Talk:Tributary system of China

"and member states of the system were politically autonomous and, in almost all cases, independent as well."

The quoted source claims, "Participants and aspiring participants in Pax Sinica, nevertheless, remained sovereign entities, to the extent that they retained their autonomy and independence in conducting their domestic and ‘foreign’ affairs," which splits hairs in its semantics. Generally, "sovereign" is understood as having supreme and permanent authority, but this quote constrains that authority to an entities domestic and foreign affairs. It is unclear if the source means to claim that these entities had full, supreme authority, ie. do these entities' courts and political recognize the right or ability of the Chinese emperor to override their own autonomy?

The source suggests not, as it discusses this sovereignty in the context of "ordered (sovereign) inequality", where it asserts "the organizing principle of ordered (sovereign) inequality defined in civilizational terms makes the political and cultural order centred on Imperial China concentrically hierarchical," (I can't for the life of me figure out what the author(s) meant by "concentric" in this context, other than as an attempt to soften the terms of the relationship). Further context in the source suggests

As such, I have removed "and, in almost all cases, independent as well," as the use of independence here strongly implies a full sovereignty and supreme authority, whereas the source seems to suggest a more-so federated power. That these member states were largely politically autonomous is sufficient for describing this relationship.

Indeed, the rest of the this wikipedia article is in contradiction with the principles of true sovereignty and independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.227.72 (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I understand, the source emphasizes sovereignty in terms of "autonomy and independence in conducting their domestic and foreign affairs" because these states were nominally subordinate to China. I can see where your confusion comes from, but these semantics are simply trying to distinguish the nominal subservience that members of the tributary system held with the actual political autonomy and independence they exercised. In reality, the states were autonomous and independent. I can try and add more sources on the subject if that would help? BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Title

Could I deleted the word - "Imperial" of the title?? Because when China was not an empire, the tributary system had already been exist~! 冏 (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Blanket reversions are not allowed

So first things first, it would help if you used just your main account to edit. It doesn't help when you alternate between accounts because you want to astroturf the debate and somehow want to give the impression that there are more people than there really is who agree with your point of view. Aside from being illegal, the ruse is just very obvious to figure out based on the publicly available information.

Second these edits of yours ([1], [2]) is not allowed. I was specific in my objections to the things you restored and expect you to provide equally specific explanations in your defense. What i don't expect are blanket reversions accompanied by one-liners that somehow are intended to show how you have expert command of the issues at play. There are problems with attribution ([3], [4]) and problems with generalisms ([5], [6]) - if you can't defend yourself against these objections, then you must give way to my edits.

I ask and expect that you respond to this request to debate your reversions and will act acordingly should you fail to do so. Hamsteder (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass removal of content, especially cited sources, on wikipedia is also not allowed, yet you did not address this problem. Repeatedly deleting content and rearranging to contort to your own bias is not removal of POV, it's the opposite. If you would like to rewrite the content, that is fine, but simply deleting entire passages that are cited without clutter is not in wikipedia's best interests. Please don't mask deletion of content as some kind of removal of generality or bias. If you have material citing the opposite of the material involved, please include it.Qiushufang (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No no this is not how it works. First things first, please stop talking about other people's bias as if you are not editing with a bias. We all edit with a "bias". Second, you can't put in content that is obviously tendentious and then justify removal of that POV content as POV. It doesn't matter if that material is cited or not. Nor do I need to provide "opposing" material when removing or modifying extant material and especially not when I am removing the kind of content you want restored - that is just a criteria you made up. Again, I was very specific in my objections and I expect you to also be equally specific in your defense. There are problems with attribution ([7], [8]) and problems with generalisms ([9], [10]). If you can't defend yourself against these objections, then you must give way to my edits. Hamsteder (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Every single deletion you have made is sourced and cited. You do not have any counter arguments except that they are "generalizations". What are you sources and references to state that they are? You simply delete content saying they are "generalizations". So your statement is also a generalization in that you do not say what is or is not a generalization. Please be more specific. You can't prove a negative. 00:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)