Talk:Qing Dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qing Dynasty article.
Wikipedia CD Selection Qing Dynasty is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...
To-do list for Qing Dynasty: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Add references
  • Make map

Contents

[edit] Muslims

Nanshu: the Qing Emperor was a "supporter of Muslims"? In what way was he a supporter of Uygur and Hui muslims? What were the official Islamic titles confered to him by Uygur and Hui communities? Or did he on his own behalf have a contract of some sort with Uygur and Hui princes and "ahunds"? To what extend did Uygur princes forgo their political connections with the Uzbek, Timurid princes outside of Qing jurisdiction in order to become vassals of the Aisin Gioros? What ethnic-national princely or honorary titles did the Aisin Gioro emperors formally take on? I guess "the governor of the Nakhis" or "the chief of the Nungs" wouldn't be part of them.

I do not know the accurate term, but Turkic Muslims in Eastern Turkestan justified the non-Islamic rule by "duty of salt": man should not betray who granted a faver. Nanshu 02:18 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

I changed the first sentence to a form which I think will avoid a political flame and besides is more accurate. The Qing dynasty didn't rule Tibet until 1723 and Xinjiang until the mid 18th century, so stating that they were the ruling dynasty of Tibet and East Turkestan between 1644 and 1912 is inaccurate anyhow. -- Roadrunner

I changed China to China proper for NPOV reasons. I'm not altogether satisfied with the section on Qing administration of outer areas, because the notion that Qing rule was a personal union is not universally accepted (for obvious political reasons) -- Roadrunner ---

Reworded statement on Qing rule in outer areas. Also I took out the statement about 1884 marking intervening of Han Chinese into the outer Qing Dynasty. First of all, before 1884, Han Chinese were not simply another subject people, and second the Qing dynasty did intervene in outer regions at various points.

Also I have problems with the last sentence but will have to think about how to reword it. -- Roadrunner

Changed the date from 1636 to 1644. The Manchus did declare a new dynasty in 1636 but they called it the Jin. The Qing dynasty wasn't declared until 1644 after the capture of Beijing.

No. It was in 1616 that the State of Jin was established by Nurhaci. In 1636 his son Hong Taiji declared the new dynasty of Qing in Mukden recommended by the Manchus, Mongols and Chinese. That's why the era name was changed from sure han to wesihun erdemunnge. So 1636 is correct. -- Nanshu
Thanks!!!! I stand corrected them -- Roadrunner

Aisin Gioro is the original Manchu spelling, not anglicized name. -- Nanshu

Are the "Manchu Flagged Factions" mentioned the Banners? --~~

Some dates of reign in the table do not match the dates given in the individual articles:

[edit] The List

Is that table necessary? I believe there is already an article containing such table. :o --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 04:30, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Where? The one with all the Chinese soveriegns? Some people may have trouble loading that page because it is so long. --Jiang 05:29, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I can't remember. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I confuse that with XXX Emperor of China? But i totally agree with you that that table is really long! Why not split them into several pages? --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 05:41, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps List of rulers of the Qing Dynasty. --Menchi 05:46, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don;t think that's necessary. The page hasnt reached 32kb yet. --Jiang

""If political conditions in a particular overseas markets were stable enough, Britain could ____ its economy through free trade alone without having to resort to formal rule or mercantilism. "" --Cylauj 15:03, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Listing of names

It is non-standard to list the different names and romanizations in bullet point format. If you seek to make this standard, then please go propose it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for China-related articles. Otherwise, the standard is to put everything in parenthesis and start the article with a complete introductory sentence. Also, "Empire of the Great Qing" was the official name of the country ruled by the Qing Dynasty. The two are not entirely synonymous. --Jiang 03:39, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to change the standard, just address a unique (I think) situation where there are five alternative names, a situation which demands clarity so as not to confuse the reader. If, however, you think that it is also worth considering adopting bullet points as a standard for all China-related articles to cover Chinese, pinyin, W-G, etc, then I will be happy to make such a suggestion, although it will obviously involve editing an awful lot of articles. As to "Empire of the Great Qing", you are right that it is not synonynous with "Qing dynasty", but it is also not synonymous with "China", as you write. - Madw 06:43, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this article deserves an exception to the rule. I don't see how the reader will be confused as along as we use parenthesis and italics. How is this different from four? or three? I don't agree with this format, as it is standard everywhere to begin with a full and complete sentence.

During Qing rule, China was referred to diplomatically as the "Empire of the Great Qing" and commonly as the "Chinese Empire" or "Ch'ing Empire". Of course, this referred to the Manchu domains. The term "China" did include all of what the Qing ruled over. China does not and has not always been synonymous with China proper.--Jiang 07:00, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Surely the priority for all articles must be to make things as clear as possible for the readers, rather than sticking religiously to a particular standard. Maybe your original suggestion of considering adopting such a new, clearer standard for all China-related articles, where multiple alternatives almost always exist, is the way forward. But there are always likely to be exceptions, and in such cases making articles easily understood must always come first IMO. I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say on this matter...
As to "Qing dynasty" being synonymous with "China" - this is just plain wrong. The Qing administration did not take this view, hence the 理藩院 Lifanyuan and a different system of governance; foreigners did not take this view, hence Manchuria, Mongolia, East Turkestan, Tibet, etc; and the Chinese word 中国 did not include all these territories in its meaning until the arrival of the revolutionary groups at the end of the Qing, as seen in the works of 19th century scholars such as 魏源 Wei Yuan, etc. Making "Qing dynasty" synonymous with "China" is always anachronistic - the ruling house wasn't even Chinese! This is a mistake that we should not be making. - Madw 07:50, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
Disagree. The Qing dynasty was a Chinese government for all its intents and purposes, and its place in Chinese history is treated on par with all the other previous dynasties. To deny its relation with China is to claim China did not exist for over 400 years (if we take the lengths of the Yuan and the Qing dynasties into account) You are confusing the term Chinese with Hans and Manchus; Chinese encompasses every ethnic group living in China. The only thing that could be said is that the dynasty was not founded by Hans, but the Qing emperors themselves claim to rule China with the Mandate of Heaven, and therefore, any territories they seized during their rule was for the Chinese empire. --Lssah 88 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Making "Qing dynasty" synonymous with "China" is always anachronistic. it is the same case with yuan dynasty.It is ridiculous to say "yuan dynasty" synonymous with "China" because everyone knows that in fact "yuan dynasty" is part of the Mongol Empire. what jiang said is out of political motivation.

I've surely seen 19th century maps outlining the Qing Empire but labelled "Chinese Empire". The 1911 EB article discusses all of the Qing Empire, and phrases it "CHINA, a country of eastern Asia, the principal division of the Chinese empire. In addition to China proper the Chinese Empire includes Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet and Sin-kiang (East Turkestan, Kulja, Dzungaria, &c., i.e. all the Chinese dependencies lying between. Mongolia on the north and Tibet on the south)." Ditto for the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Chinese Empire, the largest political division of Eastern Asia, extends from 18°10' to 53°45' N. lat., and from 73°47' to 134°25' E. long. It includes China proper or the Eighteen Provinces (Shi-pa-sheng), theoretically a subject territory of Manchuria, the cradle of the present dynasty, and the dependencies: Mongolia, Ili (or Sin-kiang), and Tibet." The ruling house wasn't Han Chinese. But anyhow, we don't need to assert or imply any of this and I think the current wording is fine.

I do not believe obscuring the opening sentence of this articles with transliterations and translations the average Chinese/Manchu-illiterate reader could care less about makes the article clearer. I do not see how putting these in parenthesis makes the text incomprehensible. If there's not much difference, it is my opinion to go by the standard. What do you think should be the convention for breaking names into bullets? How many entries? Maybe we can have a full section of names like at Sun Yat-sen, but that requires more than mere translations/transliterations.--Jiang 10:50, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We are going to be in serious trouble if we start writing our Asian history articles according to what century-old Western texts say! I would be happy to point you to more recent and relevant source material if that would be of help.
As for the organization of the opening, it is the current standard that "obscur[es] the opening sentence" and that is the reason for considering something different. We need to make it easier for the Chinese/Manchu-illiterate reader to read the first sentence. You mention the Sun Yat-sen article - well it's beginning is a mess. It doesn't know whether the names should be in the intro or the names section.
You asked my opinion, well look at the Sun article and you will see the changes I would make. As I think about it, there are 2 issues - Chinese/romanization and alternative names. Every article will have Chinese/romanization but alternative names will usually be restricted to people. For me it is very important to make the article highly readable, especially the introduction. I would therefore include romanization in parentheses directly under the title of the article and separated from the intro text. After the introductory text, a list of recognized (not obscure) alternative names could be introduced so that if the reader has come to the page looking for one of these names, perhaps via a redirect, it will be clear that they are in the right place. After all, we have to help the reader find the information they came looking for. For most people, the info would include xing, ming, zi, and hao, with rulers being a little different. If there were only one alternative name, it may be more appropriate to include this in the introductory text - common sense will dictate. It seems to me that this satisfies all important criteria - provides the relevant info but still in a highly readable format. So I guess, the more I think about it, yes, I do think a new standard would be better for China-related articles, and I will probably suggest such on the relevant page when I can get around to it. In the meantime, I have changed this page again to reflect latest thinking. That's my opinion anyway... - Madw 16:53, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

If the stuff in the parenthesis is too long, then I suggest abbreviating (as you have done here) or compacting (as has been done at Deng Xiaoping). Once you copy the second part of your post over to the MoS page, I will respond to your points there. I disagree with some of your points but agree with others. In the meantime, we will go by the current standards as there is no consensus to change it.

As for the emperors having a whole bunch of names, I think we should give them each biographical taxoboxes, like every Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (as opposed to having a wide box at the bottom). We can make each of their names a line in the box. Or maybe we can extend this to every Chinese person with a whole bunch of names...but this can be discussed at the Chinese MoS too. Let me know here what you think about adding it to the emperors though. --Jiang 21:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I will address emperors later - it is a problem that I have already given some thought to. I have added my comments to the MoS page, and the discussion can continue there. - Madw 01:45, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

General request: For the time being, please do not change the style of the introduction for this article as it is currently the subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for China-related articles. Thank-you - Madw 01:45, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Aside from noting that the format should not be changed short of consensus, there are other reasons I made the changes I did. The sentence "The Qing dynasty was the last [[Dynasties in Chinese history|imperial dynasty of China]]." was already stated in the intro and doesn't need to be repeated in the first section. In fact, the entire "overview" section violates the MoS - we should have a lead section and just that. Split part of it into the lead section and the others into the article sections.
The Republic was founded before Puyi abdicated and such events should be listed in chronological order. the 'd' in "dynasty" is capitalized for the article and should therefore also be capitalized in the bolded text. --Jiang 02:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point taken on the overview section - I'll work on incorporating that into the intro, along with anyone else wanting to have a go, but that will probably take a day or two. However, the 'd' in 'dynasty' should not be capitalized as it is not a proper name - check any other encyclopedia or history book relating to China and that will become clear. This page needs to be moved to 'Qing dynasty', but given all the other discussions of recent times on other subjects I have chosen not to add to the confusion by moving it at this time. As it will happen before long though, and as it is the correct form, it should be left as 'd' for now pending the page move. - Madw 10:51, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not blanket revert my changes without exlaining why each of them are not appropriate. I don't see why it's wrong to include the pinyin of da qing di guo. The sentence "The Qing dynasty was the last [[Dynasties in Chinese history|imperial dynasty of China]]." is still redundant. What's wrong with saying "expanded into China proper"? It's more specific in my opinon than "provinces of the Ming dynasty". there's also no need to wikify "Chinese language" twice.
As for the box (in light of what you added to the MoS), i don't think the situation calls for one yet. There are only four names to deal with, and that's not too much like with Sun Yat-sen. If we add it, let's make it look good. It should be merged with the series table or have both replaced with a taxobox and a footer used instead. As it is, the name box is hideous. --Jiang 20:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged that the intro/overview section should be reviewed, when all the edits you just mentioned can be addressed. The whole section is likely to change, so I wasn't getting too worked up about the details right now. As for the box, we obviously have different views, but to help me understand yours better, please explain why you think the name box is "hideous" - I just don't get that statement. - Madw 01:10, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

We have a series box next to the name box. it's looks crunched, but that's my opinion. We can maybe replace the series with a footer. One the Qing flag is uploaded, it needs to go on top and then the names can be placed right underneath like how Sun Yat-sen's portrait is over all the names he is given. Or we can try maps...or whatever --Jiang 05:41, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's clearer, and maybe we can discuss something along the lines you mention, although I myself don't think the page looks crunched. Does anyone else (who would be willing to make this more than a dialogue!) wish to share an opinion? Let me also say that I don't think that the flag should be displayed at the top of the page, although I don't mind it being added lower down. The Qing did not even have a state flag until 1872 and it never had the significance attached to it common in Western cultures. Putting the flag at the top of the page would give the erroneous impression that the flag was a significant state emblem - especially as most readers will have Western preconceptions of the flag's importance. - Madw 12:44, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New page title for Qing Emperors

As I said before [1], the current page title "{era name} Emperor of China" is inappropriate. I will change it to "{era name} of the Qing".

The Qing Dynasty used to be regarded as a "Chinese empire." It is mainly because researchers only utilized Chinese literature and the Westerners projected that the last days of the dynasty to the whole history. But postwar studies has drastically changed the situation. We can access to Manchu, Mongolian, Chagatai and Tibetan documents and see the "Chinese world order" didn't affect these regions. Various alternate models have been proposed by scholars. Newly-published "清帝国とチベット問題" by 平野聡 assembles them.

Scholars no longar consider the dynasty as a mere Chinese empire. Thus the anachronistirc title "{era name} Emperor of China" should be corrected. I chose "{era name} of the Qing" but "{era name} Emperor" is also fine because Qing era names look unique throughout history. --Nanshu 06:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"{era name} Emperor" should be good enough. The title doesn't need to tell all. --Jiang 06:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will go with "{era name} Emperor". --Nanshu 03:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really think the "{era name} Emperor" format is good enough. Colipon 00:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Empress Dowager Cixi

I know that for Empress Dowager Cixi it says: Cixi, on the other hand, only concentrated on her own power and well being. At the occasion of her 60th Birthday she spend over 30 million taels of silver for the decorations & events, an unthinkable amount even by today's terms.

But in the Dowager Empress Cixi article itself mentions both the traditional 'evil despot' and the revisionist view of her as an able ruler and painted as a bad ruler due mostly to circumstance. I think that section of the article needs more NPOV.

[edit] Re-organization

I was thinking of revising some sections in this article and perhaps separating some parts like "Qing Military" into another article. Help would be appreciated. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 07:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

not needed, IMO, or at least not until the page reaches its limites. We should link to and expand on those articles. --Jiang 08:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You misunderstood, Jiang. I meant creating an article called Qing Military so that the Qing Dynasty article is about pretty much only the history and its influence. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 02:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I understood. But everything about the Qing is history since it no longer exists. Military and politics is within the scope of this article and should not have been split out, unless we were running out of room and even then we use summary style, not brute excising. We need to cover everything here.--Jiang 06:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Qing Dynasty would not have fallen if not for the revolutionaries. Agree?

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.

I don't think it would even have been possible for a situation to occur where no revolutionaries didn't arise. The several destructive rebellions of the 19th century was an omen of dynastic collapse and rising Han Chinese nationalism would not have allowed the Aisin Gioro's to continue their imperial line for much longer. Maybe a Western country could have toppled the dynasty, but I don't think their rule, if any, would last very long, nor without continuing conflict. And they would never be able to conquer and pacify all of China's territory like the Manchus successfully did nearly 300 years before. Japan is the perfect example. If you want more answers, you should post this question on newsgroups, where you're sure to get more replies, and with greater depth too. 01:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
If there were no revolutionaries, THERE WOULD BE NO REVOLUTION, DUH! I think your point is that if there were no revolutionaries at the time. By the way, excuse my 'duh' its just really obvious to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk • contribs).
Why would Britain or France want to take over China? They only wanted $$$, not to provide for 400 million starving peasants. --Sumple (Talk) 22:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population numbers

To be noted would be the dramatic population drop during the Ming-Qing dynastic transition: In AD 1620, i.e., 1st year of Ming Emperor Guangzong's Taichang Era, China boasted of a population of 51.66 million people, but in AD 1651, i.e., 8th year of Qing Emperor Shizu's Shunzhi Era, China only had 10.63 million people. The conclusion is that China's brave men had fallen martyrdom in the resistance to Manchu invasion.

Are these claims credible? 10 Million appear to be very, very few to me. See http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/geog/population.htm#2b or http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_21_m.htm

The article in general seems to quite biased in disfavor of the Qing. Malbi 13:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From my experience, this articles sounds like somebody piecing together history classes and hearsays to write an article. Based on this article, you would think the Manchurians are singularly obsessed with suppressing, enslaving and massacring Han Chinese people. Chinese history is not all about the struggle between "proper" Chinese and "barbarian" tribes. Qing was a relatively prosperous dynasty until its later failings. This article fails to mention all these, and therefore fails the NPOV.

[edit] Fragment needs cleanup

I came to this article through the Punctuation WikiProject. This article had been flagged by scripts looking for sentences missing punctuation. The problematic "sentence" (actually a fragment) is at the end of the introduction, right above the TOC:

The incorporation of new lands and peoples required careful handling, and Manchu experience


Looking back at the history I found that the second half of this sentence got broken off, made into a complete sentence, and moved farther up the article. However, that change left this part orphaned as a fragment. I couldn't come up with any satisfactory fix off the top of my head, as I would need to read more of the article to understand the context. Therefore I'm marking it in case someone knowledgeable about the Qing Dynasty wants to make a fix.

I'll also put a {{to do}} above to remind us.

PhilipR 13:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qing Flag

I haven't been able to find the Qing flag (that is the old China´s flag) on the net. Does anyone knows where to find it? I´ve read that the dragon was in it. Thank You.

I'm no expert, but with such a large country and so many lesser fuedal lords rulling, its unlikely that the Chinese would have used a flag that remained consistent for a decent length of time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Incoherent statement in Overview

I do not understand the following paragraph:

"However, the horrific number of casualties of this rebellion [Taiping Rebellion] - as many as 30 million people may have died - and the complete devastation of a huge area in the south of the country have to a large extent been overshadowed by another significant conflict. Although not nearly as bloody, the outside world and its ideas and technologies had a tremendous and ultimately revolutionary impact on an increasingly weak and uncertain Qing state."

To what even does "another significant conflict" refer? "The outside world"?

Is this a reference to Opium Wars? To revolutions in Latin America? The phrase, "Although not nearly as bloody, the outside world . . . . " is quite a howling dangler.

Can someone who knows what this is supposed to mean, fix it?

Thanks.151.200.113.45 1 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)


It would be also nice if someone with a NPOV would come in and re-edit this whole section. The theme of this section can be summed up as : The Qing are evil, opresive barbarians against whom the valiant Han put up a brave fight but were ultimatly overwhelmed.

[edit] Could someone please put a questionable POV on this article?

Its highly biased against the Qing.

Can you perhaps elaborate a bit instead of just putting in a blunt statement? Colipon+(T) 23:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction is highly biased against the Qing. The bulk of the article is neutral and informative, but the introduction reads like an anti-Qing rant. Specifically, it violates many of the principles described in the NPOV tutorial:
  • Neutral language - violated by many statements in the introduction:
    • "[the Manchu hairstyle] was designed to massacre both the Han Chinese bodies and their souls"
    • "Manchu historians tried to cover up their slaughter of Sichuan Chinese"
    • "Many people died from Wen Zi Yu by writing some words which were not even political at all."
    • "The Manchus also adopted predatory methods of land deprivation."
  • Space and balance - the tone is almost entirely anti-Qing, with very little space given to their achievements.
  • Attribution - the anti-Qing statements are not attributed, and appear to be the opinion of the author.
I do not have the expertise to rewrite this, but the introduction definitely needs to be cleaned up (or removed entirely). I have added the POV-intro tag to this section. - Jpo 02:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


To cover the Slaughter,hairstyle and Wenziyu ist true. Predatory,I don not think so,but they force many people to leave their home. Kevinxu from German version.

[edit] Intro

I'm thinking, just thinking, that the Intro is a tad bit too long. Colipon+(T) 22:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, it should be shortened to a third of its current size, to two or three paragraphs per wikipedia:lead section. it is way too long...--Jiang 09:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The Manchu text is vertical that that causes problems with formatting. Which makes the page look ugly. Can we move it somewhere?

[edit] graffiti

Several times by 204.255.30.20, thanks for fixing ....Ralph 31Jan2006

[edit] Nature of article

I'm wondering to all of you interested out there, should these dynastic articles be historical/chronologically arranged, or should they combine that with the various aspects of the dynasty, i.e. have the sections of "military, politics" etc in the article, instead of creating a new article called "Qing Politics". Colipon+(T) 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation of "queue" link

I think that it would be good to make the queue link in the article a little less ambiguous and switch it to Queue (hairstyle). What do you think?

Sonny Jim news/poll 00:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

This article is organized awkwardly in a few parts. I think the fall of the dynasty should be right after the reign of Cixi, why was it put at the very end? Colipon+(T) 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've noticed a new, comprehensive section on the military. Perhaps it is time we put that into a separate article? Colipon+(T) 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qing/Ta Qing Dynasty

Okay, I keep reverting it to "Ta Qing" because as far as I have read (The Last Emperor and sourced works therein) the full title of the dynasty as given by the founder was such. Qing meaning pure and Ta signifing great. if anyone disputes it then please explain. if the Ta part is of incorrect romanization than please forgive me, The Last Emperor uses an outdated romanization, but his research is still impeccable and it is considered one the premier resources on the end of the dynasty, and therefore is a more than credible source. VanTucky 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's Da Qing or Ta Ch'ing, "Ta Qing" is an amalgam of two different romanisation schemes.
Secondly, the "Great" is added to all Chinese dynastic names, but is not a part of the name itself. It is usually not used when referring to the dynasty in the short form in history, and it's not usually translated either. It is also why, where translated, terms like "Da Qing" is translated as the "Great Qing", because the first character "great" is descriptive, whereas the second character is the name.
Thirdly, it doens't make sense to say the "Great Qing dynasty". In Chinese, the dynasty is called 清朝 (Qing dynasty). "Great Qing" is used only in the context of 大清国 or 大清帝国, which mean "The Great Qing State" and "The Great Qing Empire" respectively.
Finally, convention with regard to Chinese dynastic names as used on Wikipedia exclude such paraphrenalia. (spl?) Thus, for example, the Qin Dynasty is located at Qin dynasty, not The Great Qin Empire.
As to your reference, there have always been a great deal of variations in the conventional treatment of Chinese names in English works, so the reader has to be careful. I read a book a while back that translated all the Emperor's reign names by their meaning... So Guangxu Emperor was the "Bright Succession Emperor". Can you imagine that? It's like translating Bill Gates as "Fee statement Doorways". --Sumple (Talk) 04:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So it's not incorrect, but only to be used in certain situations, generally in conversation/oration refering to the title of the dynasty formally and as such isn't necessary or suitable for the article. correct? Thanks for the explanation Sumple. VanTucky 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. That's a great succinct summary of my verbose argument. :) --Sumple (Talk) 00:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic stagnation

Removed a statement that China had become economically stagnant. This view is not accepted by more current historians of China. See for example "The Great Divergence" by Kenneth Pommeranz that argues that China has late as 1750 was economically equal to Europe.

Roadrunner 16:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its very difficult to measure economy at that time because the industrial revolution had not happened yet. The economies of Europe were stagnant, there were many wars in Europe, despite the rise of Colonial expansion. China had the silk, its economy should have expanded with the increasing reliability of ships.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Banner composition

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of China has an entire chapter devoted to the ethnic composition of the Banner armies. It is extremely complicated and it will take a while to summarize in a paragraph, but it states pretty explicitly that the idea that the armies were ethnically homogenous is incorrect. What happened in a number of cases, was that the ethnicity was assigned as a result of which army a person was a part of. If they were in this group, they were defined as Manchu. If the same person were in this another group, they were defined as Mongol, or Han Chinese.

The use of Han Chinese is also tricky since the term didn't exist until the mid-19th century.

Roadrunner 16:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct in asserting that the Eight banners were not ethnically homogenous, whatever that is supposed to mean, but I think that the paragraph is basically correct in stating that different ethnic groups were segregated. To be sure, people could be reassigned from being Han to Manchu within the banner forces, but the policy of the Qing governemnt was to keep different ethnic groups separate and that policy remained more or less unchanged. It is also an incontestable fact that the status of Han bannermen was lower than that of the Manchu and Mongol bannermen, and from the 18th century onwards the Han bannermen were encourage to leave the banner forces and registers as civlians.
The use of Han Chinese is not that tricky, if you read documents from the Qing dynasty, you frequently encounter the word Hanren 漢人. Hanzu 漢族, on the other hand, is a 20th century invention, but I don't see that term used here.--Niohe 17:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The Banner System was not an ethnic designation or structure, it had always been a military designation. It is part of the Chinese concept of Ji (籍). An old saying in Beijing and Tianjin was: 不分满汉, 只问旗民. Two examples will illustrate this:
Clan Tong (佟), the clan of the mother of Emperor Kang Xi. The clan was Manchu in ethnic origin but since they had been Sinicized and supporter of the Ming, when Shenyang was captured they were assigned as Han-Banner. The immediate family of Emperor Kang Xi's mother were later reassigned to Manchu-Banner.
Clan Yehenala，the clan of Empress Dowager Cixi. The clan was Mongol in ethnic origin but since their land were in the traditional land of the Manchu and they had adopted an agratarian way of life, after they surrendered to Aisin Gioro Clan they were assigned to Manchu-Banner instead of Mongol Banner.
In addition, majority of the Mongols were not in Mongol-Banner, only those who surrendered early were Mongol-Banner. Some Manchu had never been part of the Banner system, for example, among the Wan-Yan clans in North China, only 1 clan was in the Banner system and one family of such clan current live in Tokyo.
In addition to Han, Manchu and Mongol, other members of the ethnic groups were also in the Banner System, including various Turkic people, Slavic people, Siberian people and Korean.
Karolus 2006/10/10 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.128.229.46 (talk)
As I said, while the demarcation between different ethnic groups in the banner system was not absolute, it tended to keep Manchus separate and in a superior position vis-à-vis other ethnic groups in the banner forces. Put simply: not all bannermen were Manchu, but neary all Manchus belonged to the banners. Not only men, but also their dependents. The same did not apply to other ethnic groups that formed part of the banners.
As for the Chinese concept of 籍 and the propagandistic saying 不分满汉, 只问旗民, I assume that you are aware of the fact that the official language of the eight banners was Manchu, not Chinese. This was the case right until 1912 and even a couple of years after. It is true that Qing emperors liked to coin phrases in Chinese like the above, promoting the idea that everybody were treated equally, but we should be careful not to take those phrases at face value. There is an extensive literature on this if you are interested.
I'll have to run, but I'll get back to this.--Niohe 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hundred Days Reform

Again there is a POV issue that is going to be difficult to fix since the issues are complex. Sterling Seagrave's Dragon Lady presents a completely different view of the 100 Days Reform which needs to be mentioned since it is having increasing influence among historians.

Also, it is generally accepted that the political environment of the late-Qing is far more complex than progressives versus conservatives.

Roadrunner 16:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sterling Seagrave is probably not a very reliable source on Cixi. From what I have understood he is not a historian and he has not used Chinese primary sources to any large extent. Anything that comes from such as source should be taken with great caution.--Niohe 17:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I read the book. Very revolting. Colipon+(T) 09:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Seagrave's book, while not entirely reliable on the Qing, is an attempt to reconstruct the life of Cixi without referencing Edmund Backhouse, the author of "China Under the Empress Dowager" who is cited in most English language texts on her but was exposed to be a complete fraud. It is valuable if only because no other English language author has undertaken the same sort of project following Trevor-Roper's book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.40.93 (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Map

Could someone make a locater map of the Qing at their height? Two such maps can be found here [2]

 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in China may be able to help!




[edit] The List of Uprising in German

I hope that somebody traslate it into English. Here is the URL.

I'm KevinXü in the German-Version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.159.80 (talk)

[edit] 1644

"Declared as the Later Jin Dynasty in 1616, it changed its name in 1636 to "Qing", and became the ruler of all of China in 1644, completing the Manchu conquest."

From the introduction. This is demostrably false. The Qing didn't even REACH Yangzhou on the Yangtze river until 1645, they only took BEIJING in 1644, whiich is not the same thing as all of China. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.104.1.90 (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/i/n/Talk%7EQing_Dynasty_e734.html"