Talk:Paris Peace Talks

This article seems completely disjointed to me

Russell has sure done a lot of work on the original, but even so it is still badly organized -- it reads the way novelists write novels if they want to use flashbacks, etc. This is not, in my opinion, how a history article should be written. Thanks, Russell, for trying to work on it! (I looked at it myself several months ago and threw up my hands in despair.) Hayford Peirce 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't usually contribute to this kind of article, but I felt like I had to do something with the lede. I'm glad someone who knows what's going on is around to straighten things out. Thanks, Russell. -Joe Quick 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have enough knowledge about this to put a story together, but for the facts and dates I have to rely on the earlier text. It's still a mess. Someone with expertise or a willingness to research this topic will have to take it from here.

I also don't understand how my paring and editing increased the length of the article by 25%! I thought I was cutting things! Russell D. Jones 00:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A piece of string should be exactly as long as it needs to be! Hayford Peirce 00:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Time frame

Shouldn't the opening sentence say something like, The Paris Peace Talks were a 3-year (or 2- year or whatever) series of blah blah blah? Shouldn't we be told WHEN they started, and when they ENDED? Hayford Peirce 00:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be on your mind, so ... fix it! I think it's okay, but it could be better. Have a go at it. Russell D. Jones 00:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okie, I'll see what I can do.... Hayford Peirce 01:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer's comment should at least be footnoted at the end of the lede.

I'll do it after dinner, maybe.... Hayford Peirce 01:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)