Talk:First Opium War
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First Opium War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | First Opium War was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 23, 2007, and August 23, 2008. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
![]() | Part of the contents of this article were merged from Opium Wars on May 26, 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Aelmsu
[edit]I've reread the sources, to make sure I didn't miss anything (and perhaps I missed twice), but I came up short.
For starters, Gelber does not mention anything about where the women were in my reading, so I disagree with the use of "contrary to this view". I also rechecked volume 10 of the The Cambridge History of China (originally the cited source) and located the line about opium being the single most profitable commodity of the 19th century, but could not find anything about the British Empire's revenues (if it even makes sense to speak of such a thing). He says "Opium now flowed freely from all of India to Canton, and by 1836, total imports came to $18 million, making it the world's most valuable single commodity trade of the nineteenth century".
I have not read the entirety of Joanna's book, but I have checked each page referenced and find no mention of a ban. I'm welcome to this being a case of an incomplete citation, or differing edition, and a quote would be enough to budge me on this point.
Free trade wasn't the Chinese laws
[edit]The intro was incredibly biased and making it seem like the Chinese were the ones in violation of "principles". The elephant in the room is that the Chinese didn't want the British to profit from opium whereas the British saw the Chinese refusal to let British to sell opium to them , as some kind of sleight. Like how dare the Chinese create their laws that make it inconvenient for the British to profit from opium. The most important context that should be emphasized is that the opium trade was illegal and the British ignored that. Yet the intro makes it seem like the Chinese were in the wrong here for violating the principle of free trade as if they were in breach of international laws. Such an extremely biased take to blame it on the Chinese despite they didn't break the laws. The British did break Chinese soverign laws and hence it should be noted in the intro clearly as what really occurred behind the onset of the war. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Do your objections still hold? This all seems to be covered in the lead. LastDodo (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Qing China flag
[edit]Based on my research, the Qing adopted the Yellow Dragon national flag in 1889, with a triangular version of it being adopted in 1862, but not as a national flag. The Qing dynasty had no national flag before 1889. Here's a excerpt from the 'Flag of the Qing dynasty' Wikipedia page:
"The triangular version of the yellow dragon flag was restricted to naval and governmental use only, no civilian ships were permitted to fly the yellow pennant, and it never formally became the national flag. However, on some diplomatic occasions and at international exhibitions, this flag was used to represent China."
I bring this up because the use of both the rectangular and triangular versions of the "Yellow Dragon Flag" to represent Qing China in the infobox of the First Opium War article is historically inaccurate, as the First Opium War occurred before 1862. While some editors might find using it better distinctifies Qing China, I believe historical accuracy should take precedence. Therefore, I will remove the Qing flag from this page's infobox. Additionally, the triangular version is displayed in the infobox of the "Second Opium War," which is an improvement but still not historically accurate, as that war also predates 1862. I will remove it from there as well. If any editor would like to discuss these changes, please feel free to @ me. Whether there are suitable alternatives for representing Qing China during this period remains an open question and will need to be addressed separately. Alexysun (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wholly agree. We should be very careful with iconography, and flag abuse is one of the most ubiquitous kinds onsite. Of course, that it wasn't in use immediately disqualifies it, but even if it was attested at the time, the appropriateness of its inclusion would still hinge on whether its use fit into the paradigm expected by an Anglophone readership—cf. [[MOS:COA]]. Remsense诉 05:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Alexysun (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Naming conventions
[edit]We don't appear to have any consistent convention in this article on whether to use Guangzhou or Canton to refer to the city of Guangzhou. While it is understandable to use Canton for historical reasons in some cases here, I'm inclined to follow the convention of other articles on Chinese topics and always use modern romanizations except when specifically referring to the older European names. The article defaults to Canton in most cases though, so there is an argument to preserve it as well. Someone with more expertise than me should probably determine which is most appropriate here and normalize the names as necessary. 174.27.222.111 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:NCZH#Places the convention is to use Guangzhou; any use of Canton in running text (e.g. outside quotes and derived proper names) is an error waiting to be corrected. Remsense诉 22:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class Hong Kong articles
- Top-importance Hong Kong articles
- WikiProject Hong Kong articles
- C-Class United Kingdom articles
- Unknown-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles