Jump to content

Talk:Puyi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested moves

Old article name

Requested move (to Xuantong Emperor)

  • "Henry" was never part of the name of the last emperor of China. I really don't see why it is stated here, what's more in bold print ! I think we are just perpetuating cultural cliches and prejudice here. "Henry" was merely the name that the young emperor used when he was addressed by his British lecturer, who arguably could not pronounce Chinese words. And by the way, the last emperor had MANY Chinese lecturers and teachers, not just a British teacher as is often assumed wrongly in the ethnocentric West. And these Chinese masters certainly did not call him "Henry"! Later in his life, when he was expelled from the Imperial Palace and became a commoner, he may have used the name "Henry" occasionaly in dealing with westerners, as this was easier than Chinese names, and seemed more "modern" (the Chinese elites were undergoing a strong cultural identity crisis back in those days). However it was never his official name, neither was it the name under which he was or is still known in China. I am in favor of deleting "Henry", and merely mentioning the occasional use of the name in the middle of the article. Hardouin 20:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The Emperor of course had many other tutors. His closest one was the eunuch Chen Pao-shen. His English name, as has been mentioned, was unofficial. He was interested in learning English and chose the name 'Henry' from a list of British monarchs. The other members of his family did the same. However, I would also add that, in all fairness, Reginald Johnston could speak Chinese very well, in fact the Emperor said it was often easier to understand Johnston than some others as he did not speak with a regional accent. I agree though that the name should not be emphasized. It would be best to stick with Aisin-Gioro Pu-Yi, Xuantong or his reigning name in Manchukuo, "Kang Teh". --Nguyen Van Tuan
  • If by "British teacher" you mean the Scot, Reginald Johnston, I don't think you should underestimate his influence on Puyi in his teen years or lump him in with all of Puyi's other teachers... according to Edward Behr's biography on the last emperor, Puyi wrote that when his formal Western studies had ended (with marriage), "Johnston had become a major part of my soul". Why is he not mentioned at least in passing here? P. Moore 02:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A Scots teacher is also a "British teacher" - as I beleive a Scot is also British, as much as the English or the Welsh. So yes I would take it that Reginald Johnson is meant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunchan (talk • contribs) 09:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that, in respect to the Emperor, who had a rather unhappy life in that he was constantly being manipulated by one person or another, the article on him should be titled 'Xuantong Emperor', as this is the title he had always wanted back once the Republic was established, and felt that he should have been restored to when he was made Emperor of Manchukuo. Furthermore, as this article is about the Emperor, we should name it after how he would have called himself, and while he had many names and forms of address, I feel that this is the one he preferred as it was a massive part of his life and one that he could never forget and consistently aspired to. It is unfair, in my opinion, to think about naming an article after someone in a way that is for our convenience, and that he would never have used, and much more preferable to name the article in a way he would have been able to identify with, and it would definately give the article a more legitimate feel if it was so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.242.218 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (to Puyi)

I suggest this article be re-titled Puyi, as that is the name by which he is most widely known in China as well as in the west. A lot less people know him by Xuantong Emperor, as compared to Puyi. We never bothered to name Yuan Shikai the "Hongxian Emperor". Colipon+(T) 22:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page, but now I agree. It should not be at "Henry Puyi", which was its fmr location. Let's move it to Puyi.--Jiang 00:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Requested move (to Pu Yi)

Hottentot (talk · contribs) put this up at WP:RM to be moved to Pu Yi. Since this has been moved in the past I'm wondering what people think of this new suggestion? Talrias (t | e | c) 02:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I oppose. I don't see a reason. Hanyu pinyin does not contain spaces between given names. Both Pu and Yi are given names. For example, it is Jiang Zemin, not Jiang Ze Min. --Jiang 07:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, Wade-Giles romanization is most common for older things, such as the last emperor. WG is also the most common romanization in the West, not Pinyin. It's Mao Tse Tung, not Mao Zedong 132.205.45.110 23:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENT *all* Chinese names should have both Pinyin and Wade-Giles romanizations prominently displayed in the article page. And any figure from south-east China should also have Yale romanization of the Cantonese pronounciation. (or perhaps just apply it to all Chinese named things) (This is the romanization used in HK for Cantonese). And the Nanjing romanization method should also probably appear on all such articles. 132.205.45.110 23:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENT The Time magazine cover even says Henry Pu Yi, showing the preferred romanization for most documents written in English about him is Pu Yi. 132.205.45.110 00:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENT we should not support the tyranny of pinyin in revisionist naming of historical things.
    • Response: That is incorrect. Wade-Giles Romanization is Pu-i, not "Pu Yi". "Pu Yi" is bastardized pinyin. --Jiang 15:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Is this actually true? It seems to me that he was called Pu Yi long before there actually was a Pinyin to bastardize. john k 05:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: lol. Furthermore, all other Chinese sovereigns in history happens to be named with standardized Pinyin. To modify this last Emperor's form of naming seems unecessary. Colipon+(T)
      • If we were to use other emperor articles as a model, he should be at Xuantong Emperor, not Puyi. john k 05:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I'm saying it should be kept consistent in terms of pinyin, keep in mind he abdicated, ending the the long era of Imperial China. Other than that, your argument falls on four points: first of all, Puyi is seldom known by that Reign Title anywhere in the world; second, he had several other Reign titles, and can technically be named the "Kangde Emperor of Manchuria"; third, Emperors like Li Zicheng (note pinyin) was deposed and therefore will not be named according to his reign title; fourth, Nurhaci and Hong Taiji, in accordance with other Emperors, would have to be renamed Tianming and Tiancong/Chongde Emperors.
  • SUPPORT Pu Yi is how he is most known. The Puyi spelling only seems to be used on Wikipedia. Pu Yi is much more widely known than Puyi. --Hottentot
  • I OPPOSE. I support Jiang. Although Puyi only turns out about half the results as "Pu Yi" (in quotations) on Google, more and more modern sources use the romanization "Puyi", especially the sources that actually specialize in Chinese history. It is reasonable to expect that "Puyi" will become the most common usage in the next ten or twenty years. --Colipon+(T) 22:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 19:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Content Requests

NPOV

Note: its hard to get an NPOV opinon on Pu Yi because of his collaberation with the japanese during the second world war.

Pinyin

Can we get some pinyin on this page?

Title

What was Puyi's full title as Emperor of China?

Qing Imperial House

There are several references in the article to the Qing Imperial House having, in 2004, attributed posthumous titles to several people associated with Pu Yi. I am interested in this subject and wonder whether an official remnant of the former imperial house still exists somewhere "in exile" or in some other way, and what evidence there might be for the titles having been so granted in 2004. Would love to see more about this, and if possible the article Qing Imperial House to actually be created. --Ishel99 05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read on this... there is a Qing heir in pretence (pretension? whatever is the word). You can find it by following the box at the bottom of the article. However, I've also read (in a PRC-based newspaper) that the actualy imperial family (i.e. Puyi's brother/nephews) don't approve of these "titles" which are being bestowed by a group of more distant relatives who are calling themselves the "Qing Imperial House". That's all just hearsay, of course. --Sumple (Talk) 11:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Name confusion

The article begins by calling him "Puyi". Then it says the communists called him "Aixinjueluo Puyi". Then it suddenly calls him "Xuantong" with no explanation. Then we get a section headed 'Name', which begins "In English, he is known more simply as Puyi" but that this name contravenes Chinese tradition. However, it does not explain what the correct name would be. What's going on here? Can someone sort it out? Cop 663 14:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically his personal name is Puyi, while his imperial name was the Xuantong Emperor. English tends to use emperors' personal names even where that might be considered impolite or offensive locally, e.g. we also call the Showa Emperor of Japan by his personal name, Hirohito. In this particular case it's further complicated by the fact that many Chinese themselves both historically and presently called this particular person Puyi rather than the Xuantong Emperor, perhaps to emphasize the abolition of the empire. --Delirium (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusing information about wives

In the article in its current reading it can be understood that he had two or five wives. Also, one of his wives is as also stated a concubine. Also, it's stated that he had two wives simultaneously. Someone with knowledge about his private life and the legal definition of marriage in China during his life should rewrite this section so that it will be clear.--Smallchanges 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing Years

There is an entire section missing from the article. What was he doing between 1924 and 1932? Macguba 09:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs Re: Tibet

Why the two odd paragraphs about Tibetan leadership (third and last paragraphs of the biography section)? Frankly, I think these are irrelevant to the article. I would suggest they be deleted, but didn't want to unilaterally do something in case someone can make a real good explanation for their presence. I.e., how do they contribute to the biography of Puyi as an individual, rather than as aspects of the disintegration of the empire? If we were to include all aspects of the territorial disintegration of the Qing empire's (and the later Republican state's) sovereignty, this article would be 4 times as long.

68.190.118.77 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the same thought. THe third, fourth and last paragraphs under Biography Emperor of China (1908–1912) are totally irrelevant to this article. In fact, they distract. They make the article less professional as if it were a work of cut and paste. I think they should be removed and moved to one about the 13th Dalai Lama if desired. Can the original contributor please take them out? Cjchua (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Cjchua

I've noted the same thing and agree that those 3 paragraphs should be removed as they are not directly related to Puyi. Repetition (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Li Shuxian profession

The article variously characterizes Li Shuxian as a "hospital janitor" and a "nurse." Her brief wiki1 says she was a "former nurse."

Which is it?

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Shuxian

He flattered Japanese imperial family? Who says?

The piece of info in the Manchukuo section, that he flattered the Japanese imperial family during a visit to Tokyo and thanked Hirohito for "allowing" clear skies -- what's the source on that? Thanks. --Prince andre (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

11 or 12 days?

In the first paragraph, it claims he was reigning 12 days, yet the info box says 11 days.  Guy M | Talk  13:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Puyi, Yuan Shikai, and last emperor of China

I moved the following unsigned inline commentary from the main article page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ORIGINAL TEXT:"However, Yuan Shikai, the first President of the Republic of China later claimed the title of "Emperor of China".[1]" / EXPLANATION OF MY DELETION (or, technically, HIDING IT): Puyi would be the last emperor of China whether or not Yuan Shikai claimed the title in 1916. The dethroned Manchu monarch was again recognized as emperor for a short period in 1917 after Yuan's abdication and death, wasn't he? So what's the relevance of this caveat here?

References

  1. ^ Zhzo, Suisheng (1996). Power by Design: Constitution-Making in Nationalist China. University of Hawaii Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0824817213.

City names

It is a serious error in these articles to use modern names for the cities and towns in the periods covered in these articles as all references, atlases and maps of the time show the correct names, not those adopted by the communists. 86.137.120.79 (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Useful insight into his later life http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-17455067 Legacypac (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Consolidating Reference Citations

I've noticed that the list of citations is ridiculously extensive, with more than a dozen references from the same source. Is anyone up to the task of consolidating the Reference Citations, so it would read similar to the following instead of the huge list as presently displayed? Much appreciated.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggested example of post-consolidation:

131. ^abcd Behr 1987 p 202, 203-204, p 244

Hmm. It seems there's some automatic function of Wikipedia that I hadn't expected to be in operation here on the Talk page. That above example was intended to be text only for demonstration purposes. I had not expected it to produce cite_ref and Special:Book Sources at the bottom of this post. I apologize. Does anyone know how to turn that off so the above example won't activate the cite_ref on the Talk page?
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrap it in <nowiki> tags? DonIago (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, DonIago. Unfortunately, <nowiki> doesn't seem to work at removing that citation appended to the bottom of this Talk page. Following that unsuccess, I took another look at the Citation, and it dawned on me that I didn't add it - PalaceGuard008 did when they moved an Article edit to the Talk page § Puyi, Yuan Shikai, and last emperor of China. Thanks for the help anyway.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Puyi. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

Shouldn't "Kāngdé" be a redirect that leads to this page? (66.215.84.193 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC))

Needs major overhaul

This article has so many problems that I don't even know where to start so im just going to give a general summary. Details conflict with each other constantly, the article relies on two sources mainly, the POV is all over the place and certainly not neutral, and is full of extraneous and unnecessary details. SpacePrius (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite May 2019

The article is written as an essay or sprawling ramble. I may come back to it but if anyone better knows Puyi please consider a rewrite. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sexuality

"Some maintain he had homosexual tendencies." i hope this sentense can be remove from the article.. be it homosexual or bisexual


Why should it be removed? Puyi was an interesting fellow with a unique life, and it has taken a long time to get any real information about him out to the general public. If we know of a male historical figure's wives or girlfriends, those are included for the sake of completeness in any good history, so should it be mentioned if he was known to be gay. The only reason not to include mention of his love life is if the facts are utterly unsubstantiated -- and even then, the fact that such rumors exist or allegations have been made is useful to know to those trying to sort out truth from fiction, allegations from knowledge, rumor from fact, prejudice from legitimate inference.

According to "Newsweek" correspondent Edward Behr, who wrote a book on the last imperial emperor of China, "There is no doubt in my own mind that Puyi was bisexual." --Kstern999 04:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And Pu Yi's Japanese sister-in-law once claimed that "the Emperor had an unnatural love for a pageboy. He was referred to as the male concubine."

    • This is all rumor and conjencture - the fact that a biographer wrote that Puyi was, in his mind, bisexual is really neither here nor there - unless it is clearly stated as conjencture. If we have evidence from his sister-in-law, then let's refer to the first-hand source - or note that it is unsubstantiated. In general this article has issues with references. Instead of refering to a biography it would be nice to have some empirical evidence Kunchan 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I move to remove all mention of sexuality unless we can reference it? Please let me know your thoughts before I do so. Kunchan 09:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are so many ignorant people who do not know the fact that Puyi was a famous homosexual, although his brother and eunuchs declared Puyi's homosexuality clearly. 124.255.24.220 (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC) HADRIANVS ET ANTINOVS

It is also widely ignored that he was traumatized at age 10 or 11 by a palace maid, and therefore was deeply afraid of any physical contact with women. He simply felt safer in the presence of men. Jadetemple (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the person above in his comments that Pu Yi was known to be homosexual. It is my opinion that if all of us can refrain from being homophobic, we can be more scholarly in our approach to Pu Yi. Goldstarnunc


The user Jadetemple has just deleted information about Puyi being homosexual and put in completely uncited claims about Puyi being broken. This includes Wanrongs personal eunuch's memoir that is cited.r Menacinghat (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC Menacinghat (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A eunuch who served in the Forbidden City as Wanrong's personal servant later wrote in his memoir that there was a rumour among the eunuchs that Puyi was gay, noting a strange situation where he was asked by Puyi to stand inside Wanrong's room while Puyi groped her.[1]

References

  1. ^ The Last Eunuch of China. pp. 130–35.

Medical question

Question: There are several comments in the "literature" about Puyi's unusual physical movements: stiff arms and legs, walking as if on stilts, etc. Is there any reliable information (or even "informed" speculation) about possible physical or mental impairments? [-- unsigned]

[Whomever posted this question, please sign with 4 ~ characters]

I'm guessing here, but his clumsiness may also be related.

47.139.45.144 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, he didn`t have an physical impairments. He was deeply traumatized several times during his life. That does something to your psyche and that in turn influences how you move and carry yourself. He walked insecurely because he was. Li Shuxian commented, that she had never met anyone who needed so desperately to be loved. Jadetemple (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Last Emperor?

I note that the article starts by stating that Puyi was the last emperor of China, and while this is the common belief, wasn't Yuan Shikai technically the last Emperor of China? --Daduzi talk 09:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

he's not "legitimate" - as in "legitimate history" doesn't count his Empire of China as a dynasty. --Sumple (Talk) 10:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, no, it wouldn't be a dynasty since it was only one person (with an incredibly short rule at that). We're not talking about the last dynasty, however, we're talking about the last emperor. And legitimate history works do note that Yuan Shikai crowned himself emperor, and (at least from what I've read) don't pass judgement as to whether he was a legitimate emperor or not. --Daduzi talk 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I mean "dynasty" as a translation for the Chinese term 朝代. If a "dynasty" is not regarded as "legitimate" by "legitimate history", then they (the dynasty and its emperor(s)) are not "counted". "Counted" as in being regarded as one in the traditional linear view of Chinese history. Thus, for example, Li Zicheng is not usually counted as an emperor even though he crowned himself one.
I'm not saying that Yuan Shikai is not the "last emperor". This is just my interpretation of why people don't usually refer to him as such. --Sumple (Talk) 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh well in that case I agree with you; I'd agree that Puyi is generally considered to be the last "real" emperor by most (if not all) historians, and I wouldn't consider Yuan Shikai as the last emperor myself. I guess what I was trying to suggest was that mention should perhaps be made of Yuan's claim, most likely as a foot note, if for no other reason than that it's an interesting piece of history that fewer people are aware of than know about Puyi's status as last emperor. Something along the lines of "Though Yuan Shikai crowned himself emperor Hongxian in 1916, his reign lasted little more than a year and was widely disputed at the time. Today most historians discount Yuan's reign when compiling histories of the Chinese Empire and consider Puyi, not Yuan Shikai, to be the last emperor of China." ideally with a cited source reflecting the view of historians. --Daduzi talk 20:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Sumple (Talk) 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that Yuan Shikai had a brief claim to the throne in 1916, but Puyi himself had a brief claim to the throne in 1917. So, either way—whether you count people who were briefly declared emperor or not—Puyi is the last emperor.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yuan Shikai's reign was not legitimate, he crowned himself and most people did not recognize him as Emperor.

Puyi was also restored as emperor for a short period of time in 1917, making him the last emperor of China. KeithSNP (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Puyi (1906-1967) vs "Xuantong reign" (1908-1912)

All the other pages on emperors of the Qing dynasty discuss what happened during their reign. Therefore if we want to know what happened in the 1690s, we go to Kangxi Emperor because he reigned from 1662 to 1722. But this wiki on Puyi is different: it's a biography of one man from his birth to his death. As such, it doesn't coincide with the years of his reign as Qing emperor. If a reader comes here wanting to know what happened in China in 1909, all he or she will find is the story of Puyi the man. To remedy this lack, I propose we create a page called "Xuantong reign of the Qing dynasty" (or something like that) that would cover the events that took place in China from 1908 to 1912 instead of discussing the emperor himself. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Titles in lede

The manchu writing should be moved from the lede to the second section. The lede should convey biographical information and it seems overwhelmed with naming information. The naming information should be moved to the second section. -ApexUnderground (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree it was fine previously and matched the setup on his predecessors page (Guangxu emperor). Now it looks fragmented, the title is sideways and incomplete. Jadetemple (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Split proposed

I am proposing the split of this article and the creation of Life of Puyi due to the great length of the "Biography" section. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 03:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support due to the section's truly massive size. It takes an very long time to scroll through (let alone read) on mobile, and I cannot imagine loading it on a slow Internet connection. Glades12 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose

at the proposed title. This entire Wikipedia biography is quite naturally about the "life of Puyi", so a new article with that title would be entirely redundant to this one. I may support this, if the new article(s) is/are something like "early life of Puyi", or "Puyi as puppet ruler of Manchukuo", or "later life of Puyi". Such articles would just cover aspects of his life, not his entire life. Protean Self (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Propose a different solution

I agree the article is too long for a single article and should be split. Also, it seems to be rely on Behr too much as a source. Maybe do one article on his book covering what it stated only by him and has no other sources, and keep in the Puyi article only what has another source or is too important not to include.47.139.45.144 (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Timeline doesn't make sense

According to the timeline, he was only the emperor until shortly after his sixth birthday. But the section Puyi#Emperor of China (1908–1912) talks about when he was 7, 8, and even 13. From the information there, it's confusing and sounds like he was the emperor up to the age of 13, while the rest of the article says he was removed at the age of 6 and then shortly became emperor again at the age of 12. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues that render article unreliable

The text seems to be biased heavily against the person in question, in manners which would get immediately deleted were this an article about a living person. Ridiculous assertions bordering on defamation relying on a single source, which is a film of all things with no link to anything of value, and numerous point of view issues. I personally suggest the article be rewritten entirely using more academic sources. Euphemios (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that the Behr source is a book, however, how is it that we have nothing linking to it in the first place? If these citations are true to the material, did the author collect various rumours and write about them as if they were proven? Euphemios (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Aisin-Gioro-2007

I've just corrected a cite error and in doing so found that "Aisin-Gioro, 2007" can not be verified. I'm guessing the 2007 release of the autobiography is what is meant, but there isn't enough information to be certain. It would help if it was defined correctly in the Sources section. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wet Nurse

Article states after his pardon he would see Wang Lianshou, and would see her after his government pardon in 1959, yet her stated date of death on her article is 3/02/46. So either that article is incorrect or this one is, along with the citation. 81.136.190.120 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Changes on 26 September 2021

It appears an anonymous editor removed mention of Puyi's sexual orientation, describing, in their revision summary, the since-removed text as containing 'bizarre annecdotes' which would not be fitting an encyclopedic article.

Seeing as the article is a biography of a historical figure, I feel that it is appropriate for the article to mention such information. Interested in seeing others' thoughts on the removals made on 26 September. - Emil Sayahi (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I find it inappropriate to discuss his sexuality quite frankly. He cannot even have the page under his era name like everyone before him, I think that is disrespectful enough.
I would also like to add that the emperor was traumatized at a very young age (10/11). As a result of this he was deeply afraid fo physical contact with women and felt more comfortable in the presence of men.
I would also like to request that his full manchu title be put back on the page. The older version had his manchu and mongolian title in the main text, as well as his full name in manchu.
Now that information has been removed and his manchu and mongolian title have been shoved to the bottom of the page in tiny footnotes. His manchu title is also missing the word huwangdi.
I would greatly appreciate if the former version could be restored, I need it and can`t find it elsewhere. Jadetemple (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Behr is an unreliable source

Behr is a non-academic, whose work has serious flaws. John Fairbank, a professor of history at Harvard who founded the East Asian Research Center, reviewed Behr's "Last Emperor" book in the New York Review of Books on February 18, 1988, and I feel like his words speak for themselves: "Mr. Behr seems careless about proofreading and/or the historical record. For example, the Hundred Days of reform did not occur in 1880, the British did not take Chinese territory at Canton in 1898, the Peking Legation Quarter was not set up in 1860, the province of Anhwei was not the Empress Dowager “Tzu-hsi’s home base,” Lord Palmerston in 1855 did not say he would have to strike “another blow for China,” he said in China, “Weihawei” [sic] was not “one of the oldest British owned Chinese colonies after Hong Kong.” Such howlers and misunderstandings indicate that Mr. Behr is not a trained historian. This is corroborated by his enthusiastic acceptance of David Bergamini’s 'Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy', which makes Emperor Hirohito the mastermind and chief operator of Japan’s implacable drive to take over half the world—a theory long since discredited. Evidently books are like people: if they exist they can be quoted." This article relies enormously on Behr's book -- possibly because, as mentioned in Fairbank's same review, it was released by Behr around the time as the Bertolucci film. If the quality of the article is to improve, Behr ought to be eliminated as a source. Lycrophon (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. Be bold and go ahead! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puyi/Archive_1&oldid=1254433931"