Wikidata:Property proposal/negotiated by
negotiated by edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization
Not done
Motivation edit
For a treaty, there is generally one or more individuals who lead the negotiations on behalf of each country which is a party to them. There isn't any Wikidata property right now to express that. (Note the "negotiators" parameter in the en:template:infobox treaty is allowed to take either a person or a country; I think it is cleaner if a property doesn't do double duty like that; and a country can only negotiate a treaty through a person acting as negotiator.) SJK (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Comment Treaty of London (Q2014021) uses Somerset House Conference (Q67774598). The later can have participant (P710) statements (e.g. at Q46362#P710). If no separate item is made, significant person (P3342) could be used, but a dedicated property might work better. --- Jura 07:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Not all international treaties are negotiated at formal conferences. Some are, some are not. I think the problem with "significant person" is that a person could be significant to a treaty without being a negotiator of it. For example, Pedro I of Brazil (Q939) is undeniably a significant person to British-Brazilian Treaty of 1826 (Q98446911), and yet he didn't negotiate it directly. Now, maybe that could be expressed with some kind of "role"="negotiator" qualifier. But here's my other point – separate properties are easier for users (especially beginners). Trying to express everything by using a smaller set of more generic properties, lots of qualifiers, etc – it appeals to some people experienced with Wikidata, but actually makes Wikidata harder for new users. SJK (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment/
Weak oppose It sort-of overlaps with represented by (P1875) maybe? Apart from what it's called, represented by (P1875) quite naturally wants to be linked to both the negotiation as well as the party they are representing. With "negotiator" or "negotiated by", there'll be a lot of confusion: should the part/signatory be the main statement, and the negotiator as a qualifier? Should it be the other way around? The result will be half of items will have both, the other half will have negotiators and their clients without any link. (Although the existence of represents (P1268) means this is a risk even now)
- I don't see why it should be specific to people. It's quite common for, say, the Office of the Foreign Secretary to have this mandate. The case where it's a specific person is probably less frequent. And while high-profile cases such as Brexit are personalised in such a way, it'll be hard to find individual names being named even for something like the Kyoto Treaty. Not only do these events usually involve larger delegations, as long as it's not a principal (head of state/minister), it's actively discouraged to highlight individuals, because they'd be stealing their boss' spotlight.
- Thinking one step ahead: does it make senses for this to be separate from the extremely similar situation in civil law? When Apple sends some law(yer/firm) to negotiate a merger, those relationships seem more or less identical to the political case. It's so close, in fact, that it isn't unheard of for major law firms to do this kind of work in both spheres. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- @SJK, Jura1, Matthias Winkelmann:
Not done Stale proposal, no clear support. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
