Talk:International relations (1814–1919)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Power in international relations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Power in international relations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Power in international relationsWikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relationsTemplate:WikiProject Power in international relationsPower in international relations articles

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notes

I'm not sure whether this page title will survive; I don't have any recommendation, but WPians tend to be finicky about titles. I guess we'll see. A related question is whether the article will survive a deletion discussion, that is, whether WPians will say this is a fork of material covered more appropriately in other articles. I don't know enough about AfD to know the answer, but I think the key question will be: what do historians in general believe to be special, cohesive, and coherent about this particular time frame, from 1814 to 1919? The answer to that question should constitute much of the lead section. - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Scholars move back and forth between "diplomacy" and "international relations" (which is somewhat broader because it includes economics and migration. Sometimes they use both terms together as in Beyond diplomacy: contemporary issues in international relations [http://books.google.com/books?id=0jtDAQAAIAAJ by Jonah I. Onuoha - 2008] and Guide to International Relations and Diplomacy by Michael Graham Fry, Erik Goldstein, Richard Langhorne (2004). The same starting and end points are often used by scholars: 1814 (end of Napoleonic wars/ Vienna conference) and 1919 (end of WWI/ Versailles Conference). As for other articles, it shows how they are related to one another. That's what history surveys do. Rjensen (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British-German naval race

This section uses conflicting views. In the first paragraph it states Germany built up a navy that threatened the British Royal Navy. In the next it says that the German Navy wasn't a threat for the British. Maybe it should be changed to "Tirpitz took the Empire's modest navy and "attempted to" turn it into a world-class force that could threaten the British Royal Navy".74.34.164.80 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is China?

Apart from an incredibly brief mention in the section on Imperialism (§5.5) there's virtually nothing here on China during this period. Yes, it was largely a passive observer (at best) of the Western Great Powers and Russia during this period but given our current geopolitical context, surely it makes sense to at least explain why China was not a major actor at this time? It was still an incredibly populous place by comparison with Europe, IIRC. Comrade jo (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation

Not sure where the 'sailing vessels moved at 2-3kts' figure comes from but as a sailor, including of tall ships, it strikes me as surely wrong. I don't think I've ever made a long passage in a windy latitude that averaged '2-3 knots, not including when becalmed'. 2 knots isn't even enough to stem many tides, e.g. http://www.visitmyharbour.com/articles/3188/hourly-tidal-streams-west-solent-area-np337. Also clippers were fast (this article gives 14-17kts) compared to bulk cargoes, but not 'six or seven times faster'. A more likely moving average for a working boat would be 5-7kts I'd guess. You have to remember that most of the big global trade routes then had become established partly because of the prevailing winds... Comrade jo (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the speed is calculated from long-distance trip times. "We have seen that the average speed of all recorded voyages to Palestine was 2.8 knots." says https://books.google.com/books?id=0fazDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA203 see also https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/speed-of-an-average-sailboat.18365/ for current sailboats. Rjensen (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britain AND Europe?

The top of the article makes a distinction between 'Britain' and (the rest of??) 'Europe'. I would suggest these are one and the same, always have been and always will be (or at least will remain the same for ages to come). If a distinction is truly necessary here, one could at least take the effort to use 'Continental Europe' in contrast to 'Britain', but again, we are ALL Europeans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.158.46.86 (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to disagree with the experts, such as James Joll, ed. Britain and Europe 1793-1940 (1967) Rjensen (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know what you mean. You think the title of Joll's book is your killer argument? How about you read Britain and Europe, Pitt to Churchill, 1793-1940 (1961), which is the real Joll book. Or, try Europe since 1870; an International History; JOLL, James (1973) Harper & Row. Neither of these texts supports your claim that Britain is separate from Europe

And, since you love 'experts', why not quote the many 'expert' books entitled "BRITAIN IN EUROPE" - eg Seton-Watson (1945), Fukuda (1973), Spybey (1997)? 'In Europe' means 'a part of', yes?

Your feeble reference to Joll didn't work for me and I doubt persuaded anyone else. If you really believe that Britain is in some way NOT a part of Europe, you'll need to try harder. 81.155.74.89 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concert "failed" by 1923?

This seems a bit one-sided. There were still some congresses to come and arguably, the concert only really ended with that different kind of international cooperation evidenced by the Hague Convention.Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]