Talk:First Opium War

Aelmsu

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

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

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)

@Alexysun: @Remsense: About 8 years ago, I went through the same thought process as you guys. Initially, I thought the triangular Qing flag was anachronistic, so I removed it from all the Opium War articles since there was no "official" flag of China at the time. However, I reinserted it when I found out that the flag was actually used during the war; see File:Imperial Chinese junk flag.jpg where the caption from the museum says it was used by (at least some elements) of the Eight Banners. A "yellow flag" was also used to represent China during the signing of the treaty that ended the war (see Treaty_of_Nanking#Aftermath). I understand the concerns about historical accuracy and flag abuse on Wikipedia. However, given that it was actually used by Qing forces at the time, I see no problem with its inclusion to represent China within the context of this war. Spellcast (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If it was used as you describe, I still think it's clearly inappropriate to include in the article. We have no reason to include flags or other such symbology if there is any nuance or lack of clarity to their use being straightforward and officialized—which is what their inclusion generally implies to readers. Remsense ‥ 论 14:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

An actual flag being used by an army during a war is not appropriate for that war article? I'm not following this logic. Top-down official approval is not always necessary. There was never a treaty that ended the Chinese Civil War, but that doesn't mean we should remove the de facto end dates of the war in the infobox. Another example is God Save the King, which is the "official" anthem of the UK despite there never being a law that passed it as such. Custom and practice is adequate enough justification, especially within the context of English law and tradition. Spellcast (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the distinction lies in the nature of flags and analogous visual symbols: due to whatever mix of social and mental factors, our readers will almost always make a litany of assumptions upon seeing them to the extent that we need to explicitly state if there's anything about their use isn't as with those in modern nation-states, the armed forces of etc. Since we would need to explain this with a few sentences or a paragraph as you've helpfully done above, I think that's really too much nuance to contain in the infobox, so opting instead to display no flag seems most responsible. Remsense ‥ 论 14:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Spellcast Hi. Usually I don't have common ground with Remsense, but this time I do.

I think the steps forward are to prove that this flag was used widely in the war. If it wasn't used widely, if it was only used like by one individual then it has no place on the article, but if it was used widely then yes it definitely has a place in the article.

The Flag of the Qing dynasty page has zero detail on the use of Chinese war flags in the First Opium War, so outside research will be required.

Thanks, Alexysun (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

(We've had like three discussions!) Remsense ‥ 论 21:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the formal standardization of national flags only came about in the late 19th/early 20th century, especially outside the West. I can understand not having a flag if there was no particularly common design, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. The golden dragon wasn't some obscure design in China. As well as being an obvious precursor to the national flag, it was the core design across the Eight Banners and Green Standard Army flags despite the different coloured borders. Again from the museum caption: According to Da Qing Huidian Tu ('Illustrated Collected Statutes of the Great Qing'), it seems that there is no particular rule regarding the colour of the flag. Yet it is stated clearly in the Statues that the design of the flag (cloud and dragon in this case) should be gold-painted. So based on the ubiquity of this design, I find it reasonable to include it. But not next to the name of each commander (same with the UK side). It's decorative overkill and an eyesore to add it when there's only one country on each side. Spellcast (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy we're having a rigorous discussion, at least. It's definitely made the proposition less objectionable than I realized before. Remsense ‥ 论 16:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Naming conventions

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)

That policy doesn’t take into account historical articles. I prefer the name Canton on this article and 1800s articles because that was the main romanization of Guangzhou during this time period. Alexysun (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Slight correction: I realized Canton might not be a romanization at all, but it still was the main name for the province of Guangdong and the city of Guangzhou in the English-speaking world in the 1800s. Alexysun (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That policy doesn’t take into account historical articles.

It does.

I realized Canton might not be a romanization at all

—it is, huh?

In any case, the point is the same as any application of our NC anywhere: we follow the five WP:CRITERIA the best we can when deciding what we refer to things as. They're the same native names (romanized a different way) for the same places; any genre discrepancies simply don't override the fact that most people know those places by different forms of those names now, so that's what we should call them per the recognizability and consistency criteria. We don't write Ryver Temese in an English history article just because we're discussing events during the 13th century. It's a balancing act: if one could argue naturalness is impacted somewhat, then so be it. I cannot see it being nearly enough, like I said. Remsense ‥ 论 07:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)