Talk:First Opium War/Archive 2

Lead sentence
I fixed it and commented to the editor who established the previous version upthread. Still, I'll post my thoughts here for any incoming editors: generally speaking, we should always start the first sentence off with the name we're using as the article's namespace. There is some discussion above as to whether "First Opium War" or "Opium War" should be preferred, but going from one to the other should involve a proper discussion and page move. The previous edit used the much less common "Anglo-Chinese War", which is bland to the point of violating given the overwhelming use of the other names for the conflict in common and scholarly English works and the increasing trend towards labeling the Arrow conflict as the Second Opium War. — Llywelyn II   12:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

[Minor term edit above to account for possible corpus variants created by Ngram's unhelpfully bizarre treatment of hyphenated terms]. — Llywelyn II   12:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion
What was effectively a merge discussion was already initiated in the talk page for my merge source artice (under Talk:Opium Wars).

The initial poster,, on 00:57, 4 June 2011 made the motion: "..(Opium Wars) should be changed into a disambiguation page instead of one article trying to cover two separate wars. See for example, the Anglo-Sikh wars.." and support was indicated by four users (,, , and ). --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment as requested at my talk page. I still think Opium Wars should be a DAB page offering First Opium War and Second Opium War, or no DAB and a hat note at the former ...Opium War may also refer to Second Opium War, also known as the Arrow War... These two conflicts are only loosely connected (IMHO), they have different casi belli for a start. Any current content in the Opium Wars article should be merged accordingly. Best ► Philg88 ◄  star.png 06:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Covering two wars in one article is not appropriate; why not have one article on each war and have them linked? Tibetsnow (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for restarting the discussion, Kiyoweap.


 * I Strongly agree that "covering two wars in one article" is confusing and wasteful. The disambiguation page would still have to deal with the two wars and the two films, though. I'd also favor calling the second article something other than the "Second Opium War." ch (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest Arrow War as this seems to be the most commonly used name with a redirect from Second Opium War. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Phil88's suggestion about Arrow War. ch (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree, both with the content of the suggestion and with the forum. A move for that article should be addressed on that article's talk page. — Llywelyn II   13:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, to summarize it seems that we have a (small) concensus to proceed as follows- Is that a fair summary of what should be done？ Best Regards, ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 22:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Appropriate and non-duplicated content from the existing Opium Wars article to be merged into: First Opium War Arrow War (this is currently redirected to Second Opium War)
 * 2) Insert appropriate hatnotes on both pages
 * 3) Replace Opium Wars with a redirect to First Opium War
 * 4) "See also" on both pages referring to each other
 * I believe too there is a consensus that a Content forking situation exists that justifies merging. So perhaps someone can tag Opium Wars with the Merging template now to notify that merge can be initiated at any time.


 * I am fine with Philg88's general outline above, but I worry that part 1) needs to be fleshed out in a bit more detail. For one thing, I expect that merging these contents smoothly into the target article would require considerable effort, and might be better performed in increments (perhaps section by section). Secondly, I would prefer that the primary author(s) of each section should perform the merge, or at least be notified so they have the right of first refusal whether they want to merge or not. And even if the author himself is not doing the merge, he should probably be credited in the edit summary for history (copyright) preservation purposes. My own analysis of which user should be credited for each portion is at User:Kiyoweap/Opium Wars.


 * If merging is done incrementally, one might need to keep tab on progress. One idea I have is to have the merger append a "✅" at the front or end of each corresponding portion User:Kiyoweap/Opium Wars, though that is a bit bureaucratic. Alternatively, the merger can tag the section done merging with a duplication or some custom hatnote. After all the sections have been tagged to indicate the merger of the whole article is complete, then the article move towards replacement with a direct. --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've extended the notice to all the users identified in my User:Kiyoweap/Opium Wars page inviting them to participate in the merge process or add their input to the merge discussion. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this. You might find it easier to history merge all three articles and then split them up into two but that's just a suggestion. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing seems to have happened lately with this but, no, that was not a fair assessment of the consensus at Talk:Opium Wars or here. The consensus of both pages was to merge the content of Opium Wars to the respective pages and leave it as a redirect.


 * (For what it's worth, Opium War&mdash;all caps and singular&mdash;currently redirects to Opium Wars and should properly redirect here; opium war&mdash;lower case and singular&mdash;currently redirects to Opium Wars and should properly redirect to Opium War (disambiguation); and&mdash;rather than run two separate disambiguation pages&mdash;it would make more sense after the content merge to have Opium Wars redirect to the dab already in place at Opium War (disambiguation). However, all of that is just based on usage and semantics and not anything anyone else has mentioned or established consensus for.)


 * Further, this isn't the proper forum for discussing any changes to Opium Wars or moves of the Second Opium War. Instead, those pages should have the discussion conducted at their respective talk pages here and here. — Llywelyn II   13:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Whose war war was it anyway?
My rationale for removing the East India Company as a belligerent from the article's infobox was as follows:


 * The commanders listed were all commissioned officers of the British Army/Navy.
 * Charles Elliot was Superintendent of Trade in China (at least until he got fired and was succeeded by Pottinger), and took his orders from Lord Palmerston, British Foreign Secretary.
 * A quick search through Julia Lovell's The Opium War: Drugs, Dreams and the Making of China makes no mention of troops or warships of the EIC.
 * The Nemesis, although not a Royal Navy warship, was commanded and crewed by navy personnel. She was built on the orders of the Secret Committee of the EIC but did not appear in the company's list of ships, which is odd but may have been because the powers that be were dubious about the benefits of steam over sail and didn't want their names associated with a failure. According to Peter Ward Fay in The Opium War 1840-1842 Nemesis "was to all appearances a private armed steamer". All the other ships involved in the conflict bore the designation "HMS", unless I missed any.

I don't have an axe to grind either way but I think that it's important we get it right.► Philg88 ◄ star.png 08:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Other EIC armed steamers were the Atlanta, Enterprize, Madagascar, and Queen. The Madras Native Infantry, Madras Sappers and Miners, and Bengal Volunteers were army units under the EIC that fought in the war. Of the 19,000+ forces, 5000 were British troops, nearly 7000 were Indian troops, and the rest were marines and seamen. Spellcast (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Spellcast, now it's settled. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 10:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Silver deficit
All the sources make note that the silver deficit was one of the causes of the war(s), and indeed our articles even make note that the Brits had to pay an extra exchange fee to convert gold to silver. Was there a reason the Chinese preferred silver to gold?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, at the end of the 17th century there was a worldwide shortage of silver caused by declining production in South America due to wars etc. That made silver a much more valuable and scarce commodity so refusing to accept payment in anything else was a good bet against potential losses caused by trading with "barbarians". ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 07:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What sort of potential losses? This might be a very useful addition to the article.  Fascinating stuff.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've answered on your talk page as this isn't a forum for general discussion. Best, ► Philg88 ◄  star.png 07:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Revised Lede
I took the liberty of revising the lede in light of the information in Steven Tsang's book, A Modern History of Hong Kong, cited in the note, which draws on a series of monographs. Here are more extensive notes and quotes from the book:


 * “First Anglo-Chinese War,” which was “in fact, much more than a war over the opium trade, though the economic benefit of the trade for the British and the costs to the Chinese were certainly important considerations for policymakers on both sides.” Basic forces were pushing the two sides together: first the Industrial Revolution, and second the coming together face to face of the premier power in Europe with the Chinese Empire. [p. 3]


 * Key policymakers, such as Viceroy Lin Zexu, believed that there was a shortage of silver due to the opium trade, and were furthermore worried that opium smoking would debilitate the country. [6]


 * the ending of the East India Company monopoly of trade in 1834 brought to a head longstanding questions of formal relations with China. Since the Qing Empire did not view foreign powers as equals, London instructed the new Chiefs of Trade to explore ways of extending trade beyond Canton and establishing diplomatic relations. The two empires held incompatible views toward the conduct of international relations and the role of law and justice. The Chinese system was in fact highly sophisticated, but the British, which operated under quite different principles, viewed Chinese law as primitive and arbitrary. [8]


 * “Britain decided on war, not to impose British manufactures on China, nor to bring the Chinese to salvation by spreading the gospel..., not even to force opium on the Chinese, despite the fact that British opium traders seized on the war to further their trade and profits.” The British government "did not question China’s right to prohibit the imports, it merely objected to the way this was handled.” “What the war was meant to do was to ‘efface an unjust and humiliating act, to recover the value of certain properties plus expenses... and almost by and by, to put England’s relations with the Middle Kingdom on a new and proper footing.’” The Chinese had expected the British to settled matters locally, were caught by surprise at this military response. [11]


 * “The real priorities for the British were ... maximizing trade and seeking compensation for costs incurred; “the right for Britain to export Indian opium to China was not itself a matter of major concern to the British in this period, but the opportunity for the British traders to continue to profit from it was.” Neither in the draft treaty nor in the Treaty of Nanking did the British demand the legalization of the opium trade. “The main British concern was to secure the right to trade in China.” [12] “The difference was between waging an imperialist war for economic benefits and doing so to impose a contraband drug that the imperial power itself deemed immoral.” [13]
 * The Treaty did not even deal with the opium issue, nor was anything done to settle the issue of diplomatic representation. [15]


 * Britain went to war with China to “secure economic benefits from trade and to redress what it saw as an unsatisfactory mode for the conduct of relations. [29]

ch (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ch (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * [the following edits do not refer to the above -- they belong someplace below]
 * Yes, you should not have done that. Inter alia, see, , and . This is not anything like a close-run thing in general or scholarly use; the page as a general rule should start with the article's namespace; you should start a move proposal here if you really feel it's in error; and deliberately choosing an uncommon, off-topic title for the article that minimizes the drug-smuggling source of the conflict is quite obviously a biased move on our part until the rest of our culture's commentary on this war shifts dramatically. — Llywelyn II   12:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * [In fairness, Ngram can get very hinky with hyphens. Their poor choice to use simple hyphens as a subtraction code can produce this nonsensical result, which is the Ngram for counting every mention of "Anglo" and subtracting every mention of "Chinese War" from that total.] — Llywelyn II   12:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The background needs a better lead in.
"By the 16th century China was one of the leading nations of the world. It was prosperous, economically self-sufficient and isolated.  European countries came to China to buy its tea, silks and spices and offered European industrial goods in exchange.  But, the Chinese emperor would have none of the European goods, which he outright banned.  Hence, gold and silver were the only acceptable medium of exchange.", says an awful,lot in not a lot of words."
 * I'm not sure what you're proposing. At the moment the background section steps through the history/background leading up to the war. Are you suggesting the replacement of the entire section with this short paragraph (which would have to be rewritten to avoid copyright violation)?. I'm not sure that would be a good idea. Philg88 ♦talk 08:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing
This sentence appears in the introduction:

The British government objected to the Chinese Empire's insistence on negotiating with all foreign representatives, including Britain's diplomats, on the basis that they were foreign barbarians accepting a position of submission, an assertion which the British never formally accepted but had to work around and overlook.

I'm having a hard time understanding what's going on here. Who does "they" refer to? Is the British government objecting to something on the basis that Chinese are barbarians, or are Chinese refusing to negotiate with the British because the British are barbarians? This sentence should be rewritten

Zdorovo (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "They" refers to Britain's diplomats. This is standard English grammar. Philg88 ♦talk 18:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain/ United Kingdom or what?
I wonder if the opening sentence shouldn't just use the common name, "Great Britain" or perhaps "United Kingdom." It now looks at first glance if the war was "fought between Great Britain and Ireland." The text of the treaty seems to be slightly different in different places in any case:
 * "Victoria, by the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith" (in beautiful handwriting, no less)


 * In the official Gazette it is called "TREATY between HER MAJESTY and the EMPEROR of CHINA." and then the first sentence of the treaty, "HER Majesty the Queen of the Unite d Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the Emperor of China"

Cheers, ch (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Great Britain" is not a correct alternative name for United Kingdom, although it seems to be used for that in the US. It refers only to the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom's predecessor state, Kingdom of Great Britain which became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801 following the Act of Union, 1800. The Opium War tok place 4 decades afer Great Britain became the United Kingdom. The other correct short form, other than "United Kingdom" is "Britain", without the "Great". See United Kingdom. One name that's never been used is Great Britain and Ireland. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I took the "Great Britain and Ireland" from the text of the Treaty of Nanking as that is a relevant contemporary document. Many of the sources of the time shorten in to Great Britain although that is technically incorrect. I don't think it should be "United Kingdom" as the term was not in common usage in the 19th century and isn't used in documents of the time. Bear in mind that the current "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not the same thing, because of the 1922 creation of the Irish Free State. Philg88 ♦talk 18:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ch above says the opening of the treaty refers to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". But in any event how the state was called in a particular treaty (even one relevant to this article) can't be the determinant of how it is called in this article. The United Kingdom of the 1840s is the same state (legally) as the current UK (just with the removal of some of Ireland and adding "Northern" to the name). There's legal and political continuity. It's what we call it now that should be the determinant. Btw, I doubt that "Great Britain " was any more common than "United Kingdom". In fact, "England" even in official documents would be the most common. That would be just confusing here though. I suggest if you don't like United Kingdom, simply "Britain" would be the best compromise as it is widely accepted as the corrected short name for the country. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Britain" is fine by me; it also removes any potential confusion when referring to "British forces" etc., if we call it "United Kingdom" in the lede. Philg88 ♦talk 19:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Britain" seems to the consensus as the most convenient and clear, which is also fine with me. The term "China" is a short-hand for "Great Qing Empire," so we're just being even-handed ch (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes being or attempting to be too correct or literal can be a dangerous thing. There id always in situations when previously existing political entities no longer exist there is the "then" so and so. The government of the British Empire has been for some time Her/His Majesty's Government. Just what constitutes the political entities effected by that government is up to discussion since even as late as a couple days ago, Mary Qeeen of Scots would have had her revenge on another Elizabeth if the vote had gone otherwise. Thank goodness the latest Liz's heir apparent is not named James. So what now-a-days is the good ole Soviet Union ranking as a WP recognized appellation when it comes to treaty parties?66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties
A 1847 book from a British bureaucrat became a reliable source? It just look absurd by any standard. Vinukin (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The author being Robert Montgomery Martin doesn't necessarily make it invalid or unreliable. If you read the source (pp. 80-81) instead of just dismissing it based on the author and year of publication, you'll see the methodology used to get those numbers. Those figures aren't some wild guesses. They are obtained by adding the total number of killed or wounded on each side based on periodical despatches of each battle published in The London Gazette. Having read a lot on the military history of the war and creating almost every battle article of this conflict, the figure of 18,000-20,000 casualties isn't unreasonable when you consider the majority of that seems to refer to the number of wounded, not killed. Interestingly, the report says "the slightest scratch was called a wound" when presenting a table of casualties for both sides. Despite the Chinese often greatly outnumbering the British, it was still a very one sided conflict. Spellcast (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I took a look and it says "It is impossible to give the actual loss in killed and wounded of the Chinese. The oflicial reports frequently advert to the “ great loss," “ dreadful slaughter," etc., of the enemy. The numbers here given are those mentioned in the British statements." Half of that table is composed of adjectives as unknown, immense, very, many, severe, great and so on. Present it as a valid estimation is almost WP:FRINGE. Vinukin (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A more recent secondary source with a less blatant POV problem would certainly be preferred, but there's nothing unbelievable about the numbers given. Similarly lopsided engagements are quite frequent in history. It's not WP:FRINGE unless the current scholarly consensus is in disagreement with the source. The bigger issue is that so many Wikipedia history articles cite old public domain works (like this one), often primary sources, in a cavalier fashion, just because they're easy to find on Google. We need to put more effort into ensuring that what we write here is consistent with what modern historians in the field are saying. It's shocking how poor period sources are at getting basic facts right -- even those written by quite intelligent individuals. We should be very cautious about citing them. I would go as far as to say that for historical topics, we should never use a source from before the year 2000 unless it is indisputably the most authoritative work on the subject, and the information cannot be found in, or disputed by, a more recent work. -- diff (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * High quality sources should obviously be used but works written before 2000 shouldn't simply be disregarded. The Opium War, 1840-1842 (1975) by historian Peter W. Fay and The Chinese Opium Wars (1975) by Jack Beeching are good secondary sources published in the 20th century. Also The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes (1958) by sinologist Arthur Waley is a good source in explaining the conflict through a Chinese point of view. Spellcast (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is indeed impossible to give the exact number of Chinese casualties but that does not mean there aren't reasonable estimates. Terms like "immense" and "severe" casualties does not equate to having no idea how many there were. For example, it states the casualties for the Second Battle of Chuenpee as "immense", but the article shows minimum and maximum estimates reported by the commanders. Those reports, published in the London Gazette, were used as a major source of info in the source's table. One should be careful when dealing with primary sources, so the article clearly states those figures are estimates, not precise numbers. Your argument seems to boil down to 'I can't believe it' and saying it's fringe implies the majority of other sources say something different about the figures, but they do not. After extensive reading on this topic from primary and secondary sources, I've yet to see any source deviate from the cited estimated figure. Spellcast (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW if you're curious about the number of Chinese killed vs wounded, in my copy of the book The Taking of Hong Kong (1999), it states Charles Elliot put the number of Chinese losses at 5,000 when "looking only at the loss of life" (p. 248), i.e. killed. So it doesn't seem to be surprising or unreasonable for the number of wounded to be three or four times that figure. Spellcast (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Small clarification, the 5,000 figure only refers to the period from January to August 1841 when Elliot left China, not the whole war, so the actual number would be higher. Spellcast (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This article appears to be very one sided- British. Can any more sources be found to provide an alternate POV? Is there a link to this in the Chinese version of wiki, which might help? (if there is one) otherwise the page should be flagged as biased. 82.30.38.216 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree this article needs a lot of work, but it's helpful to say exactly what parts you think need improving.


 * And for the record, while I'm on this thread's topic of casualties, if I were to use my own original research, I would put the total Chinese casualties at roughly 12,000, over half the figure of Martin's 18,000-20,000. But of course that wouldn't be allowed. I think part of this discrepancy comes from interpreting the phrases "killed OR wounded" or "killed AND wounded" differently in the official reports. For example, take the phrase "500 killed and wounded". Does this mean 500 TOTAL casualties? Or does it mean 500 killed AND 500 wounded (i.e. 1,000 total casualties)? Or perhaps the truth is somewhere in between. Generally I go with the former unless it's clear from the report or context that those figures are referring to separate things; it seems that Martin's figure generally used the latter. Spellcast (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ships
The report lists the ships as follows:
 * 2 third rates
 * 1 fourth rate
 * 4 fifth rates
 * 4 sixth rates
 * 14 sloops
 * 12 other ships

I'm not familiar with ship categories but based on Template:Rating system of the Royal Navy and Rating system of the Royal Navy, I've categorised the third and fourth rate ships as ships of the line, and the fifth and sixth rate ships as frigates. This is so the list isn't unnecessarily long in the infobox. Feel free to correct it if it's not accurate to categorise it like that. Spellcast (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox flag
File:Flag of the Qing Dynasty (1889-1912).svg and File:Flag of the Qing Dynasty (1862-1889).svg are anachronistic flags. Although there was no official national Chinese flag at the time, I'd be fine with adding a flag icon that was de facto used during the war. So I've added File:Imperial Chinese junk flag.jpg, which the National Maritime Museum said was captured during this war and was used by the Commander-general of Guards Brigade of the Eight Banners. Spellcast (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, in case this becomes an issue later, I think the 1862 flag is fine because variations of that golden triangular flag with the dragon as the base clearly existed during the war. So the 1862 flag and junk flag should both be fine. If perhaps an SVG version of the junk flag is created, it would probably be better to use it. Spellcast (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

rewrite maybe?
Maybe it was just me being stupid but I needed to read it three times to understand what this convoluted sentence was actually saying: "As demand increased in Europe, the profits European traders generated within the Asian trade network, used to purchase Asian goods, were gradually replaced by the direct export of bullion from Europe in exchange for the produce of Asia."

English isn't my first language and I don't feel confident to rewrite it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:9080:19AC:20E4:1DA1:BAC1:B662 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Reworking and Rewriting:Background: European trade with Asia section
This section has many well detailed sources and is a trove of useful information, but it is disorganized atm. I am thinking of taking the time to shift it around or rewrite it entirely using existing sources. Maybe make a visual aid for the European-Chinese trade. Thoughts? --SamHolt6 08:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Opium War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160613173704/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_museum/2003-09/24/content_30174.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_museum/2003-09/24/content_30174.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.olamacauguide.com/lin-zexu-memorial-museum.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109162541/http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/articles/headrick.pdf to http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/articles/headrick.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Opium War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201214224/http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob36.html to http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob36.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on First Opium War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201214224/http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob36.html to http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob36.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714142143/http://www.tibet.cn/info/history/t20050316_18450_1.htm to http://www.tibet.cn/info/history/t20050316_18450_1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714142143/http://www.tibet.cn/info/history/t20050316_18450_1.htm to http://www.tibet.cn/info/history/t20050316_18450_1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

British losses to disease
Some sources (notably Mcpherson and Gough) refer to high causalities suffered by the British at Chusan due to disease. This will need to be elaborated on further.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Opium War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204215424/http://jds.cass.cn/Item/5699.aspx to http://jds.cass.cn/Item/5699.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Name of China
So has changed “Qing China” to “Qing dynasty” in the inbox on every Opium War related article. I’ve restored the original term. We have 3 options for what to call China as a country in the inbox:

1) China - The most common, simple, straightforward name used at the time and in the present day.

2) Qing dynasty - Refers to the ruling family’s era, not a country name. That's why the article was moved from a capital to lower case d. Nowhere near as common as ‘’China’’ even if you use the 19th century spelling “Ta Ching”.

3) Qing China - Good compromise of the two. Best choice IMO. Because in a modern context, there's been different iterations of China (PRC and ROC) since the 175 years after the war, whereas the UK today is still the same country. So China by itself is perhaps too simplistic and lacking nuance, and Qing dynasty isn't even a country name. But Qing China combines the key elements of the two: the most common name (China) and the historical clarity of the era (Qing).

Spellcast (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, Qing China is the proper naming convention. China is too broad, and Qing dynasty is the name of the ruling family. Furthermore, many more meanings can be derived from Qing China than can be from the other two options. For example, "Qing China" could represent "Qing dynasty China" or "Qing-controlled China" and so on.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Opium War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922072522/http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/china/beijing/sights/1000228991 to http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/china/beijing/sights/1000228991

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

why the“口通商” correction be undone?
both Yī kŏu tōngshāng  and "Single port commerce system"  are “一口通商”, why undo to “口通商”？  --27.18.102.129 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Taiping Rebellion link?
"the perceived weakness of the Qing dynasty resulted in social unrest within China, namely the Taiping Rebellion." seems like a highly flawed statement. The Taiping emerged in regions not directly affected by the war for reasons totally unrelated to its causes (the Taiping being motivated by a mixture of religious, racial and economic tensions that, from the case of the 1796 White Lotus Rebellion, were demonstrably already in evidence well before the 1OW broke out.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.124.142.241 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Moved Establishment of treaty ports.
I moved establishment of treaty ports to the results section of the military infobox, it was previously in the Territorial changes section. The ports were not ceded or annexed by Britain, but simply had certain laws applied to them, and as such were not territorial changes, but mere terms of the Treaty of Nanking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaan Habib (talk • contribs) 10:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

1810 edict
The article says: "In 1810, the Daoguang Emperor issued an edict concerning the opium crisis". As Daoguang only became emperor in 1820, either the year is wrong or the name of the emperor schould be Jiaqing. --Proofreader (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nonrevisionist views
This entire article overlooks the most obvious reason for the opium war, economic strategy.

In an effort to find alternative meanings, so-called scholars throughout the ages are cited that come up with theories that are, frankly, difficult to believe. Furthermore, there is not a single mention of lead opium smuggler Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy in the entire article. This line is, frankly, ludicrous: "The East India Company itself neither produced nor shipped opium."

Some of the marginal theories for the reasons behind the war may be suitable for corner cases in academic journals but they make no sense outside the faculty lounge, especially in Wikipedia. The English wanted a war for political reasons? Or the English -- who had extensive diplomacy including through vast parts of Africa -- were insulted by Chinese diplomats?

How about something simpler: opium from India, which the British controlled, cost essentially nothing thanks to the drug dealer, Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy. Opium was addictive and addicts would do almost anything to get more including ignoring local laws, something that remains true to this day. Nothing cost the British less than opium; they merely needed to look the other way, barely, as Jejeebhoy let the opium flow. And the more it flowed, the more it benefitted the East India Company and the British Government. When the Chinese cut off the flow of opium -- in an entirely reasonable attempt to protect the health of their people, the value of their goods, and their national sovereignty -- the Britsh attacked.

Occam's razor is usually right and that remains true especially in this case. Addicting the Chinese to opium because opium was cheap and abundant was a morally reprehensible strategic move by the British, just as it remained a strategic move throughout the ages for various future drug lords. It's a strategy suited for Pablo Escobar and El Chapo, not the supposedly mighty and moral British government. Yet that is exactly the strategy they chose to use. Trying to clean it up, ages after-the-fact, is insulting and does not belong on Wikipedia.

LarsHenderson (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I read your Topic and You're not wrong and other scholars do back your case. But Wikipedia is edited solely by the public and there is no shortage of keen China hawks that try to change the narrative. I noticed the distorting/vandalism too.

As when I read Britiannica, national interest, British history net, etc. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/First-Opium-War/ Their version of all the Opium war was all universally to make it crystal clear that the British were definitely in the wrong and being jerks. But the current Wikipedia version is so different to that.

In britiannica, National interest and history uk version, etc (just a few top sources from a quick google search) they all explicitly state the British had wanted any excuse to wage war and extend their trading rights. That the Opium war was obviously about protecting the lucrative opium trade that the British had a monopoly on. That they even had an argument in parliament with some prominent politicians recognising the war as immoral. But ultimately the opium trade was too profitable for them to give up. That's the real reason for war according to the writers in history UK, national interest, britiannica, etc as well as so many other scholars.

But current Wikipedia version of both opium war, such major narratives are ridiculously missing but instead makes it seem like the entire and main reason for the wars was because China was either rude or refused to be reasonable on opium trade and also spins heavily on how Chinese acted horribly to the British that started second opium wars and even stresses on how the Chinese were smuggling the Opium in but leaves out the fact that the British were the ones mass producing opium despite it was illegal. It is such a biased revisionist view. Not just this article but all the opium war articles on Wikipedia is heavily revised.

What this article really needs on talk is first a consensus that the cause of opium war was because of British greed and the Opium trade profits.

That is the official view and narrative in britiannica encyclopedia as well as so many other scholars. However I am also not interested in a petty edit war with people wanting to keep up ignorance and deny that the British were the unfair bullies in that war.

If however there are many editors who agrees that the britiannica version of opium wars is more accurate and the Wikipedia article should be closer to britiannica version. And want to fix the article. That would be great. But it seems like the current wiki consensus in current wiki article is that both opium wars was mostly because the British were greatly wronged by China when they arrested a former pirate ship or killed one French missionary, etx and that's the whole reason for going to war for them. Whilst leaving out the real reasons for war was because of greed and opium profits.

Even if you add in the correct information to the article that the British were using Pretexts for both Opium wars and the real reason for war, was because they wanted to protect Their Opium trade profits as stated by many top scholars and britiannica. I doubt my edits would survive long. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-opium-wars-the-bloody-conflicts-destroyed-imperial-china-17212

I agree the article needs to be fixed and would like to Clean it up.. maybe later if I have more time in the end of year..in the meantime, if other editors disagree with what Lars and I wrote and think britiannica version of Opium wars is wrong. Make your points here. Casualfoodie (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd contend the arguments about "free trade" fall into economic interest arguments, but also say that if scholars have come up with a diverse range of theories than that should be represented. I don't think consensus has been reached, but feel free to correct me.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gdaymate011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)