Talk:Qing dynasty/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Qing dynasty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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

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.

- 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 people to doubt its authenticity. - Pryaltonian (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I understand what you mean. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of old PD Qing maps, I've uploaded a few more:

File:L'Empire Chinois et du Japon (1833).jpg - 4,977 × 3,681 pixels, 5.98 MB
File:Empire Chinois, Japon (1832).jpg - 9,174 × 6,811 pixels, 15.68 MB
File:Carte generale de l'Empire Chinois et du Japon (1836).jpg - 8,445 x 6,140 pixels, 12.8 MB

All these are on Commons. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC) The new map [1] in the infobox is informative, but not suitable for the template, as it is too small. You can't read the text or clearly identify anything. It is the kind of map that is best for a particular section. The map in the template should be something that is better focused with strong colors, that is why this 1892 Encyclopædia Britannica map [2] is more suitable.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it's any smaller than the Britannica map; it looks all the same size-wise to me. I guess it can be made better by cropping the white edges. I also don't see how one should expect to read text on a map from an image thumbnail. As with most other thumbnails on other pages, they are there so that people who are interested in the image click on it for a larger version. That is what image thumbnails are for. Additionally, I don't see how there being a Japan makes the map any poorer as well, as suggested earlier, since 95% of the map is centred on China in the first place. Furthermore, the Britannica map is not very detailed at all, as it does not define the provinces and subdivisions of Qing China; the 1844 map separates the provinces of China by colour, and makes a clear distinction between China proper and "Chinese Tartary" (Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, Dzungaria); I could similarly argue that the 1844 map is much more informative.

If clarity is what you're beef is mostly at, then why were you opposed to having File:Qing Dynasty 1820.png displayed in the infobox then? That map was probably the clearest of them all! Plus, the borders match with those of many of the historical Qing maps found on Commons, including the 1844 one. Your arguments regarding different maps conflict with one another - all in all, what is your opinion on how a map should be? Is it a "clear map" or is it not? The pro of one of your arguments is a con of your previous one. I am confused on what you're looking for in a map.

Finally, it should be very important as to what map we use within the infobox, as given that the infobox is the first thing readers see when opening the page, that is where they get their first impressions from. I don't think it is justifiable to have people's first impressions of Qing China at a time when the Qing is at it's weakest state; other pages, such as Empire of Japan, Roman Empire, Russian Empire, all display the country at its strongest state. Why should this not be the case here? Why should the infobox display the Qing at its weakest of times? Is it fair? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

With the Britnanica image in the infobox, you can actually see what is the area of Qing Dynasty, as it is clearly illustrated on the map [3]. With this map [4] however, it is very vague, and the map itself did not provide any text on which is which, and where does the boundary end (is Korea included as part of the Tartary?)? I mean just looking at the map itself, without the file description you added on, except for a line at top that simply states "China and Japan", the map doesn't really state what the boundary of China is? There is no legend or tools to help you identify them.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, we should then use File:Qing Dynasty 1820.png. Sure, it's a user-created map, but aren't all other maps? You're worried about the "potential for dispute" as well as the "need for clarity", but none of the other articles have had such issues. Tang Dynasty is a Featured Article, and it uses a user-created map. So do many other articles, such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Reorganized National Government of China, Yuan Dynasty, Mongol Empire... -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Qing Dynasty 1820.png is the most suitable map for the Administrative divisions section, because it precisely illustrates exactly that. I think the lead image should be Britannica map File:Qing china.jpg, because it is the only map of all the mentioned on here that has a large bolded text that specifically states the subject (Chinese Empire), and readers can instantly recognize what's on the map. The map in the infobox doesn't have to define the subdivisions of the Empire, because that's for all the maps below in the sections to do; but what the map should be, is to come from a reputable source (1890s Encyclopædia Britannica), and it grabs your attention and clearly shows the subject.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Also to answer your question above about the first impressions of Qing China. Why does it matter if the map shows the Chinese Empire at its weaker state, if it is the most suitable map for the template. And the comparison with the Russian and Japanese empires articles? That argument sounds quite bizarre to me.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't need the map to have readable bolded text on it. Readers know that it is China because a) they're on the "Qing Dynasty" article, and b) we have an image caption telling them so. I don't see why we should put five training wheels on the bicycle when we already have three training wheels attached; our readers are not that stupid, and I'm sure that they can get the most basic of ideas. We don't need to put CHINESE EMPIRE in big bold letters, "in case they didn't already know", for the same reason that a black man doesn't have to wear a T-shirt saying "I AM A BLACK MAN, IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW", in case people didn't know. We really shouldn't have to state the bleeding obvious. Otherwise, under the same logic, why not redraw it all as a *.gif file, and put in FLASHING SHINING LIGHTS around it, you know, just in case the big bold CHINESE EMPIRE still wasn't enough? Surely someone would have missed that! Plus, maps from other pages don't even remotely match what you have described as the "ideal map for such articles".

>Why does it matter if the map shows the Chinese Empire at its weaker state, if it is the most suitable map for the template.
Because it is not the most suitable map for the template for that very reason.
>That argument sounds quite bizarre to me
That is merely your opinion.

Finally, though this is somewhat unrelated to the topic, there is no correlation between the Britannica of 2011 being RS and 1890s Britannica being RS. Keep in mind that back in those days "nigger" was the everyday term for a black man, and terms such as "idiot", "moron" were scientific terminology used amongst the academia in scientific papers to describe varying degrees of mental retardation. I object to your correlation that 1890s Britannica qualifies as RS, though I'm just mentioning this in general; this has nothing to do with Qing maps, as its alright to use old maps from back then to show historical geographical definitions. I would just like to remind you that anything from antiquity should be viewed with caution, and one should not simply assume that something is correct because a modern equivalent is well-trusted. If in future you decide to cite an old reference text in a different article, I'd like you to remember that, and be wary of any of the contents. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:03, 24 September 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)

You follow English common names, then link to the article and don't include any foreign characters or translations here. — LlywelynII 02:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Excessive Bibliography

While unlinked bibliographies may be quite appropriate for small articles, as articles get better and better sourced, they're simply extra clutter. WP:Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or a term paper. Contentious points need to be referenced directly and general knowledge doesn't need to be referenced at all. Notice that this clutter doesn't actually address the page's ranking above as a B-class article. The complaint? "More references". =)

On the other hand, I'm sure several of these a quite excellent sources, so I'm posting the list to the talk page as guidelines for future article expansion. Naturally, when using these, include a <ref> tag and move them back into the article.

Bartlett, Beatrice S. Monarchs and Ministers: The Grand Council in Mid-Ch'ing China, 1723–1820, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991. ISBN 978-0-520-06591-8.

Ebrey, Patricia. Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook (2nd edition), New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993. ISBN 978-00-2908752-7.

Elliott, Mark C. "The Limits of Tartary: Manchuria in Imperial and National Geographies", Journal of Asian Studies 59 (2000): 603–46.

Faure, David. Emperor and Ancestor: State and Lineage in South China, Stanford University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8047-5318-0.

Murphey, Rhoads. East Asia: A New History (4th edition), Pearson Longman, 2007. ISBN 978-0-321-42141-8.

Myers, H. Ramon and Yeh-Chien Wang. "Economic developments, 1644–1800", in Willard Peterson (ed.), The Cambridge History of China: Volume 9: The Ch'ing Empire to 1800, pp. 563–647. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 978-0-521-24334-6.

Rawski, Evelyn S. The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998. ISBN 978-0-520-21289-3.

Smith, Richard Joseph. China's Cultural Heritage: The Qing Dynasty, 1644–1912, Westview Press, 1994. ISBN 978-0-8133-1347-4.

Têng, Ssu-yü, and John King Fairbank (eds). China's Response to the West: A Documentary Survey, 1839–1923, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. ISBN 978-0-674-12025-9.

Tong, Chee Kiong, and Kwok B. Chan (eds). Alternate Identities: The Chinese of Contemporary Thailand, Singapore: Times Academic Press, 2001. ISBN 978-981-210-142-6.

Torbert, Preston M. The Ch'ing Imperial Household Department: A Study of Its Organization and Principal Functions, 1662–1796, Harvard University Asia Center, 1977. ISBN 978-0-674-12761-6.

Wakeman, Frederic. The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial Order in Seventeenth-century China, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985. ISBN 978-0-520-04804-1.

Waley-Cohen, Joanna. The culture of war in China: empire and the military under the Qing Dynasty. I.B. Tauris, 2006. ISBN 978-1-84511-159-5.

Woo, X.L. Empress dowager Cixi: China's last dynasty and the long reign of a formidable concubine: legends and lives during the declining days of the Qing Dynasty. Algora Publishing, 2002. ISBN 978-1-8929-4188-6.

Cotterell, Arthur. The Imperial Capitals of China - An Inside View of the Celestial Empire. Pimlico (London), 2007 ISBN: 9781845950095.

Elliot, Mark C. The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China. Stanford University Press (Stanford), 2001.

Fairbank, John K. and Liu, Kwang-Ching, ed. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 2: Late Ch'ing, 1800–1911, Part 2. Cambridge U. Press, 1980. 754 pp.

Paludan, Ann. Chronicle of the China Emperors. Thames & Hudson (London), 1998. ISBN: 0-500-05090-2.

Peterson, Willard (ed.). (2002). The Cambridge History of China, Volume 9, Part One: The Ch'ing Empire to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [[Special:BookSources/0521243343|ISBN 0-521-24334-3, 9780521243346]].

Rawski, Evelyn S. The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions (2001) complete text online free

Spence, Jonathan. The Search for Modern China. W. W. Norton & Company (New York), 1990.

Spence, Jonathan. God's Chinese Son: The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom of Hong Xiuquan. W. W. Norton & Company (New York), 1997.

Struve, Lynn A., ed. The Qing Formation in World-Historical Time. (2004). 412 pp.

Struve, Lynn A. Voices from the Ming-Qing Cataclysm: China in Tigers' Jaws Yale University Press (New Haven), 1968. ISBN: 0300075537.

Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history". Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp, ISBN 7-204-04420-7 (2001).

— LlywelynII 02:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

Patched up the intro, filled in the infoboxes, and cleaned up a lot of the extraneous Chinese characters floating around. (Per MOS-ZH, stuff in the infoboxes doesn't need to be repeated, stuff that's linked doesn't need to be repeated.) The article could use some direct sourcing from the titles above or others and use some more cleanup.

Two things that jump out are:

The Gov't Agencies section desperately needs its mass of translations to be shunted to the appropriate page and/or turned into a table.
There's no information about the resistance, the eventual concession and developments, the administration of the railroads or their loans at all. Given that the rebellions in 1911 were directly related to the government's attempt to nationalize the local Chinese roads, it's a pretty big omission.
In fact, the economy section simply consists of paragraphs of praise and encomium, leaving the issue of the 19th century's weakness unaddressed. The section should mention the Yellow River floods, their natural and man-induced causes, the effects of the revolts on the fertile Yangtze valley, and the introduction of the likin internal tariff. A number of sources on railroads also mention that loan terms and wasteful foreign management of railroads – whose foreign denomination could prove beneficial as well as harmful – was largely offset by improved Chinese banking and management. See, i.a., Huenemann, Ralph Wm. The Dragon and the Iron Horse: the Economics of Railroads in China, 1876–1937.

— LlywelynII 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Great Qing Empire" is completely ahistorical

Not to be ownery, but reverted User:CWH's edits here.

I know the Chinese dynasty pages have had these for ages, but the 'official name' "Great Qing" is simply WP:OR and "Da Qing Empire" is WP:NEO. The British referred to the country in official documents as "China" tout suite and that's probably too unhelpful for the infobox. The Americans called it only "Ta Tsing", never "Da Qing", never "Great Qing".

Now, that's the actual historical name that it had, which doesn't mean it's the scholarly one today (think Byzantine Empire). Anyone want to go to the trouble of checking google books and scholar for all the variations? I'm thinking we'll end up with "China" or "Qing Dynasty" or "Qing Empire" and lose the 大 completely. Then again, there's a name section now. As long as the historical information shows up somewhere on the page and we don't lead with OR, it's no biggie. — LlywelynII 09:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really agree the statement that "Great Qing" (or "Da Qing") as official name is simply WP:OR (or WP:NEO). The official name of Qing Dynasty is of course from Chinese 大清, proclaimed in the 17th century. English was certainly not an official language of Qing Dynasty, and there was also no official romanization system at that time. Romanization systems like Wade–Giles only developed after mid-19th century. We can say that romanization systems like Wade–Giles or Postal Map were used in certain documents during late Qing period to transcribe Chinese characters (including the name 大清), but it does not mean only "Ta Tsing" but not "Da Qing" (or "Great Qing") is the "correct" official name of the empire; in fact, other romanizations of the Chinese characters 大清帝國 like "Ta Ch'ing Ti-kuo" could also be found on some coins. The transcription of Chinese characters by these romanization systems can be found in some old sources because these systems happened to be the common ones at that time, but this does not mean any other system to represent or translate/transcribe these Chinese characters should be considered WP:OR or WP:NEO. If we become very picky about "historical", then the translation or transcription of almost all ancient or pre-Qing entities should be considered "ahistorical", since there were no English romanization systems for transcribing Chinese characters in ancient periods. That's why in Wikipedia a standard romanization system is encouraged, and pinyin is considered to be such a standard romanization system for transcribing Chinese characters according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese). There are exceptions of course, including when there is a more popularly used form in English, as explicitly stated by the naming convention. "Great Qing" is used in many English-language academic sources (just name one here, "China: From the Great Qing Empire through the People's Republic of China" by Harold M. Tanner, so it should not be considered OR); on the other hand, "Ta Tsing" is certainly not a popularly used form in contemporary English language. The Naming Convention should be the first thing to consider for romanization of Chinese characters, instead of trying to decide which is the "correct" official name simply by ourselves. --173.206.14.230 (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

LlywelynII: Don't apologize for being "ownery" -- a great word! -- because a sense of ownership must be part of what makes you take things seriously. But I have to agree with the comment above. I apologize if I have misunderstood, but it's not clear what your objection is and why all the reversions were made.

And I would appreciate it if you could correct your statement: I did not use "Da Qing Empire," but "Great Qing Empire," which is not OR but simple translation.

It is completely historical!

As pointed out above, "Great Qing Empire" is not a neologism and certainly not mine - you flatter me! "Great Qing Empire" is not OR, but a straightforward translation of "Da Qing Diguo." A quick search yields several variations, one mentioned above: Harold Miles Tanner, China: A History. Volume I, from Neolithic Cultures to the Great Qing Empire (10,000 BCE-1799 CE) (Indianapolis, Ind.; Hackett 2010), and in addition William T. Rowe, China's Last Empire: The Great Qing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.), which on p. 1 refers to "The Great Qing empire." William C. Jones, The Great Qing Code (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1994), where "Great" refers to Qing, not the code.

With your range of interests, you will realize the bigger and more interesting point: There was no official term for the dynasty. I suspect that the concept "official name" is in fact an anachronism and that there was in Chinese no "actual historical name."

I agree that the Wikipedia English language article should use "Qing dynasty," which is how it's known in China, but the Chinese name in the info box needs to be historically accurate. This is no place for post-modern foggery. The online transcription of an English language treaty is not a reliable source. I would appreciate it if you would not restore it.

The Chinese language Wikipedia article on the Qing shows a number of other terms used in official documents: 大清Da Qing (Great Qing) was used in the Treaty of Nanking 1844; 大清國 Da Qing Guo (Great Qing Country) in the Treaty of 1901 辛丑條約 and other treaties; 大清帝國 (Da Qing Diguo) Great Qing Empire in the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895) and the Draft Constitution of 1908; and 中華大清國 (Zhonghua Da Qingguo) that is, Zhonghua (Chinese) Great Qing Nation in the Treaty of Tianjin 1872 and the Treaty of Wanghsia 1844. And I couldn't quickly find the Treaty of Nerchinsk.

Here's the links to the articles: 為原本國號，並見於《南京條約》等；「大清國」見於《辛丑條約》等、「大清帝國」見於《馬關條約》、《欽定憲法大綱》等、「中華大清國」見於《天津條約》、《望廈條約》等。 Oops -- the links didn't come through, but I'll get them and put them in later.

I'll work this material into usable English form, track down reliable sources, and add it to the Names section, where TheLeopard has done good work.

Some of the other reversions, surely made in good faith, I will address separately with more detailed explanations. Cheers. ch (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Arts and Culture Section

I added a section on Arts and Culture to balance and complete the coverage in the article. I found that the coverage of the topic in other parts of Wikipedia were not rich, however, so editors might take on the task of expanding it. ch (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate the "History" and "Military" sections

We should coordinate the coverage in the "History" and "military" sections to eliminate the substantial overlap without losing the rich detail in the military section. I will return eventually, but won't be able to get to it for a while. As it is, a reader does not have a consecutive or coherent story of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. ch (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Invasions of Korea

The section Formation of the Manchu state has a paragraph that ends with this sentence: "Hong Taiji then proceeded in 1636 to invade Korea again." This is curious, because this is the first time Korea is mentioned in the article. Perhaps somebody with more knowledge than me should insert something about that first invasion of Korea. (I'm assuming here that it was Hong Jaiji, or someone close to him, that had previously invaded Korea. If not, maybe the word again should be removed.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Qing

It would be nice to have the correct pronunciation of 'Qing' in IPA at the start of the lede, and if possible, an audio ogg file from a Chinese speaker as well, as in English there is a temptation to pronounce it as 'king', yet I remember it being spelled as 'ching' in the past, which would obviously sound different in English. Cheers1812ahill (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I just made this, here you go: File:Daqingdiguo pronunciation.ogg. This is the pronunciation of 大清帝國 (Dà Qīng Dìguó; "Empire of the Great Qing") in Standard Chinese. The audio quality might be a bit horrible though; I used the onboard/in-built microphone on my laptop, because I won't be able to have access to a dedicated microphone for a few months. I might make a better quality version later on. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 18:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Links to Google Books

I wasn't sure I understood the policy, so I searched around until I found Wikipedia:Citing sources#Linking to Google Books pages. Apparently it's ok to add these links. The article specifies:

Page links should only be added when the book is available for preview; they will not work with snippet view.....No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause; see the October 2010 RfC for further information.

Hope this helps. ch (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Languages of the Qing

I changed the language back from Guanhua to "Mandarin," since this is the most common term. It's a problem to decide what term for Qing dynasty would be accurate. Putonghua, guoyu, or Huayu are anachronistic. I lived and traveled in China for a number of years and never heard the term guanhua. This of course does not decide anything, since Wikipedia does not allow Original Research.

The deciding point is that Wikpedia generally uses "Mandarin," indeed "Guanhua" simply redirects to Mandarin Chinese, and, most important, the article gives references. Mandarin Chinese#Name,citing Jerry Norman, says

In everyday English, "Mandarin" refers to Standard Chinese, which is often called simply "Chinese".... Chinese speakers refer to the modern standard language as Pǔtōnghuà 普通话 (on the mainland), Guóyǔ 國語 (in Taiwan) or Huáyǔ 华语 (in Malaysia and Singapore), but not as Guānhuà.

Since we have a direct statement citing standard modern scholarly authority that guanhua is not in fact used by Chinese speakers, "Mandarin" -- "simply Chinese" -- is the best choice.

Since one Wikipedia article cannot cite another one as a source, the reference is the key. Here is a link to a few more Jerry Norman quotes on guanhua, saying that in any case it was used for communication among the officials, not among the common people, and that the term is now "virtually obsolete" [5]

The SW Williams cite does say that Kwan Hua is used at the court, but this is not the same as to say that it was the language of the people. The Williams reference might be replaced, since Wikipedia policy is to use present day secondary scholarship, but I have no objection to keeping it, since it is appropriate for the first footnote to cite the first American authority. ch (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC for Shunzhi Emperor

Just to announce that Shunzhi Emperor, the page on the first Qing emperor to reign over inner China, is now a "featured article candidate." The review page is here. Any kind of comment is appreciated. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Source for the Qing flag?

During the FAC review on Shunzhi Emperor mentioned in the previous section, an editor noticed that the source link for the picture of the Qing flag (File:Flag of the Qing Dynasty (1889-1912).svg) is dead. (Dead link: http://openclipart.org/clipart//signs_and_symbols/flags/historic/china_historic.svg.) This affects the present article, all the articles on Qing emperors (which all have the flag in their infobox), and a large number of wikis in which this image is used. I tried to find an updated or archived link and to find a new source, but I couldn't find anything. Could somebody help me with this? Thank you in advance! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the concept "Qing dynasty Flag" is anachronistic, and (as indicated by the 1889 date on the link) that it was very likely a late 19th century thing at best (as was the so-called "anthem"). I have no way to prove it one way or the other at the moment, but I would think that the burden of proof should be to show that it is authentic. Obviously the Six Banners are authentic, but they are not the "Qing dynasty flag." The info box flag is quite handsome, so it would be nice if it proved true. Not a lot of work to remove it from the info box, though. ch (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure enough: "While there was no shortage of flags and banners in traditional China, the idea of a national flag was introduced by Westerners in the late nineteenth century." She mentions a "red flag with a yellow dragon," however, which does not seem to be the flag we have in the info box. Henrietta Harrison. The Making of the Republican Citizen: Political Ceremonies and Symbols in China, 1911-1929. (Oxford University Press, Studies on Contemporary China, 2000. viii, 270p. ISBN 0198295197), pp. 99-100 [6] ch (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi CH, and and nice to hear from you again! I also tried to do some research on this mysterious flag. One source I found says that the triangular dragon flag was first adopted in 1872 (Richard David Belsky, Localities at the Center: Native Place, Space, and Power in Late Imperial Beijing, Harvard UP, 2005, p. 3). The same book also claims that the rectangular flag appeared in 1890 (not 1889), but the reference is to a general secondary study (William Crampton, Flags, pp. 58-59) that I don't have access to. The blue dragon on yellow background seems authentic. Belsky (p. 3) calls it "a dragon on a field of yellow, the official flag of the Qing dynasty." I have also seen it on late 19th-century military uniforms and banners depicted in Qingshi tudian 清史圖典, vol. 12, Guangxu Xuantong chao xia 光緒宣統朝下, though that book unfortunately lacks pictures of the self-standing flag. So the flag at least existed, but it was only used for the last 20 years of the Qing, or the last 40 if we count the triangular one. Because of that, it might be misleading to have it in the infobox for each Qing emperor. And... that doesn't take care of the sourcing problem. Thank for your advice! Madalibi (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we agree that the flag is late 19th century, but this still leaves the question of whether it's appropriate to put it in the info box for earlier emperors. Clearly it's anachronistic, so my inclination would be to suggest removing it. I'll start another section to make the suggestion.

Annals and memoirs of qing court

http://books.google.com/books?id=swQpAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this and the many other links here and other talk pages, though it would be even more useful to also give the author and title. This book is Edmund Backhouse, and J.O.P. Bland, Annals & Memoirs of the Court of Peking from the 16th to the 20th Century (London,: W. Heinemann, 1914). They pulled together inside gossip from the Manchu court about their early history and was influential in spreading faked and misleading accounts of the Qing court's policies during the Boxer Uprising. The forged "Diary of Ching Shan" in Ch XIX was a key piece of propaganda used to argue that the Boxers were in "rebellion" against the dynasty, which therefore could not be held responsible for their actions. ch (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Map of Qing China

I want to update the map to show Qing China at her greatest territorial extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.179.52 (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

western traveler's accounts of late Qing

http://books.google.com/books?id=nZ5FAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BztLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=vDoPAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

New Qing history: request for addition

A whole article on the Qing Empire and not a single mention of the New Qing History of Pamela Kyle Crossley, Mark C. Elliott, etc. I don't think I'm going to get around to adding anything myself real soon, but I would appreciate other editors adding something about it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What does the "New Qing History" mean to you? For quite a few dragon-slaying polemicists, this buzzword puts a fresh, "new" academic-sounding veneer on what they have been speciously arguing for decades: that an empire which increasingly identified itself and its whole territory with "China" was not in fact "China", but something essentially "Manchu"; something "non-Chinese"; a "conquest dynasty" of wolf-worshipping steppe nomads.

This article is not about the historiography of the Qing, which would make for an interesting article indeed. Such an article could hardly avoid how rapacious Nipponese, Russian, and British imperialists made clever use of exotic ethnoterritorial toponyms pulled out of history's hat in order to separate, dominate, and exterminate even Han-majority populations who were unlucky enough to be born in areas upon which the misnonyms could be foisted.

I call these representations "veneers" because not all the arguments of the "new Qing historians"' are convenient to those who would like to project their present-day anti-Han animosity and bloodthirsty unity deep into annals of history. Those same partisans who would rejoice at Crossley's denials that the Aixinjueluo court was "sinicized" would recoil at her suggestion that the Man-Han boundary was not primeval and required constant policing, protection, and yes, creation.

As far as I can tell, all of the active, self-declared, and historically-trained Qing specialists onwiki pose no challenge to the "New Qing History" caricature, which prescribes such microassaults on China's right to exist as eliding that name for the country in history-writing. How can you write about China without mentioning "China"? Send me to the gulag for writing that word twice too many times, for I've made a "sinocentric historical distortion" of the Altaic-Übermensch nature of the Turko-Mongolian-Tibetan "Qing Empire", where khans and lamas ruled the day and mandarins were slaves, heads shaved.

As for that bogeyman, presumably the "old Qing history" or "orthodox Qing history" or "sinocentric Qing history"; where Manchus were Hans and China ruled Mongolia, who knows where that is. Certainly not in Taiwan, where Hokkien elites in Kuomintang dress decry the Qing "colonizers" as no different from the Spanish or the Dutch. Nor in the Grand Ol' PRC, where slurs like "Han chauvinist!" can end careers, and where a finicky foreign ministry shuts down research that challenges the national pride of its neighbors. And most absolutely not on Wikipedia, where the nationals best posed to challenge our periphery-centered histories of China are strangled by the Internationale-ist censorship from Zhongnanhai.

What is cultural hegemony? It might be when an encyclopedia fully reflects your cherished worldviews and yet you even crave more confirmation of it. Shrigley (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we to understand that you dislike the "New Qing History" because it is new and because it doesn't agree with your notions of what China is but instead agrees with older notions as portrayed by people you don't like?

Rather than using emotional language like "dragon-slaying polemicists", "rapacious Nipponese, Russian, and British imperialists", and "project their present-day anti-Han animosity and bloodthirsty unity deep into annals of history" please try to use less subjective language that explains why the New Qing History should not be considered a notable POV deserving of mention. Or perhaps explain why sources used for adding information about that view should not be considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. This approach will make people who don't agree with your nationalist beliefs more receptive to your arguments.Readin (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't presume to know "my notions of what China is", who "I don't like", or "my nationalist beliefs", because clearly, you don't know these things. I've been on both sides of the Taiwanese separatist debate with you, so you should know me better than to think that I am an ideologue.

I've already alluded to some of the issues, and with a careful reading of my post, you will realize that what I object to is a "caricature" and false "representation" of NQH, and not NQH per se, since I know these scholars are well-respected and come from the empiricist tradition. What's an example of this "caricature" of NQH? It's when amateur historians cite NQH and other postmodernist deconstructions of "China" or the "Chinese nation" in order to bolster equally politicized, problematic, and anachronistic constructions for contemporary separatist groups.

For example, the broadcaster Warren W. Smith, who works for American white propaganda against the Chinese regime, wrote a history book called "Tibetan nation". It contains the same hackneyed arguments about how the Manchus were not Chinese, and therefore "Tibet was not a part of China". A reference or two to a NQH breathes new life into these old political struggles. But as Xiaoyuan Liu (2010, p.33) points out, Smith takes the concept of a "Tibetan nation" for granted, while more professional, historically trained, and authoritative historians like Melvyn Goldstein eschew such labels in favor of discussing the policies of the "lamaist state". This criticism would not apply to NQH as a whole, but to certain uses of it in order to advance a political agenda.

NQH does not definitively "prove" what China is or was, one way or the other. One of its tenets is that the Qing court presented many different faces to its myriad subjects. To the millions of children in the crown jewel of the Qing empire (if we accept this premise which makes "China" merely one constituent of it), that begonia-leaf image on the map was identified with "China". To its Confucian bureaucrats, Qing consolidation of the frontier was sold in terms of "great unity" and traditional Chinese concepts, and not as conquest. There are official maps which portray China as within the empire, which Tibetan and other separatists love to scan and post on Wikipedia. But there are also official maps, equally as authoritative and also bearing the Qing stamp, which portray China as the empire (Alan M. Wachman 2008, p.48).

We already knew how the Qing emperors sweet-talked the lamas into believing that their actual political subordination (by Western legal standards, as confirmed by both treaties with Britain and Russia and boots-on-the-ground) was some "priest-patron relationship" of Tibetan superiority. The Tibetan-language archives have been opened and used as political ammo for decades; recent NQH inquiries into the Manchu point of view complete the picture, but requires neither a radical rethinking of what "China is" nor a rewriting of this article. Anyway, if we were truly beholden to PRC historiography, which is Marxist, what the bourgeois Qing leaders thought is less important than the identity of the masses; what the majority "in China" believed.

There's a very relevant quote, I think by James Millward, a NQH guy himself, which compares the life of the Qing to the duration of a car drive. While the Qing initially saw itself as separate from "China" at the beginning, by the end an entity called "China" took over the steering wheel. The gradual conflation of "Qing" and "China" is well-known because it was a key feature of the Qing's treaty representations to foreign diplomats in the latter days of the empire. This is where the notion of "China as Qing" comes from: the cold and rational recollections by the Western community of states. Manchu pretenses of separateness from China, which increasingly bordered on delusion, were pretty thoroughly discredited by Puyi's bandwagoning onto the Japanese war machine.

Oh yeah, what's the point of all this talk? To recap, Greg Pandatshang vaguely asked for "more NQH", because there apparently wasn't enough NQH for his taste. To presume on the basis of Greg's contribution history, unprovoked, that he desired a distortion of NQH might have been seen as a personal attack, so I kept to generalities in warning about those misrepresentations in my reply. Regrettably, you had to personalize the discussion, but as a result, we have more "clarity", although perhaps not any less "energy", to answer cwh's complaint. Shrigley (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Readin's comments. I don't appreciate you bringing up my edit history. I edit mostly Tibetan topics, and Chinese topics occasionally. So what? I asked for some reference to New Qing History in this article because there is none right now. I did not ask for a mention of political propandists oversimplifying New Qing History for their own purposes. I asked for Crossley, not Warren W. Smith.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, Shrigley. I thought I remembered you as a much more moderate editor, but the language you used here earlier and the tone you used in another recent discussion had me scratching my head and wondering if I remembered correctly.

You say "...with a careful reading of my post..." but I have to admit that, as user ch also admits below, "I don't follow the convolutions of the dazzling prose." Perhaps a careful reading by a more educated reader would reveal a brilliantly subtle decimation of a silly suggestion accomplished by the clever use of sarcasm and irony. But to this fairly well educated reader it looked like histrionic rant against racist, China-hating strawmen. Your later post seems to be written more at my level (and I assume the level of other readers). The background on NQH is helpful. The last paragraph seems to get to the core if I read it correctly - you're saying the article already incorporates NQH so there is no need to incorporate it further. And you're saying you suspsected the request to incorporate NQH was really a request to incorporate a distorted version of it. I think it would have been better to say that it was included (a specific example or tw would be nice if possible - although I'm guessing you mean that it influenced the whole article rather than being just in one or two sentences), and then the person making the request what specific changes they think are needed. Then you can discuss those changes. If they really are distortions you can explain why rather than simply assuming the changes will be distortions before you hear what changes are desired. Readin (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrigley perhaps has a solid point, though I'm not sure who or what he is saying about "dragon slaying polemicists" (I don't imagine they would say that Mongolia is in Taiwan): we should write articles for the general reader, not for specialists, much less for graduate school seminars. But the "New Qing History" has brought new understanding of the Qing partly from reading newly documents in Manchu, Chinese, and Korean and partly from rethinking inspired by cultural, ethnic, and comparative history. Shrigley is again right (I think) that some revisionist history gets carried away, but we can hardly ignore that the New Qing History has changed what a reasonable Wikipedia article should convey. That being said, we still must follow reliable sources, not produce our own synthesis of the new work.

Bill Rowe has a sensible discussion of these changes in the INtroduction to his China's Last Empire: The Great Qing (Harvard University Press, 2009), esp. pp. 5-10. He concludes his balanced discussion of the new trends: “The Great Qing empire as discussed in this book, then, is a constantly moving target. What it was, and to what extent it constituted something incomparably distinctive in the longer run of Chinese history or in the vast expanse of Eurasian space remain open questions.” [10]

Johanna Waley-Cohen, one of the leading practitioners of the New Qing History, has a compact discussion in her "The New Qing History," Radical History Review 88.1 (2004): 193-206, which is a review essay on nine recent books. She reports that "central to this revised understanding is the new Qing history’s revelation that at the height of their power, the Qing regarded China not so much as the center of their empire, as only a part, albeit a very important part, of a much wider dominion that extended far into the Inner Asian territories of Mongolia, Tibet, the Northeast (today sometimes called Manchuria) and Xinjiang, or Chinese (Eastern) Turkestan,' and the concomitant realization that Qing practices drew as much on Inner Asian traditions as on Chinese ones." (194-95).

BTW, in response to the question "how can you write about 'China' without mentioning 'China'?," I confess that I don't follow the convolutions of the dazzling prose, but Waley-Cohen specifically says in the preface to The Culture of War in China: Empire and the Military under the Qing Dynasty (London: I.B. Tauris, 2006) that she will use "China" as a convenient word. One way to deal with it would be to say "Qing China" or "Ming China" where necessary, but my own feeling is that for a general audience, "China" is fine if someplace in the article we mention that this is anachronistic.

Cheers in any case, with thanks to the original poster and to Shrigley for raising pertinent questions. ch (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove anachronistic Qing flag from info box?

The discussion above indicates that the flag in the Qing dynasty info box is anachronistic because was introduced in the late 19th century and would not have been known in earlier periods. Would it cause any problems to remove it? What is the practice in other national info boxes? What do people think? If there is no objection, I'll remove in in a week or so. ch (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to remove it from this page's infobox or from the Qing emperor infobox? Or from both? In my view, the flag should first be removed from the infobox on Qing emperors. It's just too misleading to display it next to all these emperors who never saw this flag. Not to mention that the Qing didn't have any flag before the late 19th century. As for this page, could we add something like "created in 1890" (1889?) to the infobox to make sure readers know how late the flag is? (We would have to do the same for the anthem.) Madalibi (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good points. Now that you mention it, I agree that the flag has no place there. ch (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by the flag in the successor position: it's the 6 banners of the Manchurians, but the article links to the Republic of China (complete with a different flag)? How can this be resolved? Shouldthe successor flag be changed to the ROC flag? Davejenk1ns (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand. Are you referring to File:Flag of the Republic of China 1912-1928.svg? That's the national flag of the ROC before the Kuomintang came to power. The Blue Sky with a White Sun is a KMT motif. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that File:Flag of the Republic of China 1912-1928.svg is listed as the "successor" to the Qing Dynasty starting in 1912, but the article that it links to shows the flag of the KMT. If the succesor flag on this article is correct, then is the flag listed at Republic_of_China_(1912–1949) wrong? Davejenk1ns (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Territories of the Qing Dynasty

I would like a "today part of" region to depict the largest extent of the Qing Empire. I will be placing one on right now; if you disagree with me, please do not engage in an edit war, but kindly voice your concerns on my talk page. 71.146.140.95 (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Qing name for non provincial territories

The concept of Tibet, Xinjiang (before 1884) and Mongolia is described here

http://books.google.com/books?id=H48uhkVV77wC&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q&f=false

But I can't put my finger on what name was used, because both vassal and tributary were used for plain old tributary states like Korea, and not non provincial territories like Tibet that were clearly under direct Qing rule with a Qing amban and military units.Rajmaan (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

the discussing map

this map [[7]] should be replaced by another map coz it contains the strongly discussing territories, covering the south china sea and senkaku islands. It's probably made by some chinese guy using photographic programe. Otherwise I also see this map in other different versions of wiki, all of them are the important languages such as french, spanish, catalan, german, danish, portugese. I wonder if it's a deliberate action or translating mistakes from english wiki? and suggest using a different map Psychoneuroimmunology (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Chinese, Mandarin, Kwan Hwa, Guanhua?

This is a problem, since the terminology in English does not correspond to the terminology in Chinese, and the terminology in Chinese is inconsistent and changing!

We discussed the issue in Archive #4 Languages of the Qing (October 2012). I argued that "Guanhua" was simply "Mandarin," and gave scholarly references. This is illustrated at the Wikipedia Article Mandarin Chinese (which, to be sure, is itself muddled on the question). But the Qing Dynasty info box was changed at some point, though without an explanation or even the courtesy of noting it in the edit summary. Probably a good hearted editor looked at the SW Williams reference, which indeed says "Kwan Hwa" (guanhua), but "Guanhua" is neither a meaningful term for readers nor one which is used among scholars.

Although Williams is not a Reliable source in a strict sense, it did seem the sentimental favorite as the footnote to start the article. But if it misleads good editors, then it's better to cite only Elliot, who is an impeccable authority and states that the five languages are Manchu, Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, and Uighur.

The safest thing to do at this point is to remove the SW Williams note, which I did. ch (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Kangxi Map

The 3 maps on the page both show the Qing in the 1890s when it was already in decay and the sick man of Asia. I think this might give readers the wrong impression about the entirety of Qing history. I think we need at least one map of Qing at its greatest extent, including the Amur basin and its tributaries. This is especially important historically since it was the source of PRC tension with fellow Communist governments in Russia, Mongolia, Vietnam and Korea which were Qing "lost territories". --Gary123 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier at Talk:Qing Dynasty/Archive 4#Map, but there wasn't any conclusive result from that discussion. I'd welcome further discussion regarding what kind of map we should use on this article. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good points, all. Ideally we'd have a map which showed the initial expansion, then the bites taken out of the empire in the 19th century. Or else three or more successive maps. I don't know where to find these in free use form. ch (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We could make a user-created map, based on existing historical sources that are widely available. There are old maps on Commons that can be used in this regard. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a wonderful map at History of China which cycles through the Territories of Dynasties in China. We probably don't need anything so elaborate here, but I do think that a user created map on that general model could be clearer than the reproductions of western maps. It would be important to show the Manchu empire as evolving, that is, as something which changes over time.

I see that there is a Wikiproject China/Cartography], but I am ignorant of how it actually works. The search in Wikipedia for Search: China cartography gives quite a few hits.

The western maps in the Qing Dynasty article are fascinating and wonderful in their own way, and someone might start an article Cartography of China which could give basic info and references for Chinese and western cartography of China. Also maybe the use of maps to argue present day political conflicts -- but that's a matter for another discussion! ch (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I vote in favor of this proposal. There is no reason why not to display Qing China at her peak extent, because so many other maps of empires elsewhere on Wikipedia display the territorial land boundaries at their maximum extent. Phead128 (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Zhongguo and China Interchangeable?

There must be some honest misunderstanding in adding the statement in Name that "In the Chinese-language versions of its treaties and its maps of the world, the Qing government used "Qing" and "China" (中国, Zhōngguó) interchangeably."

First: this is contrary to what the article Sinitic names explains, namely that "Zhongguo" was not used as a name for the country as a whole until the late nineteenth century.

Second: I checked the source in the note for that statement, Naran Bilik, "Names Have Memories: History, Semantic Identity and Conflict in Mongolian and Chinese Language Use," Inner Asia 9.1 (2007): 23-39. In the snippets I could search I found no reference to maps or treaties. The only reference I can find on the page given in the note, p. 34, to “Zhongguo” is n. 12: “The people of Zhou regarded themselves as descendants of Xia, and their state therefore belonged to to the ‘Central State.’ The very name of ‘Zhongguo’ (‘Central State’) also appeared in a stone inscriptions that chronologically belonged to the Zhou dynasty. (Chen 1989)” I did find on p. 24, however: “shaping what we now call ‘China’ or ‘Zhongguo’ (the Central State).” [8]

Since all I had access to was the "snippet" view, I may have missed something. If so, it would be good to get a link and an exact quote.

Other sources confirm that "Zhonguo" was not common usage for the country as a whole, making it hard to support that the government used "China" and "Zhongguo" intechangably, even in the 19th century, much less in earlier years.

Suisheng Zhao in A Nation-State by Construction : Dynamics of Modern Chinese Nationalism. (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2004; ISBN 0804748977) devotes a section: The Chinese Nation as a Concept of Recent History.” (Pp. 45-46 ) He says:

There was not even a serviceable Chinese word for the historical and ethical community of ‘China’ before the nineteenth century. The concept of the Chinese nation (Zhonghua minzu) was a relatively recent creation of seasoned Chinese intellectuals. The old Chinese term Zhongguo (Central Kingdom) in Classical Chinese literature was never used to express the concept of the Chinese nation or Chinese civilization.” p. 45 [9]

He goes on with a discussion of late Qing terminology.

Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner. Academic Nations in China and Japan : Framed in Concepts of Nature, Culture and the Universal. (London ; New York: RoutledgeCurzon, Nissan Institute/Routledgecurzon Japanese Studies Series, 2004). ISBN 041531545X. which is too lengthy to quote but which you can see here: [10]

These are in addition to the sources in Names of China#Sinitic names, and I could offer more.

Sorry to go on at such length, but the names for what we call "China" are part of a larger historical process of going from Empire to Nation.

ch (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think when we talk about this process of "going from Empire to Nation", that the late 19th century was a point of transition whenceforth the Qing was forced to articulate the "Nation" through contacts with other countries. I was referencing note 15: "Despite challenges from Han scholars such as Lü Liuliang, the Qing government used 'Qing' and 'Zhongguo' conterminously in treaties signed with foreign countries (Luokaqi Diqu 2002) and on its world maps (Liu 2004: 126). According to Christopher Atwood's research, as a translation of the Chinese 'Zhongguo' the Mongolian term Dumdadu ulus 'appeared in the history of the Mongolian nobility written in 1735 by the Eight-Banners bannerman Lomi, and in the writings of Injannashi (1837-1892) from southeast Inner Mongolia whose Khökhe Sudur or "Blue Chronicle" of 1871 exercised a tremendous influence on those Mongols familiar with Chinese literary culture'.... (Atwood 2002:41)"

The sentence that pointed to this endnote was on p.26: "Interestingly, the Yongzheng Emperor rebutted Lü's accusation [that the Manchus were barbarians] by writing the Dayi juemi lu (Record of great righteousness to dispel confusion), insisting that the Manchus had been civilised through centuries of exposure to Confucianism (Spence 2001; Crossley 1997: 110-12; Elliot 2001: 347). The Manchu rulers were clearly fighting to define 'Central State' as a domain open to non-Han and to maintain their dominance. The notion of 'Central State' was understood quite differently in the meaning systems of Chinese, Manchu and Mongolian."

It's probably true that most ordinary Chinese people did not have a term for China as a whole, because it was not until at least the late Qing in which children were educated with world maps that clearly delineated the Qing realm from other countries. The sentence limits itself to official government publications. I can understand the desire to deconstruct the terms "China" or "Zhongguo", and that's what articles like "Names of China" are for. But the previous text, which implied the existence of a clearly-defined "China" that was separate from "Tibet" or "Tartary" within the Qing realm, was the worst and least accurate description of the situation possible. Fundamentally, I want to express the idea that in the late Qing, contemporaneously to the development of Chinese nationalism, the Qing increasingly identified its whole realm with "China". Shrigley (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Qing "Coat of Arms"

I support TheLeopard's removal. The "coat of arms" added to the info box has no source, but the only uses of it are for the Chinese Wikipedia article on the 1917 Restoration of the Qing. ch (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation style

I'd like to propose re-writing the citations to use shortened footnotes, i.e. using the {{citation}} and {{sfnp}} templates, similar to what is done in the Tang dynasty article. The advantages include consistent presentation, linking from short to full references, and simplified management of references. Kanguole 11:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

,,Li Zicheng, a former minor Ming official"

Really? I thought that he was a shepherd and then a shop worker. Is there a mistake in the article? El Otro (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple identities of the emperors

I thank TheLeopard for raising this question, which a central finding in Qing studies. Perhaps she or he is right to cut it from the less prominent location where it was, but I don't in fact see that it duplicates anything earlier in the article. If it does duplicate, where is it? If it does not in fact duplicate, could we restore it? Where is this stated:

The Qing emperors were simultaneously Manchu khan, emperor of the Han Chinese, and Buddhist sage ruler, patron of Tibetan Buddhism, for the newly conquered areas of Central Asia. David Farquhar, “Emperor As Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Qing Empire,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38.1 (1978): 5–34

Cheers ch (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi everybody! A quick keyword search tells me that CH once added similar phrasing to the lede,[11] but that his additions were deleted in the name of succinctness.[12] The proposed passage is therefore not redundant. And because the multiple faces of emperorship are one important characteristic of the Qing period, I think we should restore the deleted sentence. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Military? Move?

The length of Section 3.1 "Military" is out of proportion so it should be an independent article, with links etc. I also see that it has no sources or references. Pity, for it's interesting and solid material which was added first, as far as I can make out, in 2005 by an editor who's no longer editing.

I don't propose to delete it immediately, but if nobody has a better idea, I'll move it in a while. Does anyone have any sources for it? ch (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say the military section is reasonable for length. It is the later sections, e.g. society, that are too short. Balance should be found by adding to those under-represented sections.

The military section does need more references. However, time and some effort should be put into finding suitable references and only delete material as a extreme last resort. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, as I said, that we shouldn't delete it immediately (though it's not that it needs "more" references, it's that it doesn't have any at all!) It's a solid and useful piece which should even be expanded, especially with an account of the military in the last years of the dynasty. The article New Army should be coordinated with it or maybe even merged -- what do you think? Then there would be a strong reason to have a sub-article, "Military of the Qing dynasty," or some such.

You are also right that the other sections should be brought up to snuff. We could then see if this military section is still out of proportion (as some other sections may also be, such as the administrative).

You prudently use the passive voice: "time and effort should put into..." I don't have the slightest idea of what sources were used, but I'm happy to postpone the move or deletion until you or somebody does the right thing.

Let's wait and see. On the one hand, it's not good to flout policy that material must be sourced, but on the other hand the section has been there for years without doing any harm. You and I are following an even more basic Wikipedia policy: Ignore all the rules!!. Cheers. ch (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's true that some sections are in need of expansion. But the article is already very long – it needs more use of summary style, farming out the detail to subarticles. (Although CWH used the d-word, I think it's clear he meant moving it to a new subarticle and leaving a summary here.) Much of the Government section is full of the kind of detail that would be better in a subarticle. The Military section is the clearest example, and being unreferenced would be a good place to start. Kanguole 23:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure ch's use of the d-word meant move - because he is going on about it being unrefrenenced and the policy that, "material must be sourced." Lacking sources is not a cause for deletion other than for articles about living people. Being factually incorrect and unreferenced is a cause for deletion. See the text of the message box at the top of the military section, "Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Before being removed it needs to be challenged. A statement that is unsource, but essentially true, well written and not challenged, can stay until such time that someone challenges it. Even then, we would be removing single sentences, not entire sections.

There is no need to use the same sources as references that the original editor used. Any reliable source of the same information can be used to add references to articles as long as it matches the facts and is reasonable quality. There are plenty of sources for this subject so it is just a matter of someone spending the time check the facts and add the references.

If someone wanted to make a new article about Military of the Qing Dynasty then I think such a article would be useful. However, I'd only recommend it if you wanted to expand upon the military information currently in this article. Simply copying the military section text from this article to a new page and writing a summery into this article doesn't really help anyone. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving the material to a subarticle would be helpful in two respects: it would make this article more manageable, and the summary at a more general level would be easier to source. Kanguole 13:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for this enlightening discussion. I was indeed under the (mis)impression that "removing" unsourced information was expected if not required. Kanguole is correct that I wanted to move the material to a subarticle. But I thought that if I moved it, then it would be deleted as unsourced, which, as Rincewind well says, is not desirable. If nobody else does, after a while I'll make the move to Military of the Qing dynasty, and add some (but not a lot) material, as Rincewind recommends.

We should also take up Kanguole's suggestion as to doing the same for the Government section.ch (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A summary would be easier to source, however it does not get around the fact that the current text needs sources added. I think the first task should be to mark up what elements of the text are contentious and most in need of references.Then sources can be added for them. Remember that there is no need to source obvious or uncontentious statements. Those sources then form a bibliography that can be used to write a summery or expand a new article. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

报告: I took a lookaround and got a better idea of what is needed. The section in Qing dynasty should be moved (leaving a shorter but still substantive section) and expanded with new and up-to-date sources and extended through the Boxer Uprising and the Late Qing Reforms. This new article would be the start of a useful base article for the Category:Military of the Qing Dynasty. The category has 26 pages, some of which are solid, others ramshackle, but all of which should be coordinated (again, note the artful passive voice).

The Main article Military history of China before 1911 has a brief but independent section on the Qing (I restored the title of the source in the notes, which is in Chinese and should be replaced).

I began the task of marking up the present section, but the best I could do was to tag each paragraph with a ^{[citation needed]}, and add Kwang-ching Liu, Richard J. Smith, "The Military Challenge: The North-west and the Coast," article, with suitable page numbers, in The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11 Pt 2, which is the most appropriate reference I have here at home.

This is not adequate, but it's a step in the right direction. This is all I have time for now. ch (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for joining this discussion so late! First, I agree that the Military section is far too long. Compare this wiki with Han dynasty, a featured article that discusses the military in three well-referenced paragraphs that contain less than 300 words of prose altogether. More detailed treatment on the Han military (three sections that take less than 900 words of visible prose, including image captions) can be found in Government of the Han Dynasty, another featured article. These are two of the best articles on China in all of Wikipedia, so I think we should try to emulate them. The nature of Qing history may demand more detailed treatment for the military, but I don't think we need more than 2000 words of prose as we have now. Even if we cut that by half, we will still have more in our general article than in the detailed article on Government of the Han Dynasty.

I propose we do the following: (1) Transfer the content of our current section to a new article called Military of the Qing dynasty (pending the creation of Government of the Qing dynasty). This will ensure we lose no content when we summarize the our page later. (2) Use this talk page to write a bullet-point outline of the issues we have to discuss in the abridged section. (3) Mark the text for citations where needed (as suggested by Rincewind42). The content is fairly accurate, but many detailed statements need to be referenced and some words are controversial: "citizen army," "semi-colonial state," pre-Meiji Japan as "feudal," etc. (4) Summarize the current content in a few paragraphs, aiming not to go beyond 1000 words of visible prose. This is still long by the standards of Han dynasty, but cutting half of our words will be challenging enough! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and created Military of the Qing dynasty! I copied all the content from the "Military" section of Qing dynasty, but kept it in here as well for further editing. The lede I wrote for the new article can serve us to write our summarized section, but it needs to be improved, especially the end, which I wrote when I was running out of time. The new article has lots of room for expansion, but that's a different story. Signing off for today! Madalibi (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A 3-paragraph section on the military seems about right for this overview article, and the lead of the new article looks like the right three paragraphs for that section. Adding a bit more on the central Asian conquests remedied a curious omission in the current section. Should it also mention the Opium War and Western military assistance in suppressing the Taipings? Kanguole 13:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I will keep adding information and references to Military of the Qing dynasty until we have a solid page that is different from the text we have here at Qing dynasty. We can then select the best passages from that new page for inclusion into this one. A faster way to improve "Qing dynasty" would be to improve the three lead paragraphs further until we have a usable section that summarizes the important aspects of the Qing military. Since the Opium War had little effect on military institutions, I don't think it's necessary to mention it. (The Second Opium War, which is already mentioned after all, is the war that led to the Self-Strengthening Movement.) But western armies helping in suppressing the Taiping is important, because it was one of the ways in which Zeng Guofan and Li Hongzhang learned about foreign weapons firsthand. Thanks for the suggestion! Madalibi (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Another topic to be factored in is the section Boxer rebellion#Chinese forces. This is surely an important topic but equally surely too long and out of place in an article concerning the ... ahem... Boxer Uprising. Would it be feasible to lift the many usable parts from the Boxer article into the new Qing Military History article? I'll post this suggestion on that page as well. ch (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Another good idea! Answered on the relevant talk page... Madalibi (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Can the Manchus be called "nomadic"?

Gun Powder Ma has just added an interesting sentence to the lede, claiming that "The Manchu campaign was the last time in history that a sedentary civilization was conquered and occupied by nomadic people."[13] This is the kind of general statement we need in the lede, because it explains the historical significance of the Qing in general, but unfortunately I think it's inaccurate. I reverted it, saying that the Manchus were not a nomadic people,[14] then GPM reverted back, saying that "a reliable source says [they are]."[15] In the spirit of WP:BRD, I'm opening this discussion.

The source Gun Powder Ma cites is Erik Hildinger's Warriors Of The Steppe: Military History Of Central Asia, 500 BC To 1700 AD (Da Capo Press, 1997), p. 219. The author is a former lawyer[16] who now teaches engineering at the University of Michigan.[17] He sounds like a cool guy, but because he is neither a historian nor a specialist in China, his book (a tertiary source) is not reliable when it comes to explaining who the Manchus were.

There is actually no controversy in the field regarding the Manchus' lifestyle.

"The Manchus were not nomads but rather hunters, fishers and farmers" (Patricia Buckley Ebrey et al., East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History, 3rd edition, p. 271)[18]
"Because the Manchus were not nomads, Hucker goes so far as to claim that after 1368, 'the tension between farmer and nomad was no longer a major theme in Chinese history'" (Frederic Wakeman, Jr., The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial Order in the Seventeenth Century, p. 24, note 1)[19]
"the Manchus were not steppe nomads but came from a mixed pastoral, hunting and farming economy based in what is now known as China's 'three northeastern provinces'" (The Reader's Companion to Military History, p. 279)[20]
"This is not, however, to excuse modern historians who — most commonly out of a wish to simplify, and less commonly out of real ignorance — confuse Mongols and Manchus to the extent of referring to the early Manchus as 'nomads'.... What is important to note here is that the Qing empire led by the Manchus was not nomadic in economic impulsion, in political organization, or in style. Comprehensive theories of nomadic conquest which attempt to include the Manchus inevitably go rather wrong." (Pamela Crossley, The Manchus, p. 3)

Etc. The Manchus were mounted archers, which was a tactic typical of nomadic steppe powers, but that does not make them a nomadic people. This is why I think Gun Powder Ma's addition is inaccurate and should therefore be reverted. What do you all think? Madalibi (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this seems quite clear. (In any case, the lead isn't an appropriate place to introduce ideas not explored in the body of the article.) Kanguole 12:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kanguole and Madalibi that it is clear that the Manchus were not nomadic and that the tertiary source is not a Reliable Source. I can't find it at the moment, but I believe that there has been a discussion of whether the Manchus were nomadic, pastoral, or what. ch (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I searched through the archives of Qing dynasty and Manchu people but could not find any debate on whether the Manchus were nomads. There is a brief discussion on the Jurchen people talk page, but it cites no reliable source either way. Madalibi (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just made the new sentence invisible and will delete it in the next few days if no one objects. Madalibi (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What tertiary source? Hildinger is a secondary source. The full quote is: “The last nomads to conquer and occupy a settled civilization were a nation of Jurchids who took the name Manchu...The Manchus were nomads, though not pastoral nomads; instead they principally hunted, in distinction to the Mongols and Turks, and they differed from them in speech too: they spoke a Tungusic language, which is today rarely heard. Although these Jurchids were hunting rather than herding nomads, they shared the pastoralists's toughness and skill at mounted archery.”

Wikipedia goes by the following definition of a nomad: "member of a community of people who move from one place to another, either with their livestock (pastoral nomads) or subsisting on hunting and gathering." Hence, the Manchus were a type of nomads. If you want to restrict this definition to pastoral nomads only, you have to first gain consensus at Talk:Nomad.

But I have no objection to emend to something like "The Manchu campaign was the last time in history that a sedentary civilization was conquered and occupied by nomadic warriors." This places the emphasis more on their way of fighting. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to GunpowderMa for raising this interesting and significant point. There is much to ponder. I see two important questions here, however, aside from the content of the questiion:

The question of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, which is dealt with here, among other places. If Hildinger read WP:Primary sources, that is, original documents, then his work is a Secondary Source. But if he based his conclusions on WP:Secondary sources, then the work is a WP:Tertiary source. Now of course, we can often use Tertiary Sources, even including some textbooks if the authors are qualified in the field we are consulting them for (e.g. Jonathan Spence on the Qing dynasty). But Wiki policy is to prefer Secondary Sources.
The question of the definition of pastoral vs. hunting/ gathering nomads etc: Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia Articles Are Not Reliable Sources.

In any case, better to leave such contentious questions to places where they can be discussed at appropriate length. Still, it's an intriguing fact which I plan to drop into a conversation at the next opportunity.

Cheers, ch (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Shamanism in the Qing dynasty

Hello all, I have finally completed a page on Shamanism in the Qing dynasty. Comments and improvements are welcome! Madalibi (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent article. I've done some minor copy editing. Have you thought about nominating it for Wikipedia:Good articles?--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for formatting the Chinese text throughout, Khanate General! Yes I will eventually do that, but I'd like to get some more feedback beforehand. Do let me know if anything seems unclear or not well explained enough for general readers. But of course let's do that at Talk:Shamanism in the Qing dynasty, not here. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Manning Chan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gdaymate011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022

This edit request to Qing dynasty has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add a “today part of…” because it lacks that in this article

I request to put a few changes in the semi-protected Qing Dynasty Javyriv (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of "offical language"

The concept of an “official language” before the rise of the nation-state is hard to define. TheLeopard makes a reasonable point in changing "official language" in the Info Box to "Mandarin," that not just more people spoke Mandarin but it was “the dominant language used by the dynasty itself for just about everything.”

But there are several reasons that Manchu should be listed first.

the source cited, Mark Elliott says “Manchu was the first of the five languages of the empire ... commonly referred to in Chinese as the ‘Qing language’ .... or the ‘national language’”, though such political labels were not used in Manchu. p. 291

even more clear, Jerry Norman, Chinese (1988) makes the point better: “the official language (if indeed one can speak of such a concept at that time) was the Tungusic language of the ruling house, Manchu p. 133

For most of the dynasty Manchu was used for some documents that were not translated. But that is another topic!
an “official language” does not need to be the dominant one. For instance, in Hong Kong and Macao, when they were colonies, the “official language” was spoken by only a minority of the people. See Routledge International Handbook several examples
A minor point, more rarified than our readers want or need, is that "Mandarin" is a spoken language, as specified in the link, with many dialects, so the "official" language would have to be perhaps "classical Chinese/"

Hope this helps. ch (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you and your ilk stop messing around with the Qing Dynasty page with your fiction? At this point, this page is fast becoming a historical fantasy novel like the Goan War article before it was removed. And what is this semi-protected nonsense? We need more neutral and Chinese sources (which are corroborated by neighbouring countries' records), not these Western Chauvinist ones used to justify Balkanisation to divide and conquer. 210.3.171.98 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you give examples? It's hard to answer generalized comments.ch (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Names of claimed territories

What are the names of the light green areas claimed but not controlled by the Qing Dynasty? 92.253.89.228 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)