Talk:List of tributary states of China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Japan

Was Japan really a tributary of Imperial China?? When? My perhaps limited understanding was that Japan established cordial relations in the 600s but was independent. Can anyone clarify? 71.255.251.105 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, any state that had formal diplomatic relations with Imperial China would have been a tributary, since the court recognized no equals. However, the level of actual control differed from state to state. Some merely engaged in the tributary system to benefit from the trade relations, others were allies that enjoyed considerable autonomy and priviledges, others were protecterates or conquered areas that weren't formally administered as provinces, and others were various tribes and indigenous peoples that for whatever reasons weren't governed the same way farmers and cities were. The system really covered a lot, which is why compiling a list is such a challenge, and why even on the list, I gave a brief history and explanation for each entry. --Yuje 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Ashikaga era, the one who received cefeng(冊封) was Ashikaga clan, not Japanese Emperor. This mean Japan (Nippon) as a whole wasn't tributary nation. As for Hideyoshi Toyotomi, he was also not. Ryukyu Kingdom was independent nation at that time. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During Ashikaga shogunate, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu and Ashikaga Yoshinori got the cefeng, even Ashikaga shogunate continued until 1573 though. The name in the list of Japan should be Ashikaga shogunate or Ashikaga clan. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it was Ashikaga shogunate. But the Emperor of Japan didn't receive the cefeng. It is said Ashikaga wanted to trade with China. I also think the name in the list should be Ashikaga shogunate or Ashikaga clan of Nippon-218.110.154.51 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs organization

Instead of just mass listing every single country that paid tribute at one point or another, there should be some kind of organization to this messy article. I suggest doing it by dynasty, listing the tributaries to Han, Tang, Ming, etc dynasties, instead of to "Imperial China". 2000 years is a long time span to cover, and most of the countries shifted in and out of the tributary system at one point or another, so the listing should be by dynasty, and each listing should cover the years during which they were tributaries. --Yuje 12:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It is dubious whether Japan can be considered a tributary after the 15the century, if at all. --Niohe 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started filling in information for the Han Dynasty period, but someone needs to fill information on some of the later dynasties. I don't have any convenient references on hand for those at the moment, and not very familiar with the history of some of those periods. Ming and Qing periods are more clear, but some of the dynasties between I'll leave to more knowledgeable people, or until I get a reference on hand. --Yuje 10:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there good enough sources for us to make this article actually an article about what a tributary state to imperial China was? For example, information about what that tributary relationship was like, what kinds of exchanges those states had with China, etc etc. One interesting thing I've read somewhere was that at some point, the tributary relationship of Joseon to Qing China was actually more beneficial to Joseon in terms financial gains. Annually, Joseon would send tributes to the Qing court, and in return, the Qing court would send "gifts" back, such that the exchange basically was like a trade, but the value of the "gifts" that Joseon received was more than the tributes that it was sending. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the situation differed from state to state and among the different time periods, but there were tributories over which the empire exerted very real power. Take for example the Ming Dynasty and the Mongols of modern-day Inner Mongolia. The trade relationship kept the Mongols economically dependent on the Chinese for trade, and the Ming controlled which areas in which they could graze their herds. The Ming also were the ones to assign titles to their leaders and this made those leaders politically reliant on the empire for their legitimacy. The Mongols were called on to supply cavalry and horse for the Ming army, and several ethnic Mongols even became serving generals. --Yuje 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this is definitely an interesting topic, but you are absolutely right, the situation with each state differed. I would love to expand this article to actually discuss what the tributary relationships were like, but it would probably take a lot of reading and fact finding. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The emperor of China was the only son of heaven and it couldn't accept other kind of emperors. Any states that wanted some kind of relationships would have had to represent themselves as king, prince or duke. The emperor of China did not have soverignty over its vassals. The emperor was recognized as the one with heavenly accepted authorities of all things exist on earth. Think of emperors of the holy roman empire. The emperor of Rome was not the sovereign ruler of France or England or any other states that co-existed, but more of ceremonial ruler of the world that the west recognize. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.169.222.234 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Deletion of an inaccurate map

The accuracy of "ChineseTributaryStates.png"(above) made by 24630 is suspected. Moreover, according to mapmaker's comment, he doesn't include Qing dynasty in Imperial China. So, I've deleted that map for following reasons.

  1. Imperial China, not limited Han Chinese Empires, must include Qing Dynastay assimilated into the Chinese culture.
  2. What does mean "Core" Chinese Empire(green. named by mapmaker)? And is it made on the base of reliable source derived from academical research? The boundary and definition of core always are controversial.
  3. Territories that were under the direct adminstration of the Chinese Empire(light green)is not accurate, too.
  4. Reliable source needed 2SteamClocks 12:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's Status

It should also be noted that Japanese shogun engaged in tributary relations with the Chinese court. Many corresponded with the Chinese Emperor under the name "King of Japan."

But Japanese Emperor (the top of the nation) didn't. Ashikaga did. This point should be clarified. If not, Chinese surrounding countries in China has to be written as China. China paid tribute for Imperial China?? That is Strange. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about tribute paid by China to other powers ?

In the case of T'ang-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, should we not accept them as evidence of China's vassalage? Mortimer

And what about the China's tirbutes paid to the Xiongnu after Han was defeated by Modu chanyu? On the other hand, what is the purpose of this page? With the same success, a page "List of tributaries of Russia", "List of tributaries of Mongolia", etc. etc. etc. can be created. Gantuya Eng.

we already have an article for that, and the reason we have an article for this is because china is the only country thaat had a tributary system, not when some ruler just came over and asked you to pay up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.77.75 (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and btw, zero countries paid tribuite to russia...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.77.75 (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo as a tribute state

THIS SECTION NEEDS MASSIVE CORRECTION.

1) KORGURYO KINGDOM, BALHAE KINGDOM ( TWO KOREAN KINGDOMS TERRITORY EXPAND NORTHERN KOREA TO MANCHURIA/RUSSIA REGIONS). TWO KOREAN KINGDOMS FOUGHT THE CHINESE. KORGURYO KINGDOM AND BALHAE KINGDOM WHERE NOT CHINA TRIBUTARY STATE. WIKIPEDIA INFORMATION IS WRONG. YOU GUYS NEED TO DELETE KORGURYO, BALHAE, BAEKJE BEING TRIBUTARY STATE TO CHINA.

CHOSUN DYNASTY: 500 YEARS HISTORY: DURING CHOSUN DYNASTY KOREANS ADOPTED CHINESE CONFUSCIOUS CULTURE BUT DON'T EVER EVER FORGET. DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME. KOREAN KING SEJONG INVENTED " KOREAN ALPHABET" AND KOREAN WRITTEN LANGUAGE WERE BORN.

KOREA AND CHINA HAD WARS AND TRADE. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT KOREANS OR NATION OF KOREA WAS CHINA TRIBUTARY. DURING 5 THOUSAND YEARS OF KOREAN HISTORY IF KOREA WAS CHINA TRIBUTARY TO IMPERIAL CHINA. KOREANS MUST EAT AND BREATH CHINESE CULTURE. BUT IN REALITY CHINESE OR CHINA THEMSELVE WHERE TRIBUTARIE TO MONGOLIANS AND MANCHURIAN EMPIRES.

LETS NOT FORGET MONGOLS ( GHENGHIS KHAN) RULES CHINA, MANCHURIANS RULED CHINA FOR THOUSAND OF YEARS. EVEN THOUGH TWO ALTAIC GROUPS PRETTY MUCH LOST LANGUAGE AND CULTURES. KOREANS ARE ONLY ALTAIC GROUPS IN NORTHEAST ASIA THAT HAS LANGUAGE, CULTURE, NATION, ETHNIC IDENTITY AS KOREAN PEOPLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1manchuria (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Goguryeo and various other Korean kingdoms certainly were not tributaries of China. The sources used are Chinese sources, which obviously state Goguryeo as a tributary state, which makes this POV. I think Goguryeo and Unified Silla should be taken off the list. Good friend100 02:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is easier to mold the history into the Chinese template under pretext of using ancient sources. Those sources are solely Chinese. Hope there will be time, when history will be freed from the template. Gantuya Eng

This subject should be remove as not only they are not accurate and also deeply offending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.184.8 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG. both states paid tribute to china, see goguryo controversies article.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.77.75 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the above comment, the sources indicating this aren't completely Chinese. The Samguk Sagi, a Korean source, indicates this as well. Here's a version translated into English by the University of Hawaii. The book indicates pretty regular tribute missions. An example from book 20:
  • King Yŏng’yang (590-618)
    • Year three (592), spring, first month, a tribute mission was sent to Sui.
    • Year eight (597), summer, fifth month, a tribute mission was sent to Sui.
    • [Emperor of Sui threatens to invade, king apologizes]
    • Year eleven (600), spring, first month, a tribute mission was sent to Sui.
  • King Yong'nu
    • Year two (619), spring, second month, a tribute mission was sent to Tang
    • Year six (623), winter, twelfth month, a tribute mission was sent to Tang.
    • Winter, twelfth month, a tribute mission was sent to Tang.

And so on. --Yuje (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

106 AD

Hopefully we can prevent an edit war. The sources states:

From 75 BC until about 106 AD the governors of a small military prefecture of the Chinese Han dynasty, named Xuantu, engaged Koguryo leaders in a client relationship...

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote emphasized only on Han - Gaogouli relations. Keep in mind there was also tribute to Tang.
For example, Samguk Sagi (Korean primary source):
Year fifteen (656), summer, fifth month, iron fell like rain. Winter, twelfth month, envoys were sent to Tang to offer congratulations to the imperial crown prince. [1]
Assault11 00:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If User:Good friend100 doesn't have a problem with this new evidence, then feel free to edit. I know you and he have had disputes about other articles, so please be patient and give him time to respond. Let's avoid an edit war. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current version by HongQiGong seems fine. Cydevil38 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still not convinced, here's a secondary source to confirm it:

Peace was maintained with the Koguryo after they sent tribute to the Tang in 619 until the Tang vassal state Silla complained that Koguryo and Paekche attacked them in 643. [2]

I believe this is an open-and-shut case. It is quite clear that Gaogouli maintained a centuries-long tributary relationship with the successive Northern Chinese Dynasties. Assault11 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, it says that Throughout Koguryo’s existence as a state, its kings typically engaged Chinese leaders in warfare rather than as allies
I have mentioned this several times already and I am positive that my logic has more weight then your claims. Goguryeo had endless wars with many Chinese dynasties and it doesn't make sense that Goguryeo would give money to its enemy.
And your source seems to be very poorly written. Silla was not a "Tang vassal state". It is an obvious bias against Goguryeo. Good friend100 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So should we try to come up with a compromise here? or are supporters of both sides of the argument pretty adamant on using their versions? Personally I'm neutral. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise? Are you kidding me? Good friend100 has a very narrow knowledge of the historical texts presented, he even rejected the primary Korean source Samguk Sagi as "Chinese POV". He has so far provided NOTHING that disputes the facts presented by the historical text. He is not disputing the facts presented - mostly because there is absolutely no ambiguity with regards to this excerpt - he's attacking the source itself.
I have also provided a secondary source confirming tributes sent to Tang. Again, he does not dispute the facts presented, but starts ranting on about how "powerful" Gaogouli was becoming (his reference to Mark Byington's article does not support what he claims). What he ignores completely is the fact that Gaogouli was a mere third-rate Tang peripheral state that was in no position whatsoever to threaten Tang's overlordship in the region. Given the fact that Tang was arguably the most powerful Chinese dynasty in history, its not hard to think that a kingdom like Gaogouli would also be one of its tributaries. Oh, and by the way, Unified Silla was a Tang vassal (see Gaogouli talk page). Assault11 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems like you are POV, accusing me of making funny claims while they are not what I meant. Saying personal opinions don't help here.
And if you are so proud of what you are saying, request a move to Gaogouli since you justify everything you do. Good friend100 00:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Maybe you guys should wait till the Goguryeo issue is finally settled before you hash this one out. That dispute keeps spilling over to other articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it says here that Throughout Koguryo’s existence as a state, its kings typically engaged Chinese leaders in warfare rather than as allies.
Throughout Koguryo's existence. I made my point and I believe it is sufficient enough and you have not given me any explanation as to your poor sources and my logical explanation. Good friend100 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously both of you have points that you want included in the article, so how about we try to come up with a version of the text that'll satisfy both of you? I'll try to think about this more later. Right now I have to get offline. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sources? Mind you that your favorite author of all time, Mr. Byington himself relies on these "poor sources" for his research. Your quote does not contradict the fact that Gaogouli was a tributary of Tang. Assault11 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byington uses the Samguk Sagi? Good friend100 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? That he "magically" makes up random history out of nowhere? No. All his works must derive their conclusions from primary works like Xin Tang Shu, Jiu Tang Shu, Samguk Sagi, etc. Assault11 01:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make up funny claims unless Byington writes that he uses these sources. Stop making your own personal claims that "Gaogouli was a tributary of Tang" unless you have a source. Your comments obviously show that you have a POV intent to make sure Goguryeo is shown on Wikipedia to be Chinese. Good friend100 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Samguk Sagi: "Byington, Mark E. "Samguk Sagi Volume 48 Biographies Book 8". Transactions of the Korea Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 67 (1992):71-81." (Translations in Western Languages)
I'm just not going to bother anymore. Assault11 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how about this as a compromise? Change this:

  • Tributary relations effectively ended in 106 AD

To this:

  • Goguryeo typically engaged China in warfare, but have also paid tribute to it at certain periods of time.

Then append all the necessary sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HongQiGong, technically that definition could apply to a significant portion of those listed already and is completely unnecessary. Refer to the Gaogouli talk page here [3] from a neutral Korean editor. Assault11 05:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about we put some text at the top of the article to explain this then? Something to the effect of:
  • This is a list of states or nations that have, at periods of time, paid tribute to China. However, they may not have paid tribute to China throughout their entire existence.
We can also add, either in combination or alternative to having the above text, the specific time periods that a state like Goguryeo actually did pay tribute to China - assuming this is not difficult to find and we can agree to the dates. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Let's make a list of over 200 tributes just for kicks. Assault11 05:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're being sarcastic. But keep in mind that WP is a collaborative space, and I certainly don't expect only the few of us involved in this discussion to completely flesh out the article. However, there's a dispute here concerning specifically Goguryeo, and I don't think it's unreasonable for us to try to come up with some specific year periods that Goguryeo actually paid tribute to China. Now, we know from the original source that it paid tribute from 75 BC to 106 AD. In what period do your sources say that it paid tribute to Tang dynasty China? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) Sorry, I'm taking a class on Korean history right now, so I thought I would chime in. Based on my source (Sources of Korean Tradition Vol. 1), it would be best to say that Koguryo was influenced by China culturally, but not exactly a tributary state, especially later on. China may have considered them as such, but I don't see any evidence of them actually going to pay tribute. Also, it would be wrong to say that Silla was a tributary state of China either, in my opinion. They were Tang China's ally prior to the Unified Silla period, but then got into a dispute with China when China built encampments in territory that they had promised to give to Silla. However, they avoided direct conflict with China because Koguryo acted as a buffer who fought with China. Certainly, every state that makes up modern day Korea was influenced by China culturally, but I'm not sure that they ever went and paid tribute to China.--Danaman5 06:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have sources that say the contrary though, that the states that eventually make up Korea today have paid tribute to China. I guess the specific dispute here is to what extend and for what periods of time Goguryeo actually paid tribute to China. And most definitely, Goguryeo have often fought with China, and I think we can safely assume that during times of war or unfriendly relations, Goguryeo did not pay tribute to China.
Also one thing that should be clarified about how imperial China conducted foreign relations - basically the only way for a foreign nation to maintain a friendly working relationship with China was to pay tribute to it. They were quite arrogant. But some of these tributary relations did essentially function like trade relations, because China also regularly sent "gifts" to its tributaries in the forms of books, writings, and other cultural commodities. This actually contributed quite a bit to the spread of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism in East Asia. One thing to note is that many of the states in the peripheral of China's borders actually emulated this method of conducting foreign relations with their weaker neighbors. I am by no means an expert on the subject of imperial Chinese tributary relations, but of what I've read, it's pretty interesting. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says in Byington's paper that Goguryeo did pay tribute sometimes throughout its rule and China claims that this makes Goguryeo a tributary state and therefore Chinese. However, he explains that although Goguryeo sent gifts and other goods to China, China did not have any control over the governing body of Goguryeo. Good friend100 13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think China had any control over the governing body of any of its tributaries. They wouldn't be in tributary relations if China was directly controlling the state. Functionally speaking, most of what these tributary relations meant was that the tributaries sent tributes, China sent gifts and granted titles, and they sometimes helped each other out militarily. And China might have affected the foreign policies of its tributaries. But as far as I know, that's how these tributary relationships worked on a functional level. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Qi Gong's point shows why a list like this is hard to write. Even if a relatioship between China and another state was mutual and bilateral, China usually still thought of the other state as a tributary, because, well, China in Imperial times was rather arrogant.--Danaman5 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, according to Korean primary sources like the Samguk Sagi, states like Gaogouli and Silla acknowledged their tributary status below Tang. Anything perceived to suggest otherwise would be regarded by the Tang as "insults." In short, both sides already know their place in the Tang world order. Assault11 00:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When is this block going to be lifted? Good friend100 23:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the log[4], in a few days it'll be automatically unprotected. Hopefully we can come up with a compromise by then? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chenla/Zhenla

There seems to be some confusion as to whether or not Chenla sent tributes to China. The only English-language source that I can find is hosted by geocities[5], and so I don't know if that can be considered a reliable source. Chinese-language sources (one example - [6]), on the other hand, states that Chenla (真腊) paid tribute to Ming dynasty China. But the Chenla article states that Chenla's reign ended long before the Ming dynasty. This may be a naming difference in Chinese historical texts, where the 真腊 name continued to be used long after the Chenla rulers were eliminated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the geocities source is ok. Good friend100 01:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comment

The sentence that introduces the list is imprecise: "used to pay". Doesn't say when, for how long, reluctantly, deviously, just says "used to pay." The material below the list is more valuable, including dates and more detail about the relationships, but it needs to be fleshed out. An article based on a list has limitations. This is not purely a list, or an article, but somewhere in between. It needs to be reorganized, rewritten, turned into a good article that presents all sides and if this were done, your conflicts could at least be different and more interesting, if not resolved. Undertake to improve the entry, cast your attention elsewhere in it, and the rest will follow. -Jmh123 05:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongols

As stated above, both the Golden Horde and the IlKhanate did not survive Yuan dynasty. Since the Emperors of Yuan dynasty were, in personal union, also the Great Khans of the Mongols (therefore, and only therefore, nominally superiors to the heads of the other Khanates) IMHO it is definitely necessary to show that the other Khanates explicitely meant to pay tribute to China rather than the Great Khanate if these other khanates are to be included in the list. Yaan 08:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did China exist that time as a sovereign state. Wasn't it under the Mongol yoke, which the Chinese hated as a foreign occupation and eventually overthrew it? Gantuya Eng

I think there is something wrong with the Mongol khanates section. First, both the Golden Horde and the Il-Khanate existed roughly at the same time as the Yuan dynasty, and unless some latecomers of these khanates actually paid tribute to Ming emperors, one would have to find out if they were really tributing the Emperor of China rather than the Great Khan of the Mongols. Second, the later Mongolian states are completely missing, although they even started wars to make the Ming dynasty receive more tribute missions.

Third, the tributes paid by the likes of Matteo Ricci are not mentioned. I haven't found any mention about whether he paid it on behalf of himself, or in behalf of the Jesuits or the whole catholic church, but it's still an interesting factoid Yaan 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about Ricci anymore, but some western states (Portugal, Holland, France, Russia) definitely tried to, and some succeeded in, paying tribute to the Ming/Qing emperors Yaan 08:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see any logic in the sentence: "they even started wars to make the Ming dynasty receive more tribute missions". Why should anyone fight someone else to pay something? The Mongol rulers were sending missions to the Ming court and the main purpose was the trade issue. And these missions were at times very costly for the Ming court as it had to offer gifts to each member of the mission. This way actually China paid to Mongolia for peace of its northern frontiers. After all, what's the purpose of this list? I would suggest to abolish this list as I see in this discussion, it offends many participants. Gantuya Eng

You might want to have a look into how the conflict between Esen Taij and the Ming started. For my ears, the term 'tribute' implies a loss of wealth, some kind of tax. In the case of the Ming tributary relations, this is not quite true, as you pointed out. IMO this list would be OK if it was more complete, and maybe contained some info on how the tribute system during Ming and Qing really worked. The topic is definitly notable, and I don't think, say, Holland, Portugal or Russia would take any offense being mentioned here. I have one of the sources mentioned in the refs section at home (in electronic form), and I might add some tributaries one day. Yaan 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning Holland, Portugal, France or Russia, again I can't see any logic. In order to make a nation pay tribute, I assume, you would have to fight and defeat it or at least show some threat. The Tatars needed to heavily hurt Rus in order to make it pay tribute. In what way did Ming/Qing defeat or threaten those powers? It is also worth to mention that the Chinese historians reported any diplomatic mission as a tribute paying mission in order to glorify their Empire. That's one of the reasons that China-biased sources should treated crtitically. (Imagine, today's international aid to China will be reported by future Chinese historians as tribute)
Esen increased the size of his mission to 2000 (if I remember this number correctly) against the will of the Ming court. This was a heavy burden on the Ming court. After all the Chinese emperor was shamefully captured by Esen (500,000 Chinese troops were shamefully defeated by 20,000 Mongols and Oirats). I would have a difficulty to call these relations tributary.
Esen was a "taishi" not a "taiji". Because these sound similar, they often confuse these titles. Taiji are usually from the Borjigin clan while taishis are non-Borjigins and on the feudal ladder, stand lower than the taiji. Many people confuse them. Even the actor, who played Ismail taishi in an a film, pronounces it as "taiji". Just to make it clear.
If we want to glorify Chinese imperialism, we should make every effort to expand this table. Gantuya Eng
Thanks a lot for setting me straight on taishi vs. taiji.
But no, this tribute thing is not something invented by chinese historians, it was very real in the days of the Ming,and western sources from the Ming and Qing eras confirm this. Basically, everyone who wanted to trade with China or have some other kind of international relationship had to kowtow before the Chinese emperor (or his representative?), say that one recognized the chinese emperor as the ruler of everything under the sun (or so), and give him some presents. And yes, Holland, Portugal etc seems to have done so (add.: during Qing dynasty), at least judging from Chinese sources. The English declined to kowtow at some point in the late 19th century, but IIRC in earlier missions, they had kowtowed. The chinese emperor would then acept this person or the country he represented as vassal, give him some title and some presents in return. Of course from the POV of those who paid tribute this was often just a joke they had to go through if they wanted to trade with China or just travel there for free. Maybe tribute is not the perfect word to describe this relationship, but it's the common term in literature.Yaan 09:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the title of the table should be changed "List of Diplomatic Partners in the History of China". Otherwise it gives a wrong perception to those who didn't have time to have a close look at this issue like you. Such a wrong perception may be harmful. Even I doubt whether the Han word is an exact equivalent of the English word "tribute". Gantuya eng

Hi!

I thought we had at least agreed that Esen Tayisi used to pay tribute to the Ming emperors - even during the time when the Ming had gotten tired of having to feed ever bigger tribute missions and to hand out ever more presents. In any ase, the info on WaLa and ShunYi is sourced, and I'm sure almost every western account of Altan Khan's life will mention him giving tribute to the Ming and receiving a title in return. That's maybe because westerners are working from Chinese soures, but on the other hand - just that something is not mentioned in your sources doesn't mean it didn't happen.

My impression is that to the Mongols, paying tribute basically meant a way to trade with China, or even just to receive presents, and certainly was a good occasion to be fed, entertained and shown around by the Chinese. All that with few (if any) strings attached. Certainly it didn't mean that the Ming had any real political influence on the Mongols. But that doesn't mean you can remove sourced information just because you don't like it. A better way would be to explain what's wrong with the traditional idea that Altan Khan et.al. paid tribute to the Ming.

Regards, Yaan 20:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding "receiving tribute" is a pleasant and proud experience. "Paying tribute" is a humiliating experience. But the description of the "tribute" relations of Esen and Altan seem to have pleasant for Esen and Altan and unpleasant, and maybe even humiliating for Ming. Then why should we use the word "tribute" here? It only confuses the readers. What is the original Chinese word for it after all? Is its translation as "tribute" 100% accurate? There are many words in various languages that cannot be translated exactly into other languages.
Regards, Gantuya eng 06:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what you don't understand about Chinese tributary relations. The Chinese court required all foreign powers to pay tribute if these countries wanted friendly and working relationships with China. The tributaries pay tribute, and China returned to them "gifts". For all practical purposes, it was basically a trade relation, and a lot of times there was trade imbalance in favour of the tributaries because the Chinese court was eager to show off how wealthy it was with its "gifts". Take the Xiongnu for example. At first they were reluctant to be seen as subservient to the Han Chinese, but then they quickly discovered that there was a lot of wealth to be gained from being a tributary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extract from Altan Tobchi:
Тэр сайн Алтан хаан хатуужин явж, Тангад, Төвдийн наад хязгаар дахь Андоо улс, Ширайгур улсыг эрхэндээ оруулж, Ариг Сэнхэр Чашгиб, Углубум цоорча, Исдагрин Сарандар эд гурван баатрыг барьж, алба авав. Ойрадыг довтолж Жалман төрийг алж, Жигэхэн ах эхлэн нэгэн бүлэг улсыг оруулав. Хятад улсыг довтолж, хот балгасыг эвдэн явахуйд Хятадын Тайлин хаан эмьеэж, алба татлага өгөөд, Алтан хаанд Сүй ван цол өгөв.
That Sain Altan khaan was couragious to subjugate Andoo and Shiraigur states at the proximate border of Tangut-Tibet, captured three warriors Arig Senher Chashhib, Uglubum Coorcha and Isdagrin Sarandar and collected tribute from them. He also attacked the Oirats, killed Jalman Tore, and subjugated a group of states such as Jigehen. He also invaded China and destroyed cities. Chinese khaan Tailin(g) was frightened and gave tribute and title Sui Wang to Altan khaan. Gantuya eng 00:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese term seems to be pronounced like kong (you can probably find the character at mdgb or so). Of course one should be extra careful with translations from a completely different setting, but "tribute" is the term used in western literature, and Fairbank's article on the Qing tribute system gives the impression it was already used by Jesuits in early 17th century. Yaan 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) ---------the correct term should be gong (blame it on wade-giles). Yaan 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: the Altan Tobchi (thanks for the quote!) seems to confirm that Altan Khan accepted a title from the Chinese emperor. Therefore, it seems very logical to conclude that he did indeed participate in the Chinese tribute system, i.e. also sent someone to give the Ming emperor presents. i therefore re-added Altan Khan and the Oirats. That the Mongols understood (or at least portrayed) the Ming's presents as tribute, too, is an interesting detail and probably should be added to the introduction. Yaan 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As we see that both China and the Mongols portrayed each other as "tributaries", it again supports my warning of biased sources. I would suggest to change the term "tribute" and "tributaries" because we concluded that this is a wrong term and it will give children wrong understanding. No matter how old this translation is. Why not correct past mistakes to prevent future generations from errors? Gantuya eng 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think tribute is a wrong term, only the meaning in East Asian context is different from other contexts. And it's the term commonly (always?) used! Making up some other term would probably be against some WP policy, and IMO it would also be nonsense. One might think about renaming the list from "tributaries" to "states that paid tribute" or something similar, though. Yaan 16:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already suggested my version above: List of Diplomatic (and Trade) Partners of China Historical Gantuya eng 16:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But then you'd include countries that never paid tribute, like Germany, Austrohungaria, the US...
Let's include... or abolish the table...
No no, I say China's tribute system, and by extension this list, is definitely notable. I understand you don't like the term, but as I understand that is no accepted criteria on WP. Yaan 16:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. it might be useful to have a look on WP:M. As mentioned, I probably won't be here much for the next weeks and therefore unable to take part, but maybe you can get HongQiGong or someone else to join the mediation as your opposing disputant. Yaan 16:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English term "tribute" is regularly used by academics to describe the relationship between historic China and the countries that, well, paid tribute to China. We shouldn't be doing away with this term just because one editor does not like the tone of it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a conservative term Gantuya eng 17:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are using the term October revolution to refer to the November 7th, 1917, coup d'etat though, aren't you? Yaan 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revolution (versa evolution) happens when there are sudden radical changes in the development regardless of the method. Gantuya eng 00:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to find compromise

Please try to find a compromise on this Goguryeo issue. If we are able to verify and agree on the exact years that Goguryeo actually paid tribute, can we agree on putting those years next to Goguryeo instead of edit warring over the current text that's in there? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving the problem to administrators. I am tired of his stubborness and deleting sourced information.
Note that he is also deleting warning tags [7], a violation on Wikipedia rules. Good friend100 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Britannica, Goguryeo (Koguryo) "had sent tribute regularly" to Tang until about 642.--Endroit 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo sent tribute to China, but I still disagree that Goguryeo was a Chinese vassal state because its not logical for Goguryeo to have sent tribute to China when there was war. Goguryeo was almost always in conflict with Chinese dynasties so I doubt that Goguryeo regularly paid tribute all the time. Good friend100 22:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the difference between terms like "vassal state", "send tribute", "tributary state", etc, are just English semantics that makes little difference to what these countries' relationships were like with imperial China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offering a compromised edit. I don't get how everything has to be his own way. I'm tired of this and I'm not going to waste my time doing this. Good friend100 02:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assault11, what do you find wrong with the text that you reverted to take out? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Assault11's edits, because Good friend100 has failed to show any rationale for his special treatment of Goguryeo. If the editor has no knowledge of how the Chinese tributary system worked, he shouldn't be editing this article in the first place.--Endroit 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only stating what Byington wrote in his paper. Another editor commented how this list is hard to write because what Imperial China considered as a tribute wasn't the case for another. His paper clearly says that Goguryeo was NOT a real tribute because it China had NO control over the Goguryeo government. If you even cared to read my comments above, you would know that. And if you want the link to the article, its somewhere here. I have posted the link enough times. And if you are bothered by reading the whole article, Byington's comment is near the bottom of his paper.
Please stop saying that I have no knowledge and that I shouldn't be editing the article. I find your comment insulting. STOP it. I'm not going to simply sit and watch you insult me. Good friend100 20:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly let me reiterate that I have no interest in taking a "side" in the dispute, but it's not really about how personally knowledgeable about the subject an editor is, is it? If we can reflect what our sources say, that's what's important. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by Good friend100 cited Byington as a source for "Tributary relations ended in 106 AD". This interpretation of Byington is directly contradicted by Samguk Sagi and Encyclopedia Britannica among other reputable sources. Such edits prove either a misinterpretation by Good friend100, original research, or a flat out bad-faith edit. So if it was NOT because of his misunderstanding, his edits were malicious. I'm excercising WP:GF by saying it was due to his "lack of knowledge". Now which is it?--Endroit 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says in the article that "Although Chinese histories treat Koguryo during these times as a tributary of the Chinese emperor, in reality the emperor was powerless to exercise any direct control over Koguryo or its kings (a fact clearly illustrated by these same Chinese historical works)." I don't think Byington wrote his own interpretation and I'm pretty sure he read some primary sources before writing his paper. That is why I put down that tributary relations ended in 106 AD because Goguryeo never was a tributary state after that.
I hope you can understand that, unlike other editors who insist in their own version, saying that "Gaogouli is ours, bitch". Good friend100 20:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're basically admitting to violating WP:NOR, because those were clearly your own wonds, not Byington's.--Endroit 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it off Byington's paper. Goguryeo was NOT a tributary state after 106 AD. Didn't you read my quote from the article? Good friend100 21:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear that Byington does NOT say "Tributary relations ended in 106 AD".--Endroit 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the text in the most current reversions?

  • Tributary relations continued on and off, until the 7th century AD

That's something that Endroit added but was reverted back and forth between Assault11 and Good friend100. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Good friend100 21:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then maybe we can try to move forward. But we need Assault11's comment on what problems he sees with it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endroit already pointed out the reason for my removal. There is absolutely no need to give this kingdom special treatment and creating the false impression that the tributary relationship between Gaogouli and the successive Northern Dynasties were "on and off" - at least not when this kingdom remained a tributary longer than most of those currently listed. Assault11 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you disagree with the edit that Endroit himself added? Then how about an earlier suggestion I had - to add some text at the top of the article explaining that not all of the states paid tribute to China in their entire span of existence? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that "Gaogouli is ours, bitch" clearly shows that Assault11 cannot come to a compromise with other editors. We have to find another way to bring consensus, Hongqigong. Until then, lets keep off with editing the article (well there hasn't been edit warring for a bit). Good friend100 14:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, yes. But only for reasons stated above. I would only accept a factual description if there was one to be one made. Whether or not they paid tribute for their "entire lifespan" (what do you mean by this?) is irrelevant. Take for example the Han-Xiongnu tributary relations. The Xiongnu was subject to Han suzerainty until the usurpation of Wang Mang, after which the conflict with Xiongnu was renewed. The restored Eastern Han Dynasty later brought the Xiongnu under its influence again. I suggest you do a bit more research before writing anything that is factually incorrect. Assault11 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that Goguryeo paid tribute on and off is incorrect? Do you think Goguryeo paid tribute to China during the Goguryeo-China wars? My research is enough and I have already given a source as to why Goguryeo did not pay tribute all the time. Good friend100 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assault11 - let me ask you then, what kind of text are you willing to agree to that might be a compromise with Good friend100? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good friend100, you have not provided any source. Your assertion is based on false interpretation. In essence, yes, Gaogouli remained a tributary of the successive Northern Dynasties despite occasional conflicts. As stated above, after Emperor Tang Taizong's death, Emperor Tang Gaozong's conflicts with Gaogouli was frequent throughout the 650/660s until the final Tang-Silla invasion. Despite this, Gaogouli continued to send tributes (refer above, tribute in year 656). Assault11 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to ask for this for a long time, so I'll do it now. Assault11, will you please stop using Gaogouli, and use the common term of either Goguryeo or Koguryo? Constantly using a romanization that is not very common can be disruptive to discussion where other users may not understand what Gaogouli is. Cydevil38 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another sign that he refuses to compromise anything at all. He should at least know that most editors and administrators here are disgusted with his actions. Good friend100 19:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if it irks you that much, I'll switch over to Koguryo. Assault11 23:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the purpose of this page after all? Gantuya Eng

More attempts at discussion

Alright guys, can we try to discuss again instead of revert-warring? Coming to an agreement on what the article should say is infinitely more productive than reverting each other's edits back and forth. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto my comments from the section right above... What else is there to say?--Endroit 04:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try to come up with a compromise that'll satisfy all parties? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ming Dynasty

The source of the table is, as referenced, John K. Fairbank and Têng Ssu-yü. "On the Ch'ing Tributary System." Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 6, no. 2 (1941): 135-246. A lot of names seem unclear and are only given in Wade-Giles transscription by Fairbank. I have tried to change them into pinyin, but I may have made some errors. Yaan 12:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

These lists are inherently inconsistent. And readers and (even editors) don't know what they actually mean. First of all, tributary was not state-to-state relationship, but relationship between the emperor and a ruler. Usually we don't have to make this distinction since a state was in possession of the monarch. But it does matter when a state was not centralized and more than one player got involved in diplomacy. Take Japan for instance. The emperor of Japan, who possessed Japan in theory, did never pay tribute to China. It was, say, Prince Kanenaga, who paid tribute, although he controlled only some portion of Kyushu.

To keep these lists, we must accompany them with detailed explanations:

  1. Before showing these lists, we should explain in the first place what is "to pay tribute": what kind of rituals were performed in the imperial court? How did foreign envoys behaved and how did the emperor respond?
  2. Then, explain its significance in China. Motivations behind the tribute system, both ideological and practical. Chinese scribes were trained to describe varying foreign relationships in the same ideologically-motivated format. (That's why Chinese history books are boring, and they are difficult to analyze because we have to notice what they did NOT record.)
  3. Also, we need its significance outside China. In ancient East Asia, rulers utilized tributary relationship as an external source of authority/legitimacy. I think Sadao Nishijima's sakuhō taisei theory (system of patented enfoeffments) and criticism against it should be introduced here. And the tributary relationship as a means of trade. Westerners often focus on tension between Eurpoean countries and the Manchu Qing Empire, but Esen Tayishi's case is really interesting. Japanese trade with the Ming (and the Ningbo Incident of 1523) is also notable.
  4. This kind of article tends to be overrun by Chinese logic. But other perspectives are important to note. Most non-Chinese groups did not leave their own records. Altan Khan is a notable exception. According to the Biography of Altan Khan, the Mongols considered that the Ming had offered "imposed tribute" (alba tatalγ-a) for Altan Khan. Buyanküü's short article (The Mongols in the Eyes of the Ming Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty in the Eyes of the Mongols, Bulletin of the Japan Association for Mongolian Studies 31; in Japanese) is relevant, I think.
  5. Lastly, modern Chinese re-interpretation, and its relationship with Chinese nationalism/expansionism. In China, history is not an academic discipline but a tool for political strife. So it's important to decompose current Chinese narratives into actual history and re-interpretation. I think the re-interpretation can date back to an attempt by the Qing Empire in her final years to adapt the traditional Chinese system to international law of Western origin. Korea (Joseon) was a critical case.

--Nanshu 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately I don't understand Japanese and also lack the enthusiasm and knowledge for writing more than a mere list (I could add the even more obviously case-in-point Qing tributaries, though). What about you? Yaan 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhere on my ever-increasing todo list :) --Nanshu 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

christ

What is up with you?

Are you that anti-Korean that you have to start bothering me in this article?

The article is biased (as I explained) because not all of the "entities" (seems to be a popular word), were not true tributary states with China, nor did all of them tribute to China during their entire rule. Many of them paid China for economic reasons, such as trading rights.

The article doesn't address any of that. And nor can I explain any of that since CPOV editors like Assault11 beat down what whatever they don't like until its nonexistant.

Only biased editors like you, who have an "anti-Korea" screen over your eyes, cannot see how biased this article is.

Good enough explanation? Or should I take this ridiculous fight (which you kindly decided to wikistalk and revert my edit) to third opinion or even RfC? Good friend100 03:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see paranoia. I am interested in, and have in my watchlist, quite a few related articles. Please give some examples of what exactly you have a problem. This article is mainly to do with China, I really don't see it being anti-Korean. The idea is it is a list, it doesn't go through it in great detail. Those topics you mention (such as sourced interpretations of they were tributaries really should be in their articles). —LactoseTIT 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what's the purpose of this list after all? Gantuya eng 03:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They should still be at least mentioned in this article. Not giving into a little explanation that balances a bit of the POV in this article (which gives the impression that all these states were Chinese tributaries for the entire time), is ridiculous, IMO.
I never said it should be in detail either. The article has hardly an introductory paragraph, and it already has a tag for cleaning up. I want to make this less of an article.
Oh and maybe thats the reason why your wikistalking me with me pictures. Because of your copyright paranoia. If your comment about paranoia is supposed to be an indirect insult to me that I'm paranoid, I really don't care, and it just gives me the impression that an immature person like you would bring up the subject of paranoia for a small problem like this. Good friend100 03:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gantuya eng:IMHO, the article is to list the tributary states Imperial China had. Good friend100 03:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan was tributary for China. 日本 册封

Japan was tributary for China. 亲魏倭王. 汉倭奴国王. 大明属国日本国王. not only Ashikaga Yoshimitsu but also 1596(Unified) Toyotimi recieved 册封 as Japanese King. HongKongriben (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During Ashikaga shogunate, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu and Ashikaga Yoshinori received the name 日本国王, even Ashikaga shogunate continued until 1573 though. And Japanese Emperor didn't pay tribute.
See Yuezhi, it was nomadic group but is listed w/o current country name. Other Chinese surrounding nations weren't adopted the name of China, too. Ashikaga is same.
The name in the list of Japan should be Ashikaga shogunate or Ashikaga clan.
And Hideyoshi Toyotomi refused to receive the 册封. It was only China sent envoy to Japan, BUT Toyotomi refused. That is why advanced military to China via Korean peninsula. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plese do NOT write with the point of view from China only. Or read other countries history and documents as well. If not, the article would be too assertive. Each area/nation has its own historical recognition. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ashikaga Yoshimitsu recieved 册封 as "日本国王", by china dynasty. Yoshimitsu united the Northern and Southern Court, then recieved 册封 by China. This 册封 represent to "Japan" country itself. and show China-Japan Diplomatic relation. moreover, after Ashikaga Yoshimitsu, this tributary relation succeeded. Japan recieved "日本国王印" 金印 from china.[8] it represent to China-Japan relation. Japanese try to hide this truth... Japan was tributary state of China, since Han dynasty("漢"倭奴国王). Japan paid tibute to Han, Sui, Tang(master dynasty of Japan), Song, Ming... Japan recieved 册封 by China dynasty also send tribute to China.
Conclusion, In history, Japan Recieved 册封 by China. Japan send 朝貢 to China. It is reasonable for including tributary list. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
But not whale Ashikaga shogunate or their era received 册封. There were 15 Ashikaga leaders, but only Ashikaga Yoshimitsu the 3rd and Ashikaga Yoshinori the 6th received the 册封. The 4th refused it. And Japan was not unified nation at this era. These are the reason of "occasionally". The era of Wae (倭) was also not unified.
See Gaochang (高昌) and Khotan (于闐, 和田) which are Xinjiang Uyghur in China today. Do you chage them to China, too? Isn't the area China today? But it is strange. We need details.
Conclusion, it shuld be detailed name as Ashikaga --222.144.8.172 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
declined. use country name. recieved 册封 as "日本国王". not Ashikaga himself. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If so, it is very strange.
Loulan (樓蘭) was is an ancient town nead Xinjiang Uygur of modern China.
Wusun (烏孫) were a nomadic tribe lived to the northwest of modern China.
Gaochang (高昌) was an oasis city in Xinjiang Uygur of modern China.
Yuezhi (also Yüeh-Chih, 月氏) were the people in Xinjiang Uygur of modern China.
Khotan (于闐, 和田) was also in Xinjiang Uygur of modern China.
Will you change all these to China? If so, we lose infomation in the history. Ashikaga was also the name of a shogunate and a family at that non-unified Japan. Reader need detailed information. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so silly POV. Ashikaga Yoshimitsu recieved "日本国王印" 金印 from china. They use country name "Nippon". They did not recieved 册封 as Ashikaga.Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrong. "Nippon" is the pronunciation of moden days and only western ppl use the spelling. At that era, the naming didin't exisited. It would be "Hinomoto" or something, but no proof. -218.110.182.180 (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say, In history, Japan Recieved 册封 by China. Japan send 朝貢 to China. It is reasonable for including tributary list.
Ashikaga Yoshimitsu recieved "日本国王印" 金印 from china. it represent to China-Japan country relation. he didn't recieved 册封 by himself. it represent to country. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Let's talk logically. Japan received. That why we need details like the on in China. Not only China shouldn't be treated as a special.
Nanman tribe (Three Kingdoms period)
Jiang tribe (Three Kingdoms period)
Tianzhi (天氏)
are also people in China. This is the reason Ashikaga can be in the list. We should place detailed info on Wikipedia.--222.144.8.172 (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China didn't 册封 as one person. China 册封 him as Japan country. personal(x), country(o).[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerkwheelzeon (talk • contribs) 06:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashikaga is not only personal name. Ashikaga shogunate was one political power. Can be treated as same as other people or nomadic group.
See, NOT all the name in the list are country, but some are area, people or group. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whaever bakufu or Ashikaga shogunate, They represent to Japan country itself. China 册封 to country. not one group. Recieved 册封 as 日本国王. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If so, how do we treat Chinese small nations and people? such as Loulan (樓蘭), Wusun (烏孫), Gaochang (高昌), Yuezhi (also Yüeh-Chih, 月氏), Khotan (于闐, 和田)? You seem that you wanna change Japan only. Especially in the item of Ming dynasty. Other countries has their detailed info. But you deleted and simplified Japan ONLY. You are Too Biased. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your reverting is only from the Chinese point of view. And you revise Japan only. It make lose details. But I follow the Wikipedia's rule (3 times). I will stop to revise. But only from the Chinese POV is very biased I think. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Countryname change to "Nippon". Ashikaga Yoshimitsu recieved "日本国王印" 金印 from china. They use country name as "Nippon". They did not recieved 册封 as Ashikaga Yoshimitsu. They recieved 册封 as Nippon. This list must use "Countryname." This is Point. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this revert war whilst patrolling recent changes. Stop now or you will be blocked for violating the 3RR. Discuss the matter here amicably, but reverting endlessly and making hurtful comments in edit summaries is unacceptable and if it continues I will have no choice but to report you to WP:AN/3RR. Please come to a conclusion nicely. You both seem to know what you're talking about - how about a collaboration on the article to bring it up to FA status? And better yet 222.144.8.172, why don't you register? It's free and you get many advantages. Cheers guys and play nice. :) Spawn Man Review Me! 06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I follow 3RR rule. But we lost the detailed info in the Ming dynasty item. Please revert to former info.
Japanese Ashikaga Shogunate (occasionally between 1403 and 1441) --222.144.8.172 (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ~~~~

Chola was tributary for China. 日本 册封

Chola was a South Indian kingdom, which had suzernity over the Java, Sumatra and Broneo Islands during the early centuries of the second millennium. Since China was also a key player in that region the Chola had a relationship with the Chinese Emperor of the time. They had been never a Tributary of China. Of the present day India probably parts of North east and the north eastern portion of the State of Jammu & Kashmir might have been tributaries and not calicut, kollam, chola and all. As had been the custom during the earlier times, traders from all these places would have appeared in the courts of the Chinese Emperors and have submitted their gifts. These gifts could never mean that the place they represent to be a tributary of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujithprabu (talk • contribs) 08:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

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 Imperial Chinese tributaries as a topic in itself. Each concerns only a particular tributary state or time period. The significance of this list overall is thus debatable. In addition, some of the sources, such as the About.com and the geocities Web pages, are not that reliable. Some of the content may be incorporated into articles such as China, but the notability of the rest eludes me. DXDanl (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of this article is already disputed. Good friend100 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table and NPOV

I think this article would be better presented in a table format listing Chinese name, English name, present day location, year of tribute, etc.

Also I think the would-be table should have different columns for citations from both Chinese sources, the respective tribute nation, and neutral sources (i.e. 3rd party) if available. If there is a conflict of information then it is up to the reader to determine which source is more authoritative, not us editors making disputed judgment calls. --Voidvector (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan fixed

country's name "Nippon" represents era of 1,400years.(even nowadays) in contrast, "Ashikaga Shogunate" represents 200years. I think Ashikaga Shogunate is better usage for explain it more correctly.

so, I type Ashikaga Shogunate instead Nippon(日本). if their is proof more than two people got cefeng during another era of Nippon, I will fix it again. 61.99.38.227 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits by Coconut91

Coconut91 (talk · contribs) made unconstructive edits. [9]

  • Addition: Coconut91 added descriptions found by googling the web without the knowledge of the history.
  • Deletion: Coconut91 deleted the sourced contents again.[11] [12][13] Coconut91 was blocked from editing for 55 hours for the similar edits before.[14]

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency of Korean tribute during the Ming dynasty

I reverted to once per year because that is how I understand the paper by Fairbank/Teng. To me, it seems as if neither of the two sources for "three or four times per year" made clear which time frame they meant. Yaan (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

Historiographer made a modest edit here in response to a bold edit here. The edit summary asked a provocative question which I presumed to be addressed to me?

  • diff 10:10, 15 December 2010 Historiographer (32,870 bytes) (Did you think only your sources are reliable? It is regareded as a act with reckless bravado.)

The mild answer to this question is simply "no", of course. My response to the argumentative statement is also "no", of course.

Many lines of text were affected by this edit, but Historiographer seems to question only the ones having to to with Japan. This is very encouraging because it implies that the other parts of this major change in the text were unremarkable. A quick review of this edit will show that I merely hid those parts of the list which were questionable. This edit encompassed those lines which had no citation support and which had been tagged per WP:V since October.

For greater clarity and emphasis, I reproduce the two disputed aspects of my edit here:

  • Wa (Japan) <!-- (14 tribute missions between 1st and 5th century) <ref name=TributeAndTrade>[http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C09/E0901.htm "Tribute and Trade"], KoreanHistoryProject.org. Retrieved on 30-01-2007.</ref><ref>[[Book of Liang]], [[Book of Jin]] and [[Book of Song]]</ref> these citations are insufficiently specific to serve as verification of the explicit numbers given -->
  • Japanese missions to Tang China (16 envoys)<;ref>Fogel, Joshua A. (2009). Articulating the Sinosphere: Sino-Japanese Relations in Space and Time, pp. 102-107., p. 102, at Google Books</ref> <!-- Edwin O. Reischauer (1955). ''Ennin's travels in T'ang China: Chapter Ⅲ - Kentoshi''. ISBN 9788946038141. this citation is insufficiently specific to serve as verification of a single item in a listing like this one -->

Perhaps Historiographer overlooked these words:

... these citations are "insufficiently specific to serve as verification of the explicit numbers given"

In other words,

A. the self-published tertiary source (Korean History Project webpage summary of "Tribute and Trade") does support -- but does not verify -- the undisputed fact that Japan was construed as a tributary state of China during the Ashikaga shogunate; and, this single source does not assert or suggest anything more specific
B. Wikipedia articles about the Book of Liang, the Book of Jin and the Book of Song are of interest; however, these do not verify the specific claims for which the inline citation is added; or alternately, if this was to be understood as a kind of parenthetic note, the simple chain of hyperlinks to wiki-articles does not explain
C. as a secondary source, Reischauer's book on Enin is undisputed as a reliable source, but without more, the purpose of this cite is unclear -- perhaps only a parenthetic note suggested for further reading?

In sum, these edits do not suggest "reckless bravado" ...; rather, my small contributions to the improvement of this list article are reasonable and defensible.

In other words, these are small steps in a process of collaborative editing.

  • diff 21:33, 15 December 2010 Tenmei (32,886 bytes) (→List of tributaries: Japan -- adding citation needed templates, see talk?)

I hope this clarifies that the purpose of my edits was nothing other than to improve this list article in a constructive manner. --Tenmei (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of Historiographer's edit here is made clear by the helpful edit summary:
  • diff 23:56, 15 December 2010 Historiographer (33,223 bytes) (It also considered as tribute missions by Chinese points.)
This point-of-view is credible, but the sources cited do not support the asserted claim. What these sources do support is the current version.

IMO, in the narrow context of this article, it doesn't matter whether the Japanese believed theirs was a tribute mission. IMO, it would not matter if a specific source could be cited in which the term "tributary state" were rejected or disproven by credible Japanese sources. This broad understanding is made explicit by my edit to the introductory paragraph of this section, e.g, "All diplomatic and trade missions were construed in the context of a tributary relationship with Imperial China ...."

IMO, Japan is justifiably included in a general list; however, the use of the phrase "tribute mission" is not supported per WP:V.

In other words, in order to restore the minor edit I have reverted, the only thing Historiographer has to do is to identify any one or more sources which (a) use the phrase "tribute mission" and (b) uses the phrase "tribute missions" in a way which has to do with cardinal or ordinal numbers. Do you see my point? If not, please let me try to explain it again. --Tenmei (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historiographer -- As I understand it, WP:ENGLISH deprecates the use of sources in the Chinese language. Also, WP:PRIMARY deprecates the use of primary sources in any language unless accompanied by secondary source confirmation. In other words, the significance of the wiki-policy is greater than ( ≥ ) than the bare citations which have been added, e.g.,
  • 三國志/卷30
  • 隋書/卷81
  • 舊唐書/卷199
More specifically, these cited sources refer to chapters in which the very explicit numbers of diplomatic missions sent from Japan to China are not verified. Also, the adjective term ("tribute") used to characterize these missions is not verified by citations by these Chinese cites.
  • For example, I have posted a specific source citation which verifies that two diplomatic missions were sent from Japan to Sui China in 607 and 608; however, there is not yet an adequate verifying support for six missions. There is no way for anyone to verify when were the other four missions were reported to have been received in the Sui court?
This minor discrepancy doesn't need to be a problem.
  • Any lingering uncertainty can be easily resolved by simply identifying any reliable source in English which informs a claim that six missions from Japan were reported to have been received in the Sui court.
  • Other questions can be set aside by referencing any reliable source in English which informs the claim that a specific number of "tribute" missions were reported to have been received in the Chinese Imperial court during the Sui Dynasty? the Tang Dynasty? the Ming Dynasty?
Do you see my point? If not, I will try to explain again in different words.
Please supplement these primary sources in Chinese with verifying citations from one or more secondary sources in English. --Tenmei (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ancient sources were undeniable evidence than any modern books because it contained objective fact. Your sources are many omissions a some mission factor ― for example ― the number of times of Kenzushi missions' dispatched. Furthermore, It is too long translate into English. Thus, You saying in English sources also not find with any translation. The Modern books also stand on the basis of these ancient sources. Please reading a original sources closely and not doubt these one.--Historiographer (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bertport -- I concur in your reasoning in your edit here. However, I need help in understanding the other one of your edits here. IMO, this last single edit is appropriately reverted. This is because the sourcenotes in Chinese add something useful and relevant. However, I also believe that these are insufficient verification for (a) the specific numbers of missions Historiographer wants to assert; and for (b) the specific designation as "tribute" missions. Although I have tried to explain, it seems clear that this nuanced viewpoint is neither understood nor considered by Historiographer.

How can we work collaboratively?

Historiographer insists on using a single source in Chinese without pairing the citation with one in English. This problem persists despite my attempt to engage a discussion based on the WP:Use English policy. I don't know how to handle this in a more constructive manner.

Bertport -- Can you offer any suggestions about an alternate approach? --Tenmei (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite does not verify asserted "facts"

To Historiographer

The sources you cited do not support the "facts" you want to claim are valid and verified or "true". Expressed in algebraic terms, "x does not equal y", e.g.,


To anyone who will try to help
This is the smallest dispute possible, but the pattern or strategy is encountered again and again. It is a recurring problem, not solely an issue limited to this article or this sole contributor.

Some very small edits of Historiographer are disputed because there is no obvious linkage between the explicit facts asserted in three phrases and the citations offered in support of those three phrases.

Despite repeated invitations to discuss this problem, no follow-up exchange of meaningful points-of-view has developed.

  1. IMO, the level of Historiographer's English language skills is one of the core issues.
  2. IMO, the other component of a problem which recurs across a range of articles is counter-intuitive: Wiki-policy effectively encourages and endorses Historiographer's non-responsive strategy of serial reverts. Wiki-policy effectively disfavors the attempt to explain and engage discussion.
With regret, the fact-of-the-matter is that lessons learned the hard way argue that Historiographer's strategy works well -- to the detriment of our goals of academic credibility. This strategy is effective in this small context and it has proven workable in larger and more complicated contexts as well.

In addition, WP:TLDR renders WP:Use English and WP:Consensus and WP:Verifiability unimportant, irrelevant, useless.

I copied an illustrative example from a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability seems on-point in two related comments:

A. here → AaronY explains: " I guess what I'm saying is that its obvious to me if Bill Clinton attends a softball game in Peoria and it makes the local paper it doesn't merit inclusion in his article, even though technically this guideline says that it does."
B. here → Blueboar explains: "If no reliable sources verify Clinton's attendance at the softball game, we may not mention it (even if his attendance is "true"). If reliable sources verify his attendance then we may mention it... but that permission does not mean we must mention it."
However, the investment of time in trying to present this problem in different words is almost pointless. All experience with Historiographer provides no reason to expect a constructive response.

The question becomes these:

  • What is to be done in this specific article?
  • What can be deduced and applied in similarly patterned contexts? For example, this problem is a distillation of unresolved issues which were discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. Teeninvestor has withdrawn from Wikipedia; and with this gesture, he rejected those voices arguing that the sources he cited did not support the "facts" he wanted to claim as valid and verified or "true". This was an unsatisfactory outcome.
Who can help convert this thread into something constructive? --Tenmei (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
level of my English language skills? Didn't you know about WP:NPA policy? First of all, You must learn about treating a person with consideration manners before Cites verification. It's also ludicrous that the ancient records are not present each time tribute missions. If I show an all of the Japanese tribute missions' records, so many cites are needed. It is at least better evidence than your Western books.--Historiographer (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tenmei is showing great courtesy and consideration toward Historiographer. It is clear that Historiographer has a severely limited ability to communicate in English. This is a relevant fact, not a personal attack. I don't know if his limited English is the principal obstacle to constructive resolution of this editorial dispute. I think his English is probably good enough for him to understand Tenmei's points, but he is unwilling to acknowledge them. I think he is displaying persistent ideological battleground attitude. He could be reported for edit warring, or this matter could be taken to dispute resolution. It may seem heavy handed to crank up this machinery over the minor content involved, but a user who engages in this kind of behavior here is likely to be doing more of the same later and elsewhere, and the minor matters add up to a more significant degradation of the encyclopedia. Bertport (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed those controversial numbers as they are insufficiently discussed here. Please continue discussion to establish consensus. Side note: Tenmei mentioned WP:Use English but it is for titles. For citaions, see WP:CITEENG. --Kusunose 02:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Primary source is not acceptable especially if it is the ancient sources. They require scholarly research of background. Many Korean scholars reject five king of Wa reigned Korean peninsula as described in Book of Song. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Various China-related articles in Wikipedia adopted an ancient sources. You and the other Japanese users utilized the sources when it is needed, and keep status at a distance when it is no longer advantageous. Don't remove the original links, and I also added some English books, "The Cambridge History of China" and "The Cambridge History of Japan", and cite about Japanese history. I don't understand why did you behave this.--Historiographer (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Material that does not come from a “published scholarly source from an academic press” should be removed. Bertport (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

}Historiographer -- Please review the following examples which are already included in the "Notes" section of the article. The specific citation format conforms to WP:CITE; and in these instances, an excerpt explicitly shows how the cited work supports the article text. The unconventional specificity is provided in order to avert unwanted controversy; and these notes are good examples of collaborative editing, e.g.,
  • Note 3: Wang, Zhenping. (2005). Ambassadors from the islands of immortals: China-Japan relations in the Han-Tang period, pp. 4-5 at Google Books;
excerpt, criticizing "the western tributary theory, which sees the world only from the viewpoint of the Chinese and overly simplifies the intricate domestic and international situations ...."
  • Note 12: Yoda, p. 40. at Google Books;
excerpt, "... King Na was awarded the seal of the Monarch of the Kingdom of Wa during the Chinese Han dynasty, and Queen Himiko, who had sent a tribute mission to the Wei Dynasty (third century) was followed by the five kings of Wa who also offered tribute to the Wei. This evidence points to the fact that at this period Japan was inside the Chinese tribute system ...."
  • Note 19: Yoda, p. 40. at Google Books;
excerpt, "... Japanese missions to the Sui [Dynasty] (581-604) ... were recognized by the Chinese as bearers of imperial tribute ...."
  • Note 23: Yoda, p. 40. at Google Books;
excerpt, "Japanese missions to the ... Tang Dynasties were recognized by the Chinese as bearers of imperial tribute; however, in the middle of the ninth century -- the early Heian Period -- Japan rescinded he sending of missions to the Tang Empire. Subsequently Japan conducted a flourishing trade with China and for the next five hundred years also imported much of Chinese culture, while nevertheless remaining outside the tribute system."
  • Note 29: Kwak, Tae-Hwan et al. (2003). The Korean peace process and the four powers, p. 100. at Google Books;
excerpt, "The tributary relations between China and Korea came to an end when China was defeated in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895."
  • Note 30: Korea Herald. (2004) Korea now, p. 31;
excerpt, "The Chinese also insist that even though Goguryeo was part of Chinese domain, Silla and Baekje were states subjected to China's tributary system."
  • Note 31: Seth, Michael J. (2006). A concise history of Korea, p. 64 at Google Books;
excerpt, "China found instead that its policy of using trade and cultural exchanges and offering legitimacy and prestige to the Silla monarchy was effective in keeping Silla safely in the tributary system. Indeed, the relationship that was worked out in the late seventh and early eighth centuries can be considered the beginning of the mature tributary relationship that would characterize Sino-Korean interchange most of the time until the late nineteenth century."
  • Note 33: Kwak, p. 99. at Google Books;
excerpt, "Korea's tributary relations with China began as early as the fifth century, were regularized during the Goryeo dynasty (918-1392), and became fully institutionalized during the Yi dynasty (1392-1910)."
  • Note 34: Clark, Donald N. (1998). "The Ming Dynasty 1368-1644 Part 2". The Cambridge history of China, Vol. 8 p. 280;
excerpt, "Between 1392 and 1450, the Choson court dispatched 391 envoys to China: on average, seven each year.".
  • Note 35: Kang, David C. (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute, p. 59;
excerpt, "... thus, between 1637 and 1881, Korea sent 435 special embassies to the Qing court, or an average of almost 1.5 embassies per year."
Historiographer -- In contrast, you only provide a hyperlink to the title of an ancient Chinese book. The purpose of WP:CITEENG is to emphasize the relationship between the Chinese source and the co-called "fact" which it is presumed to support.

Does this help you to see the problem in a fresh perspective?

What more can we do together to resolve this? --Tenmei (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2011

Any response? Then I will revert the last Historiographer's (Aocduio's) edit. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I'm already added various English source, and ancient sources are also adopted in various China-related articles. Tenmei's recent comments point out about the Korean tribute missions. However, it have nothing to do with Japanese tribute missions to China. This is where I tell you is Japanese tribute missions, not Korea. Please, don't cloud the issue, and seeing my edits carefully.--Historiographer (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good step in process of collaborative editing

Historiographer -- Please accept my apology for not responding to these two diffs sooner:

  • diff 11:21, 24 January 2011 Historiographer (39,397 bytes) (Various China-related articles in Wikipedia adopted an ancient sources. Don't remove the original links, and I also added some English source that you’d like)
  • diff 12:03, 24 January 2011 Historiographer (39,468 bytes) (Undid revision 409744070 by Phoenix7777 (talk), See talk. You don't disregard not only ancient sources but modern one)

Yes, your recent edits at Japanese missions to Sui China are a good step in our process of collaborative editing. It is important to highlight and applaud this good step. For example, Note 21 does provide specific excerpt sentences from specific cited sources. As you know, our list includes Japanese missions to Sui China (5 tribute missions), and it is followed by four citations:

  • Note 19. Yoda, p. 40. at Google Books; excerpt, "... Japanese missions to the Sui [Dynasty] (581-604) ... were recognized by the Chinese as bearers of imperial tribute ...."

This is encouraging. This is a good step in a collaborative editing process. --Tenmei (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 泰始初，遣使重譯入貢。Book of Jin, vol. 97

Italy

I think that the reference to Italy really means the Holy See, since there was no indipendent state named "Italy" in 1818. Lele giannoni (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robes were bestowed on tributary vassals by the Ming dynasty

http://books.google.com/books?id=xIh0u1tw4R0C&pg=PA121&dq=Malacca+ming+prestige+robes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z9DiUt7RBqXgsASdrILoCA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Malacca%20ming%20prestige%20robes&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=E6MLAAAAIAAJ&q=Malacca+ming+prestige+robes&dq=Malacca+ming+prestige+robes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z9DiUt7RBqXgsASdrILoCA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ

http://books.google.com/books?id=OuSsxBuALQYC&pg=PA199&dq=Malacca+ming+dragon+robes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WdDiUracONWysQSbg4GgCA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Malacca%20ming%20dragon%20robes&f=false

09:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem with numbers

I quote: "Annan (annually, every three years on average)". Since when was every three years considered to be annually? Then we have "Korea (three or four times a year; 435 embassies, 1637-1881)" That's a period of 244 years for 435 embassies so the numbers would actually average out at less than twice a year.

In addition, Great Britain was never a tributary to China. The 1793 event mentioned in the article was the Macartney Embassy which the Chinese mistakenly labelled as tribute when it was in fact no such thing. The mix up is quite famous. Thus Great Britain should not be lists. Many of the other nations listed are also dubious and lacking quality references. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading title, lack of citations

The present title if this article is misleading. It should be called something like "List of places Imperial China claimed were tributaries". Clearly many of these places never considered themselves to be tributaries and any relationship which only one party ever agreed or believed existed is more or less a fantasy.

IMO All places listed lacking a citation with reliable evidence should also be removed. Many lack any citation at all. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of tributaries of Imperial China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Tributaries of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Africa

The opening of the article currently states "This list of tributary states of China encompasses suzerain kingdoms from China in Europe, Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia."

However I can find no African countries listed in the text. Can anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbis 3 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reeks of sinophilia

please read the statement made in this page

The dynastic records enumerated several others, including even England, but these were more or less accidental. The Chinese affect to treat all countries as tributary that have once sent an ambassador to their court. In their fantastic court calendar, Portugal, Spain, Holland, England, are all tributaries. Lord Macartney's mission of 1793 was described as bringing tribute. An English account of China published in 1795, shortly after Macartney's mission of 1793, ennumerated the states tributary to China as the Kingdom of Corea, the Kingdom of Tonking, Cochin China, the Kingdom of Thibet, the Country or Kingdom of Ha-mi, and the Isles of Lieou-Kieou.

the fantastic claims made in this page is nothing but day dreaming western scholars who use too much dosage of sinophilia.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/history-tributary-states.htm 213.247.1.39 (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Requested move 8 October 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


List of tributaries of China → List of tributary states of China – I think that this title would be more appropriate as tributary can mean a lot of different things. When I type tributary into the wikipedia, I get an article regarding tributary of a river, so the current article title creats confusion. 2600:100F:B019:D5AF:4D41:B28:2196:43F0 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Goguryeo,Baekje,Silla and Goryeo were not tributary state of China

The Three Kingdoms period consists of Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla. Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla were independent countries and had never received political intervention from China. Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla used their own era names and engaged in independent politics and diplomacy.

Moreover, Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla continued to wage war with China.

Goguryeo won the war against the Sui and Tang kingdoms.

Silla allied with Tang, destroyed Goguryeo and Baekje, and won the war with Tang. Baekje was also destroyed during the war with China. As you can see, these countries maintained their status as independent countries by going to war with China.

In particular, Goguryeo attacked Manchuria and expanded its territory and received tribute from neighboring countries. The king of Goguryeo called himself the emperor, which caused a lot of friction with China.

Goryeo is also not a tributary country of China. Goryeo fought many wars with China and won.

A tributary country is a client state. However, Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla, and Goryeo paid tribute to China for economic purposes, not because they were politically subordinate or weak.

Most of the evidence that Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla, and Goryeo are tributary countries is not accurate. We need to look at the old records and the magnitude of the force at that time.


ex)Goguryeo–Sui War, 1st conflict of the Goguryeo-Tang War, Silla–Tang War, Goryeo–Khitan War Dreamkid05 (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Taizong of Tang tried to conquer Goguryeo, but he was shot by an arrow in the Siege of Ansi and fell ill. And he died of the disease. Dreamkid05 (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ex)+Korean-Jurchen conflicts Dreamkid05 (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must provide sources to back up your claims. The information that you have been reverting comes from a scholarly source titled "Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary" (https://books.google.com/books?id=vj8ShHzUxrYC&q=tribute+korea+china&pg=PA482#v=snippet&q=tribute%20korea%20china&f=false). And if you look at what the source says, on page 482, it is written "Koguryo sent 173 tribute missions the courts of both the Northern and Southern Dynasties in China, Paekche 45, and the most remote, Silla, only nineteen. In return they received eight, six, and two respectively as acknowledgement of Chinese recognition". You must provide reliable sources to back up your claims. You also left out the fact that Goryeo was invaded by the Yuan dynasty and became a quasi-vassal state of the Yuan. In Henthom's work "Korea: The Mongol Invasions", Chapter 5 is titled "Submission and Alliance". On page 150, it describes the Goryeo crown prince setting out for the Yuan court carrying gifts, and that in response to the Mongol demands, the fortified walls of Kanghwa island were demolished (https://archive.org/details/koreamongolinvas00hent/page/150/mode/2up). Akshaysmit (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla were defined as tributary sates of China for their tribute, why not England and Spain? England and Spain also paid tribute. And the kingdom of Goryeo is Mongolia, not China.

In addition, the journal submitted as evidence on this page is a journal from an inaccurate source. Dreamkid05 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, Korea was an enemy to China and never a tributary state. In Korea, a tributary state of china did not exist in ancient and medieval times. Dreamkid05 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you have provided no sources to back up your claims. I'm not sure what you mean by "the kingdom of Goryeo is Mongolia, not China". I don't recall ever saying that Goryeo is either Mongolia or China. Akshaysmit (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Suzerainty state of Goryeo is Mongolia, not China. Dreamkid05 (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ignore me. The United Kingdom sent tribute to China, but tell me why it's not a tributary country. Dreamkid05 (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't England a tributary country in China? Dreamkid05 (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The journal you've presented as evidence is an obscure and unreliable journal.


Why isn't England a tributary country in China? Dreamkid05 (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences'...plz shut down the Northeast Project. Dreamkid05 (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source used regarding Silla, Baekja and Goguryeo is a book (not a journal) titled "Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary" by scholars at Durham University (https://www.amazon.com/Korea-Historical-Cultural-Dictionary-Durham-ebook/dp/B00HDE2VXA) which does not strike me as being particularly unreliable. You have not presented a single source to back up your claims and are instead continuously removing this sourced content. Akshaysmit (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say that if you know Korea well. I've never seen such an argument in my life. It's a ridiculous false claim. The evidence you've submitted has not been certified in historiography. You don't have the authority to judge like that. This document requires the consent of Korean and Chinese historians and historians from third countries. You keep posting false information and suppressing people's freedom of information.I explained it well as an history.Go and search Goguryeo–Sui War, 1st conflict of the Goguryeo-Tang War, Silla–Tang War, Goryeo–Khitan War, and Korean-Jurchen conflicts . Korea has won all the wars with China. I'm not lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamkid05 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that the sources cited in this section are unreliable, but haven't provided any alternatives so far. This won't help to advance your claim. As for the claim that "Korea has won all the wars with China", this is demonstrably false. The state of Gojoseon was destroyed by the Han dynasty's invasion during Han's conquest of Gojoseon. Akshaysmit (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about Korea's B.C. history. We are talking about Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla, and Goryeo. As you all know, Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla, and Goryeo were victorious countries. china was a defeated country Dreamkid05 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo–Sui War(Korea won) 1st conflict of the Goguryeo-Tang War(Korea won) Silla–Tang War(Korea won) Goryeo–Khitan War(Korea won) Korean-Jurchen conflicts(Korea won)

The Tang Dynasty destroyed Goguryeo, but it was possible because of Silla's participation. After that, the Tang Dynasty was defeated by the Silla in the Silla–Tang War. And the Mongol Empire was Mongolia, not China. Therefore, the only war that China defeated Korea was the Han conquest of Gojoseon. Dreamkid05 (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla, and Goryeo are tributaries of China? That's impossible.These countries fought a lot of wars with China, but they have never been defeated by China before they were destroyed. Dreamkid05 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence you've submitted has not been certified in historiography. You don't have the authority to judge like that. This document requires the consent of Korean and Chinese historians and historians from third countries. You keep posting false information and suppressing people's freedom of information. Dreamkid05 (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remaking this article to represent each era better

I have been reading the book Day of Empire by Amy Chua and using it mostly for religious-related citations. However, after reading it, I know that articles about Chinese tributary states could be remade better.

For instance, in 1818, the naivety of the Qing Dynasty led them to mark European countries like Russia and the UK as tributaries alongside Kelantan, despite them having little to do with each other. However, if I were to cite this (which I want to), I would put it near a section about Kelantan as a Qing Dynasty tributary. But no such section exists, and most of the tributary relationships are extremely sparsely described. I think List of tributary states of China needs a major update. GoutComplex (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tributary_states_of_China&oldid=1210314244"