Talk:Treaty of Tientsin

Accuracy

The article makes a number of assertions that are open to debate. It woudl be a more accurate essay if it discussed that debate. This paragraph in particular needs to be expanded to include the larger historical debate:

 This “New Imperialism” led America to set its sights on the Pacific, and in particular China. The
 United States was one of the leading signing “treaty powers” in China, forcing open a total of 23 
 foreign concessions from the Chinese government. 

A citation for this claim would be useful, but I suspect that there is none. Most historians would not say that the US set its sights on China. Nor would they say that the US was one of the "leading treaty powers" or that it "forced" open 23 ports. There is no evidence for the use of force. The US was an inconsequential player in Asia until 1898. The article could also benefit from a discussion of the US "open door policy" (and a link to the relevant wiki article).

The term "new imperialism" comes from marxist political analysis from the early 1900s. This has been largely discredited as an explanation of imperialism. Links to other relevant wiki articles (on Hay, Lansing, the 9 Power Treaty and on the Open Door Policy) would improve the accuracy of this entry. Jal223 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will be further looking at the assertion in this section, along with this question: as the United States was the least complicit in any of these activities, why is it being presented as one of the parties that inflicted the most damage? If you are going to do this, the discussion would be much more valuable were it located within the context of a broader discussion of all the treaty powers, and how their involvement interacts and contrasts with American involvement.

Move

1) singlular is most common (the article doesn't specify how many...and switches from plural to singular within the first sentence) [1] and 2) the older romanization is more common and probably was official: [2]. --Jiang 11:00, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Added some main points of the treaties, they are directly from the Second Opium War page. say1988 01:04, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Full text?

Thanks for your edits, Brian0324, but is it necessary to include the whole treaty text? These text are better included in Wikimedia Commons.--Niohe 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Names

Pending a name section with citations, we should lead the article with the title form of the name and include the modern form and leave the rest (Tien-tsin, T'ien-chin, etc.) for redirects and the Tianjin article. — LlywelynII 20:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, the running text should use the treaty forms of the names and gloss with the modern pinyin/Taiwanese. The American and British treaties are on Wikisource and neither one says "Teochew". — LlywelynII 08:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Tamsui?

Neither the American nor British treaty opened Tamsui. The "Taiwan" in their texts means the city (not island) of Taiwan, which means Tainan. Was Tamsui in a different treaty? or was it in the French &c. treaty and opened to the rest by means of most-favored-nation clauses? — LlywelynII 08:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)