File talk:Qing Dynasty 1820.png/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I would like to propose a new version of this map, which would include areas directly ruled by the Qing in Yellow, and tributaries in Orange, to compare the sphere of influence and the actual regions controlled. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 11:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Korea

It would be better if Choson is added as a protectorate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.154.25 (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Chosŏn

Wasn't there a Chosŏn Province --82.134.154.25 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No. See tributary state. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues with map

The map is a modern fantasy, and have no historical basis. --Tbma (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Got a reason and source to back that talk up? You should give a detailed argument explaining why you think that is so, rather than just making such a statement without backing it up. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, and of course I have reason and sources. Actually there are multiple reasons. Even outside of the borders of 1860s there was only 64 Chinese villages totaling 2800 people, and that was specifically noted. Otherwise than that there was no Chinese population included into Russian empire borders. That region was never solely owned by Qing Empire. a) Territories to the east of Khabarovsk were not populated not by russians not by Chineese and should be shown as neutral. In fact Chinese borders never not then not later crossed Amur river. b) Daur rulers decided to pay the tribute to the Qing, but that was never accepted by the Russian empire. c) Sakhalin was not known to the both empires, and both thought that it's a peninsula. Should be shown as unexplored. d) Protectorate status of Khalka should be shown because bogdo-genens has been accepted as vassals by the Emperor in 1691 and had the right to rule there. Tuva should be shown as a part of that protectorate. e) Lands between Amur in the north, Khabarovsk, Ussuri river, Bolshaya Ussurka river until the bottoms of Sikhote-Alin and there on the modern border - should be shown as contested by both empires and not owned by both (and largely unexplored). f) borders along Irtysh river should be shown as undelimited as it was since Treaty of Kyakhta in 1727. --Tbma (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Same thing with Kokand Khanate borders. They should be shown as undelimited, and should be shown as protectorate only. --Tbma (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tbma is right on this one. Heilongjiang, Jilin, "Uliassutai", Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, and Tibet are all shown as provinces on this map even though, in 1820, all of these areas were outside of the China proper (内地十八省) and were not administered as provinces and in many cases had only a weak tributary relationship with the Qing. In the case of some Turkic areas (as noted by User:Tbma) and most Tibetan areas (current Tibet, Qinghai, and western Sichuan), there was not even effective Qing control. Information supporting this can be found right here at Wikipedia (e.g., "In 1884, Qing China established Xinjiang as a province") with citations. I invite the author of the map or other users to address these issues so that the map or something similar can continue to be used in articles. —  AjaxSmack  09:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you AjaxSmack for turning my attention here. I have cited my sources in the image description and is thus not "original research." If you can provide a reference map for the borders as stated by Tbma I will look at it. The Treaty of Nerchinsk of 1689 delineates the borders between the Russians and Chinese as being the Stanovoy Mountains north of the Amur River, and would remain so until the Treaty of Aigun in 1858, with the Russians taking the land east of the Ussuri River in the Treaty of Peking in 1860. If your argument on the northeastern boundary is based on how many Chinese lived in these areas and not by international recognition, then by corollary, European colonial claims on Africa are fantasy maps as well and have no place in an encyclopedia.

I will concede ambiguity in how much control the Qing had over Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and the South China Sea islands, particularly considering there was no international body at the time to establish what sovereignty is. Thus, I am looking to portray a map of the empire as it would have been portrayed internationally. To use an example, Tibet proclaimed independence in 1911, but the European and American governments denied Tibet recognition in favor of the ROC. Such a map would then show Tibet to be a part of the ROC. The Qing sphere of influence is much larger than the map shown here, so if someone can provide how these territories were recognized internationally (and whether they were different from how Korea and Vietnam were viewed), then I will look at it and adapt accordingly. Pryaltonian (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

New version of the map is uploaded with colors differentiating between provinces, military governorates, and protectorates. Tributaries have been added in orange, as previously requested by Belinsquare. Qinghai is colored in as a province, as the Qing started governing Kham and Amdo as provinces within Sichuan and Qinghai, making it different from the governance of Bod (Tibet). I stand by the northeastern border drawn along the Stanovoys as accorded by the Treaty of Nerchinsk. Regarding Sakhalin, if both parties thought Sakhalin was a peninsula, then by that logic it is definitely part and parcel of the land south of the Stanovoys recognized to be under the Qing banner. Please refer to these contemporary, non-Chinese maps that recognize China's claim over Outer Manchuria and Sakhalin: http://web.archive.org/web/20070208043057/http://map.huhai.net/58-59.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John-Tallis-1851-Tibet-Mongolia-and-Manchuria-33621.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryaltonian (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting logic regarding Sakhalin. How someone can own something, if they don't even know how it looks like? Tbma (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the source maps provided, is the issue that Sakhalin is being claimed as early as 1820 (but would be acceptable to be in a map from 1850), or that is it being claimed at all? Pryaltonian (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have stated my view above. I think it should be shown as unexplored and not claimed by anybody, i.e. gray. Tbma (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to create an SVG vector image version as well, by any chance? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't learned how to make SVGs. I suppose I should get with the times eventually. Pryaltonian (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

- Exactly as Tbma said, this map is modern fantasy, and have no historical basis for another reason: during the Qing dynasty there was no dotted-line as shown in the small box at the bottom left corner, The 11-dotted-line was not included in China map until 1946 or 1947 (see Li Jinming & Li Dexia, The Dotted Line on the Chinese Map of the South China Sea: A Note, The School of Southeast Asian Studies Xiamen University Xiamen, Fujian, China, 2002) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.204.44 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Good points. There continue to be issues with this map that have not been addressed. Qinghai was not a province in 1820 (and as the map notes, Xining, its capital, was part of Gansu until 1928), Manchuria is not shown on the map. The whole Inner Mongolia/"Uliassutai"/Huijiang division is questionable. I actually like this map (or rather the idea of it) but, instead of starting with present-day boundaries and working backward, it would be better generated by working with contemporary sources as well as present-day sources that display a bit more heft than a Baidu Baike map. User:benlisquare has given some European sources below. To those I would add something like Historical Atlas of China for readers of Chinese or Herrmann's An Historical Atlas of China. —  AjaxSmack  07:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nine-dash map

The Chinese nine-dash map didn't appear until the Republican era in 1947. Based on which historical basis does it appear in this map of 1820 China? DHN (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably anachronistic, according to the article on nine-dash map. The Qing may have had recorded claims over island groups, however I don't think there were firmly defined territorial sea borders back in those times. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to the file on Commons

Whilst I have personally agreed within the discussion above that the 9-dash line should be removed, that doesn't mean that people should remove the inset completely. If a modification is to be made, someone should use an image editor to remove the 9 lines, however as of present there is no consensus to actually remove the inset box showing Qing claims to the South China Sea islands. What was argued above was that the 9-dash line didn't exist back then (it was created in 1947), however it does not refer to the actual Qing claims to the island. The Qing claimed those islands, they just didn't draw a 9-dashed maritime border like the ROC and PRC did. In addition, per Commons:Overwriting existing files a fork file should be created and any page should be directed to the newer fork image where necessary. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Old maps

Here are a few examples of old PD maps of Qing China:

• 
  1851 map of Tibet, Mongolia and Manchuria by John Tallis (interesting map of Chinese tartary inside the "Chinese Empire" (manchu empire at this time)
• 
  1844 map of China and Japan by John Nicaragua Dower
• 
  1833 French map of China and Japan
• 
  1832 French map of China and Japan
• 
  1836 French map of China and Japan
• 
  Chinese Empire including Tibet in 1897

We can use these as a comparison. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I can not see nine-dash map in these maps. Why does this map have? Any evidence? Alphama (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the section below. It's an anachronism, and probably needs to be tuned up. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Here a few other old maps that can be used for territories whose level of incorporation into the Qing empire may vary depending on the period:

• 
  1864 Mitchell Map of India, Tibet, China and Southeast Asia
• 
  1818 Pinkerton Map of India (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tibet, Nepal, Sri Lanka)
• 
  ohn-Tallis-1851-Tibet-Mongolia-and-Manchuria

It is important though not to cherry pick maps that fits a specific point of view.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those maps 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38, the last one is the map of what was called by Europeans "chinese tartary" at this time (inside chinese empire that pass throught the map), sometime called dependencies. Yes, this is the Mandchu Empire (Qing dynasty), on the first you added, we can see that the kokonor (Khökh nuur meaning "blue lake" is the mongolian name, as used by Qoshot kanat that ruled the whole tibet was mainly in Kokonor) is called Qinghai (still the current chinese translation. some older maps call this kokonor. The map of Hindoustan has not interest for us, as that's a map India, not China, there are no administrative border outside of India, as between Tibet, Bootan, Assam, Meckley (Myanmar ?), Cabul and Kandahar for example.Popolon (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Chinese & independant Tartary (1806) (Sakhalin island was included at this time)

Removal of "Disputed factual accuracy template"

Please do not remove the Disputed factual accuracy template. Most users who have participated to the talk page have indicated multiple issues affecting the factual accuracy of the map. Several of these issues seem to be inherent to the original template, so that it appears very unlikely that a satisfactory map can be produced, unless newly drawn from a historic map. Thanks,--6-A04-W96 (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

People raised issues years ago with old versions of the map, which appear to have mostly been fixed. You're the only one in the current discussion who thinks the map is inaccurate. You've tagged at least five maps on Wikimedia as "modern fantasy", even when nobody else agrees with you. That's tendentious behaviour. The maps you tagged as "fantasy" are all similar in outline to the one in Oxford's Atlas of World History. -Zanhe (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Zanhe : Thanks for your great work. Don't bother him, he mostly debate on little details about generally things, and prefer to remove anything instead of correct them. All his work is mostly a POV-push, tracking those little detail to try opposed (to his POV) users decreditement (with argument like totally wrong instead of inaccurate). Don't hope he will really help improving Wikipedia. He asked to close his two accounts (Pseudois and this one he made to forgot his past actions in the same way) on fr.wikipedia, this week.Popolon (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Now it should be clear that it was him who makes POV push, and what he did is tendentious and should be reverted. --Cartakes (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I just found out that the user has been blocked on the Commons: [1]. I've filed an ANI complaint against him here. -Zanhe (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Digital manipulation

Why is this map used at all? Is it based on a real map? Why not use that map instead of using this one that had been digitally manipulated with countless anachronisms? DHN (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. This map, as well as other similar fantasy maps (e.g. 1, 2, 3) produced by wikipedians should be removed and replaced by real maps.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The maps are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources. The map in "The Cambridge History of China", volume 9, page 280-281 for example is such a reliable source for the map. --Cartakes (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cartakes, we have the map here.Popolon (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• 

Cartakes, everybody agrees that the maps should be based on reliable secondary sources. The problem in these four maps created by wp contributors is that they are not based on reliable secondary sources. On one side, I don't see how a 1910 map could be a reliable source for a 1820 reconstruction. On the other side, this digital modern fantasy does not correspond to the historical map you and Popolon have mentioned: to give just one example, Ladakh (including Aksai Chin) is part of the Indian Empire in the Cambridge map, but is part of Qing Empire in the present digital manipulation. This map should not be used in wikipedia articles.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the map I originally referred to was actually a 1759 map by Cambridge, which remained the same until 1842 when Hong Kong island was ceded to the British. There should be no doubt that the map as a whole is indeed correct per Cambridge source. There might be relative minor issues need to be corrected (we can do it of course), such as in the case of Aksai Chin. Since the maps are generally identical, your claim that "they are not based on reliable secondary sources" is an exaggeration. Any other issues can you find besides Ladakh? Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

One difference should be enough to prove that the present map was not based on the Cambridge map isn't it? But yes, it is fully different from the map we are discussing here. Look at Mongolia, Manchuria, Taiwan, it appears completely differently on the Cambridge map. The Cambridge map does not mention province names as in this map, some island mentioned in this map do not appear on the Cambridge map, etc, etc. These maps have nothing in common. --6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in common? This seems to be highly exaggerated. The most obvious common things we can understand from all these maps are that the Qing empire consisted of China (proper), Manchuria, (Inner and Outer) Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Qinghai and Tibet. Correct right? Let's talk about the Cambridge 1759 map (instead of 1910 map above) here, in my understanding there are only some differences in certain details such as the inclusion of Aksai Chin in its Tibetan part. Let's listen to what other editors would say about it and whether they are indeed "nothing in common". --Cartakes (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

DHN's problem was only with the Spratly and Paracel islands and he had no issue with the other parts of the map. There is no historian who draws Tibet as an independent entity from the Qing from 1720-1912. Maps drawn by westerners during the Qing dynasty itself show Tibet clearly as part of the Qing. [2].

Your comment about western maps is off topic in this discussion, as this was not the point debated. But as you cherry-picked a map by Mitchell, let me give you the link to another map by the same Mitchell (1864), in which Tibet is not indicated as part of China.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The link you gave points to a map which Tibet is clearly represented as part of the "Chinese Empire". Your meant a different one? --Cartakes (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the wrong link. I meant this one:

• 

--6-A04-W96 (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

France had near zero effective control over massive swathes of Louisiana (New France) yet the entire Mississippi Drainage Basin is shown as French controlled on every single map of 18th century North America.Rajmaan (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

DHN, myself and others in the previous section have pointed out countless anachronisms. If you refuse to see them, I can't help you.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Outlines of this map (especially regarding Tibet which seems to be the focus of this discussion) are quite similar to the one used in Oxford's Atlas of World History (2002), see Google books. DHN raised an issue with the Nine Dash Line, which has since been removed. What other anachronisms are there? -Zanhe (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

See above, other examples have already been given. The point is that this map is derivated from other wikipedia and baike.baidu maps, not historic map, see file description. Your attempts to make it match a posteriori with reliable maps is futile, just use the reliable map instead.--6-A04-W96 (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Prove that the 1864 map follows political boundaries in regards to non-Indian territories. The 1864 Mitchell map is designed to be centered around India and does not claim to be a map of the Qing Empire. Westerners used the term "China proper" to refer to the the 18 provinces south of the Great Wall and the map does NOT claim to be a map of the Qing. Borneo is shown as one united island while in reality it was divided between the Dutch and British. Baluchistan is shown as separate from British India, which it wasn't. Qinghai and eastern Kham were never under the Dalai Lama's control which only extended to Ü-Tsang and Western Kham. The map also claims Ladakh as part of Tibet, Saigon and the Mekong Delta as part of Cambodia while in reality, it was under French control, and whats more, the French conquered it from Vietnam, not Cambodia. Vietnam is divided into Tonquin and Cochin China when they were already united under the Nguyen dynasty.

I already discussed the map here. This map appears to show a cultural-ethnic boundary of Tibet rather than political with the exception of Bhutan and Sikkim. It also appears to be a deranged, nonsensicle mix of "traditional" ethnic and regional boundaries, relying on traditional notions of India by excluding Baluchistan and showing the Mekong Delta and Saigon as part of Cambodia which they had not been since the previous century.

A similar map that did not follow any political boundaries but rather a "traditional" ethno-regional boundaries was discussed at Talk:Tibetan_sovereignty_debate#Extremely_spurious_map. It claimed to portray the Republic of China in 1932, and shows Qinghai as part of Tibet, Soviet ruled Tannu Tuva as part of Oouter Mongolia and Chinese ruled Inner Mongolia as part of Outer Mongolia, and the entire Xinjiang as independent (it was not, it was under the rule of Chinese governor Jin Shuren) and countless other errors on the map which did not reflect any political situation on the ground. It too, appeared to show a ethno-cultural notion of "Tibet" which had no political reality by including Qinghai. These maps are not maps of the "Qing" or "Republic of China".

The other maps showing Tibet as part of the Qing, are maps specifically made of the Qing Empire and to show its actual political boundaries. Show us a map specifically made of the Qing Empire, which actually reflects political boundaries in all its aspects, which shows Tibet as an independent country. What next, are you going to claim we have to remove Qinghai from the map of the Qing as well and fictitiously claim it was under the Dalai Lama's rule?Rajmaan (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: "Your comment about western maps is off topic in this discussion, as this was not the point debated. (...) The point is that this map is derivated from other wikipedia and baike.baidu maps, not historic map" (see file description). Wikiepdia and baike.baidu cannot be considered as reliable sources, that is all.--6-A04-W96 (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats not what you tried to say above at File_talk:Qing_Dynasty_1820.png#Old_maps. When you clearly didn't read that the map said Chinese Empire right across "Chinese Tartary", including Tibet. Northeast China is also shown as "Chinese Tartary" on all of these western maps, when it is the Manchu homeland and was very much under Qing control. Are you going to claim that the Manchu's own homeland was not part of the Qing Empire? You made your purpose here clear, you are clearly interested in deleting Tibet from the map and not actually interested in anything else.Rajmaan (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I will not feed your trolling attempt by giving an answer to what you assume to be my intentions and what you assume that I have read or not. So let me repeat myself: "Your comment about western maps is off topic in this discussion, as this was not the point debated. (...) The point is that this map is derivated from other wikipedia and baike.baidu maps, not historic map" (see file description). Wikipedia and baike.baidu cannot be considered as reliable sources, that is all. --6-A04-W96 (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

6-A04-W96, please stop attacking other users as trolls. You're the one who's being tendentious here, and nobody else agrees with your view. And why are you using multiple accounts? Moreover, your claim that the image is based on Wikicontent is false. The maps listed as sources are mainly out-of-copyright old maps. The Baidu article also includes scanned maps, not user-generated ones. And if you do a Google image search for "Qing dynasty" map, the results almost all agree with this map. The map you cherry-picked to back up your contention is clearly meant to show Tibet vis-a-vis the China proper, not the political boundary of the Qing empire. No sane person would exclude Manchuria, the homeland of the Qing emperors, from a Qing political map. -Zanhe (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Many improvements have been made to the map over the past few years but it can hopefully still be a work in progress. I question the use of the names "Qinghai" for Kokonor and "Heilongjiang", "Jilin" and "Liaodong" in Manchuria. Were these names used in 1820? Is "Little Bukharia" a typo? Even if it's not, why not go with the standard spelling? Also, "Haishenwei" should be spelt "Haishenwai" (崴 is wǎi in this case; see Vladivostok). —  AjaxSmack  05:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Fengtian (Liaoning) were names used by the Qing to describe the three eastern provinces (dong san sheng). Qinghai was the direct Chinese translation of the Mongol name Kokonor and was used during the Qing. It just didn't have provincial level status. Little Bukharia is not a type. The region of Uzbekistan was called "Bukharia" or "Greater Bukharia" while the Tarim Basin was called "Little Bukharia".Rajmaan (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. The book "The Making of a Chinese City: History and Historiography in Harbin" by Søren Clausen and Stig Thøgersen (p7) for example mentions that "In 1653 Jilin became an independent administrative unit, and in 1683 Heilongjiang was separated from Jilin. From this time the three districts of Fengtian (roughly equivalent to present-day Liaoning), Jilin, and Heilongjiang became known as the "Three Eastern Provinces", although in fact Jilin and Heilongjiang did not function as provinces in the full sense of the word until 1907-8", and the book "Han-Mongol Encounters and Missionary Endeavors: A History of Scheut in Ordos (Hetao) 1874-1911" by Patrick Taveirne (p76) also mentions that "In 1723, following the rebellion of yet another Qosod Mongol leader, the Qing gave his territory to his rival and asserted suzerainty over Kokonor, which they renamed Qinghai". The issues mentioned above are generally invalid. --Cartakes (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response. That clears up most issues. However, if you have access, refer to Chang Chi-yun's Historical Atlas of China Vol. 1 「清代疆裕圖」 plate for more info (low res image online here) which shows the border between Heilongjiang and Jilin being the Sungari and Amur rather than as marked on Qing Dynasty 1820.png. Albert Herrmann's Historical and Commercial Atlas of China confirms a similar boundary and calls the Manchurian entities "Protectorate of Kirin" and "Protectorate of Sakhalin-ula" (legible image at http://www.hamagmongol.narod.ru/pictures/maps/oyirad_history/58-59.jpg); the reworked An Historical Atlas of China spells the former "Protectorate of Chi-lin".

As far as the "Little Bukharia" issue goes, Qing Dynasty 1820.png uses the spelling without an i for Bukhara proper. Why the inconsistency? The spelling "Bukharia" is highly deprecated (see these Google books results and note the dates). And if the map is going to use the anachronistic (in English) Qinghai for Kokonor, why stick with "Bukharia"? —  AjaxSmack  01:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong

Assam was never a tributary state. 117.248.170.146 (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)