Talk:Hongguang Emperor

Good articleHongguang Emperor has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 15, 2025Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 4, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Hongguang Emperor was betrayed by his troops and handed over to the enemy, who criticised his poor battle strategy and allowed locals to humiliate him?

Requested moves

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This RM has been left open for over a month, and there has still only been two participants other than the proposer. I suggest waiting a couple of months, and trying again, this time notifying relevant WikiProjects (like WP:CHINA?). Number 57 12:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– These people are far better known as emperors of the Southern Ming than by their personal names and titles before they became emperors. All Most other Wikipedias, including the Chinese, use their imperial titles. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Zanhe (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Chinese tradition, the subsequent dynasty produces an "official history" of the previous dynasty. The Qing historians classify the Hongguang emperor as a legit ruler. The other three are considered pretenders.[1] Each of these "emperors" was progressively less imperial than the last. So the Prince of Fu can certainly be moved to Hongguang emperor. What to do with the others is trickier. I get 80 post-2000 hits for Ming "prince Gui" OR "Prince of Gui", 357 for Yongli emperor Ming. On another note, "emperor" should be lower cased when it appears after the era name. (See here.) La crème de la crème (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to research the sources. The picture becomes much clearer if you include Chinese sources, which are far more extensive than English ones. For example, Google search for "朱聿键" ("Zhu Yujian") yields 2,990 results, but "隆武帝" ("Longwu Emperor") returns 10,600. This is why the Chinese wikipedia, as well as all other languages, uses their imperial titles instead of personal names. The authoritative Cambridge History of China also refers to them by their imperial titles, see here. (note: being published in the 1980s, it used the then-prevalent Wade-Giles spelling). Also, all other Ming dynasty emperors included in Template:Ming emperors have their articles under their imperial titles (with capitalized "Emperor") rather than personal names. -Zanhe (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is my information misleading? The Cambridge History of China uses "Yung-li emperor" almost exclusively in the main text, the only exception being p. 677, where the prince is introduced, before he was proclaimed emperor. All other ten appearances of his personal name occur in the index or appendix, a fact you neglected to mention. Your other argument, as to whether they "deserve" to be called emperors, is irrelevant. History is full of emperors and monarchs who have little real power, but article titles are about common names, not about whether the person deserves the title. As I mentioned before, all most other Wikipedias use their imperial titles, there's no good reason why the English wiki should be different. -Zanhe (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken and my inaccurate remarks deleted. Yes, you are correct that 10/11 of appearances of "Chu Yu-lang" are in the index/appendix and I failed to mention that. However, if you only look at the narrative, there are also 3 mentions of "Prince of Yung-ming" referencing the same individual that you neglected to mention. According to the preface to Volume 7: "Emperors are referred to by their temple names during their reign and by their personal names prior to their accession." Calling an individual by his title during that period is probably so to facilitate narrative clarity, and does not indicate "common name" in my opinion. The "common name" is the one the authors use in the index, and that is "Chu Yu-lang", at least that's how I look at it. Otherwise why would they use "Chu Yu-lang" in the index? Timmyshin (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how could you make the claim "all other Wikipedias use their imperial titles" when you have Czech Czech Norwegian Russian Russian Russian Korean Vietnamese clearly using their personal names? Timmyshin (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that. I only checked Wikidata for Longwu, and assumed that the others were the same. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. However, it remains true that most Wikipedia articles, including all the Chinese ones, use the imperial titles. -Zanhe (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Russian entry "Чжу Юйцзянь" is also a transliteration of "Zhu Yujian". Anyway, I think this is an important move request and probably should be relisted multiple times to involve more editors familiar with Chinese history to build a consensus. At the very least, we both agree the current titles need to go, especially the "Zhu Youlang, Prince of Gui" one, as p. 677 of The Cambridge History of China vol. 7 said that "Prince of Kuei" ("Prince of Gui") was an inaccurate designation used by many Qing and 20th-century historians. (Another reason I prefer personal names over noble titles.) Timmyshin (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zhu Yousong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Min968 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 09:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Image review

  • File:Chinese coin Hongguang Tongbao (flickr 8719045207).jpg: is the site linked at Commons a reliable source?
    • Removed.
  • File:Southern Ming.png: a reliable source is needed at Commons.
    • Removed.

Borsoka (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you add a map?
    • Done.

Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Borsoka (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote the texts from the cited sources verifying the following texts from the article?

  • Zhu Changxun was the third and favorite son of the Wanli Emperor, who ruled the Ming dynasty from 1572 to 1620.
    • The Wanli Emperor's (r. 1573-1619) favorite son was Zhu Changxun, born of the emperor's most beloved concubine, Zheng guifei. Wakeman, p. 337
    • Fixed. Zhu Changxun was the third and favorite son of the Wanli Emperor, who ruled the Ming dynasty from 1572 to 1620.
  • In 1641, peasant rebels led by Li Zicheng, a former government courier, captured Luoyang. Li's rebels burned Zhu Changxun's palace for three days.
    • Fixed. In 16411640, peasant rebels led by Li Zicheng, a former government courier, captured Luoyang. Li's rebels burned Zhu Changxun's palace for three days.
    • Shordy after that, in 1640, Li Zicheng's army entered the city of Luoyang. While the palace burned for three days, Li had the prince butchered, drank his blood, and fed the cooked remains to his troops. Wakeman, p. 338
  • However, officials described Zhu Yousong as being illiterate, avaricious, and cruel.
    • The first consideration of the Nanjing ministers, once they had pledged their oath to combat the rebels, was to unite their forces behind an imperial heir. As far as they knew, the sons of Chongzhen were either dead or in the enemy's hands. In the Huai River valley, however, a number of Ming princes, having abandoned their estates in Shandong and Henan, were seeking refuge with Governor Lu Zhenfei. Besides the Prince of Fu, the Princes of Zhou, Lu, and Chong had all arrived in Huai'an, fleeing the Shun rebels. Of these escaped princes, the most appealing to some influential officials in Nanjing was the Prince of Lu, who was thought to be the most respectable and conscientious of all the contenders. His candidacy especially drew the support of senior officials who were identified in the public's eye with the Donglin party: Vice-Minister of War Lii Daqi, Vice-Minister of Rites Qian Qianyi, Chief Censor Zhang Shenyan, and Hanlin Chancellor Jiang Yueguang. However, the Prince of Lu, who was an imperial nephew, had a weaker claim upon the throne than the Prince of Fu, who was the Wanli Emperor's immediate descendant. Thus, even though the Prince of Fu was said to be illiterate, avaricious, drunken, cruel, meddlesome, lustful, and unfilial, his line of descent was the most direct of any of the princes at hand. A conflict was bound to develop between those who wished to "use merit" and those who wanted to "use propinquity" to determine who would be the next emperor.'^Thus, even though the Prince of Fu was said to be illiterate, avaricious, drunken, cruel, meddlesome, lustful, and unfilial, his line of descent was the most direct of any of the princes at hand. Wakeman, 340-341
  • A few months after the Hongguang Emperor was captured, Zhu Yujian, Prince of Tang, a ninth-generation descendant of the Ming founder, the Hongwu Emperor, ascended the throne as the Longwu Emperor in Fuzhou, in the southeastern province of Fujian.
    • He arrived in the outskirts of Foochow on 26 July. Three days later he entered the city and formally received the title of regent. A familiar debate then ensued between those who felt it would be more prudent for the prince to remain a regent and to ascend the throne only after he had regained substantial territories outside Fukien, and others who felt that in such chaotic conditions only the charisma of an emperor could rally the people and organize their support. The latter argument won the day, and regent T'ang became the Lung-wu emperor in Foochow on 18 August 1645. Struve, p. 665
    • The Prince of Lu, Chu I-hai, moved from Shantung to southeastern Chekiang; and the Prince of T'ang, Chu Yii-chien, whose estate had been in Honan, had been passing through Soochow on his way to Kwangsi when Nanking fell to the Ch'ing.24 (Note 24: According to surviving records of these two princes' own genealogical reckonings, their ancestors were the ninth and twenty-second sons of T'ai-tsu, respectively.) Stuve, p. 664-665
    • Fixed. A few months after the Hongguang Emperor was captured, Zhu Yujian, Prince of Tang, a ninth-generation descendant of the Ming founder, the Hongwu Emperor, ascended the throne as the Longwu Emperor in Fuzhou, in the southeastern province of Fujian.
  • The emperor is often portrayed as more interested in indulging in women, wine, and theater than governing, while Ma Shiying is depicted as a greedy and arrogant leader.
    • A passionate fan of theatre and opera, the Hongguang Emperor was supposed to have utterly neglected affairs of state in order to spend his days and nights attending performances and watching plays like Ruan Dacheng's own drama, The Swallow Letter (Yanzi jian).
    • Fixed. The emperor is often portrayed as more interested in indulging in women, wine, and theater than governing, while Ma Shiying is depicted as a greedy and arrogant leader.

Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka Done. Min968 (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • ...was granted the title... By whom?
    • Done.
  • A link to "Prince of Dechang"? Was this a courtesy title or its implied the potential to rule a city or province?
    • There are currently no articles for the Prince of Dechang. In 1617 Chu Yu-sung received the title Prince of Tê-ch'ang 德昌. Kennedy (1943), p. 196
  • ...who formed a movement around the Donglin Academy I am not sure I understand.
    • Fixed.
  • Although the Wanli Emperor failed to name Zhu Changxun as the heir, ... I would delete this text and rephrase the sentence.
    • Fixed.
  • ...did provide for him materially by... I would delete this text and rephrase the sentence.
    • Fixed.
  • Shortly introduce Li Zicheng and his rebellion.
    • Done.
  • ...his son, Zhu Yousong... Delete "his son". Was the wife his mother? If not, do we need to mention her?
    • Fixed.
  • I would mention that there were two potential canditates to the throne, Zhu Yousong and Zhu Changfang before discussing their right to rule.
    • Done.
  • Some words about the Donglin movement?
    • Done.
  • ...sharing many of his father's traits, including being illiterate, avaricious, and cruel We are not informed previously about these features of his father.
    • Fixed.
  • I would split section "Emperor" into two: "Ascension" and "Reign", or something similar.
    • Done.
  • ...the army was no different from the bandits Rephrase for better prose.
    • Fixed.
  • ...the people of Nanjing were in a mood to declare the Hongguang Emperor illegitimate instead Rephrase to be more formal.
    • Fixed.
  • Shortly after, a woman surnamed Tong was imprisoned in Nanjing after claiming... Rephrase to avoid repetition.
    • Fixed.
  • Introduce Prince Dodo with one or two words.
  • When Prince Dodo berated his battle strategy, the Hongguang Emperor was left speechless,... Rephrase: "Prince Dodo berated the emperor's battle strategy of ...., leaving him speechless...", or something similar.
    • Fixed.
  • ...the former emperor... We are not informed that he was deposed.
    • Fixed.
  • ...the title of Emperor Sheng'an I guess this is a posthumous title and a link could be added to the term "posthumous title". Does the title mean or indicate anything?
    • Done. Source not mentioned.
  • Do his temple and posthumous names indicate or mean anything?
    • Source not mentioned
  • I understand only consorts are listed.
    • Fixed.

Borsoka (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Lead): his childhood nickname is not mentioned in the main text; do we need to know his childhood nickname?
  • (Lead): that he was the first emperor of the Southern Ming dynasty is not mentioned in the main text.
  • (Lead): ...due to his stronger political support Rephrase. 1. Mention he was not the only candidate. 2. Explain that who supported him to gain the throne. Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borsoka All done. Min968 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. This is a GA. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Most documents, such as The Cambridge History of China, Voices from the Ming-Qing Cataclysm: China in Tigers' Jaws, and The great enterprise: the Manchu reconstruction of imperial order in seventeenth-century China, refer to him as the Hongguang Emperor rather than by his personal name. Other Wikipedias, such as the Chinese one, also call it that. Most Chinese materials, such as Gu Cheng's History of Southern Ming, also refer to him as the Hongguang Emperor. Zhu Yujian, Zhu Yuyue, and Zhu Youlang should also be changed to Longwu Emperor, Shaowu Emperor, and Yongli Emperor, respectively. Min968 (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Chinese history, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, and WikiProject China have been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 11:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the Hongguang Emperor was betrayed by his troops and handed over to the enemy, who criticised his poor battle strategy and allowed locals to humiliate him?
Improved to Good Article status by Min968 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 78 past nominations.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, can I get a quote from the source please. TarnishedPathtalk 23:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found an accessible version of the book at https://archive.org/download/bub_gb_8nXLwSG2O8AC/bub_gb_8nXLwSG2O8AC.pdf. For anyone interested the hook is supported by pages 572-573. TarnishedPathtalk 11:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zhu_Yousong