| Revision as of 15:57, 28 July 2011 editMaethordaer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,138 edits Importance to WP:INTR← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:14, 13 July 2024 edit undoJerium (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,586 editsm Jerium moved page Talk:Unequal treaty to Talk:Unequal treaties: Perform requested move, see talk page |
| (74 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hong Kong|class=C|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject China|class=C|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hong Kong|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=C|importance=high|gov=yes|history=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=high|gov=yes|history=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Korea|class=C|importance=Mid|history=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Korea|importance=high|history=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|law=y|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military History|class=C|B1=no|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|Chinese=yes|Japanese=yes|Korean=yes<!-- "Western powers?" |British=yes|US=yes|Russian=yes -->}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=Start|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Netherlands}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject France|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Low|hist=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|B1=no|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|Chinese=yes|Japanese=yes|Korean=yes<!-- "Western powers?" |British=yes|US=yes|Russian=yes -->}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 6 July 2024 == |
|
==Chinese and Japanese Unequal Treaties== |
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
It's also used concerning the Japanese unequal treaties (1854 and the following years) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Chinese wiki has a featured article on unequal treaties and more info can be translated from there. ] ]] 01:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Peking Treaty of 1880== |
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently China and the USA signed a treaty in 1880 that dealt with imported labor and the trade in opium. The treaty was later reneged upon by USA. Is this treaty discussed anywhere in Misplaced Pages? --] 18:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand the Sino-Portuguese Treaty problem. China always had more than enough power to put Portugal out of China, meaning that the Portuguese were in China with the full support of the authorities. This has to be sorted out. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Who uses this term?== |
|
|
|
|
|
The article begins by saying "The term Unequal Treaties, mainly used by China, ..." Is the term mainly used ''by'' China, or is it mainly used to refer ''to'' Chinese history, by Anglophone or other Western scholars? ] 12:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Use of Asian characters == |
|
|
|
|
|
Do we really need the names in Chinese, etc, when these names easily can be found in the articles on the treaties themselves?--] 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Page move == |
|
|
{{discussion-top}} |
|
|
|
|
|
In my studies of China, I have found the unequal treaty practice to commonly be referred to as a "system", for example in Fairbank's "China:A New History". For this reason, I moved the page to the new title. However, I now realize that I may have acted too quickly, so if there is any objection to the move, notify me on my talk page, and we can move it back to the old title. --] 02:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, regardless of whether or not we keep the "system" in the title, I think "Treaty" should be uncapitalized, as it is not a proper noun. This is per the Manual of Style. --] 02:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think this was a badly considered move for many reasons. Please give people a chance to respond before you move an important article like this. |
|
|
:As far as I know, Fairbank talked about the "treaty port system" or the "treaty system", which is something quite distinct from the treaties themselves. I have never heard about the "Unequal treaty system" before. Please give me a page reference. |
|
|
:I tried to reverse the move, but it didn't work. I suggest that you talk to administrator and ask him or her to move the page back.--] 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm sorry, you're right. I should have been much more thoughtful before making such a rash move. On the bright side, however, I seem to have been able to reverse the move without any trouble, though I am not an administrator. I also went through and corrected all redirect issues stemming from this incident, so I think everything is back to the way it should be. I may have been thinking about the "Treaty century" or some other treaty related term in Fairbank. One thing, though: Surely "Unequal Treaties" isn't a proper noun? Shouldn't the "t" in treaties be lowercase? I also think that the title should be singular, rather than plural. (i.e. Unequal treaty) Once again, though, I apologize for my foolishness. Sometimes I get a little overeager to apply knowledge from my chosen field. Like I said, I think I fixed all the redirects, but let me know if you spot any problems, and I can take care of them. --] 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I actually have heard of the "treaty system", probably from Fairbank, but I agree that the treaty system is distinct from the treaties themselves. As for Treaties being capitalized, it's to differentiate this specific term, as it pertains to East Asia in the 19th-20th centuries, from any treaties that anyone thinks were unequal or unfair. That makes sense, right? ] 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{discussion-bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Anony ref== |
|
|
Some user 68.194.103.128 just goes around tagging a number of articles as need reference. I don't know what is so controversial about this page at the moment. How about tagging a sentence or two and not the entire article. Especially since only a few treaty articles are fully ready. ] 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Non-Asian Treaties== |
|
|
|
|
|
The whole concept of calling these Asian treaties "Unequal" is a bit odd! |
|
|
History is full of treaties entered into by willing and unwilling parties. |
|
|
Without seeking to represent any case for the so called "Central Powers" at the end of the Great War in 1918, what was the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the other treaties involving those powers if not Unequal?! (The Germans referred to it as the "Diktat" of Versailles well before Hitler) And there are plenty more examples from around the world besides! - Sunbeam16 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, I agree. Looking at the title, the Versailles treaty was the first that I thought of when it came to "unequal". ] (]) 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This Article refers to a Sino-Japanese (Asian?) viewpoint of the world. At the time all outsiders were barbarians to be considered as inferior (much like the Western viewpoint it must be admitted). The public shock of being defeated was profound, and so the term 'unequal treaties' was used to describe diplomatic processes that in the past had always been to the advantage of the Asian powers. The term unequal should be read 'Unequal to us' rather than simply unequal. I believe this should be made implicitly clear in the page, as at the time the Western powers believed previous encounters had been wholly unequal to the Western delegations. |
|
|
|
|
|
An example of the mindset; |
|
|
Managing the Barbarians in Time of Crisis - http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob52.html |
|
|
(] (]) 10:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
::What you describe is just east Asian chauvinism and hypocrisy. The idea that the parties to a treaty must be "equal" is obviously ridiculous and has never been a pre-condition for treaties' validity at any time in any part of the world. Most treaties, especially pre-20th century, formalized the outcome of wars in which one side did better than the other and were therefore not equal. Were the treaties between China and its tributary states equal? When I have time I will edit the page to make sure this is clear. ] (]) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You make a fair point. Regardless, these continue to be called "the Unequal Treaties" in scholarship. We here at Misplaced Pages report what is widely accepted; we don't seek to ]. ] (]) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent Studies == |
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I have not now the time to do it myself, but this basically sound and useful article could be fleshed out with two recent studies: Dong Wang, ''China's Unequal Treaties: Narrating National History'' (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2005) and Michael R. Auslin, ''Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Treaties and the Culture of Japanese Diplomacy'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004). ] (]) 03:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Requested move== |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was '''no consensus to move.''' –''']''' | ] 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''Page moved'''. <small>(])</small> ] (]) 21:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
---- |
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Unequal treaties}} – Usually referred to in the plural as a collection, per ]. ]] 18:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>Note: ], ], ], ], and ] have been notified of this discussion. ]] 18:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::'''Support.''' Per WP:NCPLURAL. This is also more consistent with the scope of the article body, which addresses the numerous unequal treaties, not just a particular unequal treaty. ] (]) 18:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Support.''' also suggests that "Unequal treaties" is much more common than "Unequal treaty". --] (]) 18:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Support'''. Have only ever seen this in the plural form. ] (]) 19:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' – seems similar to examples listed at ]. This article is about a specific set of historical treaties that are typically known as the unequal treaties, not about the general concept of an unequal treaty. —] (] '''·''' ]) 21:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' per other comments ] (]) 00:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support:''' the article mentions multiple treaties, so ] applies. <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ]) 02:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:* '''Support''' as per Remsense ] (]) 05:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom. I see that this article is more focusing about multiple set of historical treaties, many of them are unequel treaties. ] (]) 09:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Neutral''', leaning oppose pending clarifications. The first part of the article focuses on the term "unequal treaty" in the singular. Moreover, While I have seen the plural "unequal treaties" as a collective term in reference to China, I am not sure the same applies in the context of Japan and Korea, which are also discussed, nor that the plural term as used is inclusive of all three countries. Also, I don't read Chinese/Korean/Japanese script, so I cannot tell if the infobox is translating it into singular or plural. I would appreciate clarification on these points. ] (]) 10:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:The CJK terms can be either singular or plural, depends on context. Japan and Korea each signed their own series of unequal treaties; they are explicitly described as such in both English and in their respective languages. , ] (]) 10:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - excellent catch. The first word of the article then should be "The" ] ] 06:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::'''Support'''- Even the lead refers to it as unequal treaties and there's more than one treaty, it should be plural. |
|
] → ] — This was originally tagged as {{tl|db-housekeeping}}, but I'm bringing it here because it could potentially be a controversial move. See on my talk page for more background. This is a procedural WP:RM request, so I am '''neutral'''. ] (]) 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] (]) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
* '''Support''' - I requested the deletion. It does not appear from the article that "Unequal Treaties" is the proper name of a specific set of treaties, rather it refers to a type of treaty. The article - except for one occurrence of "Unequal" in the second para of the Overview section and what appears to be a miscapitalized section header - consistently uses "unequal treay" and "unequal treaties". Since this is not a proper name the article should be moved. ] (]) 05:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* '''Support''', an understandable title both ways, but the sources used with titles including "unequal" use the plural "treaties" which feels indicative. ] (]) 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Partial oppose''' It should be ], since it covers (in principle) all of them. But the capitalization should be fixed. (This is effectively a proper name, since there have been treaties which were unequal before and since; but idiom is lower case.) ] <small>]</small> 15:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
*'''Oppose''' as this article seems to cover a set of treaties instead of the concept, it should be plural. ] (]) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
|
*'''Oppose'''. This is not just about a general concept of various treaties which happen to be unequal. Rather, the capitalized proper term is most commonly applied within a very particular geographical and historical context; within that context, it is not any one 'unequal treaty' but all of "''The'' Unequal Treaties" which apply to a given country which are considered together as a single historical force, phenomenon, or situation within each country's history. ] (]) 05:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Lord Ameth, or at any rate, what he had written before I hit an edit conflict. ]<small>]</small> 05:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per the same reasoning as given by LordAmeth. This is a very common usage referring to a specific set of unequal treaties. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">]</font> · ]</small> 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Other Treaties Under this Concept == |
|
|
After reading the aforementioned concepts, I agree that there is a generally understood concept of "Unequal Treaties" as treaties imposed upon Asian countries roughly during the nineteenth century. But there doesn't seem to be any recognition of the 1855 Anglo-Thai treaty? |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, how about "unequal treaties" imposed upon semi-autonomous countries? The existing list includes treaties imposed on Korea and China by Japan, so why not other Asian countries or semi-autonomous countries? For example: |
|
|
* the 1856 Treaty between Nepal and Tibet recognizing powers of Nepal in Tibet and an indemnity payment; |
|
|
* the 1904 Anglo-Tibetan treaty recognizing a broad expansion of exclusive English privileges in Tibet; |
|
|
* the 1915 Treaty of Kyakhta between Mongolia, Russia, and China recognizing exclusive privileges of Russia in Mongolia. |
|
|
] (]) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Japan-Korea relations in 1904-1905 == |
|
|
] is correct . |
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
! Korean Misplaced Pages |
|
|
! English Misplaced Pages |
|
|
! Japanese Misplaced Pages |
|
|
! Comments? |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|
|
|
|] |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|See Korean Mission to the Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Washington, D.C., 1921-1922. (1922). {{Google books|9OdAAAAAYAAJ|''Korea's Appeal,'' p. 34.|page=34}};<br> excerpt, "Treaty of Alliance Between Japan and Korea, dated February 23, 1904." |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|See Korean Mission, {{Google books|9OdAAAAAYAAJ|p. 35.|page=35}};<br> excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated August 22, 1904." |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
|] |
|
|
| |
|
|
|See Korean Mission, {{Google books|9OdAAAAAYAAJ|p. 35.|page=35}};<br> excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated April 1, 1905." |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
|] |
|
|
| |
|
|
|See Korean Mission, {{Google books|9OdAAAAAYAAJ|p. 35.|page=35}};<br> excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated August 13, 1905." |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|] (])<br>See Korean Mission, {{Google books|9OdAAAAAYAAJ|p. 35.|page=35}};<br> excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated November 17, 1905." |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|See Korean Mission, {{Google books|9OdAAAAAYAAJ|p. 35.|page=35}};<br> excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated July 24, 1907." |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
When I reverted ]'s edit, I was simply wrong. --] (]) 21:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:] and ] have not suitable original name. I also know nothing about it.--] (]) 11:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
