Jump to content

Talk:List of treaties

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

Why do we need a list of all treaties ever??

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DIRECTORY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory 131.191.93.180 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, no one else saw an issue with this, or not so as to mention it since 2009. Just in case though, here is a part of the first numbered paragraph under the above linked subsection:

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

All but eleven of the listed treaties appear to be notable in their own right, at least as far as having their own articles. I suggest that this is a useful reference table. IMHO (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Shouldnt here be an Item like "Austrian Independence Treaty" in 1955? I actually don't know the english term for it, in german it is referred to as the "Staatsvertrag".

Then click on the edit this page button and add it. - Alureiter 12:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ratification or....

[edit]

Are the treaties ordered by that of signing or date of ratification? I know quite some treaties which have not been ratified, or for example the Kyoto Protocol form 1997, which will be ratified in 2005....

There are really at least three dates involved: signing, ratification, and entry into force. The International Criminal Court statute, for instance, had a delay between the 60th ratification and its entry into force. Since some treaties have not been ratified, for purposes of comprehensiveness, it seems like the logical thing would be to put them by date of signing. From a legal viewpoint, though, the date of entry into force would be the most relevant. Perhaps there is some way to integrate all three types of information into the article, or split it into three articles. Anything is better than what we have now, which is a list of ambiguous dates. Rad Racer 21:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties

[edit]

This is to announce the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties. Using the Template:Treatybox and other templates, we should be able to add dates of signature, ratification, and entry into force to the articles on the various treaties. 205.217.105.2 17:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additional treaties

[edit]

What's the purpose of this section? Seems to be abused by people to lazy to sort entries into the lists above. Also I don't see the value of adding just names here, e.g. current #2 of the list, Treaty of Ankara, it does't link to any article, no discription, no year, nothing. - Alureiter 12:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verb Tense

[edit]

Some of these treaties that came into force in the 21st century are still labeled "comes into force..." Shouldn't these be edited to read, "went into force..."? Joshua Friel 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The present tense is consistently used to both summarize treaties and their respective dates of enforcement. If you (and others) insistently feel that the past tense is better suited in explaining a treaty's date of enforcement, then I would be happy to make the necessary changes. However, when it comes to tenses, consistency is key. Alternating between past, present, and future tenses can potentially confuse readers or merely disrupt the "flow" of a text. This is why the phrase "comes into force..." is used instead of "went into force..." Deucalionite 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edicts

[edit]

Are the edicts of Paris and Pistres, found in this list, really treaties? I would say not. They are executive decrees. Srnec 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some treaties on the list have "edict" in their respective names. Other edicts, which are in fact executive decrees, later become reinforced through treaties. If you wish to create a separate "List of Edicts" article containing only executive decrees, then by all means do so. However, the reason why I placed edicts on the list was because many of them were often associated with treaties. Again, I have no problem if you want to create a separate list of edicts. Of course, one could see an edict as a "one-sided treaty" where the king/queen "agrees" with himself/herself to follow a unilateral approach towards solving a diplomatic or social dilemma. Then again, I could be wrong. If, in the end, you decide to remove the Edict of Pistres or any other edict from this list, then please let me know ahead of time so that I can help. Thanks. Deucalionite 00:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treaties between 85 BC and 387 AD

[edit]

There seems to be a four century gap in the listing of treaties. Are the treaties from 85 BC to 387 AD listed on another Wikipedia page? For example, Phraates IV of Parthia made a treaty with the Romans around 20 AD in which he gave back prisoners and conquered eagles and the kingdom of Armenia was recognized as a dependent of Rome. I'm sure there must be dozens (?hundreds?) of treaties signed during this 400 year period - does anyone have information about them that could be placed on this web page? Thanks David Graham, 18 September 2009


Adams-Onis and Hay-Herbert Treaties

[edit]

These are much more commonly known as the Florida Treaty and the Alaska Boundary Treaty or Alaska Boundary Settlement, also "Award" vs either "Treaty" or "Settlement". It's being asserted that "Hay-Herbert" is the most common usage but I aver that it's most decidedly not, except perhaps in American-focused domestic-context histories. There are no other treaties here named after their two signatory plenipotentiaries, just these two. Is there a naming convention for treaties, or is there a supposition that this is? The Treaty of St. Petersburg of 1825 would then be the "Nesselrode-Bagot Treaty" if this principle were applied across the board. It's also stunning to me that no one saw fit here on e.g. the Adams-Onis Treaty to say "also known as the Florida Treaty", as if that term did not exist, likewise the Alaska Boundary Treaty's conventional name. Is there a policy/guideline anywhere on treaty-name conventions?Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Treaties - 1850-54

[edit]

There were several of these, involving 14 or so indigenous peoples on Vancouver Island; the article does not give specific dates so each one should be added separately once they are figured out; didn't see a way to bulk-add them as they took place over a span of five years.Skookum1 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

References such as this (ref>Also known as the Treaty of Cassius.</ref) do not qualify as real, because they refer to nothing. There is a huge list of these in the ref section --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Treaties

[edit]

Reading the list I've noticed that a large numbers of treaties were missing. For example, it seems to be that in 1948 there were no treaties at all (and, indeed it isn't true, as Wikipedia itself mentions, in 1948 Benelux, France and the UK signed the Pact Of Bruxelles, the inception of NATO, born in 1949), as well as in the 1954 Italy and Yugoslavia signed the Memorandum of London, to resolve the pending issues of the Question Of Trieste, that was officially concluded in the 1975 (Osimo) that's enlisted. Considering this lacking of accuracy I don't see the actual utility of having such a list on Wikipedia, it couldn't help neither to have an overall view about the treaties signed in the XX century, nor to understand the leading headings of foreign policy gathered in the essential processes that conducted the world first out of the WWII and then out of the Cold War. J. (English is not my mother tongue, so be pamperign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.237.210 (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On this list of treaties shouldnt US local treaties occurs. They are only result of shortsigted US steal of land from its original inhabitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.77.133 (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

This article is now rather long; I would suggest a split. It's almost 19,000 words in length, almost double the usual split threshold. Perhaps divide it into List of Treaties (Pre 1800) and List of Treaties (1800- Present)?--ERAGON (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language use

[edit]

In the summary of the Magna Carta it says "Between King John of England and his bros."

I hope this is the apropriate place to mention this. I would edit it myself if I felt I knew enough about it to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambraelle (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OSPAR Convention

[edit]

Should the OSPAR Convention be added to the list? What about the Oslo Dumping Convention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.69.210.218 (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tallinn Pledge

[edit]

Can someone input The Tallinn Pledge treaty to support Ukraine?--213.220.233.95 (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Additions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_treaties&oldid=1249492893"