Talk:Macartney Embassy

I put an NPOV tag because it does not include some of the views of current historians that now see the Macartney Embassy in the context of Qing foreign relations with Central Asia.

Roadrunner 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are referring to James Hevia's works, which are by no means universally accepted among historians. I will insert references to these works and remove the POV tag here as well, if you don't mind.--Niohe 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Qing embassy itself?

It seems to me the the bulk of this article is tied up with discussion of the Japanese embassy that never took place, instead of the Qing embassy that actually did take place. Other articles mention popular perceptions that the embassy fails because Macartney did not kowtow; the article doesn't touch on this in any detail. I'm thinking the Japanese section needs a trim because as it currently stands it seems to be to be undue weight. Slac speak up! 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese material is interesting but agree that article needs more information on the mission itself. When did the meeting between the emperor and Macartney take place for example? Drutt (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five years hence and still the same problem. Still no information on the time or place of the meeting, or how it all went down. Difference engine (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, articles about this subject often point to Qianlong's letter as a sign that he was out of touch and arrogant, but they conveniently leave out George III's letter to Qianlong, which uses similarly lofty and self-elevating language. I'm a bit disappointed that this article simply repeats the popular (and unabashedly Orientalist) narrative without any sort of challenge whatsoever.174.21.116.161 (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite/expansion

I am rewriting this article to expand on the events of the embassy itself, the background/context leading up to it, and its aftermath and politcal significance. I'll try to address all the issues raised in the above talk page sections over the years. I'll use the British date format since the article is about a UK-centric event and has both the "EngvarB" and "Use dmy dates" tags, but the article will probably need copyediting by another editor if the goal is to keep it consistent with British spelling and grammar conventions (I write in an American style). --Difference engine (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: About one-third done. Not too happy about having to rely so much on one source (Peyrefitte) for a lot of what I've written so far. If anyone's aware of some other recent secondary sources that can supplement the ones already cited, please let me know here, or feel free to use them yourself in the article. --Difference engine (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was it 1792 or 1793?

Lord Macartney's embassy met Emperor Qianlong in 1793 ... but Qianlong's letter to King George III was in 1792 ...?? Skigg (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was on a mission from 23.9.1792. The letter must be 1793. So both should be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.218.31.19 (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Benson

Question: was the Lieutenant-Colonel George Benson, Commandant of the fifty-man Ambassador's Guard the same as Lieutenant General George Benson? Probably yes, but I cannot find any source. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]