Talk:Tianjing incident

About the title

"Tianjing Incident" may be more appropriate since it had been used in some journals. --Mewaqua (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I will move it to that title. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

While some sources capitalize this title, the context of where the title is or is not capitalized is also important when determining if the title is a proper name, or if the capitalization is simply due to the writing styles of particular journals. Without more concrete examples of this title being used as a proper name, I think this capitalization is contrary to the Manual of Style guideline for article titles and Wikipedia's naming conventions for the capitalization of article titles which states: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. In May 2015, the page title was moved back to Tianjing incident because the word "incident" is not part of a proper name. Recently the word was capitalized again without explanation or further discussion. However, because this bold move is contrary to the Manual of Style, I am moving it back to being in lower case until somebody formally requests a single page move to justify the capitalization as a proper name. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved back to original capitalization. Please discuss future moves first as another title change is potentially controversial. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

About the user creating this article

I suspect User:Hans yulun lai is the same person as User:裕綸 of zh.wiki.x.io, who had added incorrect information in a number of articles of zh.wiki.x.io and had been blocked subsequently. It's not surprise that this article contains a lot of factual errors. --Mewaqua (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about the incident so am not able to clean it up. Can you do that or ask someone else who may be able to help? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it fits with what I knew about it. But I must say I have some doubt about the rest. Namely :

• Chen Chenjohn's role (and name ? I don't think john is a Chinese syllable at all !)
• Qin Rigan's role
• Yang's murder exact circumstances : invitation, sword dancers, "deathbed" discussion. Sounds too good to me, out of some Zhang Yimou film like "Flying Daggers"...
• Zeng Guofan's near suicide (same : sounds too good)

But Wei's role, all the Shi Dakai part, and death of part of his family (to the best of my knowledge, he lost his wife and his mother in the incident) the background of distrust, the heavy consequences to the Taiping movement : OK by me.

90.2.130.109 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks certainly much better, but...

• no sourcing at all ?
• Chen Chengrong : in Spence's God's Chinese son, it is spelt Chen Chengyong
• Is it true that the Tianjing incident (I would have called it "Tianjing massacre" by the way : incident sounds more like, say, some terrorist attack leading to the invasion of another country), is it true that it prevented the Xiang Army from being annihilated (previous version) ?
• All this flogging needs some sourcing : I don't remember seing it in Spence, nor in Vincent Shih's Taiping Ideology, apart from the incident with Hong kicking his pregnant concubines.
• Is it true (previous version) that after Wei Changhui's death, his nephew Wei June (?) (韋俊) surrendered Wuhan ?
• Is it true (previous version) that the corruption in the Heavenly Kingdom after these events was primarily due to Hong's two brothers asking for bribes to let anyone have access to him ?

--83.202.193.225 (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

a couple of glaring issues

hai!

this article has some serious issues with general bias and retardation (similar problems exist in related/similar articles):

1. hong shitsuckerquan pretending to be jewzeus' veri-much-younger brother is treated as legit, while yang xiuqing's 200iq bullshit-calling on it is framed as him "pretending" "to be possessed". either you treat them both as bullshitting and pretending (which would be factual), or you merely say that BOTH fucknuggets CLAIMED these things, respectively—which might also be factual

2. really, a lot of this article (and related/similar ones) venture balls-deep into oriental myth fan fiction territory. it's like they're written by ccp propagandists to exoticize and sensationalize: why are blatant fairy tales being presented as historically accurate fact?? "At this point, six thousand of Yang's followers remained in Nanjing.[4] Hong and his generals agreed to set a trap for those men.[5] Hong pretended to arrest Wei and Qin Rigang for their actions and invited Yang's followers to watch as the two were beaten.[5] Once the majority of Yang's followers were inside, the beatings ceased and Yang's followers were imprisoned inside the halls from which they were watching the beatings." what. the. actual. fuck?? at least have the decency to specify that this is "according a source of extremely questionable veracity, having belonged to the ccp since ancient times"

YIKES! bai

Problems

After some long searching I have managed to FINALLY find a source confirming the some of the events that happened during the Tianjing Incident. Most of the claims made in the article isn't too far fetched regardless - Yang Xiuqing did indeed ask for a greater title from Hong Xiuquan (confirmed by Stephen Platt and Jonathan Spence), and Hong apparently did order him killed. However there is multiple contradictions in the article that my sources cannot address: 1. Hong Xiuquan according to Spence only pretended to give a title to Yang to plan for his eventual demise - In the article this is not mentioned 2. Wikipedia should be a neutral source and presenting either of the visions or ideals the Taiping leaders viewed as fact as this article does is a problem by itself. 3. The exact exchange mentioned in the article, I cannot find any reliable source for. If anyone has found anything to confirm it please include it. Regardless this entire article is embarassing. It mentions no other historian besides Spence, makes claims with little to no substantiated evidence, and makes far reaching and vague claims (What does it even mean by, 'Monopolised the power of the Kingdom?') I would clean it up and only include what I can confirm reliably, but I fear I have missed a source, or otherwise I lack the knowledge to do so. Would appreciate any sources at all on the Tianjing incident. Its quite embarassing a Civil War this important has articles this weak. Angryman120344 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Also I can't find any information about the floggings? I believe it's mentioned briefly by Wagner, but I don't remember finding anything about Hong himself being flogged. Angryman120344 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)