Talk:Qin Hui

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

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.

Untitled

Qin Hui was innocent. All the bad name are political games. See the folloings: SORRY, someone help me to translate or I may do it myself later sometimes....

Blog is not a proper source. You can try to some books or magazines to support your opinion.--Skyfiler 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propberbly you did not read it carefull enough. That articel incite anicinet original books. It is a common knowledge that "Song history" about Yue Fei and QIn Hui was according to the fabricated history by Yue Fei's grandson, it is almost all lies. So, to find the truth you need other historians in Song Dynasty, and that is the post I posted before. Take a look and you may discuss with you there too.http://lovesue.blog.hexun.com/8110495_d.html

I agree, blogs are not a reliable source. However, I too have read modern day scholarly sources that mention Qin was not entirely at fault. Yue's fate ultimately fell upon Emperor Gaozong, who turned a blind eye to what was going on. He only wanted to appease the Jin. According to these sources, Qin was just a tool in Gaozong's quest for peace.(Ghostexorcist 05:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is quite hard to agree. Most of these sources are hardly reliable. It is to a fact that most of the tellings are to a degree true in the first half, where he did some good work, then most accounts will change to subjective personal views on the topic rather than hard proven sources. It is quite reasonable since most written historical accounts in China usually are copied in later dynasties and most are intepretating the same idea since copied by the people taught by same teachings. For example, the blog link above stopped all actual sourcing once starting to talk about how the story was twisted to suit the national heroes' story and claims weaselly that the historical accounts are only modified by later dynasties with not actual prove, which is extremely unreasonable by its own claim that the dynasty that comes right after is ruled by mongolians and as an invader, they should praise peace makers instead of a war general. Most sources claiming Qin Hui as sinless are actually twisting the history by using seemingly reliable sources in multiple lines yet inserting irrelevent self claims in the middle of it. These are more like fiction than actual historical analysis. MythSearcher^talk 04:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qin Hui, not Qin Kuai

The right pronunciation of 秦桧 in Standard Mandarin is Hui, not Kuai. This is common sense in China. Please see every Chinese dictionary, e.g., Kingsoft online dictionary (金山词霸) for the character 桧. It clearly says that 桧 is pronounced as Gui or Hui, and when 桧 is used in personal name, it is pronounced as Hui. It especially gives 秦桧 as an example. In any case, Kuai is not the pronunciation of 桧. I have moved this article to right place. Thank you. --Neo-Jay 21:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official Dictionary of the Taiwanese Ministry of Education gives two readings for the character 檜: "kuai4" and "gui4". The entry on 秦檜 has only "Qin2 Kuai4". So obviously "Qin Kuai" is standard in Taiwan, whilst "Qin Hui" is standard in Mainland China. In my opinion the Wikipedia main article should reflect both readings. I have also seen "Qin2 Gui4" in a Taiwanese dictionary. --P345 (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western sinological literature generally refers to him as Qin Gui, btw. 138.246.8.194 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Hello I changed one of the name from 万俟軼 to 万俟卨. I believe that is what the name on the statues are. Also I am not sure according to chinese wikipedia 莫奇射 is an alternate name. Via pinyin checks they both look like "mo qi xie" and "mo qi yi". Benjwong (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese wikipedia does not say 莫奇射 is an alternate name, but rather as a guide on how to pronounce the actual name. _dk (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

莫須有

The term 莫須有 should be (The accusation) that is not needed/existed, which is rather common to also mean does not exist. The whole term 莫須有罪名 should be more like The accusation that is should not be forced or simply meaning accusing and penalising someone with no actual sin, like Jesus on the cross. MythSearcher^talk 04:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically speaking, the sentence is rather easy, I'd think. 莫須 simply means "doesn't have to", so the sentence would literally mean "there doesn't necessarily have to be a crime". 罪名 is not an accusation but the crime itself (or perhaps the category of crime), he is supposed to have committed. Also, nothing in this sentence seem to nominalize it as in your translation. If I'm mistaken I'm glad to be corrected, though. Laca (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that that the original quote is actually 「飛子雲與張憲書雖不明，其事體莫須有．」(quoted from the academia sinica website). The translation still should be the same, just that it speaks of "其事體", "this matter", other than that this is just an ordinary case of a preposed object. Laca (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have to is basically the same as that is not needed. I have translated it to also not existed is that if there is no need to be a crime, there might be no crime at all. Even taking into account the different views we have here, the article is totally wrong anyway, I have changed it. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on 莫須有

Chinese Wikipedia has a discussion of 莫須有 which cites a couple of sources on this problem. There is a good case for treating 莫須 as a rhetorical particle suggesting that you suspect something is so (難道沒有嗎, 應該吧), and there are a number of passages in various works where the alternative interpretation "x is not necessary" doesn't make sense. Translating the passage from the Song Shi at issue:

獄之將上也，韓世忠不平，詣檜詰其實，檜曰：「飛子雲與張憲書雖不明，其事體莫須有。」世忠曰：「『莫須有』三字，何以服天下？」

When [Qin] prepared to send up the case, Han Shizhong was furious. He went to Qin and demanded the truth. Qin replied, "Although the letter that [Yue's son] Yue Yun sent to [Yue's subordinate] Zhang Xian is not clear, it probably means something." Shizhong said, "How are you going to convince the entire empire with a word like 'probably'?" Rgr09 (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole translation can still be not necessary. "The letter(s)... is/are not clear, but this matter is not necessary." Shizong said, "How are you going to convince the world with the words 'not necessary'?". Here, the words for "necessary" relates to the making clear of the letter(s). The situation is that the letter(s) is/are presumed to be criminal(since it is between those people) and it is not necessary to make it clear what those letter(s) contain. Also, I will not use the word "furious" for 不平, it means he cannot settle with it/thinks that it is unjust, furious carry much more meaning in English about rage and anger to a point where one becomes violent. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 August 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qin Hui (Song Dynasty) → Qin Hui – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Song Dynasty chancellor is one of the most notorious figures in Chinese history, a household name that has for centuries represented the quintessential traitor and evil government official. Qin Hui (historian), on the other hand, is a little known academic who's been a professor for merely 20 years. Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, has an entry for the Song Dynasty chancellor (see here) but not for the modern historian. In terms of page views, Qin Hui (Song Dynasty) gets about 100 a day, whereas Qin Hui (historian) gets less than 10.

In short, Qin Hui (Song Dynasty) meets both major criteria mentioned in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in terms of usage and long-term significance. -Zanhe (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support Timmyshin (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the chancellor got 3014 views in the last 30 days, the historian 227. Antonio Hazard (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; Zanhe makes a persuasive case and the pageview stats look good too. bobrayner (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Qin Hui. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life

The Life section has no sources. Also, to put it bluntly, a lot of the article feels like it was written based on high school googling rather than being taken from the research of actual historians. Many of the sources that are used seem to be blogs. The page badly needs a cleanup.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]