Talk:Lines of amity

Overlap with Line of Demarcation
I question whether there should be a standalone article for Lines of amity, which was just moved to mainspace. There is a lot of overlap between this article, and the topic of the "Line of Demarcation" (a redirect to Treaty of Tordesillas currently) and it may be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which needs to be merged. The argument for keeping it might be that it's a related article, not a fork, being a hypernym of LoD, and although it's true that the title of this article is more general than LoD, it's not clear where the (ahem) line of separation ought to be between the two, if they are indeed different-enough topics. The section here mentions the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis, but that content is not sourced, and our article on that treaty does not mention "lines of amity". This google search has plenty of passing mentions, not sure if there's anything more in depth (although this search in Portuguese may have more). These links may help: Terms for "Lines of amity" exist in de, fr, es, and pt (see Q124259653) (but not for ca, it, or nl afaict). There may be a notability issue, as it's hard to find in-depth sources, but even if it is notable, I don't think it passes WP:PAGEDECIDE separate from Line of Demarcation/Tordesillas. Or maybe we should just wait, and try mining some of the links to see what more can be found. Adding and. Also, SMcCandlish, you usually have a good eye for these things; what's your take? Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at this extremely thoroughly, but from what I remember of when I reviewed this I would say there seems to be enough coverage/usage in sources that we should probably at least mention this somewhere. It could be that that is better done by merging it into another article, but I haven't investigated that angle much.
 * I'm also not an expert on the subject matter, but what I'm reading (from this article and your link) is that this may have been a verbal agreement at the time of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis, but not formally recorded in that treaty. LittlePuppers (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also demarcation lines which is easily confusable with Line of Demarcation, though I guess capitalization of the latter helps a little. Anway, if LOA and LOD are not distinct enough, it might be better to merge LOD material into LOA, it being a broader subject. And just leave behind a smidgin of WP:SUMMARY at the treaty article? The treaty article doesn't seem like a great target for the LOA term unless it had no use beyond the context of the treaty. GScholar has a bunch of stuff on LOA, but it'll take someone fiddling around with their institutional access or WT:The Wikipedia Library to get at much of it. Ngrams tell me that capitalized "Lines of Amity" is rare (and it's an unusual term, so probably low false positives, which surely wouldn't be the case with [l|L]ine[s] of [d|D]emarcation). I don't know jack about this specific subject, though, unfortunately.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree, I think this term is used specifically to describe the lines and resulting phenomenon referring to European expansion. The Treaty of Tordesillas did a lot of other things, and the only way it relates to these lines is one version of how they are drawn, like @Mathglot said. If anything, the Line of Demarcation redirect is unnecessary. The exact term "lines of amity" is used frequently enough in literature for me to be confident. I learned about the term in a college history course. Gnat8 (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Follow up -- check out how I edited Treaty of Tordesillas to include lines of amity. The line from the treaty was only longitude and involved the Portuguese and Spanish. The lines of amity apply more generally to the European super powers. Gnat8 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have had a brief look at this article, drawn here from the Tordesillas article. It is hard to find anything of substance - nothing explicit. I cannot see the reference "Netzloff, Mark, 'Lines of Amity: The Law of Nations in the Americas'" which has the term in its title. Other references do not give page numbers, implying what is written here is OR, an interpretation of a whole chapter or article. I had been looking at the Tordesillas article and saw a lot of improvement that could take place and this article here appears to be a continuation of a lot of assumptions without anything tangible to back them. The link to the NYT article about early Caribbean settlement was interesting, but what is it supposed to reference? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I have to agree. I've been going through it ref by ref, and have come to the same conclusion. I'm not sure yet if I'm going to write a long post showing all my work, but I'll summarize. On the yes-Notable side, there are definitely two reliable, on-topic sources: (abstract), and ), that seems borderline to establish notability, and I'd rather see a few more. As for the five refs in section  and the six in, with the exception of the two mentioned, I either can't see them, or they don't verify the content, or they do verify it, but it's irrelevant because it's not about 'lines of amity', but about something else, and so the claim for relevance is either synth-y original research, such as a true comment about a line of demarcation, or about the Treaty of Tordesillas, but that doesn't say anything about 'amity. A big help would be consistent use of quote param with cite book, so that we can see what content is being used to support the assertions, and whether the assertions have anything to do with the article topic. So far, I am unpersuaded about Notability, although I'm not categorical that it isn't notable—I just want to see the proof, and so far, I don't. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair, I can definitely work on direct quotes from the references. Not all use the exact phrase "lines of amity," but I'd personally assert that a lot imply it to the extent that if the phrase was more widely-known, we would see it be used. Nonetheless, the concept of a demarcation line with one side being that of peace, or "amity", is notable and unique. There are multiple treaties and states involved, so I think its own page is needed to ensure it's not attributed to only one.
 * If anything I think the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis is more relevant to this subject than the Treaty of Tordesillas. Perhaps this article could benefit from more organization? Instead of just two sections, some chronology or specification could be nice. Thanks for all your help guys. Gnat8 (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , thanks, this is a good response as quotes would help. You're still a fairly new editor, so I'll add a few general comments about Wikipedia policy and guidelines for you. But first, this statement of yours is a yellow flag:
 * I'll explain why, in a minute. But first, it's important to understand our role here as editors, which in a nutshell, is this:
 * We read a representative range of reliable, independent, secondary sources about our chosen topic, we assess what the majority and minority views are, we write a neutral summary of them in our own words (proportionately more for the majority view than for the others), then we add it to the article, followed by inline citations immediately after the content.
 * That's it; that's what we do. We don't add our own opinion, we don't assess what might've been said, we don't interpret one source in the light of some other source or draw a conclusion based on two sources. Your statement above is a yellow flag, because if you wrote anything in the article based on that assertion, it would have to be removed, and you might get a friendly uw-nor1 template on your Talk page, explaining the situation and why someone deleted it. (Less friendly, if you keep doing it afterward.)
 * One other thing to keep in mind, is relevance to the topic. The article title "indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles". What this means is that there's all sorts of true stuff that is very well sourced, but is simply not appropriate for article A because it is about topic B. I have some worries about some of the article content related to the two treaties that are mentioned, which may be very true and sourced as far as it goes, but if it's in a source that doesn't connect it with the topic of "Lines of amity" then it doesn't matter; it's not enough that you (or any editor) see the connection, if the source does not. If I'm not mistaken, this was also one of 's concerns; that is, the content might be good content and relevant to Wikipedia, but maybe not relevant to this article (meaning, it might have to be moved somewhere else).
 * I'll leave you be for a while, so you can think about this. In fact, this post of mine is at least half off-topic, as it is only partly about improving the article (which is what an article talk page is for)—the other part being, explaining some basic Wikipedia WP:PAG. If you have any questions about what I've said about editing Wikipedia that isn't specifically about this article, unless it's very short it would probably be better not to ask here, but in a separate venue: either my Talk page, or yours, or the WP:Tea house, or the Help desk. For anything directly about this article, by all means respond below, if you wish. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, a very good post by Mattglot. Gnat8, adding detailed content to an article usually takes time and research. I am looking into the supposed division of the world in two in 1493 for another article I am involved with, hence why I was at the Tortesillas article. It is far more complicated than what is usually assumed and has already taken up hours of my time reading and checking sources, thinking about what those sources say and what and how something is relevant, and I have barely started writing anything yet. I have not heard the term 'lines of amity' before, which is why this article caught my eye. One point to remember, any text not backed by a source can be removed. I did that with a large part of a section on the Tortesiias article. It read like someone's opinion of what they had thought had happened. That's wp:original research so it was removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I won't input opinion anymore. I'll work on adding more quotes and legitimizing the term using literature. As for articles that imply the term but don't use it explicitly, is it wrong to use them as supporting evidence for this page since the page is about a general idea that they all refer to? Gnat8 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , the general idea that they all refer to, is lines of demarcation, right? (Or do you see the general idea as something else?) Imho, those sources cannot be used to verify content about "lines of amity" if they never refer to "lines of amity". However, they can be used to support assertions about "lines of demarcation". This brings us full circle: my hunch is, that all of this material could be moved to Lines of demarcation, and I don't know what would be left here in this article if we did that. If it's not much at all, then WP:PAGEDECIDE would come into play. Going further, if there isn't significant coverage of "lines of amity" in reliable sources, then we can't have an article about it at all. Starting with the quotes is a good idea, and I encourage you to do that, but the real burden here is to establish WP:Notability. Is there enough stuff on this for an article, or not? Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , the general idea that they all refer to, is lines of demarcation, right? (Or do you see the general idea as something else?) Imho, those sources cannot be used to verify content about "lines of amity" if they never refer to "lines of amity". However, they can be used to support assertions about "lines of demarcation". This brings us full circle: my hunch is, that all of this material could be moved to Lines of demarcation, and I don't know what would be left here in this article if we did that. If it's not much at all, then WP:PAGEDECIDE would come into play. Going further, if there isn't significant coverage of "lines of amity" in reliable sources, then we can't have an article about it at all. Starting with the quotes is a good idea, and I encourage you to do that, but the real burden here is to establish WP:Notability. Is there enough stuff on this for an article, or not? Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts/questions (ping ):
 * Should Demarcation line be renamed something like List of demarcation lines given its nature/structure, ref :WP:LISTNAME?
 * Should Demarcation line also list Inter caetera or any other papal bulls?
 * Is the text at Demarcation line, which states "This line was drawn in 1493 after Christopher Columbus returned from his maiden voyage to the Americas" correct, as Treaty of Tordesillas indicates that the line defined in 1494 differed from the 1493 Papal line?
 * What lines/treaties are within scope of the lines of amity? Would a WP:SIA be suitable to cover/list those demarcation lines which have been identified in reliable sources as "lines of amity" (or which clearly translate as such)? If so, would that sidestep concerns about redundancy?
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , these are all good questions, and I would say: a) yes; b) yes; c) haven't looked at it yet, but if you suspect so, and both are cited, then consider adding disputed to each, with a link to the other; d) from what I've recently learned, it may be the other way round—i.e., lines of amity is more likely a subset of demarcation lines (raya was the original term); more on this later, but see Carl Schmitt's comments about the relation of Freundschaftslinien to the origin and definition of sovereignty in Der Nomos der Erde, as noted by Henning Teschke in this comment (footnote #35). Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The path forward
Here are the possible outcomes, as I see it (numbered for easier response, not for implied order) : Did I leave anything out? I think the existence of two reliable sources,, and , mean that #4 is out, but I don't think they are sufficient on their own to support #1. At the outset, I would have said that the choice is between #1 and #2, with the deciding factor resting on WP:PAGEDECIDE. But raised another possibility, which I've listed as #3 (please correct me if I've misrepresented you).
 * 1) Keep the article, based on demonstration of WP:Notability of the topic "lines of amity" as demonstrated by WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources sufficient to create a standalone article that is more than just a bare-bones stub with no prospect for expansion.
 * 2) If there are good sources but WP:PAGEDECIDE is not satisfied, keep the content, but in another article (or articles), not here. In this case, this page would become a WP:REDIRECT to one of the other pages under discussion, and possibly to a new section where content here would be moved to.
 * 3) Keep the article, noting the existence of some reliable sources on "lines of amity", perhaps insufficient to meet  WP:SIGCOV on their own, but based on a superset relationship between "lines of amity" and child articles (such as Demarcation line) of unquestioned notability.
 * 4) Delete the page without creating a redirect.

This raises an interesting possibility I hadn't considered, but seems to depend on an upward heritability of WP:Notability, where the title is not notable on its own, but is in a parent relationship with one or more child articles on clearly notable topics. I think there is support for this in such article types as list articles and basic concept articles, but I'm not sure if that is supported for non-list article topics lacking the polysemy of a BCA. Do we have some examples of upward-heritable notability in other articles? If there are other possible outcomes, feel free to append them above. (I waive TPO.)

My current feeling is that we are at #2 now, but I'm curious about the possible outcome of a discussion elsewhere about #3, which I plan to raise (probably at WT:N) unless this is already a decided issue that I've missed.

if you intend to follow up, you could try to find sources with a view to proving #1, which would make everything else in this discussion moot. Finding more sources with significant coverage would be best; whole book chapters or journal articles would be ideal, or at a minimum, several contiguous pages directly addressing the topic. Note that they can be in any language (even if you don't understand it), with Spanish, Portuguese, and French probably being the likely suspects, given the topic. (If you find a foreign source, I can help with translation.) You can either add a list of sources you find to a new, "Further reading" section of the article, or you can add them here on the Talk page. See template Refideas for another approach. Mathglot (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, no. 3 is pretty much what I had in mind, at least as a possibility, though I do recognize that it's potentially more of a challenge, as to policy basis, and as to requiring more sources to demonstrate more SIGCOV of "lines of amity", and proof of a relationship to (not just name similarity to) "lines of demarcation" broadly and the Tordesillas Line of Demarcation in particular, and perhaps some related things that qualify as lines of amity. Takes some research, of a sort unforuntately outside my areas of competence/comfort. If no. 3 doesn't turn out viable, that's fine. Not something I'm insisting on, just suggesting as worth looking into.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record: I've raised a discussion at WT:N for the general point. Mathglot (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)