Talk:Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations
 | The contents of the Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations page were merged into Covenant of the League of Nations and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The paragraph titled 'Interpretation' has an unfinished sentence at its end, constisting of 'Also a certification of the league of nations', could the author please fix this? Syr0 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Merge?
[edit]Is there any reason this is the only article of the covenant that has a separate article? RJFJR (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree -- there aren't any other articles for the other sections of the covenant. This article also doesn't seem to contain information beyond the US (I'm not sure how to flag it as such) 69.56.127.199 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- US opposition to Article X is frequently cited (as the article notes) as leading eventually to the failure of the league, so it's a major issue and makes sense to be discussed separately. Perhaps, however, this information would be clearer in an article titled United States opposition to the League of Nations or something like that. 72.240.101.152 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, having a broader article (e.g. United States opposition to the League of Nations or something like that) would not make it clearer, it would make it more obscure (less direct/to-the-point). However, it would make it more comprehensive and put it into a somewhat wider context. Special effort should be taken, however, to ensure that the fact that opposition to Article X was the main point of contention is clearly communicated; otherwise, it merely obscures or obfuscates it. I would prefer the creation of an additional article instead of merging or renaming this one. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus seems to have at least agreed this article should not stand alone as-is. I'm merging to the main article, but discussion about whether the US's opposition deserves separate treatment can continue there. Forbes72 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, having a broader article (e.g. United States opposition to the League of Nations or something like that) would not make it clearer, it would make it more obscure (less direct/to-the-point). However, it would make it more comprehensive and put it into a somewhat wider context. Special effort should be taken, however, to ensure that the fact that opposition to Article X was the main point of contention is clearly communicated; otherwise, it merely obscures or obfuscates it. I would prefer the creation of an additional article instead of merging or renaming this one. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)