 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 18, 2009, January 18, 2010, January 18, 2014, January 18, 2015, and January 18, 2021. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Old Discussion
editOne of our policies is that Wikipedia is not a repository for source documents. (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Can we have an encylopedia article about this, please rather than just the raw text? For example, these questions could be answered: What was the context? What were the most important demands? Why was this significant? What were the consequences?
Thanks. -- The Anome 09:11 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Someone needs to summarize the main points. See statement above. --Jiang
- An idea: relocate the source document to Wikisource and put the main points mentioned by The Anome in the article. (I will need someone more experienced with Wikisource and part of the Wikisource community to help me with this--thanks) Wikiacc 22:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I have found the Move to Wikisource template. I will be putting this on the page soon and moving it. Wikiacc 01:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Does anyone know the original text of this document? Was it English? In Wikisource the namespace for all documents should be occupied with that document in its original language. Wikiacc 02:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- A friend of mine (Profxyz) has just added it. Nippoo 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- clean-up has now removed source document from main article. It can now be found on Wikisource, where it belongs. MChew 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
pro-japan bias?
"In China, the overall political impact of Japan’s actions was positive"
I'm no scholar on this field but im fairly sure the Japanese intervention in China was negative.
"In retrospect, the results of the revised final (Thirteen Demands) version of the Twenty-One Demands were far more negative for Japan than positive, and it is hard to comprehend what the Japanese government was attempting to obtain. Without Clause 5, the new treaty did not give Japan anything that it did not already have in China." This still seems rather biased to me, and has no sources to back it up. - Renn, April 25, 2007
Because it is probably written by the japanese
New Discussion
editWhy are there so many missing verbs? "China to grant..." appears rather than "China is to grant..." for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.204.11 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The most prominent location for the word "demaich" is < http://demaich.com >, street address removed
This article is confusing.
I am searching f/ article twenty-one, article XXI, Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo, & frustrated.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)