This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Peace of Utrecht article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and 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.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the
Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
It says in the article that the concept of Balance of Power first appeared in the Treaty of Utrecht, but this is not the case. The concept is first mentioned in Daniel Defoe's April 19, 1709 Review. I don't feel as though I should be the one to change the article as I'm not even a registered user, but I thought that I should point this out and that someone with more experience in these matters should go about it.
The Balance of Power was actually first mentioned in 1701 by Charles Davenant in his "Essays on the Balance of Power"
In studies of International Relations, the Treaty of Utrecht is usually mentioned as significant because it was seen afterwards as an important precedent establishing the importance of the balance of power, a paradigm that would continue to be explicitly important for several centuries and arguably remains so today. I have not seen it claimed that it is in any way the 'first mention' of the balance of power, and the article should be changed to reflect that, as it appears prior mentions have been found.
141.161.58.24 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I've added these assertions to the article with my recent edits and have removed the tag. Ordinarily a tag is added in an article after discussion has failed, not at the outset. --
Wetman 07:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)reply
All these claims are just plain incorrect, neither Davenant nor Defoe invented the idea of the balance of power or introduced it to England for the first time. The notion has its origins in Italy and was most likely first introduced to England via the translation of a history book of the Florentine historian Guicciardini in the late 16th century. For the details, see here Vagt, Alfred, "The Balance of Power: Growth of an Idea," World Politics. Vol. I, No. 1, October. 1948
149.5.64.141 (
talk) 15:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Fisheries
I read that the treaty left Spain out of the whale and cod fisheries off Newfoundland.
When Spanish mariners returned in the 1920s, they had to learn from the Bretons.
--
Error 01:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
De vous, chez vous, sans vous / Dutch influence
The last paragraph says that the importance and influence of the treaty for the Dutch was small. This seems incorrect to me. For the Dutch, the influence was huge: it marked the end of the era in which the Dutch were the rulers of the oceans. The proverbial saying De vous, chez vous, sans vous is rather explained by the fact that the Dutch, as many other powers, could do nothing else than agree to what the British and the French had agreed. I, not being a registered user, neither being a historian, neither being a native English speaker, suppose that someone changes the last paragraph to something like the following:
The Dutch, not willing to be ruled out by an arrangement between England and France, accepted the French proposal to negotiate in Utrecht, but the negotiations proved to be a fait accompli anyway, which led to the proverbial saying De vous, chez vous, sans vous, meaning: about you, in your surroundings, but without you.----
131.211.198.148 15:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't see how this section is relevant to the article.
A completely recast paragraph concerning Dutch desires (the fortifications in the south are the ones I'm aware of) and the results for the Dutch in the final Treaty would be a much-to-be- desired contribution from you. --
Wetman 07:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)reply
treaty vs. treaties
It's illogical to say that a treaty "was a series". A writer must decide what relation the treaty bears to the series: it embodied a series, it epitomized a series, it included a series— if it was itself something other than the sum of the series. I opted for "comprised a series" as the most colorless choice. In the aggregate, such small matters keep the picture sharp. --
Wetman 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Strafford
Thomas Wentworth, Lord Strafford has been stricken by someone from the list of commissioners for the British. I believe this was an error and am returning his name: see article
Wentworth Castle; Strafford was even hauled before a committee of Parliament for his part in the treaty, which the Whigs considered not advantageous enough. --
Wetman (
talk) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Enregistred?
Can someone replace this word with the proper English word. I'm not sure what the proper replacement for this word would be, as I cannot find a definition for it.
66.31.76.221 (
talk) 14:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Emperor who?
In the Negotiations paragraph it says: '...but the Emperor refused to do so until he was assured that these preliminaries were not binding.'
In writing in this manner, it seemed to me, an Emperor or some Empire was already mentioned previously. Yet there is no mention of either. I looked at the wiki pages of the 'Participants', but again found no emperor. It wasn't until I read the page about the War itself, that I was able to discern that it must have been a Holy Roman Emperor. But still, I wasn't sure who, so after searching through the Holy Roman Empire and Holy Roman Emperors page, I was able to determine that it must have been Charles VI, as it happened during his reign. Upon returning to this page, and in the following section Charles VI is finally mentioned. In short: perhaps it would be clearer to clarify which emperor it is.
Vince (
talk) 09:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)reply
No need, there's already a link to the text in
Wikisource which is the appropriate place for it. --
Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 11:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Treaty of Utrecht. 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: 18 January 2022).
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.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed by nominator —
Amakuru (
talk) 20:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Treaty of Utrecht →
Peace of Utrecht – Like the
Peace of Westphalia, this was not a single treaty but a series of treaties. The secondary literature commonly calls it the Peace of Utrecht.
Srnec (
talk) 20:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.bd2412T 15:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.bd2412T 02:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't dispute the facts of the nomination but nb
this Ngram. —
AjaxSmack 03:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, but unlike the Peace of Westphalia—for which there is no corresponding "Treaty of Westphalia"—there are several treaties, each of which can justly be called the Treaty of Utrecht, that make up the Peace of Utrecht. "Treaties of Utrecht", which is what the French Wikipedia does, would also work.
Srnec (
talk) 15:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)reply
But the
most common formulation is still "Treaty of Utrecht", and the article is about the treaties (negotiations, provisions, response, etc) instead of the underlying peace. That is why I think the title should include "Treaty" or "Treaties". Or is "peace" another term for the treaties?
jamacfarlane (
talk) 01:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
See the OUP source I just added. I think in this case peace = treaties. They were not independent, but were negotiated at a peace congress and signed (most of them) on the same day. But they are distinct bilateral agreements.
Srnec (
talk) 17:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support as proposed. In addition to the "Peace" really encompassing several treaties, it appears this formation is more
COMMON on Google Books (
[1] vs.
[2]).--
Cúchullaint/
c 14:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.