Talk:Treaty of Nanking

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Legalizing of the Opium trade

message: Great Britain received 21 million dollars in compensation.
Was the transaction actually in dollars? --Calair 04:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was Chinese currency unit.--Jusjih 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the unit is the Mexican or Maria Theresa dollar. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Currency

message: Who represented UK and who represented Qing China?
Bennylin 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  representatives 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Imperialism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Treaty of Nanking/ Nanjing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Treaty consequences  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: UK vs. US spelling