Jump to content

Talk:Vassal state

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which part violates the "neutral point principle" in the vassal state

[edit]

Hello, Oda Mari. Thank you for your comments. Can you tell me which part of my edit is not neutral? But I think the content you put down is indeed biased. You said the central government's troops "invaded". The term "invaded" itself is biased. Moreover, the way it describes things is inaccurate. The PRC troops entered Tibet and central government's administration was reestablished under the 17 Article Treaty 十七条协议. Later, part of the Tibet regional officials fled in 1959. But you said "PRC troops entered and forced them to flee". Your edit is biased at best and malicious at worst. Can we come back to FACT? I just added facts. Please show me concrete evidence that the facts I show was wrong. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerRat (talk • contribs) 06:27, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to en:WP. Because your addition was only the Chinese POV. The rest of the world does not think so. If you think it was not an invasion, please provide non-Chinese reliable sources in English, use the article talk page and ask for consensus to editors. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon Dear Oda Mari, I appreciate your voicing your opinions about the Tibet section in Vassal state. However, Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to constantly reverting it. Your revertion violates WP:POV. Here is some detailed evidence I collect at your request. They speak for themselves. I've highlighted the entering term in case you cannot find it.
  • History of Tibet (1950–present) says: The history of Tibet from 1950 to the present was heralded by the People's Liberation Army entering Tibet in 1950-51. The first sentence. This is a good example of neutral POV.
  • History of Tibet says: In October 1950, the People's Liberation Army entered the Tibetan area of Chamdo, defeating sporadic resistance from the Tibetan army. In 1951, Tibetan representatives participated in negotiations in Beijing with the Chinese government. This resulted in a Seventeen Point Agreement which formalized China's sovereignty over Tibet.
  • TIBETAN HISTORY: TIBET UNDER CHINA IN THE 1950s AND 60s says: Chinese forces, carrying portraits of Mao Zedong, peacefully entered Lhasa in 1950 to liberate the city. and The Dalai Lama was 16 when the Chinese entered Lhasa in 1950..
They are just the top 3 results returned from Google. None of them say it's invasion. Please stopping spoiling the article by introducing your biased POV. Out of the less than 200 sovereign nations in the world, landsliding majority recognize Tibet as part of China. I really don't know what your biased point comes from. What you insisted on the article is just the separatists sympathizers' POV, which shouldn't be put on wiki. The rest of world think it's entering instead of invasion. In case you want more evidence to refute your biased POV, Would you please to let me know? I would be happy to provide. Thank you so much. (I am also moving this to Vassal state's talk page. SummerRat (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Chamdo Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China is the correct place to discuss that topic. I added a link to that article. (in it the viewpoint of "invasion" is clearly expressed) Widefox; talk 13:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not cherry pick. Other articles Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China#Invasion of Tibet, Tibetan sovereignty debate, and Battle of Chamdo use the word "invasion". It would be appropriate to use "enter" if there was no armed conflict. But when there was a battle, as far as I know, it is appropriate to use the word "invasion". Oda Mari (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding better article - I replaced link...correction Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China#Invasion of Tibet is the correct place. We may ignore disruptive POV pushers. Annexing/liberation/invasion/regaining are POVs that need balancing WP:WEIGHT. Widefox; talk 13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is te Russia, USA, Germany and UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.78.15 (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


[ Because your addition was only the Chinese POV. The rest of the world does not think so. ] lol, english POV isn't "the rest of the world", it should be noted that only 2 countries has not recognise Tibet as being part of China: UK and India. even the US confirms Tibet as Chinese territory so can we stop making shit up about "my view represent the world and yours does not" when it is a big fucking lie? furthermore, the claim that the tibetan government when into exile following that is factually wrong. it wasn't until 8 to 9 years later did Dalai Lama's brother(CIA asset according to US declassifed document) misled him to leave for India. as such I will be removing reference of this claim since it isn't even a POV, it is factually wrong. Akinkhoo (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

[edit]

This article is under standard and should either be deleted or completed. It seems nobody are working actively to complete it. --Madglad (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit summary for 21 March 2022

[edit]

Unlike the classification of Joseon as a “外國(foreign country)” in the 『明史』 made in the 18th century, Joseon was classified as a “屬國(vassal state)” in the 『淸史稿』 made in the 1920s.[1] This makes it possible to misunderstand as if Joseon's status has been further downgraded in the Qing-Joseon relationship than in the Ming-Joseon relationship. However, this was only the result of the literal translation of “vassal state” into the previously widely used word “屬國” because intellectuals in the Republic of China at the time of the 1920s were already familiar with Western public law by the 『萬國公法』.[2]

In other words, it was the result of arbitrarily reinterpreting and using the long-used term "屬國" as the Western concept's "vassal state", as the 『萬國公法』 was widely distributed after the Opium War (1839-1842) and the Qing explicitly intervened in Joseon's internal affairs after 1882. Rather, the classification of Joseon as a “外國(foreign country)” in the 『明史』 made during the Qing Dynasty in 1735 proves that the Qing Dynasty viewed Joseon as a foreign country. And the classification of Joseon as a "屬國(vassal state)" in the 『淸史稿』 made during the Republic of China in 1927 proves that intellectuals in the Republic of China at the time retroactively understood Joseon as a vassal state during the Qing Dynasty. Therefore, the meaning of "屬國" used in the international stage of pre-modern East Asia before the 『萬國公法』 distributed cannot be considered to be the same as “vassal state” as a Western concept. In fact, the people of Qing before the opening of the port (1876) clearly recognized Joseon as a foreign country. In the end, even from the eyes of Western scholars, there is no reason not to view the “屬國” or “藩國” shown in China's historical records as sovereign states with their own power system and territorial sovereignty.[3]

Above all, the pre-modern East Asian tribute system was a ritual for international mutual approval between large and small countries, and the "屬國" independently handled domestic and diplomatic affairs without political interference from other countries. In this respect, it was fundamentally different from the Western "protectorate" or "semi-sovereign state", the deterioration of the meaning of "屬國=vassal state" was created in the process of spreading Western international law and distorting Chinese history after the 19th century. It is a serious distortion of history to interpret the traditional tribute relationship from the perspective of ‘suzerain-vassal’ in the sense of international law. In fact, the meaning of "屬國" in pre-modern East Asia varied, but it was generally a term referring to "tributary state". In addition, according to the 『萬國公法』, since it stipulates that “If the state is autonomous and not ordered from another country, it can be said that the state is a independent state(凡有邦國 無論何等國法 若能自治其事 而不聽命於他國 則可自主者矣)”, accordingly The traditional meaning of “屬國” corresponds to “independent state”.[4]

《清光緒朝中法交涉史料》, 1882 April 7, volume 4, p. 6

China's so-called "屬國" is a "vassal state" in overseas. All invasions for no reason from other countries or invasions of allies who have formed peace are prohibited by the Universal Public Law. According to the treaty they signed, it says “France clearly recognizes that Vietnam has sovereignty and does not obey any country. If there is a civil war or foreign invasion, France will immediately help.”. This clarifies Vietnam is not a vassal state of China, provides an excuse to protect and makes it easier to encroach just like Japan's scheme destroyed the Ryukyu. If China wants to argue on Vietnam, it must first argue on the name of "屬國" and if it wants to keep the name of "屬國" alive, it must first leave the fact of "protection".

《清光緒朝中法交涉史料》， 4卷 ，〈​内閣學士周德潤請用兵保護越南摺 光緖 9年 4月 7日, p. 6., "中國所謂屬國 卽外國所謂保護 無故侵人之國 及侵和好之與國 皆萬國公法所必禁者也 査法越和約云 法國明知越國係操自主之權 非有遵服何國儻有匪梗 幷外國侵擾 法國卽當幫助 是明謂越南非中國之屬國而欲以自許幫助 假託保護 以自便其蠶食之謨 如日本滅琉球故智 然則中國欲爭越南 必先爭屬國之名 欲存屬國 必先存保護之實"

In the quotation above, amid escalating military tensions between Qing and France over Vietnam in 1882 周德潤, a cabinet scholar in the Qing, said that “protection” must be provided in order to maintain the "屬國". This is the first case in China to argue that the responsibility of "protection" must be accompanied in order to redefine "屬國", which was the meaning of "tributary state". This is also evidence that the Qing Dynasty itself recognized the difference in meaning between the "屬國" of the concept of pre-modern East Asia and the "vassal state" of modern international law. In the 1880s China began to appropriate the meaning of "屬國", it results that china unilaterally reinterpretate pre-modern East Asia's "屬國=tribute state" as "屬國=vassal state" in the sense of modern international law. It should be noted that this reinterpretation itself distorts historical facts as a one-sided argument based on China's political intentions since the 1880s.[5]

When Yuan Shikai argued Joseon as “vassal state” was since the Qing explicitly intervened in Joseon's internal affairs after 1882 and began to unilaterally reinterpretate it's meaning of “屬國” as “vassal state”. And William W. Rockhill, who started living in Beijing in 1883, said The Qing dynasty of China viewed the Joseon dynasty of Korea as an autonomous vassal state.[6] But William W. Rockhill also said that calling Korea a vassal state is "misleading".[7] According to Rockhill, "The tribute sent to Peking by all the 'vassal states', and also by the Tibetans, and the Aboriginal tribes of Western China, is solely a ‘quid pro quo’ for the privilege of trading with the Chinese under extraordinarily favorable conditions."[8] This means the word “vassal state” he used at that time was not as same as one of western concept's "vassal state". The Joseon dynasty was autonomous in its internal and external affairs.[9][10] Owen N. Denny argued that Korea was an independent "tributary state".[11] In these facts, viewing Joseon as not a vassal state looks more reasonable. Sylvia379 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia379 challenging [convincingly, in my view] this text in the article:

The Qing dynasty of China viewed the Joseon dynasty of Korea as an autonomous vassal state.[12][13] The Joseon dynasty was autonomous in its internal and external affairs.[14][15] It was not a colony or dependency of China.[14] However, China abandoned its conventional laissez-faire policy of noninterference toward Korea and adopted a radical interventionist policy of interference in the late 19th century.[16] Yuan Shikai argued that Korea was a dependent "vassal state"; Owen N. Denny argued that Korea was an independent "tributary state".[17] William W. Rockhill said that calling Korea a vassal state is "misleading".[18] According to Rockhill: "The tribute sent to Peking by all the 'vassal states,' and also by the Tibetans, and the Aboriginal tribes of Western China, is solely a quid pro quo for the privilege of trading with the Chinese under extraordinarily favorable conditions."[18] Rockhill argued that Korea viewed China not as a suzerain but as a family head: Korea likened the Ming dynasty to a father and the Qing dynasty to an older brother.[19] According to Rockhill: "As to the custom of submitting to the Emperor the choice made by the king of an heir to the throne, or of a consort, or informing him of the death of his mother, of his wife, etc., we can look at them as only strictly ceremonial relations, bearing with them no idea of subordination."[19]

The argument in essence is that Rockhill (1889) is not a reliable source, because it is formed by a "Great Imperialist Powers" world view. I don't agree, however, that an extensively cited section [that includes a variety of very recent citations] can be deleted without discussion. I would also suggest that, since the status of Korea at that time is known to be controversial, we have to have some text that deals with that controversy. Indeed the sources that Sylvia379 cites above actually deal with this controversy. Can we develop a compromise text? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a edit summary using all references which cited in deleted section. All references are saying Joseon was not a vassal state. So I think Joseon is out of place to be in the vassal state article. Still, Do I have to develop a compromise text? Sylvia379 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvia379: Please read the paragraph carefully. It does not say that Korea was a vassal state; it says that China "viewed" Korea as a vassal state. Bamnamu (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. However, Joseon was not a vassal state, they should not be written in this article at all. Sylvia379 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sylvia379: Well, in that case, wouldn't it be a good thing to have information that argues against the view that the Joseon dynasty was a "vassal state" (as opposed to a "tributary state")? If you'd like to improve or rewrite Vassal state#Controversy, please go ahead. Bamnamu (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Choi, So-Ja (2005). 淸과 朝鮮 : 근세 동아시아의 상호인식 [Qing and Joseon: mutual recognition of pre-modern East Asia] (in Korean). Seoul, Korea Republic: 혜안. p. 180-183. ISBN 8984942529.
  2. ^ Koo, Seon-Hee (2009). 한중일 학계의 한중관계사 연구와 쟁점 [(The) issues and study of Sino-Korean relations in Korean, Chinese, and Japanese academia] (in Korean). Seoul, Korea Republic: 동북아역사재단. ISBN 9788961871259.
  3. ^ Kye, Seung-Beom (May 2012). "16-17세기 明·朝鮮 관계의 성격과 조선의 역할" [The Nature of the Ming-Choson Relations in the 1500s-1600s]. 정치와 공론 (in Korean). 10 (0). 한국정치평론학회: 31–57. ISSN 1976-6920. Retrieved 2022-03-19.
  4. ^ Kim, Jong-Hak; Sim, Sang-Min; Pyo, Na-Ri; Lee, Dong-Wook (December 2020). "한국은 중국의 일부였는가?: 한중관계사 속에서 '속국'의 의미". 한국은 중국의 일부였는가?: 한중관계사 속에서 ‘속국’의 의미. 주요국제문제분석 세미나. Seoul, Korea Republic: 국립외교원 외교안보연구소. pp. 2–5. 11-1261021-000001-03.
  5. ^ Kim, Jong-Hak; Sim, Sang-Min; Pyo, Na-Ri; Lee, Dong-Wook (December 2020). "한국은 중국의 일부였는가?: 한중관계사 속에서 '속국'의 의미". 한국은 중국의 일부였는가?: 한중관계사 속에서 ‘속국’의 의미. 주요국제문제분석 세미나. Seoul, Korea Republic: 국립외교원 외교안보연구소. pp. 2–5. 11-1261021-000001-03.
  6. ^ Rockhill, William (1889). "Korea in Its Relations with China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 13 (0). American Oriental Society: 1. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 592442.
  7. ^ Rockhill, William (1889). "Korea in Its Relations with China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 13 (0). American Oriental Society: 2. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 592442.
  8. ^ Rockhill, William (1889). "Korea in Its Relations with China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 13 (0). American Oriental Society: 2. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 592442.
  9. ^ Lin, Ming-te (July 1991). "Li Hung-chang's Suzerain Policy toward Korea, 1882-1894". Chinese Studies in History. 24 (4). Taylor & Francis: 69–96. doi:10.2753/CSH0009-4633240469.
  10. ^ Oh, Si-Jin (28 October 2019). "Resolving the Misunderstood Historical Order: A Korean Perspective on the Historical Tributary Order in East Asia". Journal of the History of International Law. 21 (3). Brill Nijhoff: 341–377. doi:10.1163/15718050-12340115.
  11. ^ Fuchs, Eckhardt; Kasahara, Tokushi; Saaler, Sven (4 December 2017). A New Modern History of East Asia. V&R unipress. p. 96. ISBN 978-3-7370-0708-5.
  12. ^ Rockhill 1889, p. 1. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFRockhill1889 (help)
  13. ^ Battistini 1952, p. 50.
  14. ^ a b Lin 1991, p. 71.
  15. ^ Oh 2019, pp. 352–355.
  16. ^ Lin 1991, pp. 69–70.
  17. ^ Fuchs, Eckhardt; Kasahara, Tokushi; Saaler, Sven (4 December 2017). A New Modern History of East Asia. V&R unipress. p. 96. ISBN 978-3-7370-0708-5.
  18. ^ a b Rockhill 1889, p. 2. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFRockhill1889 (help)
  19. ^ a b Rockhill 1889, p. 18. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFRockhill1889 (help)

Adding onto this

[edit]

I have made a request on the article List of tributary states of China for an update. I think Vassal state could use the same.

More discussion about Middle Ages vassals, and especially more about Chinese vassals from the Qing Dynasty and before (most of which were not held during ancient times) would make the article better. I would edit by doing things like removing Ancient from Ancient China, but this is such a huge topic, I wouldn't even know where to begin. GoutComplex (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Western bias

[edit]

Roman and Hellenistic vassal states are frequently referenced in WP articles but not here. Indicates a western bias as if VS weren not constitutional part of greek and Roman empire. As well as colonialism and common wealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2454:4F2:4E00:7D96:5CCF:BAF2:E374 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So go ahead and write the missing content, please. Put a draft here first if you prefer. But surely Greece and Rome qualify as "Western"? (You don't have to get your own Wikipedia editing account but you might find it a lot more convenient.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vassal_state&oldid=1205903317"