Talk:New Qing History

Scope of the article

This article is about the school of what we know as the New Qing History. It is not about how Zhao Gang has responded in his work or even a general discussion of what the scope of the term "China" should be. Now this article contains more stuff regarding how Zhao Gang responded than the materials about the New Qing History itself. Even though Zhao Gang's work may be briefly mentioned in a separate section (considering it IS related to the New Qing History), it certainly should not be in such a length. You need to at least summarize them, thanks. Otherwise they will be deleted. --Evecurid (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Without even looking at the edit history or the added content, I'm going to guess it was Rajmaan. Don't worry about it, he usually likes to dump his stuff into an article without any thought as to how it fits in with the rest of the text. As long as somebody attentive is watching an article, it usually gets edited down to a more appropriate summary-length blurb eventually. The only problem is on more obscure articles with fewer watchers, where there's nobody to clean up after him... --Difference engine (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to hazard that you looked at the edit history especially since this is a brand new article and barely a day old, or saw that I used the same references as before, so don't pretend that you guessed it was me to make a smart aleck comment.

Before rudely insulting people because of your issues with my contributions on Eight Banners, I suggest you look at previous past interactions Evecurid had in other articles, Evecurid's buddy Uniquark9 and Toguchar whom he has supported repeatedly in trying to change articles to a Mongolian nationalist POV has just been blocked, Evecurid has agreed with a troll statement by a fellow Mongol insulting Chinese people and has been fingered by other regular contributors on ANI worried about this cabal as collaborating together in an edit war on Mongol related articles. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#User:Uniquark9_repeatedly_deleting_content_and_refusing_to_engage_in_constructive_discussion_on_talk_page.2C_telling_another_user_to_edit_war.

Evecurid has repeatedly supported Uniquark9 in his Mongolian nationalist edits, not reprimanding him once for deleting source information or adding unreferenced material.

Whenever someone fixed or re summarized what I added I rarely object. I have never edit warred and was always open to discussion on the talk page and compromising over material when it came to the table. Not so with Evecurid who subtlety supports Uniquark9 and Toguchar in their nationalistic edit wars and rude attacks when Uniquark9 accuses people of "bullshit", trying to deflect criticism from them towards their opponents while carefully avoiding to take part in the edit war itself and showing a polite face to avoid being blocked. I've have Evecurid accuse me of using inappropriate language towards Uniquark9 when I never cursed, and it was Uniquark9 who repeatedly used curse words and multiple users on ANI testified to his rudness. Evecurid never reprimands Uniquark9 for repeated blankings and edit warring on Yuan dynasty and instead tries to deflect attention away from the discussion on Uniquark9's behavior. Like what you are doing now.

If you want to turn this into an ugly confrontation by rudely accusing people I suggest you bring it up to my face on my own talk page instead of hit and running on talk pages.Rajmaan (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Now this has nothing to do with the current article at hand, and neither do my past interactions with you. If you want to insult me over my edits do in on my talk page.Rajmaan (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A few things that I must clarify: 1. I have never edit warred myself as well; in fact, I had been trying to stop edit wars in pages such as Talk:List_of_Turkic_dynasties_and_countries and User_talk:3family6#Edit_war; 2. I never agreed with any statement insulting Chinese people in general; rather, I mainly (and strongly) agreed with the point that the Mongol Empire was NOT a Chinese state in that page (but a lot of Chinese people seemed to believe so). Please don't accusing me of this, which is simply false; 3. The most important: this talk page is for the improvement of the New Qing History article, not how editors were interacting with each another in the past. You are the one who is going off-topic and should be stopped immediately. --Evecurid (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

See what I mean? He can't even stay on topic in a discussion about content he added that was off topic. --Difference engine (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest to user:Difference engine to refrain from commenting on another editor and stick to commenting about content. Your comment about Rajmaan started this. "Without even looking at the edit history or the added content, I'm going to guess it was Rajmaan. Don't worry about it, he usually likes to dump his stuff into an article without any thought as to how it fits in with the rest of the text". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that pointing fingers at another editor in an article talk page is frowned upon, but the problem with the content really has little to do with the actual subject of the article. Rather, it simply boils down to one person's editing style. It's the elephant in the room, and there's no point in mincing words about it if the article is to be repaired. However, since my comments have caused a series of off-topic accusations, I will recuse myself from this discussion from now on. --Difference engine (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Zhao Gang and Ho Ping-Ti's theses to "New Qing History" constitute responses/reactions and ought to be moved to a new "Responses to New Qing History" sub-section, rather than be included in the "History of New Qing History" sub-section. These two scholars are obviously not members of the "New Qing History" school. Insofar as scope is concerned, they are within the scope of this article because they are direct responses to the publications of the "New Qing History" school; however, their arguments need to be summarized in a concise manner. Lathdrinor (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: now that I've read "Beyond the culture: my comments on New Qing history" carefully, I do not think it is fair to call Crossley a member of the "New Qing History" school. She specifically disputes the validity of the "New Qing History" school and her place within it:

"I think both of these two appella­tions are inaccurate. First, many histo­rians have discussed the Manchu as­pect of the Qing Dynasty’s governance before Elliott. That’s not a new idea. I’m afraid it could not be called New Qing history. Second, the formulation of New Qing history is also wrong. A long article written by an American scholar said the New Qing History School has 100 members. I’m not sure there are quite so many. But the research sub­jects and ideas of these scholars are basically not the same or similar. So it’s difficult to refer to them as the New Qing History School."

The above indicates that Crossley does not necessarily even support the existence of the school, less her place within it. Lathdrinor (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to move the responses/reactions to a new sub-section with the title similar to "Responses to New Qing History". And yes, they need to be (further) summarized as well. As for questions like the validity of the "New Qing History" school and Crossley's place within it. I think we'd better follow what reliable sources usually consider, not how Crossley personally feels about it. In particular, the article already mentions that Crossley "seems to include herself in the Qing empire school, which she calls "Qing Studies". However, it's obvious that she is often included as a member of the New Qing History by reliable sources. --Evecurid (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

New Qing History Templates and Categories

Evecurid and I started a discussion on his Talk Page which we are transferring here. I raised the possibility of amending Template:New Qing History to perhaps Template:Scholars of the Qing dynasty" and Evecurid replied that it may be better to have an even more general Template:Qing dynasty topics, which Evecurid helpfully pointed out would be similar to Template:Tang dynasty topics.

IMHO, this is a terrifically useful and powerful idea! Would it be ok to post a notice on the Qing dynasty Talk Page? Probably so, especially since one of the reasons to make templates and categories is to get more editors involved and to coordinate articles.ch (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have already established the template Template:Qing dynasty topics. But I welcome the improvements by other users too. --Evecurid (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ming dynasty

New Qing History scholars tried claiming that universal rulership such as patronage of Tibetan Buddhism, hunting, and learning other languages was a unique feature of non-Han dynasties like Qing and the Yuan.

This source clearly takes a swipe at this idea.

p. 400 The concept of universal rulership under the Mongols and Manchus has long formed a central element in understanding imperial rule during therse "conquest dynasties."..... Less carefully examined have been the identities adopted by Ming emperors...often-acrimonious conflicts between the emperor and his civil bureaucracy over the Son of Heaven's proper role.....Ming emperors and their intimates bitterly contested this narrowing of the ruler's identity..... p. 367-368 An oft-repeated passage that appeared with slight variation in many Ming and Qing-period documents would suggest a clear rejection of the Mongols.......AS many studies have shown, this strand of rhetoric and policy did not comprehend the full complexity of the early Ming court's attitudes toward the Yuan legacy....the Ming dynasty was in many ways a true successor to the Great Yuan ulus

Rajmaan (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

care to synthesize this argument in an understandable way in the actual piece itself? now that would be interesting.Happy monsoon day 14:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

While Robinson's research might be used in a future argument against New Qing History, its author, David M. Robinson, never addresses New Qing History, and so it cannot be included as a *response* to New Qing History. This is an encyclopedia, not a history forum. Lathdrinor (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Lathdrinor You are wrong. He specifically mentions "conquest dynasties" and "Manchus"- he is saying that historians usually regarded the fact that since Manchus and Mongols were "Conquest dynasties" it innately meant "universal rulership" was viewed as part of their intrinsic nature as a foreign "conquest" dynasty p. 400 The concept of universal rulership under the Mongols and Manchus has long formed a central element in understanding imperial rule during these "conquest dynasties."Rajmaan (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

One of David M. Robinson's works was used to rebuke New Qing Historians in a review

Fifth, although “New Qing historians” stress the multi-ethnic and martial nature of the Qing polity, “many facets of . . . the Qing Grand Review . . . mirror the Grand Reviews conducted by Ming emperors during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries” (p. 372

Other works by Robinson also emphasize that the Ming usage of non-Han images like Tibetan Buddhism and Mongol culture [1] [2]Rajmaan (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I have no issue with incorporating Des Forges, because the article there actually mentions New Qing History and is indeed responding to it, though see the arguments put forth by ch. I took issue with citing Robinson directly as this would constitute WP:SYNTH. I do not have any problems with the current version of the article. Lathdrinor (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Lathdrinor On the Conquest dynasty article, both the Des Forges source and the Robinson source mention Conquest dynasty. Robinson on p. 400 and Des Forges on p. 300 where he calls it "northern conquest" when talking about the royal hunt. Des Forges source is also valid for criticism on the Conquest dynasty article.Rajmaan (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Rajmaan, I quite agree that this article should lead readers to references on disagreements with NQH. The most important issue is the alleged overemphasis on the uniqueness of the Qing's use of universal symbolism. However, if a scholar such as Robinson does not mention his disagreement with NQH, then we as editors cannot draw a conclusion not specifically in the text from the fact that a reviewer says that he does. Combining two sources is WP:Synthesis.

A second point is that this article does not need to be exhaustive and is not the place to discuss minor examples in detail. The Grand Review is mentioned as only the fifth point in one reviewer's list of seven points in one chapter of Robinson's monograph, which tells me that it is not important enough for the NQH article.

A third point is that NQH is a very vague concept. It is not in fact a "school" or an organized group with a journal. There have been no NQH conferences or edited volumes. There is disagreement on particular points among the historians mentioned. So it is misleading to label views on particular issues as being "NQH."

What do you think of my suggestion in the section below? Let's try to strike a consensus on what this article needs in order to show the range of views without giving Undue Emphasis to any one of them. All the best...ch (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies: In checking the des Forges review, I see that he is quoting Robinson, so that this is not synthesis. I still would argue that the Grand Review is not consequential enough to mention in this article, however.ch (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Further on the above points:

• Robinson's text p. 400 speaks of the "foreign rules who sought to legitimize their reign" in the Yuan and Qing by adopting a "variety of identities," and says that the Ming emperors efforts along these lines have been less carefully examined. He goes on to a fascinating discussion of their use of Central Asian elements. OK. But this simply shows that the Qing was far from the first to use this strategy (indeed such efforts go back certainly at least to the Tang), a point which no NQH historian to my knowledge would dispute. Rawski certainly would not dispute this.
• So far as I can see (the note did not give page numbers), Robinson does not address or even mention NQH. To be sure, even if we were to interpret his work as disagreeing with scholar X,Y, or Z, this would not be "in response" to NQH as such, but only with a particular aspect of previous scholarship, which includes much more than NQH (Robinson's revisionism would target Ho Ping-ti more than Rawski).ch (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Robinson cited Crossley and Berger about conquest dynasties on note 135 : "For the Qing case, see Crossley, A Translucent Mirror, and Berger, Empire of Emptiness". They (Crossley and Berger) are claiming that "universal rulership" is a component of "conquest" "foreign" dynasties. Robinson's work is a rebuttal to the idea that "universal-rulership=non-Han dynasty".Rajmaan (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The des Forges review also cites Crossley for the explicit purpose of rebutting her with Robinson's work. He cited "The Rulerships of China" on his seventh point..

(Seventh, while a massive painting of Qianlong’s 乾隆 1758 inspection of Eight Banners and Central Asian troops may have been “one of very few depictions of emperors as warriors in the entirety of China’s imperial tradition,” 1 Zhang Juzheng had submitted a set of poems and a painting to capture Wanli’s 萬 曆 1581 Grand Review. Other such imperially commissioned paintings of emperors donning martial or even Mongol dress may simply not have come down to us. A contrast between Kangxi’s 康熙 personal dynamism and Wanli’s ritual restraint is no more significant than would be a contrast between Yongle’s militancy and Guangxu’s 光緒 emasculation.)

In that entire page des Forges is taking potshots at New Qing History and its presentation of the Qing as universal and martial in contrast to Han dynasties by using Robinson's work to refute them. He compares Qing and Ming Emperors and practices, mentions New Qing History and Crossley and then attacks their views.

New Qing History historians often claim that its part of the innate nature of non-Han dynasties to be "universal rulers" and martial in contrast to Han dynasties and that is the point that is being rebutted.Rajmaan (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion about how to handle the difference of opinion

Rajmaan and I have been working on many of the same articles for many years, and I have the utmost respect for that work, from which Wikipedia readers benefit and from which I have learned a great deal. When we disagree, we have a discussion and sometimes Rajmaan convinces me, and sometimes I convince Rajmaan.

In regard to New Qing History, my feeling is that we could achieve the goals of both sides of this Talk Page discussion in a reasonably simple way.

That is, in this NQH article we should include material concerning the ideas and scholars involved, then add links or "see also" links to other articles where the substance of the particular issues are discussed. This would ensure that readers have access to such material as Rajmaan continues to find in order to evaluate the positions taken by NQH scholars without filling this article with detailed material on each one (and there are many more issues than have yet been mentioned in this article).

How does this sound? Just an idea...ch (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Read the Des Forges review more closely. He mentions New Qing History more than once and is attacking both them, and scholars of "conquest dynasties" in general as falsely misinterpreting universalism, martial behavior and hunting as non-Han practices, when all those practices were done by Han dynasties such as the Shang, Tang, and Ming. He attacks New Qing Historians for deliberately conflating "Han" with "Chinese" and misinterpreting ethnic and political labels. His low blow at the Qing Guangxu Emperor very noticeable.Rajmaan (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Rajmaan, I took your suggestion, since I always find your edits to be serious and weighty even when I disagree, as I do in this case. Des Forges does mention NQH more than once, that is, twice (p. 302 & 303), and only after four pages. This is not a major point of the review.

But Grand Review, while a useful case study, seems distracting and does not warrant detailed coverage in an article on NQH, and a book review is not a major source in any case, so I took liberty of moving the paragraph to a less prominent position while we are discussing it.

I took your advice to read the Des Forges review again; please respond by reading my suggestion at the head of this section.ch (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I provided the link to the other page- History_of_the_Ming_dynasty#Universal_rulership. Its not just about the Grand Review. Des Forges is criticizing scholars of conquest dynasties in general in the review. New Qing History is tied to scholarship of "conquest dynasties". New Qing History and conquest dynasty scholars claim that features such as the royal hunt, martial behavior and universalism are all unique features of "conquest dynasties" not found in Han dynasties, and that Han=Chinese therefore non-Han≠Chinese, but Des Forges pointed out otherwise and these claims are a major part of their works. New Qing Historians write about the royal hunt at Chengde and claim its a non-Han thing with "Inner Asian" origins and that patronage of Tibetan Buddhism, Changde with its Potala copy is evidence of "universalism". Most of the criticism already on here is not addressing the content of works from New Qing History.Rajmaan (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Important clarifications by New Qing History scholar

Mark Elliot, prominent scholar of the New Qing History school, made a lecture named "A Reflection and Response to the New Qing History" (新清史研究的影響與回應; linked from his website) containing important clarifications about the relationship between Qing dynasty and China:

"What I should emphasize is that a popular view in many places is that New Qing History separates the Qing dynasty from China, but I think this is a misunderstanding. New Qing History raises a question about the relationship between the Qing dynasty and "China" — the word "China" should be put in brackets, because the concept of "China" has been changing, and this Huang Xingtao himself admitted "China" is a variable symbol, not a fixed thing. If we use our current concept of China to think about the concept of China in the Qing dynasty, then we violate a very basic principle of history. We should not think about what "China" was in the Qing dynasty based on what we think "China" is today, because that will never go along with the imagination and conception of their people at that time. Will not. So New Qing History just wants to advocate and understand the concept of "China" in the Qing dynasty, or the concept of the country. We have to look at the archives and materials in a down-to-earth manner, and don't just rely on history books. The history books of the Qing Dynasty were also written (by historians) instead of original materials, so it is better to look at the Qing archives to see how these concepts and vocabulary were used at that time. We will find that sometimes the meaning of the word "China" is not too different from what we use today, but sometimes the meanings can be very different. That's it, it's obvious when we look at it. So how do we deal with the problem of the concept of China? That’s the next question, how to think about it, how to understand it, how people in Qing times, Qing emperors, and Qing officials understood what "China" was at that time, I think this is a question worth studying, and it’s not to say that Qing dynasty is not China. Words are not so simple to say."

In Chinese:

"我应该强调的一点是，确实在很多地方现在流行的一个看法是，新清史是把清朝和中国分得很开，但是我觉得这是一种误解。新清史对于清朝和中国之间的关系，是提出了一个问题，也就是在问，清朝和中国—“中国”这个词要加括号，因为“中国”这个概念一直在变，这个黄兴涛自己也承认“中国”是一个很会变的符号，不是固定的东西，如果我们以我们今天的中国概念去想清朝时的中国概念的话，那我们就违背了历史学的一个很基本的原则。我们不要把我们以为今天的“中国”是什么来想清朝的时候的那个“中国”是什么，因为那个绝对不会附和他们当时的人的那个想象、那个构想。不会的。所以新清史只不过是想要提倡、想要了解清代时候的与“中国”这个概念，或国家这个概念也好，我们要很踏实地去看档案资料，也不要光依赖史书，清朝史书也是编写的，也不是原始的资料，还是看档案好，看这些概念、这些词汇当时是怎么用的。我们会发现，有的时候“中国”这个字眼的意思跟我们今天用它的意思差不太多了，但同时也会发现有的时候用“中国”这个字眼跟我们今天用“中国”这个字眼很不一样。就是这样的，我们看待它的时候就会很明显了。那我们怎么样去处理对中国这个概念的问题呢？那是再来的问题，怎么去想它，怎么去理解它，清代的时候的人、清代皇帝、清代官员他们怎么去理解他们那个时候的作为中国，这个我觉得是值得研究的问题，也不是说清朝不是中国。话也不是这么简单就可以说的。"

--Wengier (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)