Talk:Treaty ports
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Concerning "unequal treaties" and neutral POV: in this case the term "unequal treaties" seems to be widely used in current historical writing for just the set of treaties this article is concerned with. Yes, I suppose it is a value judgement, but it's in the historiography and, in fact, the relevant article is called "Unequal Treaties." 'Neutralizing' this term removes rather than adds clarity, especially for people who may want to do further research on treaty ports and the associated East-West relations. That said, I've changed it back ; ) (First comment; gosh that's intimidating. --AG) 134.10.28.249 09:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merger?
A merger with European enclaves seems absurd since most treaty ports were NOT enclaves, but remained, at least theoretically, integral parts of the Chinese empire, which often retained responsibility for most Chinese inhabitants, while the colonial powers enjoyed extraterritorial rights for themselves and their trade. Fastifex 09:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
