The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Alex Shih^Talk 18:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Chinese throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Rename: The first reference of the article, The Manchoukuo Year Book 1941, only indicates that Puyi made the succession law when he was the Manchukuo emperor, while the title "Line of succession to the former Chinese throne" is quite misleading, since Manchukuo wasn't recognized by Chinese government and the last recognized dynasty of China was the Qing dynasty and it never used the succession law mentioned above ([1][2]). The report used as the second reference ([3]) also never mentioned Pujie as "the successor/heir to the Chinese throne", and so did the other royal members. Also, I made another article Head of the former Chinese imperial clan, in which most the contents of this article is included, so "Line of succession to the former Chinese throne" is now a duplicated article. As mentioned below, Head of House of Aisin Gioro can be an alternative title other than the original title. - George6VI (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article was written and formatted to be China's entry at Template:Former monarchic orders of succession, a series of about fifty articles on different countries. The proposed replacement, head of the former Chinese imperial clan, is a translation of an unrelated Chinese Wiki article. Unlike the former monarchy articles, its focus is ancient and medieval history. Not only that, but it has various translation issues that make it difficult to follow. WP:Consistency suggests that China should have a former monarchy article in the same format as those of other countries with former monarchies.
  Here are various sources to support the idea that being heir to China'a abolished throne is a notable status:
• "Emperor-in-waiting recalls bygone age", Chicago Tribune, 1992. This title implies that Pujie is notable because he would have a claim to the Chinese throne, if we were living in the alternative universe in which China still had a throne.
• "Pu Jie, 87, Dies, Ending Dynasty Of the Manchus", New York Times, 1994. The only way Pujie can be viewed as part of a dynasty is if he is considered the heir of his brother, Emperor Puyi.
• "Life of Last Chinese Emperor's Nephew", People's Daily, 2000. Despite this being a communist source, it also has a wistful he-could-have-been-emperor tone: "If the dynasty had not been ousted,... [Jin Yuzhang] may have ascended the throne and become an emperor."
• "Heir to China's throne celebrates a modest life," The Age, 2004. This title is self-explanatory, I think. Yet another major paper views being heir to the throne as a notable status.
• Biographical Dictionary of the People’s Republic of China has a lengthy entry on Pujie. It says, "Pu Jie was technically head of the Imperial Qing Dynasty from the death of his brother in 1967 until his own death in 1994." The phrasing may be awkward, but I think the meaning is clear.

All of these sources refer to the throne in question as "of China." I am not aware of any source that calls it a Manchukuo throne. If it was a Manchukuo throne, that would be a reason to rename the article, not a reason to delete it. Whiff of greatness (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Out of these articles given here so far, they only said Pujie and Jin may have been the successor, but technically the throne of Qing dynasty, the last dynasty of China, didn't follow primogeniture (as seen in List of emperors of the Qing dynasty#Succession, the Qing monarchs did not choose their successors according to primogeniture. [sources given in the original article]) As such, the line of succession is questionable and it is inappropriate to be in one of the 50 line of succession series because the case of China is different from other countries (China, eventually, didn't set up a fixed line of succession to the throne by law); the end of Chinese monarchy was in 1912, while the article constructs a speculative line based on a law in 1937. So, I moved that familytree to the new article, in the section of House of Aisin-Gioro, which can decrease the confusion, because other than website sources, I added more book-based sources to make the history more clear. - George6VI (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was obviously no "Imperial Qing Dynasty" after 1912. I quoted BDPRC anyway because it confirms that Pujie is the heir of Puyi, including whatever imperial status Puyi still had at the end of his life. Whiff of greatness (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book itself didn't give the reference of either how the author got the conclusion. Even if Pujie and his close relatives were recognized as the head of his family, it doesn't equal that he could be the pretender to the Chinese throne. When the succession method is critical since it indicates which throne the family is going to pass. - George6VI (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is well sourced, seems notable per WP:GNG, I think that the title is justified because Manchukuo was the official state of the Chinese Qing monarchy from 1934-1945. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With exception of claiming to be independent itself, Manchukuo was never recognized by Chinese government, therefore it's far-fetched to be "Chinese throne", especially that Qing was once ruled all China while Manchukuo didn't (and Manchukuo itself is often referred as "Pseudo-Manchukuo" in Chinese, indicating that the state and law is never accpted by majority. - George6VI (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes, because the KMT (Who you are probably refering to) who were the largest force in china at this time claimed the area Manchukuo held, and the KMT were strongly anti monarchy, many people see the KMT as the sucessers of Tongmenghui who fought the Qing Dynasty, why would the kmt recognise the monarchy which controlled an area it claimed, and the same monarchy and even monarch they fought against. 2. There was no "Chinese Government" at this era, there was the KMT and the PRC, but most of the country was controlled by individual cliques. A lot of people only recognized the emperor as the leader of China at this time. This isn't really a argument for keeping, but your reasoning doesn't make alot of sense to be honest. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  But Manchukuo itself didn't claim the whole China, even Puyi itself was the last emperor of Qing dynasty; in fact, Manchukuo co-existed with another "Republic of China" government controlled by Japan in WWII. Here I need to explain what I meant to "Chinese government". The Chinese government I referred, can be "ROC" and "PRC", and none of them recognized Manchukuo as a legitimate Chinese dynasty. A you said "a lot of people supported" is doubtful, since if Puyi or Qing were so popular, then how would you explain the Xinhai revolution turned out to be a total success, plus, during the process, many provinces declared to be independent from Qing empire instead of being loyal to the dynasty? The reason I called for the deletion is that the article gives excessive interpretation from the reference, while it is against the original law of Qing China. It's more like a logical problem. - George6VI (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "The Reorganized National Government controlled all of China with the exception of Manchukuo, which it recognized as an independent state." AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  China did not recognize Manchukuo but the two sides established official ties for trade, communications and transportation. In 1933, the League of Nations adopted the Lytton Report, declaring that Manchuria remained rightfully part of China, leading Japan to resign its membership. The Manchukuo case persuaded the United States to articulate the so-called Stimson Doctrine, under which international recognition was withheld from changes in the international system created by force of arms.[4] (statement from Manchukuo article) Here, I don't see any official recognition of Manchukuo from China as a state, with trade relationshop established; it's like how China treats the government of Taiwan in present time. I don't know where you found your materials, yet your conclusion is quite contradictory with the major opinions. (Just found out that you copied that statement of that Puppet government of China; not only that government wasn't widely recognized both globally and locally, but you seemed to forget that in original statement there's a In theory, ...) - George6VI (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GNG, well referenced article. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename - Yes, Puyi was Emperor of China, and yes, there are descendants of his family, but since the imperial throne of China (as opposed to Manchukuo) had no rules of succession, there cannot possibly be a "Line of Succession" and claiming there is is a violation of WP:NOR. Not only must the genealogy be documented, which I don't doubt can be done reliably, but the suggestion embedded in the name itself is that the individuals in the genealogy are imbued with a ranked order of claims, a line of succession. It would be less of a problem were the page to tone back its claims - to state that the succession was by incumbent nomination among the male-line descendants, and then line out the descendants without calling it a "Line of Succession", but even this doesn't get tot he heart - as suggested by the claim of Yuyan mentioned on the page, there is no reason those eligible are restricted only to the descendants of Min-ning rather than the broader male kindred. The real problem is that it is trying to force the concept of a Line of Succession onto a dynasty that did not follow the concept, just so it looks like equivalent European pages. We are already presenting an alternative reality to suggest that lines of succession to extinct crowns are in any sense 'real', but to then try to shoehorn a realm that never had definitive rules of succession into this model is doubly dubious. Agricolae (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every major claim in the article can be justified without reference to Manchukou, as I did above. Yet the footnotes about Manchukuo law are what get all the attention. Do I have to point out that Manchukou law has no legal validity at this point? The former imperial clan can use whatever rules they like to pick a leader, including defunct law. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every major claim except that it represents a line of succession to the former Chinese Imperial throne, and since that is what the page is named, it is rather the most important. Yes, a clan can determine its own leadership, but it has no force of legitimacy for a title they no longer control. Were this page called 'Head of the House of Aisin Gioro', then this issue would largely evaporate. (and do I have to point out that the Empire of China has no legal validity at this point?) Agricolae (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The convention of pretendership is that the head of the former royal house is the pretender. I gave a list of sources above in which the media treats the people in this line as would be emperors, which makes sense only if you accept this convention. The Age says that the clan is following "the Manchu system of succession by a male relative of the next generation."[5] Whether this is in fact the succession rule is not the point. I'm just saying that the clan has the authority to make one. Whiff of greatness (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whose convention? Certainly not that of the PRC, nor the ROC, nor the so-called pretender himself (he wouldn't dare). It is one thing to say 'this was the rule when they were ruling, so if we extrapolate it forward, what do we get?' It is another entirely to say that a clan that has been turfed out gets to redefine at some later date the rules of succession to the non-existent title they no longer hold. In the case of the rule being incumbent nomination, we can't assume whom the emperor would have nominated had he been permitted to do so. Perhaps the best analog is Saudi Arabia, where there is a huge royal family, but the line of succession at any given time is one name long - the person nominated by the incumbent as heir. To recapitulate the whole tree and claim it is a Line of Succession, ignoring the fact that nobody in it was nominated, is forcing a square peg into a round hole. Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason I'd like to challenge about this title is that the conclusion, namely "line of succession" to the Chinese throne, is mostly based on reports from foreign media (Jin/Aisin Gioro is Chinese family anyway). Although the media is main-stream, this former Chinese throne topic can be unfimiliar to them, and by no references I can check how they got the conclusion that Jin Yuzhang is the sole and indisputable successor to the Chinese throne, especially of Qing dynasty. Pujie, or his other close relatives, can be the head of the former royal family (as referred by Chinese media), but referring them to the Chinese throne pretenders is, as mentioned above, an original research or even misinterpretation (if you don't even agree that 1937 law, which is the basis of that line of succession and bas ed on primogeniture, then the logic of whole line of succession can't be valid). - George6VI (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, yes a rename may be appropriate, btw it would be nice if someone could move back its talkpage words from Talk:Head of the former Chinese imperial clan that go back to September 2008, at the mo it is strange to have to go to another article to read the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the former monarchy articles are titled in this style. But, yes, they should all be moved to something less bombastic. May I suggest Head of the House of Aisin Gioro? Whiff of greatness (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a positive move. Lines of succession exist only when there is actual succession. That being said, it is not necessary that they all be forced into a common naming. The names should be appropriate for the individual situations, and sometimes what is best for one page is a bit off the mark for another. Agricolae (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reference articles suggested, the title "Head of the House of Aisin Gioro" may be really better. As to the talk page, now the two talk pages are mixed up because of renaming and article creation, and I don't have the right to switch it. Now, only admins can do that. - George6VI (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the admins: if there's a consensus in this talk, then there would be some talk pages that need to be moved: 1. "Talk: Head of the former Chinese imperial clan" to "Talk: Head of the House of Aisin Gioro" or its history will be lost; 2. "Talk: Line of succession to the former Chinese throne" to replace the content of "Talk: Head of the former Chinese imperial clan". I don't know what it will be like when the talk ends, but as of now it seems like it ma y be like in this way. - George6VI (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Agricolae: Almanach de Gotha is the authority on who gets to use royal and noble titles, both legal and pretend. Update Gotha covers only Europe and South America, so it is unlikely they have anything to say on China. They follow the most recent agreed upon succession rule of the house, and this approach can obviously be extended. Gotha famously rebuked Napolean by retaining dethroned German princes in the 1807 edition.[6] Whiff of greatness (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag for improvement -- In principle, an article of this kind should exist. What it should say is a different matter. I would prefer to see this referring back to pre-1912 imperial law and custom as to the succession. A 1937 law could hardly be legitimate, as China was then a republic and would not have made any law on the subject. In creating a puppet empire in Manchuko, the Japanese were probably trying to provide a legitimacy for their state, claiming it to be a continuation of the empire. If it did change succession, that article should be discussing the succession according to both pre-1913 law and that of Manchuko. A European work could only record (as a RS) who was entitled not prescribe who was entitled. The answer to that arises from the national law of each state. I believe that Cina generally practised male-only succession. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The law/rule for imperial succession of China, though was often based on primogeniture, it was also often broken since the monarch/queen dowager chose their favorite successor (it was Qing dynasty's case) while usurpers were also quite common; as such, I am afraid that there is no valid claim to the throne since te succession is like a mess, and that's why I prefer to limit the line of succession within the family instead of the throne. Yet, Whiff of greatness may not agree to add them since it seems like he thinks such articles should focus on present time. Some succession laws are too familiar to Chinese, yet I failed to find some direct edicts online or affiliated English articles, though they are the common sence in Chinese history. - George6VI (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps readers will wonder, "Why only a Qing pretender? What about Tang, Song, and Ming? There are many members of the Liu, Zhao, and Zhu clans who can claim imperial blood." I just added a couple of sentences to the article to address this issue. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we may get some sort of consensus, there's a little problem left. About Template:Former monarchic orders of succession. We may all agree that "Chinese" pretender is a quite awkward title now, but what about the template? I suggest that the template can exclude "China" this time, or replace it with "Aisin Gioro" (just like Oldenburg and Parma). - George6VI (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources for this article, every single one emphasizes China rather than Aisin Gioro. Head of the former Chinese imperial clan is a long list of, what exactly? If there is no claim that the individuals listed had a pretender-like status, what do they have in common? Whiff of greatness (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point now? What's your idea about renaming anyway? I'm confused, I thought we are on the same page. In some statement of the sources, "heir of Puyi" and "head of the family" is more mentioned, not the Chinese throne; they are indeed descendants of former yoyal family, but you can't say they are pretenders just because of these. There's no pretenders for the Chinese throne now, at least undisputed one, and why I suggest that we should use "Aisin Gioro" instead of "China" is that it's the same logic: if head of Aisin Gioro doesn't equal to Chinese pretender, then, similarly, we shouldn't use "China" as "Head of Aisin Gioro" as the whole topic. Seeing that there are so many family heads that are close to the definition of "pretender", then it's rightful to put the template at the most recent one, namely Aisin Gioro (if the template is to put in the renaming article here) or Yuan (if the template is to be put in the imperial article because there are/were multiple royal family clans in China). - George6VI (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I have temporarily moved Talk:Head of the former Chinese imperial clan back to Talk:Line of succession to the former Chinese throne to address the concern raised by User:Coolabahapple. For the newly created article Head of the former Chinese imperial clan, there are many issues that needs to be addressed (I propose to move that article to draft namespace), although unrelated to this discussion for now. The current rough consensus for this discussion appears to favor keep for now while discussing possible rename. I will close the discussion in a couple days if it remain the way it is now. Alex Shih^Talk 17:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks Alex Shih for moving the talkpage:) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.