File talk:Taiping2.PNG

I do not think the disputed of the map is correct, because it's the old Chinese map, and also the south china sea area did't been draw out, please bouble check that. If no one common on this for more detailized information, I will remove this model in 7 days. Tangmingxyz (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the Qing claimed such maritime territory in the South Sea? This is why it is disputed. Greenknight dv (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

First, this map did not really draw those areas, as the result, I do not think this map has any problem. Also, I found the map in many resources (not just by the Chinese government),so I would like to default Most of the people agreed. I understand you means the Qing did not really claimed those seas, but that's a whole new topic. You need research papers to change the consensus, then you may change the map. I am sorry, I removed the model, I should start the conversation in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard--Tangmingxyz (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate map

Firstly, I want to say that I don't have any knowledge on the Taiping Rebellion other than a basic knowledge.

So, as you can see on the bottom left of the image, the uploader used the book "The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom" by "Thomas A. Reilly". The first problem is that his name is actually Thomas H. Reilly, but it's just a small typo, so let's continue.

It was a bit hard to find a good digitalized version where the map wasn't damaged in some way, but I found this version where you can see the map (alternative, archived link).

As you can see, on this map there is two different territories: early 1854 and early 1862. The first thing I noticed is that the two territories don't overlap with each other, which is weird for me, but I only have a shallow knowledge on the subject, as I said. And I think that's close to how the uploader got confused and made this map. My theory is that the uploader saw that map and assumed the total territory of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom in 1854 was both the territory of 1854 AND the territory of 1862, with the territory marked in 1862 being the fall of the kingdom and what was only left of the territory in that year.

But it doesn't make sense, and you can check it with the timeline of the en:Taiping Rebellion article (all backed by academic and book sources).

"In May 1860 the Taiping defeated the imperial forces that had been besieging Nanjing since 1853, eliminating them from the region and opening the way for a successful invasion of southern Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces (...). The Taiping rebels were successful in taking Hangzhou on March 19, 1860, Changzhou on May 26, and Suzhou on June 2 to the east. (...). Near the end of 1861 the Taipings launched a final Eastern Expedition. Ningbo was easily captured on December 9, and Hangzhou was besieged and finally captured on December 31, 1861. Taiping troops surrounded Shanghai in January 1862, but were unable to capture it."

All these areas are claimed to be taken by the Taiping since 1854 on this user-made map, which is not true. On the map on the book used as source, all these areas are on the "early 1862" area but not on the "early 1854" area, proving that the user just misinterpreted the map.

What if it's the inverse then? Maybe the total 1862 area is the territory of 1854 + the territory of 1862, with the area marked as early 1862 being more annexations? Then it would only be a matter of changing the date on the user-made map, right? But it also doesn't make sense.

"In December 1856 Qing forces retook Wuchang for the final time. The Xiang Army captured Jiujiang in May 1858 and then the rest of Jiangxi province by September. (...) In 1861 (...) Zeng Guofan's Xiang Army captured Anqing."

So, by 1862, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom had lost a lot of its 1854 territory.

In conclusion, it's a bit confusing map where it's two totally different areas with zero overlap between them. The important thing is that the map which was shown for years on Wikipedia (since 2011 on the English Wikipedia, apparently) is just wrong on a big level. And even if it was right, there is a lot of wrongly drawn areas anyways. AnAkemie (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)