Talk:Qing dynasty/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Revised lede

Friends;

I have made changes in response to Madalibi's suggestion, also to his remark as to the number of visits per day! The changed lede retains much of the present language but tightened to make room for other important events and people.

Here are comparisons:

Items changed

• omitted less important figures: Li Zicheng, Chongzhen Emperor, Shun dynasty, second mention of Self-Strengthening Movement, Empress Dowager Longyu, Zhang Xun
• added central topics: multi-cultural nature of Qing rule, Opium War, Taiping Rebellion, Tongzhi Restoration, Hundred Days Reform, Boxer Uprising, late Qing reforms, 1911 Revolution, Empress Dowager Cixi, Yuan Shikai, Sun Yatsen, Liang Qichao, Kang Youwei.

Length

I have paid heed to TheLeopard’s comments of 15 August 2013.

• The suggested revised lede is still four paragraphs.
• Word count grew from 470 to 562 words. Ming, Song, and Han dynasty articles are all over 600 words.

Dynasty Articles Word Count and Lede Word Count

Article	Approx Total Words	Bytes	Words in Lede
Qing Dynasty	14,000	107,189	562
Ming dynasty	14,000	112,507	622
Song Dynasty	14,00	111,587	660
Tang Dynasty	17,000	137,168	540
Han Dynasty	17,000	128,256	656
United States of America			631 words (6 paragraphs)

NOTE: The word counts are approximate and may have changed since I compiled this chart.

Cheers! ch (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for being bold, this reads much better! We finally have a coherent narrative that raises the main issues of Qing history without getting bogged down in unnecessary details. Note that the articles on Han, Tang, Song, and Ming are all featured articles, so our length is well within acceptable limits. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The revision is great! But I would think about the placement of some of the content. For example, the line about the Manchu ruled a multi-cultural empire that lasted three centuries... is something that readers would come away with after reading the article, instead of putting a really obvious summation in the last line of the first paragraph. It comes off quite random, especially most of the content are strictly events. All in all, it seems unnecessary and its not the right place to put it.--TheLeopard (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have restored that sentence. The whole point of the lead is to summarize things that readers will get from reading the body of the article. That sentence in particular addresses the significance of this dynasty in Chinese history, so it belongs in the opening paragraph. Maybe it's a little too upbeat, though. Kanguole 11:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that such content belongs in the lead. For one, the Tibetan and Mongol connection is an important part of modern scholarship on the Qing. Also, the sentence on the multi-ethnic empire and the relation to modern Chinese territory is exactly the Qing of "Big Picture" statement we need in the lede. Like TheLeopard, though, I'm not sure it belongs with the rest of the content of the first paragraph. Could we put that sentence at the end of the lede in a new paragraph that would explain the historical significance of the Qing in Chinese history? Madalibi (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of these "things" are only a tiny part among all the content in this very long article. Its quite unbalanced that a large amount of information that are summarized in the lead comes from the History section (especially one segment in Kangxi), while plenty in the other sections are ignored in the lead. The placement of that sentence in the first paragraph is just random, thus I moved it so it could have some context.--TheLeopard (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine too! I agree that history takes a lot of space in the lede, but that's probably because our history section is far more developed and our other sections need to be fleshed out more. In comparison, the lede of the featured article Han dynasty has only one paragraph on the history of the Han. The rest discusses Han society, economy, government, science and technology, etc. I hope one day our article will develop enough to allow for this kind of arrangement! In the mean time the significance of the Qing doesn't have to be limited to its geopolitical significance (as described by CH's sentence). That's why I think an extra paragraph would be necessary, where we could outline the significance of the Qing in all kinds of domains, including literature, the economy, etc. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do believe that the integration of Manchus, Han, Mongols, and Tibetans (not just Manchus and Han) into one polity was at the core of Qing rulership. Kanguole, CH, and I all think this sentence belongs in the lede, as this aspect of Qing history is emphasized in a large number of reliable sources. So far you have deleted it at the same time as you moved or deleted the sentence on the "multi-ethnic empire," but your edit summaries did not really clarify why you don't think it belongs in the lede. Could you explain your thoughts on this issue so that we can reach some kind of consensus? Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was over summarized. Several of them, such as patronage of Tibetan Buddhism, are inherently part of early Manchu culture (when you go to the Manchu people article, it already explains it), thus didn't really need to be stated again. I don't think we should put every single thing in the Kangxi Emperor section up in the lead.--TheLeopard (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for clarifying! Even if it's in the Kangxi section right now, I think this statement actually applies to far more than the Kangxi era. For example, Hong Taiji already patronized Tibetan Buddhism, the Shunzhi emperor received the Fifth Dalai Lama in Beijing, the former residence of the Yongzheng emperor when he was a prince was turned into a Tibetan lamasery (the Yonghe Temple in Beijing), the Qianlong emperor meddled in Tibetan affairs and in the politics of reincarnation, etc. A referenced statement in the Manchu people article states that "Buddhism was used by rulers to control Mongolians and Tibetans; it was of little relevance to ordinary Manchus in the Qing Dynasty." I'm not sure we could say that Tibetan Buddhism was an inherent part of Manchu culture, but I would certainly say it was an inherent part of Qing political culture, which is the whole point here.

Similarly Hong Taiji formed alliances with Mongols (he even created the Mongol Eight Banners in 1635), there was a special bureau to deal with Mongol affairs (the Lifan Yuan, an institution unique to the Qing), and various emperors received Mongol and Tibetan dignitaries in the summer resort of Chengde ("Jehol") until late in the dynasty. It's true that the Mongols almost never participated in civilian government in "China proper," but they played important political roles in other regions of the Qing empire.

This all goes far beyond the Kangxi emperor. If the current location of this sentence in the Kangxi section is misleading, maybe we could move it to the section on Qing government, perhaps under a new sub-section on Qing emperorship? In any case I persist in thinking that the patronizing of Tibetan Buddhism and the inclusion of Mongols in the polity are not superficial details about Qing history. They are at the very core of Qing history, and as such should belong in the lede! :) Madalibi (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, figures such as Li Zicheng should be mentioned by name, even if just briefly; link the person to peasant rebels doesn't clarify much.--TheLeopard (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point! And I think your sentence is more accurate, because not all Banner troops were Manchu. I also liked "the last emperor abdicated" instead of "the Qing" or "the Manchus" abdicated, so I restored "the last emperor" with a piped link to Puyi. Madalibi (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between two versions of one sentence proposed by CH and TheLeopard respectively:

• CH: "Emperors enjoyed and patronized Chinese culture and used the examination system to recruit Han Chinese to work in parallel with Manchus"
• TheLeopard (partly based on earlier versions of the lede): "Over the course of its reign, the Qing became highly integrated with Chinese culture and retained the imperial examinations to recruit Han Chinese to work in parallel with Manchus."
  

You both seem to agree about mentioning Chinese culture and the use of the "imperial exams to recruit and Han Chinese," but the other formulations are quite different. "In parallel" alludes to the well-known dyarchy between Banner and Han officials, but it gives the impression that there were two parallel governments, which is not quite true. "Alongside" might be better here. "The Qing became highly integrated with Chinese culture," on the other hand, sounds too vague. Who or what was "integrated with Chinese culture": court culture? The Qing ruling style? The habits of emperors? The customs of the population? The life of Bannermen? CH's sentence speaks only of emperors, which is specific but perhaps a bit narrow. Not sure how to solve this... Maybe it's just difficult to make specific statements about a broad concept like Chinese culture? I need to think more about this, but would love to hear suggestions! Madalibi (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Friends;

This is a most enlightening discussion and has improved the lede in several respects. I am most grateful for your forbearance. However I would like to weigh in on a few points:

1) Adding more?

TheLeopard has earned my respect and gratitude for longstanding attention to this article, and I very much took to heart his comments of August 15 that the lede cannot be longer than four paragraphs. My (too long) lede of that date included mention of cultural aspects that I would very much like to have included here, as well as other figures, so if we are to add others back in, then I would like to consider:

• Li Zicheng is hard to add when we don't have He Shen, Lin Zexu. Zeng Guofan, Li Hongzhang, Hong Xiuquan, Yuan Shikai, and a number of others. So if we have room to add more names, let's add them, not Li.
• BTW the article Li Zicheng needs work.
• Restoring Puyi is fine, but he did not abdicate, as he was too young to read or write, much less have any opinion on the subject (ok, he was not "a subject" but the monarch -- sorry, couldn't resist!). My suggested language was deliberately vague, and I think good enough for the lede: "The Manchus abdicated."
• I would only partially agree with the thought behind "Over the course of its reign, the Qing became highly integrated with Chinese culture and retained the imperial examinations to recruit Han Chinese to work in parallel with Manchus." First, "the Qing" is too abstract and not the style of referring to the dynasty. Since the point is that "the Qing" included Manchus, Han Chinese, Mongols, and Tibetans, then the sentence means "Manchus, Han Chinese, Mongols, and Tibetans became highly integrated with Manchu, Han Chinese, Mongol, and Tibetan culture."

I wouldn't insist on going back to "Emperors enjoyed and patronized Chinese culture and used the examination system to recruit Han Chinese to work in parallel with Manchus," but it does have some advantages.

Here is a paragraph I drafted but did not include because of lack of space:

Peace led to unprecedented economic growth and cultural flowering, especially in the urbanized Lower Yangzi Valley. Manchu rulers and Han Chinese scholar-official elites gradually came to terms with each other. The Manchu conquerors required Han males to wear their hair in the queue hairstyle upon penalty of death, and the custom soon became universally accepted. The attempt to abolish the Chinese custom of footbinding among women failed, however. The examination system offered a path for ethnic Han to become scholar-officialsand emperors personally sponsored the Kangxi dictionary and the Siku quanshu, an encyclopedic collection of classical texts, and issued Sacred Edicts effectively extolling Confucian values. But they also instituted large scale repression and censorship. Culture flowered in sometimes contradictory directions. Vernacular fiction reached a pinnacle in the Dream of the Red Chamber; scholars developed critical "Evidential Studies", a textually based Confucian scholarship which condemned idealistic Ming Confucianism as lax; and painters such as Bada Shanren experimented with unorthodox styles.

[Message by Madalibi within ch's post.] Thank you for all these thoughtful suggestions, ch! As I've been saying about a lot of suggestions lately, I think these are the kinds of broad statements we need in the lede instead of detailed explanations of events with lots of names. This paragraph (154 words of prose) + the current lede (571 words) give a total of 727 words. This is too long, but not by much if we take the articles on other important dynasties as a reference.

Suggestion: how about we add this paragraph and cut 100 words from the resulting lede? That would leave us with 627 words, which seems appropriate. Cutting people's names and historical details would be a good way of saving space. For example instead of the current...

In 1644, peasant rebels led by Li Zicheng conquered the Ming capital Beijing. Rather than serve them, Ming general Wu Sangui pledged allegiance to the Manchus and opened the Shanhai Pass to the Banner Armies led by Prince Dorgon, who defeated the rebels and seized Beijing. (45 words)

...we could have something simple like...

In 1644 Qing armies seized Beijing from peasant rebels who had overthrown the Ming. (14 words)

That's 31 down, and only 69 more to go! We could cut more by merging some of the content of the new paragraph with existing content, for example on the population. All we will need then is a bit of tightening, and we will have reached our objective. What do you all think? Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

2) First paragraph.

I feel strongly that we can and should have some such characterization in the first paragraph of the lede as "The Manchus ruled a multi-cultural empire which lasted almost three centuries and their conquests assembled the territorial base for the modern Chinese nation." This is the article in a nutshell so it should be in the first paragraph.

I did some more research before (again, reluctantly) coming to a different conclusion from TheLeopard. Here are sentences from the first paragraphs of the ledes of other dynastic articles. I do not think that all of these are the best sentences possible, but they show clearly that such sentences are, though not invariable, at least normal:

• Ming dynasty: The Ming, described by some as "one of the greatest eras of orderly government and social stability in human history"
• Song dynasty: "was the first government in world history to nationally issue banknotes or true paper money, and the first Chinese government to establish a permanent standing navy. This dynasty also saw the first known use of gunpowder, as well as the first discernment of true north using a compass."
• Han dynasty (A Featured Article): "Spanning over four centuries, the period of the Han Dynasty is considered a golden age in Chinese history. To this day, China's majority ethnic group refers to itself as the "Han people" and the Chinese script is referred to as "Han characters"."

Cheers once again! ch (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Han, Song, and Ming are all featured articles, so they all deserve to be taken as models. I therefore support placing your sentence in the first paragraph as you had originally proposed. Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That was my thinking too. Besides the bare facts of names, dates, predecessors and successors, the opening paragraph needs a brief indication of the broader significance of this dynasty. "last imperial dynasty" is part of that, but so is "assembled the territorial base for the modern Chinese nation" and (perhaps) "multi-cultural empire". Kanguole 14:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Lord Charle's Beresford's description of Chinese forts and their gunners in the late Qing

http://books.google.com/books?id=FWgKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA290#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=hLs0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA290#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=VSZRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1022#v=onepage&q&f=false

Qing topics nominated for good articles

I have nominated Shamanism in the Qing dynasty and Deliberative Council of Princes and Ministers for good article status. Interested editors are welcome to start a review by following these instructions. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(And while I'm at it...) I've also submitted the recently expanded List of emperors of the Qing Dynasty for peer review in preparation for an eventual featured list candidacy. The peer review page is here. Thank you again! Madalibi (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Successive entities

As of January 26, 2014, the only successive entity listed on this article's infobox is the Republic of China (1912–1949). However, both the Kingdom of Tibet and the State of Mongolia became independent after the Xinhai Revolution. Should these countries also be listed as the successor states of the Qing Empire? After all, they did have authority over the former territory of the empire. B14709 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they probably should along with Taiwan, but the latter might prove to be a bit of a political hot potato depending on which side of the One-China policy fence one sits. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 22:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's cleaner, and more in line with treatments in the sources, to stick with the main successor in the infobox and give detail in the article text. In the past the infobox has listed as successors Republic of China (1912–1949), Mongolia (1911–21), Tibet (1912–51), Republic of Formosa, British Hong Kong, Portuguese Macau, Guangzhouwan, Kiautschou Bay concession, Empire of Japan and many more, turning the infobox into an unwieldy mess. I'd rather keep that can of worms closed. Kanguole 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Qing ideology regarding "China"

The Qing identified their state as "China" (Zhongguo), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in Manchu. The Qing equated the lands of the Qing state (including present day Manchuria, Dzungaria in Xinjiang, Mongolia, and other areas as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multi ethnic state.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao%20-%20reinventing%20china.pdf

When the Qing conquered Dzungaria in the Ten_Great_Campaigns#The_Zunghars_and_pacification_of_Xinjiang_.281755.E2.80.931759.29, they proclaimed that their land was absorbed into "China".

http://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&pg=PA77&dq=Dulimbai+gurun+land&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jEHtUunnIIvksASBzIEQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun%20land&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&pg=PA83&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA503&dq=steppes+mountains+rivers+Dzungar+unified+with+china&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5UHtUuvvCcu_sQStu4HYBw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=steppes%20mountains%20rivers%20Dzungar%20unified%20with%20china&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA503&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_0LtUoGlNMTCywHW0ICAAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

In many other Manchu records they refer to their state as China and as Manchus as inhabitants of China, and when they refer to the Qing in conparison with other lands, they use "China"

http://books.google.com/books?id=qlJpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA205&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=t2JTJW0X6LkC&pg=PA205&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA218&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=90LtUpuHEaSMyAHAl4DoDA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=zqVug_wN4hEC&pg=PA102&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m0PtUtv-OIOTyQHX8YCwAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dw9gYo4Pk0MC&pg=PA211&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=LbmP_1KIQ_8C&pg=PA304&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=TmhtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA80&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-0PtUoKZEKWgyAH8oIHgBQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/尼布楚條約_(漢文界碑)

http://zh.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=尼布楚條約_%28漢文界碑%29&variant=zh-hant

［Nerchinsk Treaty］ 「...將流入黑龍江之額爾古納河為界。河之南岸、屬於中國。河之北岸、屬於鄂羅斯。」 "Argun river will be set as the border (between the two countries). The land from the south of the river belongs to China; the land from the north of the river belongs to Russia."

「將流入黑龍江之額爾古納河為界，河之南岸屬於中國（Qing），河之北岸屬於鄂羅斯」

https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/大義覺迷錄

https://zh.wikisource.org/zh/大義覺迷錄

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/大義覺迷錄

「...(逆賊)不知本朝之為滿洲，猶中國之有籍貫。」 "(traitors) are so foolish that they don't even understand that Manchu is a part of China." --Yongzheng, emperor of Qing Ｄynasty.

《大義覺迷錄》：在逆賊等之意，徒謂本朝以滿洲之君，入為中國之主，妄生此疆彼界之私，遂故為訕謗詆譏之說耳。不知本朝之為滿洲，猶中國之有籍貫。舜為東夷之人，文王為西夷之人，曾何損於聖德乎？

Nurhaci described Manchu way of life

Nurhaci described the Manchu way of life as farming land and eating grain, as opposed to Mongols livestock nomadic pastoralism and eating meat.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hi2THl2FUZ4C&pg=PA31&dq=Nurhaci+mongol+meat+grain&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4XXsUujGIeO1sASQ0IDwBg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Nurhaci%20mongol%20meat%20grain&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA68&dq=Nurhaci+mongol+meat+grain&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4XXsUujGIeO1sASQ0IDwBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Nurhaci%20mongol%20meat%20grain&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA127&dq=Mongols+Manchus+Nurhaci+stressed+differences&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XnbsUoCeHLSqsASiy4DABQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mongols%20Manchus%20Nurhaci%20stressed%20differences&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Han Dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

article is in need of serious revision due to over unhistorical Han bias

This article seems to propound the Han Chinese Nationalist view (party line?), that the Qing Dynasty was a "corrupt", "foreign", "stagnant", as well as politically and economically illegitimate empire, that prompted the technological and cultural decline of Han China before the entrance of the European Powers. It is in urgent need of rewrite and review as it does not adhere to Western scholarly standards of objectivity and impartiality.

There are many historical inaccuracies in this. Firstly, the Jurchens (or Manchus) have historically lived in China for thousands of years, and were not a nomadic invading culture from the Steppes. Secondly, Jurchens are ethnically, culturally and racially related to the Chinese. Therefore they are just as much apart of the fabric and make up of China, since they have fallen (past and present) within its boarders.

China isn't a homogenous society: it is an ethnically and culturally diverse country, with every culture being as legitimate and "Chinese" as the next. Throughout its history, it has been awash with warfare, rebellions, new dynasties and empires. The Qing dynasty is just one example of many, that is no less legitimate than any other, since all Chinese dynasties have been built by war, conquest and oppression.

There is an erroneous view that the Manchus were a culturally regressive culture, that tragically halted the Han Chinese Pipe Dream of being the worlds most technologically advanced culture. This is an illusion, since England was the most technologically advanced culture by the 17th Century (before the Qing dynast!), and was well ahead in Science and technology. Another point worth mentioning is that the practice of foot binding was not originated by the Manchus but the Han Chinese. The Manchus are on the record for opposing it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurien candidate (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

IPA

Is the IPA wrong? This is the IPA shown: [tɕʰíŋ tʂʰɑ̌ʊ̯] I can't actually find this character "í" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Mandarin. Perhaps it's supposed to be "i"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nearwater (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a tone mark, equivalent to ī (first tone) in pinyin. See the lower right of that page. It doesn't list every vowel-tone combination. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Kangxi's extermination of the Manchu Hoifan (Hoifa) and Ula tribes after they rebelled against the Qing

Page 36

http://books.google.com/books?id=KHwPAAAAYAAJ&q=N.N.+Krotkov+mentions+in+his+memoirs+that+in+the+thirty+fifth+year+of+the+Emperor+Kangxi's+reign+(1697)+the+Manchu+tribe+Hoifan+(Hoifa)+rebelled+against+the+Qing+authorities+and+was+exterminated+by+the+regular+forces,+and+in+the+forty-first+year+of+the+Emperor+Kangxi's+rule+(1703)+the+Manchu+tribe+Ula+ceased+to+exist+(Krotkov+,+191+1-1912:1+17-37).+The+rebellions+of+the+tribes+Hoifan+and+Ula+took+place+at+the+time+when+the+Sibe's+resettlement+had+been+proceeding,+and+the+coincidence&dq=N.N.+Krotkov+mentions+in+his+memoirs+that+in+the+thirty+fifth+year+of+the+Emperor+Kangxi's+reign+(1697)+the+Manchu+tribe+Hoifan+(Hoifa)+rebelled+against+the+Qing+authorities+and+was+exterminated+by+the+regular+forces,+and+in+the+forty-first+year+of+the+Emperor+Kangxi's+rule+(1703)+the+Manchu+tribe+Ula+ceased+to+exist+(Krotkov+,+191+1-1912:1+17-37).+The+rebellions+of+the+tribes+Hoifan+and+Ula+took+place+at+the+time+when+the+Sibe's+resettlement+had+been+proceeding,+and+the+coincidence&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dlpoU_3EG-7isATt24EY&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

http://books.google.com/books?ei=dlpoU_3EG-7isATt24EY&id=KHwPAAAAYAAJ&dq=N.N.+Krotkov+mentions+in+his+memoirs+that+in+the+thirty+fifth+year+of+the+Emperor+Kangxi%27s+reign+%281697%29+the+Manchu+tribe+Hoifan+%28Hoifa%29+rebelled+against+the+Qing+authorities+and+was+exterminated+by+the+regular+forces%2C+and+in+the+forty-first+year+of+the+Emperor+Kangxi%27s+rule+%281703%29+the+Manchu+tribe+Ula+ceased+to+exist+%28Krotkov+%2C+191+1-1912%3A1+17-37%29.+The+rebellions+of+the+tribes+Hoifan+and+Ula+took+place+at+the+time+when+the+Sibe%27s+resettlement+had+been+proceeding%2C+and+the+coincidence&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=ceased+exist+rebellions

Title Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 8 Uralic & Central Asian Studies, Manchu Grammar Volume 7 of Handbook of Oriental Studies Volume 7 of Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 8 Uralic and Central Asian Studies Volume 7 of Handbook of oriental studies : Sect. 8, Central Asia / Handbuch der Orientalistik / 8 Volume 7 of Handbuch der Orientalistik. Achte Abteilung, Handbook of Uralic studies Volume 7 of Handbuch der Orientalistik: Achte Abteilung, Central Asia Handbuch der Orientalistik: Zentralasien Editor Liliya M. Gorelova Publisher Brill Academic Pub, 2002 Original from the University of Virginia Digitized Oct 17, 2007 ISBN 9004123075, 9789004123076 Length 600 pages Subjects History › Europe › General

Rajmaan (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Predecessor and successor in infobox

What predecessors and successors should we show in the infobox? These fields have a tendency to turn into an unwieldy mess. Personally I think it would be in line with with academic practice to limit it to Ming as predecessor and Republic as successor. Kanguole 12:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems sensible, too much flagcruft otherwise. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 12:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The start date should be 1616, when the Manchus have freed themselves from Ming rule, or 1635 when the Later Jin have been renamed to Qing. Regards. Fabiorss1983 (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Dynasty ?

Reigns of Qing emperors

1616–1626	Nurhaci
1626–1643	Hong Taiji
	Dorgon (1643-1650)
1644–1661	Shunzhi
1662–1722	Kangxi
1723–1735	Yongzheng
1736–1796	Qianlong
1796–1820	Jiaqing
1821–1850	Daoguang
1851–1861	Xianfeng
1862–1875	Tongzhi
1875–1908	Guangxu
1909–1912	Xuantong

It would be great to have a numbered list of the successive emperors of this dynasty, with birth, reign and death years, and the most common name of the person, using English spelling. As it stands, this article is so unclear ! Pldx1 (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pldx1! All this info (and much more) can be found on List of emperors of the Qing dynasty. Do you have a suggestion for making that page more visible here for people who have the same questions as you? Madalibi (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a timeline like the one at right would be useful as a framework for the narrative. Kanguole 14:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Madalibi. Thanks for this quick response! May be a disambiguation line at the top of the page would be the best way, for people using 'dynasty' as a succession of people rather than as the name of an historical period. By the way, I have added a number in the list of the 12 emperors.

Moreover: was lunar year 1626 attributed to Nurhaci or to Hong Taji ? Pldx1 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The ones you've added (Nurhaci, Hong Taiji and Dorgon) didn't rule China. Kanguole 15:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful sidebar, Kanguole! And the (discreet) numbers make a fine addition to List of emperors of the Qing dynasty, Pldx1. I've always wondered if we could add a {{see also}} template to the top of a page. If the two topics are very clearly related, I'd say why not, but of course we need some kind of consensus before proceeding...

As for the reign years of Qing emperors, they're a bit artificial. The Kangxi emperor (1662–1722) actually became emperor in early February 1661, a few days after the death of his father the Shunzhi emperor and a whole year before his new era name "Kangxi" came into effect on 18 February 1622, the first day of the Chinese lunisolar year following Shunzhi's death. The dates you see are those of era names, not actual reign years, and that's why they look perfectly clean cut: 1644–1661 is followed by 1662–1722, and then 1723–1735, with no overlap whatsoever. Now Nurhaci (r. 1616–1626) and Hong Taiji (r. 1626–1643) were not known by their era names, so their reign years naturally overlap in 1626, the year Nurhaci died and Hong Taiji succeeded him. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Navigation template Qing dynasty topics

Evecurid has done a great service by creating a powerful new navigation template, Template:Qing dynasty topics. This should be of tremendous help in coordinating and developing the articles in this area. Congratulations to Evecurid for letting us see all this so clearly. ch (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Other names for the Qing dynasty

I think there are a few alternative names for the Qing dynasty, such as Qing Empire, Empire of the Great Qing, Great Qing (state), Manchu dynasty, Manchu (Qing) empire etc. (There are even names such as Ta Tsing empire because of different romanizations; among which Great Qing or Ta Tsing were the official name for the Qing, although not necessarily a common name in English literature). Should they all be listed in the first paragraph, or should they be mentioned in the "Names" section of the article instead? Thanks for suggestions. --Evecurid (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a headache! The present day international concept "official name" did not exist for much of the dynasty so many terms were used and there was no need for any one of them to be used exclusively, even though some uses had political purposes. In the early reigns, an emperor might sometimes use one term and sometimes another; a treaty (which you would think would be "official"), might use still another; and Han officials might use any of them or none. So it seems useful to readers to list the most common terms in the lead, but to save a lengthy explanation for the "Names" section.

The term "Ta Tsing," is, as you say, only a different romanization for 大 请, in pinyin Da Qing, not a different name, so there is no need to list it, certainly not in the lead, any more than there is a need to list Ta Ch'ing, which is Wade-Giles. Official documents also used 本朝 (benchao) or 我国 woguo to mean "the dynasty" or "our country" or maybe just "us" or "we." So the use of any one of these or other terms in a particular time or place doesn't mean that others were not also valid.

And this is all before we even get to the names in Manchu, Mongol, Tibetan, and Uighur, which were all "official" languages (or maybe better, "court languages").ch (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between names officially used by the Qing for themselves and names which foreigners called them which need to be noted as such. The Qing called themselves Daicing Gurun (Qing State, Warrior State), Da Qing Diguo (Great Qing Empire), Zhongguo (Middle Kingdom, China). "Manchu Empire" and "Manchu Dynasty" were foreign western language names used by some westerners in the 19th century and early 20th century. "Man Qing" 满清 was a derogatory name used by anti-Qing revolutionaries in their writings such as those involved in the Xinhai Revolution. The Qing never called itself "Man Qing".

The Ottoman Empire called itself "Osmanli Devleti" (Ottoman state). It did not call itself "Turkish Empire". That was used by foreign Europeans who called them "Imperium Turcicum" in Latin, and its noted as such at Names of the Ottoman Empire, exactly which language the name originated from. Any names on here need to have the exact origin- who used them (both the country of origin and the political ideology) and in what language.Rajmaan (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well informed and well put! ch (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have established the new article Names of the Qing dynasty. --Cartakes (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Photographs of the Emperors

Are there photos of the Qing emperors (other than Puyi)? Does anyone knows a good book that has them? I've seen books with photos of Cixi, but I was thinking of Guangxu and his predecessors. --Lecen (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There are photos of Emperor Guangxu, there are some on Commons, you can also google them. --108.45.35.85 (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom or Great Britain

Any talk of Great Britain or United Kingdom should be corrected. Before 1801 it should be referred to Great Britain and afterwards it should be referred to as United Kingdom. If unsure, use "Britain" but not "Great Britain" as it "Britain" will refer to the British people and government at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.16.71 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Similar for Tsardom of Russia vs Russian Empire. There was no Russian Empire before 1721. --Cartakes (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be simpler and clearer, especially as European politics isn't the focus here, just to say Britain, Russia or France (rather than French Empire/Republic). Kanguole 19:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Various flags of the Qing Empire in public domain

Qing era book in Chinese which contains images flags of the Qing and various foreign states, including both state, naval, and personal flags of the monarchs of those countries. The Qing state and Beiyang Navy flag and other flags are included. Someone upload these flags to commons.

通商約章成案彙編

Rajmaan (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Good material perhaps too detailed for this main article?

Thanks once again to Rajmaan for the recent addition, which seems significant but out of proportion in this article. Is there someplace else it could go, with a link in this article?

Zheng Keshuang was awarded the title "Duke Haicheng" (海澄公) and was inducted into the Han Chinese Plain Red Banner of the Eight Banners when he moved to Beijing. Several Ming princes had accompanied Koxinga to Taiwan in 1661-1662, including the Prince of Ningjing Zhu Shugui and Prince Zhu Honghuan (朱弘桓), son of Zhu Yihai, where they lived in the Kingdom of Tungning. The Qing sent the 17 Ming princes still living on Taiwan in 1683 back to mainland China where they spent the rest of their lives in exile since their lives were spared from execution. Winning Taiwan freed Kangxi's forces for series of battles over Albazin, the far eastern outpost of the Tsardom of Russia. Zheng's former soldiers on Taiwan like the rattan shield troops were also inducted into the Eight Banners and used by the Qing against Russian Cossacks at Albazin.

ch (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Diguo is not an ancient term

It should be noted that Diguo is a calque translation of the western "empire" and only started to be used in the 19th century by China, Japan and Korea.Rajmaan (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Qing dynasty. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160425031918/http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Present_Day_Political_Organization_of_China_1000115601/507 to http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Present_Day_Political_Organization_of_China_1000115601/507
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://courses.washington.edu/chin463/OwenSilentOpera.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924212813/http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1950_population.htm to http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1950_population.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

IPA, zh in lede

Kanguole raised a good question with the edit inserting the IPA for “Qing.” I confess that I may have been the one who removed it, and I apologize that I didn’t discuss it on the TalkPage. I have done so in other places, which is no excuse, but there is not any clear general MOS policy, though WP:Pinyin “English Wikipedia uses pinyin as the default Romanisation method for Chinese characters.” which implies you don't need IPA. It’s a can of worms!

But the particular case of the dynasties, the IPA is in the Info Box, and the only other dynasty to have had the IPA c was the Qin dynasty, which I removed, since we should be consistent.

Other cases probably need IPA, especially when dealing with language. But my feeling is that most readers don't understand it, and I include myself in that group.ch (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not me – I think you mean TheLeopard. Kanguole 20:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right!ch (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Zhongguo?

The article says that 'After conquering "China proper", the Manchus identified their state as "China" (中國, Zhōngguó; "Middle Kingdom")'. However according to this source (http://www.boundary2.org/2015/07/born-in-translation-china-in-the-making-of-zhongguo/) the term 'Zhongguo' was not used until the late nineteenth century. Is anyone able to shed any light? Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There's been a lot of debate over this question among scholars, for it has political implications, and then of course among Wikipedia editors: see Names of China#Zhongguo and Names of the Qing dynasty for more detail (more, perhaps, than is needed?).

But at least in the opening, Dirlik doesn't say that the term was not used until the late Qing, only that it did not become the "appropriate name for the nation." Lots more to say, and hard to figure out what this article should say that would be solid but useful to most readers, who are not much interested in controversies. What would you like to see?ch (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It is used in both the original Manchu and the later Chinese language version of the Treaty of Nerchinsk. Zhongguo in Manchu is translatd as Dulimbai Gurun which is a literal translation of the meaning- Middle Kingdom. The Manchu version of the Treaty of Nerchisnk was signed in 1689 and it called the Qing as "Dulimbai gurun"- all of the Qing including the Manchu homeland in Heilongjiang, whose border the Treaty delimitated. The Russian and Latin versions of the Treaty said "China" where the Manchu version said Dulimbai Gurun. This was the first time Zhongguo was used in an international treaty. The Manchu version of the Treaty of Kyakhta in 1727 also refers to the Qing as Dulimbai Gurun.Rajmaan (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Qing dynasty. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708052240/http://www.lingnanart.com/home.htm to http://www.lingnanart.com/home.htm

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Qing dynasty. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.ied.edu.hk/include/getrichfile.php?key=65354134b204988772a35c7e1ebdf461&secid=3779&filename=asahkconf%2Fconference%2FE002-Translating%20through%20the%20Cultural%20Barriers-the%20Qing%20Imperial%20Multilingualism.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105193242/http://big5.china.com.cn/city/txt/2007-03/08/content_7927803.htm to https://big5.china.com.cn/city/txt/2007-03/08/content_7927803.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170702112941/http://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/kindergarden.php to https://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/kindergarden.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218120420/http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial3.html to https://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial3.html

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Manchu and Mongolian archery during the Qing dynasty

Is this article a reliable source to cite to add a part on archery during the Qing? Donald Trung (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a close call! Thanks for referencing the Peter Dekker blog, which is fascinating. It is probably reliable enough to reference the addition a sentence or two on this Qing dynasty article, but individuals' blog articles are not generally a Reliable Source @ WP:UGC so it might be better to cite the professional academic blog posting that is Dekker's source.

BTW, Thanks for your interest in this Qing article. You might do a little more searching in the Manchu history books in the references and what Dekker cites to add richer or more detailed information in the linked articles such as Military of the Qing dynasty.

You might also add the Dekker blog as an external link to those articles.

All the best in any case.ch (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Gong Jin'ou.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Regarding the infobox edit war by sock or meat sock, i have a copy of Rise of Modern China, let see which name he used in the book (take aside pinyin and Wade–Giles problem).

For list all the emperors or some of the emperors , infobox should contain not more than 5 items of the same class, which List of emperors of the Qing dynasty already served as the function to list all emperors . However, when such edit was reverted, please start discussion, but not edit war with meat sock. Matthew hk (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Military#Beginnings and early development

I reluctantly removed a block of material, mostly added recently in good faith by Baternik. The material is included, as it should be, in the main article, Military of the Qing dynasty. The mention of individuals, the repetition of points already made rendered it Undue weight. It and occasional slips in grammar were also problems. In addition, much of the material was in one unparagraphed block. ANother point is that none of these additions were properly described in the summaries.ch (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in the Hong Taiji section

I am unsure about this sentence: "Hong Taiji conquered the territory north of Shanhai Pass by Ming dynasty and Ligdan Khan in Inner Mongolia."

Does it mean: "Hong Taiji conquered the territory north of Shanhai Pass formerly controlled by the Ming dynasty and the Ligdan Khan in Inner Mongolia."

I'm just guessing... Does anybody know? I'm mainly working with copyediting, so I don't have expertise of the subject. Thanks!

--Alan Islas (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

About the map

The map used in this article's infobox was not the map of Qing Dynasty in its greatest extent. Since other articles uses maps that shows the greatest extent of a country, why not for this article? Why not use map of Qing Dynasty in 18th century, instead of 19th century, where the Empire has ceded some territory to other countries?--Alvin Lee 13:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree, the map should be of the Qianlong period in the 18th century, as that was the peak of the Qing power. The main difference would be north east border with Russia. We are, however, at the mercy of whoever makes the maps as it is rather a specialist task. Feel free to post another version here if you can create one. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone in contact with someone who's very skilled at making geographical vector maps in SVG format? This 1844 map would be a good non-contemporary source to base such a map on. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, I will try to find a suitable map for this article. May I ask whether the map used must be one similar to the one used in this article?--Alvin Lee 13:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Will any of these be appropriate for this article?

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

--Alvin Lee 13:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a similar problem over at Talk:Han_dynasty#Map. For some reason the wikipedian mapmaker decided to represent protectorate states as a bunch of random unconnected dots unlike the convention used by actual historians where the whole region is shaded in a solid color.Rajmaan (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and this has to be corrected. But for this article, any ideas about maps for Qing?--Alvin Lee 06:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As the SVG mapmaker who created Qing_Empire_circa_1820_EN.svg (fifth from left in the above gallery), AFAIK this is pretty much the empire at its greatest extent. I seem to recall that I tried to insert it in the infobox as the "main" map but it was reverted.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll replace the map with this one, thank you.--Alvin Lee 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but the map is now geographically defective. Examine the northeastern corner. That is not what Outer Manchuria's coastline looks like.Rajmaan (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is decided on a map of the Qing at its greatest extant, then someone might want to make a new map, because Qing Dynasty 1820.png is already used on this article to show the empire's administrative divisions, as it should be, since it specifically shows the provinces. It should be a map with not a lot of details, and easy to identify in the infobox.--TheLeopard (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced with a simpler one.--Alvin Lee 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is similar to empires like Byzantine Empire, we will use the map in 555, not in 867, in order to show the strength of the empire.--Alvin Lee 01:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• 
• 

I'm not convinced that a map showing little more than blobs of colour is useful to anyone.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you kindly suggest a kind of map that will fulfill your requirements? Don't just say every map i used were inappropiate.--Alvin Lee 03:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does it not show Qing at it's maximum extent like many other countries/empires show it at max extent?64.18.152.49 (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Article to create

Article to create: Shadingzhou (沙定州). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not the triangular flag?

They had a triangular flag at one point. It was actually it's first official flag, starting in the 1860's. It was also a very odd story behind it, having being almost being to similar to the Plain Yellow Banner of the original Eight Banners of the Qing Dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnomnomnivore123 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

History Section

Hello, just a passing undergrad who noticed the banner on the article about the excessive length. I know it might sound a bit ridiculous, but I have a question. Have any of you thought of just collapsing the history section of this article? Comparing it to the separate article History of the Qing dynasty, the text appears to be almost exactly the same. If the size of this article is an issue, than why not just reduce the history section to a single paragraph or two and leave the reader to refer to the separate, dedicated article? I am kind of new to researching Chinese history, but I could attempt it myself later this week if it helps...

Goddale120 (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Goddale120: Good eye. I am actually in the middle of cutting the history section down. I created the separate history article by copying this history section. I'm now working on summarizing just the most relevant history, but it is quite a chore. If you'd like to help, the history section still needs to be cut down by at least 20% CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Religion

Much more needs to be added on the overall religious composition of Qing dynasty China, with reference to Buddhism and other native practices as opposed to purely detailing Christian missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Why not Ching?

Who was it that dictated that the West had to spell "Ching" (the traditional Western spelling, and the actual proper pronunciation) as "Qing"? It's absurd. What benefit is achieved and to whom? Can the article be renamed "Ching"? Who would that offend and why? It would be interesting to have a section on the spelling change, the time it happened (if I remember about 1980s?) and the forces behind the move. Is it a form of political correctness? Is Ching considered insulting?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Qing" comes from the pinyin (which was not developed by the West) for the Chinese characters. The old Wade-Giles romanization was "Ch'ing" and the slightly newer Yale romanization was "Ching", but these have been superseded by the pinyin which has been the WP:COMMONNAME for quite some time.

This is purely about the change from Wade-Giles and Yale to pinyin and isn’t specific to the Qing dynasty. Pinyin was adopted as the standard romanization by the PRC in the 1950s, the ISO in 1982, and the UN in 1986.

From this reference in the Yale article, it actually seems to have been political correctness in the opposite direction (i.e. "don't use the Communist system") that prevented the broader adoption of pinyin for thirty-odd years:

In the Cold War era, the use of this system outside China was typically regarded as a political statement, or a deliberate identification with the Chinese communist regime.
— Wiedenhof, Jeroen (Leiden University) (2004). "Purpose and effect in the transcription of Mandarin" (PDF). Proceedings of the International Conference on Chinese Studies 2004 (漢學研究國際學術研討會論文集). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology. p. 390. ISBN 9860040117. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-05-01. Retrieved 2009-07-18. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)

This isn't a matter for the Qing dynasty article though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The "broader adoption of pinyin" didn't require some external force to "prevent" it; on contraire, the only thing that brought about widespread adoption of pinyin was pushing by the Chinese government, apparently to make them feel like they had more "influence" in the world or something (though note none of the historic world powers ever ran around the world demanding other countries spell things a certain way). Anyway, if the Chinese are okay with westerners pronouncing Ching like "King", then...I can't help them... Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firejuggler86: The key thing is that people writing modern academic literature and non-academic literature decided to accept the Hanyu Pinyin spelling after the 1970s during the normalization of relations with the PRC. The naming conventions are based on what English language literature popularly uses. It's case by case, as seen at Talk:History of Istanbul where it was decided that Constantinople should be used for the Ottoman period, even though some modern works retroactively call it Istanbul (when in English at the time Constantinople was used). WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

However, during the 18th century European, empires gradually expanded across the world, as European states developed economies built on maritime trade, colonial extraction, and advances in technology.

It should be:

However, during the 18th century European empire ...

WITHOUT the comma. Fastnfurious.BBQ (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Fastnfurious.BBQ: Corrected. Thank you for your contribution, and cheers! —Sirdog9002 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Where is the Qing ever referred to as "the Qing Empire"?

"The Qing dynasty or the Qing Empire,"

This revision to include this was first added on May 22nd and has been carried on since then, but I find the addition to include this to be without much meaning or evidence; the Qing referred to their state interchangeably as simply "the Qing" or "China" but never as the Qing Empire- and even in western nations, the Qing were often referred to simply as China, the Qing, or the "Manchu Empire"- rarely ever the Qing Empire. I would understand the addition of "Qing Empire" to the article if it was more apparently commonly used but there is no source to back up its addition.
TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A fair question, but a search of Google Books will find any number of reliably sourced references: Qing empire. This is a fair description of the Qing, and translates 帝国 (diguo). Hope this satisfies your curiosity! ch (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, this does well to explain the addition. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Wikimedia editors, respond to request.

• 

In the Infobox the Qing Dynasty's 1760 Northwest and Northeast borders are wrong.

• 

In the Infobox photo a bit of the border should higher west at Tuva, and in the Northeast border they should be a tiny gap in the middle. Somebody please fix. Aaron106 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The map in the infobox looks inaccurate to me as well, but not for the minor reasons you gave. The ultimate source appears to be this map hosted on a deprecated source (Global Security). Seems like the source map includes areas that paid tribute to – but were not formally a part of – the Qing, such as Sakhalin. Yue🌙 03:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The map you've linked to is a copy of map 3-4 from volume 8 of The Historical Atlas of China, and labelled with the year 1820. The other Qing overview map (5-6), labelled 1908, is less expansive in the northeast and northwest, closely matching the black border in the yellow map above (except for the chunk of Burma claimed there). Kanguole 09:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Huic2856: Regarding your revert, nobody is disputing that the Qing annexed Mongolia, Tibet, Xinjiang, and frontier areas north of the Amur River. But can you point me to a reliable source in any language that can verify the claim that Russia ceded Sakhalin in the Treaty of Nerchinsk? Because I cannot find such a claim in either the Sakhalin article nor the Treaty of Nerchinsk article.

The maps referenced in the creation of this map (1):

Qing dynasty in 1760.svg (1)

Are these two:

Qing Dynasty 1760.jpg (2)

Qing Empire circa 1820 EN.svg (3)

Map #3 does not show Sakhalin at all, while Map #2 labels most of the island as "China and its Dominions". This is what I meant by "Seems like the source map includes areas that paid tribute to – but were not formally a part of – the Qing," when I was describing the ultimate source of all these files, linked above. Notably Map #2 also shades Korea in the same colour as Sakhalin, but Map #1 does not include Korea as Qing territory – obviously, because it never was. Map #1 claims to show the Qing dynasty's controlled territory and territorial claims, but it bases its borders on a 1935 map with ambiguous phrasing and chooses what to include and what not to (e.g. Sakhalin, but not Korea?) Yue🌙 05:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the changed map. It does not contain any sources nor is it clearer or easier to understand. Sakhalin is there due to its inclusion on the image of the first map. Whether or not it's problematic is up for debate, but the new image is even worse, being based on a map which ultimately cites zero sources outside wiki commons. Qiushufang (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The new map is also fundamentally not a map of the Qing dynasty but a map of its expansions. For example the former territory of the Ming dynasty is labelled "Pre-Qing Han territory". Why is the map dichotomy between Han and Manchu ethnicities? The Qing included much more than the Manchus and even their ethnic origins are not as clear cut since many of the Eight Banners were derived from Han people that were incorporated in their conquests. Categorizing Qing conquests as merely Manchu expansion does not accurately describe the extent of the state's people. For example the conquest of Taiwan was done primarily by ethnic Han people from Fujian rather than Manchus. It would be more accurate to categorize as Qing expansion. Coloring areas by color also misleads viewers on the administrative status of the different territories. Tibet was much more autonomous than Taiwan, which was an official prefecture after its conquest, yet they are both the same color. Using a map of Qing conquests is as misleading if not more so than the previous map. Qiushufang (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Sakhalin is there due to its inclusion on the image of the first map." Then why not also Korea, since it's shaded in the same colour? "[Map #3] is not an improvement"; let's say I concede to your detailed argument and agree it was a bad choice. Then are we to keep the existing map, which seems like a Chinese irrendist's fantasy? Map #2 (the source) makes a distinction (though not a clear one because it's a bad map) between "China" and "[China's] Dominions", but Map #1 just shades it all in the same colour as if all the differences in territorial status and autonomy you mentioned did not exist. Yue🌙 03:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither convention or necessity dictate that distinctions must be made between administrative divisions or their differences although that could be added as well. But the map that replaced it does not show internal autonomy or distinctions between regions claimed. It's an expansion map like from a video game with "cores" ala video games such as Europa Universalis where culture is the predominant determinant. And even then areas such as Qinghai are arguably untrue; I do not think that part had become Han yet. I can see a case being made for the SVG map that its areas are essentially wherever the Qing held military sway. See Sakhalin#Qing_tributary where it is stated that the Qing did send military into Sakhalin to enforce tributary status which is similar to Tibet. If there is disagreement, an alternative would be to make another map without Sakhalin. It would be a simple cut and paste job since the map is already based on another map without that part colored in. The claim of irredentism can also be made for the new map, which frankly is not that different since that's one of the maps consulted in the SVG anyways, and merely attributes the expansion to Manchus and shading them in the same color, which also contains arbitrary inconsistencies. Why is the conquest of Mongolia in the same color as everything west of it even though it occurred more than 50 years prior? The new map makes even broader claims of tributary status for other countries which are arguably misleading considering that the entire system is a Western invention: Tributary_system_of_China#Definition, while missing the Ryukyus. It even includes the Taiping Rebellion which is unnecessary detail. Neither maps are perfect but I disagree to the new map being superior. I object to it on these grounds. Qiushufang (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Qing Dynasty" is the wrong name

Qing is a mandarin translation of the Manchu Daicing. Since Manchus conquered, created, and ruled over the dynastic empire, the Manchu Daicing name should be used. Plus the Empire name should be the Manchu term Dulimbai Gurun, Middle Kingdom in English. It should not be called "China" since the Empire included not only Ming China, but also Tibet, Mongolia, East Turkistan, and parts of Taiwan and Russia, all which were previously independent of Ming China.

Wikipedia has a sub page explaining this, but headline naming is not correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Qing_dynasty

As a Manchurian person and activist told me on Twitter:

"@Manchurian1932

Daicing Gurun is an empire which contains Manchuria, Tibet, East Turkistan, Mongolia and China. There are different laws and systems that rule separately. The emperor of the empire was the King of Manchuria and the leader of Manchus."

Esteemed history professor Bruce Jacobs makes the same points in this video. He says the Manchu Daicing Empire is wrongly called "China", that China was a conquered nation at that time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3tyHyT0M00&t=1077s TimothyBrummer (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Qing" is the correct choice. One historian and a random guy on Twitter is not enough to go against several decades of scholarly consensus. Yue🌙 01:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2023 (3)

May I edit Qing Dynasty Nathan Andrae Bueno (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)