Talk:Empress Dowager Cixi

message: Hi all, I would like to point your attention to the picture of Cixi. Can anyone please verify the source? I don't think that blob of red near her lips is supposed to be there. On closer inspection the different shades of red are inconsistent. There are better portraits of Cixi in the Chinese wiki article. Please double check the source, and if there does appear to be a problem, update with a better portrait. Krussy (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Caption 

message: Empress Cixi was never been Empress  Tzu-hsi..They are different persons. Cixi was Queen Mother Elizabeth Bowes Lyon The Comtesse of Strathmore...reff her state visit in China 1967 A chef who reminiscences Empress Cixi..The Comtesse of France.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by https://www.facebook.com/iqueenroi112.198.243.10 (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERROR IN IDENTITY 

message: Highshines, please stop splitting names and inserting hyphens. It is Cixi, not Ci Xi or Ci-xi. This is not fun any more.--Niohe 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenation and splitting names 

message: I have added a clean-up tag to this article, which desperately needs some editing. This article is image-heavy, full of anecdotes and unnecessary minutiae regarding the empress dowager. I have deleted a number of almost identical images from the article. I hope that we can make this article readable again through concerted - and serious - efforts. Can I ask editors to add edit summaries to their edits, so we can keep track of changes.--Niohe 20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs a good going-though. I've got a few weeks available over the New Year, so I'm keen to give it a go. I'm not interested in changing the content of the article, though sometimes it does waffle on and it would be nice if it got more to the point. Feedback is more than welcome. If you disagree with anything I do, let me know and I'll undo it. Ka-ru 07:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!--Niohe 13:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started to tidy up sections, but the biggest change I've made was to move the sections on Names and on Historical Opinion to the end of the article. Having them in the middle seemed strange to me as they interrupted the flow of Cixi's biography. I have them now escentially as footnotes at the end of the article. I find the section on Names interesting, though at the moment it is quite long. User Ville1995 deleted the section on Historical Opinion, but I put it back, based on the fact that the article should mention briefly the alternate view, and its better to put it in a section at the end than have it continously pop up throughout the article. This way the main part of the article can remain as the current accepted view. Again, I'm keen to get some feedback to make sure what I'm doing is acceptable. (Its a lot more work than I realised it would be, and I haven't even started in the article proper yet!) - Oh, and there are no references throughout the entire article! I've added 2 to start it off, but I have a very limited library. It would be nice if we can get the details of the article fully referenced. Ka-ru 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks great thus far, thanks for doing this!--Niohe 14:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Small problem regarding one of the pictures. Highshines has labelled the image in "Historical Opinions" as a portrait by Katherine Carl. Highshines has uploaded the image as "public domain, artist's life plus 100 years". Katherine Carl died in New York in 1938, so it would appear this image is in violation of copyright and should be removed. I've left a note on Highshines talk page for an explaination. Ka-ru 12:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be very interested to hear how Highshines responds to that, if at all. He/she is not very communicative, as you may have noticed.--Niohe 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've got another question. I've just cleaned up the section called "Palace coup" and was looking at the next when I noticed an inconsitant name (there have been several). In one section, the palace coup is called "Xinyou" and in the next it is called "Yinyou". Which is correct? Ka-ru 00:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That brings an end to my part of the clean-up. I hope it at least now reads more clearly and sounds more consistant. The next thing that would be worth doing is going back and referencing all the "facts". Ka-ru 00:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: The location of this section is to clearly set out the events of Cixi's life in a logical order. If follows her life, from entry into the Forbidden City until her death and burial. After that are 2 additional sections based on the names she was given (covering her whole life) and historical opinion, which is what has happened since her death. I see this as a logical way of setting out the article. If you disagree, we can discuss it here. Ka-ru 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final resting place section

message: From what I understand, Wikipedia standards require the quoting of sources (no original research allowed). Apart from the 3 or so references I added recently, this article has none at all. Technically speaking, the whole article could be legitimately removed, but that, of course, would be a bit silly. It would be nice if we could get some more references to actual documents so this article can become more stable and have a good NPOV. Any help in marking parts of the article requiring reference, or adding of references, would be appreciated. Ka-ru 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quoting Sources

message: *I removed the statement "Empress Dowager Cixi now feared that Prince Gong, having become very powerful himself as a result of the coup, would become a "Second Sushun" since it was not referenced and there is no evidence in Edward Behr's book of this - she easily had him removed from power through manipulation when she wanted to.
*Ci'an did not spend any time ruling according to Behr, and deferred entirely to Cixi, so I changed the "Co-Regency" section.
*Behr describes the Palace Coup somewhat differently so I changed it as such, since the previous entry had no references. P. Moore 03:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work adding references. Thanks. If you see something that is unreferenced and you have referenced information, be bold!. The only thing to keep in mind with this particular topic is that there are a lot of varying resources that often contradict each other. Some sources claim she was nothing short of a living monster, and others that she was the victim of a rumour and smear campaign to paint her as a monster as a result of confuscion distrust of women in power and as a part of the whole general era of attempted reform and the fall of the emperial system. Its worth, if you can, trying to check more than one source. Just because one book doesn't mention something, it doesn't mean its not mentioned in another. This, of course, brings us back to the whole referencing thing. If you see something that contradicts your book and its unreferenced, change it and add your reference. If you see something that looks odd to you based on your book, add a "citation required" tag. I might try and dig up my books again and get back to referencing this article as well. There's still a lot of work to be done to bring it up to scratch. Ka-ru 04:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My Mar 30/07 Edits

message: I've reverted the updates by Heseri based on 2 reasons, firstly they completely reversed the previous updates by P. Moore, including the removal of sourced information to be replaced with the previous unsourced information, and secondly it appears that Heseri is a sock-puppet of the now permanently banned Highshines, as a quick look at Heseri's Wiki contribution shows vandalism to certain user-pages who enacted his ban, and a continuation of continually changing image sizes that was a hallmark of Highsines. Any further replacement of sourced quotes for unsource, or endless messing around with image sizes for no appartent reason will be reverted. Ka-ru 01:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Revert

message: I've removed the following add to the article solely based on the fact that it's commentary/opinion. I've moved it here to the talk page in case the owner of the comments wants to pursue the matter. We've already gone through the Seagrave debate. While there is reasonable debate on the traditional view of Cixi, in the absence of a definitive view, the traditional one has been put forward in the article, with a substantial section at the end explaining the alternate view. This seemed to have been the consensus reached in the past. The removed commentary from the Sterling Seagrave secton is as follows:
"These people have clearly not read the book, however, as he frequently refers to primary sources. His arguments against the slanderers are well reasoned and convincing, and it is clear that the prevailing view of Cixi is based on absolute fiction. The above commentary on this page is, in itself, false." (87.201.141.21) Ka-ru 07:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary Removed

message: One of Cixi's brother's descendants has recently written a book about his great-great-great aunt. In it he insists that Cixi's birth name is "Xingzhen". This is the version that has been accepted on the Chinese wikipedia. Regardless her birth name being Lan Keue or Xingzhen, I think it is important that we do not use this designation to refer to her in the "early years" section. Colipon+(T) 03:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Name 

message: I've added this tag to the article as it is poorly sourced and most recent additions to this article are also unsourced. Please, people, source your additions or they may be removed if objected to. Ka-ru 08:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Article needs additional references or sources for verification" tag

message: I'm not entirely sure, but I think that the use of the name 'Tung-Chih' (for the future Tongzhi Emperor) may be incorrect.
My reason for believing so is because I think that the spelling of the name 'Tung-Chih' originated from a book by Anchee Min titled Empress Orchid, as opposed to being an actual term to describe the Tongzhi Emperor as a child.
As the book is based on real people/events, Min changes the spelling of many characters' names (whilst retaining the pronounciation) on many occasions. None of these names are actually official titles, and I think that this may be the case here.
Any suggestions?
RuthW 17:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: The "legacy and evaluation" section seems a bit tedious. If there is no opposition in the next week or so I will rewrite the section to provide for a more summarized version. Colipon+(T) 09:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: correction for pinyin tones:
cixi should be ci2xi3. I remember it being spoken like that when I went to the Forbidden City in Beijing, and the KEY software (cjkware.com) Chinese dictionary confirms that the tones are 2 and 3, respectively. Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.30.137 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just looked it up in my Xinhua Zidian, it says xi3 (formerly xi1), so I've changed it to Cíxǐ. LDHan 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pinyin tones 

message: The article currently reads, under 'Hundred Days',
:"According to the new research of Taiwan’s scholar Lei Chiasheng in 2004, there is new explanation of Cixi’s coup in 1898. During the period of Hundred Days' Reform, Japanese prime minister Ito Hirobumi（伊藤博文） and British missionary Timothy Richard went to Beijing and lobbied Kang Youwei（康有為） for the plots of “borrow- talent” （借才）and “united-states”（合邦）. In fact,the plots were diplomatic tricks...."
Sorry, this does not make sense; could we have it converted into English? (Or should it be removed as just some guy's theory who wrote a book)? m.e. (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This section doesn't make much sense. Until it is properly written and sourced it should be removed. Gugganij (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

text: We've been having the same issue over in the article about the Hundred Days' Reform.  The same person who posted it here, copied and pasted it over there as well.  After we removed it, he put it back.  It seems that the consensus among editors is that it's confusing, hard to understand, and hard to verify.  It lacks any comparable citation or sources in American, Japanese, and British history.  It seems some guy simply wrote a book, which most of us can't read nor have access to judge the quality of. See Discussion at the Hundred Days Reform.  I am really inclined to remove it again and let the original poster proof it to us.  Comatose51 (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The onus is on you to prove what you're saying is true, not the other way around.  Original file of Qing dynasty falls under the category of primary research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.  Furthermore, how can we believe the source when none of us can read it?  If I cite some text in an unknown language and say that it completely disputes your point, would you believe me if you can't read it?  We can't take what you say on faith, especially when it contradicts what most of us know about American history.  Any attempts to merge China and the US would have been worthy of a mention in our history books.  There is none.  Lastly, outside of the two Wikipedia articles you've edited, the articles about Japan, UK, China, and the US don't mention this episode in their history.  Nor does the article on Ito Hirobumi say anything about this.  The circumstantial evidence is so strongly against your claim and all you have to back it up are primary research and something most of the editors on the English Wikipedia cannot read and thus verify.Comatose51 (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: That's the review of a book written in Chinese.  It doesn't qualify as a credible source on Wikipedia.  More importantly, the question isn't over if Cixi was a bad person or not.  That's too board of a claim to ponder anyways.  The dispute is over the claim that there was a plot to unite China, Japan, US, and UK into one country.  There is no corroborating evidence in American history for this.  Why do I have to keep repeating myself?  You've yet to answer the main point of the dispute.  If there was ever such a plot, there would be a record of it in American, British, and Japanese history.  Being an American I can only speak from an American perspective and there is no mentioning of such a plot ever.Comatose51 (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundred Days 

message: This article is severely lacking in citations so I added the citations improvement tag. There are whole sections without a single citation, for example 'Tongzhi's Marriage and Rule'.  Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a clean up of this article about 18 months ago, adding citations to most of the article. Within about 2 months someone had come along, removed the cited parts, and added huge chunks of unreferenced material. I gave up on this article after that because it seems to one of those articles that everyone has an opinion on. I agree about the citation tag, and I think all uncited material should be reviewed and removed if no sources are found to support the information. There is far too much misinformation around to let it confuse things here. Ka-ru (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: What were the references for this name? Does this refer to the chief eunuch known as An Er in the Jernigan book, forbidden City?
Whichwood (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Dehai 

message: The article said that the tomb-robbers threw her corpse to the floor. But after that? Did someone else later put it back into the coffin or what? If I visited her tomb right now, is her corpse still in the coffin or somewhere else?
I mean, the corpse of Guangxu Emperor was so well preserved they found out that his death was by poisoning -> 100 years later! Rad vsovereign (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to her corpse? 

message: Near the end of the Hundred Days Reform section, the article states "...although she attempted crowning Punji, a boy of fourteen who was from a close branch of the Imperial family...". The link to Punji is definitely not correct, going to an article on a booby-trapped stake. Is the name incorrect, or should there be a disambiguation page for the Punji? (I thought it might have been a typo and intended to have been Puyi, but he wasn't born at the time being discussed) In the meantime, I'll remove the link. Murdocke (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Punji' link not correct 

message: thumb|200px|Empress Dowager Cixi's corpse
Does anybody know when the picture of her corpse is dated?  It seems to decayed to be her corpse in the 1920s, and it can't be the one of the 2008 forensic test since the image has been on the Wikipedia Commons since 2006.  --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cixi's Corpse 

message: The paragraph on the Boxer Rising is absurdly biased.  'Allied Western invasion force?'  I think we are going to have to do better than that.  Perhaps someone who has not been brought up on Communist propaganda might like to write a less prejudiced version.  There is a very judicious account of the Boxer Rising in the Cambridge History of China, which I would commend to anybody interested in finding out what really happened.
Djwilms (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Communist propaganda" slammed Cixi's rule as corrupt and blamed the qing as well as the west for china's failings. Next time you try to insult a user, I suggest you look up your sources. The communist account of the boxer rebellion is essentially that the boxers were armed with spears, whatever the communist accounts thought of the morality of the movement, they actually agree with the common (and false) western view that the boxers were auperstitious hill billies who tried to fight guns with magic, and most notably, communist accounts downplay the imperial army's roleSeyeednu (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Nationalist Bias 

message: I am removing the photo of the corpse, unless someone can show why it is notable. Is there something notable about her corpse that is not mentioned? E.g., "her corpse was exhumed, put on display, and this display is notable because..." Without any notable context, it is simply a bizarre, trivial addition to a biography, and it does not add anything encyclopedic to the article. Joseph Merrick's corpse might be notable, but I don't see how a poor-quality photo of a corpse, which appears to be like any other corpse, is notable or worthwhile in a biography. 24.16.133.58 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corpse Photo 

message: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/headland-courtlife.asp
Seyeednu (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court life in cixi's time 

message: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/da-cixi.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/da-cixi.html?c=y&page=2
Rajmaan (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cixi: The Woman Behind the Throne By Amanda Bensen 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=g2MdAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
A Personal Estimate of the Character of the Late Empress Dowager, Tze-Hsi
Katharine A. Carl
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737979
Rajmaan (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  With the Empress dowager &nbsp;By Katharine Augusta Carl  

message: Just to take as an example from the article: "The Empress Dowager (front middle) poses with her court attendants and Guangxu's empress (second from left), who at the same time was also her niece. She arranged the marriage of Guangxu against his will, and resulted in the Emperor's failure to produce an heir to the throne."
There's no evidence offered or logical reason that the emperor's dislike of the arranged empress has anything to do with failure to produce an heir. Consider that he had many cocubines in addition to the empress and that despite his known favor for at least one of them he still did not produce an heir. Likewise, the empress dowager being involved in the selection of empress and concubines was not completely abnormal. In addition, other sources suggest that Guangxu was a sickly man who couldn't get off without percussion instruments. 
This whole article seems to be filled with what I assume are slightly distorted statements planted by brainwashed Chinese attempting to make Empress Dowager Cixi look bad (not that she's an angel or anything).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.116.201 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "what I assume are slightly distorted statements planted by brainwashed Chinese" -- and where's your evidence for that? 2001:44B8:4113:FF00:E187:D763:F21E:B7D4 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive objectivity issues with this article 

message: In light of the publication in 2013 of a new biography of Cixi by Jung Chang  (Empress Dowager Cixi: The Concubine Who Launched Modern China, Alfred A. Knopf), I think this entry probably needs  serious updating. Author Chang's book contains material from many new primary sources unavailable to previous biographers of  the  empress dowager.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue Douglasss (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  * Pamela Crossley reviewed Chang Jung's book in the April 9, 2014 London Review of Books. She points out a list of omissions and misinterpretations and concludes that Chang's "claims regarding Cixi's importance seem to be minted from her own musings, and have little to do with what we know was actually going on in China." The review is posted (free) at . ch (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I would be very careful before inserting a bunch of Jung Chang references into the article. Jung Chang's best selling book "Wild Swans" is a recollection of her own memories and gained her acclaim, but she is by no means a good historian or a good biographer of other people. Her work "Mao the Unknown Story" is as polemical as it was misleading, and dismissed by most mainstream historians as a bad biography. Similarly the Cixi book is just Jung Chang swooning over the subject of her book and trying in every manner possible paint her in a good light, "bordering on hagiography" as the New York Times editorial puts it. That said, I haven't dug into the book, so if there are edit suggestions, I would be open to discussion and cross-checking of sources.That said, I'd like to add the caveat that it should be obvious to anyone who has done research during that historical period that Cixi is a multi-dimensional figure that deserves a re-evaluation, she has been vilified for too long and someone needs to look at the historical evidence with a critical eye; I just don't know if Jung Chang is the best person to do this. Colipon+(Talk) 12:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. Crossley's review goes into some detail on the points where Chang Jung summarizes what is widely accepted and where she goes off the mark. I removed text from the article which had been copied and pasted seemingly at random from The Daily Beast review, which is quite misleading because it simply takes the book at face value. There is much of value in the book, for Chang is a smart person and a gifted writer. It's a good read, so the pity is that she either didn't consult with scholars working in the field or didn't pay attention to them. ch (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New biography of Cixi 

message: I've added cleanup and ref-improve tags, first to rephrase the second paragraph of the "Death of Xianfeng Emperor" section - sounds like a bad translation - and the latter to highlight to more able reference-finders of the citations that get sparser as the article progresses. A little new at this, I deeply apologise if I've mis-tagged! Sixtylamps (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: I hesitate to do any more without checking whether  or anybody else has plans, but here are some possibilities. Somebody could think of better thjngs than I could.
We might cut down and consolidate the subsections, which are more about the books than about Cixi. Maybe even move Der Ling and Carl to their own articles (stubs, but ok). Then we could summarize their rosy views; add  Backhouse & Bland, which is actually the most important of the early books; some of the anti-Manchu attacks; Theodore White wrote something like "she was the most evil woman in Chinese history"; and then a few sentences apiece for Seagrave, Marina Warner, Pearl Buck, Kwong, Chung, Lei, and Jung Chang.
I'm guessing that the length would be about the same as the present section, organized not book by book but thematically over different periods. Some of the themes would be: was she a reformer or conservative or reactionary? Is she made a scapegoat? Blamed fairly or unfairly for the fall of the dynasty because she and it were Manchu? Was she  a feminist? Was she the victim of misogyny? Maybe some more? We can't take positions, but we can lay things out.ch (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably a good idea to break out that article under "Historical Opinions of the Empress Dowager Cixi" and organize it thematically as opposed to by each book. If you have a vision and the time to do the work, I would encourage you to be bold and start editing! Colipon+(Talk) 22:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Revising Historical opinion section

message: I know that an editor correctly says above; "Isn't that the Wade-Giles romanization? (which we don't use on Wikipedia)", however, in my time as a 1970s A-Level history student in London, our textbooks all used "Tz'u-hsi" or "Tzu-hsi" rather than "Cixi". It didn't take too much Googling to find her old name still in use, this one from King's College (Pennsylvania), links to a number of sources. My thought was that it might help dinosaurs like myself (of which there must be many millions) if it was explained somewhere in the article that Tz'u-hsi was the same as Cixi and it was due to the modern transliteration of Chinese script that she apparently has two (on the face of it) entirely different names in Western histories. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I see that Tz'u-hsi is mentioned in "Names of Empress Dowager Cixi". Alansplodge (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tz'u-hsi 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Empress Dowager Cixi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215082807/http://www.56.com/u11/v_MjYwNjk3NjI.html to http://www.56.com/u11/v_MjYwNjk3NjI.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215084807/http://www.lsqn.cn/mingren/age/201003/216534.html to http://www.lsqn.cn/mingren/age/201003/216534.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140616042431/http://www.royalark.net:80/China/manchu14.htm to http://www.royalark.net/China/manchu14.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have just returned from a visit to China in which I visited the Eastern Qing tombs in Tianjin, which include Cixi's.   In one of the buildings there is a selection of her paintings and calligraphy and I was shocked, the ones on show are superb in concept and execution.  A bit of Googling suggests that she was an accomplished artist.  The current entry seems not to have anything about her artistic accomplishments and I feel this is a failing.  However, having no expertise in Chinese visual arts and not much in Chinese history, it's perfectly possible that there's a good reason for the absence, e.g. the attribution of this fine stuff to Cixi is dubious.  
Failing that, I'm inclined to pull in some public-domain images and open a new Cixi-as-artist section in the entry. Tim Bray (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artistic works 

message: 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) 20:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Given the context (the 1894 Sino-Japanese war) I wasn't sure if the wikilink I added to "Taiwan" should go to geography of Taiwan or to Taiwan under Qing rule. It definitely should be linked; it's the first mention of Taiwan in the article. I used the geography article because its page preview seemed more helpful. I wouldn't object if someone changed it. WarEqualsPeace (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Retirement" section: Taiwan  

message: 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) 07:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The sign for „imperial“ 皇 is missing at the 3rd place. Correct is: 慈禧皇太后  What‘s written now (2023/12/13) means „Dowager Cixi“ 2A02:908:1A73:FF20:5022:C2BE:3599:8E89 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box with the written Chinese name