Talk:Unequal treaty

message: 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.  Wareware 01:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese and Japanese Unequal Treaties

message: 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)
replies: text: Probably this refers to the so-called Burlingame Treaty of 1868. ch (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peking Treaty of 1880

message: 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)
thread_title: Who uses this term?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of Asian characters 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anony ref

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  Looking at the title, the Versailles treaty was the first that I thought of when it came to "unequal". KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 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
(JollyJackRoger (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Qemist (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a fair point. Regardless, these continue to be called "the Unequal Treaties" in scholarship. We here at Wikipedia report what is widely accepted; we don't seek to change it or represent it differently. LordAmeth (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Asian Treaties

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent Studies 

message: 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.
164.76.106.154 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Treaties Under this Concept 

message: 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). ; 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, ; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated August 22, 1904."
                            	Japan-Korea Protocol of April 1905 	                              	See Korean Mission, ; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated April 1, 1905."
                            	Japan-Korea Protocol of August 1905	                              	See Korean Mission, ; 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, ; 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, ; 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)
replies: text: Japan-Korea Protocol of April 1905 and Japan-Korea Protocol of August 1905 have not suitable original name. I also know nothing about it.--Historiographer (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan-Korea relations in 1904-1905 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alternate viewpoints 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "... not negotiated by nations treating each other as equals but were imposed on China after a war, and because they encroached upon China's sovereign rights..." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Treaties with Germany 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TTIP 

message: Substituted at 05:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
replies: text: They've been covered under this name in multiple reliable sources, so Wikipedia would be remiss if they didn't cover it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 14:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Multiple sources parroting the Chinese view. Does the other nation that signed these treaties call them "unequal"? WP is taking sides by following China's post-Revolution terminology that demonises anyone who ever made China lose face. Does "covering" it mean that every one of these treaties has to be labelled "unequal" in its lead para? Because that's how it is now. It's not a point of view, it's a fact. Britain was evil. Wikipedia certifies it because "multiple reliable sources" say so. Is the Sino-British Joint Declaration an unequal treaty? Wikipedia doesn't think so, despite Deng twisting Thatcher's arm to get exactly the terms he wanted. It's just a treaty that was signed "on behalf of their respective governments". No finger wagging there. But any treaty where China didn't call the shots is "unequal". But all those evil white imperialists are dead and buried, so we can spit on them with impunity. 202.81.249.94 (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's the common term in the scholarship whether every wiki editor likes it or not. regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Without changing the definition, I edited to make clear that this is a term applied to specific treaties, not treaties in and of themselves.ch (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Also it's a problem if the articles on the various treaties open with the sentence "Treaty of X is an unequal treaty between...". It's perfectly neutral to say that China views it as part of what they call the unequal treaties, but to start the first sentence like that, without any clarification of the term, as if it's some kind of universally accepted category of treaty seems to violate NPOV. Spellcast (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. It would help if editors in those situations put "Unequal Treaty" in quotes.ch (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. That is the point I was making. The unqualified description of these treaties as unequal, no quotes, in their leads, makes it a fact that WP endorses, when obviously fairness or otherwise is a point of view. Endorsing the terms, in the leads as the very first thing  said about them, endorses the point of view of the side (China) that uses (ad nauseam) the term. It is very clearly not a neutral term. But as I said at first, it would be more remarkable if any post-war treaty was not unequal, I don't know why these handful of treaties should be singled out and labelled as particularly unequal when others are not. Why do we have to use this loaded term every time one of these treaties is mentioned? The Treaty of Versailles was hardly an "equal treaty". We don't give primacy to Germany's view though. China is asserting itself as a rising world power, and delegitimising previous powers it was subservient to a century ago with word games like this is part of its strategy. Probably living in Hong Kong I am more sensitive to how Chinese propagandists colour every discussion of history there; to see it also pervade WP is disturbing. 202.81.249.153 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you can't expect an ideology like nationalism (no matter what country) to have consistent logic. Double standards and nationalism go together like bread and butter. Putting the term in quotes would be fine, but the only way to give the proper context is to explain where the term came from. Spellcast (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

text:  " I don't know why these handful of treaties should be singled out and labelled as particularly unequal when others are not." Because it is a widely-accepted term for this particular set of treaties. That has been established for decades; it is not POV-pushing when it is a widely-accepted term. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you're right, sources use that term, frequently in quotes or italics. No-one is suggesting not to use it. Just saying that putting unequal treaty without any context of that term can be misleading, though unintentionally. These treaty articles can't possibly be improved without giving the context of where the term came from. Spellcast (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  All treaties are "unequal" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible adding of Treaties between Siam and Foreign countries 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd say you are obviously correct. Pashley (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal's possession of Macau appears to long predate the "unequal treaty" era 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005153328/http://english.historyfoundation.or.kr/Data/Jnah/J5_2_A3.pdf to http://english.historyfoundation.or.kr/Data/Jnah/J5_2_A3.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) 08:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should we move this article from Unequal Treaty to Unequal Treaties? This is because this is an article followed by a list of unequal treaties between the West, Japan and the Russian Empire and China and Korea, instead of just one treaty. Thanks, Cupcake547 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move and Rename?