Talk:List of recipients of tribute from China

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of recipients of tribute from China article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Those states that received tribute from China were highly depended on imports from China, espesially steppe people like Mongols. They imported many goods from China, so tributes, especially those which were paid in silver and not in commodities like silk, returned back to China through trade. So paying tribute to these states didn't effected China economically very much. I think this must be mentioned in article.78.191.91.99 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

1: If this is not a about Chinese tributary system, then why state (the Chinese tributary system is merely a “trade relationship”)

2: Your statement is not even true. China did receive “real tributes” from her neighbors.

If this is not about the Chinese tributary system. I suggest you to remove your statement rather than contradicting yourself.

“The entities above received tribute from the Chinese court” would be more appropriate.

As you suggest, this is not about chinese tributary system. I would suggest to cease mentioning it altogether. Or else add the below statements if you want to mention what the chinese tributary system is.

James collins123 09:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To prove that the chinese tributary system is not merely a trade relationship, Here is an example:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:0aFB0w3XCUQJ:www.siiaonline.org/scm/articles/china_revives_tributary_system_in_regional_ties.pdf+chinese+tributary+system&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk

The Chinese "tributary system" was not merely a trade relation, according to the publication, royal Qing archives showed that this well-established system laid out a very meticulous system of tribute to the Chinese court. Under this system, Korea had to pay tribute once a year. The Ryuku Kingdom(comprising present-day Okinawan islands) had to do so once in two years; Annam(northern Vietnam) once in three years; Siam (Thailand) once in four years; Sulu (in the southern Philippines) once in five years; and Burma (Myanmar) and Laos, once every 10 years. The publication even calculated the number of times these kingdoms had effectively paid tribute to Beijing from 1662 until the early 1900s; it also listed some of the tributes given, for example elephant tusks (ivory) from Siam and precious stones fromBurma. This well-established system was set up by Beijing to underscore the centrality of the Chinese emperor to the Asian region. Japan became the first to upset it when in 1895 it defeated China and forced Beijing to grant independence to vassal-state Korea, besides annexing the Ryukus.

James collins123 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chinese tributary system is to ask for submission of the tributary states, For example:

The Chinese Tributary system is a submission to the Chinese state. For example, the tributary system operated in its fullest form in the Qing treatment of Korea. The Korean court used the Chinese calendar, sent regular embassies to Beijing to present tribute, and consulted the Chinese on the conduct of foreign relations. The Qing emperor confirmed the authority of the Korean rulers, approved the Korean choice of consorts and heirs, and bestowed noble ranks on Korean kings. The Korean envoy performed the kowtow (complete prostration and knocking of the head on the ground) before the Qing emperor and addressed him using the terms appropriate to someone of inferior status.[1]

James collins123 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James.

I know that was contradicting. But that sentence was added by another editor, so I didn't dare to remove it. However, since this article is not about the Chinese tributary system, now I have removed it as you advise together with your discussions about that system. Your discussions would be more useful in the parallel article "List of tributories of Chinese tributery system". Thank you for your contributions. :) Gantuya eng 11:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet

I'm surprised the line about Tibet has been allowed to stay as long as it did. Without any citation, it gives me no reason to believe that the tribute system with Tibet was any different than any other.

"in the case of Tang-era China/Tibet trade, each side routinely described the trade goods which it received as "tribute," and those which it exported as "gifts." If such accounts are to be admissible in terms of showing Tibet to have paid tribute, they also should be accepted as evidence of China's vassalage"

By that logic, we would have to include every single kingdom that China has ever received tribute from, since it was customary for the Chinese Emperor to give a gift to tributary kingdoms to reflect the "greatness" and wealth of the Dynasty. For it to actually count as true vassalage, there must be agreement on both sides. China's tributary kingdoms acknowledge themselves to be tributary kingdoms, and China records receiving tribute. I have yet to see any evidence provided that China acknowledged themselves to be paying tribute to any ruler of Tibet, nor have I seen any evidence providing that Tibet even claimed that China was a tributary kingdom.

Here is the removed text:

Tibet during Tang Dynasty: in the case of Tang-era China/Tibet trade, each side routinely described the trade goods which it received as "tribute," and those which it exported as "gifts." If such accounts are to be admissible in terms of showing Tibet to have paid tribute, they also should be accepted as evidence of China's vassalage.^{[citation needed]}

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.128.231 (talk • contribs) 2007-11-01T07:33:57

It's good that China received tribute from so many kingdoms. But it did pay tribute too. It usually didn't record itself paying tribute, to preserve the image of a great Empire. In many cases the tribute was veiled. It was so shy of its having to pay. Even Rus paid tribute to the Tatars. And Russia isn't shy acknowledging that. "Yes we paid, so what?" is the principle. But China is shy. Gantuya eng 02:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get China not recording herself paying tribute? China did have records of herself paying tributes. The Han dynasty recorded paying tribute to the Huns etc... and so on. Look at the old historical chinese records, give me a source that says China hides ALL of her own history when it comes to paying tribute. The Han records of Sima even criticise the founder of the Han dynasty and the Han emperors allowed it to be a official history and did not execute Sima. A large amount of historians view chinese sources (especially as late as the Tang Dynasty) are one of the most reliable history compare to other historical sources around the world (i.e european sources of history). Your assumption that China did not account herself paying tribute is not true.

In anyway, you can not assume China never record herself paying tribute therefore she did. You need proof saying China did.

James collins123 14:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take off tibet until there is an english source providing a solid proof stating Tang China paid "real tribute" and "claim vassalage" to Tibet. After studying Far East Asian history I have never heard Tang China claim vassalage to any kingdoms but the other way round. Far as i know Tibet and Tang Dynasty China has a trade relationship. I have not found a source saying Tang Dynasty paid tribute to Tibet yet. I am very sure China did not claim as a vassal to Tibet. We should be only allow to use English source to prevent unverified claims in ENGLISH VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA. I would be satisfied if there is a reputable english source that says so.

If you have no english source saying so. Then leave Tibet out because it would be a false statement if there is nothing to proof or back up.

Thank you James collins123 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source that say China in 763 have failed to pay, which Gantuya eng claim China paid tribute has rendered void.

In the year 763, China failed to pay tribute to Tibet due to the advent of a new emperor. ----> Tibet (China) By Charles Bell http://books.google.com/books?id=RgOK7CgFp88C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=china+paid+tibet+tribute&source=web&ots=Pw060W42Vh&sig=-ijhwhDfIB2cG4eGrhgt2EOb3zw

Therefore, I will remove the recipient that Tang China paid tribute to Tibet. Thank you James collins123 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, James collins123. Thank you for your comments. But why do you think that only English language references are only true and non-English sources are not reliable? Do you mean if I write a thesis in Chinese I won't be allowed to use any English source and vice-versa? Where is it stated that only English sources tell the truth and non-English sources lie? Gantuya eng 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said other foreign sources are not true. But it cannot be proven for english readers, read what i said:

1. Non english sources can only be valid unless there is an official translation of the source (for example: the Iliad from an english translation of the original Greek). Remember, this is English Wikipedia not Russian. English readers can not verify the source nor proof the statement from non english sources. The lack of ability to proof from readers will make the statement untrue. That would simply mean I can make any claims to anything as long as I use some language that the readers do not understand.

2: Translation from google can not be accurate. It is simply a computer animated translation that can not interpret the real meaning of the source. Russian Language translating to English makes it even less accurate.

I have provided solid evidence (above, Tibet (China) By Charles Bell) China did not pay tribute to Tibet due to the advent of the new emperor. In this case, let's leave it to other moderaters to handle this. James collins123 17:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete it when it has English and Russian references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gantuya eng (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The accuracy of a source isn't judged by whether it was translated into the American language or not.

2. Nobody has said that Google translation is accurate. It's not for translation of Pushkin, of course. But it can be used to understand the meaning of a text if the reader really wants to read it. The inaccuracies of the robot translation can be rectified by the reader. The level of rectification will depend on the level of the background knowledge of the reader.

3. It's my solid belief that all languages in the world are perfect enough. There's no inferior language.

4. All-capitalization is interpreted as shouting. Gantuya eng 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1: This is not what i mean. Read again at what i said, for english wiki we need english sources in order to prove statement origins and validity. Russian sources for Russian wiki and so on. I will not explain again because i do not see why you don't understand and explaining again appears to lead to the same conclusion. We have conflicting evidence. It is better ot leave it alone for it to be clarified.

2: I did plenty of google translation but hardly does it make any sense. You clearly have not used it. It is not even about trying to understand is because you just couldn't. Russian language makes it worse because it does not have the grammer and language background like English.

3: I never said anything nor indicating anything similar like this, please don't put words in my mouth. Read again at what i said.

4: You do not seem to get the point while i was trying to point out as you repeat again and again mis-interpreting my statements (for example, see above). There is no meaning to shout but to put it simply to you by quoting the specific meaning of the sentence. If it was offensivein your eyes then i am sorry.

I will not repeat nor reply again as i have done enough saying.

Thank you James collins123 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only English sources for English WP and only Russian sources for Russian WP??? That way you'll only succeed creating completely separate and independent worlds. The Iron Curtain back again...

You can learn Russian by the way. Why not? You'll never regret. It's an extremely beautiful and colourful language. It's as colourful as the music of Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Glinka, Borodin... Very beautiful, very beautiful! Gantuya eng 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English references

1.Non-Enlish sources are as valid as English sources. It is true that they are difficult to verify for those who don't know that language. But this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used. Not every information is available in English.
2. http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en has a capability to translate from 10 languages into English. It allows to tranlsate a whole web page by providing the web address as well as selected sentences by pasting those sentences into the corresponding boxes on the screen. Gantuya eng 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Non english sources can only be valid unless there is an official translation of the source (for example: the Iliad from an english translation of the original Greek). Remember, this is English Wikipedia not Russian. English readers can not verify the source nor proof the statement from non english sources. The lack of ability to proof from readers will make the statement untrue. That would simply mean I can make any claims to anything as long as I use some language that the readers do not understand.

2: Translation from google can not be accurate. It is simply a computer animated translation that can not interpret the real meaning of the source. Russian Language translating to English makes it even less accurate.

James collins123 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 cents

WP does actually have some kind of policy regarding verifiability: WP:VERIFY. I couldn't find anything that rules out non-English sources there, just a statement that english sources are preferred, which seems quite natural to me.

Also, to me it does not seem as if vassalage is a necessary implication of paying tribute. But I am no native speaker. It is true that (formal) vassalage was usually an implication of the Chinese tribute system. But that is not what the article is about. What about the Danegeld or the taxes of the Delian League? Both seem to be called tribute in the relevant articles, and while the latter may be arguable, the former does not seem to have implied anything but military weakness. Maybe the article should make more clear what definition of tribute is referred to. -- Yaan (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I am going to say almost the same thing that I did on the talk page of List of tributaries of Imperial China. The Wikipedia general notability guideline endorses a topic "if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case, none of the sources are meant to discuss the recipients of tribute from China as a topic in itself. Each concerns only a particular recipient. The significance of this list overall is thus debatable. In addition, almost all of the sources are Web pages that are not that reliable, as mentioned in the English Wikipedia policy Verifiability. Some of the content may be incorporated into their respective articles such as Mongolia, but their notability, compared to China's concessions to the West in Modern Times, for instance, eludes me. DXDanl (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism or typo?

I'm not sure if this is merely a typo, a mistake while someone edited, or simply vandalism, but the bit on Tibet says...

Tibet: in 763 Tibetan troops approached the capital of the Tang Empire and received tribute. The agreement specified the tribute item--50 thousand rolls of silk. But it should also be noted that since Tibet was a vassal of the Tang Empire before and acknowledge it as its emperor this is useless.

I'm not familiar enough with the history of China to comfortably "fix" the mistake, nor am I entirely certain of what the person in question was trying to say. I just thought I'd bring it up since there have been cases in the past of (anti/pro)-Chinese vandalism on other pages regarding national histories. The phrasing "this is useless" doesn't appear very NPOV, nor very relevant to the article topic. Also, the jumbled sentence structure hints that a non-affluent English speaker may have used a basic translator program to convert something to English and pasted it here.

On the other hand, I may be just making mountains out of molehills.

Mongol source for qi and zhou dynasty tribute?

i question the use of a mongolian source for the qi and zhou dynasty tribute. find another source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitla Gruppels (talk • contribs) 07:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article is full of mongol sources, and one written by a NAZI WAFFEN SS officer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.78.33 (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated in the article there is Sinocentrism problem. So Chinese sources are more likely to be unreliable. Elknz (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racist attitude

Stating that Mongolian sources including the highly valued primary sources such a Altan Tobchi, Erdeny yin Tobchi and Shira Tuuji as "unreliable" while stating that non-Mongolian sources are "reliable" is a racist attitude. What 70.107.78.33 has been doing recently on Wikipedia is strange and blatant. I don't know what those Administrators are doing. Gantuya eng (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its unreliable, because the mongol sources are talking about tribute paid to mongolia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.158.150 (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a) If Mongolian sources talk about conquering China, do you think its' unrelaible too?

b) See the references of article "List of tributaries of amperial shina".

c) It seems (almost) every country has paid tribute to another country in the course of the long history of the humankind. Even it's difficult to find a country which has never experienced hardships of foreign rule, occupation and humiliation. Why should your chinese pride complex for this little article? Nobody complexes for the above mentioned article. Gantuya eng (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references for the article "List of tributaries of imperial china", were all non chinese........ and theres no such thing as a pride complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.159.250 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China did pay tribute to Mongolia. Even the Great Rus paid. Is China special or what? You can't hide the truth of history you like it or not. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A section of chinese great wall from han dynasty was found on northn mongolian border. you cant hide it whether its a piece of paper or a giant wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.159.250 (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Do you have a source so that we can check it out? Of course, this entire controversy is based not on facts but on perceptions. The reason that Chinese people find this article distasteful is because it runs counter to the Chinese self-perception that other people paid tribute to China, but China did not pay tribute to other people. It's closely tied to a Sinocentric world view. As to the validity of such a world view, well, I think we need a lot more research into how people of former times viewed themselves as against China, not merely how China viewed the rest of the world. What is being played out here, however, has little to do with how people of the time viewed things, and a lot to do with how modern nations and ethnic groups view their own history. Since history is a a kind of battleground, it's hard to expect fairhandedness and objectivity from either side.

Back to the wall. I would be seriously interested in knowing where this wall is. The existence of a wall doesn't actually mean a lot in modern-day terms. Or at least, it shouldn't. Unfortunately, there may be Chinese who are minded to claim these lands as modern-day territories based on occupation almost two millennia ago, which would be an unfortunate abuse of history for nationalist ends. Non-Chinese are equally likely to deny the existence of such a wall out of a desire to bolster their ethnic and territorial existence in history. So the wall becomes not a matter of "historical fact", but a matter of "nationalistic football".

Bathrobe (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he or she might be referring to the so-called Genghis Khan Wall, although this one is more commonly attributed to the Liao or to the Jin dynasty. Yaan (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I must stop this childish talk first so I'm unwatching this page. Please don't spoil the article too much in my absence, OK? Gantuya eng (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"its unreliable, because the mongol sources are talking about tribute paid to mongolia itself. " By this logic, Chinese claims that tribute was paid to China itself are also unreliable.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see zero chinese sources used on the artile were tribute was paid to china, great analogy by the way.Alitla Gruppels (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those lists of tributaries to the Ming and Qing in the List of tributaries of Imperial China are based on Chinese sources. At least that was my impression when I read that Fairbank paper the lists are taken from. In fact the article itself says so. Yaan (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fairbank was not used as a reference, it moved it into further reading.Alitla Gruppels (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbank's "On the Ch'ing Tributary System" was the reference. I know it because I added those nice lists over there. And yes, his sources were Chinese. Yaan (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you should have used the book reference tag then.

i have the order number and name of company of a map that potrays the wall. im going to check the number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.32 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright under international copyright union by Rand McNally

Published and printed by Rand McNally & Co. Chicago USA

Base Map and Relief representation by Freytag, Berndt and Ataria, Vienna, Austria

12183 Political Asia

The Map shows a section of the Chinese great wall in northern Mongolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.32 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 seperate walls are jutting into mongolia. actually theres a third below the one on the south mongolian border

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.32 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that wall. This is the wall mentioned in the Secret History of the Mongols. It was built during Ogedei Khaghan, who mentioned it as one of the three sins he committed in his life. He built it in order to prevent migration of games (hunted animals) to the territories of his relatives. On professional maps this wall is marked as "Wall of Genghis Khan". Gantuya eng (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mongolia is an independent country maintaining friendly relations with the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Makao and other countries. The recent provocative behaviour of the anonymous editor, who is a citizen of the PRC residing in the USA and hiding behind changing IP numbers, on the international cyberspace attempting all possible ways of humiliating the sovereign state of Mongolia, her history and people by corrupting several articles on Wikipedia, is against the interests of either of the above mentioned countries. It is politically extremely irresponsible behaviour. Gantuya eng (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal

Nepal received tribute from Tibet between the mid-1850s until 1953. Does that mean it should be included in this list, or not? I guess the answer depends a bit on whether you accept that Tibet at that time was an integral part of China or not, but maybe some kind of compromise can be figured out. Yaan (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should include only those cases when tribute was received from so called China Proper itself. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Qi and Zhou dynasties had a hybrid sino-turkic leadership, so according to your logic we should take it off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.159.250 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new introduction

I feel that the new introduction, with its references to Sinocentrism, etc., tends towards polemic and is only going to lead to an edit war. I believe that the original introduction, sparse though it was, was less inflammatory and less ideologically motived. I therefore suggest that the original introduction should be largely restored. The very existence of this article is offensive to some people and it is counterproductive to make the "anti-Sinocentrism" subtext so explicit. Drawing attention to the fact that the Chinese did pay tribute is sufficient for people to draw their own conclusions.

Bathrobe (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a bit misleading in that it cuts out the fact that occasionally, China also was coerced into accepting tribute by force and threats (as in the Tumu Crisis). Yaan (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

name one incident where force wasnt used, on the other hand, countries that paid up to china paid willingly, it always comes to force when china pays tribute to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.28 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the anonymous user please explain his/her interpretation of why countries "paid up" willingly. Since the manner of "paying up" appears to be a vital point in terms of the "legitimacy" of tribute, it would be useful to have this perspective.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, Esen Tayisi payed willingly. Even too willingly for the Ming Emperors! Of course the reasons cam ber found in any good work on the Ming tributary system, it's stuff like a free luxury trip to Beijing and plus a lot of presents. Yaan (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He he, the Ming court had to increment the size of the presents given in exchange to the Esen's "tribute" that eventually it turned out that actually China was paying to Mongolia. That's why Esen was sending "tribute" too wilingly. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you still have to kowtow to the emperor, and he won't return the gesture to you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.73.83 (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think someone should finally write a decent article on the Chinese tribute system. Then we could write an introducton that states what exactly this article is about: not about states that managed to turn around that tribute system, but about states who managed to extort payments from China (would the Boxer Protocol fit into this?) Yaan (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the triads and kings of taiwan did not recognize the legitimacy of the manchu government, it should be on a page that describes "manchu tribute". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.73.83 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteenth Century

How about the payments made by Qing China under the treaties of Nanjing, Tianjin, etc. Could they be classed as tributes? Rincewind42 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]