Talk:Qianlong Emperor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] Reigns

Dates of reign do not match those of the Qing Dynasty article. olivier 11:46, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I changed the end-of-reign year 1796 => 1795. Minutes after I changed. User:Wik changed both dates to 1735 and 1796. My question to Wik: Why did you change the dates of reign of Qianlong Emperor of China? These dates do not match those of the table of Qing Dynasty. According to my source (The Rise of Modern China by Immanuel C.Y. Hsu), the dates of his reign are 1736 to 1795. olivier 23:29, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Does your source have exact dates? According to my source the reign is 18 Oct 1735 - 9 Feb 1796 ([1]). --Wik 23:30, Sep 25, 2003 (UTC)

Your source is obviously more detailed than mine. Let us leave 1735 - 1796, unless someone disagrees. olivier 00:05, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The dates from Wik's source has been verified to be consistent with the Chinese historical text. kt2 00:54, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Yongzheng reign

The discussion on the Kangxi emperor choosing the Yongzheng emperor in order to seat the Qianlong emperor is not really historically verifiable. In fact, it is widely believed Yongzheng seized power through court intrigues.

Qianlong emperor did reign emperor from 1735 to1796.

Can this article actually be labelled as "copyright violation"???

Because the first version resembles the content on the following webpage: http://www.hceis.com/ChinaBasic/History/Qing%20dynasty%20history.htm

[edit] The given name of the Qianlong emperor

Hi all,

Qianlong's given name in Manchu orthography was Hungli, and his temple name was G'aodzung. His short posthumous name was Yongkiyangga Hūwangdi.

My source is this site, as well as Gertraude Roth-Li: http://myweb.hinet.net/home10/manjusibe/g.htm

This page uses "v" in "hvwangdi", but "ū" is the standard way to transcribe this vowel.

[edit] Conventions

I don't want to tell the Chinese how to handle the names of their Emperors, but could we have some agreement on what name to use for each one mentioned in the article? One understands that Qianlong is also Hongli, and also Prince Bao; but then we get Shengzu (Kangxi) and Shizong (Yongzheng). I think. Not to mention that Hongli pops up without explanation in an article that's headed Qianlong; this part I can fix, because it's just copy editing; but I'm not competent to select the correct and unconfusing name to use for each reference to each emperor in the text. Surely someone is, and could lay down the law here and in other articles. Dandrake 03:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

okay, this is basically what you do for these Emperor articles. The Emperor's personal name, or princely title (used interchangably, but the princely title in more formal occurences) is to be used before the reign begins. This is how Chinese writers usually do it. The Temple name, like Shengzu (Kangxi), is used seldom in writing for Qing Dynasty Emperors, and only occurs in formal written works, or in introduction. Colipon+(T) 04:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Later Years: NPOV?

The Later Years sections seems pretty POV, assigning much blame of the later decline of the Qing to Heshen. Kelvinc 01:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've translated and edited it for a more balanced range of factors for the demise of the Qing dynasty.Mineowyn (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macartney Embassy not NPOV

I believe this comment makes the Chinese seem rather bad: "Insistent demands from Heshen and the Qing Court that the British Trade ambassadors should kneel and kowtow to the empty dragon throne worsened matters." The fact that Chinese required kowtow was part of their custom. Also, the rest of this paragraph makes it seem like the Chinese are offending the British. The British are the ones who came over to the territory of another so I believe there was no offense there and all information pointing to such an offense of Chinese to British should be rewritten in a more neutral stance.

The court expected the English Delegation to present England as a tribute nation to China, which was how it conducted all its foreign relations during the imperial era. This expectation was based on the conceit of China as the 'Middle Kingdom' and as superior to all foreign nations, which it deemed barbaric. This expectation worked with tribes in the central asian steppes, but for obvious reasons the British, the worlds greatest power at this point, took offense. No one cares whether you think it was justified or not, the fact is that when applied to European powers this is the result the tribute system had. 65.247.224.46 06:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that sinocentric views by Qianlongs court was one of the factors that contributed to the conflict and eventual collapse of the deal. But it takes 2 hands to clap, and the breakdown in the deal was also partly due to the British's strong and obstinate stance not to concede to foreign customs. As the proposition wanting/desiring something from the Qing court, their inflexibility, insensitivity and their impatience in requesting a rapid opening up of trade relations offended Eastern sensibilities. It is more of a clash in worldviews rather than it being either sides' fault. I have edited this for a more more neutral tone, however I think it still requires more sources to balance the opinions within this section. Mineowyn (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

well put mineowyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I think the following quote from the article has no logical basis:

"The British trade ambassador at the time, George Macartney, felt humiliated when granted an audience with the Qianlong Emperor only to find just an Imperial Edict placed on the Dragon Throne."

I don't believe that is a fair or balanced comment. When one considers Macartney's awareness of the strength of Great Britain at the time, and views his embassy in the context of his career, it seems very unlikely that feeling 'humiliated' was his reaction. Lord Macartney's Embassy had sailed across the world, bearing generous gifts in honour of the Chinese Emperor, and had approached Qianlong's court in a spirit of equality. If the Emperor didn't show up as the article says, I think it would have been interpreted (through the spirit of equality) as a misunderstanding of the Embassy. Misunderstandings are not uncommon in diplomatic work. Macartney's report that "The Empire of China is an old,crazy, first-rate Man of War etc" suggests that he considered the Emperor's response to be opposed to China's interests, and therefore the result of a misunderstanding - not humiliating, but simply the result of human difference. I would suggest that Macartney was not humiliated at all, whether the Emperor was there or not, and that his own words demonstrate this. I would also suggest that the words 'felt humiliated' be removed from the article. Multiduck (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] R/S between Qianlong and Heshen

Shouldn't Heshen and the Qianlong emperors relationship be elaborated upon a little more? From my understanding, it was sexual in nature. 65.247.224.46 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling names

According to the English convention to spell Chinese names, only if the given names or a person contain more than one character can the pinyin of these characters be merged into one word. (e.g. Hu Jintao) This does not include the titles of emperors or empresses, or the title of reigns. Therefore, the proper title should be "Qian Long" instead of "Qianlong". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.82.148 (talk)

Could you please provide a source for that claim? Reign titles are written as one word both in pinyin and Wade-Giles. See for instance this article. I see no reason what so ever why we should change this convention in Wikipedia. Please stop making these edits!--Niohe 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Names_of_emperors for more information. If you wish to change this convention, please discuss it there - do not make a point by unilaterally changing the spelling of Qing reign names.--Niohe 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you do not take the form "Qian Long", at least you should put a dash between the two syllables like "Qian-long".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 108059 (talk • contribs) .

The dash is used in Wade-Giles, not pinyin. The romanization guidelines followed by Wikipedia reflect the consensus in English language (or for this matter, all) academia. The exact specifications are provided here: [2], which is identical to the specifications provided by 国务院汉语拼音方案审订委员会. It is not up to Wikipedia to create conventions. Hanyu Pinyin does not use dashes and spaces between a single idea or name.--Jiang 00:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unknown consort

could u please tell me where u get the title honoured consort Ling who came from the Daigiya clan. If i'm right Qianlong had only 5 honoured consort and there was no honoured consort Ling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TYK1986 (talk • contribs)

[edit] consort ranks

As followed the ranks of qing emperors consorts: - empress "Huang Hou" - Imperial Noble Consort "Huang Gui Fei" - Noble Consort "Gui Fei" - Consort "Fei" - Imperial Concubine "Pin" - Worthy Lady "Gui Ren" - Female attendant "Chang Zai" - Female attendant of the second rank "Da Ying" - Servant maid "Xiu Niu" —Preceding unsigned comment added by TYK1986 (talk • contribs)

[edit] MacCartney Embassy

That section doesn't contain some of the more recent interpretations of the McCartney Embassy.

Roadrunner 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the section is quite accurate. It is true that some scholars have disputed the fact that the Qianlong Emperor insisted that Lord Macartney kneel in front of him, but the fact remains that Qing foreign trade policies remained the same, as stated in the emperors edict.--Niohe 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysian "further reading"?

The following were posted as appropriate "further reading" ...?

Maryam Salim, " The Laws of Kedah " , Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka, 2005.(Malaysia)
Historical Reality of Nagara Kedah, [3]
Personal interview as primary data, Tuanku Nai Long Kasim, Last descendent of the Ayuthia Siamese Muslims King, Kedah 2005

There would seem to have been some kind of curious mistake here. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The pictures in this article are fantastic; I've added a couple myself, but thanks to everyone else who contributed. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

About the images, I fail to see how the 2 images of farm and metal implements is of any significance in the article unless these implements were not invented till during the reign of Qianlong? I do not see any appropriate section in the article under which the images can be placed. The images are fantastic though. Mineowyn (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced and inaccurate

I think the article has misused the word 'China'. Manchu dynasty was about 300 years, but China was used even in Tang era, until now. For example, we have 'One China, two system', or People's Republic of China, or Republic of China. So 'China' as a name is used extensively, I think to prevent confusion, all the 'China' in this article should be changed into Manchu, Qing, or Ch'ing, to be historically correct.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
He ordered the burning of 3000 books, why no mention at all? Quote:They began compilation in 1773 and completed it in 1782. The editors collected and annotated over 10,000 manuscripts from the imperial collections and other libraries, destroyed some 3,000 that were considered to be anti-Manchu, and selected 3,461 books for inclusion into the Siku quanshu.Unquoted.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Manchu military might came from 'Eight Flag', the article did not mention one single word on 'Eight Flag'.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I am beginning to translating articles from 百度百科 and 互动百科.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Arilang does have a point, but it's hard to say how right we would be going to the opposite extreme.

The conventional Chinese view is that each succeeding dynasty is a dynasty of CHINA. That adds up to several millennia of CHINESE history. The problem is that this particular view introduces distortions into the interpretation of history. To give an example, the lay Chinese view is that the Yuan dynasty was a dynasty of CHINA. That leads many Chinese to declare that the Mongolian khanates were part of Chinese history, not the other way round. (See the article on the Yuan dynasty to see this kind of dispute in action). This results in the popular but rather ridiculous claim that "Chinese" armies (i.e. Mongolian armies) fought all the way to Europe.

Similarly, the very common and rather simplistic Chinese view is that the Qing was quite straightforwardly a dynasty of CHINA, and it is often coupled with the Ming ("Ming-Qing") in describing Chinese culture. For instance, it's often said that the Manchus adopted Chinese culture and governed the dynasty according to Confucian morality. This careless formulation glosses over the fact that for the Mongolians, for instance, the Qing were never "Confucian" rulers; they used Lamaism and appeals to the authority of Genghis Khan to keep the Mongols under control.

Thus the notion of the Qing dynasty as a dynasty of CHINESE HISTORY relegates the rest of the Manchu imperium to obscurity (or a footnote about how the Chinese dominated the fringe peoples). The fact is that these peoples were never regarded as "Chinese" by the Qing empire and were treated quite separately. To talk of Mongolians or Tibetans during the Qing dynasty as "Chinese" (which is implied by the treatment of the Qing as a CHINESE dynasty) is totally at odds with reality.

So should we change every occurrence of "Chinese" to "Manchu"? That is a difficult question. Inasmuchas the Qing regarded itself as a Chinese empire in the image of the Ming and preceding dynasties, there should be no objection to talking about "China" in the article. But to try and subsume the pre-modern multi-ethnic Qing empire under the straightjacket of "Chinese history" really does impose a distortion on the historical viewpoint that needs to be addressed. Editors need to be mindful of this when choosing "Chinese" or "Manchu" in editing the article.

(Later note: One example of this kind of thing can be seen at the article on Qing dynasty, where this sentence: Succeeding the throne at the age of 24, Qianlong personally led the military in campaigns near Xinjiang and Mongolia was rewritten by an editor as this: To consolidate the empire, Kangxi personally led China on a series of military campaigns against Tibet, the Dzungars, and later Russia. This changes the Qing emperor from the leader of Manchu armies (and we have to remember that this included Manchu, Mongol, and Chinese banners) to the leader of "China" in its conquest of Tibet, etc. This is a very subtle change, but it quite alters the historical perspective from one of a Manchu empire to a Chinese dynasty, with all the consequences that this has for modern-day China -- the Tibet-China issue, etc., etc., etc.)

Bathrobe (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) Manchus never consider themselves to be CHINESE. The Manchu ruling clan Aisin Joro, had never changed into Chinese surname, they always used Aisin Joro until the end of their rule.

(2)Manchukuo, is another evidence that the Manchus were planning to have their own kingdom. Manchus have never called themselves Chinese, why should we called them Chinese now?
(3) Dr. Sun Yetsen, founding father of modern China, the Republic of China, now still very much operating in Taiwan. Sun Yetsen's famous slogan during the Xinhai revolution was :'Lets get rid of the Manchu barbarians, and resurrect Chung Hua'. Dr.Sun Yet-sen called them 'barbarians', why should we call them Chinese now?
(4) Empress Dowager famous quote:' 天下乃吾爱新覺羅之天下' translated: This earth under heaven belongs to my family Aisin Joro. Empress Dowager, the famous dragon lady, never regard herself as Chinese, never did call herself Chinese, why should we call her Chinese now?Arilang1234 (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was adviced by my user Teacher to rev. my edit, so I listen to him. But my view points remain the same.Arilang1234 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am putting my contribution here for other editors to read, to arrive at consensus and NPOV. Please help.

The Manchu rulers were using 'literary persecution' to shock and frighten any form of opposition. The accusation of individuals began with the absolute authority's twisted interpretation of the true meaning of the corresponding words, the necessary 'evidence' needed to achieve a successful persecution would come from further twisting of the words. The absolute authority would judge any single character (Han sentence is formed by joining of characters) or any single sentence's neutrality; if the authority had decided these words, or sentence were derogative or cynic towards the rulers, then persecution would begin.

Throughout the entire history of Manchu dynasty, the 'literary persecution' started with individual isolated cases in Xunji and Kanxi times, then evolved into a 'system'.There were 53 cases of literary persecutions during Qianlong's reign. Literary persecution(1)

1753. Qianlong had frequently toured the southern part of river(modern day Sujeou area), each time local folks suffered greatly because they had to fund all his expenses. One local official by the name of Lu Lusen, using a higher ranking minister's name, Sun Jiajin, wrote and send an article to Qianlong, pleading with him to stop the tour for the sake of the local suffering folks. The article was very sincere in the wording, so much so that the whole population get to love it. When Qianlong got to know the real author, Lu Lusen was put to death with the thousand small knife cut, his two sons were beheaded, and more than a thousand people were implicated and thrown into jail.

Literary persecution(2)

1755. One high ranking scholar Hu zhongjou wrote a poem. The final character is 清, Qing, the official name of Manchu dynasty. The character that in front of Qing is 浊, meaning dirty, muddy. Qianlong then order him to be beheaded, because he dared to put 'dirty' in front of Qing, showing disrespect towards the Manchu dynasty. Literary persecution(3)

1778. A deceased Jiang Xu poet by the name of Sujun, had left a piece of poem, written many years ago. Qianlong decided that the poem was derogatory towards the Manchus, he then ordered that Sujun's coffin to be unearthed, his corpse to be mutilated, all his children and grandchildren and the local officials to be beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Arilang1234 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234, thank you for your contributions. Please tell us what are the references for this information? We need the names of the books or websites where you got these ideas. They need footnotes with all the information (title, author, date, etc.) Please put copies of those footnotes here on the talk page. I can help you, but you must tell us the title, author, date, etc.

I already told you that this is probably not NPOV: "absolute authority's twisted interpretation" I think it would be best to change it. If you want to argue that it is NPOV, you would have to show that it's told like that in several sources, and argue that there are no sources that tell it a different way, and that there is no way to write it with a more impartial tone. You would need to know a lot about sources, not only have one source. If you change it to sound more impartial (neutral), then you may be able to have just one source. In other words: when I say something is probably not NPOV, you should probably change it. I suggest deleting this part: "The accusation of individuals began with the absolute authority's twisted interpretation of the true meaning of the corresponding words, the necessary 'evidence' needed to achieve a successful persecution would come from further twisting of the words."

You put the word "system" in quotation marks. Where is it a quote from? You need a reference.

I don't know anything about this topic, so I don't know whether your edits are good or not.

May I edit your suggested text here on the talk page? I would change small things like punctuation and grammar. Have a nice day! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234, you said "I am beginning to translating articles from 百度百科 and 互动百科." Translating articles may be very useful! Thank you! But on English Wikipedia talk pages, please use English. Where are you translating from? Please give the names in English or in pinyin or Wade-Giles so we can pronounce them. Are those encyclopedias? Are they copies of Wikipedia? Are they under GFDL licenses? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

@Coppertwig, let me explain.百度(Baidu, as in www.Baidu.com.cn) is the largest Chinese internet company, its search engine function rivals that of google, may be even bigger.百科(pronounce Baike) means Encyclopedia. So put 2 together, 百度百科(http://baike.baidu.com/), means Encyclopedia of Baibu.com, which has 1.3 million article, much bigger than zh.wikipedia, which has only 300,000 articles.

Likewise, 互动百科 is another Chinese on-line free Encyclopedia http://www.hudong.com/ 互动(pronounce hudong, hence hudong.com) boasting 2.8 millions articles, not quite as big as en.wikipedia..hudong.com is using the same software as any other wikipedia(wikipedia software is an open source), but I am not sure about GFDL, either on hudong.com, or baike.baidu.comArilang1234 (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. I know 百度百科 ("Baidu encyclopaedia"). This is an online encyclopaedia on Baidu, the Chinese equivalent of Google. It's probably not a good idea to transfer or translate information from Baidu to Wikipedia. It's better to have written paper sources. The information that Arirang is putting up is based in fact. The entire Qing encyclopaedic enterprise was one part of a project to mark out its realms not just in the territorial sphere but in the cultural sphere. Pamela Crossley deals with this in A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. The suppression of works not favourable to the Manchus/Qing was one part of this project. The rewriting of biographies and the development of an appropriate lineage for the Manchus was another. Most of this was consciously done. As an alien people, the Manchus were also at great pains to prove that they were not a bunch of barbarians and were entitled to the Mandate of Heaven. There was a celebrated case over the barbarian status of the Manchus, in which Qianlong specifically overturned the response of Yongzheng to literati's slurs on the background of the Qing. (See Treason_by_the_Book).

Bathrobe (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks user Bathrobe. 'Treason by the book' is only one drop of water, compare to the numerous evil deeds the barbaric Manchus did to chinese Han, as well as other ethnic people. Regarding paper source, one book(there are not many other books, which escaped the Manchu's fire) can be used:楊州十日(The Ten Days of Yangjou). The Manchu did burn all the printed copies of this book, which carry the eye witness account of the Manchu's ten days of mass murder of Chinese Han population of Yangjou city, one of the most busy city of that time. Lucky that one single copy of it was brought over to Japan by somebody, and this single copy is able to tell the world the true picture of those barbarians.Arilang1234 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'Queue order' was one rule the Manchus imposed on Han ethnic, in Chinese is called 剃发令(the order to shave the hair). "Hundreds of thousands were killed"? I doubt it very much. It is more like in the millions. 嘉定三屠(the three mass killings at Jiadin) was the direct result of this 'queue order'. Just in Jiadin alone more than 2 or 3 hundred thousands were butchered, what about other cities? 楊州十日(Ten days of mass killings at Yangjou), how many were murdered? The Manchu barbarians murdered millions upon millions of Han(漢族), as well as other ethnic. Why not a single word is mentioned in this article? When Dr.Sun Yetsen started the revolution to overthrow the barbaric Manchu dynasty, the first thing he did was cutting off his pigtail. Doesn't it say something? My view is, this article is not a class B. It has got too many errors, and biasArilang1234 (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the past atrocities of the Manchus tend to be glossed over. However, despite the sense of outrage that these tend to incite in people, I think that the article should be written from a sober point of view. Using words like "evil deeds" and "barbaric Manchus" is highly emotive and POV. The facts should be left to speak for themselves, without the use of emotional language.

Currently the main objection to your point of view is that of the Chinese themselves. Sun Yatsen may have advocated expelling the Manchus, but there was a very quick turnaround when it was realised that the Chinese would like to keep the territories of the Qing for themselves. So the hated Manchus were painted as fully assimilated to Chinese culture and became members of the Zhonghua Minzu. History is then "recalibrated" to make the Manchus seem like good guys who were always members of the family.

I don't think there is any point in stirring up anti-Manchu sentiment at this time. The Manchus are effectively gone. All that is left is their fully-assimilated descendants who have abandoned any pretence at ruling the empire.

You might be interested in this article [4]

Bathrobe (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again user Bathrobe. I agree with you that Manchu had gone forever, but that does not mean we will just sit down and swallow whatever is handed to us on a plate. When I can see that the content is biased, the historical facts are being twisted, no matter how nice is the packaging, but the goods inside is rotten. Very much like the current poison milk scandal. The poison had already enter the food chain, so whatever products, and whatever brands, the poison is there. The only way to prevent being poisoned, is to weed off the poison, bit by bit. There is no alternative. My comparison may be a bit off target, but I hope you can see my point.Arilang1234 (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Another observation. If one look at Song Dynasty, 'China' pop up sparingly, not very much. 'Chinese government' hardly turn up at all, there are Song dynasty government, Song officials, etc. But on any Manchu pages, one will see endless mention of China, China government, Chinese government, Chinese officials, as if there was a real Chinese Dynasty, Chinese Empire. So according to these editors, Song Dynasty is not as much 'Chinese' as Manchu dynasty, we might start to kick Ming, Tang, or Song people out of the Chinese family, and start to adopt Manchu surnames, follow Manchu customs, and call ourselves Manchu Chinese.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have a very anti-Manchu point of view. I think you should step back and consider some of the implications of this point of view.

1. If the Manchus are not Chinese, China has no claim to Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, Taiwan, or Manchuria. China's claims to all these places is based on the borders of the Qing empire. If you want to base Chinese territorial claims on a native Chinese empire, you have to go back to the Ming.

2. Since the Manchus were so dastardly, the Chinese will have to stop hating the Japanese so much and start hating the Manchus. There is definitely an imbalance in the scale of hatred. The rape of Yanzhou was probably just as bad as the rape of Nanking. The reasons that one is played down while the other is played up include a) greater recency of Nanjing b) Japanese are foreigners, Manchus are "one of us", so we don't want to make too much of it.

Neither of these outcomes is terribly palatable to Chinese people.

I would suggest that campaigns to make one or another ethnic group look evil should not be the motivation of editing on Wikipedia. You are right that the Manchus were quite ruthless in their invasion of China, but inspiring Han hatred of the Manchus is to focus too closely on one aspect of history. There are many cases of atrocities in history. While the atrocities should not be denied or played down, it's equally important that the poison shouldn't be allowed to linger on from generation to generation. This only leads to a blood feud mentality and situations like ethnic cleansing (see Yugoslavia). It doesn't lead to any greater appreciation of the facts, merely a greater sense of outrage and the possibility that atrocities will be repeated in revenge.

Incidentally, the death toll of the Manchu invasion is mentioned here: Death_toll#Wars_and_armed_conflicts.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

--snip--campaigns to make one or another ethnic group look evil should not be the motivation of editing on Wikipedia.--snip--

(1)I am not on a crusade of turning Manchus into evil people, nor am I advocating hatred or revenge among anyone. What is done in the past, is done, no one can reverse the history, and no one can twist history to fit the shoes of politic. What Manchus have done to others, be it recorded into the book of history. If Wikipedia refuse to do so, fine, there are other Encyclopedias around, be it Chinese, or English, or other languages. (2) Manchus murdered other Han ethnic in the 16, 17 century, so be it. Han ethnic in the past, also had blood in their hand, there is no need to shy away. During 漢武帝(Han Wu Emperor), how many 匈奴(I do not know the correct English translation) did he killed? Nobody ever counted. Han Wu Emperor drove them all the way towards Siberia, and this tribe was never heard of again. What to do, gone is gone. I think you are interested in Chinese history, may I remind you of a famous eunuch historian 司馬迁? To all the Han Chinese, he is revered as 太史公, the grand old man of HISTORY. Under his pen, the ancient Chinese history was written down as factual as possible. Han Wu Emperor(yes, the same guy) castrated him, try to force him to change his writing, but to no avail. Shouldn't we all learn from 'The grand old man of History'?Arilang1234 (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Beside mass murder, Manchu took to the burning of books, in the hundred of thousands. Now you and me, plus countless other wikipedians on the internet, we are here to advocate both the preservation and spreading of knowledge for the future generation, you and me happen to find out what had the Manchus done to the propagating of knowledge, how many books they have burned, yet we just keep quiet and take no action, and mind you, the 'action' involved is just the clicking of an old keyboard. Now you tell me, is it hypocrite, or not?Arilang1234 (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the noting of facts is fine. But language like "evil deeds", "barbaric Manchus", "twisted", etc. should not be used on Wikipedia.

Bathrobe (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as long as there is some form of consensus, what I really need is the help from more experience wikipedians, like yourselves. I know how to be NPOV, but sometimes just got carried away. And citing. Basically, only two facts I like to enter into wiki, (1)They have burned a lot of books (2)They have murdered a lot of Chinese Han, plus other ethnic. And later on there will be a lot of name-less editors doing a lot of deletion, then I hope some Admin would step in to restore order.Arilang1234 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are there always such funny people having problems about whatever related to China? Do you even notice that on wikipedia, the so-called "Chinese" by your standard, is named Han Chinese? Before ROC, even Han Chinese didn't refer themselves "Chinese" so weren't they Chinese? The Royal record of Qing Dynasty clearly stated that 天下之號曰大清 and for your information it means "We hereby name All Under Heaven Great QIng". Under Heaven was generally used to refer to so-called China by your standard (even for Mongol's Yuan Dynasty).--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Had William the Conqueror called himself Englishman? Why the hell don't you have any problem calling him William I of England? Had James VI of Scotland called himself Englishman? Again you don't have problems calling him James I of England--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting consensus discussion

(1) Manchus had never consider themselves to be CHINESE. The Manchu ruling clan Aisin Joro, had never changed into Chinese surname, they always used Aisin Joro until the end of their rule.

extremely funny like it means anything. Before Opium war, Han people also never considered themselves Chinese because no such thing existed before in the area which is called CHINA by English-speaking people. --Tricia Takanawa (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(2)Manchukuo, is another evidence that the Manchus were planning to have their own kingdom. Manchus have never called themselves Chinese, why should we called them Chinese now?
(3) Dr. Sun Yetsen, founding father of modern China, the Republic of China, now still very much operating in Taiwan. Sun Yetsen's famous slogan during the Xinhai revolution was :'Lets get rid of the Tartar barbarians, and resurrect Chung Hua'. Dr.Sun Yet-sen called them 'barbarians', why should we call them Chinese now?
(4) Empress Dowager famous quote:' 天下乃吾爱新覺羅之天下' translated: 'This earth under heaven belongs to my family Aisin Joro.' Empress Dowager, the famous dragon lady, never regard herself as Chinese, never did call herself Chinese, why should we call her Chinese now?Arilang1234 (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC) But my view points remain the same.Arilang1234 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am putting my contribution here for other editors to read, to arrive at consensus and NPOV.

The Manchu rulers were using 'literary persecution' to shock and frighten any form of opposition. The accusation of individuals began with the authority's own interpretation of the true meaning of the corresponding words, the necessary 'evidence' needed to achieve a successful persecution would come from further singular interpretation of the words. The authority would judge any single character (Han sentence is formed by joining of characters) or any single sentence's neutrality; if the authority had decided these words, or sentence were derogative or cynic towards the rulers, then persecution would begin.

Throughout the entire history of Manchu dynasty, the 'literary persecution' started with individual isolated cases in Xungji and Kangxi times, then evolved into a pattern.There were 53 cases of literary persecutions during Qianlong's reign.
Literary persecution(1)1753. Qianlong had frequently toured the southern part of river(modern day Sujeou area), each time local folks suffered greatly because they had to fund all his expenses. One local official by the name of Lu Lusen, using a higher ranking minister's name, Sun Jiajin, wrote and send an article to Qianlong, pleading with him to stop the tour for the sake of the local suffering folks. The article was very sincere in the wording, so much so that the whole population get to love it. When Qianlong got to know the real author, Lu Lusen was put to death with a thousand small knife cut, his two sons were beheaded, and more than a thousand people were implicated and thrown into jail.

Literary persecution(2)1755. One high ranking scholar Hu zhongjou wrote a poem. The final character is 清(pin yin qing), Qing, the official name of Manchu dynasty. The character that in front of Qing is 浊(pin yin:zhuo), meaning dirty, muddy. Qianlong then order him to be beheaded, because he dared to put 'dirty' in front of Qing, showing disrespect towards the Manchu dynasty.

Literary persecution(3)1778. A deceased Jiang Xu poet by the name of Sujun, had left a piece of poem, written many years ago. Qianlong decided that the poem was derogatory towards the Manchus, he then ordered that Sujun's coffin to be unearthed, his corpse to be mutilated, all his children and grandchildren and the local officials to be beheaded
.

The above information is sourced and translated from Baidu Baike, an online Chinese encyclopedia. I am ready to discuss with other editors to reach a consensus before I put the above information into the main article.Arilang1234 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Arilang1234!! Because of what it says at Baidu Baike#Copyright, I think the text in that encyclopedia is copyrighted, and that we can't include a translation of it in English Wikipedia. We can include short quotes, but not long like your contribution above. Or, you can re-write the information in a new way, not just a translation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

@Coppetwig, if Baidu Baike cannot be used as a source, not a problem, I can use other online encyclopedia as a source. There are still quite a few around. e.g. http://www.wiki.cn/wiki/%E5%98%89%E5%AE%9A%E4%B8%89%E5%B1%A0 Arilang1234 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macartney

In my view, the following quoted text from George Macartney, 1st Earl Macartney is inappropriate in the context of this article about the Qianlong Emperor because the context which might make it make sense is not explained. Although I can't immediately see how or why this specific passage deserves to be restored, it is posted here so that others editors will be able to develop their own opinions ...:

“

If opinions were solely to be formed of China and its inhabitants from the accounts of the first travellers and even of the later missionaries, they would often be inadequate or unjust. For those writers, although they probably did not mean to deal in fiction, yet, when they do tell the truth, they do not always tell the truth, which is a mode of narration that leads to error almost as much as falsehood itself. When Marco Polo, the Venetian, visited China in the thirteenth century, it was about the time of the conquest of China by the Mongol Tartars, with Kublai khan at their head. A little before that period the Chinese had reached their pitch of civilization; but not having improved, or having rather gone back, at least, for these hundred and fifty years past, whilst we have been rising in arts and sciences, they are actually becoming a semibarbarous people in comparison with the present nations of Europe.^[1]

”

The quote which remains in the Macartney section is readily defensible, but I wonder if the section would be better understood if that context were expanded and clarified? I do not object to the inclusion of the historical non-neutral point of view Macartney expresses. Rather, I only question the adequacy of the context in which his critical point of view is presented here?--Tenmei (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, user Tenmei, I see that you are interested in history. First thing first. Macartney Mission was the biggest East-West intercourse ever since Marco Polo. It was the largest contingent of diplomatic mission of the most powerful western modern power, the Great Britain, in 18 century, to meet the Manchu emperor. Macartney went there with the aim of establishing western style of trade with Qing ruler, but he was rebuffed by Qianlong. Qianlong told him off(sort of), by saying 天朝, the Celestial Court was self-sufficient in many ways, so trading is out of the question. well, Macartney was making detail observation and final assessment of this ancient empire, because he knew Great Britain's future diplomatic policy would very much depend on his analysis. We all know what followed:Opium Wars. Macartney must have told the King(or Queen) of England, Manchu Tartars would be no match when facing the then most advance war machine in the world, because he already knew, the Tartar barbarians were still using knife and spears.

This is how I see history. Macartney Mission was the prelude of the Opium Wars, sort of entre before the main course.

Macartney's opinions were really written for King George the third, and also for the future rulers of Great Britain. He was saying look here, Marco Polo and Matteo Ricci may be lying or may be not; mine here is the eye-witness account, you better believe me. In this context, it should be included.Arilang1234 (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234 -- ~~We are in agreement in everything except the last paragraph above.~~ My argument with that last paragraph has nothing to do with an assumption that your analysis is wrong, but rather more to do with how that point might fit in the context of this article.

Yes, I do recognize that your summary represents the conventionally accepted perspective; but my point here was that only one of the excerpts from the Macartney book can stand on its own in the current version of the article. Yes, you are right to believe that this section can stand general improvement -- and indeed, this is the case for related articles like George Macartney, 1st Earl Macartney and kowtow. We are on the same page, not in disagreement over anything other than whether a specific excerpt will best serve the illuminating function this article might need. I'm persuaded that the excerpt which I've moved from the article to this Talk page is not as strong as the one which remains~~; and I wonder if something better might not be found?~~

More broadly, Maccartney's views become a kind of conventional wisdom in the West -- even amongst the general public who might never have heard of this Irish aristocrat or Opium Wars. The ramifications extend, in my view, into the 20th century perceptions of post-Imperial, modern China which were common in the West ... but WP:V requires me to find a published source which succinctly expresses that notion. If I do find a credible citation, it seems likely that whatever context I create may still need further tweaking -- which is really a bit like what we're doing as we work together today to improve the Maccartney section of the Qianlong Emperor article.

Do you begin to see what I'm trying to suggest as we work together towards something better? More bluntly: Do we really need to provide proof of Maccartney's short-sighted, ill-informed arrogance in order to improve the quality of this article? The central focus of the sentences in the removed excerpt is Mccartney himself, not the Emperor nor the Foreign relations of Imperial China.--Tenmei (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I've argued that the excerpt-above was misplaced in this article; never-the-less, I've been pondering a plausibly relevant but oblique point -- see Joseph Needham#Needham's Grand Question. Perhaps a paraphrased summary of the last sentence in our excerpt does suggest a minor point which does deserve to be expanded, if not in Emperor Qianlong, then perhaps as a sentence or two in the Qinlong section of article about the Qing Dynasty? --Tenmei (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei,to quote you:Maccartney's short-sighted, ill-informed arrogance unquote. What is your reason for making this statement? Mr.M was not dumb, King George 3 would not have send him if he was dumb. Before he even reached China, Mac may had already knew what was he going to write on his memoir, don't forget British had East India Company, Clive was already trying to force open Manchu's door but he fail. What about all those English merchants and travelers, some of them would have to be spies collecting intelligence. Mr.Mac, even before he step on board HMS Lion, he already knew a lot about Qing empire, he was using the trip to confirm his view points, at the same time to convince King George 3 when he returned. I have the Qianlong's official letter(English translation) to King George 3, once you put Qianlong's letter alongside Mr.Mac's memoir, you can see the contrast. One side was a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain who knew next to nothing of the West, the other side was a smart and well informed diplomat from the most powerful and modern nation benefited from the Industrial Revolution. To Mr. Mac, Manchu Qianlong was a "paper tiger", not worthy of a fight.Arilang1234 (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I now regret the stricken text above. In this thread's context, I see that my words were distracting and counter-productive. I recognize that it would have been more helpful, more constructive if my contributions had been crafted with a narrower focus. --Tenmei (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei, how about going over to Qing to have a look and give me your opinions? For example, you can put in Japanese's viewpoint on Sino-Japan war, afterall, this is wikipedia, the more view points the better.Arilang1234 (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

@Tenmei,

“

Viewing the Encounter between the Dragon and the Lion: A Case Study on Publications in the Aftermath of Macartney's Visit to China

　　In 1792, King George III (r. 1760-1820), in the hope of developing trade relations, made George Macartney (1737-1806) the first British ambassador to China. This set the stage for the two empires to meet, become aware of each other, and eventually come into conflict. At least fourteen logs, reports, diaries, and biographies from members of this delegation are still extant. This paper tries to offer the most complete introduction so far to these rare original documents.

　　 From the popularity of the relevant books published we get a profound sense of strong European interest in foreign countries during an era of great exploration. Regrettably China's records of the event were locked deeply in the government archive to which the general public had no access or interest. This paper will provide some hints on how the delegation's writings constructed a new and more realistic image of China after the late 18th century. Macartney's visit offers important evidence that may help us understand the pivotal reasons for the collapse of the Ch'ing Empire and the formation of the modern world. This paper is merely the beginning of deeper research into this issue!

”

[5]Arilang1234 (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

To say Manchu is not chinese, is to say hakka, teochew, min nan, hokkien, miu, sichuan groups are not chinese. Manchu china is part of chinese history, just as colonial british india is part of Indian history. Using Manchukuo as an argument is a terrible joke. Manchukuo was created by the japanese and not supported by even the ex manchu nobility (including the father of Manchukuo Emperor). The beauty of chinese civilization is that any foreign groups who conquers it inevitably becomes subsumed by it as evidenced by Manchu and mongol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.144.104 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

for a second i was tempted to call someone here a hanjian, but since that violates the WP:UTP i won't, the ailang guy is insulting my ethenic group by claiming the mancus, therefore me, are not chineseBtzkillerv (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that YOU barbaric Manchu stop pretending that you are ethnically Chinese. Why don't you shut up for once you filthy slimy racist? Seriously, you are nothing but a spineless coward! You are a gutless traitor. In fact you are a Hanjian! 125.95.61.97 (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Qianlong emperor's reign vs. the Qianlong "era name"

I just reverted good-faith edits by an nonymous IP address. The dates in the article were not wrong, but they can be really confusing. Just a few clarifications:

"Qianlong" is an "era name" or "reign period" (nianhao 年號). In the Ming and Qing dynasties, all emperors only had one era name and are therefore known by that era name (Wanli, Kangxi, Guangxu, etc.). Since rulers of previous dynasties usually had several era names, they're known by their posthumous temple name (Emperor Taizong of Tang, Emperor Huizong of Song, etc.).
In the Ming and Qing dynasties, era names always started on the first day of the lunar year that followed the emperor's enthronement. This is why an emperor could start his real reign up to almost 12 months before "his" era name started.
The man known as "the Qianlong emperor" was enthroned on October 18, 1795: 10 days after his father the Yongzheng Emperor died. But his era name only started on February 12, 1736, the first day of the next lunar year. In the Chinese calendar, that day was the first day of the first month of the first year of the Qianlong era (乾隆元年正月初一日 or QL1.1.1). But by then, the emperor had reigned for 4 months already.
Sometime in 1795, the emperor decided to pass his throne to his son. That son (who reigned under the era name Jiaqing) was crowned on the first day of the lunar year: February 8, 1796 (JQ1.1.1). The Qianlong emperor reigned until the day before that. So there was indeed a mistake in the wiki: a one-day mistake about the last day of the emperor's reign. I've corrected it.
Finally, the dates "1736-1795" are not wrong, but they're a shortcut. They mean: "the Qianlong era started in 1736 and lasted until the lunar year that roughly corresponds with 1795."

I hope this clarifies the problem! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[1]