Talk:Washington Naval Conference

message: I cannot find the discussion for the merge proposal with Washington Naval Treaty, in either of both articles. Hence, I'm registering my opinion in both: 
* 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 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, no need to merge. Too much tidying im[pulse here, I think. ww (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: This article is missing information regarding the terms placed upon Japan regarding ship construction:
   - They may not build additional Battleships for 10 years.
   - Naval Tonnage between Japan and the US/Britain would not exceed an agreed upon ration (3/5 I believe)
There is also no mention of the Italian or French participation in the Treaty.
Source: History 12 Student Workbook by Jerry Falk, Hazelmere Publishing.
Can anyone with a more complete source of data fill in a few lines on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.58.148 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data missing 

message: The main feat of that conference was the US dictat to Britannia to no longer rule the waves, but to be content with a naval power never greater than that of the USA. This conference marks a decisive turning point in international power relations. No longer did Britannian rule the waves, except on the Last Night of the Proms in Albert Hall, but the USA. To color this as a "disarmament conference" is ridiculous. --L.Willms (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact it did succeed in naval disarmament for a decade, and the RS call it that.  As for Britain, it could no longer afford the prewar practice of a navy as large as the next two largest.  It spent all its money on the last war and could not afford the next war. The US could afford it but chose not too--more economical that way! Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I mean that's the impression I got. Then again I got that impression from a YouTube channel called "Old Britannia" lol. I haven't read any books on it and I'd like to see some citations for either interpretation. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:51E6:DC36:74F8:D2BD (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What an euphemism: "model for a successful disarmament movement" 

message: There is an aspect of the results of the Washington Naval Treaty that seems to be missed.
The various European nations of the world had been at peace since the Napoleonic War and technology had had been developing a an increasingly rapid rate. Despite the considerable amount of theorising and deduction by warship designers it was difficult to predict successful design and some serious mistakes had been made. 
The various naval actions of the Russo-Japanese war seem to show that a fleet action was likely rather than the WW1 real action mostly fought between small ships and against the U boats
When the warships were finally tested under real combat conditions in WW1 warship design received a very considerable input of design. The agreed warship conditions after the signing of the WNC gave naval architects,designers and armed forces generally time to evaluate a whole series of combat lessons and work the hard learned lessons and improvements into a new generation of large warships, mostly just in time for WW2. It was indeed a decidedly useful respite AT Kunene 123 (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lessons learned 

message: The background states: "Women had just won the right to vote in many countries, and they helped convince politicians that money could be saved, votes won, and future wars avoided by stopping the arms race" ...and the reference for this is page 10 of Michael Turner's Britain and the World in the 20th Century. As far as I can see the quoted reference at that point does not actually connect either the conference or the wider disarmament movement of the early 1920s to the widening of female suffrage. Also, while some of the participant nations had enfranchised women in the immedate post WW1 period, others, notably France and Japan were yet to do so. If the statement is true can we find a better source? If not, ought it to be deleted?Blythtyneboi (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing you could do is to use a  template to give a heads up to readers that something's wrong. You may also try to figure out why the source was used, is it possible that it is original research? In that case, the sentence should be changed to accurately reflect the content of the source. If you feel strongly that the information should be removed, you could be bold and remove it. If somebody else cares about it, they might find a new source. Cheers, Uglemat (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Across the world, leaders of the women's suffrage movement formed international organizations such as the International Concil of Women, and the Women's Suffrage Alliance.  Historian Martin Pugh says they achieved the greatest influence in the 1920s "when they helped to promote women's contribution to the anti-war movement throughout the Western world."  Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice Uglemat, I think I'll read a bit more of the quoted source before I decide to be bold. I'll also give your source some consideration Rjensen, thanks for the reference. I think the background paragraph needs more anyway but I'm not sure I know enough to expand it. Blythtyneboi (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference aims a result of wider female suffrage? 

message: At the Washington Naval Conference, the five powers also agreed to a "Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare", but France did not ratify it and so the treaty never entered into force.----Bancki (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  submarine treaty