Talk:Xu Guangqi

Untitled

For some reason I feel that this page has some false info. Can anyone check up on its validity? Colipon+(T) 22:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. I did base it on McTudor and other sources that seemed credible to me though. Is there a specific objection you have or just a general sense of falseness?--T. Anthony 13:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I edited a bit. If you can find someone who can clean up existing problems, I'd be glad for that.--T. Anthony 13:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Name

Added dubious tags to the sources claiming he was ever named "Paul Xu Guangqi". I have no doubt they exist, but it's particularly lazy scholarship. The Jesuits weren't English: he was named Paulo or Paulus. Pinyin wasn't invented for centuries: there's no way 徐光啟 was written as "Xu Guangqi".

Today, you'd transliterate his name into Chinese characters with 保罗 – which back then would've looked like 保羅 – and it would be rendered as "Baoluo Xu Guangqi". But imperial China was very arbitrary with which characters and sounds it used and the sound of some characters has shifted, so there's no way to be certain without an actual source. — LlywelynII 04:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on "File:Jesuites en chine.jpg", I changed this to the much more likely "Paul Siu" and removed the erroneous sources. Since "Paul" may have been in Latin or Italian/Portuguese, kept the form "Paul" until it's sourced but, since it's doubtful he used his full Chinese name in translation, removed the pinyin for the rest of his name unless that's sourced and given as something other than pinyin.

Since he may have never used his baptismal name in translation, left out "Baoluo" unless that's sourced somewhere as well. — LlywelynII 04:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Name section and sources. — LlywelynII 13:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Juren

is listed by our article as the rank for the provincial exams but it would be nice to know why he took them in Beijing instead of in his provincial capital... or was Nanjing not the capital for Nanzhili?

Further, his rank is inexplicably given as "primus" in Dudink's chronology. They didn't rank the scholars by Latin terms. Was he the jieyuan (highest scorer) for the province that year or not? — LlywelynII 13:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)