Talk:Ming–Tibet relations

Title

A title like Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty is not politically correct. The issue of Tibet during Ming Dynasty is debated, but the original title defines completely Ming China and Tibet into two countries. --LaGrandefr (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And your title implies Tibet was ruled by the Ming Dynasty. I undid your move. Yaan (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. But it also implies that Tibet was fully independent from the Ming Dynasty, a belief which a few scholars (Chen, Wang, Nyima) object. Is there a more neutral title that can be used than either of these two? Perhaps "The Ming Dynasty and Tibet"? It's kind of hard to create a title that does not imply some sort of relationship.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, even if you were to agree with LaGrandefr's position that the Ming was sovereign over Tibet, this article isn't only about a political relationship, but also a commercial, cultural, and religious relationship, which means "Sino-Tibetan relations" is perhaps the better candidate. It is, after all, an article about the interaction of Tibetans and Han Chinese during the Ming Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The scope is a little broader than that, isn't it? Since the Mongols come into significant play, too. It's a bit odd to divide the history of one country up into periods defined by another country -- it's like "The United States during the Victorian era". Maybe something like "Ming Dynasty claims regarding Tibet" ? Bertport (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Or what about something like Han-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty? Bertport (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All valid suggestions, but this article isn't solely about "Ming Dynasty claims regarding Tibet", as this article covers other issues than merely Ming political claims (i.e. international relations, religion, warfare, and commercial trade). Also, "Han-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty" is just a bit too close to "Sino-Tibetan relations", although denoting ethnicity with "Han" would perhaps be a more accurate term. This is probably the most difficult thing about this article: how do you stay neutral in the title?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article should be renamed to "Tibet-Ming relations" or "Ming-Tibet relations. Current title is pro-chinese. Thoruz (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that something similar is more accurate. Also for the Tibet during the Tang dynasty article (there is no doubt that Tibet and Tang were independent from each other). --Evecurid (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL! One could argue for "Tibet during the Ming dynasty" as an appropriate title, as explained in this article with Chinese claims to suzerainty, but any claims to suzerainty during the Tang is laughable. Tibet and the Tang Empire were frequently at war with one another, and when they were at peace they were wary trading partners who viewed each other as rivals. Any claim of suzerainty, let alone sovereignty, is more than just an anachronism, it's absolutely false.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if you disagree with what the title suggests, I think my article here has done a fine job in providing the major counterpoint arguments against the pro-PRC view about the Ming dynasty's relationship with Tibet. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What I tried to say about the Tibet during the Tang dynasty article is obviously that it is a biased title per se. It is not about whether Chinese has any claims to suzerainty to Tibet during the Tang or not. Why Tibet during the Tang dynasty instead of for example Tang dynasty during the Tibetan Empire? See what I mean? Why only try to fix the title if there is a Chinese claim to Tibet during that period? Your argument really makes me laugh. --Evecurid (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about what I said back in 2008, and I believe I've changed my mind. To be honest, the article would be fine if it was titled something like "Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming dynasty," which doesn't imply any power relationship at all, just that there were relations in general. The best possible title, though, to reflect the content of the article would be something like "Ming dynasty claims of suzerainty over Tibet."Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming dynasty" is fine for me. As for "Ming dynasty claims of suzerainty over Tibet", I think the word "suzerainty" here is a bit anachronism. For example, was there even a concept of "suzerainty" in China or Tibet during the Ming dynasty? Let alone "claims of suzerainty" by the Ming. --Evecurid (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, suzerain in the same sort of sense that French kings would have considered themselves overlords of the English kings (until the Hundred Years' War), without the European sense of feudal relations, of course. Suzerain in the sense that the Chinese emperors sought to strengthen legitimacy at home by having nearby foreign rulers pay tribute with periodic gifts and acknowledge them as their overlord. That was what these tributary missions were all about, especially the Ming's Treasure voyages of Admiral Zheng He into the Indian Ocean. The entire purpose of those missions were to project China's power abroad, ensure Chinese tributary allies were kept in power (Ming-Kotte War), and to gather tribute in order to increase the prestige of the Chinese emperor (initially the Yongle Emperor)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that you're thinking about Westphalian sovereignty, which the article points out would be an anachronism, not suzerainty. The latter is in regards to loose or indirect rule of one state over another, by having the inferior power acknowledge the stronger power's superiority and authority. Plus, a tributary vassal, or client state in the case of the Roman Empire, was expected to pay tribute. In medieval Europe this meant feudal service like marching into battle for your overlord. In Imperial China this didn't equate to military duties, but it did involve gift exchange between the Chinese emperors and foreign rulers. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What I *was* thinking was that both terms were anachronism at that time. But if there are sources classifying the Ming claims over Tibet as "suzerainty", then I will be fine with it. --Evecurid (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, some of the Tibetan factional leaders paid tribute to the Ming emperors up until the reign of the Jiajing Emperor in the 16th century, as tributary vassals to their nominal suzerain overlord. The Ming didn't have any real power over Tibet, as explained by Wylie, Goldstein, and Hoffman, but they did gain the submission of tributary gifts from the Tibetans in the same manner that the kings of Joseon in Korea bowed to the Chinese emperors and sent him gifts of tribute. This was all about maintaining an international pecking order with the Chinese emperors at the top of the pyramid. As explained in my article, the Ming hardly intervened in Tibet militarily and only conferred onto the Tibetans titles for this and that to keep up the charade that the Ming were somehow in control of what happened in Tibet. In any case I'm fine with the new title for the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Ming didn't have any real power over Tibet as well. Anyway, I have already changed the title to Tibet-Ming dynasty relations. --Evecurid (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll move the article to "Tibet-Ming relations" or "Ming-Tibet relations" in the next days. Current title criticized by many users. Thoruz (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved Tibet during the Tang dynasty to Tibet-Tang dynasty relations. Similar thing will be done for this article. --Evecurid (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed

LaGrandefr, you need to place proper citations for the Mingshi info in the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK right now.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, your citations for the Mingshi are fine, but everything else is not. You forgot to add page numbers for everything you wrote! As of such, I will place "page number" tags on all these new statements until you can provide proper page numbers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the only citation that you bothered providing the page number for was that quote from Janchub Gyaltsän's will. Thanks for adding that by the way. Edits such as those are quality edits. Your others have been unconstructive however, by cutting into the middle of my sentences with other citations and diverting the readers' attention. Adding sentences before or after mine is fine, but do not write new material mid-way in a sentence that obstructs the whole meaning, especially with your lack of understanding of English grammar (which I will not fault you too much for, since you are supposedly French, or so you claim despite the fact that Frenchmen know when and where to capitalize letters in sentences, but you don't).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Table "Administrative divisions set up in Tibet by Ming court"

This table is practically meaningless in English Wikipedia. Unless translations can be provided, it should be deleted.Bertport (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleted. Plus, he didn't even bother putting any citations in his table.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And quite frankly, I find this big, clunky table to be a distraction from the substance of the text in the prose. One table is more than enough, two is pushing it anyway, since this material can easily be described and cited in the prose.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the clunky tables, which LaGrandefr has added another recently, they are an eyesore and distraction in the article. However, I don't want to remove them altogether, since they do make a good reference as to which lama was granted a certain Ming title, along with the Ming terms for administration in the other table that are a bit helpful as a reference. I think, though, that they can still be moved somewhere else, perhaps in a notes section separate from the footnotes? I want to hear what LaGrandefr has to say about this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he doesn't object, I've given the tables their own section at the end, along with links to that section in the "Assertions in the Minghsi" section so that people can easily find the tables he's created. They're just too much of a distraction in the Mingshi section.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If these tables deserve any place at all in the article, then this is the way to do it - in a separate section near the bottom. However, at this point they are not reliably sourced. What is the English-language source, with title, author, publisher, year of publication, and page number? Unless this can be provided within a reasonable period of time, they should be removed. The tables add little value anyway, even if they are correct. Bertport (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I used Chen's translated book Tibetan History available on Google Books as the English language source for the Ming titles granted to Tibetan leaders. For now the 18th century Mingshi will have to do for the table on administrative divisions; notice how I made it emphatically clear in that table's title that the table's information is derived from the Mingshi and no other source. Readers who are already aware of the setbacks and falsehoods embodied in the Mingshi on Sino-Tibetan relations, as described by Wylie and others in this article, can make their own judgments of the matter.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

LaGrandefr, do not randomly select statements that might possibly need a "need citation" tag. You're tagging of the statement about Tibet being once the center of a large empire during the Chinese Tang Dynasty shows that you know nothing about the wars of the Tang Dynasty with the Tibetan Empire. Also, your tag in the introduction on the statement about the Wanli Emperor making attempts to reestablish Sino-Tibetan relations after Jiajing ceased them and the Mongol-Tibetan alliance was made also demonstrates that you did not read the last section of the article. Please refrain from placing "citation needed" tags onto statements that clearly don't need them.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

English

In several areas, I had to improve your newly-added sentences due to poor wording and grammar. Also, your title "Submission of the Ming" implies that the Ming Dynasty submitted to Tibet, and not the other way around. Now, as funny as that title was, I didn't think it would be appropriate for the article, so I have changed it into something a bit more neutral than what either of us proposed.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Invasion by the Marquis Mu Ying

I have elaborated a bit on the military expedition of Mu Ying in 1378-1379 by using the Cambridge book chapter by John D. Langlois. Besides a large prisoner of war and captured animal count recorded in Chinese records, further information is sorely needed on this topic, since the reader will still be unaware of the direct significane or greater impact of Mu Ying's invasion and its affect on local Tibetan politics, including the enemy Tibetans and Tibetans who were allied with or neutral towards Ming troops in this affair. After all, the disturbance in Tibet that Mu Ying was ordered to quell was over religious sectarian violence backed by secular Tibetan authorities (i.e. the aristocracy).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan invasion of Sichuan in 1390

In passing on page 161, John D. Langlois also briefly mentions a Tibetan assault on Sichuan in 1390, which the Ming general Qu Neng of Anhui was ordered to repel under the command of Lan Yu. If anyone could find out more about this, especially the frigging outcome (which Langlois does not disclose), that would be great too.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan assault on Zhengde's Mission in 1515

I just found info on Zhengde Emperor's large mission into Tibet that tried to convince the Karmapa then in Lhasa to come to the Ming capital, but instead the Chinese escort was ambushed, half of them killed or wounded, and all their goods stolen!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lying about sources cited

I find it ironic that, earlier today at Talk:Ming Dynasty, User:LaGrandefr accused me of lying when I stated that he never provided any citations for the Mingshi in the main Ming Dynasty article (not even in Talk:Ming Dynasty, look for yourselves in the long collapsible discussion). He has the audacity to call me a liar, and then creates a huge, disingenuous, and quite unpardonable lie himself on the same day. He cited Patricia Ebrey's 1999 book the Cambridge Illustrated History of China as a source for the campaigns of Deng Yu and Mu Ying and put words into Ebrey's mouth that she did not say (of course, LaGrandefr did not provide a page number). Unfortunately for LaGrandefr, I own the book and am looking at it right now. He used an unknown page from Ebrey's book to make this claim:

Moreover, The Cambridge Illustrated History of China records Ming's several military expeditions to Tibet in the beginning of the dynasty, DENG Yu (鄧愈) and MU Ying (沐英) were sent by the imperial court to conquer Tibet in 1373 and 1378, as a result, Tibetan tribes showed submission to Ming court.

Looking through the index (I'm holding Ebrey's book in my hand right now), Tibet is only mentioned on pages 13, 110, 118, 129, 130, 164, 173, 175, 227, 267, 295, 303, 305, and 331. And guess what? Not only is Deng Yu or Mu Ying never mentioned in her book, but she also claims the opposite of what LaGrandefr is saying. On page 227, in writing about the later Qing Dynasty conquest of Tibet from 1717 to 1720, Ebrey states this:

Previously Tibet (like Korea and other neighboring states) had acquiesced to tributary status but had not had troops or governors from China proper stationed in its territory. Still, the Qing interfered relatively little in Tibetan affairs, allowing local leaders to do most of the actual governing.

So tell me, LaGrandefr, what other sources are you using in order to lie and put words into other people's mouths that should never be attributed to them? There's a whole bunch of your statements in this article that I've tagged with {{page needed}} tags, but I wonder how many of them are falsely attributed because of you twisting the sources to say what you want. And don't think this is some issue I have with the Deng Yu and Mu Ying campaigns, since I've recently updated the article using John D. Langlois' Cambridge book chapter to include the info on Ming military intervention. No, this is about honesty, and apparently you have none.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look to my recent edits, I also had to scrap a sentence about Hou Xian that LaGrandefr wrote, because he used Chen Qingying as his source, which says nothing about Hou Xian ordering the Phagmodru around and what to do with the Sakya Monastery (I searched for Chen's book online, and it is available on Google Books). Yet another example of LaGrandefr toying with sources in a decietful manner.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

section creation

PericlesofAthens, could you please don't create so many sections in the talk page? It occupies too much public space. And please don't edit the article lilttle by little, taking so many times, it's annoying to review the history. Thanks.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but isn't that what you're doing right here as well? Lol! I only created so many because there's so many different issues to talk about that need to be sectioned off. I was hoping more people would respond to each section as a different issue instead of lumping it altogether in one heap.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the idea of having a PericlesofAthens section and a Lagrandefr section? That makes no sense to me. Sections about subtopics and issues of the article makes sense. Oh, are we saying that these two users are issues in themselves? That might be so, but let's not group everything else under the user sections. Bertport (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem with making a series of small edits. Careful, accurate, constructive work is what is important, not whether it is done in large or small chunks. Bertport (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing right here? That's what you think! For this moment, I just edited the page several times and you edited hundreds of times. Couldn't you have a look at the Revision history of Talk:Tibet during the Ming Dynasty [1]?--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And your point is?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Title of article

Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty will be never acceptable to be the tile of article.

• Pro-Tibet-Independence's title: Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty, which defines completely Ming China and Tibet into two countries. Just like it's doesn't exist a American-Hawaiian relation.
• Pro-China-Communist's title: Tibet under Ming Dynasty rule, which only shows one side scholarly opinion.
• Tibet during the Ming Dynasty is the best title for this moment. It doesn't make a judgment of the ownership of Tibet.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, this article is about more than the political relationship, but also the spiritual and commercial, hence "Sino-Tibetan relations" makes sense for the latter two. Your favored title "Tibet during the Ming Dynasty" doesn't really contradict any of these and is neutral, but it is also a bit less descriptive. In any case, I really don't care about the title, it's the substance that matters. That was user Yaan who disliked your title.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is bad, to have two separate "Title of article" sections, one under each user. We need one, not two, sections for discussing one topic. Bertport (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have a new proposal, "Tibetan history in the Ming Dynasty"? Since "Tibetan history" can contain the history of politic, culture, commerce, etc. What do you think about it? --LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a half-bad suggestion, LaGrandefr. I'm not opposed to it, although I would alter the title by just one word, saying "Tibetan history during the Ming Dynasty", so that the title is as neutral as possible.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tibetan history during the Ming Dynasty" is OK. However, I don't see a substantial reason for changing the title to that. I think we should keep the title unchanged, unless there is a clear consensus that something else is a real (not minor) improvement. And I am strongly opposed to anyone changing the title again without seeing clear agreement in writing, here on this talk page, from both Pericles and LaGrandefre, first. Bertport (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bertport. Although I entertain the idea of renaming this article to "Tibetan history during the Ming Dynasty", perhaps you are right in that it is merely a minor improvement, if an improvement at all. Also, a shorter, more concise title like "Tibet during the Ming Dynasty" is usually better than a longer title (i.e. "Tibetan history in the Ming Dynasty" or "Tibetan history during the Ming Dynasty"). If LaGrandefr would provide some input on this and a good reason as to why the title should be changed, then we can settle it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideological expression

PericlesofAthens, among your arguments in the article, the ideological expression are pasted everywhere. modern Chinese Communist historians, PRC historians, Chinese Communist historians, etc. I think they have nothing to do with the scholarly debates, so I advise to delete them in order to be neutral in the article. If some scholars can be condemned to be pro-Communist, others can also be condemned to be pro-Tibet-Independence or anti-Chinese according to PRC's definition. So a ideological conflict should be avoided in the article.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I admit, there is one place where I use the title "PRC" historians where it should not be, but everywhere else it is from what Dawa Norbu asserts in his book about the distinct position of PRC historians. That's what he's getting at: the main camp of pro-Chinese-sovereignty for Ming history is located within the PRC, although there are other scholars, such as Luciano Petech and Sato Hisashi, who follow some of the same views as PRC historians. I even quoted him saying "Chinese Communist historians" in one part, to make it emphatically clear what he means.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly relevant to identify political backgrounds of sources, for this topic. In fact, the article would benefit from a section explicitly pointing out the patterns. Bertport (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if someone like Dawa Norbu went into further detail about it, but I don't believe he does. If I ever find something scholarly that discusses the historiography and different historians discussing the Tibetan-Ming issue, then I will most definitely include it here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a relevant New York Times article written by Elliot Sperling on this subject. As you may recall, I've cited Sperling in this article already, only it was from the 1988 Cambridge History of China book series. This will be a start, and I hope to include other sourecs than just New York Times, which is ok, but this is a tiny opinion article that is not published by a scholarly source.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's only the communists are addicted to using ideological accusations to opponents. Do you really think that citing the ideological expressions of some scholars can largely improve the quality of the article? You know, the communists are good at using ideological accusing, that means I can also find plenty of this valueless arguments, like "Tibetan separatist / independentist / anti-Chinese, blabla... But I think it's totally unhelpful to a scholarly argument and I advice you to look for some arguments more powerful rather than these condemnations of no avail.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not me who's pointing this out, it is Laird, Sperling, Norbu, Powers, Illich, and others in particular, which is significant, because these are scholars who are stating this. Whether or not they follow the socio-economic belief of the communist model is irrelevant to me. However, if scholars bring this up as a reason for scholarly trends then it should be mentioned in the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus, saying someone is a "Chinese Communist" is perhaps the best way to distinguish between mainland Chinese historians and other Chinese historians (i.e. those from Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, etc.) Simply saying "Chinese" historian might be too vague. However, one could also argue that mainland Chinese are no longer "communist" but rather "bureaucratic capitalist" or other labels you'd like to tack on to their identity these days.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Language use

Thank your for redressing some linguistical errors in the article, and I'm sorry that I don't master your Holy language. You know, your language haven't been very popular and attractive in my country, since the Pope still use my language in his speech in UN.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because French has a legacy of international use, especially during the Early Modern age; a European monarch would be marginalized and scoffed at as a rude, backwater hick if he did not learn French. English did not become a universal language until after Britain's ascendancy to power following the Seven Years War; even then, it's arguable that it took at least until after the Napoleonic Wars and the collapse of much of French colonial power overseas that Britain took up this mantle. Otherwise, I'd be learning French right now like everyone else! In the meantime, you are editing an English encyclopedia, not a French one. I hate having to clean up your grammatical mistakes in almost every sentence that you make. Your title "Submission of the Ming" was the funniest though; even I don't assert that the Ming Dynasty was a tributary of Tibet! Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This makes it clear to me that Lagrandefr must be watched warily. He avoids saying it outright, but wants us to infer above that his primary language is French. His English grammar and syntax, however, are definitely NOT what comes of thinking in French. Lagrandefr feels he has something to hide. However, PericlesofAthens, please avoid undermining your own credibility by incivility. You have all the advantages of facts and research; let them carry the day. Bertport (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll make fun of him and jibe him a bit about his bad grammar, but I've stated in other places that I won't criticize him too much for it, unless it has something to do with lack of clarity due to the poor grammar of his edits to Wiki articles. Also, he has stated before that he is French. Whether or not he is French is irrelevant; his actions, however, are relevant for discussion.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that Lagrandefr's mother tongue is not French. Otherwise he would not be making certain grammatical mistakes like wrong tense, subject-verb agreement, etc. Rather, he would be adding "the" where it doesn't need it, which he does not do. In addition, how many Frenchmen can read classical Chinese? Josuechan (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he is employed by some PR arm of the PRC government expressly to do the kind of stuff he is doing here. Bertport (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Now, I will admit, I've jumped to conclusions about LaGrandefr being a disruptive sockpuppet, but to outright suspect him of being a staff member of some CCP bureau is a bit much. Besides, China has better things to do than employ people to edit Wikipedia, and greater means to promote their PR image. No, this is just some random guy sitting at his computer at a very select moment of the day. I've noticed while dealing with him for over a month that, regardless of where ever he is located in the world, he always edits between my time (eastern United States) of 5:00 am to 10:00 am, but never after or before that. It's scary how consistent he is in this regard.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me the history of French. Frankly, if there weren't Uncle Sam, English could only be a speech of those 3 islands, or with some colonized countries in maximum. Moreover, if you are so willing to defend the correctness of your holy language's grammar, please paste a Template:RoughTranslation in the head of article and I'll look for someone to correct as well.

It's ridiculous that Josuchan make a funny conclusion by his/her acknowledge of French. In which level you speak the French? The basic grammar is even different between French and English, like we say "je mange" and you guys say "I'm eating". And furthermore, do you all really know the level of sinology in France. It's even in French that the reconstruction of Old Chinese phonology was first published, not to mention the number of French who can read classical Chinese.

And it's more amusing that you guys begin to make a "wonderful" show that the actors and audiences are just yourselves. You guys should have better jobs to do rather than loaf on wiki to suspect other's identity.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, my French is no better than your English, but at least I know the difference between conclut and concluez; in English, as in French, there's this thing we call subject-verb agreement. Besides, you conclude, but do not make a conclusion. It's awkward English as well as French. But it's how exactly how Chinese speakers say. By now you should know why editors here keep on removing/editing your added sentences. Josuechan (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

However, your vandalism is not welcome in the edit. You're already indignant that I added something complemental in your arguments, but you even changed the scholarly sentence. Like change the power' to some power, what does it mean? It's ridiculous! Worse still, you even dare delete my arguments! It's too abominable. I'll be busy with my personnel affaires these days and I maybe don't have time to edit the article. You can paste everything you want in this article, but it's be like this after my return.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I only deleted the following statements made by you because I investigated the source and it did not agree, and in one case, the link you provided to a source did not work.

• The Ming court managed Tibet according to conventions of granting titles and setting up administrative organs (因俗以治，多封眾建) over Tibet. Go ahead, try the link you posted in the citation, it doesn't work. I only deleted this statement because I searched China.org.cn and could not find an article with this title anywhere, let alone search for this statement in the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• I deleted your comment Chosrje Shākya Yeshes(釋迦也失), who is the constructor of one of the 3 major monasteries-Sera Monastery in Lhasa, not because it is not true or because Chen Qingying does not state it, but because it lengthened an already long sentence, and all the run-offs of description weren't helping clarity or focus. I settled for placing this info in the Sera Monastery picture above instead, so the info you added is not lost. Also, how does this detract from your argument? You made no argument here, you just inserted a fact.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Your comment and became a leading sect in Tibet utill 1642, two years before the fall of the Ming Dynasty. doesn't make any sense at all, since you are talking about the Yellow Hat sect. Chen does not say it failed to be important after 1642. On the contrary, it became the most important! It was the Dalai Lama's sect, silly.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Chen states that HOU Xian (候顯) was sent by Ming court in 1413 to Tibet, ordering the Phagmodru to give back the Sakya Monastery to Sakya, which shows Ming court has the power to resolve the arguments among the religious sects. No, Chen does not state this at all. On which page does Chen state this? Not on any page of his book that I've read (courtesy of Google Books), and it's an incredible short chapter in his book. He didn't pack in any details like this into it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• During his stay in Nanjing, he was made the Great Treasure Prince of Dharma (大寶法王) by the Emperor, and bestowed a seal to lead all the Buddhists. Now this sentence I kept, except for the last part and bestowed a seal to lead all the Buddhists. Chen just says he was granted this title, and said nothing about its meaning or that Yongle wanted him to "lead all the Buddhists".--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Moreover, The Cambridge Illustrated History of China records Ming's several military expeditions to Tibet in the beginning of the dynasty, DENG Yu (鄧愈) and MU Ying (沐英) were sent by the imperial court to conquer Tibet in 1373 and 1378, as a result, Tibetan tribes showed submission to Ming court. Notice how in your citation you use "Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1999)", which is why I had to delete this, since she does not say this at all in her book! Which I own, of course.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• as Dbus-Gtsang and Dokhams were Tibetan areas subject to rule by the Ming Dynasty. Administrative and religious leaders of these Tibetan areas received official positions from the Ming Dynasty court. As Ming officials, they obeyed the Ming emperor. Not only does this not add anything to Wang and Nyima's argument, it has nothing to do with the new Chinese tea and Tibetan horse trade section that I created.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I had all valid reasons to delete this stuff.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What is irrelevant or not isn't judges by you. In fact, all that you deleted are much more helpful than tell the whole Tibetan history dating from the Tang Dynasty. By the way, could you please split the article to some other page? Since many paragraphs have nothing to do with Tibetan history in the Ming Dynasty. Thanks.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes, in fact I will judge what is irrelevant or not, as long as I have a brain in my skull that allows me to have critical thinking. "In fact, all that you deleted are much more helpful than tell the whole Tibetan history dating from the Tang Dynasty." What??? Not only does this not make sense, how is this a rebuttal to anything posted above? As for paragraphs having nothing to do with the Ming, please point them out, I'd love to see them. Of course, this does not include explanations about the Yuan Dynasty, which has everything to do with the Ming in the "Inheritence, reappointments, and titles" section, if you didn't notice already.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And all my arguments will be well sourced, and it doesn't mean they don't exist if you cannot find them. Until now I haven't lied but you did.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that a fact? So far many of your "well sourced" statements have been exposed as a heap of BS by yours truly. To imply that I have lied would need some proof to back up the claim, you know, that thing called evidence that detectives, lawyers, scientists, etc. have to use in order to prove they aren't full of it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Cult of personality

It's funny that you use a whole line in the article to introduce M. van Praag. Are you just him? Do you know the policy Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox in wiki? While other scholars are accused to be pro-Communist, M. van Praag is a lawyer who works for Dalai Lama and he is also condemned by Chinese government to be anti-Chinese.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. However, the only reason I added his full book title in that sentence was because I was citing him through Wang and Nyima's book. Therefore, I did not add his book to the references section below, because I have never read his book. Seem logical to you?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also disgusting that you changed some small words in the article to achieve your ambition. I don't master your Holy language, but for reading, please don't make those unqualified trick in the article.

Show me an exact edit, please, then I'll be convinced.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Example? All the arguments of Wang and Nyima that you don't support were added "XXX" by you. And for your arguments, you even don't mind using the ideological accusation. Some sentences like "The Ming initiated sporadic armed intervention in Tibet", "Tibetans also used successful armed resistance against Ming forays". Perhaps you consider the readers are too idiot to seize the meaning among the words, but not me.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are pretty much incoherent here, LaGrandefr. Bertport (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And how was Ming armed intervention in the 14th century not sporadic? They didn't send an army every single and consecutive year; their timing and presence was rather sporadic. As for the "successful" instances of armed resistance against Ming forays, I noted two instances in the article: a Tibetan invasion of Sichuan in 1390 (although I'm unclear as to how significant it was) and the near decimation of the army of the eunuch Liu Yun sent to Tibet to acquire the "Living Buddha" and bring him back to Beijing, while the Karmapa decided to ambush, kill, and steal from the Chinese instead. That hardly sounds like the action of an empire's loyal subject, doesn't it?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Nothing "Holy" about the language; it's just the language being used here. Lagrandefr, your writing here is frequently hard to understand, and sometimes you even say the opposite of what you intend. Not only are you handicapped in your struggles with English, but you have been careless in your insertion of material without proper citations, and your edits have frequently been disruptive without adding value. You also occasionally make assertions about Wikipedia policies which show you do not understand WP policies, or worse, that you wish to deliberately twist them to your own personal ends. That said, this is a decided improvement, that you are engaging in the talk page more, instead of just wreaking havoc on the main page of the article. Bertport (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that more talking needs to be done on the talk page while less action in editing the main page would be constructive at this point. The article is about 40 KB in size (not just prose, this includes introduction, pictures, picture captions, see also section, citations, references, and categories). I have greatly expanded it, but what it really needs is more scholarly opinion (if we can find it) supporting the case that Tibet was part of the Ming Dynasty and was not independent as the many scholars that I have shown assert. Dawa Norbu outlines this historiographic controversey, but I can't find anyone else besides Wang, Nyima, and Chen who support their views, while Chan, Wylie, Norbu, Tsai, Sperling, Hoffman, Van Praag, Xagabba, Ebrey, Yiu, Kolmas, Kolb, Li, Rawski, Howard, and Goldstein support the view that Tibet was independent and simply paid tribute like Korea, Vietnam, and other tributaries. In his article I have cited, Patterson must have deemed the Ming Dynasty so unimportant in Tibetan affairs that it did not even warrant mention, since he jumped right from Yuan Dynasty intervention to Qing Dynasty intervention centuries later.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unbelievable that you think more scholars that you find to support you, more reasonable you are. The books of Chen and Wang & Nyima are already sufficient to answer those questions over Ming's governance over Tibet.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this even warrant a reply? Do you even know what scholarly consensus is or why it is significant? If 95% of scholars agree on a position but only 5% disagree, then something funny is going on (note: I know you don't speak English, so "funny" here doesn't mean "humorous," it means "suspicious" or "questionable").--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have revised the leading paragraph to more accurately capture the degree and shape of the scholarly consensus. Bertport (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lapsus of book name

For Cambridge Illustrated History of China, it's really my lapsus due to the Chinese book name, the citation should be P87, P92 and P23 of the Cambridge History of China. As you also added many other citations to support my argument, I'll add some more citations to prove this argument. I know you have Ebey's book since the beginning, so I think I'm not so crazy to do so-called false attribution. Please don't initiate an issue on another one under discussion, you and me should take it to be a lesson and be more careful and responsible to our arguments.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to believe you on this when in your very next edit you added this:

• • Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1999). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-66991-X

...and not one of the Cambridge History of China book titles. Why don't you point out exactly which Cambridge History of China volume and part # you are talking about, because if you look at the Ming Dynasty volume (Part 7) of the Cambridge History of China, there is nothing on pages 23, 87, or 92 that you state here, above.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For the lapsus of the book name, I apologize once again. I can also give you more proofs since I've even found the original records in Mingshi.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan Empire

It's more funny that you pasted Tibetan Empire in the article. Since when has Tibet officially declared to be a Empire? Which Tibetan kings considered himself to be a emperor? Tibetan Empire is just a Tibetan nationalist expression.

At last, I really appreciate you, PericlesofAthens, because you're the only person that continue to offer the scholarly arguments till this moment, not like other amateurs. So I hope you can stay neutral to the issue of Tibet and give back all me arguments in the article. During my absence these days, you can add more scholarly arguments if you like, and I will also come back to edit the article if possible. Regards.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet was an empire in the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, one which fought constantly with the Tang Dynasty, made marriage alliances with the Tang Dynasty, drew up peace treaties with the Tang Dynasty, cut off the Tang Dynasty's access to the Silk Road by conquering the Tarim Basin cities during several different periods, and even sacked and occupied for a short time the Tang capital of Chang'an during the An Lushan Rebellion. For a person interested in Chinese history such as yourself, I'm alarmed that you don't know the wars of the Tang Dynasty in which they had to contest with Tibet in dominating Inner Asia. The Tibetans didn't just seclude themselves to the regions we know today as Tibet, they were an imperial force to be reckoned with. Of course, none of this has anything to do with today's Tibet, which is part of the People's Republic of China. To call Tibet an "Empire" today would be insane and foolish, not only because it is part of the PRC, but because "empires" don't exist anymore! There are certainly modern superpower nation-states, but not "empires" in the old fashioned sense.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To expand on this point, read Denis Twitchett's chapter "Tibet in Tang's Grand Strategy" on the Tang-Tibetan wars and their rivalry for dominating Inner Asia, up until the 9th century.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When I read something like the leading paragraph of this section, I have to wonder whether Lagrandefr should ever touch any article in an English Wikipedia. Does every single sentence have to be explained to him? Even if his native language were French, he would not have been confused. Bertport (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, it is a bit strange.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a scholar on China. However, I am interested in China-related articles. I think this is a very strong article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, sir (bows -->). Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary to tell me the history of Tibet, thanks to you, I know Tibet much better that before. I know very well Tibet was very powerful during the Tang Dynasty. But it means Tibet was an empire? NO. It's not a empire but a strong power. For example, Tibet could not be more powerful that USA right now? Surely not. But can we call your country American Empire? No, because neither George Bush nor Songtsän Gampo has declared to be an emperor. Tibetan Empire is just a Tibetan nationalist expression.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't even know that wiki had an article on the "American Empire"! Lol. I thought that was something reserved for Uncyclopedia. Hah.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Split the article into a separate article

There're too many contents in the article concerning Tibetan history in the Yuan Dynasty. I suggest splitting the article into a separate article and I'll also participate in the edit of new article. Regards. --LaGrandefr (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude! There is not an excessive amount of information on the Yuan Dynasty in this article; it is relevant because it has everything to do with the succesion of the Ming.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PericlesofAthens is correct here. The material on Tibetan-Yuan relations is brought in here because of claims made by some, that Ming Dynasty relations with Tibet were a continuation of Yuan Dynasty relations with Tibet. Bertport (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Can we get an adminstrator to block LaGrandefr from editing this topic? He shows no interest in working cooperatively with others and his work is just about always disruptive. Bertport (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not just that, I have caught him twice today citing Chen's book Tibetan History where Chen never states on those said pages the things that LaGrandefr is stating. Look to my recent edits for the material I have taken out of the article and read Chen's book online at Google books here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As what I said above, you cannot find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Please see [2]. His original texts which concern the article are:

• 1413年5月，明成祖派候显等人从京城出发进藏，以向乌思藏许多首领传达旨意，其中带去了命令帕竹第悉交出萨迦大殿给予原主萨迦派的诏书，12月侯显等人到达西藏，在颇章孜宣读诏书，萨迦派举行了十分隆重的庆典。此事反映出明朝中央对西藏政教势力之间的争执有决定处理的权力。
• 在藏历第七饶迥土鼠年（1408）六月，宗喀巴给明成祖写了一封回信，请明朝的使者带回。在这封回信里，宗喀巴对收到皇帝赐予的大量礼品表示衷心感谢，对皇帝的邀请则予以婉拒，“余非不知此是大地之大主宰为佛法着想之谕旨，亦非不遵不敬陛下之诏书，但我每与众人相会，便发生重病，故不能遵照圣旨而行，惟祈陛下如虚空广大之胸怀，不致不悦，实为幸甚！”
• 永乐五年三月丁已，明成祖封锝银协巴为“万行具足十方最胜圆觉妙智慈善普应佑国演教如来大宝法王西天大善自在佛”，命他领天下释教。

I don't know if you can read Chinese and please look for someone who can. Moreover, I beg Bertport not to make the random undo, OK? PLEASE! I've spent hours' work edting the page. Regards.--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hours work? You spent about an hour's worth of time here being a general pain in the neck and expecting people to clean up after your messes while I've brought every single reference source to this article, created every section, provided every picture, and had the good will of fixing your shoddy citations since you practically refused to do so by ignoring the message I sent you on your talk page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before -- in the English Wikipedia, official policy is, do not use foreign language sources when English sources are available. In this case, use the English translation of the text. Bertport (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind that you use a Chinese language source so much that I mind that you aren't citing it correctly! Simply saying "Chen P47" is not good enough. You made no effort to distinguish that this was a different book of Chen's, hence I thought you were using the one already stated in the reference section. This is not helpful, LaGrandefr. Your edits are not constructive in this regard.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all if it's just a misunderstanding. These sources exist really in Chen's book, but I don't know why you cannot find them. I cited the original sentences, in hoping that someone could be calm right now.--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you're expecting me to clean up your mistakes? How lazy of you. Fine...I'll fix you shoddy citations, if you really aren't capable enough to do it yourself (I was hoping you were capable of doing at least that).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, look to how I fixed your citation from that internet source of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, for all future instances of how to properly cite internet sources, with the linked date that you retrieved the information. Seriously, LaGrandefr, you're killing me!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is one way in which your edits are unconstructive, LaGrandefr - sloppy, careless, or possibly dishonest citations. This forces other people to spend time cleaning up. A second problem is your repetitive deletes of valid, cited material, such as the Tibetan Empire passage. A third is your disruption of narrative flow. You need to understand the narrative flow of the article and put new material in the right place. A fourth is grammar, syntax, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. A fifth is MAJOR changes (such as moving the article altogether) without discussing them with other editors first. Bertport (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

LaGrandefr, you are truly, absolutely pathetic. From pages 44 and 48 of Tibetan History, you copied the lines of Chen's book word for word without quoting him. That is truly bizarre, and bordering on plagiarism. Why would you do that? Seriously, if you want people to take you seriously on anything, please don't ever do that again. Do you not even understand the concept of paraphrasing someone's writing?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving Chen info down

It's ok that you add info from Chen into the article, but I ask that you cite it properly and place it in an area of the article that does not disrupt the flow of the article. I have not removed it, but just moved it down a bit. The reasoning is that the person Chen Qingying is describing in his book is the Phagmodru ruler after Janchub Gyaltsan, and you placed this information right in the middle of the discussion on Janchub Gyaltsan, which doesn't make sense. However, I found it fitting to put it right after the statement about the Phagmodru, Rinbung, and Tsangpa princes, since Chen's statement deals with the Phagmodru.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have recently found better places for Chen's information, working it into the narrative so that the flow of the article is not disrupted or does not suddenly go off-topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Further improvements

I spent some time last night on stylistic improvements, mostly small changes in sentence structure. Pericles, I see you've had a look at those changes, and it looks like we agree on one-liners to identify scholars and other proponents in the discussion.

I agree with you that we need to be consistent, but I would apply that principle to gradually wikilinking all mentioned universities (and other institutions) that have Wikipedia articles, rather than nipping the first such link in the bud. One reason we are mentioning background of scholars at all is that there is a meaningful pattern their origins and their arguments. Therefore, WP:CONTEXT would push us more towards making the links.

It is a very long article (and, all in all, a magnificent piece of work). There is not that much pre-Ming "background", so I see no advantage in trying to split that out into a separate article. The "Inheritance, reappointments, and titles" section would benefit from a higher-level re-thinking and re-organization. That's what I'm thinking about at this point -- what are the main points and themes of that section, and how can they be made more evident? Bertport (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good, I suppose it wouldn't be inconsistent to go about linking all of the universities mentioned, and with WP:CONTEXT mentioned above, it is perhaps a good idea. As to reorganizing the "Inheritance, reappointments, and titles" section, the current organization is haphazard, although there are certain topics that are bunched together, such as the nature of the Phagmodru regime established by Janchub Gyaltsan and how he viewed his country in regards to Tibetan history and the Chinese or Mongol models, or the visitation of Tsongkhapa to the Ming court and how scholars interpret it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just adding titles of subsections helps guide the reader to understand the existing flow of narrative/argument. Bertport (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but what about the bulk of text outside these two sub-sections? What fitting sub-section title would represent and encompass the material there?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured that "Transition from Yuan to Ming" was an ok title here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe move the sections on Janchub Gyaltsän and Tsongkhapa up, above "Implications on the question of rule" -- the paragraphs following Tsongkhapa return to more general discussion of the implications on the question of rule. Bertport (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You've done a masterful job reorganizing this material, Bertport. Cheers!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Using Morris Rossabi's book chapter in the Cambridge History of China, I have made some serious improvements to several different sections, including the one on Tsongkhapa, religious significance, the tea horse trade, and the alleged "divide-and-rule" theory discussed in the armed intervention section.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I also added a picture of the Ming Dynasty seal of Yongle granted to Deshin Shekpa, an image uploaded to WikiCommons by none other than User:LaGrandefr, although I've virtually used it against him by adding a very damning caption about the Ming's loose relationship with the Karmapa and their being unaware in 1446 that he had been dead for 31 years, cutting off relations soon after.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rivalries within Tibet

I would expect that these titles offered by the Ming, even if they lacked real authority, might have some appeal to Tibetans vying with each other for power and influence within Tibet, possibly for propaganda value, possibly for the suggestion that the holders of the titles had powerful allies to the east. On the other hand, some of the Tibetans might have avoided accepting these titles, as they could have negative, anti-patriotic meaning in Tibet - just as Iraqi leaders of various factions today must regard any endorsements from the US as mixed blessings. If you come across anything relevant to this question in your reading, it would add another dimension to the article.

In fact, even if little or no information is available about how these Ming titles were perceived in Tibet, a new section about politics within Tibet (as opposed to relations with the Ming and the Mongols) during this period would be good.Bertport (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All very good suggestions, but unfortunately I have exhausted all available sources before me at this point. I was hoping JSTOR would have a wealth of scholarly journal articles focusing on Tibetan history, but so far the articles from Riggs, Wylie, and Patterson, for what they're worth, are the only ones I've been able to find. I'll check with my university library this week and see what book titles will be helpful on this subject.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious Significance

What is the meaning of this bit? "in bestowing Deshin Shekpa with the title of "King" and praising his mystical abilities and miracles, was trying to build an alliance with the Karmapa as the Mongols had with the Sakya lamas, but Deshin Shekpa rejected Yongle's offer.[88]" What was the "offer" that DS rejected? Did DS reject a title? An alliance? Bertport (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To be specific (as Morris Rossabi mentions in his book) it is actually better translated as "Imperial Preceptor" or something along those lines; basically a priest-king ruling Tibet. Yongle wanted to create the exact relationship that Kublai had with Phagpa, but Deshin Shekpa convinced Yongle that the title was unwarranted, and told him to offer it to others. In essence, he rejected a relationship with Yongle that would have cemented his ties along the lines of the old Mongol-Tibetan viceregal system during the days of the Yuan Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This article dates DS' visit to Nanjing 'by April 10, 1407'. I notice Yongle Emperor give May 17, 1408. That one is not cited, though. Karma Thinley gives "three years later" after the invitation of 1406, which would date it to 1409. Bertport (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"During his travels beginning in 1403.." during whose travels? Bertport (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

During Shekpa's travels; that's what the source said. Excellent additions Bertport! Your material is a true asset and a major improvement to this article. As for the dates, I am unsure, I was only reporting what the source had to say; we can confirm this with other sources if there is mounting evidence that one is plain wrong.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude! Another piece to this puzzle now fits; Yongle not only tried to grant Deshin Shekpa the same title as the Yuan did to the Sakya rulers, he also treated him exactly how Kublai Khan had treated the Sakya Phagpa lama when he gave religious instructions! Yongle's behavior thus becomes very clear, and I made this clear in the text by using Morris Rossabi's book to enhance the statement you made using Thinley's.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve of the Thinley. It does cast another light on the entire character of Ming-Tibetan relations, but no more so than dozens of other pieces you've brought in. Excellent work, Pericles, and I must say, this article wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the honorable LaGrandefr, either. Frustrating as the process has been, we are here witnessing the fruit of provocation. I think it's about done. Bertport (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we must acknowledge that without LaGrandefr, none of this would have been possible! Lol. Seriously though, none of this would have been possible. If he had never bugged me over at Ming Dynasty about plugging in his SinoMap Press image showing the Ming owning Tibet, then I would probably not have started an article like this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out, the book she has to offer is largely a primary source document. That's a shame!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Status!

Woo-hoo! All that hard work pulled off! Thanks for all your contributions and the hard work you put into this article, User:Bertport. It is a featured-frigging article!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, cause for celebration! Congratulations. I'm happy to have played a minor role. Bertport (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed image sizes

Hi Pericles, the thing is that MediaWiki will resize images according to screen resolution for anonymous users when there are no fixed specifications, and use the preferences set for logged in users. So for instance my preferences are set to 300px and you are actually shrinking the images when you specify the sizes. Generally you should only be setting fixed sizes for images that really need to be big to show detail. Also you should avoid pictures with extreme aspect ratios. --slashem (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both WP:LAYOUT and WP:IMAGE do not go into detail about MediaWiki resizing images according to screen resolutions, so I had no idea about this or that you could set such a preference. If you must reset the images, go ahead, I only changed a few.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the documentation is out of date. I'll reset the images. --slashem (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I set my image preferences like yours?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Go to "my preferences" and then click on the Files tab. --slashem (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

LaGrandefr's departure

I regret that the vandalism couldn't be avoided in the article and the inactive altitude of English wikipedia to this act. Thus, I decide to depart and quit editing this article and English wiki forever. Before leaving, I have something to tell some users above:

• This conflict won't be ended like this way. If someone want to prove Tibet's independence from Ming, it's best to find some worthful arguments, not personal surmises, ideological accusals that exist in every corner of the article. If someone want to help Tibet, or Dalai Lama, it's best to do some realistic things rather than negate the history.

I have had the idea to help some user to improve this article, since I can read Chinese. But someone doesn’t appreciate it. Maybe someone will consider my departure to be a victory of themselves, but it doesn’t matter for me, since there's a Chinese saying, "公道自在人心". Ciao!--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

LaGrandefr --> "公道自在人心" <-- Dude, quit being so epic about everything. If you have something valuable to add from Wang, Nyima, Chen, or some other PRC scholar then do so. No one is "vandalizing" the page by removing dubious statements of yours and cleaning up poor grammar on your part. As for the PRC scholars' arguments, I think I have been pretty fair and NPOV by giving them the full spotlight they deserve. I even cited another book of Chen's besides the one we were looking at. So don't sit here and cry about Tibetan Independence (if that's what you thought this was about).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"If someone want to help Tibet, or Dalai Lama, it's best to do some realistic things rather than negate the history." That operates under the assumption that all the scholars I have brought to the table are somehow "negating" history. Unless you have some citation from somewhere credible refuting these scholars as hacks who purposefully "negate" history, I don't see how this is relevant to a discussion on the talk page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of John Powers's words

The subsection containing John Powers's words is "Transition from Yuan to Ming", not "Transition from Mongol lands to Ming". John Powers stated "the Mongol empire included vast areas of Asia and eastern Europe which were not in fact controlled by the Ming or Qing dynasties", BUT these vast areas of Asia and eastern Europe were not in fact controlled by the Yuan dynasty either. He took Lithuania and Persia as examples, but both are actually bad examples, as they were not part of Yuan. In fact, his statement was not directly relevant to the subsection called "Transition from Yuan to Ming". Just mentioning his words without clarification is certainly not appropriate.--207.112.34.108 (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...you make a compelling point. After all, the Yuan did not control the whole of Mongol-conquered territories from the 13th century. Plus, this article is long enough. I think Powers' rather large and clunky quote can be scrapped.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tibetologist claims about the Yuan Dynasty

I recently left this message over at User:TheLeopard's page:

Yes, but what credible source (or any source for that matter) are you using to say that Tibetologists on a whole often say that the Yuan Dynasty was mostly a non-Chinese political entity? Forget Thomas Laird, he is just one Tibetologist. Where is this source you are using that says Tibetologists often say this? I want to see a full reference before you add that sentence back into the article. Otherwise, it's just a personal observation you yourself made and not some scholar writing a book explicitly stating "Tibetologists often disregard the Yuan as a Chinese political entity". Understand?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement I added was "although Tibetologists, such as Thomas Laird often dismisses the Yuan Dynasty as a non-Chinese political unit and plays down its Chinese characteristics." I added this because the quotes above by Thomas Laird did dismiss "Yuan Dynasty" as a non-Chinese entity. PericlesofAthens I remembered we had this same conversation at our talk page about this. I wasn't trying to infer that every Tibetologists would state the same. The correct phrase probably should just be "although Tibetologist Thomas Laird dismiss...".--TheLeopard (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what are you adding to the article that hasn't already been stated by Laird himself? I'm not against adding such a statement, I just want you to provide a source which explicitly mentions this trend in Tibetology. Otherwise, it is merely a personal observation you have made and hence original research on your part, which is not allowed. Once you find a proper source, then we can talk about adding that statement back into the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "although Tibetologist Thomas Laird dismissed the Yuan Dynasty as a non-Chinese polity and plays down its Chinese characteristics" is correct no?--TheLeopard (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That is perfectly acceptable, since he has already been cited in the article as making such a statement. Feel free to add that if you wish. Speaking of Tibetologists in general would be overstepping that bound, but just mentioning Laird is fine.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding to the Yuan Dynasty, Yuan emperors had sent a few Chinese seals to the Mongols in Ilkhanate, which were used by Ilkhans in each of their diplomatic letters for foreign relations. For example, the seal in this letter (from Ilkhan Ghazan to Pope Boniface) reads "輔國安民之寶" in Chinese script, and the seal in this letter (from Ilkhan Oljeitu to the French king Philip Le Bel) reads "真命皇帝和顺萬夷之寶" in Chinese script. Won't these Chinese seals imply something?--209.90.142.50 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting that map image in a different section. As for Chinese seals, how exactly are these relevant and what should they imply? That the Mongols were more "sinified" than Laird would have us imagine? You are aware the Mongols employed their own writing script, right? In that case, one could make an easy counterargument that the Mongols still considered themselves Mongols given the volume of writing purely in the Mongol script. As for imperial decrees written in Chinese, were they written only in Chinese, or were they bilingual (i.e. including the Mongol script and Chinese characters side by side)? Now that would be a great question to answer. However, I think quite enough is said about the Yuan-era Mongols in this article, and more should be said about Mongols and their relationship to Tibetans during the Ming era.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly aware that Mongols had their own writing script, but the seals sent to the Mongols in Ilkhanate by the Yuan emperors were indeed written in Chinese. I have found that the section originally named "How 'Chinese' was the Yuan Dynasty" was heavily biased against "Yuan was a Chinese dynasty". I think this should be fixed.--209.90.142.50 (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, do you know the meaning of the Chinese script in the seal (i.e. can you read Chinese)?--209.90.142.50 (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That title has been scrapped by TheLeopard recently, which I had no qualms with, since User:Bertport originally created the title and the material there could easily fit into the transition from Yuan to Ming. Yes, I can read a good amount of Chinese characters, and from the seals it would appear that the Mongols had taken up the mantle of Chinese rulers. But this is obvious; the main civilization ruled by the Yuan was Chinese civilization, who could deny that? What is more relevant, I believe, is how the Mongol ethnicity and Mongol culture of the Yuan Dynasty's rulers affected their attitudes towards China or Tibet and their actions and policies regarding China or Tibet. In extension to this, how did the Han Chinese ethnicity of Ming rulers affect their policies and attitudes towards Tibet in comparison to the Yuan?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pericles of Athens, you know that the sources you inserted about the characteristics of Yuan Dynasty in the section "Transition from Yuan to Ming" aren't even sources specifically written about the "Yuan Dynasty" right? Except Morris Rossabi's Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times which is about the Khan, majority of the sources you inserted concerning the Yuan Dynasty are actually books about "Tibet" but contains some sections about its relation with Yuan Dynasty; this is totally different than encyclopedia articles such as Britannica or Americana. Which is why I find it puzzling you would say That the Mongols were more "sinified" than Laird would have us imagine? Why would Thomas Laird's saying about Yuan Dynasty merit any importance? Since his book is not about Yuan but rather "conversation with Dalai Lama".--TheLeopard (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does Laird merit any importance? Because Laird is a Tibetologist discussing history and this is an article about Tibet, China, and to a lesser extent the Mongols and the Yuan Dynasty. Why not use Laird? How is he not credible, or rather, how is he unimportant to this discussion? What is wrong with the inclusion of his opinion? If you are puzzled, then I am equally so. Who cares if Rossabi's book is the only book cited that focuses solely and specifically on the Yuan and Kublai, and who cares if I use books focusing primarily on Tibet to make assertions about the Yuan. By your extension of logic, if I cited a book focusing primarily on Napoleonic warfare tactics to glean information about a lead-up to such tactics in 18th century France, somehow using that book as a source for an article on 18th century French warfare tactics would be unacceptable. If you don't like the sources used in discussing Yuan history, by all means sir, go find others!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the new Map of Ming Dynasty is not acceptable in my view. Since it isn't even remotely accurate.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The map was published by an institution in P.R.China, which represents the view of the Chinese government. What's important is not that whether it's accurate or controversial, but it should be included in the article to reveal the official attitude of China, just like the attitudes of other parties (there are already maps representing other opinions in the article). The article will be much less biased if maps representing different opinions are included. As a result, it should be included even if it's not acceptable by some.--209.90.142.50 (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As inaccurate as the map is, it is published by SinoMaps Press, a government-run publisher. However, one could debate its usefulness in any article, as I have before. Sure, it represents the "attitude" of the PRC, but why sacrifice scholarly precision and accuracy for government attitudes? Especially a government whose vested interest is to show firm historical precedent for modern-day borders. In any case, I won't make a fuss about the map being included in the article, if it is merely being used to represent the government's viewpoint (as described in that section). I think that the mere fact they did such a lazy job fixing the borders for the Ming says all that needs to be said about the map's accuracy. Unfortunately the average joe reading this article would not have access to materials showing the fluctuation of Ming borders over time as proven by court documents, foreign documents, archaeology, etc.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

While the map certainly has problems, I don't think its accuracy is that bad though -- for example, Taiwan is not included in that map, although PRC also claims Taiwan as an indivisible part of China. It may be more accurate to say the map is influenced by the government attitudes, but it is not a direct representation of government attitudes.--209.90.146.105 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In the context of this article, I think it is sufficiently informative to identify SinoMap Press as located in Beijing. Bertport (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Inner vs. Outer Barbarians

I have a question: in what terms did the Ming Chinese court call the Tibetan court(s)? How were the Tibetans placed in the Chinese domestic and foreign relations theory of the five zones posited by Zou Yan? Were the Tibetans considered "Inner Barbarians" and thus under direct imperial control? Or were they considered a "Dependent State" of "Outer Barbarians" who were largely autonomous yet had Han Chinese court officials to deal with their affairs? This classification, although outmoded and ancient, is to me very significant, since this thread does not address it at all and would throw light onto how the Ming actually viewed the Tibetans, instead of using our anachronistic understanding of premodern relations. I recently added a sentence about Dependent States since the Han Dynasty period, but this should be elaborated on further by someone more knowledgeable.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that the five zones thoery was not first proposal by Zou Yan. It was first made in the Guoyu on the how-should-we-classify those areas where the barbrians lived, such as the Rong and Di during the Eastern Zhou Dynasty. Is a general notion and classifications of ancient Chinese at those territory beyond their control, in this cases like the "wild zone". But I don't think those classifications would make any good as a implicit whether or not an area was being under control. Even as late as the 14th century, Guizhou was still being labelled as the "wild zone" by Emperor Hongwu, this is recorded in the History of Ming. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my inquiry and in providing the example of Guizhou in the Ming. So you think that, in light of how the Ming regarded the territory of what is now Guizhou, the five zones is not a very significant issue to include in this article?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pericles of Athens, I think is fine to be included still, but maybe try to note about this is a general notion or so, something like that. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will, if I can find a specific example of it being mentioned during the Ming in regards to the Tibetans.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing anything about the article, just sharing something about the five zones. Anyway, keep up the good works. Cheers. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article is fine, it is Han Dynasty which I have my main sights on. I wanted to rewrite the article by the end of this last summer, but I couldn't find enough time. Hopefully by the end of this year I will have rewritten the entire article with new pictures and tons of sources (as usual for my standards).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see, you're going to write about the article on Han Dynasty, in that cases hope you're able to find enough time for that. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Khagan

Kublai was proclaimed the title of Khagan or Great Khan in 1260, but his position was never widely accepted, even after defeating his brother Ariq Boke. The next paragraph also states that "with such limited acceptance of his position as Great Khan ...". It seems to be quite contradictory to state "(Kublai) later ruled as Khagan (i.e. Great Khan) from 1260-1294" in the previous paragraph. Furthermore, "one of its descendant empire" should be "one of its descendant empires", and Rossabi's full name is Morris Rossabi.--Choulin (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it should be plural "empires", I did not see that part of your edit. Morris Rossabi's full name is already mentioned in the article in the following section; by later adding just his last name in the first section, I must have forgotten to add his full name in the article's new first reference to him. I acknowledge and have fixed these two mistakes. As for Kublai, regardless of whether or not he was considered the Great Khan by all the various competing Mongol factions, you can't deny his ascension and his rule which lasted until his death in 1294. This is an article about Tibet and Ming China; let's not turn this into an article on the viewpoints of particular 13th century Mongols who had qualms with Kublai's legitimacy as Great Khan.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, come to think of it, those last two sentences in the first section were additions that someone else added. Let's take a look at that full paragraph quoted from Rossabi on page 115:

Khubilai wished to be perceived both as the legitimate Khan of Khans of the Mongols and as the Emperor of China. Though he had, by the early 1260s, become closely identified with China, he still, for a time, claimed universal rule. He sought recognition of his status as the undisputed ruler of all the Mongol domains. The Golden Horde in Russia, however, had supported Arigh Böke's candidacy as the Great Khan, and the Central Asian khans had often remained on the sidelines in the struggle between the two brothers. Khubilai was on good terms with the Il-Khans of Persia, but the Mongol rulers there, starting with his brother Hülegü, were essentially self-governing. Though the Il-Khans continued throughout Khubilai's reign to seek formal investiture from him, they were virtually autonomous. Thus, despite his success in China and Korea, Khubilai was unable to have himself accepted as the Great Khan.

Thus, by the Il-Khans at least, Kublai was seen as the nominal Khagan, albeit the Mongol-controlled lands outside of the Yuan Dynasty (which constituted Mongolia, China, Korea, upper Burma, Tibet) were autonomous and were not under his direct rule. The important thing was that Kublai controlled the Mongol heartland in the Gobi and the steppe above China; in fact, on this same page (115), it says that Kublai looked upon the Chinese as his "colonial subjects". It simply says that he had to pay greater attention to governing them since China was the seemingly rational place to set up his main base.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern assumptions imposed on history

This article purports to be about history, but it forces the historical record to fit modern assumptions about nationality, sovereignty and territory. The first paragraph frames the issue as "sovereignty" vs "suzerainty," both concepts based on the modern (Westphalian) nation-state system. The Ming emperor considered himself ruler of the world and therefore would never have worried about about whether Tibet was a part of China or not. When a ruler sent a mission to Beijing, his country got listed as a "vassal state" in the official record. "Independent state" didn't exist as a category as far as Ming clerks were concerned. As for the Tibetans, they focused on the priest-patron aspect of the relationship. There are hints of both of these ideas in the article already, they need to be mentioned prominently and in the lede. Kauffner (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere in Powers that the Ming court referred to the monarch of England as his vassal, but I'm not finding the reference now. I do think that the Ming practice of calling all other states vassals would probably fit somewhere into this article. We need, first of all, a good reliable reference. Then we can figure out how it fits in. Bertport (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kauffner, Hi Bertport. Hmm...I'm not sure about the official attitude during the Ming on how foreign states should be classified, but I do know that since at least the Warring States Period (403-221 BC) and Han Dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD), the Chinese had a nuanced view of "zones" of Chinese influence, which in fact had a limited extension and various levels of protocol for how to handle foreign ambassadors. This of course has nothing to do with the much later Westphalian sovereignty, but nevertheless, scholars use the terms "suzerainty" and "sovereignty" for this ancient international relations system centered around China. These are my notes I took a while ago from this source, which should explain this a bit:

Yü, Ying-shih. (1986). "Han Foreign Relations," in The Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. – A.D. 220, 377-462. Edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243270.

• Page 379-380: In ancient China, the "five zone theory" was ascribed to, which stated that ever since the (mythological and archaeologically unproven) Xia Dynasty the Chinese realm was divided into five hierarchic zones or areas. The central zone was the royal domain which was ruled by a king. The zone surrounding this was the lords' zone, which comprised states established by the king. Beyond this was the pacified zone which comprised conquered Chinese states that the ruling dynasty had subjected. Beyond this was the controlled zone where barbarian nomads lived but pledged a loose loyalty to the Han Chinese empire under a system of suzerainty. Beyond this was the wild zone, where potentially enemy nomads roamed and remained hostile and where the sinocentric world naturally ended.
• Page 380-381: Yü asserts that the five zone theory, although incorporating some ideal elements, should not be dismissed and should be taken seriously since there is some historical truth to its order. And it certainly shaped the foreign policy of the Han Dynasty, as it was explicitly mentioned by Han Dynasty emperors and Wang Mang.
• Page 381: For example, when the Xiongnu Chanyu called Huhanye wanted to pay homage to the Han court in 51 BC, the minister Xiao Wangzhi urged Emperor Xuan of Han that he should be treated as a head of state of rival status since he lived in what the Chinese considered the wild zone and should only be expected to pay tribute once and not on regularized, periodic terms.

If Tibet was to fall into this scheme during the Ming, they would arguably fit into the "controlled zone" of loose suzerainty. Something to consider...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Suzerainty

Yo, Suzerainty's definition= Soverignty when strong, nothing when weak. It's a weak and inaccurate term, and was invented by the British in order to weaken the rule of the Ottoman Empire. But I don't think the Ming would have made prefecture units in Tibet had they not considered it their terroritory. I mean, certainly the Ming did not set up prefectural units in Java or Sumatra! IN regard to the five zones above, Tibet should fall into the pacified zone(which would also include Mongol and other tribes who pledged allegiance to the dynasty and was settled int eh frontier, Wu Hu before the uprising, etc...Teeninvestor (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Since Ming armies initially ventured into Tibet in the 14th century to quell unrest, particularly with the campaign of Mu Ying (沐英), there is some merit to this argument (i.e. that Tibet belonged to the pacified zone). However, the Ming court did not garrison permanent Ming troops in the region, while local Tibetans continued to administer and patrol their own grounds. For this reason alone it is not very clear how to distinguish Tibet and its relation to Ming, prefectures or not. If we are to talk about the five zones, I would like to see a specific scholar's assessment on which zone (if any is appropriate) the Tibetans would fall under during Ming.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Yellow Hat" - an anachronism

I notice in the article that the terms 'Yellow hat', 'Black hat' etc. are used to describe the various Tibetan lineages. Generally the terms are considered anachronistic, and they are considered mildly pejorative by the Tibetans - especially the Sakya, Kargyu, Nyingma who tend to be grouped together as 'Red Hat'. Likewise, the article mentions 'Black hat' - which normally represents the Bonpo, but here is referring to the Karma Kargyu, I'm guessing that this is because the Karmarpa is sometimes known as the 'Black hat Karmapa'. Likewise, the Kadampa, Jonangpa, and other minor schools that were around at this time are not represented using the 'coloured hats' division of Tibetan Buddhism.

Since WP has good references to the actual names of these traditions, and the articles themselves are named appropriately, I propose that the entire article is changed over. This is not a trivial job, but it would be in line with modernising the article. (20040302 (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

Okay, I did the majority of the work - I notice that the article conflated the sakya with the kargyu in relation to ཀར་མ་ཕུན་ཚོགས་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་ Likewise, there was some confusion regarding the Drikung Kargyu - all these errors arose due to the 'hats' nomenclature. (20040302 (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

File:Ming 1443.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ming 1443.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the Notes section

Notes are not working--186.19.203.58 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Speedily moved. SnowFire (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Late Medieval Tibet → Tibet during the Ming Dynasty – Someone recently moved this page from its original title "Tibet during the Ming Dynasty" (as shown here and here) to "Late Medieval Tibet" without any discussion on the talk page or reason given in their edit. I find the fact that someone can do this to a featured article (that I nominated) without any fuss is incredible. The current title does not accurately reflect the content, since this is not a general history of Tibet in its so-called "late medieval" age (I'm already cringing at the term medieval here, given that it is a European concept applied strictly to Western history as invented by Renaissance-era thinkers). The article's main focus is clearly the relationship between Tibet and the Ming Empire of Imperial China, and whether or not Ming China held suzerainty over Tibet in this historical period. If anything, the first move, "Tibet-Ming relations", was a far more apt and logical title than the title of the second move, which is misleading to say the least. However, the original title captures the essence of the article best, so it should be moved back to the original name. I humbly ask the moderators to do so. Thank you. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy revert WP:BRD undiscussed move. Further "medieval" is a completely wrong descriptor for any place outside of Europe, for this time period. Middle Ages in East Asia were in the 500's. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I agree the term "medieval" is wildly inappropriate. But the original/proposed title does suggest an article on the history and culture of Tibet during the Ming dynasty, and it isn't that broad. I admit I'm struggling to find something better that doesn't beg sensitive questions, let alone meet what I suspect was the concern of the editor who renamed the article, the omission of relations between Tibet and Mongols (the editor largely worked on Mongol articles). All I can come up with at the moment is the rather lazy Tibet and the Ming Dynasty. NebY (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd even accept his first choice, "Tibet-Ming relations," even though this makes a somewhat POV statement that Tibet was apart from the Ming Empire (which is the contentious historical and present-day political issue being presented in this article). However, the current title is by far the least favorable, so at the very least it should be reverted back to the original title, which despite its flaws, sounds the most neutral. Your idea of using "and" instead of "during", despite you thinking it sounding too lazy, might actually be the most superior alternative; it avoids making a POV statement about the relationship at all.Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support speedy revert of an overly bold undiscussed move, which hardly even reflects the scope of the article. --Cold Season (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Just speedy it. An undiscussed move with no explanation can be reverted with no explanation and no formal move process. Just add {{db-move}} to the redirect page and close this RM. SnowFire (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I basically just did what you suggested with adding the db-move tag. What now? Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't one have to be a moderator in order to delete the redirect page and close this RM? Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the next admin to clean out the backlog will either move the page per the speedy, or else decline the request and say to finish the RM. Just taking unusually long for a "speedy" deletion. SnowFire (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Further Source

The following book has several good articles which may be relevant:

• Cüppers, Christopher, ed. (2004). The Relationship Between Religion and State (chos srid zung 'brel) In Traditional Tibet: Proceedings of a Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2000. LIRI Seminar Proceeding Series. Vol. 1. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute. ISBN 99933-769-9-X. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 44 (help)
  

Chris Fynn (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

==

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming dynasty. 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/20080509114448/http://www.bartleby.com/65/yu/Yuan.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/yu/Yuan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming dynasty. 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/20080429200533/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/16/content_7987724.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/16/content_7987724.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Pseudonyms of multiple people shouldn't be treated as real people

Though Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain were the nominal authors of the book The Historical Status of China's Tibet that is cited by this article, neither is the name of a single person. The names derive from the combination of the names of the five contributors to the book (Wang Gui, Tang Jiawei, Wu Wei, Xirab Nyima, Yang Gyaincain) as indicated by a postscript to the book. So neither should be referred to as a real person. If one tries to search for publications by either author, only this book comes up, because the real authors publish under a different name; e.g. Xirab Nyima has a Wikipedia article in Chinese that lists his publication in Chinese.

The book is a team work of 5 people that express the official position of PRC on the subject (as the project is government funded and published by a press under the State Council of PRC), so instead of treating it as the opinion of two scholars, I propose to treat it as the opinion of PRC in this article. --Happyseeu (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Western Tibet - Elis military-civil Marshall's office

Elis military-civil Marshall's office likely only existed on paper, as Guge and Namgyal dynasty of Ladakh did their own thing. Even the Chinese Wikipedia on 俄力思军民元帅府 says they got invaded without Ming knowledge. --Voidvector (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)