Talk:List of United States treaties

message: Just some to do notes: 1) check this list against the Avalon Project; 2) separate into bi-lateral and multilateral treaties. 
Also, what wikipedia needs is a page or section that lists treaties between specific major powers. So, if I'm trying to figure out what treaties exist between the U.S. and Russia (multi and bi lateral) they're all listed in one place...
older≠wiser 19:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think we need to come up with a consensus on treaties that are not ratified and will almost certainly not be ratified: should they be included or not? I am leaning towards 'no' unless there is a very compelling reason as in the case of the Post-WW1 treaties. AlexeiSeptimus 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Ratified Treaties

message: Most of the treaties between the United States and Native American entities were not with what we normally call 'governments'. The U.S., like the European colonizers and their successor states, tried to impose a model of political organization on Native American entities that did not fit. Signatures on the treaties were usually obtained from chiefs who had limited authority, particularly in regard to alienation of land and/or relocation. To say that Native American entities were governments because only governments can enter into treaties is a non sequitur. -- Donald Albury 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Tribal sovereignty. CJLippert 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While true in certain cases, I don't see how it affects us here. We simply list everything the U.S. considers a treaty. If the whole debate is over the phrase: "between the U.S. and Native American governments", it can easily be rephrased to "between the U.S. and Native Americans" or something. Rmhermen 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As a note, in a system of confederation of village nations where a grand council formed from the participating village nation parties bringing up resolutions and acts, the authorized representatives of the grand council are allowed to act on only the items that were passed on a consensus (and not a compromise), and only on behalf of the participating village nations of the grand council.  In addition, each village nation had its own council, and only the resolutions and acts passed in a consensus (and again, not a compromise) was allowed to be brought up to a grand council, if the village nation so chooses to participate in such a grand council.  The error on the European governments and their daughter governments were to assume that a there was a federal system government in place, and applying many of these treaty items to non-participating governments.Only as a hypothetical example, if Spain treated Germany, Austria and the Switzerland as a single peoplehood, the germanic governments would have been offended, especially the Germans of pre-federated Germany.  Continuing with the example, if Spain then signed a treaty with Germany and Austria, but Saxony did not participate in the treaty party process for that pre-federated Germany, and then Spain applied the treaty items to Switzerland and all of Germany, the Swiss and the Saxons would be highly angered at Spain.  Often, this type of experience was what the village nations of Indigenous North American peoples experienced with the European governments and their daughter governments.  CJLippert 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting discussion. I would not always say it was an "error" that the Europeans assumed the signers spoke for some imagined political/ethnic unit. For example, in English we have the phrase "puppet state or government". Intentionally finding signers who will agree (bribes, threats etc) and claiming they have power, is probably a tactic that goes back thousands of years.  I would also argue that the Native Americans possibly believed that those on the other side had complete authority, when they did not. For example both parties signed a treaty, which was really a ceasefire/truce because it was never recognized via the current laws of the United States. :)  Rcollman (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

text: And I have doubled checked some of the entries in Vol 18 about Acts of Congress, in my opinion they were not treaties.  I made a note and let some time go by before we decide what  to do. Rcollman (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaties with Native American entities

message: I appreciate that "Treaties with Native Americans" is a controversial topic. In my view, if one or both of the parties who signed an agreement, thought it was a treaty, it should be in this list. The wikipedia sub section table headings obviously used Royce's tables for the cessation or reservation of "Indian Lands" as a starting point. Royce cites more than just treaties for the addition or subtraction of "Indian Lands" from 1784 to 1895.  The tables note the change in the law that created a different process for "Indian" agreements which supports Royce's tables.  I thought the additions to the introduction are useful to readers who may not be familiar with the US Constitution or the way "treaty" is used in a historical context or today.  
A future improvement might be to turn the last paragraph into a footnote. Tagged to every table heading for the Royce's area. I was clueless what that meant.  Rcollman (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have doubled checked some of the entries in Vol 18 about Acts of Congress, in my opinion they were not treaties.  I made a note and let some time go by before we decide what  to do. Rcollman (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaties, Royce's Areas and his tables

message: *There's a list online  of many of the dates and statutes missing for many treaties on this page. The book is Elmer F. Bennett, Federal Indian Law, 2008. Twang (talk)
* has a list of publications of congress.
* The  template is not consistent in it's links to [United States Statutes at Large].  All go to Legis Works.  Legis Works redirects some volumes to Wikisource.  For example the template:USStat link for Vol 7 goes to a specific page in Legis Works volume pdf.  However the template:USStat link for Vol 11 is redirected to Wikisource.
:Legisworks link take the user to a specific page in a larger PDF file for the Volume.  The Wikisource redirect takes the user to a specific page image with an OCR/text shown to the side.  Wikisource does not indicate there are additional pages. It is possible to download each of the volumes from Legis Works here.Rcollman (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Online resources

message: According to the UN, America has not signed nor ratified the UNCLOS. Maybe it should be stated more clearly? (It only states 'not ratified')  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.32.61 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Law of the Sea

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of United States treaties. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326014901/http://law.upd.edu.ph/plj/images/files/PLJ%20volume%2060/PLJ%20Volume%2060%20supplemental%20issue%20-012-%20Treaty%20between%20spain%20and%20the%20United%20States.pdf to http://law.upd.edu.ph/plj/images/files/PLJ%20volume%2060/PLJ%20Volume%2060%20supplemental%20issue%20-012-%20Treaty%20between%20spain%20and%20the%20United%20States.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of United States treaties. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615052945/http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/oct2000/138570.htm to http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/oct2000/138570.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615052945/http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/oct2000/138570.htm to http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/oct2000/138570.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110407072031/http://www.geerts.com/Holland/house-orange5.htm to http://www.geerts.com/Holland/house-orange5.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627122832/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba001.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba001.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've noticed discrepancies between this article and the List of treaties article. Some treaties to which the U.S. was/is a party which are listed there are not listed here and, probably, vice-versa. I'm wondering what the intended relationship is between the two articles, or whether there is any intent in this regard at all. Should the arrticles be reconciled? Should this article be merged into that one? Should some other solution be applied? All that is rhetorical on my part, but probably ought to be discussed by editors more involved with these articles than I. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship of this article to the ''List of Treaties'' article 

message: No mention of copyright treaties eg the Buenos Aires Convention of 1910, America ratified in 1911; or the Berne Convention (America ratified?). Hugo999 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright treaties 

message: Under US law, some of the agreements listed in the article are not considered treaties. For example, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was not ratified by the US Senate, and was essentially a political commitment by the US president. What is the definition of "treaty" being used in this article? The lede is unclear on this, referring variously to "treaties" and to "international agreements". A consistent definition should be applied, and if "international agreements" that are not actually treaties are included, then the article should be renamed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree.  That JCPA is nowhere near a treaty. Neither are the Paris Climate Accords.  I get a whiff of partisans spuriously promoting their pet agreements to status of "treaty". 73.85.207.39 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "treaty" 

message: I was all set to set up redirects between alternative treaty names and the main article in the US/Native American treaty section. However, I found after I'd gotten started that many of the alternative names are fairly repetitive just being in "Treaty with _______" format. I'm not sure if it makes sense to set up date-based redirects as I did in this instance, or just remove the redlinks, or maybe just ignore them? It seems like either redirects should be set up or they should be delinked. Would appreciate others' thoughts. Thanks. Jessamyn (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  redlinks in alternative treaty names 

message: The United States was not a party to the treaty, which was explicitly between "THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, GREECE, ROUMANIA and the SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, of the one part, and TURKEY, of the other part" (see https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne), did not accordingly sign the treaty, nor was the treaty ever submitted to the US Senate for consideration of ratification.
The Allied delegation did include U.S. Admiral Mark L. Bristol, who participated in the proceedings but did not sign the treaty, as the US was not a party. If the participation of an American in a treaty's proceedings makes a treaty eligible for this list, then I suspect many more treaties need to be added. 72.74.109.250 (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it Jehorn (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne on this list of US treaties?