Talk:Treaty of Nanking

Legalizing of the Opium trade

I have read somewhere that the treaty ended with the Chinese having forced to legalize the Opium trade. Troop350 21:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The treaty did not legalize opium, but the Chinese authorities were forced to tolerate the trade. Later, when the Treaty of Tianjin was signed, they were forced to legalize the trade.--Amban 12:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Treaty of Nanking" is more common [1]. The official English text preumably used this romanization as well. --Jiang 10:52, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's right. There was no Hanyu Pinyin at that time.--Jusjih 04:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, time to move it back.Mr.Clown 15:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pinyin did not exist when Nanjing was founded either, but has that stopped us from using the contermporary anglised name now?--Huaiwei 07:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

But as according to the treaty in wikisource, it is named "The Treaty of Nanking" Mr.Clown 09:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is always a good idea to reach a consensus before a move. Besides, you didn't move the page to "The Treaty of Nanking," but to the "Treaty of NanKing." I have no problems with the former, but I take exception to the latter.--Amban 09:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The article began as "Treaty of Nanking" but was moved to "Treaty of Nanjing" by User:Huaiwei without discussion. It should be moved back. The Treaty of Nanking is a historical event and should go under that name per Wikipedia Manual of Style. — Kelw (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, as long as it is not moved to "Treaty of NanKing."--Amban 16:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NCGN would recommend using Nanking for the city in all articles about 1840, linking to the present article with "(now Nanjing)". It may be worth it to say "(now transliterated Nanjing in pinyin)". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support move back to Treaty of Nanking. Andrewa 06:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support move back to Nanking. Also, I must agree that a consensus should have reached before moving it.--Aldux 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, in hindsight there have been several glitches of which that was one. But nobody bats 100, and it looks like the way ahead might now be clear, and there are also some valuable observations above relating to other articles and principles. No change of vote. Andrewa 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support non-Pinyin version. 132.205.44.5 23:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support for Treaty of Nanking.--Amban 01:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support moving back and then disucssing. —  AjaxSmack  06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't see why the discussion needs to wait until the move. If anyone still thinks that the better name is Treaty of Nanjing, then they should say so. Moving it back temporarily is pointless IMO. No change of vote. Andrewa 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • My support for this move is based only on opposition to an undiscussed move. The threshold for proponents of a move is greater than for opponents and I feel that the advocates of "Treaty of Nanjing" should have to meet that bar rather than those who wish for the article to remain at the long-time "Treaty of Nanking" location. I have no opinion on the merits of the move itself but it is certainly appropriate to establish consensus now rather than waiting. —  AjaxSmack  04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Just look up entries on similar treaties and all use historical name as article's title.Mr.Clown 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Most but not all. E.g. Treaty of Speyer (1544), Treaty of Frankfurt (1539), Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi, Treaty of Den Haag (1701). —  AjaxSmack  04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It should go by the name of the city in 1842, which ever one it is. Benjwong 03:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In 1842, the city was called 南京 just as it is now. The question is whether to use the contemporary romanization of "Nanking" or the current pinyin "Nanjing." —  AjaxSmack  04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That's actually not true, if we want to be hypercorrect - as Wikipedians are wont to be. In 1842, the official name of this city was 江宁 Jiangning and the name 南京 (Nanjing/Nanking) did not even occur once in the official Chinese text of the treaty. Not only that, the treaty had no official name in Chinese at all and was referred to under a number of different names. In Chinese texts, you often find the treaty being referred to as Jiangning tiaoyue 江宁条约.

As for what name should be used for this article, it is undoubtedly the "Treaty of Nanking," since we use common names in Wikipedia.--Amban 09:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out -- that explains the 寧 abbreviation for the city. I agreee with you on WP:COMMON -- I just get tired of weighing in on some of these sometimes. Just curious why the English name at the time was Nanking even if the official one wasn't? —  AjaxSmack  16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Nanjing was called Jingshi back in the good ol' days when it was still the capital. Then, when the capital was moved north in 1421 the name was changed to Nanjing. All that changed of course when the Qing dynasty was founded and the name was changed to Jiangning. So, the British who concluded the treaty probably stuck to the most commonly used name at the time. Why Nanking and not Nanjing? That's just a reflection of an older pronunciation. Folks in Guangzhou still call it Naam-king and it is not completely unthinkable that the city was called Nanking by locals back then, but you need to ask a historical linguist about that.--Amban 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Treaty of Nanjing to Treaty of Nanking as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Currency

Great Britain received 21 million dollars in compensation.

Was the transaction actually in dollars? --Calair 04:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this too...My guess is it was copied from a American history book, the figure should be given in pounds instead--Josquius 17:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That was Chinese currency unit.--Jusjih 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And the unit is the Mexican or Maria Theresa dollar. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the reparations were in teals of silver. The Mexican dollar was silver and so that's why it was common currency around this time. This should be explained in the article though.Sir Langan (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

representatives

Who represented UK and who represented Qing China? Bennylin 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not figured out, but you may want to read s:Treaty of Nanking to find the answer.--Jusjih 04:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Imperialism

China was a very enclosed country until Britain broke the enclosure. If Hong Kong was not taken by Britain, it might have been similar to other Chinese cities now. British Hong Kong and Japanese Formosa were both more advanced than China in history.--Jusjih 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Who permits such language to ever appear on wikipedia. This is explicit discriminate another country. I would suggest remove this and ban the user

I recommend immediate delete the comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amam2000 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Nanking/ Nanjing

There are good arguments on either side, discussed above in the archive, but since the title of the article is "Nanking," it seems OK to leave it Nanking. Especially since the first sentence in the new edit would have been "Treaty of Nanjing or Treaty of Nanjing." There is a redirect from Nanjing in any case. ch (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Treaty consequences

I believe there is one stipulation of the treaty that has been left off this article. That was the free movement of missionaries and British subjects within the Chinese Empire. I believe that to get this clause in the British offered free movement for Chinese subject on British soil as well. This had the unintended consequence in the Australian colonies of forcing the governments there to accept the presence of Chinese on the goldfields. To begin with Victoria proposed completely excluding Chinese but the British government couldn't allow it because it would upset this treaty. The only source I have for this is second hand from a book, "The Diggers from China: The Story of the Chinese on the Goldfields" by Jean Gittins, I'm not sure how accurate she was. If I come across more sources I will make the changes myself. Sir Langan (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It may have been stipulated in the later Treaty of Bogue in regards to China allowing British people to reside in the treaty ports. This makes a bit of sense with what I've read. I'll have a look at it and might make the changes there. Sir Langan (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

UK vs. US spelling

The article has had UK-spelling as it is the convention for articles that involve the UK. I tried to explain this to the IP that changed it to US-spelling, but they only responded with one word: "irrelevant." Now I open the discussion for them and other editors to explain which variety of English they think is suited for this article. El_C 04:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter: MOS:RETAIN means we retain it unless there is a reason such as MOS:TIES. In this case the ties are either British English or Chinese (who don't speak English, last time I checked!) As there is no connection between the Treaty and the US, there is no reason at all to change the language, despite what an IP may argue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)