A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 29, 2008, August 29, 2009, August 29, 2010, and August 29, 2018. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have read somewhere that the treaty ended with the Chinese having forced to legalize the Opium trade. Troop350 21:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"Treaty of Nanking" is more common
[1]. The official English text preumably used this romanization as well. --
Jia
ng 10:52, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
WP:NCGN would recommend using Nanking for the city in all articles about 1840, linking to the present article with "(now Nanjing)". It may be worth it to say "(now transliterated Nanjing in pinyin)". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Nanjing was called Jingshi back in the good ol' days when it was still the capital. Then, when the capital was moved north in 1421 the name was changed to Nanjing. All that changed of course when the Qing dynasty was founded and the name was changed to Jiangning. So, the British who concluded the treaty probably stuck to the most commonly used name at the time. Why Nanking and not Nanjing? That's just a reflection of an older pronunciation. Folks in Guangzhou still call it Naam-king and it is not completely unthinkable that the city was called Nanking by locals back then, but you need to ask a historical linguist about that.-- Amban 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been renamed from Treaty of Nanjing to Treaty of Nanking as the result of a move request. -- Stemonitis 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Great Britain received 21 million dollars in compensation.
Was the transaction actually in dollars? -- Calair 04:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I noticed this too...My guess is it was copied from a American history book, the figure should be given in pounds instead-- Josquius 17:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Who represented UK and who represented Qing China? Bennylin 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Who permits such language to ever appear on wikipedia. This is explicit discriminate another country. I would suggest remove this and ban the user
I recommend immediate delete the comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amam2000 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
There are good arguments on either side, discussed above in the archive, but since the title of the article is "Nanking," it seems OK to leave it Nanking. Especially since the first sentence in the new edit would have been "Treaty of Nanjing or Treaty of Nanjing." There is a redirect from Nanjing in any case. ch ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is one stipulation of the treaty that has been left off this article. That was the free movement of missionaries and British subjects within the Chinese Empire. I believe that to get this clause in the British offered free movement for Chinese subject on British soil as well. This had the unintended consequence in the Australian colonies of forcing the governments there to accept the presence of Chinese on the goldfields. To begin with Victoria proposed completely excluding Chinese but the British government couldn't allow it because it would upset this treaty. The only source I have for this is second hand from a book, "The Diggers from China: The Story of the Chinese on the Goldfields" by Jean Gittins, I'm not sure how accurate she was. If I come across more sources I will make the changes myself. Sir Langan ( talk) 04:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The article has had UK-spelling as it is the convention for articles that involve the UK. I tried to explain this to the IP that changed it to US-spelling, but they only responded with one word: "irrelevant." Now I open the discussion for them and other editors to explain which variety of English they think is suited for this article. El_C 04:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 29, 2008, August 29, 2009, August 29, 2010, and August 29, 2018. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have read somewhere that the treaty ended with the Chinese having forced to legalize the Opium trade. Troop350 21:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"Treaty of Nanking" is more common
[1]. The official English text preumably used this romanization as well. --
Jia
ng 10:52, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
WP:NCGN would recommend using Nanking for the city in all articles about 1840, linking to the present article with "(now Nanjing)". It may be worth it to say "(now transliterated Nanjing in pinyin)". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Nanjing was called Jingshi back in the good ol' days when it was still the capital. Then, when the capital was moved north in 1421 the name was changed to Nanjing. All that changed of course when the Qing dynasty was founded and the name was changed to Jiangning. So, the British who concluded the treaty probably stuck to the most commonly used name at the time. Why Nanking and not Nanjing? That's just a reflection of an older pronunciation. Folks in Guangzhou still call it Naam-king and it is not completely unthinkable that the city was called Nanking by locals back then, but you need to ask a historical linguist about that.-- Amban 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been renamed from Treaty of Nanjing to Treaty of Nanking as the result of a move request. -- Stemonitis 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Great Britain received 21 million dollars in compensation.
Was the transaction actually in dollars? -- Calair 04:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I noticed this too...My guess is it was copied from a American history book, the figure should be given in pounds instead-- Josquius 17:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Who represented UK and who represented Qing China? Bennylin 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Who permits such language to ever appear on wikipedia. This is explicit discriminate another country. I would suggest remove this and ban the user
I recommend immediate delete the comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amam2000 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
There are good arguments on either side, discussed above in the archive, but since the title of the article is "Nanking," it seems OK to leave it Nanking. Especially since the first sentence in the new edit would have been "Treaty of Nanjing or Treaty of Nanjing." There is a redirect from Nanjing in any case. ch ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is one stipulation of the treaty that has been left off this article. That was the free movement of missionaries and British subjects within the Chinese Empire. I believe that to get this clause in the British offered free movement for Chinese subject on British soil as well. This had the unintended consequence in the Australian colonies of forcing the governments there to accept the presence of Chinese on the goldfields. To begin with Victoria proposed completely excluding Chinese but the British government couldn't allow it because it would upset this treaty. The only source I have for this is second hand from a book, "The Diggers from China: The Story of the Chinese on the Goldfields" by Jean Gittins, I'm not sure how accurate she was. If I come across more sources I will make the changes myself. Sir Langan ( talk) 04:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The article has had UK-spelling as it is the convention for articles that involve the UK. I tried to explain this to the IP that changed it to US-spelling, but they only responded with one word: "irrelevant." Now I open the discussion for them and other editors to explain which variety of English they think is suited for this article. El_C 04:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)