User talk:Arilang1234/Sand box/Massacre 2

Genocide definition

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people. It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Significantly, this definition of genocide under international law does not include repression against political or economic groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 December 2008

Liaodong massacre

On the fifth month and thirteen year of Gwanghaegun , a Joseon historical book recorded the following passage:At this time Nurhachi the bandit had invaded Liaoyang, soldiers and civilians of Liaodong Eight Stations who refused to follow Nurhachi, have gathered alongside the river....later on, many of the Nurhachi bandits have arrived, those people who refused to shave their hair, all jumped into the Yalu river and died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 December 2008

《李朝实录》光海君十三年五月，也记载了辽东汉人的悲惨遭遇：

“时奴贼既得辽阳，辽东八站军民不乐从胡者，多至江边……其后，贼大至，义民不肯剃头者，皆投鸭水（鸭绿江）以死。” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 December 2008

Manchu chiefdom historical facts

zh:滿族#滿族歷史

主流觀點認為是在中國史書中曾經被泛稱為生活在現在的中國東北地區的東胡民族的一部，《後漢書·挹婁傳》：「無君長，其邑落各有大人。」(translation: They have no King and no Emperor, all their tribes have tribal headman)《魏書·勿吉傳》「邑落各自有長，不相總一。」(translation:All the tribes have tribal headman, were not unified under one leader)《隋書·靺鞨傳》「邑落具有酋長，不相總一」(translation:All the tribes have Tribal Chief, were not unified under one leader) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 December 2008

Hi Arilang. Don't let your hatred for the Manchus blind you so much and so obviously. All the books you cite were written more than 1000 years before the Manchu conquest, far too early to apply to the Manchus. Madalibi (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to forget that after 1644, the so-called "Manchu headmen" were actually emperors of China... --Madalibi (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

POV and original research?

Hi Arilang. I've thought about this for a few days now, and I've reached the conclusion that this article just doesn't work. In your lead paragraph, you took the highest figure for 1600 you could find (250 million), you compared it with the lowest figure for 1650 you could find (40-100 million); then you gave an unsupported casualty number of "between 40 and 100 million" (which doesn't fit with the figures you just gave) and you ascribed it all to the Manchus. Let's now look at the following sentence, which I find very problematic for a number of reasons (I put in bold the problematic passages: "Historians have concluded that, between AD. 1600-1650, the total population loss was between 40 millions and 100 millions(mainly Han Chinese plus other ethnicity), probably the indirect result of many genocides and mass murders conducted by Manchu Qing barbarians." For this sentence to be acceptable, you would have to find scholars who:

1. Give population figures for before and after the conquest (those scholars actually exist, so these statistics could be found)
2. Use the terms "mass murder" and "genocide" (if they don't, then it's your own interpretation of the past, and this goes against Wikipedia: no original research
3. Use the term "Manchu Qing barbarians" (or "Manchu Qing" or "Manchu barbarians" or "Qing barbarians")

Now let's see what the two inline citations you use to support your claim actually say.

The first source (called Barbarism and Civilization - Mongols And Manchu Emperors) says this about the Qing conquest:

“ In turn, the Ming were ousted by the Manchu (Tungusic descendants of the Ruzhen), who marked the beginning of the Qing dynasty. The Manchu were organized under banners or civil-military units distinguished by colored flags. Before 1644, their administrative units for conscription and taxation recruited Chinese and Mongols. By 1648, the "multi-ethnic army" of bannermen included less than 16 percent Manchu (see Naquin and Rawski, pp. 4–5). Like the Mongols, the Manchu adopted Chinese culture, allowing for a renaissance of ancient philosophy and literature (see Goulding). ”

Problems:

1. This source was not written by "historians": it is an anonymous internet page that synthesizes a few scholarly sources.
2. It does not speak of "mass murders" or "genocides" (it doesn't even mention the violence of the conquest, in fact!).
3. It does not mention population issues.
4. It does not speak of the Qing or the Manchus as "barbarians."
5. It actually praises the Qing for the literary achievements they presided over!

The second link sends to p. 42 of Jing Tsu's Failure, Nationalism, and Literature, which says this:

“ Citing Manchu atrocities against the Hans at the fall of the Ming dynasty, as narrated in Ten Days in Yangzhou (Yangzhou shiri ji) and The Massacre in Jiading (Jiading tucheng ji lue), Zou poignantly enumerated the series of defeats and humiliations endured by the Chinese that had been long forgotten. Chen Tianhua's no less impassioned writings, political and fictional, such as Bell Alarming the World and The Lion's Roar, express in equal intensity a resentment toward the Manchus doubled with a reproach toward the Chinese themselves. ”

Problems:

1. This source also does not mention population issues
2. It does not speak of "genocide" or "mass murders"
3. It does not refer to the Manchus (or the Qing) as barbarians
4. It cites writings from late-Qing Han nationalists like Zou Rong, who hated the Manchus. No matter what these people said, their voices do not represent the voice of the historian (Jing Tsu) who is citing them.

Conclusion: neither source supports your claim that the population loss between 1600 and 1650 was "probably the indirect result of many genocides and mass murders conducted by Manchu Qing barbarians." The violence of the conquest certainly had an effect on the population, but you can't forget mass banditry, famines, and epidemics when you discuss this population loss. And you can't just use terms like "genocides," "mass murders," and "barbarians" just because you feel like it. This is both POV and original research.

[NOTE: Message by Madalibi continues after next section.]

Links removed

To answer your question on the questionable links, I put it there to support the term "barbarians", not to support my argument on the population loss. Since you would have access to more text books and research papers than I do, may be I leave it to you to come up with a reasonable 'guess'?(Like I mentioned before, we can only guess, unless someone invent a 'Time machine' Arilang ^talk 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice you removed the two sources, but that you still kept the words "barbarian" and "genocide"! I don't quite understand why I should have to come up with a "reasonable guess," and on what exactly? And since you yourself argue that "we can only guess," what is this page doing here? Should it be called "Arilang's guess on what he calls 'genocides' committed by what he calls 'Manchu barbarians'"? Truly, Arilang, this is not what Wikipedia is all about. I argued that your page on Anti-Qing sentiment had a legitimate right to exist because it refers to a historical phenomenon that scholars have discussed. But this page is different. If not a single scholar uses the term "genocide" to refer to the massacres you're discussing, if no scholar uses the term "barbarian" to refer to the Qing emperors, and if not a single scholar would claim that the Qing emperor were just Manchu chieftains, I think this page is based on nothing else than your personal point of view on the Manchus, and should therefore not exist. Madalibi (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

[Message by Madalibi continued:]

As for the rest of the page: as I've already argued on your talk page, only the massacre of the Dzungars (which, I insist, was not done because they were "Buddhists") is explained as a genocide in the scholarly literature (actually mostly in one book by Peter Perdue). In the Taiping rebellion, it was actually the Taiping who tried to commit genocide against the Manchus (they massacred the entire Banner population in Nanjing); the repression of the rebellion was Han Chinese fighting Han Chinese. In the Panthay rebellion, it was mostly Han Chinese (and not always those serving in the military) who killed Muslims. In Guangzhou in 1650, it was the Han-Chinese troops of warlord Shang Kexi who massacred the population. Not a single Manchu was there. Shang Kexi was serving the Qing, of course, but he certainly did not kill the population because they were Han Chinese (something you would need for this massacre to count as a genocide). In Yangzhou in 1645, it was Han-martial bannermen (members of the 漢軍八旗) who massacred the population while Dodo and his Manchu troops were proceeding toward Nanjing. As for the "massacre of missionaries" during the Boxer Uprising: they were all killed by Han Chinese in the Shandong countryside (not to mention that "missionaries" are not an ethnic group).
Many of your edits here and in other pages seem to be animated by a visceral hatred for the Manchus (as your last post on my talk page has recently confirmed). Because of its no original research and NPOV policies, Wikipedia doesn't care about what you (nor I, of course) think about the Manchus or the Qing. What counts is verifiability in citing sources. If you can find scholarly sources claiming that the Manchus committed "genocide," were "barbarians," or were still "tribal chieftains" in the 19th century, you're welcome to post them and I will not object, but if you post inline citations that say something completely different from what your text is saying, and if this entire page is just a display of your personal interpretation of "violence in the Qing era" as "genocide committed by the barbaric Manchus," then you are misleading the readers of Wikipedia.
You know I've supported and encouraged you before, so please take me seriously on this: this page just doesn't work as it is. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is to be blamed, soldiers or generals

Madalibi, I respect your knowledge, apparently you have read many books, which I have not the time nor the opportunity to do so. Ok, let me answer your question one by one. I also know that a lot of the mass murders were done by the Han Banners, after all, when Manchu invaded the Great Wall they only had 150,000 soldiers(consisted of Manchus, Mongols, Koreans, and Han Chinese.) Whatever numbers of people they killed, 20, 50, 100, 200 millions, we will never know, because eveybody is guessing, including 'Historians'. And your opinion is since Han Chinese did most of the killings, we should not label the Manchus as Genocidal, or mass murderers. That is OK with me. But wait. Lets 'fast forward' to second world war. At the Nuremberg Trial,

“ The Subsequent Nuremberg Trials (more formally, the Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals) were a series of twelve U.S. military tribunals for war crimes against surviving members of the military, political, and economical leadership of Nazi Germany, held in the Palace of Justice, Nuremberg after World War II from 1946 to 1949 following the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal. ”

Please read carefully, the trial is against surviving members of the military, political, and economical leadership of Nazi Germany. Madalibi, the bottom line is, German soldiers(or whoever) pulled the triggers, German soldiers( or whoever) switched on the valve at the gas chambers, the orders came from the leaders, so the leaders went to the trial(not the soldiers). We all know what happen next, needless to say.
Do you follow my argument? Arilang ^talk 18:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you agree that the generals, not the soldiers, should be blamed, then I hope that you also just blame the Manchu generals, not the Manchu people. The Nuremberg Trial was against individuals, not the whole German people. I am tired of the nationalist sentiment. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss the obvious differences between the Holocaust (the implementation of a policy that explicitly targeted a particular ethnic group) and massacres committed during a war of conquest or during the repression of a rebellion. What matters in the end is that Arilang is making this comparison entirely on his own, not on the basis of scholarly writings he can cite. Even if they did not display particulary obvious POV, all these claims about genocide would still constitute pure and unadulterated original research. Arilang: find me one scholar who calls what Qing troops did in Yangzhou, Guangzhou, etc., a "genocide," and then we can talk. Otherwise, it's just us blogging about Qing history, and this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless some scholar out there is comparing Nazi Germany with Qing China in regards to a genocide, then I don't see the need to continue this discussion. It is irrelevant, Arilang.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename the article

user:Madalibi suggested that I had a look at this article.

At the moment there is not one source in this article claiming that a genocide took place. I suggest that the article is moved to "Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom" as a slightly less POV name although I think we need to talk through alternative names. --PBS (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone: "Manchu chiefdom" is also very POV and unreferenced. The Qing dynasty was founded in 1636 by Manchu tribal leaders in what is currently the northeast parts of the People's Republic of China, but by the time they replaced the Ming dynasty in Beijing in 1644, they had already gone through a deep process of state-building: by then, Manchu chieftains had become Emperors of China. Not a single scholar would object to that, including those (like myself) who emphasize the "Manchuness" of the Qing dynasty. The Manchus cannot seriously be called "chieftains" into the 19th century. An alternative title to this wiki could be State violence under the Qing dynasty, though it might still constitute original research, and the text would have to remove all the gratuitous references to "the Manchus" killing such and such people as if with their own hands. A perfectly legitimate wiki (albeit of smaller scope) would be something like the Qing conquest of China (1636-1662), but it would have to focus on more than massacres. --Madalibi (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

@Madalibi: Quote'remove all the gratuitous references to "the Manchus" killing such and such people as if with their own hands.' Unquote. I have a funny feeling that you intensely do not like the idea of Manchu being labeled 'murderers', but like I said before, what they have done, or didn't do, are all in black and white, in verifible historical books(lucky they didn't burn all the books, still some left-over, how amazing). And again, like the comment I left on your talk page, Nazi Germany's leaders were sent to the gallows for what they did in the war, not their soldiers, please remember that. Arilang ^talk 03:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Arilang: you misleadingly cut the beginning of my sentence, which gives the reason why these claims would have to be removed: "An alternative title to this wiki could be '''State violence under the Qing dynasty''', though it might still constitute original research, and the text would have to remove all the gratuitous references to "the Manchus" killing such and such people as if with their own hands." I was making two points: 1. "State violence in the Qing dynasty" may not be a proper Wiki, because there is no scholarly template of that sort (this would be WP: OR); 2. this hypothetical page would in any case be about the Qing dynasty (or the "Manchu-led Qing dynasty"), but not about "the Manchus," since "the Manchus" are not a state. What would it sound like if someone who dislikes the Ming dynasty started to refer to it as "the Zhu family": "in several atrocities, the Zhu family massacred thousands of Vietnamese people in the early 15th century." My points were very clear, and I hope you realize that I made them while trying to propose constructive ways of saving your page... Madalibi (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the article to something like "Qing conquest of China (1636-1662)" is a solution providing that it is a recognised historical event (by which I mean that there are modern histories that cover the events as an event (like for example the Hundred Years War or the Thirty Years War). Unless the Qing conquest lasted longer or there was more than one of them we can drop the dates. How does this tie in with the History of China -- History of China#Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) (and Ming Dynasty) and History of China#Qing Dynasty (1644 - 1911) (and Qing Dynasty)? --PBS (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also consider the model of Bangladesh War of Independence#Atrocities and 1971 Bangladesh atrocities --PBS (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Qing conquest usually refers to the transition from Ming to Qing rule in China. This transition took place by a conquest that started in what is now called Manchuria in English. The conquest took a long time, because various regimes loyal to the Ming dynasty held out in southern China until 1662, when the last Ming claimant was captured and killed in Burma. There is abundant scholarship on the "Ming-Qing transition" and the Southern Ming Dynasty (the collective name of all these loyalist regimes), and some on the Qing conquest and the "Ming-Qing conflict." "Ming loyalism" could also be an acceptable template, because relevant scholarship exists, and because all the cities whose populations were massacred in the 1640s and 1650s were led by people who declared themselves loyal to the Ming dynasty. "Ming loyalism" would of course have to discuss much more than massacres, and more than even military campaigns.

In my view, the best way to preserve the content of the present page without having to create extensive new text to contextualize the massacres would be to split the current text between many existing wikis. The massacres that took place during the Qing conquest could be moved to the page on Southern Ming Dynasty, on which Arilang has already worked. There is already an extensive discussion of the slaughter of missionaries in Boxer Rebellion. More could be said on the massacre of the Dzungars (to my knowledge the only one that has been called a "genocide" in English-language scholarship) in Dzungars#Conquest by Qing China. "Massacres of Hui" would fit under Islam during the Qing Dynasty, where I see that someone has also mentioned "genocides," though I have argued in Talk:Genocides in history#The China section that this claim was also unsupported by the scholarship cited. Would this be an acceptable solution? --Madalibi (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If this article is not to be put up for AfD as Original Research, then are there any reliable sources (preferably in English) that can be used as a template for this article? --PBS (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Arilang has added two references so far:

1. One citation from a book by Diana Preston that describes the massacre of some missionaries and Chinese Christians. Very gruesome and despicable, but not an example of genocide.
2. An article by Peter Gue Zarrow titled "Historical Trauma: Anti-Manchuism and Memories of Atrocity in Late Qing China" (2004) in the journal History and Memory. The article was in fact already cited as a reference for the number of people who died in the Jiading massacre. This scholarly article describes (as a background to its main subject) the violence of the Qing conquest, but it does not seem to speak of genocide (I would have to see a detailed citation in order to be convinced that it does). And it does not support the claim made in the lead paragraph (where it appears as an inline citation) that the loss of population between 1600 and 1650 was "probably the indirect result of many genocides and mass murders conducted by Manchu barbarians."

Arilang: PBS is an administrator. I asked him to comment on this page because he is experienced, he is a priori neutral about our disagreement, and he is interested in the issue of genocides in history. I thought he would make a more neutral advisor than Bathrobe or even PericlesofAthens. Shouldn't you say something here in the talk page? Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Important reference left out

@Madalibi, and other editors, admin or moderator: I present the No.10 reference, which no one seem to care to read, which is a research paper done by Michael Edmund Clarke, In the Eye of Power (doctoral thesis), Brisbane 2004, I think his words carry more weights than mine.

Page 47.

“ The Qing campaign in Zungharia in 1757-58 amounted to the complete destruction of not only the Zunghar state but of the Zunghars as a people that virtually depopulated northern Xinjing. It is estimated by a number of scholars that the Qing campaigns against Zunghars in 1756-57 resulted in the destruction, by a combination of warfare and disease, of 80% of the variously estimated six hundred thousand to one million strong Zunghar population inhabiting northern Xinjing. The military subjugation of the Zunghars, although destroying the existing Zunghar state, was deemed by the Qianlong emperor to have not sufficiently solved the Qing's century-long Zunghar 'problem'. The Qianlong emperor's physical obliteration(dictitionary: 1. To do away with completely so as to leave no trace. 2. To wipe out, rub off, or erase .3. Medicine To remove completely (a body organ or part), as by surgery, disease, or radiation.) of the Zunghars....

References:Pamela Kyle Crossley, A Translucent Mirror, op.cit,.p.326; Crossley asserts that Qing records claim to have inflicted one million casualties in the suppression of the Zunghars;

”

All you editors, you be the judge. Genocide? Mass murder? Ethnic cleansing? Massacre? Atrocities? Or something softer, like suppression? State violence?(are we into the rating of a movie? Suitable for all ages?) Qing conquest?(Now we can all bask in the glow of Qing empire, and forget about the loss of human life, like Holocaust had never ever happen?) Arilang ^talk 03:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Arilang: I did say above that the massacre of the Dzungars could indeed be called a "genocide." But you need to find a scholarly reference that calls it a genocide before you can include this claim on Wikipedia. Michael Edmund Clarke doesn't use this term directly (though his explanation clearly points to a genocide). Now in his book China Marches West: The Qing conquest of Central Eurasia (2005), Peter Perdue specifically called the extermination of the Dzungars an "ethnic genocide," and even a "final solution" (both on p. 285). On the same page, however, he also claimed the following:

“ The use of massacre for ethnic extermination was also atypical of Qing policy either before or after this time. The term "extermination" (jiao [剿]) had been used before to describe the appropriate action toward non-Han barbarians. Manchus, of course, did use terror tactics against Chinese cities in the lower Yangzi "pour encourager les autres." The ten-day massacre at Yangzhou in 1645 is the most notorious example. Later suppressions of domestic rebellions produced many capital sentences, but only after interrogation and judicial proceedings. The theory of distinguishing between ringleaders and "coerced followers" aimed to minimize the number of executions. Many were pardoned after their sentences were reviewed at the autumn assizes. ”

So a reputed scholar has claimed that the Qing or the Manchus (not "Manchu chieftains") committed genocide against the Dzungars, which was obviously a gesture of enormous brutality. But what is at issue here is not whether the Qing rulers were more benevolent than murderous. What is at issue is whether a Wiki can be called "Genocides and atrocities committed by the Manchu chiefdom" when no one in the field of Chinese history has ever put all these massacres together under that heading. (Sorry, I have to go: time for lunch!) Madalibi (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

@Madalibi, what is at issue? What is the issue? You and me are not primary students no more, I am very supprised that you can only 'think inside the square'. So when no one else had done it, that means I can not do it? So when everybody is saying 'Earth is at the center of the universe', then Nicolaus Copernicus would have to just sit there and shut his mouth? What kind of schools you came from? What kind of professors you learn from? Sorry for my sharp comments, though I did try very hard to refrain from saying out. Arilang ^talk 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang. I think your "sharp comments" come from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's basic policy. You say "when no one else has done it, that means I cannot do it?" On Wikipedia, the answer is: "yes, this is exactly what this means." Your sentence is actually the best definition of original research I have seen on Wikipedia! Imagine what would happen if someone angry with your view of the Manchus decided to write a wiki called Corruption of the Han Chinese to prove that "Han Chinese are fundamentally corrupt." They could propose a good definition of "corruption" and find literally thousands of cases that would fit this definition in Chinese history. Would this page be legitimate? Of course, not! Why? Because there is no "template" like this in the scholarly literature, that is, there are no serious books that defend the point of view that "Han Chinese are fundamentally corrupt." I sympathize with your frustration for not being able to tell the world about the Manchus, but Wikipedia is not the place where people can advocate new interpretations of history. My statement is not about my view of scholarship and the progress of knowledge: it's about Wikipedia policy. You're welcome to keep posting your ideas on my talk page and I will discuss them with you when I can, but please try to understand the "original research" policy before you create new pages like this one! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

QUOTE: "All you editors, you be the judge." :UNQUOTE. No, Arilang, you don't get it. We are not the judges here; secondary sources are the judges here. Unless some authoritative text or scholarly source says something about a historical event or trend, then it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. This is not censorship; this information is still valuable and should be retained in other articles. But this article is simply too POV that it is hopeless. It would be like a student from the PRC creating a page called "Horrendous Crimes of the Dirty Taiwanese Nationalist Party", or something along those lines.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No beat around the bush

I have never said, or going to start any article with a name like Corruption of the Han Chinese, most of the articles I have created(the list is on my user page for everyone to see) are highly politically charged. Lets go back to the original debate, which is about Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom, and the issue was raised by you, and very clearly you are advocating that it needs to be either merged with other articles, or to be deleted somehow, 'since no one else had done it before'. Well, you started it, lets see how are you going to finish it? Arilang ^talk 09:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was citing the fictional article Corruption of the Han Chinese as something you would dislike, but that would also qualify as original research and would therefore also be unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. I know you would never start such a topic, and neither would I, of course. In any case, I will not be the one making a final decision concerning the current page. I have already made the points I wanted to make. If you also think you have nothing else to add (I see, for example, that you haven't proposed any alternative title), then we should probably ask PBS to come back and see how he thinks the sitation should be handled. Would this be acceptable to you? Madalibi (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 there are three major content policies WP:NPOV, WP:V WP:OR and the WP:NC policy that covers the naming of articles. Theses are supported by a myriad of guidelines. As WP:Policies and guidelines says "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature". Please read Wikipedia:No original research which is a Wikipedia policy. If you do you will notice that the very first sentence is in bold and says "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." the second sentence says "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Before any further effort is put into developing this article please outline how you think this article can be brought in from the cold and reconstructed so that it can remain on Wikipedia. If not then I propose that we put it up for an WP:AfD and see if there is a consensus to keep this article, which given your comments above in defence of the article "So when no one else had done it, that means I can not do it?" makes that unlikely. --PBS (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

@user PBS, by reading user Madalibi's comments, I understand that the dispute is based on the use of two words:genocide and chiefdom (1) Genocide, initially Madalibi claimed that it is 'unverifiable'. Later Madalibi offered a reference: Quote:"Now in his book China Marches West: The Qing conquest of Central Eurasia (2005), Peter Perdue specifically called the extermination of the Dzungars an "ethnic genocide," and even a "final solution" (both on p. 285)." By that I take it that 'Genocide' is verified, is OK to be used, and it had been used before, so it no longer is 'original research'.

Let me cut and paste the definition of Genocide on wiki again: Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people. It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1] Significantly, this definition of genocide under international law does not include repression against political or economic groups.

The key words(to me):(1)to destroy, in whole or in part (2) causing serious bodily or mental harm (3)deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in parts. Peter Perdue claimed that what Manchu did was genocidal, so it is not 'original research' nor 'original thought' by me.

In regard to the second word chiefdom, I agree with user Madalibi that it at the moment I cannot offer any reference to verify it(I will keep on searching for a verifiable reference.) So meanwhile I propose the name of the article be changed into "Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers".

If a consensus can be reached, I shall go ahead and move the article into the new name. And I like to offer my appology to Madalibi for all those harsh words I used on him. I was getting a bit angry, and didn't have any ill intentions . One more thing, I shall also remove the sentence pointed out by Madalibi that might cause problem:"Historians have concluded that, between AD. 1600-1650, the total population loss was between 40 millions and 100 millions(mainly Han Chinese plus other ethnicity), probably the indirect result of many genocides and mass murders conducted by Manchu Qing barbarians." Arilang ^talk 10:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 by replying and including an explanation of the Genocide convention, you do not convince me that you have read and understood the prohibition original research. The way you need to approach a claim of genocide is to state exactly what it was that Peter Perdue stated was genocide. You can not extrapolate what he says into a general theory. You have also not addressed the issue of the article covering a recognised historical event (by which I mean that there are modern histories that cover the events as an event (like for example the Thirty Years War). You can not just take a topic and write a one sided view. For example it is very easy to write two views of an empire, one emphasising all that was good about an empire and one emphasising all that was bad. Neither is wrong, or may involve original research, but they fall foul of Wikipedia's neutral point of view and if both exist are WP:POVFORKS. --PBS (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply user PBS, I know I still have a lot to learn, please give me some more time, and I would restructure the article, so that it does not have NPOV or original research problems. While your are here, would you have a look at my other articles:Charter 08, Guo Qian, and Weiquan movement, these are all created by me, and point out the shortcomings so that I can rectify them. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 19:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, Arilang, though there was nothing to be offended about. Don't worry about it! My citing Peter Perdue was to show that mainstream scholarship does contain claims of genocide, but Perdue's claim about one event still does not constitute a template for a wiki that discusses massacres of Christians in 1901 and the sack of cities in the 17th century (PBS already said that better than me). I suggest that you remodel this article in a new sandbox where other editors won't be allowed to add or delete content. There, you'll have plenty of time to think of a proper template for the article, find reliable sources, and write in a style that won't sound like you're trying to Right Great Wrongs. What do you think? Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting AfD

I have cited passages in detail to show why they did not constitute proper references, explained why there seems to be no acceptable template for this article, and made constructive suggestions about how to preserve the content of this page even if this wiki turns out to be unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. In the process, I deleted nothing and I even presented sources that could further Arilang's point of view that the Qing-dynasty rulers committed genocide against the Dzungar Mongols. Arilang has also defended his position, but he has now renamed the page "Massacres and Atrocities committed by barbaric Manchu rulers" without discussing his decision on the talk page first. He also rephrased the lead paragraph in such a way that the article is now presented as "yet to be verified speculation" (!). Both the wiki title and the lead paragraph also contain the word "barbaric," which is unacceptable because no historians call the Qing rulers "barbarians" in print.
But the main issue is not about these turns of phrase. The problem with this wiki is much deeper and will not be solved by further editing:

1. even if this page were named as neutrally as possible (Massacres in the Qing dynasty, for example),
2. even if it did not use any weasel words (like an unattributed "probably" in the lead paragraph), and
3. even if scholarly sources could be found to justify casualty numbers in every single case mentioned in the page,

this page would still fail to qualify for Wikipedia because there is no scholarly book that discusses all these massacres together. This page clearly constitutes a Synthesis of published material which advances a position, one sub-case of original research, something that is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia. Since this point has already been made clearly in this talk page, I propose we proceed to AfD immediately. Madalibi (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you put it up for an AfD I will support it. Arilang if you ask me to move this page into your user space for further development before an AfD I will and I will delete these page names in the main article space. But if not then expect this page to be deleted after an AfD. Madalibi please give Arilang 24 hours to agree, or if he posts a refusal, or if he edit the article, then please put this page up for an AfD and let me know on my talk page. --PBS (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PBS: very good. Thank you for moderating this discussion! Madalibi (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have post my comment on user PBS talk page and I agree with him to move this article to my user page for further development. What I like to point out is :List of wars and disasters by death tolland Massacre are both wiki articles, and I seriously do not see the difference between Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers and the other 2 articles. Lets me say it again, I do agree with User PBS's suggestion. Arilang ^talk 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I also heartily agree with PBS's suggestion. As he said above: "If you put it up for an AfD I will support it. Arilang if you ask me to move this page into your user space for further development before an AfD I will and I will delete these page names in the main article space. But if not then expect this page to be deleted after an AfD. Madalibi please give Arilang 24 hours to agree, or if he posts a refusal, or if he edit the article, then please put this page up for an AfD and let me know on my talk page." I have spent countless hours to explain patiently why this page looks unacceptable by Wikipedia standards and therefore arguably qualifies for deletion. Arilang has had plenty of time to come up with counter-arguments, but he has consistently refused to discuss the issues at hand (WP:NOR and WP: V). Instead, he has made cosmetic changes to the title without modifying the structure of the article in any significant way. What I have seen on this talk page convinces me that Arilang simply does not understand Wikipedia: no original research. His ridiculous suspicion that I am "possible [sic] an admin from zh:wiki in disguise" (made here on PBS's talk page and here on Moonriddengirl's talk page while "requesting urgent action" about me) is another sign that he refuses to address the issues I have raised. I am now putting this article up for AfD, as any Wikipedia user is entitled to do after discussing other options in the talk page, as I obviously have for more than enough time. Madalibi (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Barbarians are barbarians, like it or not

• Sun Yat-sen, regarded by the Chinese all over the world as the founding father of modern China (Chinese:國父), his most famous revolutionary slogan:Expel the Manchus and Tartars, revive Chonghua, and establish a republic government. (驅逐韃虜，恢復中華，建立合眾政府). The translation missed out a vital word:Northern barbarians. If you check http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/ 林語堂当代漢英詞典, a famous Chnese-English online dictionary, 胡虜 [hu2lu3], n., (contempt.) northern barbarians.

If Sun Yat-sen can call Manchus :Northen barbarians nearly 100 years ago, why not today? I am beginning to wonder, what is causing user Madalibi's repeating and tireless attempts to paint a rosy picture for the "Barbaric" Manchus of the 17th century? May be it is yet another mystry? Arilang ^talk 09:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Arilang, you are very funny, and your words speak for themselves. AfD! Madalibi (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Qian Mu:可见蒙元入主和满清入关都是野蛮对文明的摧残，这自然激起文明国 家民众的激烈反抗It is very clear that the Mongol invasion and the Manchu invasion represented the smash and destroy of civilization in the hands of barbarians, naturally the people of civilized countries will stage vigorous resistance. Arilang ^talk 10:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Barbarian Emperors

www.sacu.org is the website of Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding (SACU)

Quote(1):"The fact that they were barbarians who had been kept beyond the empire's north-east border, and were so weak numerically compared with the Han Chinese, must have made the fall of the Ming all the more humiliating to the Hans."

Quote(2): "Strictly speaking, a bannerman was one who served the Qing emperor, but the term is often used synonymously for Manchu.... The bannerman had, on the surface, a slave-master style relationship with his ruler (as opposed to the Confucian son/father model of the Hans)

Survival in the shadows of two giants|by Daniel Sun, student of FC1750.06 at Founders College, York University

• When the Ming Dynasty was defeated by the Manchus, the Korean elites changed their attitude toward China and began to develop respect for their own culture. Although they bowed to the Qing Dynasty, the Koreans viewed the Manchus as barbarians.

Arilang ^talk 13:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your population figures

First off, so what if Sun Yat-sen considered Manchus barbarians? Why is that word included in the title of this article? Should we start making articles by inserting adjectives before every ethnicity, like 'Arrogant French' and 'Militant Germans' and 'Proper English' and 'Efficient Japanese'? Should we start a page called "Evil Barbaric Germans who Murdered Jews in the Holocaust", or just keep it simply as the "Holocaust"? And What does Sun Yat-sen's opinion have to do with this alleged genocide?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And I do say alleged, since you certainly didn't learn anything from the "Population" section of the Ming Dynasty article. At no time was the pre-modern population census entirely accurate, thousands and even hundreds of thousands or even millions of people managed to escape from the registers and authorities (or were simply not reachable), especially in times of chaos, disruption, warfare, epidemics, famine, natural disaster, etc. Even in times of peace, young children, women expected to marry into other households, vagabonds, migrant workers, and itinerant merchants were often not counted by the authorities in the census, and corruption usually assured that local officials underreported their population figures to the central government. The mid 17th century was a time of continual crisis in China; you expect an accurate census to be gathered when there is such a major upheaval and civil war? This is a recurrent pattern in Chinese history since the end of the Han Dynasty, and is nothing unique to the Qing. And if the Manchus were only interested in slaughtering Han Chinese, then how did the population suddenly rebound and outgrow any previous figure by the late 17th century? It's because the political and social climate became more stable and the Qing regime had greater direct control over the country, hence they were able to gather a more accurate census.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My answers to both user Madalibi and PericlesofAthens:

• Ming-Qing history has always been a mine field for historians, due to 2 major reasons
  

(a)Literary Inquisition#Burning of books^ The Cambridge History of China, by Willard J. Peterson, John K. Fairbank, Denis Twitchett Page 291 If you guys agree with Fairbank(PHD students usually do), you shall be aware of 'pitholes' created by Qianlong and his 'text modifiers', because you will never know the historical texts you are reading is the 'real thing' or not.

Well, you guys should be familiar with Fudan University, one of the top uni of China, and I happen to have the privilage of translating a research paper from them: Quote:|http://www.fudan.edu.cn/englishnew/ is one of the top Chinese Unversity, and it has a history web site http://yugong.fudan.edu.cn/Article/Info_View.asp?ArticleID=73 on this web page, research papers on the subjects of Manchu-Muslim-Hui-Chinese historical facts were published. Well, editors need to be able to read Chinese(often classical Chinese, which is a little bit harder than common Chinese). The author's conclusion is:有以下几个特点：(AD 1862-1879)(陕西 Shanxi province)

其一、人口损失数量惊人。短短的17年内，全省人口从1394万口锐减至772余万口，人口损失总数高达622万，大约占战前人口总数的44.6%。

其二、战争期间损失的人口数量远高于灾荒期间损失的人口数量。天灾令人恐怖，人祸更为可怕，17年中，因战争原因造成的人口损失约有520.8万， 在全部损失人口中所占的比例高达83.7%，而灾荒期间损失的人口不过101.2余万，占全部损失人口的比例仅有16.3%。 Let me translate the above text:(Between AD 1862-1879)(Shanxi province) Conclusion
(1) The amount of population loss is staggering. In the short time of 17 years, the population of the whole province went from 13,940,000 to 7,720,000, the total loss was as high as 6,220,000, about 44.6% of the original population before the war.
(2) The loss of population during the war was far higher than those losses during famine and disasters. Natural disasters were terrible, man-made disasters(meaning wars) were even worst, in 17 years, the war-caused population loss went up to 5,208,000, was 83.7% of the total loss of population, and the loss of population during natural disasters were only 1,012,000, a mere 16.3% of the total loss of population. End of translation. Unquoted. The conclusion(2) say it very clearly. 83.7% of 5.2 millions died during the war, and 16.3% of 5.2 millions died during famine and disasters. I hope this research paper is 'scholarly' enough for you guys.

(b) The second reason 'why Ming-Qing history is a mine-field' is due to the Communist China's Marxist-Leninist education doctrine, when education is to serve the purpose of propagating the Proletariat revolution(what a mouthful).

See Yuan Weishi#Modernization and History Text Books and Yan Chongnian#Face-slapping incident

I hope I make myself clear. Arilang ^talk 20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have indeed made yourself clear, Arilang: either you still have no idea what "No original research" means (I find this hard to believe), or you simply don't care. In days of debate, not once have you tried to argue that your article was acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Your only line of defense can be summarized as "but the Manchus are barbaric and they did kill a lot people!"

As a Ph.D. candidate, I "agree with Fairbank" only when I can verify what sources he uses to support his claims. Most people in the field today actually disagree with Fairbank on many things, but one mistake they do not make is to attribute to Fairbank a book that was written more than ten years after Fairbank's death. The citation from p. 291 of the Cambridge History of China volume on the Qing (which was published in 2003) is from Alexander Woodside's article on the Qianlong emperor, not from "Fairbank."

For the record, I think Yan Chongnian's view of the Manchu conquest (some kind of benign "cultural merger") is wrong and dictated by PRC policy, which sees the Manchus as an "ethnic minority" (shaoshu minzu 少數民族) within "the Chinese people" (Zhonghua minzu 中華民族) centuries before these two terms existed, and I think the automatic glorification of all anti-imperialist rebels (including the Boxers) is indeed propagandistic and tendentious, though this line of teaching has nothing to do with the Cultural Revolution. Madalibi (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

@Madalibi, my apology for "citation from p. 291 of the Cambridge History of China volume on the Qing", well, that clearly shows that I am not suitable for a candidate for any PHD scholarship yet, am I? Arilang ^talk 02:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

More translation

“太平军血洗全州城”一说流传甚广，连笔者过去也一度信以为真，但民间也有不同的说法。

欲知太平军究竟是否屠城，这一点从守军的人数就可以看出来。据新编《全州县志》载，当时，城内有兵丁约500人，湖南宝庆协都司武昌显奉调入桂，所 率兵丁400人，两者相加约900人。为固守城防，曹燮培急忙招募民团，并强征妇女上城熬粥，释放囚犯一并助战，总兵力达1000余人，与太平军杀死人员 相当。因此，“屠城”一说是清军丑化太平军的说法，或者说只是针对守城的文武官员及助守人员而言的。所以当地老人认为，那些清兵守城的人被杀，是罪有应 得。事实上，为避免伤及百姓，大战前太平军就放出风声，凡百姓从小南门出逃者，皆不杀，所以，战时城内基本上没有什么老百姓了，以致如今当地老百姓还有将 小南门称为“生门”的。而太平军入城后，虽然烧尽了豪强的住宅和当铺，但并没有烧毁民房，甚至连衙门也未烧。所以，由此看来，太平军“屠城”的真相，也就 大白于天下了。

桂林生活网-桂林日报

发布者：宋依达 Arilang ^talk 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

@ Madalibi, looks like you and me have begun to agree on 2 issues(hopefully more agreed issues to come)

1. Manchus are barbaric
2. Manchus did kill a lot of people. Can I say that we have reached some kind of consensus? Arilang ^talk 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

???? Even if 2000 Wikipedia editors agreed that the Manchus were "barbaric," we still couldn't say it in a wiki, because this label is not an established scholarly position. Madalibi (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

you are saying all the 'name' of wiki articles have to be 'established scholarly position'? Sorry I did not know. But what exactly is 'established scholarly position' in plain English? Arilang ^talk 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not getting the point

@ Arilang; When Madalibi says "scholarly," he means Wikipedia:Reliable sources; last I checked you are a Wikipedia editor, not a reliable source (hence your opinion about the Manchus really doesn't matter; your job is to merely report relevant statements by actual scholars working in the field of history). According to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

In other words, if your assertion that Manchus are barbarians is a consensus reached by most historians, then it would be acceptable to name this article as such. So far, you haven't presented us with a list of historians who call the Qing regime simply a barbarian regime, a chiefdom regime, or a genocidal regime. Keep in mind that reporting here at Wiki about statements made only in reliable sources is not simply a guideline; this is Wikipedia policy. I'm not saying claims of genocide do not exist (maybe they do, maybe they don't); I'm saying you have yet to provide us with any statements by specific scholars who call the Qing Dynasty's acts genocidal. Look dude, of course the individual cases of mass slaughter propagated by Qing forces are nasty and reprehensible, but Wikipedia is not a blog where we express our feelings about it; be professional here, Arilang.-Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and patience, PericlesofAthens, you can see that I am not a unreasonable guy. For one thing, I can present many cases of Chinese scholars calling 'Manchus are barbarians', but they are all in Chinese, do these statements count?(And I can translate these statments into English, and quite good at it, in fact) Arilang ^talk 04:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang: "established scholarly position" was my word: we don't really need it. The Wikipedia rules speak of "verifiability" or "reliability" in citing sources. The page on verifiability opens like this:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

See also this definition of "reliable sources" in the Wikipedia rules:

• "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources."

Claims are considered legitimate when they summarize what each scholarly source says about a particular problem. Find this excellent example in Tibet during the Ming Dynasty, a featured article that discusses a controversial topic (I'm not including the text of the notes):

• The late Turrell V. Wylie, a former professor of the University of Washington, and Li Tieh-tseng argue that the reliability of the heavily censored Mingshi as a credible source on Sino-Tibetan relations is questionable, in the light of modern scholarship.[38] Other historians also assert that these Ming titles were nominal and did not actually confer the authority that the earlier Yuan titles had.[39][40] Van Praag writes that the "numerous economically motivated Tibetan missions to the Ming Court are referred to as 'tributary missions' in the Ming Shih."[41] Van Praag writes that these "tributary missions" were simply prompted by China's need for horses from Tibet, since a viable horse market in Mongol lands was closed due to incessant conflict.[41]

Your two sources on the population of Shaanxi look like reliable scholarly studies, and they would constitute excellent references in a wiki on the history of Shaanxi province. But you have to stick to what your sources say: you cannot use scholarly sources that make points "A" ("the Shaanxi population dropped dramatically in the late 19th century as a result not only of famines and epidemics, but also of wars") and "B" ("before 1911, Sun Yat-sen called the Manchus 'barbarians'" [or "Tartar caitiffs" for da lu 韃虜]) to argue for point "C" ("the Manchu barbarians committed genocide against Shaanxi Muslims"). I'm not arguing that "point C is false": I'm saying that point C is your point, not a point you can find in the scholarly literature you are citing. No matter how reliable your sources ae, if you blend them in this way you are making a (forbidden) synthesis of published material which advances a position:

• "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research."

This is what this entire debate has been about. The "no original research" (WP: NOR) and "verifiability" (WP: V) policies apply to the content of wikis, not just their titles: if no scholarly literature has ever discussed together all the massacres that took place under the Qing, then a wiki that discusses them together is not legitimate. If there was a scholarly controversy about whether the Qing committed multiple genocides, then a wiki presenting this controversy would be legitimate. But I know of no such controversy for the moment. I also know of no scholarship that discusses "Massacres committed by the Qing state" (a neutral wording) as a single topic. Don't get me wrong: all kinds of massacres were committed in the Qing era, but no scholar has discussed them together as one topic. In other words: "the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject." If one day you publish a well-researched book where you discuss these massacres together, I will be happy to include your claims in a relevant wiki. But no such book exists for the moment, and this is why I don't think this page is legitimate. This has nothing to do with being a Manchu apologist or anything like that. I will put up this page for AfD this afternoon. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not take action into your own hand

(1) I have agreed with user PBS to move this page into my user page, so it is not necessary to do whatever you intent to do.
(2) please stop putting words into my mouth as I have dropped the issue of 'genocide' long time ago.
(3) Quote:"established scholarly position" was my word: we don't really need it." Unquote. So you can make up rules whenever you like, with no explaination and no apology offered? What other rules you have made up and are willing to throw them at me and other editors? Arilang ^talk 06:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Arilang's point (1) is referring to a discussion we had in the "Requesting AfD" section above. Madalibi (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD requested

I have nominated this article for deletion, because I do not think it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in this talk page and briefly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page. Madalibi (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)