Talk:Qing dynasty/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

If you can find the work Traditional Government in Imperial China: A Critical Analysis by Ch'ien Mu, a reputable and well-respected Chinese historian who lived through the Xinhai Revolution (he was already 15 when the Qing dynasty as deposed), you will notice Ch'ien proposes the Qing institutions were problematic from the beginning - the Manchus had always held the conquer of China mantle so even without Western imperialism the Qing dynasty would eventually still have fallen in a similar manner as other historical dynasties. --JNZ (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New map

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)

Good map, shows detail of maximum extent of boundary. (Like all other maps in other pages, e.g. Mongol Empire, Nazi Germany, British Empire, etc) I support. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:27, 9 October 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) 

Soft power

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)

The "Controversy" section

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)

I fail to see what the new details on land seizures around Beijing in the mid-seventeenth century are adding to this section... Madalibi (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

@Mabalibi, yes I agree with you, it looks wrong at this section. But I think 圈地今 is an important royal decree by the Qing court, and it is not even being mentioned in the article, may be a sub-section somewhere in the article? In fact 圈地 was started by Nurhachi in Liaodong. Arilang ^talk 04:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The seizure of land to give it to Banner troops in the early Qing indeed deserves to be discussed somewhere. It could be mentioned briefly in this article (in about two sentences and without opening a new section) and discussed at more length in the article on the Shunzhi Emperor, for example. I'll add references if you need me to. Madalibi (talk) 07:11, 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)

I've removed this supposed "controversy" section, however, users could incoporate the content into other main sections, providing that it is referenced. Inserting a brief "controversy" section into an article about a historical entity is bizarre (especially if the reference itself did not single it out as "controversy") and seems more like pushing a particular POV and agenda. Did you see other articles about modern historical entities that contains a short "controversy" section? The paragraphs are also poorly written. If the information described in this "controversy" section are relevant, they should be incoporated into larger sections (i.e. Government and Society).--TheLeopard (talk) 01:10, 22 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！

This is English wikipedia

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)

The above is a long rant about how the article is an insult to all Chinese people (no indication as to what specific parts of the article they object to), us Westerners are attacking China, but China will rise up to lead the world. There aren't really any actionable complaints in the comment.--Danaman5 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Phrase that reflects contributer's mentality

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)

I think whoever wrote the message felt that this article gave him one impression (or expressed only one point): that Han people are made of dog shit. Not the most subtle way to express his disagreement, and the whole message is not very clear, but I don't think he or she meant to say Han people are made of dog shit. Anyway, I suggest we drop this. Responding to this kind of rant is a big waste of time. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 05:11, 2 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)

Pure communist propaganda rubbish

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)

Proposal to remove all the Manchu scripts on all the Manchu related articles

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)

Arilang is referring to this discussion on his talk page, where I agreed that the Manchu script may not be very useful for readers of this article. But since my name is now mentioned here, let me clarify for the record that:

1. something close to the Manchu language is still spoken today in some parts of China (see Xibe language)
2. it's not true that there are "less than 200 people" who can understand it in the entire world (apart from the Xibe people themselves, a lot of Russian, Japanese, and Chinese scholars already know Manchu, and an increasing number of students and scholars are learning it);
3. the Manchu alphabet was adapted from the Mongol script in 1599, not in the 14th and 15th centuries;
4. the Manchu language has allowed historians to develop crucial new insights about the history of the Qing dynasty.

BUT (and this is where I agree with Arilang) the Manchu script indeed doesn't seem particularly useful to readers of this article. For one thing, few common people can read it, and the vertical script tends to disrupt the text (as in the section on Central Government Agencies). And English scholarship on Qing history (i.e., what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources") uses transliterations rather than the original script. So my proposal (which applies only to this article) is to remove the script and keep the transliterations.

On the other hand, now that I think about it, the Greek alphabet is used in wikis on ancient Greek people (Pericles, Aristophanes, etc.), and it's clearly not there for the benefit of Greek Wikipedians. So maybe we could preserve the Manchu script in the lead paragraph of wikis on individual Manchus (Dorgon, Dodo, Oboi, etc.), but remove it in the Qing Dynasty wiki? What do you all think? Madalibi (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Madlibi.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. Arilang ^talk 19:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to retain the Manchu script. The problem is that omitting Manchu while including Chinese leads to a completely Sinocentric bias. All of Chinese history will come to be seen through the prism of the (Han) Chinese viewpoint, which then becomes justification for further marginalising other viewpoints. This leads to extreme POV problems.

Nurhachi founded the forerunner of the Manchu state. His correct name in the script that he was responsible for adopting is . Perhaps at the time he used 努爾哈赤 in his dealings with Chinese (Nikasa). Perhaps his Nikan advisers habitually used this name in writing about the Manchu state. But his actual name in the language that he himself used was . The Wikipedia article on Nurhachi rightly gives the Manchurian name first.

Now I know that Madalibi is suggesting a compromise whereby Manchu names are preserved only in lead paragraphs. But this is a slippery slope. You will notice at the fact box to the Nurhachi article that Nurhachi's native name is given as 努爾哈赤. This is at an article where the actual Manchu name is given in the lead to the article! Once we start deleting Manchu names from the article, how long will it before everything relating to the Manchus is treated as though it were "Chinese"?

Removing the script is tantamount to rewriting history. There is no more graphic way of showing the dual structure of the Manchu government than listing both the Manchu and Chinese names. A brief sentence noting the dual structure of the Qing government can be easily skimmed over, leading the reader to glibly assume that "the Qing dynasty was just another Chinese dynasty -- look, even the names are much the same as the Ming". By giving the Manchu names the article makes quite clear the power structure and ideology of the Qing dynasty.

Saying that "No one understands Manchu any more; let's throw it in the bin" is not a contribution to the sum of human knowledge. It detracts from human knowledge. I would also suggest to our two proposers that it takes a lot more effort to master their arcane script (Chinese characters) than it does to master the Mongolian/Manchu script. I did it in a couple of months without too much trouble. If you are really interested in making serious contributions to articles related to the Manchus, the least you could do is learn their script -- not simply wipe it off the page so that no one else can see it either.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:25, 5 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)

This is English-language Wikipedia. Adding Chinese to the article is not for the purpose of helping the 1.3 billion Chinese speakers around the world. According to this kind of demographic argument, even the article on London should give the Chinese name for this city, for the benefit of the world's 1.3 billion Chinese speakers.

The Manchu is useful in a historical context. It doesn't matter that it only benefits a small number of speakers. Adding the Chinese is not merely a way of helping Wikipedians who know Chinese (and let's face it, those who know Chinese well enough to read 努爾哈赤 are probably a very small percentage of visitors and it is virtually useless for the rest); it is a way of indicating which particular language is regarded as having legitimacy in dealing with that subject. Leaving out Manchu denies the legitimacy of Manchu as a language for interpreting or understanding the history of the Manchus; inserting only Chinese tells the reader that Chinese is enough to understand and discuss the history of the Manchus. As I said, sheer numbers would mean that 伦敦 or 倫敦 (probably both, with pinyin) should be used at the article on London. This is, of course, nonsense. Despite the numbers, there is no Chinese gloss at London simply because there is no historical or other reason for providing one.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two things I agree we should avoid: assuming that the Qing was just another "Chinese dynasty" (though this is clearly not what Arilang and Teeninvestor are suggesting); and throwing away the Manchu language because some people just dislike it (or the Manchus). In my first message, I tried to emphasize that I supported neither of these two points, and that I thought we should not "remove all the Manchu scripts on all the Manchu related articles" (as Arilang had proposed). I was only saying that we should keep the Manchu transliterations, but not the script, because the Manchu script tends to obstruct the page.

I mentioned the ancient Greeks because the Greek alphabet is used only in lead paragraphs on ancient Greek people, concepts (Arete), institutions (Ecclesia) or places (Pnyx). But in the body of other articles, these terms are only written in transliteration. This works because there are sub-articles on almost every Greek topic you can think of. We may not have enough sub-articles on Manchu people, concepts, and institutions to remove the Manchu script from this wiki and assume that people can still find it in other wikis linked to this one.

Incidentally, I notice that wikis concerning the Mongols usually mention the original Mongol pronunciation, but they use the Cyrillic script instead of classical Mongolian, even though the latter would clearly be more relevant historically.

I agree with Bathrobe that Manchu is the most legitimate language to deal with things Manchu, but (to Bathrobe) you didn't mention transliterations in your two messages. Do you think we can preserve the Manchu language (and emphasize the "Manchuness" of the Qing dynasty) without the Manchu script?

Sorry for the confused presentation! I'm no longer sure what to think about the current proposal, but I tried to present a few thoughts that may help further this discussion.

And Bathrobe: let me know if you know how to create the ".png" files for Manchu script. I would like to add the names of some Manchu people and institutions to their relevant articles.

Madalibi (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a site that specifically allows you create Manchu script by inputting Roman letters: [1] (linked to from the Wikipedia article on the Manchu alphabet, of course! It generates png images.

Yes, transliteration is an option. I know that Manchu disrupts the page, but I am really loath to ditch a script because it's considered "too exotic" for the mainstream, whatever the mainstream is -- is Chinese considered "mainstream" on English Wikipedia?

You mention the example of Greek, but I did notice that the article on Pnyx is literally littered with Greek terms. Arete, on the other hand, almost exclusively uses transliterations.

The problem of traditional Mongolian is similar to the issue of Traditional vs Simplified Chinese. Quite frankly, I believe that Traditional Chinese is a more legitimate script than Simplified. Without going into detail, suffice it to say that if you want the authentic source, or if you want to a script that is recognised in all Chinese-character jurisdictions (by which I mean China, HK, Macau, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, even Vietnam), Traditional is the only choice. On the other hand, I have a real problem with putting both Traditional and Simplified script at every entry in Wikipedia. For instance, Bayannur in Inner Mongolia has Mongolian traditional script, followed by both Traditional and Simplified Chinese characters -- Traditional first! Apart from historical claims made by the ROC, it's hard to see the relevance of the old form of the characters to a modern Inner Mongolian city. It's nice to have the Traditional characters, but it creates unnecessary clutter.

For Mongolian, the sad truth is that in the only independent Mongolian political entity, the state of Mongolia, knowledge and use of the traditional script has faded. For many people who know Mongolian, the Cyrillic script is the de facto standard. I agree with you that Mongol Bichig has far greater "legitimacy" than Cyrillic, which is why I went to the trouble of learning it, but for Mongolians in Mongolia, Cyrillic is now standard in the same way as Simplified characters in Mainland China. It does create a dilemma, and I'm not sure how you would resolve it. Sometimes I wonder whether the foreign language glosses on Wikipedia should not be incorporated in some kind of "tool tip", so that people who want to see them can put their cursor over the word and see script and transliteration pop up, while others can just read the English without interruption.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:16, 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)

That would be a reasonable guideline.

I'm not sure of the image problem. I've never uploaded images to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Macs can't render Mongolian or Manchu script correctly -- some kind of flaw in the operating system, I believe -- but the png file I created with the online program could be edited in Photoshop. It seems strange that it is incompatible with Wikipedia. I'm a bit at sea on this one.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already made a few edits in the spirit of this guideline, removing non-English script (be it Chinese or Manchu) when it already appeared in other articles. As for the Manchu files, what I meant is that the program I found doesn't create .png files at all, or any files that can be used on Wikipedia. But I will check Anaku. Madalibi (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

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)

It should be a coiled imperial dragon with five talons displayed guardant in the clouds above the sea with a pearl in the centre similiar to this (not sure about the colours on that one). Four talons were used by Korea and Vietnam. --Shibo77 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Islam

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)

Ta Tsing

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)

Majority of academic sources and encyclopedias uses the romanized Qing, and not Tsing. "Tsing" is the Chinese Postal Map Romanization of the word. Wikipedia's policy is that articles should use the most common name, in spite that there maybe older forms of romanization (Wade-Giles, Postal Map System, or Yale; however if the older forms are more common, that would be different) and Qing is the most common romanization of the dynasty's name, and not the Postal Map romanization of Tsing.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:52, 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)

Hi Singapour, and thanks for your effort in fighting against ethnocentrism on Wikipedia. But in the case of the name "Ta Tsing" I'm afraid things are not that simple.

• The Ming dynasty called itself "Da Ming" and the Tang "Da Tang." By calling themselves "Da Qing" (the "Great Qing"), the Qing were simply following earlier Chinese practice. In other words, writing "Ta Tsing" (which, if you look at late-Qing coins and stamps, should actually be "Tai Tsing") does not help to fight ethnocentrism (because it's an outdated Romanization of two words that mean "great Qing dynasty" anyway) and it creates unnecessary new ones like unintelligibility to most readers.
• Should we switch to Manchu, then? In Manchu, Qing rulers called their polity "Daičing gurun," the equivalent of "Da Qing guo" 大清國 in Chinese. (Note that 國 in 大清國 did not mean empire: it meant something closer to "state.") Unfortunately, "Daičing gurun" would be unintelligible to most readers of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's naming policy instructs us to give each wiki the title that is the most recognizable to English readers. In this case, I'm afraid we will have to stick with "Qing dynasty."
• The transition from the Manchu-led Qing empire to a modern nation-state was a complex process that required a lot of redefinitions, but I don't think this issue should have any influence on the naming of this article.
• I think the best way to solve the issue that worries you would be to explain (by means of reliable sources, of course) that Western scholars increasingly understand the Qing dynasty as a multi-ethnic empire led by a complex ruling class (Manchus, of course, but also Mongols and "Han-Martial" 漢軍/汉军 bannermen) rather than as a traditional Chinese dynasty that just "happened" to be ruled by Manchus. Pointing this out would be much more effective than changing "Qing dynasty" to "Tai Tsing" (or "Daičing gurun"). Incidentally, the notion of "empire" does not appear in any of the names of the Qing, so translation will not solve this problem: we need scholarly sources.

Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:51, 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)

Did the Qing sign treaties only in English? If the Qing used "China" in its English-language treaties, what did they call their country in the Chinese-language versions? Just curious.

Also, given that these are invariably called "unequal treaties", to what extent does the naming of the Qing as Emperors of China represent the free will of the Qing themselves? If the naming is as much a result of the perceptions of the Europeans who negotiated them as it is the self-perception of the Qing, is it justified to invoke them as grounds for using the name "China"?

Bathrobe (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User 216.254.172.133's above comment was obviously a response to Singapour's original message, as Singapour was specifically talking about treaties in English and French. Please read them in combination. In Chinese-language versions, both "Da Qing" (大清, Great Qing) and "China" (中國) appear interchangably, much like in the English version of Treaty_of_Wanghia (the English version of "Treaty of Wanghia" was a very accurate translation of the intermixed usage of "Da Qing" and "China" in the Chinese version).--64.56.251.115 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

中國

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)

There is truth in this argument, just as there is truth in the opposing argument. I don't think it's possible to conclusively prove that either argument is 100% correct. If you read the Treaty of Wanghia (see link above), you will find that "Ta Tsing" is used as the name of the polity on the Chinese side at the beginning and conclusion of the treaty, but in the body of the treaty "Government of China" is used.

As for the need to 'avoid creating the misimpression that there actually was a 'country' called 'China' prior to 1911', that rather oversimplifies the issue. Whether they regarded it as a 'country' or not, and whether they called it 'China' or not are both difficult issues. The problem is that we are arguing back from a modern perspective, trying to interpret the usages of ancient times in a framework that the ancients themselves didn't use. Nevertheless, even though the states that ruled China didn't call their state 中国, the existence of China as a "country" is indisputable, and was recognised by peoples around China who all had names for the country and its inhabitants.:Bathrobe (talk) 04:59, 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)

China or Manchuria?

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 languages

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)

We do not base article's content on other versions of Wikipedia articles. The Mongol language in the template isn't added by me, however it has been on this article for over a long time, and rarely been disputed. When yourself states "requires at least one concrete/acceptable citation" in your edit summary, you should add a citation tag before just removing it.--TheLeopard (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, thank you. I will do so. :)

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)

Well, the Manchus did have something of a special relationship with the Mongols, since they presented themselves as sort of spiritual successors to Genghis Khan. Whether this justifies inclusion of Mongolian in the lede of this article, I don't know. You could also say that the Mongols had a special relationship with the Turks, but I wouldn't support adding Turkish to lede of Mongol Empire. It comes to mind that the signs at the lamasery in Beijing are quadrilingual, written in Chinese, Manchu, Tibetan, and Mongolian. Grant that Tibetan is a special case, as it had a specifically religious relevance, I'm not sure why they included Mongolian. It would be plausible to conclude that most of the monks living at that temple during the Qing period were themselves Mongolians. The signs at the Forbidden City are, as I recall, only in Chinese and Manchu. These two were clearly the main Qing languages.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The dynasty after 1912

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)

He was still ruler of Qing, which consisted of the Imperial City + Palace City (Forbidden city), the Summer Palace in Beijing, the Summer Villa in Chengde, and the Old Palace in Shenyang. These were considered private property of the Imperial Household, so it could be thought as a continuation of the Qing from 12 February 1912 until 25 October 1924. Although I don't see much that could be mentioned in the article with the exception of the short 12 days of reinstatement in July 1917. --Shibo77 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the greater context this is not all too significant. Maybe a sentence or two would be sufficient. Colipon+(Talk) 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchukuo is in green color

It is strange that Manchukuo 1932-1945 is somehow being omitted in this article, I wonder why?

1. In Manchukuo, Aisin Gioro Puyi was reinstated as an Emperor in "State of Manchuria", then "Great Empire of Manchuria". Had not Japan being defeated in WW2, this Manchu Empire of Aisin Gioro would be still around today, even though it's real master would be the Japanese.
2. Just look at the map above, the size of Manchukuo is quite large, when compare with China Proper, leaving Tibet and Singkiang out. The dream of Imperial Japan had come true for a brief moment, in the river of History, so to speak.
3. A new section, such as From Daicing Gurun to Great Empire of Manchuria, any suggestions, readers? Arilang ^talk 03:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Actual Coat Of Arms !

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)

Culture, philosophy, art?

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)

Flag

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:

• [2] "The dark blue flags of the 'scrambling dragons'".
• [3] "The British colours were hauled down, and the Chinese dragon was hoisted in their place".
• [4] "their flag hauled down, and the Union Jack displayed from the ramparts."
• [5] "the Chinese ensign hoisted half-staff high".

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)

Regarding Tibet

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)

There are other old maps explicitly showing Tibet outside the Qing territory (all were published by International Campaign for Tibet in 2008, possible also in the Internet, with quotations for each map). POV is Sinocentric view on the Tibetan issue.---SK91.76.10.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

There were maps officially published by Qing government called "Full Map of Qing Empire" (大清帝国全图) in 1905 and 1908, and Tibet was considered a part of it. The maps published by "International Campaign for Tibet" are clearly not official nor widely-recognized ones. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Economic policy section

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)

IP, I think not allowing mines to open is a "prohibition" on mining (at least new mines), and if you read ahead, it will mention the portion about restricting the number of merchants operating. i will quote from the text now:

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)

Anyway, the book never says the Qing "prohibited mining completely", even though there may be some "restrictions". They are obviously not the same, and should not put contents which are different from the source to the article. Furthermore, this new section is clearly only aimed at blaming Qing for making China falling behind (which is more like a POV than a general consensus by scholars), rather than a general description and discussion of Qing economic policies, which makes the section very biased. Please don't remove the template until the POV issue is resolved. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation about Qing making China fell behind is from a seperate source. Qing prohibited the operation of new mines, which is what the book states: "Ch'ing officials usually refused requests by rich merchants to open new mines, fearing an unruly lablor force". If you prevent people from opening new mines, I think that is a prohibition on new mines. This assertion is also supported by other sources, which I can add to the article if you want.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I already quote the sentences "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" above, but which didn't exactly say Qing prohibited the operation of new mines, but also contain more info. Also as mentioned above, the claim that it was Qing who made China falling behind is more like a POV than a general consensus by scholars. It is easy to find sources to mention different reasons for so. --99:.244.68.239 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I added an additional source about Qing's mining prohibition. As about the claim that Qing made CHina fell behind, that is from a different source. You can add a contending view if you want.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is really not how to write qualified Wikipedia articles. The only purpose of this new section is to blame Qing for its "backwards", rather than a general description and discussion of Qing economic policies as the title suggests. Clearly it's biased and need major cleanups. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IP, this section is at this moment very small, so it is a general description of Qing economic policies in terms of industry and agriculture. If you have noticed some Qing policies which were not mentioned, please free to add them (note that the goal is to add policies that were unique during the Qing era). It is not biased to call FDR's policies interventionist, so I don't see how this section is biased; it is a description of Qing policies as they stood. I have moderated the last sentence, however.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Qing made quite a number of economic policies, including those made Qing rulers earning considerable praise from their subjects as mentioned above. However, the current contents in the section reads like Qing is only making "backwards" policies and there is only negative info, which is clearly biased. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

IP, if you have suggestions, it is best to list them here.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this section needs major cleanups or even rewritten to accurately reflect Qing econimic policies, rather than suggesting how "backwards" it was. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this section adequately sums up Qing's eceonomic policies (the policies that were uniquely Qing). Remember that regular tax rebates and abolition of corvee labor were policies in place before Qing.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

“I believe that this section adequately sums up Qing's economic policies” is itself a POV. There of course exist other views. For example, as mentioned above the Qing made fiscal reform which made considerably praise from their subjects, which is part of Qing economic policies but not reflected at all. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fiscal reform was about corvee labor, I believe. This policy was already instituted during the Ming by the Single whip reform. If you go even earlier, Emperor Guangwu had already allowed those who did not want to perform corvee labor to become exempt with a fee. Theres nothing POV about a belief; thats just what I think. You can add stuff if u want, provided it is actually sourced.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I was saying what your belief or thought is a view, and there are other views too. The current organization of the section is a representation of your view, but not general consensus, and the content is POV. Indeed the current section requires major cleanups, and Cambridge History of China is a good source, apart from some others. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit and added some info, as well as a link to the Economic history of China (pre-1911)'s Qing section.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The portion about growing rice and stuff is relevant. I'm sure that growing rice wasn't an invention of the Qing!Teeninvestor (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This section is about Economic developments during the Qing Dynasty, and the growing rice and so on are very important aspects in economics during Qing era (and other dynasties too). It's not about how "invasion" (actually, the long wars and other factors) caused destruction, but how Qing economics developed during the course of the dynasty. --99.244.68.239 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think even a reader who wasn't informed in the topic would know CHinese grow rice! the point is to inform the reader of the economic conditions that existed during Qing. Early Qing's description of the state of the economy is essential to do so.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly the point. The imports of new crops and so on are a very important factor that led significant population rise and economic developments in the Qing Dynasty, which is very long-lasting. The "invasion" (wars) was temporary, and was followed by major population rise and economic developments, and the latter is more important. Other dynasties had a war-destruction and restoration cycles in their early courses too, but the deciding factor is how economics developed once the dynasties were stabilized.--99.244.68.239 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Qing one is more notable, as it was generally much more destructive than previous dynastic cycles. all histories of the Qing mention this point; no one mentions the Song's destruction of cities, for example.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Song forces destructed some cities too, such as the city of Jiujiang, though I agree that the Qing case is more notable and can be mentioned. But that's it; on the other hand, the major population rise and economics developments in the later course of the dynasty was much more significant, and deserves more space than the temporary economic destruction in the beginning. I have some history textbooks (published in North America), which are good examples of how the section should look like.--99.244.68.239 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to mentioning economic growth during the Qing, which is noted at the end of the article (i don't think anyone would doubt there was economic growth/population increase in the mid-Qing). If you have a source on Qing's prosperity, please add more info. Another section which you can borrow info would be the Qing section of hte Economic history of China (pre-1911) article.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have some sources, and the section still need major cleanups to meet Wikipedia standard. For example, the first paragraph of the section should be an overview of economic developments during the Qing Dynasty, rather than some specific policies (especially in the early Qing period, mostly short-lived). By the way, the article Economic_history_of_China_(pre-1911) contains biased and inaccurate info as well and need some cleanups too.--99.244.68.239 (talk) 19:34, 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.)

- What are the sources for Qing_China_1820.png? Even if Pryaltonian created it by himself, it must be based on something.

- China Proper.jpg: The link given as source leads to nowhere. In what book (edition) or context (maybe as single leaf?) was this map published originally?

- The other three look fine (at least a proper source is given, which gives some context and the sources can be checked for more information)

83.78.171.153 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

dates

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)

It existed as a Manchu empire before it became a Chinese dynasty. That's when it changed its name. Zazaban (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

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)

Use of source

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.---SK91.76.10.126 (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)

New image: Coat of arms

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)

Languages

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)

Successors States to Qing Dynasty

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)

I think I should point out that Tsarist Russia did not really recognize Mongolia's independence (as opposed to autonomy), and that the Soviet Union later continued that policy for quite a while. But I agree with Jean-Jaques that international recognition should not be the one and only important factor here. Yaan (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Tibet and Mongolia should be listed as successor states, quite simply because they were, as these two countries declared, and obtained de facto, their independence in the context of the Xinhai revolution. User TheLeopard does not agree because the ROC did not recognize their independence : actually, I don't find this to be a very good argument, since many country breakups happened in controversial contexts, and yet that poses no problem when it comes to list the actual successor states. Listing the successor states in the infobox is actually informative to the readers, which is the goal of this project. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:22, 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)

Please give reliable academic sources supporting your claim that Tibet and Mongolia are successor states of the Qing Dynasty (not from a site that advocates Tibetan independence or so). Without such sources, your above argument is really original_research and is probably not NPOV as well. Listing ROC and Tibet equally as separate successors actually imply that Tibet was a separate country from ROC, which is quite POV. Is Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (1991-2000) a successor state of Soviet Union? Not mentioning that Tibet (between 1911-1950) and Mongolia (between 1911-1924) actually never officially proclaimed a new country to the degree as Chechen did after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also, in 1915 treaty of Kyakhta (Outer) Mongolia recognized ROC's sovereignty; in exchange Russia and ROC recognized Outer Mongolia's autonomy (not independence). Please try to reach a consensus before adding such controversial (and probably misleading) information. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 03:13, 17 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)

And here is official UN map from 1945: [6] Mmddnn (talk) 06:57, 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)

Again, without reliable academic sources supporting your claim that Tibet and Mongolia are successor states of the Qing Dynasty, your above argument is original research and/or POV. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability we know that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The current best solution is simply showing the direct successor, and leave out the rather controversial (and indirect) ones, c.f. Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (1991-2000) as mentioned above. Just a further note, whether Mongolia is nowadays independent is a quite different question from whether it is a successor state of the Qing Dynasty (and don't forget the 1915 treaty of Kyakhta). --173.206.43.154 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the most severe problem currently is that you (User:Jean-Jacques Georges) are edit warring with other users without reaching any consensus. (Wikipedia) policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

May I observe, dear Mr (or Mrs ?) 173, that you are "edit warring" as well in order to push forward your personal opinions ? The case of Tibet being a complex one, it might be acceptable to leave it out, although I am not convinced of that. However, leaving out Mongolia is simply ludicrous, as this particular country is still nowadays a pretty much independent country, unless I am grossly mistaken. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who is adding controversial and original research information to the article against other editors. Leaving out Mongolia is also quite reasonable as it's a complex issue on where it became eventually independent from. It's already mentioned above in 1915 treaty of Kyakhta (Outer) Mongolia recognized ROC's sovereignty in exchange for autonomy. Many other parts of China also enjoyed high degree of autonomy during that time. It's reasonable to argue that Mongolia only became independent during the later course of ROC, not as a successor to the Qing Dynasty, which is your argument without support from reliable academic sources. Again, currently the best solution is simply showing the direct successor, which is well-accepted, and leave out the controversial (and indirect) ones. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research ? The fact that Mongolia proclaimed its independence in 1911 and ultimately retained it makes it a clear successor, no matter when China recognized said independence. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That Mongolia (and Tibet as you previously insisted) is a successor state of the Qing Dynasty is your argument, without giving reliable academic sources saying so. Whether Mongolia is independent now is a different issue. In 1915 treaty of Kyakhta (Outer) Mongolia recognized ROC's sovereignty in exchange for autonomy, so as mentioned above it's a complex issue on where it became eventually independent from. You are really giving personal opinions regarding this complex question, which is original research. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the word "souvereignty" occurs in the Kyakhta treaty. Yaan (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, at least for the purpose of this discussion, it's more like a technical issue whether the word "souvereignty" itself occurs in the treaty. As an aside, it was the article Treaty of Kyakhta used the word "sovereignty" (from which I copied) when providing a short summary for the 1915 Treaty of Kyakhta that "Basically: Russia and China recognize Outer Mongolia's autonomy, but Mongolia recognizes China's sovereignty and will make no treaties with foreign countries." In other words, the sentence containing the word "sovereignty" is merely a summary of the content of treaty, not that every single word in the sentence is directly from the treaty itself. According to various sources such as "Digest of international law" (Vol 1, Page 75) "On June 7, 1915, Russia, China, and Outer Mongolia signed (at Kiachta [Kyakhta]) a treaty whereby China and Russia recognized 'the autonomy of Outer Mongolia forming part of Chinese territory', and Outer Mongolia recognized the suzerainty of China." as well as "Autonomous Mongolia has no right to conclude international treaties with foreign Powers respecting political and territorial questions". Maybe you can argue the summary in that article is somewhat incorrect and there is a better summary for the treaty content, but this should be discussed in the talk page of that article; although may be an issue somewhere else, it is not really very important here, at least for the purpose of this discussion (i.e. on the question of "successor states"; the discussions below rarely mention this treaty actually). I did not notice this technical issue when I copied the word from that article (which I won't use again though), but all points above still hold. P.S. I have also changed the summary in that article a bit to make it more precise. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. I was not "previously" insisting that Tibet was independent, I'm still insisting on it, but I'm not including it at present as a gesture of goodwill. If you want sources, here is one explicitly stating that "only the mongols" could break away from the "middle empire". Here is another one. What else do you want ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the last message more carefully. It was saying you were insisting adding Tibet (and Mongolia) as a successor state of the Qing Dynasty, not whether Tibet was independent. The latter is a different question, and de-facto independence was not a real independence or becoming a separate country (simply saying they are "independent" is somewhat misleading; compare the statuses of Russia and Chechen after the fall of Soviet Union), but anyway it's a different question from whether it was a successor state of the Qing Dynasty. As for your sources, which are merely saying that (Outer) Mongolia eventually achieved its independence from China (or the Middle Kingdom), and that it declared independence after the fall of Qing Dynasty, but the sources are neither saying that Mongolia was always independent from ROC nor they are saying that Mongolia (or Tibet) is a successor state of the Qing Dynasty. It has no doubt that Mongolia declared its independence and eventually achieved its independence from China, but this is completely different from the question "From which regime did it become independent, Qing Dynasty or ROC?" and the question "Whether or not it is a successor state of the Qing dynasty". Your sources never answer these questions, and they are not evidences supporting your claim that "Tibet and Mongolia are successor states of the Qing Dynasty". --173.206.43.154 (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, one of your sources also states "One year later, on 7 July 1937, Japan invaded China. Following the war, the Mongolian people once again overwhelmingly voted for independence from China." which basically means that despite the declaration of independence in the end of 1911, Mongolia did not really become independent from China; it was not until after the WWII (i.e. in the 1940s) that Mongolia actually achieved its independence from ROC. In summary, the source is saying that Mongolia eventually became independent from China, but it was from ROC after the WWII, not from the Qing Dynasty that fell much earlier. So claiming that Mongolia is a successor state of the Qing dynasty is making nonsense from the sources you provided. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The way the Mongolians see it is certainly that they became independent in 1911. The 1945 referendum was basically meaningless, it was held to save Chinese face, but of course the Chinese had lost any influence on Mongolia long before that time. I hope it is not original research to point out that on becoming leader of an independent Mongolia in 1911, the eigth Jebtsundamba Khutughtu assumed a few attributes that previously the Qing emperors had held, including the title Bogd Khan. Yaan (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That referendum was the most important thing in the history of modern Mongolia, because of that referendum you Mongols have your state today. After civil war China established control over internationally recognized territory. Just like Russians established control over Chechnya or the North over Southern states. So after civil war, when Mao Zedong or Chiang Kai-shek (depends who wins in civil war) would look at official Republic o China and UN map they would see that Mongolia is a part of China, they would enter Mongolia and you could do nothing. UN would do nothing because Mongolia would be a part of China because Mongolian proclaimed independence was not accepted by the government of China, nor did Mongolia receive foreign diplomatic recognition. Mmddnn (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, the existence of my home country is, as far as I am aware, completely unrelated to Mongolian independence. However, you are correct that my home country could probably not have made a difference in any Sino-Mongolian conflicts in the late 1940s or early 1950s.

Anyway, I think your what-if is flawed from the beginning because you ignore the circumstances under which the ROC finally agreed to recognize Mongolian independence (hint, USSR was not the only country to liberate Japanese-occupied territories in August 1945). The referendum was completely meaningless because both sides knew in advance what would be the result. In fact, even if both sides had been unsure about what the Mongolians themselves wanted, they still would have known the result in advance. You also seem to ignore that (second hint) even the Japanese had proven unable to invade Mongolia in 1939.

Btw. your UN map looks cool, but it displays Mongolia as just as independent as Switzerland, Sweden or Spain. Actually, I don't understand why you bring up the UN at all. They don't seem to have had much influence in the area in the 1950s or 1960s. Yaan (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the previous messages had already repeatedly said "it's a complex issue on where (which regime) it became eventually independent from". All sentences regarding from which regime that Mongolia became independent in the message above yours containing the phrase similar to "the source is saying ..." or "from the sources", indicating it is the source suggesting so, not that it's the final answer. The view that you provided (which I'm quite aware of, thus repeatedly said "it's a complex issue") is simply another view/answer to this complex question, which basically indicate the complexity of the issue. Anyway, we should not give a final answer or nationalist view to this complex question in the article. (BTW: Yaan, I already thought you might show up again with Mongolians' (nationalist) view, but I had already tried to be as neutral as possible for the discussions, and I simply mention what the sources that User:Jean-Jacques Georges gave are saying or suggesting, not implying there is a final answer to this complex question. In fact, all messages here simply show how "complex" the issue is, which was already mentioned in the messages above which appeared a few days ago. The details of the other views (including the one you provided) are not really needed here, at least for the purpose of this discussion, surrounding the issue of "successor states".). --173.206.43.154 (talk)

Ok, then what shall we do ? The fact that Mongolia did become de facto independent in 1911, and has stayed that way since, should be a sufficient argument for its inclusion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the way this is supposed to work is to find some useful sources. Yaan (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Were the previous ones not useful ? This one might be used, too. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they are definitely not explicit enough (or you give me the page number). I think you have a point, but as far as I understand the way wikipedia works is that you can only use statements that come quite directly from the sources. Mongolia as a successor state looks so far like an original synthesis to me. Yaan (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, as already mentioned above, your sources (including the newest one) don't support your claim that "Mongolia (or Tibet) is a successor state of the Qing dynasty". Earlier messages of the discussion have already repeatedly said that "it's a complex issue on where (which regime) it became eventually independent from". One of the sources you gave suggests it became independent from ROC, and User:Yaan simply provides another view. The existence of different views precisely suggests the complexity of the question, which was actually already mentioned in earlier messages. As per NPOV policy, we should not give a final answer or any nationalist views to this complex question in the article, not mentioning that you actually NEVER provide reliable academic sources saying "Mongolia (or Tibet) is a successor state of the Qing dynasty", but merely provided sources saying Mongolia eventually achieved its independence from China, and that it declared independence after the fall of Qing Dynasty and so on. Furthermore, in 1915 treaty of Kyakhta, Mongolia officially enjoyed autonomy, not independence (or more precisely, according to sources, China and Russia recognized "the autonomy of Outer Mongolia forming part of Chinese territory", and Outer Mongolia recognized the suzerainty of China and "Autonomous Mongolia has no right to conclude international treaties with foreign Powers respecting political and territorial questions") . Again, the question "From which regime it became eventually independent" is a complex question, all messages here also indicate so, and your claim about the successor states are not supported by the sources. --173.206.43.154 (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, another source "Nationalism and hybridity in Mongolia" by Uradyn Erden Bulag (p13) states that 1921 and 1946 mark the de facto independence and the de jure independence of Mongolia from China, which contradicts with your claim that Mongolia had stayed de facto independent since 1911 as well. I'm not saying that the information in the source(s) is absolutely correct, but all these indicate that the issue is very complex, and we should not give a final answer in the article. --173.206.103.120 (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, the source I gave above comes from Stanford University Press and explicitly states that Mongolia seceded from Qing China in 1911. IMHO, you are making this issue uselessly complicated. The fact is that Mongolia seceded from China and has remained an independent state ever since. Tibet also seceded, and whether it was de jure or de facto is IMHO totally irrelevant to the concrete situation. Chinese nationalist views are of no concern to this issue. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that Outer Mongolia remained de facto independent since 1921, and de jure since 1945. Kyakhta Treaty of June 1915 recognized Mongolia’s autonomy within the Chinese state. Chinese had the right to appoint a high commissioner to Urga and deputy high commissioners to Uliastai, Khovd, and Kyakhta.[7] Also, the Chinese eliminated autonomy and restored sovereignty over Outer Mongolia in 1919. Do you understand that the Qing Emperor bequeathed the entire Empire to the Republic of China. For example, Austria–Hungary was defeated and the treaty declared that the Austro-Hungarian Empire must be dissolved. But The Republic of China succeeded the Qing Dynasty

• 

Mmddnn (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your last link merely points to a search result of "mongolia independence 1911" of a book but not pointing to any specific page. Neither this search result, nor the sources you previously gave, support your claim regarding successor states. Even if there exists a page in the source stating that Mongolia seceded from Qing China in 1911, it does not answer the question whether Mongolia is a successor state of the Qing Dynasty. Actually, a number of other areas or provinces also declared their independence from Qing in 1911, but later joined the newly-founded republic; on the other hand, Mongolia officially enjoyed autonomy, not independence, in 1915. Your sources also don't say Mongolia has stayed independent since 1911, nor that Mongolia is a successor state of the Qing Dynasty. You can have your personal view, and Chinese or Mongolians may have their nationalist views, that doesn't matter. However, in Wikipedia neutrality and verifiability are the most important. The source "Nationalism and hybridity in Mongolia" (as pointed out above) states that 1921 and 1946 mark the de facto independence and the de jure independence of Mongolia from China, which clearly contradicts with your view that Mongolia had stayed de facto independent since 1911. You are the one who is trying to add controversial information which contradicts with other source(s). --173.206.43.154 (talk) 23:19, 24 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)