Talk:Washington Naval Treaty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force French military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Japanese military history task force United States military history task force WikiProject Ships (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles WikiProject Japan   Japan portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit · history · watch · purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Shimizu S-Pulse, Keiko Nakano Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Take the time to create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles WikiProject International relations   United Nations portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:USHistoryTalkUnited States History articles WikiProject United States History   United States portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: edit · history · watch · purge Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Alexander Hamilton: The article for this founding father is surprisingly contentious and POV. It is full of out-of-context material, poorly-sourced material, anti-Hamilton POV material, citations to older or marginal sources whose research has since been amended, superseded, corrected, or discredited, etc. In far too many ways, it does not reflect the current historical consensus, which it absolutely must. I have tried to fix it quite a bit, but there remain long-time editors who are bent on keeping much of its older material, and its anti-Hamilton slant. The earlier parts of the article are, by and large, better. So far, I have drastically shortened the intro. I have also recently tried to improve the structure and content of the sections. In addition, I have tried balance the POV issues somewhat, but much, much work remains to be done, and I simply do not have the time or the energy to undertake such a massive task as this on my own. I also feel the article will benefit greatly from fresh eyes--especially if thy are the eyes of good, fair historians of any stripe. Please help. Thank you. AdRem (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 6, 2005, February 6, 2006, and February 6, 2007.

[edit] RN treated unfairly

Whilst this is all fascinating stuff, I think the "Effects" section of the article is guilty of a serious US bias. Several paragraphs are devoted to US ship construction between the wars whereas the Royal Navy, who was more profoundly effected by the Washington treaty than any other, barely merits a couple of sentences and the historic abandonment of the Two Power Standard doesn't even get a mention. Unfortunately I lack the knowledge to write authoritavely on this subject, but is anyone else prepared to step up to the plate and expand on the implications of the treaty for the other signatory nations

The usual advice to such an objection is to be bold. Edit away. ww (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft carrier tonnage

The treaty allowed the a battle cruiser conversion to displace 33,000 tons. It also provided the following with respect to reconstruction of capital ships:

The Contracting Powers may, for that purpose, equip existing tonnage with bulge or blister or anti-air attack deck protection, providing the increase of displacement thus effected does not exceed 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) displacement for each ship.

Treaty, Ch II, Part 3, Section I (d)[1]. This means, does it not, that a reconstructed armored carrier could displace 36,000 tons standard?[2] Kablammo 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I cannot find the discussion for the merge proposal with Washington Naval Conference, in either of both articles. Hence, I'm registering my opinion in both: Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• oppose The Washington Naval Treaty was a product (among others) of the Washington Naval Conference, as stated in the latter article. Hence they are two different (albeit closely related) things. The articles should be kept separately, to reflect this situation. In addition, I cannot see any advantage from the merge.
• Oppose Oppose The Conference resulted in several major treateis and several more minor ones. It is not a subset of the Naval Treaty, the Naval Treaty is something of a subset of it. Distinct topics if anything. No need to merge. Too much tidying im[pulse here, I think. ww (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the merger too; because the conference produced several treaties; also because issues of who attended, who didn't, and what the Russians did instead, are quite separate from the eventual treaties and their effects. Andrew Dalby 22:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)