Talk:Shunzhi Emperor

Untitled

For the Shunzi Emperor's wife and the Kangxi Emperor's mother, see Talk:Kangxi_Emperor#Ethnicity of Kangxi's mother --Nanshu 06:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is Shunzi Huang Taiji's 8th or 9th son? Its is written that Empress Dowager Xiao Zhuang gave Huang Taiji his 9th son Fulin, but on this page it is written that he is Huang Taiji's 8th son. Is there a typo?

Controversy about being a monk...

• http://scholar.google.cn/scholar?as_q=%E9%A1%BA%E6%B2%BB%E5%87%BA%E5%AE%B6&num=10&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2%E5%AD%A6%E6%9C%AF&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=zh-CN

--222.64.21.119 (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

His poem as 出家偈 or 赞僧诗...???

Academic review is required....
天下丛林饭似山 钵盂到处任君餐 黄金白玉非为贵 惟有袈裟披身难

朕为大地山河主 忧国忧民事转烦 百年三万六千日 不及僧家半日闲

来时糊涂去时迷 空在人间走这回 未曾生我谁是我 生我之时我是谁

长大成人方是我 合眼蒙眬又是谁 不如不来亦不去 来时欢喜去时悲

悲欢离合多劳虑 何日清闲谁得知 若能了达僧家事 从此回头不算迟

世间难比出家人 无牵无挂得安宜 口中吃得清和味 身上常穿百衲衣

五湖四海为上客 皆因宿世种菩提 个个都是真罗汉 披搭如来三种衣

金乌玉兔东复西 为人切莫用心机 百年世事三更梦 万里乾坤一局棋

禹开九洲汤放桀 秦吞六国汉登基 古来多少英雄汉 南北山头卧土泥

黄袍换却紫袈裟 只为当年一念差 我本西方一衲子 为何落在帝王家

十八年来不自由 南征北讨几时休 我今撒手西方去 不管千秋与万秋 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.21.119 (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&newwindow=1&q=%E9%A1%BA%E6%B2%BB+%22%E5%A4%A9%E4%B8%8B%E4%B8%9B%E6%9E%97%E9%A5%AD%E4%BC%BC%E5%B1%B1%22+edu.cn&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&aq=f&oq=

--222.64.21.119 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.google.com.tw/search?hl=zh-TW&source=hp&q=%E9%A0%86%E6%B2%BB+%E5%A4%A9%E4%B8%8B%E5%8F%A2%E6%9E%97%E9%A3%AF%E4%BC%BC%E5%B1%B1+edu.tw&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&meta=&aq=f&oq=

--222.64.21.119 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com.tw/scholar?as_q=%E9%A0%86%E6%B2%BB&num=10&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B%E5%AD%B8%E8%A1%93%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=zh-TW

--222.64.216.81 (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Name in Manchu

This article gives his name in Chinese and "Mongolian" (although it doesn't look like Mongolian to me), but it does not give his name in Manchu. This seems very odd for a Manchu emperor. Can someone add this information and correct the Mongolian? Tibetologist (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He may hold a Mogolian title, since Manchu ruled mongolia,at least inner mongolia, in his time.--刻意(Kèyì) 02:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Mongolian era name (Eyebeer Zasagch) is perfectly correct here. We should find out the Manchu name and add here. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 04:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: Well... umm... this is going to be an FA. It's very clearly near that level right now. Down to the details then...

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work

Initial concerns (all addressed)

Nurhaci is referenced in the very first paragraph as if he was already well known to the reader. Please add a few words clarifying who Nurhaci was. You're right! Addressed here. Consider using the term "maternal half-brothers" instead of "uterine brothers". When there are two equally accurate methods of describing something, it is better to use the choice that is more accessible to a general audience. I now realize that "uterine brother" is misleading, because it implies the three princes only shared the same mother. Actually they were all sons of Nurhaci from the same mother, which makes both "uterine brothers" and "maternal half brothers" wrong. I've replaced with "brothers" for now.[1] In describing Hong Chengchou and Fan Wencheng, does one of the sources use the terminology "two most illustrious", or is this your conclusion? If it's sourced, there's no need for further action. If it's not sourced, please use language that can be cited. Let me check my sources... Ok, this claim is based on my reading of Wakeman (The Great Enterprise, 1985), who has convinced me that Fan and Hong played a crucial role in devising a plan for the Qing conquest of China. They were also extremely influential after 1644. But "illustrious" still risks sounding like a peacock word, so I'm now calling them "two of Dorgon's most prominent Chinese advisors."[2] This corresponds to the account given in Wakeman without using a superlative. In the line "A formal ritual of enthronement for Fulin was held on 8 November, during which the merits of Dorgon as regent were compared to those of the Duke of Zhou." - who was doing the comparing? I've clarified and further improved the sentence to reflect your point.[3] Thanks! Do you think that Dai Yingcong is notable enough of a scholar to have an article? If so, I'd give him a (red)link. If not, I personally wouldn't use the phrase "Historian Dai Yingcong has called Dorgon "the mastermind of the Qing conquest."", but technically it's fine either way, so if you want to leave it in, leave it in. It's true that Dai Yingcong is not notable enough to get her own wiki, but I thought her sentence made a good opening for a section that described Qing military success under Dorgon. I integrated two characterizations of Dorgon (hers and Wakeman's) into the text to reassure readers that these views do not represent a minority POV.[4] Let me know if you find this acceptable. The same goes for the quote by Morris Rossabi in the section "The Northwest". Done by rephrasing.[5] The second sentence in the "The conquest of China" section ("Under his reign, the Qing subdued the capital area, received the capitulation of Shandong local elites and officials, and conquered Shanxi and Shaanxi, then turned their eyes to Jiangnan as they were also pursuing the last remnants of regimes established by Li Zicheng (killed in 1645) and Zhang Xianzhong (Chengdu taken in early 1647).") is rather long and unruly. It could use being broken up into two or three separate sentences. Indeed. Done here. At the beginning of the "Transition and personal rule (1651–1661)" section, it is worth reiterating the date and nature of Dorgon's death before going straight into the impact of that death. Good point! Done here.

• Can you please add a word clarifying what type of rich you mean when referring to "the rich region of Jiangnan" (i.e. is it economically rich, agriculturally rich, etc.)

Sure! I replaced "rich region" with "rich commercial and agricultural region."[6]

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

• Sure... and I totally checked that before marking it as fine...

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Question Resolved

• Assuming that the "two most illustrious" is from a source, this section is fine too.

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Needs work

• I'm a bit concerned that you go into too much detail on the military campaigns that happened under Dorgon. I'm willing to be swayed on the matter though, if you can make a good case for it.

Ok, this is the toughest point to defend, because this section is indeed a little long. But here's my angle. First, the main events of the Dorgon regency were military campaigns, so I think they deserve detailed treatment. Second, this content can be found nowhere else on Wikipedia. Third, almost no printed sources (that is, English-language reliable sources on this period) give this kind of coverage, because they're usually either very concise (Jonathan Spence's Search for Modern China, Frederick Mote's Imperial China, 900-1800) or extremely long (Lynn Struve's book on the Southern Ming, or Frederic Wakeman's Great Enterprise). Summarizing all the main campaigns in a single page is a very useful contribution.

Let's look at this long section in detail. Devoting one paragraph each to Li Zicheng (nemesis of the Ming) and Zhang Xianzhong (the "butcher of Sichuan") doesn't seem excessive. The Jiangnan section is longer, but it discusses major events like the birth of the Southern Ming, the Yangzhou massacre, and the "haircutting command," the last two of which had repercussions into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (as the two images illustrate). I slightly simplified the prose and removed a few details.[7] The Southern Ming section, though, is too long, so I cut it from four to three paragraphs.[8][9][10] I simply moved the extraneous details to the undeveloped Southern Ming. Let me know what you think! Madalibi (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Needs work Resolved

• File:ManZhow 8Flag White.jpg - this file has no source information. Please supply a filled out Template:Information template for this image, replace the image, or remove it. Technically I should have placed it up for deletion on sight, but I won't do that while the GA is active.

I'm not savvy with images, so I replaced all four images with new ones. Replaced this one with a portrait of Shunzhi's father Hong Taiji.[11]

• File:Shanhaiguan.gif - same as above.

Replaced with a portrait of Hong Chengchou, an important Chinese advisor to Dorgon.[12]

• File:Long-wu.jpg - the source on this file isn't valid. Please fix this, replace the image, or remove it.

I simply removed this one and moved the remaining images around to fill the void.[13]

• File:The Shunzhi Emperor.PNG - the source is invalid (it links to a search engine page, not the page hosting the image). Please give the direct source and supply a filled out Template:Information template for this image, replace the image, or remove it.

Replaced with a painting of birds by a renowned painter who happened to be distantly related to the Ming imperial household.[14]

b. relevant/properly captioned: Needs work Resolved

• Captions that are not full sentences (such as the ones for the first two images in the "Transition and personal rule (1651–1661)" section) should not end in periods/

Done, though one of these two images has now been removed.[15]

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them: Needs work

• This isn't a requirement, officially, for GA or FA status. It is, however, good practice for accessibility reasons.

Ok, I'm starting to work on this. This is the first time I write alt text, so just to get an idea: would you advise going into as much detail as the alt text of Song dynasty, or would you recommend something shorter?

[Written several hours later than the paragraph above.] Ok, I'm done! This took longer than I thought, but I tried to give enough detail to help readers imagine what the image is actually showing. Let me know if the level of detail is good as it is or if it should be either simplified or enhanced. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review:

I want to make sure that it's clear that I think very highly of this piece of work. I do believe that Featured status is within sight here.

That being said, please be cognizant of your word choice. I read and write at a graduate to postgraduate level. Words like extirpate don't give me any pause, and I'm quite used to reading and digesting high level academic papers written with specific discourse communities in mind. Among consumers of Wikipedia's content, however, I'm in a distinct minority. I'm not saying that you should dumb anything down, but I am saying that when given the choice between 'extirpate' and 'root out' or between 'uterine brothers' and 'maternal half-brothers', choose the one that more people are going to understand without having to google.

Anyways, I look forward to working with you on getting everything cleared up. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing comments:

I'm not going to go through and change all the icons again. Everything has been fixed up to a degree that I feel comfortable rating this a GA. It's a spectacular piece of work, and I look forward to the FAC that I see in its near future.

PROMOTED Sven Manguard Wha? 15:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Third emperor

OK, so if he is the third emperor, then why does the article about his predessessor say that he is the first ?Eregli bob (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question! Briefly put, Shunzhi's grand-father Nurhaci founded a dynastic state he called the "Later Jin" and ruled as that dynasty's "great khan." Shunzhi's father Hong Taiji then renamed that dynasty "Qing" and reigned as its "emperor." So technically speaking, Hong Taiji was the first Qing emperor, but historians (and all Qing emperors starting with Hong Taiji) have universally considered Nurhaci as the founder of the polity that became the Qing, and therefore as its first emperor. I just added a clarification to the lede of the Hong Taiji page. Thanks for noticing this! Madalibi (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

China

The Qing Emperors since Shunzhi onward identified China and the Qing as the same, and in treaties and diplomatic papers the Qing called itself "China".

Rajmaan (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Weird sequence of emperors

I don't know why the English Wikipedia doesn't consider Nurhachi as the first emperor of the Qing dynasty, but the Chinese Wikipedia does, and the English Wikipedia of the Liao dynasty considers Yelu A Baoji as the first, but the Chinese doesn't consider him as the first(thought that is some unclear as well). (I am new here and not an English speaker, sorry if my description is not clear) ShotOnIphone. . (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I made the change of Shunzhi from second to third, but then it undo by user Aza24, that is how I found the different between Chinese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia ShotOnIphone. . (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Also,the talk above consider he is the third one as well. ShotOnIphone. . (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Qing Dynasty was formally founded in 1636 by Hong Taiji, who was succeed by the Shunzhi Emperor. If Shunzhi was the third, that would imply that Nurhaci is the first Qing emperor, who died before the dynasty was even founded. The Chinese Wikipedia might be doing this because Nurhaci is sometimes considered an 'honorary' Qing emperor, but calling him the first Qing emperor is extremely misleading and largely incorrect. Aza24 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean, however, as a mentioned before ,Yelu a baoji should be assume as the first emperor of Great Khitan,but not the first emperor of Liao, because Yelu de guang was actually the one who changed the name of Great Khitan to Liao, so Yelu a baoji was "honorary" Liao emperor, as you mentioned. Considering all these, is there any confusion and unclear.

Thanks for your guidance. ShotOnIphone. . (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Liao is really an equivalent situation, and the parallel is rough, considering that the Liao name change seems more of a formality than the beginning of another empire. The fact is, the Qing dynasty was founded in 1636, so reflecting that reality in our articles is the way to go. Aza24 (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply in a short time, but if it was a formality for Yelu Deguang to eliminate the Later Jin and then rename the Great Khitan to Liao, then why is Qing not a formality change? Nurhaci died before Qing dynasty founded, Yelu a baoji died before Liao founded, both of them are died before name changing, isn'it? Then why we consider Liao is founded by Yelu a baoji,but Qing is founded by Hong Taiji.I don't really understand the differences between them, I hope to get your further explanation.Thank you.:) ShotOnIphone. . (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The Qing was not a formality change because historians consider it to have begun in 1636 during Hong Taiji's rule, while the Liao is considered to have begun in 916 during Abaoji's rule. Adding further complications is not really productive, and beyond the responsibility of Wikipedia. Aza24 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Wengier, it looks like this article was deconstructed by an anonymous unexplained series of edits [16]. The previous article seems to be more inline with your changes. I'd not alter the 8 October 1643 Dynasty date since that's talk about the dynasty in general, not the dynasty while it ruled China. Aza24 (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and glad that you noticed this. --Wengier (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)