Talk:Unequal treaty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Chinese and Japanese Unequal Treaties[edit]

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)

Peking Treaty of 1880[edit]

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)

Probably this refers to the so-called Burlingame Treaty of 1868. ch (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2013 (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?[edit]

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)

Use of Asian characters[edit]

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)

Page move[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

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.--Niohe 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. --Danaman5 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? LordAmeth 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Anony ref[edit]

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)


Non-Asian Treaties[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)
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))

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Recent Studies[edit]

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)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. 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.Juliancolton | Talk 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Unequal TreatiesUnequal 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)

  • 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. Otto4711 (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Partial oppose It should be unequal treaties, 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.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this article seems to cover a set of treaties instead of the concept, it should be plural. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 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. LordAmeth (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lord Ameth, or at any rate, what he had written before I hit an edit conflict. Dekimasuよ! 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. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Other Treaties Under this Concept[edit]

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)

Japan-Korea relations in 1904-1905[edit]

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)

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)

Usage of "unequal treaties" in the text[edit]

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)

Quite. Simply because a given government/group of scholars/whatever (Chinese or whatever) wish to consider a given group of treaties as "unequal" (an inherently POV term under the circumstances) does not mean that they were unequal (nor that they were not, of course), nor for that matter that they were/are invalid/illegitimate. Allens (talk | contribs) 04:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The concept is inherently POV. Taken literally the term should apply to a vast number of treaties throughout history, yet it seems only China (and Japan, in a few fig-leaf instances) can be a victim (and China can only be a victim) of unequal treaties. The article doesn't attempt to define an unequal treaty in a neutral way. From the outset it is stated that "unequal treaty" is merely a reference to certain treaties "imposed by Western powers, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, on Qing Dynasty China and late Tokugawa Japan". It's not the character of the treaty or the circumstances of its negotiation that make a treaty unequal, but the period and ethnicities of the subjects! Was the Treaty_of_Saint_Petersburg so unequal? Russia surrendered territory and the treaty was widely seen as a setback in Russia. Was European weakling Portugal powerful enough in 1887 to impose a treaty on China? Qemist (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Not that it is particularly relevant, but yes Portugal was plenty able to impose treaties because of the military advantages it had due to technological advantages. And I would guess they could probably count on a bit of solidarity from other European powers who wouldn't want Chinese thinking they could defeat European powers. Readin (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If you're arguing that we shouldn't have the article, I disagree. The term is definitely POV, but it is a well-known term used by the Chinese for some real treaties. The issue isn't whether we have the article; the issue is how to refer to the treaties within the article so that we avoid taking the same POV as those who created the term "unequal treaties". Readin (talk) 18:14, 26 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)

I agree the term should be used but we have to be careful it complies with WP:NPOV. Today on the front page, the term was used without any qualifiers which I've now rectified. To repeat what I said elsewhere, the term carries loaded political connotations pertaining to Chinese nationalist or historical narratives. Now, the term unequal treaty is also used in an academic context, not just in a nationalistic sense, but even then it's often put in quotes, italics, prefixed with "so-called", or otherwise given some kind of proper context. So to comply with NPOV, we should do the same thing. Yes the treaties were "unequal" in the sense that more powerful countries used force, threats, or coercion to impose terms on China. No-one disagrees about this "unequal" balance of power. But the implicit POV is to lend credence or support to the pro-Chinese view that these treaties are "invalid". The problem with that is it's anachronistically applying modern-day, post-colonial sentiments to a different era. Back then, the Right of conquest was considered a valid way to acquire territory.
So basically, it's perfectly neutral to say China views a certain treaty as an unequal treaty. But at the very least, to use that term without any qualifiers or context as if it's a universally accepted category of treaty definitely violates NPOV. If this was the Great People's Patriotic Encyclopedia of China, then yes using that term in a matter-of-fact way would be fine. But it's not OK for an encyclopedia with NPOV as a core policy. Spellcast (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternate viewpoints[edit]

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)

"... 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..."[edit]

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)

Treaties with Germany[edit]

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)

TTIP[edit]

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)

Assessment comment[edit]

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)

All treaties are "unequal"[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Good point. It would help if editors in those situations put "Unequal Treaty" in quotes.ch (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
" 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)
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)

Possible adding of Treaties between Siam and Foreign countries[edit]

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)

Portugal's possession of Macau appears to long predate the "unequal treaty" era[edit]

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)

I'd say you are obviously correct. Pashley (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Mongolia related unequal treaty removed[edit]

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] Flag of China (1912–1928).svg Republic of China (1912–49), Russian Empire[2]
  1. ^ Kuzmin, S.L. Сentenary of the Kyakhta Agreement of 1915 between Russia, Mongolia and China. – Asia and Africa Today (Moscow), 2015, no 4, p. 60-63
  2. ^ O. The Last King of Mongolia, Bogdo Jebtsundamba Khutuktu. Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2008, p.290-293 - ISBN 978-99929-0-464-0