Talk:Transition from Ming to Qing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit to Manchu-Han Marraige done on 23rd Sept

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some changes was made to the section about the marraige between the two ethnic groups during the period involving the topic. The previous version partially emphasised a very small number of cases where Manchu females were married to surrendered Ming Generals, and ignored the other important facts, including:

The main intermarriage partner of Manchu imeprial daughters were Mongols, as supported by page 149 of the link quoted in appendix no.37. This was not mentioned at all both in the external link to the page "Heqin"

Manchus aritocrats offering wives to people willingly join their forces, but the females were usually captured or purchased, and were mostly Han Chinese, as supported by page 285 in the book quoted in appendix 35. On that page there was the original script of the proposal made by Manchu rulers about how to select wives for defected military officers, which specifically mentioned: "The selection starts with Han Chinese widows". A similar record exists in the book quoted in appendix 37, but it wrongly assumed the females involved to be ethnic Manchus. The original historical text quoted was translated from record written in Manchu language, so its reliability should be the highest.

The policy of using marriage to form alliance appllies to people from all ethnic groups, and was absoutely not used as a mean to gain support from Han Chinese people exclusively. Actually they were not preferred for this purpose due to political and cultural reasons, as supported by page 149 of appendix 37 and appendix 36. There was a detailed description along with a few examples on page 219 of the same book from appendix 35 showing Manchu rulers offering wives to people from different backgounds joining the nation or its army.

The mainstream form of intermarriage between Manchu and Han was where Banner men took Han Chinese females as concubine. Page 94-95 of book in appendix 35 described the ethnic backgound of the majority of concubines of Manchu Banner men (which was Han Chinese) and page 342 to 345 has a detailed summary of how the policy on the intermarriage allows Banner men to marry Han women but prohibited females from banner system marrying out, and explained the reasons for doing so.

The previous section appears to be misleading and tried to lionise the relatively rare cases where defected Ming elite married females from Qing (usually not ethnic manchus), and attempts to conceal the close bond between Manchu and Mongolia and the prevailing marriages between Manchu males and Han females. This view is not only distoring the fact, but also highly offensive to people from other minority ethnic backgrounds (especially Manchu and Mongolians) and apparently promote male superiority. Females and males are equal in the marriage, and overly emphasising the role of males in the intermarraige is a sign of treating females as an appendage.

The materials used in appendix 35 and 36 were, unfortunately, not available in English. This is because the details about this rather unpopular topic can only be found in the historical text written in Manchu language, which had not been the focus of English-speaking historians until recently. However the Manchu record ought to be given the most credibility as the firsthand record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor's Axe (talk • contribs) 12:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Manchu language records of the Qing are not availible to the public. You clearly have no access to them and are inserting made up information by attributing information to foreign language books which do not support your claims.Opasney (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you drop the act now because you aren't editing in good faith at all and tried to lie here about the primary sources. The primary source used by those western historians for Han and Manchu marriages are the veritable records of the Qing and veritable records of Qing Taizong.in their Chinese text not Manchu. None of those historians cited any Manchu language sources for the marriages. You tried to lie and suggest they were written in Manchu because no one has access to Manchu texts while the Chinese Veritable Records of Qing Taizong are availible on the internet and do not support your claims. You were hoping we would take you at your word for the fabrications you inserted.Opasney (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong to claim that Manchu record is not available to public. There is plenty of Manchu record studied, translated and published by historians from Asia and the west. You also have no proof about the language of primary resources used by historians. A large number of influential historians in this area, especially those from the west, are shifting from focusing on Chinese materials to Manchu materials. You are making false accusations and making personal attack on me with no evidence.

Besides the materials quoted were based on Manchu record but were presented in other languages as historical research output created by other historians. If you believe there is any false information you must list out the part and give a reason. Otherwise you are just making destructive changes and distorting fact. The previous materials made many mistakes by using subject and absolute word such as "often" and ignoring crucial facts, and making ridiculous statements not supported or even controverted by the materials quoted.

Finally you clearly have not read the materials I added, and showed ignorance and prejudice negatively affecting the quality of the page. Your behaviour of making personal attack and trying to spread rumours also demonstrated your low level of morality. Politely but formally, I hereby make this statement: you have no right to interpret my actions openly without taking responsibility, or telling me what to do. If you make false and offensive assumption and revert my contribution with no reason, I will take that as a threat and attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor's Axe (talk • contribs) 07:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Rv. Changes are contested, grammar is poor, content is based on a single source.

@Thor's Axe: I have, once more, reverted your changes for the following reasons:

1. You have no consensus for the proposed changes
2. The content you propose is based on a single source, whilst removing all existing references without any explanation.
3. The grammar of the contribution is quite poor.
4. The text seems far from a neutral summary of existing sources. Kleuske (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thor's Axe, the primary source materials cited by the western historians in their secondary sources are in Chinese and the proof is in their citations and bibliographies. The English citation "Transactions, American Philosophical Society (vol. 36, Part 1, 1946)" at citation 155 to support what it wrote about Manchu girls marrying Chinese defectors cited material written in Chinese which is the "WHTSL, "Ta Ch'ing T'ai-tsung Wên Huang-ti Shih-lu" (Da Qing Taizong Wen Huangdi Shilu) 大清太宗文皇帝實錄 Veritable Records of the Great Qing Taizong Emperor (Hong Taiji)." It is not a Manchu material. It also cited other Chinese primary source materials like "SL Ta Ch'ing Li-ch'ao Shih-lu 大清歷朝實錄 Tokyo 1937" and "HCKKFL: A Kuei 阿桂 and others, Huang Ch'ing K'ai-kuo Fang-lüeh 皇清開國方略 Kuang-pai-sung-chai 廣百宋齋 ed, 1887". Da Qing Taizong Shilu is the same Chinese language primary source other western historians cited in their secondary sources at citation 53 talking about Prince Yoto marrying 1,000 Manchu women to Han Chinese defectors and it in their bibliography at citation 53. I consider it very bad faith to assume we can't read bibliographies.Opasney (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The other citation used by western historian for "since the Chinese generals and Manchu women lived together and ate together, it would help these surrendered generals to forget their motherland." is Sheng Yu. 盛昱 Baqi wenjing 八旗文經(collected works of Eight Banners). 1901. Wuchang: n.p. which is not in the Manchu language but a Chinese language source published in the Qing. None of the materials these western historians used were in the Manchu language. Most Manchu language records are not availible to the general public and not on the internet and only to researchers in universities and archives.Opasney (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

References

To Op: Again you are making invalid point by only referring to a small part of the fact. It is absurd to make claims the primary source by only quoting a few books. Besides most of the materials you listed were outdated. The current trend of Qing history research in the West is focusing on Manchu script. Besides I have no interest in making assumptions in your ability to read. And it is pretty ill-minded to assume so. Also the Heqin page had too many irrelevant materials. The definition of the topic is a marriage happen between two different and independent nations or forces. Quoting the marriage between imperial family and officers serving them in Qing is completely irrelevant.

To Kleuske:

• A review of grammar was done and there was no mistake.
• The content was based on multiple sources. And even if there was a single source it should not be problematic if the source is reliable. Ding's book compiled historical text and from many other sources and now these sources were updated in the appendix.
• You have no specific proof about neutrality or consensus of the edit.

Your accusations are thus not justified. If you believe your points are valid, you should be more specific and clear in your communication.

Quoting facts does not justify delivering misleading messages if the materials only show part of the truth. If a topic about intermarriage is created then it should be looked at from various sides, and ignoring the marriage between Manchu and Mongolians and that between Manchu men and Han women, which were much more prevalent, is blatantly subjective. Besides the material about 1000 couples that appeared multiple times was false. The original proposal specified clearly the selection of women to marry those defected starts from Han Chinese widows, then businessmen, who were mostly Han Chinese in that time. There was no evidence that fully clarify the ethnic background of women involved in that campaign. Some materials quoted assumed they were ethnic Manchu, but that was proven false by the original historical record. Before the conquest of China the majority of population in Qing was already Han Chinese, and an arranged marriage was mostly likely to involve Han women since they form the majority of enslaved population. There was also duplicated information about Li Yongfang and Geng and that result in some deletions.

==== Discussion continued

====

Now you are attributing your own made up content to the sources I added. Drop it now. This is what Baqi Wenjing said and it clearly said those women married to the Han Chinese were Manchu : "since the Chinese generals and Manchu women lived together and ate together, it would help these surrendered generals forget their motherland". Sourced to citation 54 which is Sheng Yu. 盛昱 Baqi wenjing 八旗文經(collected works of Eight Banners). 1901. Wuchang: n.p.. You then added the previous vandalism "However this campaign mostly involves Han Chinese widows, as according to Yoto's proposal "the selection of women shall start with Han Chinese widows" which you previously sourced to 满族的妇女生活与婚姻制度研究 under my source 八旗文经 which is 八旗文經 in simplified Chinese. Other sources say Chinese defectors married Jurchen (Manchu) women :This was primarily because of the influx of very large numbers of captured or deserting Ming soldiers and officers, some of whom brought families but more of whom married Jurchen women after arriving.

Thor's Axe, you already lied about the original historical records or materials being in Manchu language when you can't even name the titles of these alleged books in Manchu or where the western historians cited them. The western historians cited Chinese language books like Da Qing Taizong Shilu and Baqi Wenjing. Now you are resorting to stealing the Chinese citations I added and inserting your vandalism under it lile Baqi Wenjing. @Kleuske: can you handle this?Opasney (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Opasney: No I can't. I don't speak the language and if I say my knowledge of Ming, Qing and Manchu dynasties is limited, i'm flattering myself. My objective here is to get the two of you talking instead of editwarring. Work it out. If you can't, there's the dispute resolution noticeboard to help you. Kleuske (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It should be simple to get an established and trusted user who knows the language. He is accusing reliable western historians who can read Chinese of being wrong.Opasney (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Another user with a basic understanding of Chinese can determine the language of the primary sources used by the western historians.Opasney (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Opasney: You are the one who keep spreading rumours and making false accusations, due to your low level of morality, knowledge and ill intention. Now it is even clear that your reading ability is questionable. It is only your illusions that any lie exists in my comment, since I expressed clearly the language used in the first hand script and the one used in the historical resources quoted in this topic, along with the relationship between the two. If you cannot understand a statement properly you do not deserve the right to make false claims about it.

It is also utterly laughable for you to use the word "stealing". The materials were not even added by you in the first place, and they do not belong to anyone. At least if you possess the vey basic ability of reading, you should be able to see the links newly added have different pages. Being from the same book does not mean being the same reference.

The sentence you quoted is only a small part of the event, and you are truly disgusting and despicable to let it represent the whole case. Though the Qing emperor had mentioned that, there was no direct source about the ethnic background of females involved in the arranged marriage. That is the difference between his personal idea and the actual law implemented. Besides the policy that involves imperial princesses only applies in a small number of cases(where most partners were Mongols), and you are extremely dirty to extend it to all marriages. The original script is: "今既来归,须令满汉贤能官员,先察汉民女子寡妇,酌量给配。余察八贝勒下殷实庄头及商贾有女子者 , 令其给配." "Now since they joined, Manchu and Han officials with the ability shall be instructed to first collect Han Chinese widows and then allocate them to the defected accordingly. Apart from that check if there are spared females from the family of merchants or rich farmers under the leaders of eight banners, and offer them to the defected" This sentence is in Chinese as an English version is not currently available due to time constraint. However it can be reviewed by a third party with the knowledge of the language. So basically you are distorting fact by quoting part of the comment of an emperor and use it as a universal law. Your lack of intelligence even prevented you from properly making a rumour it seems.

The sentence from imperial moment is not necessarily correct either. It is not to say the record is wholly unreliable, but as a very general book studying the transition of ruling power throughout the world, the description of a very specialised topic in one period, and one area out of many presented in the book, is not always accurate. The materials of Ding is from a specialised research on the topic of Manchu-Han marriage in Qing, and it is extremely clear in the book that Jurchen people relied on capturing Han Chinese women to expand their population, and captured women were allocated and controlled like an asset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor's Axe (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Finally, you never actually read the edit I added, and instead delete all paragraphs above the one about defected generals. You have no proof or rationale behind that. I have got harsh in this last response on this talk page, because apparently you do not deserve any respect, and it was my mistake that I could have a discussion with you based on evidence or logic.

You initially claimed the original source materials cited by the historians in their secondary source books were in the Manchu language which had now been exposed as a lie. Where and what are the Manchu language primary sources you speak of? You yourself have shown only Chinese secondary and primary sources now and you assume that you are better qualified to interpret the sources than historians like Pamela Kyle Crossley in Imperial Moment and Shuo Wang in Servants of the dynasty: Palace Women in World History on the topic who have been cited. On Heqin you restored unsourced vandal edits by Montalk123 several times on the premise that your edits were caught in between the vandal edits and the good version and did not try to help clean up the vandalism. It is a mistake to assume restoring vandal edits was good faith. You are committing vandalism, original research extrapolation from the primary sources by claiming all the Qing soldiers involved in capturing women, children and livestock were Manchu and sourcing it to primary sources which do not say all Qing soldiers were Manchu. Han bannermen were there.

About the language: I used sources mostly from two books: 清太宗实录，八旗文经. These two books have names written in Chinese, but that is becasue currently the popular version of them is not in Manchu, which is a language few historians know. However the first book (清太宗实录) was a biography of second emperor of Qing, and was initially written in Manchu. By that time Chinese was not used as a language in Qing's court. The second book (八旗文经) was compilied by a banner man in late Qing, and it collected only the works authored by Banner men. I used it as it contained the record of Prince Yoto's proposal to recommend Qing's emperor to offer wives to defected Ming generals and soldiers, which was discussed in the topic. The name of that proposal is called "善抚人民奏", again now usually referred to in Chinese but was originally written in Manchu, since both Yoto and Qing's emperor did not know Chinese. Again, if you cannot understand a statement, you do not deserve the right to interpret it. There is no lie in the comment, nor did you expose anything. You are not capable from that. Thor's Axe (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that I stated that there was only one ethnic group in the banner troop. Actually a large proportion of them were Mongols. You are just trying to bring down my points with invalid assumptions. Besides the presence of Han Banner men does not affect the fact or the conclusion, nor can you deny the reliability of the sources. Your logic is flawed, and you are just a pathetic Han Chauvinist trying to attribute some of the loss of Ming to defected Han soldiers, which is completely irrelevant. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You provided no sources for the sentences "The captured women from these campaigns were distributed among the Manchu soldiers who participated in the battle" and "However the same cannot be assumed with Chinese people from other provinces, and the defected Ming generals from these areas were usually awarded with Han Chinese widows rather than Manchu women." And in other paragraphs you are adding content on marriage policies between Bannermen and Han civilians in the cities in the mid-Qing period long after the wars when Manchu bannermen were moved to the cities and the Qing wanted to preserve the Manchu population in peace time when the section is about intermarriage between Han defectors admitted to the Banners and Manchus in the reigns of Nurhaci and Hong Taiji during the wars and early Qing.Opasney (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You did not just have problem understanding the text, you even refuse to read in other occasions. There were citations, and you are supposed to read them before using this cheap attack. You also have no evidence that the policy was only applied in mid or late Qing. The book by Anne Withal stated clearly the gender duality in the policy was implemented throughout the whole dynasty on page 153. The policy of Shun Zhi emperor, on the other hand, was a temporary one and shut down almost immediately due to the strong retaliation of Han Chinese. And even in that policy, Manchu banner men can always marry a Han Chinese woman while the Chinese participated had to be an official. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

These three historians, Karl August Wittfogel a German Sinologist in Chinese history here who cited two Qing primary sources in Chinese and a third source by Erich Hauer, a German Sinologist who was an expert in both Chinese and Manchu languages and history, Pamela Kyle Crossley a current historian of the Qing and Manchus here who cited a source and historian Shuo Wang here who cited two Qing primary sources in Chinese. All of these historians said Han Chinese defectors were married to Manchu (Jurchen) women after they read the primary sources. You are deleting these citations and content sourced to them with no consensus.Opasney (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Karl cited other works like 皇清開國方略.

Thor's Axe was then citing Chinese primary sources for people captured in raids and is giving no breakdown of the ethnicity of soldiers involved and that material has nothing to do with marriages but rape of slaves taken during the war. That is original research. He also inserted material on marriage patterns and policy on intermarriage laws between Bannermen and Han civilians throughout the entire Qing dynasty unrelated to the war with the Ming.Opasney (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You just keep trying to distort facts by using historical texts in a logically flawed way. While they agree the happening of the marriage, no one confirmed all such marriages involves females who were ethnic Manchu. There was a large number of enslaved Han Chinese females in Qing and the majority of population was Han Chinese. Combined with the fact that they have the lowest social status compared to Manchus and Mongols, it is clear that they will be the mean source of wives in arranged marriage. The quoted proposal of Yoto has proved this already. You just stick to your illusional ideas and read a little part of some historical materials, without understanding the context. Again your ability of using materials properly is highly questionable. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH issues can often be resolved by workshopping material, which is why I suggested that happens at talk before inclusion, and WP:PRIMARY does allow for the use of primary sources with certain restrictions. However Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and while military bride-taking may have resulted in women forcibly pushed into "marriages" or status as concubines, we should make sure, when using primary sources that we report only what the source says, and what the source was, and no more. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Not about writing great wrongs but primary sources do not mention that "X soldiers at Yangzhou were all Manchu". Wakeman mentions war rape and taking of slaves by a mixture of Han Bannermen and Manchu Bannermen at Yangzhou in his secondary source and he does not use the word "marriage". The primary sources say X number of captives were taken. He is not only reporting what the source says but making inferences.

I see now where Thor's Axe had been misleading on Prince Yoto's proposal.

The proposal said regarding the specific 1,000 Han Chinese defectors according to Shuo Wang's passage in "Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History" “In 1632, Hongtaiji accepted the suggestion of Prince Yoto, his nephew, and assigned one thousand Manchu women to surrendered Chinese officials and generals for them to marry.He also classified these Chinese into groups by rank and gave them wives accordingly. First-rank officials were given Manchu princes' daughters as wives; second-rank officials were given Manchu ministers' daughters as wives.”

In Chinese it said 善养之道当先予以家室, 凡一品官以诸贝勒女妻之, 二品官以国中大臣女妻之, 其大臣之女仍出公帑以给其需。 若诸贝勒大臣女有欺凌其夫者,咎在父母。犯即治罪,则安敢复逞?倘邀天眷奄有其地, 仍给还家产以养其生, 彼必忻然悦服。 如谓归顺之人原有妻室,诸贝勒大臣不宜以女与之。此实不然,彼既离其家室, 孤踪至此, 诸贝勒大臣以女分之, 岂不有名, 且使其妇翁衣食与共,虽故土亦可忘也。即有一二异心而逃者,决不为怨我之词矣。 若不加抚养, 将操何术以取天下乎?

While the Chinese doesn't mention ethnicity directly it all but makes clear the women who were given to the defected Han Chinese first rank officials and second rank officials were Manchu in the titles it used. The title for Prince used was a Manchu one 贝勒 beile only held by Manchus and Mongols in the entire Qing and never by Han Chinese. And in 1632 the beile title was only held by Manchus so those women were daughters of Manchu princes. It then says great official's 大臣 daughters and the important officials of the Later Jin state in 1632 were Manchu, not Han Chinese. It talks how they would forget their homeland since they ate together. The original Manchu would say Beile because the Chinese only translates that into 贝勒 not the Chinese version of prince.

Now the above would be original research if it was just me interpreting the primary source but western historians in their secondary sources interpreted it the same way. Historians like Pamela Kyle Crossley, Shuo Wang and Karl August Wittfogel knew what the proposal was talking about and said it meant marriage of Manchu women to Han Chinese defectors. Karl cited the same proposal and other sources. Thor's Axe is basically claiming these historians have no idea what they are talking about. Shuo Wang wrote a highly specialized passage on the Qing in a broad book edited by Anne Walthall. So did Crossley who wrote a specialized passage on the Qing in a broader book. She did not write the whole book which make's Thor's deflection on that point irrelevant. Karl was a Sinologist and Crossley is a historian who specializes in the Qing. Shuo Wang specializes in Qing history and women in particula.Opasney (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Your way of proving your points is truly laughable. Again you borrow part of the facts listed in one context, and use it for another case with a large amount of fabrication. However you proved my point again: your lack of intelligence prevented you from spreading rumours properly. I questioned a fraction of the materials by a few Western historians with regard to the marriage of most Han Chinese defectors, and the sources about the daughters of officials was only related to a very small number of defected generals with extremely high status. You are also trying to interpret the historians thoughts with your flawed and subjective mind, which is highly disruptive and annoying. My point about the Han Chinese defectors has alway been: the vast majority get Han Chinese women, but not necessarily all of them. Very highly ranked officials might be treated differently. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was pointing that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS comment at Thor's Axe, not you. But if they're misrepresenting the source, they're misrepresenting the source. That's super-simple. The answer is no, we reflect what the source says, not what we might like it to say for our (checks notes) Anti-Manchu agenda? Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you agree Karl August Wittfogel, Pamela Kyle Crossley and Shuo are reliable secondary sources and historians to interpret primary sources regarding the marriages and it should stay? Thor's Axe's attempted refutation was original research itself. Regarding the atrocities there was war rape and massacres by Han Bannermen and Manchu Bannermen and not one ethnicity prone to rape not that it matters what I say for the article.Opasney (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Now you are pressing others into agreeing with your ridiculous points, and you even cannot understand the point of Simonm223. S/He has specified clearly the importance of interpreting materials as they are, yet you keep bragging about the authority of historians whom you quoted in a despicable and misleading manner. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

https://www.csustan.edu/history/Wang

Ph.D., Asian History, Michigan State :University, 2002. Dissertation: Manchu Women in Transition: Gender, Ethnicity, and Acculturation in 17th and 18th Centuries China.

Opasney (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I have looked even further into the proposal. The part about the Han widows given out was referring to defecting ordinary Han soldiers not to the high ranking Han first and second rank officials given the daughters of Manchu Beile and ministers. Ordinary soldiers were given Han widows while first rank officials and second rank officials were given Beile and minister's daughters 至于明之兵士从前弃乡土, 离妻子, 穷年累月戍守各城一苦也, 畏我兵诛戮又一苦也, 此等无业之人不能治生, 或资军粮以自给。 若有身家之人岂犹恋此军饷乎。 今既慕义归降, 须令满汉贤能官员先察汉民女子寡妇, 酌量给配。 余察八贝勒下殷实庄头有女子者,令其给配,如无女子令各收养为子,为之婚娶,免其耕作,有军兴,则隶戎伍。其余更令殷实商贾,分给婚配。一一区处,仍各赐以衣服,毋致一人失所。如此,则人心归附而大业可成矣。Opasney (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

They look like reliable sources to me after a surface scan. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I propose you arrange the content and supporting references like this.

In the beginning of the Qing dynasty the Qing government supported Han Chinese defectors weddings to Manchu girls. With Qing removed because the reference only says dynasty and it was called Later Jin until 1636.

Add this between that Jurchen women married Han Chinese defectors from the Ming from Liaodong who were put into Nikan (Han) Banners under Nurhaci's rule.

And Meanwhile the ordinary soldiers who defected were often given non-royal Manchu women as wives, and a mass marriage of Han Chinese officers and officials to Manchu women numbering 1,000 couples was arranged by Prince Yoto 岳托 (Prince Keqin) and Hongtaiji in 1632 to promote harmony between the two ethnic groups. be changed to A mass marriage of Han Chinese officers and officials to Manchu women who were daughters of ministers and Princes numbering 1,000 couples was arranged by Prince Yoto 岳托 (Prince Keqin) and Hongtaiji in 1632 to promote harmony between the two ethnic groups. These 1,000 marriages of prince's and minister's daughters to Han officials is separate from marriages of princesses to generals like Li Yongfang and relatives of the Three Feudatories, Wu Sangui, Geng Jimao and Shang Kexi.

The end result would look like In the beginning of the dynasty the government supported Han Chinese defectors weddings to Manchu girls. Jurchen women married Han Chinese defectors from the Ming from Liaodong who were put into Nikan (Han) Banners under Nurhaci's rule. A mass marriage of Han Chinese officers and officials to Manchu women who were daughters of ministers and Princes numbering 1,000 couples was arranged by Prince Yoto 岳托 (Prince Keqin) and Hongtaiji in 1632 to promote harmony between the two ethnic groups.Opasney (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Reading to this part, you have deeply disgusted me. Even with the presence of reliable, first-hand materials, you still interpret it in an unbelievably inaccurate manner, and draw conclusions that were not even close to the fact. Prince Yoto's proposal have stated clearly that the vast majority of Han Chinese defectors were offered Han Chinese widows, and it is ridiculous to assume the 1000 defectors were all highly ranked officials. So your insular and restarted mind is promoting an idea that makes no sense at all, and you are the only now who cannot see how absurd your interpretation is. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Besides, a proposal is a proposal. The actual policy implemented by Qing emperor is: “以国中妇女千口分配之, 其余令国中诸贝勒大臣, 各分四五人配以妻室” （choose 1000 women within the country, and then ask other officials and princes to give out four to five women as wives). In no where did the policy specify the ethnic background of women involved, and Yoto's advice of offering officials and nobles' daughters was NOT adopted. The part of policy about officials and princes did not specify the need of involving their daughters, but instead just asked for four to five women. Considering the large number of enslaved servants they have, it is possible that no ethnic Manchu was included. Your "proposed" text is purely fabrication.Thor's Axe (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one you need to fool. It is historians like Karl, Shuo Wang and Crossley who specializes in Manchus. Shuo Wang wrote her Ph.D. thesis on Manchu women and read the proposal by Yoto clearly. Crossley specializes on the Qing and Manchus. Karl cited the proposal and other sources besides that. You are not allowed to interpret and twist primary sources according to your personal wishes. They are historians of Asian history,

Qing history and Chinese history and can read Chinese.Opasney (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The proposal in 1632 was in the aftermath of the Battle of Dalinghe in 1631 which Han banner artillery participated in and there were plenty of officials in Dalinghe (Linghai) and the rest of western Liaoning under Ming control. You are the one adding your own original research speculation and guesswork on Yoto's proposal. I presented expert historians who read the sources and wrote in their secondary sources about it.Opasney (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Now you resort to inserting your own retarded interpretations, which is something you kept attributing to me. You are just contradicting yourself. You do not even seem to understand the meaning of "Pin" (品). In Yoto's proposal the "first rank" refer to extremely high ranking officials, namely just one level below the emperor. Even the highest ranked general captured (Zu Dashou) did not reach that level. The "second ranked" was just one level below the first rank, which might be comparable to Zu's status. It is only your absurd illusion that there would be that many officials of extremely high rank captured. Considering that Yoto's proposal was a general advice not applied to those captured in Dalinghe, it is normal that none or very few defectors in that event meet the criteria. As a matter of fact the whole Ming court is unlikely to have that number, not to mention that most of the highly ranked did not serve in the army and will not meet the Qing court. Thor's Axe (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You kept emphasising the authority if historians, but failed to offer any concrete evidence against mine. Historians make mistakes. When the second hand resources have conflicts (the Ding's book I quoted mentioned the policy applied to captured women mostly, and Sun's thesis indicated that there was a lack of record), the first hand sources should be given the highest credibility. All my edit based on the first hand record. Thor's Axe (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thor's Axe made a fallacy on his talk page about expanding the Manchu population by pillaging and taking female slaves being vital to the war through his original research claim that it quickly expanded theur population in time for significantly moresoldiers to fight in the war. The vast majority of Qing soldiers in the war against the Ming and Three Feudatories were either Han Bannermen or Han Green Standard army soldiers. Manchus were a minority in the Qing army during these wars and their smaller Manchu units accompanied the bigger Han armies to plunder, loot and take captives from the defeated after much of the fighting was done already. Han Bannermen were called heavy troops, ujen coohai in Manchu because Han bannermen brought cannons to the Qing side and it was Han bannermen and their cannons which bombarded the walls of Ming cities like Yangzhou and led to their sacking by the Qing. Han Banner generals and majority Han armies led the conquest of southern and northwest China with small token Manchu detachments who pillaged and looted with them. There are sources and content discussing this in this article itself. Han General Wu Sangui and his Han army did most of the fighting against Li Zicheng before Manchu cavalry entered the battle and most of the soldiers mobilized against the Three Feudatories were Han Green Standard Army soldiers and generals with smaller Manchu detachments accompanying them. The war with the Ming after the defection of Shanhai pass from 1644 to 1662 was over in 28 years and even counting the later war with the three feudatories the hypothetical original research theory that the Manchu population expanded rapidly through raping slaves had little to no impact on the war effort or amount of soldiers. In 1648 75% of the Eight Banners were Han and Han Bannermen served as Governor Generals across China until the reign of the Kangxi Emperor. The Banner city garrisons across southern China outside of Beijing had Han Bannermen until the Qianlong Emperor discharged them decades after all the fighting ended in 1683 and used Manchu bannermen to fill them leading to a drop in the Han banner percentage.Opasney (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Now you just showed how pathetic you are by resorting to spread rumours about an irrelevant topic. Qing is a Manchu dynasty and and there is no doubt that Manchu soldiers and commanders played an essential role in the conquest of China. No matter how much you emphasise the role of Han Banner men, you cannot change the fact that Manchu and Mongols were key factors in the whole campaign. However this discussion is off-topic. You just showed that there is no way for you to present the truth, since you do not even have the courage and morality to face it. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The entire Banner garrison at Canton (Guangzhou) followwing the suppression of the three feudatories were Han Bannermen until 1735. The bulk of the Qing army were Han soldiers as referenced at Transition_from_Ming_to_Qing#The_mixed_army_deployed_for_invasion. Your claims otherwise come from your mind and are not backed by sources.

You also try to mislead us by pointing to heqin not preventing revolts by Han generals so you say its not important. The Mongol Chahar Prince Abunai also revolted against the Qing during the three feudatories rebellion despite his family being in a heqin marriage with Aisin Gioro princess.Opasney (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You just proved my point again: you are unable to use historical sources or draw conclusions from them properly. Firstly, what you brought up is wholly off-topic; Secondly you are trying to represent the fact with individual and isolated cases, which is absurd and retarded as I mentioned multiple times above. There is no doubt that Mongols on the whole were much more faithful than the Han generals, and they were much more likely to honour the agreement and tie between Qing and Mongolia. Throughout the Qing Mongols remained as an important ally most of the time, while the Han defectors who joined after or around 1644 very frequently rebelled and had to be wiped out completely. Thor's Axe (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who brought up Mongols not me and lied with your own original research that expanding the Manchu population was vital to the war effort. The relations and incorporation of the Khorchin Mongols and Khalkha Mongols are entirely different to the situation with the Chahar Mongols and Ming. The Later Jin and Qing contracted marriage alliances with Khorchin and Khalkha from the start and incorporated them mostly without fighting. The Khalkha Mongols later all joined the Qing voluntarily because of the Oirat invasion. The Chahar Mongols were invaded violently like the Ming by the Qing and did not join the Qing peacefully. Ligdan was the last great Khagan and died and fled rather than surrender. After his son Ejei Khan was forced to surrender and had a heqin marriage with Aisin Gioro, Ejei's grandsons still revolted against the Qing during the three feudatories revolt and were executed bringing the Chahar region under direct control.Opasney (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)al

Expanding manchu population is vital to the conquest of China, and this is the point included in the reference I quoted. You just cannot accept it and keep accusing me of lying. However whenever you make a false statement you never have evidence or reasons. You are just a disruptive liar who cannot survive with spreading rumours. Besides I do not see how the above events you quoted were relevant. It did not affect the prominence of Mongols in Banner troop, nor did it argue against the overall importance of Manchu-Mongolia alliance. You are just trying to waste my time with arguments of extremely poor quality, and you cannot even see the comparison included in my previous statement. Mongols were much more trustworthy than the Han defectors after the fall of Ming, and this is my point. You cannot even understand plain English it seems. Thor's Axe (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Khorchins and Khalkhas were not invaded which is exactly why heqin marriages involving their Khans have no relevance when comparing it to Han generals and you were the one who brought this off topic irrelevance into the talk page. Chahar Khans fought against Later Jin conquest.Opasney (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You are also making comments in a complicated, irrelevant topic which you apparently have little knowledge of. The most important part of a troop, especially in ancient warfare, was not determined by the number of soldiers. You have no idea about the details of every single battle and what kind of role in specific Manchus, Mongols and Han banner men played in defeating their enemy. Trying to use digression does not help your flawed logic, it just exposed more of your mistakes. Thor's Axe (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It is you who is doing original research using primary sources to fit your opinions on what was vital to the war like Manchu population. Shuo Wang said Manchu women were.Opasney (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You are still making comment backed up by nothing. Again you are just a pathetic Chauvinist who cannot accept the fact that Han Chinese were defeated and conquered by a very small population, their elite soldiers controlled to assist the Qing, and women used to help expand their conqueror's population. Shuo Wang never commented on what was vital about the whole event, since she did not even study the Manchu conquest of China as a whole event. You just showed how you draw ridiculous conclusions from a relatively reliable source, in a repulsive and illusional manner. In the same way I can say Han women were much more vital for Manchus to win the war. Thor's Axe (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The same page you cited on intermarriage laws.

As an important part part of the conquering ethnic group, Manchu women made a major contribution to Qing imperial interests. In this way, imperial daughters played an important role in constructing the Qing Empire.

You cannot understand the context of the historical text, which explained how your came to conclusions making no sense. Shuo Wang was talking about the contribution of Manchu females on the whole, mostly their role of help preserving the Manchu culture and their marriage with the Mongols. To deal with Han Chinese, the major weapon for Qing were warfare and other strategies. Also Shuo Wang did not study the whole event of Manchu conquering China, and what she said only showed her acknowledgement of the importance of Manchu females to the imperial family. She did not claim it to be the determining factor to win the war. What you just claimed is a direct evidence of how you distort fact and your deficiency in understanding historical materials on a minimum level. Thor's Axe (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Everthing I proposed is not my own. Want to claim Manchu rape of women was vital to the war? Not to their own desire but to the war. Find a reliable secondary source by a historian which says that it won the war.

You are not able to understand plain english, which is the only thing that can be confirmed from this statement of yours. In no where did I claim Manchu and Mongols won the war by raping Han Chinese women. They won with intelligence, courage and many other weapons. Take your paranoia elsewhere. Thor's Axe (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

They won with intelligence, courage and many other weapons. Source?Opasney (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Explain how Manchus defeated and captured the Han banner men you kept talking about at the beginning. In early stages of the war Manchu and Mongolian banner men crashed almost all the elite troops of Ming. There is not even the need for me to go through the details. Thor's Axe (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Have a source claiming Manchu bannermen or Mongol bannermen singlehandedly defeated larger Ming armies in the invasion after 1644? You know full well the Ming were on the middle of a civil war with two major rebels, Li and Zhang. Li destroyed the Ming and most of the former Ming army and officials of northern China defected to the Qing and became new bannermen and green standard army and defeated Li. Han Banner Generals then led mostly Han armies in the invasion of the Southern Ming warlords who were fighting each other. Even after the three feudatories, Han bannermen filled the southern banner garrison cities until Qianlong discharged them in 1735 and replaced them with Manchus. This is all sourced in the article. Manchu bannermen were following these armies for loot. Han banner cannons broke down Yangzhou's walls before the Manchu bannermen joined the looting and raping once the walls were down.Opasney (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It is ridiculous you keep asking me to prove a statement that I did not even make. I just showed your illusion that Manchu and Mongols were not the major forces is completely absurd, not that Han banner men did not contribute at all. They did the dying at least. Also you try to summarise the whole event with only a non-significant battle. You are the one who should prove your retarded view. Besides Li was crashed by Dorgon's force outside Beijing, and Zhang was shot dead by Haoge. Your lies are truly cheap, and they are not even related to the topic. Thor's Axe (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Zhang was shot with only 10 followers guarding him after his officers like Liu Jinzhong defected and fled his camp and pointed him and his location out to Haoge. Haoge then appointed Li Guoying and his Green Standard army soldiers to conquer Sichuan and withdrew and died in prison. Dorgon entered the battle between Wu Sangui and Li Zicheng at the last minute. The Gansu campaign, and conquest of the south, Guangdong, Yunnan other provinces were led by Han armies and generals.

Show us a single conquest accomplished where Manchus were the majority of soldiers? The Khorchin Mongols helped the Qing fight the Chahar Mongols of Ligdan Khan and later the revolt of Ligdan's great grandsons. Later in the Dzungar war the Mongol Banners and Khalkhas fought the Dzungars and Chingunjav. You are the one inserting a section implying Manchu desire to rape drove military conquest and victory and now you say what soldiers won most of the battles and conquest is not related to the topic?Opasney (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You do not have the right to make comment on this. I have emphasised clearly the number of soldiers is not the determining factor. In all the campaigns you listed the Han generals were under the command of their Manchu overlords. Besides you have no rationale to include the battles after 1644 only. Besides you still cannot understand my point, which I have said in plain English already. I never claimed Manchus won the war by raping Han Chinese women. Since Manchu soldiers were pivotal in the battle, expansion of their population is surely relevant. Prove your link between the importance of Manchu soldiers and raping Han Chinese women is the most important factor in conquering China. Otherwise you should see how absurd your logic is. Thor's Axe (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

More importantly, you disgusted me even more by claiming everything you do not agree with to be the result of others lying or misleading. You assumed me to have a partial view at the very beginning, while I supported all my points with evidence. You kept claiming I inserted materials, which you have absolutely no proof when every line of the text was backed by evidence. You should not just learn about reasoning, but also learn to behave yourself and stop assuming everyone else is as twisted and emotional as you are. Thor's Axe (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC) You can keep on pinning labels on me, and none of that will work. Thor's Axe (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You are comitting original research on primary sources and do not understand that a real historians words like Pamela, Karl and Shuo Wang's words outrank yours and your original research on the ethnicity of the women. You restored open vandalism on heqin by the other user from the beginning without helping me clean it up to save yourself from doing work.Opasney (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

My words were backed up by historical text, and my description and mentioning of the lack of direct evidence was clear and concise. On the other hand your low level of intelligence and morality prevented you from quoting any historical sources properly. It is not that historians outrank my words, but my words based on historical text outranked your ridiculous and disgusting mind completely.Thor's Axe (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I quoted historians Shuo Wang, Karl and Crossley word for word. None of what I suggested adding to the article was my own theories or claims. Your words and interpretations of primary sources are your claims.Opasney (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You should read the new version. The part that was correct and relevant were kept. Your "word for word" created absurd views, because you cannot even understand the original text. Thor's Axe (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I have explained about Heqin page. No one is obliged to help you delete others' edits since you need to prove your statements first. Besides you are the one who completely reverted my changes without a reason, and it is just reasonable for me to bring everything back to normal. If you think your edits were correct, give explanations and carefully review others' edits before reverting. You also never leave a comment on talk page to explain your edits. You obviously do not deserve any help since all you can do is projecting your sick mind and ignoring other facts. Thor's Axe (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Thor's Axe (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Montalk123 added unsourced vandalism relating to the ethnicity of Khitan and other peoples on Heqin and your edits to all the section sub titles stood in between reverting all the vandalism to the untouched version. I and no other wikipedia editor is under any obligation to let unsourced vandalism to stand for your sake. You repeatedly reverted back to the open unsourced vandalized version after I clearly explained what was wrong with it and that alone deserved blanket reverting your edits to that page.Opasney (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You cannot even understand my explanation about a non-historical event. I expressed clearly I was not aware of the changes you mentioned, and you reverted my justified contributions because you want to delete the edits before mine. You are editing in a destructive and irresponsible manner, and left no explanation in the talk page. I also clearly explained the rationale of my edits and you kept deleting it without even reviewing it. What is obvious is that you always deserve a blanket reverting, and you do not even deserve an explanation since you cannot read anyway. You should not expect me to clean after you after deleting my contributions with no rationale. Also you should bring this to the Heqin page rather than discussing it hereThor's Axe (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

no rationale. Talk:Heqin#Edits_by_Thor's_AxeOpasney (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A suggestion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey guys, Can I suggest that there's no reason to exclude either the information about historically significant marriages or the information about wartime bride-taking if both are from RSes. I see a lot of huge back-and-forth edits here. How about instead of battling over the whole shape of the section we workshop inclusions and deletions in talk, identifying which material should be used and where. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest reverting to the stable version before all the edits and have a third established trusted user who edits this topic to look at all the sources to make sure they say what they say and see what gets included. There was also bad grammar in the newly added content.Opasney (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Both articles got reverted again.Opasney (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I would concur with Opasney on this course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of Simonm223. Both forms of marriages are now kept in the text. The group marriage following Yoto's proposal did not specify clearly the ethnic backgrounds of wives, and this part was explained as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor's Axe (talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: @Kleuske: Thor's Axe is now unilaterally inserting his edits into the article, claiming that Simonn223 consented to them and he is conflating policies on primary and secondary sources. In the section above he said.Now you are pressing others into agreeing with your ridiculous points, and you even cannot understand the point of Simonm223. S/He has specified clearly the importance of interpreting materials as they are, yet you keep bragging about the authority of historians whom you quoted in a despicable and misleading manner. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC). I cited the historians who wrote the secondary sources clearly in what they said. He keeps inserting and is self interpreting material on female captives from primary sources and suggests Manchus took all of them. Both Manchu and Han Bannermen were at Yangzhou and other battles and raids. Most of the soldiers sent to fight against the three feudatories were Han with Manchus tagging along. They participated in looting, raping slaves and raiding but were not the primary factor in victory. You can check the sources at Transition_from_Ming_to_Qing#The_mixed_army_deployed_for_invasion.Opasney (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Opasney: So now with all your fabrication controverted you resorted to false accusation and reporting to the management team. You just want the whole article to be affected by your twisted mind, and claiming all my edits to be inserted and self made. In nowhere did I claim all the Han Chinese women captured in a battle were offered to ethnic Manchu. My above discussion had clearly pointed out your flaws, and you just keep on spreading rumours and trying to convince an administrator to back you up in a discussion related to a specific topic. Your behaviour showed your incapability of making a proper argument, addiction to quoting a fragment of historical source and interpret it in a misleading way, and failure of making statements logically. You are just a disruptive liar who is unable to accept truth, and trying to block my contributions with the power of an administrator. Thor's Axe (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have explained clearly how I incorporated Simonm223's suggestion, and you did not list out any valid reason to controvert my conclusion. All you did is reiterating the historians whose views you believe supported your utterly false opinions, and refuse to face the first-hand resources and conclusions drawn in an accurate and logical manner. Your attempt to win a debate by misleading statements and seeking support from those who may block my account is more than despicable, and very indecorous. Thor's Axe (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrator? Block? None of the two users I pinged are administrators and they cannot block people. I can't tell administrators to block people. Take your paranoia somewhere else. You committed original research with primary sources to push an agenda and your grammar is not up to par. Nobody agreed to make changes to the article except you. A third party user will make edits as agreed with concensus. Not with original research, bad grammar and other infractions.Opasney (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Kleuske has sent edit warring before and that is why I assumed her to be an admin. You have already bothered her on her talk page and spreaded rumours about me without informing me. You are the one with hopeless paranoia, since your statements and behaviours are clearly disordered. Besides you have no right to make comments on my grammar. Your inserted text was completely flawed in logic, and had extremely bad coherency. Connections between adjacent sentences were extremely poor and there were duplications. Your edit on this talk page is full of grammatical mistakes too. Your reading level is also highly questionable since you cannot properly understand a statement, either from historical text or my edits. I tried to be avoid this but since you reached here, I would say you appear to be very poorly educated, in terms of both knowledge and morality. Thor's Axe (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Shuo Wang in Anne Walthall's book and Karl read Prince Yoto's proposal in the original Chinese and being historians, especially Shuo who did her Ph.D. thesis in Manchu women in Asian history are qualified to interpret the primary source which they did and wrote about. Thor's Axe's original research on the primary source and speculation on the women in the marriages does not qualify for inclusion in wikipedia. It is his speculation, guesswork and agenda pushing. He is synthesizing, doing original resarch and adding bad grammar on top of that.Opasney (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

My first comment about ethnicity was based on the proposal of Yoto. The second one did not give any comments, but indicated that there was a lack of evidence. You just claim anything not aligning with your illusions to be "original research". You are trying to interpret historical text in a misleading and partial manner without a minimum level of understanding, and inserting your fabricated content. Besides all you edits in both the article and talk page showed serious deficiency in organising languages properly. Thor's Axe (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 adressed his comment on primary sources and righting wrongs to you. You don't get it, do you? I quoted actual historians who wrote their own sources on what to put in the article not my own views while you are doing original research, putting lists of captives and incidents of raids and rape from primary sources to push an agenda on "Manchu-Han marriages" and how this was vital to the war and doing self interpretation of Yoto's proposal. The text written by Shuo Wang in Walthall's book on Banner-Han marriages in the garrisons is not related to the war. You are the one who first edited Kleuske's talk page not me.Opasney (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Again you have no evidence that I did original research. I just translated Yoto's proposal to English, and that is all I did. The importance of expanding population with captured Han women was included in the sources I quoted. I wish this is the last time to tell you this, otherwise you just proved you are not able to read. Although I have emphasised multiple times, you still cannot be more specific and keep on pinning a label on me. There is not even the point of arguing back sometimes. I clearly remember you reported me to Kleuske on her talk page, and I warned you afterwards about your improper behaviour. You keep claiming me to be a liar, yet you lie about not only historical event, but also what happened on an online platform.Thor's Axe (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also you tried to back up your accusations with a fraction of the comment of user Simonm223, who expressed that I did not misrepresent facts and consider my sources to be reliable. He also saw through your sick agenda and warned you about that. It is obvious that you have the habit of quoting a fragment of others' comment without understanding the context, and interpreting it in a ridiculous and malicious way. This habit of yours does not only apply to historical text, but anything you can grasp now it seems. Thor's Axe (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

All the content I proposed was sourced by historians secondary sources and not an idea of my own was added. I did not propose adding content sourced only by primary sources or propose adding any of my interpretations. Everything I proposed was written by Shuo, Karl and Crossley and not what I came up with for any agenda. Show me where I proposed changes not written by those authors. I mentioned Wakeman and who he said fought at Yangzhou and the rapes too which are not my ideas. You are the one adding your interpretations and not merely translating in the case of Yoto's proposal. You added your speculation about the ethnicity of the women and selectively quoted the last part of the proposal. Simonm223 told you to workshop proposed changes on the talk page and wait for approval before editing the article. You were the first to go on Kleuske's talk page to try to get Kleuske to agree to your revision.Opasney (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You are lying in the most shameless way I have observed so far in this topic. The first comment left on Kleuske talk page by done by you, there is the record of time. There is no need for me to discuss that. Thor's Axe (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kleuske&diff=860990638&oldid=860430148 Opasney (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This was my first response to her after she left messages on my talk page. You are the one who first started a discussion about me without letting me know. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I have already pointed out the way you make fabrications. It is your delusion that it is acceptable to create rumours as long as you borrowed the language from others only. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is part of the no original research principal. You tried to deny the importance of Manchu and Mongols in conquering China by referring to only a small number of insignificant battles. You always try to represent the whole truth with only a tiny part of the fact, and laughably believe that no one else can see through your cheap trick. That is truly dirty. Let me make this clear one last time: your resources might be reliable, but your way of using them is unacceptably wrong. Thor's Axe (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

My presenting part of the proposal was not selective, but because that was the only relevant part. The other parts you added did not affect the meaning implied at all. Your accusation is nonsense. On the other hand you kept seeking support from Shun Wang's work, and did whatever you can to conceal the other part of her work that I borrowed as well, including Mongol being the preferred partner rather than Han, the sexual duality of Qing's policy. You obviously commit all the misconduct you claimed I am doing, which you have no proof either. Thor's Axe (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously cool it on the personal attacks. We do not say things like You are lying in the most shameless way I have observed - that's not going to build consensus nor build an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I have never proposed adding any synthesis of information to the article or written a conclusion to add to the article that was from a combination of sources. Each sentence I proposed had its own secondary source saying what it said. Crossley, Karl and Shuo each said individual things which were not combined. To deal with what I said in about Qing armies which I did not propose adding to the article, the article has individual sources already each saying that the majority of the Qing army were Han and that southern China was conquered by Han Generals and I did not synthesize that.

You need to be more precise in your words. Your statements might be partly supported, your conclusions are usually not accurate. What do you mean precisely by saying conquered by Han generals? Wu Sangui was under the command of Manchu officials. Hooge killed Zhang Xianzhong himself. Your statements apparently suggesting Manchus did not even participate, which is completely false. Similar cases were present elsewhere. Thor's Axe (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The civil marriage policies between Bannermen and Han civilians were about the situation after the war. Shuo Wang wrote, After the Kangxi period, the Qing tolerated intermarriage between bannermen and women not in the banners. In the eighteenth century and later, it was not uncommon for bannermen, especially hanjun, to marry Chinese women. That has nothing to do with the war which ended in the Kangxi period.

I would say this is a blind spot and your interpretation is not necessarily accurate either. Before the conquest of China Qing's laws and policies involving Han Chinese were not well documented, especially when the Han Chinese had a low social status but was not prominent culturally like they were after 1644 (they greatly outnumbered Manchus but not to the same extent after 1644). You also do not have evidence about the kind of policies before KangXi era. Thor's Axe (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Information about war rape following battles belongs in a section about massacres, atrocities and war rape or in detailed sections about those battles. Thor's Axe's version of "Manchu-Han marriages" was trying to give the impression that Manchu soldiers singlehandedly fought Li Zicheng, took down Yangzhou, defeated all the three feudatories and other battles mentioned where ever captives were taken and raped and that they won the war because of raping captives. This is synthesis from many primary sources and combining them to reach a conclusion which is essentially saying rape won the war. There was no context about these battles and campaigns other than push an agenda that incentive to rape by Manchus militarily won the war. The point of his section was to push an agenda that solely taking captives and rape won those battles.

It is only your interpretation. In no where did I or those materials mention the process of battle or how they won the war by raping. Your reasoning is hard to understand. Also the captured women mostly became wives or concubines after the war, and it is improper to classify it into the rape and massacre section. If the marriage of Han defectors was discussed, the other more influential and prominent forms of intermarriage should also be presented. Thor's Axe (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wakeman points put that Han banner cannon took down Yangzhou's walls. Wu Sangui's army fought Li Zicheng before Dorgon's cavalry swept in and the majority of soldiers mobilized both for the original conquest of southern China led by Kong Youde, Wu Sangui and Shang Kexi and the war against the Three Feudatories were Han bannermen and Han Green Standard army who did most of the fighting. Gansu was conquered by Han Bannerman Meng Qiaofang. They would be accompanied by small Manchu detachments in the rear. Guangzhou was first taken by Han bannermen led by Shang Kexi and even after his son Shang Zhixin revolted the Qing still sent Han Bannermen into Guangzhou and other southern banner garrison cities. Qianlong discharged them decades after all of the war ended. There is already content and sources on these in the article which should have more written on them. Han bannermen Tong Guoqi and Shi Lang led the fight against the Zheng family in Fujian and Taiwan.Opasney (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You are making comments in a unrelated topic and your view is highly subjective. Zheng's family was defeated on land where Manchu banner men played a key role. You pointed out yourself that deadly blow against Li Niching was landed by Dorgon. You are trying to controvert a point I did not even make. I did not deny the usefulness of Han banner men, I am just arguing that your ignoring Manchu and Mongols in the battle is blatantly ridiculous. Also this is off-topic anyway Thor's Axe (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You are saying that seizing women for rape by Manchus was vital to military victory and conquest in the war with the section you adfed. I have breaking news. Rape has happened in every single war in history that has lasted for more than a week and spread over more than a city. There has been rape of captured women in wars in this century and every war in the Qing.

You still did not understand my point. List anywhere I claimed "seizing women for rape was vital for Manchus to conquer China". These women were captured and became wives and concubines of Manchu soldiers. You are mixing two different concepts Thor's Axe (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Qing ordered Dzungar women distributed as slaves for rape to the Bannermen in their war against them too. Marriage alliances have not been common to other wars. If someone wants to add about Mongol heqin to the article then do it where it talks about Ligdan Khan.

Numbers, cannon, knowledge of the territory, geography, location and language brought by Han Bannermen and defectors led to victory.

You have no evidence for this claim. Manchus were the key decision makers and they crash the most elite troops of the enemy. I do not see how the language of Han defectors helped. As a matter of fact Han Bannerman before 1644 spoke Manchu. Also what you listed is irrelevant. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

How did desire by Manchu soldiers to rape bring down the walls of Ming forts and cities, or lead to mass defections by former Zhang and Ming officials and generals? Yangzhou's walls were brought down by Han banner cannon. Rape was a result of that as Wakeman said in his book on the Qing invasion. Not what lead to victory but its aftermath. Why should rape after the battle of Yangzhou and Three Feudatories be in the beginning of the article about the invasion in a section about marriages? Han bannermen were still numerous and stationed at critical garrison points in southern and eastern China until Qianlong replaced them during a time of peace. How did Manchu desire for rape of slaves lead Wu Sangui to open the pass and Li Yongfang to turn over Fushun to Later Jin?

Marriage alliances with the defecting generals were a prelude to the fighting and campaigns in the invasion after Shanhai pass and not a result of them.

This is definitely absurd. The marriage with the three Feudatories was arranged after they have surrendered, there is no doubt about that. Wu SanGui dashed out from ShanHai Gate to meet Dorgon, kneeled in front of him, swore for loyalty and begged him to help defeat Li zicheng. A marriage was arranged after Wu's surrender. The other marriages were arranged in Shun Zhi's reign, when the three feudatories have served loyally for quite a long time. The only case where a marriage was mentioned before the event was the case of Li Yongfang. But that is very rare, and Li was the first defected Han banner man and he defected largely due to the power of Manchus. You are trying to attribute everything to the marriage only, which is ridiculous. Also I did not claim Manchus rape Han Chinese women to let the three feudatories surrender. Their victory on the battlefield against the best troops of Ming and policies of awarding military officers and many other factors resulted in the join of Ming generals. Finally, you are seriously misinterpreting the text. My point is the marriage with Han women helped the growth of Manchu population, which played an essential role in the conquest of China. Raping itself is another issue and was discussed in another section. Manchus did not rape Han women to win the war, or rape Han women to win support from Mongols, or rape Han women to make Ming generals surrender. You went to extremes when considering the importance of marriage. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Haoge was sent to fight Zhang because Dorgon wanted Haoge out of the capital and Zhang was killed with only 10 soldiers protecting him after Liu Jinzhong defected from Zhang's army and gave away his location to Haoge. Haoge appointed a defected Ming official and Green Standard army soldiers to pacify the province when returning to Beijing.Opasney (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to waste time on details of one single event. You still cannot deny the importance of Manchus in the conquest of China. Without them their would not have been the event of Manchu Conquest of China. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I agree with your suggestion on talking in a more constructive manner. However I think the current version should be considered as the stable one rather than the previous one. It kept all the relevant links and text about marriage of Han defectors before, with the only change being the disputed part of Yoto's proposal. It is Wiki's policy that when sources conflict each other a solution is to keep both. I consider it appropriate to include the marriage between Manchu and Han Chinese women since the previous version without it is one-sided. Both sides now apparently was backed up by evidence, and the discussion is about the part to be included. In this situation it is only fair to keep both. Alternatively if you think a consensus is needed, I suggest deleting the marriage of Han defectors as well. Thor's Axe (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be. Generally, a stable version is the version prior to the beginning of a period of contested edits. In this case, that would be the one excluding your contested edits. Furthermore, there are questions surrounding the extent to which your edits are supported by your cited source which should be resolved at talk prior to inclusion. If you can demonstrate that your edits are supported by your sources then we should discuss how to include that information and build consensus because currently no editors active on this page agree with your edits. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I do not think Opasney is viewing the matter in an objective manner. If you are claiming that I have to ask for his approval for the changes to take effect, I consider that to be unfair and unpractical. Besides the older version is contested if I have sound evidence against it. It does not seem fair to me that my edits got rejected continously while the old one passed without rejection simply because I have not read this article by that time. Thor's Axe (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Shuo Wang read Ding Yizhuang's books herself. Your personal interpretation of Hong Taiji's response to Yoto's proposal is contested by Shuo and Karl.

I have explained that all I did was to translate the record into English. You have showed no evidence so far of my making personal interpretation. You also have no direct evidence that Shuo Wang read Ding's book completely in person. She might have only borrowed part of it that was relevant, and there is the possibility that Ding's work was referenced indirectly by other sources when Shuo Wang was doing her research. Having a reference of a book does not necessarily mean the author has read the book completely, not to mention that the primary sources involved. Now with the presence of original script it is pointless to keep emphasising the work of Shuo Wang or inferring how she wrote her thesis. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yoto made two parts of his proposal, the first about the daughters of Princes and ministers given to defected Ming officials and the second part about giving defected ordinary Ming soldiers Han widows who had nothing to do with the Princes and ministers. Yoto implied there were Han widows in Later Jin territory which included eastern Liaodong for over a decade already but did not make a connection between them and the princes and ministers and did not say the Han widows he proposed to be given to common soldiers were slaves of the princes and ministers. Hong Taiji then ordered women to be given by princes and ministers when he ordered 1,000 women married off. Your personal interpretations of the ethnicity of the women ordered by Hong Taiji to be given by the Princes and Ministers aside, the proposal for Han widows has nothing to do with Hong Taiji's order of giving 1,000 women to defectors.Opasney (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Read this yourself: "大凌河汉人,可分隶副将下各五十名,参将下各十五名,游击下各十名,尽令移居沈阳,以国中妇女千口分配之。其余令国中诸贝勒大臣,各分四五人,配以妻室,善抚养之”. The first part talked about the allocation of captives from Daling River to the commanders of different levels and moving then to ShenYang. The second half means:"Select 1000 females within the country, and ask princes and offcials to offer four to five women as wives." This clearly proved your assumption wrong, as it showed the policy is about dealing with the defected soldiers from Daling River. On the other hand the 1000 women were clearly not related to the princes and ministers you were talking about. I have already included this part above, and you just ignored it again. Also the original script did not mention the women from Princes and ministers were their daughters. Before the conquering of China each aristocrat have a large number of captured women as asset, and Qing's emperor might just asked them to give out some of what they have like a donation. I agree there to be a lack of evidence though, but you have no proof the 1000 women were related to princes and officials. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Even in Yoto's proposal, I did NOT deny the part where he suggested to assign wives to extremely high ranked officials according to their ranks. But you need to revise that part again. "凡一品官,以诸贝勒女妻之;二品官,以诸大臣女妻之;" (The officials with the first "Pin" can marry the daughters of Princes, those with the second "Pin" marry the daughters of officials). You should be aware of the meaning of "Pin". First "Pin" is just one level below the emperor and second "Pin" was just one level further below. Both ranks referred to extremely high status, and the most highly ranked captured Generals (Zu Dashou) did not reach the first level. It is absurd to assume that 1000 of such officials would be captured in a battle. The whole Ming court would have far less than that number, and most of them did not serve in the army and would never meet the Qing court. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Again with the personal attacks on Opasney - I've mentioned this to you on your talk page, but contentious edits that have been disputed require consensus. This isn't about you getting the consent of one editor. It's about you getting the consent of the community, which you have, so far, failed to do. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

May I ask what would you like me to present if you want to give consensus? Just hope you can be a bit more specific here. The materials I just showed were supported by links. You may use a translator or appoint someone knowing the language to confirm the meaning Thor's Axe (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Continued discussion over intermarriage part

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Simonm223: @Opasney: To reach an agreement, I propose changes below.

• I agree that the policy about the marriage after KangXi era might not be wholly appropriate, and there may need to be further clarifications about the time range. Despite this, putting down the rebellion of Wu Sangui (which happened in Kang Xi's Reign) is technically part of the transition, so it is not correct to consider the policy to be wholly irrelevant. In addition, there is no evidence about when the policy started exactly.
• I will merge the two sections Manchu-Han marriages and Han defectors again and rename it Manchu-Han Marriages.
• There is a duplication of the marriage of the sons of Sun Sike and Geng, as it was described twice (the end of the first paragraph and the second paragraph). I would delete the first part and keep the link included. The reason is that the second part seems to give more information.
• Yoto's proposal and Hong Taiji's command should be interpreted as they are. The current version is a simple translation and mentioned the lack of evidence. As a result it ought to be kept as it is.
• I would delete the bride taking event in YangZhou, since it triggered too much dispute and the majority of soldiers participated in the raping were defected Han soldiers.
• A revision of wording needs to be done. Instead of saying "offered", the phrase should be "were married to" in the first line of Han defectors.

To Opasney: the discussion about the determining factor of Manchu's success in conquering China should be dropped now. While I mentioned that bride taking of Manchu soldiers has its historical significance, I made no claim about the most important factor of winning the war. This question is highly complex and I do not think a conclusion can be easily come up with on a platform such as Wikipedia. The debate with you has taken too much of my time and resulted in too much dispute between me and the management team of Wiki. Besides your partial view and addiction to only referring to a small part of the fact, as I reiterated multiple times, have made the discussion to be of very low quality. From now on I do not want to continue a discussion that is relatively irrelevant in a meaningless manner. To quickly end this dispute I expect you to focus your points on the changes above.Thor's Axe (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I will reiterate what I said to you yesterday, and again today, that you should start by self-reverting to the pre-conflict version of the page and then discuss specific edits here at talk, gaining consensus for each edit before inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

discussion of editor behaviour, off topic, more appropriate for user talk pages or the thread at WP:AN/I
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Simonm223: I wish you can see that your edit was not reverted by me this time. The first time when you suggested self reverting I had already shut down my computer. Then you reported me to the management team in less than an hour. I hope you can be aware of the difference in time zones. Also the other user Kl... was talking to me in a way that deeply offended me. In that situation it is hard for me to self-revert. Before implementing the policies on your end, I wish you can realise the compromise I have made so far and consider my situation. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Currently I do not see the presence of an edit other than you and Opasney. I hope you can offer your feedback and suggestion timely on the current ongoing discussion. Your suggestion sounds fancy but I would like it to be more specific. How do you define whether I gained the consent of the community? Are they actually watching this discussion? When will a decision be made? I feel there to be a lack of guidance now. Also you did not give me a satisfying explanation of "stable version", or the relevant policy of wiki suggesting your way of determining a stable version. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC) I acknowledge that you might be a more experienced wiki editor (at least as you claimed on the noticeboard), so I tried to trust you. However now I would like further information from you to maintain my trust. Thor's Axe (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Considering you called the edits of another editor by an ableist slur less than a week ago, it's a bit rich that you are referring to Kleuske's comments on talk I don't give an owls hoot about what you "reviewed" or not. as deeply offensive. The issue that users are having with you are summed up with the policy WP:BATTLEFIELD - in which you are approaching your interactions on this page from a combative perspective rather than a cooperative one. Attempts from Kleuske and myself to encourage you to operate cooperatively were treated as attacks rather than with the good faith that it's expected wikipedians will assume. That's why I filed an WP:AN/I report. And I won't be withdrawing it just because you succeeded in not violating WP:3RR for one day. I would suggest you take a break from articles where you feel a need to right great wrongs and learn more about the culture of Wikipedia on articles where you are able to be more dispassionate. Simonm223 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC) It is your right to interpret the my current state of mind, and I will not comment on that for now. I will keep editing in a manner complying with the relevant policies. Whether to withdraw the report is your decision. However I would reserve the right to make my own judgment. Thor's Axe (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Besides according to the right great wrongs descriptions no restriction is set on materials published in reliable sources. I have so far based my contribution on the historical materials that can be verified and accessed.(Bride taking during battle and relevant policies) I would like to know the reason you believe I have violated that policy. Thanks. Thor's Axe (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Could you please begin properly indenting your responses? And honestly, several people have explained to you why your edit behaviour is problematic; I don't intend to waste more time here, especially as this is off-topic for the discussion of this talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A revision of wording was done. Changes include:

• More precise prefix such as a few, some were added to the marriage of imperial daughters. The original version was rather misleading since the wording gave the impression that all imperial princesses were married to defectors. (Asin Gioro ......., other Asin Gioro women....)
• Duplications about Li Yongfang's marriage was reorganised in the same way as Simonm223's edit on HeQin page.
• More details of Shunzhi's policy was added, with all the old materials kept.
• Content about Yoto's proposal added.
• Revision of wording in the last paragraph. According to the link given the Han defectors needed to be a banner men to possibly marry a manchu female. Non-banner Chinese men could not.

Thor's Axe (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that no deletion of reliably sourced content was deleted. A change of wording was necessary when the text does not reflect the sources quoted correctly, such as equaling defectors to Han banner men (it is possible they did not join the banner) Thor's Axe (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The title was changed to Manchu-Han marriage. This is due to two reasons:

1. Normally when historians or ordinary people talk about the two ethnic groups, Manchu was put before Han.
2. The arrangement of intermarriage was usually decided by Manchus.

I am willing to hear alternative views about this minor change. Thor's Axe (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: So your reverting is endless. I can't believe you are actually keeping an eye on me and bite whenever you are ready. So far all you did is reverting whatever I did without giving a reason related to the materials. You kept introducing the rules and talking about your "consensus". Now I would like you to specify clearly which part of my edit is in "dispute". It is your own statement that when two materials conflict each other we keep both. I also listed my reasons and you NEVER, literally never responded in the talk page. All your edit on talk page is warning and posting links to rules. This is a history-related article, not a place to introduce wiki to the public. Thor's Axe (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You do not deserve the right to judge my contribution or revert it because you think I broke the rules, if you cannot even read about what I added and know nothing about the subject, or participate in discussion. What appears to me is that you are simply doing whatever you can to guarantee your laughable authority or experience. Is there anything else you can do apart from threats or reporting me to the notice board? Why don't you try discussing the materials or being more specific? Thor's Axe (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Your use of the primary source you are solely referencing major edits from is contested. Until that argument is resolved I would prefer you discuss revisions at talk and gain consensus and I would suggest NOT doing this as impenetrable text-walls. Take a paragraph. Propose a revision. Wait for discussion. When discussion has resolved, if the consensus view is that this change should be made, make it. I am not the owner of this page but neither are you. And I will oppose the insertion of contested primary claims until such time as there's some evidence that other editors, besides yourself, actually support those inclusions. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have posted my explanation in the Heqin's page. It is wiki's policy to include both sides when two reliable sources conflict each other. If you think the format is improper, you may reorganise it, but wholly deleting it does not seem appropriate. Thor's Axe (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Also I expect you to explain why did you delete the part I added to Shunzhi's policy. It based on the same link and was NOT disputed. No editor has denied it so far. It was just a translation from the original material: "嗣后凡满洲官员之女, 欲与汉人为婚者, 先须呈明尔部 (指户 部), 查其应具奏者, 即与具奏, 应自理者, 即行自理。其无职 人等之女 , 部册有名者 , 令各牛录章京报部方嫁 , 无名者听各牛 录章京自行遣嫁。至汉官之女 , 欲与满洲为婚者 , 亦行报部 , 无 职者听其自便, 不必报部。" You may use a translator for this. Basically I just added the materials about the marriage of Han Chinese women. "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." You are currently the only one opposing these changes, and if your reversion is considered to be further editing, i would like you to express your opinions about this topic. If you are implementing the policy, you ought to give evidence of any editor other than you who does not agree with this change Thor's Axe (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Again I find your reverting everything highly destructive. You seem to consider all my edits to be in dispute, which is not true. I do not see consensus being always necessary, as obviously not all materials were approved on this talk page. Most of them was just added without dispute. I now need a specific, satisfying explanation from you, otherwise I might discuss this on the wiki noticeboard, like what you have done to me. Thor's Axe (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You are losing my trust, because apparently you are applying extra restrictions on me, not assuming me to have good faith, and wholly denying all my proper contributions. It is ridiculous that you would ignore words such as "other", "often" and have problems with "a few". How do you define "often"? When the links did not mention the word it has been presented on the page for a few years, simply because no one came and say no to it. But now when I added a much more accurate description you are opposing it without giving a specific reason. If you are not biased towards one opinion in this topic, then clearly you are biased against me. Some of my views being contested does not mean they are not reliable. I have not yet added the bride taking part. Thor's Axe (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you think about this yourself again: Do you honestly think the restrictions you are applying on me is consistent with that faced by other editor? I look forward to your answer and explanation, and wish that your intention is from honesty rather than hypocrisy. Thor's Axe (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

So far you have been doing your edit basing on your beliefs about the policies of wiki. Now it is time for you to take the responsibility and prove your rationale. Otherwise your behaviours shall not be justified even if you are an admin. Thor's Axe (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that you properly indent your comments? Or that you refrain from personal attacks? You just called me a hypocrite - which is in direct contravention of WP:NPA as we were over with regard to your comportment when I first got involved here. The WP:ONUS lies on the person attempting to include a source to demonstrate that their inclusion accurately represents it. Other issues are covered under WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY as I explained to you at Heqin. Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You have my apologies if you think what I just said was personal attack or if I claimed you to be hypocrite. I admit that I have the habit of making a judgement and then put it forward like a I created a theory. Trust me or not I was just pouring our my inference about you basing on my experience so far, and it was not at all emotional. I will be more careful and avoid such things. Thor's Axe (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

However I still have to say that you did not respond to my questions. Back to the inclusion. If you reverted as a further edit, you are supposed to discuss why you think they parts I added shall not be included. If you think they are in dispute, you should list the editors other than you who do not agree with their inclusion. Opasney questioned about my sources about Yoto's proposal, but I controverted his points. No one has argued against my other edits, and it is only you who deleted them. Thor's Axe (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have further responded to your explanations of Heqin page. Your explanations have not yet convinced me, as I have valid reasons against them. Thor's Axe (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

October 5 edits

These are full of weasel words and I don't think they're appropriate edits, but it's not wrong that what's up there right now is also kind of full of weasel words. Can we try to workshop this a bit please folks so we can come up with a mutually agreeable version? Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is significantly outside my area of expertise, which ends with the fall of the Southern Song, but if we're workshopping the text here I do have some suggestions.

1. Can we not refer to human women as "females", especially when contrasted with the term "men" to refer to human males? Not every Manchu woman married off in the fashion described is going to be of the age of majority, whatever that means in this historical milieu, but the term "woman" is strongly preferable. "Female" makes it sound like we're talking about an ape colony rather than humans.
2. Referring to Nurhaci as "the first emperor of Qing" is a little bit misleading. Dynastic founders often elevate their ancestors in this fashion, but we don't need to follow that tradition, especially in a sentence describing a marriage decades before the foundation of the dynasty, where it is pure anachronism.
3. We can't introduce the text about the thousand couples marriage, sourced to a secondary source, with the terms "some historians claim", and then introduce an original reading based on a primary text. That's WP:OR: we need another secondary source to back up the counterclaim.
4. Not sure what is the use of the repeated addition of "a few" to describe manchu women.
5. Changing the phrases Han Chinese civilian men to marry Manchu women to Banner men and Han to marry each other and Han Chinese Bannermen wedded Manchus to Manchu and Han Bannermen wedded each other introduces ambiguity in both cases.

I can't comment on the actual content this edit is attempting to introduce, but it's clearly problematic in wording. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

1. I am not sure about the usage of females or women. I just felt the former is more respective.
2. Nurhaci is officially recognised as the first emperor of Qing. Claiming him to be Manchu leader is not as subjective and accurate a description.
3. I have secondary source supporting the primary source. In the same book written by Ding, the end of page 220 explicitly indicated that the policy being discussed is applied mainly to captured women.
4. "A few" is important because the original version gave the impression that all imperial daughters were married to defectors. ("Asin Gioro women are .....", and then "other Asin Giro .....". Could you see how misleading this is?)
5. Han Chinese civilian men to marry Manchu women can be changed to Manchu and Han banner men to marry each other. The same link used by the original version has clarified that Han Chinese civilian men were prohibited to marry Manchus. See "Same link from Opasney"

Thor's Axe (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thor's Axe:, I see numbers 1. and 4. as being simple language issues. I often have trouble expressing myself appropriately in my second language.

For number 2. I maintain that referring to Nurhaci as the first Qing emperor in 1618 is anachronistic and unnecessary; whether we refer to him as the first Qing emperor posthumously after the foundation of the dynasty is a question for a different talkpage.

For 3., I can see why this error was made, but if you have a secondary source for a claim, that source should always be preferred over a primary source. On wikipedia a primary source cannot be used to make a counterclaim to a secondary source. I cannot comment on the preponderance of scholarly acceptance of the reading already present in the article versus the reading of Ding (1999 p 220), and was only able to access up to page 42 in Ding 1999.

As to number 5., having had a look at Wittfogel and Feng (1949), I can see that this issue is rather nuanced, in that "In the early years of the dynasty" (cited to, if I understand correctly, a court record dated 1632) "Marriages between Manchu girls and Chinese deserters were officially promoted" (p 10); but (p 11):

The political separation was paralleled by a social separation which was consciously expressed in the serious objections to marriages between the Manchu masters and their Chinese subjects. [nb. No indication in the source as to who expressed these serious objections; sentence not individually footnoted; did not check next two footnotes in source] After the consolidation of the empire, the initial policy of state-promoted intermarriage [sourced to court records dated 1644?] was suspended and unions between Manchus and Chinese were forbidden.... Marriages were permitted, it is true, between the families of Manchu and Chinese bannermen.... Non-banner Chinese men could not marry Manchu girls....

My main concern is that wording like Manchu and Han banner men to marry each other reads like the men are marrying each other without the involvement of any women at all, which I understand not to have been the case. Snuge purveyor (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let's definitely look at not calling women "females" (insert Ferengi joke here). WRT calling Nurhaci the first emperor of Qing I suggest we simply reflect whatever is stated in reliable secondary sources. If historians callhim the first emperor of Qing, so do we. If they don't, neither do we. Simple. As for "a few" do we have a RS for a specific number? That would be ideal. 100% concur WRT "some historians claim" and other wording-specific comments on the Oct. 5 edits, but I also concur the section, in general, needs work where ambiguous or WP:WEASEL language exists in the stable version. Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Going over the current text in the marriages section

Ok, here's where I see things we should attempt to answer:

Han Chinese Generals who defected to the Manchu were often given women from the Imperial Aisin Gioro family in marriage.

• How often?

Manchu Aisin Gioro princesses were also married to Han Chinese official's sons.[35]

• Is the text that follows an exhaustive list of Aisin Gioro princesses who were married to Han officials' sons? Otherwise how many?

The Manchu leader Nurhaci married one of his granddaughters to the Ming General Li Yongfang 李永芳 after he surrendered Fushun in Liaoning to the Manchu in 1618. Nurhaci's son Abatai's daughter was married

• I know I'm sort of responsible for this phrasing but I think it's clumsy. We should re-word it. Perhaps "Nurhaci's grand-daughter by Abatai was married..."

to Li Yongfang.[36][37][38][39] The offspring of Li received the "Third Class Baron" (三等子爵; sān děng zǐjué) title.[40] Li Yongfang was the great great great grandfather of Li Shiyao 李侍堯.[41][42] The 4th daughter of Kangxi (和硕悫靖公主) was wedded to the son (孫承恩) of the Han Chinese Sun Sike (Sun Ssu-k'o) 孫思克.[43] Other Aisin Gioro women married the sons of the Han Chinese Generals Sun Sike (Sun Ssu-k'o) 孫思克, Geng Jimao (Keng Chi-mao), Shang Kexi (Shang K'o-hsi), and Wu Sangui (Wu San-kuei).[44] Meanwhile the ordinary soldiers who defected were often given non-royal Manchu women as wives, and a mass marriage of Han Chinese officers and officials to Manchu women numbering 1,000 couples was arranged by Prince Yoto 岳托 (Prince Keqin) and Hongtaiji in 1632 to promote harmony between the two ethnic groups.[45][7]

This policy, which began before the invasion of 1644, was continued after it. A 1648 decree from Shunzhi allowed Han Chinese civilian men to marry Manchu women from the Banners with the permission of the Board of Revenue if they were registered daughters of officials or commoners or the permission of their banner company captain if they were unregistered commoners, it was only later in the dynasty that these policies allowing intermarriage were done away with.[46][47] The decree was formulated by Dorgon.[48] In the beginning of the Qing dynasty the Qing government supported Han Chinese defectors weddings to Manchu girls.[49][50] Han Chinese Bannermen wedded Manchus and there was no law against this.[51]

The "Dolo efu" 和碩額駙 rank was given to husbands of Qing princesses. Geng Zhongming, a Han bannerman, was awarded the title of Prince Jingnan, and his son Geng Jingmao managed to have both his sons Geng Jingzhong and Geng Zhaozhong 耿昭忠 become court attendants under the Shunzhi Emperor and married Aisin Gioro women, with Prince Abatai's granddaughter marrying Geng Zhaozhong 耿昭忠 and Haoge's (a son of Hong Taiji) daughter marrying Geng Jingzhong.[52] A daughter 和硕柔嘉公主 of the Manchu Aisin Gioro Prince Yolo 岳樂 (Prince An) was wedded to Geng Juzhong 耿聚忠 who was another son of Geng Jingmao.[53] Aisin Gioro women were offered to Mongols who defected to the Manchus.[54] The Manchu Prince Regent Dorgon gave a Manchu woman as a wife to the Han Chinese official Feng Quan,[55] who had defected from the Ming to the Qing. Feng Quan willingly adopted the Manchu queue hairstyle before it was enforced on the Han population and Feng learned the Manchu language.[56]

• I see no problem with the rest of this section. If there is information sourced to a WP:RS on forced marriages of Han women to Manchu men, we probably should include it here; but we should not contradict a secondary source with a translation of a primary source of questioned provenance. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)