Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those states that received tribute from China were highly depended on imports from China, espesially steppe people like Mongols. They imported many goods from China, so tributes, especially those which were paid in silver and not in commodities like silk, returned back to China through trade. So paying tribute to these states didn't effected China economically very much. I think this must be mentioned in article.78.191.91.99 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of recipients of tribute from China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
1: If this is not a about Chinese tributary system, then why state (the Chinese tributary system is merely a “trade relationship”)
2: Your statement is not even true. China did receive “real tributes” from her neighbors.
If this is not about the Chinese tributary system. I suggest you to remove your statement rather than contradicting yourself.
“The entities above received tribute from the Chinese court” would be more appropriate.
As you suggest, this is not about chinese tributary system. I would suggest to cease mentioning it altogether. Or else add the below statements if you want to mention what the chinese tributary system is.
James collins123 09:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
To prove that the chinese tributary system is not merely a trade relationship, Here is an example:
The Chinese "tributary system" was not merely a trade relation, according to the publication, royal Qing archives showed that this well-established system laid out a very meticulous system of tribute to the Chinese court. Under this system, Korea had to pay tribute once a year. The Ryuku Kingdom(comprising present-day Okinawan islands) had to do so once in two years; Annam(northern Vietnam) once in three years; Siam (Thailand) once in four years; Sulu (in the southern Philippines) once in five years; and Burma (Myanmar) and Laos, once every 10 years. The publication even calculated the number of times these kingdoms had effectively paid tribute to Beijing from 1662 until the early 1900s; it also listed some of the tributes given, for example elephant tusks (ivory) from Siam and precious stones fromBurma. This well-established system was set up by Beijing to underscore the centrality of the Chinese emperor to the Asian region. Japan became the first to upset it when in 1895 it defeated China and forced Beijing to grant independence to vassal-state Korea, besides annexing the Ryukus.
James collins123 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The chinese tributary system is to ask for submission of the tributary states, For example:
The Chinese Tributary system is a submission to the Chinese state. For example, the tributary system operated in its fullest form in the Qing treatment of Korea. The Korean court used the Chinese calendar, sent regular embassies to Beijing to present tribute, and consulted the Chinese on the conduct of foreign relations. The Qing emperor confirmed the authority of the Korean rulers, approved the Korean choice of consorts and heirs, and bestowed noble ranks on Korean kings. The Korean envoy performed the kowtow (complete prostration and knocking of the head on the ground) before the Qing emperor and addressed him using the terms appropriate to someone of inferior status.
James collins123 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised the line about Tibet has been allowed to stay as long as it did. Without any citation, it gives me no reason to believe that the tribute system with Tibet was any different than any other.
"in the case of Tang-era China/Tibet trade, each side routinely described the trade goods which it received as "tribute," and those which it exported as "gifts." If such accounts are to be admissible in terms of showing Tibet to have paid tribute, they also should be accepted as evidence of China's vassalage"
By that logic, we would have to include every single kingdom that China has ever received tribute from, since it was customary for the Chinese Emperor to give a gift to tributary kingdoms to reflect the "greatness" and wealth of the Dynasty. For it to actually count as true vassalage, there must be agreement on both sides. China's tributary kingdoms acknowledge themselves to be tributary kingdoms, and China records receiving tribute. I have yet to see any evidence provided that China acknowledged themselves to be paying tribute to any ruler of Tibet, nor have I seen any evidence providing that Tibet even claimed that China was a tributary kingdom.
Here is the removed text:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.128.231 (talk • contribs) 2007-11-01T07:33:57
Where did you get China not recording herself paying tribute? China did have records of herself paying tributes. The Han dynasty recorded paying tribute to the Huns etc... and so on. Look at the old historical chinese records, give me a source that says China hides ALL of her own history when it comes to paying tribute. The Han records of Sima even criticise the founder of the Han dynasty and the Han emperors allowed it to be a official history and did not execute Sima. A large amount of historians view chinese sources (especially as late as the Tang Dynasty) are one of the most reliable history compare to other historical sources around the world (i.e european sources of history). Your assumption that China did not account herself paying tribute is not true.
In anyway, you can not assume China never record herself paying tribute therefore she did. You need proof saying China did.
James collins123 14:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Take off tibet until there is an english source providing a solid proof stating Tang China paid "real tribute" and "claim vassalage" to Tibet. After studying Far East Asian history I have never heard Tang China claim vassalage to any kingdoms but the other way round. Far as i know Tibet and Tang Dynasty China has a trade relationship. I have not found a source saying Tang Dynasty paid tribute to Tibet yet. I am very sure China did not claim as a vassal to Tibet. We should be only allow to use English source to prevent unverified claims in ENGLISH VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA. I would be satisfied if there is a reputable english source that says so.
If you have no english source saying so. Then leave Tibet out because it would be a false statement if there is nothing to proof or back up.
Thank you James collins123 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a source that say China in 763 have failed to pay, which Gantuya eng claim China paid tribute has rendered void.
In the year 763, China failed to pay tribute to Tibet due to the advent of a new emperor. ----> Tibet (China) By Charles Bell http://books.google.com/books?id=RgOK7CgFp88C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=china+paid+tibet+tribute&source=web&ots=Pw060W42Vh&sig=-ijhwhDfIB2cG4eGrhgt2EOb3zw
Therefore, I will remove the recipient that Tang China paid tribute to Tibet. Thank you James collins123 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, James collins123. Thank you for your comments. But why do you think that only English language references are only true and non-English sources are not reliable? Do you mean if I write a thesis in Chinese I won't be allowed to use any English source and vice-versa? Where is it stated that only English sources tell the truth and non-English sources lie? Gantuya eng 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I never said other foreign sources are not true. But it cannot be proven for english readers, read what i said:
1. Non english sources can only be valid unless there is an official translation of the source (for example: the Iliad from an english translation of the original Greek). Remember, this is English Wikipedia not Russian. English readers can not verify the source nor proof the statement from non english sources. The lack of ability to proof from readers will make the statement untrue. That would simply mean I can make any claims to anything as long as I use some language that the readers do not understand.
2: Translation from google can not be accurate. It is simply a computer animated translation that can not interpret the real meaning of the source. Russian Language translating to English makes it even less accurate.
I have provided solid evidence (above, Tibet (China) By Charles Bell) China did not pay tribute to Tibet due to the advent of the new emperor. In this case, let's leave it to other moderaters to handle this. James collins123 17:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
1: This is not what i mean. Read again at what i said, for english wiki we need english sources in order to prove statement origins and validity. Russian sources for Russian wiki and so on. I will not explain again because i do not see why you don't understand and explaining again appears to lead to the same conclusion. We have conflicting evidence. It is better ot leave it alone for it to be clarified.
2: I did plenty of google translation but hardly does it make any sense. You clearly have not used it. It is not even about trying to understand is because you just couldn't. Russian language makes it worse because it does not have the grammer and language background like English.
3: I never said anything nor indicating anything similar like this, please don't put words in my mouth. Read again at what i said.
4: You do not seem to get the point while i was trying to point out as you repeat again and again mis-interpreting my statements (for example, see above). There is no meaning to shout but to put it simply to you by quoting the specific meaning of the sentence. If it was offensivein your eyes then i am sorry.
I will not repeat nor reply again as i have done enough saying.
Thank you James collins123 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1.Non-Enlish sources are as valid as English sources. It is true that they are difficult to verify for those who don't know that language. But this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used. Not every information is available in English.
2. http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en has a capability to translate from 10 languages into English. It allows to tranlsate a whole web page by providing the web address as well as selected sentences by pasting those sentences into the corresponding boxes on the screen. Gantuya eng 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Non english sources can only be valid unless there is an official translation of the source (for example: the Iliad from an english translation of the original Greek). Remember, this is English Wikipedia not Russian. English readers can not verify the source nor proof the statement from non english sources. The lack of ability to proof from readers will make the statement untrue. That would simply mean I can make any claims to anything as long as I use some language that the readers do not understand.
2: Translation from google can not be accurate. It is simply a computer animated translation that can not interpret the real meaning of the source. Russian Language translating to English makes it even less accurate.
James collins123 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
WP does actually have some kind of policy regarding verifiability: WP:VERIFY. I couldn't find anything that rules out non-English sources there, just a statement that english sources are preferred, which seems quite natural to me.
Also, to me it does not seem as if vassalage is a necessary implication of paying tribute. But I am no native speaker. It is true that (formal) vassalage was usually an implication of the Chinese tribute system. But that is not what the article is about. What about the Danegeld or the taxes of the Delian League? Both seem to be called tribute in the relevant articles, and while the latter may be arguable, the former does not seem to have implied anything but military weakness. Maybe the article should make more clear what definition of tribute is referred to. -- Yaan (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I am going to say almost the same thing that I did on the talk page of List of tributaries of Imperial China. The Wikipedia general notability guideline endorses a topic "if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case, none of the sources are meant to discuss the recipients of tribute from China as a topic in itself. Each concerns only a particular recipient. The significance of this list overall is thus debatable. In addition, almost all of the sources are Web pages that are not that reliable, as mentioned in the English Wikipedia policy Verifiability. Some of the content may be incorporated into their respective articles such as Mongolia, but their notability, compared to China's concessions to the West in Modern Times, for instance, eludes me. DXDanl (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is merely a typo, a mistake while someone edited, or simply vandalism, but the bit on Tibet says...
Tibet: in 763 Tibetan troops approached the capital of the Tang Empire and received tribute. The agreement specified the tribute item--50 thousand rolls of silk. But it should also be noted that since Tibet was a vassal of the Tang Empire before and acknowledge it as its emperor this is useless.
I'm not familiar enough with the history of China to comfortably "fix" the mistake, nor am I entirely certain of what the person in question was trying to say. I just thought I'd bring it up since there have been cases in the past of (anti/pro)-Chinese vandalism on other pages regarding national histories. The phrasing "this is useless" doesn't appear very NPOV, nor very relevant to the article topic. Also, the jumbled sentence structure hints that a non-affluent English speaker may have used a basic translator program to convert something to English and pasted it here.
On the other hand, I may be just making mountains out of molehills.
i question the use of a mongolian source for the qi and zhou dynasty tribute. find another source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitla Gruppels (talk • contribs) 07:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
article is full of mongol sources, and one written by a NAZI WAFFEN SS officer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.78.33 (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Stating that Mongolian sources including the highly valued primary sources such a Altan Tobchi, Erdeny yin Tobchi and Shira Tuuji as "unreliable" while stating that non-Mongolian sources are "reliable" is a racist attitude. What 70.107.78.33 has been doing recently on Wikipedia is strange and blatant. I don't know what those Administrators are doing. Gantuya eng (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
i have the order number and name of company of a map that potrays the wall. im going to check the number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.32 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyright© Rand McNally & Company
Copyright under international copyright union by Rand McNally
All rights reserved
Published and printed by Rand McNally & Co. Chicago USA
Base Map and Relief representation by Freytag, Berndt and Ataria, Vienna, Austria
The Map shows a section of the Chinese great wall in northern Mongolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.32 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
2 seperate walls are jutting into mongolia. actually theres a third below the one on the south mongolian border
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.32 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Nepal received tribute from Tibet between the mid-1850s until 1953. Does that mean it should be included in this list, or not? I guess the answer depends a bit on whether you accept that Tibet at that time was an integral part of China or not, but maybe some kind of compromise can be figured out. Yaan (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel that the new introduction, with its references to Sinocentrism, etc., tends towards polemic and is only going to lead to an edit war. I believe that the original introduction, sparse though it was, was less inflammatory and less ideologically motived. I therefore suggest that the original introduction should be largely restored. The very existence of this article is offensive to some people and it is counterproductive to make the "anti-Sinocentrism" subtext so explicit. Drawing attention to the fact that the Chinese did pay tribute is sufficient for people to draw their own conclusions.
Bathrobe (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think someone should finally write a decent article on the Chinese tribute system. Then we could write an introducton that states what exactly this article is about: not about states that managed to turn around that tribute system, but about states who managed to extort payments from China (would the Boxer Protocol fit into this?) Yaan (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
How about the payments made by Qing China under the treaties of Nanjing, Tianjin, etc. Could they be classed as tributes? Rincewind42 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.