Talk:Xinhai Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject History  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Taiwan (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject East Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Copy Editing[edit]

Basic copy edit of intro on 20 May 2007 Mtiffany71 05:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Talk archive

"New Armies"[edit]

The original author of this article used the term "new armies", which is misleading and therefore confusing.

After the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), the Qing government reformed the Chinese military. In the section that's titled "Formation of new armies", the author describes the reformed national army (or "New Army", as I have called it) as having consisted of "new armies," whereas in the same section he states that the "new armies" were actually "regiments" (which are also called "brigades"), which are much smaller parts of true armies. Elsewhere in the article, it seems that the "new armies" were sometimes as large as "divisions", which are also only parts of true armies. (For clarification of how a modern army is organized, see: http://www.militarydial.com/army-force-structure.htm .)

In my editing of this article, I have therefore replaced "new armies" with "New Army units" (where "unit" may mean regiment or division), and I have replaced "member of the new armies" with "member of the New Army".

Cwkmail (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Request consensus discussion on addition of image[edit]

The Flag of the Republic of China


Discussion welcomeArilang1234 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See 'Gallery of Flags' (below) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting consensus discussion on addition of flag[edit]

The Xingzhonghui flag 興中會

Discussion welcomeArilang1234 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See 'Gallery of Flags' (below) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wuchang Uprising's separate article[edit]

Currently this article has a link to the article for the Wuchang Uprising in the section on the Wuchang Uprising within this article. The section here is significantly larger than the entire Wuchang Uprising article. This doesn't really make any sense, and someone who knows what they're doing should probably fix it. 67.177.138.246 (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Manchuria/Tibetan independence not "POV"[edit]

I'm quite surprised to read that adding the fact that Mongolia and Tibet proclaimed their independence due to the downfall of Imperial authority would be "POV" ? IMHO there is nothing to discuss here, it is just factual, whatever one thinks about the validity of said independence. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who reverted your edit, but as an aside, many or most other provinces and areas also proclaimed their independence from the imperial authority with the downfall of Qing Dynasty, which leaded to very complicated consequences in the following decades (and ROC's authority was very limited or nominal). I don't think it's really a good idea to just list Tibet and Mongolia without proper clarifications. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Tibet and Mongolia were the one who actually succeeded in gaining de facto independence as separate countries, with Mongolia gaining some international recognition, so I'd say this is important to point out. Maybe it should be written as "Independence of Tibet and Outer Mongolia" instead of "...proclaim their independence" ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No, "Independence of Tibet and Outer Mongolia" is even worse. de facto independence does not mean real independence or became separate countries (maybe post-1924 Mongolia can be considered as a de-facto separate state when it officially proclaimed a republic, but certainly not Tibet, not mentioning that in 1915 Outer Mongolia actually recognized ROC's sovereignty in exchange for autonomy), and both Tibet and Mongolia were still considered by ROC (Qing's direct successor) as part of its territory. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have pointed out that elsewhere, but I think you are not entirely correct to assume that Mongolia in 1915 accepted Chinese "souvereignty". Yaan (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have also pointed out that on the other talk page, you may be right there is probably a better summary for the treaty content as in the article Treaty of Kyakhta (from which I copied the word), but this is a technical issue at least for the purpose of the discussion regarding "successor states" or so. The original points above still hold. (P.S. for the sake of precision, I have changed the summary in that article a bit.) --173.206.43.154 (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If you adequately source your point, the other editor is wrong to revert it for POV, although you also aren't being fully accurate. As a commenter above pointed out, many regions of "China" became "independent". Further, Tibet and "Chinese Tartary" weren't administered as part of "China" under the Qing either. A full treatment should mention the separate treatment under the Qing, the de facto independence of many areas, and their gradual reabsorption into the Chinese state before and after WWII, with ("Outer") Mongolia remaining the only actual successor state because of Russian patronage. Even mentioning the D. Lama's government-in-exile and its support from India, you should point out that it seeks autonomy but not full independence. — LlywelynII 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

US POV[edit]

"Even though the Communist Party of China claimed to have created the "people's democratic dictatorship" in 1949 with the establishment of the People's Republic of China, true democracy (e.g. the separation of power in the United States) was never fully implemented by the Beiyang Government, the Nanjing Government led by the Nationalist Party, or the Government of the People's Republic of China" - while it is a fact that true democracy has never existed in China, it is incredibly POV to use the United States which has also in point of fact never been 'truly' democratic - regardless of what you think about affiliated political theorists' claims that it represents an adequate degree, the highest degree extant or the highest degree possible of democracy - as a model of democracy.2.26.30.50 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of words to just say the "true" is misplaced.
Further, aside from the "true", it's not POV at all. The US has been the touchstone to "representative democracy" (i.e., republicanism) for going on two centuries now, disproving by example earlier political theorists' claims that large countries could only be administered by monarchies.
Further, the original editor didn't include the US to score unrelated points but to talk about the completeness of Chinese democracy, particularly given presumed biases that see PRC:dictatorial::ROC:democratic (as the term is used all over the modern world, not as it was used in Ancient Athens, where the franchise was also limited and they also delegated their authority to representatives, albeit ones chosen by public lottery rather than election).
There are uses of "democracy" that strain credulity and invite POV complaints. The PRC's own claims to be a democracy are among those; the USA's (post-MLKjr) really aren't. — LlywelynII 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting but also very long article[edit]

Anyone else who feel that this article could benefit from being condensed and split into further articles? Perhaps a "Very long" tag would be in place? 116.21.197.7 (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia has other articles on all of these topics already, but turning the page into a list of links to "self-strengthening movement", "100 day reforms", &c., followed by a link to the "wuchang uprising" is hardly an article. On the other hand, the sections could be condensed from the massive pile of one-paragraph subdivisions into a single paragraph or two, which would make it seem less long. — LlywelynII 21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Background"[edit]

A Background Section without any discussion of the foreign concessions is massive fail. Further, the immediate cause of the rebellion was the situation with the railroads, which go unmentioned in the "background". Meanwhile, the Chinese railroad history page thinks the problem was increasing foreign belligerence post-Boxers combined with Qing inability to run its own railroads (& specifically the pile of foreign railroad concessions in the 1900s and the planned four-power rail being planned in Canton), while this article suggests it was anger at China trying to nationalize and run its railroads itself. That hardly makes sense (most would have cheered nationalizing the South Manchuria Railway, for example), but I'm not expert enough to choose between the articles. — LlywelynII 21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Section removal[edit]

  • The entire "other issues" part was removed. It is possible that these aftermath events do not count toward the revolution at all. Someone can put these back with more info. Benjwong (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A "section" was removed from the evaluation. Problem is that the comment of He Xiangnang (何香凝) is about the same as other comments already made also by people of much higher position. This comment does not stand out. The Marxist historians part is too vague. There are even Marxist historians with different views. Benjwong (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Another "section" was removed from the evaluation. There are definitely reliable sources to show Li Zehou speak highly of Liang Qichao. But there are no sources that say Li exactly supports Liang Qichao's constitutional monarchy plan over the revolution. The chance is very high that he has said it in some book somewhere. If someone has a source please put it back. The rest of it is also vague. Benjwong (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A portion of the "evaluation was removed. There needs to be a more direct source for John Fairbank. Gao Muke (高慕柯) is also Michael Gasster. In zh.wiki there is a source "馬克•賽爾登;魏曉明,馮崇義譯. 革命中的中國:延安道路. 北京: 社會科學文獻出版社,2002年. 1962: 第45-48頁. ISBN 9787801496706." But did he really say this? If so, why not take from a Michael Gasster source directly instead? Please comment. Benjwong (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The term 'Xinhai'[edit]

A bit more of an explanation on the origin of the term would be helpful; deciphering using the WP links takes awhile. I'm not even sure if this is on the right track: Xin-[辛,Yin Metal]-Hai[亥,Pig]. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Xinhai". Who calls it that? We normally call this the Chinese Revolution in English.
"Chinese" has a pronunciation known to everyone, but Xinhai? What the hell?
99.237.226.18 (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The term Xinhai is not comprehensible to most readers, even with the explanation given in the lede. The term is not widely used compared to "1911 Revolution," as shown by this Google Ngram Xinhai Revolution vs 1911 Revolution. Some day I will suggest moving the article to "1911 Revolution," since "1911" is just the English way of saying "Xinhai." ch (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

... I personally pronounce "Xinhai" Shin-high, but is that even right?
I don't remember for sure, but I suspect this article used to have a sensible English name.
Maybe someone can look through the log, and see what happened.
When I first came to this Talk page, I expected to see a discussion/debate about what this page should be called, but I see no such section here.
That tends to imply the decision was made unilaterally, and we don't do things unilaterally around here.
99.237.226.18 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reorganize?[edit]

This article simply looks awkward and disorganized. The biggest problem seems to be all the section headings with only one or two sentences. Perhaps there is an appropriate template? Or, at least something like a timeline simply listing events sequentially. I.e.:

Timeline:

  • Event one: something happened.
  • Event two: something else happened.

(Etc.) P.s.: this might help it look not quite so "very long". ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Insufficient 'Background'?[edit]

Although certainly not an expert on the subject, it is my understanding that hubris and corruption played a significant role; (or at least the perception thereof) and deserves at least a mention in the 'Background'. As with any revolutionary movement, the motivations of the "masses" cannot be overlooked or underestimated. However, this might be a touchy subject as far as NPOV is concerned. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous image desrciption[edit]

The description for this image states "path of the uprising" -- which uprising? (There were many!) The placement of the image doesn't offer much help; neither does WP's file description (Chinese). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Gallery of Flags?[edit]

Adding more flags haphazardly will only make this page look more cluttered. In addition to the two flags mentioned above, there are others which deserve display. My suggestion is to make an image gallery with an assortment of relevant flags.
Examples: (just suggestions)

Comments? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Navy Ensign is also the party flag of the KMT. 71.80.169.230 (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Potal Map and Wade-Giles[edit]

Because this is a historical article, let us use Postal map for place names and Wade-Giles for everything else. These systems existed In 1911, pinyin did not. OttomanJackson (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Governor sheng yun of shaanxi[edit]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OYU-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=G1oMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1453,3060347&hl=en

Rajmaan (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Old primary sources[edit]

These primary sources mention factions of revolutionaries who wanted to put a Han emperor on the throne, with some suggesting the descendant of Confucius and others suggesting the descendant of the Ming dynasty Emperors

http://books.google.com/books?id=ldZAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA382#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=4TfPJpJRV_0C&pg=PA113&dq=emperor+1912+confucius+descendant+duke&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mzcGVPL0Fc7EggTF0oKQCA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=emperor%201912%20confucius%20descendant%20duke&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=DwgvjqO5ivUC&pg=PP84&dq=China+constitutional+monarchy+duke+confucius&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j0IGVI3fOYzygwT9n4KIAg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=China%20constitutional%20monarchy%20duke%20confucius&f=false

Page 55

http://books.google.com/books?id=MmwKAQAAIAAJ&q=If+we+want+to+bring+order+and+peace+to+China,+we+should+follow+the+model+of+the+British+titular+monarchy;+nothing+seemed+more+reasonable+and+logical+than+to+make+the+present+monarch+the+titular+head+of+a+constitutional+monarchy.+This+was+the+reason+...+The+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius,+the+Yan+Sheng+Duke,+is+unparalleled+among+the+descendants+of+the+best+families+in+the+nation.+If+we+have+no+other+alternative,+let+us+promote+the+Yan+Sheng+Duke+two+ranks+and+make+him+emperor.&dq=If+we+want+to+bring+order+and+peace+to+China,+we+should+follow+the+model+of+the+British+titular+monarchy;+nothing+seemed+more+reasonable+and+logical+than+to+make+the+present+monarch+the+titular+head+of+a+constitutional+monarchy.+This+was+the+reason+...+The+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius,+the+Yan+Sheng+Duke,+is+unparalleled+among+the+descendants+of+the+best+families+in+the+nation.+If+we+have+no+other+alternative,+let+us+promote+the+Yan+Sheng+Duke+two+ranks+and+make+him+emperor.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g0MGVMCYMIHIggTrnYKQDQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA

Page 200

http://books.google.com/books?id=vyM-AQAAMAAJ&q=The+dificulty+lay+in+the+choice+of+a+suitable+monarch+upon+whom+to+exercise+the+curbing+influences+of+constitutional+limitation.+A+very+strong+element+proposed+that+Duke+Kung,+the+seventy-fifth+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius,+should+be+made+King+of+China;+and+the&dq=The+dificulty+lay+in+the+choice+of+a+suitable+monarch+upon+whom+to+exercise+the+curbing+influences+of+constitutional+limitation.+A+very+strong+element+proposed+that+Duke+Kung,+the+seventy-fifth+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius,+should+be+made+King+of+China;+and+the&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0kMGVIDlHsrFggT1hICQBQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA

Page 67

http://books.google.com/books?id=xzRDAQAAIAAJ&q=That+being+the+case,+the+abdicated+Ch'ing+emperor+or+even+%22+the+Holy+Duke+%22+(Yen-sheng+kung+ft?+M+the+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius)+could+easily+qualify+for+such+a+position.+K'ang+elaborated+on+his+notion+of+%22+titular-monarch+republicanism+%22+(hstt-chiin+kung-ho)+in+two+essays+written+about+the+...+...+192)+K'ang+now+argued+against+electing+the+%22+Holy+Duke+%22+to+be+the+titular+monarch,+on+the+ground+that+he+might+not+enjoy+the+moral+support+of+the+non-+Chinese+minorities+of+the+republic&dq=That+being+the+case,+the+abdicated+Ch'ing+emperor+or+even+%22+the+Holy+Duke+%22+(Yen-sheng+kung+ft?+M+the+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius)+could+easily+qualify+for+such+a+position.+K'ang+elaborated+on+his+notion+of+%22+titular-monarch+republicanism+%22+(hstt-chiin+kung-ho)+in+two+essays+written+about+the+...+...+192)+K'ang+now+argued+against+electing+the+%22+Holy+Duke+%22+to+be+the+titular+monarch,+on+the+ground+that+he+might+not+enjoy+the+moral+support+of+the+non-+Chinese+minorities+of+the+republic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lUQGVNisPIu_ggS85ICgAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA


http://books.google.com/books?id=9jIAeTXh6ugC&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=csMGAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false