Jump to content

Talk:Unequal treaties

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 6 July 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unequal treatyUnequal treaties – Usually referred to in the plural as a collection, per WP:NCPLURAL. Remsense 18:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Korea, WikiProject China, WikiProject Hong Kong, and WikiProject Japan have been notified of this discussion. Remsense 18:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Google ngrams also suggests that "Unequal treaties" is much more common than "Unequal treaty". --Wengier (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Have only ever seen this in the plural form. Folly Mox (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I see that this article is more focusing about multiple set of historical treaties, many of them are unequel treaties. 2404:8000:1037:178:BC59:A73B:4305:D032 (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Walrasiad (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Korea quick search in books, japan in scholar 211.43.120.242 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - excellent catch. The first word of the article then should be "The" Red Slash 06:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Even the lead refers to it as unequal treaties and there's more than one treaty, it should be plural.
Urchincrawler (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, an understandable title both ways, but the sources used with titles including "unequal" use the plural "treaties" which feels indicative. CMD (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.