Wisconsin Plan
Open-knowledge reference entry
The Wisconsin Plan (also known as the Wales Plan and Canada Plan; originally Continuous Mediation Without Armistice) was a proposal created by Julia Grace Wales to end the First World War.
Origin and purpose
Julia Grace Wales was a Canadian-born Wisconsin university professor who was deeply troubled by reports of the war. She spent the autumn of 1914 considering possible methods for finding a peace solution. The United States was neutral at the time, and President Woodrow Wilson asked his compatriots to remain "impartial in thought". In December, Wales prepared a plan. She proposed that the United States organize a conference (a "world thinking organ") composed of delegations from neutral countries, who would mediate between the warring powers and disseminate peace proposals, with the goal of eventually reaching a fair settlement. The conference was to last for as long as the war continued. Two main principles were meant to guide the mediators: no nation could be humiliated by the peace, and there could be no compromises that could later lead to another war. The plan was carefully revised many times.
Reactions
The newly formed Wisconsin Peace Party and the National Peace Party, led by Jane Addams, both endorsed Wales' plan.
“Wisconsin Plan” enters the record as open-knowledge reference entry. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Wisconsin, Plan and Open-knowledge can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Wisconsin Plan” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Wisconsin, Plan and Open-knowledge provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Dec 19, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q8027245. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1914.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Wisconsin Plan”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Wisconsin Plan primary sources, Wisconsin Plan archive and Wisconsin research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Wisconsin Plan”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Wisconsin Plan” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.