Talk:Old Summer Palace

message: (1 image added)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathypem (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are both wrongs actually. First of all, the western style buildings are not the only remain that survived the burning of the Old Summer Palace. There is also a complex of temples in the Chinese style located south of the Elegant Spring Garden that survived the burning. All the chinese people perfectly know that the Yuanmingyuan, as it is known in China, was essentially containing Chinese style buildings. There are many paintings representing it. It is only in the West that I have found that people are confused about the nature of the Old Summer Palace. Secondly, user rm is wrong when he says that all the buildings were erected by Chinese craftsmen. The European style buildings were actually built by the Jesuits living at the Imperial Court. These Jesuits were essentially French and Italian. The masons and workers were Chinese of course, but the designers and architects were undoubtly European. Hardouin 11:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014

message: I can't find any mention of the "300 eunuchs and maids" burned alive during the palace sacking in any book about the Summer Palace or website (apart from mirrors of wikipedia) about the Summer Palace or any newspaper article, including Chinese English-language newspapers. Unless good sources can be found for this claim, I'm going to take it out after a week or so. Bwithh 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Chinese Wikipedia article stated such claim, and I would imagine that's probably where this article got its statement from.  Due to the enormous size of the Old Summer Palace, and how many people occupied in it, it wouldn't be illogical to question a large number of death due to the burning and destruction of the site.  Whether how many did die, that would depends upon the sources. --67.2.148.28 06:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that I can't find ANY mention of deaths / massacre etc. in English language accounts, even when the account is from Chinese publications, and goes into great detail about how bad the looting was and how barbaric it was for the Western imperialists to burn the place, there is no mention of a massacre. It's not logical to assume that there were many deaths - people could run away, be taken prisoner, be released, or - if you want to believe that there was a massacre - "X" number of people could have been killed by other means. So the 300 figure is totally unverified speculation at this point. WP:V is non-negotiable. I'll give this a few more days and then I'm taking it out. Bwithh 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops... I must have forgot to check back on this. My bad. Thanks, Apyule Bwithh 00:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 300 eunuchs and maids claim

message: A movie on the history of Yuanming Yuan was aired in China not long ago...it contains some 3D renderings of the palace along with the histrical events that took place.it also mentioned the 300    
eunuchs and maids burned alive in the room where the portraits of the former emperors are.Apeerantly, the forgein invaders did not know there were 300 people buring inside,so...it's not really a massacre. Where did the movie get this info, I do not know, but you guys should watch it. DivineBaboon 05:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what i have found on the movie with a short promo video and pictures.CCTV link some other link they have some fuzzy screenshots of the 3D rendering and such. Interstingly enough i can't find any information of the movie on the English google....hmmm Edit:I found a link that has it's describtion in English "yesasia.com" DivineBaboon 05:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Full documentary on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU9Hd9a4Q54   It draws heavily on written accounts of Western witnesses to the construction and destruction.  It also does indeed tell the story about the eunuchs and the maids, although it does not cite a source.TheCormac (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Yuanming Yuan Movie 

message: I won't claim to be an expert on great lootings of the world, but the sentence, "The burning of the old summer palace is regarded as the most destructive action ever in history," smacks of textbook CCP propaganda designed to escalate nationalist sentiment.  I'm sure many events could easily qualify for this dubious "distinction," such as the sack of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade. 
ValensNYC 06:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Han Chauvanism 

message: I'd like to see more discussion of efforts by the Chinese government to recover the stolen objects. Also, does anyone know if the Beijing National Museum is the same as the National Museum of China? Historian932 (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efforts to recover objects 

message: First, this article is not balanced. This is invasion and looting we are talking about. And the article did nothing but to justify them in most parts. To be balanced, fair reasons should be added from both sides with size suits either of their importance. 
Further more, this page is shallow. People come to here to see the glory of the legendary palace, and all they get is how it was destroyed in some "democratic" kind of looting. And when it comes to the reason of the looting, it is only people's revenge. And people who built it even seemed to be indifferent about it. Some of us would think corruption could have happened during the looting. But no, not a word about it, not even care to explain why corruption did not happen. Oh, come on, are the world that simple in the eyes of some? At lest make it more sound please.
At last, some editors are not helping. Along with other things, I added how Chinese people think about the destruction of it, in order to enrich the part states "it is sensitive issue in China today", which has no reference BTW. What is the point to delete that? The terms implies: if it is not from an ill attention, edits should be respected. Its intention, to avoid the contents to be controlled by a few people who have the time to undo again and again, has clearly failed. You can just review the history to find that.
OK, I may be POV according to some people reverted my edits. But to simply delete them silently and ignore my intention to make it more fair and rich is very rude. Shouldn't we talk about it first?
Startwiki (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not balanced, shallow, hard to contribute something

message: I can't contain my reaction after reading this article. It goes too much in detailing the excuse of the burning, while the primary reason was simply to awe-strike the Qing Emperor into accepting whatever terms the Allied troops demanded --- if you didn't, the next to be burned would be the Forbidden City. The mention of mistreatment of prisoners of war seems ridiculous in the context of war, while hundreds, if not thousands, of Chinese soldiers who only had swords and spears were slaughtered at Western gunpowder.
Another widespread misconception is that the burning also included three other Imperial Gardens to the west, 清漪園, 靜明園, and 靜宜園, each associated with a hill. The last one is so far off (5 miles) that it must have been a deliberate action. I don't need to give any reference as many photographs taken in late 1800s have shown it clearly. The first of the three was (partly) rebuilt in 1888 and renamed 頤和園, which is known as Summer Palace (hence the name Old Summer Palace for this one). The description in this article is simply wrong on this point. The second one, better known as 玉泉山 (Jade Spring Hill), remained in ruin until the Communist leaders took it as their residence. The main temple of the third one (better known as 香山 Fragrance Hill) is still in ruin to this day, though it's a much better scenic attraction than Old Summer Palace.
Of course the destruction did not happen in a day insomuch as Rome was not built in a day. The article mentions that the Allied troops of 1900 also had to do with it, though I had heard that they were never anywhere near it. They may have caused its further destruction because Qing troops were no longer guarding the Summer Palaces. 
It's certainly true that no ordinary Chinese had the fortune to behold the scenes of Old Summer Palace, which means that it must have taken a great deal of propaganda and nationalistic indoctrination for this to become a sensitive issue in China. Palaces have been burned down at pretty much every dynastic transition, but this one seems particular memorable, largely due to the rise of nationalism. If we Chinese can properly face that part of history (as in the 2006 documentary), why can't the West just admit it and stop making excuses. Unless you fear military retaliation from a mightier China. Liuyao (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Appalled

message: It's well known that the French were involved in the destruction of the palace, however from the text it's not clear what they did. Right now, it seems that only the British are responsible, since it's written:
- "British High Commissioner to China Lord Elgin ordered the destruction of the palace."
Then later:
- "It took 3,500 British troops to set the entire place ablaze"
So what was the orders of the French troops? And how many troops were involved? Or was it just some random French soldiers looting the palace but without following any specific order? Laurent (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implication of French troops? 

message: Hi,
The Wikipedia page for the Daoguang Emperor states:
Consort Chang (常妃) (?–1860) of the Heseri clan. She died during the burning of the Yuan Ming Yuan summer palace
This is quoted from an unsourced "Draft history of the Qing Dynasty." TYK1986 placed this line.
I am traveling to Beijing and Xi'an in September.  I plan on doing some research on yuanmingyuan while I'm there for a project.  It is likely that the source material will be in Mandarin.  How do we reference this?  I can scan the original documents, but then what?
Daniel
Daniel Reyes (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research 

message: The sources for the second paragraph of the lede and much of the narrative in the "Destruction" section are from British writers at the time, without reference to later western and Chinese scholars who shed more light on Chinese understandings and Chinese motives. For instance, Harry Parkes, who "went ahead ... under a flag of truce" was "suddenly surroundeded...." True, but he had been the moving force at Canton in the Arrow Incident earlier and had shown contempt and arrogance to the Chinese, so the other side of the story needs to also be represent. It is not "neutral" to simply accept Wolsleley's 1862 (!) account at face value, which is Original Research. 
I don't have time to do it now, but it would not take long for someone to write this infamous episode up using  Young-Tsu Wong. A Paradise Lost: The Imperial Garden Yuanming Yuan. (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press,  2001).   ), , , and/or  ch (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a useful approach would be to create a separate article on the Destruction of the Summer Palace with only a short summary here. As others have pointed out, this article should focus on the palace and gardens themselves, while their despoliation is an important episode which deserves thorough, distinct consideration. Happydemic (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tag for section Destruction

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Old Summer Palace. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030127001734/http://taipei.tzuchi.org.tw/tzquart/2002sp/qp5.htm to http://taipei.tzuchi.org.tw/tzquart/2002sp/qp5.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010210005410/http://www.yuanmingyuanpark.com/ to http://www.yuanmingyuanpark.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602002017/http://dissertationreviews.org/about-us to http://dissertationreviews.org/about-us
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The name of this article should simply align to the Pinyin representation of Unified ZNH Ideograph characters. I'm shocked why no one ever did this.
103.102.6.233 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I recommend renaming to «Yuanmingyuan» 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion