Talk:Japan–Korea Agreement of April 1905

Article title

Is "agreement" the best or most appropriate word for this article name? The first paragraph of Treaty establishes a context for this thread:

"A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as: (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, exchange of letters, etc. Regardless of the terminology, all of these international agreements under international law are equally treaties and the rules are the same."

There are very clear pro- and con- arguments:

• Yes, in terms of WP:MOS#Article title and Wikipedia:Article titles because the word "agreement" is the diplomatic term used at Korea, treaties and agreements By Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, p. vii. This source is credible, and other reliable sources employ the term "agreement."
• No, in terms of the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, we know that the term "agreement" is an oxymoron because there was no agreement, neither then nor now -- compare Japan-Korea Protocol of August 1904#Recision and Lee Man-yeol. "For a view of history that puts us at the center," Northeast Asian History Foundation News. 2010.

I do not know what is best. --Tenmei (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)