Talk:Qing dynasty: Difference between revisions
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
::https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvp2n341<br> |
::https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvp2n341<br> |
||
::https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/items/e0b36c1b-bc50-439b-8230-25332e98f38b [[User:Sheherherhers|Sheherherhers]] ([[User talk:Sheherherhers|talk]]) 02:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC) |
::https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/items/e0b36c1b-bc50-439b-8230-25332e98f38b [[User:Sheherherhers|Sheherherhers]] ([[User talk:Sheherherhers|talk]]) 02:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Here is a similar story: the Qin conquered the Zhou dynasty in 256 BC; the Zhou dynasty was NEVER an empire, yet it is considered a dynasty of China, and historians usually date the Qin dynasty started in 221 BC. Of course one can argue that the Qin dynasty started in 256 BC (or even earlier), but still Wikipedia regards 221 BC as the start of the Qin dynasty according to the ''majority'' view. And for the Qing dynasty's start, the year 1644 is the ''majority'' view whereas 1636 is the ''minority'' view. In any case, the first paragraph of the article already explicitly mentions both years. |
:Here is a similar story: the Qin conquered the Zhou dynasty in 256 BC; the Zhou dynasty was NEVER an empire, yet it is considered a dynasty of China, and historians usually date the Qin dynasty started in 221 BC. Of course one can argue that the Qin dynasty started in 256 BC (or even earlier), but still Wikipedia regards 221 BC as the start of the Qin dynasty according to the ''majority'' view. And for the Qing dynasty's start, the year 1644 is the ''majority'' view whereas 1636 is the ''minority'' view. In any case, as you can see there is a ''too long'' tag for the article, and the first paragraph of the article intends to be summative and brief, yet it already explicitly mentions both years.--[[User:Wengier|Wengier]] ([[User talk:Wengier|talk]]) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
My suggested revision as follows:<br> |
My suggested revision as follows:<br> |
Revision as of 16:14, 10 April 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qing dynasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Qing dynasty:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please separate this hatnote in the "History" section, to include {{For timeline}}
parameter.
2001:4451:8285:B00:9180:5873:29D0:FDF9 (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Zheltuga Republic
Zheltuga Republic was not a successor of the Qing dynasty. It was simply a short-lived proto-state established by some Russian and Chinese gold miners in the Amur river basin, and then crushed by the Qing forces. Source: [1] Likewise, other regimes such as the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom (as established by revolt leaders) were not considered successors of the Qing dynasty either. --Wengier (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Extended-protected: Overkill?
Am I the only one who is confused why this page is extended-protected? It doesn't seem like a controversial enough topic for the designation. Other Wikipedia pages that are arguably far more controversial; Mao Zedong, Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping; all are only semi-protected. Should this page be changed to semi-protected as well? As the topic reads I think that designating this page as extended-protected seems like a bit much. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- The topic of this article is extremely controversial because many modern claims of sovereignty by the PRC and ROC are derived from arguments about the Qing dynasty's territoriality and suzerainty. POV pushing and sock editing were perennial problems before protection was upgraded and extended in 2021. Yue🌙 05:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Start of dynasty
As the sources given in the article (such as this) have already showed, historians usually date the Qing dynasty started in 1644 (at least for historiography purposes), even though Hong Taiji had proclaimed the dynasty in 1636. For example, in the book "China's Last Empire - the Great Qing" (final volume of the "History of Imperial China" series published by the Harvard University Press), the "Emperors and Dynasties" section clearly lists that the Qing dynasty spans from 1644-1912 in page 292, even though it does list Hong Taiji as an emperor of the Great Qing in page 291. Similarly, historians usually consider the Qin dynasty started in 221 BC, even though the Qin state itself was established much earlier than this. --Wengier (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- The first Qin emperor (Qin Shihuang) proclaimed himself as emperor of China after 221 BC, he was already a crown king of Qin state before the complete conquest of six nations, therefore the empire of Qin began in 221 BC pursuant to his proclaimation at that year. The imperial dynasty of Qing was started in Manchuria in 1636, it did not turn to an empire only after the seize of Beijing, they were not even in the same basis. Sheherherhers (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Whether the state itself was an empire or not does not really matter. For example, the Zhou dynasty is considered a ruling dynasty of China even if it was NEVER an empire. Clearly whether the dynasty was ruled by an emperor or king was not intended to be the deciding factor of the start year, although historians usually date the Qin dynasty started in 221 BC because it "unified" China at that time. --Wengier (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2024
It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Qing dynasty. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
How come the pre-1644 history of the dynasty is almost gone and neglected from the brief lead??
The fact is that the Qing empire was emerged from a Jurchen Khanate of later Jin established in Manchuria (including modern Northeast China and Outer Manchuria), which had been its own realm and proclaimed as an imperial dynasty much earlier before the capture of Beijing . 1644 was merely the dynasty first entered to the traditional Han Chinese dominions (入主中国 or traditionally 从龙入关), before that it had conquered several territories such as Mongol khanates in eastern Inner Mongolia and Joseon of Korea outside of Manchuria as an independent state. It's totally misinformed to just cut off the period of emergence before 1644 which is significant to remark the dynasty's origin and began it in 1644.
If this theory of Qing started its rule in 1644, how the first emperor of Qing Hong Taiji should be defined when he never entered Beijing and established his rule in China? Does the wikipedia regard the Qing dynasty between 1636 and 1644 as non-existence in history or separate nation?Sheherherhers (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 02:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)- Several academic soureces support my claims;
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314596977_China_imperial_8_Qing_or_Manchu_dynasty_period_1636-1911
- https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-inner-asia/qing-and-inner-asia-16361800/F843687E97193ED212B2CF1BDEBA3357
- https://history-maps.com/story/Qing-dynasty
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvp2n341
- https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/items/e0b36c1b-bc50-439b-8230-25332e98f38b Sheherherhers (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Here is a similar story: the Qin conquered the Zhou dynasty in 256 BC; the Zhou dynasty was NEVER an empire, yet it is considered a dynasty of China, and historians usually date the Qin dynasty started in 221 BC. Of course one can argue that the Qin dynasty started in 256 BC (or even earlier), but still Wikipedia regards 221 BC as the start of the Qin dynasty according to the majority view. And for the Qing dynasty's start, the year 1644 is the majority view whereas 1636 is the minority view. In any case, as you can see there is a too long tag for the article, and the first paragraph of the article intends to be summative and brief, yet it already explicitly mentions both years.--Wengier (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
My suggested revision as follows:
The Qing dynasty , officially the Great Qing, was a Manchu-led conquest dynasty of China and the last imperial dynasty in Chinese history. The dynasty was emerged from the Jurchen-led Later Jin dynasty established in Manchuria (present-day Northeast China and Outer Manchuria). It subsequently proclaimed as an empire in Shenyang in 1636, seized control of Beijing in 1644, which is considered the start of the dynasty's rule in China. The dynasty lasted until 1912, when it was overthrown in the Xinhai Revolution...
- Regardless the start year (the minority view or the majority view), I do not think there is need for the first paragraph (which intends to be brief) to mention the pre-events (before BOTH 1636 and 1644). Instead, the Later Jin dynasty is clearly mentioned and explained in the second paragraph, no repetition needed for the first paragraph. Otherwise, we can repeat various other events in the first paragraph too, which are however not intended for the first paragraph. The point "conquest dynasty" is valid, but there is a lot more to be said as well, such as how Qing considered itself, although such things should probably be placed elsewhere rather than the very beginning of the article. --Wengier (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class Central Asia articles
- High-importance Central Asia articles
- WikiProject Central Asia articles
- B-Class former country articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests