Wikipedia

Talk:Foreign concessions in Tianjin

Latest comment: 10 months ago by 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:994D:FA3A:9926:5403 in topic Converting the map to a modern map
Learn more about this page

Hong Kong

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"it could ideologically never allow such 'imperialism' on its sovereign territory, yet it would allow Hongkong te come close to the end of the lease on part of its territory.."

HK is irrelevant here as this is not a general article on concessions of an article on HK. HK is not in Tianjin. The PRC did not purposely "allow" HK to be held by the British. The stated goal was always to have it returned. It just didn't find itself strong enough, both internally and externally, until the 1980s to force Britain to give up its claims. And HK did not "come close to the end of the lease". It came to the end of the lease.--Jiang 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • The crux of the Chinese position was always to consider its sovereignty over all of China one and indivisible, so to consider all unequal treaties equally unvalid (force majeure). Britain was long resigned to comply with the expiration of the lease, and indeed proved prepared to go further, returning territories it had been conceded in perpetuity; as a successfull diplomatic bargaining position, this was made conditional on the post-transfer conditions for its former subjects in HK, a falrly advantageous outcome for all parties concerned. The PCR found the existence of HK extremely convenient in socio-economic terms, so it was quite willing -and wise- to waite for the lease's expiration, without conceding an inch on the principle, which now is entirely targeted at Taiwan. Fastifex 09:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You need to back up your belief that the PRC "found the existence of HK extremely convenient in socio-economic terms, so it was quite willing -and wise- to waite for the lease's expiration" with legitimate sources and reword the statement so it is relevant to Tianjin.

Further, the Taiwan issue has nothing to do with foreign imperialist incursions, at least not currently. It is an issue "left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s".--Jiang 12:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Revision of history of Austrian colonial policy

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added some information from Austrian colonial policy (version of Feb 3, 2008, see [1]). In order not to violate GFDL I provide its contributors up to Feb 3, 2008:

Gugganij (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've reedited it from different sources. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply


Tianjin is an anachronism

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's a shame this article was not titled Foreign Concessions in Tientsin, because the city was universally known as Tientsin during that period and for several decades after the end of the concessions.--Lubiesque (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Place Names. We use the Pinyin without tone marks for all places names. The reason is the same as why we have Mao Zedong and not Mao Tsetung, even though the latter was more common during his life time, and for sometime afterwards. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Concessions in Tianjin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Belgian Concession section

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't understand why the heading for the Belgian Concession section reads 1902-1931 when the article says the concession was rescinded by mutual agreement in 1929. Is this a mistake, or deliberate? Can someone clarify this? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Number of A-H soldiers

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discrepancy between this article and the "Austrian Colonial Policy" entry. Which number is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinkoku (talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Concessions in Tianjin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Converting the map to a modern map

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am trying to reproduce the borders of the concessions on a modern map but it is very different. Can anyone help me? 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:994D:FA3A:9926:5403 (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_concessions_in_Tianjin&oldid=1207317958"