Talk:Qing dynasty

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2023
Please separate this hatnote in the "History" section, to include parameter.

2001:4451:8285:B00:9180:5873:29D0:FDF9 (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Yue 🌙 04:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Zheltuga Republic
Zheltuga Republic was not a successor of the Qing dynasty. It was simply a short-lived proto-state established by some Russian and Chinese gold miners in the Amur river basin, and then crushed by the Qing forces. Source: Likewise, other regimes such as the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom (as established by revolt leaders) were not considered successors of the Qing dynasty either. --Wengier (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected: Overkill?
Am I the only one who is confused why this page is extended-protected? It doesn't seem like a controversial enough topic for the designation. Other Wikipedia pages that are arguably far more controversial; Mao Zedong, Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping; all are only semi-protected. Should this page be changed to semi-protected as well? As the topic reads I think that designating this page as extended-protected seems like a bit much. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The topic of this article is extremely controversial because many modern claims of sovereignty by the PRC and ROC are derived from arguments about the Qing dynasty's territoriality and suzerainty. POV pushing and sock editing were perennial problems before protection was upgraded and extended in 2021. Yue 🌙 05:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Start of dynasty
As the sources given in the article (such as this) have already showed, historians usually date the Qing dynasty started in 1644 (at least for historiography purposes), even though Hong Taiji had proclaimed the dynasty in 1636. For example, in the book "China's Last Empire - the Great Qing" (final volume of the "History of Imperial China" series published by the Harvard University Press), the "Emperors and Dynasties" section clearly lists that the Qing dynasty spans from 1644-1912 in page 292, even though it does list Hong Taiji as an emperor of the Great Qing in page 291. Similarly, historians usually consider the Qin dynasty started in 221 BC, even though the Qin state itself was established much earlier than this. --Wengier (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The first Qin emperor (Qin Shihuang) proclaimed himself as emperor of China after 221 BC, he was already a crown king of Qin state before the complete conquest of six nations, therefore the empire of Qin began in 221 BC pursuant to his proclaimation at that year. The imperial dynasty of Qing was started in Manchuria in 1636, it did not turn to an empire only after the seize of Beijing, they were not even in the same basis. Sheherherhers (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Whether the state itself was an empire or not does not really matter, and it is simply not true that it had to be an empire in order to be called dynasty. For example, the Zhou dynasty is considered a ruling dynasty of China even if it was NEVER an empire. Clearly whether the dynasty was ruled by an emperor or king was not intended to be the deciding factor of the start year, and one can indeed argue that the Qin dynasty started in e.g. 256 BC (when it conquered the Zhou dynasty) or even earlier (such as when the Qin state itself was founded), although historians usually date the Qin dynasty started in 221 BC because it "unified" China at that time. --Wengier (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2024
How come the pre-1644 history of the dynasty is almost gone and neglected from the brief lead??

The fact is that the Qing empire was emerged from a Jurchen Khanate of later Jin established in Manchuria (including modern Northeast China and Outer Manchuria), which had been its own realm and proclaimed as an imperial dynasty much earlier before the capture of Beijing. 1644 was merely the dynasty first entered to the traditional Han Chinese dominions (入主中国 or traditionally 从龙入关), before that it had conquered several territories such as Mongol khanates in eastern Inner Mongolia and Joseon of Korea outside of Manchuria as an independent state. It's totally misinformed to just cut off the period of emergence before 1644 which is significant to remark the dynasty's origin and began it in 1644.

If this theory of Qing started its rule in 1644, how the first emperor of Qing Hong Taiji should be defined when he never entered Beijing and established his rule in China? Does the wikipedia regard the Qing dynasty between 1636 and 1644 as non-existence in history or separate nation?Sheherherhers (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  (talk | contribs) 02:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Several academic soureces support my claims;
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314596977_China_imperial_8_Qing_or_Manchu_dynasty_period_1636-1911
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-inner-asia/qing-and-inner-asia-16361800/F843687E97193ED212B2CF1BDEBA3357
 * https://history-maps.com/story/Qing-dynasty
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvp2n341
 * https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/items/e0b36c1b-bc50-439b-8230-25332e98f38b Sheherherhers (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are also numerous sources that do not agree with your claims, and just to list a few:
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373214602_Structural-demographic_analysis_of_the_Qing_Dynasty_1644-1912_collapse_in_China
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/blue-frontier/emperors-of-the-qing-dynasty-16441912/BC184988B943FED9846BAF0970225A99
 * https://history-maps.com/story/Qing-dynasty/event/Revolt-of-the-Three-Feudatories
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv6hp2q9
 * https://asia-archive.si.edu/learn/for-educators/teaching-china-with-the-smithsonian/explore-by-dynasty/qing-dynasty/
 * https://totallyhistory.com/qing-dynasty-1644-1911/
 * There are certainly much more to these. Also very importantly, the year 1644 is also supported by sources from Qing dynasty itself (see below), not only modern sources. --Wengier (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some trimming was done for the article due to its length, and various other things were also simplified during the process. As for the year, here is a similar story: the Qin (state) conquered the Zhou dynasty in 256 BC; the Zhou dynasty was NEVER an empire, yet it is considered a dynasty of China, and historians usually date the Qin dynasty started in 221 BC. Of course one can argue that the Qin dynasty started in 256 BC (or even earlier, such as when the Qin state itself was founded), but still Wikipedia regards 221 BC as the start of the Qin dynasty according to the majority view. And for the Qing dynasty's start, the year 1644 is the majority view whereas 1636 is the minority view, both of which should be acknowledged. Regardless of the views, the first paragraph already explicitly mentions both years (1636 and 1644); they are both listed in the encyclopedia. However, the first paragraph of the article intends to be summative and brief, and indeed as you can see there is a too long tag for the article (which you seem to try to completely disregard). --Wengier (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course how Qing itself viewed such things are also very important (instead of other one-sided stories or interpretations). In the "Chinese history textbook" (中國歷史教科書) approved by the Qing court and published in 1910, page 4 clearly shows that the Qin dynasty started in 221 BC, and page 5 also clearly shows that the Great Qing dynasty started in 1644 AD, following the Ming dynasty that was established in 1368. These are the official dates from the Qing itself. Also, the late Qing history textbook "中國歷史教科書，原名本朝史講義" (also published in 1910) states in page 1 that "The history of our [Qing] dynasty is part of the history of China, that is, the most recent history in the whole history. China was founded five thousand years ago and has the longest history in the world. And its culture is the best among all the Eastern countries in ancient times. Its territory covers almost 90% of East Asia, and its rise and fall can affect the general trend of the countries in Asia. Therefore, the scope of Chinese history actually accounts for most of the entire history of the East..." (本朝史者，中國史之一部，即全史中之最近世史. 中國之建邦，遠在五千年以前，有世界最長之歷史. 又有其文化為古來東洋諸國之冠. 其疆域奄有東方亞細亞之什九，其興衰隆替足以牽動亞細亞列國之大勢. 故中國史之範圍，實佔東洋史全體之大半). This reflects how Qing itself viewed the events, rather than how one may imagine or interpret the events by themselves. The textbook also considers the year 1644 very important, officially known as “本朝之定鼎” (page 46), considered basically the same way as earlier dynasties did when the Qing replaced the Ming dynasty, whereas the pre-1644 history is considered the history background of the dynasty. --Wengier (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

My suggested revision as follows: The Qing dynasty, officially the Great Qing, was a Manchu-led conquest dynasty of China and the last imperial dynasty in Chinese history. The dynasty was emerged from the Jurchen-led Later Jin dynasty established in Manchuria (present-day Northeast China and Outer Manchuria). It subsequently proclaimed as an empire in Shenyang in 1636, seized control of Beijing in 1644, which is considered the start of the dynasty's rule in China. The dynasty lasted until 1912, when it was overthrown in the Xinhai Revolution...
 * Efforts had been made to reduce the length of the article (especially the lead), considering that the article was already very long (with a "too long" tag clearly shown). Also, regardless the start year (the minority view or the majority view, 1636 or 1644), I do not think there is need for the first paragraph (which intends to be brief) to mention the pre-events (before BOTH 1636 and 1644). Instead, the Later Jin dynasty is mentioned and explained in the second paragraph, and there is no repetition needed for the first paragraph. Otherwise, we can repeat various other events in the first paragraph too, which are however not intended for the first paragraph (especially considering that editors were trying hard to reduce the article length). The point "conquest dynasty" is valid, but such dynasties do differ from each another and there is a lot more to be said as well, including how Qing considered itself (which is certainly quite important), although such things may not really fit in an article which is already very long, especially in the very beginning. --Wengier (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This request has been contested by atleast 1 editor which makes it ineligible for the edit request process. Please continue to try and generate consensus. Participants are advised to review Dispute resolution if they have difficulties in doing so. Please create a new request in a seperate section if an edit is desired, which is uncontested, that needs an extended-confirmed editor to implement. — Sirdog (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2024
Why is there very little information in this article about the structure of the government of the late Qing dynasty? There should be more information about: If I am asked I can write some drafts with sources for incorporation into the article. I simply would like to have more information about these topics included in the page, as the government section seems to only describe the Qing government from the 17th to 19th centuries. 142.117.70.0 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * the early attempts to initiate constitutional modernisation of the government
 * the Advisory Council and the 1909 election
 * the 1909 regional elections
 * the various governmental cabinets (Cabinet of Prince Qing, Cabinet of Yuan Shikai, Government of Zhang Xun during the brief restoration)
 * the modernisation of the Great Qing Legal Code
 * the Qing constitutions such as the 1908 draft and the 1911 constitution
 * the creation of new military academies such as the Baoding Military Academy
 * New Army, Beiyang Army, Imperial Chinese Navy, Beiyang Fleet
 * the establishment of modern universities such as Peking University
 * potentially incorporate information on the 1917 restoration of the Qing in the article
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: If you could, please provide those drafts and present them as separate edit requests with reliable sourcing. Please limit how many you make, however, as if you make 10 requests for additions to the article it is likely none of them will be actioned as volunteers will feel overwhelmed and opt to not handle any of them. — Sirdog (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2024
The 10 Great Campaigns actually started in 1747 with the first campaign of Jinchuan and the Dzungar-Qing wars ended in 1758. 116.50.207.23 (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Sirdog (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Please! Edit this template of the informations of the country in the page article "Dynasty Qing"
KielYam1212 (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems the substantive change is adding a second map. This is unnecessary for an infobox. Remsense  诉  16:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Religion
How is it wrong to mention buddhism as a "Dynastic religion" or the religion "Followed by the emperors" when we see several Qing emperors following the religion? Also i see nowhere in the cited sources which specifically states confucianism is the official religion alone of Qing empire. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's something you're elevating to an unduly explicit position due to a particular fixation you seem to have. I think it's silly to list Confucianism as an "official religion" as well, but it at least seems sensical to mark it out from the other members of the list in that way. What you're proposing is a much more artificial distinction between Buddhism, Taoism, and other threads of spiritual and ritual practice throughout Chinese history. It does not seem your interest is rooted in actual curiosity in Chinese history, otherwise you wouldn't be so insistent in treating it like it's a contest. Remsense  诉  12:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean here. The cited sources nowhere claims confucianism as an official religion, Yet it is in the article, Why can't we mention buddhism as a dynastic religion or a religion followed by the emperors when so many Qing Emperors followed it?

Moreover if Confucianism wasn't the official religion, can I fix the infobox then? It will do nothing except for confusing the readers.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why should we put it on a pedestal in this particular way? This is a novel emphasis on your part, which I'm sorry, is clearly related to your active emphases throughout your entire edit history regardless of context. It's clearly tendentious.
 * Confucianism is basically a state ritual ideology, I agree with its label as "official" more than its categorization as a "religion". I don't have the energy to interrogate the best way to treat it in this infobox, but please don't touch it if you don't know what you're talking about, which you don't. Remsense  诉  13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My only request is, If Confucianism was not the official religion then please kindly remove it, And if it was then please provide the sources for it. Because the cited sources says it nowhere. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting point, but the concept of "official religion" is anachronistic, though it is still useful in discussions for general readers.ch (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to mention that the concept of "official religion" is not even anachronistic, at least in the late Qing period. For example, the "Elementary Chinese Geography Textbook" (蒙學中國地理教科書) published in 1905 stated the following in the beginning of Chapter 10 ("Religions"): "The state religion of our country is Confucianism, which emphasizes philosophy and is not superstitious. Therefore, the upper class people all worship Confucius and Mencius. In addition, there are two religions: Buddhism and Taoism. Those who follow Buddhism are monks, and those who follow Taoism are Taoist priests. Although there are many of them, there are still many uneducated disciples, and they are not as prosperous as Confucianism" (“我國之國教曰儒教，講求哲理，無所為迷信，故上流之人，皆崇奉孔孟. 此外有佛道二教，奉佛教者為和尚，奉道教者為道士. 其數雖繁，然多無學之徒，不及儒教之盛”). Clearly, the concept of "official religion" (or state religion) was already established at that time, and Confucianism was considered so in the period, rather than Buddhism or Taoism. --Wengier (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is important, yes. It makes sense that it's not listed as a religion on Han dynasty or Tang dynasty, there were in-depth conversations about that, but by the Qing these frameworks had arrived. Remsense  诉  17:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You make a strong point when you say "at least in the late Qing period," for this is the period when reformers wanted to turn "China" into a nation-state on the European and Japanese model and import the concept of “religion.” You quite reasonably translate 教 as "religion," but it is often better as "teaching." "Religion" is new in this period, but would be anachronistic for earlier times (though perfectly acceptable in general usage, such as the Info Box).
 * In any case, the Info Box says "Religion," not "official religion,. "Official" is another can of worms. The emperor was the only "official" who counted. So it's pushing it to say that the concept of "official religion" was "established" on the basis of one textbook.
 * Among the recent scholarship on this is Vincent Goossaert, and David A. Palmer, The Religious Question in Modern China (Chicago U Press, 2011). He has an article available online: Vincent Goossaert, " State and Religion in Modern China: Religious Policy and Scholarly Paradigms" (Taibei, 2006. Academia Sinica https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00106187/document ch ch (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course I needed to translate the statements as faithfully as I can, and the term 儒教 does mean Confucianism as a religion, especially considering that it is explicitly listed under the section 宗教 (religion) in the textbook. It is true that Confucianism is often thought as a teaching, and often written as 儒學 instead of 儒教 in such cases, especially in modern Chinese usage, but I need to faithfully translate the meaning as expressed in the cited textbook, even if I personally may not think Confucianism as a typical religion. And of course 蒙學中國地理教科書 was not (at all) the only textbook that listed 儒教 as 宗教, and textbooks such as 中國地理教科書 published in 1910 also listed it under 宗教 (religion), while describing it as "孔子人倫之教，不具宗教之迷信，上流社會行之". These are simply examples, and there is no need to list all of them. I am not in a strong opinion regarding the infobox (so I have not changed the content anyway), and *instead* my point is, the concept of "official religion" is not anachronistic as you probably have thought earlier, as least in the late Qing period. Whatever the intentions of the reformers were at that time, the concept of "state religion" or "official religion" already appeared (as an *established terminology*) in that period (as clearly shown by publications during the period), so I need to point it out that you cannot really claim that such concepts were anachronistic in the whole Qing period (as your earlier comment seemed to imply). This was the main point in my previous comment. Whether Confucianism is truly a religion or not is another matter (even if I personally think that Confucianism is more a teaching than a religion). Reliable sources may also consider the nature of Confucianism differently, and may also have different opinions about when Confucianism became the official religion of China. For example, the recent book "Religious Faith of the Chinese" (published in December 2017) states in Page 25 that "From Western Han dynasty to the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 that overthrew the Qing dynasty, the Confucian religion continued for more than 2000 years as the official religion of China", even though I am sure there are different views about this. But in any case, the concept of "state religion" or "official religion" cannot be said to be anachronistic during the entire period. --Wengier (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course I needed to translate the statements as faithfully as I can, and the term 儒教 does mean Confucianism as a religion, especially considering that it is explicitly listed under the section 宗教 (religion) in the textbook. It is true that Confucianism is often thought as a teaching, and often written as 儒學 instead of 儒教 in such cases, especially in modern Chinese usage, but I need to faithfully translate the meaning as expressed in the cited textbook, even if I personally may not think Confucianism as a typical religion. And of course 蒙學中國地理教科書 was not (at all) the only textbook that listed 儒教 as 宗教, and textbooks such as 中國地理教科書 published in 1910 also listed it under 宗教 (religion), while describing it as "孔子人倫之教，不具宗教之迷信，上流社會行之". These are simply examples, and there is no need to list all of them. I am not in a strong opinion regarding the infobox (so I have not changed the content anyway), and *instead* my point is, the concept of "official religion" is not anachronistic as you probably have thought earlier, as least in the late Qing period. Whatever the intentions of the reformers were at that time, the concept of "state religion" or "official religion" already appeared (as an *established terminology*) in that period (as clearly shown by publications during the period), so I need to point it out that you cannot really claim that such concepts were anachronistic in the whole Qing period (as your earlier comment seemed to imply). This was the main point in my previous comment. Whether Confucianism is truly a religion or not is another matter (even if I personally think that Confucianism is more a teaching than a religion). Reliable sources may also consider the nature of Confucianism differently, and may also have different opinions about when Confucianism became the official religion of China. For example, the recent book "Religious Faith of the Chinese" (published in December 2017) states in Page 25 that "From Western Han dynasty to the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 that overthrew the Qing dynasty, the Confucian religion continued for more than 2000 years as the official religion of China", even though I am sure there are different views about this. But in any case, the concept of "state religion" or "official religion" cannot be said to be anachronistic during the entire period. --Wengier (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Another point is that information in the Infobox does not need to be referenced if there are references to it in the body of the article: MOS:INFOBOXREF. The section "Religion" has such references.ch (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:SNOW, and having the banner stick around on all these pages would be unduly disruptive. Please take some time to read our naming conventions policy. (closed by non-admin page mover) Remsense  诉  16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

– Can we have the historical Chinese dynasties and polities to include the suffix "China" just as with Iran like "Qajar Iran". Many sources like the Straits Times uses the name for example. Support or Oppose if this or does not conform the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Silence of Lambs (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Qing dynasty → Qing China
 * Xia dynasty → Xia China
 * Shang dynasty → Shang China
 * Zhou dynasty → Zhou China
 * Qin dynasty → Qin China
 * Han dynasty → Han China
 * Jin dynasty (266–420) → Jin China
 * Sui dynasty → Sui China
 * Tang dynasty → Tang China
 * Ming dynasty → Ming China

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Ngrams: . SilverLocust 💬 16:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)