Talk:Qing dynasty

Culture, philosophy, art?

This article goes into depth about military history but doesn't deal with anything about culture or daily life, and there don't seem to be any links to it. The only indications that there was any culture at all are the jpgs interspersed of vases and such. Really, this article should be titled "Qing Dynasty Military History". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.182.238 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Flag

The infobox flag is from the 1890s, but does anyone know of any official flags or symbols before that? This site mentions a yellow flag "with a black dragon, fringed with blue" around 1844. I've also read several British military accounts of the 1840s that mention a flag with a dragon, but no pictures. Currently, much of the articles on the Opium War battles use File:China Qing Dynasty Flag 1889.svg or File:China Qing Dynasty Flag 1862.png, but none are verified as being used in the 1840s or 1850s. It would be good if anyone can verify whether the Qing Dynasty had any official symbols during that time, otherwise they may eventually be removed from those articles as being anachronistic. Spellcast (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This source says no official national flag was adapted until 1872. But for the record, here's some British accounts describing some flags in the 1840s:

• [1] "The dark blue flags of the 'scrambling dragons'".
• [2] "The British colours were hauled down, and the Chinese dragon was hoisted in their place".
• [3] "their flag hauled down, and the Union Jack displayed from the ramparts."
• [4] "the Chinese ensign hoisted half-staff high".

So although there wasn't an official national flag before 1872, there were non-official ones in use. If anyone happens to have pictures of such emblems, it may prove valuable to provide them. Spellcast (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Tibet

The map in this article explicitly shows that Tibet was part of Qing territory. There are also a lot of reliable sources (maps & texts) showing this, such as Encyclopædia Britannica and Cambridge History of China, which are very authoritative sources. However, in the article History of Tibet originally says "In 1751 ... Under Emperor Qianlong no further attempts were made to integrate Tibet into the empire." and "In 1792 ... the relationship between Qing and Tibet remained one of two states", (i.e. it says that Tibet was not a part of Qing, but a separate state), which are clearly biased, contradicting with the mainstream view. The article is about the general history of Tibet, not for placing such POVs and arguments as in Tibetan sovereignty debate. I have shown reasons and sources in Talk:History of Tibet, but unfortunately someone there seems to favor such biased statements, perhaps because of their own POVs. Please help to keep that article neutral. Thanks! --173.206.59.88 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There are other old maps explicitly showing Tibet outside the Qing territory (all were published by International Campaign for Tibet in 2008, possible also in the Internet, with quotations for each map). POV is Sinocentric view on the Tibetan issue.---SK91.76.10.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

There were maps officially published by Qing government called "Full Map of Qing Empire" (大清帝国全图) in 1905 and 1908, and Tibet was considered a part of it. The maps published by "International Campaign for Tibet" are clearly not official nor widely-recognized ones. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Successors States to Qing Dynasty

User:Jean-Jacques Georges has added icons of Tibet (1912–1950) and Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919 as successor states to the Qing Dynasty on the article's template inbox. The reason of the user's addition was because of the de facto independence status of Tibet (1912–1950) and Russia's recognition of Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919. The succession links in the country template is normally for the official and direct political successor of the state, which most academic timelines and major encyclopedias lists the Republic of China. Not all indpendent areas or states proclaiming indpendence are listed. For example, the Tibet (1912–1950) article described it as "de facto", so does it have wide international recognition? In my opinion, a consensus is needed for these icons to be in the template.--TheLeopard (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I should point out that Tsarist Russia did not really recognize Mongolia's independence (as opposed to autonomy), and that the Soviet Union later continued that policy for quite a while. But I agree with Jean-Jaques that international recognition should not be the one and only important factor here. Yaan (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Tibet and Mongolia should be listed as successor states, quite simply because they were, as these two countries declared, and obtained de facto, their independence in the context of the Xinhai revolution. User TheLeopard does not agree because the ROC did not recognize their independence : actually, I don't find this to be a very good argument, since many country breakups happened in controversial contexts, and yet that poses no problem when it comes to list the actual successor states. Listing the successor states in the infobox is actually informative to the readers, which is the goal of this project. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that China did not recognize these state's independence, and that the ROC is (quite obviously) listed as a successor to Qing China does not take out the fact that these two countries enjoyed independence from China (for 38 years in Tibet's case; indefinitely in Mongolia's case). If you look at the First French Empire, while everyone in general and "major encyclopedias" in particular will, naturally and quite obviously, list the Kingdom of France as its successor state, it also has quite a lot of other successor states, all of which are currently - and rightly so - listed in the infobox. This simply helps giving an accurate and complete image of what the Napoleonic empire was. Same thing for Nazi Germany, which has far more successor states than the Allied administration (or West Germany and East Germany, actually). And the breakup from these successor states was far more brutal than what occurred with Tibet and Mongolia in the context of the Qing's downfall. If Tibet and Mongolia were, along with the ROC, the successor states to Imperial China, they should be listed, regardless if said succession was de jure or de facto. As for Tibet's recognition, it is no valid argument. It might be if the de facto independence had lasted for, say, three weeks or six months; not in the case of a 38-years long independence. The same thing goes for Austria–Hungary : just because Hungary kept claiming part of the territories that came to form Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, are we going to take the Czechoslovak Republic and the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs out of the successor states ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please give reliable academic sources supporting your claim that Tibet and Mongolia are successor states of the Qing Dynasty (not from a site that advocates Tibetan independence or so). Without such sources, your above argument is really original_research and is probably not NPOV as well. Listing ROC and Tibet equally as separate successors actually imply that Tibet was a separate country from ROC, which is quite POV. Is Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (1991-2000) a successor state of Soviet Union? Not mentioning that Tibet (between 1911-1950) and Mongolia (between 1911-1924) actually never officially proclaimed a new country to the degree as Chechen did after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also, in 1915 treaty of Kyakhta (Outer) Mongolia recognized ROC's sovereignty; in exchange Russia and ROC recognized Outer Mongolia's autonomy (not independence). Please try to reach a consensus before adding such controversial (and probably misleading) information. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, in 1915 treaty of Kyakhta (Outer) Mongolia recognized ROC's sovereignty; in exchange Russia and ROC recognized Outer Mongolia's autonomy (not independence).

Yes, and China never signed anything like that for Tibet, so China never recognized even autonomy for Tibet. This was last treaty that China (Qing dynasty) signed regarding Tibet: Convention Between Great Britain and China. see article 2: The Government of China also undertakes not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet Mmddnn (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And here is official UN map from 1945: [5] Mmddnn (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My answer will be rather blunt : who gives a damn about China recognizing Tibet's independence or not ? It was de facto independent for 38 years : this should be taken into account without taking sides (and I'm certainly not taking any about the current debate over Tibet). The fact that it was, and still is, controversial does not change anything to the de facto situation. As for Mongolia, should I remind that, despite the ambiguity of China's recognition, it is still nowadays an independent country, which makes the succession a very logical and valid one ? Virtually no one recognized the Hungarian Democratic Republic in 1918, that didn't stop Hungary from remaining independent and that regime from being one of the successors to Austria-Hungary. About Tibet, one might read here the various arguments showing that the subject was more complex at the time that the argument "China didn't recognize it, therefore the independence never occurred" would lead to think. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, without reliable academic sources supporting your claim that Tibet and Mongolia are successor states of the Qing Dynasty, your above argument is original research and/or POV. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability we know that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The current best solution is simply showing the direct successor, and leave out the rather controversial (and indirect) ones, c.f. Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (1991-2000) as mentioned above. Just a further note, whether Mongolia is nowadays independent is a quite different question from whether it is a successor state of the Qing Dynasty (and don't forget the 1915 treaty of Kyakhta). --173.206.43.154 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the most severe problem currently is that you (User:Jean-Jacques Georges) are edit warring with other users without reaching any consensus. (Wikipedia) policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

May I observe, dear Mr (or Mrs ?) 173, that you are "edit warring" as well in order to push forward your personal opinions ? The case of Tibet being a complex one, it might be acceptable to leave it out, although I am not convinced of that. However, leaving out Mongolia is simply ludicrous, as this particular country is still nowadays a pretty much independent country, unless I am grossly mistaken. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who is adding controversial and original research information to the article against other editors. Leaving out Mongolia is also quite reasonable as it's a complex issue on where it became eventually independent from. It's already mentioned above in 1915 treaty of Kyakhta (Outer) Mongolia recognized ROC's sovereignty in exchange for autonomy. Many other parts of China also enjoyed high degree of autonomy during that time. It's reasonable to argue that Mongolia only became independent during the later course of ROC, not as a successor to the Qing Dynasty, which is your argument without support from reliable academic sources. Again, currently the best solution is simply showing the direct successor, which is well-accepted, and leave out the controversial (and indirect) ones. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research ? The fact that Mongolia proclaimed its independence in 1911 and ultimately retained it makes it a clear successor, no matter when China recognized said independence. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That Mongolia (and Tibet as you previously insisted) is a successor state of the Qing Dynasty is your argument, without giving reliable academic sources saying so. Whether Mongolia is independent now is a different issue. In 1915 treaty of Kyakhta (Outer) Mongolia recognized ROC's sovereignty in exchange for autonomy, so as mentioned above it's a complex issue on where it became eventually independent from. You are really giving personal opinions regarding this complex question, which is original research. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the word "souvereignty" occurs in the Kyakhta treaty. Yaan (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, at least for the purpose of this discussion, it's more like a technical issue whether the word "souvereignty" itself occurs in the treaty. As an aside, it was the article Treaty of Kyakhta used the word "sovereignty" (from which I copied) when providing a short summary for the 1915 Treaty of Kyakhta that "Basically: Russia and China recognize Outer Mongolia's autonomy, but Mongolia recognizes China's sovereignty and will make no treaties with foreign countries." In other words, the sentence containing the word "sovereignty" is merely a summary of the content of treaty, not that every single word in the sentence is directly from the treaty itself. According to various sources such as "Digest of international law" (Vol 1, Page 75) "On June 7, 1915, Russia, China, and Outer Mongolia signed (at Kiachta [Kyakhta]) a treaty whereby China and Russia recognized 'the autonomy of Outer Mongolia forming part of Chinese territory', and Outer Mongolia recognized the suzerainty of China." as well as "Autonomous Mongolia has no right to conclude international treaties with foreign Powers respecting political and territorial questions". Maybe you can argue the summary in that article is somewhat incorrect and there is a better summary for the treaty content, but this should be discussed in the talk page of that article; although may be an issue somewhere else, it is not really very important here, at least for the purpose of this discussion (i.e. on the question of "successor states"; the discussions below rarely mention this treaty actually). I did not notice this technical issue when I copied the word from that article (which I won't use again though), but all points above still hold. P.S. I have also changed the summary in that article a bit to make it more precise. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. I was not "previously" insisting that Tibet was independent, I'm still insisting on it, but I'm not including it at present as a gesture of goodwill. If you want sources, here is one explicitly stating that "only the mongols" could break away from the "middle empire". Here is another one. What else do you want ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the last message more carefully. It was saying you were insisting adding Tibet (and Mongolia) as a successor state of the Qing Dynasty, not whether Tibet was independent. The latter is a different question, and de-facto independence was not a real independence or becoming a separate country (simply saying they are "independent" is somewhat misleading; compare the statuses of Russia and Chechen after the fall of Soviet Union), but anyway it's a different question from whether it was a successor state of the Qing Dynasty. As for your sources, which are merely saying that (Outer) Mongolia eventually achieved its independence from China (or the Middle Kingdom), and that it declared independence after the fall of Qing Dynasty, but the sources are neither saying that Mongolia was always independent from ROC nor they are saying that Mongolia (or Tibet) is a successor state of the Qing Dynasty. It has no doubt that Mongolia declared its independence and eventually achieved its independence from China, but this is completely different from the question "From which regime did it become independent, Qing Dynasty or ROC?" and the question "Whether or not it is a successor state of the Qing dynasty". Your sources never answer these questions, and they are not evidences supporting your claim that "Tibet and Mongolia are successor states of the Qing Dynasty". --173.206.43.154 (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, one of your sources also states "One year later, on 7 July 1937, Japan invaded China. Following the war, the Mongolian people once again overwhelmingly voted for independence from China." which basically means that despite the declaration of independence in the end of 1911, Mongolia did not really become independent from China; it was not until after the WWII (i.e. in the 1940s) that Mongolia actually achieved its independence from ROC. In summary, the source is saying that Mongolia eventually became independent from China, but it was from ROC after the WWII, not from the Qing Dynasty that fell much earlier. So claiming that Mongolia is a successor state of the Qing dynasty is making nonsense from the sources you provided. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The way the Mongolians see it is certainly that they became independent in 1911. The 1945 referendum was basically meaningless, it was held to save Chinese face, but of course the Chinese had lost any influence on Mongolia long before that time. I hope it is not original research to point out that on becoming leader of an independent Mongolia in 1911, the eigth Jebtsundamba Khutughtu assumed a few attributes that previously the Qing emperors had held, including the title Bogd Khan. Yaan (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That referendum was the most important thing in the history of modern Mongolia, because of that referendum you Mongols have your state today. After civil war China established control over internationally recognized territory. Just like Russians established control over Chechnya or the North over Southern states. So after civil war, when Mao Zedong or Chiang Kai-shek (depends who wins in civil war) would look at official Republic o China and UN map they would see that Mongolia is a part of China, they would enter Mongolia and you could do nothing. UN would do nothing because Mongolia would be a part of China because Mongolian proclaimed independence was not accepted by the government of China, nor did Mongolia receive foreign diplomatic recognition. Mmddnn (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, the existence of my home country is, as far as I am aware, completely unrelated to Mongolian independence. However, you are correct that my home country could probably not have made a difference in any Sino-Mongolian conflicts in the late 1940s or early 1950s.

Anyway, I think your what-if is flawed from the beginning because you ignore the circumstances under which the ROC finally agreed to recognize Mongolian independence (hint, USSR was not the only country to liberate Japanese-occupied territories in August 1945). The referendum was completely meaningless because both sides knew in advance what would be the result. In fact, even if both sides had been unsure about what the Mongolians themselves wanted, they still would have known the result in advance. You also seem to ignore that (second hint) even the Japanese had proven unable to invade Mongolia in 1939.

Btw. your UN map looks cool, but it displays Mongolia as just as independent as Switzerland, Sweden or Spain. Actually, I don't understand why you bring up the UN at all. They don't seem to have had much influence in the area in the 1950s or 1960s. Yaan (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the previous messages had already repeatedly said "it's a complex issue on where (which regime) it became eventually independent from". All sentences regarding from which regime that Mongolia became independent in the message above yours containing the phrase similar to "the source is saying ..." or "from the sources", indicating it is the source suggesting so, not that it's the final answer. The view that you provided (which I'm quite aware of, thus repeatedly said "it's a complex issue") is simply another view/answer to this complex question, which basically indicate the complexity of the issue. Anyway, we should not give a final answer or nationalist view to this complex question in the article. (BTW: Yaan, I already thought you might show up again with Mongolians' (nationalist) view, but I had already tried to be as neutral as possible for the discussions, and I simply mention what the sources that User:Jean-Jacques Georges gave are saying or suggesting, not implying there is a final answer to this complex question. In fact, all messages here simply show how "complex" the issue is, which was already mentioned in the messages above which appeared a few days ago. The details of the other views (including the one you provided) are not really needed here, at least for the purpose of this discussion, surrounding the issue of "successor states".). --173.206.43.154 (talk)

Ok, then what shall we do ? The fact that Mongolia did become de facto independent in 1911, and has stayed that way since, should be a sufficient argument for its inclusion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the way this is supposed to work is to find some useful sources. Yaan (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Were the previous ones not useful ? This one might be used, too. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they are definitely not explicit enough (or you give me the page number). I think you have a point, but as far as I understand the way wikipedia works is that you can only use statements that come quite directly from the sources. Mongolia as a successor state looks so far like an original synthesis to me. Yaan (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, as already mentioned above, your sources (including the newest one) don't support your claim that "Mongolia (or Tibet) is a successor state of the Qing dynasty". Earlier messages of the discussion have already repeatedly said that "it's a complex issue on where (which regime) it became eventually independent from". One of the sources you gave suggests it became independent from ROC, and User:Yaan simply provides another view. The existence of different views precisely suggests the complexity of the question, which was actually already mentioned in earlier messages. As per NPOV policy, we should not give a final answer or any nationalist views to this complex question in the article, not mentioning that you actually NEVER provide reliable academic sources saying "Mongolia (or Tibet) is a successor state of the Qing dynasty", but merely provided sources saying Mongolia eventually achieved its independence from China, and that it declared independence after the fall of Qing Dynasty and so on. Furthermore, in 1915 treaty of Kyakhta, Mongolia officially enjoyed autonomy, not independence (or more precisely, according to sources, China and Russia recognized "the autonomy of Outer Mongolia forming part of Chinese territory", and Outer Mongolia recognized the suzerainty of China and "Autonomous Mongolia has no right to conclude international treaties with foreign Powers respecting political and territorial questions") . Again, the question "From which regime it became eventually independent" is a complex question, all messages here also indicate so, and your claim about the successor states are not supported by the sources. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, another source "Nationalism and hybridity in Mongolia" by Uradyn Erden Bulag (p13) states that 1921 and 1946 mark the de facto independence and the de jure independence of Mongolia from China, which contradicts with your claim that Mongolia had stayed de facto independent since 1911 as well. I'm not saying that the information in the source(s) is absolutely correct, but all these indicate that the issue is very complex, and we should not give a final answer in the article. --173.206.103.120 (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, the source I gave above comes from Stanford University Press and explicitly states that Mongolia seceded from Qing China in 1911. IMHO, you are making this issue uselessly complicated. The fact is that Mongolia seceded from China and has remained an independent state ever since. Tibet also seceded, and whether it was de jure or de facto is IMHO totally irrelevant to the concrete situation. Chinese nationalist views are of no concern to this issue. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that Outer Mongolia remained de facto independent since 1921, and de jure since 1945. Kyakhta Treaty of June 1915 recognized Mongolia’s autonomy within the Chinese state. Chinese had the right to appoint a high commissioner to Urga and deputy high commissioners to Uliastai, Khovd, and Kyakhta.[6] Also, the Chinese eliminated autonomy and restored sovereignty over Outer Mongolia in 1919. Do you understand that the Qing Emperor bequeathed the entire Empire to the Republic of China. For example, Austria–Hungary was defeated and the treaty declared that the Austro-Hungarian Empire must be dissolved. But The Republic of China succeeded the Qing Dynasty

• 

Mmddnn (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your last link merely points to a search result of "mongolia independence 1911" of a book but not pointing to any specific page. Neither this search result, nor the sources you previously gave, support your claim regarding successor states. Even if there exists a page in the source stating that Mongolia seceded from Qing China in 1911, it does not answer the question whether Mongolia is a successor state of the Qing Dynasty. Actually, a number of other areas or provinces also declared their independence from Qing in 1911, but later joined the newly-founded republic; on the other hand, Mongolia officially enjoyed autonomy, not independence, in 1915. Your sources also don't say Mongolia has stayed independent since 1911, nor that Mongolia is a successor state of the Qing Dynasty. You can have your personal view, and Chinese or Mongolians may have their nationalist views, that doesn't matter. However, in Wikipedia neutrality and verifiability are the most important. The source "Nationalism and hybridity in Mongolia" (as pointed out above) states that 1921 and 1946 mark the de facto independence and the de jure independence of Mongolia from China, which clearly contradicts with your view that Mongolia had stayed de facto independent since 1911. You are the one who is trying to add controversial information which contradicts with other source(s). --173.206.43.154 (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: There is no reliable sources available that state that Tibet or Outer Mongolia is a successor state of Qing dynasty. Whether de facto independence itself constitutes sovereign status without diplomatic recognition by China or any other major world power for that matter is POV, and cannot be reliably be considered as NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Economic policy section

The newly-added so called "Qing Economic policy" section is full of biased or inaccurate statements. Even if we don't mention the unsourced POV statements such as "These draconian restrictions greatly hampered the Qing economy, and was a key reason why it fell behind the West in the 18th century", the rest is also very biased. I have checked the Cambridge History of China volume 9, and page 607 and 609 never say "the Manchu regime restricted the number of merchants that could operate and prohibited mining completely". Instead, they only mention something like "Emperor Ch'ien-lung introduced a slideing scale of licensing fees ...", "Emperor K'ang-hsi offered some mining guidelines .. Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines, fearing an unruly lablor force, but they allowed mines to operate in poor areas to provide employment" and so on. Clearly this new section is very POV and there is only negative and inaccurate info in it. The same book also contains much positive info, but none of them are placed in the section. For example, page 609 also mentions that "Qing rulers earned considerable praise from their subjects by reducing the odious and ancint practice through their fisal reforms" and so on, but they did not appear at all in the section. Please obey Wikipedia's NPOV policy, thanks. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IP, I think not allowing mines to open is a "prohibition" on mining (at least new mines), and if you read ahead, it will mention the portion about restricting the number of merchants operating. i will quote from the text now:

Emperor Yung-cheng’s concerns, fueled by reports of illegal and immoral

behavior, prompted him in 1733 to order local officials to select only upright and law-abiding brokers and merchants to operate in the marketplace. That selection process allowed departments and county magistrates to issue a certain quota of licenses to brokers in exchange for their paying a fee

to the state.

I will note your point about corvee service by noting that corvee labor was already abolished per Zhang Juzheng in the 16th century. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the book never says the Qing "prohibited mining completely", even though there may be some "restrictions". They are obviously not the same, and should not put contents which are different from the source to the article. Furthermore, this new section is clearly only aimed at blaming Qing for making China falling behind (which is more like a POV than a general consensus by scholars), rather than a general description and discussion of Qing economic policies, which makes the section very biased. Please don't remove the template until the POV issue is resolved. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation about Qing making China fell behind is from a seperate source. Qing prohibited the operation of new mines, which is what the book states: "Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines, fearing an unruly lablor force". If you prevent people from opening new mines, I think that is a prohibition on new mines. This assertion is also supported by other sources, which I can add to the article if you want.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I already quote the sentences "Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines, fearing an unruly lablor force, but they allowed mines to operate in poor areas to provide employment" above, but which didn't exactly say Qing prohibited the operation of new mines, but also contain more info. Also as mentioned above, the claim that it was Qing who made China falling behind is more like a POV than a general consensus by scholars. It is easy to find sources to mention different reasons for so. --99:.244.68.239 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I added an additional source about Qing's mining prohibition. As about the claim that Qing made CHina fell behind, that is from a different source. You can add a contending view if you want.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is really not how to write qualified Wikipedia articles. The only purpose of this new section is to blame Qing for its "backwards", rather than a general description and discussion of Qing economic policies as the title suggests. Clearly it's biased and need major cleanups. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IP, this section is at this moment very small, so it is a general description of Qing economic policies in terms of industry and agriculture. If you have noticed some Qing policies which were not mentioned, please free to add them (note that the goal is to add policies that were unique during the Qing era). It is not biased to call FDR's policies interventionist, so I don't see how this section is biased; it is a description of Qing policies as they stood. I have moderated the last sentence, however.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Qing made quite a number of economic policies, including those made Qing rulers earning considerable praise from their subjects as mentioned above. However, the current contents in the section reads like Qing is only making "backwards" policies and there is only negative info, which is clearly biased. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

IP, if you have suggestions, it is best to list them here.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this section needs major cleanups or even rewritten to accurately reflect Qing econimic policies, rather than suggesting how "backwards" it was. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this section adequately sums up Qing's eceonomic policies (the policies that were uniquely Qing). Remember that regular tax rebates and abolition of corvee labor were policies in place before Qing.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

“I believe that this section adequately sums up Qing's economic policies” is itself a POV. There of course exist other views. For example, as mentioned above the Qing made fiscal reform which made considerably praise from their subjects, which is part of Qing economic policies but not reflected at all. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fiscal reform was about corvee labor, I believe. This policy was already instituted during the Ming by the Single whip reform. If you go even earlier, Emperor Guangwu had already allowed those who did not want to perform corvee labor to become exempt with a fee. Theres nothing POV about a belief; thats just what I think. You can add stuff if u want, provided it is actually sourced.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I was saying what your belief or thought is a view, and there are other views too. The current organization of the section is a representation of your view, but not general consensus, and the content is POV. Indeed the current section requires major cleanups, and Cambridge History of China is a good source, apart from some others. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit and added some info, as well as a link to the Economic history of China (pre-1911)'s Qing section.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The portion about growing rice and stuff is relevant. I'm sure that growing rice wasn't an invention of the Qing!Teeninvestor (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This section is about Economic developments during the Qing Dynasty, and the growing rice and so on are very important aspects in economics during Qing era (and other dynasties too). It's not about how "invasion" (actually, the long wars and other factors) caused destruction, but how Qing economics developed during the course of the dynasty. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think even a reader who wasn't informed in the topic would know CHinese grow rice! the point is to inform the reader of the economic conditions that existed during Qing. Early Qing's description of the state of the economy is essential to do so.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly the point. The imports of new crops and so on are a very important factor that led significant population rise and economic developments in the Qing Dynasty, which is very long-lasting. The "invasion" (wars) was temporary, and was followed by major population rise and economic developments, and the latter is more important. Other dynasties had a war-destruction and restoration cycles in their early courses too, but the deciding factor is how economics developed once the dynasties were stabilized.--99.244.68.239 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Qing one is more notable, as it was generally much more destructive than previous dynastic cycles. all histories of the Qing mention this point; no one mentions the Song's destruction of cities, for example.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Song forces destructed some cities too, such as the city of Jiujiang, though I agree that the Qing case is more notable and can be mentioned. But that's it; on the other hand, the major population rise and economics developments in the later course of the dynasty was much more significant, and deserves more space than the temporary economic destruction in the beginning. I have some history textbooks (published in North America), which are good examples of how the section should look like.--99.244.68.239 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to mentioning economic growth during the Qing, which is noted at the end of the article (i don't think anyone would doubt there was economic growth/population increase in the mid-Qing). If you have a source on Qing's prosperity, please add more info. Another section which you can borrow info would be the Qing section of hte Economic history of China (pre-1911) article.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have some sources, and the section still need major cleanups to meet Wikipedia standard. For example, the first paragraph of the section should be an overview of economic developments during the Qing Dynasty, rather than some specific policies (especially in the early Qing period, mostly short-lived). By the way, the article Economic_history_of_China_(pre-1911) contains biased and inaccurate info as well and need some cleanups too.--99.244.68.239 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To the above users. This article is a summary article, an introduction to the Qing Dynasty, and like most Wikipedia articles, it has to be easily "readable". The article is already very long. I'm not sure if you are actually aware, but continuing adding pages worth of material to the end, is ignoring the structure of the article. You don't have to move all the information from another article to here. Please do not continue to prolong the article and try to trim the content. Get the point across instead of rambling paragraphs.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The info here has been trimmed. I suggest that you should focus on trimmming the other paragraphs, which are far more rambling.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I like maps and sometimes when I see them I would like to know more about them. (I do not care much about quotations for text passages, but for maps its different.)

- What are the sources for Qing_China_1820.png? Even if Pryaltonian created it by himself, it must be based on something.

- China Proper.jpg: The link given as source leads to nowhere. In what book (edition) or context (maybe as single leaf?) was this map published originally?

- The other three look fine (at least a proper source is given, which gives some context and the sources can be checked for more information)

83.78.171.153 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Booi Aha / 包衣阿哈

There is no guidance in WP:MOS-ZH re Manchu/Mongolian transliterations but "Booi Aha" jars a bit with pinyin so maybe that should be first followed by Chinese then Mongolian characters/transliteration? Philg88 (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

dates

It says in 1636 the empire was renamed, but above it says the empire was founded in 1644. Something doesn't seem right.--SaturnElite (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It existed as a Manchu empire before it became a Chinese dynasty. That's when it changed its name. Zazaban (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

I've removed File:Arms of the Qing Dynasty.svg from the infobox because I couldn't find a reliable source showing this as the official coat of arms (see also File talk:Arms of the Qing Dynasty.svg). Feel free to re-add it if anyone can give a reliable source showing this as the official COA. Spellcast (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of source

IP User starting with 91.76: Please give the specific page number of the source that explicitly states "At the time of the Qing Dynasty formation, the state ruled by it has been established outside of Ming China". I could not find that sentence anywhere in the source. Also note that sources must support the material clearly and directly; you cannot draw inferences from them. Pg 31 and 34 of the source mentions that originally as a Ming vassal for about 20 years, "Nurhaci proclaimed his independence from the Ming in 1616". Is this used to infer "the state ruled by it has been established outside of Ming China at the time of the Qing Dynasty formation"? If it is so, if rebel leader Li Zicheng proclaimed his independence from the Ming and established the Shun, and then "the state ruled by it has been established outside of Ming China"? Obviously this is not a direct use of source, but a view based on source. Please try to edit articles in academic manner, and try to avoid inference. Such kind of statement has to be neuturalized. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Nurhaci for some time was a nominal vassal of the Ming but this means no more than his state was nominally dependent on China. It was not included in the Chinese borders, on the contrast to Yongle era. The vassalage and tributary relationships in China represented a flexible system used for purposes of defending Chinese borders by outside tribes, also for trade, internal policy purposes (by showing their missions and awards as "obedience of barbarians") etc. Please, refer to list of tributaries of imperial China as example. This was also the case of Nurhaci. This vas "Vaifan", not "Zhongguo". If any territory during a certain time has come into nominal vassalage to any Chinese emperor, this does not mean that it has become a part of China forever. Anyhow, at the time of proclaiming of Qing dynasty the Manchu state was outside of Ming borders which is clear from the academic sources.---SK91.76.10.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Anyway, Nurhaci had been officially a vassal of Ming for at least 30 years (from 1580s to 1610s), so that cannot be said as "temporily". Also the Cambridge source explicitly states that "Officially he (Nurhaci) still considered himself a guardian of the Ming border and a local representative of imperial Ming power" (Vol 9, pg 29), thus it will be biased to state "It was not included in the Chinese border" in the article. He only officially declared independence from Ming in 1616. Also refer to my reply elsewhere for responses to other points above. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New image: Coat of arms

I've come across several historical documents in China (Tai-Bei) depicting a Dragon similar to the royal emblem of Chos?n on the Joseon Dynasty-page on Wikipedia. I don't have the files, but if anyone knows where one could find similar images. If someone from Tai-Bei, T'ai-Wan read this could you please look for those documents in the national archive. --77.169.238.179 (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I also saw the dragon-seal-coat of arms in a German coin encyclopedia, and on several banknotes from that (Qing)-era.--77.169.238.179 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Languages

Apologies to User:TheLeopard and others that I didn't explain why I removed the SW Williams reference in more detail. First, as I said in the comment, The Middle Kingdom is a great book, but we don't need a reference to say that Chinese was a language in China. I should have added that Williams said that the "court" language was the language of China, but we need to talk about the regional languages, such as Cantonese, Shanghai, etc etc. I again apologize but I couldn't find sources to confirm my memory that the languages at court included Chinese, Manchu, Mongolian, and Tibetan. In the Forbidden City the plaques over the doors are in those languages. So the list of languages spoken in the empire would go on for half a page! So I think that removing an inadequate source seemed like a good idea at the time. Would it be ok if I again removed the reference and expanded the list of languages? ch (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Map

It makes no sense to have a map of the Qing Dynasty on the article about the Qing at a time when the Qing was on the verge of collapse. We don't have the Soviet Union article show a 1943 map with the Western border at Stalingrad, do we? The 1820 map is justified in that it makes the distinction between de facto provinces, directly ruled, and military governances, a distinction not made within western maps at the time, which treated China all as one continuous entity, which is definitely not the case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Benlisquare for your support. As the map maker I greatly appreciate it. At the same time, I understand TheLeopard's reasoning, as contemporary maps are indisputable in representing the borders of the time, and angry nationalists on all sides will accuse modern maps of fakery regardless of research. As I compromise, I'd like to put forward this map: http://web.archive.org/web/20070208043057/http://map.huhai.net/58-59.jpg since it shows the Qing at its largest extent. However, since it was published in the US in 1935, I think it is still under copyright (but I could be wrong). If we can get fair use permission, I think it would be better than the 1892 map. Interestingly, the original host of the map, Huhai, no longer exists, so I wonder if that helps us in any way in procuring the map for this article. I've never petitioned for fair use before, so if anyone can help with going about doing so, it would be greatly appreciated. Pryaltonian (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are dozens of suitable maps in commons:Category:Old_maps_of_China. Here are a few:

• 
  1734 (before the conquest of Xinjiang)
• 
  1770 ("China proper", i.e. the 18 provinces)
• 
  1770 ("Chinese Tartary", i.e. Mongolia/Manchuria)
• 
  1798 (not drawing an exact border between the Chinese Empire and the "Tatars" of Central Asia)
• 
  1837
• 
  1865 ("China proper") only
• 
  1875 (With "Turkestan independent" in the west, as it was prepared during the Dungan Rebellion)
• 
  1883 (partial)
• 
  1905
• 
  1910

As one can see, it was pretty common for the 18th-19th century European cartographers to have several maps "China proper" (i.e. the 15-18 provinces inherited from the Ming) separately from the "Chinese Tartary" (Mongolia + Manchuria, sometimes also Turkestan), so it's not all that easy to find a map that shows the entire empire on one sheet. This great collection: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/RUMSEY~8~1 may be a good resource to find a better map. -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC) -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Vmenkov for finding these maps! For now, I have placed the 1837 map as the map representing the empire in the infobox. The Rumsey Collection is a great find, and there were some great maps of the Qing such as

• http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~34628~1180240:Carte-de-l-Empire-Chinois-et-du-Jap?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No
• http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~28700~1120937:Carte-de-l-Empire-Chinois-et-du-Jap?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No
• http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~35112~1180737:China-and-Japan--London--Published-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No
• http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~35059~1180684:Carte-generale-de-l-Empire-Chinois-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No

However, I am under the impression that since these maps have been republished by Cartography Associates, I believe that means that Cartography Associates holds the copyright of everything republished on its website. Thus, I think sticking to what is in the Commons is the best solution for now. - Pryaltonian (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the Wikmedia Foundation strongly holds the position that merely reprinting/republishing/reproducing/scanning/photographing/digitizing a 2-dimensional work of art, without any particular creative work added, does not create any new copyright (regardless of what the [re-]publisher says), and an image so obtained can be uploaded to the Wiki Commons under the license based on the original publication date and/or the death date of the original author. You can start reading about this e.g. from commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag and commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. -- Vmenkov (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I must agree with Vmenkov here. Merely scanning an old work does not make one a copyright holder of the visual work; the original work remains the authorship of the original creator, and if the original work is from two centuries ago, the work definitely should be PD. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I have uploaded an 1844 map which should show about the same amount of territory but in better color.

Qing in 1844

- Pryaltonian (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

903 × 685 pixels? Why would you not upload a higher resolution version, when it is available right in front of you? Here, I've re-uploaded a better image for you at File:China and Japan, John Nicaragua Dower (1844).jpg, with 7297x5945 pixels. Also, there's no point in using PNG for scans of old books - it only bloats the image with meaningless redundant data, especially when the original raster image was a compressed JPEG anyway. Using a lossless image format when the original is compressed and lossy has no benefit. As for the image I've just uploaded, feel free to crop the edges as you see fit (at its current state it might not look that great on the article), perhaps even change the colouring a bit, but please, for the love of Chairman Mao, don't re-scale the image or switch to PNG. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't know why that didn't occur to me and why I did those other things (other than perhaps old habits die hard). I think the new map looks pretty good as is. I don't think it needs any color correction, as any more retouching may lead to other people to doubt its authenticity. - Pryaltonian (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)