Talk:Armistice Day

Time zone

What time zone does the 11 o'clock refer to?

IME, it's usually observed according to local time. --Calair 12:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but when did the first World War end? Was it at 11am UK time or 11am Central European Time? -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You are thinking of this in the wrong way. The armistice came into force six hours after it was signed, in France. This was recorded as 5am French time. French time was the same as UK time, so far as I can determine - the CET article says that France did not adopt CET until 1940 under German control. --AJHingston (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No you are not thinking about it in the wrong way. Your questions seems to have been ignored and answered anyway. France went an hour forward in 1940 when the Nazi's came and has stayed there ever since. In 1918 French and English time was the same and therefore 11am fell at the same moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.230.30 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge

Talk regarding proposed merged is here Talk:Remembrance Day

Not The Official End

Armistice day was not the official end of the Great War.. That happened in bits and pieces when the various nations ratified the Treaty Of Versailles, with the exception of the United States, which has never ratified the treaty of Versailles. Instead, the United States concluded a separate peace with The German Empire's successor state, the so called "Weimar Republic", on August 25, 1921. Meaning that, technically, the war didn't "officially" end until almost 3 years AFTER Armistice Day. Which is why I removed the reference to it being the official end of the war.

GuelphGryphon98 (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

News to me that USA did not sign the Versailles Treaty, given the conspicuous presence of President Wilson and Colonel House at Versailles. The CWGC ended its registration of service war dead in August 1921 as it had been declared the legal end of the war by Order in Council IIRC.Cloptonson (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

See Also

Is the top "See Also" really needed as there is also a "See Also" section at the bottom of the page? The article is short enough that it may not be needed at the top of the page.

In addition, if it is kept I was thinking that adding Veterans Day to the top would be a nice addition. --Maldarthe1st (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Image

I wonder whether the [[:Image:1918Toronto BayandKing Armistace Day.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Armistice Day Celebrations in Toronto, Canada in 1918]] it adequate for the beginning of the article, as it depicts the celebrations of the winners, rather than the Armistice Day, the day of Remembrance of the millions of dead of the 1st World War.--FocalPoint (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2009

Invitation from Buckingham Palace NOV 10 1919

I'm not sure what I should do with this.... I have taken pics of an original invitation to Buckingham Palace for a Banquet held in honor of the President of the French Republic for the evening of Nov 10th 1919. This invitation would have been sent to every name mentioned inside it's 6 pages. (Approximately 100 invitations were sent out and approximately 100 guests and dignitaries were present on the eve of the First ever Armistice or Remembrance day of Nov 11th 1919).

I would like to post pics here but am wondering how to protect the images in order that 'a hundred invitations' don't show up on eBay all claiming to be the real thing. I am not so much worried about copyright as I am worried about people creating fake copies (for sale)

How can I work with Wikipedia to protect the contents of the image without distracting from the historical nature of the actual large format invitation?

I would like to show and/or exhibit the unmarked original pics of the invitation as part of Wikipedia but the historic and very rare nature of this document might lead some to copy it for unscrupulous reasons.

What avenues Can I explore here?

here's a link to watermarked images of the original invitation. http://s201.photobucket.com/albums/aa296/moefuzzz/WORLD%20WAR%201%20ARTIFACTS/

(hope the links works)

This is the Front page of the invitation... http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa296/moefuzzz/WORLD%20WAR%201%20ARTIFACTS/fe26c860.jpg

Please note, I have not and will not release unmarked large format photos for free use (anywhere) until I can be assured that nobody will be able to just print a 1000 off on there laser jet printers.

I do feel that the original unmarked pics (in high definition)would be a rather interesting addition to the remembrance day and armistice day pages and would therefor like to share.

Any guidance would be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moefuzz (talk • contribs) 22:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Remembering the dead or the war itself?

Could we open a discussion on what Rememberance Day is about?

Is it about remembering the atrocities of war with the view that if we remember what went on we'll make an effort to avoid a reoccurance? "Lest we forget" etc.

The common understanding seems to be about highlighting the heroism of the people who fought in said wars, but I understand this to be counter the above. Hailing people who were involved in the war is a bad way to make us avoid a reoccurance.

Thoughts?

KenBW2 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbw2 (talk • contribs)

It is a topic for discussion, certainly, but a tricky one for Wikipedia. Broadly, I think the general picture is that the primary emphasis at the outset was to provide a collective opportunity of remembrance at a time when the great majority of the adult population in many of the participant countries would have their own memories of a family member, acquaintance or comrade who had died in war. This was in addition to individual acts of remembrance which became more or less customary such as on the anniversary of the death or birth or acts such as placing bridal bouquets on a war memorial, and influenced by the fact that in most cases there would be no opportunity to visit a grave. Nevertheless, there is evidence that from the beginning some felt that the event tended to glorify war, whilst others thought that an excessive emphasis on suffering and death underplayed the sense of duty, heroism and sacrifice of many who fought. After the second world war in particular, at least in the UK, some veterans believed that dwelling on the past distracted attention from the need to create a new order in which nations would be reconciled and new wars unnecessary, and this may have influenced the lesser importance attached to memorials to the dead of WWII compared to WWI. As the immediacy of the conflict(s) receded then attention has swung away from remembrance of individual dead to collective awareness of the suffering consequence on war, but arguably in the UK stress is now being placed on the dead of recent conflicts (eg Afghanistan). But this is written largely from a UK perspective, and other countries' experiences will be different.

To cover this appropriately in the article it would be necessary to cite a range of good sources (including official statements at different periods) not just individual opinions, and from different countries. I suspect that this would then be challenged as original research. Tweaking individual sentences may be appropriate (for example, I don't think it is now correct to imply that Remembrance Day/Sunday in the UK commemorates the dead of the two world wars alone, but I am unable off-hand to cite a suitably authoritative source). AJHingston (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Armistice Day or Remembrance Sunday aren't about highlighting the heroism or glorifying war in any way. It also isn't especially about remembering the atrocities of war, there are other events for that. It's mainly a local ceremony for local people to remember those ordinary people, friends, family and acquaintances whose names are inscribed on the local memorial or who were caught up in a war not of their making. The national ceremony held in London has the same aims, just on a much bigger scale -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I think that is right for the majority of people certainly in the immediate aftermath of the major conflicts, the remembrance ceremonies and other associated activities have been controversial. In the UK Robert Graves, in Good-Bye to All That (if memory serves) reacted to the way it was marked locally where he was living soon after WWI, there was the Peace Pledge Union and the white poppy campaign, and there have been others who have also been uncomfortable with the way the day is marked or the emphasis within it. Those criticisms have not come from people who were uncaring about those who died, rather the reverse. I also think that the significance for participants will have changed as memories of those named on memorials passes away. I doubt that many of us who take part in such ceremonies today have any personal knowledge of the people listed on the memorial near which we gather. We should not forget, either, that different countries will have attached varying significance to remembrance depending, in particular, on whether they counted themselves victors or defeated. As I comment above, the problem is in finding appropriate sources, and picking on statements by particular individuals will not necessarily do because of the danger of giving undue weight to their opinion unless they were, for example, speaking in an official capacity or on behalf of a group. We do have to be careful in Wikpedia to distinguish between what we think ought to have been the case and what actually was, and this topic covers many countries over more than 90 years so generalisations are dangerous. --AJHingston (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There's also a difference between the attitude in the aftermath of WWI, 90+ years ago, and the attitude of people now. Sadly, there is no shortage of people killed in various conflicts and they are often recorded on local memorials so there are still plenty of people who remember them -- SteveCrook (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Remembering the dead through a public holiday would surely interfere with profit. Does this answer your question? 178.78.75.150 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Date citation

There have been a couple of attempts to change the date citation in the introduction to US style. I am not clear of the reasons, and Wikipedia policy is clear - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) . If there is a good reason for using the US style it should be discussed here first. --AJHingston (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Remembrance Day

I'm not sure that it's strictly true to suggest that Armistice Day and Remembrance Day are the same (as in the first sentence). In the UK, for example, that is only the case if the latter happens to fall on 11 November. IXIA (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Remembrance Day and Armistice Day are one and the same - it's Remembrance Sunday that is different, unless it happens to be Sunday 11th. I always refer to 11th November as Armistice Day if it isn't on the Sunday, as it differentiates mroe readily. Either way it's nice to see people marking both days. 109.94.137.1 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT front page

Odd that a sharper pic of the historic NYT page isn't available. Sca (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Armistice Day in New Zealand

The page is misleading because it implies that the day is a public holiday in New Zealand. In fact it's not. Please could someone rewrite the page. Akld guy (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC) - edited Akld guy (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Corrected the text to remove the misleading information. Akld guy (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Is 'Next time 11 November 2015' Necessary?

It seems a bit silly to have 'Next Time', when this is an annual event with no end date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.219.245 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month ?

Why these specific numbers ? Do they have any specific significance ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpvj17 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This article [1] gives some thoughts on that. Longwayround (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo caption questionable ('Presidential couples')

I query the accuracy of the caption describing 'Presidential couples of France and Spain' at the 2018 Armistice Centenary in Paris. Spain then - as presently - is a monarchy, not a republic. Also Spain was neutral in both world wars so would it have been relevant to invite Spanish state representatives?Cloptonson (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo is of modern leaders, not at the time of WWI. Yes, Spain is a constitutional monarchy. Pedro Sánchez Pérez-Castejón's title is " Presidente del Gobierno", "President of the Government" [2], so "Presidential" is not inaccurate. (Which is not to say that the caption might be improved, although at with the loss of brevity.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Time the Armistice was signed

The article gives 5.45am as the time the Armistice was signed and I believe this is incorrect. The source reference (1) takes us to a site that states that Marshall Foch's signal was sent at 5.45, which would have been some time after the actual signing. Another source quotes 5.15 (which I do not attribute) but THIS source, https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/the-signing-of-armistice/ states that it was signed at 5.12 am.

References

Armistice day isn't observed by Germany

can it be removed from the "observed by" list? 178.143.39.148 (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)