Talk:1911 Revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copy Editing[edit]

Basic copy edit of intro on 20 May 2007 Mtiffany71 05:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Talk archiveReply[reply]

"New Armies"[edit]

The original author of this article used the term "new armies", which is misleading and therefore confusing.

After the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), the Qing government reformed the Chinese military. In the section that's titled "Formation of new armies", the author describes the reformed national army (or "New Army", as I have called it) as having consisted of "new armies," whereas in the same section he states that the "new armies" were actually "regiments" (which are also called "brigades"), which are much smaller parts of true armies. Elsewhere in the article, it seems that the "new armies" were sometimes as large as "divisions", which are also only parts of true armies. (For clarification of how a modern army is organized, see: .)

In my editing of this article, I have therefore replaced "new armies" with "New Army units" (where "unit" may mean regiment or division), and I have replaced "member of the new armies" with "member of the New Army".

Cwkmail (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request consensus discussion on addition of image[edit]

The Flag of the Republic of China

Discussion welcomeArilang1234 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See 'Gallery of Flags' (below) ~Eric F (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting consensus discussion on addition of flag[edit]

The Xingzhonghui flag 興中會

Discussion welcomeArilang1234 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See 'Gallery of Flags' (below) ~Eric F (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wuchang Uprising's separate article[edit]

Currently this article has a link to the article for the Wuchang Uprising in the section on the Wuchang Uprising within this article. The section here is significantly larger than the entire Wuchang Uprising article. This doesn't really make any sense, and someone who knows what they're doing should probably fix it. (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manchuria/Tibetan independence not "POV"[edit]

I'm quite surprised to read that adding the fact that Mongolia and Tibet proclaimed their independence due to the downfall of Imperial authority would be "POV" ? IMHO there is nothing to discuss here, it is just factual, whatever one thinks about the validity of said independence. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not the one who reverted your edit, but as an aside, many or most other provinces and areas also proclaimed their independence from the imperial authority with the downfall of Qing Dynasty, which leaded to very complicated consequences in the following decades (and ROC's authority was very limited or nominal). I don't think it's really a good idea to just list Tibet and Mongolia without proper clarifications. -- (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Tibet and Mongolia were the one who actually succeeded in gaining de facto independence as separate countries, with Mongolia gaining some international recognition, so I'd say this is important to point out. Maybe it should be written as "Independence of Tibet and Outer Mongolia" instead of "...proclaim their independence" ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, "Independence of Tibet and Outer Mongolia" is even worse. de facto independence does not mean real independence or became separate countries (maybe post-1924 Mongolia can be considered as a de-facto separate state when it officially proclaimed a republic, but certainly not Tibet, not mentioning that in 1915 Outer Mongolia actually recognized ROC's sovereignty in exchange for autonomy), and both Tibet and Mongolia were still considered by ROC (Qing's direct successor) as part of its territory. -- (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have pointed out that elsewhere, but I think you are not entirely correct to assume that Mongolia in 1915 accepted Chinese "souvereignty". Yaan (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have also pointed out that on the other talk page, you may be right there is probably a better summary for the treaty content as in the article Treaty of Kyakhta (from which I copied the word), but this is a technical issue at least for the purpose of the discussion regarding "successor states" or so. The original points above still hold. (P.S. for the sake of precision, I have changed the summary in that article a bit.) -- (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you adequately source your point, the other editor is wrong to revert it for POV, although you also aren't being fully accurate. As a commenter above pointed out, many regions of "China" became "independent". Further, Tibet and "Chinese Tartary" weren't administered as part of "China" under the Qing either. A full treatment should mention the separate treatment under the Qing, the de facto independence of many areas, and their gradual reabsorption into the Chinese state before and after WWII, with ("Outer") Mongolia remaining the only actual successor state because of Russian patronage. Even mentioning the D. Lama's government-in-exile and its support from India, you should point out that it seeks autonomy but not full independence. — LlywelynII 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US POV[edit]

"Even though the Communist Party of China claimed to have created the "people's democratic dictatorship" in 1949 with the establishment of the People's Republic of China, true democracy (e.g. the separation of power in the United States) was never fully implemented by the Beiyang Government, the Nanjing Government led by the Nationalist Party, or the Government of the People's Republic of China" - while it is a fact that true democracy has never existed in China, it is incredibly POV to use the United States which has also in point of fact never been 'truly' democratic - regardless of what you think about affiliated political theorists' claims that it represents an adequate degree, the highest degree extant or the highest degree possible of democracy - as a model of democracy. (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a lot of words to just say the "true" is misplaced.
Further, aside from the "true", it's not POV at all. The US has been the touchstone to "representative democracy" (i.e., republicanism) for going on two centuries now, disproving by example earlier political theorists' claims that large countries could only be administered by monarchies.
Further, the original editor didn't include the US to score unrelated points but to talk about the completeness of Chinese democracy, particularly given presumed biases that see PRC:dictatorial::ROC:democratic (as the term is used all over the modern world, not as it was used in Ancient Athens, where the franchise was also limited and they also delegated their authority to representatives, albeit ones chosen by public lottery rather than election).
There are uses of "democracy" that strain credulity and invite POV complaints. The PRC's own claims to be a democracy are among those; the USA's (post-MLKjr) really aren't. — LlywelynII 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very interesting but also very long article[edit]

Anyone else who feel that this article could benefit from being condensed and split into further articles? Perhaps a "Very long" tag would be in place? (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Wikipedia has other articles on all of these topics already, but turning the page into a list of links to "self-strengthening movement", "100 day reforms", &c., followed by a link to the "wuchang uprising" is hardly an article. On the other hand, the sections could be condensed from the massive pile of one-paragraph subdivisions into a single paragraph or two, which would make it seem less long. — LlywelynII 21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A Background Section without any discussion of the foreign concessions is massive fail. Further, the immediate cause of the rebellion was the situation with the railroads, which go unmentioned in the "background". Meanwhile, the Chinese railroad history page thinks the problem was increasing foreign belligerence post-Boxers combined with Qing inability to run its own railroads (& specifically the pile of foreign railroad concessions in the 1900s and the planned four-power rail being planned in Canton), while this article suggests it was anger at China trying to nationalize and run its railroads itself. That hardly makes sense (most would have cheered nationalizing the South Manchuria Railway, for example), but I'm not expert enough to choose between the articles. — LlywelynII 21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section removal[edit]

  • The entire "other issues" part was removed. It is possible that these aftermath events do not count toward the revolution at all. Someone can put these back with more info. Benjwong (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A "section" was removed from the evaluation. Problem is that the comment of He Xiangnang (何香凝) is about the same as other comments already made also by people of much higher position. This comment does not stand out. The Marxist historians part is too vague. There are even Marxist historians with different views. Benjwong (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another "section" was removed from the evaluation. There are definitely reliable sources to show Li Zehou speak highly of Liang Qichao. But there are no sources that say Li exactly supports Liang Qichao's constitutional monarchy plan over the revolution. The chance is very high that he has said it in some book somewhere. If someone has a source please put it back. The rest of it is also vague. Benjwong (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A portion of the "evaluation was removed. There needs to be a more direct source for John Fairbank. Gao Muke (高慕柯) is also Michael Gasster. In there is a source "馬克•賽爾登;魏曉明,馮崇義譯. 革命中的中國:延安道路. 北京: 社會科學文獻出版社,2002年. 1962: 第45-48頁. ISBN 9787801496706." But did he really say this? If so, why not take from a Michael Gasster source directly instead? Please comment. Benjwong (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term 'Xinhai'[edit]

A bit more of an explanation on the origin of the term would be helpful; deciphering using the WP links takes awhile. I'm not even sure if this is on the right track: Xin-[辛,Yin Metal]-Hai[亥,Pig]. ~Eric F (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Xinhai". Who calls it that? We normally call this the Chinese Revolution in English.
"Chinese" has a pronunciation known to everyone, but Xinhai? What the hell? (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term Xinhai is not comprehensible to most readers, even with the explanation given in the lede. The term is not widely used compared to "1911 Revolution," as shown by this Google Ngram Xinhai Revolution vs 1911 Revolution. Some day I will suggest moving the article to "1911 Revolution," since "1911" is just the English way of saying "Xinhai." ch (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... I personally pronounce "Xinhai" Shin-high, but is that even right?
I don't remember for sure, but I suspect this article used to have a sensible English name.
Maybe someone can look through the log, and see what happened.
When I first came to this Talk page, I expected to see a discussion/debate about what this page should be called, but I see no such section here.
That tends to imply the decision was made unilaterally, and we don't do things unilaterally around here. (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Sheen-high" would probably be a better English approximation.
I don't think moving this page to "1911 Revolution" would make much sense, as a lot of westerners probably wouldn't recognize it anyway. "Chinese Revolution" is too bland of a title--It could be construed as referring to the Chinese Civil War, the 20 or so other revolutions led by Sun Yatsen from 1896 until his death, the Cultural Revolution, etc. The term "Xinhai" is more appropriate, as it refers to a specific revolution instead of being so general. The term is also better than referring to it as the "1911 revolution", as there were several revolutions that occurred in 1911 across the world.Zhonghua88 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this page should be moved to "1911 Revolution." Only people who speak Chinese call it 辛亥革命。Many non-Chinese people who speak Chinese but studied Chinese history in English still call it the 1911 Revolution. There have been several French revolutions, but the term "the French Revolution" refers only to the revolution of 1789. It's convention. In English, it is not called Révolution française. Similarly, 14th July is called Bastille Day in English, whereas the French never call it that, they call it simply Quatorze Juillet. It is incorrect to say that non-Chinese people would not know what the 1911 Revolution was - that is the common term for the 辛亥革命。 Dena.walemy (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article simply looks awkward and disorganized. The biggest problem seems to be all the section headings with only one or two sentences. Perhaps there is an appropriate template? Or, at least something like a timeline simply listing events sequentially. I.e.:


  • Event one: something happened.
  • Event two: something else happened.

(Etc.) P.s.: this might help it look not quite so "very long". ~Eric F (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Insufficient 'Background'?[edit]

Although certainly not an expert on the subject, it is my understanding that hubris and corruption played a significant role; (or at least the perception thereof) and deserves at least a mention in the 'Background'. As with any revolutionary movement, the motivations of the "masses" cannot be overlooked or underestimated. However, this might be a touchy subject as far as NPOV is concerned. ~Eric F (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ambiguous image desrciption[edit]

The description for this image states "path of the uprising" -- which uprising? (There were many!) The placement of the image doesn't offer much help; neither does WP's file description (Chinese). ~Eric F (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gallery of Flags?[edit]

Adding more flags haphazardly will only make this page look more cluttered. In addition to the two flags mentioned above, there are others which deserve display. My suggestion is to make an image gallery with an assortment of relevant flags.
Examples: (just suggestions)

Comments? ~Eric F (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Navy Ensign is also the party flag of the KMT. (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potal Map and Wade-Giles[edit]

Because this is a historical article, let us use Postal map for place names and Wade-Giles for everything else. These systems existed In 1911, pinyin did not. OttomanJackson (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly, that's a ridiculous suggestion. Wade-Giles and the Postal Romanization are hard to pronounce for the English reader and very incorrect in comparison with the original Chinese, which more English readers will be familiar with. Example--Postal Romanization (same as Wade-Giles): Tientsin, Pinyin: Tianjin. If you ask anybody who knows even a little bit about China, they will remember Tianjin and have no idea what Tientsin is. Zhonghua88 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Governor sheng yun of shaanxi[edit],3060347&hl=en

Rajmaan (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old primary sources[edit]

These primary sources mention factions of revolutionaries who wanted to put a Han emperor on the throne, with some suggesting the descendant of Confucius and others suggesting the descendant of the Ming dynasty Emperors

Page 55,+we+should+follow+the+model+of+the+British+titular+monarchy;+nothing+seemed+more+reasonable+and+logical+than+to+make+the+present+monarch+the+titular+head+of+a+constitutional+monarchy.+This+was+the+reason+...+The+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius,+the+Yan+Sheng+Duke,+is+unparalleled+among+the+descendants+of+the+best+families+in+the+nation.+If+we+have+no+other+alternative,+let+us+promote+the+Yan+Sheng+Duke+two+ranks+and+make+him+emperor.&dq=If+we+want+to+bring+order+and+peace+to+China,+we+should+follow+the+model+of+the+British+titular+monarchy;+nothing+seemed+more+reasonable+and+logical+than+to+make+the+present+monarch+the+titular+head+of+a+constitutional+monarchy.+This+was+the+reason+...+The+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius,+the+Yan+Sheng+Duke,+is+unparalleled+among+the+descendants+of+the+best+families+in+the+nation.+If+we+have+no+other+alternative,+let+us+promote+the+Yan+Sheng+Duke+two+ranks+and+make+him+emperor.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g0MGVMCYMIHIggTrnYKQDQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA

Page 200,+the+seventy-fifth+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius,+should+be+made+King+of+China;+and+the&dq=The+dificulty+lay+in+the+choice+of+a+suitable+monarch+upon+whom+to+exercise+the+curbing+influences+of+constitutional+limitation.+A+very+strong+element+proposed+that+Duke+Kung,+the+seventy-fifth+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius,+should+be+made+King+of+China;+and+the&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0kMGVIDlHsrFggT1hICQBQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA

Page 67,+the+abdicated+Ch'ing+emperor+or+even+%22+the+Holy+Duke+%22+(Yen-sheng+kung+ft?+M+the+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius)+could+easily+qualify+for+such+a+position.+K'ang+elaborated+on+his+notion+of+%22+titular-monarch+republicanism+%22+(hstt-chiin+kung-ho)+in+two+essays+written+about+the+...+...+192)+K'ang+now+argued+against+electing+the+%22+Holy+Duke+%22+to+be+the+titular+monarch,+on+the+ground+that+he+might+not+enjoy+the+moral+support+of+the+non-+Chinese+minorities+of+the+republic&dq=That+being+the+case,+the+abdicated+Ch'ing+emperor+or+even+%22+the+Holy+Duke+%22+(Yen-sheng+kung+ft?+M+the+lineal+descendant+of+Confucius)+could+easily+qualify+for+such+a+position.+K'ang+elaborated+on+his+notion+of+%22+titular-monarch+republicanism+%22+(hstt-chiin+kung-ho)+in+two+essays+written+about+the+...+...+192)+K'ang+now+argued+against+electing+the+%22+Holy+Duke+%22+to+be+the+titular+monarch,+on+the+ground+that+he+might+not+enjoy+the+moral+support+of+the+non-+Chinese+minorities+of+the+republic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lUQGVNisPIu_ggS85ICgAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA

Bad ISBN[edit]

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

章士釗. [2000] (1962). 孫黃遺劄密詮,載章士釗全集第8卷. 上海: 文彙出版社 publishing. pg 341. ISBN 780531543.

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN. The Chinese version of this Wiki article has the same invalid ISBN, and there are no other references to the document on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Knife-in-the-drawer: I don't know where this was removed from, so I can't restore it, but the book's listing on Google Books is here: [1], ISBN according to that is ISBN 7805315434, 9787805315430. The missing digit was the 4 at the end. I don't know if this is the reason you failed to find the book, but whoever had added the reference had mis-translated the second character of the publisher from Simplified to Traditional Chinese: it should be 匯, not 彙
In case it would be useful, I offer the following translation for the reference: Zhang, Shizhao. [2000] (1962). "Explaining the enigmas in the preserved correspondence of Sun and Huang", in Completed Works of Zhang Shizhao, Vol. 8. Shanghai: Wen Hui Publishing. -- (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"The revolution consisted of many revolts and uprisings. The turning point was the Wuchang Uprising on October 10, 1911, that was a result of the mishandling of the Railway Protection Movement."

--- by whom? And is that right word -- mishandling? It makes it sound like it was just a managerial error. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Xinhai Revolution. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xinhai Revolution in Xinjiang could be merged into this one?[edit]

Recently Xinhai Revolution in Xinjiang had to be semiprotected because of a dispute. That article appears to be on a subtopic of this one. The other article has very little content and it is possible that editors who actually have knowledge in this area don't visit it very often. Can anyone see why the content of Xinhai Revolution in Xinjiang shouldn't be merged into this one? If that was done then the other could become a redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support The content in Xinhai Revolution in Xinjiang is indeed minimal, and given the current structure of this article might actually fit better here as part of an overall view of the effects of the Xinhai Revolution. Rgr09 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inconsistencies in Independence Army Uprising section[edit]

The section on the Independence Army Uprising inconsistently states that the Independence Army was organised in 1901 and that the uprising was set for 23 August 1900. Furthermore, it states that Tan Sitong was involved in organising the Independence Army; however, Tan Sitong had been executed in 1898. According to the Wikipedia article on Tang Caichang, the 1900 date for the uprising is correct, so I suspect that the 1901 date is wrong and that the Independence Army was organised earlier, possibly with the involvement of Tan Sitong while he was still alive. However, I don't have any source stating this. If anybody else does, maybe they'd like to edit this section? -- (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chiang Kai-shek?[edit]

Why is he in infobox? What was his role and was he notable, if no answers i go delete it backShadow4dark (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supported by Japan?[edit]

How was the Qing supported by Japan, Russia and Italy? Or does this only refer to any soldiers/traders from those respective countries living in China or providing some economical aid to the Qing prior to the Revolution? Azaan H 11:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revolution Started with a Bomb[edit]

Hi, I was under the impression that the reason the Revolution started at all was because of the accidental bomb which went off in the French Concession. This bomb explosion and the materials present was due to the revolutionaries at the time, but the fact that the Lead does not mention this is very confusing. And while I understand that the revolutionaries and various other anti-Qing groups were planning to revolt, the bomb going off on October 9, 1911, was the cause for their quick actions. Why is this not mentioned in the Lead? AbRoseDeck98 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern Evaluation? (paragraph 3)[edit]

It seems to me that the section of "modern evaluation" seems to be not so relevant and not so neutral. It seems that the third paragraph is not related to the topic of modern evaluation of the legacy of the 1911 revolution in china, but rather on the topic of democracy in china itself.

First time editing / proposing something in a talk so I would appreciate feedback on this, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HomoCurioso (talkcontribs) 14:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HomoCurioso, I say be bold and take a stab at revising it! Your instincts don't seem wrong to me and I'm sure others can edit your language if they feel differently! DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]