Talk:Fourteen Points

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 reception and outcome? 2 NPOV? 3 The speech's "power" over the Central Powers? 4 Disambiguation 5 Semi-protect this page? 6 Which points were adopted during post-war reconstruction of Europe? 7 Speech

[edit] reception and outcome?

It would be helpful to have a discussion of how the points were initially received by other governments, and what was the eventual outcome of the various points.--Bcrowell 15:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, along with information on the Supporters, Irreconciables, and Reservationists. --Standaman2009

Possibly the effect of this treaty on European nations' government, society, and economy. Urspy 20:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Would also be nice to have a 'laymen's explanation', as Wikipedia usually does - I know many who use Wikipedia primarilly because of its readable, and while copies of the speech are useful it would also be nice to have a 'common english' explanation of what each point means. Aerothorn 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a serious facelift.

I agree with aerothorn, there needs to be a simple explanation of the 14 points summarising the general idea or position that the 14 points take. --Arakash 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I believe the view of the Fourteen Points outlined on this page is at some points pretty blatantly biased towards elevating the significance of the Fourteen Points, possibly as a result of the American government/university-only list of references. Specifically: "The idealism displayed in the speech... encouraged the Central Powers to surrender" and "By early 1918, it was clear that the war was nearing its end." -- excessively grandiose statements considering the actual military situation on January 8 (i.e. the Spring Offensive was approaching and had at least some chance of resulting in German victory).

The impact section also ought to be changed, i.e. mention the failure of the Fourteen Points, despite the enthusiasm of the Germans, to dictate the terms of the armistice with Germany (Compiègne), which the Versailles treaty was then based on. Also "Opposition to the Fourteen Points among British and French leaders became clear after hostilities ceased": I think in fact they were clear before hostilities ceased, which was why the Fourteen Points were ignored as a basis for armistice negotiations. Being a Year 12 Modern History student studying WWI, I am not the definitive authority on the Fourteen Points, but I will go ahead anyway and make some NPOV-increasing edits to this article soon enough; please list objections/comments below if you have any. Moskvax 13:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, what about the famous sentence, don't remember who mentioned it: "Mr. Wilson your fourteen points bore me, God only had ten." 200.77.35.88 (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It might also be informative to at least mention the apparent rift between the ideals Wilson displayed in the Fourteen Points and his use of troops to countermand self-determination in Latin America (i.e. deploying troops to Nicaragua and Haiti to force selection of their presidents) and Russia (i.e. deploying troops to the Soviet Union to support the White Russians in 1917 and not withdrawing them until 1920). Vlad2000 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The speech's "power" over the Central Powers?

The claim: "The idealism displayed in the speech... encouraged the Central Powers to surrender" is baseless and just plain wrong. Being defeated militarily was what encouraged the Central Powers to surrender, not an enlightened speech about an attempted peace plan that basically fell through. It's main structure and ideals were not accepted by the majority as a lot of it was based on Wilson's idealism alone evident by the amount of conflict he had with the Republicans, the French and the British (self-governing territories vs imperialism), the Italians (secret agreements not recognised), the Germans (the French wanted the Kaiser hung) and the Japanese.

This part of the article should be erased as there is no basis, nor proof of the claim and the article loses nothing without this statement. 81.158.202.47 14:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That is one sentence from the lead section. Lower down, the article goes on:

The speech was widely disseminated as an instrument of propaganda, to encourage the Allies to victory. Copies were also dropped behind German lines, to encourage the Central Powers to surrender in the expectation of a just settlement. Indeed, a note sent to Wilson by Prince Maximilian of Baden, the German imperial chancellor, in October 1918 requested an immediate armistice and peace negotiations on the basis of the Fourteen Points.

The Central Powers did not fight to the bitter end, like the Nazis in the Second World War: do you think the expectation of a just peace settlement had no impact on their decision to surrender? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"gave Wilson a position of moral leadership among the Allies". I also think this part of the statement is debatable and empty. "The idealism displayed in the speech gave Wilson a position of moral leadership among the Allies, and encouraged the Central Powers to surrender". The entire sentence is unnecessary. The "moral leadership" and "idealism" of the speech is irrelevant; it was the terms that mattered to the Germans as is clearly stated in the following paragraph. The rest of the first 2 paragraphs are fine and much more informative; they mention the relevance of his fourteen points to the Paris Peace Conference and the failures of the Treaty of Versailles/relevancy to his presidency etc.

The sentence is not only out of place and subjectively written/stated (as others have pointed out) but it is also irrelevant given the other points in the article, which are made on a clearer, more informative basis and that is why I feel the sentence should be removed.

81.158.202.47 17:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Hi... I'm really new so I don't know how to do this, but there are another set of 14 points commonly used in business... maybe someone could please post tag at the top referring to people looking for that to look up Total Quality Management? Just a suggestion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.78.148 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Semi-protect this page?

I've noticed a lot of vandalism has occured to this page recently, and I think it might be time to protect it. Anyone else agree? OverSS 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really - there is not so much vandalism that it is diffcult to revert. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a stray thought, anyway. If it does increase, though, it should be considered. OverSS 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which points were adopted during post-war reconstruction of Europe?

In the introduction, it states

However, only three of the points were adopted completely in the post-war reconstruction of Europe, and the United States Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles.

And in the last paragraph,

However, history shows that, despite the idealism, the post-war reconstruction of Europe adopted only four of the points completely.

So which is it? And which of the points were adopted? Chrishans 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Which four points were adopted during post-war reconstruction of Europe? Can some one add them. 96.229.69.6 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The "history shows..." sections "only three" and "only four" have been deleted. I don't believe there's a consensus on which were or were not "adopted completely". If restored because there actually is such a consensus, an editor should be mindful to cite the source and enumerate the 3 or 4 or whatever. patsw (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speech

There is a wikified version of the speech in a subpage: Fourteen Points/Text. Should the speech, in the article, be also wikified? Anyway the subpage must be deleted if it serves no current purpose. - Nabla 16:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Used the subpage wikification, partially. Deleted. - Nabla 16:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The wikified and numbered points were removed on 29 April 2007 by 72.147.68.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) in his only contribution. I do not think we should include the whole text in this article. Besides, the text is available at Wikisource. I have reverted the edit and restored the wikified version. -- Petri Krohn 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)