Talk:Chanyuan Treaty

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Year

The treaty was signed in January, 1005 in the western calendar. As it fell before Chinese New Year, it is sometimes reported to have been in 1004. I will correct it when I expand the article later.

“Liao”, “Khitan”, and “Kitan”

Some older English sources used in this article spell “Khitan” as “Kitan.” They also seem to name the Liao state the “Khitan” state, conflating the state’s allies with its rulers. Either that, or the Khitan had their own “emperor” who is not clearly distinguished from the Liao emperor. I wish someone with expert knowledge of this era of Chinese history would intervene and clarify this, and perhaps clear up the inconsistent romanizations of Chinese names. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 12:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article buries the lede

The article Westphalian system about the modern concept of state sovereignty in the West points to this (much earlier) treaty as having comparable significance for China and all of East Asia. But this article does little to indicate that the Treaty of Chanyuan was significant except as an episode between two large states. Y’all, please help promote the treaty’s significance by editing the lede.

I edited one section to indicate that the two imperial families were now addressing each other on equal terms (and this was politically significant, not just a matter of etiquette). But this article hides all indications that this treaty was a turning point in Chinese history, burying them at the tail ends of the last two sections. Most readers will stop reading by then. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]