Talk:Treaty ports

[Untitled]

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)

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)

Request: Maps

I'm not competent to do this, but IMHO it would be very useful to add maps showing the Japanese and major Chinese treaty ports, especially if there were several maps showing the progression over time. Would someone please be so kind as to create them?—DocWatson42 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Macau

Why is Macau not mentioned anywhere in this article? Was it not a leased territory to Portugal? Lugevas (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

legally and in practice Macau was never a treaty port.Rjensen (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Macau was a colony under the jurisdiction of Portugal as a part of their empire. The term "treaty port" refers to the cities in China which were still territoriality Chinese, but opened to trade and extraterritoriality for Imperial powers. 146.163.119.201 (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

How many ports are there in Aisa after world war II ?

Answer my question. 146.196.38.185 (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)