text:
Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920)

The Paris Peace Conference was a set of formal and informal diplomatic meetings in 1919 and 1920 after the end of World War I, in which the victorious Allies set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers. Dominated by the leaders of Britain, France, the United States and Italy, the conference resulted in five treaties that rearranged the maps of Europe and parts of Asia, Africa and the Pacific Islands, and also imposed financial penalties. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and the other losing nations were not given a voice in the deliberations; this later gave rise to political resentments that lasted for decades. The arrangements made by this conference are considered one of the great watersheds of 20th-century geopolitical history.

The conference involved diplomats from 32 countries and nationalities. Its major decisions were the creation of the League of Nations and the five peace treaties with the defeated states. Main arrangements agreed upon in the treaties were, among others, the transition of German and Ottoman overseas possessions as "mandates" from the hands of these countries chiefly into the hands of Britain and France; the imposition of reparations upon Germany; and the drawing of new national boundaries, sometimes involving plebiscites, to reflect ethnic boundaries more closely.

US President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 commissioned a group of about 150 academics to research topics likely to arise in diplomatic talks on the European stage, and to develop a set of principles to be used for the peace negotiations in order to end World War I. The results of this research were summarized in the so called Fourteen Points document that became the basis for the terms of the German surrender during the conference, as it had earlier been the basis of the German government's negotiations in the Armistice of 11 November 1918.

The main result of the conference was the Treaty of Versailles with Germany; Article 231 of that treaty placed the whole guilt for the war on "the aggression of Germany and her allies". That provision proved very humiliating for German leaders, armies and citizens alike, and set the stage for the expensive reparations that Germany was intended to pay, only a small portion of which had been delivered when it stopped paying after 1931. The five great powers at that time, France, Britain, Italy, Japan and the United States, controlled the Conference. The "Big Four" leaders were French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, US President Woodrow Wilson, and Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando. Together with teams of diplomats and jurists, they met informally 145 times and agreed upon all major decisions before they were ratified.

The conference began on 18 January 1919. With respect to its end, Professor Michael Neiberg noted, "Although the senior statesmen stopped working personally on the conference in June 1919, the formal peace process did not really end until July 1923, when the Treaty of Lausanne was signed." The entire process is often referred to as the "Versailles Conference", although only the signing of the first treaty took place in the historic palace; the negotiations occurred at the Quai d'Orsay in Paris.

Overview and direct results
The Conference formally opened on 18 January 1919 at the Quai d'Orsay in Paris. This date was symbolic, as it was the anniversary of the proclamation of William I as German Emperor in 1871, in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles, shortly before the end of the Siege of Paris – a day itself imbued with significance in Germany, as the anniversary of the establishment of the Kingdom of Prussia in 1701. The Delegates from 27 nations (delegates representing 5 nationalities were for the most part ignored) were assigned to 52 commissions, which held 1,646 sessions to prepare reports, with the help of many experts, on topics ranging from prisoners of war to undersea cables, to international aviation, to responsibility for the war. Key recommendations were folded into the Treaty of Versailles with Germany, which had 15 chapters and 440 clauses, as well as treaties for the other defeated nations.

The five major powers, France, Britain, Italy, the U.S., and Japan, controlled the Conference. Amongst the "Big Five", in practice Japan only sent a former prime minister and played a small role; and the "Big Four" leaders dominated the conference. The four met together informally 145 times and made all the major decisions, which were then ratified by other attendees. The open meetings of all the delegations approved the decisions made by the Big Four. The conference came to an end on 21 January 1920, with the inaugural General Assembly of the League of Nations.

Five major peace treaties were prepared at the Paris Peace Conference, with, in parentheses, the affected countries:
 * the Treaty of Versailles, 28 June 1919 (Germany)
 * the Treaty of Saint-Germain, 10 September 1919 (Austria)
 * the Treaty of Neuilly, 27 November 1919 (Bulgaria)
 * the Treaty of Trianon, 4 June 1920 (Hungary)
 * the Treaty of Sèvres, 10 August 1920; subsequently revised by the Treaty of Lausanne, 24 July 1923 (Ottoman Empire/Republic of Turkey).

The major decisions were the establishment of the League of Nations; the five peace treaties with defeated enemies; the awarding of German and Ottoman overseas possessions as "mandates", chiefly to members of the British Empire and to France; reparations imposed on Germany; and the drawing of new national boundaries, sometimes with plebiscites, to better reflect the forces of nationalism. The main result was the Treaty of Versailles, with Germany, which in section 231 laid the guilt for the war on "the aggression of Germany and her allies". This provision proved humiliating for Germany and set the stage for very high reparations Germany was supposed to pay. Germany paid only a small portion, before reparations ended in 1931. According to British historian AJP Taylor, the treaty seemed to Germans "wicked, unfair" and "dictation, a slave treaty" but one which they would repudiate at some stage if it "did not fall to pieces of its own absurdity."

As the conference's decisions were enacted unilaterally and largely on the whims of the Big Four, Paris was effectively the center of a world government during the conference, which deliberated over and implemented the sweeping changes to the political geography of Europe. Most famously, the Treaty of Versailles itself weakened the German military and placed full blame for the war and costly reparations on Germany's shoulders, and the later humiliation and resentment in Germany is often sometimes considered by historians to be one of the direct causes of Nazi Party's electoral successes and one of the indirect causes of World War II.

The League of Nations proved controversial in the United States since critics said it subverted the powers of the US Congress to declare war. The US Senate did not ratify any of the peace treaties and so the United States never joined the League. Instead, the 1921–1923 Harding administration concluded new treaties with Germany, Austria, and Hungary. The German Weimar Republic was not invited to attend the conference at Versailles. Representatives of White Russia but not Communist Russia were at the conference. Numerous other nations sent delegations to appeal for various unsuccessful additions to the treaties, and parties lobbied for causes ranging from independence for the countries of the South Caucasus to Japan's unsuccessful proposal for racial equality to the other great powers.

Mandates

A central issue of the conference was the disposition of the overseas colonies of Germany (Austria-Hungary did not have major colonies, and the Ottoman Empire was a separate issue).

The British dominions wanted their reward for their sacrifice. Australia wanted New Guinea, New Zealand wanted Samoa, and South Africa wanted South West Africa. Wilson wanted the League to administer all German colonies until they were ready for independence. Lloyd George realized he needed to support his dominions and so he proposed a compromise: there be three types of mandates. Mandates for the Turkish provinces were one category and would be divided up between Britain and France.

The second category, of New Guinea, Samoa, and South West Africa, were located so close to responsible supervisors that the mandates could hardly be given to anyone except Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Finally, the African colonies would need the careful supervision as "Class B" mandates, which could be provided only by experienced colonial powers: Britain, France, and Belgium although Italy and Portugal received small amounts of territory. Wilson and the others finally went along with the solution. The dominions received "Class C Mandates" to the colonies that they wanted. Japan obtained mandates over German possessions north of the Equator.

Wilson wanted no mandates for the United States, but his main advisor, Colonel House, was deeply involved in awarding the others. Wilson was especially offended by Australian demands and had some memorable clashes with Hughes (the Australian Prime Minister), this the most famous:

British approach
The maintenance of the unity, territories, and interests of the British Empire was an overarching concern for the British delegates to the conference. Still, they entered the conference with more specific goals with this order of priority:
 * Ensure colonial claims of Germany were redacted (taken or given to victory colonies)
 * Germany was ensued with 30 billion dollars of debt, concerning interest
 * Ensuring the security of France
 * Removing the threat of the German High Seas Fleet
 * Settling territorial contentions
 * Supporting the League of Nations

The Racial Equality Proposal put forth by the Japanese did not directly conflict with any core British interest, but as the conference progressed, its full implications on immigration to the British dominions, with Australia taking particular exception, became a major point of contention within the delegation.

Ultimately, the British delegation did not treat that proposal as a fundamental aim of the conference; they were willing to sacrifice the Racial Equality Proposal to placate the Australian delegation and thus help to satisfy their overarching aim of preserving the unity of the British Empire.

Britain had reluctantly consented to the attendance of separate delegations from British dominions, but the British managed to rebuff attempts by the envoys of the newly proclaimed Irish Republic to put a case to the conference for Irish self-determination, diplomatic recognition, and membership in the proposed League of Nations. The Irish envoys' final "Demand for Recognition" in a letter to Clemenceau, the conference chairman, was not answered. Britain had been planning to renege on the Government of Ireland Act 1914 and instead to replace it with a new Government of Ireland Bill which would partition Ireland into two Irish Home Rule states (which eventually was passed as the Government of Ireland Act 1920). The planned two states would both be within the United Kingdom and so neither would have dominion status.

David Lloyd George commented that he did "not do badly" at the peace conference "considering I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon." This was a reference to the great idealism of Wilson, who desired merely to punish Germany, and the stark realism of Clemenceau, who was determined to see Germany effectively destroyed.

Dominion representation
The dominion governments were not originally given separate invitations to the conference and had been expected to send representatives as part of the British delegation.

Convinced that Canada had become a nation on the battlefields of Europe, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden demanded that it have a separate seat at the conference. That was initially opposed not only by Britain but also by the United States, which saw any Dominion delegation as an extra British vote. Borden responded by pointing out that since Canada had lost nearly 60,000 men, a far larger proportion of its men than the 50,000 American men lost, it had at least the right to the representation of a "minor" power. Lloyd George eventually relented and persuaded the reluctant Americans to accept the presence of delegations from Canada, India, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa, and that those countries receive their seats in the League of Nations.

Canada, despite its huge losses in the war, did not ask for either reparations or mandates.

The Australian delegation, led by Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes fought greatly for its demands: reparations, the annexation of German New Guinea, and the rejection of the Racial Equality Proposal. He said that he had no objection to the proposal if it was stated in unambiguous terms that it did not confer any right to enter Australia. He was concerned by the increasing power of Japan. Within months of the declaration of war in 1914, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand had seized all of Germany's possessions in the Far East and the Pacific Ocean. The British had given their blessing for Japan to occupy German possessions, but Hughes was alarmed by that policy.

French approach
French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau controlled his delegation, and his chief goal was to weaken Germany militarily, strategically, and economically. Having personally witnessed two German attacks on French soil in the last 40 years, he was adamant for Germany not to be permitted to attack France again. Particularly, Clemenceau sought an American and British joint guarantee of French security in the event of another German attack.

Clemenceau also expressed skepticism and frustration with Wilson's Fourteen Points and complained: "Mr. Wilson bores me with his fourteen points. Why, God Almighty has only ten!" Wilson gained some favour by signing a mutual defense treaty with France, but he did not present it to his country's government for ratification and so it never took effect.

Another possible French policy was to seek a rapprochement with Germany. In May 1919 the diplomat René Massigli was sent on several secret missions to Berlin. During his visits, he offered, on behalf of his government, to revise the territorial and economic clauses of the upcoming peace treaty. Massigli spoke of the desirability of "practical, verbal discussions" between French and German officials that would lead to a "Franco-German collaboration."

Massigli told the Germans that the French thought of the "Anglo-Saxon powers" (the United States and the British Empire) as the major threat to France in the post-war world. He argued that both France and Germany had a joint interest in opposing "Anglo-Saxon domination" of the world, and he warned that the "deepening of opposition" between the French and the Germans "would lead to the ruin of both countries, to the advantage of the Anglo-Saxon powers."

The Germans rejected Massigli's offers because they believed that the intention was to trick them into accepting the Treaty of Versailles unchanged; also, the German Foreign Minister, Count Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau, thought that the United States was more likely to reduce the severity of the penalties than France was. (Lloyd George was the one who eventually pushed for better terms for Germany.)

Italian approach

In 1914, Italy remained neutral despite the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary. In 1915, it joined the Allies to gain the territories promised by the Triple Entente in the secret Treaty of London: Trentino, the Tyrol as far as Brenner, Trieste, Istria, most of the Dalmatian Coast (except Fiume), Valona, a protectorate over Albania, Antalya (in Turkey), and possibly colonies in Africa.

Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando tried to obtain full implementation of the Treaty of London, as agreed by France and Britain before the war. He had popular support because of the loss of 700,000 soldiers and a budget deficit of 12,000,000,000 Italian lire during the war made both the government and people feel entitled to all of those territories and even others not mentioned in the Treaty of London, particularly Fiume, which many Italians believed should be annexed to Italy because of the city's Italian population.

Orlando, unable to speak English, conducted negotiations jointly with his Foreign Minister Sidney Sonnino, a Protestant of British origins who spoke the language. Together, they worked primarily to secure the partition of the Habsburg monarchy. At the conference, Italy gained Istria, Trieste, Trentino, and South Tyrol. Most of Dalmatia was given to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Fiume remained disputed territory, causing a nationalist outrage.

Orlando obtained other results, such as the permanent membership of Italy in the League of Nations and the promise by the Allies to transfer British Jubaland and the French Aozou strip to Italian colonies. Protectorates over Albania and Antalya were also recognized, but nationalists considered the war to be a mutilated victory, and Orlando was ultimately forced to abandon the conference and to resign. Francesco Saverio Nitti took his place and signed the treaties.

There was a general disappointment in Italy, which the nationalists and fascists used to build the idea that Italy was betrayed by the Allies and refused what had been promised. That was a cause for the general rise of Italian fascism. Orlando refused to see the war as a mutilated victory and replied to nationalists calling for a greater expansion, "Italy today is a great state... on par with the great historic and contemporary states. This is, for me, our main and principal expansion."

Japanese approach
Japan sent a large delegation, headed by the former Prime Minister, Marquis Saionji Kinmochi. It was originally one of the "big five" but relinquished that role because of its slight interest in European affairs. Instead, it focused on two demands: the inclusion of its Racial Equality Proposal in the League's Covenant and Japanese territorial claims with respect to former German colonies: Shantung (including Kiaochow) and the Pacific islands north of the Equator, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Mariana Islands, and the Carolines.

The former Foreign Minister Baron Makino Nobuaki was de facto chief. Saionji's role was symbolic and limited because of his history of ill-health. The Japanese delegation became unhappy after it had received only half of the rights of Germany, and it then walked out of the conference.

Racial equality proposal
During the negotiations, the leader of the Japanese delegation, Saionji Kinmochi, proposed the inclusion of a "racial equality clause" in the Covenant of the League of Nations on 13 February as an amendment to Article 21: "The equality of nations being a basic principle of the League of Nations, the High Contracting Parties agree to accord as soon as possible to all alien nationals of states, members of the League, equal and just treatment in every respect making no distinction, either in law or in fact, on account of their race or nationality."

The clause quickly proved problematic to both the American and British delegations. Though the proposal itself was compatible with Britain's stance of nominal equality for all British subjects as a principle for maintaining imperial unity, there were significant deviations in the stated interests of its dominions, notably Australia and South Africa. Though both dominions could not vote on the decision individually, they were strongly opposed to the clause and pressured Britain to do likewise. Ultimately, the British delegation succumbed to imperial pressure and abstained from voting for the clause.

Meanwhile, though Wilson was indifferent to the clause, there was fierce resistance to it from the American public, and he ruled as Conference chairman that a unanimous vote was required for the Japanese proposal to pass. Ultimately, on the day of the vote, only 11 of the 17 delegates voted in favor of the proposal. The defeat of the proposal influenced Japan's turn from co-operation with the Western world, into more nationalist and militarist policies and approaches.

Territorial claims
The Japanese claim to Shantung faced strong challenges from the Chinese patriotic student group. In 1914, at the outset of the war, Japan seized the territory that had been granted to Germany in 1897 and seized the German islands in the Pacific north of the equator. In 1917, Japan made secret agreements with Britain, France, and Italy to guarantee their annexation of these territories. With Britain, there was an agreement to support British annexation of the Pacific Islands south of the Equator.

Despite a generally pro-Chinese view by the American delegation, Article 156 of the Treaty of Versailles transferred German concessions in the Jiaozhou Bay, China, to Japan rather than returning sovereign authority to China. The leader of the Chinese delegation, Lu Zhengxiang, demanded a reservation be inserted, before he would sign the treaty. After the reservation was denied, the treaty was signed by all the delegations except that of China. Chinese outrage over that provision led to demonstrations known as the May Fourth Movement. The Pacific Islands north of the equator became a class C mandate, administered by Japan.

American approach
Until Wilson's arrival in Europe in December 1918, no sitting American president had ever visited the continent. Wilson's 1918 Fourteen Points had helped win many hearts and minds as the war ended, not only in America but all over Europe, including Germany, as well as its allies in and the former subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Wilson's diplomacy and his Fourteen Points had essentially established the conditions for the armistices that had brought an end to World War I. Wilson felt it to be his duty and obligation to the people of the world to be a prominent figure at the peace negotiations. High hopes and expectations were placed on him to deliver what he had promised for the postwar era. In doing so, Wilson ultimately began to lead the foreign policy of the United States towards interventionism, a move that has been strongly resisted in some United States circles ever since.

Once Wilson arrived, however, he found "rivalries, and conflicting claims previously submerged." He worked mostly at trying to influence both the French, led by Georges Clemenceau, and the British, led by David Lloyd George, in their treatment of Germany and its allies in Europe and the former Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. Wilson's attempts to gain acceptance of his Fourteen Points ultimately failed; France and Britain each refused to adopt specific points as well as certain core principles.

Several of the Fourteen Points conflicted with the desires of European powers. The United States did not consider it fair or warranted that Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles declared Germany solely responsible for the war. (The United States did not sign peace treaties with the Central Powers until 1921 under President Warren Harding, when separate documents were signed with Germany, Austria, and Hungary respectively.)

In the Middle East, negotiations were complicated by competing aims and claims, and the new mandate system. The United States expressed a hope to establish a more liberal and diplomatic world as stated in the Fourteen Points, in which democracy, sovereignty, liberty and self-determination would be respected. France and Britain, on the other hand, already controlled empires through which they wielded power over their subjects around the world, and aspired to maintain and expand their colonial power rather than relinquish it.

In light of the previously-secret Sykes–Picot Agreement and following the adoption of the mandate system on the Arab provinces of the former Ottoman Empire, the conference heard statements from competing Zionists and Arabs. Wilson then recommended an international commission of inquiry to ascertain the wishes of the local inhabitants. The idea, first accepted by Great Britain and France, was later rejected, but became the purely-American King–Crane Commission which toured all Syria and Palestine during the summer of 1919 taking statements and sampling opinion. Its report, presented to Wilson, was kept secret from the public until The New York Times broke the story in December 1922. A pro-Zionist joint resolution on Palestine was passed by the United States Congress in September 1922.

France and Britain tried to appease Wilson by consenting to the establishment of his League of Nations. However, because isolationist sentiment in the United States was strong, and because some of the articles in the League Charter conflicted with the US Constitution, the United States never ratified the Treaty of Versailles or joined the League that Wilson had helped to create to further peace by diplomacy, rather than war, and the conditions that can breed peace.

Greek approach
Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos took part in the conference as Greece's chief representative. Wilson was said to have placed Venizelos first for personal ability among all delegates in Paris.

Venizelos proposed Greek expansion in Thrace and Asia Minor, which had been part of the defeated Kingdom of Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire; Northern Epirus, Imvros; and Tenedos for the realization of the Megali Idea. He also reached the Venizelos-Tittoni agreement with the Italians on the cession of the Dodecanese (apart from Rhodes) to Greece. For the Pontic Greeks, he proposed a common Pontic-Armenian state.

As a liberal politician, Venizelos was a strong supporter of the Fourteen Points and the League of Nations.

Chinese approach
The Chinese delegation was led by Lu Zhengxiang, who was accompanied by Wellington Koo and Cao Rulin. Koo demanded Germany's concessions on Shandong be returned to China. He also called for an end to imperialist institutions such as extraterritoriality, legation guards, and foreign leaseholds. Despite American support and the ostensible spirit of self-determination, the Western powers refused his claims but instead transferred the German concessions to Japan. That sparked widespread student protests in China on 4 May, later known as the May Fourth Movement, which eventually pressured the government into refusing to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Thus, the Chinese delegation at the conference was the only one not to sign the treaty at the signing ceremony.

All-Russian Government (Whites)
While Russia was formally excluded from the Conference although it had fought against the Central Powers for three years. However the Russian Provincial Council (chaired by Prince Lvov ), the successor to the Russian Constituent Assembly and the political arm of the Russian White movement attended the conference and was represented by the former tsarist minister Sergey Sazonov, who, if the tsar had not been overthrown, would most likely have attended the conference anyway. The Council maintained the position of an indivisible Russia, but some were prepared to negotiate over the loss of Poland and Finland. The Council suggested all matters relating to territorial claims or demands for autonomy within the former Russian Empire be referred to a new All-Russian Constituent Assembly.

Baltic states
Delegations from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, led respectively by Jaan Poska, Jānis Čakste and Augustinas Voldemaras, also participated in the conference, and successfully achieved international recognition of the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Ukraine
Ukraine had its best opportunity to win recognition and support from foreign powers at the conference. At a meeting of the Big Five on 16 January, Lloyd George called Ukrainian leader Symon Petliura (1874–1926) an adventurer and dismissed Ukraine as an anti-Bolshevik stronghold. Sir Eyre Crowe, British Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, spoke against a union of East Galicia and Poland. The British cabinet never decided whether to support a united or dismembered Russia. The United States was sympathetic to a strong, united Russia, as a counterpoise to Japan, but Britain feared a threat to India. Petliura appointed Count Tyshkevich as his representative to the Vatican, and Pope Benedict XV recognized Ukrainian independence, but Ukraine was effectively ignored.

Belarus
A delegation of the Belarusian Democratic Republic, under Prime Minister Anton Łuckievič, also participated in the conference, and attempted to gain international recognition of the independence of Belarus. On the way to the conference, the delegation was received by Czechoslovak President Tomáš Masaryk in Prague. During the conference, Łuckievič had meetings with the exiled foreign minister of Admiral Alexander Kolchak's Russian government, Sergey Sazonov, and Polish Prime Minister Ignacy Jan Paderewski.

Minority rights
At the insistence of Wilson, the Big Four required Poland to sign a treaty on 28 June 1919 that guaranteed minority rights in the new nation. Poland signed under protest and made little effort to enforce the specified rights for Germans, Jews, Ukrainians, and other minorities. Similar treaties were signed by Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria and later by Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Estonia had already given cultural autonomy to minorities in its declaration of independence. Finland and Germany were not asked to sign a minority treaty.

In Poland, the key provisions were to become fundamental laws, which would override any national legal codes or legislation. The new country pledged to assure "full and complete protection of life and liberty to all individuals... without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race, or religion." Freedom of religion was guaranteed to everyone. Most residents were given citizenship, but there was considerable ambiguity on who was covered. The treaty guaranteed basic civil, political, and cultural rights and required all citizens to be equal before the law and enjoy identical rights of citizens and workers. Polish was to be the national language, but the treaty provided for minority languages to be freely used privately, in commerce, in religion, in the press, at public meetings, and before all courts. Minorities were to be permitted to establish and control at their own expense private charities, churches, social institutions, and schools, without interference from the government, which was required to set up German-language public schools in districts that had been German before the war. All education above the primary level was to be conducted exclusively in the national language. Article 12 was the enforcement clause and gave the Council of the League of Nations the responsibility to monitor and enforce the treaties.

Caucasus
The three South Caucasian republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia and the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus all sent a delegation to the conference. Their attempts to gain protection from threats posed by the ongoing Russian Civil War largely failed since none of the major powers was interested in taking a mandate over the Caucasian territories. After a series of delays, the three South Caucasian countries ultimately gained de facto recognition from the Supreme Council of the Allied powers but only after all European troops had been withdrawn from the Caucasus, except for a British contingent in Batumi. Georgia was recognized de facto on 12 January 1920, followed by Azerbaijan the same day and Armenia on 19 January 1920. The Allied leaders decided to limit their assistance to the Caucasian republics to the supply of arms, munitions, and food.

The Armenian delegation included Avetis Aharonyan, Hamo Ohanjanyan, and Armen Garo. The Azerbaijani mission was headed by Alimardan Topchubashev and included Mammad Hasan Hajinski, Akbar agha Sheykhulislamov, Ahmet Ağaoğlu and Mahammad Amin Rasulzade, first president of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. The Georgian delegation included Nikolay Chkheidze, Irakli Tsereteli, and Zurab Avalishvili.

Korea
After a failed attempt by the Korean National Association to send a three-man delegation to Paris, a delegation of Koreans from China and Hawaii made it there. It included a representative from the Korean Provisional Government in Shanghai, Kim Kyu-sik. They were aided by the Chinese, who were eager for the opportunity to embarrass Japan at the international forum. Several top Chinese leaders at the time, including Sun Yat-sen, told US diplomats that the conference should take up the question of Korean independence. However, the Chinese, already locked in a struggle against the Japanese, could do little else for Korea. Other than China, no nation took the Koreans seriously at the conference because it already had the status of a Japanese colony. The failure of Korean nationalists to gain support from the conference ended their hopes of foreign support.

Palestine
After the conference's decision to separate the former Arab provinces from the Ottoman Empire and to apply the new mandate-system to them, the World Zionist Organization submitted its draft resolutions for consideration by the conference. The February 1919 statement included the following main points: recognition of Jewish "title" over the land, a declaration of the borders (significantly larger than in the prior Sykes-Picot agreement), and League of Nations sovereignty under British mandate. An offshoot of the conference was convened at San Remo in 1920, leading to the creation of the Mandate for Palestine, which was to come into force in 1923.

Assyrians
Up to 300 000 Assyrians died during the Assyrian genocide in the years before the conference. Several delegations of Assyrians participated to fulfill wishes of a free Assyria. The delegations came from different parts of the world. Syriac Orthodox Bishop of Syria Aphrem Barsoum (b. 1887), later Patriarch of the church, has often been depicted as a leader of the "Assyro-Chaldean delegation". An Assyrian delegation from the United States was also present, representing the Assyrian National Association in America. A delegation from Constantinople represented the Assyro-Chaldean National Council, formed in 1919 after Syriac-Orthodox, Chaldean Catholics and Syriac Catholics had united and declared their basic political and national unity under the "Assyro-Chaldean" name. There was also one delegation from Caucasia and one from Persia.

Aromanians
During the Peace Conference, a delegation of Aromanians participated in order to fulfill autonomist wishes for the Aromanian people in the same vein as the Samarina Republic attempt two years earlier, but failed to accomplish any recognition for the self-rule desires of their people.

Women's approach
An unprecedented aspect of the conference was concerted pressure brought to bear on delegates by a committee of women, who sought to establish and entrench women's fundamental social, economic, and political rights, such as that of suffrage, within the peace framework. Although they were denied seats at the Paris Conference, the leadership of Marguerite de Witt-Schlumberger, the president of the French Union for Women's Suffrage, caused an Inter-Allied Women's Conference (IAWC) to be convened, which met from 10 February to 10 April 1919.

The IAWC lobbied Wilson and then the other delegates of the Paris Conference to admit women to its committees, and it was successful in achieving a hearing from the conference's Commissions for International Labour Legislation and then the League of Nations Commission. One key and concrete outcome of the IAWC's work was Article 7 of the Covenant of the League of Nations: "All positions under or in connection with the League, including the Secretariat, shall be open equally to men and women." More generally, the IAWC placed the issue of women's rights at the center of the new world order that was established in Paris.

Pan-African Congress
The first Pan-African Congress, supported by W.E.B. Du Bois, unsuccessfully petitioned the Paris Conference to turn Germany's colonies over to an international organization instead of to other colonial powers.

Historical assessments
The remaking of the world map at the conferences gave birth to a number of critical conflict-prone contradictions internationally that would become some of the causes of World War II. The British historian Eric Hobsbawm claimed: "[N]o equally systematic attempt has been made before or since, in Europe or anywhere else, to redraw the political map on national lines.... The logical implication of trying to create a continent neatly divided into coherent territorial states each inhabited by separate ethnically and linguistically homogeneous population, was the mass expulsion or extermination of minorities. Such was and is the reductio ad absurdum of nationalism in its territorial version, although this was not fully demonstrated until the 1940s."

Hobsbawm and other left-wing historians have argued that Wilson's Fourteen Points, particularly the principle of self-determination, were measures that were primarily against the Bolsheviks and designed, by playing the nationalist card, to tame the revolutionary fever that was sweeping across Europe in the wake of the October Revolution and the end of the war: "[T]he first Western reaction to the Bolsheviks' appeal to the peoples to make peace – and their publication of the secret treaties in which the Allies had carved up Europe among themselves – had been President Wilson's Fourteen Points, which played the nationalist card against Lenin's international appeal. A zone of small nation-states was to form a sort of quarantine belt against the Red virus.... [T]he establishment of new small nation-states along Wilsonian lines, though far from eliminating national conflicts in the zone of revolutions,... diminished the scope for Bolshevik revolution. That, indeed, had been the intention of the Allied peacemakers."

The right-wing historian John Lewis Gaddis agreed: "When Woodrow Wilson made the principle of self-determination one of his Fourteen Points his intent had been to undercut the appeal of Bolshevism."

That view has a long history and can be summarised by Ray Stannard Baker's famous remark: "Paris cannot be understood without Moscow."

The British historian Antony Lentin viewed Lloyd George's role in Paris as a major success:"Unrivaled as a negotiator, he had powerful combative instincts and indomitable determinism, and succeeded through charm, insight, resourcefulness, and simple pugnacity. Although sympathetic to France's desires to keep Germany under control, he did much to prevent the French from gaining power, attempted to extract Britain from the Anglo-French entente, inserted the war-guilt clause, and maintained a liberal and realist view of the postwar world. By doing so, he managed to consolidate power over the House [of Commons], secured his power base, expanded the empire, and sought a European balance of power."

Cultural references

 * British official artists William Orpen and Augustus John were present at the Conference.
 * World's End (1940), the first novel in Upton Sinclair's Pulitzer Prize-winning Lanny Budd series, describes the political machinations and consequences of the Paris Peace Conference through much of the book's second half, with Sinclair's narrative including many historically accurate characters and events.
 * The first two books of novelist Robert Goddard's The Wide World trilogy (The Ways of the World and The Corners of the Globe) are centered around the diplomatic machinations which form the background to the conference.
 * Paris 1919 (1973), the third studio album by Welsh musician John Cale, is named after the Paris Peace Conference, and its title song explores various aspects of early-20th-century culture and history in Western Europe.
 * A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia (1992) is a British television film starring Ralph Fiennes as T. E. Lawrence and Alexander Siddig as Emir Faisal, depicting their struggles to secure an independent Arab state at the conference.
 * "Paris, May 1919" is a 1993 episode of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, written by Jonathan Hales and directed by David Hare, in which Indiana Jones is shown working as a translator with the American delegation at the Paris Peace Conference.

title: Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920)


text:
Fairbanks International Airport

Fairbanks International Airport is a state-owned public-use airport located three miles (5 km) southwest of the central business district of Fairbanks, a city in the Fairbanks North Star Borough of the United States state of Alaska. It is located in the South Van Horn census-designated place. Fairbanks was the smallest city in the United States with regularly scheduled non-stop international flights, as Condor offered weekly flights to Frankfurt during the summer tourist season. Air North is now the only international airline to offer scheduled charters with flights (to Canada).

Early years
The airport opened in 1951 and took over existing scheduled airline traffic to Fairbanks, which had previously used Ladd Army Airfield. Alaska Airlines used Fairbanks as its main hub in the 1950s, with service to Seattle and Portland as well as intrastate service to Anchorage, Nome and other destinations. By 1967, however, the airline shifted its Alaska hub to Anchorage; its Anchorage-Fairbanks service continues to this day. In the mid-1970s, following the development of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, Alaska Airlines and Braniff International offered "interchange service" between Fairbanks and Houston via Anchorage, Seattle and Dallas. In 1982, following airline deregulation, Alaska Airlines and American Airlines began a similar interchange service using Boeing 727s.

Pan American World Airways had also served Fairbanks since 1932. The station was originally opened after the acquisition of Pacific International Airways and used for short-haul services to Juneau, Seattle, Ketchikan, Whitehorse and other destinations. Pan Am intended to use Fairbanks as a stop for service to Asia as early as 1931, but initial difficulty in negotiating landing rights with the Soviet Union, followed by the outbreak of World War II, delayed these plans until decades later. Pan Am service to Fairbanks continued through the opening of FAI until 1965, when the Civil Aeronautics Board terminated Pan Am's rights to serve Alaska.

Pan American World Airways eventually used Fairbanks as a stopover for transpacific service from New York and Seattle to Tokyo starting in September 1969. In 1974, Pan Am agreed to transfer its Fairbanks-Seattle service to Western Airlines, and requested that the CAB allow its New York-Tokyo service to be suspended from April 1975. Other carriers such as Japan Airlines and Korean Air began to use Fairbanks as a technical stop for transpacific cargo flights in the late 1970s.

Development since the 2000s
On October 11, 2009, the airport completed a new terminal and began demolishing the old terminal which was built in 1948. The new terminal is built around the modern TSA standards. In addition to architectural design and better security, the main terminal now has six jet-bridges (up from the former five). The 2,700m2 of custom-unitized curtain wall was designed and supplied by Overgaard Ltd. Hong Kong. The special design incorporates double low-e triple glazing. The new building's footprint is smaller than the old building.

For the 12-month period ending February 28, 2018, the airport had 119,898 aircraft operations, an average of 328 per day: 58% general aviation, 31% air taxi, 9% scheduled commercial, and 2% military. At that time there were 569 aircraft based at this airport: 91% single-engine, 8% multi-engine, <1% jet and <1% helicopter.

Terminal
The terminal building, situated on the northwest side of the airport, contains eight gates: two for commuter carriers and six for larger carriers.

Runways
Fairbanks International Airport covers an area of 3,470 acres (1,404 ha) at an elevation of 439 feet (134 m) above mean sea level. It has four runways:
 * Runway 2L/20R: 11,800 by 150 feet (3,597 x 46 m), surface: asphalt
 * Runway 2R/20L: 4,501 by 75 feet (1,981 x 30 m), surface: asphalt
 * Runway 2/20: 2,900 by 75 feet (884 x 23 m), surface: gravel/ski strip
 * Runway 2W/20W: 5,400 by 100 feet (1,646 x 30 m), surface: water/winter ski strip

Accidents and incidents

 * On December 30, 1951, Transocean Air Lines Flight 501, a Curtiss C-46 Commando, a cargo flight, crashed on approach to FAI due to not following radio procedures and spatial disorientation. All four occupants were killed. The wreckage was found on January 3, 1952.
 * On February 16, 1975, a Pacific Alaska Airlines DC-6, a cargo flight, crashed attempting to return to Fairbanks Int'l Airport. Three engines lost power after takeoff from runway 10 and crashed 2 km short of runway 19 attempting to return to the airport possibly due to fuel contamination. All three occupants were killed.
 * On February 28, 1994, during takeoff for a ferry flight to Miami, a Lockheed L-1011-1 Tristar of Rich International Airways (registered N303EA) experienced a mechanical power loss on the number 3 and number 1 engines and an internal fire on the number 1 engine. The takeoff was aborted and during the taxi back, the fire on the number 1 engine was extinguished. None of the 3 occupants on board were injured.
 * On April 23, 2024, approximately six minutes after takeoff, an Alaska Air Fuel DC-4, (registered N3054V), suffered an engine explosion and crashed along the Tanana River 8 miles southwest of Fairbanks. Two occupants were onboard the plane, both were killed.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Fairbanks International Airport


text:
Talk:Fairbanks International Airport

Okay, I am not sure about some of the airlines if they are cargo, passenger, or charter. Feel free to make any corrections... - WHISPERTOME

Terminal
Curiously, why is there no gate 5? Also, last time I was there, I could not find the jetway door to Gate 8; nor is there a sign for it other than outside security indicating that you go to the right to get there...is this a future gate? Mercer5089 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Gate 8 was always there, it is right next to gate 7. In the 16+ years I've visited the airport, there was never a gate 5.  There is a restaraunt between gates 4 and 6 (where gate 5 would most likely be), it may have been decomissioned to make room for it and kept the numbering scheme to prevent confusion. — Kjammer   ⌂  16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is irrelevant, because the building has been torn down. Also, the gate 8 jetway was decommissioned early to make room for the new terminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.184.148 (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

runway
looking at the pictures and inside google earth, there is no "Runway 2L/20R". i think it should be called "Runway 1L/19R" Exvil-lachwien (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes in the position of magnetic north pole make it necessary to change the numbers of the runways periodically. FAI's new runway numbering scheme is 2/20. I'm not totally sure why they have not renumbered the other runways (especially 1/19 and 1W/19W, as they do not require new paint, though they may require new signage), but I would suspect that 2L/20R was renumbered because it is being completely redone and would need new paint anyway. Mercer5089 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

link broken
the airport plan link is broken 216.67.3.61 (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

runway numbering
Just noticed that the runway numbers in the article text seem to be off by one from the numbers in the infobox graphic. 94.6.24.111 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Condor flights
I can find no evidence that there are flights between here and Frankfurt, through Condor's website or otherwise. 216.137.192.89 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Fairbanks International Airport. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081121182835/http://www.fai-terminal-project.com/pdf/Terminal_Timeline.pdf to http://www.fai-terminal-project.com/pdf/Terminal_Timeline.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fairbanks International Airport. 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/20060523000701/http://www.fai-terminal-plan.com/ to http://www.fai-terminal-plan.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fairbanks International Airport. 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/20080708201007/http://www.gov.state.ak.us/trade/International_Transporation.pdf to http://www.gov.state.ak.us/trade/International_Transporation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fairbanks International Airport


text:
Bloomfield College

Bloomfield College of Montclair State University is a public college in Bloomfield, in the U.S. state of New Jersey. It is chartered by the State of New Jersey and accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. The school became part of Montclair State University starting in July 2023, before which it had been a private college affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA) through the Synod of the Northeast.

Bloomfield College is the only 4-year college in New Jersey recognized as a Predominantly Black Institution, Hispanic Serving Institution, and Minority Serving Institution.

History
Bloomfield College was founded by the Presbyterian Church in 1868 as German Theological Seminary of Newark, New Jersey, to train German-speaking ministers. It moved to Bloomfield in 1872 and became four-year college in 1923. In 1912 it absorbed the Presbyterian Hospital School of Nursing, founded in 1912 in nearby Newark.

The school's enrollment peaked in 2011. In October 2021, the school announced that it could close in 2022-2023 if it did not find financial help.

In March 2022, Montclair State University announced that it would financially support the college until a merger was agreed upon. The merger was officially announced on October 28, 2022, under which the college would become Bloomfield College of Montclair State University. The merger was completed in July 2023.

Academics
The college offers primarily undergraduate studies, but it has added master's programs in Accounting, Fine Arts, and Education. The college is accredited by Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. Bloomfield College has a student to faculty ratio of 15:1.

Bloomfield College has approximately 1,598 students and about 65% of the students are commuters. Its gender composition is 63 percent female and 37 percent male. Its racial and ethnic composition is 48 percent black, 33 percent Hispanic, 9 percent white, and 2 percent Asian. Seventy-eight percent of the students were eligible for low-income Pell Grants. The academic staff consists of 60 full-time instructors and 120 part-time.

Bloomfield College has a graduation rate of 33 percent. Median salary after attending ranged from $18,548 (BA, Visual and Performing Arts) to $77,966 (BS, Nursing). Median student debt ranged from $26,000 to $33,912. Two years after student loan repayment began, 11 percent were making progress.

In its 2022 college rankings, U.S. News & World Report ranked Bloomfield College tied for 27th place for social mobility.

Athletics
Bloomfield College teams participate as a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Division II. The Bears are a member of the Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference (CACC). Men's sports include baseball, basketball, cross country, soccer, tennis, and track and field; while women's sports include basketball, bowling, cross country, soccer, softball, track and field, and volleyball.

Westminster Arts Center
Bloomfield College is home to the Westminster Arts Center.

Notable alumni

 * C. Louis Bassano (born 1942), politician who served in both the New Jersey General Assembly and the New Jersey Senate.
 * Ralph R. Caputo (born 1940), politician who represents the 28th Legislative District in the New Jersey General Assembly.
 * Rupert Crosse (1927–1973), Academy Award-nominated actor.
 * Sandra Bolden Cunningham (born 1950), politician who represents the 31st Legislative District in the New Jersey Senate.
 * Gage Daye (born 1989), former NBA G League basketball player.
 * Nacho Díez (born 1996), basketball player for Real Madrid Baloncesto.
 * Ted Koffman (born 1944; B.A. 1968), politician who served in the Maine House of Representatives from 2000 to 2008.
 * David Stergakos (born 1956), retired Greek basketball player who played professionally for Panathinaikos B.C.

title: Bloomfield College


text:
Talk:Analytic function

Continuing the analysis
Oleg, any chance you'd want to add a see-also section with analytic continuation and germ (mathematics)? I want to rewrite/expand Riemann surfaces, and the current article there has three sections, on analytic continuation, germs, and examples of analytic continuation, that should be moved elsewhere. (e.g. either to this article, or to the article on analytic continuation). Since you are working this topic, would you care to make this move? linas 00:21, 12 April 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you mean, you want to put links to analytic continuation and germ (mathematics) in analytic function? That should certainly be no problem. About the stuff in Riemann surfaces you want to move, I think it would belong to analytic continuation and germ (mathematics) rather than to analytic function.

 * I do not work on this topic, actually I have quite little time for the moment. I wrote analytic function a while ago because it was in a sorry state.

 * If you want to really move things from Riemann surfaces, you might consider first posting your intention on its talk page. Maybe the person who put that stuff in there, had some thing in mind when doing so. Oleg Alexandrov 00:39, 12 April 2005 (UTC)

 * So what happened to all this content? The current article still doesn't mention any of the topics above: e.g. more than one variable, and the common pitfalls involved there (except for the single solitary example $$f(z)=z^*$$, but there are also more nice, more subtle examples of this kind.)  Also, not a breath of analytic continuation or germs or jets shows up here -- these surely deserve at least a single-sentence mention.  Also, an explanation for the "abuse of notation" $$C^\omega$$ for analytic functions, vs   $$C^\infty$$. and then fancy sophisticated stuff, like analysis in inf. dim. spaces, and frechet spaces and etc. The current content seems to be like its copied from a freshman college textbook, it fails to actually mention common topics that involve analytic functions...!? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Definition of analytic functions
The definition for analytic functions given in this article conflicts with that of Churchill:

R. V. Churchill, Complex Variables and Applications, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

His definition (p. 40) is more simply that a function f of the complex variable z is analytic at a point $$z_0$$ if its derivative f ' (z) exists at $$z_0$$ and at every point in some neighborhood of $$z_0$$.

I am not convinced by the counterexample, because that function, exp(-1/x), is simply "infinitely smooth" at x=0, producing a Taylor series that evaluates to zero everywhere when expanded about x=0. I think this function should be considered analytic at x=0 since derivatives of all orders exist and are zero at that point.

63.195.51.145 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

 * There is no conflict. The definition in the book you mention is valid only for complex analytic functions, while the one given here is valid for both real and complex analytic functions. It is true that a complex differentiable function is the same as an analytic function. That is mentioned in this article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure if I studied this yet in multivariable Calculus or part of Analysis earlier, but it is interesting. I am just curious whether this is the only possible definition of 'analytic function' if you use an abstract logical definition--maybe the mapping of elements of other relevant sets or categories can be analyzed.--Dchmelik (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Logarithm
Sorry for the bad editting here on this discussion page. I'm not really sure how to create a new category on it since I just created a user name. But I was reading this article on Analytic Functions and I noticed that in the Examples section, the logarithm function was given as an example of an analytic function. So let's consider $$f(x)=Log(x)$$ on the set of real numbers R. Now pick $$x_0$$=0. Then we can't find a power series representation of Log(x). Can we? So is the logarithm function not analytic then?

Thanks. Siyavash2 01:04, 24 December 2008

 * No problem on the editing. There should be a "new section" tag at the top of the page.  Otherwise placing the section title between a pair of equal signs (two on each side) will also do it.  I think the problem is with the domain you have in mind.  The article says that the logarithm is "analytic on any open set of [its] domain." But zero is not in the domain of the logarithm.  Does this answer your question? Thenub314 (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, thank you. I'm quite surprised there are so many good mathematicians here. Siyavash2 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Banach Space
I don't see the relevance of the following:

"The set $$\scriptstyle A_\infty(\Omega)$$ of all bounded functions with the supremum norm is a Banach space."

Does this somehow relate to analyticity? Dratman (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Ops, you're right, my fault. There was written "...of all bounded analytic functions"; then I added a remark on the space $$A(\Omega)$$ (of all analytic functions, which is somehow more relevant btw), and lost the word analytic in the operation. Fixed now. --pma (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
When ever I click the second reference, I remain on the Wikipedia page. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Characterizations
"For every compact set K ⊂ D there exists a constant C such that for every x ∈ K and every non-negative integer k the following bound holds"
 * $$ \left | \frac{d^k f}{dx^k}(x) \right | \leq C^{k+1} k!$$

Isn't e^{-1/x} an obvious counterexample? It satisfies the bound but is not analytic. Pwrong (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I have updated the article. Because not all $$f$$ in $$C^\infty$$ are analytic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.68.181 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Content Improvement
The article states: ″ There exist both real analytic functions and complex analytic functions, categories that are similar in some ways, but different in others. ″

This sentence seems to have no substance. By definition, shouldn't two subsets of analytic functions be similar in some ways and different in others? Unless someone has a strong reason not to, I will delete this section and replace it with something more substantive, such as the difference between the two. Mgibby5 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Actually this sentence may sound a bit vague. On the other hand, in the introduction we just want to summarize shortly the contents that are developed in the article. Maybe adding some reference to some sections in the article will do.  --pm a  13:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I welcome input onto what this sentence should be changed to, and references to other sections would be a good start. I think it would be legitimate and interesting to state that real analytic functions are not a subset of complex analytic functions. Thoughts? Mgibby5 (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Analytic function. 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/20061209010640/http://math.fullerton.edu:80/mathews/c2003/AnalyticFunctionMod.html to http://math.fullerton.edu/mathews/c2003/AnalyticFunctionMod.html

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) 08:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Section: "Alternative characterizations"
In the section it is stated the following:

"If ƒ is an infinitely differentiable function defined on an open set D ⊂ R, then the following conditions are equivalent.

1) ƒ is real analytic."

But infinitely differentiable function is not in general analytic, which is fact emphasized throughout the article. or did I miss the point ?

GeOinWiKi (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right, I have updated the article. Because not all $$f$$ in $$C^\infty$$ are analytic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.68.181 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

about Analytic functions of several variables
I would like to change the section name to Analytic functions of several complex variables. However, this page should also explain real analytic functions, so what we need to do may be an extension of the section. see also Function of several real variables--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Analytic function


text:
Bernard Landry

Bernard Landry (March 9, 1937 – November 6, 2018) was a Canadian politician who served as the 28th premier of Quebec from 2001 to 2003. A member of the Parti Québécois (PQ), he led the party from 2001 to 2005, also serving as the leader of the Opposition from 2003 to 2005.

Personal life
Landry was born on March 9, 1937, in Saint-Jacques, Quebec, (near Joliette), the son of Thérèse Granger and Bernard Landry. Landry was first married to Lorraine Laporte first a lawyer and later a court judge on Quebec justice system with whom he had three children. After his wife's death to cancer in 1999, in 2004, he married script writer and former yé-yé singer and actress Chantal Renaud. Landry was classically trained by the clergy and retained some Latin. A native speaker of French, he also spoke fluent English and Spanish.

Landry received a degree in law from the Université de Montréal, and a degree in economics and finance from Sciences Po Paris. From September 2005, he was a professor at UQAM in the business strategy department.

On February 9, 2008, Landry hosted the final round of the Finance Quiz at the 2008 Financial Open at UQAM.

Landry died on November 6, 2018, from complications of pulmonary fibrosis at the age of 81. He was given a state funeral at Basilique Notre-Dame de Montréal.

Politics
Landry ran unsuccessfully in Joliette in the 1970 election and in Joliette-Montcalm in 1973. He was a practising lawyer and a partner in the Montreal law firm of Lapointe Rosenstein when he was elected to the National Assembly of Quebec in the 1976 general election in Fabre. Under the Parti Québécois government of René Lévesque, he served as Minister of State of Economic Development from February 2, 1977, to March 12, 1981. Re-elected in the riding of Laval-des-rapides at the 1981 general election, he was again Minister of State of Economic Development until September 9, 1982, when he was made Delegate Minister to Exterior Commerce. He was later Minister of International Relations and Exterior Commerce, and Minister of Finance in the same government.

During the 1988 Canadian federal election, Landry backed the Free Trade Agreement. His support, along with Jacques Parizeau played a role in Brian Mulroney's dominance in Quebec during the election.

After the defeat of Parti Québécois in the 1985 general election, he taught in the Department of Administrative Sciences at the Université du Québec à Montréal until 1994. After the victory of the PQ in the 1994 general election, the newly elected Premier, Jacques Parizeau, made him his Deputy Premier, a position he held from September 26, 1994, to December 15, 1998.

As finance minister, Landry reduced program expenditures to balance the budget. The PQ and sovereignty lost public support and has not been restored to previous levels since.

It was reported in the Montreal Gazette, and picked up by the New York Times that Landry spoke disparagingly of immigrants on the night of the 1995 referendum. In an unconfirmed article by The Gazette, an English-language paper in Montreal, it was reported that two employees at the Inter-Continental hotel in the city planned to file a complaint against Mr. Landry with the Quebec Human Rights Commission. Anita Martinez, a night clerk at the hotel, said that Mr. Landry told her, "It was because of you immigrants that the 'no' won," and added, "Why is it that we open the doors to this country so you can vote 'no' " to Quebec sovereignty?. Landry himself firmly denied having ever been either impolite to the two women, nor having ever made the comments regarding immigrants.

Landry became Premier of Quebec on March 8, 2001, following the resignation of Lucien Bouchard. He was a Quebec sovereigntist advocating a supranational confederation of Quebec and Canada, inspired by the institutions of the European Union. As such, he was one of the most faithful followers of René Lévesque and the other sovereignty-associationists.

In 2001, Landry was critical about Quebec receiving an extra $1.5 billion in equalization payments calling it degrading Quebec status and accused Ottawa for short-changing the province for decades by stating "Receiving equalization payments for more than 40 years in a row is clear evidence that the central government failed in redistributing real wealth,".

During the Parti Québécois leadership race of 2001, Landry criticized the federal government's policy of prominently displaying the maple leaf on federal government buildings and programs by saying, "Le Québec ne ferait pas le trottoir pour un bout de chiffon rouge" (Quebec does not prostitute itself for a piece of red cloth). Landry's aggressive remarks were widely criticized for insulting the Canadian flag, particularly among English-language media which rendered chiffon as "rag". Landry subsequently apologized but insisted that his words had been mistranslated. Landry's opponents used the controversy to undermine his national political cachet.

In 2003, Landry lost the Quebec general election to Jean Charest's Quebec Liberal Party. A renowned documentary named À hauteur d'homme about his viewpoint of the election was produced in 2003. At the August 2004 Parti Québécois National Council, after a long period of reflection that began the day after the election, he announced on August 27, 2004, that he would remain president of the party, and lead the PQ to the next election in order to bring Quebec to independence. However, on June 4, 2005, Landry announced he would resign as party leader after gaining 76.2% approval in a leadership confidence vote at a party convention in Quebec City, which he did not consider sufficient support.

After retirement Landry stayed active in politics as a critic and to encourage young people to be involved in politics.

Works
Articles
 * Quebec's Foreign Trade, 1982
 * Preface of Price Waterhouse's Les 58 moyens d'exporter, 1985
 * Commerce sans frontières : le sens du libre-échange, 1987
 * Preface of Zeina El Tibi's La Francophonie et le dialogue des cultures, 2001
 * La cause du Québec, 2002
 * Le commerce international : une approche nord-américaine, 2008 (in collab. with Antoine Panet-Raymond and Denis Robichaud)
 * "La mondialisation rend la souveraineté plus nécessaire et urgente que jamais", in L'Action nationale, March 1999 (en, fr)
 * "Pour l'indépendance politique et pétrolière", in Le Devoir, June 13, 2008 (en, fr )

Honours

 * 1999 - Bavarian Order of Merit
 * Legion d'honneur
 * 2006 - Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society's Patriot of the Year and Bene merenti de patria medal
 * 2008 - Grand Officer of the National Order of Quebec

title: Bernard Landry


text:
Talk:Rebol

Functional languages category
I removed this, and the change was reverted. REBOL has a few features of functional programming languages, as does Perl. And Lua. And even C++ now has lambdas. But does that mean they're functional programming languages? No. REBOL at its core is highly imperative, as are the other languages I listed. Dgpop (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 * "REBOL has a few features of functional programming languages, as does Perl. And Lua. And even C++ now has lambdas." - Rebol is neither like Perl, nor like Lua or C++. For example, it does not have statements, so your likening it to the other languages is not correct. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The question is what the criteria are for something to be considered a functional language. Rebol is derived from Logo and Lisp, the "EB" in "REBOL" stands for "Expression Based", and functions have always been a first class datatype. Rebol is not a purely functional language, but I don't think the link to functional programming implies that it is. Gregg-Irwin (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Indeed, when we compare Rebol to Lisp, we see that it is more similar to it than to, for example, Perl or C++. Lisp is also multiparadigm and functional. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The "copy edit" tag
I do agree with the usefulness of copy editing. Having said that, I strongly disagree with the "information noise" created by the "copy edit" tag. In my opinion it is obvious that the page (as many other pages) "may require copy editing". It is a general Wikipedia policy to encourage such activities. Whether that should be explicitly stated in the article making unnecessary noise is a different question, however. I, as a reader am not interested in reading it in the article for indefinite time, since it is actually unrelated to the article subject. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I think some of the parts that can be rewritten; primarily because the article is too big for a language not as popular as others. "History" and "Implementation" can be merged. "Ease of Use", "Syntax" and "Semantics" can be merged. Top Section can be thinned, the content then placed into a new "Description" section. leaflord 06:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaflord (talk • contribs)

 * "I think some of the parts that can be rewritten;" - and how exactly is that related to the fact that the tag is just unnecessary noise? Ladislav Mecir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

REBOL → Rebol – Since the open sourcing, the community consensus has been to not capitalize the language name. (Similar to what happened with LISP, so I followed the precedent set in that article). I've provided a citation from the language creator's blog and noted that he now writes it as "Rebol" as well. His company, however, is still called "REBOL Technologies". There exists a redirect page for "Rebol" already, so this move cannot be done without administrator assistance. Metaeducation (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, let's see this move happen soon. The change in capitalization has been talked about for quite a while and it would be useful to put a semblance of authority on the matter as implied by this article. Wikiwikiwu (talk)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving or copying contents from the lead
The "Concept and idea" section was added by. The fact is that the section contained just the material previously present in the article lead, and removed from the lead. I reverted the change to the status quo explaining that the most important attributes of the article subject should, per WP:LEAD be listed in the article lead. Instead of following the WP:BRD policy, and starting a discussion trying to find a consensus with the changes to the article lead, just reverted my reversal. After a reminder that the WP:BRD policy should be respected, copied the parts of the lead to the newly created "Concept and idea" section, this time not removing them from the lead. Please, refer to the WP:BRD and try to find consensus in the discussion instead of forcing changes by edit war.

Here are the reasons why the changes do not improve the article:

 * The claim that Rebol influenced JSON is one of the most important informations that naturally belong to the article lead. The information is sourced and verified. There is no need to duplicate or move the information to the "Concept and idea" section, which is not an appropriate place for the claim, since it is too far fetched to think that the inventor of the language had a concept and idea that the new language he is designing should influence JSON.
 * The claim that the dialecting is a notable property of the language is illustrated by a citation of designer's words in the lead. There is also the "Dialects" section meant to discuss dialects. For this reason, there is no need to discuss dialects also in a new "Concept and idea" section, especially when the text used is just a copy of a part of the article lead.
 * The fact that the language has an open source implementation is listed as one of the most important attributes of many other programing languages. In this case I also find it one of the most important attributes of the language and oppose the attempts to remove this information from the article lead.
 * Summing up, neither duplicating the text from the lead, nor the removal of the most important attributes from the lead can improve the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Infact, I began to structure this currently sadly under-structured article. Quotes should be not in the lead. The history of a topic should be not in the lead only, but should be an own, pronounced section. The reception section is completely missing, also weakly mixed into the lead. My try to start the needed restructuring was unfriendly reverted instead of working togehter trying to improve this weak article. My second extended edit included the open-source reference, why I was considering this edit as some compromise (which was ignored). On the JSON interpretation I agree, it should be part of a reception (or history) section primarily and only if considered of over-arching importance, additionally part of the lead. Shaddim (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * regarding "this currently sadly under-structured article" - with 11 sections and 2 subsections neither "sadness" nor "under-structuredness" come to mind.
 * "Concept and idea" is hardly a necessary section name, especially without a definite idea what the section should contain.
 * regarding history: the "History" section already exists and contains the chronological informations
 * regarding the "Reception" section - that is not an over-archingly important section name for a programming language article
 * regarding the quotes: they are selected to describe the important facts and attributes Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * regarding understructured: only 1 layer deep structure with pretty arbitrary selected sections. needs to be completly re-structured with 4-6 relevant and wiki confomr sections and preferrable 2-3 layer depth
 * history was/is incomplete and should be extended by several crucial aspects scattered around everywhere else in the article.
 * "reception and impact" is one most importan sectiosn for virtually all kinds of wikipedia article
 * quotes are a opinion which should be not in the lead, where should be only well backed interpretation of valuable secondary sources in a simple, compact formulation. Shaddim (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 * "only 1 layer deep structure" - the structure was actually two layer deep, are there any reasons why you need to make verifiably false statements here?
 * "pretty arbitrary selected sections" - the sections are related to the article subject, and in that sense not arbitrary
 * "needs to be completly re-structured with 4-6 relevant and wiki confomr sections and preferrable 2-3 layer depth" - I understand it so that that is your plan (unsupported by WP:STYLE). I have no idea what "wiki confomr sections" means, though.
 * '"reception and impact" is one most importan sectiosn for virtually all kinds of wikipedia article' - this statement is unsuported by WP:STYLE. I checked several WP:FA like: Acute myeloid leukemia, Ashford v Thornton, Problem of Apollonius, which verified my suspicion that this information is not reliable.
 * "quotes are a opinion which should be not in the lead" - I checked WP:LEAD and found out that this information is not reliable either.
 * Edit looks like made by your sockpuppet. It also tries to make a false impression that the changes were discussed here and achieved some consensus, which is far from the truth. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your accusing of me being a socket puppeteer is unfounded and rude. Step back from such unfounded claims. And don't keep on pushing your personal agenda by discrediting clear mindeded IPs. (your argueing that this article ist structured to two layers as the semantics section had the irrelavant "sublayers": "do" and "parse", is laughable) Shaddim (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir is mostly impossible to get along with and wants to dominate. I suggest you ignore him and make your changes because he will never agree to cooperative editing and has major ownership issues on these article. Bitcoin is a case in point where he relentlessly does what he does. I would also report his accusation of sockpuppetry if you care for drama boards. He does a brinkmanship type of insulting. That is his profile. Your changes seem more correct than his in the article. Earl King (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Programming Language WP Style/Guide
Is there a template, guide, or reference standard article specifically for computer/programming languages? If so, can we use that as a starting point for a refresh, or as a concrete target to move towards? Gregg-Irwin (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Advert and refimprove tags

 * Recently, the advert tag was added to the article without any indication or discussion which parts of the text should be improved. This is to determine which parts need improvement.
 * At the same time, the refimprove tag was added, while there is no "citation needed" tag to indicate which information needs citation. This discussion is meant to find out. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement
This article looks as if it was taken from an AD or the projects documentation. 94.75.77.210 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rebol


text:
Caldwell University

Caldwell University is a private Catholic university in Caldwell, New Jersey. Founded in 1939 by the Sisters of St. Dominic, the university is accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, chartered by the State of New Jersey, and registered with the Regents of the University of the State of New York. Caldwell offers 25 undergraduate and 30 graduate programs, including doctoral, master's, certificate, and certification programs, as well as online and distance learning options.

History
In 2013, Caldwell College received approval for university status and changed its name to Caldwell University on July 1, 2014.

Campus
The university is located in suburban New Jersey, and it is about 20 miles from Manhattan. It is on a seventy-acre campus along Essex County Route 506 (Bloomfield Avenue) and shares the land with the Sisters of St. Dominic's Caldwell convent and Mount Saint Dominic Academy, an all-girls Catholic high school. The Sisters also operate Saint Dominic Academy in nearby Jersey City and Lacordaire Academy in Upper Montclair.

Athletics
The Department of Athletics oversees all athletic programs at the university. Caldwell University teams participate as a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Division II. The Cougars are a member of the Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference (CACC).

In fall of 2019, Caldwell University will launch an eSports program as a member of the ECAC. The inaugural team will compete in the games of Overwatch and League of Legends. At the same time, Caldwell University will also launch a B.S. in e-Sports Management.

Men's sports

 * Baseball
 * Basketball
 * Cross country
 * Lacrosse
 * Soccer
 * Sprint football
 * Track and field
 * Rugby

Women's sports

 * Basketball
 * Bowling
 * Cross country
 * Lacrosse
 * Soccer
 * Softball
 * Tennis
 * Track and field
 * Volleyball
 * Acrobatics and Tumbling

Notable alumni
Alumni of Caldwell University include:
 * Bill Brennan, activist and politician.
 * Jane Burgio (1922–2005), politician who served as Secretary of State of New Jersey and as a member of the New Jersey General Assembly.
 * Mary Jo Codey (born 1955), wife of former Governor Richard Codey.
 * Beth Fowler (born 1940), actress.
 * Arline Friscia, politician who served as a member of the New Jersey General Assembly from 1996 to 2002, where she represented the 19th Legislative District.
 * Mary Jo Kopechne (1940–1969), who drowned while riding as a passenger in a car driven by U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
 * Billy McDonald, basketball player (Germany).
 * Arthur Morrison, basketball player (Portugal).

title: Caldwell University


text:
Dan Miller

Dan Miller may refer to:
 * Dan John Miller, American singer-songwriter for Blanche
 * Dan Miller (American football) (born 1960), former American football kicker
 * Dan Miller (fighter) (born 1981), welterweight fighter in the Ultimate Fighting Championship
 * Dan Miller (Florida politician) (born 1942), former member of the U.S. Congress
 * Dan Miller (Pennsylvania politician) (born 1973), member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives
 * Dan Miller (Canadian politician) (born 1944), politician in British Columbia
 * Dan Miller (guitarist) (born 1967), member of the backing band for They Might Be Giants, and formerly of Lincoln
 * Dan Miller (journalist) (1941–2009), anchorman for TV station WSMV in Nashville
 * Dan Miller (sportscaster) (born 1963), radio announcer for the Detroit Lions and Sports Director at WJBK in Detroit
 * Dan Miller (The Thick of It), a television character
 * Dan Miller, editor of Bluegrass Unlimited
 * Dan Miller, host of Top Card and 10 Seconds
 * Dan Miller (born 1980), singer from O-Town
 * Dan Miller, a character in "The Mist"

title: Dan Miller