Talk:Li Hongzhang

Eight?
Too many names - there are eight! Must we make such a feast about his names? Mandel 22:10, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome to China. — LlywelynII  12:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Marquis
Marquis in Chinese is 侯, not 候. I've changed it to the correct spelling. Telly (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Suyi
Isn't a name. They're just words. Why aren't we translating them along with "First Degree" and "Marquis"? — LlywelynII  12:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

treaty of Shimonoseki
there is no mention of his role as negotiator here, or of his attempted assasination on 24 march 1895 which resulted in the treaty terms being altered... :-/ --Aep 06:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

there should be more about Li.
it is Li who promoted Yuan Shikai who was a key figure in the political stage in the following two to three decades.

what is needed to add is Li's attitude towards Qing Court and his attitude towards outside world and revolution even though he gained his fame and position through suppressing rebellion; it should be awared that some revolutions in the late stage of Qing is totally different from ones before because they have fundamentally right perception of the constitute of a state.

i have watched "towards the republic", and i think it is a comparably unbiased art work in China. there are more detail about Li, such as his most often used name is "shaoquan" besides Li Hongzhang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunhu (talk • contribs)


 * As you are undoubtedly aware of, Towards the Republic is a work of art and not necessarily a reliable source on Li Hongzhang. If you want to improve the article, you should read a couple of academic works on Li and integrate that into the text.--Niohe 13:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Postnominals
British postnominals are only used by British/Commonwealth people within their own countries. The KBE after Donald Tsang is relevant because he was awarded his KBE as a British citizen, and Hong Kong continues to use the British postnominal system for HK issued awards. (Tsang and the HKSAR do not use KBE, but display JP and GBM as postnominals.) China, like America, does not use postnominals. British awards for subjects in which Britain is not directly and visibly relevant are out of place.

It would be more helpful and informative if we could 1) provide citation for this award 2) indicate the time, place, and circumstance which this award was given. I really don't see what postnominals accomplish. --Jiang 01:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to begin by thanking you for doing the redirect on Xuantong.


 * I don't want to make a big fuss out of this, but I don't think we should apply twentieth century logic to nineteenth century people. As far as I know, in the nineteenth century, you would list all titles of a person in a biographical entry, regardless where the person came from.


 * As for when and where Li got his GCVO, this is what I came up with:


 * "... Britain began in the 1890s to use honours as a way of gaining influence over Chinese politicians. For example, in 1896, Queen Victoria bestowed the Grand Cross of the Victorian Order (GCVO) on the leading Chinese statesman, Li Hung-chang. Then in the following year, the leading figures in China’s delegation to the queen’s jubilee also became recipients of British decorations, a privilege that was notably denied to Arisugawa and Ito (Kimizuka 2000: 41). "Antony Best, "Race, Monarchy, and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1902–1922," Social Science Japan Journal 2006 9(2):171-186


 * Would this suffice, or do you want me to dig deeper?--Niohe 01:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added in the reference in the text.
 * I've seen British texts published in the 20th century listing all the author's degrees, titles, awards, and decorations after his name on the title page, but I've never seen it done this way in an American text. American texts tend to limit the listing to professional degrees, licenses, and associations for relevant scholarly works. The 1911 EB doesn't list any postnominals, even for British people. --Jiang 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are a bit strict, but fair enough. Thanks for adding the reference!--Niohe 01:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for removing the silly thing from the lede. Surely there's a policy somewhere, though. — LlywelynII  12:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this character Jet Li in the 2007 movie 'The Warlords'?
Is this character Jet Li in the 2007 movie 'The Warlords'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagvadorj (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It's 马新贻.--刻意(Kèyì) 10:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

'No' is too simple an answer. The Jet Li character, General Pang Qinyun, and the other two blood brothers of the movie, may be composites. The Suzhou Massacre of prisoners, was ordered by Li Hongzhang, and by Pang in the movie, though the scale of the prisoner massacre is unclear. Seemingly about 20,000 Taiping troops were 'slaughtered' during the operation to take the city, but the number of these that were prisoners ranges from 8 princes (according to most Western accounts) whose safety had been guaranteed by a subsequently outraged Charles George Gordon, to 4,000 common soldiers (according to the movie), and about 10,000 (according to the unsourced Wikipedia Suzhou Massacre article and the many online sites that simply repeat the Wikipedia story, and, for all I know, perhaps also most Chinese accounts). But, unlike Pang in the movie, Li was not assassinated, unless the scriptwriter is implying that the later depiction of Li as a traitor in later life is character assassination, perhaps partly stemming from anger at that massacre. So Wikipedia's article on The Warlords says Pang is based on the assassination of Ma Xinyi in 1870, presumably because the movie ends with a caption saying Pang's assassination remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of the time. The 3 blood brothers of the movie are presumably partly the 3 Chinese generals credited with suppresssing the Taiping Rebellion, Li Hongzhang,Zeng Guofan, and Zuo Zongtang, though presumably 'Zhao' is also partly based on Gordon, as he is outraged that the Massacre violated his promise. Pang might also be seen as an allegory for Zeng. Like Pang, Zeng is credited with taking the rebel capital Nanjing. Like Pang, he is also criticized for a 'massacre', the execution of 18 Chinese alleged inciters or alleged scapegoats following the 1870 Tianjin Massacre of about 60 Chinese and foreign Christians. And partly as a result, Zeng has been seen as a 'conservative traitor', especially during the Cultural Revolution, though seemingly less so now. Indeed perhaps all 3 can be seen as victims of character assassination as 'conservative traitors' by Chinese Nationalist (Kuomintang) and/or Chinese Communist revolutionaries wishing to see the Taiping (and other) rebels as early revolutionaries. Wikipedia's article on Taiping leader Hong Xiuquan tells us that (according to page 212 of China Unbound: Evolving Perspectives on the Chinese Past, by Paul A. Cohen (2003)) the Communists under Mao Zedong generally admired Hong Xiuquan and his movement as a legitimate peasant uprising that anticipated their own, and Nationalist leader Sun Yat-sen came from the same area as Hong and was said to have identified with Hong since his childhood days. Wikipedia also tells us that, after being rebuffed for his handling of the aftermath of the Tianjin Massacre, Zeng retired to his viceroyalty at Nanjing, where he died in 1872 'mysteriously' (Wikipedia's word) in Taiping Rebellion leader Hong Xiuquan's former mansion. This seems similar to Pang's 'mysterious' death (knifed by a blood brother, but also simultaneously shot in the back by one or more persons unknown) in the grounds of his mansion as Nanjing governor. But of course most of this is presumably speculation and/or 'original research' which is thus, if my memory and understanding of the rules is correct, is probably illegal even on this Talk page, though I'm not quite sure how else I can honestly answer Dagvador's perfectly reasonable question.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Li‘s wife and daughter
I memory some rumor ancient that said Li‘s first wife and daughter were killed by Taiping in 1856, then Li very sad and married second wife was Li Maid.Suzhou Massacre POW Incident was took revenge by Li. Who can evidence this rumor? --User:Hans yulun lai 05:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone? — LlywelynII  12:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A Chinese can tell you,it is as true as MacArthur's wife killed by Japanese.They both died of illness.And by the way,Admiral Ding Ruchang is a former Taiping officer. — Victorkkd 15:32,15 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talk • contribs)

3 persons important influence Li
Zeng Guofan(Political teacher),Cheng Xuechi(military teacher),Lai Wenkwok(tough enemy made Li growth), I think Li released Lai Wenkwok at last which very possible. --User:Hans yulun lai 05:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Er,you are wrong,at least by the last one.Lai almost never faced Li in battle.He fought Li's Huai generals.When Li still personally command a battle,he mostly fought Taiping's Li Xiucheng.--User:Victorkkd 05:57, 15 June 2012(UTC)

Numerous factual problems
There are many problems in this article in its current state; even basic facts are oddly put or ignored. Taking Li's relation with Zeng Guofan for example, the article says that following Li's resistance to the Taipings in Anhui, "His service to the imperial cause attracted the attention of Zeng Guofan, the generalissimo in command." But Zeng was a close family friend from much earlier; he tutored Li when Li was preparing for the jinshi examination. The description of Li's activities during the Taiping rebellion is very unclear, and sometimes questionable. For instance, I can't find any source that says Li was a daotai in Fujian. The paragraph on Li and the Ever-Victorious Army is confused and contradictory, and the story about the execution of the eight Taiping generals is even more of a mess. In a very unfortunate omission, Li's activities establishing factories, schools, arsenals, and navies over thirty years are completely ignored. Most unbelievable of all, however, is the statement that in 1875 "he introduced a large armed force into the capital and effected a coup d'etat which placed the Guangxu Emperor on the throne under the tutelage of the two dowager empresses." This event has everything to do with the Empress Dowager Cixi, and nothing to do with Li Hongzhang. A very mysterious insertion is the paragraph about Ouchtomsky/Ukhtomskii, which is completely undocumented except for a reference to a memoir called "Strategic Victory over the Qing Dynasty." In fact the negotiations over the railway did not involve Ukhtomskii at all, but Sergei Witte, who was one of the main architects of the Trans-Siberian railroad. A complete rewrite is in order. It's on my list, but not forlo this week. One possible source for those interested (now quite old but at least documented and accurate as far as the facts are concerned) is the biography by William Hail in Hummel's "Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period." Rgr09 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A further note: I've looked at the history of the article, which explains a number of the problems cited above. Wikipedia was created from the eleventh edition of Encyclopædia Britannica (1910-11), and this article came straight out of EB 11, which was full of many serious mistakes and confusion on Chinese history, both early and modern. (Li's "coup d'etat" seems to be one of these mistakes.) For those interested in fixing Wikipedia entries on China, finding the old EB 11 entries and replacing them all should be a high priority. Rgr09 (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although further improvement still would be to address the calumny on the guy's name both by the EB (Brits' dislike for his pro-Russian moves) and the Chinese (essentially fall guy/collaborator). — LlywelynII  12:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I take it from the numerous grammatical errors that someone rewrote and added sections to the EB material. Problem is they still seem highly specious."Hongzhang used the Siege of the International Legations (Boxer Rebellion) as a political weapon against his rivals in Beijing, since he controlled the Chinese Telegraph service, he exaggerated and lied, claiming that Chinese forces committed atrocities and murder upon the foreigners and exterminated all of them. This information was sent to the western world. He aimed to infuriate the Europeans against the Chinese forces in Beijing, and succeeded in spreading massive amounts of false information. [6] ... Since the First Sino-Japanese War (1894), Li Hongzhang has been a target of criticism and was portrayed in many ways as a traitor to the Chinese people, an infamous name that lives in history. In communist China this negative verdict is echoed through history textbooks and other media until today." Plus article still omits a lot of information on the Beiyang and Li's work in Hankow and on the Kaiping Tramway. — LlywelynII  12:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Li's military modernization program
http://books.google.com/books?id=y5aFP-7b3jIC&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false

biography
wikisource this biography and link to this article

http://books.google.com/books?id=XXYdAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

He is really a brother of Li Hongzao?
According to this page, Li Hongzhang is a brother to Li Hongzao, but on the Li Hongzao page it is claimed that they are not related. Can we get a confirmation on this and make the necessary corrections? Tooironic (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Modifying citations
There is a mixed citation style (see WP:CITEVAR), some using shortened footnotes for books, others not. I intend to move full book citations to the References section & use sfn for the Notes section. Additionally, some of the citations are incomplete. I will add bibliographic & other parameters. I will probably not do this all at once, but I will return to this as I am able. Peaceray (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)