Talk:Armistice of 11 November 1918

message: There needs to be more information on the impact of the armistice on germany, or at least a page with information on the impact of the Armistice. --202.164.193.221 05:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  After the Armistice? 

message: This site states that due to an error by a clerk, the carbon paper in was put in backwards and the copies signed were illegible or blank. I'd heard this before, but this isn't a great source, could be an urban legend. Is there a better source for this? Zeimusu | Talk page 13:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Carbon paper backwards

message: I changed the article to indicate that Erzberger was instructed by Hindenburg to sign and included the reference. If there is documentation that Ebert also communicatd with Erzberger and urged him to sign that would be important to know but require a reference. Ekem (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who authorized Erzberger to sign?

message: * Was this armistice the origin of the use of the term "eleventh-hour" to mean something done at the last moment?
* Was the timing of the armistice a pure coincidence or did the diplomats sit around waiting for the right instant?
* Was there any intentional reference to Revelation 9 "And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.".  I mean, given that the armistice left exactly an hour, and a day, and a month in that year... Wnt (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well your third point makes no sense at all.  The Armistice left 13 hours, 19 days, and 1 month remaining in that year.Eregli bob (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eleventh hour 

message: The title should be "Allied-Entente Armistice" or something similar. "Armistice with Germany" has perspective issues. -- Love, Smurfy 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the 1940 armistice at the same site is called Second Armistice at Compiègne, this one may as well be called First Armistice at Compiègne. Funnyhat (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Allies and the Entente were one and the same and this armistice was only concluded with Germany on the other side. The title is correct. Why assume that the article is using "Germany" as shorthand for "Central Powers" and accuse others of "perspective issues" when you are yourself unaware of the armistices with the other powers, wrongly assuming that the German armistice was the only one? Srnec (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title isn't global 

message: The article states that peace was finally declared in 1920. My family WW1 medals are clearly inscribed "The Great War 1914-1919".
Can anybody clear up this apparent discrepancy?AT Kunene (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is no international authority defining "peace" different dates were used. Hostilities effectively ended in 1918, but a state of war between the powers remained in effect through the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. This document did not satisfy the United States, in particular, and there were further treaties signed after that. --Dhartung | Talk 13:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace? 

message: Would this article also benefit from referencing oor linking to the book Gossip from the Forest by Thomas Keneally that gives a fictional depiction of the signing of the Armistice? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_from_the_Forest  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiernMoran (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gossip from the Forest 

message: A claimed "last German casualty" after the armistice, one Lieutenant "Tomas", seems to have no reliable sources backing it up. The results I find in searches are all paraphrases of the material in the article, suggesting a cut-and-paste at best, or Wikipedia as the original source of the claim. There is nothing about final casualties in the German article, and a search using the German terms e.g. Waffenstillstand, turns up nothing corroborating. Obviously sourced information on final casualties from the German perspective is welcome, but I have to consider this one dubious. --Dhartung | Talk 12:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed tale of Tomas 

message: "... there were 10,944 casualties of which 2,738 men died on the last day of the war." Allied or total ? NPOV dictates that both sides should get equal coverage if possible, and if data is only available for one side only it should be made clear. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Last casualties

message: From the above: I never pay any attention to categories—one of the areas in which Wikipedia clearly fails. You're free to hold this opinion and take this action, but it does rather undermine the usefulness of your opinions. There's a consensus that categories are useful and important, and most of us will take notice of them I think. In my opinion they are one of the things that most clearly shows the gaps in our coverage of armistices with Germany.
The primary topic for "Armistice with Germany" is the 1918 one. We already have a clear consensus against this above. Accept it. Andrewa (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a clear consensus against this above. I see no such consensus. A consensus to change the title is not a consensus that the existing title leads to the incorrect location. What's more, the consensus in the move request may have been partially based on ignorance. Did the early voters know that this was not the only World War I armistice? The request had nothing to do with whether the primary topic for the then title was indeed the armistice of 11 November 1918. Srnec (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Then I think we should test this with another RM. Andrewa (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting an RM for the current DAB page to the former title of this article? Or do you just mean that we should subject the consensus of this most recent discussion (to move to Armistice of 11 November 1918) to an RM? Srnec (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend we test Armistice of 11 November 1918) with a new  RM Rjensen (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. It's a different discussion but also worthy of an RM. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking of an RM for the DAB page to reflect the (in my opinion) consensus that there is no primary meaning. I could be wrong, and I can't think of another way to find out. And if I'm right, we should do the move anyway, and it's obviously controversial enough to require an RM, so there's nothing pointy about this RM. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So did anything come of this?  Should I file a RM to Armistice of 11 November 1918?  It is what the linked French website uses, "la convention d’armistice du 11 novembre 1918," and it's probably slightly more recognizable.  SnowFire (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: yes please file a RM to Armistice of 11 November 1918 Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Some dead horses

message: To quote "was agreed at 5am on 11 November, to come into effect at 11am Paris time". But when was it actually signed?101.98.209.132 (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of signing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Armistice of 11 November 1918. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140711212324/http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/waffenstillstand/index.html to http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/waffenstillstand/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125224403/http://nfb.ca:80/curated-selection/world-war-I-armistice/ to http://www.nfb.ca/curated-selection/world-war-I-armistice/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Leaving a note here about article content about the railway carriage and its history, which was removed here. If it can be correctly cited (corrected if needed) and added back at some point when someone has the time, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article (of which the content seems quite similar to what was already in) about the subject (and it is properly sourced), Compiègne Wagon. Whether that title follows WP:COMMONNAME or not is another issue, but I have temporarily added a see also template link to it. Feel free to improve on it. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing that out. I missed that in the rush. Will try to get back to it at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railway carriage material 

message: Only includes allied soldiers. Even more than 100 years after the war the krauts are not considered human beings? Same in the French version of the article. In the German version no information on last soldiers killed... Crotopaxi (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last casualties 

message: I noticed what appeared to be an erroneous punctuation in the header of the first subsection titled "Deteriorating situation for the Germans.", I altered it to be "Deteriorating situation for the Germans"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.228.1 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed period 

message: The "last casualties" section does not mention Germany because it was unclear who was the last German soldier to fall, we should mention that. Here's an example:
"To this day, it is unclear who was the last German soldier to fall." Poopykibble (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  German last casualties