Talk:Chongzhen Emperor

Last Words
Something is wrong with Chongzhen's last words. The English and Chinese do not match. Which one is correct? I recall having seen the Chinese version - Liuyao


 * The Chinese version is correct. the Emperor's words is acctually a poem! I think the English version is terrible, but who can give a better translation?

I also noticed a problem with the last words. This is how it stands currently in the article: "(roughly translated) "I am not the emperor of an ill-fated kingdom, but you, my officials, remain its servants. That during my reign I have given you decency, yet on this day, wherefore remains none at my side?" "

This is the Chinese version: "朕非亡國之君，事事乃亡國之象，祖宗櫛風沐雨之天下，一朝失去，將何面目見於地下"

This is my translation: "I should not be the emperor of a conquered nation; yet everything bears the portent of a nation conquered. The empire that my ancestors laboured to build up, I have lost in one day. How can I face them in the hereafter?"

This is to throw a brick in the hope of baiting a piece of jade, as the Chinese idiom says. Would anyone care to improve upon it? --Sumple (Talk) 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusion with Jinyong's Novel
As far as I know, Chongzhen died alone. Wang Cheng'en and Chen Yuanyuan are Jinyong's creation. Is there any concrete proofs to assert Wang Cheng'en's and Chen Yuanyuan's existence? -- Robbyjo 22:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

General overhaul
I just went through and rewrote most of the article with the information previously given, mostly for the purpose of improving clarity.

I removed very little in terms of content, since I don't know very much about the Chongzhen Emperor, but I did take out Chongzhen's last words- which were uncited and, in any case, didn't seem especially poignant or relevant to the article- the reference to Wang Cheng'en, whose existence is in question, and the picture of Yuan Chonghuan, which I didn't think merited inclusion.

This article only has one source. It would be great if someone who knows about the Chongzhen Emperor could write more on the emperor's reign and add a few more references. Segregold (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Chongzhen Emperor suicide was not reality！
Very simple logic:Because he does not had full reasons to suicide！He as play suicide show because he should cheated many spies oversee him in the Forbidden City Hans yulun lai (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you tell us what you think happened, then? Madalibi (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Chongzhen should hang himself, he could hang everywhere, everytime, but why he selecte at hill? it was a proof some trick over there, right? suicide was a loyalty deputy, not him.

In southern and middle China, he still owner 1 million Ming dynasty Army, Why he had to choice die? no reason Hans yulun lai (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What happened to him, then? Did he flee to the south? Did he live somewhere in carefree retirement? Do you have any support for your claims apart from your hunch? Madalibi (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

After occupied Beijing,Li Zicheng was setted off toward to Shanhaiguan because he thought Chongzhen escaped to Manchuria, Li present command army because he does not want be cheated again. but Li was wrong because should not fight with Qing. and Chongzhen real flee to the south not in Manchuria.

Who staff this project to save Chongzhen? I thought that was Hong Chengchou. Who did this project? Wu Sangui and Hong Chengchou‘s good friend of same homeland Zheng Zhilong. Chengchou flee to Taiwan by Zheng Zhilong‘s fleet successfully.

It could explain why Zheng Zhilong single one gone forward to Beijing in 1646. he surrender just appear he was loyalty because he cover Chongzhen.

Funny was,Zheng Zhilong lie last emperor, he will guide emperor to Japan. It alwayse made me thought of Johnny Depp as Piracy.

Hans yulun lai (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Partial rewrite
I'll be addressing several issues in the next few weeks: --Difference engine (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The section on the emperor's death gives describes one of the traditional narratives about the event as if it were verifiable historical fact. In truth there is very little known for certain about the emperor's suicide and much of what we have was written long after his death. I'll try to make this clear.
 * The article relies too heavily on an outdated source, China and the Manchus (1912!). I'll try using more recent sources like Mote and Wakeman where possible.
 * Too much reliance on primary sources like the official histories of Ming and Qing. These are not trustworthy on their own. If I cannot find secondary sources for something stated in the article, I may tag or remove it.


 * Done. I'm keeping the refimprove tag at the top because there's still a need for someone to check all the info about titles, names, ancestry, spouses, and descendants. I'm not really interested in doing that. --Difference engine (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 明思宗坐像 軸.jpg

Image dispute
Hello, for the last month or so I’ve been having some issues with a pacific editor YLoGM. The subject of this dispute is a image of the Chinese emperor Chongzhen YLoGM believes it’s his brother Tianqi. After going back and forth for a while I decided to message Gary Lee Todd the individual who actually took the photo of the portrait in question and he told me that he simply copied the label of the portrait which stated that it was Chongzhen. The portrait is located in the Ming Tombs which is a museum so unless the museum is wrong it is in fact Chongzhen. So I again put the portrait in the info box of the emperor and told YLoGM about what Gary told me and I even left a message on YLoGM Talk page giving a link to my conversation with Gary on Commons so that they could for themselves. YLoGM Left it alone for a week or two but earlier today I noticed that it was reverted so I again reverted it and again stated that I had suficiente proof that it was Chongzhen and they again reverted it. So now I don’t know what to do I know YLoGM will just keep reverting it. What can I do? I posted this in the tea house as well and they told me to go to WP:DR and that led me to the request for comment page so that’s what I’m doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orson12345 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag, terminating the RfC. This is a misuse of the  tag as well as a misuse of the WP:RFC process. The tag must never be placed in a section heading (very few templates are permitted in headings, and none which make a box), and you didn't specify a RfC category either. You have not observed WP:RFCBEFORE, and RfCs must not be used for comments on user conduct - this practice was stopped in 2014. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * YLoGM, please explain and present your evidence why you object to the disputed image. Please ping me when you have done so. Regards, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * c:File:TianqiEmperor.jpeg the disputed image is his brother Tianqi not Chongzhen YLoGM (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * YLoGM, The link to the source of the image on Commons that you uploaded under the filename File:TianqiEmperor.jpeg opens to the Chicago tribune and I do not see the image. Please check the link at Commons and ensure that it works correctly. Please ping me with your reply. In case you do not know how to ping a user, you just wikilink to their user name. In this case,  &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the image was originally uploaded to commons by a contributor who has not edited for more than 10 years. The link to the source seems to be broken, and it is not clear how the PD license applies to the work of a federal employee, though it may be that the gallery or museum is a federal institution - I don't know how these establishments work in the US. Basically the provenance appears to be questionable, but not necessarily incorrect. My question to YLoGM is therefore: How do you know that this is actually a painting of the Tianqi Emperor? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Orson12345, as Redrose64 implies above, this should be a talk page discussion first. Other means of dispute resolution should be used when talk page discussion fails, not before. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologize, I thought that most likely YLoGM wouldn’t respond unless other editors got involved and since this really isn’t a highly edited article I knew that very few if any would respond. Again I’m very sorry. Orson12345 (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Don’t you think it’s more likely that that image and your belief is wrong than the Ming Tombs museum who according to the individual who took the photo was labeled as being Chongzhen not Tianqi. Orson12345 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * c:User_talk:Gary_Lee_Todd
 * There’s the link to my conversation with Gary who took the photo in china. Orson12345 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have already read that and viewed their gallery. Please give a chance to make their case. They may have a good reason and convincing evidence to present, and should be allowed to do so in a collegial environment. Your rebuttals may be presented after YLoGM has made their case. Regards, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sound good. Orson12345 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I propose to reinstate the disputed image with a caption explaining that’s it’s disputed but there’s substantial evidence that it is Chongzhen. If there are no objections based on policy or logic I will reinstate the image. I’m also pinging the other editors involved  Thanks! Orson12345 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest using a footnote for the explanation. That keeps the text clean for the reader. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I added a footnote. Thank so much for all your help I really appreciate it. Have a nice day! Orson12345 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)