Talk:Qing dynasty

Mongolian Name

Could anybody find a way to write the name in the classical mongolian script? The cyrillic alphabet was, of course, not used in Mongolia during the Qing dynasty and since the classical script is still used in Inner Mongolia...it kinda feels right. I realize it won't be the easiest thing, and probably not even that relevant, but if you can..thanks! Fred157.138.17.182 (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Muslims

Nanshu: the Qing Emperor was a "supporter of Muslims"? In what way was he a supporter of Uygur and Hui muslims? What were the official Islamic titles confered to him by Uygur and Hui communities? Or did he on his own behalf have a contract of some sort with Uygur and Hui princes and "ahunds"? To what extend did Uygur princes forgo their political connections with the Uzbek, Timurid princes outside of Qing jurisdiction in order to become vassals of the Aisin Gioros? What ethnic-national princely or honorary titles did the Aisin Gioro emperors formally take on? I guess "the governor of the Nakhis" or "the chief of the Nungs" wouldn't be part of them.

I do not know the accurate term, but Turkic Muslims in Eastern Turkestan justified the non-Islamic rule by "duty of salt": man should not betray who granted a faver. Nanshu 02:18 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

I changed the first sentence to a form which I think will avoid a political flame and besides is more accurate. The Qing dynasty didn't rule Tibet until 1723 and Xinjiang until the mid 18th century, so stating that they were the ruling dynasty of Tibet and East Turkestan between 1644 and 1912 is inaccurate anyhow. -- Roadrunner

---

I changed China to China proper for NPOV reasons. I'm not altogether satisfied with the section on Qing administration of outer areas, because the notion that Qing rule was a personal union is not universally accepted (for obvious political reasons) -- Roadrunner ---

Reworded statement on Qing rule in outer areas. Also I took out the statement about 1884 marking intervening of Han Chinese into the outer Qing Dynasty. First of all, before 1884, Han Chinese were not simply another subject people, and second the Qing dynasty did intervene in outer regions at various points.

Also I have problems with the last sentence but will have to think about how to reword it. -- Roadrunner

Changed the date from 1636 to 1644. The Manchus did declare a new dynasty in 1636 but they called it the Jin. The Qing dynasty wasn't declared until 1644 after the capture of Beijing.

No. It was in 1616 that the State of Jin was established by Nurhaci. In 1636 his son Hong Taiji declared the new dynasty of Qing in Mukden recommended by the Manchus, Mongols and Chinese. That's why the era name was changed from sure han to wesihun erdemunnge. So 1636 is correct. -- Nanshu

Thanks!!!! I stand corrected them -- Roadrunner

---

Aisin Gioro is the original Manchu spelling, not anglicized name. -- Nanshu

---

Are the "Manchu Flagged Factions" mentioned the Banners? --~~

---

Some dates of reign in the table do not match the dates given in the individual articles:

• Qianlong Emperor of China
• Kangxi Emperor of China

---

There is little mention of Islam during the Qing Dynasty let alone a reference to the Islam during Qing Dynasty article. I believe that link should be added somewhere. Faro0485 (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The List

Is that table necessary? I believe there is already an article containing such table. :o --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 04:30, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Where? The one with all the Chinese soveriegns? Some people may have trouble loading that page because it is so long. --Jiang 05:29, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I can't remember. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I confuse that with XXX Emperor of China? But i totally agree with you that that table is really long! Why not split them into several pages? --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 05:41, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps List of rulers of the Qing Dynasty. --Menchi 05:46, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don;t think that's necessary. The page hasnt reached 32kb yet. --Jiang

---

""If political conditions in a particular overseas markets were stable enough, Britain could ____ its economy through free trade alone without having to resort to formal rule or mercantilism. "" --Cylauj 15:03, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Listing of names

It is non-standard to list the different names and romanizations in bullet point format. If you seek to make this standard, then please go propose it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for China-related articles. Otherwise, the standard is to put everything in parenthesis and start the article with a complete introductory sentence. Also, "Empire of the Great Qing" was the official name of the country ruled by the Qing Dynasty. The two are not entirely synonymous. --Jiang 03:39, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to change the standard, just address a unique (I think) situation where there are five alternative names, a situation which demands clarity so as not to confuse the reader. If, however, you think that it is also worth considering adopting bullet points as a standard for all China-related articles to cover Chinese, pinyin, W-G, etc, then I will be happy to make such a suggestion, although it will obviously involve editing an awful lot of articles. As to "Empire of the Great Qing", you are right that it is not synonynous with "Qing dynasty", but it is also not synonymous with "China", as you write. - Madw 06:43, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this article deserves an exception to the rule. I don't see how the reader will be confused as along as we use parenthesis and italics. How is this different from four? or three? I don't agree with this format, as it is standard everywhere to begin with a full and complete sentence.

During Qing rule, China was referred to diplomatically as the "Empire of the Great Qing" and commonly as the "Chinese Empire" or "Ch'ing Empire". Of course, this referred to the Manchu domains. The term "China" did include all of what the Qing ruled over. China does not and has not always been synonymous with China proper.--Jiang 07:00, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Surely the priority for all articles must be to make things as clear as possible for the readers, rather than sticking religiously to a particular standard. Maybe your original suggestion of considering adopting such a new, clearer standard for all China-related articles, where multiple alternatives almost always exist, is the way forward. But there are always likely to be exceptions, and in such cases making articles easily understood must always come first IMO. I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say on this matter...

As to "Qing dynasty" being synonymous with "China" - this is just plain wrong. The Qing administration did not take this view, hence the 理藩院 Lifanyuan and a different system of governance; foreigners did not take this view, hence Manchuria, Mongolia, East Turkestan, Tibet, etc; and the Chinese word 中国 did not include all these territories in its meaning until the arrival of the revolutionary groups at the end of the Qing, as seen in the works of 19th century scholars such as 魏源 Wei Yuan, etc. Making "Qing dynasty" synonymous with "China" is always anachronistic - the ruling house wasn't even Chinese! This is a mistake that we should not be making. - Madw 07:50, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. The Qing dynasty was a Chinese government for all its intents and purposes, and its place in Chinese history is treated on par with all the other previous dynasties. To deny its relation with China is to claim China did not exist for over 400 years (if we take the lengths of the Yuan and the Qing dynasties into account) You are confusing the term Chinese with Hans and Manchus; Chinese encompasses every ethnic group living in China. The only thing that could be said is that the dynasty was not founded by Hans, but the Qing emperors themselves claim to rule China with the Mandate of Heaven, and therefore, any territories they seized during their rule was for the Chinese empire. --Lssah 88 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Making "Qing dynasty" synonymous with "China" is always anachronistic. it is the same case with yuan dynasty.It is ridiculous to say "yuan dynasty" synonymous with "China" because everyone knows that in fact "yuan dynasty" is part of the Mongol Empire. what jiang said is out of political motivation.

I've surely seen 19th century maps outlining the Qing Empire but labelled "Chinese Empire". The 1911 EB article discusses all of the Qing Empire, and phrases it "CHINA, a country of eastern Asia, the principal division of the Chinese empire. In addition to China proper the Chinese Empire includes Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet and Sin-kiang (East Turkestan, Kulja, Dzungaria, &c., i.e. all the Chinese dependencies lying between. Mongolia on the north and Tibet on the south)." Ditto for the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Chinese Empire, the largest political division of Eastern Asia, extends from 18°10' to 53°45' N. lat., and from 73°47' to 134°25' E. long. It includes China proper or the Eighteen Provinces (Shi-pa-sheng), theoretically a subject territory of Manchuria, the cradle of the present dynasty, and the dependencies: Mongolia, Ili (or Sin-kiang), and Tibet." The ruling house wasn't Han Chinese. But anyhow, we don't need to assert or imply any of this and I think the current wording is fine.

I do not believe obscuring the opening sentence of this articles with transliterations and translations the average Chinese/Manchu-illiterate reader could care less about makes the article clearer. I do not see how putting these in parenthesis makes the text incomprehensible. If there's not much difference, it is my opinion to go by the standard. What do you think should be the convention for breaking names into bullets? How many entries? Maybe we can have a full section of names like at Sun Yat-sen, but that requires more than mere translations/transliterations.--Jiang 10:50, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We are going to be in serious trouble if we start writing our Asian history articles according to what century-old Western texts say! I would be happy to point you to more recent and relevant source material if that would be of help.

As for the organization of the opening, it is the current standard that "obscur[es] the opening sentence" and that is the reason for considering something different. We need to make it easier for the Chinese/Manchu-illiterate reader to read the first sentence. You mention the Sun Yat-sen article - well it's beginning is a mess. It doesn't know whether the names should be in the intro or the names section.

You asked my opinion, well look at the Sun article and you will see the changes I would make. As I think about it, there are 2 issues - Chinese/romanization and alternative names. Every article will have Chinese/romanization but alternative names will usually be restricted to people. For me it is very important to make the article highly readable, especially the introduction. I would therefore include romanization in parentheses directly under the title of the article and separated from the intro text. After the introductory text, a list of recognized (not obscure) alternative names could be introduced so that if the reader has come to the page looking for one of these names, perhaps via a redirect, it will be clear that they are in the right place. After all, we have to help the reader find the information they came looking for. For most people, the info would include xing, ming, zi, and hao, with rulers being a little different. If there were only one alternative name, it may be more appropriate to include this in the introductory text - common sense will dictate. It seems to me that this satisfies all important criteria - provides the relevant info but still in a highly readable format. So I guess, the more I think about it, yes, I do think a new standard would be better for China-related articles, and I will probably suggest such on the relevant page when I can get around to it. In the meantime, I have changed this page again to reflect latest thinking. That's my opinion anyway... - Madw 16:53, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

If the stuff in the parenthesis is too long, then I suggest abbreviating (as you have done here) or compacting (as has been done at Deng Xiaoping). Once you copy the second part of your post over to the MoS page, I will respond to your points there. I disagree with some of your points but agree with others. In the meantime, we will go by the current standards as there is no consensus to change it.

As for the emperors having a whole bunch of names, I think we should give them each biographical taxoboxes, like every Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (as opposed to having a wide box at the bottom). We can make each of their names a line in the box. Or maybe we can extend this to every Chinese person with a whole bunch of names...but this can be discussed at the Chinese MoS too. Let me know here what you think about adding it to the emperors though. --Jiang 21:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I will address emperors later - it is a problem that I have already given some thought to. I have added my comments to the MoS page, and the discussion can continue there. - Madw 01:45, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

General request: For the time being, please do not change the style of the introduction for this article as it is currently the subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for China-related articles. Thank-you - Madw 01:45, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Aside from noting that the format should not be changed short of consensus, there are other reasons I made the changes I did. The sentence "The Qing dynasty was the last [[Dynasties in Chinese history|imperial dynasty of China]]." was already stated in the intro and doesn't need to be repeated in the first section. In fact, the entire "overview" section violates the MoS - we should have a lead section and just that. Split part of it into the lead section and the others into the article sections.

The Republic was founded before Puyi abdicated and such events should be listed in chronological order. the 'd' in "dynasty" is capitalized for the article and should therefore also be capitalized in the bolded text. --Jiang 02:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point taken on the overview section - I'll work on incorporating that into the intro, along with anyone else wanting to have a go, but that will probably take a day or two. However, the 'd' in 'dynasty' should not be capitalized as it is not a proper name - check any other encyclopedia or history book relating to China and that will become clear. This page needs to be moved to 'Qing dynasty', but given all the other discussions of recent times on other subjects I have chosen not to add to the confusion by moving it at this time. As it will happen before long though, and as it is the correct form, it should be left as 'd' for now pending the page move. - Madw 10:51, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not blanket revert my changes without exlaining why each of them are not appropriate. I don't see why it's wrong to include the pinyin of da qing di guo. The sentence "The Qing dynasty was the last [[Dynasties in Chinese history|imperial dynasty of China]]." is still redundant. What's wrong with saying "expanded into China proper"? It's more specific in my opinon than "provinces of the Ming dynasty". there's also no need to wikify "Chinese language" twice.

As for the box (in light of what you added to the MoS), i don't think the situation calls for one yet. There are only four names to deal with, and that's not too much like with Sun Yat-sen. If we add it, let's make it look good. It should be merged with the series table or have both replaced with a taxobox and a footer used instead. As it is, the name box is hideous. --Jiang 20:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged that the intro/overview section should be reviewed, when all the edits you just mentioned can be addressed. The whole section is likely to change, so I wasn't getting too worked up about the details right now. As for the box, we obviously have different views, but to help me understand yours better, please explain why you think the name box is "hideous" - I just don't get that statement. - Madw 01:10, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

We have a series box next to the name box. it's looks crunched, but that's my opinion. We can maybe replace the series with a footer. One the Qing flag is uploaded, it needs to go on top and then the names can be placed right underneath like how Sun Yat-sen's portrait is over all the names he is given. Or we can try maps...or whatever --Jiang 05:41, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's clearer, and maybe we can discuss something along the lines you mention, although I myself don't think the page looks crunched. Does anyone else (who would be willing to make this more than a dialogue!) wish to share an opinion? Let me also say that I don't think that the flag should be displayed at the top of the page, although I don't mind it being added lower down. The Qing did not even have a state flag until 1872 and it never had the significance attached to it common in Western cultures. Putting the flag at the top of the page would give the erroneous impression that the flag was a significant state emblem - especially as most readers will have Western preconceptions of the flag's importance. - Madw 12:44, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

---

New page title for Qing Emperors

As I said before [1], the current page title "{era name} Emperor of China" is inappropriate. I will change it to "{era name} of the Qing".

The Qing Dynasty used to be regarded as a "Chinese empire." It is mainly because researchers only utilized Chinese literature and the Westerners projected that the last days of the dynasty to the whole history. But postwar studies has drastically changed the situation. We can access to Manchu, Mongolian, Chagatai and Tibetan documents and see the "Chinese world order" didn't affect these regions. Various alternate models have been proposed by scholars. Newly-published "清帝国とチベット問題" by 平野聡 assembles them.

Scholars no longar consider the dynasty as a mere Chinese empire. Thus the anachronistirc title "{era name} Emperor of China" should be corrected. I chose "{era name} of the Qing" but "{era name} Emperor" is also fine because Qing era names look unique throughout history. --Nanshu 06:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"{era name} Emperor" should be good enough. The title doesn't need to tell all. --Jiang 06:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will go with "{era name} Emperor". --Nanshu 03:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really think the "{era name} Emperor" format is good enough. Colipon 00:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Empress Dowager Cixi

I know that for Empress Dowager Cixi it says: Cixi, on the other hand, only concentrated on her own power and well being. At the occasion of her 60th Birthday she spend over 30 million taels of silver for the decorations & events, an unthinkable amount even by today's terms.

But in the Dowager Empress Cixi article itself mentions both the traditional 'evil despot' and the revisionist view of her as an able ruler and painted as a bad ruler due mostly to circumstance. I think that section of the article needs more NPOV.

Re-organization

I was thinking of revising some sections in this article and perhaps separating some parts like "Qing Military" into another article. Help would be appreciated. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 07:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

not needed, IMO, or at least not until the page reaches its limites. We should link to and expand on those articles. --Jiang 08:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You misunderstood, Jiang. I meant creating an article called Qing Military so that the Qing Dynasty article is about pretty much only the history and its influence. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 02:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I understood. But everything about the Qing is history since it no longer exists. Military and politics is within the scope of this article and should not have been split out, unless we were running out of room and even then we use summary style, not brute excising. We need to cover everything here.--Jiang 06:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Qing Dynasty would not have fallen if not for the revolutionaries. Agree?

So what do you think? If there weren't no revolutionaries.. would the Qing Dynasty have fallen? I think its a yes. Quite obviously. They would still fall in the hands of foreign power. Like Britain. And Russia. And France. Besides, the officials etc are so corrupted, taking bribes and everything, it'll be a miracle if China could survive for so long. What do you think? Please share your views with me. I'd really like to learn.

I don't think it would even have been possible for a situation to occur where no revolutionaries didn't arise. The several destructive rebellions of the 19th century was an omen of dynastic collapse and rising Han Chinese nationalism would not have allowed the Aisin Gioro's to continue their imperial line for much longer. Maybe a Western country could have toppled the dynasty, but I don't think their rule, if any, would last very long, nor without continuing conflict. And they would never be able to conquer and pacify all of China's territory like the Manchus successfully did nearly 300 years before. Japan is the perfect example. If you want more answers, you should post this question on newsgroups, where you're sure to get more replies, and with greater depth too. 01:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If there were no revolutionaries, THERE WOULD BE NO REVOLUTION, DUH! I think your point is that if there were no revolutionaries at the time. By the way, excuse my 'duh' its just really obvious to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.230.65 (talk • contribs)

Why would Britain or France want to take over China? They only wanted $$$, not to provide for 400 million starving peasants. --Sumple (Talk) 22:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can find the work Traditional Government in Imperial China: A Critical Analysis by Ch'ien Mu, a reputable and well-respected Chinese historian who lived through the Xinhai Revolution (he was already 15 when the Qing dynasty as deposed), you will notice Ch'ien proposes the Qing institutions were problematic from the beginning - the Manchus had always held the conquer of China mantle so even without Western imperialism the Qing dynasty would eventually still have fallen in a similar manner as other historical dynasties. --JNZ (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Population numbers

To be noted would be the dramatic population drop during the Ming-Qing dynastic transition: In AD 1620, i.e., 1st year of Ming Emperor Guangzong's Taichang Era, China boasted of a population of 51.66 million people, but in AD 1651, i.e., 8th year of Qing Emperor Shizu's Shunzhi Era, China only had 10.63 million people. The conclusion is that China's brave men had fallen martyrdom in the resistance to Manchu invasion.

Are these claims credible? 10 Million appear to be very, very few to me. See http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/geog/population.htm#2b or http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_21_m.htm

The article in general seems to quite biased in disfavor of the Qing. Malbi 13:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From my experience, this articles sounds like somebody piecing together history classes and hearsays to write an article. Based on this article, you would think the Manchurians are singularly obsessed with suppressing, enslaving and massacring Han Chinese people. Chinese history is not all about the struggle between "proper" Chinese and "barbarian" tribes. Qing was a relatively prosperous dynasty until its later failings. This article fails to mention all these, and therefore fails the NPOV.

Fragment needs cleanup

I came to this article through the Punctuation WikiProject. This article had been flagged by scripts looking for sentences missing punctuation. The problematic "sentence" (actually a fragment) is at the end of the introduction, right above the TOC:

The incorporation of new lands and peoples required careful handling, and Manchu experience

Looking back at the history I found that the second half of this sentence got broken off, made into a complete sentence, and moved farther up the article. However, that change left this part orphaned as a fragment. I couldn't come up with any satisfactory fix off the top of my head, as I would need to read more of the article to understand the context. Therefore I'm marking it in case someone knowledgeable about the Qing Dynasty wants to make a fix.

I'll also put a {{to do}} above to remind us.

PhilipR 13:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Qing Flag

I haven't been able to find the Qing flag (that is the old China´s flag) on the net. Does anyone knows where to find it? I´ve read that the dragon was in it. Thank You.

I'm no expert, but with such a large country and so many lesser fuedal lords rulling, its unlikely that the Chinese would have used a flag that remained consistent for a decent length of time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.230.65 (talk • contribs)

I would like to see only one of the flags (1890-1912) please. There is no reason to pepper the article with them. I found three, and a variation. Decide where you would most like to see it, and limit postings to that place only. It started to get absurd as I continued to scroll downward. Hmm, how long before the next one... oh! there it is! 222.2.87.33 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

Incoherent statement in Overview

I do not understand the following paragraph:

"However, the horrific number of casualties of this rebellion [Taiping Rebellion] - as many as 30 million people may have died - and the complete devastation of a huge area in the south of the country have to a large extent been overshadowed by another significant conflict. Although not nearly as bloody, the outside world and its ideas and technologies had a tremendous and ultimately revolutionary impact on an increasingly weak and uncertain Qing state."

To what even does "another significant conflict" refer? "The outside world"?

Is this a reference to Opium Wars? To revolutions in Latin America? The phrase, "Although not nearly as bloody, the outside world . . . . " is quite a howling dangler.

Can someone who knows what this is supposed to mean, fix it?

Thanks.151.200.113.45 1 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)

It would be also nice if someone with a NPOV would come in and re-edit this whole section. The theme of this section can be summed up as : The Qing are evil, opresive barbarians against whom the valiant Han put up a brave fight but were ultimatly overwhelmed.

Could someone please put a questionable POV on this article?

Its highly biased against the Qing.

Can you perhaps elaborate a bit instead of just putting in a blunt statement? Colipon+(T) 23:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction is highly biased against the Qing. The bulk of the article is neutral and informative, but the introduction reads like an anti-Qing rant. Specifically, it violates many of the principles described in the NPOV tutorial:

• Neutral language - violated by many statements in the introduction:
  • "[the Manchu hairstyle] was designed to massacre both the Han Chinese bodies and their souls"
  • "Manchu historians tried to cover up their slaughter of Sichuan Chinese"
  • "Many people died from Wen Zi Yu by writing some words which were not even political at all."
  • "The Manchus also adopted predatory methods of land deprivation."
• Space and balance - the tone is almost entirely anti-Qing, with very little space given to their achievements.
• Attribution - the anti-Qing statements are not attributed, and appear to be the opinion of the author.

I do not have the expertise to rewrite this, but the introduction definitely needs to be cleaned up (or removed entirely). I have added the POV-intro tag to this section. - Jpo 02:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

To cover the Slaughter,hairstyle and Wenziyu ist true. Predatory,I don not think so,but they force many people to leave their home. Kevinxu from German version.

Intro

I'm thinking, just thinking, that the Intro is a tad bit too long. Colipon+(T) 22:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, it should be shortened to a third of its current size, to two or three paragraphs per wikipedia:lead section. it is way too long...--Jiang 09:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Manchu text is vertical that that causes problems with formatting. Which makes the page look ugly. Can we move it somewhere?

graffiti

Several times by 204.255.30.20, thanks for fixing ....Ralph 31Jan2006

Nature of article

I'm wondering to all of you interested out there, should these dynastic articles be historical/chronologically arranged, or should they combine that with the various aspects of the dynasty, i.e. have the sections of "military, politics" etc in the article, instead of creating a new article called "Qing Politics". Colipon+(T) 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation of "queue" link

I think that it would be good to make the queue link in the article a little less ambiguous and switch it to Queue (hairstyle). What do you think?

Sonny Jim ^news/poll 00:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Organization

This article is organized awkwardly in a few parts. I think the fall of the dynasty should be right after the reign of Cixi, why was it put at the very end? Colipon+(T) 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've noticed a new, comprehensive section on the military. Perhaps it is time we put that into a separate article? Colipon+(T) 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Qing/Ta Qing Dynasty

Okay, I keep reverting it to "Ta Qing" because as far as I have read (The Last Emperor and sourced works therein) the full title of the dynasty as given by the founder was such. Qing meaning pure and Ta signifing great. if anyone disputes it then please explain. if the Ta part is of incorrect romanization than please forgive me, The Last Emperor uses an outdated romanization, but his research is still impeccable and it is considered one the premier resources on the end of the dynasty, and therefore is a more than credible source. VanTucky 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's Da Qing or Ta Ch'ing, "Ta Qing" is an amalgam of two different romanisation schemes.

Secondly, the "Great" is added to all Chinese dynastic names, but is not a part of the name itself. It is usually not used when referring to the dynasty in the short form in history, and it's not usually translated either. It is also why, where translated, terms like "Da Qing" is translated as the "Great Qing", because the first character "great" is descriptive, whereas the second character is the name.

Thirdly, it doens't make sense to say the "Great Qing dynasty". In Chinese, the dynasty is called 清朝 (Qing dynasty). "Great Qing" is used only in the context of 大清国 or 大清帝国, which mean "The Great Qing State" and "The Great Qing Empire" respectively.

Finally, convention with regard to Chinese dynastic names as used on Wikipedia exclude such paraphrenalia. (spl?) Thus, for example, the Qin Dynasty is located at Qin dynasty, not The Great Qin Empire.

As to your reference, there have always been a great deal of variations in the conventional treatment of Chinese names in English works, so the reader has to be careful. I read a book a while back that translated all the Emperor's reign names by their meaning... So Guangxu Emperor was the "Bright Succession Emperor". Can you imagine that? It's like translating Bill Gates as "Fee statement Doorways". --Sumple (Talk) 04:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So it's not incorrect, but only to be used in certain situations, generally in conversation/oration refering to the title of the dynasty formally and as such isn't necessary or suitable for the article. correct? Thanks for the explanation Sumple. VanTucky 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. That's a great succinct summary of my verbose argument. :) --Sumple (Talk) 00:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Economic stagnation

Removed a statement that China had become economically stagnant. This view is not accepted by more current historians of China. See for example "The Great Divergence" by Kenneth Pommeranz that argues that China has late as 1750 was economically equal to Europe.

Roadrunner 16:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its very difficult to measure economy at that time because the industrial revolution had not happened yet. The economies of Europe were stagnant, there were many wars in Europe, despite the rise of Colonial expansion. China had the silk, its economy should have expanded with the increasing reliability of ships.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.230.65 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the removal of the statement that China had become economically stagnant at that stage. Indeed, it is believed that China was not merely "economically equal" to Europe in 1750, authoritative sources indicate that China's share of world manufacturing in 1750 was estimated as 32.8%, whereas the whole of Europe's was 23.2%. Fifty years later, in 1800, the relative shares were estimated as China 33.3%, Europe 28.1%. [source: page 149 Table 6. Kennedy, Paul - "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" Unwin Hyman Ltd 1990. Kennedy is the J Richardson Dilworth Professor of History - Yale University.] Far from being stagnant, China was increasing its relative share of world manufacturing output. If agricultural production was added to this, China would have been proportionately even larger. 203.59.137.145 11:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC) markh

Banner composition

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of China has an entire chapter devoted to the ethnic composition of the Banner armies. It is extremely complicated and it will take a while to summarize in a paragraph, but it states pretty explicitly that the idea that the armies were ethnically homogenous is incorrect. What happened in a number of cases, was that the ethnicity was assigned as a result of which army a person was a part of. If they were in this group, they were defined as Manchu. If the same person were in this another group, they were defined as Mongol, or Han Chinese.

The use of Han Chinese is also tricky since the term didn't exist until the mid-19th century.

Roadrunner 16:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct in asserting that the Eight banners were not ethnically homogenous, whatever that is supposed to mean, but I think that the paragraph is basically correct in stating that different ethnic groups were segregated. To be sure, people could be reassigned from being Han to Manchu within the banner forces, but the policy of the Qing governemnt was to keep different ethnic groups separate and that policy remained more or less unchanged. It is also an incontestable fact that the status of Han bannermen was lower than that of the Manchu and Mongol bannermen, and from the 18th century onwards the Han bannermen were encourage to leave the banner forces and registers as civlians.

The use of Han Chinese is not that tricky, if you read documents from the Qing dynasty, you frequently encounter the word Hanren 漢人. Hanzu 漢族, on the other hand, is a 20th century invention, but I don't see that term used here.--Niohe 17:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Banner System was not an ethnic designation or structure, it had always been a military designation. It is part of the Chinese concept of Ji (籍). An old saying in Beijing and Tianjin was: 不分满汉, 只问旗民. Two examples will illustrate this:

Clan Tong (佟), the clan of the mother of Emperor Kang Xi. The clan was Manchu in ethnic origin but since they had been Sinicized and supporter of the Ming, when Shenyang was captured they were assigned as Han-Banner. The immediate family of Emperor Kang Xi's mother were later reassigned to Manchu-Banner.

Clan Yehenala，the clan of Empress Dowager Cixi. The clan was Mongol in ethnic origin but since their land were in the traditional land of the Manchu and they had adopted an agratarian way of life, after they surrendered to Aisin Gioro Clan they were assigned to Manchu-Banner instead of Mongol Banner.

In addition, majority of the Mongols were not in Mongol-Banner, only those who surrendered early were Mongol-Banner. Some Manchu had never been part of the Banner system, for example, among the Wan-Yan clans in North China, only 1 clan was in the Banner system and one family of such clan current live in Tokyo.

In addition to Han, Manchu and Mongol, other members of the ethnic groups were also in the Banner System, including various Turkic people, Slavic people, Siberian people and Korean.

Karolus 2006/10/10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.229.46 (talk)

As I said, while the demarcation between different ethnic groups in the banner system was not absolute, it tended to keep Manchus separate and in a superior position vis-à-vis other ethnic groups in the banner forces. Put simply: not all bannermen were Manchu, but neary all Manchus belonged to the banners. Not only men, but also their dependents. The same did not apply to other ethnic groups that formed part of the banners.

As for the Chinese concept of 籍 and the propagandistic saying 不分满汉, 只问旗民, I assume that you are aware of the fact that the official language of the eight banners was Manchu, not Chinese. This was the case right until 1912 and even a couple of years after. It is true that Qing emperors liked to coin phrases in Chinese like the above, promoting the idea that everybody were treated equally, but we should be careful not to take those phrases at face value. There is an extensive literature on this if you are interested.

I'll have to run, but I'll get back to this.--Niohe 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hundred Days Reform

Again there is a POV issue that is going to be difficult to fix since the issues are complex. Sterling Seagrave's Dragon Lady presents a completely different view of the 100 Days Reform which needs to be mentioned since it is having increasing influence among historians.

Also, it is generally accepted that the political environment of the late-Qing is far more complex than progressives versus conservatives.

Roadrunner 16:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sterling Seagrave is probably not a very reliable source on Cixi. From what I have understood he is not a historian and he has not used Chinese primary sources to any large extent. Anything that comes from such as source should be taken with great caution.--Niohe 17:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the book. Very revolting. Colipon+(T) 09:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Seagrave's book, while not entirely reliable on the Qing, is an attempt to reconstruct the life of Cixi without referencing Edmund Backhouse, the author of "China Under the Empress Dowager" who is cited in most English language texts on her but was exposed to be a complete fraud. It is valuable if only because no other English language author has undertaken the same sort of project following Trevor-Roper's book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.40.93 (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Map

Could someone make a locater map of the Qing at their height? Two such maps can be found here [2]

The List of Uprising in German

I hope that somebody traslate it into English. Here is the URL.

I'm KevinXü in the German-Version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.159.80 (talk)

1644

"Declared as the Later Jin Dynasty in 1616, it changed its name in 1636 to "Qing", and became the ruler of all of China in 1644, completing the Manchu conquest."

From the introduction. This is demostrably false. The Qing didn't even REACH Yangzhou on the Yangtze river until 1645, they only took BEIJING in 1644, whiich is not the same thing as all of China. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.104.1.90 (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Nevermind, I changed it.

First Opium War

The article states that: The Qing navy, composed entirely of wooden sailing junks, was no match for the steam-powered ironclad battleships of the Royal Navy. But according to History of the Royal Navy steamships and ironclads were not in use at that time. BoH 04:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, ironclads certainly weren't around until 1861 (HMS Warrior) in the UK. The Qing Navy was outclassed in training, tactics, and firepower. I'll edit the article to reflect this. Karajanis 11:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

the HEIC Nemesis was used.--Jiang 12:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to call the Nemesis an ironclad as it didn't have the iron armor that ironclads built after La Gloire had - their main advantage, I think, but feel free to correct the article if fit Karajanis 03:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1793 statement

I put a dubious tag against the 1793 statement about China needing no manufactures. It was a reference to a statement by the Qianlong emperor to Lord MacCartney and probably deserves its own article. Suffice to say that a lot of historians argue that Qianlong made a very arrogant statement because he didn't want to look weak to the central Asians.

Roadrunner 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the statement is quite accurate and I have added a scholarly reference to a translation of the emperor's edit. Hope that you find this satisfactory.--Niohe 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Who can translate it for me?

谁能为我翻译一段？ 清朝初期实行文字狱，凡是写的书都因为所谓的大逆不道而受到惩罚。作者往往被凌迟处死，就是一刀刀把皮和肉切下来。他的所有家属们往往有处死，充军，流戍，入官等等下场，这叫株连九族。许多书根本没有反清的意思，甚至是很早就写成的，还包括红楼梦，但是也没有逃过惩罚，已死作者的儿子往往要代替他的父亲受惩罚。

清初还实行剔发易服，要求汉人剔满人辫子，违者杀，孔子的后代也不能例外。东吴一些城市反抗，被屠城，嘉定只留了３５个人。

清朝为了消灭台湾郑氏，将沿海三十里的居民全部迁走，不论老幼，也是违者死。台湾郑氏其实准备投降，以不剔发为条件被拒绝，所以仍然进行了武力对抗。 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.136.99.166 (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Silk Chinese Embroidered Shawl from Chein Lung period c. 1760

I am trying to find some information on a shawl that was produced for the Empress of China in 1760. The last time seen was at the collection at the Royal House of England. Do you have any idea whom I could contact to find out more information?

Thank You,

Keith Flynn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.2.112.230 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

About the template of the Qing Dynasty

Because the preceding entity of the Qing Dynasty is the Late Jin Dynasty, and the preceding entity of the Late Jin Dynasty is the Ming Dynasty. Therefore, the Ming Dynasty and the Shun Dynasty should not be the p1 and p2 of the Qing Dynasty unless you combine the Late Jin and Qing. There is no other former country that add all the entities it ended to be the preceding entities. You can refer to the templates of the other former countries.--24.18.102.154 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Organization

I think this article can be split into seperate articles including Qing Military and Qing Government, for two reasons. One, and most obviously, the article is getting too long. And secondly, a lot of the content is not placed in chronological order, and a lot of content is missing. This could be misleading and confusing to readers. Colipon+(T) 05:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is "Imperial Army" a known term for the Qing military?

It is claimed, (on the page Imperial Army) that the Qing military was referred to as the "Imperial Army". However, this is not mentioned on the page. Could someone verify this, and add it to this page, if so, or fix the Imperial Army page, if not. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Map

I need maps of China in 1600, 1625 and 1650 showing the territorial expansion of the Qing empire. Also, can someone update the economic history here. Anwar 11:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Qing Empire at its Largest Extent

Being a 2nd year history student, I'm no expert in this field, however, one of my text books, "The Rise of Modern China", by Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, has a map that contradicts the map given for the extent of China's control at the height of the Qing Empire. According to the text, Chinese influence had extended as far west as the Aral Sea and the Hindu Kush region. Also China at one point controlled the region north of the Amur River as well as the island of Sakhalin. The picture provided seems only to include what constitutes modern China (the PRC and Taiwan) as well as the various tributary states (Nepal, Korea, etc.). If no one objects I plan to change this.--SCJE 06:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

New map

this should be changed. It doesn't make sense to show a map of an empire at its SMALLEST extent right before its collapse. It be like showing a map of NApoleon's empire in 1814. --Gary123 (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New map uploaded:

• 

Let me know what you think. - Pryaltonian (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good map, shows detail of maximum extent of boundary. (Like all other maps in other pages, e.g. Mongol Empire, Nazi Germany, British Empire, etc) I support. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the author must change the map due to the respect of history.The map indicates that the Spartly and Paracel islands belonged to China since the Qing Dynasty,that's absolutely not true.In fact,we Vietnamese have had the envidence to prove the both islands belonged to us since our Nguyen Dynasty,those envidence are now the national treasure and well preserved.we had kept that islands until the China Liberation Army invaded to the South Vietnam's Paracel island in January 1974 and later in 1988 after they massacred our navy forces.Now,the dispute between 2 country about those islands is not resolved yet and recently higher tension is rose by the Chinese hostility to Vietnamese fisherman.Therefore,I with my National pride and justice request the author and Wiki administration change any content related to China's sovereignity on these islands.The link below is about the invasions of China to Vietnam's island that complement for my words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands

    thanks !

Pronounced?

How is "Qing" pronounced? 'King?' 'Queeng?' Seems like it could use a pronunciation file at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.39.245 (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ch'ing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 07:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The pronunciation is [tɕʰíŋ] or roughly cheeng in English. Should we add this to the article? It seems like a common question, and a very reasonable one, considering the opacity of pinyin in this case.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Politics

No reference is provided. Especially, the article tries to give some discussion on the de jure status of Tibet and Mongolia, but the lack of reference to professional/technical resources and the subjective comments on the stance of Western countries only make it look less reliable. Also, this is about the implication of the fall of the empire, which should be a part of another section. I am removing this paragraph:

"The abdication of the Qing emperor inevitably led to controversy about the status of territories in Tibet and Mongolia. It was and remains the position of Mongols and Tibetans that, because they owed allegiance to the Qing monarch, with the abdication of the Qing they owed no allegiance to the new Chinese state. This position was rejected by the Republic of China and subsequent People's Republic of China, which claim that these areas were integral parts of Chinese dynasties even before the Qing, and that Han, Manchus, Mongols, or other ethnic groups all established Sinocentric-based dynasties, thus claiming legitimacy and history as part of imperial China over two thousand years. The Western powers accepted the latter theory for their own political reasons, partly in order to prevent a scramble for China."

"Politics" is also an inappropriate title of the session given its meager content that only focuses on very limited aspects of politics , but I have yet think out another one.Schpnhr (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Successor states in infobox

I added the PRC, since by the end of the civil, there were clearly two states and listing only one is either thoroughly counterintuitive or outright intellectually dishonest. Any specific reason it wasn't listed before? Circeus (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

PRC declared itself the successor in 1949, while the Qing ended in 1912. At some point in between it is said that the ROC unified China, so it doesn't make sense to include the PRC until at least after that unification when things were breaking up again, or until they finally drove the ROC into exile in 1949. Readin (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at the ROC page and no successor is listed. You could call that a POV problem but I suggest you take it up on that page. It will be a bit tricky to handle since the ROC never stopped existing, it just moved to another country. Readin (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a succession box on the History of the Republic of China page, which is where the box is supposed to go next. There used to be one on the History of the People's Republic of China page, but someone removed it (probably someone who did not like the idea of the PRC being a "dynasty" that could be succeeded by another form of government in the future -- but hey, in history, dynasties only average about 300 yrs or so, so they have to change at some point)

I am reinstating the box as it was, and making it uniform with the other succession boxes on the other dynasty pages. - Pryaltonian (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Where should the succession link direct us to, Republic of China or History of the Republic of China? The History of China sidebar/box links to the History of ROC page, which is why I made the succession box link to the History of the ROC page. However, I've noticed that with former state boxes, the convention is to link the former state to the current government, which the current former states box does. Therefore, should the succession box link to the History of ROC page as it does now (where it has another succession box linking ROC to PRC), or the main ROC page? Views, please. -Pryaltonian (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is biased, have too many errors

the "Queue Order"

--snip--One of Dorgon's most controversial decisions was his 1646 imperial edict (the "Queue Order") which forced all Han Chinese men, on pain of death, to adopt the Manchu style of dress, including shaving the front of their heads and combing the remaining hair into a queue. To the Manchus this policy might both be a symbolic act of submission and in practical terms an aid in identification of friend from foe, however for the Han Chinese it totally went against their traditional Confucian values.[4] Unsurprisingly it was deeply unpopular[citation needed] and, together with other policies unfavourable towards the Han Chinese, might account for the increasingly steep resistance met by Qing forces after 1646. Hundreds of thousands were killed before all of China was brought into compliance.--snip--

I object to the above statment. The 'Queue order' was one rule the Manchus imposed on Han ethnic, in Chinese is called 剃发令(the order to shave the hair). "Hundreds of thousands were killed"? I doubt it very much. It is more like in the millions. 嘉定三屠(the three mass killings at Jiadin) was the direct result of this 'queue order'. Just in Jiadin alone more than 2 or 3 hundred thousands were butchered, what about other cities? 楊州十日(Ten days of mass killings at Yangjou), how many were murdered? The Manchu barbarians murdered millions upon millions of Han(漢族), as well as other ethnic. Why not a single word is mentioned in this article? When Dr.Sun Yetsen started the revolution to overthrow the barbaric Manchu dynasty, the first thing he did was cutting off his pigtail. Doesn't it say something? My view is, this article is not a class B. It has got too many errors, and bias.Arilang1234 (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article has misused the word 'China'. Manchu dynasty was about 300 years, but China was used even in Tang era, until now. For example, we have 'One China, two system', or People's Republic of China, or Republic of China. So 'China' as a name is used extensively, I think to prevent confusion, all the 'China' in this article should be changed into Manchu, Qing, or Ch'ing, to be historically correct.Arilang1234 (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think the article is a joke.

The downfall of the Manchu rule was their own fault, no one else.(1) They kicked out (or murdered) all the christian missionary who were there to teach modern knowledge in the first place (2) when western power were using high explosive shells and high power fast loading rifles, they still hang on to bows and arrows. What a joke.Arilang1234 (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Arilang1234. Please provide references to reliable sources to verify the things you are saying. For example, if you want to change the word "China" to "Manchu" or "Qing" or something, then please provide a reference to a source that uses that word. I think it would probably have to be an English-language source. The article should use the name that is usually used in English-language sources that talk about this topic.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has fundamental errors which need to be rectify before it can be consider to be used in schools.

(1)On right hand corner, "Image:China Qing Dynasty Flag. China Qing Dynasty, is it a new dynasty? In history, we have Song Dynasty, Tang Dynasty, Manchu Dynasty, Manchu Qing Dynasty, we never did have a China Qing Dynasty. Is this a new discovery?
(2)Also On right hand corner, Shenging(1636-1644) Beijing(1644-1912). Shenging(1636-1644), is the former name of Shengyang. But Beijing(1644-1912) confuses me. Beijing(zh.北京) was coined after 1949.Before 1949, its official name was Peking (zh.北平), and in Mongol times(A.D.1200s) its name was Daidu(zh.大都). Where is this Beijing(1644-1912) come from? It is like saying people were sending e-mail to each other in 1960s, when internet was invented in 1990s! Isn't it strange?
(3)Same here, on History table: Captured Beijing June 6 1644. What a low wit statement. It is like when you are watching western cowboy movies, after cowboys killed all the red-indians, then they all go to KFC, or Starbucks to have a coffee.
(4)Population: year 1740 est:140,000,000. Ok,about 140 millions. Manchu dynasty started at 1644. From 1644 to 1740, is about 100 years. What happened between this 100 years? And what was the Ming dynasty's population when it was taken over by the Manchu? What was the figure?Arilang1234 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Beijing(zh.北京) was coined after 1949"?? You must be kidding, right? Don't tell me you don't really know the history of Beijing. Here is a brief list of historic names of Beijing since the founding of the Ming Dynasty:

In 1368, the city was renamed from "Dadu" (大都) to "Beiping" (北平);

In 1403, the city was renamed from "Beiping" (北平) to "Beijing" (北京), and became the Ming capital in 1421;

In 1927, the city was renamed from "Beijing" (北京) to "Beiping" (北平) by the ROC;

In 1949, the city was renamed from "Beiping" (北平) to "Beijing" (北京) by the PRC.

So you are the one who pretends to be a know-all but in fact is making nonsense.--207.112.71.179 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting consensus discussion

a revolution is the only means to overthrow the Qing government..Sun Yetsen]

TZ'U-HSI (1835-1908). The West called her Empress dowager. During her reign, the Manchu Imperial court was dishonest and did not implement policy to benefit the ordinary folks. This was one of the causes that led to the downfall of the Qing Dynasty(1644–1911).
From 1889 to 1898, the Dowager lived in the summer palace in semi-retirement. After losing to Japan in the first Sino-Japanese War (1894–95), the young Emperor Guangxu initiated the 'Hundred Days Reform'. The Dowager then returned to the Imperial Court to call off the emperor's reform, and at the same time put him under house arrest and ordered eunuchs faithful to her to keep watch.
In 1899 she supported the Boxer Rebellion, during which thousands of catholic and protestant missionaries were murdered; some were beheaded or skinned alive. Tens of thousands of Chinese Christian converts were murdered too.
When the troops of the Eight Nations Alliance marched into Peking, she fled the capital only to accept peace terms by paying the foreign powers huge amount of silver. Before her death, on Nov. 15, 1908, she allegedly ordered her trusted eunuchs to poison the emperor. In a different version, Yuan Shikai was alleged to have executed both the emperor and dowager using a pistol.

Note:I am ready to discuss with other editors. If there is no objection, I shall put the above passage onto the Qing Dynasty.Arilang1234 (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

“ Enraged, the empress Dowager ordered the death of all foreigners in China. The German minister to China was assassinated, and Boxer rebels began an eight-week attack on the walled foreign compound in Peking. ”

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinhist.html

“ In order to restore our national independence, we must first restore the Chinese nation. In order to restore the Chinese nation, we must drive the barbarian Manchus back to the Changbai Mountains. In order to get rid of the barbarians, we must first overthrow the present tyrannical, dictatorial, ugly, and corrupt Qing government. Fellow countrymen, a revolution is the only means to overthrow the Qing government! ”

Sun Yetsen

Hello, Arilang1234. I hope you don't mind: I'm editing your text a little. I removed the letter "s" from "silvers", and I formatted the reference for the web page. I made a few other small changes in punctuation etc.

Where exactly do you think this text should go in the article?

For the first quote, you give a web page. That's good: now we know exactly where you got the quote. We can format the reference with the "cite web" template, as I did above.

But for the second quote, all you gave is the name of a person and a link to a Wikipedia page. Where did you find that quote? As I told you before, a link to a Wikipedia page can't be used as a reference. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Coppertwig, if no objection from other editors, I would like the text to go under:'.Rule of Empress Dowager Cixi'.
  

Regarding the second quote, indeed it was from en.wikipedia. But I shall be able to find the original Chinese source, once I find it, I will post it again.Arilang1234 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

“ 骑鹤楼头，难忘十日； 梅花岭畔，共仰 千秋 。 史可法祠墓，均位于扬州广储门外梅花岭西麓。 史可法，明末清初 著名 政治家、抗清 英雄 。字宪之，号道邻，河南省祥符县人。清兵南下。 史可法 困守 扬州 。城破被杀， 清兵 屠城十日。因无法辨认 遗骸 ，遂于 梅花 岭筑 衣冠冢 。 乾隆 三十七年又建祠奉祀。墓祠合称 史公祠 ”

The above quote is from:http://search.wiki.cn/s?q=%E5%8F%B2%E5%8F%AF%E6%B3%95&start=0 ( GFDL compatible license)Arilang1234 (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

“ 《大义觉迷录》四卷，清世宗胤禛时官修。此书乃雍正七年（公元1729年）清世宗胤禛因曾静反清案件而刊布的。内收有关上谕十道、审讯词和曾静口供四十七篇、张熙等口供两篇，后附曾静《归仁说》一篇。 ”

Above quote is from http://www.wiki.cn/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E4%B9%89%E8%A7%89%E8%BF%B7%E5%BD%95 (GFDL compatible license) The above quote is the original version of Treason by the Book, by Professor Jonathan Spence.Arilang1234 (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

quote:如在京畿大规模圈占土地，分配给满族的王公、官僚和将士。严厉处罚逃人及隐匿的窝主，使各阶层惴惴不安。在政治上，清朝“首崇满洲”，强迫汉族按照满俗薙发易服，违者处死。不许满汉通婚。刑法方面，满汉之间、各个等级之间量刑标准亦不同。许多汉人虽在政府中任官，但实权掌握在满族官员手中。清廷特别对汉族乡绅和知识分子严加控制防范。江浙发生的通海案(与郑成功相通)、科场案(科举考试中舞弊)、奏销案(欠交钱粮)、文字狱，诛杀流放许多乡绅士子。又颁布迁海令，沿海25千米内居民，均迫令迁移，不准商船渔船出海，使许多人破家失业 Unquoted. Above Chinese text is sourced from http://www.wiki.cn/wiki/%E6%B8%85%E6%9C%9D (GFDL-compatible license)Arilang1234 (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

When you put quotes on a talk page, please also give an English translation of the quotes.

Arilang1234, you put a new section heading in the article called "Taiping rebellion, a different perspective". But, every section of a Wikipedia article should be NPOV. One section should not be written from just one perspective.

Arilang1234, please try harder to find reliable sources, not just any sources. I think that www.answers.com is not a reliable source.

I'm not sure if these words were added by mistake. Are they a quote? Should they be inside the cite web template? "he did not believe Freezing Point had erred in publishing the article about the history textbooks. "

Same with these words: Are they a quote? If you want to put a quote inside the cite news template, write "|quote=" . "The new emperor, Kuang Hsu, was skinny, sickly, and terrified of the Empress Dowager" I commented out those words in the article.

This is good: "In a different version, Yuan Shikai was alleged ..." You are showing more than one version of what happened. That's good NPOV.

There are probably too many external links.

External links should only have the title of the external link, not a quote. If they're references, please use footnotes (ref tags) so we know what part of the text they're references for.

I have no opinion on whether Arilang1234's addition is an improvement or not. I would have to read the references and learn more about the subject before I could comment; I probably don't have time. Sorry! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro-manchu lecturer slapped in the face

slap in the face

Yan Chongnian (阎崇年), a scholar specializing in Qing history and Manchu culture, was attacked on October 5 when he was in Wuxi to promote his new book, The Kangxi Emperor.

Opinion poll conducted on www.people.com.cn on face-slapping incident.http://opinion.people.com.cn/GB/8174455.html

Quote:The Qing can be a touchy subject.....The fact that the Qing Era was so prosperous and successful (for the first two hundred years or so) can be tempered in the zeitgeist by the knowledge that the Qing emperors were not Han, did not consider themselves Han, and would likely have chopped off anybody’s head who claimed that His Majesty’s Empire had succeeded due to Manchu assimilation, as early 20th-century Han nationalist historians argued in an attempt to reconicle past events with contemporary sentiment. Prior to the 1911 revolution, revolutionaries such as Sun Yat-sen, Zhang Binglin, and Zou Rong wrote passionate tracts lamenting the depravity, cruelty, and, yes, the “Otherness” of the Manchu rulers. Post-1911, as the KMT and later the CCP took up the baton of statebuilding, the desire to hold on to the territorial conquests of the Manchus trumped ethnic nationalism, and the Manchus were brought into the fold of a newly-defined “Chinese nation,” which transcended Han ethnic or cultural definitions to include those groups, like the Tibetans, Uighurs, and Taiwanese, who had also been ruled by the Manchus.Unquote. Arilang: I thought I put it here for other editors to comment.Arilang1234 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll comment. Elsewhere you suggested "my enemy's enemy is my friend" as the reason that the PRC embraced the Manchus while Sun Yatsen et al did not. But according to this quote, "Post-1911, as the KMT and later the CCP took up the baton of statebuilding, the desire to hold on to the territorial conquests of the Manchus trumped ethnic nationalism, and the Manchus were brought into the fold of a newly-defined “Chinese nation,” which transcended Han ethnic or cultural definitions to include those groups, like the Tibetans, Uighurs, and Taiwanese, who had also been ruled by the Manchus." In other words, the KMT were also quite happy to accept the Manchus, so a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" analysis seems off the mark. Also see Five Races Under One Union.

Bathrobe (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

becoming the CCTV 'Lecture Room'

Well well well, this talk page looks like becoming the CCTV 'Lecture Room' on Late Qing history lecture, with only 2 participants, me and Bathrobe. Anyhow, my suggestions to you is: when you read the 'official version of history', you always look at it with a critical mind, constantly asking: Have I being lied to? Or, how much 'water' in there, and how much is the real deal? If you read Chinese history "carefully", and "carefully" needed to be stressed to its limited, because there simply are too many lies and distortions, you will find out that KMT is not what you think KMT. For example, Chou Enlai, a dedicated 'commie bastard', was a planted time bomb in the central nervous system of KMT, by the notorious Third International, because Sun Yetsen was facing 'live or die' situation, and was forced to kowtow to the 'Soviet Union', because Great Britian, France, Germany and Imperial Japan refused to help him. My friend, KMT and CCP were, and are, a pair of twins with different fathers, that is all, if you can excuse my off beat analogy.

KMT and CCP were, and are, a pair of twins with different fathers

That is precisely my point.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

the 'Opinion Poll' says it all

• HaHaHa, the 'Opinion Poll' says it all.

“ WWW.people.com.cn, the official website of CCP of China, has conducted an Opinion Poll asking three questions:

(1)He asked for it.
(2)Objection to the use of slapping. But then, one needs to have the right to express one's opinion.
(3)I support Yan Chongnian.
To date(5 Nov 2008), 2,320,950 have taken part in the survey, 38.1% pick (1), 53.7% pick (2), and 8.2% pick (3).

”

Yes, and there is a lot of chauvinism on the web. Bathrobe (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent revisions

Recent revisions to the article with the aim of correcting an imbalance go to far the other way. Some of this very detailed additional material should not be put in this article. It should be put in independent articles. For instance, the details on the Yangzhou massacre don't belong in this article, they belong in an article on the Yangzhou massacre.

Very specific section headings (e.g. "Manchu impose harsh penal code on other ethnicity") are very clearly unbalanced. This should not be a section on its own; it should form part of a larger, more general section (e.g., "Manchu Methods of Maintaining Control"). This should include methods of control over other ethnic groups, not just the Han. (Interesting that the entire thrust of the article is about how the Manchus persecuted the Han, which makes it a completely Han-centric article!)

Bathrobe (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I second the comments above. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I value your opinions very much.

• Thanks to comments from user Bathrobe and user John Hill, I value your opinions very much. Please let me explain, first I am not here to stir up Han-hate-Manchu sentiments, far from it. The fundamental flaws of Qing Dynasty is (1)It was written originally from one single perspective, the one from Manchu ruler. Before my editions, anybody can see that the original article was Manchu Manchu Manchu. Qing Dynasty, claimed to be an history article, an article which was burned into CD and distributed into schools and used by students all over the world, should not be just Manchu Manchu Manchu. Like user Bathrobe comments, it should not be just Han Han Han either. Fair enough, we have to be NPOV. Other readers are just welcome to put in Muslim views, Tibetan views, Xinjian views, plus other minority ethnic views. I just happen to be a Han Chinese, and unfortunately I cannot read Tibetans text. But don't get me wrong, as soon as I encounter any Tibetan views on the net, I am more than willing to put it into the article.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• One very important factor I forgot to mention is, whenever we talk about Qing, or Manchu dynasty, we need to remember 90% or more of the population was Han Chinese. Naturally, when Manchu rulers murdered 100 inhabitants, 90 of them would be Han Chinese. Likewise, to be really really NPOV, when we edit "Atrocities committed by Manchu", 90% of the passage should be allocated to "Han Chinese murdered by Manchu" section. Agree? Let me presented it in another way: German Nazis killed a lot of people during WW2; But it was the Jewish people that got the big one. So it is only natural, when we write about atrocity committed by the Nazi, we talk more on Nazi-killing-Jews. Agree?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think NPOV works like that. If Han and Manchu POV both say that some people were killed, then you say that some people were killed: that's NPOV. I think it's better not to use the word "murdered", but say "killed": it's an impartial tone for NPOV. NPOV needs to represent POVs that are expressed in published sources. Look at what the sources say, not just at how many people were on each side of the historical event.

  Is there an article on the Yangzhou massacre? I can't find one. At the article Yangzhou, it says "Yangzhou was the scene of a ten-day massacre in 1645 by the Qing army. An account of the massacre can be found in the Yangzhou shiri ji, recounted by Wang Xiuchu". Maybe it would be a good idea to make a new article, about the massacre: but if you have only one or two sources, then I think it would not be a good idea. Maybe you can find more sources. If you make a new article, you can put a link to it from that sentence in the Yangzhou page, and also a link to it from here; and I suggest writing something very short here about the massacre, maybe one sentence. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding 'Yangzfou Massacre' as an article, my suggestion is to use the original zh pinyin name:Yangzhou shiri ji(translation:An Account of Ten days at Yangzhou.Arilang1234 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yangzhou shiri ji is the name of a book. If the article is about the Yangzhou massacre or Ten days of Yangzhou, use such a name. Don't use the name of a book.

I disagree that when "we edit "Atrocities committed by Manchu", 90% of the passage should be allocated to "Han Chinese murdered by Manchu" section." According to this kind of reasoning, if the article on Hong Kong is one page long, and the article on China should be 260 pages long (on a population basis). Nauru might get five lines. This is quite ridiculous. Inability to read Tibetan is also a straw argument. There is plenty of published information in English without needing to read Tibetan. None of these arguments is a valid reason for concentrating on the Han as "victims" of the Manchus in this article.

Of course, we might consider splitting the article into Qing dynasty and Manchu empire if we want to try and get some kind of neutrality on this. Using Qing dynasty as a term is in fact quite POV, as the Manchus can equally be regarded as a pre-modern empire. So the Qing dynasty article can concentrate on "China proper" and everything the Manchus did to the ethnic Han, and the article on "Manchu Empire" can concentrate on what they did to the rest of their subjects. But I don't really think this is a good way to go about it. So let's concentrate on making sure that Qing dynasty reflects the actual nature of the dynasty, or empire, or whatever you want to call it. The Qing dynasty article should not just be about the oppression of the Han. It should cover all aspects of the Manchu control over its subject peoples.

Bathrobe (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Bathrobe, like I said before, other editors are welcome to contribute towards this article, to make it more balance for the future readers. At the moment I am the only one writing stuff, it gets a bit lonely at times.Arilang1234 (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's tough being an editor. Everyone appreciates what you are doing. At the moment I don't have time to go through and edit, rewrite or delete. That is why I added a comment suggesting a slight change of course in the direction of the edits rather than going in myself.

It is difficult to get a proper balance. But you know that you're going off balance when the article starts to read like a rant, with emotional language and long passages dealing with detailed matters. The article is supposed to be an overview. If in doubt, a brief mention of the issue in question is enough. The Yangzhou massacre, for instance, should not include a lot of detail about how dastardly the massacre was. All is needed is a mention of what happened (number of days, suspected death toll, reason for the massacre). Alternative views should preferably be incorporated in the passage rather than being given a separate section. Literary persecution similar to that perpetrated by the Manchus was not unknown in other dynasties, so dealing in loving detail with the nature of the censorship (interpretation of characters) should be left out or mentioned only briefly. When whole sections of the article include lots of detail designed to prove a point (that the Manchus were oppressors), then the article is going to seem rather biassed.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Debate on revision

Debate

@ Bathrobe: Quote:The article is supposed to be an overview Unquote. Please look at the original article before my editions. The basic structure of the article was formed 2002-2003, and was slowly built up throughout the years until now. From 2002 on until 2008, six years had passed, it seems to have remained in the same format, and a singular view point, or perspective. On 16 October 2008, the article had 73,402 bytes of data, which is quite a lot of data. From 16 Oct. 2008 until now(23 Oct. 2008), the data is 90,103 bytes, the difference being roughly 17,000 bytes. User Bathrobe's argument is this 17,000 bytes of date is biased too much towards the suffering of Han Chinese under the Manchu rules. I object to his point of view. My argument is, for the last six years, the 70,000 bytes of data, were all about the glory of Manchu Kings and Princes, Manchu Banner Army, Manchu State's origin in North China, Manchu politic, Manchu Bureaucracy, The Grand Secretariat, the Grand Council, Board of Civil Appointments, Board of Finance, Board of Rites, Board of War, Board of Punishments, Board of Works, Military, Beginnings and early development. All 70,000 bytes of data gave a detail and long and elabolate presentation of Manchu Empire in its most glorious form. How come no one was there to ask one question: "When whole sections of the article include lots of detail designed to prove a point..... then the article is going to seem rather biassed.", which is the question user Bathrobe was asking me, which, I believe, he should have ask the same question towards those editors who contribute the majority of the 70,000 bytes of data.Arilang1234 (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the original article. In no way can it be interpreted as "long and elabolate presentation of Manchu Empire in its most glorious form". It is a straightforward presentation of the history and institutions of the Qing dynasty, with some (although probably not adequate) references to the savagery of some of their policies. It appears to be your idea that the article should be about the "evil" of the Manchu empire. I'm sorry, I don't agree that the article should go out of its way to present this picture to the world. That is clearly what you want to do. Information about atrocities and repressive policies should definitely be included, but should not go so far as to dominate the tone of the article, which is what is now happening.

The picture you want to present is of the Manchus as vicious oppressors. From another point of view, the Manchus were probably the most successful of all the non-Han conquerors of China. Their rule lasted for over 200 years (unlike the 100 years of the Mongols), and they managed to maintain their identity to the end, unlike some earlier conquerors. As a small minority, they were remarkably successful in maintaining their rule over a huge population, using both ruthless and enlightened measures. Without obtaining the cooperation of the Han Chinese they could never have achieved this.

The episode mentioned in 'Treason by the book', which you elsewhere describe as "only one drop of water, compare to the numerous evil deeds the barbaric Manchus did to chinese Han", is a case in point. This you immediately associate with the evil deeds of the barbaric Manchus. Another interpretation is to see it as an exercise in the use of intellect and morality as weapons in asserting their control over a population that not only hated them as invaders and oppressors, but also despised them as "barbarians". In fact, this is not necessarily evil at all; it is merely an attempt at self-preservation in the face of an arrogant cultural tradition.

OK, I don't want to push this point any further than this. What I am trying to say is that there are different ways of looking at the same thing, but in your case you are seeing everything through one particular slant. You appear to have a deep built-in bias against the Manchus. It shows when you immediately interpret anything they do as "evil deeds the barbaric Manchus did to chinese Han". You are perfectly free to feel this way, but when you are writing an encyclopaedic article, you should at least make an attempt not to let your own particular view of the Manchus predominate in your edits.

123.121.200.251 (talk) (User Bathrobe not logged in) 14:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quote:'with emotional language and long passages dealing with detailed matters'

..

Queen Victoria, Tonga kingdom, Sultan of Brunei,Peter the Great]]

@ Bathrobe, 'emotional language' I agree with you. I can certainly change my tone. But 'long passage dealing with detailed matters' I do not agree.(1) This is a history article, and history is always long, and boring, and detailed. (2) Again you check the version before my editions, and can you say those are not 'long passages dealing with detailed matters'?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To decide how much space to give each part of the article, look at how much space is given to them in the sources. That's NPOV. Take all the good sources you can find that are talking about the Qing dynasty. Figure out what fraction they spend talking about oppression. This article should have the same fraction as the average of the sources. I suppose there are many books about the Qing dynasty. This article is much shorter than many books, so the part about oppression should be much shorter than the parts about oppression in those books. If you want to put more detail, you can start other new articles about subtopics. I suggest you discuss with other editors, Arilang, before starting new articles, to find out what article names other editors think are good. All parts of all articles need to be written with an impartial tone, not an emotional tone. Thank you again for your contributions, Arilang: it's very good that you're able to find this amount of material, and that you can add a point of view to make the articles more balanced. Some of the material you add may need to be changed based on discussion with other editors. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both user Bathrope and Coppertwig, and I am very sincere when I say this, because Coppertwig has given me a lot of helping tips in the past weeks. Just to let you know, Bathrope, I started in en.wikipedia around September, and within this short period of times helps have been offered to me by various users, unlike the bad experience I had in zh.wikipedia, which seems to have quite a number of admin and moderators hellbent on maintaining their peculiar brand of POV, at the same time not only refuse to help new editors, but utter foul words with thugs like attitude towards others. I have the notion that zh.wikipedia is operating along the line of Chinese underground black society. And I do not know where and how to voice my complaints, so that foul plays can be terminated. Any advices anyone?

@Bathrope, I agree with your comment:'you should at least make an attempt not to let your own particular view of the Manchus predominate in your edits.' and I will have to learn how to write on wiki, which is entirely different from writing on blogs. Apart from Manchu empire's notorious human right records towards other ethnicity, there are other items missed out that need to be addressed:(1) Comparison between Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty (a) Weapons used. Questions such as why did the Manchus sticked to bows and arrows when Ming army( Mongols began using hand-held mini canons) were already using rockets and land mines and high explosive canon shells in battle fields. (b) Zheng He sailed the high seas for seven times, and Manchus were turning the Chinese thousand kilometer shorelines into no-man's land. (3) When Japanese Meiji emperor westernized, why didn't the Manchus followed suit? (4) When scholars-missionaries-combined Matteo Ricci,Johann Adam Schall von Bell, were introducing western knowledge into Ming dynasty, had translated 7000 plus western science books into Han Chinese, and Ming dynasty had many equally talented scholars such as Xu Guangqi, Li Zhizao, Yang Tingyun, what had the Manchus done in 260 years of ruling? What had happened to Jesuits teaching efforts, schools they built? All these questions, comparisons, have never been raised in the past six years since Qing as an historical article. And what about Manchu emperors, as a Monarch, have anyone try to compare it with English Queen Victoria, or the Tonga kingdom, or the Sultan of Brunei? or Peter the Great?Arilang1234 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously given a lot of thought to many issues surrounding the Qing. Reading the above, do I detect a different agenda here: "In their 260 years in power, why didn't the Qing advance the great cause of Chinese civilisation? Why did they fail so miserably?" Would I be right in suggesting that this lies behind your questions? In fact, this is a kind of "goal-oriented view of history", judging societies not on their own particular set of circumstances, but on how well they performed in reaching a specific goal -- and the specific goal is always set later by other people, a goal that the people of the time didn't even know they should have had! The frustration of (especially) Han intelligentsia that their civilisation wasn't prepared when Western civilisation knocked at their door, and the desire to lay the blame at the feet of the barbarian conquerors from the north is understandable, but it's just as slanted a view of history as any other, maybe more so. It does, however, fit in with the Chinese historical habit of judging past emperors as "good" or "bad". The fact is that history is an extremely complicated subject that can't be judged simply on whether a civiilisation attained the "Industrial Revolution" or not. I think you should read a bit more and understand different viewpoints on history. Try, for instance, "China Marches West" by Peter Purdue.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

you are quite right when you analyze my viewpoints

@ Bathrobe, you are quite right when you analyze my viewpoints, and I am more than happy to admit them in open. 'Slanted' or not is your opinion, but I know millions and millions of Han Chinese share my kind of view points, but they do not know how to express it, or where to express it, they can only put them on internet blogs, or [www.baike.baidu.com], which has 1.3 million articles, compare to zh.wikipedia, only 300,000 articles.

Im this age of information, the spread of knowledge is at the speed of light, much faster then Matteo Ricci's time.

"Slanted' or not, whatever you call it, my opinion, that the article Qing was biased, had singular Manchu narrow POV, still stand. And I hope I can do something about it, for the benefit of future readers.Arilang1234 (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang, Wikipedia is not some kind of blog to express the viewpoint of "millions and millions of Han Chinese", no matter how passionately held. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia from such a viewpoint, I suggest a separate article dealing specifically with this issue ("Why China fell behind the West"). I have no idea what you should name this article. Perhaps you could look at the article on Chinese historiography for some ideas. But rewriting the Qing dynasty article to reflect your preoccupations is the wrong way to go about it. Sorry, but if you persist in editing from that point of view your edits can only be reverted. The original article was a straightforward presentation of the history of the dynasty. It was not slanted to any noticeable degree. Turning the article into piece arguing that the Qing dynasty was responsible for the backwardness of China is known as POV, and you have no business rewriting the article to reflect this.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

lacking in depth

@Bathrobe, the article may be straightforward, but it is lacking in depth. It just touch on the surface. Lets take the section “Kang-Qian Golden Age", which glorify Kangxi and Qianlong by saying:'during which the Qing Dynasty reached the zenith of its social, economic and military power.' There are many Chinese historians have concluded that the truth is far from it. And I can quote original Chinese history books to verify my views, which is far from what you say as 'slant'. I know Qing is written in beautiful language, with colorful jpeg and tables, been cut into CD for schools. The question is, is that enough? Is that what Wikipedians are aiming for? Beautiful words plus beautiful jpeg? What about we turn it into a better project? Say compare King George the Third with Emperor Qianlong?(which I have started on section 'Macartney Mission of 1792-94') What about a section on the comparison of Meiji period and Qing, would this kind of edition be called POV? I may have my personal view points, which shows on my style of language, but the style can change, the chose of word can change, to make it NPOV, with the helps from other editors, because my real intention is to turn this article into a better one, a more comprehensive one, and I think there are editors or admin out there who can help me to achieve it.

• • • Let me say it again,quote:'Turning the article into piece arguing that the Qing dynasty was responsible for the backwardness of China is known as POV' Unfortunately user Bathrope, that may be you own conclusion, but not mine. My questions were:'And what about Manchu emperors, as a Monarch, have anyone try to compare it with English Queen Victoria, or the Tonga kingdom, or the Sultan of Brunei? or Peter the Great?' I would still like to ask these questions, and I am going to edit Qing in this direction. Tell me where have I done wrong, and I will changed it to make it a better article, not a worst one. And I am not here to vandalize, far from it.Arilang1234 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are POV pushing. Besides which, the article is about the Qing dynasty, not a comparison with Queen Victoria or the Meiji era. If you persist on pushing your viewpoint without achieving a consensus of some sorts on the discussion page, your edits will be reverted.

Bathrobe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.121.214.75 (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang's edits from the POV of demonstrating the damage done by the Qing to China's historical destiny have predictably led to some extremely poor edits.

• A section was added on “Qing and Great Britian of nineteen century”. This section merely gave information already covered at the Macartney Embassy and to a lesser extent at Lord Macartney. An article on the Qing dynasty doesn't really need a special section on "Qing and Great Britain of 19th century", besides which, it barely covered the topic that it purported to cover and was wrongly located within the article. The Macartney Embassy was already mentioned earlier. There was no need for a special section to be added right at the end of the article. The reason for the section was to demonstrate that the Qing failed to properly respond to the West.

• A section was added on "Comparison of Yuan, Ming, and Qing's naval history". Besides being placed wrongly at the start of the section on "Military", it consisted of nothing more than a very superficial comparison of a few maritime or naval aspects of the three dynasties, mainly designed to show that the Qing were a failure. This is original research (if this kind of superficial comparison can be glorified with the name of research) and has no credible sources.

• A section was added on "Different viewpoints" of the Taiping Rebellion. This contained a completely gratuitous section on the Qing bureaucracy, which is actually covered elsewhere in the article. Needless to say, the point of including the information on the Qing bureaucratic system was to demonstrate that the flawed bureaucracy was to blame for the Taiping rebellion and thus the Manchus were again responsible for China's decline.

Regrettably most of these edits are so poorly written and so out of place in the article that there was no alternative but to delete them. I did take some information about the Boxer Rebellion and placed it at the separate article covering this.

123.121.239.111 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

...

I want other editors to join me, together we can make this [Qing] a better essay

User 123.121.239.111's comment:'the POV of demonstrating the damage done by the Qing to China's historical destiny', this I agree. And my texts were written in poor English, this I agree. But that is not all I want to do. I want other editors to join me, together we can make this [Qing] a better essay, from more, and different perspectives, so that future readers can form their own judgments and opinions. Basically, the Qing article need to be look at from these points of views:

• (1)The Manchu Qing empire was an empire based on one single race, Manchus. 'There were revolts by the Muslims and the Miao people of China against the Qing Dynasty, most notably in the Dungan revolt (1862-1877) and the Panthay rebellion 1856-1873) in Yunnan. The Manchu government committed genocide to suppress these little known revolts,[14][15][16] killing a million people in the Panthay rebellion,[17][18] several million in the Dungan revolt[18] and five million in the suppression of Miao people in Guizhou.[18] A "washing off the Muslims"(洗回 (xi Hui)) policy had been long advocated by officials in the Manchu government' They killed millions of Han Chinese, as well as other minor ethnic(56 different races)
  
• (2)Manchus do not treat other races on equal human platform(except Mongols, because they themselves are a mix of Mongols and Jurchens). They officially called their subjects 'chattel',(zh:奴才 pinyin:nucai, originally a Manchu word, now had been turned into a everyday Chinese word) a derogative and dehumanizing term. "chattel" were to be sold, expelled, killed at will by masters, and never did have human statues,(A bit like the Australian aboriginals in captain Cook's time, at least Captain Cook did not follow the Manchs' practice of turning other races, human or non-human, into slaves.)
  
• (3)Its Eight Banners military system was purely based on race. Only Manchus and Mongols were accepted into the Eight Banners, none others.
  
• (4)Closed door policy, was a bit like the legendary emu, sticks its head into the sands. When Mongols, Song and Ming dynasty were sailing the seas doing business with the outside worlds, Manchus rulers were turning the Chinese thousands of kilometers of shorelines into no-mans' land. Anyone caught sailing the seas will be beheaded.
  
• (5)Thousands upon thousands of books were put to the fire by the Manchu, the loss to the whole humanity just cannot be measured. The Manchu not only sin against all the Chinese(all 56 races), they had sin against the whole human race. Lets not forget that.
  
• (6)'The formal structure of the Qing government centered around the Emperor as the absolute ruler, who presided over six ministries (or boards),' Well, "absolute ruler" says it all, and we all know 'absolute power brings absolute corruption'.
  

I think the above six points need to be incorporated into Qing, to make it more balance and more complete.Arilang1234 (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your proposals are marked by inaccuracies and POV.

The article on the Qing is not an "essay"; it is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article. You are interested in writing an essay to push your viewpoint. This is not the same as writing an article.

It is quite clear from the article that the dynasty was based on rule by the Manchus. I don't see anything in the current article to contradict this.

There were revolts and the empire put them down. It was based on rule by the Manchu ruling class. So what? Empires will always put down uprisings in order to maintain their control. The two uprisings you mention should be mentioned in the article, but but not as a way of showing how the Manchu race oppressed all others. If the Han Chinese had been in control they would have repressed them, too. The huge loss of life, however, is significant and does deserve a mention.

The Manchus put themselves above the other races, it is true. They were the ruling class. There is no question about this. I believe the normal term is not 'chattel' but 'bondsman'. Please do a bit more research into English-language sources. Besides the Manchu and Mongol banners, there were also Chinese banners, although of lower status.

The ostrich (not emu) with its head in the sand. I would need to check this, but my impression is that the Qing were not the first to clear the coasts of people as a defence against foreign incursions. If I remember rightly, the Ming also did this. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Manchus exercised censorship. This is well known. It was used to ensure that only one version of reality existed. Versions that conflicted with the Manchu-sponsored version were rooted out, and the Qing then sponsored great works to symbolise their control over their territory. The Siku Quanshu and many, many other maps and literary efforts (e.g. travel journals, such as travel journals to Taiwan) were part of this process of incorporating these territories into their realms. There are lots of sources that could give you more information on this. Incidentally, the article on Siku Quanshu already has quite a bit of information on their burning of books.

The current government of China is equally guilty of trying to ensure that only their own sponsored version of reality prevails. The current system of censorship is designed to brainwash all Chinese into believing many things that vary from the facts, which I will not elaborate on here. Qin Shihuang also burnt books. The facts are self-evident. There is no need to weave the facts into a tapestry of bias solely against the Qing.

The Qing dynasty did not have "56 races". This is part of the ideology of the People's Republic of China. You are mixing fact and ideology in your own postings.

'absolute power brings absolute corruption' -- this is your own interpretation of the situation. Well, actually, not your own, it's from Orwell. But the Qing dynasty was not the first nor the last dynasty to vest all power in the Emperor. By making this point about the Qing, are you trying to make out that earlier Chinese dynasties were paragons of democracy? Or do you just want to keep scoring points against the Qing?

Bathrobe (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Debate 3

This is Absolute Power in its extreme

Well, looks like we are getting somewhere. Like I said, as a student on wikipedia, I welcome any help from more experienced users. Just to expand on the Manchu emperor's 'absolute power' issue. Of all the previous Han emperors, when they issued 聖旨 ,the Imperial Decree, it was not official and valid until it was co-signed by 丞相 ,the royal court's Prime Minister. Now Manchu emperor abolished this centuries old Royal Court tradition, abolished the Prime Minister, any Manchu emperors could issue Imperial Decree at will, with nobody to check, to co-sign, or to look over his shoulder. This is Absolute Power in its extreme. And I am able to cite primary source to verify my statement(清史).

Just this singular argument alone, is enough to differentiate Manchu empire from all the other Han Chinese dynasties, Han chauvinism or not.Arilang1234 (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• On you statement:The current government of China is equally guilty I agree with you whole heartly. My view, or opinion, or whatever you called, you can see clearly on editions I contributed on 2008 Chinese milk scandal. Put it this way, I never did like communists.

• • On absolute power again, Ming emperors did kill a lot of civilians and bureaucrats. But the actual running of the country was in the hand of the bureaucrats, not Emperor. And another fact that may supprise everybody, the ultimate decision of going to war or not, was made by bureaucrats, not the Emperor! Unlike Qing, all the important and final decisions were made by the Emperor. The absolute ruler.Arilang1234 (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

---

@Bathrobe:'The ostrich (not emu) with its head in the sand. I would need to check this'

(1)Ming cleared the seas to stop Japanese pirates, not to stop trading with overseas countries. Even after they destroyed Zheng He's fleets, trading with the Philipines and other S.E.Asians countries was never stopped.
(2)Manchu not only burn all the sea going boats, they even build forts(each fort had 6 soldiers) and walls along the long coastlines). Just this measure alone was the cause of millions of death, not just Han, other races too. All my statements can be verified with primary or secondary sources.Arilang1234 (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• • User Bathrobe, I believe you are an Aussie(from your user page), what do you say about the fact that the 'abos' were included in the national census only after the 1967 referendum, and when you compare the racial policies of the Manchus in the 18,19 century to that of the White Australia of the same era, would it make a good NPOV Wiki article?Arilang1234 (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You continue to treat Wikipedia as your own personal soapbox or blog. Please check out the Article Policies at the top of the page: Article policies

• No original research
• Neutral point of view
• Verifiability

You appear to be proposing to do some research into the racial policies of the Manchus in the 19th century in comparison with the White Australia policy. This would, I presume, be your own original article? As you may note, one of the article policies is "no original research". Besides, if you want to do something like that, you might like to consider an article comparing slave ownership in ancient Greece and ancient China, or human sacrifice in Aztec and Chinese civilisations. If anybody and everybody wanted to write a series of articles on their own favourite topic, Wikipedia would simply become a kind of blog. If you look carefully, you'll notice that Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopaedia. Does Encyclopaedia Britannica have an article comparing the racial policies of the 19th century Qing and Australia? You seem to have a completely warped understanding of what an encyclopaedia is trying to do. It is not a blog for people to write articles on whatever strikes their fancy.

On the other hand, if you had looked a little more carefully you would have found that there is an article on racial segregation. It refers to the Manchus among many others. It could equally have a section on the Australian aborigines, except that no one has added it yet. Contrary to what you may think, you are not the first person to venture into this territory, and your unremitting anti-Manchuism is not really yielding anything new.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Debate on revision 2

@Bathrobe:Thanks for your comments and advice, I need them and I appreciate every comments from you, because I did have a look at your user page, your contributions is impressive. And I just started on September. Shame on me.
You comment on my Anti-Manchuism, yes, and I am proud of it, I do not, and will not hide my true feelings toward Manchus. Mongols killed a lot of people, ethnic cleansing, genocides, they have done it all. The name Yellow Peril says it all. Manchu was worst than Mongols, Manchus burnt books in tens of thousands, by doing so they committed a crime against the whole human civilization. Because it happened 100 years ago, is no an excuse to ignore it and look the other way. When they edited Siku Quanshu, the volumns of books they burnt was more than enough to comply another Siku Quanshu. This criminal act was an act against the human civilization, not only Han civilization, just like the Taliban, when they used dynamite to blow up the thousands years old Buddha statue, they had committed a criminal act despited by all the humans.Arilang1234 (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your pride in your POV. Now tell us how you are going to get past your virulent feelings of hatred in order to write a better encyclopaedia?

Bathrobe (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

George Macartney's Journal of Embassy to China:

Extracts from George Macartney's Journal of Embassy to China:

“ The Empire of China is an old, crazy, first-rate Man of War, which a fortunate succession of and vigilant officers have contrived to keep afloat for these hundred and fifty years past, and to overawe their neighbours merely by her bulk and appearance. But whenever an insufficient man happens to have the command on deck, adieu to the discipline and safety of the ship. She may, perhaps, not sink outright; she may drift some time as a wreck, and will then be dashed to pieces on the shore; but she can never be rebuilt on the old bottom. ”

User Bathrobe, what do you think of Macartney's comment? I think King George 3 would have been very happy reading it, you think so?Arilang1234 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your drift. If you think that Macartney's comment is a good reason for more Manchu bashing, I'm afraid you're wrong. I think it would be very good back-up for an article on European colonialism.

Your one-sidedness is quite amazing. Given the sad state of that supremely Han entity, the Ming dynasty towards its end, perhaps similar language could be applied to it. It was certainly ripe for a fall. And despite what you wrote about the Ming's naval glory it's pretty clear that the Ming were only able to fight the wakō in spite of, not because of the empire's leadership. Qi Jiguang had to put together his own effort to defeat the wakō -- read Ray Huang.

At any rate, your preoccupation with the glorious destiny of the Han Chinese is a kind of Han chauvinism. It is POV and shouldn't be used as the basis for writing or editing articles.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

can you read classic Chinese(Wen Yan)?

You are a true scholar of multi-talents, I really respect you because you know a lot of Ming-Qing history. Can I ask you a straight forward question(please forgive me for being rude), can you read classic Chinese(Wen Yan)? The reason I ask is because the original Ming history(or whatever left of it after the Manchu's fire) was written in Wan Yan, a much harder and sometimes confusing language.

I am not a scholar, just an amateur. I can't read 文言文. Well, there are times when I can make out the meaning from the characters, but I don't consider that the same as being able to read it.

I'm aware of a lot of the things you refer to, and I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points. But I don't agree with the attempt to weave them together into a grand story based on the single theme of anti-Manchuism. It is just as bad as the current state ideology that treats the Manchus as "Chinese" from the start. This is a superficial theory that is trotted out as needed and mainly seems to be based on a desire for all that Qing territory.

There is a growing move to regard the Qing as a "pre-modern empire", which is probably more appropriate than the traditional Chinese historiographical approach of "dynasties". There is a very interesting English-language article by a(n ethnic) Chinese scholar aboutTaiwan during the Qing dynasty that adopts this approach. Unfortunately I can't remember who the scholar was or where I saw the article!

Found it: TAIWAN'S IMAGINED GEOGRAPHY Chinese Colonial Travel Writing and Pictures, 1683-1895 by EMMA JINHUA TENG.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Manchuism, Han chauvinism

Though you are a scholar, I feel that you are kind of have a kneel-jerk reaction of naming others, such as Anti-Manchuism, Han chauvinism, or later on names such as 'anti-revolution', 'anti-communisium' might follows? May be it is the result of you being living in China for too long, or may be you are plain too lazy to try to understand other people's view points? May be bit of both?Arilang1234 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm merely disturbed at your constant pursuit of one theme -- that the fact that Chinese civilisation (meaning Han Chinese civilisation) would have had glorious historical destiny except for the hated Manchus. You've admitted yourself that this is basically what you believe. I'm merely putting a label on your POV.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

how to improve wikipedia as an encylopedia

Now now user Bathrobe, relax, we are discussing on how to improve wikipedia as an encylopedia, and I am here as a student, a student of wiki with less than 2 months of experience, who need all the help and encouragement from older wikipedians. Instead of helps, now I am being labeled with names that seem to stick with me, and my various efforts of trying to explain my different view points have fallen onto deaf ears. I am beginning to wonder how many more labels I shall get from user Bathrobe. Let me ask you one more question, do you always label people like that?Arilang1234 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question. Do you always come into encyclopaedias with the idea treating them as a blog, rewriting articles to confirm with your own personal views of history? Do you think it unfair when people label you for that kind of thing? Most of your additions so far have been reverted because they are so off topic, and the reason that you keep adding such off-topic material appears to be that your personal persuasion that the Manchus were evil seems to be overriding considerations of relevance to the article. (See Siku Quanshu, where a big section on the details of the burning of the Summer Palace (designed to discuss whose fault it was) was reverted).

Bathrobe (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes Yes Yes, many times my additions got reverted, but many times they got to stay. Have a look at 2008 Chinese Milk Scandal, I put in a lot of efforts into it, majority of my additions stay. And why do you hate people who hate Manchus? Don't tell me you have Manchu or Mongol blood in your veins?Arilang1234 (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your final comment shows that you just don't get it. Wikipedia is not supposed to a forum for one particular ethnic group. If a Manchu or Mongol came on and edited, they would be even more indignant about your edits based on hatred of Manchus than I am. You really seem to think that your point of view ("I hate the Manchus") should take precedence over everything else. That is why so much of your work is reverted. You seem to take it for granted that presenting your case for hating the Manchus will result in a better article. It just doesn't work.

(By the way, in case you didn't know, I have news for you: the Mongolians also hate the Manchus. Since you're a Han, you probably have no idea of any point of view but that of your own ethnicity. The fact is that Mongolians today greatly resent both the Manchus and the Chinese.)

Bathrobe (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if our discussion is becoming overheated. You've called me out for pasting labels on you, which you have some right in doing.

The problem I have is that you have openly declared a point of view (anti-Manchu), you have openly declared your aim to write what you call "a better article" by strongly pushing that viewpoint, and you have then added considerable material of questionable quality to several articles based on your publicly-declared approach.

Labels aside, I am afraid that unless you abandon your avowed goal of rewriting Qing-related articles to reflect your view of the Manchus as evil oppressors who prevented any "progress" by the (Han) Chinese, we will continue to have differences.

Everyone has a POV. The problem is that you are proposing to completely rewrite the article based on this POV. There are other ways of incorporating information supporting your point of view in an article. For example:

• Add a section detailing the historical debate over this issue, if such a debate exists. If there is a strong historical debate in Chinese about the role the Manchus had in impeding Chinese progress, a section can be added to that effect. It is important that such a section should be scrupulously balanced. That means, for instance, stating something like "Some Chinese scholars hold that the Manchus impeded China's technological and political progress....". You would need to base this on sources and use non-emotive language. You would also need to state the opposing point of view if one exists. That is, there may be people who quite strongly oppose this notion (e.g., "Opponents of this viewpoint maintain that the Qing only exacerbated tendencies already existing under the Ming") and their views should also be mentioned. That means that you should not adopt the point of view of the fighters in the ring (i.e., you should not argue that the Manchus were bad), but should act as an impartial spectator observing the fight (i.e., you should describe competing points of view). This should be brief and succinct.

• Add a note mentioning how Qing rule differed from that of earlier or native dynasties, e.g., the oversight of the bureaucracy by Manchus. This should be brief, not a long list of woes and accusations.

• By all means add information on massacres or other events of Qing history. But don't overdo them. Any reader can draw their own conclusions about massacres and rebellions without needing to be told that these events were heinous or evil.

• Bring together existing and new information on Qing methods of ideological control into one section. Don't describe this as evil. Describe it as it existed. The way the Qing operated was not merely evil, it was ingenious. If you read Crossley, you'll notice how careful the Manchus were in trying to prevent a repeat of the mistakes of their predecessors (the Jin or the Mongols).

I suggest that there is also a need to mention other viewpoints than the Han. There is actually a book called "Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism, And the State in Late Imperial China" [3], which might be a useful counterpoint to your own preoccupations.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

internat forums

Thanks for your help, Bathrobe."Add a section detailing the historical debate over this issue" The debate on internat forums had been on for years. On one side is pro-Han groups, there are many of them, kdnet.net is one of the best known, sina.com, baidu.com has mini-forums they call baidu-bars, such as Qing-bar, Ming-bar, Song-bar, or dowager-bar, Qianlong-bar. tianya.cn sometimes have hot debates. On most occasions the pro-han win over the pro-Manchu. But the pro-Manchu has the government behind them. Majority of the TV dramas churned out by the CCTV are pro-Manchu, with one exception:'Towards Republic', a 59 episodes drama on Dowager Cixi, Yuan Shikai, Sun Yetsen .

Now back to our section, can you suggest a name, I can't think of a good one.Arilang1234 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you first add two or three sentences at the end of the introductory section and see how it reads. For the moment, don't do any more than that. Other people have already suggested an "incremental approach" to you.

And I suggest you don't use Internet forums as a source. Are there any academic publications that deal with this issue? Use them, not Internet forums, which tend to generate more heat than light.

When you come to write a separate section in more detail, I suggest something like "The legacy of the Qing".

Bathrobe (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

《大义觉迷录》 was written by emperor Yongzheng,

Legacy is a good word, it can be expanded in different direction. There is no problem with source, e.g. 《大义觉迷录》 was written by emperor Yongzheng, and I can translate some passages into English and put it under 'Legacy'. It will be slow but it can be done. And I can translate 清史 and 明史, not a big problem. After I have done the translation, can I use template 'cquote' to avoid POV issue?Arilang1234 (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to ask you for a favor, is it possible for you or other editors to improve the 'English' of my additions? I know my level of English sometimes can be laughable, and far from CD standard.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to be careful about Original Research. The sources you mention are primary sources, but any comments you make, unless backed up by academic sources, will be regarded as original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. In other words, if you quote Yongzheng and then say "This shows that....", you are making your own interpretation of what he means and what it shows. You need to have good academic sources to support your edits.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bathrobe, you wrote: "Any reader can draw their own conclusions about massacres and rebellions without needing to be told that these events were heinous or evil." LOL! Well put! ☺ Coppertwig (talk)

What about this one

Reliable sources

Traditional Government in Imperial China: A Critical Analysis

• • (1)Chinese Wiki under GFDL, plenty of Chinese scholars essays and comments.
  • (2)Ch'ien Mu had written a book [http://www.chineseupress.com/asp/c_Book_card.asp?BookID=927&Lang=C Traditional Government in Imperial China: A Critical Analysis

By Ch'ien Mu Translated by Chün-tu Hsüeh and George O. Totten] can be a good source.

• • (3)Law to clear the shores 而清朝野蛮的迁海令却使得数百年来的航海成就毁于一旦，沿海地区千里无鸡鸣，航海贸易一落千丈，迟迟都不能恢复。这一后果直接导致了近代以来清朝的闭关锁国政策，使得中国航海技术远远落后于西方，最终让西方的军舰横行于中国海上。 This Chinese wiki is GFDL, so should not have any copy right issue.
  • (4)The Scholars

The Scholars (Chinese novel) is a very good source.

• • (5)Manchu rulers Kangxi, Qianlong, Dowager at various times have made adamant statements proclaiming their non-Chineseness, I can group them all under a section:Quotations of Qing rulers or something like that.
  • (6)Over the years CCTV produced many pro-Manchu TV dramas, CCTV is famous in PR for Manchu,"Lecture room" featured the guy got slapped in the face, still a hot issue on internet forums. These info can go under 'Legacy', minus the internet forums of course. But on second thought, the pro-Han(forced-to be-silenced majority) have no where to voice their protests except internet, so internet postings, or blogs, have to come into the picture somehow.Arilang1234 (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean that there are NO pro-Han academic writings ANYWHERE? Surely there are non-PRC writings and scholars writing in English who could be quoted! You seem to be interested only in the highly politicised Chinese-language world (and its high degree of politicisation is a big disadvantage. Your comment about the traditional view of the Boxer Rebellion only applies inside China, because outside China no-one would take seriously the "patriotic Chinese" stuff that is put around by the official line). Just because it is a Chinese topic does not mean that non-Chinese scholars should be excluded.

Incidentally, I find it interesting that you see the entire topic as one of "pro-Han" and "pro-Manchu". Is this how you really perceive the entire situation? As I've tried to show elsewhere, I think this misses the point. The problem that you are focussing on is how the Han perceive the period of Manchu rule in their own history. Adopting a "pro-Manchu" attitude is no less "pro-Han" than adopting an "anti-Manchu" attitude; the article is all about the viewpoint of the Han. Han who adopt a "pro-Manchu" attitude to the Qing are not being "anti-Han", they are merely adopting a different viewpoint on history. And as I've suggested, this may be based on a broader interpretation of the interests of the Han than the one that you represent.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bathrobe (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

spend a lot of times searching for pro-Han English books,

To tell you the truth, I have spend a lot of times searching for pro-Han English books, there seems to be not that many. I will continue the search. However, I think the main reasons are(1) Communist China suppress the pro-Han version of history, to serve their political gains. Just look at CCTV you know. (2) During Manchu times, they were very successful in destroying all those authors and their anti-Manchu books.

• (7)Have found one Joseph R. Levenson
  
• (8)Another one, but in Chinese:(David S. Nivison, “(9)Ho-shen and His Accusers: Ideology and Political Behavior in the Eighteenth Century.”)
• (10)Good news. I am reading Ch'ing Administration: Three Studies (Harvard-Yenching Institute Studies) by John King Fairbank , the real China expert. His observations should be good enough for Wikipedia.
• (11)Fields from the Sea by Jennifer Wayne Cushman this book is on Qing limited trade with SE Asia.

• (12)Printing and Book Culture in Late Imperial China by Cynthia Joanne this book is on how Manchu promote the culture of Mongol, Tibet and Xingjiang by translating and printing books for these 3 regions.

• • (13)The Chʻing Imperial Household Department by Preston M. Torbert this is the best one so far. You were right, bondsman, not chattel. This is what I am looking for.
  • (14)国学导航 中国历代政治得失》——钱穆 An essay by Qian MuArilang1234 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting consensus 2

The Cambridge History of China by Denis Crispin Twitchett, John King Fairbank

Passage from The Cambridge History of China by Denis Crispin Twitchett, John King Fairbank

“ In the administrative process, the official post brought memorials to the emperor in person from his high officials in the provinces. The Qing rulers used this system to secure intelligence from trusted officials all over the empire, who might submit special 'palace memorials' that were to be opened only by the Son of Heaven in person. Returned directly to the sender, these documents might bear instructions and moral exhortation in the imperial hand. ”

Passage from The Cambridge History of China: about Aisin Gioro

“ At the time of the conquest of Peking, Aisin Gioro represented about 23% of all rank holders. Manchus represented about about 16% of all Banners registrations. That put the rate of Aisin Gioro rank holding 43% higher than Manchu representation in the Banners generally, and the Manchu rank holders as a proportion of all rank holders more than 100% higher.Page 333 ”

“

The role of Dalai Lama:In the Hung Taiji and Xungji years the functions of the Court of Colonial Affairs were extented. It continued to manage matters associated with Mongol livelihoods, but increasingly oversaw the affairs of other regions as well....Szechuan, Yunnan, Kweichow, and parts of Burma, and the khojas of Turkestan...This regions were governed through the Court of Colonial Affairs as military regions outside the civil, bureaucratic government, a model based upon the early Qing rule over the "Mongols", particulary the Khalkha Khans of eastern Mongolia. From the Xungji period, the Court of Colonial Affiairs also became the locus for early communication with Tibet. After the Qing conquest of Peking in 1644, the court entered into direct communications with the Dalai Lama. From the time of his visit to Peking in 1651, the Court of Colonial Affairs became the Dalai Lamas bureaucratic arm as judge and arbitrator among the populations of eastern Mongolia and, after 1698, Tsinghai.Page 336

”

Denis Crispin Twitchett, John King Fairbank wrote on their book The Cambridge History of China on the Imperial Household Department(Nei-wu-fu)(zh:內務府)

“ The Imperial Household Department was the bureaucratic representative of the imperial patrimony- the land, herds, industries, and vending monopolies that were the private property of the imperial lineage....High ranking bondservants were the trusted and generously rewarded managers of the Imperial properties Page 324 ”

“ Sitting on top of these three echelons-- civil, military and supervisory--the emperor in his day-to-day administration dealt with a number of organs that helped preserve his power or helped him exercise it. Special offices handled the affairs of the imperial nobility and of the imperial clan and the bannermen as well as the imperial household in the palace with its eunuchs. The Imperial Household Department(Nei-wu-fu)(zh:內務府) collected very extensive revenues from a varity of sources--imperial lands, special taxes and tribute payments, including those on the Canton trade, monopolies of ginseng and furs, fines and confiscations, and the imperial kilns and silk manufactories. But these immense resources were kept secret, a special support of the Manchu dynasty, and quite separate from the revenues of the civil government.Page 26 ”

“ The outer court was the formal top of the administration in the Six Boards and other high offices, including the Grand Secretariat(Pinyin:Neige)(zh:内閣) inherited from the Ming. In the inner court were the less formal advisers and tools of the emperor--princes, empresses, concubines, eunuchs and others who assisted his administration on a personal basis, including at first certain 'inner Grand Secretaries' selected for this work and eventually the Grand Councillors(Pinyin:Junji Dachen)(zh:軍机大臣), who were set up about 1729 as a still less formal and more efficient body, originally to handle military campaigns. Through these various means and by complex procedures the imperial will was formed and expressed, providing the top decisions of the government pyramid.Page 26. ”

dq=Ch%27ing+Administration:+Three+Studies+(Harvard-Yenching+Institute+Studies)&hl=zh-TW&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=1_1#PPA26,M1 The Cambridge History of China by：Denis Crispin Twitchett, John King Fairbank

Arilang1234 (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting consensus 3

The Boo-i of the Imperial Household Department

The Boo-i of the Imperial Household Department

“ The Ch'ing Imperial Household Department(Nei-wu-fu) was an unusual and perhaps unique organization which handled primarily the emperor's personal affairs, but whose functions and influence extended far beyond the imperial palace..Throughout Chinese history those who supervised and cared for the emperor's personal affairs generally were eunuchs.page 1 ”

“ The general social organization of the Nei-wu-fu Boo-i, on the one hand, was partly bureaucratic, partly hereditary, and the Boo-i were responsible to banner leaders rather than to the emperor directly. In this regard the Nei-wu-fu boo-i were similar to state slaves. On the other hand, since the emperor represented the interests of the state, there was no institutional check on his use of bondservants. The boo-i, then, were a resource the emperor could avail himself of......Needless to say, such a situation left much room for abuse. ”

“ The War ofThe Three Feudatories Page.? ”

“ The conquest of Mongolia and Dzungharia:The vanguard role that the Qing assigned to Eight Banner Mongols and Khalkha Mongols who enlisted in the conquest was ultimately manifested in the numerical relationship of the Eight Banner Mongol populations to the nomadic populations of Mongolia and Dzungharia. The Qing records of the eighteenth-century campaigns in Mongolia and Turkestan report about a million dead on the Dzunghar side, and only tens of thousands of survivors.Page 355. ”

Boo-i, is a Manchu word for 'slave', 'household person', 'bondservant', or chattel. Slavery existed in China since ancient times, where slaves were permitted to make money, and when freedom could be bought with sufficient sum. Historians had observed that the Jurchen tribes employed Chinese agriculture slaves as early as 1400s, and it was common practice for Manchu military commanders to have their field and house slaves serving in 'Boo-i' units during military campaigns. The Manchu masters treated their slaves in much harsher terms than their Chinese counterparts, and punished their slaves with much more stiffer terms, such as to have their face tatooed,and then send the slaves to remote regions doing lifelong hard labour.

“ In 1673 the killing of a 'boo-i's slaves to accompany their dead master to the grave was outlawed ”

[http://books.google.com/books?id=heuaCqIrf60C&pg=PA239&dq=Ch%27ing+Administration:+Three+Studies+(Harvard-Yenching+Institute+Studies)&lr=&hl=zh-TW#PPA70,M1 The Chʻing Imperial Household Department

by Preston M. Torbert]

“ Although these policies....they do indicate that Manchu bondservants differed from their Chinese counterparts in two ways: their condition was apparently hereditary and more stable; and the state played a larger role in controlling and punishing Manchu bondservants who were insubordinate. Although the legal status of Chinese and Manchu people in bondage may have differed slightly before 1727, the functions they fulfilled in Qing society in the 17 and 18 centuries were often identical. Differences in the roles Chinese and Manchu bondservants played probably stemmed from the different positions occupied by their masters in the bureaucratic or military hierarchy.Page 58 The Chʻing Imperial Household Department by Preston M. Torbert ”

“ The bondservants and indentured servants of those Manchu and Chinese officials assigned to military and civil posts in the provinces engaged in various activities. They carried correspondence and gifts back and forth between the emperor and their masters, extorted sums from the postal stations, and caused such disorder that efforts were made to limit strictly the number of bondservants and indentured servants officials took with them to the provinces. In the local ares where their master served, they often exploited their control over access to him by collecting sums of money to see him from all commoners and lower officials. They also acted as their master's agents in helping him to carry out the many tasks that often demanded simultaneous action. ”

“ Governors and governors-generals stationed their indentured servants in the capital city of the province and allowed them freedom to exploit any opportunities they saw for making wealth through commerce or influence peddling. These indentured servants acquired such illicit authority that they became widely known as "officials". Those with a knack for business operated rice and silver shops, sold salt, jade, silks, and porcelain in the provinces where their masters served. ”

“ The bondservants and indentured servants of Manchu officials who served in Peking and entered the Forbidden City were involved in different kinds of misdeeds.Yongzheng, for instance, criticized the boisterous conduct of the bondservants who accompanied their masters into the Forbidden City to report to him. He also criticized Manchu high officials for sending their bondservants outside the city to buy up the limited supply of charcoal in the surrounding countryside where it was cheaper.Page ”

“ The control of the boo-i through the eight-banner organization made their status as bondservants anomalous, because bondage, like slavery, is essentially a definition of the conflicting claims of the master and the state over the bondservants. Slavery, the most extreme form of bondage, exists where the state leaves the slave completely to the will of his master, while slavery shades into serfdom and lesser form of bondage as the state interferes more in the relationship between master and slaves in order to protect its own interests and those of the slaves. In the case of the Nei-wu-fu, the emperor was at the same time the highest representative of the state as well as the master of the boo-i. Thus, a clearly expressed clash of interests between the state and the master of the boo-i could never occur as in the relationship of other masters to their bondservants.Page 63.The Chʻing Imperial Household Department by Preston M. Torbert ”

“ The Nei-wu-fu social structure can be divided into roughly four groups:(1)the state slaves(hsin-che-ku)(Manchu:sin jeku) (2)the indentured servants of the boo-i (3)the majority of the boo-i(4) a small boo-i elite.Page 65 The Chʻing Imperial Household Department

by Preston M. Torber

”

• @Bathrobe, please advice where should put 'Legacy' section

It should go at the end.

I'm pleased to find you are getting more sources. I was worried at your source above, (3)Law to clear the shores (而清朝野蛮的迁海令却使得数百年来的航海成就毁于一旦，沿海地区千里无鸡鸣，.... ), which you said was a Chinese wiki. Well, I had a look, and I couldn't even figure out who wrote it. A Wiki is not a source. Anyone can write anything on a Wiki. You need citations from scholars, not propagandists and pamphleteers. Do you know the difference?

The book "The Scholars" is also a primary source. You need academic citations with references to primary sources, not the primary sources themselves. And if you have a problem with the prohibition on Original Research, write to Jimbo Wales.

By the way, I can't see what "bondsmen" has to do with the legacy of the Qing. Legacy is literally 祖先传下来之物, 遗赠物. It is something that is left behind to future generations. Since when was the "bondsman" system left to future generations? You just want to write material that you feel reveals the hatefulness of the Qing, and you don't care where you put it. That is not improving the article, it is vandalism, pure and simple.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"bondsmen" is the key word in all these pro-anti debate. The official, or mainstream,(that means CCTV, China Ministry of Education, China Ministry of Propaganda, China Foreign Ministry, etc etc ) the central Chinese government have been canvassing pro-Manchu theme, by covering up(or just ignoring) the Manchus "bondsmen" system. Now we have reliable source on this "bondsman" system, every things become clear under the sunlight. On internet bbs forum, this 'bondsman' thread is a hot issue. And needless to say, the political implication is immense.

Chinese online dictionary

leave a legacy of trouble---evil legacy; harmful tradition; pernicious influence---Arilang1234 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't work. This does not belong to a "legacy" section. It belongs in a section on Manchu social and political organisation -- try the Manchu article. To the extent that it was reflected in the practices of the Qing empire, it should be mentioned. But only a sentence or two. Any more than that is to introduce polemics into the article.

You are not trying to paint an overall picture of the Qing dynasty, you are trying to select certain aspects and build them up into a long piece that reflects your dislike of the Manchus. That is POV. I don't know how to get through to you. You are like a squirrel who has a single minded belief that the only kind of food that is worth considering is acorns. So you want to rewrite the article on (say) "food gathering" to fully represent the importance of acorns. You need to get out of your squirrel brain and try to write an article that is of interest to more than just committed squirrels. At the moment your broadening of viewpoints seems to go no further than recognising that some squirrels are also interested in storing pine cones.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You can throw whatever kind of insults at me, it is ok, I had insulted others with much harsher words.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not insulting you; I am drawing an analogy. Whether you are a "squirrel" or a "POV warrior", you have a one-track mind and you seem to be totally blind to the fact that your edits to improve the article are adding lots of information that is designed to do only one thing -- express every bit of hatred that you have for the Manchus, and nothing else.

I would suggest that the discovery of the bondservant (not bondsman as in earlier edit) issue by the Chinese Internet community is not a big advance in scholarship, but it is a big advance in polemics. The problem is that the Qing dynasty is a political matter in China. The current government doesn't want to reveal too much because it will release all kinds of passions, upset their nicely packaged view of history, and have an unsettling influence on people's thinking. You and your Internet brethren have now discovered that the propaganda you have been fed wasn't the whole story. So you are all kicking up a big stink. That is your problem. If you read proper academic sources from the start, instead of believing government propaganda, you wouldn't have this problem. Now that you've discovered the truth, you want to rewrite everything to reflect your sense of outrage. That is not the way to write a balanced article. I wish you would stop treating Wikipedia as a blog to express the "horrible truth" that you've just discovered.

In fact, the article on the Qing dynasty is superior in some ways to what a Chinese could ever write. That's because Han Chinese automatically assume that the Qing was a Chinese dynasty. I suspect (I could be wrong) that no Han Chinese could even be bothered putting in the Manchurian terms and the Manchurian script, because for Han Chinese, Chinese is the only "proper" language for dealing with China. At monuments and sites around Beijing, I see Mongolian names transliterated into Chinese characters and then transliterated into English as pinyin! This is a total mangling of the Mongolian names, but Han Chinese don't see anything unnatural in doing that at all! It is as though there is only one way of looking at the world, and it's the Han Chinese way. Arilang, your total obesssion with showing how evil the Manchus were in treating the Han Chinese is really seeing the world from only one viewpoint, and your continued attempts to treat Wikipedia as a blog to express your outrage is a backward step, not a forward one.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bathrope, you are a white man, though you can read some Chinese, but you don't understand Wen Yan(文言), that is where the essence of Han Confucius teachings reside. You may have lived in Beijing, may be can say something in Mandarin, I am quite sure when you meet people from Canton, Fujian, Sichuen, Quijeou, Jiangnan, you have no idea what they are talking about, what they are thinking of. Bathrobe, you need to get out of this narrow-minded thinking of yours. It is wrong to simply paste labels on others, labels such as Han chauvinism are not real, they are made up by some racists people to instill hatred among people. I did say I hate Manchus, but now I know it is wrong to hate people. What I should have said is, I hate what they have done; that is all, and I do not hate them as fellow human beings.Arilang1234 (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. "Narrow-minded", "white man", "you can read some Chinese but you don't understand Wen Yan", "the essence of Han Confucius teachings". "You have no idea what they are talking about".

We are talking here about your poor edits, which you continue to forge ahead with. Your great knowledge doesn't seem to have equipped you with the knowledge to edit an article properly.

I don't want to get into a flame war with you, but I simply can't understand why you continue with your inappropriate edits. You can have all the Confucian knowledge that you want at your fingertips, but it's no use if you can't restrain yourself and start making sensible edits.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm curious. How many of these anti-Manchu people on the Internet advocate returning the territories that the Manchus invaded to their rightful owners -- by which I mean Tibet, Xinjiang, and Mongolia? Or is the anti-Manchu theme only directed at selected aspects of Manchu rule?

Bathrobe (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding. When slaves, or beggars come together in a forum to voice their grievances, most of the times they only talk about their own mis-fortune. Tibet or Xinjiang are too far away, mate.Arilang1234 (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Too far away"! These territories are the main reason that the Han did an about-face on the Manchus. You accuse the Chinese government of being "pro-Manchu". It's not because the Han Chinese ever particularly liked the Manchus. It's because they could see that they have more to lose by stirring up anti-Manchu sentiment than they have to gain. Despite the fact that they are "far-away", plenty of Han Chinese managed to find their way to these territories to swamp the original inhabitants.

I think it's a bit rich to quietly accept the territorial expansion that the Qing brought to China, and then turn around and start bitching about the Manchus. It's two sides of the one coin. If you want to be more than a bunch of slaves bitching about the injustices done to them, you have to look at the whole situation. Taking what the Manchus gave you with one hand while punching them with the other for the bad things they've done is just hypocrisy, and is hardly a decent basis to edit Wikipedia articles.

Bathrobe (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying White Australian like yourself should start to give back to the abos what Captain Cook took from them? You should put your words where your mouth is, action first, then you can talk.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not advocating returning these lands to the Mongolians, Tibetans, etc., I am merely pointing out that Manchu-bashers are hypocritical if they don't. You are the one who is obsessed with only one side of the Manchu question and it shows in your edits.

Incidentally, you should get your history straight. It wasn't Captain Cook who took the land from the "abos", as you call them.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I bet you will change your tone plus your choice of words if we do have a few abos online, not that they care enough to learn how to type. Who is the hypocrite.Arilang1234 (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use the word 'abo', you did. You are also the one casting aspersions on them by saying "not that they care enough to learn how to type". This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the Manchus and the Qing, and you are totally off base for saying such things. Whatever I may have written, whether you found it disagreeable or not, has been related to the treatment of Qing history. Can you say the same for your own outbursts?

Bathrobe (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Given your feelings about the Manchus, perhaps this much earlier version of the page would be more to your liking: [4]

Bathrobe (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not much difference really. I think Imperial Household Department(Nei-wu-fu)(zh:內務府) deserved a place somewhere, together with the Baoyi(bondsman) system. Very often Emperors used Baoyi and eunuchs to do their dirty jobs. Arilang1234 (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Eunuchs were hardly unique to the Qing. Ray Huang (talking about the Ming) argues that in reality, eunuchs represented the personal will of the Emperor, while the officials represented the alternate political will of the bureaucracy. The clash between them would thus have been a clash of ideologies or political agenda. (1587, A Year of No Significance: The Ming Dynasty in Decline|year=1981|publisher=Yale University Press|Location=New Haven|id=ISBN 0-300-02518-1). Was there a difference between eunuchs under the Qing and earlier dynasties?

Bathrobe (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Baoyi(bondsman) and Nucai(zh:奴才) of the Imperial Household Department(Nei-wu-fu)(zh:內務府)

I am fully aware of eunuchs in all the dynasties, they were notorious all the time. What is unique about Qing is heavy reliance on Baoyi(bondsman) and Nucai(zh:奴才) of the Imperial Household Department(Nei-wu-fu)(zh:內務府) for the purpose of serving the royal families. Another unique characteristic of Qing is the complete iron-fist grip on CHINA by this Manchu tribe of a few millions at the most, and amazingly this absolute rule actually lasted 300 years! By reading Fairbank's book, it is very clear the the Manchu ruled China by absolute power. This was not the case in other dynasties, as I had explained before, all the other dynasties were more or less controlled by the beaureucrates. The emperor's power were somehow checked and limited by various ministers. Many historians have concluded that Qing represented the darkest era in Chinese history. Plus ethnic cleansing. Han Chinese dynasties had never conducted ethnic cleansing on others.Arilang1234 (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why bother with consensus if editors keep ignoring it?

In spite of advice to create a separate article on the Yangzhou massacre and not to put a long section on the Macartney embassy in the Qing article when a separate, detailed article already exists, Arilang has persisted in trying to pack this information into the main Qing article. I have a good idea why he wants to do this, but frankly, it is bad editing. I've put up a rather hastily constructed article on the Yangzhou massacre incorporating information from the Qing article and the article on Wang Xiuchu, which Arilang also packed with Yangzhou massacre information. All in all the effect is what Wikipedia should be aiming for: longer articles covering a particular topic in broad detail, and more detailed articles that readers can refer to if they want to understand specifics. I'm not sure why this could not have been done in the first place.

I don't have time to be constantly cleaning up this kind of thing and I hope that other editors can help our enthusiastic friend. The idea that anti-Qing material can be inserted in great detail anywhere an editor thinks fit is NOT creating a better encyclopaedia.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Arilang's edits

Imperial Household

Arilang, as I asked you before, please describe your proposed changes on the talk page for discussion before editing the article.

You wrote: "Chancery of the Imperial Household (zh:总管内务府衙门), the headquarter."

"zh" doesn't mean anything in English. You can say that on talk pages, but please don't write it in the article. Also, as I told you before, please don't put Chinese characters into an article without also putting a version pronounceable by English speakers (pin-yin, Wade-Giles or English translation).

Arilang, you have put a link to a Google books page that has many Chinese characters on it. Can you find the English version of the Google books page and use that as a link? I don't know what search terms you used, and I haven't been able to find the same link in English. (The text of the page is in English, but much of the information around the sides of the page is in Chinese characters.)

Arilang, you used this reference: "The Chʻing Imperial Household Department by Preston M. Torbert". Please give more information. What year was it published? What page is the information from? (Please give page numbers for your other references, too.) What is the name of the publisher? Always give all this information when you use books as references.

Arilang, you've removed wikilinks from many words. (I mean, for example, you changed Taipeng Rebellion to Taipeng Rebellion.) Why did you do that? I think it's OK for Taipeng Rebellion, because there's a wikilink somewhere else on the page. Are there other wikilinks for all the other words you removed wikilinks from? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

@Coppertwig, I have fix the pinyin of Chinese words I put in. The reason I put in Chinese words, is because those were important Qing departments, such as (1) Imperial Household Department (2)Privy Council. These two departments, were the most intimate, and the most important departments in Qing court. Imperial Household Department dealt with the everyday life of the Royal Palace. And Privy Council was the nerve center of Manchu empire. All the major decisions, going to wars, huge construction projects, were conducted within Privy Council. The original Qing article gave it a passing comment with only ONE sentence! The Imperial Household Department didn't even got mentioned! I do not understand the logic behind.

• About "link to a Google books page" I can explain. The reason why so much Chinese text pop up, because I am using Chinese Window XP, instead of English Window XP, so Google Book automatically gave me the Chinese version of Google Book. I will try to find the English version of Google Book, then should fix the problem.(p.s. error fixed)
• About "The Chʻing Imperial Household Department by Preston M. Torbert" I will try to fix it.(p.s. error fixed)
• About removing links, I only remove them when I think they are excessive. Sometimes I made mistakes.
• Thanks for pointing out my mistakes, I will try not to repeat them next time.Arilang1234 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed sentences to be included into Qing and other related articles

Proposed sentences

• • New section:The role of Boo-i in Manchu society.

1. Boo-i Aha, a Manchu term for 'house slave', or 'household person', 'bondservant', or chattel. Boo-i is synonmous with Booi Aha.Since 1400s, Jurchen tribes(ancestors of Manchus) had been using Han slaves and other ethnic races as bondservants working on their farms. Han slaves and other ethnic races bondservants had been enlisted into military 'boo-i units' as a fighting force in all their many wars with other tribes.
2. Boo-i owning was a common practice in Qing's times, Han Chinese as well as Manchs were legally permitted to own slaves, or boo-i(bondservant).
3. The Imperial Household Department was operated by a large group of boo-i(bondservants), and Manchu emperors were the ultimate Slave Masters. The boo-i of the Imperial Household Department (Chinese:Nei Wu Fu) can be divided into roughly four groups:(a)the state slaves(Manchu:sin jeku) (b)the indentured servants of the boo-i (c)the majority of the boo-i(d) a small boo-i elite
4. When Manchu and Chinese officials were assigned to military and civil posts in the provinces, they brought large numbers of boo-i(bondservants) to be used in many activities. They carried correspondence and gifts back and forth between the emperor and their masters, extorted sums from the postal stations....They also acted as their master's agents in helping him to carry out the many tasks that often demanded simultaneous action.Boo-i(bondservant) were known to have operated rice and silver shops, trading in salt, jade, silks, and porcelain in the provinces where their masters served.
5. The boo-i(bondservants) of Manchu officials who served in Peking and entered the Forbidden City were involved in many illegal questionable commercial dealings.

Source:The Chʻing Imperial Household Department by Preston M. TorbertArilang1234 (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose many of these edits. I don't have time to check every page of Preston, but I would like you to point out where he says the Manchu emperors were the "ultimate Slave Masters". There are also sources that I posted that made it quite clear that Han were not the only ethnic group to be forced to serve as boo-i. Try "The Manchu Way" (posted at the Manchu talk page). If you continue to ignore this source you can only be regarded as wilfully twisting the facts.

Stop using the emotionally-loaded word "slave" as the standard term. The normal term in English is "bondservant". Also check "The Manchu Way" for the actual meaning of boo-i.

Mentioning that the boo-i were engaged in illicit dealings is fine, but you should perhaps also mention that the Manchus tried to extend stronger control over traditional Chinese slaves because of illegal activities by those slaves. Otherwise you are making it sound as though the boo-i have a monopoly on illicit activities.

I still feel that you are pushing POV, which is not an improvement to the article. It's very difficult to fix edits that are full of POV. It's a choice between the time-consuming task of reviewing sources and going through and rewriting the whole lot, or deleting the whole lot. If your edits were less POV they would be quite useful, but they are not the way they are now.

Bathrobe (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bathrobe for your comments, I will try to amend the content of my addition and make it NPOV. Please remember my total time on Wikipedia is less than 3 months, and I need all the help you can offer.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Academic discussions on historical events

Manchu's racial superiority and Nazi Germany Aryan race

“ apart from the place of the Eight Banners in Manchu military and political organization, this institution helped from the start to articulate a common Manchu ethnic identity, a role grew in importance during the long Qing peace.page xvii on The Manchu Way ”

• • Bathrobe, is the author trying to tell us that Manchus were into 'military rule' using the Eight Banners system, much like modern day's military junta, and hinted at the similarlity between Manchu's maintaining racial superiority and the Nazi Germany 's Aryan race theory?

“ ..in Charter 3, where I elaborate on the ways in which the banner system functioned as an instrument for buliding the state and, simultaneously, reinforcing ethnic distinctions.Page xvii, The Manchu ways. ”

• • This statement says it all. Eight Banners is both a military and Racial Segregation instrument.Arilang1234 (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the whole system was designed to maintain Manchu control over their empire and maintain the Manchus as a distinct ethnic group. This can be found in plenty of sources.

As for the analogy with Nazi Germany, military juntas, and the Aryan race, is that your analysis or the author's? I think you need some explicit sources for that. I'm sure the system was marked by racial segregation, but whether it was accompanied by an ideology of superiority is another question.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany or not, military junta is very obvious.

Nazi Germany or not, military junta is very obvious. Just look at Qing#Privy Council 軍机大臣, the name explained everything. 軍机 ,as in military confidential, or military secrets, or military importance. I think the author's conclusion is that the Manchus were very suscessful in using the Banners system to rule for 300 years, and at the same time have created a new ruling class:The Banner people, when other ethnicity can join in as long as they conform to the rule of the Manchu king( or Empress, in the case of Empress Dowager)Arilang1234 (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

“ From this perspective, the empire of the Qing was truly a Manchu empire, not a Chinese one.Page 5 The Manchu Way ”

This is exactly what I am trying to do with all those editings.The big picture is, Qing was not a Chinese empire, a lot of Chinese historians(beside maainstream historians of the Communist China) would agree too.Arilang1234 (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You want to apply the term "military junta" to the Qing dynasty? Find sources for this usage first. Perhaps we should similarly apply the term "dictatorship" to pre-Manchu dynasties? I can't see any Chinese dynasties that could be described as "democratic"!

I have never disagreed that the Qing were not a Chinese empire! This has never been a point on which we disagreed! The problem is in the implications of this.

If you think that the Qing were not a Chinese empire, I think you have to explore what it actually was from a neutral viewpoint, not the viewpoint of Manchu oppression of the Han destiny. (Any history that says "if the Manchus hadn't dominated us, we would have... " is pure speculation and can't be proved.)

Bathrobe (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

military junta

"Qing dynasty,a version of military junta that began at seventeen century, and lasted till nineteen century." For this statement alone, I will have no problem to verify it using Chinese sources. But citing English text books, I shall have problems. As you probably know, there aren't that many Fairbank or Elliot around, when the bulk of the primary sources is in either Chinese or Manchu.

• • • Willow Palisade is another means of racial segregation."ideology of superiority" was naturally involved,"restriction on intermarriage between Manchus and Chinese" is another evidence. Manchus and Mongols did marry each others. And Willow Palisade was the reason why vast areas were claimed and occupied by the Russians.Arilang1234 (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when was an ideology of superiority "naturally" involved? How about an ideology of "self-preservation"? You have no basis for stating that an "ideology of superiority was naturally involved", other than your own POV.

As for the losing of vast areas to Russia, well, given that these areas basically didn't belong to China before the Qing, it's nothing to do with China if the Manchus lost them or not. Let's put it this way, the Manchus might have lost them, but neither the Manchus nor their territory was Chinese. Isn't that what you were saying above -- the Manchus weren't Chinese? You can't have it both ways!

123.121.215.217 (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Page xviii The Manchu Ways

“ I frame this as the evolution of Manchus into banner people and of banner people as Manchus....a coherent Manchu ethnic identity persisted, thanks largely to the survival of the banner system.Page xviii The Manchu Ways ”

I think Elliott's conclusion is, without being too obvious, Manchus=Bannerman=Martial Law. That is reading between the lines, of course. But then it may be not, since Bannerman system remained a military system in all those 300 years of Manchu rule. Bannerman had never been converted into civilian use, all the members were suppose to practice horsemanship and archery, even during peace times. Would you agree if I suggest "Bannerman system was a form of Martial Law administered by the Manchu of the pre-modern eras."Arilang1234 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Martial law? Doesn't apply! "Martial law is sometimes imposed during wars or occupations in the absence of any other civil government." How do you square this definition with the Qing government. It was a civil government, like any other. All governments have some kind of military basis. You can't accuse the Manchus of "martial law" just because it institutionalised a system of banners. And like State-run enterprises in the New China, the functions of the banners was not simply military. What about 屯田? Were they subject to "martial law"? You can't throw words with precise meanings about in imprecise ways merely because you want to damn your opponent.

123.121.215.217 (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

西域最早的屯田，是漢武帝于公元前１０１年開設 屯田 was done by all the dynasties, including Qing.I do not think it was "martial law", it was a means to supply food to any military actions conducted by the central government. Dictators should stick, because Qing emperor as the Commander in Chief, could started any war he fancied, as long as the Privy Council approved it, and nearly all the Privy Councilors were Manchu and Mongol princes. I think it was kind of military junta. Could any other editors provide some insights?Arilang1234 (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain your definition of martial law, please.

And how is "dictator" applicable to the Qing emperor but not previous emperors?

If you insist on using emotive 20th-century terminology, you'd better have some pretty clear and strict definitions of the terms, and why they should specifically be applied only to the Qing.

(Below) By the way, the U.S. president is also the Commander in Chief. Does that make him a dictator?

Bathrobe (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

His rule was extremely personal as well as ritualistic, and in theory was all-powerful

If you think it is difficult to apply 20th century terminology in Qing eras, we can simply stop from doing it.Arilang1234 (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

“ .His rule was extremely personal as well as ritualistic, and in theory was all-powerful.Twitchett and Fairbank ”

Qing emperor=Commander in chief=Dictactor.Arilang1234 (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

“ In 1634, concern about the adoption of Chinese titles by some members of the Manchus elite prompted the khan, Hong Taiji, to issue the following warnings:I have heard that among the nations that have accepted Heaven's charge and founded an enterprise(i.e., established a dynasty for ruling China), none has abandoned their own language and turned instead to use the language of another nation.No nations that have abandoned their own language and taken up another nation's language have prospered....What I fear is this: that the children and grandcuildren of later generations will abandon the Old Way, neglect shooting and riding, and enter into the Chinese Way. Page 9 The Manchu Way ”

It is very clear from Hong Taiji's speech, when he mentioned another nation and Chinese, he was actually referring to Ming Chinese. So his military excursion into China Proper should be classified as a military invasion of then Ming dynasty. Is this a fair statement?Arilang1234 (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly fair. And you could find plenty of sources to back you up. The current article is rather cute (and frankly inaccurate) when it says: "The dynasty was founded by the Manchu clan Aisin Gioro in what is today northeast China (Manchuria). Starting in 1644 it expanded into China proper and its surrounding territories, establishing the Empire of the Great Qing". This implies that the dynasty existed prior to its expansion into China. Well, if it hadn't expanded into China, would it still have been a dynasty? And when it "expanded" into China, it became an empire? So a potential dynasty located in Manchuria is already called a dynasty. And when it covers all of China it becomes not a dynasty but an empire???!!!! The wording is very strange!

Bathrobe (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you 100%. Now your English is better than mine, shouldn't you write something to rectify its apparent historical errors?Arilang1234 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it. I'll need to see how it's referred to in sources and see the original wording (sometimes edits can cause problems that weren't originally there :) )

Bathrobe (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposed sentences to be included into Qing and other related articles

Revised proposed sentences

Editors are welcome to suggest changes to make it more NPOV and less POV

• • New section:The role of Boo-i in Manchu society.

1. Boo-i Aha, a Manchu term for 'household person', 'bondservant', or chattel. Boo-i is synonmous with Booi Aha.Since 1400s, Jurchen tribes(ancestors of Manchus) had been using Han and other ethnic races as bondservants working on their farms. Han and other ethnic races bondservants had been enlisted into military 'boo-i units' as a fighting force in all their many wars with other tribes.
2. Boo-i owning was a common practice in Qing's times, Han Chinese as well as Manchus were legally permitted to own boo-i(bondservant).
3. The Imperial Household Department was operated by a large group of boo-i(bondservants). The boo-i of the Imperial Household Department (Chinese:Nei Wu Fu) can be divided into roughly four groups:(a)the state slaves(Manchu:sin jeku) (b)the indentured servants of the boo-i (c)the majority of the boo-i(d) a small boo-i elite
4. When Manchu and Chinese officials were assigned to military and civil posts in the provinces, they brought large numbers of boo-i(bondservants) to be used in many activities. They carried correspondence and gifts back and forth between the emperor and their masters, extorted sums from the postal stations....They also acted as their master's agents in helping him to carry out the many tasks that often demanded simultaneous action.Boo-i(bondservant) were known to have operated rice and silver shops, trading in salt, jade, silks, and porcelain in the provinces where their masters served.
5. The boo-i(bondservants) of Manchu officials who served in Peking and entered the Forbidden City were involved in many questionable commercial dealings.

Source:The Chʻing Imperial Household Department by Preston M. TorbertArilang1234Arilang1234 (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The ' proposed sentences to be included' has been at this talk pages for a few days, there was no objection, so I decided to add those sentences into Qing. However, editors are still more than welcome to discuss the issue of NPOV and POV with me on this talk page anytime of the day.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Qing dynasty was built on slavery?

Qing dynasty was built on slavery?

“ ...Chinese renegades and captives were of considerable importance. From the early 15 century, when diplomatic and military contacts with the Chinese of southern Manchuria became more frequent, and Jurchen captured Chinese peasants on plunder raids on border settlements and welcomed renegade Chinese soldiers into their camp....Some historians have characterized these Chinese as field slaves who provided the economic basis for the spectacular growth of Jurchen military and political power in the 16 and early 17 centuries. Some historians suggested that the slaves played a more significant role.Page 15 the Imperial Household Department ”

“ Although sources indicate that some Jurchen had household slaves in the fourteenth century and that most Jurchen had slaves of some types in the early seventeenth century, the specific type of bondservants that characterized the Imperial Household Department seems to have risen mainly during the Jurchen conquest of the eastern fringes of the Liao River basin in the 1610s and 1620s. This conquest greatly increased the numbers of captives. The taking of Fu-shun in 1618, for instance, added 300,000 people to the Jurchen state. These large accretions of population brought about a change in policy. During the first year of conquest(to 1624), the captured Chinese were generally enslaved, and bore obligations to private persons, while later(in 1624-1625) they were often enrolled in the ranks of the semi-dependent agriculture class, jusen, who bore obligations to the state.Page 16. The Ching Imperial Household Department Preston M. Torbert ”

“ The genealogical records of the bondservants of the emperor and other banner leaders, although offering a very restricted picture, are helpful in sketching a general outline of the origins of these private slaves. The personnel of the Imperial Household Department were the emperor's bondservants and most were descendants of Chinese captured during the conquest of this area. The genealogical records, as we might expect, indicate that by far the greatest number of Chinese bondservants of the emperor and other banner leaders came from Fu-shun and Shen-yang, which were captured in 1618 and 1621, a period when most Chinese captives were enslaved. The Chinnese captives were the most numerous group that worked in the ruler's household, but other nationalities were also present. The majority of the bondservants before 1618 seem to have been Jurchen, with substantial numbers of Koreans and some Mongols. After the conquest of the Liao River basin in the 1620s, however, Chinese came to constitute a little over half of the total number of the emperor's bondservants before the conquest of China. At this time Manchus constituted about 30% of the bondservants, while Mongols and Koreans were about 6% and 7% respectively. The Manchu bondservants came from amoung criminals or indigent peasants within Manchu society, while the Koreans and Mongols were probably, like the Chinese, mainly war captives. Of the Manchu bondservants of the emperor,at least 48% seem to have been descendants of men who had entered his service before 1636.For Koreans the percentage was at least 80 and for Mongols at least 14. Comparable information for Chinese bondservants is unfortunately, lacking.Page 16-17, The Ching Imperial Household Department, Preston M. Torbert ”

By reading this book, Ching Imperial Household Department, a very clear picture, emerged, the slaves, or bondservants, played a very important part in the social and military history of Qing. The original editors(whoever they were) missed out this topic on purpose, maybe they were thinking the historical record of slavery might bring shame to Manchu? I can only speculate. I am going to add this missing information into Qing, to make it a more balance and NPOV article. Any comments, and helps, are welcome.Arilang1234 (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your speculation is unwarranted. If you look at the history of the article from the very beginning, you can see how it developed. Like many things on Wikipedia, the evolution into an organised article is a long, sometimes haphazard process. People add sections, delete sections, and reorganise material. Sometimes there is vandalism. Whenever material is added, or deleted, or reorganised, or vandalised, there are often loose ends, or pieces that no longer make sense, or sections that don't fit into the article any more. Inevitably, things get lost because editors don't know the topic, can't make sense of what is written, or sense that there is POV. Sometimes things remain in the article from the very first edit that are not ideal, but no one has ever fixed them up. If you want to see how this happens, just look at the history!

Your material is fine. Bu you can't say straight out that the Manchu state was built on slavery, UNLESS YOU CAN FIND AN ACADEMIC SOURCE THAT HAS ACTUALLY SAID SO. The problem with the material above is writing it into a succinct paragraph or two, and finding where it can be placed without totally disrupting the flow of the article.

Bathrobe (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

'The origin and the role of Boo-i in Manchu Qing society'

@Bathrobe, I notice that 'The origin and the role of Boo-i in Manchu Qing society' has been removed because it was placed on a wrong section, I agree with you. Could you suggest a better location for the article? I am still reading the book The Ching Imperial Household Department, and it certainly shows that Manchu regime was very much into slavery, and there is no denial.
(1) The whole Imperial Household Department was operated by four different ranks of Boo-i=house servants=house slaves=bondservants.
(2)War captives and descendents of captives were all grouped into fighting units under boo-i banner , the stipends were normally low.
(3)Official send to provinces were having large numbers of boo-i(bondsrevants) who were then engaged in various kind of business activities.
(4) Civilian Han Chinese were legally permitted to own boo-i(house slaves). That means slaves were all over the place. It really should be renamed as a slave regime, or slave state
(5)The tradition continued into 1900 when you have Coolies and Slave Trade. Many Chinese Coolies with pigtail were building the America railroad.
@Bathrobe, History of slavery#ChinaArilang1234 (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still very concerned at your tendency to concentrate on certain aspects and use extreme language. You are not an observer enlightening the reader, you are a person with a mission who is trying to paint a black picture of one particular group. I don't know how often you need to be told you can't do a good job editing Wikipedia if you persist in that kind of thinking.

In fact, your attempts at labels often backfire in a ridiculous way. When you decided to call the Manchu empire a "Slave State", did you even bother to check where the link to slave state leads to? I suspect not. And by the way, you can't use the term "slave state" in any of your edits unless you can find some respected academic who actually uses that term. Otherwise it is only your personal opinion.

As for the tradition of coolies, you would need to show that this was a specifically Manchu thing before you start linking it with boo-i or anything else. This is usually known not as slavery but as indentured labour. Please find more about the origins of this practice before you even start to try to blame it on the Manchus.

The "slaves all over the place" conclusion should really be held back until you have a better idea how the Manchu system compared with other eras of Chinese history. I'm not saying that the Manchus were not marked by this kind of relationship, but given that other dynasties also had slaves (per your link), you would be on very dangerous ground if you tried to maintain that the Manchus were worse than others. You need academic proof, not just your own prejudices, to start throwing accusations like that around.

With regard to the placement of the boo-i, you might find it better to place most of it in the article on History of slavery. Also with regard to the issue of "slaves" (as you continue to call them, despite being warned against indiscriminate use of the term), I seem to remember reading that this institution was not something exclusive to the Manchus; it was practised generally in that part of the world.

Bathrobe (talk)

(No.2)Proposed sentences to be included into Qing

Editors are welcome to suggest changes to make it more NPOV and less POV

1. Qing forbid inter-marriage between Han Chinese-Manchus and Han Chinese-Mongols.Han Chinese were prohibited from migrating into the Manchu homeland, intermarriage between Han-Manchu were prohibited(more details coming)
2. Eight Banner garrisons built in provincial cities were to intimate the population.(more details coming)Arilang1234 (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

These are not controversial, unless you try to work them into a rant. These things are well known. I would, however, take exception to the use of "intimidate the population". Armed forces and police of any kind anywhere will tend to serve a similar function. Every state is ultimately based on the threat or use of force. Violent cult groups in the US were dealt with by force, not by reason. Don't try and use language that demonises the Manchus.

Bathrobe (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

a spade is a spade

@Bathrobe:About the use of "slaves", please read the book The Ching Imperial Household Department Preston M. Torbert page 15-17. The word "slaves" was used many times, I did not invent it. Common, a spade is a spade. And that statement "intimate the population" was a quote from the book too, I can tell you which page it was from.Quote:Violent cult groups in the US were dealt with by force, not by reason. end of quote. One day you called Manchu Qing pre-modern, the next day you compare Manchu Qing with the USA. WHO is the hypocrite???
@Bathrobe, Manchu Qing promote Death by a Thousand cuts, how can you compare USA with Manchus? Manchus conducted mass murders on millions and millions of Muslim, Mongols, koreans, Han Chinese, and turned whatever left into slaves, and commanded the slaves to work in the field or to fight in wars. These facts are all documented in books. No need for me to demonises the Manchus at all.Arilang1234 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am becoming rather fed up with your constant inability to temper your bias. Just to take one example, the Death of a thousand cuts leads to Slow slicing. At this article it says: "Slow slicing (Traditional Chinese: 凌遲, Simplified Chinese: 凌迟, Pinyin: língchí, alternately transliterated Ling Chi or Leng T'che), also translated as the slow process, the lingering death, or death by a thousand cuts, was a form of execution used in China from roughly AD 900 to its abolition in 1905."

This suggests (unless it is inaccurate) that the Manchus did not originate death of a thousand cuts. So why do we keep getting this single-minded focus on the Manchu dynasty? Is it not possible for you to stop your single-minded focus on one theme, and one theme only, from clouding your language and your ability to make coherent, non-inflammatory edits? Every word you write has only one purpose: "The Manchus were bad. The Manchus were bad."

I think we should forget about this experiment. Your bias appears to be too strong to allow you to become a better editor. I'm not talking about facts. Facts are fine. But you are not selling facts. You are selling historical hatred.

I suggest you go and start your own website. You can write up all your research as much as you want. You can use words like "slave state". You can use words like "dictator". The "master slave-driver". No one will tell you you can't write it. But as long as you are writing on Wikipedia, you've got to stick to unemotive, balanced language, and you've got to find academic sources that fully support what you write. And no matter what Preston says, you can't take his work as a basis for saying that the Qing emperors were "master slave-drivers".

Bathrobe (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here I am quoting academic books, presenting historical facts, the facts are on books written by historians John king Fairbank, and you refuse to look at the facts, refuse to have an academic discussion based on facts; instead you are guessing about my emotion(hate Manchu), and start putting words into my mouth. I said

“ Manchu Qing promote Death by a Thousand cuts ”

,and you turned it around and accuse me

“ This suggests (unless it is inaccurate) that the Manchus did not originate death of a thousand cuts. So why do we keep getting this single-minded focus on the Manchu dynasty? ”

My friend, English English English! I am beginning to blush! Someone cannot tell the difference between "promote" and "originate". And I thought I am supposed to be a Chin Chong China Man!!!Arilang1234 (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not English, my friend, but your focus. I know you said "promote". The fact that you used "promote" only illustrates my point. Your sole, undiluted focus is still on showing how bad the Manchus were, to the extent that you'll take a practice adopted by both Han and non-Han dynasties, and use it to damn the Manchus.

Go and edit the article. I really have no interest in battling someone who is incapable of shaking free of their bias long enough to write a decent article. And when you've finished with it, please go and find someone else to fix it. I'm frankly not interested.

Bathrobe (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone

I don't know how far back the disagreement between the two of you goes, so I won't comment on any editor's general orientation to history. Arilang1234: could you define what you mean by "promote lingchi" that would distinguish the Qing from, say, the Ming? And concerning Han migrations into the northeastern provinces, you should certainly point out that after a long period of interdiction, the Qing throne eventually encouraged Han migration into the Manchu homeland. Just a few thoughts...--Madalibi (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Grand Council, not Privy Council

The standard term for the Junji chu 軍機處 in English-language scholarship is Grand Council, not "Privy Council." The Junji dachen 軍機大臣 (those who sit on the Grand Council) are simply called "Grand councillors." Someone should probably edit the section on Qing government so that it uses a consistent terminology. The wiki that is currently called "Privy Council" should be changed to "Grand Council." The article could explain that the Grand Council was a kind of Privy Council, but we should refrain from translating Junji chu as "Privy Council." What do you all think?--Madalibi (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that I'm reading it in detail, I notice that the current section on the "Privy Council" is a mess!

1. Not a single eunuch, concubine, or empress ever sat on the Grand Council!

2. What is a "Royal advisor"?!

3. What does "the Privy Council was a less formal and more efficient administrative tool"? Less formal than what? More efficient than what?

4. Less a matter of accuracy than one of form: the new subtitle on the "Privy Council" should be separated from other explanations of the structure of the central government. Right now, we have a wiki called "Privy Council" that contains discussions of the Six ministries and the Court of Colonial Affairs, which were not part of the Grand Council.

5. Finally, the new sentence "Ministers posted to the Grand Council served as the emperor's Privy Council(zh:軍机处 pinyin:Junji Chu) and they were collectively known as privy councillors(zh:軍机大臣 pinyin:Junji Dachen.)" is referred to a book by Beatrice Bartlett called Monarchs and Ministers: The Grand Council in Mid-Ch'ing China, 1723-1820. The terms in the new sentence are not from Bartlett at all.

In other words, this section needs a big clean-up!--Madalibi (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome welcome welcome! For a while I was thinking no one else is interested in 19 century Chinese history! Take you time, pick every errors and correct them, this is Wikipedia, after all.

The phrase "the Privy Council was a less formal and more efficient administrative tool" not from me, may be from Fairbank, not too sure.
@Madalibi, it was from Preston, M. Torbert (1977). The Chʻing Imperial Household Department: A Study of Its Organization and Principal Functions, 1662-1796.Arilang1234 (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang1234! I wasn't singling you out in particular. I just think the article should be corrected and that it needs to use consistent terminology. Maybe Fairbank was comparing the Grand Council with the Grand Secretariat (Neige 內閣), which used to be the main organ of the central government soon before the Grand Council was created. The Grand Council was indeed less formal and more efficient than the Grand Secretariat, but it we don't mention the original comparison, then it's difficult for the reader to understand what "less formal" and "more efficient" are referring to. What do you think?--Madalibi (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

On long citations in the text

I don't think long citations from scholarly works look too good on this page. Editors should consult the wikis on the Tang Dynasty, Song Dynasty, and Ming Dynasty, all three of which have become featured articles, the highest quality level for Wikipedia articles. None contains long quotations from secondary sources.--Madalibi (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
@Madalibi, you can fix any errors, just go ahead and do it. I am new here, time on Wiki is less than 3 months. Or may be you should be my teacher, what you think?Arilang1234 (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang1234, I've actually been editing Wikipedia for less than two months (and not very actively), so I'm not sure I can be much of a help! You seem eager to add information to the Qing page, which is fine with me. But maybe before you add anything substantial, you could look at the excellent page on the Ming dynasty. I learned a lot from that page myself, because it is one of only about 1500 Wikipedia articles (out of 1.8 million!) to have been granted the title of "featured article." Look at it to see what kind of information, what kind of tone, what kind of format (sections, sub-sections, integrated paragraphs, etc.), and what kind of footnotes it uses. If you stick to that format, tone, etc., you can't go wrong! Maybe you should also think of making edits that will not need further editing. It's ok if you get some translations off ("Privy Council") and if the grammar needs correction: just try to make sure you find the right section for your contributions, and that the citations you insert don't come out of nowhere and don't interrupt a section that used to be internally consistent. With this kind of guideline, I'm sure you will do a great job on Wikipedia!--Madalibi (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Madalibi for your encouragement. Frankly speaking, my English is not up to that kind of standard. To improve Qing's quality up to something like Ming, we need to get those editors to come over here. I am good at spotting the flaws of an article, or what is missing, but no good at writing 'perfect English', if you know what I mean.

Hi Arilang1234. Don't worry about your English. Other editors will be happy to help you with that! I was just thinking that we should all try to imitate the excellent format of the Ming, Tang, and Song) articles: we should write one or two explanatory sentences instead of giving a lot of examples; we should avoid long quotations; we should stick to relatively short sections that hold together well, etc. I'm sure you'll have no problem doing this even if your English is not perfect. In the mean time, the editor who brought the Tang, Song, and Ming pages to "featured article" status is working on the Han-dynasty wiki, so I doubt he will join us here anytime soon.

If you think that some important information on the Qing is missing from Wikipedia (and I agree that a lot is missing), try to think of the best place to insert the new data. Some of the information you think is important might actually belong in secondary articles (check Literary inquisition, for example). You can also create new sub-sections in existing articles, but it's best to use your "sandbox" to prepare the section before posting it. You can even start a whole new page ("Society of the Qing dynasty," "Imperial Household Department," etc.). These are all important topics that deserve better treatment. But I think most of the details should be in the secondary articles: the page on the Qing dynasty should be a general survey on the Qing, not a collection of detailed monographs on all possible topics. Otherwise the article will simply get too messy... and far too long. All right, gotta go!--Madalibi (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, other editors are not happy to clean up this incredibly poor English and poor editing. If Arilang's English is not up to it, I suggest he should try his hand at Chinese Wikipedia. That's his native language and is the proper place for the deployment of his unique insight and talents.

Bathrobe (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

@Bathrobe, when I made mistake, I openly admitted it and apolozised for it. And I have never engaged in personal attack on other users, unless abusive remarks were thrown at me.Arilang1234 (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your comments about "abusive remarks" is that any honest appraisal of your editing abilities and POV problems is going to be regarded as "abuse" by you. No one is allowed to criticise you. The only kind of person you will accept is the "teacher" who will painstakingly correct your poor edits. I find it rather strange that someone with such a history of poor edits feels justified in getting abusive (racial abuse at that) when criticised.

Bathrobe (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Household Department

The article mentions that the relevent departments of the Imperial Household Department were:

• Chancery of the Imperial Household (Chinese:Zong Guan Nei Wu Fu Ya Men 总管内务府衙门 ), the headquarters.
• Privy Purse (Chinese:Yu Yong Jian 御用监) in charge of all money matters.
• Palace Stud (Chinese:Shang Si Yuan 上驷院) maintaining all the palace's horses.
• Imperial Armory　(Chinese:Wu bei Yuan 武备院) in charge of weapons repairs and weapons supplied to the palace.

The "Gardening section" (Chinese:Feng Chen Yuan 奉宸苑 ) was originally added as an afterthought, after a description of the baoyi.

The problem is that a look at the purported source (Preston, p 29) reveals that there were 56 sub-departments by the end of the 19th century. Preston says that the largest departments were:

• Department of the Privy Purse
• Department of Works
• Palace Stud
• Imperial Armory
• Chancery of the Imperial Household

The Department of Works has been dropped from the Wikipedia article for no discernible reason. Preston also mentions a "Coordinating Department" as a powerful body (est. 1661) consisting of managers and clerks. The managers are described as "the most powerful officials of the Nei-wu-fu".

As for the so-called "Gardening section", the Bureau of the Imperial Gardens and Hunting Parks was a section added to the Nei-wu-fu later, but it was not the only one. Preston refers to Imperial Manufactories, the School of Prospect Hill, the Eunuch School, Ching-ming-yuan estate, Mongolian school, Imperial Boats Office, Moslem and Burmese School, Imperial Construction Office, Imperial Dispensary, the Pao-ti Monastery, School for Moslem Students, and the Office of Buddhist and Taoist Priests.

I'm quite curious as to the reason for the selective and (seemingly) haphazard inclusion of information from the source.

With regard to an earlier point that User Arilang mentions about "slaves", Preston doesn't harp on this in quite as dramatic a manner as Arilang. He does mention, however, that "the personal bondservants of the emperor took over the main tasks which eunuchs had handled in the Ming period and kept the remaining eunuchs under tight control. It was this subordination of the eunuchs to their functional equivalents, the imperial bondservants, which permitted the Ch'ing dynasty to avoid, for the most part, the serious eunuch interference in government that had plagued previous dynasties. For almost two hundred years, Ch'ing government remained comparatively free of excessive eunuch influence."

This seems to me quite an important detail and at least as worthy of note as User Arilang's rather strong focus on "slavery", culminating in his exclamation on this talk page that the Qing dynasty was a "slave state".

The biased use of cited sources appears to me to be a major defect in the edits that we have seen recently.

Bathrobe (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bathrobe, and thanks for all your constructive comments! As you were writing them (and without knowing that you were), I thoroughly re-organized the section on the Imperial Household Department. I think it looks much better-integrated now, and my edits have even taken care of some of the problems you pointed out. I also created a new page on the Imperial Household Department, where editors can add more detailed information. But your important point about the eunuchs might deserve more development in this page.--Madalibi (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Constructive comments or not, you are the one who actually did the "constructing". The section reads much better!

Bathrobe (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for the edits on the new page. I "cut-and-pasted" and forgot to make the basic adjustments that were necessary to make the page stand by itself.--Madalibi (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of cutting all the irrelevant details from this page, I drastically reduced the sub-section on the Imperial Household Department. All the details can be found on the wiki on... the Imperial Household Department.--Madalibi (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed image of Dr.Sun Yatsen to be uploaded into Qing

Editors are welcome to suggest changes to make it more NPOV and less POV

Dr. Sun Yat-sen 孫文 孫中山 孫逸仙

• Time allocated for discussion=3 days.From 8-10 November 2008.Arilang1234 (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The photo probably doesn't belong on this page (because Sun Yat-sen was very marginal to Qing history), and the slogan ("Expel the Tartars...") definitely doesn't! Sun became important in the Republican period, but the relevant page already has a picture of him. Maybe you could post the photo and the slogan on the anti-Manchuism wiki, but make sure you don't sound like you're celebrating Sun's point of view as you do on your personal page. This is very important.--Madalibi (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• @Madalibi, I have remove the slogan, that would make it looks better. If Yuan Shikai's photo can be on Qing, why not Sun Yatsen?Arilang1234 (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang1234. Yuan Shikai was one of the most important officials of the late Qing dynasty. He was an important commander of the Qing's modernized armies, and he played an important role in the coup that ended the Hundred Days' Reform, in the suppression of the Boxers' Rebellion, in Qing relations with Korea, in supporting Cixi's rule until her death in 1908, etc. During the Qing, Sun Yat-sen lived abroad most of the time: he played no role in the Qing government and was not even involved in the Wuchang Uprising that brought down the Qing. He became an important political figure only after he was named as the head of the Republican government that took over after the fall of the Qing.--Madalibi (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Madalibi, you are wrong. Sun Yatsen was feared by Manchu the most because of 'revolutionary movement'. Nurhaci was the one who started Qing, Sun Yatsen was the first Han Chinese who called for the abolishment of Manchu Empire, Sun Yatsen was one of the initiator of Xinhai Revolution, I think his picture deserve a position at article Qing

Well, I'm certainly not wrong about Yuan Shikai! Anyway, I'm ready to believe that "Sun Yatsen was feared by Manchu the most," but I would appreciate if you could support this claim with some kind of evidence instead of just asserting it. (And I mean evidence that dates from the Qing and that expresses the Manchu point of view, not just Sun Yat-sen's opinion about what the Manchus thought of him.) I don't know why you mention Nurhaci here, but a lot of Chinese before Sun Yat-sen were against Manchu rule (the Taiping rebels come to mind), though not many proposed to overthrow the imperial system altogether. And Sun Yat-sen was not the "initiator of the Xinhai Revolution." This is the traditional, "pious" view of Sun's role written long after the fact. Sun actually read about the Wuchang Uprising in a newspaper while he was traveling abroad to get some funds to support his projects. He became the main figure of the Revolution only after the Qing fell, when he was named president of the Republic, and even then his "reign" lasted only a few months. Finally, his ideas (Sanmin zhuyi 三民主義 and the like) became influential in China under the Republic, not under the Qing. To summarize my various points, I believe Sun Yat-sen's portrait doesn't belong on the Qing page any more than Nurhaci's portrait belongs on the Ming page. Let me know what you think.--Madalibi (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please look at Xingzhonghui Tongmenghui , and I will show you sources to verify my point:'Sun Yatsen was feared by Manchu, there was even a bounty put on his head, and when he was captured by Japanese police and was to be sent back to China to be beheaded, the American consul came to his rescue because he was holding a US passport. All these facts were well documented, and can be verified. By the way, have you watched the CCTV TV drama Towards the Republic 走向共和, if not, this drama is a must-watch, because it was classed as "85% historical accurate" by a panel of 25 Chinese historians, most of them university professors. Arilang1234 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

“ After its wide dissemination into the general public and overwhelmingly applauded reception by the people, CCP had sensed an uneasy air from its tacit implication and seemingly unwitting suggestion, which might led to an awakening of people's inner judgement and speculation on an alternative road of China's nation-building, thereby soon led to its heavy-handed censorship and gradual liquidation from the public in the same light as the banning of "He Shang". (River's Sorrow) in 1987, which was a six-episode documentary film dealing with China's destiny in the modern era, and served as a prerequisite for students and intellectuals who fomented the 1989 Tiananmen Incident.

"Towards the Republic" remains to be a spectacular tour de force by the Chinese entertainment industry and the millions of nerves it has tapped on will continue to wage dynamic repercussion into the future.

”

From talk page Towards the RepublicArilang1234 (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang1234. I just lost a long response I had just written! Let me just summarize it again:

• Xingzhonghui and Tongmenghui don't mention anything about Sun's role in the Qing dynasty. Let me know if I missed something.
• A section from the wiki on the Wuchang uprising says this:

Sun Yat-sen himself played no direct part in the uprising. He was traveling in the United States, trying to drum up support from overseas Chinese. He found out about the uprising by reading a newspaper report in Denver, Colorado. Within the Revolutionary Alliance, Sun had favored an uprising in his native Guangdong, citing local anti-Manchu sentiment. Sun's rival within the Alliance, Huang Xing, had favored an uprising in central China and had been planning an uprising for late October. The revolutionary leaders were thus caught off guard, leaving the mutineers without a leader. Li Yuanhong was dragged from under his bed and forced at gunpoint to become the provisional military governor of Hubei.

• There were bounties on many people's heads. I still think Sun became important in retrospect because he became an important figure in the Republic. But he was still a very minor character in the history of the Qing dynasty.
• There are already pictures of Sun in other places on the Wiki.
• Will look for the TV series and watch it if I can. But it's centered on the Republic, not on the Qing, and it is therefore likely to overstate Sun's role, not in the rise of the Republic, but in the history of the Qing dynasty, which is the point that should concern us here.
• I wonder what the other editors think!

--Madalibi (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it's vital to add Sun Yatsen's picture here. There are probably all kinds of other pictures that could be added to the article on equal if not better grounds. Moreover, the article is already too long by Wikipedia standards, which is why there is a warning at the top when you go to edit.

On the other hand, given the later ideology of Chinese governments, his photo is probably relevant as a glimpse of what was to come after the Qing. Interestingly, the Ming dynasty article has a picture of the Shunzhi Emperor. Of course, this is a bit more relevant to the Ming than Sun Yatsen is to the Qing, because the Ming dynasty clung on to the remnants of its power for quite a few years after Shunzhi ascended the throne. The Qing had already completely ended when Sun Yatsen took his position.

I'm basically neutral on this, but to repeat, I don't see a truly compelling reason to put Sun Yatsen up there. Is his inclusion supposed to make some kind of point?

I do suggest that ways should be found to cut the article back to a more manageable size. Some of the current detail could be cut out where there are separate articles on individual topics.

Bathrobe (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Xinhai Revolution is missing

The article mentions Wuchang Uprising, but not Xinhai Revolution. I think Xinhai Revolution deserve a section, then all the text on Yuan Shikai and Wuchang Uprising can be grouped together.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article could indeed mention the Xinhai Revolution, but in a sentence like "These events are collectively known as the Xinhai Revolution" (or something like that) rather than in a new section. The section on "The Fall of the Dynasty" is already detailed enough as it is. In my opinion, information on how the "Revolution" was prepared, what groups of exiled Chinese were formed to oppose the Qing, and what reforms they proposed clearly belong in other pages.--Madalibi (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Madalibi, Wuchang uprising was the last straw that broke the camel's back. Prior to Wuchang uprising there were 10 or 11 revolutionary uprisings that felled, many life were lost. Please find some time to watch the TV drama, which analyze the fall of Manchu from many angles.Arilang1234 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We are getting mixed up here The article on Xinhai revolution says: "The Xinhai Revolution or Shinhai Revolution (Chinese: 辛亥革命; pinyin: Xīnhài Gémìng), also known as the 1911 Revolution or the Chinese Revolution, began with the Wuchang Uprising on 10 October 1911 and ended with the abdication of Emperor Puyi on 12 February 1912." In other words, the Wuchang Uprising might belong to the Xinhai revolution, but the preceding uprisings don't belong to the Xinhai revolution except as a kind of background or leadup.

Bathrobe (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

the 1911 Revolution or the Chinese Revolution,

Sun Yetsen played a much larger part in the overthrown of Manchu.

“ while Sun Yat-sen's Revive China Society was established at Honolulu in 1894, with the main purpose of fundraising to pay for the cost of the revolution. In 1895,.... In the same year on October 26, the first uprising was held in Guangzhou, but was unsuccessful. Yang and Sun were forced to flee abroad. The following year, Sun Yat-sen was kidnapped in London by agents from the Qing government. This incident became an international cause célèbre,as a result, Sun became famous on the international stage ”

quote from Xinhai Revolution

Huanghuagang Uprising need to be mentioned tooArilang1234 (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

戊戌六君子 need to be mentioned too. Those were the people that inspired Sun Yetsen.Arilang1234 (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is again one that has been raised before: how much of this detail are we going to include in the main article and how much is going to be put in separate smaller articles? The article is already groaning under the weight of recent additions. There is much more that could be added on many different topics. Madalibi is right: "The article could indeed mention the Xinhai Revolution, but in a sentence like "These events are collectively known as the Xinhai Revolution" (or something like that) rather than in a new section. The section on "The Fall of the Dynasty" is already detailed enough as it is."

The events of the fall of the dynasty (including the Huanghuagang uprising can be touched on, but this article is not the place to dwell in detail on events that are more significant to the next period of history. We seem to have a pattern here of a relentless push to include more and more detail in this article, as though there is a pressing need to mention Sun Yatsen's role in great detail at all costs. This is not the case. Some detail has to be relegated to smaller articles if the main article is to maintain some kind of perspective.

This should be an editing decision, not an ideological decision.

Bathrobe (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Note relating to edits on the Zhou Enlai article

@Bathrobe, next time if you think my addition is not worthy of Wikipedia, could you be kind enough to inform me first before you take action into your own hand, just to be polite? that is if I am not asking for too much?? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zhou_Enlai&diff=250381054&oldid=250177388 .Arilang1234 (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't ask before adding. I'm not sure why we should be expected to inform you every time your edits are modified or reverted. The reason for the edit was given in a note.

Indeed, the addition of irrelevant and biased "See also" links is tendentious editing and is a problem in itself.

Bathrobe (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Another question I would like to ask you is the correct pinyin for the "Jiang Xu poet by the name of Sujun" (see Literary inquisition) and the correct pinyin for '"Hu zhongjou" at the same page. When I have this information I can edit the page, if that's ok by you.

Bathrobe (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

@Bathrobe, I hereby warn you, if you don't stop what you are doing to my edits, I will report you for vandalism.Arilang1234 (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What? You mean no one is allowed to change your edits, even when they are wrong? I didn't realise Wikipedia gave you that prerogative.

Bathrobe (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To start with, my addition of internal links on Zhou Enlai wasn't wrong. And it is not polite to follow my additions, go and delete them without telling me first. Had you told me first, I will go and delete them myself. Is that asking for too much? Prerogative or not, if you do it again, I will report you.Arilang1234 (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are free to report me. There are no rules on Wikipedia that say I have to tell you every time I modify your edits. As for telling you so that you can make the changes yourself, this doesn't seem to be working. Despite suggestions that long quotes from other sources are not suitable for the Qing article, you have been very slow to go in and change them. As a result, I went in and changed them myself. In the process I found quotes from quite unsuitable sources. By the way, I've added a note at Talk:Zhou_Enlai defending my edits.

By the way, have you added these articles (Zhou Enlai, Qing, etc.) to your watchlist? If you had them on your watchlist, you would know whenever changes were made.

Bathrobe (talk)

@Bathrobe, you put the following quote on talk page Zhou Enlai,

“ Animal Farm (the book) reflects "events leading up to and during the Stalin era before World War II ”

What Animal Farm? Are you hallucinating as usual? Try to pin me onto something you have dreamed up like Han chauvinism which is basically a racist slur. The Animal Farm link was removed by me as soon as user Coppertwig told me about POV. Why do you talk about something that wasn't there? Another personal attack on Arilang1234? What are you trying to prove? That I am anti-communist? I got a anti-communist template on my name page, for the whole world to see. What else are you going to cook up?Arilang1234 (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reply at Talk:Zhou_Enlai. In future, please discuss things at the relevant talk page. This conversation doesn't belong at Qing at all. By the way, you haven't answered my question about Literary inquisition). Bathrobe (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pruning the Six Boards?

Hi everybody! Would anyone object if I pruned the existing section on the Six Boards? After removing the bullet points and all the POV comments, here's what I obtained:

The Board of Civil Appointments (Ch: Lìbù, 吏部; Ma: Hafan i jurgan) administered the personnel of the civil bureaucracy. The Board of Revenue (Ch: Hùbù, 户部; Ma: File:Boigon i jurgan.png Boigon i jurgan) managed the government's revenues, which was mainly derived from a land tax, but was also supplemented by official monopolies on essential items such as salt and tea. It was also in charge of the financial management of the government. The Board of Rites (Ch: Lǐbù, 禮部; Ma: Dorolon i jurgan) was responsible for all matters concerning court protocol. It organized the periodic worship of ancestors and various gods by the Emperor, managed relations with tributary nations, and oversaw the nationwide civil examination system. Unlike its Ming-dynasty predecessor, the Board of War (Ch: Bīngbù, 兵部; Ma: Coohai jurgan), the Qing Board of War had very limited powers because the Eight Banners, the Qing's main armies, were under the direct control of the Emperor and hereditary Manchu and Mongolian princes. The Board only had authority over the Green Standard Armies. Furthermore, even in campaigns in which the Green Standards participated, the Board's functions were largely administrative, since troop movements were monitored and directed by the Emperor, first through the Manchu ruling council, and later through the Grand Council. The Board of Punishments (Ch: Xíngbù, 刑部; Ma: Beidere jurgan) handled all legal matters, including the supervision of various law courts and prisons, and took care of the enforcement of the Qing legal framework. Finally, the Board of Works (Ch: Gōngbù, 工部; Ma: Weilere jurgan) handled all governmental building projects, including palaces, temples and the repairs of waterways and flood canals. It was also in charge of minting coins. Each Board was headed by two presidents (Ch: Shàngshū, 尚書; Ma: Aliha amban), one Han and one Manchu, who were assisted by four vice presidents (Ch: Shìláng, 侍郎; Ma: Ashan i amban).

I think this is a good way of saving space, as in a similar section on the Ming dynasty page. Thanks for letting me know what you think!--Madalibi (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In principle this is a good thing, and I agree with efforts at succinctness. But:

The original format (new line and heading for each Board) is clearer and easier to follow. This is especially the case with the distracting vertical Manchu script in the text.

The information you've removed, while sometimes tending to the quaint (the explanation of 戶), does make the explanation more "memorable" than the very straightforward and perhaps (if I may be allowed to say so) somewhat bloodless descriptions that remain. Is it possible to make the information "stand out" a little more?

Bathrobe (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll try to do something about this, but I can't do anything substantial until Monday. In the mean time, let's keep improving this page: it deserves it!--Madalibi (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

External links: clean up needed

External links: clean up needed

Hi everyone,
This page's External Links currently contain 25 entries. For comparison, the wikis on the Tang dynasty, Song dynasty, and Ming dynasty, which are all featured articles, contain respectively 5, 8, and 2 external links. The External Links should refer to substantial online resources on the general history of the Qing dynasty that cannot be found on Wikipedia. I think these resources can be in any language, as long as the name of the link is translated into English.
Now the External Links should not contain book references (Ebrey and McFarlane should be in Further Reading, though they seem too broad to belong there), citations from book (CHC p. 290; Emperor's Four Treasuries p. 167), references to Chinese wikis (especially since the same topics are already discussed on separate pages in English Wikipedia: queue order, Yangzhou massacre; at most, these should be external links to these two pages, not to Qing dynasty), and links to news items (we now have not one, but five [!] links to the same news item on a young man who slapped in the face a historian he disagreed with). Some people might find these issues personally important, but these current events are completely unrelated to the history of the Qing dynasty.
Some more points:

• The article “康乾盛世”的文化專制與文字獄 ["Cultural despotism and literary inquisitions during the 'Kangxi-to-Qianlong golden age'"] should be an External Link to the page on literary inquisitions. As is good usage, the link should simply refer to the article's title in English, with a mention that the article is in Chinese. It should not be called Manchu dynasty using literary persecution to to shock and frighten any form of Chinese Han opposition. The proper link should be in this format: "Cultural despotism and literary inquisitions during the 'Kangxi-to-Qianlong golden age'" (in Chinese). Retrieved on 2008-11-10.
• the long and brutal reign of the Manchu Empress Yehonala belongs in the Cixi page (if anywhere at all).
• The link currently titled Taiping Rebellion... ravaged 17 provinces, took an estimated 20,000,000 lives, and irrevocably altered the Qing dynasty (1644–1911/12) should be re-titled "Taiping rebellion" (the title of the linked page) and moved to the wiki on... the Taiping rebellion.
• Link needed on: Compton's Living Encyclopedia (1995-08). "Chinese Cultural Studies: Concise Political History of China". As posted on Paul Halsall's web site. Retrieved on 2008-10-19. (The page is on the history of China as a whole; it only has a relatively short section on the Qing.)
• The University of Maryland web site is fairly short and deserves at most one link. The three links to its very short sub-sections should be deleted. The general link should also be re-titled after the name of the page it refers to.
• Destruction Of Chinese Books In The Peking Siege Of 1900 belongs on the page on the Boxer Rebellion; we could also insert the picture it contains into a section on "foreign imperialism in the late Qing" (if we had one!).
• The link called Chinese Han murdered when Manchu defeated Ming has a tendentious title (it implies that the Manchus murdered 25M people). The page is not substantial enough to be in the external links anyway because it only contains two short and misinformed entries in the section called Miscellaneous Oriental Atrocities of a page called "Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century". One reference even speaks of 600,000,000 (yes, 600M, or 六亿!) deaths under the reign of rebel leader Zhang Xianzhong. 600M was 4 times the population of the entire Ming empire at the time.
• The link called "Chinese Han population decrease during Ming-Qing transition" contains a few interesting lines on the Qing, but it doesn't even mention the Ming-Qing transition, and it doesn't use the term Han except to refer to the Han dynasty. If we want to keep it, it should be re-titled.

I don't think my interpretations are controversial, so I am cleaning up the page. Cheers,
--Madalibi (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Madalibi, you are doing good. One day this article will be a feature article like others. At the moment I am reading The Cambridge History of China

by：Willard J. Peterson, John K. Fairbank, Denis Twitchett Page 290. Here is some quote"

“ Nothing demonstrated the Chien-lung emperor's political doubleness or calculated hybridity more than his parasitic attempt to develop a historically denatured version of the great Ming martyrs' creed of loyalty to the throne, from which the Ming martyrs of no use to him, and the Ming house itself, had been subtracted. His literary inquisition could no more stamp out Ming loyalism than his two empirewide efforts to repress Christian communities, in 1746 and 1784, could stamp out Christianity. Chien-lung's failure to propose any new theories of political obligation, instead of recycling the old, meant that the memories of the Ming dynasty he had most to repress could reemerge a century later, endowed with the added value his inquisition had given them. P293. ”

May be you can use some of the lines. My impression is that Fairbank did not give Qianlong too high a rating.Arilang1234 (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang1234, and thanks for the encouragement. I didn't know Alexander Woodside (the author of the article on Qianlong in the CHC) would say such things! Woodside here is actually quite "POV," and I still don't think we should have long quotations in the text, but maybe we should add a sentence somewhere about QL's cultural policies and his attempt to re-interpret Ming loyalism as loyalism to the imperial throne in general. In the mean time, I've added the Cambridge History of China to our list of Further Readings and I'm getting ready to move some of the "external links" to the wikis where they belong.--Madalibi (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your ability is ten times that of mine, of course you will do a good job. Talking about bias and POV, please have a look when you have time:Manchu is bad bad bad. Those view points are extreme, still a lot are based on facts, because those bloggers do read a lot of 明史 and 清史. Do you like 金庸?Arilang1234 (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks for the undeserved praise! I know of Jin Yong, but believe it or not, I haven't read any of his famous novels. I know about some of the "extreme view points" you mention. Some are actually serious historical problems that deserve discussion. I agree, for example, that the Manchu defeat of the Ming was more a violent conquest than a blending of ethnic groups within a broader China (the latter position is based directly on the PRC's official ethnic policies, which doesn't reflect the historical realities of the time). Also, as any group interested in conquest and power, the Manchus also conquered new territories in violent wars. Finally, the Manchu princes and Dowager who controlled the court at the very end of the Qing probably hindered much-needed reforms. On the other hand, the Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong reigns were relatively peaceful within China (not talking about the borders, here) and are on a par with other great "golden ages" in Chinese history.
One of the problems we should think about when we evaluate the Qing is: what should we compare it to? The Yuan? Zhu Yuanzhang? The late Ming? Communist China? An egalitarian society where everybody is happy and nobody is the victim of any violence? The points we make depend on the comparisons we make. The Kangxi emperor's policies were certainly better for China than Zhu Yuanzhang's! On many points, Yongzheng can be compared to Yongle (strong political reforms executed by often ruthless means) and Qianlong to Han Wudi (in their long reigns, both ruined the treasury with expensive military campaigns). Sure, the Qing emperors were Manchus, but I see no obvious reason to believe that Han-Chinese emperors would have loved their subjects any more than the Manchus did (think of how incompetent Jiajing 嘉靖 and Wanli 万历 were!). In the 18th century, the Qing throne had by far the most advanced famine-relief system in the world (they called it huangzheng 荒政); in scale and efficacy, it even anticipated modern welfare states. Sure, the Manchus didn't feed the people out of pure love for them (what emperor ever did?), but they still did it better than all the other regimes in the pre-modern world! There is much (good or bad) that we could say about the Manchus, but Wikipedia tries not to do baobian 褒贬 history. I sometimes find it annoying that Wikipedia forbids "original research," but this is still the best way to keep people from posting their personal viewpoints in article that are designed to be encyclopedic and therefore neutral.
By the way, as I updated this link in the article on literary inquisition, I tried to find the Chinese for "Hu Zhongjou" (is it ju or rou? "jou" doesn't exist), Jiang Xu (Jiangxi? Jiangsu?), and Su Jun / Sujun (the latter sounds like a Manchu name!), but I couldn't find them. Could you find them for me and I will write the proper pinyin. Thank you in advance. Cheers,--Madalibi (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't discussed the link to the official website of the Qing Restoration Organization when I deleted it. Well, I erased it because it's pure political advocacy. Its historical content is meager. For example the section on the "History of the Qing dynasty" is 13-lines long. The site has interesting information on the Eight Banners, but the information belongs (and has already been used) on the Wiki on the Eight Banners. The only section I find interesting is the one on the Qing national anthem, but it should be in a footnote to a brief mention of the new anthem in a possible section on the late Qing, or to the table on top of the Qing dynasty page that already mentions the anthem. Conclusion: I agree with Angelo de la Paz's decision to erase it again after someone re-inserted it.--Madalibi (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just found out that there is already a wiki on the Qing national anthem (see Gong Jin'ou) with exactly the same content as the relevant page on the Qing restoration site. The link therefore becomes entirely superfluous. Cheers,--Madalibi (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ming or Qing, who was better

Please read when you have time 对明清重新评价，尤其是恢复明朝名誉的重大意义 This blogger 杜车别 has a lot of fans.Arilang1234 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

乾隆帝召集群臣，撮举胡中藻....虽然北风好，难用可如何

翰林院庶吉士徐骏，是康熙朝刑部尚书徐乾学的儿子，也是顾炎武的甥孙。雍正八年(1730年)，徐骏在奏章里，把“陛下”的“陛”字错写成“狴”字，雍正暴君见了，马上把徐骏革职。后来再派人一查，在徐骏的诗集里找出了如下诗句“清风不识字，何事乱翻书”、“明月有情还顾我，清风无意不留人”，于是暴君认为这是存心诽谤，照大不敬律斩立决

乾隆帝召集群臣，撮举胡中藻《坚磨生诗钞》诗句，如“又降一世夏秋冬”、“一把心肠论浊清”、“无非开清泰”、“斯文欲被蛮”、“与一世争在丑夷”、“相见请看都盎背，谁知生色属裘人”、“南斗送我南，北斗送我北。南北斗中间，不能一黍阔”、“虽然北风好，难用可如何”等

江苏东台的举人徐述夔去世后，其子为纪念亡父而刊印《一柱楼诗集》。集中有诗句“举杯忽见明天子，且把壶儿抛半边”被指用“壶儿”喻“胡儿”，被暗指满清。 《咏黑牡丹》诗句“夺朱非正色，异种也称王”，尽管沈德潜已死去多年，也被“革其职，夺其名，扑其碑，毁其祠，碎其尸”。徐家惨遭灭门不说，当地其他徐姓族人也被翻箱倒柜抄家，有些徐姓人逼迫无奈隐姓改名，把自己的祖宗牌位藏在马桶里以躲追究

。Arilang1234 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just have a look at User:Madalibi/New structure for Qing Dynasty, WOW, you are good! You must be a very smart guy in real life! Doing all this work for free, amazing.Arilang1234 (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just a reminder, for the new structure, please don't miss out (1)跑馬圈地 (2)海禁 (3) 南明Arilang1234 (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Corrections done for the page on literary inquisition. Details on the Southern Ming probably belong on the Ming page, but there should indeed be a mention on the Qing page. I do plan to discuss (briefly) the ban on maritime trade (and the clearing of the Fujian coast) in the Kangxi section. But I'm not sure what 跑馬圈地 means... Are you referring to evictions of common people by Bannermen around Beijing in the early Qing? Anyway, suggestions on my (still very immature) work in progress are very welcome, but put them on my page so that I can easily refer to them later. Thanks!--Madalibi (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I will write a detail list of essential topics(my point of views, of course) to be included in the new structure. The list will include links to google books, web sites, and quotations from books, and post it on your talk page.Arilang1234 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Of course I might not be able to follow all suggestions, but I will try.--Madalibi (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Format of citations in the notes

References to books should have a page number so that the statements that are referred to can be located easily. Could people who have inserted citations recently find the specific page numbers? I will do the same with my citations. Thanks.--Madalibi (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fall of Qing Dynasty

Someone ought to move this section down, just so it seems more in order. I'm too lazy to do it myself. Jeffrey ten Grotenhuis 11:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coching (talk • contribs)

Hi! I agree that putting the "Fall of the dynasty" at the end would make sense in some circumstances, but in this case, discussion of the "fall" follows directly after the death of the Guangxu emperor and therefore seems reasonably located. This "Qing Dynasty" page is still immature, but I think it should develop along the same lines as the pages on the Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties, which are all featured articles. All these pages have a long discussion of the history of the dynasty, followed by thematic entries on government, culture, society, etc. Right now, the Qing page only has one thematic section, called "Qing Government and Society," but I still think it should be left at the end of the article, where more thematic sections can be added later. The main problem with the current "Government" section is that its discussion of the military gets far too detailed and turns into another narrative of the end of the Qing that also seems to lead to the "Fall of the dynasty." I think the best way to solve this structural problem is to keep the sections "Fall of the Dynasty" and "Qing Government and Society" where they were, and to redistribute material about the military between the section called "Rebellion, unrest and external pressure" (where we would put most details concerning wars against foreign powers) and the wiki on the Self-Strengthening Movement (where most details on military modernization belong). I can only start doing this in about a week, when I have time in real life. Let me know what you all think of this suggestion. For the moment, I am undoing the last edit by TheLeopard (talk), which followed a suggestion by Coching (talk). I'm very sorry for not responding to Coching earlier. I should have responded before another editor decided to go ahead with the propose changes. Sorry again! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Segregated residence in Beijing

File:Eight banners beijing.jpg

@Madalibi, I have upload this image at commons, please feel free to use it wherever it fits. Arilang ^talk 08:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to the map:[darkwing.uoregon.edu] Arilang ^talk 09:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(Creating a new section in the talk page and reducing the size of the image.) Thanks, Arilang! I've already integrated the image into the page I'm preparing on the Shunzhi reign (see my sandbox here). --Madalibi (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A better map

File:Eight banners beijing new.jpg

A better map. Arilang ^talk

Thanks for the new map too (I reduced its size so it fits better on the page). This map might indeed be clearer for people who can't read Chinese, because it contains symbols for each of the Eight Banners. But if we are to use this map on Wikipedia, it has to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I'm not sure how this is done, but I know that the image in question must be in the public domain so that we have no problem with copyrights. One detail that neither map contains is that each banner was divided into Manchu, Mongol, and Han-martial (漢軍/汉军). Members of the Manchu Banners were closest to the imperial palace, then the Mongol banners, then the Han-martial banners. For those who have the book, there is a map on p. 103 of Mark Elliott's The Manchu Way.--Madalibi (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Madalibi, all the images I used here are from commons, creative commons, no problem.[5] and you are welcome to use any of the images. Arilang ^talk 12:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

New table

Qing Dynasty Central Administration	Staff
Ministry of Personnel	6-10 high ranking officials
Ministry of Revenue	Staff: 50% Manchus, 50% Han Chinese
Ministry of Rites	Personal consultants of the emperor, drafted imperial edicts
Ministry of Law	Staff: 50% Manchus, 50% Han Chinese
Ministry of Public Works	Staff: 50% Manchus, 50% Han Chinese
Ministry of War	Eight Banners
(New) Court of Colonial Affairs	In charge of Inner Asian matters, staffed by Manchus and Mongols exclusively.

Madalibi, you are free to add or delete things inside the table. Arilang ^talk 08:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proper history map needed

The front page map need to be change to more historic map of the Qing Empire and where is the expansion map of the Qing? Korsentry 04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Hi Koreansentry. Can you explain what a "more historic map of the Qing" would look like? There are two maps on the wiki right now, from 1820 and 1890. Were you thinking of maps that would reflect the extent of Qing territory before the defeat of the Dzungars in 1759, for example? Or that would depict Qing campaigns in the 1640s and 1650s? Just let us know! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Soft power

I find it strange that this article mainly focus on the Emperor, Military, Bureaucrats, near complete avoidance of discussion on Education, Literary achievements, Science achievement. In short, what is the Soft Power of Qing? Why no editor seem to care about this issue? Arilang ^talk 21:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there soft power of Qing? I don't think there is much achievement in these spheres during Qing except perhaps a section on huon lao mong, the great chinese novel.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case we may have a new article: Comparison of Soft power between Ming and Qing/temporary name. What you think? Good idea? Arilang ^talk 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section

I'm not sure what to make of the new Controversy section. I've already removed the long citation from Lord Macartney because long citations like that look very bad in any wiki. The other three paragraphs are referenced to a survey of "5000 years of Chinese history" (in Chinese). This is as broad a survey as you can imagine, and in my experience such surveys tend to reflect the state of scholarship about 20 years before they were published. So we can certainly do better than that. (And we also lack page numbers. Readers can't be expected to find this book and look up for the precise citation, so we absolutely need page numbers here.)

Some of the information cited sounds irrelevant. What is the point of saying that the Qing "changed Chinese culture by forcing Han men to wear pigtails and banning the traditional chinese dress, Hanfu"? We could also say "the Qing burned books" and "the Qing exterminated the Dzungars," but also "the Qing criminalized homosexual acts," "Qing emperors held shamanistic rituals in the Forbidden City," "the Yongzheng Emperor took Daoist elixirs," and "the Daoguang Emperor was really ugly." If other editors get into it, this section could easily become a "let's criticize the Qing according to our own POV" free-for-all, which is not what we want.

The section saying that "the Qing also disrupted trade and development by reinstating feudal estates in the form of the quandi" is not much of a contrast, since Ming princely estates were also very large and not very productive. Also, how does this 17th-century disruption of the economy around Beijing help us to uderstand the decline of modern China? Where is the controversy?

And "The Qing also suppressed capitalistic developments in the later era of the Ming." What does that mean? I think this is a simplistic paraphrase of the "sprouts of capitalism" (ziben zhuyi de mengya 資本主義的萌芽) theory that was once so popular in China. The theory stated that capitalism was emerging in the late Ming but that it was suppressed. Historians who discussed this idea followed the Marxist "five-stage theory of economic development" in assuming that economic prosperity automatically leads to capitalism (as in: primitive economy -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism). Chinese scholars then tried to identify what had "inhibited" the (supposedly natural) emergence of capitalism in China. They found all kinds of "factors": Confucian thinking, the imperial bureaucracy (both Ming and Qing), the economic disruption that came with the Manchu conquest, and of course imperialism (this was the main factor, actually, since China in 1750 was as prosperous as China in 1600). But all of these answers beg the question: does economic prosperity really lead naturally to capitalism? Modern scholarship about early modern Europe and China actually says no. This would mean all the above answers are irrelevant. And to return to our text: if China was as prosperous in 1750 as in 1600, what's the point of citing Qing disruption of the late-Ming economy in a discussion of the Qing's role in the decline of China?

It's true that "The Qing dynasty is often blamed for China's backwardness in the modern age," so maybe we should have a controversy section, but every controversy must have two sides. We should see what reliable secondary sources (there are plenty in English) say about these claims that blame the Qing for so many things. For now, all we have is a collection of unrelated paraphrases from a Chinese textbook that basically say "the Qing dynasty was bad because..." If we can't present a two-sided controversy, I suggest we just delete the entire section.

--Madalibi (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what the new details on land seizures around Beijing in the mid-seventeenth century are adding to this section... Madalibi (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

@Mabalibi, yes I agree with you, it looks wrong at this section. But I think 圈地今 is an important royal decree by the Qing court, and it is not even being mentioned in the article, may be a sub-section somewhere in the article? In fact 圈地 was started by Nurhachi in Liaodong. Arilang ^talk 04:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The seizure of land to give it to Banner troops in the early Qing indeed deserves to be discussed somewhere. It could be mentioned briefly in this article (in about two sentences and without opening a new section) and discussed at more length in the article on the Shunzhi Emperor, for example. I'll add references if you need me to. Madalibi (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mabalibi, according to my Chinese source, Shunzhi issued 3 decrees on seizure of land. Also the Banner people did grap a lot of land in the provinces, when they set up the many provincial Manchu cities. Arilang ^talk 08:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this supposed "controversy" section, however, users could incoporate the content into other main sections, providing that it is referenced. Inserting a brief "controversy" section into an article about a historical entity is bizarre (especially if the reference itself did not single it out as "controversy") and seems more like pushing a particular POV and agenda. Did you see other articles about modern historical entities that contains a short "controversy" section? The paragraphs are also poorly written. If the information described in this "controversy" section are relevant, they should be incoporated into larger sections (i.e. Government and Society).--TheLeopard (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

你们来过中国吗？你们真的了解中国历史吗？你们读过24史吗？你们真的了解公平正义吗？你们认得我在写什么？？本人满族，正黄旗，旗人。可我看你们关于清朝的词条，看的吐血！看的失眠！汉语现在就是我的母语，我从来都认为汉族是我们的兄弟姐妹，密不可分。 而且你们呢？？是什么脏什么不说！西方侵华烧圆明园，割中国土地，杀中国人民，你们竟然只字未提！清朝皇帝做得有意义的、进步的事情你们只字不提，反倒都是中国西方交战清朝违约、惹事和不公正在先！

你们引用的资料大多来源于清末革命党“发现的史料”，或者是来自日本学者之手。。。好吧，你们就瞎编乱造去吧。。。我看你们是真正在写博客！ 我们中国人都是可怜的文盲、傻子、我们不懂真理！我们是愚蠢的！我们没有判断力！你们就继续霸占维基，攻击中国，撕裂中国民族，肢解中国吧！希望你们美梦成真哦，或许这才是你们想说却不敢说的。库克船长、伊丽莎白女王哪一个手上沾的血都比清朝皇帝浓千万倍。

我们，中国也绝不会向你们低头中国一定会强大，因为中国人想告诉你们中国人不比西方人差中国人一样爱自己的国家，中国人一样可以领导世界，中国人不是你们想象中的呆子和暴徒，我们中国人有句老话，看谁笑到最后，历史会还所有人一个公正！让我们共同等待吧，争论到此为止，我们中国人不会再与无知且无赖的people纠缠 另外，别删我留言，如果维基真的是自由和民主的地方！

This is English wikipedia

If you cannot type English, please restrain from adding anymore all Chinese comments, otherwise your action will be considered as vandalism, unless you are prepare to translate your comment into English for all other readers to read. Arilang ^talk 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is a long rant about how the article is an insult to all Chinese people (no indication as to what specific parts of the article they object to), us Westerners are attacking China, but China will rise up to lead the world. There aren't really any actionable complaints in the comment.--Danaman5 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Phrase that reflects contributer's mentality

Quote:汉族人是狗屎做的 unquoted, (translation: Han ethnic(漢族) people is made of dog shit), is a low-mentality swear word, belong to the street level kind of gangland-talk, Wikipedia has not place for this kind of low-class racial-hatred inspired slur. Any more of this kind of language coming from that particular user warrant immediate action from admin to bar it from recurring again. Arilang ^talk 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think whoever wrote the message felt that this article gave him one impression (or expressed only one point): that Han people are made of dog shit. Not the most subtle way to express his disagreement, and the whole message is not very clear, but I don't think he or she meant to say Han people are made of dog shit. Anyway, I suggest we drop this. Responding to this kind of rant is a big waste of time. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Its difficult to get what he is saying. He seems to be defending Han and at same time he talks about how Manchu Emperors are good compared to Westerners and praising Manchu. I think his main point is that this article is too pro-western when dealing with Western incursions into Qing China. There should be a section on the unequal treaties though, and how western powers reaped profits from dumping millions of tons of opium on China/the reparations of hundreds of millions of taels, pure robbery.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pure communist propaganda rubbish

Quote:因为中国人想告诉你们中国人不比西方人差中国人一样爱自己的国家！中国人一样可以领导世界！中国人不是你们眼中的呆子和暴徒！Unquote. Translation:中国人(Chinese, again, a very confusing term) 爱自己的国家(translation:we love our country. What he is trying to say? Qing was not considered a Nation state, which is a modern term, and Qing existed in pre-modern time. Qing should not = China, and Qing was Qing, not China.
中国人一样可以领导世界(translation: Middle Kingdom people can be the world leader.) When had Middle Kingdom people ever been the World leader? This kind of statement really bordered on silliness. Arilang ^talk 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant Chinese led technologically, economically and militarily. That actually is a long time from about 500BCE to about 1750CE. If you're talking about largest economy, that might even go into the 1870's.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove all the Manchu scripts on all the Manchu related articles

User Madalibi, Teeninvestor, and Arilang 1234 have come to the conclusion that all those Manchu scripts on all the Manchu related articles serve no useful purposes, since the Manchu language(which was cloned from Mongol scripts in the 14-15th century) would become a dead language soon, as there are less than 200 people left in the whole world who are able to read and write it. Arilang ^talk 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arilang is referring to this discussion on his talk page, where I agreed that the Manchu script may not be very useful for readers of this article. But since my name is now mentioned here, let me clarify for the record that:

1. something close to the Manchu language is still spoken today in some parts of China (see Xibe language)
2. it's not true that there are "less than 200 people" who can understand it in the entire world (apart from the Xibe people themselves, a lot of Russian, Japanese, and Chinese scholars already know Manchu, and an increasing number of students and scholars are learning it);
3. the Manchu alphabet was adapted from the Mongol script in 1599, not in the 14th and 15th centuries;
4. the Manchu language has allowed historians to develop crucial new insights about the history of the Qing dynasty.

BUT (and this is where I agree with Arilang) the Manchu script indeed doesn't seem particularly useful to readers of this article. For one thing, few common people can read it, and the vertical script tends to disrupt the text (as in the section on Central Government Agencies). And English scholarship on Qing history (i.e., what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources") uses transliterations rather than the original script. So my proposal (which applies only to this article) is to remove the script and keep the transliterations.

On the other hand, now that I think about it, the Greek alphabet is used in wikis on ancient Greek people (Pericles, Aristophanes, etc.), and it's clearly not there for the benefit of Greek Wikipedians. So maybe we could preserve the Manchu script in the lead paragraph of wikis on individual Manchus (Dorgon, Dodo, Oboi, etc.), but remove it in the Qing Dynasty wiki? What do you all think? Madalibi (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Madlibi.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. Arilang ^talk 19:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to retain the Manchu script. The problem is that omitting Manchu while including Chinese leads to a completely Sinocentric bias. All of Chinese history will come to be seen through the prism of the (Han) Chinese viewpoint, which then becomes justification for further marginalising other viewpoints. This leads to extreme POV problems.

Nurhachi founded the forerunner of the Manchu state. His correct name in the script that he was responsible for adopting is . Perhaps at the time he used 努爾哈赤 in his dealings with Chinese (Nikasa). Perhaps his Nikan advisers habitually used this name in writing about the Manchu state. But his actual name in the language that he himself used was . The Wikipedia article on Nurhachi rightly gives the Manchurian name first.

Now I know that Madalibi is suggesting a compromise whereby Manchu names are preserved only in lead paragraphs. But this is a slippery slope. You will notice at the fact box to the Nurhachi article that Nurhachi's native name is given as 努爾哈赤. This is at an article where the actual Manchu name is given in the lead to the article! Once we start deleting Manchu names from the article, how long will it before everything relating to the Manchus is treated as though it were "Chinese"?

Removing the script is tantamount to rewriting history. There is no more graphic way of showing the dual structure of the Manchu government than listing both the Manchu and Chinese names. A brief sentence noting the dual structure of the Qing government can be easily skimmed over, leading the reader to glibly assume that "the Qing dynasty was just another Chinese dynasty -- look, even the names are much the same as the Ming". By giving the Manchu names the article makes quite clear the power structure and ideology of the Qing dynasty.

Saying that "No one understands Manchu any more; let's throw it in the bin" is not a contribution to the sum of human knowledge. It detracts from human knowledge. I would also suggest to our two proposers that it takes a lot more effort to master their arcane script (Chinese characters) than it does to master the Mongolian/Manchu script. I did it in a couple of months without too much trouble. If you are really interested in making serious contributions to articles related to the Manchus, the least you could do is learn their script -- not simply wipe it off the page so that no one else can see it either.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bathrobe, very few people can understand Manchu script now. It is of no use. If the reader is as gullible as you think, i don't think wikipedia will help him much. Chinese is only spoken by 1.3 billion across the world. Also, if you think i think Qing is a chinese dynasty, i don't; Madalibi will testify.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is English-language Wikipedia. Adding Chinese to the article is not for the purpose of helping the 1.3 billion Chinese speakers around the world. According to this kind of demographic argument, even the article on London should give the Chinese name for this city, for the benefit of the world's 1.3 billion Chinese speakers.

The Manchu is useful in a historical context. It doesn't matter that it only benefits a small number of speakers. Adding the Chinese is not merely a way of helping Wikipedians who know Chinese (and let's face it, those who know Chinese well enough to read 努爾哈赤 are probably a very small percentage of visitors and it is virtually useless for the rest); it is a way of indicating which particular language is regarded as having legitimacy in dealing with that subject. Leaving out Manchu denies the legitimacy of Manchu as a language for interpreting or understanding the history of the Manchus; inserting only Chinese tells the reader that Chinese is enough to understand and discuss the history of the Manchus. As I said, sheer numbers would mean that 伦敦 or 倫敦 (probably both, with pinyin) should be used at the article on London. This is, of course, nonsense. Despite the numbers, there is no Chinese gloss at London simply because there is no historical or other reason for providing one.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two things I agree we should avoid: assuming that the Qing was just another "Chinese dynasty" (though this is clearly not what Arilang and Teeninvestor are suggesting); and throwing away the Manchu language because some people just dislike it (or the Manchus). In my first message, I tried to emphasize that I supported neither of these two points, and that I thought we should not "remove all the Manchu scripts on all the Manchu related articles" (as Arilang had proposed). I was only saying that we should keep the Manchu transliterations, but not the script, because the Manchu script tends to obstruct the page.

I mentioned the ancient Greeks because the Greek alphabet is used only in lead paragraphs on ancient Greek people, concepts (Arete), institutions (Ecclesia) or places (Pnyx). But in the body of other articles, these terms are only written in transliteration. This works because there are sub-articles on almost every Greek topic you can think of. We may not have enough sub-articles on Manchu people, concepts, and institutions to remove the Manchu script from this wiki and assume that people can still find it in other wikis linked to this one.

Incidentally, I notice that wikis concerning the Mongols usually mention the original Mongol pronunciation, but they use the Cyrillic script instead of classical Mongolian, even though the latter would clearly be more relevant historically.

I agree with Bathrobe that Manchu is the most legitimate language to deal with things Manchu, but (to Bathrobe) you didn't mention transliterations in your two messages. Do you think we can preserve the Manchu language (and emphasize the "Manchuness" of the Qing dynasty) without the Manchu script?

Sorry for the confused presentation! I'm no longer sure what to think about the current proposal, but I tried to present a few thoughts that may help further this discussion.

And Bathrobe: let me know if you know how to create the ".png" files for Manchu script. I would like to add the names of some Manchu people and institutions to their relevant articles.

Madalibi (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a site that specifically allows you create Manchu script by inputting Roman letters: [6] (linked to from the Wikipedia article on the Manchu alphabet, of course! It generates png images.

Yes, transliteration is an option. I know that Manchu disrupts the page, but I am really loath to ditch a script because it's considered "too exotic" for the mainstream, whatever the mainstream is -- is Chinese considered "mainstream" on English Wikipedia?

You mention the example of Greek, but I did notice that the article on Pnyx is literally littered with Greek terms. Arete, on the other hand, almost exclusively uses transliterations.

The problem of traditional Mongolian is similar to the issue of Traditional vs Simplified Chinese. Quite frankly, I believe that Traditional Chinese is a more legitimate script than Simplified. Without going into detail, suffice it to say that if you want the authentic source, or if you want to a script that is recognised in all Chinese-character jurisdictions (by which I mean China, HK, Macau, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, even Vietnam), Traditional is the only choice. On the other hand, I have a real problem with putting both Traditional and Simplified script at every entry in Wikipedia. For instance, Bayannur in Inner Mongolia has Mongolian traditional script, followed by both Traditional and Simplified Chinese characters -- Traditional first! Apart from historical claims made by the ROC, it's hard to see the relevance of the old form of the characters to a modern Inner Mongolian city. It's nice to have the Traditional characters, but it creates unnecessary clutter.

For Mongolian, the sad truth is that in the only independent Mongolian political entity, the state of Mongolia, knowledge and use of the traditional script has faded. For many people who know Mongolian, the Cyrillic script is the de facto standard. I agree with you that Mongol Bichig has far greater "legitimacy" than Cyrillic, which is why I went to the trouble of learning it, but for Mongolians in Mongolia, Cyrillic is now standard in the same way as Simplified characters in Mainland China. It does create a dilemma, and I'm not sure how you would resolve it. Sometimes I wonder whether the foreign language glosses on Wikipedia should not be incorporated in some kind of "tool tip", so that people who want to see them can put their cursor over the word and see script and transliteration pop up, while others can just read the English without interruption.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bathrobe: I've already found a program that allows to create Manchu script, but the format of the files is not compatible with Wikipedia. For Pnyx, I notice that the terms that are glossed in the Greek script are those that are not linked (though isonomia should be linked). This is what we do on China-related articles: we input characters only when there's no article on the person or place mentioned. Maybe we could follow the same guideline for Manchu? Madalibi (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable guideline.

I'm not sure of the image problem. I've never uploaded images to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Macs can't render Mongolian or Manchu script correctly -- some kind of flaw in the operating system, I believe -- but the png file I created with the online program could be edited in Photoshop. It seems strange that it is incompatible with Wikipedia. I'm a bit at sea on this one.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already made a few edits in the spirit of this guideline, removing non-English script (be it Chinese or Manchu) when it already appeared in other articles. As for the Manchu files, what I meant is that the program I found doesn't create .png files at all, or any files that can be used on Wikipedia. But I will check Anaku. Madalibi (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I found it in a german book an possible C.O.A, The book is called Welt Munzkatalog 1900-2007. On page 348 if anyone can find the book + Coat of arms. I'm not sure if it was realy used by the Manchus but it has a very accurate description of the Qing-Dynasty.

It looks like the dragon on the Imperial (T-)Shirts of the Emperor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.154.25 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be a coiled imperial dragon with five talons displayed guardant in the clouds above the sea with a pearl in the centre similiar to this (not sure about the colours on that one). Four talons were used by Korea and Vietnam. --Shibo77 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ta Tsing

The official English translation of the name of this empire was Ta Tsing, as evidenced by numerous treaties and documents. The fact that the territory formerly occupied by Ta Tsing is now part of the People's Republic of China should not be grounds for changing historical names. The PRC uses "pinyin" to transcribe han characters and many English speaking regions have adapted pinyin transliterations for PRC place names. But we should respect history and avoid changing names in order to please certain political entities.

Suggestion: Ta Tsing should be a separate entry and not treated as a so called "dynasty" in Chinese (Han) history Dazibao (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Majority of academic sources and encyclopedias uses the romanized Qing, and not Tsing. "Tsing" is the Chinese Postal Map Romanization of the word. Wikipedia's policy is that articles should use the most common name, in spite that there maybe older forms of romanization (Wade-Giles, Postal Map System, or Yale; however if the older forms are more common, that would be different) and Qing is the most common romanization of the dynasty's name, and not the Postal Map romanization of Tsing.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Empire called itself "Ta Tsing" in English and French, as seen in treaties signed with other countries. It was not a "dynasty" of China, as some would like to suggest. It was a state, with Manchu as the official language, and "zhongguo" was one of the territories within the empire. Later, when "zhonghua minguo" was established, it choose "Republic of China" as its English name, hence the confusion. Currently the PRC uses its own system to transliterate Han characters, and Ta Tsing can be transcribed as Da Qing under that system. But that is no reason to rewrite history and change historical names. Taipei is still Taipei (not Taibei), Singapore uses Chinese but is not Xinjiapo in English. Let us respect history and avoid a sinocentric outlook. Singapour (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Singapour, and thanks for your effort in fighting against ethnocentrism on Wikipedia. But in the case of the name "Ta Tsing" I'm afraid things are not that simple.

• The Ming dynasty called itself "Da Ming" and the Tang "Da Tang." By calling themselves "Da Qing" (the "Great Qing"), the Qing were simply following earlier Chinese practice. In other words, writing "Ta Tsing" (which, if you look at late-Qing coins and stamps, should actually be "Tai Tsing") does not help to fight ethnocentrism (because it's an outdated Romanization of two words that mean "great Qing dynasty" anyway) and it creates unnecessary new ones like unintelligibility to most readers.
• Should we switch to Manchu, then? In Manchu, Qing rulers called their polity "Daičing gurun," the equivalent of "Da Qing guo" 大清國 in Chinese. (Note that 國 in 大清國 did not mean empire: it meant something closer to "state.") Unfortunately, "Daičing gurun" would be unintelligible to most readers of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's naming policy instructs us to give each wiki the title that is the most recognizable to English readers. In this case, I'm afraid we will have to stick with "Qing dynasty."
• The transition from the Manchu-led Qing empire to a modern nation-state was a complex process that required a lot of redefinitions, but I don't think this issue should have any influence on the naming of this article.
• I think the best way to solve the issue that worries you would be to explain (by means of reliable sources, of course) that Western scholars increasingly understand the Qing dynasty as a multi-ethnic empire led by a complex ruling class (Manchus, of course, but also Mongols and "Han-Martial" 漢軍/汉军 bannermen) rather than as a traditional Chinese dynasty that just "happened" to be ruled by Manchus. Pointing this out would be much more effective than changing "Qing dynasty" to "Tai Tsing" (or "Daičing gurun"). Incidentally, the notion of "empire" does not appear in any of the names of the Qing, so translation will not solve this problem: we need scholarly sources.

Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Qing Emperors referred their state as China in international treaties. Treaty of Nanking, Treaty_of_the_Bogue Treaty_of_Wanghia ...Citizens of the United States resorting to China for the... ...according to the laws of China. If the Chinese Government desire... Treaty_of_Tien-Tsin_between_the_Queen_of_Great_Britain_and_the_Emperor_of_China Treaty_of_Shimonoseki Boxer_Protocol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.197.189 (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Qing Emperor bequeathed the entire Empire to the newborn Republic of China, Republic of China was successor state.

People's Republic of China argues that it has succeeded the Republic of China when the Communist Party took over mainland China from the Nationalist Kuomintang in the Chinese Civil War in 1949. However this is disputed, as the succession has been argued to be incomplete. 78.0.197.189 (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Singapour, if you actually read the Qing treaties signed in English, etc (examples are given by User:78.0.197.189 above), then you will realize that Qing refers to itself as "China" *MUCH* more often than "Ta Tsing" in any of these treaties. The name "Ta Tsing" either never appears in international treaties (e.g. Treaty of Nanking, Treaty_of_the_Bogue, Boxer_Protocol), or is used interchangeably with "China" (e.g. Treaty_of_Wanghia). The Qing never refers to itself as a "dynasty of China" in the treaties, but instead refers to itself as just "China" (or "the Chinese Government"), as shown in numerous international treaties. This is how it was really done. The real history should be respected.--216.254.172.133 (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Did the Qing sign treaties only in English? If the Qing used "China" in its English-language treaties, what did they call their country in the Chinese-language versions? Just curious.

Also, given that these are invariably called "unequal treaties", to what extent does the naming of the Qing as Emperors of China represent the free will of the Qing themselves? If the naming is as much a result of the perceptions of the Europeans who negotiated them as it is the self-perception of the Qing, is it justified to invoke them as grounds for using the name "China"?

Bathrobe (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User 216.254.172.133's above comment was obviously a response to Singapour's original message, as Singapour was specifically talking about treaties in English and French. Please read them in combination. In Chinese-language versions, both "Da Qing" (大清, Great Qing) and "China" (中國) appear interchangably, much like in the English version of Treaty_of_Wanghia (the English version of "Treaty of Wanghia" was a very accurate translation of the intermixed usage of "Da Qing" and "China" in the Chinese version).--64.56.251.115 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

中國

I strongly support the views of Singapour

The term 中國 is better translated into English as 'central country', or 'middle state'. It was a territory under the rule of the Ta Tsing Empire. The confusion arises because the English word 'China' is often used to translate the 汉， 中华， 华 ， 中国, etc. The founders of the first republic 中华民国 chose 'Republic of China' as their English name, instead of chunghwa or other transliterations.

We need to keep in mind that 中國 , and the English term 'China' had different meanings in history, and avoid creating the misimpression that there actually was a 'country' called 'China' prior to 1911.

In its treaties with foreign powers, the Ta Tsing originally did not even use the Han (Chinese) language, later, they adoped Han for much of their work, but used the term 中國 to refer to the central part of their Empire, known as 'China proper' in most of the world. This did not include Tibet, or other non -Han territories that they conquered.

Concerned Scholar

Dazibao (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is truth in this argument, just as there is truth in the opposing argument. I don't think it's possible to conclusively prove that either argument is 100% correct. If you read the Treaty of Wanghia (see link above), you will find that "Ta Tsing" is used as the name of the polity on the Chinese side at the beginning and conclusion of the treaty, but in the body of the treaty "Government of China" is used.

As for the need to 'avoid creating the misimpression that there actually was a 'country' called 'China' prior to 1911', that rather oversimplifies the issue. Whether they regarded it as a 'country' or not, and whether they called it 'China' or not are both difficult issues. The problem is that we are arguing back from a modern perspective, trying to interpret the usages of ancient times in a framework that the ancients themselves didn't use. Nevertheless, even though the states that ruled China didn't call their state 中国, the existence of China as a "country" is indisputable, and was recognised by peoples around China who all had names for the country and its inhabitants.:Bathrobe (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Singapour:[quote]The Empire called itself "Ta Tsing" in English and French, as seen in treaties signed with other countries.[/quote]

Dazibao:[quote]I strongly support the views of Singapour[/quote]

Maybe you should read Qing treaties. The Empire called itself "China".

CONVENTION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND CHINA,1906

ARTICLE V.

The English and Chinese texts of the present Convention have been carefully compared and found to correspond...' 93.136.75.80 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

China or Manchuria?

According to some sources the Qing wasn't China --213.126.117.235 (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Read treaties above. 93.136.105.172 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My response: It is impossible. This is illogical. China is the country/state/culture/identity. Qing Dynasty is the dynasty that ruled China. Qing is a dynasty while China is a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauchy Riemann criteria (talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

the languages

The Mongolian language was not an official spoken in the Manchurian Qing state. Please refer to 'Qing Dynasty' of other languages. Please fight the vandalist's false claim. Wiki8884 (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not base article's content on other versions of Wikipedia articles. The Mongol language in the template isn't added by me, however it has been on this article for over a long time, and rarely been disputed. When yourself states "requires at least one concrete/acceptable citation" in your edit summary, you should add a citation tag before just removing it.--TheLeopard (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, thank you. I will do so. :)

I know Mongolian was spoken in the Outer Mongolian regions: here is an example: Is it plausible to say that the Mongolian empire's languages were Chinese, Turkish, Iranian Russian or many other languages? Of course no, the Official language would be Mongolian only, because, they were spoken in local regions thus others weren't the official languages.Wiki8884 (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Manchus did have something of a special relationship with the Mongols, since they presented themselves as sort of spiritual successors to Genghis Khan. Whether this justifies inclusion of Mongolian in the lede of this article, I don't know. You could also say that the Mongols had a special relationship with the Turks, but I wouldn't support adding Turkish to lede of Mongol Empire. It comes to mind that the signs at the lamasery in Beijing are quadrilingual, written in Chinese, Manchu, Tibetan, and Mongolian. Grant that Tibetan is a special case, as it had a specifically religious relevance, I'm not sure why they included Mongolian. It would be plausible to conclude that most of the monks living at that temple during the Qing period were themselves Mongolians. The signs at the Forbidden City are, as I recall, only in Chinese and Manchu. These two were clearly the main Qing languages.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The dynasty after 1912

I wonder if there might be some discussion of the dynasty's continued existence after 1912. My understanding of the settlement which brought about the creation of the Republic of China is that the Qing Dynasty did not exactly cease to reign at that point. Obviously, it ceased to reign over the territory of the Republic of China, but the Emperor remained a sovereign ruler for the next twelve years (and was, of course, briefly restored to rule over China in 1917). He wasn't the sovereign ruler of any actual territory or subjects, but given that this is an article on the dynasty, rather than on the state they ruled, it seems like this period should be discussed. Thoughts? john k (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

He was still ruler of Qing, which consisted of the Imperial City + Palace City (Forbidden city), the Summer Palace in Beijing, the Summer Villa in Chengde, and the Old Palace in Shenyang. These were considered private property of the Imperial Household, so it could be thought as a continuation of the Qing from 12 February 1912 until 25 October 1924. Although I don't see much that could be mentioned in the article with the exception of the short 12 days of reinstatement in July 1917. --Shibo77 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the greater context this is not all too significant. Maybe a sentence or two would be sufficient. Colipon+(Talk) 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchukuo is in green color

It is strange that Manchukuo 1932-1945 is somehow being omitted in this article, I wonder why?

1. In Manchukuo, Aisin Gioro Puyi was reinstated as an Emperor in "State of Manchuria", then "Great Empire of Manchuria". Had not Japan being defeated in WW2, this Manchu Empire of Aisin Gioro would be still around today, even though it's real master would be the Japanese.
2. Just look at the map above, the size of Manchukuo is quite large, when compare with China Proper, leaving Tibet and Singkiang out. The dream of Imperial Japan had come true for a brief moment, in the river of History, so to speak.
3. A new section, such as From Daicing Gurun to Great Empire of Manchuria, any suggestions, readers? Arilang ^talk 03:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Response Manchuria is a region. It was called Manchuko; the Japanese puppet state. That is not an extension of the Qing Dynasty. In addition, the Japanese generals did not want it to be an extension of the Qing Dynasty otherwise it would have been seen as Chinese. They called it Manchu Country; Manchuko is countries for Manchus. Ironically, 98% of Manchuko was Han Chinese. A state of Manchuria is not Chinese especially if it was ran by the Japanese. Originally, the Japanese wanted a Chinese Warlord Zhang Zuolin to join Japan but he refused so he was killed by a bomb. Then, the Japanese annexed Manchuria and made Puyi its emperor.

Actual Coat Of Arms !

Hallo Everybody, I found the Actual C.O.A. on google images i read the article and observed the sources but i forgot its name. I found it via Dutch google so it may take some time to find it on Chinese Google. Here is the Discription: a coiled dragon displayed guardant consisting of 5 talons. Thanks for reading. Could someone please look it up? --82.134.154.25 (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)