and her Allies for causing the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Austria-Hungary and her Allies".
 * Article 161 of the Treaty of Trianon: "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Hungary accepts the responsibility of Hungary and her allies for causing the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Austria-Hungary and her allies."
 * Article 121 of the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine: "Bulgaria recognises that, by joining in the war of aggression which Germany and Austria-Hungary waged against the Allied and Associated Powers, she has caused to the latter losses and sacrifices of all kinds, for which she ought to make complete reparation".
 * Article 231 of the Treaty of Sevres: "Turkey recognises that by joining in the war of aggression which Germany and Austria-Hungary waged against the Allied Powers she has caused to the latter losses and sacrifices of all kinds for which she ought to make complete reparation."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there a proposal for the article here? I don't see how discussing the logic (or lack thereof) of the war guilt clause will lead to article improvements.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  02:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Alarajas,
 * On Hungary was the toughest the treaty, not on Germany or Austria, so your concern is pointless.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC))

Capitalization
I note that the capitalization of "treaty" is not standardized through the article. Sometimes its referred as "treaty", sometimes "Treaty". Before I go through and blanket change things, I thought I should get some input on this. My take is that since the "Treaty of Versailles" is a proper noun, it should generally be referred to in the uppercase, whereas lowercase should be used when a sentence is just referring to treaties in general. Thoughts? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That's how I would do it as well. "Treaty" when referring specifically to the Treaty of Versailles, but "treaties" when referring to treaties in general. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. "Treaty" by itself is not a proper noun, even if used to refer to a particular proper noun.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  03:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of word "harsh" to describe the Treaty
I have reverted the addition of the word "harsh" in the lead paragrah to describe the Treaty. My reason is that I think if the article itself characterises the Treaty as "harsh", that is not NPOV. As the lead paragraph itself states, there was disagreement at the time whether the Treaty terms were too harsh or too lenient. There is further discussion towards the end of the article, where there is an entire section summarising various conflicting views of the Treaty. Since the assessment of the Treaty was and is a matter of debate by contemporary politicians, and historians and economists both at the time and subsequently, I don't think the article itself should characterise the terms as "harsh" (nor as lenient either). The characterisation is in dispute, and the article should not use that term. Instead, it should point out the conflicting views and interpretations, which it does quite well, in my opinion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, since it is summarized in the lead a section before, may be it is acceptable the removal of this instance, despite denying that it was not an average/lenient but severe (or consider any other synomyme) would even violate NPOV, since regardless some issues are debated, but generally we may conclude the extreme being of many of the Paris Treaties at various aspects, that have been even contemporarily or later recognized even by involved parties abundantly, it is another issue again today how it is treated, but similarly if not by those countries/nations who were the main beneficaries of it. Diplomatic papers also reinforce the harshness, so just easy with any neolog approach, in my opinion.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC))
 * it was not harsh, period. millions of young man died in the dirty trenches because of the aggressive losers. it should've been even harsher for the sake of lost souls.84.54.78.64 (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * even harsher? let's not ignore what happened in 1939-1945. Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1939-1945 happened because of the Allies being soft on Germany in 1919.84.54.78.64 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * along those lines one solution would be to execute German prisoners and starve the civilians. that might prevent a Hitler from surviving to 1933. Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear IP,
 * just careful with the aggressive losers labeling, since there were countries who switched sides or neutrality and commited harsh crimes, sometimes far beyond than the losers would. On the other hand, your narrow-seeing summarization on Germany cannot be taken serious, since because of the heavily injust and harsh Peace treaties many other nations became devastated, dissatisfied as well having impossible ecnomic situation and unpayable repartions along with intensive territorial losses, disregarded ethnic boundaries or self-determination i.e. These were the major causes of 1939-1945.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Lets focus back on the core of the issue: based on reliable sources, do we include the term harsh? Or not? I note that I added it, but I am currently happy with my revised wording of its terms led to great resentment in Germany which powered the rise of Adolf Hitler. It doesn't take sides, but notes that the Germans were unhappy with it, which is really what I wanted to impart. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it should be included. There is no consensus that it was. Contemporary writers (in various fields) argued in support and opposition, and those arguments still continue. For example, the IP and KIENGIR have both taken some of those then and continued talking points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Duff references
I have tagged seven incomplete short citations. DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your recent hard work, but I was quite amused by that, given that before my recent series of edits, there were many dozen such short citations – all of them without tags, of course. I used my ETVP script to replace all the manual short-form citations that have a valid target in the biblio listing with sfn or (rarely) harv (or variants). The script only does this if either a valid target already exists, or if it can deduce an "obvious" target (in this case, it looks for a first-listed author/editor last name identical to the short-form name, and if there is only ONE such candidate, fills in the missing details from the biblio listing, deleting duplicates along the way). There is no absolute 100% guarantee that these will all be the correct targets, but I think on this page, that's a reasonable assumption. Editors who have more familiarity with this topic – including the 19th/20th-century history of central and eastern Europe – and this article's editing history will be in a better position than me to spot any such errors. Technically, there is no need to tag them, since they stand out anyway in the citations listing by not being linked. In fact, anything in the citation listing that's not linked is worth further investigation, as do notes 93 and 94 which I considered deleting, as they are poorly sourced (a German secondary school website), but decided to leave it for now, as it doesn't look obviously wrong. --NSH001 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Bad cropping makes Saionji's face half visible
Hey on the Treaty content and Signing the cropped portrait obscures Saionji Kinmochi's face ok thanks MaerkTwaein (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, 1918 Inaccurate
The statistics cited under Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, 1918 are clearly inaccurate.

For example, the amount of land given up is clearly not a quarter of Russian territory. It is a tiny fraction of Russian territory.2601:649:1:A310:9DB1:D410:B755:ABF3 (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021
After the introduction of the Treaty of Versailles, include that the Treaty of Versailles was also called the "Versailles Diktak" by the Germans. Use following resource: http://en.chateauversailles.fr/discover/history/key-dates/treaty-versailles-1919. SleepyEyes123 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: This information is already included in § Germany however I have added the citation. —  TG HL ↗  (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Serbia
you didnt mention serbia at all..what a shame 82.117.196.238 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you believe the article has missed, in regards to Serbia? The treaty was the peace deal between Germany and the Associated Powers, and largely dealt with how the peace would effect Germany. The entire text can be found here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
 * The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) and the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine dealt with the dissolution of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the defeat of Bulgaria, and the transfer of territory to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021
To add a hyperlink to the central powers as they were a key part Tesla Model 3 standard range (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Central Powers is already wikilinked, in the lead and in the body of the article. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

George Clemenceau
please change ((George Clemenceau)) to ((Georges Clemenceau)) 98.239.227.65 (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you for spotting this error. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Possibly inconsistent dates on League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles
If the League of Nations was founded on 10 January 1920, how could the Treaty of Versailles registered by the "Secretariat of the League of Nations" on 21 October 1919? It seems illogical that you can have a Secretary General for an organization that doesn't yet exit. 2601:14A:503:64C0:353E:2324:3DD1:4428 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC) (ileanadu)

The Treaty of Versailles was a legal document, like any contract, that came into effect on January 10, 1920. Also, the opening session of the League of Nations took place on November 15, 1920, in Geneva. It makes sense that with the framework of the League in place in June 1919, that positions would be filled at an earlier date. Lord Milner (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced claims re hyperinflation
Under violations - reparations, the article states:

"Although the causes of the devastating post-war hyperinflation are complex and disputed, Germans blamed the near-collapse of their economy on the treaty, and some economists estimated that the reparations accounted for as much as one-third of the hyperinflation.[142]"

This is not at all supported by the source. I've seen no argument that the causes of hyperinflation are disputed by anyone or are particularly complex. According to wikipedias article on that topic, it was caused by money printing to pay for reparations and war debt. If there is disagreement on that it should be cited. Where are these economists who say reparations accounted for 1/3 of the hyperinflation? Not in the source as far as I can tell.

I think the sentence could be deleted without detriment to the article. 72.16.97.97 (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Check the wikipedia article's media portal (near the bottom of the article), submenu "cartoons" to find inflation calculated from 1921 to 2023.Lord Milner (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the 1921 to 2023 inflation number relates to Germany's hyperinflation? It took place mostly within the course of a year in the early 1920s.
 * My issue, though, is with a statement in the lead section: "The treaty's terms against Germany resulted in economic collapse and bitter resentment which powered the rise of the Nazi Party, and eventually the outbreak of a second World War." There is no direct link between the treaty's terms and the hyperinflation, which peaked because of the government printing money to support the passive resistance to the occupation of the Ruhr. I couldn't find anything in this article to support the statement either. The bitter resentment and (helping) to power the rise of the Nazis, yes, but economic collapse, no. I think the phrase should be dropped. GHStPaulMN (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The problem was my own careless reading. My apologies. GHStPaulMN (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. The inflation was caused by the massive borrowing used to finance the war (Germany fought on credit) not with taxes. In addition to that France had been forced to pay higher fees in a prior war. I would also advocate for the dropping of that sentence in the lead. Chefs-kiss (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sally Marks is a good source on this and her evidence from the archives pretty much destroys the narrative that hyperinflation was caused by "money printing to pay for reparations and war debt" (yes, I learned this version in secondary school too). Specifically, the idea that, during the period of hyper-inflation, the Weimar Republic printed large amounts of paper cash to buy hard cash to pay reparations, instantly runs up against the problem that very little in the way of hard-cash payments were made from June 1921 until the Dawes plan, so how could hard-cash payments be the immediate cause? There are less-disputed ways in which reparations led to inflation, but they are things like the striking Ruhr workers who refused to make deliveries of in-kind coal payments being paid in paper cash by the government, and lower tax-revenues due to lower economic activity due to in-kind deliveries requiring printing of paper currency to bridge the gap. Printing money to make war debt payments weren't the main cause of hyperinflation either, but a desire to use inflation to greatly reduce the burden of this debt (which was listed in paper currency) was - Marks demonstrated this with Reich Chancellery archive material. Just in case anyone is minded to assert that Marks was some kind of fringe voice, her work on this was prize-winning and was described by Bill Keylor (head of history at Boston) as having "...won widespread acceptance in the profession". Trachtenberg and Schuyker are specialists in this field who also endorse this POV, as do others. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Japan's reaction
Is there any reason why japan's alleged "reaction" is based on a single source that only concentrates on the racial aspects on not on anything else? The Japan section is literally reduced to that single point and nothing else so one reading this would come away with the impression that Japan only cared about race, which isn't anywhere near true. 71.191.186.166 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think there's just not much in the way of sourcing on this. This section needs a heavy edit and maybe just wiping. FOARP (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)