Talk:Puyi

Names

• 愛新覺羅·溥儀
• Aixinjueluo Puyi
• Henry Aisin-gioro
• in pinyin: ai4 xin1 jue2 luo2 · pu3 yi2
• Xuantong Emperor of China
• Henry Pu-Yi
• Pu Yi (Wade-Giles)
• Puyi (Pinyin)

Featured Article

Featured on Template:March 1 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Requested moves

Old article name

• Henry Pu Yi

Requested move (to Xuantong Emperor)

• I propose that we move this to Xuantong Emperor of China for consistency. If we want to keep the English, then it's Henry Puyi, not Henry Pu Yi. --Jiang 11:18, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

• "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

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)
    • Response: "Henry" is usually not used. Time is not using proper convention used in historical literature. --Jiang 15:43, 14 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
  • evidence? --Jiang 15:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• 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?

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)

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?

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)

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)