![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
So what do you think? If there weren't no revolutionaries.. would the Qing Dynasty have fallen? I think its a yes. Quite obviously. They would still fall in the hands of foreign power. Like Britain. And Russia. And France. Besides, the officials etc are so corrupted, taking bribes and everything, it'll be a miracle if China could survive for so long. What do you think? Please share your views with me. I'd really like to learn.
this should be changed. It doesn't make sense to show a map of an empire at its SMALLEST extent right before its collapse. It be like showing a map of NApoleon's empire in 1814. -- Gary123 ( talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
New map uploaded:
Let me know what you think. - Pryaltonian ( talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the author must change the map due to the respect of history.The map indicates that the Spartly and Paracel islands belonged to China since the Qing Dynasty,that's absolutely not true.In fact,we Vietnamese have had the envidence to prove the both islands belonged to us since our Nguyen Dynasty,those envidence are now the national treasure and well preserved.we had kept that islands until the China Liberation Army invaded to the South Vietnam's Paracel island in January 1974 and later in 1988 after they massacred our navy forces.Now,the dispute between 2 country about those islands is not resolved yet and recently higher tension is rose by the Chinese hostility to Vietnamese fisherman.Therefore,I with my National pride and justice request the author and Wiki administration change any content related to China's sovereignity on these islands.The link below is about the invasions of China to Vietnam's island that complement for my words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands
thanks ! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
118.68.21.20 (
talk)
09:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I find it strange that this article mainly focus on the Emperor, Military, Bureaucrats, near complete avoidance of discussion on Education, Literary achievements, Science achievement. In short, what is the Soft Power of Qing? Why no editor seem to care about this issue? Arilang talk 21:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there soft power of Qing? I don't think there is much achievement in these spheres during Qing except perhaps a section on huon lao mong, the great chinese novel. Teeninvestor ( talk) 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In this case we may have a new article: Comparison of Soft power between Ming and Qing/temporary name. What you think? Good idea? Arilang talk 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of the new Controversy section. I've already removed the long citation from Lord Macartney because long citations like that look very bad in any wiki. The other three paragraphs are referenced to a survey of "5000 years of Chinese history" (in Chinese). This is as broad a survey as you can imagine, and in my experience such surveys tend to reflect the state of scholarship about 20 years before they were published. So we can certainly do better than that. (And we also lack page numbers. Readers can't be expected to find this book and look up for the precise citation, so we absolutely need page numbers here.)
Some of the information cited sounds irrelevant. What is the point of saying that the Qing "changed Chinese culture by forcing Han men to wear pigtails and banning the traditional chinese dress, Hanfu"? We could also say "the Qing burned books" and "the Qing exterminated the Dzungars," but also "the Qing criminalized homosexual acts," "Qing emperors held shamanistic rituals in the Forbidden City," "the Yongzheng Emperor took Daoist elixirs," and "the Daoguang Emperor was really ugly." If other editors get into it, this section could easily become a "let's criticize the Qing according to our own POV" free-for-all, which is not what we want.
The section saying that "the Qing also disrupted trade and development by reinstating feudal estates in the form of the quandi" is not much of a contrast, since Ming princely estates were also very large and not very productive. Also, how does this 17th-century disruption of the economy around Beijing help us to uderstand the decline of modern China? Where is the controversy?
And "The Qing also suppressed capitalistic developments in the later era of the Ming." What does that mean? I think this is a simplistic paraphrase of the "sprouts of capitalism" (ziben zhuyi de mengya 資本主義的萌芽) theory that was once so popular in China. The theory stated that capitalism was emerging in the late Ming but that it was suppressed. Historians who discussed this idea followed the Marxist "five-stage theory of economic development" in assuming that economic prosperity automatically leads to capitalism (as in: primitive economy -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism). Chinese scholars then tried to identify what had "inhibited" the (supposedly natural) emergence of capitalism in China. They found all kinds of "factors": Confucian thinking, the imperial bureaucracy (both Ming and Qing), the economic disruption that came with the Manchu conquest, and of course imperialism (this was the main factor, actually, since China in 1750 was as prosperous as China in 1600). But all of these answers beg the question: does economic prosperity really lead naturally to capitalism? Modern scholarship about early modern Europe and China actually says no. This would mean all the above answers are irrelevant. And to return to our text: if China was as prosperous in 1750 as in 1600, what's the point of citing Qing disruption of the late-Ming economy in a discussion of the Qing's role in the decline of China?
It's true that "The Qing dynasty is often blamed for China's backwardness in the modern age," so maybe we should have a controversy section, but every controversy must have two sides. We should see what reliable secondary sources (there are plenty in English) say about these claims that blame the Qing for so many things. For now, all we have is a collection of unrelated paraphrases from a Chinese textbook that basically say "the Qing dynasty was bad because..." If we can't present a two-sided controversy, I suggest we just delete the entire section.
-- Madalibi ( talk) 03:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Mabalibi, according to my Chinese source, Shunzhi issued 3 decrees on seizure of land. Also the Banner people did grap a lot of land in the provinces, when they set up the many provincial Manchu cities. Arilang talk 08:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
你们来过中国吗?你们真的了解中国历史吗?你们读过24史吗?你们真的了解公平正义吗?你们认得我在写什么??本人满族,正黄旗,旗人。可我看你们关于清朝的词条,看的吐血!看的失眠!汉语现在就是我的母语,我从来都认为汉族是我们的兄弟姐妹,密不可分。 而且你们呢??是什么脏什么不说!西方侵华烧圆明园,割中国土地,杀中国人民,你们竟然只字未提!清朝皇帝做得有意义的、进步的事情你们只字不提,反倒都是中国西方交战清朝违约、惹事和不公正在先!
你们引用的资料大多来源于清末革命党“发现的史料”,或者是来自日本学者之手。。。好吧,你们就瞎编乱造去吧。。。我看你们是真正在写博客! 我们中国人都是可怜的文盲、傻子、我们不懂真理!我们是愚蠢的!我们没有判断力!你们就继续霸占维基,攻击中国,撕裂中国民族,肢解中国吧!希望你们美梦成真哦,或许这才是你们想说却不敢说的。库克船长、伊丽莎白女王哪一个手上沾的血都比清朝皇帝浓千万倍。
我们,中国也绝不会向你们低头中国一定会强大,因为中国人想告诉你们中国人不比西方人差中国人一样爱自己的国家,中国人一样可以领导世界,中国人不是你们想象中的呆子和暴徒,我们中国人有句老话,看谁笑到最后,历史会还所有人一个公正!让我们共同等待吧,争论到此为止,我们中国人不会再与无知且无赖的people纠缠 另外,别删我留言,如果维基真的是自由和民主的地方!
If you cannot type English, please restrain from adding anymore all Chinese comments, otherwise your action will be considered as vandalism, unless you are prepare to translate your comment into English for all other readers to read. Arilang talk 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Quote:汉族人是狗屎做的 unquoted, (translation: Han ethnic(漢族) people is made of dog shit), is a low-mentality swear word, belong to the street level kind of gangland-talk, Wikipedia has not place for this kind of low-class racial-hatred inspired slur. Any more of this kind of language coming from that particular user warrant immediate action from admin to bar it from recurring again. Arilang talk 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Its difficult to get what he is saying. He seems to be defending Han and at same time he talks about how Manchu Emperors are good compared to Westerners and praising Manchu. I think his main point is that this article is too pro-western when dealing with Western incursions into Qing China. There should be a section on the unequal treaties though, and how western powers reaped profits from dumping millions of tons of opium on China/the reparations of hundreds of millions of taels, pure robbery. Teeninvestor ( talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Quote:因为中国人想告诉你们中国人不比西方人差中国人一样爱自己的国家!中国人一样可以领导世界!中国人不是你们眼中的呆子和暴徒!Unquote.
Translation:中国人(Chinese, again, a very confusing term) 爱自己的国家(translation:we love our country. What he is trying to say?
Qing was not considered a Nation state, which is a modern term, and
Qing existed in pre-modern time.
Qing should not = China, and
Qing was
Qing, not China.
中国人一样可以领导世界(translation: Middle Kingdom people can be the world leader.) When had Middle Kingdom people ever been the World leader? This kind of statement really bordered on silliness.
Arilang
talk
02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think he meant Chinese led technologically, economically and militarily. That actually is a long time from about 500BCE to about 1750CE. If you're talking about largest economy, that might even go into the 1870's. Teeninvestor ( talk) 12:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
User Madalibi, Teeninvestor, and Arilang 1234 have come to the conclusion that all those Manchu scripts on all the Manchu related articles serve no useful purposes, since the Manchu language(which was cloned from Mongol scripts in the 14-15th century) would become a dead language soon, as there are less than 200 people left in the whole world who are able to read and write it. Arilang talk 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Bathrobe, very few people can understand Manchu script now. It is of no use. If the reader is as gullible as you think, i don't think wikipedia will help him much. Chinese is only spoken by 1.3 billion across the world. Also, if you think i think Qing is a chinese dynasty, i don't; Madalibi will testify. Teeninvestor ( talk) 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bathrobe: I've already found a program that allows to create Manchu script, but the format of the files is not compatible with Wikipedia. For Pnyx, I notice that the terms that are glossed in the Greek script are those that are not linked (though isonomia should be linked). This is what we do on China-related articles: we input characters only when there's no article on the person or place mentioned. Maybe we could follow the same guideline for Manchu? Madalibi ( talk) 05:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I found it in a german book an possible C.O.A, The book is called Welt Munzkatalog 1900-2007. On page 348 if anyone can find the book + Coat of arms. I'm not sure if it was realy used by the Manchus but it has a very accurate description of the Qing-Dynasty.
It looks like the dragon on the Imperial (T-)Shirts of the Emperor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.154.25 ( talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There is little mention of Islam during the Qing Dynasty let alone a reference to the Islam during Qing Dynasty article. I believe that link should be added somewhere. Faro0485 ( talk) 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The official English translation of the name of this empire was Ta Tsing, as evidenced by numerous treaties and documents. The fact that the territory formerly occupied by Ta Tsing is now part of the People's Republic of China should not be grounds for changing historical names. The PRC uses "pinyin" to transcribe han characters and many English speaking regions have adapted pinyin transliterations for PRC place names. But we should respect history and avoid changing names in order to please certain political entities.
Suggestion: Ta Tsing should be a separate entry and not treated as a so called "dynasty" in Chinese (Han) history Dazibao ( talk) 05:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The Empire called itself "Ta Tsing" in English and French, as seen in treaties signed with other countries. It was not a "dynasty" of China, as some would like to suggest. It was a state, with Manchu as the official language, and "zhongguo" was one of the territories within the empire. Later, when "zhonghua minguo" was established, it choose "Republic of China" as its English name, hence the confusion. Currently the PRC uses its own system to transliterate Han characters, and Ta Tsing can be transcribed as Da Qing under that system. But that is no reason to rewrite history and change historical names. Taipei is still Taipei (not Taibei), Singapore uses Chinese but is not Xinjiapo in English. Let us respect history and avoid a sinocentric outlook. Singapour ( talk) 06:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The Qing Emperors referred their state as China in international treaties. Treaty of Nanking, Treaty_of_the_Bogue Treaty_of_Wanghia ...Citizens of the United States resorting to China for the... ...according to the laws of China. If the Chinese Government desire... Treaty_of_Tien-Tsin_between_the_Queen_of_Great_Britain_and_the_Emperor_of_China Treaty_of_Shimonoseki Boxer_Protocol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.197.189 ( talk) 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Qing Emperor bequeathed the entire Empire to the newborn Republic of China, Republic of China was successor state.
People's Republic of China argues that it has succeeded the Republic of China when the Communist Party took over mainland China from the Nationalist Kuomintang in the Chinese Civil War in 1949. However this is disputed, as the succession has been argued to be incomplete. 78.0.197.189 ( talk) 06:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Singapour, if you actually read the Qing treaties signed in English, etc (examples are given by User:78.0.197.189 above), then you will realize that Qing refers to itself as "China" *MUCH* more often than "Ta Tsing" in any of these treaties. The name "Ta Tsing" either never appears in international treaties (e.g. Treaty of Nanking, Treaty_of_the_Bogue, Boxer_Protocol), or is used interchangeably with "China" (e.g. Treaty_of_Wanghia). The Qing never refers to itself as a "dynasty of China" in the treaties, but instead refers to itself as just "China" (or "the Chinese Government"), as shown in numerous international treaties. This is how it was really done. The real history should be respected.-- 216.254.172.133 ( talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I strongly support the views of Singapour
The term 中國 is better translated into English as 'central country', or 'middle state'. It was a territory under the rule of the Ta Tsing Empire. The confusion arises because the English word 'China' is often used to translate the 汉, 中华, 华 , 中国, etc. The founders of the first republic 中华民国 chose 'Republic of China' as their English name, instead of chunghwa or other transliterations.
We need to keep in mind that 中國 , and the English term 'China' had different meanings in history, and avoid creating the misimpression that there actually was a 'country' called 'China' prior to 1911.
In its treaties with foreign powers, the Ta Tsing originally did not even use the Han (Chinese) language, later, they adoped Han for much of their work, but used the term 中國 to refer to the central part of their Empire, known as 'China proper' in most of the world. This did not include Tibet, or other non -Han territories that they conquered.
Concerned Scholar
Dazibao ( talk) 04:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Singapour:[quote]The Empire called itself "Ta Tsing" in English and French, as seen in treaties signed with other countries.[/quote]
Dazibao:[quote]I strongly support the views of Singapour[/quote]
Maybe you should read Qing treaties. The Empire called itself "China".
CONVENTION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND CHINA,1906
ARTICLE V.
The English and Chinese texts of the present Convention have been carefully compared and found to correspond...' 93.136.75.80 ( talk) 11:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
According to some sources the Qing wasn't China -- 213.126.117.235 ( talk) 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Read treaties above. 93.136.105.172 ( talk) 18:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
My response: It is impossible. This is illogical. China is the country/state/culture/identity. Qing Dynasty is the dynasty that ruled China. Qing is a dynasty while China is a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauchy Riemann criteria ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The Mongolian language was not an official spoken in the Manchurian Qing state. Please refer to 'Qing Dynasty' of other languages. Please fight the vandalist's false claim. Wiki8884 ( talk) 16:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I know Mongolian was spoken in the Outer Mongolian regions: here is an example: Is it plausible to say that the Mongolian empire's languages were Chinese, Turkish, Iranian Russian or many other languages? Of course no, the Official language would be Mongolian only, because, they were spoken in local regions thus others weren't the official languages. Wiki8884 ( talk) 17:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there might be some discussion of the dynasty's continued existence after 1912. My understanding of the settlement which brought about the creation of the Republic of China is that the Qing Dynasty did not exactly cease to reign at that point. Obviously, it ceased to reign over the territory of the Republic of China, but the Emperor remained a sovereign ruler for the next twelve years (and was, of course, briefly restored to rule over China in 1917). He wasn't the sovereign ruler of any actual territory or subjects, but given that this is an article on the dynasty, rather than on the state they ruled, it seems like this period should be discussed. Thoughts? john k ( talk) 03:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It is strange that Manchukuo 1932-1945 is somehow being omitted in this article, I wonder why?
Response Manchuria is a region. It was called Manchuko; the Japanese puppet state. That is not an extension of the Qing Dynasty. In addition, the Japanese generals did not want it to be an extension of the Qing Dynasty otherwise it would have been seen as Chinese. They called it Manchu Country; Manchuko is countries for Manchus. Ironically, 98% of Manchuko was Han Chinese. A state of Manchuria is not Chinese especially if it was ran by the Japanese. Originally, the Japanese wanted a Chinese Warlord Zhang Zuolin to join Japan but he refused so he was killed by a bomb. Then, the Japanese annexed Manchuria and made Puyi its emperor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauchy Riemann criteria ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Everybody, I found the Actual C.O.A. on google images i read the article and observed the sources but i forgot its name. I found it via Dutch google so it may take some time to find it on Chinese Google. Here is the Discription: a coiled dragon displayed guardant consisting of 5 talons. Thanks for reading. Could someone please look it up? -- 82.134.154.25 ( talk) 14:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This article goes into depth about military history but doesn't deal with anything about culture or daily life, and there don't seem to be any links to it. The only indications that there was any culture at all are the jpgs interspersed of vases and such. Really, this article should be titled "Qing Dynasty Military History". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.182.238 ( talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The infobox flag is from the 1890s, but does anyone know of any official flags or symbols before that? This site mentions a yellow flag "with a black dragon, fringed with blue" around 1844. I've also read several British military accounts of the 1840s that mention a flag with a dragon, but no pictures. Currently, much of the articles on the Opium War battles use File:China Qing Dynasty Flag 1889.svg or File:China Qing Dynasty Flag 1862.png, but none are verified as being used in the 1840s or 1850s. It would be good if anyone can verify whether the Qing Dynasty had any official symbols during that time, otherwise they may eventually be removed from those articles as being anachronistic. Spellcast ( talk) 08:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This source says no official national flag was adapted until 1872. But for the record, here's some British accounts describing some flags in the 1840s:
So although there wasn't an official national flag before 1872, there were non-official ones in use. If anyone happens to have pictures of such emblems, it may prove valuable to provide them. Spellcast ( talk) 06:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The map in this article explicitly shows that Tibet was part of Qing territory. There are also a lot of reliable sources (maps & texts) showing this, such as Encyclopædia Britannica and Cambridge History of China, which are very authoritative sources. However, in the article History of Tibet originally says "In 1751 ... Under Emperor Qianlong no further attempts were made to integrate Tibet into the empire." and "In 1792 ... the relationship between Qing and Tibet remained one of two states", (i.e. it says that Tibet was not a part of Qing, but a separate state), which are clearly biased, contradicting with the mainstream view. The article is about the general history of Tibet, not for placing such POVs and arguments as in Tibetan sovereignty debate. I have shown reasons and sources in Talk:History of Tibet, but unfortunately someone there seems to favor such biased statements, perhaps because of their own POVs. Please help to keep that article neutral. Thanks! -- 173.206.59.88 ( talk) 17:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The newly-added so called "Qing Economic policy" section is full of biased or inaccurate statements. Even if we don't mention the unsourced POV statements such as "These draconian restrictions greatly hampered the Qing economy, and was a key reason why it fell behind the West in the 18th century", the rest is also very biased. I have checked the Cambridge History of China volume 9, and page 607 and 609 never say "the Manchu regime restricted the number of merchants that could operate and prohibited mining completely". Instead, they only mention something like "Emperor Ch'ien-lung introduced a slideing scale of licensing fees ...", "Emperor K'ang-hsi offered some mining guidelines .. Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines, fearing an unruly lablor force, but they allowed mines to operate in poor areas to provide employment" and so on. Clearly this new section is very POV and there is only negative and inaccurate info in it. The same book also contains much positive info, but none of them are placed in the section. For example, page 609 also mentions that "Qing rulers earned considerable praise from their subjects by reducing the odious and ancint practice through their fisal reforms" and so on, but they did not appear at all in the section. Please obey Wikipedia's NPOV policy, thanks. -- 99.244.68.239 ( talk) 02:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Emperor Yung-cheng’s concerns, fueled by reports of illegal and immoral
behavior, prompted him in 1733 to order local officials to select only upright and law-abiding brokers and merchants to operate in the marketplace. That selection process allowed departments and county magistrates to issue a certain quota of licenses to brokers in exchange for their paying a fee
to the state.
I will note your point about corvee service by noting that corvee labor was already abolished per Zhang Juzheng in the 16th century. Teeninvestor ( talk) 15:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
IP, if you have suggestions, it is best to list them here. Teeninvestor ( talk) 16:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
To the above users. This article is a summary article, an introduction to the Qing Dynasty, and like most Wikipedia articles, it has to be easily "readable". The article is already very long. I'm not sure if you are actually aware, but continuing adding pages worth of material to the end, is ignoring the structure of the article. You don't have to move all the information from another article to here. Please do not continue to prolong the article and try to trim the content. Get the point across instead of rambling paragraphs.-- TheLeopard ( talk) 19:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The info here has been trimmed. I suggest that you should focus on trimmming the other paragraphs, which are far more rambling. Teeninvestor ( talk) 20:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I like maps and sometimes when I see them I would like to know more about them. (I do not care much about quotations for text passages, but for maps its different.)
83.78.171.153 ( talk) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It says in 1636 the empire was renamed, but above it says the empire was founded in 1644. Something doesn't seem right.-- SaturnElite ( talk) 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've removed File:Arms of the Qing Dynasty.svg from the infobox because I couldn't find a reliable source showing this as the official coat of arms (see also File talk:Arms of the Qing Dynasty.svg). Feel free to re-add it if anyone can give a reliable source showing this as the official COA. Spellcast ( talk) 18:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
IP User starting with 91.76: Please give the specific page number of the source that explicitly states "At the time of the Qing Dynasty formation, the state ruled by it has been established outside of Ming China". I could not find that sentence anywhere in the source. Also note that sources must support the material clearly and directly; you cannot draw inferences from them. Pg 31 and 34 of the source mentions that originally as a Ming vassal for about 20 years, "Nurhaci proclaimed his independence from the Ming in 1616". Is this used to infer "the state ruled by it has been established outside of Ming China at the time of the Qing Dynasty formation"? If it is so, if rebel leader Li Zicheng proclaimed his independence from the Ming and established the Shun, and then "the state ruled by it has been established outside of Ming China"? Obviously this is not a direct use of source, but a view based on source. Please try to edit articles in academic manner, and try to avoid inference. Such kind of statement has to be neuturalized. -- 207.112.20.214 ( talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Nurhaci for some time was a nominal vassal of the Ming but this means no more than his state was nominally dependent on China. It was not included in the Chinese borders, on the contrast to Yongle era. The vassalage and tributary relationships in China represented a flexible system used for purposes of defending Chinese borders by outside tribes, also for trade, internal policy purposes (by showing their missions and awards as "obedience of barbarians") etc. Please, refer to list of tributaries of imperial China as example. This was also the case of Nurhaci. This vas "Vaifan", not "Zhongguo". If any territory during a certain time has come into nominal vassalage to any Chinese emperor, this does not mean that it has become a part of China forever. Anyhow, at the time of proclaiming of Qing dynasty the Manchu state was outside of Ming borders which is clear from the academic sources.---SK 91.76.10.126 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
Anyway, Nurhaci had been officially a vassal of Ming for at least 30 years (from 1580s to 1610s), so that cannot be said as "temporily". Also the Cambridge source explicitly states that "Officially he (Nurhaci) still considered himself a guardian of the Ming border and a local representative of imperial Ming power" (Vol 9, pg 29), thus it will be biased to state "It was not included in the Chinese border" in the article. He only officially declared independence from Ming in 1616. Also refer to my reply elsewhere for responses to other points above. -- 207.112.20.214 ( talk) 09:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've come across several historical documents in China (Tai-Bei) depicting a Dragon similar to the royal emblem of Chos?n on the Joseon Dynasty-page on Wikipedia. I don't have the files, but if anyone knows where one could find similar images. If someone from Tai-Bei, T'ai-Wan read this could you please look for those documents in the national archive. -- 77.169.238.179 ( talk) 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I also saw the dragon-seal-coat of arms in a German coin encyclopedia, and on several banknotes from that (Qing)-era.-- 77.169.238.179 ( talk) 07:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Apologies to User:TheLeopard and others that I didn't explain why I removed the SW Williams reference in more detail. First, as I said in the comment, The Middle Kingdom is a great book, but we don't need a reference to say that Chinese was a language in China. I should have added that Williams said that the "court" language was the language of China, but we need to talk about the regional languages, such as Cantonese, Shanghai, etc etc. I again apologize but I couldn't find sources to confirm my memory that the languages at court included Chinese, Manchu, Mongolian, and Tibetan. In the Forbidden City the plaques over the doors are in those languages. So the list of languages spoken in the empire would go on for half a page! So I think that removing an inadequate source seemed like a good idea at the time. Would it be ok if I again removed the reference and expanded the list of languages? ch ( talk) 07:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Jean-Jacques Georges has added icons of Tibet (1912–1950) and Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919 as successor states to the Qing Dynasty on the article's template inbox. The reason of the user's addition was because of the de facto independence status of Tibet (1912–1950) and Russia's recognition of Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919. The succession links in the country template is normally for the official and direct political successor of the state, which most academic timelines and major encyclopedias lists the Republic of China. Not all indpendent areas or states proclaiming indpendence are listed. For example, the Tibet (1912–1950) article described it as "de facto", so does it have wide international recognition? In my opinion, a consensus is needed for these icons to be in the template.-- TheLeopard ( talk) 14:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the fact that China did not recognize these state's independence, and that the ROC is (quite obviously) listed as a successor to Qing China does not take out the fact that these two countries enjoyed independence from China (for 38 years in Tibet's case; indefinitely in Mongolia's case). If you look at the First French Empire, while everyone in general and "major encyclopedias" in particular will, naturally and quite obviously, list the Kingdom of France as its successor state, it also has quite a lot of other successor states, all of which are currently - and rightly so - listed in the infobox. This simply helps giving an accurate and complete image of what the Napoleonic empire was. Same thing for Nazi Germany, which has far more successor states than the Allied administration (or West Germany and East Germany, actually). And the breakup from these successor states was far more brutal than what occurred with Tibet and Mongolia in the context of the Qing's downfall. If Tibet and Mongolia were, along with the ROC, the successor states to Imperial China, they should be listed, regardless if said succession was de jure or de facto. As for Tibet's recognition, it is no valid argument. It might be if the de facto independence had lasted for, say, three weeks or six months; not in the case of a 38-years long independence. The same thing goes for Austria–Hungary : just because Hungary kept claiming part of the territories that came to form Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, are we going to take the Czechoslovak Republic and the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs out of the successor states ? Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, in 1915 treaty of Kyakhta (Outer) Mongolia recognized ROC's sovereignty; in exchange Russia and ROC recognized Outer Mongolia's autonomy (not independence).
Yes, and China never signed anything like that for Tibet, so China never recognized even autonomy for Tibet. This was last treaty that China (Qing dynasty) signed regarding Tibet: Convention Between Great Britain and China. see article 2: The Government of China also undertakes not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet Mmddnn ( talk) 06:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
My answer will be rather blunt : who gives a damn about China recognizing Tibet's independence or not ? It was de facto independent for 38 years : this should be taken into account without taking sides (and I'm certainly not taking any about the current debate over Tibet). The fact that it was, and still is, controversial does not change anything to the de facto situation. As for Mongolia, should I remind that, despite the ambiguity of China's recognition, it is still nowadays an independent country, which makes the succession a very logical and valid one ? Virtually no one recognized the Hungarian Democratic Republic in 1918, that didn't stop Hungary from remaining independent and that regime from being one of the successors to Austria-Hungary. About Tibet, one might read here the various arguments showing that the subject was more complex at the time that the argument "China didn't recognize it, therefore the independence never occurred" would lead to think. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 13:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Disagree: There is no reliable sources available that state that Tibet or Outer Mongolia is a successor state of Qing dynasty. Whether de facto independence itself constitutes sovereign status without diplomatic recognition by China or any other major world power for that matter is POV, and cannot be reliably be considered as NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 ( talk) 16:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
So what do you think? If there weren't no revolutionaries.. would the Qing Dynasty have fallen? I think its a yes. Quite obviously. They would still fall in the hands of foreign power. Like Britain. And Russia. And France. Besides, the officials etc are so corrupted, taking bribes and everything, it'll be a miracle if China could survive for so long. What do you think? Please share your views with me. I'd really like to learn.
this should be changed. It doesn't make sense to show a map of an empire at its SMALLEST extent right before its collapse. It be like showing a map of NApoleon's empire in 1814. -- Gary123 ( talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
New map uploaded:
Let me know what you think. - Pryaltonian ( talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the author must change the map due to the respect of history.The map indicates that the Spartly and Paracel islands belonged to China since the Qing Dynasty,that's absolutely not true.In fact,we Vietnamese have had the envidence to prove the both islands belonged to us since our Nguyen Dynasty,those envidence are now the national treasure and well preserved.we had kept that islands until the China Liberation Army invaded to the South Vietnam's Paracel island in January 1974 and later in 1988 after they massacred our navy forces.Now,the dispute between 2 country about those islands is not resolved yet and recently higher tension is rose by the Chinese hostility to Vietnamese fisherman.Therefore,I with my National pride and justice request the author and Wiki administration change any content related to China's sovereignity on these islands.The link below is about the invasions of China to Vietnam's island that complement for my words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands
thanks ! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
118.68.21.20 (
talk)
09:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I find it strange that this article mainly focus on the Emperor, Military, Bureaucrats, near complete avoidance of discussion on Education, Literary achievements, Science achievement. In short, what is the Soft Power of Qing? Why no editor seem to care about this issue? Arilang talk 21:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there soft power of Qing? I don't think there is much achievement in these spheres during Qing except perhaps a section on huon lao mong, the great chinese novel. Teeninvestor ( talk) 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In this case we may have a new article: Comparison of Soft power between Ming and Qing/temporary name. What you think? Good idea? Arilang talk 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of the new Controversy section. I've already removed the long citation from Lord Macartney because long citations like that look very bad in any wiki. The other three paragraphs are referenced to a survey of "5000 years of Chinese history" (in Chinese). This is as broad a survey as you can imagine, and in my experience such surveys tend to reflect the state of scholarship about 20 years before they were published. So we can certainly do better than that. (And we also lack page numbers. Readers can't be expected to find this book and look up for the precise citation, so we absolutely need page numbers here.)
Some of the information cited sounds irrelevant. What is the point of saying that the Qing "changed Chinese culture by forcing Han men to wear pigtails and banning the traditional chinese dress, Hanfu"? We could also say "the Qing burned books" and "the Qing exterminated the Dzungars," but also "the Qing criminalized homosexual acts," "Qing emperors held shamanistic rituals in the Forbidden City," "the Yongzheng Emperor took Daoist elixirs," and "the Daoguang Emperor was really ugly." If other editors get into it, this section could easily become a "let's criticize the Qing according to our own POV" free-for-all, which is not what we want.
The section saying that "the Qing also disrupted trade and development by reinstating feudal estates in the form of the quandi" is not much of a contrast, since Ming princely estates were also very large and not very productive. Also, how does this 17th-century disruption of the economy around Beijing help us to uderstand the decline of modern China? Where is the controversy?
And "The Qing also suppressed capitalistic developments in the later era of the Ming." What does that mean? I think this is a simplistic paraphrase of the "sprouts of capitalism" (ziben zhuyi de mengya 資本主義的萌芽) theory that was once so popular in China. The theory stated that capitalism was emerging in the late Ming but that it was suppressed. Historians who discussed this idea followed the Marxist "five-stage theory of economic development" in assuming that economic prosperity automatically leads to capitalism (as in: primitive economy -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism). Chinese scholars then tried to identify what had "inhibited" the (supposedly natural) emergence of capitalism in China. They found all kinds of "factors": Confucian thinking, the imperial bureaucracy (both Ming and Qing), the economic disruption that came with the Manchu conquest, and of course imperialism (this was the main factor, actually, since China in 1750 was as prosperous as China in 1600). But all of these answers beg the question: does economic prosperity really lead naturally to capitalism? Modern scholarship about early modern Europe and China actually says no. This would mean all the above answers are irrelevant. And to return to our text: if China was as prosperous in 1750 as in 1600, what's the point of citing Qing disruption of the late-Ming economy in a discussion of the Qing's role in the decline of China?
It's true that "The Qing dynasty is often blamed for China's backwardness in the modern age," so maybe we should have a controversy section, but every controversy must have two sides. We should see what reliable secondary sources (there are plenty in English) say about these claims that blame the Qing for so many things. For now, all we have is a collection of unrelated paraphrases from a Chinese textbook that basically say "the Qing dynasty was bad because..." If we can't present a two-sided controversy, I suggest we just delete the entire section.
-- Madalibi ( talk) 03:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Mabalibi, according to my Chinese source, Shunzhi issued 3 decrees on seizure of land. Also the Banner people did grap a lot of land in the provinces, when they set up the many provincial Manchu cities. Arilang talk 08:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
你们来过中国吗?你们真的了解中国历史吗?你们读过24史吗?你们真的了解公平正义吗?你们认得我在写什么??本人满族,正黄旗,旗人。可我看你们关于清朝的词条,看的吐血!看的失眠!汉语现在就是我的母语,我从来都认为汉族是我们的兄弟姐妹,密不可分。 而且你们呢??是什么脏什么不说!西方侵华烧圆明园,割中国土地,杀中国人民,你们竟然只字未提!清朝皇帝做得有意义的、进步的事情你们只字不提,反倒都是中国西方交战清朝违约、惹事和不公正在先!
你们引用的资料大多来源于清末革命党“发现的史料”,或者是来自日本学者之手。。。好吧,你们就瞎编乱造去吧。。。我看你们是真正在写博客! 我们中国人都是可怜的文盲、傻子、我们不懂真理!我们是愚蠢的!我们没有判断力!你们就继续霸占维基,攻击中国,撕裂中国民族,肢解中国吧!希望你们美梦成真哦,或许这才是你们想说却不敢说的。库克船长、伊丽莎白女王哪一个手上沾的血都比清朝皇帝浓千万倍。
我们,中国也绝不会向你们低头中国一定会强大,因为中国人想告诉你们中国人不比西方人差中国人一样爱自己的国家,中国人一样可以领导世界,中国人不是你们想象中的呆子和暴徒,我们中国人有句老话,看谁笑到最后,历史会还所有人一个公正!让我们共同等待吧,争论到此为止,我们中国人不会再与无知且无赖的people纠缠 另外,别删我留言,如果维基真的是自由和民主的地方!
If you cannot type English, please restrain from adding anymore all Chinese comments, otherwise your action will be considered as vandalism, unless you are prepare to translate your comment into English for all other readers to read. Arilang talk 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Quote:汉族人是狗屎做的 unquoted, (translation: Han ethnic(漢族) people is made of dog shit), is a low-mentality swear word, belong to the street level kind of gangland-talk, Wikipedia has not place for this kind of low-class racial-hatred inspired slur. Any more of this kind of language coming from that particular user warrant immediate action from admin to bar it from recurring again. Arilang talk 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Its difficult to get what he is saying. He seems to be defending Han and at same time he talks about how Manchu Emperors are good compared to Westerners and praising Manchu. I think his main point is that this article is too pro-western when dealing with Western incursions into Qing China. There should be a section on the unequal treaties though, and how western powers reaped profits from dumping millions of tons of opium on China/the reparations of hundreds of millions of taels, pure robbery. Teeninvestor ( talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Quote:因为中国人想告诉你们中国人不比西方人差中国人一样爱自己的国家!中国人一样可以领导世界!中国人不是你们眼中的呆子和暴徒!Unquote.
Translation:中国人(Chinese, again, a very confusing term) 爱自己的国家(translation:we love our country. What he is trying to say?
Qing was not considered a Nation state, which is a modern term, and
Qing existed in pre-modern time.
Qing should not = China, and
Qing was
Qing, not China.
中国人一样可以领导世界(translation: Middle Kingdom people can be the world leader.) When had Middle Kingdom people ever been the World leader? This kind of statement really bordered on silliness.
Arilang
talk
02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think he meant Chinese led technologically, economically and militarily. That actually is a long time from about 500BCE to about 1750CE. If you're talking about largest economy, that might even go into the 1870's. Teeninvestor ( talk) 12:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
User Madalibi, Teeninvestor, and Arilang 1234 have come to the conclusion that all those Manchu scripts on all the Manchu related articles serve no useful purposes, since the Manchu language(which was cloned from Mongol scripts in the 14-15th century) would become a dead language soon, as there are less than 200 people left in the whole world who are able to read and write it. Arilang talk 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Bathrobe, very few people can understand Manchu script now. It is of no use. If the reader is as gullible as you think, i don't think wikipedia will help him much. Chinese is only spoken by 1.3 billion across the world. Also, if you think i think Qing is a chinese dynasty, i don't; Madalibi will testify. Teeninvestor ( talk) 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bathrobe: I've already found a program that allows to create Manchu script, but the format of the files is not compatible with Wikipedia. For Pnyx, I notice that the terms that are glossed in the Greek script are those that are not linked (though isonomia should be linked). This is what we do on China-related articles: we input characters only when there's no article on the person or place mentioned. Maybe we could follow the same guideline for Manchu? Madalibi ( talk) 05:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I found it in a german book an possible C.O.A, The book is called Welt Munzkatalog 1900-2007. On page 348 if anyone can find the book + Coat of arms. I'm not sure if it was realy used by the Manchus but it has a very accurate description of the Qing-Dynasty.
It looks like the dragon on the Imperial (T-)Shirts of the Emperor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.154.25 ( talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There is little mention of Islam during the Qing Dynasty let alone a reference to the Islam during Qing Dynasty article. I believe that link should be added somewhere. Faro0485 ( talk) 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The official English translation of the name of this empire was Ta Tsing, as evidenced by numerous treaties and documents. The fact that the territory formerly occupied by Ta Tsing is now part of the People's Republic of China should not be grounds for changing historical names. The PRC uses "pinyin" to transcribe han characters and many English speaking regions have adapted pinyin transliterations for PRC place names. But we should respect history and avoid changing names in order to please certain political entities.
Suggestion: Ta Tsing should be a separate entry and not treated as a so called "dynasty" in Chinese (Han) history Dazibao ( talk) 05:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The Empire called itself "Ta Tsing" in English and French, as seen in treaties signed with other countries. It was not a "dynasty" of China, as some would like to suggest. It was a state, with Manchu as the official language, and "zhongguo" was one of the territories within the empire. Later, when "zhonghua minguo" was established, it choose "Republic of China" as its English name, hence the confusion. Currently the PRC uses its own system to transliterate Han characters, and Ta Tsing can be transcribed as Da Qing under that system. But that is no reason to rewrite history and change historical names. Taipei is still Taipei (not Taibei), Singapore uses Chinese but is not Xinjiapo in English. Let us respect history and avoid a sinocentric outlook. Singapour ( talk) 06:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The Qing Emperors referred their state as China in international treaties. Treaty of Nanking, Treaty_of_the_Bogue Treaty_of_Wanghia ...Citizens of the United States resorting to China for the... ...according to the laws of China. If the Chinese Government desire... Treaty_of_Tien-Tsin_between_the_Queen_of_Great_Britain_and_the_Emperor_of_China Treaty_of_Shimonoseki Boxer_Protocol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.197.189 ( talk) 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Qing Emperor bequeathed the entire Empire to the newborn Republic of China, Republic of China was successor state.
People's Republic of China argues that it has succeeded the Republic of China when the Communist Party took over mainland China from the Nationalist Kuomintang in the Chinese Civil War in 1949. However this is disputed, as the succession has been argued to be incomplete. 78.0.197.189 ( talk) 06:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Singapour, if you actually read the Qing treaties signed in English, etc (examples are given by User:78.0.197.189 above), then you will realize that Qing refers to itself as "China" *MUCH* more often than "Ta Tsing" in any of these treaties. The name "Ta Tsing" either never appears in international treaties (e.g. Treaty of Nanking, Treaty_of_the_Bogue, Boxer_Protocol), or is used interchangeably with "China" (e.g. Treaty_of_Wanghia). The Qing never refers to itself as a "dynasty of China" in the treaties, but instead refers to itself as just "China" (or "the Chinese Government"), as shown in numerous international treaties. This is how it was really done. The real history should be respected.-- 216.254.172.133 ( talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I strongly support the views of Singapour
The term 中國 is better translated into English as 'central country', or 'middle state'. It was a territory under the rule of the Ta Tsing Empire. The confusion arises because the English word 'China' is often used to translate the 汉, 中华, 华 , 中国, etc. The founders of the first republic 中华民国 chose 'Republic of China' as their English name, instead of chunghwa or other transliterations.
We need to keep in mind that 中國 , and the English term 'China' had different meanings in history, and avoid creating the misimpression that there actually was a 'country' called 'China' prior to 1911.
In its treaties with foreign powers, the Ta Tsing originally did not even use the Han (Chinese) language, later, they adoped Han for much of their work, but used the term 中國 to refer to the central part of their Empire, known as 'China proper' in most of the world. This did not include Tibet, or other non -Han territories that they conquered.
Concerned Scholar
Dazibao ( talk) 04:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Singapour:[quote]The Empire called itself "Ta Tsing" in English and French, as seen in treaties signed with other countries.[/quote]
Dazibao:[quote]I strongly support the views of Singapour[/quote]
Maybe you should read Qing treaties. The Empire called itself "China".
CONVENTION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND CHINA,1906
ARTICLE V.
The English and Chinese texts of the present Convention have been carefully compared and found to correspond...' 93.136.75.80 ( talk) 11:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
According to some sources the Qing wasn't China -- 213.126.117.235 ( talk) 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Read treaties above. 93.136.105.172 ( talk) 18:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
My response: It is impossible. This is illogical. China is the country/state/culture/identity. Qing Dynasty is the dynasty that ruled China. Qing is a dynasty while China is a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauchy Riemann criteria ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The Mongolian language was not an official spoken in the Manchurian Qing state. Please refer to 'Qing Dynasty' of other languages. Please fight the vandalist's false claim. Wiki8884 ( talk) 16:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I know Mongolian was spoken in the Outer Mongolian regions: here is an example: Is it plausible to say that the Mongolian empire's languages were Chinese, Turkish, Iranian Russian or many other languages? Of course no, the Official language would be Mongolian only, because, they were spoken in local regions thus others weren't the official languages. Wiki8884 ( talk) 17:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there might be some discussion of the dynasty's continued existence after 1912. My understanding of the settlement which brought about the creation of the Republic of China is that the Qing Dynasty did not exactly cease to reign at that point. Obviously, it ceased to reign over the territory of the Republic of China, but the Emperor remained a sovereign ruler for the next twelve years (and was, of course, briefly restored to rule over China in 1917). He wasn't the sovereign ruler of any actual territory or subjects, but given that this is an article on the dynasty, rather than on the state they ruled, it seems like this period should be discussed. Thoughts? john k ( talk) 03:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It is strange that Manchukuo 1932-1945 is somehow being omitted in this article, I wonder why?
Response Manchuria is a region. It was called Manchuko; the Japanese puppet state. That is not an extension of the Qing Dynasty. In addition, the Japanese generals did not want it to be an extension of the Qing Dynasty otherwise it would have been seen as Chinese. They called it Manchu Country; Manchuko is countries for Manchus. Ironically, 98% of Manchuko was Han Chinese. A state of Manchuria is not Chinese especially if it was ran by the Japanese. Originally, the Japanese wanted a Chinese Warlord Zhang Zuolin to join Japan but he refused so he was killed by a bomb. Then, the Japanese annexed Manchuria and made Puyi its emperor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauchy Riemann criteria ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Everybody, I found the Actual C.O.A. on google images i read the article and observed the sources but i forgot its name. I found it via Dutch google so it may take some time to find it on Chinese Google. Here is the Discription: a coiled dragon displayed guardant consisting of 5 talons. Thanks for reading. Could someone please look it up? -- 82.134.154.25 ( talk) 14:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This article goes into depth about military history but doesn't deal with anything about culture or daily life, and there don't seem to be any links to it. The only indications that there was any culture at all are the jpgs interspersed of vases and such. Really, this article should be titled "Qing Dynasty Military History". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.182.238 ( talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The infobox flag is from the 1890s, but does anyone know of any official flags or symbols before that? This site mentions a yellow flag "with a black dragon, fringed with blue" around 1844. I've also read several British military accounts of the 1840s that mention a flag with a dragon, but no pictures. Currently, much of the articles on the Opium War battles use File:China Qing Dynasty Flag 1889.svg or File:China Qing Dynasty Flag 1862.png, but none are verified as being used in the 1840s or 1850s. It would be good if anyone can verify whether the Qing Dynasty had any official symbols during that time, otherwise they may eventually be removed from those articles as being anachronistic. Spellcast ( talk) 08:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This source says no official national flag was adapted until 1872. But for the record, here's some British accounts describing some flags in the 1840s:
So although there wasn't an official national flag before 1872, there were non-official ones in use. If anyone happens to have pictures of such emblems, it may prove valuable to provide them. Spellcast ( talk) 06:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The map in this article explicitly shows that Tibet was part of Qing territory. There are also a lot of reliable sources (maps & texts) showing this, such as Encyclopædia Britannica and Cambridge History of China, which are very authoritative sources. However, in the article History of Tibet originally says "In 1751 ... Under Emperor Qianlong no further attempts were made to integrate Tibet into the empire." and "In 1792 ... the relationship between Qing and Tibet remained one of two states", (i.e. it says that Tibet was not a part of Qing, but a separate state), which are clearly biased, contradicting with the mainstream view. The article is about the general history of Tibet, not for placing such POVs and arguments as in Tibetan sovereignty debate. I have shown reasons and sources in Talk:History of Tibet, but unfortunately someone there seems to favor such biased statements, perhaps because of their own POVs. Please help to keep that article neutral. Thanks! -- 173.206.59.88 ( talk) 17:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The newly-added so called "Qing Economic policy" section is full of biased or inaccurate statements. Even if we don't mention the unsourced POV statements such as "These draconian restrictions greatly hampered the Qing economy, and was a key reason why it fell behind the West in the 18th century", the rest is also very biased. I have checked the Cambridge History of China volume 9, and page 607 and 609 never say "the Manchu regime restricted the number of merchants that could operate and prohibited mining completely". Instead, they only mention something like "Emperor Ch'ien-lung introduced a slideing scale of licensing fees ...", "Emperor K'ang-hsi offered some mining guidelines .. Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines, fearing an unruly lablor force, but they allowed mines to operate in poor areas to provide employment" and so on. Clearly this new section is very POV and there is only negative and inaccurate info in it. The same book also contains much positive info, but none of them are placed in the section. For example, page 609 also mentions that "Qing rulers earned considerable praise from their subjects by reducing the odious and ancint practice through their fisal reforms" and so on, but they did not appear at all in the section. Please obey Wikipedia's NPOV policy, thanks. -- 99.244.68.239 ( talk) 02:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Emperor Yung-cheng’s concerns, fueled by reports of illegal and immoral
behavior, prompted him in 1733 to order local officials to select only upright and law-abiding brokers and merchants to operate in the marketplace. That selection process allowed departments and county magistrates to issue a certain quota of licenses to brokers in exchange for their paying a fee
to the state.
I will note your point about corvee service by noting that corvee labor was already abolished per Zhang Juzheng in the 16th century. Teeninvestor ( talk) 15:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
IP, if you have suggestions, it is best to list them here. Teeninvestor ( talk) 16:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
To the above users. This article is a summary article, an introduction to the Qing Dynasty, and like most Wikipedia articles, it has to be easily "readable". The article is already very long. I'm not sure if you are actually aware, but continuing adding pages worth of material to the end, is ignoring the structure of the article. You don't have to move all the information from another article to here. Please do not continue to prolong the article and try to trim the content. Get the point across instead of rambling paragraphs.-- TheLeopard ( talk) 19:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The info here has been trimmed. I suggest that you should focus on trimmming the other paragraphs, which are far more rambling. Teeninvestor ( talk) 20:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I like maps and sometimes when I see them I would like to know more about them. (I do not care much about quotations for text passages, but for maps its different.)
83.78.171.153 ( talk) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It says in 1636 the empire was renamed, but above it says the empire was founded in 1644. Something doesn't seem right.-- SaturnElite ( talk) 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've removed File:Arms of the Qing Dynasty.svg from the infobox because I couldn't find a reliable source showing this as the official coat of arms (see also File talk:Arms of the Qing Dynasty.svg). Feel free to re-add it if anyone can give a reliable source showing this as the official COA. Spellcast ( talk) 18:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
IP User starting with 91.76: Please give the specific page number of the source that explicitly states "At the time of the Qing Dynasty formation, the state ruled by it has been established outside of Ming China". I could not find that sentence anywhere in the source. Also note that sources must support the material clearly and directly; you cannot draw inferences from them. Pg 31 and 34 of the source mentions that originally as a Ming vassal for about 20 years, "Nurhaci proclaimed his independence from the Ming in 1616". Is this used to infer "the state ruled by it has been established outside of Ming China at the time of the Qing Dynasty formation"? If it is so, if rebel leader Li Zicheng proclaimed his independence from the Ming and established the Shun, and then "the state ruled by it has been established outside of Ming China"? Obviously this is not a direct use of source, but a view based on source. Please try to edit articles in academic manner, and try to avoid inference. Such kind of statement has to be neuturalized. -- 207.112.20.214 ( talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Nurhaci for some time was a nominal vassal of the Ming but this means no more than his state was nominally dependent on China. It was not included in the Chinese borders, on the contrast to Yongle era. The vassalage and tributary relationships in China represented a flexible system used for purposes of defending Chinese borders by outside tribes, also for trade, internal policy purposes (by showing their missions and awards as "obedience of barbarians") etc. Please, refer to list of tributaries of imperial China as example. This was also the case of Nurhaci. This vas "Vaifan", not "Zhongguo". If any territory during a certain time has come into nominal vassalage to any Chinese emperor, this does not mean that it has become a part of China forever. Anyhow, at the time of proclaiming of Qing dynasty the Manchu state was outside of Ming borders which is clear from the academic sources.---SK 91.76.10.126 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
Anyway, Nurhaci had been officially a vassal of Ming for at least 30 years (from 1580s to 1610s), so that cannot be said as "temporily". Also the Cambridge source explicitly states that "Officially he (Nurhaci) still considered himself a guardian of the Ming border and a local representative of imperial Ming power" (Vol 9, pg 29), thus it will be biased to state "It was not included in the Chinese border" in the article. He only officially declared independence from Ming in 1616. Also refer to my reply elsewhere for responses to other points above. -- 207.112.20.214 ( talk) 09:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've come across several historical documents in China (Tai-Bei) depicting a Dragon similar to the royal emblem of Chos?n on the Joseon Dynasty-page on Wikipedia. I don't have the files, but if anyone knows where one could find similar images. If someone from Tai-Bei, T'ai-Wan read this could you please look for those documents in the national archive. -- 77.169.238.179 ( talk) 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I also saw the dragon-seal-coat of arms in a German coin encyclopedia, and on several banknotes from that (Qing)-era.-- 77.169.238.179 ( talk) 07:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Apologies to User:TheLeopard and others that I didn't explain why I removed the SW Williams reference in more detail. First, as I said in the comment, The Middle Kingdom is a great book, but we don't need a reference to say that Chinese was a language in China. I should have added that Williams said that the "court" language was the language of China, but we need to talk about the regional languages, such as Cantonese, Shanghai, etc etc. I again apologize but I couldn't find sources to confirm my memory that the languages at court included Chinese, Manchu, Mongolian, and Tibetan. In the Forbidden City the plaques over the doors are in those languages. So the list of languages spoken in the empire would go on for half a page! So I think that removing an inadequate source seemed like a good idea at the time. Would it be ok if I again removed the reference and expanded the list of languages? ch ( talk) 07:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Jean-Jacques Georges has added icons of Tibet (1912–1950) and Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919 as successor states to the Qing Dynasty on the article's template inbox. The reason of the user's addition was because of the de facto independence status of Tibet (1912–1950) and Russia's recognition of Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919. The succession links in the country template is normally for the official and direct political successor of the state, which most academic timelines and major encyclopedias lists the Republic of China. Not all indpendent areas or states proclaiming indpendence are listed. For example, the Tibet (1912–1950) article described it as "de facto", so does it have wide international recognition? In my opinion, a consensus is needed for these icons to be in the template.-- TheLeopard ( talk) 14:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the fact that China did not recognize these state's independence, and that the ROC is (quite obviously) listed as a successor to Qing China does not take out the fact that these two countries enjoyed independence from China (for 38 years in Tibet's case; indefinitely in Mongolia's case). If you look at the First French Empire, while everyone in general and "major encyclopedias" in particular will, naturally and quite obviously, list the Kingdom of France as its successor state, it also has quite a lot of other successor states, all of which are currently - and rightly so - listed in the infobox. This simply helps giving an accurate and complete image of what the Napoleonic empire was. Same thing for Nazi Germany, which has far more successor states than the Allied administration (or West Germany and East Germany, actually). And the breakup from these successor states was far more brutal than what occurred with Tibet and Mongolia in the context of the Qing's downfall. If Tibet and Mongolia were, along with the ROC, the successor states to Imperial China, they should be listed, regardless if said succession was de jure or de facto. As for Tibet's recognition, it is no valid argument. It might be if the de facto independence had lasted for, say, three weeks or six months; not in the case of a 38-years long independence. The same thing goes for Austria–Hungary : just because Hungary kept claiming part of the territories that came to form Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, are we going to take the Czechoslovak Republic and the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs out of the successor states ? Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, in 1915 treaty of Kyakhta (Outer) Mongolia recognized ROC's sovereignty; in exchange Russia and ROC recognized Outer Mongolia's autonomy (not independence).
Yes, and China never signed anything like that for Tibet, so China never recognized even autonomy for Tibet. This was last treaty that China (Qing dynasty) signed regarding Tibet: Convention Between Great Britain and China. see article 2: The Government of China also undertakes not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet Mmddnn ( talk) 06:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
My answer will be rather blunt : who gives a damn about China recognizing Tibet's independence or not ? It was de facto independent for 38 years : this should be taken into account without taking sides (and I'm certainly not taking any about the current debate over Tibet). The fact that it was, and still is, controversial does not change anything to the de facto situation. As for Mongolia, should I remind that, despite the ambiguity of China's recognition, it is still nowadays an independent country, which makes the succession a very logical and valid one ? Virtually no one recognized the Hungarian Democratic Republic in 1918, that didn't stop Hungary from remaining independent and that regime from being one of the successors to Austria-Hungary. About Tibet, one might read here the various arguments showing that the subject was more complex at the time that the argument "China didn't recognize it, therefore the independence never occurred" would lead to think. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 13:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Disagree: There is no reliable sources available that state that Tibet or Outer Mongolia is a successor state of Qing dynasty. Whether de facto independence itself constitutes sovereign status without diplomatic recognition by China or any other major world power for that matter is POV, and cannot be reliably be considered as NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 ( talk) 16:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)