Talk:Ming Dynasty

[edit] One more sentence

I added a sentence about Wylie's book chapter to wrap up the argument of the side in favor of the view that Tibet was more autonomous than Wang and Nyima assert. Any more info can be placed in a new article, if someone wishes to create one.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone is crazy?

[edit] Yes, someone is crazy

Aside from the gigantic, erroneous extra territory in Manchuria that this map claims for the Ming, Tibet was also never part of the Ming Empire; they were merely a tributary state of the Ming. From Alex McKay's book The History of Tibet (2003, Routledge, ISBN 0415308429) on page 65:

In 1368 the Mongol Yuan Dynasty was replaced by the Ming, who were in no position to interfere in Tibet although they did perpetuate the illusion of overlordship by receiving the so-called "tribute emissaries" and granting titles to several of the guard lamas.

Tibet was not dominated by China again until the 18th century during the high Qing Dynasty. Showing a map of the Ming that includes its vassal states is misleading to the general reader unaware of what is under direct administration and what is a vassal state. In fact, this map makes no attempt to distinguish what is vassal and what is not. It simply places all under a gigantic yellow blob. How is this helpful or encyclopedic, I ask?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know Tibet will be a big issue in this image. Here, I can give many sources, like [1], it says that After the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) was established, Tibetan high lamas were summoned to the imperial court to receive titles and appointments. [2], it says that The Ming dynasty carried on the institutions set up by the Yuan in Tibet and adjusted administrative apparatus for the Tibetan areas.The Central government of the Ming dynasty held judicial power. So whether Tibet a an independent country in this periode, I don't see the debate. --LaGrandefr (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What a ridiculous assertion! It was Jangchub Gyaltsän who retained the Mongol institutions in Tibet after the Yuan Dynasty had lost control. In no way, shape, or form did the Ming interfere or tell the Tibetans how to run their administration. The Ming simply gathered tribute.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check the history of the map at Commons, whence you will discover that in a past incarnation it was probably called "Image:Mongol Empire after Genghis.jpg" and renamed when it was transfered to Commons from the German wiki. I think someone wrongly assumed that the Ming inherited in its entirity the territory of the Mongol Khanate of China. In addition although the map was uploaded in January 2006, the map didn't acquire its "The Ming Empire without its vassal states under the Yongle Emperor" caption until 28 March 2008, and wasn't even categorised as belonging to the Ming Dynasty category until December 2007.KTo288 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To his credit, User:LaGrandefr has provided the link showing the SinoPress Map that his latest custom-made map is based off of. He is no longer pushing for this map displayed above, but another displayed below. Scroll down some and you will see it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that the discussion has mostly moved past this map. I did, however, pop over to the German Wikipedia, where the original uploader is most active, and ask him to check both maps description pages on commons; as it was clear to me they should not have identical descriptions. He has corrected the one that was misdescribed (by an IP editor, reviewing the history). The map showing a larger territory was the one misdescribed. He also made this comment. GRBerry 12:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You'll need better sources than "TravelChinaGuide.com"

Dude, you are placing "TravelChinaGuide" and primary source documents written in the Ming Dynasty from "China Tibet Information Center" that have not been commented on by a secondary scholarly source...over McKay's book I just cited above? Tibet was merely a tributary state, any claim of authority the Ming court had over Tibet was nominal and did not reflect any administrative reality. Your obstinate statement "I don't see the debate" clearly shows that you do not understand what a scholarly source is. A commercial entity like "TravelChinaGuide" is not a peer-reviewed university research team; by using it, you are making your argument incredibly weak and unsubstantiated. And you have also failed to address my point that this map does not adequately distinguish the difference between what was directly administered and what was a vassel entity.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And please do not change the map image again from its original map; you are jeopardizing a featured article that I brought to fruition and you are not building consensus with other editors on which map is more accurate. In fact, another editor here is of my opinion as well.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, in my opnion, we can just give the sources, but not choose the sources according to personal willings. You just search History of Tibet + Dynasty Ming by google or anything else, you can find a great number of sources, not just "TravelChinaGuide". For the relation between China and Tibet, 1st, the system of tributary for Imperial China is quite hard to desribe. The concept country is invented in the modern world, which cannot be easily used for those ancient cases. 2nd, even in modern times, a leader of a country can/will be summoned or titled by another country? The judicial power can be controled by another? etc. I'm sorry that I cannot find an example.

Moreover, Image:Ming-China1.jpg and Image:Ming-Empire2.jpg are made by the same author de:Louis le Grand, from the same source History Atlas of China, I cannot understand why one can be used, and the other cannot. And there is also a map in the artile which shows the samallest territory of Ming, so Image:Ming-China1.jpg shows its largest territory, this should be a featured article--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, in my opnion, we can just give the sources, but not choose the sources according to personal willings.

What? What does this even mean?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You just search History of Tibet + Dynasty Ming by google or anything else, you can find a great number of sources, not just "TravelChinaGuide".

How does this refute what I've stated about scholarly sources?Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For the relation between China and Tibet, 1st, the system of tributary for Imperial China is quite hard to desribe. The concept country is invented in the modern world, which cannot be easily used for those ancient cases. 2nd, even in modern times, a leader of a country can/will be summoned or titled by another country? The judicial power can be controled by another? etc. I'm sorry that I cannot find an example.

So, if I was to follow your argument that Tibet was not a "country" but simply an administered part of the Ming Empire due to its obligation of appearing at the Ming court with tribute, then by extension, Joseon Korea and the Malacca Sultanate were also part of the Ming Empire, because, afterall, they paid tribute to the Ming court too. I'm sorry, your arugment does not hold water; even more important, you're not backing this up with any sources to refute McKay's book. Tisk, tisk.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, Image:Ming-China1.jpg and Image:Ming-Empire2.jpg are made by the same author de:Louis le Grand, from the same source History Atlas of China, I cannot understand why one can be used, and the other cannot.

Because Ming-China1.jpg does not distinguish between what is a vassal state and what was under direct administration of the Ming Empire, while Ming-Empire2.jpg does not claim any territory that is undue to it. I don't care if the Fairy Godmother made one, and Jesus Christ and Elvis worked together to author the other map. One is patently false and one is closer to reality.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And there is also a map in the artile which shows the samallest territory of Ming, so Image:Ming-China1.jpg shows its largest territory, this should be a featured article

Now your logic escapes me. How does this justify the use of a map that does not distinguish Tibet as a tributary, but rather lumps it under the Ming Empire in the same way it could for Korea and Malacca? Hell, while we're at it, why not say that Borneo, Champa, Hormuz, the Philippines, Calicut, and Cambodia were all part of the Ming Empire, because they paid tribute to the Ming court as well. You don't see how ridiculous your argument is?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

About Citing sources, you can don't agree with my sources, but you cannot deny them. You speak of McKay's book, I didn't read it. And you give me an impression that you juge just by your head, even some of my sources come from official websites(not blog, forum, etc). It seems that it's not autorised to give personal opinions in wikipedia, but you act very well over this point. Neither of us can decide if Tibet belongs to China in the periode or not. you can insist on your book, I can cite my sources at the same time. Now that there is already a map which shows your opinion in the article, why cannot a map be used which shows others' opinion? Image:Ming-China1.jpg is sourced by History Atlas of China, why Korea or Malacca are not in, please those scholars who made it.

ps, my country is laic, we don't talk about gods all the time.--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My evidences which show that LaGrandefr's map was wrong

I think I am with PericlesofAthens because I have enough evidences to say that the original map was still right and the new map uploaded by LaGrandefr which is very pro-Chinese colonialism (they want to occupy Tibet with many shameful ways and many crazy reasons) and I know that's wrong from the first time I see it. Open your eyes and see the true map of Ming Dynasty (Hmm, I think you must learn more about Chinese History, LaGrandefr but not the brainwash education from Chinese Communists!):

• http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Dynasty/dynasty-Ming.html
• http://homepages.stmartin.edu/Fac_Staff/rlangill/HIS%20217%20maps/Ming%20dynasty%20map.jpg
• http://www.chinahighlights.com/map/ancient-china-map/ming-dynasty-map.htm
• http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/1xarming.jpg
• http://www.shen-nong.com/eng/images/history/ming/img_ming_map.gif
• http://www.republicanchina.org/fresian_ming.gif
• http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/images/mingmap.jpg
• http://www.regenttour.com/china/history/mapming.jpg
• http://www.oceansatlas.org/unatlas/uses/transportation_telecomm/maritime_trans/nav/images/ming_map.gif
• http://www.monkeytree.org/silkroad/travelerimages/ming.map.jpg
• http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/china/map/ming.html
• http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/images/expl_map_l.jpg?Log=0
• http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/MapImages/mingmap-display.jpg
• http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worlds/images/map2_5.jpg
• http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worlds/images/map4_5.jpg

I think this silly discussion should be stop and revert back to the better last version which was OK. I think I will invite some admins if this problems still happening in next 2-3 days.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the maps, Angelo De La Paz, espcially the ones from ".edu" sites, as they are from scholarly sources and can be trusted without reservation over LaGrandefr's "TravelChinaGuide".--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK! You are welcome. You could call me as Angelo, it was enough. I hate my very long username.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that there are other people who come to discussion. Here, I'll draw a conclusion.

• Angelo De La Paz said that I take a brainwash education. With Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, frankly, you will risk something, and I wish you not to do Wikipedia:Autobiography. I'm not from China.

• Just like all that I said above, wikipedia should present different opinions, cite all sources. One article, two maps, different view point, that is a featured article.

• Sources that show Tibet was Chinese in the dynasty of Ming are below:

-tibetculture.net

-artfaces.com -tibet.cn -onlineopinion.com.au -tibetinfor.com -tibet-tour.com -china.org.cn -tibettravel.info -presscluboftibet.org -howstuffworks.com -china-embassy.ch -flying.com.tw -bbc.co.uk -tibet-trip.com -guoxue.com -fmcoprc.gov.hk -peacehall.com -tibet.gov.cn etc.

Among them, official or scholastic, Chinese or non-Chinese, pro-comminist or anti-comminist, the same opinion is shown. I cann't understand how could someone agnore all of them.

Angelo De La Paz want to invite more admins to this article, please, allez-y! If this issue was not resolved, I'll watch this page till the end.--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop it before too late

As you can see that the people here are disagree with your new map (included myself, a Chinese mix and recently User:Josuechan) because we know you are wrong. Mostly sources have showed that the map of China under Ming Dynasty was smaller (only Eastern part of nowaday China). Find out on Google:

• Ming Dynasty
• Ming Dynasty map
• Ming map
• Ming lands

Don't worry! I will invite some main contributors of WikiProject China and some admins as soon as possible. But now, I am giving the last chance for you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Most people (more importantly, scholars of history who write and publish journals and books) acknowledge that Tibet was a tributary state with nominal titles granted to it by the Ming; anyone who states that Tibet was directly governed under Ming rule and swayed by it is, in my opinion, either ignorant about history or has a political agenda and a trick up their sleeve for some political purpose or another.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State your argument clearly

LaGrandefr, I am still unclear as to what your argument is, or what you think your "sources" are explaining. Are you arguing that Tibet was a sheng (province) of the Ming Dynasty? <-- Which would be totally false and absurd. Or are you arguing that it does not matter that the map you are propagating (i.e. Image:Ming-China1.jpg) does not distinguish (by using different and separate colors for political entities) what was directly administered and what was an independent yet vassal tributary state neighboring the Ming? As to your point about "showing opinions", I'm sorry, what you are doing is original research if you are relying on the pictures of primary source documents from "China Tibet Information Center", which is not a scholarly journal article or a peer-reveiwed and published book. Since you are not a historian and have not written a book on Ming-Tibet relations, you have no authority to make judgments about Ming court documents stating things such as "We gave the Tibetan Lama such and such titles today, because he is under the power of the Great Ming, mu-ha-ha-ha!", etc. and things along those lines (note I am being half-serious here). It's about primacy of sources, LaGrandefr. A book published by Routledge (i.e. McKay's book) is to be trusted over "TravelChinaGuide.com". If I can't make you understand that simplest of simple ideas, then a Wikipedia administrator will make you understand that.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You speak of McKay's book, I didn't read it.

I'm sorry, but feigning ignorance is no excuse, you can access his book on Google Books right here: http://books.google.com/books?id=DVZ0gdBp6u0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=History+of+Tibet&sig=Nhl4nuR2V9ToeePc6hzXPm891tA#PPA65,M1

It's not even just McKay, it's a well-known historical fact that Tibet was not part of the Ming Empire, which is what you are trying to suggest in a very poor and pathetic fashion. If you are obstinate and choose to disregard this clear-cut evidence from McKay's book (and others, shall I gather more texts?), then you certainly do not belong on Wikipedia. However, you might want to consider writing novels and historical fiction, since that seems to be your interest.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me make a conclusion of relations between of China and Tibet during the dynasty of Ming: The Chinese government didn't totally, absolutely controled Tibet throughout the whole dynasty.But it controled it, even just at the height of its power. I don't possede a view point over this issue, and it is NOT allowed in wikipedia moreover. I cite the sources that I find, this is a job for every wikipedia users. TravelChinaGuide.com is just the fiste page that I found by google, it means nothing at all. I've already give so many others sources. You cites one book, frankly, if I want to look for a book which tells that tibet was Chinese during Ming, I can find 100000~~ in China.--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me make a conclusion of relations between of China and Tibet during the dynasty of Ming

No, let's not do that at all. Your argument should be grounded in secondary source scholarly articles or books and NOTHING else. Capiche?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But it controled it, even just at the height of its power.

Again, with the ".com" sites; you honestly don't understand why those sites should be avoided? Always stick to ".edu" sites if you want anyone to take your argument seriously.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I cite the sources that I find, this is a job for every wikipedia users.

It's also the job of every Wikipedian to make sure those "sources" aren't full of BS. Quite frankly, I find all of these ".com" sites of yours a laughingstock compared to any serious research done by professors and historical authors who publish through university presses or respected journals or trade presses. You should be ashamed of yourself as a Wikipedian.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

TravelChinaGuide.com is just the fiste page that I found by google, it means nothing at all.

You say it means nothing at all, yet you earlier tried to legitimize your "house-of-cards" argument by using "TravelChinaGuide". So which is it? Trustworthy as a credible source? Or an untrustworthy commercial site geared towards encouraging tourism that any serious historian wouldn't consider even glancing at? The answer should be painfully obvious.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already give so many others sources. You cites one book, frankly, if I want to look for a book which tells that tibet was Chinese during Ming, I can find 100000~~ in China.

So far you have shown no map to supplement the one you're propagating. You have brought to the table ".com" sites, sites not in English (this is an English wikipedia after all), an embassy site (these are diplomatic politicians, not historians), and PRC government sites that are so far pretty laughable. And if you can find "100,000" books in China that claim the same bizarre thing that you are claiming, then I would like to see them; so far you've shown me not one piece of scholarly evidence that contradicts McKay's book. I repeat, not one. So don't go making claims you can't back up.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And on a final note here, the Ming court's granting of nominal noble titles and accepting tribute from Tibet has nothing to do with conquering, ruling, subjugating, and administering Tibet (as the Qing would later do). You seem not to notice the difference.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, with the ".com" sites; you obviously don't understand why those sites should be avoided? Always stick to ".edu" sites if you want anyone to take your argument seriously.

Please forgive my naivety, since when people cannot cite the websites with the ".com"? The article 2008 Tibetan unrest has given 164 websites with ".com" or some ends like this, the same case for most of articles in wikipedia. Could you please tell where did you find this order? Thank you.

And I have given nearly 20 websites, most are in English. I don't know why you told the bizarre thing. Sorry.--LaGrandefr (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive my naivety, since when people cannot cite the websites with the ".com"?

Maybe just this once I will; ".com" sites are OK to use if you are reporting current events, such as "so and so died today, the public reaction was so and so, this political leader of China said it was a tragic loss, blah, blah, blah." However, ".com" sites are never to be used for making assertions and scholarly analysis of political history. That would be like saying the United States dominated the political administration and politicians of Canada and coerced them into fighting in a historical war (take your pick) because it was America's neighbor, and then citing "Billy-Bob's-Fried-Country-Steakhouse-Grill.com" as evidence.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You often edit wikipedia? The websites are cited everywhere in Wikipedia. If you want soooooo much a citation of one book(in fact, the image is based on a book, History altas of China), ok, I will go to buy a book. Please wait some days and please don't change the image all the time. It presents a view point(not mine) after all.--LaGrandefr (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because many people use ".com" sites as sources on Wiki does not suddenly make it a legitimate source. Somehow I heavily doubt that there is a gigantic scholarly war going on between different professors and scholars about the political relation of Tibet with the Ming, but if there is then I am not against reporting it here in the main article in a separate section about Tibet that may or may not feature your map from Sinomap Press, as you allege it came from (you better be right about that, for the sake of your argument).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other problems, foul source and wrong language

First of all, Image:Ming-Empire2.jpg comes from "History and Commercial Atlas of China, Harvard University Press, 1905" while your pathetic image map Image:Ming-China1.jpg claims its source as this commercial ".com" site with ads littering the page:

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/history2/06/11027560/20050527/12348629.html

Hmm...let's balance this out here logically; one map comes from the Harvard University Press, one of the most distinguished scholarly printing presses in the world, and the other comes from a ridiculous ".com" site with a Super Mario add at the top. I wonder which one is more credible?!

Second of all, your map is in German! I'm sorry, but this is an English wikipedia; I hope those from France such as yourself can discern the stark difference between German and English.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ming-China1.jpg is also based on history altas of China which comes from Sinomap press, ISBN：7503103841, Date:1982-10-01.

For the version of language, there's never problem. I can translate it into English in several minutes. Now everything is OK?--LaGrandefr (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally! You're citing a credible source with an ISBN! I know you are secular as you state above, but it must be a holy miracle, since I never thought you had it in you! If you can create a new map in English that would be super. However, I think, given this discussion, the main article desperately needs a written section on Tibet, with a range of sources describing the relationship of Ming China with Tibet, in order to give the reader a full, comprehensive view of the subject. If there is some sort of controversey and fight amongst scholarly sources (Sinomap Press and Harvard University Press have had a scuffle over something like this, perhaps?), then that is worth mentioning.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do all that you want. I know you have spent much time in this article, just go to perfect it. And I will upload an image with English version tomorrow.--LaGrandefr (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with LaGrandefr's new English Map

You bothered creating a new map, but didn't heed a word of what was discussed here? How many times do I have to repeatedly state it: if you're going to make a map with Tibet included in it, Tibet should not be under the same color of political entity as China proper, the heart of the Ming Empire. It should be given a separate color to distinguish it as a vassal state (and if you include Tibet, why not Korea, which is also shown on the map and was a vassal state?). I'm starting to suspect that you don't know what a vassal state is, one which pays tribute as a foreign country, while a directly-governed province of an empire pays administrator's taxes to the central government. If you still don't know the difference between the two, then there's nothing that I or anyone can do to help you (I wish I could speak French, so that I could better help you understand). I can only revert your new map every time you place it here, and request from a moderator that you steer clear from this article, as you seem to be here merely to jeopardize article stability and ignore others' input regardless of facts from sources demonstrating the false political boundaries of your map. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but your refusal to cooperate and listen to the feedback of other editors is astounding.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I made this map on the basis of the original map made by Sinomap Press, ISBN：7503103841. I won't and can't change it according to my personal willing. Thanks--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

^-- To anyone who might be confused, this is not a quote, but a response by LeGrandefr, who for some reason put his response in quotation style.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New section on Tibet

I have created a new section on Tibet listing the arguments of scholars who believed that Tibet was a foreign country offering tribute to the Ming court through diplomatic affairs, and the arguments of two scholars who assert that Tibetan officials were employed by the Ming (due to granting of titles) and were offering corvee payments in a domestic system, not as foreigners.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's incredible!

A large paragraph can be removed! & A well-sourced map can be rejected! This is a best English wikipedia! LaGrandefr (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just log on to this article and didn't realize there was an edit war going on. I also noticed this suspicious map was added to Ming Dynasty so I removed it. I mean seriously, you'll need some well-known sources to back up this map, and not just citing sinomap.com (???). Listen, if you want to show the Ming Dynasty at one of its larger extent, I assume this map [3] published by the MSN Encarta would probably be one of them.--Balthazarduju (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content Dispute-Ming Dynasty (Maps)

Due to the content dispute, I asked for an admin to fully protect the article, as I am not one myself. I think we all need to take a step back, and cool down. I'm not an admin, but I have mediated a few disputes before. So, here is what I suggest. Each editor (who has been editing this article recently) should calmly state their views, and if possible, show diffs, or provide external sources to verify/add weight to their views. I'd ask we all be civil, and keep a cool head. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

• User:LaGrandefr

ming_1443.png, drawn by Sinomap Press, ISBN：7503103841. According to [4], Sinomap Press is the only national-level map publisher in China. It says SinoMaps Press specially represents the most authentic and reliable map publisher on drafting the standard boundaries and administrative division boundaries of China.So a map made by an organization like this should be quite reliable.

And ming_1443.png shows the largest territory at the height of Ming's power. Isn't it a good annotation of featured article like Ming Dynasty?--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:PericlesofAthens

I think that, given the new sub-section on Tibet describing opposing views of scholars, both maps should be included since there is a scholarly dispute (outside of Wikipedia) on Tibet's exact relationship to the Ming Dynasty. One side says that Tibet was an independent but vassal state who simply paid tribute through diplomatic relations, while the Ming court held up the facade and illusion of rule over Tibet by granting Tibetan lamas fancy titles. The other side (so far I've only found two PRC historians Wang and Nyima who state this) says Tibet was a region governed by Tibetan leaders who were appointed by the Ming court, obeyed Ming authority, and did not come to Beijing as envoys but as domestic appointees; keep in mind, Wang and Nyima admit that the Ming never sent troops to conquer Tibet or garrisoned troops there as they would any normal part of the empire; their argument is that this wasn't necessary, as Tibetan leaders were loyal to Ming authority (although the Ming never asserted their authority in Tibet, but only granted titles from afar in Beijing). User:LaGrandefr should cease from plugging his map into the lead picture of the article, when it is clearly best served in the Tibet sub-section in the first section ('Founding') of the article, since his map is not only disputed by members here, but also international scholars who would find such a map to be a contentious issue. Besides, the original map in the lead is from Harvard University Press, and shows the belief of scholars who show evidence that Tibet was not a governed or administrative region of the Ming. My main qualm with LeGrandefr's map is that it does not distinguish—by color—the political boundaries of the Ming as opposed to their vassal state of Tibet.Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:Josuechan

The relevant question here is: Was Tibet an administered part of Ming China? If that was, then LaGrandefr's map is appropriate; otherwise it is not. So far LaGrandefr fails to address this question but resorts to appealing to the authority of SinoMaps as a disinterested map publisher. However, SinoMaps is a public institution under the PRC government. In a country there's no freedom of speech and the media are seen to be a tool for promoting the political agenda, it is not advisable to grant too much authority to SinoMaps.

So was Tibet an administered part of Ming China? As Pericles of Athens has argued, it is generally agreed among scholars that it was not, with a dissenting minority from some PRC scholars. Therefore, the best compromise is keep the original map in the lead, while adding a section discussing the relations with Tibet, as Pericles of Athens already did.

Incidentally, unlike Pericles of Athens, who was responsible for pushing the article to the FA status, LaGrandefr's sole "contribution" to the article was to add a dubious map despite strong objections from many of the editors involved. Josuechan (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• User:Angelo_De_La_Paz

I have got enough evidences that show the existing map (and also the original map of Harvard University [5]) was right and enough reliable. Please look at my evidences again: [6][7]. And the second reason that is User:LaGrandefr was very rude with many other contributors and I can not forgive him again [8][9].Angelo De La Paz (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC) -->

• User:Balthazarduju

I wouldn't hastly labeling anyone for pushing agenda or anything like that. Like you said above, we shouldn't dwelling about politicizing other people either. In terms of discussing the map by User:LaGrandefr, one of the major problems about this map "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ming_1443.png" is that even though LaGrandefr claims that it is from "Sinomap Press", but where? He/she didn't actually provide any link to the map, except link to the index site and the homepage. LaGrandefr, even if you created this map, you might want to provide the link to the original map so we can check the validity of the map.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC) -->

[edit] Further responses

I am not really involved in the discussion, but I wonder what the nominal and not-so-nominal difference(s) between Tibet and the Mongols during Ming dynasty were. I guess the Tibetans never took a Chinese emperor captive, and the Great Wall was not built against the Tibetan menace, but clearly Mongols took part in the tribute system and received titles in return.

On another note, could Portugal qualify as a would-be tributary ? Yaan (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to LaGrandefr, all the Mongols on the steppe were then part of the Ming Empire. Apparently anyone who paid tribute to the Ming court was part of the Ming Empire, which would mean that the entire Portuguese Empire was in fact under the rule and the sway of the Ming. <sarcasm> Nevermind Philip II of Spain and his claim to the Portuguese throne in 1580 with his deceased son Don Juan! The Portuguese (and the Spanish) paid some tribute to the Ming court, so surely, the entire Hapsburg realm was governed directly by the Ming Dynasty. </sarcasm>--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No no, my understanding is that the Portuguese wanted to pay tribute to the Ming, but never succeeded in doing so (that's why I wrote "would-be"). Or did they? Yaan (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, although the Portuguese did pay 500 teals of silver per year to Ming China after an official treaty and lease of Macau in 1582, while some Portuguese visited Beijing again in the early 17th century to show off Portuguese cannons.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion: paste the map like this to be the lead picture. More explication in the section below. How is it?--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty in 1443^{argued in some parts}

Yes, we're all aware of what picture you want to put in the lead; how is this a strong argument to take away the Harvard University Press map that is already in the lead? I'm trying to make a compromise here by including your SinoMap Press image in an appropriate section about Tibet since your map claims Tibet for the Ming Empire, an issue that is contested by scholars around the world. It is most relevant in that article section, no?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Countering Wang and Nyima's argument, and in extension, LaGrandefr's

Once the protection ban on this article is lifted, I intend to add this to the Tibetan sub-section of the article to counter the argument of Wang and Nyima that Tibet was part of the Ming Empire.

In their argument, Wang and Nyima failed to mention the ongoing civil war between Tibetan lama monasteries during the Ming Dynasty—the two major sects being the "Red Caps" and "Yellow Caps" which employed their own guards of armed monks.^[1] Fred W. Riggs states that the Red Cap sect "tended to look to China for help" while the Yellow Cap Sect was in league with the Western Mongol federation.^[1] The fifth high lama of the Yellow Cap sect proclaimed that his sect was to be the official religion of Tibet in 1642, after his predecessor had been granted the title 'Dalai Lama' by the Mongols.^[1]

The source used is Riggs, Fred W. "Tibet in Extremis," Far Eastern Survey (Volume 19, Number 21, 1950): 224–230.

If Tibet was an administered part of Ming China, then why did the Ming avoid intervening in this civil war, which, according to User:LaGrandefr, was on their claimed soil? If Tibet was part of the Ming Empire, then how could rivaling sects within their empire be allied with the Oirat Mongols, the enemies of the Ming Dynasty? If the Ming titles granted to leading Tibetan "officials" had any great significance, then why did the Ming court just sit back and watch the Oirat Mongol federation confer titles onto the same Tibetans?

I think User:LaGrandefr, claiming to be an innocent Frenchman, has a PRC political ax to grind in all of his zealous efforts to promote his bogus map while ignoring McKay's book which I cited above, and I'm sure he'll also ignore this as well, because I don't think User:LaGrandefr is here to contribute like other normal Wikipedia editors. In fact, looking at his edit history, he joined recently and all of his edits are focused on this one article. Take a hint, moderators.

One should never politicize history so that it can fit nice and neat with the desires of people in current affairs; I hope LaGrandefr contemplates this before making a response.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone curious about a more nuanced history of Tibet and Ming China, this link should be helpful. It is the second volume of McKay's book (850 to 1850), with individual chapters written by different scholars.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't hastly labeling anyone for pushing agenda or anything like that. Like you said above, we shouldn't dwelling about politicizing other people either. In terms of discussing the map by User:LaGrandefr, one of the major problems about this map "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ming_1443.png" is that even though LaGrandefr claims that it is from "Sinomap Press", but where? He/she didn't actually provide any link to the map, except link to the index site and the homepage. LaGrandefr, even if you created this map, you might want to provide the link to the original map so we can check the validity of the map.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is kind of nitpicking, but the title Dalai Lama was conferred (that is, some authors also point out that "Dalai" is just a translation of "Gyatso", the tibetan name(?) of the third Dalai Lama) by Altan Khan of the Tümed, who are definitely not an Oirad tribe. I am also not so sure that the Oirads were heavily involved in Tibetan politics in the 14th-16th centuries. They were very active in the 17th century, but I think this may have started only in the 1630s. Finally, for some reason the more common terms for these sects in english seem to be yellow and red hats. Yaan (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to light these corrections.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ming_1443.png

ming_1443.png is not my map, it's drawn by SinoMap Press, which is the only national-level map publisher in China. I know there are many maps about Ming Dynasty, just like User:Angelo_De_La_Paz has given above. But among them, each map is not identical, because each scholar has his own opinion. But ming_1443.png is the only official map up to now, although there are some disputes. Same example like PRC's map, there are also many disputed territories, we can just paste the official map drawn by PRC's government. As for us, we can only note the disputed territories, in my opinion.--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The original map is here, I won't and can't modify the map according to my willing.--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] issues for Tibet

Was Tibet an administered part of Ming China? Different people conclude different results. I introduce you a book, Mingshi(明史), written in 1739 by the succeeding dynasty Qing Dynasty, which is the official Chinese historical works. I think any research (including someone's McKay)will be powerless face to it, because it's the book of book that records the whole offical history of Ming Dynasty and every research about Ming Dynasty should base on it. In this book, it says the territory of Ming begins with Chosŏn in the East, occupies Tubo in the West, includes Annam in the South, reaches the Great Desert in the North.(東起朝鮮，西據吐番，南包安南，北距大磧) And Tubo is the ancient name of Tibet in Chinese. So I don't see where is the dispute.--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet your map includes neither Choson nor Annam. Yaan (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not me who drawn it. The official map is like this, I cannot modify it. Why there are so many English wikipedian so subjective? It is authorized to give the personal thoughts in English wikipedia?--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the Ming dynasty's official map, though. Heaven forbid wikipedia ever has to follow the official version of a country's history. The current map, OTOH, seems to have been published by a generally reliable, academic source, so it is probably more authorative than yours, no matter how "official". Yaan (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have nothing to say if you mischief like this. I wait the response of admins.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Mingshi is much more reliable than Sinomap. However, the map LaGrandefr proposed here is not from Mingshi, but Sinomap. So it's an "official" map in the sense that it's approved by the PRC government. Worse, according to the quoted sentence (計明初封略，東起朝鮮，西據吐番，南包安南，北距大磧用), Vietnam should also be part of Ming, but how come the map didn't include it? So is LaGrandefr opposing his own map? Interesting. In fact, Vietnam has a better claim to be part of Ming because 1) an administrative unit (布政使司) was set up there; 2) Ming army actually occupied the region till mid-Ming. (see Mingshi vol. 40 志第十六 地理一). But these didn't happen to Tibet.

Well, well, certainly I'm not suggesting a map that includes Vietnam because such a map would be misleading. A more appropriate treatment is to discuss the subtleties in an appropriate section. It is even more so with Tibet. Josuechan (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Josuechan (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mingshi has never drawn a map, how can I find a map in Mingshi?I cited Mingshi, because someone argued that Tibet was not in Ming China and Mingshi is the authorative document in the world.

Ming court has settled Dbus-Gtsang Itinerant High Commandery(烏思藏行都指揮使司) and Mdo-khams Itinerant High Commandery (朵甘行都指揮使司) in Tibet, and the system of High Commandery(都指揮使司) was settled for every region in Ming China, no longer Sheng(省) like User:PericlesofAthens talked above, which has been abolished in 1376.

Our subject is too far from the issue. Mingshi has well proved that Tibet was in Ming China. and of course, if someone are so willing to join Vietnam or Korea into Ming China. Why not make a map that shows differences of each map? Regards. --LaGrandefr (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If it hadn't before, your credibility just went down the toilet drain

Different people conclude different results.

Which is outlined in the article due to the new section I created, yes. Does this warrant your controversial map to be touted as the lead picture in the article? NO. If you wish to keep your picture, the only compromise I will make is having it placed in the Tibet sub-section, where the issue about scholarly debate is discussed. I ask how is this not sensible, since the other map is valid and is printed by Harvard University Press.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I introduce you a book, Mingshi(明史), written in 1739 by the succeeding dynasty Qing Dynasty, which is the official Chinese historical works. I think any research (including someone's McKay)will be powerless face to it, because it's the book of book that records the whole offical history of Ming Dynasty and every research about Ming Dynasty should base on it.

First off, YOU are not a historian, YOU are not qualified to analyze or make judgements about primary source documents (in this case, the Mingshi, written almost 300 years ago), and to say that McKay's book (and other scholars I've mentioned in the article) is invalid because of what is stated in the Mingshi is ridiculous beyond all belief. Unlike modern university research and private publishing without fear of censorship or government interference, the Mingshi was a history commissioned by the Qing court which was in the process of subjugating Tibet to Qing rule; it is a politically-correct and sponsored history, unlike Sima Qian's Shiji, which was independent of political baggage. I think it is safe to say that if Zhang Tingyu, employed by the Qing court, had portrayed the reality of Tibet-Ming relations as we in modern times understand it, Emperor Qianlong would have fired him and hired a new leading editor.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

begins with Chosŏn in the East, occupies Tubo in the West, includes Annam in the South, reaches the Great Desert in the North.

Bravo, Mr. History! Well, I guess dumbing down everything into one sentence proves it alright; surely there was no nuanced narrative to the story of Tibet-Ming relations, surely the Tibetans never wrote about their own affairs, and surely there's no information about Tibet from the time period besides the Mingshi. Sheesh, even Wang and Nyima aren't brazen enough to claim the Ming "occupies Tubo in the West". I'm sorry, but any credibility that the Mingshi had just went down the toilet drain, along with your credibility.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So I don't see where is the dispute.

That's because you're placing blind faith and total, unmitigated trust in every sentence of the Mingshi (a politically-sponsored history), which has been found to contain faults and inaccuracies by modern scholars, such as Timothy Brook to name one. Try finding a book written in at least the past 100 years (and not sanctioned by a government entity), and maybe someone won't completely laugh and discard your argument. And the last I checked, you are not a historian and you are certainly not bringing any scholarly sources to the table to back your claims.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The official map is like this

No, SinoMap Press does not make "official maps," this is a controversial map contested by scholars that I've already noted in the new Tibet section of the article. Your argument is so lame that I don't even think you're trying anymore to make sense at all. Please, go edit an article that does not require much from scholarly input. I know! You can bring Pee-wee's Playhouse up to featured article status! That would be the perfect article for someone with your level of "professionalism".--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have nothing to say if you mischief like this.

I see only one person creating mischief here, and it certainly isn't User:Yaan.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet, perhaps?

Mistakes cannot stay in a featured article like this way.

^ From Steve's user page, as he requested I keep the argument here.

The only person making an egregious mistake here is you, after you have repeatedly ignored scholarly sources on the vassal status of Tibet, not directly-governed status. I seriously question your motives, since you seem to have joined Wikipedia on March 28 simply to plug your dubious map into the Ming article, all the while failing to address the points that other editors have made about the map, SinoMap Press, and scholarly books and articles which refute the boundaries portrayed in your map. Drop this "I'm an innocent little kid with a lolly-pop" act, it's not fooling anyone. In fact, since you've joined, you've also redirected a page, uploaded images with ease, created a custom-made map for upload, and now crafted this table here with wiki command codes, something any new and amateur editor is typically unable to do because they haven't had enough experience (I sure didn't know how to do any of that in my first week of editing).

LeGrandefr's table:

Do I smell a previously banned wiki account, or worse, sock puppetry?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This quote comes from WP:SOCKPUPPET

Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in existing edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

Hahahahaha! Dude, every single point in that quotation describes LaGrandefr completely! Oh, I am on to you, buddy.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, he might just have gained his experience on other WPs. Yaan (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but we'll see.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have no more willing to talk with you, you have already run into a totally insane state and you are just an extremely sceptic. You can suspect everything that you don't believe, even with plenty of sources given to you. Could I ask you whether you really know about Mingshi? This book is the most authoritative source of all researches about Ming Dynasty to each scholar. You said the author cheated in this official historical works, written 300 years ago, to join Tibet into Ming China, so why don't you say that the author just want to vent his anger because a Tibetan has slept with the his woman. It seems more logical, in my opinion. How can it exsits a person so stubbron and gossipy like you, it's incredible!--LaGrandefr (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, why are you posting your reply in quotation format? This is the second time you've done that; that's a bit odd. Second, you have not given me plenty of sources, I'm the only one who has supported your argument with the scholarly source of Wang and Nyima, and they make a pretty flimsy argument themselves (which I have fairly displayed and recounted in the new section on Tibet in the article). Thirdly, despite the fact that the Mingshi is the "most authoritative source of all researches about Ming Dynasty" simply because of its scope and size, does not make it infallible or lacking in error. I never said the author(s) "cheated in this official historical works," that is you putting words into my mouth. Good job! The scholars of the Mingshi were of 18th century minds; they read the Ming court documents stating that Tibet was "all under heaven" and was subjugated by titles, and they did not doubt this. I cannot fault them for that, or lacking full comprehensive sources (including Tibetan perspectives on their own affairs) which modern historians now have at their disposal to prove that Tibetan leaders were autonomous. What I said was, if the Mingshi editors understood what we know today in the modern world about Ming-era Tibet, they would not have quickly come to the conclusion that "Tubo was occupied in the West", and arguably Qianlong would have been displeased with that part of the Mingshi if this was the case. Get it??--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How can it exsits a person so stubbron and gossipy like you, it's incredible!

Personal attack, anyone? First you put words into my mouth that I never said, and then you accuse me of making those statements, as well as being gossipy and stubborn! How innocent of you. That's what we call a strawman argument. I'm on to you pal, as I have reason to believe you are a sockpuppet, and I have a suspicious IP number that might tell all. We'll just wait and see, won't we sugar-bumps?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final argument of ming_1443.png

All in all, some guys have exhausted me. Why don't you just open your eyes and accept more opinion? I won't respond any more the gossipy arguments, now that I've offered plenty of sources above. The effect speaks, the tongue needs not, I choose to be silent in waiting the response of admins.

Please don't respond in this section, I just want to wait the final response of admins. Last sentences for some guys, ignorance is the mother of suspicions and truth will conquer.--LaGrandefr (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other discussion

I'm not sure why there's an argument here. There is already more than one map. Why do we need this one? Why do we need so many and what are the reasons for favoring this one over the other?

We need to be clear on what the map is depicting. The Westphalian notion of nation-states with clearly delineated boundaries did not exist in Ming China. There were lands administered directly under imperial authorities, lands administered by local authorities with the supervision of imperial authorities, lands administered by tributaries, and unknown lands. --Jiang (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent explication. Just like what I said above, the concept country is invented in the modern world, which cannot be easily used for those ancient cases.(13:08, 28 March 2008) However, some guys are so willing to do this meaningless thing. In the Chinese culture, the territory of China is Tianxia, which means the whole world. Different lands belonged to Imperial China in different ways. It's useless to record China occupies Tibet in the official historical works (like some one's suspect) since Chinese emperors consider themselves to be the owner of the world, moreover, Tibet was also considered to be a "barbaric" region in the ancient times.--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What?! So your argument is, despite the fact that the Ming never occupied Tibet and never interfered with their administrative affairs, and simply because of the concept of Tianxia and the beliefs of the Ming emperors, your bogus map should be included here? I'm surprised how much your argument does not coincide with Wang and Nyima's about the Ming controlling Tibet through worthless granted titles as well as trade and tribute. I'm sorry, these high abstract concepts of Tianxia are not sufficient grounds for you to force in a map here showing Tibet under Chinese occupation while other Chinese vassals such as Korea and the Vietnamese Le Dynasty (since your map is for the year 1443) are not included. If you truly heeded your own argument, then you would abandon the SinoPress map altogether, since it does not accurately portray what you believe about Tianxia and China's tributary states. If you believed that all was under heaven, then why not show a map of the entire world for the Ming Dynasty's territory? Your argument, once again, is bogus and has nothing to do with modern concepts of political reality and history (wikipedia is not here to support Tianxia as a means to create political maps). And not only that, you're still refusing to bring to the table any scholarly sources! This is all merely your opinion and a bogus map made by SinoPress. I've at least brought to the table Wang and Nyima's book. Tisk, tisk, suspected sockpuppet LaGrandefr.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

moreover, Tibet was also considered to be a "barbaric" region in the ancient times.

And your point is? Any place not considered China proper or under Chinese dynastic hegemony was consider a "barbarian" land. My question is why are you so hell-bent on this map showing the tributary vassal Tibet under direct Chinese rule, while ignoring other neighboring tributaries which could be classed in the same manner? You've failed to address this point, along with many others, hence my suspicion about your agenda here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debunking the Mingshi and LaGrandefr's map ming_1443

Personal attacks are unaccpetable on Wikipedia, and as such, I have removed the one in this caption.

PericlesofAthens: This has gone far enough. You have every right to state your opinion, but this text below (not the source, the comments), and as the image, are unacceptable. As such, I have removed the image. I will not tolerate incivility, biting newcomers, mockery, or personal attacks. Understood? Steve Crossin (talk to me) 04:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

:User:PericlesofAthens has thrown a nuclear bomb in my talk page. I protest about this uncivil act to others in Wikipedia.--LaGrandefr (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the picture would generate a laugh or two in a harmless fashion and lighten the mood a bit. If you feel otherwise, fine by me, as it is rather unimportant compared to the substance of my argument below, which is serious.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, Pericles of Athens' comments and picture might be taken as sarcasm, but certainly not mockery. I would also like so stress there's fine line between personal attacks and relevant criticisms on your oppontant; not every criticism of your oppontant is personal attack. If I make some irrelevant comments about LaGrandefr's race, religion beliefs, or sexual orientation in the present discussion, I might be making personal attacks. But what Pericles of Athens did in his comments was to undermine LaGrandefr's creditibility regarding Ming history, which is totally relevant. I don't understand why they are seen as personal attacks. Josuechan (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Josuechan; at the time of writing this, I did not feel like I was making a personal attack, rather, an attack on his argument; big difference.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WARNING. Certain users may experience total and utter earth-shattering disappointment that their argument has been mercilessly beaten and torn apart by Turrell V. Wylie in the following section, as the Mingshi loses all credibility as a direct and reliable scholarly source. Wikipedia users should use the Mingshi with caution and a grain of salt while consulting modern secondary source literature of scholarly books and journals to check and verify their arguments!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Passage #1

This is rich; to further buttress the points of scholars I've already mentioned here on the talk page and in the main article, I point to this chapter "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty" by Turrell V. Wylie, pages 467-473 in the book History of Tibet (Volume II):

...the payment of tribute in Ming times cannot be interpreted as evidence of China's suzerainty over any country. Li Tieh-tseng himself noted that the tribute missions were highly profitable to the lamas and became such a drain on the Ming treasury that they had to be curtailed. If the purpose of the Ming policy towards the lamas were to maintain Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, then surely such control depended on means other than the so-called "tribute missions."

This brings us to the issue of the bestowal of titles and seals on the lamas. Both Chinese authors cited in this paper interpret this as a continuation by the Ming emperors of the lama policy of the preceding Yuan dynasty and that it constituted the official renewal of appointments made by the Mongol emperors. Li Tieh-tseng wrote that "Most of the offices were hereditary under the Yuan dynasty. Their occupants, in command of one thousand or ten thousand families, were reappointed with new patents." He refers, of course, to the offices of a chiliarch and a myriarch; offices which were in effect during the lifetime of the Mongol-imposed Sa-skya government.

I have dealt with the first Mongol conquest of Tibet in the 13th century in some detail elsewhere. Suffice it here to say that following the census of 1268, Khubilai Khan had central Tibet divided into thirteen myriarchies for purposes of taxation and administration. The hierocratic he imposed on Tibet employs lamas as viceroys with administrative headquarters at Sa-Skya. Historically, Tibet came under Mongol domination a decade before China was finally conquered by the armies of Khubilai Khan.

In the middle of the 14th century, Tibetans led by the myriarch of Phag-mo-gru rebelled against the Sa-Skya government. Mongol military failed to intervene and Sa-Skya was overthrown. The Phag-mo-gru myriarch became the de facto ruler of Tibet and the Mongol Emperor Toghun Temür conferred on him the seal and title of T'ai Si-tu. The Phag-mo-gru ruler established a new form of centralized government with headquarters at Sne-gdong in the Yar-klungs district. He replaced the myriarchy system imposed by the Mongols with administrative units called rdzong, each governed by an official appointed by him. Thus, the "lama-patron" relationship (yon-mchod) which, beginning with Khubilai Khan and 'Phags-pa of Sa-Skya, had been the underlying principle of the Mongol-imposed polity in Tibet, came to an end. Historically then, Tibet became independent of Mongol domination before the Ming dynasty ever came into existence. In view of such chronology, one cannot help but question the validity of the claim that Tibetan myriarchs—whose offices had ceased to exist—"were reappointed with new patents" by the Ming emperors.

The Chinese authors cited in this paper view the Ming policy as a continuation of the Mongol policy towards the lamas. Granted that the myriarchs and other officials of Tibet were confirmed in office by the Mongols, the primary sources make it clear that the khans focused their political support on lamas of the Sa-Skya sect as their viceroys. Contrastingly, the Chinese emperors of the Ming dynasty lavished rewards and titles on all leading lamas who accepted the invitation to come to court, regardless of their sectarian affiliations. The Ming Shih lists various titles bestowed on lamas; eight of which end in the title "King" (Chinese: Wang). A contemporary Tibetan text notes that the Ming emperor bestowed the office and title of Dhang (phonetically: Wang) on the hierarch of Phag-mo-gru, but it then states that the hierarchs of 'Bi-khung, Rtse-dgong, and Gling were equally given that title as well.

Even though the Chinese authors cited regard the entitlement of lamas as the renewal of appointments made earlier by the Mongol emperors, evidence contained in the Ming Shih itself disproves such an interpretation.

So here LaGrandefr is, trying to use the Mingshi (as he states here, his 'Bible' of Ming history) as the prime text to secure and validate his point about rule over Tibet, and even the Mingshi contradicts him! Oh this is too much for words. Irony, much?

More to come...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Passage #2

Continuing his point on the next page, from pages 469 to 470:

Consider first the title Ta Pao Fa Wang ("Great Precious King of the [Buddhist] Law"). This was the same title Khubilai Khan gave to 'Phags-pa Lama of Sa-Skya as his Imperial Teacher and Viceroy of Tibet. If it were the intention of the Ming emperors to continue the Mongol policy towards the lamas, then one would have expected that this exalted title would have been bestowed on a descendent of the Sa-Skya lineage in order to perpetuate—even if only symbolically—a semblence of the "lama-patron" relationship that pertained in the Mongol dynasty. Or even better from the pragmatic view of maintaining suzerainty, that title should have gone to the successor of T'ai Si-tu of Phagmo-gru as the de facto ruler of Tibet. Notwithstanding, these historical or political considerations, the title of "Great Precious King of the Law" was bestowed according to the Ming Shih in the year 1407 by the Yung-lo Emperor on the fifth hierarch of the Black-hat Karma-pa sect.

It is impossible to interpret this entitlement of the Karma-pa hierarch as a "renewal of appointment" by the Ming emperor for the simple reason that the Black-hat Karma-pa lamas were not appointed to myriarchic office during the previous Mongol dynasty. In fact, the Black-hat Karma-pa is said to have been politically eclipsed by Khubilai Khan because Karma Bakshi, second hierarch of the sect, refused Khubilai's invitation to become his court lama. Logically, if the Black-hat Karma-pa hierarchs had not been appointed to office by the Mongol emperors, then there could be no "reappointment to office" by succeeding Chinese emperors.

A successor of the famous 'Phags-pa Lama of Sa-Skya was given a title, albeit a new one; namely Ta Ch'eng Fa Wang ("King of the Law of the Great Vehicle" [=Mahayana]).

As for the Phag-mo-gru hierarch, de facto ruler of Tibet at the time, it is said he was the first to go to the Ming court. The Ming Shih refers to him as the "acting Imperial Teacher" and states that the emperor changed his title to the lesser one of "State Teacher" (kuo shih). Decades later, however, one of the successors of the Phag-mo-gru hierarch was given the more exalted title of Shan Huo Wang ("King Who Teaches Liberation").

Even more important to the contention that the Ming policy cannot be regarded as one of renewing official appointments is the case of Chos-rje Shākya Ye-shes, a personal disciple of Tsong-ka-pa, founder of the Yellow-hat Dge-lugs-pa sect. The Yung-lo Emperor repeatedly invited Tsong-ka-pa to come to court, but he declined. Tsong-ka-pa finally sent his disciple, Chos-rje Shākya Ye-shes, in his stead. On his first visit to the court, this disciple was given the title of "State Teacher"; the same title originally given the Phagmo-gru ruler of Tibet. On a later visit to the court, this disciple received the title of Ta Tz'u Fa Wang ("Great Compassionate King of the Buddhist Law") from the Hsüan-te Emperor.

Chos-rje Shākya Ye-shes was just one among the many disciples of Tsong-ka-pa, yet he received a title with the pompous designation of "King". Presumably, he was then regarded as being on the same religious plane as the hierarchs of the Black-hat Karma-pa, the Sa-Skya-pa, and others who also were given the title of a "King".

Again, it is impossible to regard the title bestowed on Chos-rje Shākya Ye-shes as a "renewal of appointment" made by the Mongol emperors. The reformation movement that led to the rise of the Yellow-hat sect did not begin until after the fall of the Mongol dynasty, consequently no member of that sect could have been appinted to office by the Mongol court.

At this point it is important to note that neither the name of the Yellow-hat sect or that of its founder, Tsong-ka-pa, appear in the official history of the Ming Dynasty. The reason for this is provided by Li Tieh-tseng himself, who wrote that "In China not only the emperor could do no wrong, but also his prestige and dignity had to be upheld at any cost. Had the fact been made known to the public that Ch'eng-tsu's repeated invitations extended to Tsong-ka-pa were declined, the Emperor's prestige and dignity would have been considered as lowered to a contemptible degree, especially at a time when his policy to show high favours toward lamas was by no means popular and had already caused resentment among the people. This explains why no mention of Tsong-k'a-pa and the Yellow Sect was made in the Ming Shih and Ming Shih lu."

And with that last statement of Wylie quoting the challenged scholar Li Tieh-tseng, do you see now, User:LaGrandefr, why it is wrong and dangerous for YOU to make judgments about the Mingshi, as if you were some qualified historian and professor with a Ph.D? Here is a gigantic error of history embodied in your supposedly faultless Mingshi. With that in mind, you better drop your present argument and pick up a book and start reading, because your argument has just now been destroyed.

Still more to come...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Passage #3

After quoting Li Tieh-tseng here, Wylie continues by wrapping up his argument here (NOTE: the bolding of text here in two spots is my own doing, not Wyli'es):

Such censorship of the official history of the Ming dynasty distorts the true picture of the period. It is clear, however, that the Ming emperors were not continuing the lama policy of the previous Mongol dynasty. Beginning with Khubilai Khan, the Mongol emperors had appointed a Sa-Skya lama as "Imperial Teacher" to serve as the viceroy of the Mongol-imposed government in Tibet. When the last Sa-Skya lama to hold that title died in 1358, the Sa-Skya regime had already been overthrown and the office of the "Imperial Teacher" fell into disuse. Although the Mongols had focused their support singularly on lamas of the Sa-Skya sect to rule Tibet, the Chinese emperors rewarded all who came to court regardless of sectarian affiliation. Since the Ming emperors were not following the Mongol practice, their lama policy must have been based on another consideration.

Relevant here is the turn of events during the reign of the Shih-tsung Emperor (1522-1566). This emperor embraced Taoism, degraded lamas, and suppressed Buddhism. The Ming Shih states from this time onwards "Tibetan lamas rarely went to China". In view of the lavish rewards and titles that were given to lamas for almost two centuries, the fact that they stopped going to China in the 16th century suggests a dramatic change in Ming policy towards the lamas. It is mere coincidence that this change was synchronic with the return of the Mongols to the Kokonor region?

Even though the Mongols were overthrown in China, they continued to be a force in Inner Asia. Early in the 16th century they began again to infiltrate the Kokonor region, and in the reign of the Shih-tsung Emperor, Mongols under the leadership of Altan Khan began to harass the Chinese frontier. Altan Khan finally made peace with the Ming court in 1571, but that did not stop him from becoming involved in Tibetan affairs. He invited the third hierarch of the Yellow-hat Sect to Mongolia and in 1578 he gave that lama the Mongolian title of Dalai ("Ocean"). Following the example of his ancestor Khubilai Khan, Altan Khan entered into the "lama-patron" relationship with this Dalai Lama.

Although I'm done with Wylie's source, I'm not done here by far, more to come.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Responses

In the order of appearance, I ask that Wikipedia Users please state their thoughts and opinions in one of the following response slots in regards to the Wylie passages above, the Tibet issue, and LaGrandefr's map. Make sure that you have read all three passages of Wylie's book chapter that I have presented above, in order to write your own comprehensive arguments. I'll start off...

• User 1 --> Given that the Mingshi is 269 years old, was written by pre-modern scholars who were writing a history overseen by the government, was written in an uneasy political situation where the scholars had to censure themselves and avoid insulting the Ming emperors (as well as their Qing emperor Qianlong), and Wylie's statement that "Such censorship of the official history of the Ming dynasty distorts the true picture of the period", then LaGrandefr's argument of validating his scholarly-challenged map through the use of primary source documents (Mingshi) without the consultation and analysis of modern scholars amounts to original research. As we all know, Wikipedia does not sponsor original research. His argument thus becomes null and void, if not dangerous to a free encyclopedia.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• User 2 -->

Like I said before, whether LaGrandefr's map is appropriate or not hinges on the relation of Tibet with Ming China. To support his claim that Tibet was in fact an administered part of Ming China, LaGrandefr quoted a sentence from Mingshi (actually only 4 characters are relevant) that may be roughly translated as: [Ming] occupies Tubo [Tibet] in the West. But as he himself said, the concept of a nation state is modern, it is not obvious whether Mingshi meant Tibet was actually an administrative part of Ming, or it was just a tributary state which is also counted as part of Ming anyway. Seems to me he needs more than a sentence to establish his claim.

Besides, the reliability of Mingshi is disputed. Common sense would suggest that Mingshi, written by men as opposed to inspired by gods, is error-prone. So I wouldn't put as much faith in it as LaGrandefr apparently did. If Mingshi were the last word on Ming, why do we need all these Ming scholars and research papers on Ming? That said, I would trust Mingshi if there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, as it's probably the most authoritative work of its time. But I'm afraid it's now on of those instances when Mingshi is not reliable. Josuechan (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• User 3 -->

We have a map published by a reliable source and apparently roughly in line with respected secondary sources on the period, and another one that seems to be in contradiction with a number respected secondary sources, and also misses info on the Mings other tributaries (or "tributaries"). IMO all one could ask for would be to attribute the mao currently on the page (map published by ... in ...), and maybe create an extra section on the relation between the Ming and Tibet. Yaan (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• User 4 -->

• User 5 -->

Thank you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant

Thank you for your response. According to the sentence [Ming] occupies Tubo [Tibet] in the West(西據吐番) in Mingshi, it's really that we cannot see how exact relation between Tibet and Ming China was. However, it's very clearly that Ming occupied Tibet, just like Germany occupied France during the WWII, so we can definitely claim that France was in Germany at that period. As for other proves, I've even described the two administrative divisions in Tibet settled by Ming China(17:00, 1 April 2008), Dbus-Gtsang Itinerant High Commandery(烏思藏行都指揮使司) and Mdo-khams Itinerant High Commandery (朵甘行都指揮使司), which is the same administrative division as China proper. And the system of Itinerant High Commandery (都指揮使司) was settled in 1375 in the whole Ming China.

Moreover, all the researches of Ming Dynasty are based on Mingshi, which is one of the 24 official Chinese historical works. If it's not reliable, the whole article of Ming Dynasty and all researches of this domain should be doubted. Besides, I want to point out that Qing Dynasty and Ming Dynasty are two mortal enemies, is it logical to exaggerate the territory of enemy? Sorry, I don't see the significance.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)}}

Sorry, but your comment here is irrelevant to the sub-section, unfounded, and unconstructive. Besides, I've proven you wrong with the Mingshi itself! Until you make a sensible response to Wylie's passage, basing your argument in Wylie's or another modern scholar's argument, then your post does not deserve to belong in the sub-section above. Thank you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course most historians use the Mingshi, but it's only a large guide, not a 100% trustworthy document, and there are many, many more primary sources for historians to peruse through besides the Mingshi. If you read the passages above (which you obviously didn't), you would clearly see the problem with placing trust in the Mingshi when it comes to Tibet.

The Qing and Ming being once mortal enemies is irrelevant. By the time the Mingshi was compiled by Qing scholars, the Southern Ming had been conquered for almost 70 years, and the actual Ming for nearly 100 years. The Qing scholars based their history off of what men in the time of the Ming wrote, and as Wylie shows above is that the people making the Ming court records avoided displaying the true situation in Tibet, because it would embarrass and demote the status of the Yongle Emperor, who they did not want to insult (he was prone to execute people who dissatisfied him, although not as much as Hongwu). No Qing emperor, especially Qianlong who was trying to conquer Tibet, would choose to degrade a former Chinese emperor in their situations with Tibet, especially one such as Yongle, who Qing emperors no doubt would try to use as a moral or bold exemplar and historical precedent as all emperors of China did with former emperors. It would be considered insulting even in Qing times to degrade Ming emperors.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know very well your position and I respect it at the same time. But you should realize there's also other scholarly opinion also based on some historical documents, which is different from your opinion. Still my sentence that I said I above, different scholars have different opinions. You just stick to your position and cannot accept even tarnish other scholars' opinion. As for the relation between Ming court and Tibet, some scholars think Tibet was part of Ming China (sovereignty), some scholars think Tibet was a tributary of Ming China (suzerainty), some scholars even think there were no ties between the two. Why don't we present all of the opinions? We cannot choose the opinions according to our pleasures. I'm glad that you return to yourself, (no longer suspect everything like some time ago) and present rational arguments. I've made a suggestion in my user page. If you're still not satisfied, I can change the color of Tibet into a color relatively different from China proper, in order to reach a further negotiation. How about it? Regards. --LaGrandefr (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"However, it's very clearly that Ming occupied Tibet, just like Germany occupied France during the WWII, so we can definitely claim that France was in Germany at that period." - when exactly did Ming China occupy Tibet? Yaan (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Never. The Ming never sent conquering troops to Tibet and never sent troops to garrison in Tibet. Even Wang and Nyima admit this, and they are the scholarly supporters of Ming rule over Tibet. Which, indeed, makes this France and Germany during WWII comparison bizarre and misplaced.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The contention here is which map picture will be in the lead

In response to your statements above, LaGrandefr, yes, I've already noted the different scholarly conclusions in the article in the new Tibet section (even the Wylie passage above notes different scholars' opinions, so it's not as if this hasn't dawned on me, LaGrandefr). I am all for presenting all opinions, as per WP:NPOV. In fact, I have no qualms with including your map in the article, as I've stated numerous times above. However, the contentious issue here is not so much my disagreement with SinoPress's map, but where it is placed in the article. With your edit here, you were not content with having the contested SinoPress Map in the new Tibet section; instead, you wanted it in the introductory lead section and in the infobox. Another problem with your map that will confuse readers is comparing it to the other maps in the article. I feel that readers will become confused by your map in the lead as they discover other maps later on that don't show Tibet under Ming control, asking "When did the Ming conquer Tibet?" Which, of course, never happened. They might also ask "If it was conquered, when did the Ming lose control of it?" This is the heart of the issue and the problem with your map being in the lead section. Using Wylie's passage above, the Harvard University Press map I support would be accurate, as it is most clear that Yongle had little sway or power over the Tibetans he granted titles to; in fact, anyone who happened to walk into the palace door with tribute in their hands was labeld a "King" no matter what; it could have been a lama's janitor for all Yongle knew! Lol. More importantly, some Tibetan leaders refused to acknowledge Yongle and declined his invitation to court. The Jiajing Emperor (r. 1521–1567), a staunch Daoist, discarded relations with the Tibetan lamas as if the tribute relationship had never existed; at the same time, the Mongols' relationship with Tibetan lamas was enhanced.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More evidence and a new problem with the SinoPress Map

In addition to the arguments made by scholars Hoffman, Riggs, and Wylie above, here is more evidence I present from Dawa Norbu's China's Tibet Policy (2001, Richmond: Curzon, ISBN 0700704744) on page 51–52 (after discussing Phags-pa Lama and Kubilai Khan):

The highly respectful and reverential treatment extended to the Sakya Lamas is not an isolated case, though it is the first such case in Sino-Tibetan relations. Similar reverence and respect were shown by successive Chinese dynasties to successive ruling or reigning High Lamas of Tibet. Two such examples will illustrate our point: the Ming emperor invited the V Karmapa (Lama Dezhin Shagpa) to China in 1407. A noted Tibetan historian accompanying him recorded the imperial reception to the lama in the following words:

On the first day of the first month of the Fire Hog year, we arrived at the outskirts of Nanking, the capital of the Ming. Officials and noblemen on horses welcomed us and placed Karmapa on an elephant. At the city gate of Nanking, the Emperor himself received Karmapa Lama. Gifts were exchanged. Karmapa presented a gold model of a wheel and a scarf to the Emperor, and received in return a conch shell and a scarf. After the Emperor had returned to his palace, Karmapa was escorted to the guest house.

It should be noted that the Emperor came out of his palace to receive the lama, and that there was no question of kowtow by the latter to the former. We might say their relations, though not on equal footing, were characterized by mutual respect and implicit compromise politics. An even higher level of state reception was accorded to the V Dalai Lama by the Qing Emperor Shen Xhi [sic] in 1652. The Lama's state visit was an unprecedented event in the history of Qing-Tibetan relations. As William Rockhill writes, "He [the V Dalai Lama] had been treated with all the ceremony which could have been accorded to any independent sovereign, and nothing can be found in the Chinese works that he was looked upon in any other light.

Aside from Dawa Norbu's strange spelling of "Emperor Shen Xhi" (???), this is yet again a very useful passage in my argument about Tibet's status. It had quite a unique status among the vassal entities paying tribute to the Ming court, but it was not part of the Ming.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

On Page 58 of the same book:

According to Chinese communist historians, "The Ming Dynasty basically followed the system introduced by the Yuan Dynasty in exercising rule over the Tibetan areas." This was true of the Amdo and Kham areas (Inner Tibet) but not of Outer Tibet (U-Tsang and Ngari) where, as we have seen, three successive nationalistic regimes came into existence, which Communist historians prefer to ignore.

On the other hand, Tibetan nationalist historians such as Shakabpa maintain that "Tibet gained its independence from the Mongols in the time of Changchub Gyaltsen (1302-64), and China gained hers in 1368 under the leadership of Chu Yuan-chang." Shakabpa is only partially correct. Changchub Gyaltsen's Tibet included only U-Tsang and Ngari (Outer Tibet) and not Amdo and Kham whose lamaas and chieftans continued to have flourishing tribute-cum-trade relations with the Ming dynasty, as we shall see later.

This creates more problems. If the SinoPress Map is trying to include Inner Tibet (or rather, the eastern half of Tibet) as a place ruled by the Ming (through suzerainty), then why does it include Outer Tibet (the western half of Tibet) as well, which did not acknowledge the Ming? This is another reason why I think it's a bad idea to use SinoPress, which didn't do a very good job on their map if the right intent should be showing that the Ming had suzerainty over Inner Tibet, not Outer Tibet.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ming never sent conquering troops to Tibet and never sent troops to garrison in Tibet.? I cite a website with .edu ending as you like, [11], it says Ming court sent several military expeditionary forces to pacify Tibet. So you still stick to your opinion? Moreover, this website has also drawn the map of Tibet under Ming dynasty. [12] You just cite the arguments of scholars who have the same opinion with you, frankly. Now that you accept the map of SinoMap Press and want to place it in the text. Why? If it's exact, we can place it everywhere. I also said above that I can offer a detailed map of Tibet under the administration of Ming China and it will be suitable to be placed in the section about Tibet. You think readers will be confused by ming_1443.png, but I've already negotiated to make a relatively different color over Tibet in Ming China, in noting there's a debate in the issue of Tibet and more details will be shown in the section of Tibet that you opened. Thus, ming_1443.png can include the opinions of TWO sides, but your map completely dismisses one side's opinion. Can you understand? You also posed some questions like When did the Ming conquer Tibet? or If it was conquered, when did the Ming lose control of it?, etc, how can you give a definitive negative answer yourself? It's so funny. Besides, all of the questions that you posed can be answered in the section that you created, I'll cite the arguments in the same time. At last, where did you see that Outer Tibet was not included in Ming China? E-Li-Si Army-Civilian Marshal Office (俄力思軍民元帥府) was instituted by Ming court (1376) in Ngari (western Tibet). Could you please read more before wild talking? Thanks. --LaGrandefr (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, websites, even those end with .edu, are not enough. Why? Because at this minute I could put up some crazy stuff like saying Tibet was colonized by Martins in 1000 AD on my website, which is hosted by my university that ends with .edu. At least try some books published by publishers with good reputation (like Cambridge History of China). If you're really serious to prove your claims, you should look for papers in peer-reviewed journals. You see, all the sources Pericles of Athens quoted are reliable. True, I didn't know about Turrell V. Wylie a few days ago. But a little internet search shows that he published a paper titled "A Short History of Tibet" in The Journal of Asian Studies, which is a very good journal. Then I know he's no cheat and what he says carries some weights. Josuechan (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I cite a website with .edu ending as you like, [11], it says Ming court sent several military expeditionary forces to pacify Tibet. So you still stick to your opinion? It's not an opinion, LaGrandefr (I'm sensing you're getting a bit hostile, tone it down), it's a fact stated even by the scholars who support your claim, Wang and Nyima. Go sit on that for a while and come back with a cooler head (and preferably credible book and journal sources on your part, which you have not yet fulfilled).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I just followed the home page of the ".edu" link you provided, which says:

If you plan to create a personal home page and place it in the World Wide Web, you should be familiar with PUCC policies on the proper use of the Purdue University computing facilities.

Nuts-and-Bolts on Personal Home Pages

You can create a personal World Wide Web home page on this machine. Your WWW documents must be stored in a subdirectory named WWW under your home directory, and this directory (~/WWW) must be world-executable and world-readable. Note: your home directory "~" must be world-executable.

This is clearly not a scholarly published article; it's a student's personal web page, not a peer-reviewed or acknowledged source. You're really clutching at straws here, LaGrandefr.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly demand the intervention of admins in this discussion!

To some guys above: At the beginning, you suspected I made a map myself, and I cited the original map in no time. Later you accused it's pro-communist(PRC), I cited dozens of websites of different origins (no blog, Internet forum, ect.) to prove it. After you only wanted the websites with .edu ending, I cited this kind of website immediately. And you changed to want a book, I cited Historical Atlas of China, SinoMap Press, ISBN 7503103841, but you rejected it once again. Even when I cited a officially compiled historical works (there're only 24 in the whole history of China), you can still deny it. User:PericlesofAthens suspected me to be a WP:SOCKPUPPET, contrarily, I doubt you, how can it exist a gang of persons that have a opinion and act so unified? I don't know what I can do right now. OK, I'll wait, just wait the response of admins.

To User:PericlesofAthens: I cited [13] and just want to satisfy your anxiety of websites with .edu ending. The website is sponsored by Tibet Study Association (formerly America-Tibet Association) and I chanced to find it. You want to finally clarify the relation between Tibet and Ming court, I still cited Mingshi, Dbus-Gtsang Itinerant High Commandery (烏思藏行都指揮使司) and Mdo-khams Itinerant High Commandery (朵甘行都指揮使司) in eastern Tibet, E-Li-Si Army-Civilian Marshal Office (俄力思軍民元帥府) in western Tibet were settled by Ming court. There're many more administrative divisions settled by Ming court at that epoch. You can don't accept all of these, but please allow others' opinion. Briefly, both of us realize the existence of different opinions. Why don't we present all of them? You still didn't respond my proposal of negotiation. Please take in consideration. Thanks.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LaGrandefr, you are contradicting yourself

Hi, Pericles here. Well, LaGrandefr, I would love to negotiate with you, but you now seem to be contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said:

Sorry, I made this map on the basis of the original map made by Sinomap Press, ISBN：7503103841. I won't and can't change it according to my personal willing. Thanks.

I can't disagree with that, but now you are saying this:

You think readers will be confused by ming_1443.png, but I've already negotiated to make a relatively different color over Tibet in Ming China, in noting there's a debate in the issue of Tibet and more details will be shown in the section of Tibet that you opened. Thus, ming_1443.png can include the opinions of TWO sides, but your map completely dismisses one side's opinion.

So tell me, LaGrandefr, this new map you are speaking of with a different color for Tibet and China proper, are you deriving this from a scholarly-sourced map that you have yet to present here with a link? If you were to alter the SinoPress Map to differentiate Tibet and China proper with colors, would that not be a faithful copy of the SinoPress Map, and therefore become your own map that you custom made without a proper source? I hope you see how this contradicts what you stated earlier. If I am understanding you correclty, you are now saying you are abandoning the SinoPress map for another source with a different map that I have not yet seen?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another issue: the Ming never conquered or occupied Tibet

That personal web page of the Purdue University student you used states:

Ming court sent several military expeditionary forces to pacify Tibet.

But is this true? In which year did the Ming send an army and in which years were they garrisoned in Tibet? Which Ming military officer commanded the troops that conquered Tibet? How long was the campaign and conquest of Tibet? Is this information in the Mingshi or another source, perhaps? I ask this because the two scholars I cited in the Ming Dynasty article who are in favor of LaGrandefr's argument that Tibet was part of China, Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, on page 38 of their The Historical Status of China's Tibet (中国西藏历史地位英, 1997, China Intercontinental Press, ISBN 7801133048), state this:

The Ming Dynasty, which toppled the Yuan Dynasty and took control of China, was not as powerful in national military might as the Yuan had been. Although the Ming Dynasty court was harsh enough to punish law-breaking Tibetan officials, it refrained from sending troops to subdue Tibet or from garrisoning troops in Tibet. However, exploiting the fact that the local forces of Tibet could survive and fare well only with the support of the emperor, the Ming Dynasty court granted official posts and titles of honor to local Tibetan leaders, who vied to pay tribute to the Ming Dynasty court, and granted them handsome rewards. The Ming Dynasty was very successful in expanding influence in the Tibetan areas and in strengthening ties with local forces through these measures.

So there you have it, Wang and Nyima state that the Ming never sent troops to Tibet, and they are the ones supporting your argument! In addition, Dawa Norbu, who I cited above, states that the Mongols to the north were the main threat to the Ming, as the Ming had no worries of military problems rising on the western borders with Tibet so long as a cordial tribute relationship was effective. Strangely enough, Wang and Nyima never elaborate on how the Ming "[punished] law-breaking Tibetan officials," or even why they believe the local forces in Tibet were so heavily indebted to the Ming emperor's support for their very survival; they make a pretty weak point by not backing it up with facts to follow, unlike the other scholars Norbu, Wylie, Hoffman, Riggs, etc. I have shown here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you state this:

You want to finally clarify the relation between Tibet and Ming court, I still cited Mingshi, Dbus-Gtsang Itinerant High Commandery (烏思藏行都指揮使司) and Mdo-khams Itinerant High Commandery (朵甘行都指揮使司) in eastern Tibet, E-Li-Si Army-Civilian Marshal Office (俄力思軍民元帥府) in western Tibet were settled by Ming court.

LaGrandefr, we've been over this already, as proven by scholar Turrell V. Wylie, you cannot trust the Mingshi as an accurate source when it comes to Tibet. Furthermore, you are using a primary source document that should be analyzed by historians; you are not a historian, so what you are doing amounts to original research, which is not allowed. I'm sorry, but any more direct references to the Mingshi will be ignored as invalid material not checked by modern credible scholars.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you're tending to accept the negotiation. Thank you for the concern that I MAYBE risk of going back to my words. Your concern is superfluous since I don't want modify Ming_1443.png, what I suggested is that we make a combination of 2 maps in order to present 2 sides' opinions. This is a common method in Wikipedia to debated issues. (I'm a new comer of English wiki, not a new user.)

About the issue of Tibet, it's debated among the scholars, so why are you so willing to draw a one-sided self-approbation decision? Could you PLEASE don't give your personal thoughts in Wikipedia? The source that you cited Historical Status of China's Tibet, it says Ming refrained from … the authors used refrained, not prohibited. During the whole dynasty, Ming didn't carry out large military actions in Tibet, but it did some times. 1370, General DENG Yu was sent by the court to conquer the West … Mdo-khams and Dbus-Gtsang showed submission to Ming court. (洪武三年…大將軍出定西…朵甘、烏斯藏諸部悉歸附) Do you really find a seesaw battle very interesting, as each side shows their sources endlessly? The issue of Tibet during Ming China is DABATED, not concluded, both of us cannot (neither qualified not authorized) to decide whether Tibet was in Ming China or not, so I advice you not to conclude so easily and so carelessly.

Besides, according to Mingshi-Military, a detailed and complete administration system was even recorded, two Itinerant High Commandery 都指揮使司, one Itinerant Commandery 指揮使司, three Pacification Commissioner's Office 宣尉使司, six Expedition Commissioner's Office 招討司, four Wanhu offices 萬戶府 (myriarchies each in command of 10,000 households), seventeen Qianhu offices 千戶所 (chiliarchies each in command of 1,000 households). I will show all the details in the new section about Tibet. (In fact, to be a featured article, Ming Dynasty should introduce a detailed administration division of the whole country, I'm glad to offer all sources that I own.) If you can still deny all of these, I'll have no alternative but wait the admins' response, since I've shown my greatest goodwill to negotiate. Regards.--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead infobox map and a possible new article

For goodness sake, why are you now always putting your responses in quotation form? This page would be very hard to read for any newcomer in this debate, as I've already quoted you above using that method. Anyway, you state this:

It seems that you're tending to accept the negotiation. Thank you for the concern that I MAYBE risk of going back to my words. Your concern is superfluous since I don't want modify Ming_1443.png, what I suggested is that we make a combination of 2 maps in order to present 2 sides' opinions. This is a common method in Wikipedia to debated issues. (I'm a new comer of English wiki, not a new user.)

No, you haven't suggested that at all up until this point; before, as seen on your user page, you did not include two maps, but you do have a completely new map because you altered the colors of Tibet and China Proper (and then I asked which scholarly-source you based this new altered map from). As I made clear earlier, I'm not against having a map that shows different colors for Tibet and China Proper, but the boundaries of it has to be based off of a map from a scholarly source, not just something out of thin air that we contrived (that would be original research).

So let me get this straight: you are suggesting that the lead infobox contain both the Harvard University Press map and the SinoMap Press map, side-by-side, without one or the other being altered? If so, I wouldn't object to the idea, if you can have it done.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1370, General DENG Yu

Finally! A name and a year...but those areas only reportedly "submitted" on his western campaign; was there an actual battle we're missing here, though? There certainly wasn't an occupation.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you really find a seesaw battle very interesting, as each side shows their sources endlessly?

Well, you seem pretty gung-ho in plugging your map into the article without bringing scholarly sources to the table; in fact, I'm the only one who's done that so far. I'm the one who brought Wang and Nyima to the fore; I could have just chosen to ignore the opposing side, but since you've sparked an interest in the issue, I found it necessary to include opposing views to understand the full argument. If this is a seesaw game, I'm sitting on one end by myself without any partner of equal weight.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue of Tibet during Ming China is DABATED, not concluded, both of us cannot (neither qualified not authorized) to decide whether Tibet was in Ming China or not, so I advice you not to conclude so easily and so carelessly.

You advise me, huh? That's ironic, since I've repeatedly had to tell you the same thing on this issue. It's good to see someone's taking my advice.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I will show all the details in the new section about Tibet. (In fact, to be a featured article, Ming Dynasty should introduce a detailed administration division of the whole country, I'm glad to offer all sources that I own.)

Well, well, so far I was unaware that you owned any scholarly sources, since you've been so careful to avoid showing them here. As to expanding the Tibet section in this article, no, that will not do. This article has already ballooned in size to a near unacceptable level since I've expanded it beginning in December 2007; there were also complaints in the FAC discussion about how large the overall "History" section was becoming in comparison to the following sections. If you want to include all of this new textual information from "sources that I own", I would suggest creating a separate main article that can be linked in the Tibet sub-section of this article. "Tibet during the Ming Dynasty", perhaps?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not me who started to use quotation form (actually it's you). Briefly, you finally accept the negotiation, a new map that shows the different scholarly opinions about Tibet during Ming Dynasty. The map in my user page is my proposal several days ago, please be more concentrated to the discussion, OK? The new map will be shown in the right.

As for other discussion about the article, we shall make it in the section you created. I'm somewhat exhausted, frankly.

PS: Still that sentence, don't be a sceptic, it's not good. Of course I owned the scholarly sources, I showed the original texts it's because I wanna close some ones' mouths by the historical records. Regards. --LaGrandefr (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I started quoting you in that quotation format, but that's different from crafting all my responses in quotation format. As for the map, since you acknowledged in the image description that it's based off of both maps, SinoPress and Harvard University Press, I suppose that it is acceptable. As for additional textual information on Tibet during the Ming, that can go in a new separate article linked here as a sister article to this article and a main article for the Tibet section, as the latter in this article is already a bit long as it stands. I think now we can end this long 'seesaw' tirade, as you decribe it. Let's finally have this edit lock removed so that the article can get back on track, shall we?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)