This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of Qing dynasty's economic performance 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 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see no evidence that the phrase "Qing conquest theory" is used anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Also, instead of describing scholars' versions of the theory, the article consists of a list of pieces of evidence.
It might make sense to have an article on "sprouts of capitalism", a phrase which at least is used, provided it were written in a neutral manner. Kanguole 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Though this topic is rarely being discussed in the West, there are many scholarly sources that can be referred to, though majority of these sources are in Chinese. Ch'ien Mu for example. Arilang talk 07:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
http://product.dangdang.com/product.aspx?product_id=8986394
中国历代政治得失——钱穆作品系列
I S B N : 9787108015280
Arilang talk 07:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yuan Weishi is another scholar we can refer to. Arilang talk 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
晚清大变局中的思潮与人物
http://book.douban.com/subject/1799442/
作者: 袁伟时
ISBN: 9787805425344
I can't read the Chinese language sources, but it is simply not true that this topic is never discussed in English language literature. Indeed, the question of "Why England, not China?" is one of the *big questions* of Economic History. And this has been proposed as an answer to that question. If "Qing conquest theory" is the name given to this theory in Chinese then it is probably the appropriate title, though I would like someone who can speak Chinese to point out which of the sources specifically use this terminology. I'm not sure if there's a single name for this theory in English literature - but that's really because we're talking Humanities (History) and Social Science (Economics) where not every idea, no matter how notable, automatically gets a "label" like in the Physical Sciences. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I support editor Kanguole's point that "Qing conquest theory" is a neologism. Earlier searches found no outside uses in either Chinese or English and my own recent searches found only this Wikipedia article itself and a few hits that were also based on this Wikipedia article: Qing Conquest Theory Google and Qing Conquest Theory GOOGLE SCHOLAR.
This is a bad title for an article with good material and good potential. I would support a call to delete or move to a better title, but also the incorporation of the material into other articles, whichever an interested editor would prefer. So if you support this article: WP:Be Bold !! Make the move!! ch ( talk) 19:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Qing conquest theory. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Kanguole,
Teeninvestor,
Volunteer Marek,
Ch,
Kumioko (ping to all):
As the latest person to stumble over this from the 'possible neologisms' category, the objection here (it seems to me) is a) the title is not supported by any source, and b) the theory itself is not backed by RS.
I notice the text contains links to articles by Mao, Zhang and Xu, of which the first two are still accessible. They both appear (if I have understood them; I’m reading them via Gtranslate) to put forward the theory that modernization was stifled by the advent of the Qing dynasty. Does that satisfy the claim that this notion actually exists? Also, if the title here isn’t acceptable, what about 'Qing dynasty and the delay of Chinese modernization', from the title of Mao’s article?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
00:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@
Kanguole,
Ch: Thank you both for replying. On reflection I do see some merit in h this page, if only because it suggests a Chinese theory for the lack of progress in China during this period; Zhang's article notes that "Chinese and foreign scholars have always had different opinions … on whether the ancient Chinese society can breed new modern social factors and… transform into a modern society", and it seems reasonable to have an article that addresses that. Also, a Google search for the alternate title, 满清倒退论 ('Manchu Regression Theory'), throws up
a whole bunch of articles, so the idea does seem to be legit. So unless you feel strongly that we shouldn’t, I’m inclined to keep this, though I think it needs overhauling, and a new title.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
23:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
PS: Zhang's article also has 'Stagnation theory', and
a search for that has results also. How about either of them as new titles? Anything's better than 'Cwing cwonquest theowy'!
Moonraker12 (
talk)
23:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@
Kanguole,
Ch: Just to clarify, is your objection to the title of this article, or to it’s subject and content? Because if it’s the latter, the proposals to delete and/or merge it really don't have any legs.
The
AfD ten years ago established that the subject was
notable, and that hasn’t diminished over time. As for merging it to somewhere else,
what are the grounds? this article doesn’t duplicate, or even significantly overlap, with any other, so unless you were planning to simply blank it and redirect somewhere (ie, a deletion by the back door) you would have to find a home for some 14Kb of material. And the two articles suggested are already
well beyond the point where we should be splitting them down, not adding to them ("Qing dynasty" is 212Kb, and "Economic History of China" is 162Kb). Anyway, per
WP:SUMMARY, large generalized subjects should naturally link to a variety of a host of 'daughter articles' on specific aspects, expanding on summaries there: in this case, this article is on a specific theory (the name of which we haven’t yet established) which expands on one aspect of the Economy and Qing dynasty sections of those articles.
As for the title, if this explanation doesn’t have a formal name in English or Chinese, we just need a
descriptive, neutral title that describes the content (eg "Economic stagnation/regression under the Qing dynasty", "Chinese economic progress and the Qing/Manchu invasion/conquest"). If you don’t like the ones I have proposed, what do you suggest instead?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
23:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
PS: BTW, yes, as it stands it does boil down to blaming the Manchu/Qing for everything, and yes, it does sound incipiently racist to me. But that is what the sources suggest is the case; they either blame foreign theorists for analyzing a particularly Chinese phenomenon, or (as here) they blame the foreign Manchu for China’s ills. But the response shouldn’t be to quash any mention of it here, the response should be to expand the article with the counter-arguments. This isn’t my area of expertise, (which is why this whole matter is like swimming in treacle, for me) but that, I suggest, is the way forward. Moonraker12 ( talk) 23:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
And I’ve reverted it, as I was under the impression we were still discussing the matter. Where do you get this idea that this theory only exists in WP mirrors? The search I did (above) threw up a raft of hits: Just from the first page:
And where does ‘everyone agrees.. ‘ come from? It seems obvious from these at least that they don’t all agree everyone doesn’t agree with that, at all.
Also, WP:SUMMARY is about drawing articles on specifics from the general, not the other way round; this article is already on a specific aspect of the Qing economic history (which that article manages to dismiss in a single sentence) so this article, with this particular remit, has a place. You are welcome to write a broad article on the economy of the Qing dynasty if you wish, expanding on what is at the other two articles at present, but taking this article, then renaming and re-writing it, is just another (albeit quite sophisticated) form of deletion, isn’t it.
I asked if it was just the title, or the whole article you object to; it seems clear that it is both, for you. You are welcome to your opinion, but I would be more interested in sorting out what is already here. Do you really want to help with that?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Moonraker. I see points that may be fatal to this article and that suggest that your good work should go elsewhere than this out of the way article:
In short, the article offers only material on Qing economic development in general, which is better covered elsewhere; it has no reliable sources to the idea that “Qing conquest” affected growth rather than general late imperial characteristics; no references show that such a theory exists; no references that either support or refute it.
Other articles have room for the few sentences that might add to what they already have, and do not have to absorb this article as a whole, only a couple of sentences. ch ( talk) 01:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@
Kanguole:: So, are we
edit warring now? You’ve been here long enough to know that while a matter is under discussion the status quo ante applies. And
you never re-instate a bold edit that’s been reverted, before the issue is resolved.
Also, you’ve had ten years to tinker with this page: You’ve done nothing constructive with it in that time, but have cavilled when others have done so (eg.
this,
and this,
and this); so I suggest now is a bit late.
If you want to get rid of this article,
open an AfD discussion and make your case, or
start a merge process to somewhere and explain your reasons. Or, if you simply object to the title, come up with another that suits you, as you don’t like any of the ones already suggested. Otherwise, I suggest you take a back seat and let someone else have a go.
And on the subject of "Manchu regression theory" being a neologism, so what? I suggest that it also describes the content here, which is the theory (ie. an unproven or speculative idea) that the Manchu invasion caused China to regress. So flag it as a neologism if you feel so strongly about it, and move on.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
18:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: You proposed having an article on "sprouts of capitalism"
ten years ago; did you ever do anything about it?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
OK
Kanguole, let's take it from the top: what is the 'it' that I haven’t addressed? The fact that I reverted your edit (addressed
here, and
here)? Or the fact that I don’t accept your premise (
here, and
here)? To repeat: I have responded numerous times; you
just don’t accept it. It isn’t necessary that you do (as it isn’t necessary for me to accept yours) but it is necessary to
move past it.
As for your argument that 'this is a neologism, therefore it must be deleted'; I don’t accept that, either. If something is a neologism, it can always be resolved by fixing the wording, or, in this case, by renaming the article (which you have agreed to). You have been given several suggestions for this (viz this, and this, and these), and have been asked a couple of times to suggest an alternative title yourself that would satisfy you: So far, nothing. You have also been asked to present any other issues you have here: Again, nothing, except a blanket ' I won’t discuss it unless you let me edit as I see fit'. That is not acceptable either. Moonraker12 ( talk) 16:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
满清倒退论
common usage in Chinese sources. This discussion becomes a huge mess so I urge parties either to bring the sources or I propose to take down that phrase due to a lack of
WP:CONSENSUS and
WP:RSs. Take a note that I'm uninvolved party.--
AXONOV
(talk)
⚑
09:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
...I have argued that re-naming would make the neologism problem disappear...The WP:RS should make it disappear, but I see none. I also don't see MOS:INTRO followed. You sure you want to continue this fruitless discussion and waste everyone's time? -- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Three editors agree that the Chinese phrase should be removed unless it can be reliably sourced, and it seems that no source is coming, so I will remove it. Kanguole 14:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Kanguole:, ch, Alexander_Davronov: It has been suggested, and agreed in principle, that the article should be re-named to avoid the suggestion of the current title as a neologism. There are a number of proposed titles in the discussion above, but so far there has been no progress. In order to move this forward, can whoever is interested declare their preference, or failing that suggest an alternative. I would intend to move the page in line with this after a period of time. Speak now or forever hold your peace! Moonraker12 ( talk) 15:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
To recap: the suggestions so far have been:-
Have I missed any out? Moonraker12 ( talk) 15:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
It was, according to contemporary Chinese academics, all the fault of the Qing. Everything in China was going rather well, they suggest, until these Manchurian interlopers showed up and established their own dynasty. If this 'Qing conquest theory' is to be believed, one bad dynasty ruling over China between 1644 and 1911 accounts for the great divergence between China and Europe.
And perhaps there is something in this theory. Qing emperors did indeed make a succession of catastrophic choices. They presided over a parasitic state that weakened the productive and put China ever further behind the West.
The Qing conquest theory is a theory proposed by Chinese academics that attempts to explain the Great Divergence, the overtaking of China by the Western world as the major economic and industrial world power. Specifically, the theory seeks to explain how Europe could experience an industrial revolution, but China did not. Theory supporters claim that although the prosperous Song and Ming dynasties moved China toward a modern age, the restrictions placed on commerce and industry and the persecution of non-orthodox thought after the Manchu conquest of China caused the country to stagnate and fall behind the West.
Proposed move: to China's loss of world leadership under the Qing. I'm sure that some can find fault with this title but it covers the topics actually in the article and meets WP:CRITERIA better than any other proposed. I will then add mention of Sprouts of capitalism, suggested by Kanguole way back in 2010, then accusations of military weakness leading to defeat in the Opium Wars, problems with fiscal and tax policy, and intellectual rigidity under the exam systems, along with brief mention of problems with these arguments. Also coordinate with the articles mentioned in our discussions, as well as Anti-Qing sentiment. ch ( talk) 23:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Since there is no doubt that Qing conquest theory is a neologism, I have for now moved the article to Criticism of Qing dynasty's economic progress, similar to other articles such as Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, Criticism of the government response to Hurricane Katrina, even though it is not necessarily the best title. And indeed, there are many articles in Wikipedia starting with the phrase "Criticism of". -- Wengier ( talk) 06:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of Qing dynasty's economic performance 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 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see no evidence that the phrase "Qing conquest theory" is used anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Also, instead of describing scholars' versions of the theory, the article consists of a list of pieces of evidence.
It might make sense to have an article on "sprouts of capitalism", a phrase which at least is used, provided it were written in a neutral manner. Kanguole 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Though this topic is rarely being discussed in the West, there are many scholarly sources that can be referred to, though majority of these sources are in Chinese. Ch'ien Mu for example. Arilang talk 07:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
http://product.dangdang.com/product.aspx?product_id=8986394
中国历代政治得失——钱穆作品系列
I S B N : 9787108015280
Arilang talk 07:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yuan Weishi is another scholar we can refer to. Arilang talk 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
晚清大变局中的思潮与人物
http://book.douban.com/subject/1799442/
作者: 袁伟时
ISBN: 9787805425344
I can't read the Chinese language sources, but it is simply not true that this topic is never discussed in English language literature. Indeed, the question of "Why England, not China?" is one of the *big questions* of Economic History. And this has been proposed as an answer to that question. If "Qing conquest theory" is the name given to this theory in Chinese then it is probably the appropriate title, though I would like someone who can speak Chinese to point out which of the sources specifically use this terminology. I'm not sure if there's a single name for this theory in English literature - but that's really because we're talking Humanities (History) and Social Science (Economics) where not every idea, no matter how notable, automatically gets a "label" like in the Physical Sciences. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I support editor Kanguole's point that "Qing conquest theory" is a neologism. Earlier searches found no outside uses in either Chinese or English and my own recent searches found only this Wikipedia article itself and a few hits that were also based on this Wikipedia article: Qing Conquest Theory Google and Qing Conquest Theory GOOGLE SCHOLAR.
This is a bad title for an article with good material and good potential. I would support a call to delete or move to a better title, but also the incorporation of the material into other articles, whichever an interested editor would prefer. So if you support this article: WP:Be Bold !! Make the move!! ch ( talk) 19:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Qing conquest theory. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Kanguole,
Teeninvestor,
Volunteer Marek,
Ch,
Kumioko (ping to all):
As the latest person to stumble over this from the 'possible neologisms' category, the objection here (it seems to me) is a) the title is not supported by any source, and b) the theory itself is not backed by RS.
I notice the text contains links to articles by Mao, Zhang and Xu, of which the first two are still accessible. They both appear (if I have understood them; I’m reading them via Gtranslate) to put forward the theory that modernization was stifled by the advent of the Qing dynasty. Does that satisfy the claim that this notion actually exists? Also, if the title here isn’t acceptable, what about 'Qing dynasty and the delay of Chinese modernization', from the title of Mao’s article?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
00:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@
Kanguole,
Ch: Thank you both for replying. On reflection I do see some merit in h this page, if only because it suggests a Chinese theory for the lack of progress in China during this period; Zhang's article notes that "Chinese and foreign scholars have always had different opinions … on whether the ancient Chinese society can breed new modern social factors and… transform into a modern society", and it seems reasonable to have an article that addresses that. Also, a Google search for the alternate title, 满清倒退论 ('Manchu Regression Theory'), throws up
a whole bunch of articles, so the idea does seem to be legit. So unless you feel strongly that we shouldn’t, I’m inclined to keep this, though I think it needs overhauling, and a new title.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
23:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
PS: Zhang's article also has 'Stagnation theory', and
a search for that has results also. How about either of them as new titles? Anything's better than 'Cwing cwonquest theowy'!
Moonraker12 (
talk)
23:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@
Kanguole,
Ch: Just to clarify, is your objection to the title of this article, or to it’s subject and content? Because if it’s the latter, the proposals to delete and/or merge it really don't have any legs.
The
AfD ten years ago established that the subject was
notable, and that hasn’t diminished over time. As for merging it to somewhere else,
what are the grounds? this article doesn’t duplicate, or even significantly overlap, with any other, so unless you were planning to simply blank it and redirect somewhere (ie, a deletion by the back door) you would have to find a home for some 14Kb of material. And the two articles suggested are already
well beyond the point where we should be splitting them down, not adding to them ("Qing dynasty" is 212Kb, and "Economic History of China" is 162Kb). Anyway, per
WP:SUMMARY, large generalized subjects should naturally link to a variety of a host of 'daughter articles' on specific aspects, expanding on summaries there: in this case, this article is on a specific theory (the name of which we haven’t yet established) which expands on one aspect of the Economy and Qing dynasty sections of those articles.
As for the title, if this explanation doesn’t have a formal name in English or Chinese, we just need a
descriptive, neutral title that describes the content (eg "Economic stagnation/regression under the Qing dynasty", "Chinese economic progress and the Qing/Manchu invasion/conquest"). If you don’t like the ones I have proposed, what do you suggest instead?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
23:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
PS: BTW, yes, as it stands it does boil down to blaming the Manchu/Qing for everything, and yes, it does sound incipiently racist to me. But that is what the sources suggest is the case; they either blame foreign theorists for analyzing a particularly Chinese phenomenon, or (as here) they blame the foreign Manchu for China’s ills. But the response shouldn’t be to quash any mention of it here, the response should be to expand the article with the counter-arguments. This isn’t my area of expertise, (which is why this whole matter is like swimming in treacle, for me) but that, I suggest, is the way forward. Moonraker12 ( talk) 23:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
And I’ve reverted it, as I was under the impression we were still discussing the matter. Where do you get this idea that this theory only exists in WP mirrors? The search I did (above) threw up a raft of hits: Just from the first page:
And where does ‘everyone agrees.. ‘ come from? It seems obvious from these at least that they don’t all agree everyone doesn’t agree with that, at all.
Also, WP:SUMMARY is about drawing articles on specifics from the general, not the other way round; this article is already on a specific aspect of the Qing economic history (which that article manages to dismiss in a single sentence) so this article, with this particular remit, has a place. You are welcome to write a broad article on the economy of the Qing dynasty if you wish, expanding on what is at the other two articles at present, but taking this article, then renaming and re-writing it, is just another (albeit quite sophisticated) form of deletion, isn’t it.
I asked if it was just the title, or the whole article you object to; it seems clear that it is both, for you. You are welcome to your opinion, but I would be more interested in sorting out what is already here. Do you really want to help with that?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Moonraker. I see points that may be fatal to this article and that suggest that your good work should go elsewhere than this out of the way article:
In short, the article offers only material on Qing economic development in general, which is better covered elsewhere; it has no reliable sources to the idea that “Qing conquest” affected growth rather than general late imperial characteristics; no references show that such a theory exists; no references that either support or refute it.
Other articles have room for the few sentences that might add to what they already have, and do not have to absorb this article as a whole, only a couple of sentences. ch ( talk) 01:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@
Kanguole:: So, are we
edit warring now? You’ve been here long enough to know that while a matter is under discussion the status quo ante applies. And
you never re-instate a bold edit that’s been reverted, before the issue is resolved.
Also, you’ve had ten years to tinker with this page: You’ve done nothing constructive with it in that time, but have cavilled when others have done so (eg.
this,
and this,
and this); so I suggest now is a bit late.
If you want to get rid of this article,
open an AfD discussion and make your case, or
start a merge process to somewhere and explain your reasons. Or, if you simply object to the title, come up with another that suits you, as you don’t like any of the ones already suggested. Otherwise, I suggest you take a back seat and let someone else have a go.
And on the subject of "Manchu regression theory" being a neologism, so what? I suggest that it also describes the content here, which is the theory (ie. an unproven or speculative idea) that the Manchu invasion caused China to regress. So flag it as a neologism if you feel so strongly about it, and move on.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
18:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: You proposed having an article on "sprouts of capitalism"
ten years ago; did you ever do anything about it?
Moonraker12 (
talk)
18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
OK
Kanguole, let's take it from the top: what is the 'it' that I haven’t addressed? The fact that I reverted your edit (addressed
here, and
here)? Or the fact that I don’t accept your premise (
here, and
here)? To repeat: I have responded numerous times; you
just don’t accept it. It isn’t necessary that you do (as it isn’t necessary for me to accept yours) but it is necessary to
move past it.
As for your argument that 'this is a neologism, therefore it must be deleted'; I don’t accept that, either. If something is a neologism, it can always be resolved by fixing the wording, or, in this case, by renaming the article (which you have agreed to). You have been given several suggestions for this (viz this, and this, and these), and have been asked a couple of times to suggest an alternative title yourself that would satisfy you: So far, nothing. You have also been asked to present any other issues you have here: Again, nothing, except a blanket ' I won’t discuss it unless you let me edit as I see fit'. That is not acceptable either. Moonraker12 ( talk) 16:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
满清倒退论
common usage in Chinese sources. This discussion becomes a huge mess so I urge parties either to bring the sources or I propose to take down that phrase due to a lack of
WP:CONSENSUS and
WP:RSs. Take a note that I'm uninvolved party.--
AXONOV
(talk)
⚑
09:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
...I have argued that re-naming would make the neologism problem disappear...The WP:RS should make it disappear, but I see none. I also don't see MOS:INTRO followed. You sure you want to continue this fruitless discussion and waste everyone's time? -- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Three editors agree that the Chinese phrase should be removed unless it can be reliably sourced, and it seems that no source is coming, so I will remove it. Kanguole 14:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Kanguole:, ch, Alexander_Davronov: It has been suggested, and agreed in principle, that the article should be re-named to avoid the suggestion of the current title as a neologism. There are a number of proposed titles in the discussion above, but so far there has been no progress. In order to move this forward, can whoever is interested declare their preference, or failing that suggest an alternative. I would intend to move the page in line with this after a period of time. Speak now or forever hold your peace! Moonraker12 ( talk) 15:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
To recap: the suggestions so far have been:-
Have I missed any out? Moonraker12 ( talk) 15:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
It was, according to contemporary Chinese academics, all the fault of the Qing. Everything in China was going rather well, they suggest, until these Manchurian interlopers showed up and established their own dynasty. If this 'Qing conquest theory' is to be believed, one bad dynasty ruling over China between 1644 and 1911 accounts for the great divergence between China and Europe.
And perhaps there is something in this theory. Qing emperors did indeed make a succession of catastrophic choices. They presided over a parasitic state that weakened the productive and put China ever further behind the West.
The Qing conquest theory is a theory proposed by Chinese academics that attempts to explain the Great Divergence, the overtaking of China by the Western world as the major economic and industrial world power. Specifically, the theory seeks to explain how Europe could experience an industrial revolution, but China did not. Theory supporters claim that although the prosperous Song and Ming dynasties moved China toward a modern age, the restrictions placed on commerce and industry and the persecution of non-orthodox thought after the Manchu conquest of China caused the country to stagnate and fall behind the West.
Proposed move: to China's loss of world leadership under the Qing. I'm sure that some can find fault with this title but it covers the topics actually in the article and meets WP:CRITERIA better than any other proposed. I will then add mention of Sprouts of capitalism, suggested by Kanguole way back in 2010, then accusations of military weakness leading to defeat in the Opium Wars, problems with fiscal and tax policy, and intellectual rigidity under the exam systems, along with brief mention of problems with these arguments. Also coordinate with the articles mentioned in our discussions, as well as Anti-Qing sentiment. ch ( talk) 23:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Since there is no doubt that Qing conquest theory is a neologism, I have for now moved the article to Criticism of Qing dynasty's economic progress, similar to other articles such as Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, Criticism of the government response to Hurricane Katrina, even though it is not necessarily the best title. And indeed, there are many articles in Wikipedia starting with the phrase "Criticism of". -- Wengier ( talk) 06:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)