|
|
|
||
Line 56:
::https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvp2n341<br>
::https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/items/e0b36c1b-bc50-439b-8230-25332e98f38b [[User:Sheherherhers|Sheherherhers]] ([[User talk:Sheherherhers|talk]]) 02:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:Here is a similar story: the Qin conquered the Zhou dynasty in 256 BC; the Zhou dynasty was NEVER an empire, yet it is considered a dynasty of China, and historians usually date the Qin dynasty started in 221 BC. Of course one can argue that the Qin dynasty started in 256 BC (or even earlier), but still Wikipedia regards 221 BC as the start of the Qin dynasty according to the ''majority'' view. And for the Qing dynasty's start, the year 1644 is the ''majority'' view whereas 1636 is the ''minority'' view, which should be acknowledged. Regardless of the views, the first paragraph already explicitly mentions both years (1636 and 1644)
My suggested revision as follows:<br>
{{tq|The Qing dynasty , officially the Great Qing, was a Manchu-led [[conquest dynasty]] of China and the last imperial dynasty in Chinese history. The dynasty was emerged from the [[Jurchen people|Jurchen]]-led [[Later Jin (1616–1636)|Later Jin dynasty]] established in [[Manchuria]] (present-day [[Northeast China]] and [[Outer Manchuria]]). It subsequently proclaimed as an empire in Shenyang in 1636, seized control of Beijing in 1644, which is considered the start of the dynasty's rule in China. The dynasty lasted until 1912, when it was overthrown in the Xinhai Revolution...}}
:Efforts had been made to reduce the length of the article (specially the lead), considering that the article is already very long (with a "too long" tag clearly shown). And regardless the start year (the minority view or the majority view, 1636 or 1644), I do not think there is need for the first paragraph (which intends to be brief) to mention the pre-events (before BOTH 1636 and 1644). Instead, the Later Jin dynasty is mentioned and explained in the second paragraph, and there is no repetition needed for the first paragraph. Otherwise, we can repeat various other events in the first paragraph too, which are however not intended for the first paragraph (especially considering that editors were trying hard to reduce its length). The point "conquest dynasty" is valid, but there is a lot more to be said as well, such as how Qing considered itself, although such things may not really fit in an article which is already very long, especially in the very beginning. --[[User:Wengier|Wengier]] ([[User talk:Wengier|talk]]) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
| |||