Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people. It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." [1] Significantly, this definition of genocide under international law does not include repression against political or economic groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 December 2008
On the fifth month and thirteen year of Gwanghaegun , a Joseon historical book recorded the following passage:At this time Nurhachi the bandit had invaded Liaoyang, soldiers and civilians of Liaodong Eight Stations who refused to follow Nurhachi, have gathered alongside the river....later on, many of the Nurhachi bandits have arrived, those people who refused to shave their hair, all jumped into the Yalu river and died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 December 2008
《李朝实录》光海君十三年五月,也记载了辽东汉人的悲惨遭遇:
“时奴贼既得辽阳,辽东八站军民不乐从胡者,多至江边……其后,贼大至,义民不肯剃头者,皆投鸭水(鸭绿江)以死。” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 December 2008
主流觀點認為是在中國史書中曾經被泛稱為生活在現在的中國東北地區的東胡民族的一部,《後漢書·挹婁傳》:「無君長,其邑落各有大人。」(translation: They have no
King and no
Emperor, all their tribes have tribal headman)《魏書·勿吉傳》「邑落各自有長,不相總一。」(translation:All the tribes have tribal headman, were not unified under one leader)《隋書·靺鞨傳》「邑落具有酋長,不相總一」(translation:All the tribes have
Tribal Chief, were not unified under one leader)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Arilang1234 (
talk •
contribs) 08:14, 13 December 2008
Hi Arilang. I've thought about this for a few days now, and I've reached the conclusion that this article just doesn't work. In your lead paragraph, you took the highest figure for 1600 you could find (250 million), you compared it with the lowest figure for 1650 you could find (40-100 million); then you gave an unsupported casualty number of "between 40 and 100 million" (which doesn't fit with the figures you just gave) and you ascribed it all to the Manchus. Let's now look at the following sentence, which I find very problematic for a number of reasons (I put in bold the problematic passages: "Historians have concluded that, between AD. 1600-1650, the total population loss was between 40 millions and 100 millions(mainly Han Chinese plus other ethnicity), probably the indirect result of many genocides and mass murders conducted by Manchu Qing barbarians." For this sentence to be acceptable, you would have to find scholars who:
Now let's see what the two inline citations you use to support your claim actually say.
The first source (called Barbarism and Civilization - Mongols And Manchu Emperors) says this about the Qing conquest:
“ | In turn, the Ming were ousted by the Manchu (Tungusic descendants of the Ruzhen), who marked the beginning of the Qing dynasty. The Manchu were organized under banners or civil-military units distinguished by colored flags. Before 1644, their administrative units for conscription and taxation recruited Chinese and Mongols. By 1648, the "multi-ethnic army" of bannermen included less than 16 percent Manchu (see Naquin and Rawski, pp. 4–5). Like the Mongols, the Manchu adopted Chinese culture, allowing for a renaissance of ancient philosophy and literature (see Goulding). | ” |
The second link sends to p. 42 of Jing Tsu's Failure, Nationalism, and Literature, which says this:
“ | Citing Manchu atrocities against the Hans at the fall of the Ming dynasty, as narrated in Ten Days in Yangzhou (Yangzhou shiri ji) and The Massacre in Jiading (Jiading tucheng ji lue), Zou poignantly enumerated the series of defeats and humiliations endured by the Chinese that had been long forgotten. Chen Tianhua's no less impassioned writings, political and fictional, such as Bell Alarming the World and The Lion's Roar, express in equal intensity a resentment toward the Manchus doubled with a reproach toward the Chinese themselves. | ” |
Conclusion: neither source supports your claim that the population loss between 1600 and 1650 was "probably the indirect result of many genocides and mass murders conducted by Manchu Qing barbarians." The violence of the conquest certainly had an effect on the population, but you can't forget mass banditry, famines, and epidemics when you discuss this population loss. And you can't just use terms like "genocides," "mass murders," and "barbarians" just because you feel like it. This is both
POV and
original research.
[NOTE: Message by Madalibi continues after next section.]
To answer your question on the questionable links, I put it there to support the term "barbarians", not to support my argument on the population loss. Since you would have access to more text books and research papers than I do, may be I leave it to you to come up with a reasonable 'guess'?(Like I mentioned before, we can only guess, unless someone invent a 'Time machine' Arilang talk 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
[Message by Madalibi continued:]
As for the rest of the page: as I've already argued on your talk page, only the massacre of the Dzungars (which, I insist, was not done because they were "Buddhists") is explained as a genocide in the scholarly literature (actually mostly in one book by Peter Perdue). In the Taiping rebellion, it was actually the Taiping who tried to commit genocide against the Manchus (they massacred the entire Banner population in Nanjing); the repression of the rebellion was Han Chinese fighting Han Chinese. In the Panthay rebellion, it was mostly Han Chinese (and not always those serving in the military) who killed Muslims. In Guangzhou in 1650, it was the Han-Chinese troops of warlord Shang Kexi who massacred the population. Not a single Manchu was there. Shang Kexi was serving the Qing, of course, but he certainly did not kill the population because they were Han Chinese (something you would need for this massacre to count as a genocide). In Yangzhou in 1645, it was Han-martial bannermen (members of the 漢軍八旗) who massacred the population while
Dodo and his Manchu troops were proceeding toward Nanjing. As for the "massacre of missionaries" during the Boxer Uprising: they were all killed by Han Chinese in the Shandong countryside (not to mention that "missionaries" are not an ethnic group).
Many of your edits here and in other pages seem to be animated by a visceral hatred for the Manchus (as
your last post on my talk page has recently confirmed). Because of its
no original research and
NPOV policies, Wikipedia doesn't care about what you (nor I, of course) think about the Manchus or the Qing. What counts is
verifiability in citing sources. If you can find scholarly sources claiming that the Manchus committed "genocide," were "barbarians," or were still "tribal chieftains" in the 19th century, you're welcome to post them and I will not object, but if you post inline citations that say something completely different from what your text is saying, and if this entire page is just a display of your personal interpretation of "violence in the Qing era" as "genocide committed by the barbaric Manchus," then you are misleading the readers of Wikipedia.
You know I've supported and encouraged you before, so please take me seriously on this: this page just doesn't work as it is. Cheers,
Madalibi (
talk)
14:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Madalibi, I respect your knowledge, apparently you have read many books, which I have not the time nor the opportunity to do so. Ok, let me answer your question one by one. I also know that a lot of the mass murders were done by the Han Banners, after all, when Manchu invaded the Great Wall they only had 150,000 soldiers(consisted of Manchus, Mongols, Koreans, and Han Chinese.) Whatever numbers of people they killed, 20, 50, 100, 200 millions, we will never know, because eveybody is guessing, including 'Historians'. And your opinion is since Han Chinese did most of the killings, we should not label the Manchus as Genocidal, or mass murderers. That is OK with me. But wait. Lets 'fast forward' to second world war. At the Nuremberg Trial,
“ | The Subsequent Nuremberg Trials (more formally, the Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals) were a series of twelve U.S. military tribunals for war crimes against surviving members of the military, political, and economical leadership of Nazi Germany, held in the Palace of Justice, Nuremberg after World War II from 1946 to 1949 following the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal. | ” |
Please read carefully, the trial is against surviving members of the military, political, and economical leadership of Nazi Germany. Madalibi, the bottom line is, German soldiers(or whoever) pulled the triggers, German soldiers( or whoever) switched on the valve at the gas chambers, the orders came from the leaders, so the leaders went to the trial(not the soldiers). We all know what happen next, needless to say.
Do you follow my argument?
Arilang
talk
18:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
user:Madalibi suggested that I had a look at this article.
At the moment there is not one source in this article claiming that a genocide took place. I suggest that the article is moved to "Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom" as a slightly less POV name although I think we need to talk through alternative names. -- PBS ( talk) 02:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
@Madalibi: Quote'remove all the gratuitous references to "the Manchus" killing such and such people as if with their own hands.' Unquote. I have a funny feeling that you intensely do not like the idea of Manchu being labeled 'murderers', but like I said before, what they have done, or didn't do, are all in black and white, in verifible historical books(lucky they didn't burn all the books, still some left-over, how amazing). And again, like the comment I left on your talk page, Nazi Germany's leaders were sent to the gallows for what they did in the war, not their soldiers, please remember that. Arilang talk 03:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
If this article is not to be put up for AfD as Original Research, then are there any reliable sources (preferably in English) that can be used as a template for this article? -- PBS ( talk) 02:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
@Madalibi, and other editors, admin or moderator: I present the No.10 reference, which no one seem to care to read, which is a research paper done by Michael Edmund Clarke, In the Eye of Power (doctoral thesis), Brisbane 2004, I think his words carry more weights than mine.
Page 47.
“ | The Qing campaign in Zungharia in 1757-58 amounted to the complete destruction of not only the Zunghar state but of the Zunghars as a people that virtually depopulated northern Xinjing. It is estimated by a number of scholars that the Qing campaigns against Zunghars in 1756-57 resulted in the destruction, by a combination of warfare and disease, of 80% of the variously estimated six hundred thousand to one million strong Zunghar population inhabiting northern Xinjing. The military subjugation of the Zunghars, although destroying the existing Zunghar state, was deemed by the Qianlong emperor to have not sufficiently solved the Qing's century-long Zunghar 'problem'. The Qianlong emperor's physical obliteration(dictitionary: 1. To do away with completely so as to leave no trace. 2. To wipe out, rub off, or erase .3. Medicine To remove completely (a body organ or part), as by surgery, disease, or radiation.) of the Zunghars....
References:Pamela Kyle Crossley, A Translucent Mirror, op.cit,.p.326; Crossley asserts that Qing records claim to have inflicted one million casualties in the suppression of the Zunghars; |
” |
All you editors, you be the judge. Genocide? Mass murder? Ethnic cleansing? Massacre? Atrocities? Or something softer, like suppression? State violence?(are we into the rating of a movie? Suitable for all ages?) Qing conquest?(Now we can all bask in the glow of Qing empire, and forget about the loss of human life, like Holocaust had never ever happen?) Arilang talk 03:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
“ | The use of massacre for ethnic extermination was also atypical of Qing policy either before or after this time. The term "extermination" (jiao [剿]) had been used before to describe the appropriate action toward non-Han barbarians. Manchus, of course, did use terror tactics against Chinese cities in the lower Yangzi " pour encourager les autres." The ten-day massacre at Yangzhou in 1645 is the most notorious example. Later suppressions of domestic rebellions produced many capital sentences, but only after interrogation and judicial proceedings. The theory of distinguishing between ringleaders and "coerced followers" aimed to minimize the number of executions. Many were pardoned after their sentences were reviewed at the autumn assizes. | ” |
@Madalibi, what is at issue? What is the issue? You and me are not primary students no more, I am very supprised that you can only 'think inside the square'. So when no one else had done it, that means I can not do it? So when everybody is saying 'Earth is at the center of the universe', then Nicolaus Copernicus would have to just sit there and shut his mouth? What kind of schools you came from? What kind of professors you learn from? Sorry for my sharp comments, though I did try very hard to refrain from saying out. Arilang talk 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
QUOTE: "All you editors, you be the judge." :UNQUOTE. No, Arilang, you don't get it. We are not the judges here; secondary sources are the judges here. Unless some authoritative text or scholarly source says something about a historical event or trend, then it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. This is not censorship; this information is still valuable and should be retained in other articles. But this article is simply too POV that it is hopeless. It would be like a student from the PRC creating a page called "Horrendous Crimes of the Dirty Taiwanese Nationalist Party", or something along those lines.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 15:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have never said, or going to start any article with a name like Corruption of the Han Chinese, most of the articles I have created(the list is on my user page for everyone to see) are highly politically charged. Lets go back to the original debate, which is about Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom, and the issue was raised by you, and very clearly you are advocating that it needs to be either merged with other articles, or to be deleted somehow, 'since no one else had done it before'. Well, you started it, lets see how are you going to finish it? Arilang talk 09:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
@user PBS, by reading user Madalibi's comments, I understand that the dispute is based on the use of two words:genocide and chiefdom (1) Genocide, initially Madalibi claimed that it is 'unverifiable'. Later Madalibi offered a reference: Quote:"Now in his book China Marches West: The Qing conquest of Central Eurasia (2005), Peter Perdue specifically called the extermination of the Dzungars an "ethnic genocide," and even a "final solution" (both on p. 285)." By that I take it that 'Genocide' is verified, is OK to be used, and it had been used before, so it no longer is 'original research'.
Let me cut and paste the definition of Genocide on wiki again: Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people. It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1] Significantly, this definition of genocide under international law does not include repression against political or economic groups.
The key words(to me):(1)to destroy, in whole or in part (2) causing serious bodily or mental harm (3)deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in parts. Peter Perdue claimed that what Manchu did was genocidal, so it is not 'original research' nor 'original thought' by me.
In regard to the second word chiefdom, I agree with user Madalibi that it at the moment I cannot offer any reference to verify it(I will keep on searching for a verifiable reference.) So meanwhile I propose the name of the article be changed into "Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers".
If a consensus can be reached, I shall go ahead and move the article into the new name. And I like to offer my appology to Madalibi for all those harsh words I used on him. I was getting a bit angry, and didn't have any ill intentions . One more thing, I shall also remove the sentence pointed out by Madalibi that might cause problem:"Historians have concluded that, between AD. 1600-1650, the total population loss was between 40 millions and 100 millions(mainly Han Chinese plus other ethnicity), probably the indirect result of many genocides and mass murders conducted by Manchu Qing barbarians." Arilang talk 10:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind reply user PBS, I know I still have a lot to learn, please give me some more time, and I would restructure the article, so that it does not have NPOV or original research problems. While your are here, would you have a look at my other articles: Charter 08, Guo Qian, and Weiquan movement, these are all created by me, and point out the shortcomings so that I can rectify them. Thanks. Arilang talk 19:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I have cited passages in detail to show why they did not constitute proper references, explained why there seems to be no acceptable template for this article, and made constructive suggestions about how to preserve the content of this page even if this wiki turns out to be unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. In the process, I deleted nothing and I even presented sources that could further
Arilang's point of view that the
Qing-dynasty rulers committed genocide against the
Dzungar Mongols. Arilang has also defended his position, but he has now renamed the page "Massacres and Atrocities committed by barbaric Manchu rulers" without discussing his decision on the talk page first. He also rephrased the lead paragraph in such a way that the article is now presented as "yet to be verified speculation" (!). Both the wiki title and the lead paragraph also contain the word "barbaric," which is unacceptable because no historians call the Qing rulers "barbarians" in print.
But the main issue is not about these turns of phrase. The problem with this wiki is much deeper and will not be solved by further editing:
this page would still fail to qualify for Wikipedia because there is no scholarly book that discusses all these massacres together. This page clearly constitutes a Synthesis of published material which advances a position, one sub-case of original research, something that is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia. Since this point has already been made clearly in this talk page, I propose we proceed to AfD immediately. Madalibi ( talk) 06:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
If Sun Yat-sen can call Manchus :Northen barbarians nearly 100 years ago, why not today? I am beginning to wonder, what is causing user Madalibi's repeating and tireless attempts to paint a rosy picture for the "Barbaric" Manchus of the 17th century? May be it is yet another mystry? Arilang talk 09:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
www.sacu.org is the website of Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding (SACU)
Quote(1):"The fact that they were barbarians who had been kept beyond the empire's north-east border, and were so weak numerically compared with the Han Chinese, must have made the fall of the Ming all the more humiliating to the Hans."
Quote(2): "Strictly speaking, a bannerman was one who served the Qing emperor, but the term is often used synonymously for Manchu.... The bannerman had, on the surface, a slave-master style relationship with his ruler (as opposed to the Confucian son/father model of the Hans)
Arilang talk 13:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
First off, so what if Sun Yat-sen considered Manchus barbarians? Why is that word included in the title of this article? Should we start making articles by inserting adjectives before every ethnicity, like 'Arrogant French' and 'Militant Germans' and 'Proper English' and 'Efficient Japanese'? Should we start a page called "Evil Barbaric Germans who Murdered Jews in the Holocaust", or just keep it simply as the " Holocaust"? And What does Sun Yat-sen's opinion have to do with this alleged genocide?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
And I do say alleged, since you certainly didn't learn anything from the "Population" section of the Ming Dynasty article. At no time was the pre-modern population census entirely accurate, thousands and even hundreds of thousands or even millions of people managed to escape from the registers and authorities (or were simply not reachable), especially in times of chaos, disruption, warfare, epidemics, famine, natural disaster, etc. Even in times of peace, young children, women expected to marry into other households, vagabonds, migrant workers, and itinerant merchants were often not counted by the authorities in the census, and corruption usually assured that local officials underreported their population figures to the central government. The mid 17th century was a time of continual crisis in China; you expect an accurate census to be gathered when there is such a major upheaval and civil war? This is a recurrent pattern in Chinese history since the end of the Han Dynasty, and is nothing unique to the Qing. And if the Manchus were only interested in slaughtering Han Chinese, then how did the population suddenly rebound and outgrow any previous figure by the late 17th century? It's because the political and social climate became more stable and the Qing regime had greater direct control over the country, hence they were able to gather a more accurate census.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 15:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
My answers to both user Madalibi and PericlesofAthens:
(a)
Literary Inquisition#Burning of books^ The Cambridge History of China, by Willard J. Peterson, John K. Fairbank, Denis Twitchett Page 291
If you guys agree with Fairbank(PHD students usually do), you shall be aware of 'pitholes' created by Qianlong and his 'text modifiers', because you will never know the historical texts you are reading is the 'real thing' or not.
Well, you guys should be familiar with Fudan University, one of the top uni of China, and I happen to have the privilage of translating a research paper from them: Quote:| http://www.fudan.edu.cn/englishnew/ is one of the top Chinese Unversity, and it has a history web site http://yugong.fudan.edu.cn/Article/Info_View.asp?ArticleID=73 on this web page, research papers on the subjects of Manchu-Muslim-Hui-Chinese historical facts were published. Well, editors need to be able to read Chinese(often classical Chinese, which is a little bit harder than common Chinese). The author's conclusion is:有以下几个特点:(AD 1862-1879)(陕西 Shanxi province)
其一、人口损失数量惊人。短短的17年内,全省人口从1394万口锐减至772余万口,人口损失总数高达622万,大约占战前人口总数的44.6%。
其二、战争期间损失的人口数量远高于灾荒期间损失的人口数量。天灾令人恐怖,人祸更为可怕,17年中,因战争原因造成的人口损失约有520.8万, 在全部损失人口中所占的比例高达83.7%,而灾荒期间损失的人口不过101.2余万,占全部损失人口的比例仅有16.3%。 Let me translate the above text:(Between AD 1862-1879)(Shanxi province) Conclusion
(1) The amount of population loss is staggering. In the short time of 17 years, the population of the whole province went from 13,940,000 to 7,720,000, the total loss was as high as 6,220,000, about 44.6% of the original population before the war.
(2) The loss of population during the war was far higher than those losses during famine and disasters. Natural disasters were terrible, man-made disasters(meaning wars) were even worst, in 17 years, the war-caused population loss went up to 5,208,000, was 83.7% of the total loss of population, and the loss of population during natural disasters were only 1,012,000, a mere 16.3% of the total loss of population. End of translation. Unquoted.
The conclusion(2) say it very clearly. 83.7% of 5.2 millions died during the war, and 16.3% of 5.2 millions died during famine and disasters. I hope this research paper is 'scholarly' enough for you guys.
(b) The second reason 'why Ming-Qing history is a mine-field' is due to the Communist China's
Marxist-Leninist education doctrine, when education is to serve the purpose of propagating the
Proletariat revolution(what a mouthful).
See Yuan Weishi#Modernization and History Text Books and Yan Chongnian#Face-slapping incident
I hope I make myself clear. Arilang talk 20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
@Madalibi, my apology for "citation from p. 291 of the Cambridge History of China volume on the Qing", well, that clearly shows that I am not suitable for a candidate for any PHD scholarship yet, am I? Arilang talk 02:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
“太平军血洗全州城”一说流传甚广,连笔者过去也一度信以为真,但民间也有不同的说法。
欲知太平军究竟是否屠城,这一点从守军的人数就可以看出来。据新编《全州县志》载,当时,城内有兵丁约500人,湖南宝庆协都司武昌显奉调入桂,所 率兵丁400人,两者相加约900人。为固守城防,曹燮培急忙招募民团,并强征妇女上城熬粥,释放囚犯一并助战,总兵力达1000余人,与太平军杀死人员 相当。因此,“屠城”一说是清军丑化太平军的说法,或者说只是针对守城的文武官员及助守人员而言的。所以当地老人认为,那些清兵守城的人被杀,是罪有应 得。事实上,为避免伤及百姓,大战前太平军就放出风声,凡百姓从小南门出逃者,皆不杀,所以,战时城内基本上没有什么老百姓了,以致如今当地老百姓还有将 小南门称为“生门”的。而太平军入城后,虽然烧尽了豪强的住宅和当铺,但并没有烧毁民房,甚至连衙门也未烧。所以,由此看来,太平军“屠城”的真相,也就 大白于天下了。
桂林生活网-桂林日报
发布者:宋依达 Arilang talk 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
@ Madalibi, looks like you and me have begun to agree on 2 issues(hopefully more agreed issues to come)
@ Arilang; When Madalibi says "scholarly," he means Wikipedia:Reliable sources; last I checked you are a Wikipedia editor, not a reliable source (hence your opinion about the Manchus really doesn't matter; your job is to merely report relevant statements by actual scholars working in the field of history). According to Wikipedia:Verifiability:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
In other words, if your assertion that Manchus are barbarians is a consensus reached by most historians, then it would be acceptable to name this article as such. So far, you haven't presented us with a list of historians who call the Qing regime simply a barbarian regime, a chiefdom regime, or a genocidal regime. Keep in mind that reporting here at Wiki about statements made only in reliable sources is not simply a guideline; this is Wikipedia policy. I'm not saying claims of genocide do not exist (maybe they do, maybe they don't); I'm saying you have yet to provide us with any statements by specific scholars who call the Qing Dynasty's acts genocidal. Look dude, of course the individual cases of mass slaughter propagated by Qing forces are nasty and reprehensible, but Wikipedia is not a blog where we express our feelings about it; be professional here, Arilang.- Pericles of Athens Talk 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, and patience, PericlesofAthens, you can see that I am not a unreasonable guy. For one thing, I can present many cases of Chinese scholars calling 'Manchus are barbarians', but they are all in Chinese, do these statements count?(And I can translate these statments into English, and quite good at it, in fact) Arilang talk 04:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
(1) I have agreed with user PBS to move this page into my user page, so it is not necessary to do whatever you intent to do.
(2) please stop putting words into my mouth as I have dropped the issue of 'genocide' long time ago.
(3) Quote:"established scholarly position" was my word: we don't really need it." Unquote. So you can make up rules whenever you like, with no explaination and no apology offered? What other rules you have made up and are willing to throw them at me and other editors?
Arilang
talk
06:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for deletion, because I do not think it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in this talk page and briefly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page. Madalibi ( talk) 07:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)