The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I love the topic of the Jesuit mission to China. I don't know nearly enough about it and am happy for the opportunity to look at it again through one particular biography. I can read enough Chinese to do a rough check of the sources, but may ask for further help and translations. I will go through the article in section by section order and will make comments on everything I see; some of these may go beyond the GA criteria, on which I will comment separately. I'll do the lead section last, once I have an idea what the article says. —Kusma (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naming: so did he receive a Christian name first? Overall, there is a lot of detail in this section, although Sequeira vs Siqueira is just a minor variation and rather normal for the 17th century. Does 方豪, who seems to talk at length about other people called Manoel, call 瑪諾 his "saint name transliteration" (聖名譯音) or am I misreading the character? For the Chinese name, I am surprised by the different names given (維信 vs. 惟信) but after searching Google Books, both seem indeed quite common. Weird.
Rouleau has 維 on p. 1 and 惟 on p. 49, very confusing. Have you seen the rubbing of the tombstone to decide what is correct?
The different romanizations do not seem to be very special (just standard older Romanizations like Wade-Giles); I would suggest to put them into a box like {{Infobox Chinese}} or similar instead of putting so much prose emphasis. But you can do that as you like.
Naming: You are right that Fang Hao put "saint name transliteration" (聖名譯音). My guess is that since Zheng was born into a Catholic family in Macau, he received his baptismal name first, and his Chinese name was based on his baptismal name. Hence the order of the "Naming" section has western languages before the Chinese language. Unfortunately Rouleau, as a Westerner, didn't put much emphasis on Zheng's Chinese name.
Different Romanizations: my sources don't tell me what Romanization system they are using :(( but yes, {{Infobox Chinese}} would be a good option.
Sorry, it will be a little longer. My back wants me to reduce my computer time. Will continue as soon as I can. —Kusma (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name does ring a bell (haha), but very faintly, and I have forgotten almost everything I used to know about the period. I did read Jonathan Spence's book about Matteo Ricci at some point, and a Jesuit friend sent me a few related offprints when he heard I liked China, but that was twenty years ago :( —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early life: for the reader who does not know the 17th century names, it can be difficult to understand that Tonkin/Cochinchina and Annam all refer to modern-day Vietnam.
Journey from Macau to Rome: better to spell out 12 as "twelve years old". Or "12 years old"; both are acceptable by MOS:NUMERAL.
Turks is a disambiguation page, please link directly to the correct target or remove the link.
For year ranges see MOS:YEARRANGE; in short: do not write "from 1653 to 54", but "from 1653 to 1654".
Perhaps worth giving a short explanation of the word "regency"?
"the center of Renaissance" do we need this stated here?
"Zheng commenced his teaching in 1660." isn't that the end of his teaching instead of the beginning?
Studies at Bologna and Coimbra: this seems to be Rouleau p. 17, not p. 15 (it is the 15th page of the PDF, which is not page 15).
"Zheng delayed a year of his studies to travel to Portugal." I don't quite understand what that means. Do you mean he postponed some of his necessary studies, spending the time to travel?
"A 1665 catalogue": Not sure whether just saying "catalogue" sounds too much like a sales catalogue; it seems to have been a register of all Jesuits in a specific province?
"Rouleau suggested that Zheng was likely to become ordained in 1663, after his second year of studying theology. He claimed that it is "more than probable" that Zheng had become a priest by the end of 1664." simplify: "According to Rouleau, Zheng was likely ordained in 1663, in his second year of theology, and very likely had become a priest by the end of 1664. According to Dunne, Zheng was ordained in 1664."
Travels and mission: "boarded the ship" which ship?
"They left as a part of the fleet [..] The fleet departed on 13 April 1666" combine these two sentences.
Maybe explain that Goa was in modern-day India?
Mission in India: "contrary to Zheng's wishes to enter China." shouldn't it be "to return to China"?
Early life: Yes, that's true. My personal philosophy is to use wikilinks for these situations–if the reader is curious, they will hover their cursor over the word and get more information. However, your point is valid. How can I further make it clear that Tonkin and Cochinchina belong to modern-day Vietnam? I am using these two terms because Rouleau used them.
Studies in Rome: I highly suspect Sant'Andrea al Quirinale is the place. However, its Wikipedia page links to the church, not the novitiate school. I don't want to confuse the readers...
Yes, makes sense. From the Italian Wikipedia, I am sure that the novitiate is linked to the place, but the construction dates of the church don't make sense in our context. Better not to make the link. —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For year ranges see MOS:YEARRANGE; in short: do not write "from 1653 to 54": done.
Perhaps worth giving a short explanation of the word "regency"? done.
"the center of Renaissance" do we need this stated here? This is not from me, but from the book. The point is that a Chinese man is teaching Western stuff. I would love to use quotation marks, but the book is in Chinese, and I am not sure if I need to use them.
"Zheng commenced his teaching in 1660." isn't that the end of his teaching instead of the beginning? done, reworded.
Studies at Bologna and Coimbra: this seems to be Rouleau p. 17, not p. 15 (it is the 15th page of the PDF, which is not page 15). done.
"Zheng delayed a year of his studies to travel to Portugal." I don't quite understand what that means. Do you mean he postponed some of his necessary studies, spending the time to travel? Yes, reworded.
"A 1665 catalogue": done, reworded "catalogue" to "registry".
"Rouleau suggested that Zheng was likely to become ordained in 1663...": done.
Travels and mission: "boarded the ship" which ship? done, reworded.
"They left as a part of the fleet [..] The fleet departed on 13 April 1666" combine these two sentences. done.
Maybe explain that Goa was in modern-day India: Maybe? Not so sure.
Mission in India: "contrary to Zheng's wishes to enter China." shouldn't it be "to return to China"? done.
Extra note: this article will be on DYK on 19 July. I suggest that both of us abstain from the article when it is on DYK, since there will be a lot of people looking at it & editing it. TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, I signed off on the final step for DYK approval :) Happy to wait until tomorrow to continue reviewing. —Kusma (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mission in India: it would be helpful to clarify in the da Gama quote that Gregorio Lopez and Manuel de Siqueira are Luo and Zheng. For example, you could say "Last year ... a Religious of St. Dominic, named Fr. Gregorio Lopez [Luo] and Chinese by race, had come over from Manila to Canton ... From there, he visited his and our christianities with great success ..." Note I removed the brackets around the ellipsis ... per MOS:ELLIPSIS/MOS:PAREN.
Done, added "[Luo]". I am keeping the square brackets around the ellipsis to show that they are not from the original text (see MOS:ELLIPSIS, "With square brackets").
Studies in Macau: what are "Catholic descendants"?
Descendants of Catholics in Malacca. Malacca used to be a Portugese colony, before it was taken by the Dutch, who practiced Reformed Christianity. I removed the word "descendants" (not so important here) and added some context. Done.
Better.
Support for native clergy in China: It is a bit unclear why you have a See Also to the Chinese Rites controversy here; you'd need to explain a bit how this is connected
Done. Yeah, basically the Chinese Rites controversy centers around whether to accept Chinese culture / tradition in Catholic clergy ranks. I put some more information.
I had a fairly bad week at work, so my wiki-time was quite limited, but I'll try to get through the rest faster now. —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mission in China: please don't mix Canton and Guangdong, unless you mean different places and write "Canton" for Guangzhou. I would suggest to go for pinyin if you can.
Done, swapped "Canton" for "Guangzhou".
I think the "governor of Canton" should be the "governor of Guangdong", though, unless he was someone other than the provincial governor. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Zheng's health might have been affected by tuberculosis" this isn't an obvious reason for going to Southern China without the extra information that Rouleau gives that the long journey to the North might have been too much. Later we see him sent to the North because of the tuberculosis, so we need some explanation for not going North earlier.
Done, gave a bit more context. I think the main reason that Zheng was later sent to the North is not about his tuberculosis. It is because he was chosen, due to his dual identities of clergy and Chinese, and he had to go.
Fixed the later mention about his reasons to go to Beijing. There is a subtle difference between "going to the north and travel around China" and "going to Beijing for the drier air". I hope I made this clear in my prose.
"the waterway" I would explain "the waterway they were traveling on" or similar; the only "the waterway" with definite article I can think of is the canal.
Done, explained. It is likely that the Grand Canal froze over, but putting that would amount to OR. I think a footnote is sufficient.
Do try to replace some "Zheng" by "he" or "him" where it is unambiguous.
Done.
"Zheng reached Beijing alone in 1672. Gabriel de Magalhães met Zheng and confirmed that the latter had tuberculosis. Zheng was expected to live one more year. A 1672 report by Adrien Grelon mentioned that he lived "incognito"." That sounds as if Magalhaes diagnosed him and someone told him he would not live more than a year; from Rouleau p. 45, I can only see that Magalhaes is the person who transmitted this information, not the person making the diagnosis. Rouleau's "one more year" is also not written as a prognosis, but looking backwards already knowing when Zheng died. The Grelon report says he lived "like incognito". This is expanded upon in Rouleau p. 47, where there is a discussion what that "incognito" would mean in practice.
Thanks for the insight. A close reading of Rouleau proves that you are right. I added Rouleau's interpretation of the "incognito" state. The reason I didn't initially included this part (p. 47) is because Rouleau's language is a bit POV alarming. Upon your suggestion, I filtered out Rouleau's admiration and put a simplified interpretation on thie article page.
Death and legacy: I am not sure the commentary about his early death is really useful here; for most notable people dead at 40 we would expect someone to say they died early. You could try to combine some of the paragraphs.
Done, removed the commentaries and combined two paragraphs.
Tombstone: The tombstone does not say he died on 11 April, it says he died on the eleventh day of the fourth (lunar) month of the Chinese calendar, which is not usually called "April". That actually appears to be 26 May 1673 of the Gregorian calendar [2], which is the date given in the Latin inscription in Rouleau p. 49. That happens to be 16 May 1673 of the Julian calendar; was Fang converting to Julian calendar for some reason? The Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1582, and Portuguese or Jesuits would have certainly been using it (unlike Americans or people from various Protestant countries, who would say he died on 16 May 1673).
Done, used "the eleventh day of the fourth month" instead. I re-read the passage and apparently I made a mistake. Fang did convert it to Gregorian and confirmed that it was 26 May. He said that another priest, Yuan Guowei, converted it to 16 May, and he found that to be mistaken. Thanks for catching this bit!
I'll have more comments on lead and on the GA criteria tomorrow(ish), and hope to get to the source review soon. —Kusma (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section: Short, but does the trick except for one important omission: please mention that he was ordained. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written: I guess the prose could be more polished, but (a) I am not a native English speaker myself so it can be difficult for me to judge and (b) it is clear and concise enough for the GA criteria. The MOS points that need to be complied with are OK. There are a few points in my lengthy comments above that should still be addressed.
Verifiabiity/original research/copyvio: Cites well-formatted reliable sources, does not violate copyright, almost no original research. There is one exception though: the article title. I could not find any other place that uses the name "Emanuel Zheng Manuo". It reads like Hongkong newspaper style and reminds me of names like Tony Leung Chiu-wai. As none of the sources use this, I would suggest to go for "Zheng Manuo" instead, which seems fairly common in recent Western sources.
While we are on the topic of names, you should create redirects for all of the name variants you mention.
Broadness: Seems fine.
Neutrality or stability: no concerns
Images: Would be better to use "upright" for portrait format images. For perfection, you'd need ALT tags (but for GA these are not needed)
File:Derhodes.jpg lacks source/author information, I'll ignore the lack of a US tag seeing how old it is
File:AMH-6030-NA Bird's eye view of the city of Macao.jpg a US tag would be nice, and it is not really a "map" so the caption could be improved. This is one of the less informative images here, hard to see much except at a high zoom level
Done, caption improved.
File:大三巴牌坊.jpg ok, but the modern ruins are not that relevant to Zheng
I think the modern ruins are the remains of the place where he once studied. Unfortunately I didn't find a drawing of St. Paul's College, so I chose to use the ruins. I get your point and I just removed the image.
Thanks for the painstaking review. I will be going to bed soon but let me put down some thoughts for the article title. The article title is, in my opinion, a personal compromise between his Western name (Emmanuel, seen in primary sources) and his Chinese name (seen in secondary sources in simplified Chinese). I think it is allowed to name Chinese Catholic priests in the form of baptismal name + Family name + given name . Please see
You are right that the title doesn't appear in any other place. I guess by Wiki rules this means it's not the best title. I am happy and open to amend it to "Zheng Manuo" (gives a nice symmetry with Luo Wenzao, my personal co-favorite). TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Feel free to move this article to Zheng Manuo. You have my support, and this article isn't mine anyways (byWP:OWN). I believe I have replied to all your suggestions. I am going to bed now. Thank you so much for your review. TheLonelyPather (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the page move can wait until after we are done here and am happy that you agree. I see you haven't done anything about the image copyright tags, but I didn't really request that. Anyway, I did find a publication of the de Rhodes image that would be enough to prove it is {{PD-1996}} (and if you haven't seen it, here is de Rhodes' account of leaving Zheng in Armenia: [3]; you may need to make a free account to "borrow" the book). But it doesn't say who painted the image (which appears early in the book). The sourcing information on the Commons page is pretty poor and poorly presented, but I can verify the image was published early and there is a claim of a source for the colour version in the upload history. You would need to add much better sourcing information and proper US copyright tags to all images if you want this to pass FA at some point.
35 ok, although this is Rouleau's guess. I think you attribute a little too often in case of some uncontroversial facts, but here you have speculation and do not attribute it.
Fixed, attributed it to Rouleau.
36 ok
37 looks fine
49 ok
80 ok, although this is also in Rouleau of course. Ideal would be to check Rouleau's source. J.-M. Planchet (1946), Le Cimetière et les oeuvres catholigues de Chala 1610-1927, Beijing: Imprimerie des Lazaristes, p. 146
I tried hard to find this book, but I don't have it. As for the inscription, Rouleau has it and Leeb has it. I should also mention that Lin et al. has it (the rubbing). I am citing Leeb because Leeb transcribed the Latin text.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
