Talk:Opium Wars - Knowledge (XXG)

2303:, which is needed for readers seeking an overview, and is needed so that other articles can link to there without showing up as errors to be fixed, because they link to a disambiguation page. Again Google shows it is a very notable topic for which there is a standard textbook-type treatment. In contrast, searches on "Foreign interventions in China" (or "Western interventions in China") does not immediately show any standard treatment of that topic as a collective whole. There are numerous hits in those searches, of course, for example to academic articles on specific foreign interventions, but I don't see that collective topic being so obviously valid as "the Opium Wars". -- 910: 469: 2255:

China to open up trade (first to the British in a few locations, then to the United States and France, and then to expand to more locations). Then the writing needs to explain the relationship between other events and these wars, and to explain the relationship between the two wars. It can say something like: "Although the two wars are referred to collectively as the Opium wars, they have just superficial similarities (according to historian A and others), and their causes and results were quite different (according to historian B and others)."

84: 1855:. So I changed this "Opium Wars" page to be a set index article, which should _briefly_ cover the two wars as a collective, linking to main articles on each of the two. I was reverted, so come here to discuss. The (reverted) current article is: The '''Opium Wars''' were: *] (1839{{ndash}}1842) *] (1856{{ndash}}1860), also known as the "Arrow War" *] (1967) {{disambiguation}} I personally believe that "the Opium Wars" refers to only the first two as a collective, not the third. All three belong on the proper disambiguation page. 2038:(ec) Thanks! To respond: the previous long discussion was not about disambiguation. It focused on handling the content of three articles, and the concern was that "content forking" had happened. This was addressed by moving material to 1st and 2nd war articles and then editing there. There was NOT adequate discussion of what should remain/replace at "Opium Wars"; there was NOT adequate consensus understanding of disambiguation vs. summary-style overview article, IMHO. 74: 53: 179: 158: 189: 657: 538: 513: 354: 2118:. Again I don't dispute previous decisions to provide detailed, separate articles on the First and Second wars. The point is these examples are showing overview treatment at "Opium Wars". Note the overviews do NOT focus on opium trade; the overall importance of the wars is about general trade and about weakening of Chinese sovereignty. (Also, by the way, they show that 22: 624: 588: 426: 415: 404: 1430:

new versions of the 1st and 2nd War pages incorporating the passages being removed here. I'm not sure how the editing credits are supposed to work but, once we know exactly what phrases and sources we're keeping, could one of y'all send someone informed on this process (/with special software) my way so we can credit everything to the appropriate people? —

2339:. I made effort to address concerns expressed here. The wording could be improved; that is a matter of editing. It is meant NOT to duplicate, but rather to provide summary, overview type information. I really believe the validity of the topic of "Opium Wars" (meaning the mid-1800s wars in China) is thoroughly established. Since then I see that the 485: 2522: 294: 263: 1796: 393: 382: 2352:

as a section within some other article (but which other article, you have to say!). The general treatment has been developed with some care and attention. If you have comments on the wording, please discuss here. If you have suggestion where else it should be located, please discuss here. Please discuss here. --

2258:

IMO, these concerns are just about what the summary article will say. Those are matters for future editing. Possibilities that an article MIGHT over-emphasize one thing, that it MIGHT get the facts wrong, or that it MIGHT diverge from what is said in the detailed articles, are NOT reasons to ban an

2080:

I think, therefore, that this title should continue to be an article, even if it is only a summary description of the forces shaping and continuing these conflicts. Either that, or it should be merged and redirected to a broader article on the overall relationship between China and the British Empire

2465:

Really I don't think there is a big disagreement about anything important here. No one wants excessive duplication. All acknowledge (i think) there needs to be an indexing to the separate articles, whether at a disambiguation page or in a short summary article. And there is a very small technical

2443:

a need for the overall article (which can be brief, can be summary only), to serve as a starting point for readers, and as a valid target of links from other articles (where it is appropriate to refer to the "Opium Wars" as a collective). You could question the usefulness of the 1st war and 2nd war

2351:

article. So in a way the one alternative is the consensus. There is no other suggestion standing. So at this point merely removing the general treatment verges on vandalism, IMO. I have restored the general treatment. I am HAPPY to discuss and work out something, including if it could be placed

2254:

Relatedly, some wish to emphasize that the two wars were different or very different, i.e. they had different causes and results, and they were separated in time. That's fine, that should be said in the summary article. From a broad perspective, they ARE similar in that they were both wars forcing

1858:

To the reverter, if you object to my somewhat longish draft, that is okay, it is okay to edit down my wording, to something as brief as: The '''Opium Wars''' refers to the Anglo-Chinese wars in the mid-19th century. These were: *] (1839{{ndash}}1842) *] (1856{{ndash}}1860), also known as the "Arrow

1086:

although in my experience things get appended to "Further Reading" when it's a pain to find full view copies online. You'll have a hard time getting others to incorporate such sources unless you're glossing them or using the History WikiProject's programs to hook people up with academic access. Good

1429:

No one's been along to close this yet, but that makes seven days. The only objection seems to be an off-topic hesitation by Lineagegeek. (For what it's worth, I'll implement all of my proposals as I've stated, so s/he's technically a "support".) Today (and maybe for some of this week), I'll draw up

1112:

remarks that "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." I take this to mean that each article stands on its own as self-contained for a reader, but that some

1824:

I came to this page in mode of helping disambiguation project, because multiple regular articles link to this title. It is reasonable for other articles to mention the "Opium Wars" with the reference being to the collective of the two wars. It is unreasonable to insist that every usage elsewhere

1641:

of war, which this could also be. I think, therefore, that this title should continue to be an article, even if it is only a summary description of the forces shaping and continuing these conflicts. Either that, or it should be merged and redirected to a broader article on the overall relationship

1364:

Although one factor in the British going to war a second time was because of unresolved issues from the first war, these are actually quite separate conflicts. Later down the line, I wouldn't oppose turning this into a more clear and concise article that explains how these wars are connected (like

1101:

My quick additional thoughts above, as Llewlyn correctly points out, were mostly in the wrong forum, but do have some bearing here. By "coordinating articles" I meant precisely what Philg88 and Llywelyn are doing or propose to do, that is, adding redirects and links, developing "support" articles,

2022:

After a long discussion it was decided that this should be a disambiguation page. A lot of work was involved in splitting the article (I know because I did it). From a historically perspective, the two events were completely separate and linked only by the word "opium". They started for different

2398:

project gets notified of new/bad links to disambiguation pages. Each time the redirect to a dab is corrected (by making it a valid article again, or potentially by redirecting it to a valid section somewhere), those articles need to be re-fixed. The back-and-forth editing here, and the general

2172:

example). But I am not sure about that one, because the "Opium Wars" topic is not just about U.K. relations with China. The wars and following treaties opened up China to many if not all other countries. Locating it into a general history article about China would be better, IMO. Hmm, where

2210:

and other events, yes, and should link to the Qing Dynasty article too. But merely redirecting "Opium Wars" to that section would not work well. A reader following a link needs to get an overview about the wars as a collective, as provided by Encyclopedia Britannica and the "A Short History"

1250:

If your comment means you are withdrawing your suggestion to move some material to other existing articles that have bearing on the opium trade in China that are not tied to the proximate causes of the first war, because this article contains material not appropriate to the First Opium War (as

2343:

article was redirected once again to the dab page, leaving NO treatment of the general topic. The edit had a summary expressing an interest again in having the treatment be located as a section in some other article, without identifying that other article. As stated above, I do not see any

2280:

You definitely put it better than me. Imagine an article about the European interventions in China, with the content balanced between them and linked up into a coherent whole, what an amazing and herculean job! I don't know if a article with a lead, then a section about the Opium Wars and a

2093:'s point, yes it is possible that a summary article would gain a picture and otherwise grow a bit, but some such editing would be good. Limiting the extent of that and ensuring coordination with the 1st and 2nd war articles would be supported by all this Talk page discussion. I agree that 2044:

The merger proposal included: "Opium Wars is turned into a redirect to Opium War (disambiguation), which already serves as a needed link to the two conflicts". (That acknowledge need for links to the two conflicts, but gives no reasoning why such links should not be provided by a

2250:

If that's then concern, then I think it can be addressed in the writing: just be sure to cover the other events/disasters, and explain how the two wars relate to them. Just as the general situation beforehand, and the treaties following the wars need to be explained, at least

1950:

article." Exactly! I'll pause for input but expect to implement this soon. I don't think a big general discussion is needed. But if others think a convo is needed, then I would be happy to open an RFC and invite all previous participants plus experts on disambiguation. :)

1995:

Hello. Although I have no objection to a small summary here, how much time until another editor adds a image, the next one starts adding content and we have another article with basically the same content duplicated? If this was in my hand I would just redirect here into

2232:

I thought about that, but IMO Opium wars in a China topic will dominate excessively a period that this was just another one of many disasters in a period that China was still closed on itself. So I though on something about British influence upon China or East Asia.

700:, given that once the first proposal has been implemented completely. The consensus is clear on the support for this merge proposal. While the current article page contains content information that are not covered in the respective articles as pointed out by 2101:, in that there was parallel but different treatment of same subtopics, rather than the overview just giving summary of the detailed treatments. There's no danger of that happening again, especially with you and others watching this like hawks! :) 2517:

so that the whole issue with multiple topics starts all over again. The hat note can probably go, I spent ages fixing the incoming links so that only talk pages remained. As for the Boxer Rebellion, you could always look it up on Knowledge (XXG)

2299:, I see about 30 instances of U.S. interventions in China from 1843 to 2001 perhaps. Anyhow, we are seeing eye-to-eye, good. But we don't need to do the near-impossible. I am focused on the limited immediate need: a short summary article at 1624:

in part. I agree that some material can be merged and moved into the other articles, but people looking for "Opium Wars" in the plural are probably looking for an overview of the two wars and the connections between them. For example, look at

1531:

a comment by someone that the first and second war had separate causes and were very much separate conflicts. I've not studied Chinese history in detail so I don't know if that's true. If anything, perhaps this article should look more like

492: 476: 277: 273: 1945:

commented with suggestion that the opium wars may be "treated as a linked subject by historians", and "Perhaps an overarching article on the two wars with the bulk of the content of the actual wars in those two articles. There is a

2569:

Section is written poorly and contains either lack of citation or citation that links to non-applicable web pages e.g. a page warning about contaminated natural supplements is the cite for the bronze heads being lost overseas.

774:

articles but given that it hasn't happened yet and another three years of editing have gone into the page, I feel we should restart the discussion and see how people feel in 2014. I concur with other editors that a very strong

946:

for this proposal. Many thanks are once again due to Llywelyn for taking it on! This can be part of a general effort to coordinate Qing dynasty articles. These changes should be reflected in revisions to the overview article,

1937:, but one is not allowed to link from articles to disambiguation pages. A short article about the general subject, with very quick overview and links to the two long detailed articles (plus also a prominent link to the new 1127:. Here I'll simply add that Spence, Hsu, and Lovell are affordable paperbacks which do not need an academic affiliation to use. I prefer online sources, of course, but only when and if they are otherwise good ones. Cheers, 2438:

I don't know what you mean. While another encyclopedia just covers this topic area with 1 article, here there are 3 articles. There seems to be previous consensus that the 1st war and 2nd war each get an article. That

2444:

articles being separated, but there's no way that an overall article can be eliminated, IMO. Maybe we are talking past each other, i am sorry if I am just not getting something that I should understand but do not. --

1209:

This goes beyond a simple merger request. Because this article contains background on the opium trade in China that led up to, but is not included in, either the First or Second Opium War articles, a contingent

976:

We could also consider new articles or new sections in other articles. Perhaps some of the material in the present Opium Wars article could be redistributed: the section "Opium in China" to a new main article

2059:

I agree that some material can be merged and moved into the other articles, but people looking for "Opium Wars" in the plural are probably looking for an overview of the two wars and the connections between

1850:

Articles cannot link to disambiguation pages. It is imperative that there be something, not a disambiguation page, at "Opium Wars". Alternate uses like as a film title can be/should be/are covered at

1562:

It's not clear what you oppose. Could you clarify? The proposal is not to merge into one article, but to merge the appropriate parts of the article Opium Wars into the two articles OW1 and OW2. Thanks!

613:

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

1933:. And having such an article is needed for reasons including one not considered then: namely that many readers will search for, and many article editors will want to link to, the general term 544: 518: 1102:

and making sure that what one article says is not contradicted or massively duplicated in another. Llywelyn proposes to start things off by making sure that this article "Opium Wars" is not a

2086:

There were other comments "!voting" for a disambiguation page along with other changes, without reasoning; these comments should be disregarded when evaluating the disambiguation "decision".

891:

are the opium wars treated as a linked subject by historians? Perhaps an overarching article on the two wars with the bulk of the content of the actual wars in those two articles. There is a

2561:

The article mentions quantities of opium imported, such as "By 1787, the British were sending 4,000 chests". Without a time period this fact is ambiguous. Is it per shipment, per year, etc.

2295:

Well that does sound like a big job. To refine: the big topic would be maybe "Western" or "Foreign" interventions in China, to include the U.S., too, right? By the way, searching within

1412:

ever be recreated in any form. But, the support here seems broad and refreshed enough, I'll go ahead and do this and then you guys can complain or make adjustments to what I've done. ; ) —

2603: 2421:

I still think this is a relic from the past, the time when article were being written and simple there isn't material for more than one of them. Nowadays I just can't see its usefulness.

1925:, implementing 2011 consensus. I gather that was then done, and maybe there was a lot of duplication or parallel-but-different material that was removed/consolidated. Super. I gather 1035:

What precisely does "coördinating articles" involve? It should probably be dealt with on the respective wars' talk pages or at some other appropriate forum such as the China WikiProject.

2643: 2633: 1343:

article. If there is enough material to justify spinning off most of a section's material into a new article, peachy; otherwise not. It really has no bearing on this discussion. —

2648: 2638: 645:. However, in July-August 2015, the restoration of a general treatment of the collective wars as a valid topic (without duplicating) is under discussion here at this Talk page. 1004:. The sources are now especially weak or antiquated (Michel Vie; Thomson; Encyclopedia Larousse 1898; Le Figaro) or simply a passing reference in an otherwise irrelevant book ( 1108:

If I understand correctly, Lineagegeek also has a legitimate concern, namely that moving material might deprive one or another article of needed background material. However,

367: 344: 306: 245: 353: 2618: 235: 2494:

The lead seems a little bit long, IMO the lines until the citations would be more than enough. And what's the relation of the Boxer Rebbelion with the opium wars?

2628: 2598: 334: 130: 2296: 1862:

Please explain your reversion and comment. Let's sort out some understanding before making a big deal about this with an RFC and other editors, if possible. --

2623: 2347:

I don't want to overstate a claim that there is a consensus here, but IMO the only decent alternative put forward here is to have a general treatment at the

211: 2259:

article on the topic. The topic is notable: again check the Google results and again note the links to the topic from other Knowledge (XXG) articles. --

2106:

I am NOT re-opening discussion about the forked content that was then merged. This is just about providing/improving treatment of the overall topic of

301: 268: 140: 2613: 2206:

covers the wars, but with two paragraphs of other material inbetween. A summary about the Opium Wars probably should situate them relative to the

2593: 1463: 610: 202: 163: 1308:

That leads to a whole new discussion on how much background the merged article should contain. My view is that the "support" articles like the

2051:: "Disambiguation is a foolhardy step, here." (A response then commented only about merger of content, not about what should remain/replace.) 310: 2571: 2608: 985: 2399:

non-understanding of disambiguation here, is causing work elsewhere, and causing some frustration here. :) So, Please discuss here. --

2151: 106: 2466:

point, that the indexing needs to be at an article; it can't be at a disambiguation page because it can't be linked to, and there is

917:

Incident began to be referred to as the "Second Opium War". The voters above are presumably aware of the term's existence and use and

2168:(ec) I agree that the summary treatment could be located within a general history article (as others have said too, e.g. following 2281:

conclusion about 1950 is better then what we have now. But I'm not inherently against the idea, just have doubts if it's feasible.

1064:

articles' current treatment of these topics are deficient, you should remedy that now and directly. Similarly, if those topics are

2110:, making it a suitable entry point for readers. Note Google search on "Opium Wars" -wikipedia yields 274,000 hits, leading with: 2005: 1527:

I disagree that a content fork is developing. Each article covers different aspects, so far as I noticed on my drive-by. I saw

1072:

be ported over to the main articles mentioned above, go ahead and edit the existing article on your own prior to the full merge.

1279:

of. Any material that is appropriate here is also appropriate there. Any material here that needs to be repeated or linked on

33: 1929:

did a great job in proposing and implementing that. HOWEVER, that does not preclude having a summary-style short article at

606: 2344:

appropriate candidate article in which the general treatment could be located as a section, and that has not been answered.

2335:

After a lapse in discussion here, I went ahead and re-stored and further developed a treatment of the topic "Opium Wars" at

97: 58: 2116:

Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on "Opium Wars" (which also seems to include all of its treatment of First and Second wars)

1825:

must use something awkward like "First Opium War" and "Second Opium War" instead. Examples of other articles linking are:

1060:

Following renewed consensus for a merge, I'll simply be porting sections to the main articles mentioned above. If you feel

753:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2481: 2455: 2410: 2363: 2314: 2270: 2222: 2184: 2136: 2063: 1982: 1962: 1898: 1873: 1697:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1626: 105:

related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

956: 1852: 1195: 1048: 2499: 1233: 802: 1114: 2122:

is not considered part of the topic...I think it should be mentioned only in a hatnote plus in See also section.)

1938: 1884: 1723: 1591: 1121:

We'll see, but Llywelyn seems aware of the issue and further edits can always be made once the material is moved.

665: 598: 872:

of the first proposal (raised by Spellcast in 2011, reraised by Kiyoweap in 2013, and now again by me here) and

674: 1544: 2575: 468: 39: 2023:

reasons and were not contiguous. In short, the article is fine as it is and should not duplicate or become a

1171:

If it wasn't obvious from the above, both prior discussions are linked within the "(here)" parentheticals. —

2383: 1834: 1488: 1471: 900: 305:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 2467: 549: 523: 2387: 1839: 1681: 1512: 1191: 2495: 2378:

valid article is redirected to a dab page, that causes churning at a number of other articles including

1913:

above, I gather that the main thrust in 2014 was a wish to merge/divide a largish amount of material at

1260: 1223: 1124: 1083: 876:. The second proposal is new here, but it seems needless and unhelpful to maintain two separate dabs. — 210:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

194: 1446: 838: 1676: 1587: 1528: 1431: 1413: 1344: 1284: 1237: 1172: 1153: 1088: 926: 877: 846: 2543: 1481: 853: 630: 21: 2547: 2048: 2013: 1538: 1378: 739: 734:

which resulted in variety of conflicts that initiated further aggression from the Western powers.

1968: 1942: 1654: 1484: 1467: 1370: 984:

The section "Qing Attitudes toward trade" and parts of "British trade and the Canton system" to

896: 679: 641:

on May 26, 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see

2001: 1719: 1109: 1103: 922: 776: 2476: 2450: 2426: 2405: 2358: 2309: 2286: 2265: 2238: 2217: 2207: 2179: 2159: 2131: 1977: 1957: 1893: 1868: 1505: 1320:

above, should cover most of the history up to the point where the gloves came off - i.e. when

952: 73: 52: 2198:

seems too general to accomodate a section title on "Opium Wars". And even the more detailed

2024: 1707: 1118: 2195: 1922: 1784: 1751: 1715: 1608: 1504:

There is supporting evidence for this and I see no persuasive arguments against doing this.

1256: 1219: 1044: 1001: 792: 771: 719: 701: 676: 656: 638: 178: 157: 2395: 2379: 1997: 1926: 1918: 1829: 1711: 1340: 1157: 970: 866: 822: 788: 767: 731: 705: 634: 2111: 1123:

As to the question of the weak sources, I will indeed take the suggestion to raise it at

1013: 992: 1387:

For what it's worth, although the name didn't start until the 1910s, "Second Opium War"

2119: 2090: 2009: 1374: 1313: 1040: 978: 817: 736: 727: 715: 207: 2587: 2514: 2054: 1643: 1568: 1454: 1309: 1132: 1021: 966: 859: 1012:). There are good sources listed under Further Reading. Hsu and Spence's texts are 2527: 2471: 2445: 2422: 2400: 2391: 2353: 2304: 2282: 2260: 2234: 2212: 2203: 2199: 2174: 2155: 2126: 2028: 1972: 1952: 1888: 1863: 1844: 1804: 1769: 1731: 1329: 1214:

based on the proposals by LLewellanll being simultaneously implemented. Otherwise

1161: 948: 827: 89: 1536:, discussing how the label was applied. Disambiguation is a foolhardy step, here. 1746:

Why this page wasn't merged with the other if the consensus was totally into it?

1780: 1763: 1747: 1604: 1402:

name of that conflict these days and the page is being merged as an unnecessary

723: 1887:

is not appropriate either. The Opium Wars were not at all just about opium. --

1068:

addressed at those other pages and the current treatment here is excessive and

537: 512: 2375: 2348: 2340: 2336: 2300: 2107: 1934: 1930: 1914: 798: 784: 763: 710:

The Opium Wars were certainly not independent historical events, and the term

594: 184: 79: 2115: 2169: 2071: 2067: 1947: 1634: 1630: 1603:

the split to two articles with this one remaining as a disambiguation page.

1533: 1366: 921:

prefer to simply treat the two conflicts separately without a third article

892: 2513:

I think what we have now is OK, as long as we don't get the equivalent of

1722:

during the agreed merge, I have split two sections from this article into

1152:

For those interested in where we got to in the last discussion please see

965:

The new Opium Wars articles can also be coordinated with such articles as

587: 1564: 1450: 1321: 1317: 1128: 1017: 832: 1283:

pages needs to have that material added regardless of the merge here. —

1236:) has any bearing on the early opium trade. Could you clarify that? — 678: 2202:

article seems unsuited to receive such a section title. Its section

1466:

covers how to credit when text is moved from one article to another.

1325: 1106:

in the sense of duplicating topics without well... coordinating them.

1273:

page will first and foremost be forked between the two pages it's a

1232:

I'm not sure why the second proposal (to redirect this namespace to

484: 911:

the collective descriptor has been in play since the 1910s and '20s

293: 262: 2579: 2551: 2532: 2503: 2486: 2460: 2430: 2415: 2368: 2319: 2290: 2275: 2242: 2227: 2189: 2163: 2141: 2112:"A Short History of the Opium Wars", an excerpt from a textbook(?) 2033: 2017: 1987: 1903: 1878: 1809: 1788: 1774: 1755: 1736: 1727: 1687: 1665: 1612: 1595: 1572: 1551: 1519: 1492: 1475: 1458: 1439: 1421: 1382: 1352: 1334: 1292: 1264: 1245: 1227: 1199: 1180: 1166: 1136: 1096: 1052: 1025: 1016:

even though tertiary because Spence and Hsu are Qing specialists.

934: 904: 885: 741: 102: 2247:

Tell me if I understand correctly. Is this a fair restatement:

2004:

suffered from the same problem and they settled on a section ~in

991:

These efforts should help raise these and other Qing articles to

959:

has already shown the way. Llywelyn's example should inspire us.

1269:

Huh? I'm not withdrawing any of my proposals. The material from

1445:

As you said, it's not actually a split, but do the policies at

559:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs

680: 650: 618: 582: 15: 1047:

should certainly exist, either as a redirects to sections of

2066:

describing such a succession of related wars. Also, look at

1629:

describing such a succession of related wars. Also, look at

805:, which already serves as a needed link to the two conflicts 483: 467: 352: 1909:

I see no immediate response, okay. Reviewing the previous

642: 1768:

Hi there. I am in the process of doing the merge. Cheers,

1883:

P.S. An alternative of redirecting from "Opium Wars" to

1642:

between China and the British Empire during this period.

988:; and "growth of the opium trade" to the First Opium War. 562:

Template:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs

206:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 2557:

Quantities Imported Without Time Period Are Meaningless

2094: 2000:, but I doubt anyone would agree with me. I noted that 1967:

21:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC) (revise, and fix my ping to

602: 1586:

Seems like a logical way of avoiding a content fork.

1726:, which will expand further from material drawn from 2204:

Qing Dynasty#Rebellion, unrest and external pressure

1312:(which I'm currently working on) and possibly a new 365:

This article has been checked against the following

101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 450: 364: 2041:Comments specifically about disambiguation were: 2604:C-Class China-related articles of Low-importance 1160:for bringing this to the top of the pile again. 1055:or, if there's enough material, separate pages. 547:, a project which is currently considered to be 762:strong consensus for a content merge from this 545:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs 2150:I suggest doncram took his valid content into 2095:the early January 2014 version of "Opium Wars" 1464:Knowledge (XXG):Copying within Knowledge (XXG) 1339:I would simply merge the material here to the 925:. Did you want to vote against that course? — 2644:Start-Class Chinese military history articles 2634:Start-Class British military history articles 2297:Timeline of United States military operations 953:Talk:Qing Dynasty#Sources for Military? Move? 8: 2649:Chinese military history task force articles 2639:British military history task force articles 2008:. Maybe that's something to be looked upon. 565:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles 319:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history 1702:Article split to History of opium in China 1113:articles have full coverage and some have 507: 447: 361: 257: 220:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United Kingdom 152: 47: 1730:and a couple of other smaller articles. 1190:– I agree that this needs to be merged. 810: 726:, rather it was caused by the series of 708:has volunteered to take over this task. 299:This article is within the scope of the 509: 259: 154: 49: 19: 2619:Low-importance United Kingdom articles 309:. To use this banner, please see the 2629:Start-Class military history articles 2599:Low-importance China-related articles 322:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 2519: 1482:Knowledge (XXG):Merging#How_to_merge 1408:and so (in most of our eyes) should 1082:Wrong forum. Should mention that at 749:The following discussion is closed. 722:is not specifically associated with 543:This article is within the scope of 200:This article is within the scope of 95:This article is within the scope of 2624:WikiProject United Kingdom articles 1910: 1030:Regarding your additional thoughts: 986:Foreign relations of imperial China 556:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs 519:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs 493:Chinese military history task force 477:British military history task force 223:Template:WikiProject United Kingdom 38:It is of interest to the following 2078:of war, which this could also be. 714:itself cannot not be treated as a 629:The contents of this article were 14: 696:The result of this discussion is 115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject China 2565:Effect on relics section cleanup 2520: 2006:Military history of South Africa 1794: 1693:The discussion above is closed. 655: 622: 586: 536: 511: 424: 413: 402: 391: 380: 292: 261: 187: 177: 156: 82: 72: 51: 20: 2614:C-Class United Kingdom articles 2097:was ridiculously huge. It was 339:This article has been rated as 240:This article has been rated as 135:This article has been rated as 2594:C-Class China-related articles 2152:China–United Kingdom relations 1502:Support merge and disambiguate 1: 2064:Wars of Scottish Independence 1627:Wars of Scottish Independence 801:is turned into a redirect to 718:. From my understanding, the 214:and see a list of open tasks. 109:and see a list of open tasks. 1710:move to avoid cluttering up 1688:11:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 1666:03:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 1613:10:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC) 1596:02:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC) 1573:07:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 1552:00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 1529:in the 2011 merge discussion 1520:13:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 1493:09:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 1476:09:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 1459:06:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 1440:02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 1422:02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 1383:16:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 1353:15:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 1335:22:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1293:02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 1265:23:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 1246:15:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 1228:21:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1200:20:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1181:13:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1167:07:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1137:05:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 1097:13:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1026:00:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 957:Military of the Qing dynasty 955:, of creating sub-articles. 935:13:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 905:14:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 886:13:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 742:14:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 302:Military history WikiProject 2533:15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC) 2504:12:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC) 2027:of the other two articles. 1853:Opium Wars (disambiguation) 1049:Illegal drug trade in China 787:is merged from here to the 779:is occurring. My proposal: 2665: 2609:WikiProject China articles 2487:01:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 2461:01:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 2431:22:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 1820:Opium Wars article vs. dab 1737:15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC) 1449:help with giving credit? 1234:Opium War (disambiguation) 803:Opium War (disambiguation) 385:Referencing and citation: 246:project's importance scale 203:WikiProject United Kingdom 141:project's importance scale 118:Template:WikiProject China 2416:14:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 2369:14:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 2320:01:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC) 2291:23:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2276:21:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2243:18:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2228:17:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2190:17:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2164:17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2142:17:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2034:05:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2018:21:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1988:21:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1941:), is needed. Note that 1939:History of opium in China 1904:02:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1885:History of opium in China 1879:02:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1724:History of opium in China 951:. There is discussion at 944:Very enthusiastic support 909:To answer your question, 653: 599:History of opium in China 531: 491: 475: 446: 338: 325:military history articles 287: 239: 172: 134: 67: 46: 1917:out to the two separate 1810:10:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 1789:18:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 1775:06:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 1756:04:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 1695:Please do not modify it. 1316:article as suggested by 1006:Religion Under Socialism 923:forking the same content 751:Please do not modify it. 730:in the aftermath of the 2580:13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 2552:17:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 2384:Salt in Chinese history 2083:" (bold emphasis added) 1835:Salt in Chinese history 451:Associated task forces: 396:Coverage and accuracy: 226:United Kingdom articles 2388:Tao Zhu (Qing dynasty) 1840:Tao Zhu (Qing dynasty) 1010:Taiwan in Modern Times 488: 472: 429:Supporting materials: 357: 121:China-related articles 28:This article is rated 2074:for articles about a 2062:For example, look at 1637:for articles about a 1251:suggested below), I ' 1125:Talk:Second Opium War 1084:Talk:Second Opium War 487: 471: 356: 195:United Kingdom portal 32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 1588:Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) 1373:pointed out above). 1077:Good luck with that. 874:no one in opposition 758:There was already a 605:. The former page's 2374:P.S. Each time the 2081:during this period. 1720:irrelevent material 809:Current votes are ( 611:provide attribution 418:Grammar and style: 371:for B-class status: 2045:summary/overview.) 1371:User:GraemeLeggett 752: 489: 473: 358: 307:list of open tasks 34:content assessment 2208:Taiping Rebellion 1192:United States Man 783:The content from 750: 686: 685: 649: 648: 617: 616: 581: 580: 577: 576: 573: 572: 506: 505: 502: 501: 498: 497: 442: 441: 398:criterion not met 387:criterion not met 343:on the project's 311:full instructions 256: 255: 252: 251: 151: 150: 147: 146: 98:WikiProject China 2656: 2530: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2496:AdjectivesAreBad 2484: 2479: 2474: 2458: 2453: 2448: 2413: 2408: 2403: 2366: 2361: 2356: 2317: 2312: 2307: 2273: 2268: 2263: 2225: 2220: 2215: 2196:History of China 2187: 2182: 2177: 2139: 2134: 2129: 2031: 1985: 1980: 1975: 1965: 1960: 1955: 1923:Second Opium War 1901: 1896: 1891: 1876: 1871: 1866: 1807: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1772: 1767: 1734: 1716:Second Opium War 1663: 1660: 1652: 1651: 1550: 1547: 1541: 1517: 1516: 1510: 1437: 1436: 1419: 1418: 1407: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1350: 1349: 1332: 1290: 1289: 1278: 1277: 1243: 1242: 1178: 1177: 1164: 1110:Related Articles 1094: 1093: 1087:luck, though. — 1045:History of opium 1014:Reliable Sources 1002:Second Opium War 932: 931: 883: 882: 793:Second Opium War 772:Second Opium War 720:Second Opium War 681: 659: 651: 639:Second Opium War 626: 625: 619: 590: 583: 567: 566: 563: 560: 557: 540: 533: 532: 527: 515: 508: 458: 448: 432: 428: 427: 421: 417: 416: 410: 406: 405: 399: 395: 394: 388: 384: 383: 362: 327: 326: 323: 320: 317: 316:Military history 296: 289: 288: 283: 280: 269:Military history 265: 258: 228: 227: 224: 221: 218: 197: 192: 191: 190: 181: 174: 173: 168: 160: 153: 123: 122: 119: 116: 113: 92: 87: 86: 85: 76: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2584: 2583: 2567: 2559: 2528: 2521: 2482: 2477: 2472: 2456: 2451: 2446: 2411: 2406: 2401: 2380:Peter Stursberg 2364: 2359: 2354: 2315: 2310: 2305: 2271: 2266: 2261: 2223: 2218: 2213: 2185: 2180: 2175: 2137: 2132: 2127: 2029: 1998:First Opium War 1983: 1978: 1973: 1963: 1958: 1953: 1919:First Opium War 1911:#Merge proposal 1899: 1894: 1889: 1874: 1869: 1864: 1830:Peter Stursberg 1822: 1805: 1795: 1793: 1770: 1761: 1744: 1732: 1712:First Opium War 1704: 1699: 1698: 1662: 1661: 1658: 1655: 1645: 1644: 1545: 1539: 1537: 1514: 1513: 1506: 1434: 1432: 1416: 1414: 1404: 1403: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1392: 1347: 1345: 1341:First Opium War 1330: 1287: 1285: 1275: 1274: 1240: 1238: 1175: 1173: 1162: 1091: 1089: 971:Old China Trade 962:More thoughts. 929: 927: 880: 878: 766:article to the 755: 746: 745: 744: 732:First Opium War 691: 682: 677: 635:First Opium War 623: 564: 561: 558: 555: 554: 521: 456: 430: 425: 419: 414: 408: 403: 397: 392: 386: 381: 324: 321: 318: 315: 314: 281: 271: 225: 222: 219: 216: 215: 193: 188: 186: 166: 120: 117: 114: 111: 110: 88: 83: 81: 61: 29: 12: 11: 5: 2662: 2660: 2652: 2651: 2646: 2641: 2636: 2631: 2626: 2621: 2616: 2611: 2606: 2601: 2596: 2586: 2585: 2572:74.215.102.138 2566: 2563: 2558: 2555: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2463: 2419: 2418: 2394:, because the 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2192: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2123: 2120:1967 Opium War 2104: 2103: 2102: 2087: 2084: 2052: 2049:Chris troutman 2046: 2039: 1992: 1991: 1848: 1847: 1842: 1837: 1832: 1821: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1779:Ok then. Thx. 1743: 1740: 1703: 1700: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1668: 1657: 1656: 1615: 1598: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1555: 1554: 1540:Chris Troutman 1522: 1508:Blue Rasberry 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1478: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1314:Opium in China 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1203: 1202: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1150:Strong Support 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1122: 1107: 1078: 1073: 1056: 1041:Opium in China 1036: 1031: 998: 997: 996: 989: 982: 979:Opium in China 974: 940: 939: 938: 937: 863: 862: 857: 843: 842: 836: 830: 825: 820: 807: 806: 796: 756: 747: 728:unequal treaty 695: 694: 693: 692: 690: 689:Merge proposal 687: 684: 683: 675: 673: 670: 669: 661: 647: 646: 627: 615: 614: 609:now serves to 603:March 24, 2014 593:Material from 591: 579: 578: 575: 574: 571: 570: 568: 541: 529: 528: 516: 504: 503: 500: 499: 496: 495: 490: 480: 479: 474: 464: 463: 461: 459: 453: 452: 444: 443: 440: 439: 437: 435: 434: 433: 422: 411: 400: 389: 375: 374: 372: 359: 349: 348: 337: 331: 330: 328: 297: 285: 284: 266: 254: 253: 250: 249: 242:Low-importance 238: 232: 231: 229: 217:United Kingdom 212:the discussion 208:United Kingdom 199: 198: 182: 170: 169: 167:Low‑importance 164:United Kingdom 161: 149: 148: 145: 144: 137:Low-importance 133: 127: 126: 124: 107:the discussion 94: 93: 77: 65: 64: 62:Low‑importance 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2661: 2650: 2647: 2645: 2642: 2640: 2637: 2635: 2632: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2622: 2620: 2617: 2615: 2612: 2610: 2607: 2605: 2602: 2600: 2597: 2595: 2592: 2591: 2589: 2582: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2564: 2562: 2556: 2554: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2534: 2531: 2516: 2515:feature creep 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2488: 2485: 2480: 2475: 2469: 2468:wp:DABCONCEPT 2464: 2462: 2459: 2454: 2449: 2442: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2417: 2414: 2409: 2404: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2367: 2362: 2357: 2350: 2345: 2342: 2338: 2321: 2318: 2313: 2308: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2274: 2269: 2264: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2226: 2221: 2216: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2191: 2188: 2183: 2178: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2143: 2140: 2135: 2130: 2124: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2100: 2099:uncoordinated 2096: 2092: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2056: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2040: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2032: 2026: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1994: 1993: 1989: 1986: 1981: 1976: 1970: 1969:GraemeLeggett 1966: 1961: 1956: 1949: 1944: 1943:GraemeLeggett 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1897: 1892: 1886: 1881: 1880: 1877: 1872: 1867: 1860: 1859:War" {{SIA}} 1856: 1854: 1846: 1843: 1841: 1838: 1836: 1833: 1831: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1819: 1811: 1808: 1801: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1773: 1765: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1741: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1701: 1696: 1689: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1672: 1669: 1667: 1664: 1653: 1650: 1649: 1648:- WPGA2345 - 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1623: 1619: 1616: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1599: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1582: 1581: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1548: 1542: 1535: 1530: 1526: 1523: 1521: 1518: 1511: 1509: 1503: 1500: 1499: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1485:GraemeLeggett 1483: 1479: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1468:GraemeLeggett 1465: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1438: 1423: 1420: 1411: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1363: 1360: 1359: 1354: 1351: 1342: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1333: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1310:Canton System 1307: 1304: 1303: 1294: 1291: 1282: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1244: 1235: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1186: 1182: 1179: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1148: 1147: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1120: 1116: 1111: 1105: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1095: 1085: 1081: 1076: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1039: 1034: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 994: 990: 987: 983: 980: 975: 972: 968: 967:Canton System 964: 963: 961: 960: 958: 954: 950: 945: 942: 941: 936: 933: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 907: 906: 902: 898: 897:GraemeLeggett 894: 890: 889: 888: 887: 884: 875: 871: 868: 861: 858: 855: 852: 851: 850: 848: 840: 837: 834: 831: 829: 826: 824: 821: 819: 816: 815: 814: 812: 804: 800: 797: 794: 790: 786: 782: 781: 780: 778: 773: 769: 765: 761: 754: 743: 740: 738: 735: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 707: 703: 699: 688: 672: 671: 668: 667: 662: 660: 658: 652: 644: 640: 636: 632: 628: 621: 620: 612: 608: 604: 600: 597:was split to 596: 592: 589: 585: 584: 569: 552: 551: 546: 542: 539: 535: 534: 530: 525: 520: 517: 514: 510: 494: 486: 482: 481: 478: 470: 466: 465: 462: 460: 455: 454: 449: 445: 438: 436: 431:criterion met 423: 420:criterion met 412: 409:criterion met 401: 390: 379: 378: 377: 376: 373: 370: 369: 363: 360: 355: 351: 350: 346: 345:quality scale 342: 336: 333: 332: 329: 312: 308: 304: 303: 298: 295: 291: 290: 286: 279: 275: 270: 267: 264: 260: 247: 243: 237: 234: 233: 230: 213: 209: 205: 204: 196: 185: 183: 180: 176: 175: 171: 165: 162: 159: 155: 142: 138: 132: 129: 128: 125: 108: 104: 100: 99: 91: 80: 78: 75: 71: 70: 66: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 2568: 2560: 2541: 2493: 2440: 2420: 2392:Trade dollar 2346: 2334: 2211:examples. -- 2200:Qing Dynasty 2098: 2079: 2075: 2058: 1882: 1861: 1857: 1849: 1845:Trade dollar 1823: 1799: 1745: 1705: 1694: 1682: 1677: 1674: 1670: 1647: 1646: 1638: 1621: 1620:in part and 1617: 1600: 1583: 1524: 1507: 1501: 1480:and here at 1428: 1409: 1388: 1361: 1328:. Thoughts? 1305: 1280: 1270: 1252: 1215: 1211: 1206: 1187: 1156:. Thanks to 1149: 1104:Content Fork 1079: 1074: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1037: 1032: 1009: 1005: 1000:Comments on 993:Good Article 949:Qing Dynasty 943: 918: 914: 873: 870:all in favor 869: 864: 844: 839:75.18.196.20 808: 777:content fork 759: 757: 748: 711: 709: 697: 663: 654: 548: 366: 340: 300: 241: 201: 136: 96: 90:China portal 40:WikiProjects 2173:exactly. -- 1733:► Philg88 ◄ 1447:WP:PROSPLIT 1331:► Philg88 ◄ 1324:arrived in 1257:Lineagegeek 1220:Lineagegeek 1163:► Philg88 ◄ 1117:. See also 865:and (here) 724:opium trade 716:type of war 702:Lineagegeek 643:its history 407:Structure: 341:Start-class 282:Start‑class 2588:Categories 2376:Opium Wars 2349:Opium Wars 2341:Opium Wars 2337:Opium Wars 2301:Opium Wars 2108:Opium Wars 2002:Boers Wars 1935:Opium Wars 1931:Opium Wars 1927:LlywelynII 1915:Opium Wars 1803:. (Phew!) 1678:Cliftonian 1673:per above 1281:additional 1158:LlywelynII 867:LlywelynII 823:FunkyDuffy 799:Opium Wars 785:Opium Wars 764:Opium Wars 712:Opium Wars 706:LlywelynII 664:Archives: 595:Opium Wars 2544:Muppetmoo 2170:Boer Wars 2091:Bertdrunk 2072:World war 2068:Civil war 2010:Bertdrunk 1948:Boer Wars 1635:World war 1631:Civil war 1534:World war 1375:Spellcast 1367:Boer Wars 1115:Summaries 1070:shouldn't 913:when the 895:article. 893:Boer Wars 854:Tibetsnow 818:Spellcast 795:articles. 737:Alex Shih 2529:Philg88 2470:.... -- 2251:briefly. 2055:WPGA2345 2030:Philg88 1806:Philg88 1771:Philg88 1433:Llywelyn 1415:Llywelyn 1346:Llywelyn 1322:Lin Zexu 1286:Llywelyn 1239:Llywelyn 1174:Llywelyn 1090:Llywelyn 928:Llywelyn 879:Llywelyn 860:Kiyoweap 368:criteria 2423:Vinukin 2283:Vinukin 2235:Vinukin 2156:Vinukin 1671:Support 1618:Support 1601:Support 1584:Support 1399:ENGLISH 1362:Support 1306:Comment 1212:Support 1207:Comment 1188:Support 1119:WP:SYNC 995:status. 841:("Jay") 828:Philg88 607:history 550:defunct 524:defunct 278:Chinese 274:British 244:on the 139:on the 30:C-class 2441:causes 2396:wp:DPL 2194:To me 2114:, and 1781:Ruddah 1764:Ruddah 1748:Ruddah 1683:(talk) 1622:oppose 1605:Testem 1525:Oppose 1515:(talk) 1394:COMMON 1326:Canton 1253:Oppose 1216:Oppose 1066:better 631:merged 36:scale. 2060:them. 1742:Merge 1728:Opium 1718:with 1706:In a 1405:CFORK 1276:CFORK 1062:other 1053:Opium 919:still 915:Arrow 845:and ( 835:, and 789:First 768:First 698:Merge 633:into 335:Start 112:China 103:China 59:China 2576:talk 2548:talk 2542:Yep 2500:talk 2427:talk 2390:and 2287:talk 2239:talk 2160:talk 2076:type 2070:and 2057:: " 2025:fork 2014:talk 1921:and 1800:Done 1785:talk 1752:talk 1714:and 1708:bold 1639:type 1633:and 1609:talk 1592:talk 1569:talk 1546:talk 1489:talk 1472:talk 1455:talk 1391:the 1379:talk 1365:the 1271:this 1261:talk 1255:. -- 1224:talk 1218:. -- 1196:talk 1154:here 1133:talk 1043:and 1022:talk 969:and 901:talk 847:here 811:here 791:and 770:and 760:very 637:and 2478:ncr 2452:ncr 2407:ncr 2360:ncr 2311:ncr 2267:ncr 2219:ncr 2181:ncr 2133:ncr 2089:To 1979:ncr 1959:ncr 1895:ncr 1870:ncr 1410:not 1369:as 1318:CWH 1051:or 856:and 833:CWH 601:on 236:Low 131:Low 2590:: 2578:) 2550:) 2526:. 2502:) 2483:am 2473:do 2457:am 2447:do 2429:) 2412:am 2402:do 2386:, 2382:, 2365:am 2355:do 2316:am 2306:do 2289:) 2272:am 2262:do 2241:) 2224:am 2214:do 2186:am 2176:do 2162:) 2154:. 2138:am 2128:do 2125:-- 2016:) 1984:am 1974:do 1971:-- 1964:am 1954:do 1951:-- 1900:am 1890:do 1875:am 1865:do 1787:) 1754:) 1611:) 1594:) 1571:) 1565:ch 1491:) 1474:) 1457:) 1451:ch 1435:II 1417:II 1389:is 1381:) 1348:II 1288:II 1263:) 1241:II 1226:) 1198:) 1176:II 1135:) 1129:ch 1092:II 1080:E) 1075:D) 1058:C) 1038:B) 1033:A) 1024:) 1018:ch 1008:; 930:II 903:) 881:II 849:) 813:) 704:, 457:/ 276:/ 272:: 2574:( 2546:( 2498:( 2425:( 2285:( 2237:( 2158:( 2012:( 1990:) 1783:( 1766:: 1762:@ 1750:( 1675:— 1659:☛ 1607:( 1590:( 1567:( 1549:) 1543:( 1487:( 1470:( 1453:( 1377:( 1259:( 1222:( 1194:( 1131:( 1020:( 981:. 973:. 899:( 666:1 553:. 526:) 522:( 347:. 313:. 248:. 143:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index