This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Unequal treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mhartford.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It's also used concerning the Japanese unequal treaties (1854 and the following years) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.238.177.66 ( talk)
Chinese wiki has a featured article on unequal treaties and more info can be translated from there. Ware ware 01:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia? -- Slashme 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.
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? LordAmeth 12:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need the names in Chinese, etc, when these names easily can be found in the articles on the treaties themselves?-- Niohe 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Danaman5 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. -- Danaman5 02:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
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. Benjwong 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunbeam16 ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
An example of the mindset; Managing the Barbarians in Time of Crisis - http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob52.html ( JollyJackRoger ( talk) 10:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC))
White chauvinism is calling an article east asian chauvinism when the whole term unequel treaty was invented by english language scholars. Do you feel stupid now boy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckeggsoup ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
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). ch ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was no consensus to move. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Unequal Treaties → Unequal treaty — This was originally tagged as {{ db-housekeeping}}, but I'm bringing it here because it could potentially be a controversial move. See this section on my talk page for more background. This is a procedural WP:RM request, so I am neutral. Cunard ( talk) 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
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:
164.76.106.154 ( talk) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Historiographer is correct here.
Korean Wikipedia | English Wikipedia | Japanese Wikipedia | Comments? |
---|---|---|---|
ko:한일의정서 | Japan-Korea Treaty of 1904 | ja:日韓議定書 | See Korean Mission to the Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Washington, D.C., 1921-1922. (1922).
Korea's Appeal, p. 34., p. 34, at
Google Books; excerpt, "Treaty of Alliance Between Japan and Korea, dated February 23, 1904." |
ko:제1차 한일 협약 | Japan-Korea Protocol of August 1904 | ja:第一次日韓協約 | See Korean Mission,
p. 35., p. 35, at
Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated August 22, 1904." |
Japan-Korea Protocol of April 1905 | See Korean Mission,
p. 35., p. 35, at
Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated April 1, 1905." | ||
Japan-Korea Protocol of August 1905 | See Korean Mission,
p. 35., p. 35, at
Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated August 13, 1905." | ||
ko:제2차 한일 협약 | Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 | ja:第二次日韓協約 |
ko:을사조약 (
en:Eulsa Treaty) See Korean Mission, p. 35., p. 35, at Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated November 17, 1905." |
ko:제3차 한일 협약 | Japan-Korea Treaty of 1907 | ja:第三次日韓協約 | See Korean Mission,
p. 35., p. 35, at
Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated July 24, 1907." |
When I reverted Historiographer's edit, I was simply wrong. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The Chinese do use the term "unequal treaty" to refer to certain treaties they signed, but their use of the term does not mean that the treaties were necessarily unequal and it seems a violation of NPOV to routinely describe them as such. Yet throughout the text of the article we fine sentences like "The unequal treaties ended at various times for the countries involved." and "Korea's unequal treaties with European states became largely null and void in 1910, when it was annexed by Japan." Shouldn't we either remove the term "unequal" from these usages (since it is obvious what treaties are being discussed) or else use some other method to indicate that we are using the term as preferred by the Chinese (perhaps capitalizing Unequal Treaties or putting "unequal treaties" in quotes)? Readin ( talk) 02:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The term is POV, but it is widely used, so it makes sense to keep it. However, the POV issue is a serious one in this case, because if we just adopt the term that is used by Chinese nationalist historians, we are basically giving implicit recognition to the correctness of their interpretation of history. I suggest two possible ways of fixing this: 1) I think if we are creative we could find a solution to the POV problem without ditching the name. For example in the article text use the term 'so-called unequal treaties' or put 'unequal treaties' in quotes or something like that to indicate that the article takes a neutral position on the subject without actually endorsing the position that the treaties were unequal. 2) Change the name entirely to something like 'Chinese treaties signed with foreign states from 1843-1949' and then include a mention in the introduction that these treaties are termed 'unequal treaties' by Chinese historians, but do not adopt this name itself throughout the remainder of the article. My personal opinion on the subject is that the treaties in question were unequal, as were a massive multitude of other treaties and agreements down throughout history involving states across the world, including those forced by China on its own neighbours, but it is wrong to unquestionably adopt that term in an encyclopedia that is aiming for neutrality. Reesorville ( talk) 02:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a section with that title Unequal_treaty#Alternative_viewpoints, but it seems largely unintelligible, heavily POV and perhaps original research since the writer is arguing points and analyzing the research of others. I think the whole thing could just be deleted.
Would anyone care to add some actual alternate viewpoints, like the general European view at the time that the Qing were hopelessly corrupt, arbitrary and cruel, and basically moribund, that the West was being generous in agreeing to send ambassadors and treat the Chinese Emperor with the same honours they would give a European king, even to pretend he was the equal of Victoria. To them Chinese pretensions such as expecting to treat the "barbarians" as tribute bearers and have them kowtow to the "Son of Heaven" were utterly laughable. Pashley ( talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I follow the above remarks -- sarcasm is dangerous -- but the section "Alternate viewpoints" in any case is not directed to the subject of the article, so I went ahead and cut it. That is, ultra vires might well mean that some of the treaties were illegitimate, but this is different from being unequal, while the status of treaties with Japan as of 1941 is not in the topic area of this article either. ch ( talk) 06:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Surely this is misleading, as China didn't treat others as equals before the Opium Wars, and specifically rejected a British delegation because the UK wanted treaties on equal terms?
Of course the Chinese would feel humiliated by this degradation of once-dominant influence in the Sinosphere to semi-vassal status to the European/American powers. But since the Chinese of the time didn't hold the then-Western notion of equal sovereign nations, this sentence is an anachronism; to even describe the other parties as equals was (I believe) a humiliation forced upon the Chinese in the Treaty of Tiensin, after two Opium Wars.
I invite anyone with a better knowledge of this period to correct or refine this.
Wee Jimmy ( talk) 15:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I am all in favor for including unequal treaties signed with Germany, but the treaty of Tianjin was NOT signed with either Prussia or the German Confederation (see the linked article in Wiki). This should be corrected. Cheers from Berlin, Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.171.70 ( talk) 10:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope that TTIP will never have to be added to this section. If I'm too partsan (yes, I'm against some of the harsher consequences that TTIP will put on the citizens of the country I live in (Germany)) or this is the wrong place to say that... feel free to move this message or delete it altogether. Give me the courtesy of notifying me, though. Please.
By the way. Shouldn't the title be "Unequal treatys (or treaties?)"? It is mainly (or overall?) referring on the influence on China or influence by China,
Washuu de ( talk) 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Unequal treaty/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The list of treaties needs to be expanded to explain the specific aspects of each treaty that place them in this group. -- Danaman5 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 05:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Every treaty ever made is unequal. One side has more power and gets more than is "fair", at least according to the other side. After every war in history, the winners impose terms on the losers. China does it when it wins. It doesn't call the treaties it imposes "unequal". The term is only used by China and those sucking up to them or suffering some post-colonial white guilt. It's sad to see this nationalist propaganda enshrined in Wikipedia as a valid term. 202.81.249.94 ( talk) 11:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
It could be correct to add also the treaties of XIX cent. between Siam and others foreign countries Like "Bowring treaty" ? -- Julian Hallon ( talk) 10:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Although the Sino-Portuguese Treaty (1887) is counted by China among the "Unequal treaties", the Luso-Chinese agreement (1554) is the act by which the Portuguese established themselves in Macau, thus surely making an unqualified "and Macau to Portugal)" in the second paragraph of the section "China" rather misleading. I don't dispute that the Chinese see the 1887 treaty as unequal, and that it was almost certainly the first document including the concept of transfer of title or lease to the Portuguese, but does not its casual inclusion alongside Manchuria and Hong Kong risk misleading a less knowledgeable reader as to 300+ years of de facto Portuguese occupation of Macau? If we particularly need three examples in the parentheses, why not another Treaty Port such as Qingdao/Tsingtao? CharlesSpencer ( talk) 06:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Unequal treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
It is removed because it does not fit the definition of "unequal treaty" of this article. We cannot simply add any treaty that is perceived as "unequal" by a party of the treaty. The removed material is attached below for record.
Treaty | Year | Imposer | |
---|---|---|---|
English name | Mongolian name | ||
Treaty of Kyakhta (1915) |
Хиагтын гэрээ (Гурван улсын хэлэлцээр) | 1915 [1] |
![]() ![]() |
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Unequal treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mhartford.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It's also used concerning the Japanese unequal treaties (1854 and the following years) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.238.177.66 ( talk)
Chinese wiki has a featured article on unequal treaties and more info can be translated from there. Ware ware 01:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia? -- Slashme 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.
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? LordAmeth 12:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need the names in Chinese, etc, when these names easily can be found in the articles on the treaties themselves?-- Niohe 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Danaman5 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. -- Danaman5 02:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
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. Benjwong 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunbeam16 ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
An example of the mindset; Managing the Barbarians in Time of Crisis - http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob52.html ( JollyJackRoger ( talk) 10:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC))
White chauvinism is calling an article east asian chauvinism when the whole term unequel treaty was invented by english language scholars. Do you feel stupid now boy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckeggsoup ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
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). ch ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was no consensus to move. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Unequal Treaties → Unequal treaty — This was originally tagged as {{ db-housekeeping}}, but I'm bringing it here because it could potentially be a controversial move. See this section on my talk page for more background. This is a procedural WP:RM request, so I am neutral. Cunard ( talk) 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
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:
164.76.106.154 ( talk) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Historiographer is correct here.
Korean Wikipedia | English Wikipedia | Japanese Wikipedia | Comments? |
---|---|---|---|
ko:한일의정서 | Japan-Korea Treaty of 1904 | ja:日韓議定書 | See Korean Mission to the Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Washington, D.C., 1921-1922. (1922).
Korea's Appeal, p. 34., p. 34, at
Google Books; excerpt, "Treaty of Alliance Between Japan and Korea, dated February 23, 1904." |
ko:제1차 한일 협약 | Japan-Korea Protocol of August 1904 | ja:第一次日韓協約 | See Korean Mission,
p. 35., p. 35, at
Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated August 22, 1904." |
Japan-Korea Protocol of April 1905 | See Korean Mission,
p. 35., p. 35, at
Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated April 1, 1905." | ||
Japan-Korea Protocol of August 1905 | See Korean Mission,
p. 35., p. 35, at
Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated August 13, 1905." | ||
ko:제2차 한일 협약 | Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 | ja:第二次日韓協約 |
ko:을사조약 (
en:Eulsa Treaty) See Korean Mission, p. 35., p. 35, at Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated November 17, 1905." |
ko:제3차 한일 협약 | Japan-Korea Treaty of 1907 | ja:第三次日韓協約 | See Korean Mission,
p. 35., p. 35, at
Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated July 24, 1907." |
When I reverted Historiographer's edit, I was simply wrong. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The Chinese do use the term "unequal treaty" to refer to certain treaties they signed, but their use of the term does not mean that the treaties were necessarily unequal and it seems a violation of NPOV to routinely describe them as such. Yet throughout the text of the article we fine sentences like "The unequal treaties ended at various times for the countries involved." and "Korea's unequal treaties with European states became largely null and void in 1910, when it was annexed by Japan." Shouldn't we either remove the term "unequal" from these usages (since it is obvious what treaties are being discussed) or else use some other method to indicate that we are using the term as preferred by the Chinese (perhaps capitalizing Unequal Treaties or putting "unequal treaties" in quotes)? Readin ( talk) 02:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The term is POV, but it is widely used, so it makes sense to keep it. However, the POV issue is a serious one in this case, because if we just adopt the term that is used by Chinese nationalist historians, we are basically giving implicit recognition to the correctness of their interpretation of history. I suggest two possible ways of fixing this: 1) I think if we are creative we could find a solution to the POV problem without ditching the name. For example in the article text use the term 'so-called unequal treaties' or put 'unequal treaties' in quotes or something like that to indicate that the article takes a neutral position on the subject without actually endorsing the position that the treaties were unequal. 2) Change the name entirely to something like 'Chinese treaties signed with foreign states from 1843-1949' and then include a mention in the introduction that these treaties are termed 'unequal treaties' by Chinese historians, but do not adopt this name itself throughout the remainder of the article. My personal opinion on the subject is that the treaties in question were unequal, as were a massive multitude of other treaties and agreements down throughout history involving states across the world, including those forced by China on its own neighbours, but it is wrong to unquestionably adopt that term in an encyclopedia that is aiming for neutrality. Reesorville ( talk) 02:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a section with that title Unequal_treaty#Alternative_viewpoints, but it seems largely unintelligible, heavily POV and perhaps original research since the writer is arguing points and analyzing the research of others. I think the whole thing could just be deleted.
Would anyone care to add some actual alternate viewpoints, like the general European view at the time that the Qing were hopelessly corrupt, arbitrary and cruel, and basically moribund, that the West was being generous in agreeing to send ambassadors and treat the Chinese Emperor with the same honours they would give a European king, even to pretend he was the equal of Victoria. To them Chinese pretensions such as expecting to treat the "barbarians" as tribute bearers and have them kowtow to the "Son of Heaven" were utterly laughable. Pashley ( talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I follow the above remarks -- sarcasm is dangerous -- but the section "Alternate viewpoints" in any case is not directed to the subject of the article, so I went ahead and cut it. That is, ultra vires might well mean that some of the treaties were illegitimate, but this is different from being unequal, while the status of treaties with Japan as of 1941 is not in the topic area of this article either. ch ( talk) 06:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Surely this is misleading, as China didn't treat others as equals before the Opium Wars, and specifically rejected a British delegation because the UK wanted treaties on equal terms?
Of course the Chinese would feel humiliated by this degradation of once-dominant influence in the Sinosphere to semi-vassal status to the European/American powers. But since the Chinese of the time didn't hold the then-Western notion of equal sovereign nations, this sentence is an anachronism; to even describe the other parties as equals was (I believe) a humiliation forced upon the Chinese in the Treaty of Tiensin, after two Opium Wars.
I invite anyone with a better knowledge of this period to correct or refine this.
Wee Jimmy ( talk) 15:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I am all in favor for including unequal treaties signed with Germany, but the treaty of Tianjin was NOT signed with either Prussia or the German Confederation (see the linked article in Wiki). This should be corrected. Cheers from Berlin, Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.171.70 ( talk) 10:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope that TTIP will never have to be added to this section. If I'm too partsan (yes, I'm against some of the harsher consequences that TTIP will put on the citizens of the country I live in (Germany)) or this is the wrong place to say that... feel free to move this message or delete it altogether. Give me the courtesy of notifying me, though. Please.
By the way. Shouldn't the title be "Unequal treatys (or treaties?)"? It is mainly (or overall?) referring on the influence on China or influence by China,
Washuu de ( talk) 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Unequal treaty/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The list of treaties needs to be expanded to explain the specific aspects of each treaty that place them in this group. -- Danaman5 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 05:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Every treaty ever made is unequal. One side has more power and gets more than is "fair", at least according to the other side. After every war in history, the winners impose terms on the losers. China does it when it wins. It doesn't call the treaties it imposes "unequal". The term is only used by China and those sucking up to them or suffering some post-colonial white guilt. It's sad to see this nationalist propaganda enshrined in Wikipedia as a valid term. 202.81.249.94 ( talk) 11:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
It could be correct to add also the treaties of XIX cent. between Siam and others foreign countries Like "Bowring treaty" ? -- Julian Hallon ( talk) 10:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Although the Sino-Portuguese Treaty (1887) is counted by China among the "Unequal treaties", the Luso-Chinese agreement (1554) is the act by which the Portuguese established themselves in Macau, thus surely making an unqualified "and Macau to Portugal)" in the second paragraph of the section "China" rather misleading. I don't dispute that the Chinese see the 1887 treaty as unequal, and that it was almost certainly the first document including the concept of transfer of title or lease to the Portuguese, but does not its casual inclusion alongside Manchuria and Hong Kong risk misleading a less knowledgeable reader as to 300+ years of de facto Portuguese occupation of Macau? If we particularly need three examples in the parentheses, why not another Treaty Port such as Qingdao/Tsingtao? CharlesSpencer ( talk) 06:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Unequal treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
It is removed because it does not fit the definition of "unequal treaty" of this article. We cannot simply add any treaty that is perceived as "unequal" by a party of the treaty. The removed material is attached below for record.
Treaty | Year | Imposer | |
---|---|---|---|
English name | Mongolian name | ||
Treaty of Kyakhta (1915) |
Хиагтын гэрээ (Гурван улсын хэлэлцээр) | 1915 [1] |
![]() ![]() |
References