text:
Talk:Qianlong Emperor

Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014
(1 image added) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathypem (talk • contribs) 15:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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 . --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)

 * The comments below under the heading "The Qianlong emperor's reign vs. the Qianlong "era name"" should clarify any further confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.242.30 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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.

(Smartboy230 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC))Hongli is the chinese "pinyin" way of spelling Qianlong Emperor's name. It's using pinyin but without the accents on the top. Hungli was probably some kind of Wade-Giles variation.

Several sources stating his name as Hongli, Gaozong, or both:

http://www.gaminggeeks.org/Resources/KateMonk/Orient/China/Rulers.htm

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/110832/Qianlong

http://www.threeemperors.org.uk/index.php?pid=19

http://www.learn.columbia.edu/nanxuntu/html/emperors/

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)

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)

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)

Hi. Macartney did not "attend" the Emperor's 80th birthday, though he was instructed by King George III to congratulate him on having made it to 80, two years earlier. He did however attend the Emperor's 82nd birthday during his second face to face meeting on 17th September 1793. So have simply corrected "80th" to "82nd". [User:Ajwnet]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajwnet (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

There is no clear evidence that the relationship was sexual, or that it was not. Jonathan D. Spence - The Search for Modern China, p. 115 --96.21.102.11 (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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 Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29 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:, 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)

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)

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)

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)

Malaysian "further reading"?
The following were posted as appropriate "further reading" ...? There would seem to have been some kind of curious mistake here. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maryam Salim, " The Laws of Kedah ", Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka, 2005.(Malaysia)
 * Historical Reality of Nagara Kedah,
 * Personal interview as primary data, Tuanku Nai Long Kasim, Last descendent of the Ayuthia Siamese Muslims King, Kedah 2005

Images
I've added a Qianlong robe as an example of the cultural production of the court. Erodley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

 * 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.

 * 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)

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, 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)

STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH YOU -

1. Manchus never claimed to be Han because they thought the Han people were inferior based on the Han history of Song, Yuen, and Ming dynasties. As you said, Han were also not Chinese either because the word "China" came from Chin, who were not Han. Nonetheless, the Qing emperors were "Chinese" emperors because they were the rulers of China proper. Your argument is no different than someone who claims the British is not English and the Anglos and Sexons and Vikings are not British. Ridiculous!

2. This article is about Qian Long, who was one of the best emperors China had, far superior than most Han emperors except a very few. He had nothing to do with the Dragon Lady you complained about. And why shouldn't Lady Yehe Nara claim that China belonged to Aisin Joro? They earned it by the right of conquest. As Brennus the Gaul told the Romans, "Woe is the vanquished!"

3. All centralized governments have laws against "sedition", even in America. Ming was one of the worst offenders in Chinese history. Manchus, not being Han, and as a minority ruling over a majority, naturally worried about sedition a great deal. If you think Qian Long's Siku Quanshu (The Complete Collections of Four Catagories) is censorship control, what about Ming Dynasty's Yung Le Da Dian (The Great Yung Le Encyclopedia) which endorsed only the strictest and most conservative Confucism? How about Confucius "editing" the classics to fit his own theories and deleting what he disapproved? And when Han Dynasty selected Confucism to be the official philosophy, they brutally suppressed all other schools of thought. And Confucism is the reason why Chinese history is so full of corruption and why the Han emperors were so sissified.

4. Manchus were the Jurchens and cousins of the Mongols. "Man" means "brave" in their own language. They named they dynasty Qing, meaning "clean", to contrast it with Ming's rampant corruption. That's why they were always referred to as Man Qing. They were never referred to as Chu Qing as you claimed. The poem you quoted was written by a vanquished Han and a sour grape. When the last ruler of Granada left the citadel, he wept. His mother told him, "If you cannot defend your possession like a man, it is only right that you should weep like a woman when you lose it."

5. Self aggrandizement based on delusion is never helpful. For China to be truly great again, as it was during Han Wu, Tang Khan, Kang Xi, and Qian Long again, all Chinese must wake up to the realiity. Han people especially. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

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. 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! 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)

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

Regarding the debate on whether Manchu people are considered Chinese
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. .Arilang1234 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this statement is misguided. The modern term Chinese nation (Zhonghua Minzu) is now used to describe a notion of a Chinese nationality that transcends ethnic divisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Demography

Rather, the Manchu never considered themselves Han, which is a separate ethnic group albeit the largest and most representative Chinese ethnic group. A Chinese would be someone who has citizenship in the country of China. Han, Wu, Manchu are all subsets of Chinese but neither ethnic group makes up all of the Chinese population. The land mass of China in its essence today (and even in Qianlong's time) is a united country composed of different smaller ethnic "nations" that have now been unified. Therefore, Qianlong can be considered a Chinese in nationality with his ruling of the "united nation" of China but Manchu in ethnicity. Just like Americans are referred to as such based on their belonging to the country America not necessarily their ethnicity (African, Caucasian, Latin etc. etc.) or their place of origin (immigrants or not).

Of course, some Chinese academics beg to differ on the definition of Chinese as a nationality rather than ethnicity (i.e. These Chinese academics believe Han = Chinese, which in my opinion is not true). Westerners too, in a bid to simplify matters define Chinese diaspora collectively as Chinese in ethnicity when it is so much more complicated than that.

But I disagree, Chinese is a nationality not a racial ethnic group. Mineowyn (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

True, Chinese is a nationality, not a racial ethnic group. Manchus were not Chinese, but neither were the Han people. The word China came from "Chin", who were considered outsiders by the Han people. And throughout history, all sorts of ethnic groups from every directions came into China and took over a large part of China at regular intervals. That's why Chinese stories are full of people with black face, red beard, curly hair, blue eyes, etc. Besides, the Manchus thought the Han people were inferior 2nd class based on China's sad history of Sung, Yuen, and Ming. That's why the Manchus imposed a ban on inter-racial marriage. Mongols thought the Han Chinese were 3rd class citizens after the Khitans and Central Asians who were 2nd class citizens. To say only the Han people are Chinese is like saying only the Pilgrims are Americans.--VimalaNowlis (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Why are there all this kind of issues w.r.t minority dynasties in China? Why hasn't anyone questioned that William I of England was king of England since he was absolutely French (Norwegian) or James I of England was king of England since he was kinda James VI of Scotland? Did William, the Conqueror even speak English? At least Qianlong was pretty good at Chinese.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

File:The Qianlong Emperor in Ceremonial Armour on Horseback.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Qianlong Emperor in Ceremonial Armour on Horseback.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 11, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lede: Fourth Ruler of China Proper
In the lede, I changed "China" to "China proper" to avoid opening a can of worms (or stones), since the lede is not the place to debate whether the Qing Empire was or was not "China." I also removed note #1 "The Qing Emperors referred their state as China in international treaties." First, the note was to only one treaty by one emperor, not "treaties" by "emperors," and second, the | text of the treaty in Chinese shows something which is quite interesting but not relevant to this article. That is, where the English (surely written by the British) says "China," the Chinese says 大清 (Da Qing), or "Great Qing." The text does go on to use 中國人 Zhongguoren, that is, "Zhongguo people" or "Chinese," and later speaks of British who live in 中國. This backs up the idea that 大清 was a larger concept of an empire in which 中國 was only a part. But this level of nicety is not needed for the lede here, so I hope that "China proper" will do. ch (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Poem by qianlong

http://books.google.com/books?id=pFYUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=Miao+++colloquial&source=bl&ots=6Nlm9HTAAm&sig=RgSayWs-y4uze8cyEcFlBJF5OoU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WqB7UJDuN4bu0gHq84C4Dw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Miao%20%20%20colloquial&f=false

Ghressho (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wade-Giles?
What is the standard way to give the Wade-Giles romanization for the emperors? The Yongzheng Emperor article and Kangxi Emperor articles, for instance, give a confusing but consistent form which doesn't give prominence to the romanization which is used in much of the earlier western writings. Another problem is that the ' is most often omitted in popular writing, but "K'ang" is correct Wade-Giles. Should we include both "Kang Hsi" and "K'ang Hsi"? ch (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

 * No, no... The word "Emperor" in "Ch'ien-lung Emperor" is not wade-giles. "Ch'ien-lung ti" is wade-giles and "Ch'ien-lung Emperor" is not. It does not concern me what exact way it is romanized (apostroph or not...), but the forementioned situation is mix-and-match and it's throughout the Qing rulers articles. If the older English spelling is written, then don't mark it as wade-giles...and if the romanization is given, then go ahead and mark it as wade-giles. --Cold Season (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the elucidation. Now I see your point.ch (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 * "Kang Hsi" is wrong Wade-Giles, so it should not be presented as Wade-Giles. Make a redirect for it, but I would not recommend putting it in the lead unless it's a really, really popular rendering (popular enough to be the article title). Otherwise, it will mislead people who convert it to pinyin in their heads (to pronounce it, or look up characters) as "Gang Xi". In general, there is an unfortunate tendency for some Wikipedia articles (and some books, from which they might be sourced) to represent all older romanizations (including Postal Map and non-systematic) as "Wade-Giles". Shrigley (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Can we just ditch Wade-Giles entirely ? It's such a disastrously awful piece of work, leading to more mispronunciations worldwide than any other academic abortion I can think of. Let's abolish that mess from the face of the earth ! 203.160.86.132 (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources on 欽定遼金元三史國語解
Title	Liao Jin Yuan san shi yu jie Volumes 5-10 of Qin ding Liao shi yu jie: 10 juan ; Qin ding Jin shi yu jie : 12 juan ; Qin ding Yuan shi yu jie : 24 juan Publisher	Jiangsu shu ju Original from	Harvard University Digitized	Aug 13, 2008

http://books.google.com/books?id=ICorAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Qinding+Liao+Jin+Yuan+sanshi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HuYPVJ3sCta1sQSylYKgDg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://ourartnet.com/Siku_02/0296/0296_054_069/0296_054_069.htm

http://art.tze.cn/Refbook/entry.aspx?bi=m.20080915-m300-w011-009&ei=5EE15FC2740914DFDE9E887E7E6A7CD8669A732173A3607F52921588B6965C7AC7F89ED2CA1DFF6E&p=4&cult=TW&Token=FEB7263CC5FF46263AD7E257F70233E5

http://art.tze.cn/Refbook/entry.aspx?bi=m.20080915-m300-w011-009&ei=5EE15FC2740914DFDE9E887E7E6A7CD8669A732173A3607F52921588B6965C7A2057806D4259C2E6&p=4&cult=TW

欽定遼金元三史國語解, Volume 8

http://books.google.com/books/about/欽定遼金元三史國語解.html?id=N5SQnQEACAAJ

欽定遼金元三史國語解, Volume 95

http://books.google.com/books/about/欽定遼金元三史國語解.html?id=FfvRAAAAMAAJ http://books.google.com/books?id=FfvRAAAAMAAJ&q=欽定遼金元三史國語解&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvI1VKqfOOTiywPByYKIAQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA

欽定遼金元三史國語解

http://books.google.com/books?id=RwHgkQEACAAJ&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvI1VKqfOOTiywPByYKIAQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg

(欽定)遼金元三史國語解

http://books.google.com/books?id=a-N-kQEACAAJ&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvI1VKqfOOTiywPByYKIAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw

欽定遼金元三史國語解四十六卷

http://books.google.com/books?id=alpWNQEACAAJ&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvI1VKqfOOTiywPByYKIAQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA

欽定遼金元三史國語解四十六卷

http://books.google.com/books?id=4rHEnQEACAAJ&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvI1VKqfOOTiywPByYKIAQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ

欽定遼金元三史國語解索引

http://books.google.com/books?id=h3pCAAAAYAAJ&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvI1VKqfOOTiywPByYKIAQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ

This is specifically on the Liao dynasty (Khitan) language

http://www.lsjyshi.cn/pdf/gyj.pdf

http://www.docin.com/p-728020176.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZSNMGosP0cAC&pg=PA47&dq=Qinding+Liao+Jin+Yuan+sanshi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HuYPVJ3sCta1sQSylYKgDg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Qinding%20Liao%20Jin%20Yuan%20sanshi&f=false

皇朝經世文編: 120卷, Volumes 13-18 By 賀長齡

http://books.google.com/books?id=6HMsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA12&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvI1VKqfOOTiywPByYKIAQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=欽定遼金元三史國語解&f=false

金史紀事本末 By 李有棠

http://books.google.com/books?id=SisrAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA11-PA42&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2Fo2VPjSGtD6yATU54GoAg&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=欽定遼金元三史國語解&f=false

清史探微 By 鄭天挺

http://books.google.com/books?id=aIJi5Yhd-5oC&pg=PA17&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2Fo2VPjSGtD6yATU54GoAg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=欽定遼金元三史國語解&f=false

欽定四庫全書提要, Volume 8

http://books.google.com/books?id=czYTZbPgP-EC&q=欽定遼金元三史國語解&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2Fo2VPjSGtD6yATU54GoAg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ

皇朝文獻通考, Volume 13

http://books.google.com/books?id=vjc14AJ5eAkC&q=欽定遼金元三史國語解&dq=欽定遼金元三史國語解&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6Vw2VM66I8qNyAS364GgCg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwATgK

http://books.google.com/books?id=byHOcQAACAAJ&dq=Qinding+Liao+Jin+Yuan+sanshi+guoyu&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GeYPVNqXMLiJsQT9uoHIBA&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA

http://books.google.com/books?id=PF5kMwEACAAJ&dq=Qinding+Liao+Jin+Yuan+sanshi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HuYPVJ3sCta1sQSylYKgDg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA

http://books.google.com/books?id=C7cRAQAAMAAJ&q=Qinding+Liao+Jin+Yuan+sanshi&dq=Qinding+Liao+Jin+Yuan+sanshi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HuYPVJ3sCta1sQSylYKgDg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q79ZNQEACAAJ&dq=Qinding+Liao+Jin+Yuan+sanshi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HuYPVJ3sCta1sQSylYKgDg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg

http://books.google.com/books?id=byHOcQAACAAJ&dq=Qinding+Liao+Jin+Yuan+sanshi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HuYPVJ3sCta1sQSylYKgDg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBw

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/農桑衣食撮要

http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/四庫全書總目提要/卷043

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/四庫全書總目提要/卷047

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/七音略

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/國朝宮史續編/卷63

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/西夏紀

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/遼史/卷116

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/金史/卷135

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/滿洲源流考/卷18

https://archive.org/stream/02091249.cn/02091249.cn_djvu.txt

https://archive.org/stream/02091266.cn/02091266.cn_djvu.txt

https://archive.org/stream/02078201.cn/02078201.cn_djvu.txt

https://archive.org/stream/02081581.cn/02081581.cn_djvu.txt

https://archive.org/stream/02097481.cn/02097481.cn_djvu.txt

https://archive.org/stream/manggengonokeit00ishi/manggengonokeit00ishi_djvu.txt

Title	From philosophy to philology: intellectual and social aspects of change in late Imperial China UCLA Asian Pacific monograph series Author	Benjamin A. Elman Edition	2, illustrated Publisher	UCLA Asian Pacific Monograph Series, 2001 ISBN 1883191041, 9781883191047

http://books.google.com/books?id=8jIkAQAAIAAJ&q=el,an+from+philosophy+to+philology&dq=el,an+from+philosophy+to+philology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=beQ1VN_IHsPXygOJqoKgDA&ved=0CDcQ6wEwAw

http://books.google.com/books?ei=beQ1VN_IHsPXygOJqoKgDA&id=8jIkAQAAIAAJ&dq=el%2Can+from+philosophy+to+philology&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Eleuths

http://books.google.com/books?ei=beQ1VN_IHsPXygOJqoKgDA&id=8jIkAQAAIAAJ&dq=el%2Can+from+philosophy+to+philology&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Mongolian

Title	The Emperor's Four Treasuries: Scholars and the State in the Late Chʻien-lung Era Volume 129 of Harvard East Asian monographs, ISSN 0073-0483 Author	R. Kent Guy Edition	annotated Publisher	Harvard Univ Asia Center, 1987 ISBN 0674251156, 9780674251151

http://books.google.com/books?id=bFA6a60_5LgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=guy+the+emperor's+four+treasuries&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WOQ1VMGaGMW8ygOwrYBw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=Mongol&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=bFA6a60_5LgC&pg=PA163#v=onepage&q&f=false

104-105

http://www.academia.edu/6928995/The_Literati_Rewriting_of_China_in_the_Qianlong-Jiaqing_Transition

Qiwowen Kiyan

Qinding Liao Jin Yuan sanshi guoyu jie 欽定遼金元三史國語解 Imperially-certified Explanation of Words from their Respective National Languages Found in the Histories of the Liao, Jin, and Yuan dynasties

Kiyan/Kiyad originally rendered as Qiwowen or Qiyuete

Corrected to Quete

45 Qinding Liao Jin Yuan sanshi guoyujie (Imperially-certified explanation of words from their respective national languages found in the histories of the Liao, Jin, and Yuan dynasties), v. 296:1–4.46

47 Qinding Liao Jin Yuan sanshi guoyujie, v. 296:270 ( juan 3:1a–b).

48 Qinding waifan Menggu Huibu wanggong biaozhuan (Imperially-certified tables and biographies of the princes and dukes of the outer feudatories of Mongolia and the Muslim regions), v. 454:217 ( juanshou, 1a–2b).

176

http://www.academia.edu/6928985/Empire_and_the_Circulation_of_Frontier_Intelligence_Qing_Conceptions_of_the_Ottomans

Qinding waifan Menggu Huibu wanggong biaozhuan

152 - 153 Mongolian khungghar Ottoman hunkār

153 魯迷 Lumi Rum Rumi Rome Ming dynasty 魯迷城 Istanbul

154 度爾格 Du'erge

Zhifang wai ji 職方外紀 Record of countries outside the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Operations by Giulio Aleni

156

Tulišen

Tuliyesike guowang Gongka'er han 圖里耶斯科國王供喀爾汗 Turiyesk'o gurun i Gungk'ar han the King of Turkey, Khungghar Khan

157

Mongolian: Khungghar Hongke'er 烘克爾

Du'erke 都兒克

164 紅噶爾國之汗所居拱斯當底訥伯勒和屯 Hongga'er guo zhi han suoju Gongsidangdinebole hetun, the city of Constantinople, seat of the Khan of the Khungghar Kingdom 都爾佳國 Du'erjia guo

Hoton is walled city in Manchu, transcribed as Hetun in Chinese characters

167

Khungghar 孔喀爾 Kongka'er Rum is Laum in Manchu Yong-gui 永貴 Manchu Bannerman

168

Rumu 如木 Khungghar

169

務魯木 Wulumu Rum Manchu Plain Blue Banner Changbai clan Qi-yi-shi (courtesy name Chunyuan)

171

Third Panchen Lama Shambhala'i-lam yig (Guidebook to Shambhala) Ottoman Empire = Rum Sham gyi yul. Arabic- aš-šām Mecca = Khung-du-khur padshah, Khung-khur padshah

174

Qinding huangyu Xiyu tuzhi 欽定皇輿西域圖志 Imperially certified  illustrated gazetteer of the Western Regions in the imperial domain

176

Pingding Zhunga'er fanglüe 平定準噶爾方略 History of the campaign to pacify the Zhunghars

Qinding Xiyu tongwen zhi 欽定西域同文志 Imperially certified treatise on standardized transcriptions of [names concerning] the Western Rgions

Qinding Liao Jin Yuan sanshi guoyu jie 欽定遼金元三史國語解 Imperially certified explanation of [terms from the respective] dynastic languages in the standard histories of the Liao, Jin, and Yuan dynasties

177

Languages these Han scholars mastered

Yu Minzhong 于敏中 manchu

Qian Daxin 錢大昕 mongolian

Liu Xigu 劉錫嘏 manchu

Page 182

1731 1787 巖長明 Yan Chang Ming from Nanjing

Languages mastered

Mongolian, Mongolian in Oirat Todo script, Tibetan

http://books.google.com/books?id=B05dAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA241&dq=yan+changming+mongolian&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mh82VKz9F8OZyATStoLYAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=yan%20changming%20mongolian&f=false

http://www.epailive.com/items/4/3/69506.shtml http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2081763022

186

Khung-khur Rumsham Tibetan 1889 Rosary of White Lotuses Piotr Klafkowski

187

1845 ten boxes of Russian books translated into Chinese

Pingding Konggu'er fanglüe 平定空谷爾方略 Campaign History of the Pacification of Khungghar

Konggu'er guozhi 空谷爾國誌 An Account of the Country of Khungghar

Page 189

Qi Yunshi 祁韻士1751 1815 1778 Jinshi

Learned Manchu at Hanlin

韻士 1751 1815

祁韻士 Chʻi, Yün-shih

祈韻士, 1751-1815 Qi Yunshi

http://www.ts.cn/big5/culture/content/2009-03/30/content_3928693.htm http://idp.bl.uk/pages/collections_ch.a4d http://idp.dha.ac.cn/pages/collections_ch.a4d http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85268676/ http://riccilibrary.usfca.edu/listAuthor.aspx?authorID=7860 http://searchworks.stanford.edu/?f%5Bauthor_person_facet%5D%5B%5D=Qi%2C+Yunshi%2C+1751-1815&q=%22China+History+Sources.%22&search_field=subject_termsmn http://www.worldcat.org/title/xi-yu-shi-di/oclc/173520049/editions?start_edition=11&sd=desc&referer=di&se=yr&editionsView=true&fq=

http://classify.oclc.org/classify2/ClassifyDemo?owi=6909766 http://classify.oclc.org/classify2/ClassifyDemo?swid=13508826 http://classify.oclc.org/classify2/ClassifyDemo?swid=145102431

194 Cheng Tongwen 程同文 1799 Jinshi edited the part ofmDa Qing huidian relating to the maps of Qinghai and Tibet and the Lifanyuan (Court of Colonial Affairs)

Learned Mongolian

195

tuliyasike tuliya 圖里雅 Prussia Pulishe 普里社

196

Tu'erqi 土耳其

Kangsitanyinuoge'er 康思坦貽諾格爾 Constantinople

197

Hungary Xiongyali guo 匈牙利國

198

Magyars Majia 馬加

Huns Henni 狠尼

Magyar Khan Majia Han馬加汗

Deji 嘚𠼻

Khungghar

空喀爾

http://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=901550

http://wenxian.fanren8.com/06/13/8/51.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=S1MrAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA46&lpg=RA5-PA46&dq=空喀爾&source=bl&ots=Sn7KpkNBjW&sig=TifWjpqIbLTWwW_EuwA0Gt0rVug&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gk42VI6QDIqNyAT0hoEQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=空喀爾&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nZYsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT1131&lpg=PT1131&dq=空喀爾&source=bl&ots=UjGtCKwIf5&sig=9CS9vujq_Coz1uNT91VOrLVOU4U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gk42VI6QDIqNyAT0hoEQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=空喀爾&f=false

空谷爾

http://books.google.com/books?id=QbYqAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA111&dq=空谷爾&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8k82VKWxA8ezyATJ_4GgAg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=空谷爾&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0yC61vLZjaUC&pg=PA10&dq=空谷爾&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8k82VKWxA8ezyATJ_4GgAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=空谷爾&f=false

105

欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳

Qinding Waifan Menggu Huibu wanggong biaozhuan

Imperially-certified Tables and Biographies of the Princes and Dukes of the Outer Feudatories of Mongolia and the Muslim Regions

http://www.qinghistory.cn/qsyj/ztyj/bjmz/2007-09-14/25358.shtml http://www.baike.com/wiki/钦定外藩蒙古回部王公表传n

《欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳》

http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&res=5972

http://www.sou-yun.com/eBookIndex.aspx?id=1550

http://ourartnet.com/Siku_02/0454/0454_213_046/0454_213_046.htm

http://ourartnet.com/Siku_02/0454/0454_213_046/pages/0053_jpg.htm

https://familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=1232766&disp=%26%23x6b3d%3B%26%23x5b9a%3B%26%23x5916%

欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷四~卷九

https://archive.org/details/06064133.cn

欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷九十九~卷一百七

https://archive.org/details/06064148.cn

欽定外藩蒙古回部王公表傳·卷十~卷十三

https://archive.org/details/06064134.cn

Rajmaan (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism
The Qianlong Emperor's faith in Tibetan Buddhism had been questioned in recent times because Qianlong indicated that he supported the Yellow Church (the Tibetan Buddhist Gelukpa sect) just to "maintain peace among the Mongols" since the Mongols were followers of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama of the Yellow Church, and Qianlong had this explanation placed in the Beijing Tibetan Buddhist Yonge Gong temple on a stele entitled "Lama Shuo" (on Lamas) in 1792, and he also said it was "merely in pursuance of Our policy of extending Our affection to the weak." which led him to patronize the Yellow Church.

This explanation of only supporting the "Yellow Hats" Tibetan Buddhists for practical reasons was used to deflect Han criticism of this policy by Qianlong, who had the "Lama Shuo" stele engraved in Tibetan, Mongol, Manchu and Chinese, which said: ''By patronizing the Yellow Church we maintain peace among the Mongols. This being an important task we cannot but protect this (religion). (In doing so) we do not show any bias, nor do we wish to adulate the Tibetan priests as (was done during the) Yuan dynasty.''

Qianlong turned the Palace of Harmony (Yonghegong) into a Tibetan Buddhist temple for Mongols in 1744 and had an edict inscribed on a stele to commemorate it in Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese, and Manchu, with most likely Qianlong having first wrote the Chinese version before the Manchu.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BsyFU9FwCIkC&pg=PA226#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BsyFU9FwCIkC&q=61#v=snippet&q=1792&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BsyFU9FwCIkC&q=61#v=snippet&q=Lama%20shuo&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BsyFU9FwCIkC&q=Yonghegong#v=snippet&q=Yonghegong&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BsyFU9FwCIkC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Khalkha nobles' power was deliberately undermined by Qianlong when he appointed the Tibetan Ishi-damba-nima of the Lithang royal family of the eastern Tibetans as the 3rd reincarnated Jebtsubdamba instead of the Khalkha Mongol which they wanted to be appointed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BsyFU9FwCIkC&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=false

The decision was first protested against by the Outer Mongol Khalkha nobles and then the Khalkhas sought to have him placed at a distance from them at Dolonnor, but Qianlong snubbed both of their requests, sending the message that he was putting an end to Outer Mongolian autonomy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BsyFU9FwCIkC&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false

Language of choice

It is most likely that Qianlong used Chinese to first write his "Ode to Mukden" and only afterwards issued a Manchu translation since Chinese was his "literary language of choice".

China
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/2012/producing_space_producing_china.pdf

https://www.mysciencework.com/publication/read/2571010/producing-space-producing-china-a-critical-intervention

The Qianlong Emperor rejected earlier ideas that only Han could be subjects of China and only Han land could be considered as part of China, instead he redefined China as multiethnic, saying in 1755 that "There exists a view of China (zhongxia), according to which non-Han people cannot become China's subjects and their land cannot be integrated into the territory of China. This does not represent our dynasty's understanding of China, but is instead that of the earlier Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties."

The term "our China" (wo Zhongguo) was used to stress China's association with themselves by the Qing Emperors, with it being used in Kangxi in 1712, used again in 1729, and used by Qianlong in 1750.

China and Qing were noticeably and increasingly equated with each other during Qianlong's reign, with Qianlong and the Qing government writing poems and documents using both Zhongguo- the Chinese name for China Dulimbai Gurun- the Manchu name for China. Compared to the rule of previous Qing Emperors like Yongzheng and Kangxi, the use of China to refer to the Qing increased under Qianlong, when scholars examined documents on Sino-Russian relations.

Other expressions which referred to the Qing like "our dynasty" (wochao) were equated and used interchangebly by Qianlong with China (Zhongguo) when he referred to the Qing-Korean border regarding a military outpost in two edicts.

The Manchu Qianlong Emperor rejected the views of Han officials who said Xinjiang was not part of China and that he should not conquer it, putting forth the view that China was multiethnic and did not just refer to Han.

.

The French Jesuit Michael Benoist redrew a map of China to give to the Qianlong Emperor in 1756 to include Xinjiang after the Qing defeated and conquered the Zunghars and took over the area, the map had previously not included Xinjiang since Benoist used pre-Zunghar conquest sources for the original map. Included as part of China in the map were Qinghai, Tibet, Mongolia, and Manchuria.

.

Han migration to Xinjiang was permitted by the Manchu Qianlong Emperor, who also gave Chinese names to cities to replace their Mongol names, instituting civil service exams in the area, and implementing the county and prefecture Chinese style administrative system, and promoting Han migration to Xinjiang to solidify Qing control was supported by numerous Manchu officials under Qianlong.

A proposal was written in The Imperial Gazetteer of the Western Regions (Xiyu tuzhi) to use state-funded schools to promote Confucianism among Muslims in Xinjiang by Fuheng and his team of Manchu officials and the Qianlong Emperor.

. Qianlong disregarded the Confucian scholars who criticized his conquest of Xinjiang.

Confucian names were given to towns and cities in Xinjiang by the Qianlong Emperor, like "Dihua" for Urumqi in 1760 and Changji, Fengqing, Fukang, Huifu, and Suilai for other cities in Xinjiang, Qianlong also implemented Chinese style prefectures, departments, and counties in a portion of the region.

forged quotes
I see no wikiquote article has been created for Qianlong yet.

There is a whole group of fake quotes that Han nationalists around the internet are attributing to Qing Emperors. One of them was "朕乃夷狄之君,非中國之人." (I am a barbarian monarch, not Chinese (Zhongguoren)) claimed to be said by Qianlong.

This is fake, and cannot be found in any Qing document by Qianlong. And Qing Emperors did refer to Manchus as "中國之人."

Not only that, the Qing Emperors in real life got angry when Han people referred to Manchus as 夷 (barbarian) since it was considered an insult and people who used that word to refer to Manchus were liable to be executed. A Manchu would never have referred to himself as 夷.

Another fake quote I put on Cixi's wikiquote under "Misattributed".

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Empress_Dowager_Cixi

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yongzheng_Emperor

Rajmaan (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Coronation
I don't know what day the Qianlong Emperor was crowned. I do know it wasn't the 39th of October. 134.228.163.150 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Consorts birth/death dates
I forgot to add the reasons for my latest edits. I added the birth dates and death dates for the Empresses and some imperial concubines. Also added the titles for 2 concubines and 1 noble lady. Maria0215 (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The YEN YEN Qing Dynasty Chinese Vase.png

Su Forty-three
I think, Su fei-erh? Хомелка (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Tomb
Since his tomb was looted, it was sort of restored and open to the public, and I recently found a photo of his coffin on Wikimedia Commons thanks to Wikidata showing it. Should I put it on the page, or is it to much?  TomMasterReal  TALK 19:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources for further article expansion
has more on the southern tours. Currently the article inexplicably only mentions them in the legend section and seems to be whining about their deep cultural importance ("why are you people even talking about this? other people moved in a southern direction at some points!") instead of talking about them and what their importance has been. — Llywelyn II   14:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The "further reading" should be curated to explain what the point of each is, be moved to cite points in the article, or be removed. It's already so unwieldy that 1/3 was just repeating sources from the article (although it differed in the names of the editors for no apparent reason), some weren't in alphabetical order, and some are so ancient that their value is highly dubious without further context. — Llywelyn II   14:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Qianlong Emperor