Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC).

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles

 * Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important clause of the Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended the war between Germany and the various Allied powers. The clause facilitated the payment of reparations and ignited controversy over if the article blamed Germany, solely, for the outbreak of the war (the war guilt question).

I have nominated the article as I feel it meets the requirements of FA, and has recently passed its Good Article review. All images contain alt text, there are not disambig links on the page, and all external links are working.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not my area of expertise, but a recent review of WW1 books suggests that Luigi Albertini's assessment is worthy of inclusion. - hahnch e n 20:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been that long since I started my study of the ToV (several years ago), that I had forgotten about that guy (the first - iirc - to state Germany was to blame for the outbreak of the war tackle the war guilt question) as he is pretty much overshadowed by Fritz Fischer. I have quickly checked google books, his works are unavailable to preview and I don't own them. However, I have noted that several accessible sources talk about his work so I will look through them and see if there is anything I can add.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a few sentences noting his conclusions and its place in the historiography.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the are very serious substantive problems that greatly weaken the quality of the article. The major position of John Maynard Keynes--very widely adopted in Britain & the US -- is never mentioned, despite the large literature.  Even worse the lead misrepresents the issue and confuses the technical legal issues that the authors of #231 (especially young John Foster Dulles) were trying to solve with the reading that was overwhelmingly held in the 1920s in Europe and USA that #231 ascribed "guilt" for the war to Germany without using the word. The main editor has repeatedly rejected efforts to make improvements, most recently today. Rjensen (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As this is a FA review, ambiguous wording and generalities are not helpful. You state that the article misrepresents information, please highlight specifics and if necessary provide sources that state information to the contrary.
 * As far as I am aware, Keynes' place in the Treaty of Versailles story is his opposition to financial side of it (where the large literature comes in): not the wording or the controversy surrounding this clause (the focus of this article). For example, his objections to the financial repercussions of the treaty are well discussed on his article and that of his book: The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Therefore, the World War I reparations and Treaty of Versailles articles would be the most appropriate place for his arguments. On the other hand, if you would care to highlight a source - since I am unaware of his proposed objection to this article or his involvement in the vast literature surrounding the war guilt question - that provides his vocal opposition to the wording of the article (or the issues surrounding war guilt), and not his overall opposition to what he perceived as the harsh financial terms, then it can be included.
 * As for the assertion that I have repeatedly rejected efforts to improve the article (unfounded considering the improvements made by the outside opinions raised in the GA review, the comment made here, and the inclusion of material in the article that I never added), I largely reverted todays edits as they were unsupported by the text or the sources currently used (as well removed links, inserted double spaces etc, although I did retain some of them which worded the article better and removed a mistake). The article is at GA status, and this review has been opened to advance to FA. A standard now has to be kept, inserting unsupported material or opinions is not helpful. I would also like to make any reviewers aware that RJensen and I have not seen eye to eye on much in the past. He has also only ever made minor edits to the article (most of which were retained, despite some clear misuses of what the sources stated and providing only one side to the discussion), last of which was in early December and has not made any comment on the talk page. He made no comment to the massive overhaul of the article, and did not comment during the GA review. His assertion is simply not true. The revision of most of his edits today were accompanied by a message to take his concerns to the talkpage, as I am unaware of Keynes' involvement in the war guilt discussion (diff). Instead, he immediately came here to launch a string of attacks on me and the quality of the article. Rather than attempting to improve the article, I feel like he is using this as a forum to derail the review before it has even begun.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Enigma has missed the very large literature on Keynes which indeed looks at #231. Heartfield (2012) says: "[AJP] Taylor's objection to the 'War Guilt' attached to Germany after the Second World War echoes the many protests against the 'War Guilt' clause in the Versailles settlement, Article 231, which held Germany responsible for the First World War. Two authors in particular made the case against the Versailles Treaty and its blaming of Germany for a war that all the powers had fought: John Maynard Keynes and Edward H Carr"; David Kennedy (1999) says Keynes said the Treaty "contained three lethal flaws" the last writes Kennedy: "Adding insult to injury, the treaty's Article 231—the notorious 'guilt clause'—forced the Germans to acknowledge sole responsibility for the outbreak of the war."  Keynes himself said re the Reparation Chapter ("Economic Consequence" p 151) "There can have been few negotiations in history so contorted, so miserable, so utterly unsatisfactory to all parties.  I doubt if any one who took much part in that debate can look back on it without shame."  All RS agree that Keynes played a major role in shaping British responses to the Treaty.  Leaving Keynes out is a major flaw in the article and it's a failure of research to state as Enigma does (above) that Keynes' place in the Treaty of Versailles story is his opposition to financial side of it...not the wording or the controversy surrounding this clause (the focus of this article) Rjensen (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your first source does not state what Keynes' opinion was on the matter, and is another example of you misusing sources. The source goes on to state that Keynes' focused on reparations and the impact that they could have on Europe, it says nothing on his opinion on this article or the war guilt question: link, p. 462. The only thing this source highlights is that some research should be put into finding what Carr's opinion on the article was.
 * Your second source is largely Kennedy's opinion on the matter, as can be seen here: link. The three flaws mentioned are: the transfer of economic property from Germany to France, the disruption of Germany's economy, and the imposition of reparations. The attack on article 231 is essentially Kennedy's position. We already have one historian in the article who states similar, are you suggesting we collect all of them that state the article forced Germany to accept sole responsibility for the war? It is interesting that, despite his use as Keynes as a source, he only provides one take on the article.
 * The final source is Keynes' objection to reparations, not article 231. As can be seen on the following page (link), all Keynes says about the article is what it states, and that it could be taken to be mean either an admission of moral responsibility or an admission of financial liability. Since you are hell bent, despite offering little in the way of supporting information, we could add "Keynes noted that the article could be taken ... either way" to the article.
 * Finally, if the literature is so vast on the issue, please present a source that outright states something to the effect that Keynes thought Article 231 was xyz, what he thought the articles (not reparations) impact on Germany was, or if Keynes thought that Germany was or was not guilty. Thus far, all we have his opinion on reparations and informing the read what the wording of article 231 states and how it could be taken to mean liability or guilty: covered in much detail throughout the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Query Why would focussing the reparations on disabled veterans and War widows have reserved the larger part of the reparations for the British empire? Of the allies France and Russia both lost more than Britain, and the other allies such as Italy and the US lost more between them than Britain did. I can see that targeting the reparations on widows and disabled servicemen would benefit Britain far more than expenditure on repairing damage in her allies territory in Belgium, France, Italy, the Balkans and even Russia. But while it would have given Britain a larger share of the reparations, I don't see that it would have given Britain the larger part i.e. the largest part of the fund. Of course if this was just about the German part then that would largely remove Italy and some of the others, but the gap between Britain and France would widen as Britain's casualties included far more casualties fighting than France suffered in those campaigns.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources all agree that due to British civilian losses and damages being minor compared to the other powers, the inclusion of allowances to widows and military pensions was a tactic to drive up the amount of reparations Britain would get at the expense of the other Allied Powers. However, thus far, I have yet to see a source that explains it more than that. For example: link, link, link, link (oddly enough, I cannot access the various pages of the books used in the article).
 * As that is more of a discussion for the reparations side of things, it could be removed to avoid distraction and the sentence read as thus: "He furthermore argued that reparations should include war pensions for disabled veterans and allowances to be paid to war widows."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised that the sources all agree that this was a tactic to get a larger share of the reparations for Britain. Assuming that none of them support the article saying "the larger part" I suggest we change it to "a larger share".  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just able to access Yearwood, but only via snippet view, and all that I could see was that it increased the British sum to a "substantial share". So without anything other information, I agree with your suggestion and will make the change. I guess it was a lost in translation moment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * File:Ulrich_Graf_von_Brockdorff-Rantzau.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have addressed both issues. The German archive website that the photo links to contains no author information that I was able to ascertain, so I have changed the file info to unknown rather than leaving it blank. I have also added in the required PD tag.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The first image still needs to be fixed. --Boson (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch, got it! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Links
 * The Wikisource link doesn't appear to be correct, but I'm not sure what needs changing.--Boson (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Prose --Boson (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is some copy-editing needed. Examples:
 * "The Allied delegation though at first Article 231 to be a mundane addition to the treaty"
 * "labelled"
 * "Stephen Shucker"
 * "the issue of Kriegsschuldfrage" (no article?)
 * Nice catches. Of the above, I have amended the first and third.
 * Labelled is not showing up as a typo on my screen, unless you are referring to rewording?
 * As for the final point, there is no link since the issue of war guilt is essentially this article. I could reword the sentence and place the German terminology within the parentheses?
 * I will give the article another run over tomorrow to see if there is anything else I have missed or anything I can word better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was ambiguous. By "no article", I meant the lack of the definite article the before Kriegsschuldfrage, which is a count noun (even if it is foreign), so should have an article. Another point is that since "-frage" is best translated as " issue" in this context, we have something like the issue of the x issue (x issue). Even if you leave "question", you have "the issue of the question". As regards "labelled", I understood this was the British spelling, but the article otherwise uses American spelling. --Boson (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about what way it translates better, all I know is that the various sources use that term and translate it roughly into "war guilt question" or variants of thereof. I have, however, reworded the sentence the issue you raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede

""Germans saw this clause as taking full responsibility for the cause of the war, and a national humiliation. German politicians were vocal in their opposition to the article, in an attempt to generate international sympathy while German historians worked to undermine the article with the objective of subverting the entire treaty. On the other hand, the Allied leaders were surprised at the German reaction. They saw the article as only a legal requirement to yield German compensation.""


 * I think the neutrality of this summary could be improved. Legal issues may have been a factor in the final wording of the clause, but the leaders were hardly surprised, considering the discussions about moral responsibility. Take, for instance, Boemeke on Wilson's reaction to the German reaction: "Obviously, Germany was guilty, it was self-evident . . . that they were unwilling to atone for their sins, that they deserved to be punished". Consider also Steiner (p. 59 as cited): "a compromise . . . that distinguished between Germany's complete moral responsibility for the war and is consequences [i.e. Article 231] and its limited legal liability for reparations [i.e. Article 232]." It may be that the leaders did not expect the Germans to remonstrate so vociferously, but that does not suggest, as the introduction does, that the leaders had not been thinking about moral responsibility at all and were completely taken aback by the German reaction. --Boson (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We have the backstory of the drafting of the article, which ends with the diplomatic compromise between polarized Allied opinions. Considering it remained in the treaty, without being changed, could be seen - imo, without further information at hand and something not argued in the article - as acceptance by the Allies and placing the various arguments about moral responsibility on the backburner. After drafting, MacMillan indicates that there was some surprise. She writes: "no one thought there would be any difficulty over the clause...". Binkley and Mahr also note that in response to the German protests, Clemenceau (one of the people arguing for German moral responsibility prior to the drafting of the treaty) argued along legal lines rather than moral ones.
 * The above supports the lede (which I believe is pretty neutral considering the controversy and the article's nickname), and the article makes clear that arguments over moral responsibility did take place. So with that in mind, what refinement would you suggest?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On a side note, what page from Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years did Wilson's comment come from? It seems pretty suited to the article, but I cannot find it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)
 * On Boson's questions above, "labeled" and "labelled" are both fine in AmEng per Merriam-Webster, and Kriegsschuldfrage clearly isn't a count noun in context.
 * I'm close to giving up on offering punctuation advice ... punctuation is changing rapidly, and what standards remain aren't followed in any consistent way, particularly online. But if I weren't giving up, I'd change "Part VIII: the reparations section of the treaty." to "Part VIII, the reparations section of the treaty."
 * "Article 231 was the opening article of Part VIII ... Other than "Article 231", there is no title for this article. However, the article is generally referred to as the "War Guilt Clause".": If you want to go that way, then tighter would be: Article 231 was the only title for the opening article of Part VIII .... But this doesn't feel right to me; Wikipedia articles generally begin with a list of commonly used names in bold, and "War Guilt Clause" is a common name. I think perceptive readers will know, if you say "Article 231, often known as the War Guilt Clause", that the document doesn't name that section the "War Guilt Clause" ... it's not necessary to explain that, at least not in the lead, where conciseness is important.
 * Hi Dank, thank you for the comments. I have implemented your advise on the above two points.


 * Garner's recommends against mutatis mutandis, but I'm pretty permissive (even at FAC), and I know people like to sprinkle in phrases often used by historians, in part as shibboleths. It's your call. But the phrase does raise the question: which changes?
 * Per your advise, I have removed the jargon and replaced it with a simple explanation. However, I have retained the term in the main body of the article due to how it has been used.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Germans saw this clause as taking full responsibility for the cause": Clauses can't take responsibility, and taking "responsibility for the cause" is unclear; more likely, we're talking about assigning responsibility for the losses incurred. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the sentence per your advise, I think that should clear up the issue. If not, please let me know. To clarify, the whole controversy surrounding Article 231 was who started the war.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- As there's been no support for promotion after a month and a half, nor any activity for three weeks, I'm archiving this nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.