Talk:Criticism of Qing dynasty's economic performance

This topic

I see no evidence that the phrase "Qing conquest theory" is used anywhere outside of Wikipedia. Also, instead of describing scholars' versions of the theory, the article consists of a list of pieces of evidence.

It might make sense to have an article on "sprouts of capitalism", a phrase which at least is used, provided it were written in a neutral manner. Kanguole 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe sprouts of capitalism is covered under Great Divergence(but it is used a lot). Obviously you do not see the phrase "Qing conquest theory" because it's in Chinese. And the scholars' version of the theory is largely consistent (most focus on the maritime prohibitions, but a few such as Xu focus on gov intervention/freedom of speech, etc). Teeninvestor (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, if this theory is never discussed in English, what is the usual term used to refer to it in Chinese? Kanguole 18:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So what name is used for this theory in Chinese? Or is it not discussed in Chinese either? Kanguole 13:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe some use 满清倒退论 (literally: Manchu regression theory), but there is not a consistent name for it. The view definitely exist though, as shown by several academic papers.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A Google search for that phrase yields no results. Where is it used? Kanguole 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Though this topic is rarely being discussed in the West, there are many scholarly sources that can be referred to, though majority of these sources are in Chinese. Ch'ien Mu for example. Arilang ^talk 07:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If this topic is discussed, by what name is it referred to? Kanguole 07:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

http://product.dangdang.com/product.aspx?product_id=8986394

中国历代政治得失——钱穆作品系列

I S B N ： 9787108015280

Arilang ^talk 07:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yuan Weishi is another scholar we can refer to. Arilang ^talk 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

晚清大变局中的思潮与人物

http://book.douban.com/subject/1799442/ 作者: 袁伟时 ISBN: 9787805425344

Huge numbers of scholars discuss the Qing dynasty; many of them are critical of it, and their criticisms overlap. But where is the evidence that scholars discuss a "Qing conquest theory"? What is the usual term they use for this theory? Kanguole 07:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't read the Chinese language sources, but it is simply not true that this topic is never discussed in English language literature. Indeed, the question of "Why England, not China?" is one of the *big questions* of Economic History. And this has been proposed as an answer to that question. If "Qing conquest theory" is the name given to this theory in Chinese then it is probably the appropriate title, though I would like someone who can speak Chinese to point out which of the sources specifically use this terminology. I'm not sure if there's a single name for this theory in English literature - but that's really because we're talking Humanities (History) and Social Science (Economics) where not every idea, no matter how notable, automatically gets a "label" like in the Physical Sciences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic you're talking about is a question, while the one presented here is an answer.

Regarding a Chinese name for this "theory", I already asked the author that at the top of this page. Kanguole 00:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What I said is that "Why England, not China?" is the question, while this article describes one of the most common (though not universally accepted) answers to that question. What exactly is your objection here?

As to your question to the author, he does given a partial answer ("Manchu regression theory"). Furthermore, it seems the author/creator of the article left Wikipedia soon after which is perhaps part of the reason for why he didn't answer your question fully.

Finally, even if the title of the article may be problematic, the topic itself is most certainly notable. They teach it in most college level Economic History classes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese title he suggested doesn't generate any Google hits either.

So which are the college texts or other reliable sources that present this theory as an answer to the "Why England, not China?" question? Kanguole 08:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick question. How much of the objection to this article/theory has to do with the word "Qing" being in there? The "Restriction on foreign trade" (more generally, autarkic and inward looking policies) and "Domestic intervention" (more precisely, the degree of "free markets" in Chinese and European economies) are in fact fairly common - though not universally accepted - explanations for the Great Divergence (Landes comes to mind). I can see however how the association of these developments exclusively with the Qing can be more contentious (in fact at least some of the inward-lookingness would go back to the Ming). My impression was/is that that part was in the Chinese language sources, which I cannot access.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fairly central to the thesis advanced by this article, namely that China under the laissez-faire Ming was on a course toward modernity that was reversed by the interventionist Qing. I agree that the themes you mention do get significant coverage, but they are quite different from the argument presented here. Kanguole 11:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, again, I can't read the Chinese language sources so I don't know to what extent the whole Ming vs. Quing thing is covered in those. Other than that, a possible solution might be to rename the article to something like "Institutional explanations for Great Divergence" (there should be a better title out there - but something along those line), and expanding it so that the Ming vs. Quing thing is a small portion of it, cited to the Chinese sources (which someone should verify).Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Neologism"? Move? Delete?

I support editor Kanguole's point that "Qing conquest theory" is a neologism. Earlier searches found no outside uses in either Chinese or English and my own recent searches found only this Wikipedia article itself and a few hits that were also based on this Wikipedia article:Qing Conquest Theory Google and Qing Conquest Theory GOOGLE SCHOLAR.

This is a bad title for an article with good material and good potential. I would support a call to delete or move to a better title, but also the incorporation of the material into other articles, whichever an interested editor would prefer. So if you support this article: WP:Be Bold !! Make the move!! ch (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the title, this article also seems to me to contain a lot of synthesis. By a better title, I assume you don't mean just an accurate description of the contents, like "blaming the Qing for China being overtaken by the West", but rather a re-focussing of the topic. But I guess I don't see the potential you see. Kanguole 22:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am frankly ok with keeping the article but I do not think we need a big huge Neologism tag on this article for all eternity Even if it is a neologism it will never ever enter the mainstream so it doesn't make any sense to have this tag on there indefinitely. It makes more sense to me to rename the article to something more appropriate if that's what we need to do. Kumioko (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The point of these maintenance templates is two-fold: they warn readers about problems with the article (e.g. that this is a phrase no-one else uses), and they flag issues that editors may choose to work on. By all means fix the issues, but we should not remove the tags before then. Similarly changing the date just because the issue has been unaddressed for a long time is misleading and unhelpful. Kanguole 23:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems backwards to change the date in a maintenance template for the convenience of a category. The categories are there to identify old problems. Kanguole 23:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree they are good to a point but there is absolutely no point to having a tag on an article forever. No matter how much this article develops it will still be a neologism. Until someone renames the article, it will still be a neologism. Aside from that, 90% of the English speaking population of the world doesn't know what a neologism is. They would have to look up the definition just to figure out what the tag is telling them. So its really not doing anything but distracting the readers away from the article with big ugly tags. Anyway, if you guys want a big ugly tag on this article forever its really fine by me. I really don't have a dog in this fight other than trying to clean out years old maintenance categories. So feel free to ensure that the tag stays there. I really have a lot of other things I could be doing. Kumioko (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Kumioko for your patience and for explaining your concerns. Now I see what you are driving at. But I'm not well enough informed to know if Wikipedia offers another way of addressing Kanguole's legitimate objective, which is to warn readers without losing the good stuff in the article which another editor might well take on as a project. That is, I agree with Kanguole that the title is the most obvious problem but that the whole thing needs to be recast. Could we tag or mark the article in some other way that would do the job and meet your equally legitimate concerns? Cheers in any case, ch (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Komioko's concern was to empty the maintenance category Category:Articles about possible neologisms from August 2010. Obviously fixing the issue in some way would be best, but I don't see just ignoring it as a solution. Kanguole 11:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Qing conquest theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/17535

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Neologism, yet again

@Kanguole, Teeninvestor, Volunteer Marek, Ch, Kumioko (ping to all):
As the latest person to stumble over this from the 'possible neologisms' category, the objection here (it seems to me) is a) the title is not supported by any source, and b) the theory itself is not backed by RS.
I notice the text contains links to articles by Mao, Zhang and Xu, of which the first two are still accessible. They both appear (if I have understood them; I’m reading them via Gtranslate) to put forward the theory that modernization was stifled by the advent of the Qing dynasty. Does that satisfy the claim that this notion actually exists? Also, if the title here isn’t acceptable, what about 'Qing dynasty and the delay of Chinese modernization', from the title of Mao’s article? Moonraker12 (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Certainly a descriptive title would avoid the neologism issue. The problem with "the delay of Chinese modernization" is that it incorporates an assumption that China was progressing towards industrialization, so an explanation must be found for why it did not reach it. The generally accepted contrary view is that industrialization was a unique event that put northwestern Europe on a different trajectory. I suggested above "blaming the Qing for China being overtaken by the West", which is at least an accurate description of the content, if a bit bald.

User:CWH seemed to think this article had potential, possibly with some refocussing. I'm not sure what that focus should be, though.

Note that we have articles Great Divergence on the overall phenomenon, and sprouts of capitalism on the theory that China was on a path to modernization, though that usually cites economic developments in the mid Qing together with those in the late Ming. Kanguole 15:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up again after so many many years, in fact a decade. I agree with Kanguole. I probably thought it was a pity that an editor put in so much work and was too lenient. So I would have no problem if someone moved to delete on the grounds WP:Original Research or some such, though ideally it would be even better to incorporate a part of the material into Qing dynasty#Economy (not under this title). That article needs pruning and reworking itself, though.ch (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both Teeninvestor and Kumioko have been blocked indefinitely, so don't expect a response. ch (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kanguole, Ch: Thank you both for replying. On reflection I do see some merit in h this page, if only because it suggests a Chinese theory for the lack of progress in China during this period; Zhang's article notes that "Chinese and foreign scholars have always had different opinions … on whether the ancient Chinese society can breed new modern social factors and… transform into a modern society", and it seems reasonable to have an article that addresses that. Also, a Google search for the alternate title, 满清倒退论 ('Manchu Regression Theory'), throws up a whole bunch of articles, so the idea does seem to be legit. So unless you feel strongly that we shouldn’t, I’m inclined to keep this, though I think it needs overhauling, and a new title. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
PS: Zhang's article also has 'Stagnation theory', and a search for that has results also. How about either of them as new titles? Anything's better than 'Cwing cwonquest theowy'! Moonraker12 (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

All the search results for "满清倒退论" are mirrors of this article. Most of the results for "stagnation theory"+China seem to be about secular stagnation theory. Kanguole 23:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Kanguole that the search does not find WP:Reliable sources for an article with this title, or at least the first few pages were blogs. It's also true that in addition to the Wikipedia pages mentioned, we also have coverage of the "Needham Question," in Joseph Needham and Science and Civilisation in China.

It would be great indeed if Moonraker12 is willing to move this article to a better title and revise it with some of the better sources, but even better would be a move to delete, in which case maybe Moonraker might consider editing it down and move some of this material to Qing dynasty &/or Economic history of China before 1912. I would be happy to help out.ch (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kanguole, Ch: Just to clarify, is your objection to the title of this article, or to it’s subject and content? Because if it’s the latter, the proposals to delete and/or merge it really don't have any legs.
The AfD ten years ago established that the subject was notable, and that hasn’t diminished over time. As for merging it to somewhere else, what are the grounds? this article doesn’t duplicate, or even significantly overlap, with any other, so unless you were planning to simply blank it and redirect somewhere (ie, a deletion by the back door) you would have to find a home for some 14Kb of material. And the two articles suggested are already well beyond the point where we should be splitting them down, not adding to them ("Qing dynasty" is 212Kb, and "Economic History of China" is 162Kb). Anyway, per WP:SUMMARY, large generalized subjects should naturally link to a variety of a host of 'daughter articles' on specific aspects, expanding on summaries there: in this case, this article is on a specific theory (the name of which we haven’t yet established) which expands on one aspect of the Economy and Qing dynasty sections of those articles.
As for the title, if this explanation doesn’t have a formal name in English or Chinese, we just need a descriptive, neutral title that describes the content (eg "Economic stagnation/regression under the Qing dynasty", "Chinese economic progress and the Qing/Manchu invasion/conquest"). If you don’t like the ones I have proposed, what do you suggest instead? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: BTW, yes, as it stands it does boil down to blaming the Manchu/Qing for everything, and yes, it does sound incipiently racist to me. But that is what the sources suggest is the case; they either blame foreign theorists for analyzing a particularly Chinese phenomenon, or (as here) they blame the foreign Manchu for China’s ills. But the response shouldn’t be to quash any mention of it here, the response should be to expand the article with the counter-arguments. This isn’t my area of expertise, (which is why this whole matter is like swimming in treacle, for me) but that, I suggest, is the way forward. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the Chinese neologism per the above evidence that it occurs only in this article and its mirrors.

Certainly a descriptive title is needed to address the neologism issue. "regression" doesn't work, as everyone agrees that after the decades of chaos following the conquest the economy had rebounded to even greater heights by the early 18th century. One approach that might work would be to broaden the focus to "Economy of the Qing dynasty", which could then serve as the main article for both Qing dynasty#Economy and Economic history of China before 1912#Qing dynasty (1644–1912). The broader topic could also draw on more reliable sourcing, avoiding the synthesis issues with the current article. Kanguole 11:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

And I’ve reverted it, as I was under the impression we were still discussing the matter. Where do you get this idea that this theory only exists in WP mirrors? The search I did (above) threw up a raft of hits: Just from the first page:

• Is the phrase ‘the Manchu missed the country for three hundred years’ right?
• The rule of the Qing dynasty caused China’s development to go backwards?
• The only dynasty in history that turned China back
• Why to say that ‘the entry of the Manchus into the customs(sic) is a historical regression
• On the Crimes of the Manchu Dynasty-A Great Retrogression in Chinese History

And where does ‘everyone agrees.. ‘ come from? It seems obvious from these at least that they don’t all agree everyone doesn’t agree with that, at all.
Also, WP:SUMMARY is about drawing articles on specifics from the general, not the other way round; this article is already on a specific aspect of the Qing economic history (which that article manages to dismiss in a single sentence) so this article, with this particular remit, has a place. You are welcome to write a broad article on the economy of the Qing dynasty if you wish, expanding on what is at the other two articles at present, but taking this article, then renaming and re-writing it, is just another (albeit quite sophisticated) form of deletion, isn’t it.
I asked if it was just the title, or the whole article you object to; it seems clear that it is both, for you. You are welcome to your opinion, but I would be more interested in sorting out what is already here. Do you really want to help with that? Moonraker12 (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the statement that this theory was also called 满清倒退论. As I pointed out above, all the search results for "满清倒退论" are mirrors of this article. Do you dispute this? Kanguole 21:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I dispute the relevance of it, and I’m unsure of your reasons for this deletion. The phrase is a useful search term, so I wonder why you are so keen to get rid of it. Anyway this matter is still under discussion, so the status quo ante should apply. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question removed a statement that this theory was also called 满清倒退论. As I've pointed out, this phrase appears nowhere but in this article and its mirrors (though there are web pages that contain both the word 满清 and the word 倒退). This statement is therefore false, and false statements should be removed from articles. For use in searches, these words can be found here on the talk page. Kanguole 08:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

As this false claim cannot be defended, I will again be removing it. Kanguole 07:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

And I will be reverting, again. See below. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Moonraker. I see points that may be fatal to this article and that suggest that your good work should go elsewhere than this out of the way article:

• The lead claims tha the Qing Conquest Theory (QCT) is proposed by Chinese academics but the article does not reference any (see below) nor does it differentiate the theory from the Great Divergence, which is a theory about late imperial China in general, not just the Qing, much less the QCT.

• None of the 5 references that have been reverted are to Reliable Sources, but to blogs, so there is now no RS for saying there is such a theory among academics.
• There is no article in Chinese Wikipedia or any other, which leads to a suspicion that the topic is not known elsewhere.
• The Background section is just that, “background,” with nothing specific about the QCT or that that is not better covered elsewhere.
• Evidence section offers Xu, which concerns the Great Divergence, Zhang which concerns Ming dynasty “feudal society,” not the Manchu Qing.
• Note 14 does not give evidence that Pomeranz is a “noted critic of the theory.” He criticizes another theory, not the QCT.
• Note 15 references that Pomeranz “also holds” that the Qing revitalatization of the state had a positive effect (p. 155) but the Google book partial view said the “revitalization of the state, while certainly not crushing the ‘sprouts of capitalism’ in the way some scholars once thought. The section concerns “Luxury Consumption and Rsie of Capitalism,” which makes it extremely unlikely that he is discussing the QCT.

In short, the article offers only material on Qing economic development in general, which is better covered elsewhere; it has no reliable sources to the idea that “Qing conquest” affected growth rather than general late imperial characteristics; no references show that such a theory exists; no references that either support or refute it.

Other articles have room for the few sentences that might add to what they already have, and do not have to absorb this article as a whole, only a couple of sentences.ch (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, CWH, it’s my distant cousin Moonraker12 you need here. Moonraker (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ch: Thank you for your comments: it is useful to have an idea of where you feel the problems here are. I’m not disputing a lot of this article may have to go, or at least be re-written to clarify what is what, but so far my impression is that this idea is actually held in China, so IMO it could do with airing.

On the subject of no corresponding article on the Chinese WP, it would have been useful to have one: But my search suggests to me this idea (this theory, in fact) doesn’t not exist, so I’m inclined to think it may exist under a different title, or be included in something else. Not being able to read Chinese I’m having little luck in finding it, and I don’t feel particularly helped, but I would like to see it through. You can help, or not... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Would it help if I edited to leave only the parts that are Reliably Sourced? I took the liberty of looking at your edit history and can see that you are experienced and energetic. I welcome your contributions to China articles, but wonder if they shouldn't be to a more worthy article. After all, it's hardly a ringing endorsement to say that your research suggests that this topic "doesn't not exist." You are right that some scholars do blame the Manchus for holding China back, but this is a feeling, not a theory. A theory does not need to be true or plausible but does need to be presented in a systematic way, not just discussed indirectly or loosely. It will be hard to find Reliable Sources. For comparison, see, for one example, New Qing History, or Sino-Babylonianism for theories that can be sourced.ch (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ch: Thank you again; I think what would help most is to be able to review what is here and do some re-writing without having to justify it continually. There seem to be plenty of references here; I need to examine them myself to decide what is suitable and what is not. I also need to work out whether this is referring to the Manchu conquest specifically, or to the Ching period as a whole, when it refers to a stagnation or even a regression in progress. I don’t know that the latter would be controversial at all, though saying it happened ‘because of the Ching, who were foreigners’ probably should be. Then what I intend doing is re-arrange the content, to put the ‘theory’ stuff together, and marry it up with any sources that support it: I would agree the Background section is background to the period, not to the theory, but it is useful as context; I think that needs clarifying. Then, we'll see... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: As an aside: this talk page now has 30 Kb of content; the article we are discussing is only 14Kb long. Food for thought? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Food for thought? Bon appetit!ch (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit break

@Kanguole:: So, are we edit warring now? You’ve been here long enough to know that while a matter is under discussion the status quo ante applies. And you never re-instate a bold edit that’s been reverted, before the issue is resolved.
Also, you’ve had ten years to tinker with this page: You’ve done nothing constructive with it in that time, but have cavilled when others have done so (eg. this, and this, and this); so I suggest now is a bit late.
If you want to get rid of this article, open an AfD discussion and make your case, or start a merge process to somewhere and explain your reasons. Or, if you simply object to the title, come up with another that suits you, as you don’t like any of the ones already suggested. Otherwise, I suggest you take a back seat and let someone else have a go.
And on the subject of "Manchu regression theory" being a neologism, so what? I suggest that it also describes the content here, which is the theory (ie. an unproven or speculative idea) that the Manchu invasion caused China to regress. So flag it as a neologism if you feel so strongly about it, and move on. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: You proposed having an article on "sprouts of capitalism" ten years ago; did you ever do anything about it? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moonraker12: You do good work, my friend, so stay calm and keep your eye on the ball! You may misread WP:QUO, which says "Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit—leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor."

So let's AGF that Kanguole and I have a point, look at the substance, and include our feedback. Any statement in the lead must be either so non-controversial that nobody will challenge it, or referenced either in the lead itself or the body of the article. Kanguole and I challenge the use of 满清倒退论 "Qing regression theory" and I do not see it referenced in the article, so if you want to insert it, the best thing to do is to find a reference to it as a theory, not just an attitude or idea. My quick Google search did not find a RS, only blogs, but did find ZH Wikipedia articles 滿化 and 元清非中國論, though the latter is itself labelled as problematic. They may have usable references. All the best in any case!ch (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@ ch: I think maybe a better idea would be if Kanguole or yourself can decide on a more neutral, more descriptive name for the article. The re-naming was suggested (and agreed) ten years ago, and there are a number of options (including my multiple choice one) on the page: Pick one, or suggest another we can all agree on, and then the issue of whether the current title(s) are neologisms or not will disappear of its own accord. That would be a start, at least. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

BRD means we discuss the substance of the edit that was reverted. It is not a licence to block an edit indefinitely while refusing to discuss it.

The edit in question removed the text

(sometimes 满清倒退论 or 'Qing regression theory')

which claims that this topic is called 满清倒退论. This is false, as can be seen from a google search for "满清倒退论", which returns only this article and mirrors and translations of it – otherwise, this term is not used at all.

Since this claim is false and not defended, it should be removed. This is a separate issue from the title of the article. Kanguole 23:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kanguole:: You are saying (as you have been saying, in fact, for the past ten years) that this is a neologism: I am saying that this phrase (and the title, 'Ching conquest theory', come to think of it) are descriptive. So we disagree. But it has been suggested, as a compromise position, that the title (and therefore the lead sentence) be changed to something more acceptable to you, which would solve the problem: So what is it to be? Something already proposed, or a title suggestion from yourself?

In any case, the discussion is not just about the title and the lead, it’s about improving the article in general. Ch has provided a list of issues (yours being one of them); Do you have a list also? Perhaps you’d care to share it with the group? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have indeed said that "Qing conquest theory" is a neologism, but for the moment I am focussed on your revert, reinstating the false claim that this topic is "sometimes 满清倒退论", which you have yet to justify. Kanguole 12:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kanguole:: I have already justified the revert, twice; so how about you answering the question you have been asked, twice? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You have not addressed the substance of the edit, which is that the claim that this topic is sometimes called 满清倒退论 is false, as demonstrated above. Indeed the claim is indefensible, and should be removed.

If you stop reinstating this false claim, I would be happy to resume discussion of the other matters. Kanguole 00:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kanguole: As to your first point, I believe I have addressed the issue; you just haven’t accepted it. Which is your right, of course, but that doesn’t translate into a right to make unilateral edits.

As to your second point, how about if you stop trying to circumvent the discussion process, and I will be happy to pay heed to your concerns and suggestions? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You have not addressed it. I have demonstrated that the statement that this topic is "sometimes 满清倒退论" is false – you have no response. Kanguole 23:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

OK Kanguole, let's take it from the top: what is the 'it' that I haven’t addressed? The fact that I reverted your edit (addressed here, and here)? Or the fact that I don’t accept your premise (here, and here)? To repeat: I have responded numerous times; you just don’t accept it. It isn’t necessary that you do (as it isn’t necessary for me to accept yours) but it is necessary to move past it.

As for your argument that 'this is a neologism, therefore it must be deleted'; I don’t accept that, either. If something is a neologism, it can always be resolved by fixing the wording, or, in this case, by renaming the article (which you have agreed to). You have been given several suggestions for this (viz this, and this, and these), and have been asked a couple of times to suggest an alternative title yourself that would satisfy you: So far, nothing. You have also been asked to present any other issues you have here: Again, nothing, except a blanket 'I won’t discuss it unless you let me edit as I see fit'. That is not acceptable either. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What you have not addressed is that the statement that this topic is "sometimes 满清倒退论", i.e. that this topic is called 满清倒退论 in Chinese, is false. Kanguole 23:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Asked and answered; Move on, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Friends -- the subject (object?) of the disussion is whether there is any Reliable Source for the (so far untranslated) phrase. WP:TALKDONTREVERT is pretty clear about Consensus:

The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

I may have missed it, please forgive me if I have, but I have seen no Reliable Source for the phrase, much less a reason for using Chinese for it, or any reason that it adds to the article. The best I can find in favor of keeping the phrase is "As for your argument that 'this is a neologism, therefore it must be deleted'; I don’t accept that, either." The burden of proof is to show that something is reliably sourced, which is not a matter of opinion or consensus. Moonraker12 has done excellent work on other articles, so why not just go ahead and work on this one? I doubt that there are sources to show that this is a theory rather than an argument, but have been happy to give Moonraker12 the benefit of the doubt.

But in the end, so far, I see no reason to have an unsourced assertion, especially in the lead. Moonraker12 and other fine editors should turn their attention to showing that there are Reliable Sources for the whole article rather than disputing a weak point that does not improve the article. ch (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kanguole: I join my fellow ch in requesting sources to back up the phrase's 满清倒退论 common usage in Chinese sources. This discussion becomes a huge mess so I urge parties either to bring the sources or I propose to take down that phrase due to a lack of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RSs. Take a note that I'm uninvolved party.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: I see no usage of that phrase at all, which is why I tagged it "citation needed". Moonraker12 is the one resisting deleting it. Kanguole 10:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kanguole: You think we can safely remove it? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: Since Moonraker12 has produced no evidence for it, I would say so. Kanguole 10:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Moonraker12: If you don't bring sources to back up (in order to WP:VERIFY) the phrase and translation (in Chinese/English) I propose to remove it as WP:UNSOURCED. Nothing warrants us to do so though.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Support the removal on the grounds stated. The fact that there is such a phrase in Chinese does not mean that it is a theory. It is not a translation of the article's title. I sympathize with and hope this does not discourage Moonraker12, who came to this article with the best of intentions, however. ch (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov:: Thank for the heads up: I have argued above that the titles are descriptive, rather than actual names that require sourcing; I have now edited them to make that a bit clearer. I have also argued that the article should be re-titled to something more clearly descriptive, and have awaited responses on the suggestions already here. I have argued that re-naming would make the neologism problem disappear, which is what brought me here to begin with: So maybe that would be a better solution. As a result of this I have opened a new section below. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@ ch: Thank for your comments; I have already pointed out there are a number of sources from a search for the term 'Manchu regression theory' in Chinese: the sticking point seems to be the contention that it is in some way a neologism. As for the idea it represents, I have been trying to marry that with what is here. A lot of the article seems pretty uncontroversial; the Background information suggests China was doing all right before the Manchu invasion, which seems uncontroversial: The description of the conquest as devastating, and of the Ching policy of closing doors to outsiders, seems neither incorrect ( Korea and Japan took the same/similar steps) nor particularly reprehensible (India, for example, maintained an open door policy, with arguably worse outcomes). The issue, for me, is whether these were specific to the Ching (ie. something to blame the Ching for); it seems the Ming had a similar isolationist policy, and regime changes in China were seldom peaceful, Anyway, that’s a wider issue. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Moonraker12: Please don't remove the {{citation needed}} tags as you did in 15:22, May 9, 2021.

@Moonraker12: ...I have argued that re-naming would make the neologism problem disappear... The WP:RS should make it disappear, but I see none. I also don't see MOS:INTRO followed. You sure you want to continue this fruitless discussion and waste everyone's time? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Fruitless discussion? I’ll say; it’s been going on for ten years, now! And it’s certainly a waste of my time... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Three editors agree that the Chinese phrase should be removed unless it can be reliably sourced, and it seems that no source is coming, so I will remove it. Kanguole 14:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Re-naming

@Kanguole:, ch, Alexander_Davronov: It has been suggested, and agreed in principle, that the article should be re-named to avoid the suggestion of the current title as a neologism. There are a number of proposed titles in the discussion above, but so far there has been no progress. In order to move this forward, can whoever is interested declare their preference, or failing that suggest an alternative. I would intend to move the page in line with this after a period of time. Speak now or forever hold your peace! Moonraker12 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

To recap: the suggestions so far have been:-

• "Institutional explanations for Great Divergence" (Volunteer Marek, 10.10, 12 July 2011)
• "blaming the Qing for China being overtaken by the West" (Kanguole, 22.35, 14 Sept 2013, and 15.32 13 Mar 2021)
• 'Qing dynasty and the delay of Chinese modernization' (Moonraker12, 00.12 13 March 2021)
• "Economic stagnation/regression under the Qing dynasty" (ditto, 23.15 30 Mar 2021)
• "Chinese economic progress and the Qing/Manchu invasion/conquest". (multiple choice!) (ditto, 23.15 30 Mar 2021)

Have I missed any out? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose — Current titling is fine. The discussion above is about a lack of sources, not naming issues. There is none in fact. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander: The title was the original problem (see this, and this, and this).. are you now saying the title is fine? Sheesh! Moonraker12 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Moonraker12: I don't want to get drawn into another dispute. I've cited the Dynasties of destruction source that mentions «Qing conquest theory» per WP:CRITERIA. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 06:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: That source, Carswell (2019) Progress Vs Parasites, uses the phrase in quotation marks, but doesn't say where it is quoted from. Here's what he says:

It was, according to contemporary Chinese academics, all the fault of the Qing. Everything in China was going rather well, they suggest, until these Manchurian interlopers showed up and established their own dynasty. If this 'Qing conquest theory' is to be believed, one bad dynasty ruling over China between 1644 and 1911 accounts for the great divergence between China and Europe.

[...]

And perhaps there is something in this theory. Qing emperors did indeed make a succession of catastrophic choices. They presided over a parasitic state that weakened the productive and put China ever further behind the West.

That bears more than a passing resemblance to the lead paragraph of this article as it was in 2018:

The Qing conquest theory is a theory proposed by Chinese academics that attempts to explain the Great Divergence, the overtaking of China by the Western world as the major economic and industrial world power. Specifically, the theory seeks to explain how Europe could experience an industrial revolution, but China did not. Theory supporters claim that although the prosperous Song and Ming dynasties moved China toward a modern age, the restrictions placed on commerce and industry and the persecution of non-orthodox thought after the Manchu conquest of China caused the country to stagnate and fall behind the West.

It appears that this is a case of "citogenesis" – an apparently reliable source that is in fact echoing Wikipedia. There is another recent book that uses the phrase, also in quotation marks, Gasch-Tomás (2018) The Atlantic World and the Manila Galleons, but again there are hints that the mention is based on this article.

This sort of pollution of the information space is of course precisely why reliable sources and avoiding neologisms are so important. Kanguole 11:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Thanks for heads up. I took the source down for now. My apologies, I overlook the fact that it's overly fresh. I also couldn't find anything resembling the title in google in period of time between 1960 and 2000 so it seems like that there is no such theory. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander: You could always try a search for 满清倒退论 ... Moonraker12 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Moonraker12: Have tried it already. Didn't work well. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander: Really? it worked for me...Moonraker12 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Moonraker12: I mean the yield is poor. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahh!: You said above that it seems like that there is no such theory; I took what I found to confirm that there was one, of sorts. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Moonraker12: There is no sources before 2000. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander: Why April 2000? This article wasn't written until August 2010. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Moonraker12: Doesn't matter. If there is no WP:RS - this is waste of time. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That search finds webpages that contain some or all of those five characters, anywhere on the page. To find pages that use the phrase, you need to wrap it in quotation marks, like so. Kanguole 20:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I know that, Kanguole; the search was for the idea, not the phrase. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

On the fence WP:CRITERIA says that a title should be "recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." "Qing conquest theory" doesn't seem "recognizable" to describe this article, as it does not even mention "conquest." As a help in focusing, I took the bold step of editing the lead to describe the article as it is now. I still think it might be better to merge this article into a section of Great Divergence, but it might be salvaged if Moonraker12 and others are willing to do some research, probably in books, since internet resources are not adequate. The bibliography at Qing dynasty might be helpful.ch (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, the topic of this article is the thesis that Qing policies prevented China from experiencing an industrial revolution, causing it to be overtaken by the West. I've suggested that the topic be broadened in various ways, so that higher quality sources could be brought to bear. If the topic is to remain unchanged, then the article should have an accurate descriptive title, but it will be difficult to come up with a concise one. Some specific issues with proposed wording:

• Titles containing "and" have the problems noted in the last paragraph of WP:AND: they suggest a connection between two things. Such titles are used for essays that go on to argue a connection, but are inappropriate for Wikipedia articles unless the connection is the scholarly consensus.
• "Great Divergence" is usually understood as contrasting Western Europe with developed parts of the rest of the world, not just China (even though Pomeranz focussed on Chinese examples in his book).
• The "regression" was relative to the growth of Western Europe, rather than absolute, as everyone (including Mao and Zhang) agrees that after the decades of chaos following the conquest the Chinese economy had rebounded to even greater heights by the early 18th century.

Kanguole 10:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kanguole:: OK: So what title do you suggest instead? Moonraker12 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, it's difficult to give an accurate title that is also concise. So maybe just go for accuracy: "Claims that Qing rule prevented an industrial revolution in China"? Kanguole 20:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed move to "China's loss of world leadership under the Qing"

Share of world GDP in different regions over time (from Maddison)

GDP per capita 1500–1900 (from Maddison)

Proposed move: to China's loss of world leadership under the Qing. I'm sure that some can find fault with this title but it covers the topics actually in the article and meets WP:CRITERIA better than any other proposed. I will then add mention of Sprouts of capitalism, suggested by Kanguole way back in 2010, then accusations of military weakness leading to defeat in the Opium Wars, problems with fiscal and tax policy, and intellectual rigidity under the exam systems, along with brief mention of problems with these arguments. Also coordinate with the articles mentioned in our discussions, as well as Anti-Qing sentiment. ch (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a viable topic, except that "world leadership" will be hard to substantiate – perhaps "economic leadership". Kanguole 22:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@ ch: Your suggestions on what facets to add are sound (and I expect you know more about them than I do); I didn’t know we had an article on Anti-Manchu Sentiment, though it certainly ties in with the tone here. But I agree with Kanguole that 'loss of world leadership' is non-neutral, though I think even ‘economic leadership’ is pushing it. That may be the inference in the article (and may reflect the way the Chinese see things) but it isn’t a generally-held view. Mughal India was just as advanced, and the Spanish Empire was both bigger and richer; also, the Ming had already withdrawn from wider hegemony in the 15th century. What about 'loss/lack of economic progress'? Or, how about using Mao Peiqi’s phrase, 'economic stagnation'? he seems to be at the root of this Manchu regression idea, according to this, anyway. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Points taken. Sigh. It's tricky because we're not endorsing the idea, just reporting what qualified scholars have suggested or argued. But the change was relative to revolutionary changes in Western Europe. The Qing economy didn't stagnate or even "regress" in absolute terms (it would also be a question whether it's total GNP or per capita and whether to take distribution into account). And the argument would be that China's "leadership" or whatever was not just economic, but in governance, social welfare, military at certain times, certain sciences, etc. etc. There's a serious (but to my mind not provable) argument that Ming China was better governed than Western Europe and that the Pax Manjurica and the Tribute Sytem kept international peace better than Western Europe did.

There are enough references in English language scholarship, so we don't have to rely only on Mao Peiqi to define the question. I have no idea of Mao's reputation among scholars in China. I'll rummage around in my books and notes for a quote from a reasonable scholar, preferably Chinese, to put in the lead. Needham says somewhere that in 1800 China produced more iron and steel and published more books than the rest of the world put together. Or maybe it was 1600. I'll try to find it.

Again, the article would not set out to prove that in any particular year China was ahead or behind Western Europe or any other region. It would only report what reliable sources have claimed, all the while avoiding Chinese nationalism, WP:FRINGE, and NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. So for a day or so let's ponder life, love, the stars, and alternative titles. This may turn out to be the least problematic one.

Cheers, ch (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggested "economic leadership" based on that Maddison quote you just added, and because that's the main focus of the article, with science and technology considered only for their economic effects. It would be difficult to find support for Chinese military or scientific leadership around 1640.

I think the books remark comes from Hobson, citing Lach and Kley, and relates to 1500, which is too early for an article focussed on the Qing.

Speaking of Maddison, the two graphs above (based on his data) speak to your point about total vs per capita GDP, and absolute vs relative wealth. Kanguole 11:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Great graphs. Please put them in the article where you think they help, maybe in Criticism? But again, this article is not whether the argument is true but how and whether non-fringers made it.

Also thanks for the reminder of Hobson. But 1500 would be relevant as the benchmark from which any alleged "loss" was measured.

BTW, Tonio Andrade, The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History (Princeton University Press, 2016) makes a heavy duty case that leadership in military technology went back and forth in the early modern period.

That said, I think this is enough of enough about an article that I thought could be deep sixed. The Great Divergence article is Mid-level Importance, this is Low (but some) Importance.

And where are the comments, much less edits, from the editors who thought the article should be kept? Did @Kanguole: and I get sandbagged? ch (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ ch: Come again...Sandbagged? If you are wanting comments you only have to ask; I thought we were taking a day or so to contemplate life, etc. Anyway, you have my comments already; AFAICT they weren't acceptable, so I'd be unwilling to edit without some measure of agreement. Whereas your proposal is, so you are free (by and large) run with it. I still think the phrase "economic leadership" is un-neutral, but I'm guessing I'm outvoted on that as well. What comments, edits, etc would you like from me? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Rename

Since there is no doubt that Qing conquest theory is a neologism, I have for now moved the article to Criticism of Qing dynasty's economic progress, similar to other articles such as Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, Criticism of the government response to Hurricane Katrina, even though it is not necessarily the best title. And indeed, there are many articles in Wikipedia starting with the phrase "Criticism of". --Wengier (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I think "progress" pre-judges the issue, because it suggests an expectation of continuous economic growth, which is a modern idea, e.g. since the industrial revolution. Indeed such a framing permeates this essay (or did, before recent edits), suggesting that industrialization was inevitable and since it didn't happen in China, someone must have prevented it, rather than the alternative view that industrialization was exceptional. How about "performance"? Kanguole 22:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. The original "theory" or claim is clearly very controversial, and indeed it was largely based on a logic motivated by Chinese nationalism and anti-Qing sentiment, disagreed by most scholars outside China. With the new name and updated contents the article is hopefully much more encyclopedic than before. --Wengier (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)