Talk:Jianwen Emperor

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources for article expansion edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article in the Daily Mail is obviously a silly ref for a proper historical article, but does flesh in quite a bit of the last days of the Jianwen Emperor. Surely some of the names or stories could be used to find sources to include the information? — LlywelynII 09:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Status of the Prince of Fu's temple name edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I cleaned up some text reporting that

The Prince of Fu, self-proclaimed emperor of the Southern Ming, granted him the temple name Huizong (惠宗) in 1644, but this name is not generally remembered or accepted in the official Chinese histories.

and – in the absence of my own source – left it unchallenged, but (a) it's unsourced and (b) the Chinese version of this page uses precisely that temple name as its main heading. Is that owing to some odd and POVy policy over there? or is this claim just wrong? — LlywelynII 04:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic