Talk:Puyi

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Xuantong emperor

Using his milk name ist regarded as a sign of disrespect. It was done with the intent to break him mentally and spiritually. He himself had commented on how it offended his ears. As long as both his era name and his birth name are included in the article, it will be found if you search for either. Other pages have him listed under his era name, and they are found and read as well. His dying wish has been denied and he wasnt`t given an official temple name or posthumous title, as was custom for every emperor before him, the least that can be done, is to move this page to Xuantong emperor where it belongs. Jadetemple (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

that's a nice argument senator why don't you back it up with a source Von bismarck (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Manchu title Mongolian title

I request that his Manchu and Mongolian title be put back into the ledge, where they were listed before. There is no logical reason to cram them into two tiny footnotes at the bottom of the page, because one user found the section overwhelming to read. Jadetemple (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

infobox image

I want add back the longstanding page picture because it is in good quality + it is an official portrait in full dress. We do similar official portrait pictures on Hirohito and Elizabeth II pages.

Pu Yi, Qing dynasty, China, Last emperor

Shadow4dark (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No comments? Shadow4dark (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine! He is the last Emperor of China, so it is fitting. Just make sure to use Puyi to match the article for your description of the photo. TomMasterReal (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox country of birth

The infobox usually contains the country of birth and death of the person (e.g. J. Robert Oppenheimer born in New York City, U.S., not just New York City) unless there was no country to say of. Are there any specific reasons why this page doesn't include the countries of birth and death for Puyi (Qing Dynasty and PRC)? Zinderboff(talk) 15:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Wang Lianshou date of death

As an IP user stated above Wang Lianshou who died in 1946 allegedly met Puyi after his 1959 pardon, which obviously cannot have happened. I also cannot find the 'Pu Yi 1988' source this claim is cited from, and can find nothing by him published or translated into English in 1988- unless this claim can be substantiated with a source I would suggest removing it. TrilobiteDentistry (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2024

Puyi's signature can be found on the far left of the letter.

I request that if possible someone add Puyi's signature to Wikimedia Commons. I do not know if this is the appropriate place to ask, but I cannot think of a better place to do so.
His signature can be found in this picture. 142.120.105.221 (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)