Talk:Yuan dynasty/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Yuan dynasty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
map
that map is seriously screwed up, why does its southern border aligned exactly with modern china's southern border? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.169.4 (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC) SOME WHITE PEOPLE MADE THIS, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.105 (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Semuren does NOT mean "people with coloured eyes"
It doesn't make any sense. The Semuren included mostly Uyghurs and Tibetans, who had black/brown eyes, just like the Mongols and the Han Chinese.
In fact, the term "Semu" is derived from a classical Chinese phrase "ge-se ge-mu", which means "of the various ethicities/tribes". This term is used because unlike the Mongols and the Han, the Semuren consists of a large number of ethnicities and tribes with comparable population sizes.
User:Jasnine 18:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is various sorts. However, you may not know that the semuren included a few Russians, Ossetains (Asud), Persians, Moors (Ibn Battuta met a Moroccan in China), Latins (merchants and clerics) as well as Kypchaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerelt (talk • contribs)
- I wonder where the term "өнгөт нүдтэн" comes from. This term is found in Mongolian history books. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know why they did so. Ren is people and I think semu is different sorts. Most of the westerners in the Yuan didn't have black or dark eyes.--Enerelt (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Manchurian template?
Can we remove the "Manchuria history" template? I think it's more of an annoyance than something thats beneficial to the whole article. Not to mention the fatness of it just make the formation screams. Any opinion? --LLTimes (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yuan currency
Feel free to insert into the article Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yuan coinage. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 13:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
POV/NPOV
Analysing the history of this article, it's easy to see that the demand of many editors for so called "NPOV" is actually a pretext for pushing their own POV. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Mongol name
The intro says, "Mongolian: Dai Ön Ulus/Их Юан Гүрэн" and the infobox says, "Dai Ön Mongol Ulus" with the note, "According to some sources such as "Volker Rybatzki, Igor de Rachewiltz-The early mongols: language, culture and history, p.116", the full Mongolian name is "Dai Ön Yeke Mongghul Ulus"." "Их Юан Гүрэн" does not appear to be the same name that is being referred to at other points; it transliterates to "Ikh Yaan Güren". Wouldn't it make more sense to have the Mongol Cyrillic equivalent of the same name that we are giving in Roman letters?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the Mongol name, according to what I know, the only official edict issued by the Yuan regarding the country name was the 1271 edict issued by Kublai Khan which established the name as "Great Yuan" (大元/Dai On), although in Mongolian language ulus (which can mean country, nation, or khanate) is usually used in the end to make it read "Dai On Ulus". Some sources though state that in Mongolian language "Great Yuan" (Dai On) is also used in combination with "Yeke Mongghul Ulus" to make it read "Dai Ön Yeke Mongghul Ulus", but which may actually refer to the Yeke Mongghul Ulus (Mongol Empire), not just the Dai On Ulus (Yuan Dynasty; note that Yuan is the eastmost division of the Mongol Empire, not the Mongol Empire itself). Also, regarding the name "Dai On Mongol Ulus", although Yuan is of course Mongol, I don't think I am able to find this particular name in any reliable sources however. Finally, I think of course you can have the Mongol Cyrillic equivalent of the same name that we are giving in Roman letters.--173.206.166.215 (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Governance
According the Cambridge history source, the system of government of Yuan was really a mixture or compromise between Mongolian and the traditional Chinese imperial system. While Yuan is a Mongol dynasty, it is not true that the Mongols only followed the Genghis Khan's but not Chinese imperial tradition (or soled limited in some territory; for example, a few tradition-style institutions such as Zhongshusheng (or "Central Secretariat") were used or in function throughout the Yuan, or at least in name). No one should be nationalic here, and try to be on topic and encyclopedic when editing articles. --216.254.167.73 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Tibet a part of China during the Yuan?
This edit at History of Mongolia changes "The Yuan Dynasty included Mongolia proper, China, Tibet and some adjacent territories such as ..." to "The Yuan Dynasty included Mongolia proper, China, and some adjacent territories such as ..." with the explanation "China and Tibet not separate entities". This is a very sensitive subject, but I don't see how we can consistently avoid dealing with it. My inclination is that, during the Yuan Dynasty, China and Tibet should be treated as separate entities. They were incorporated into Kublai Khan's empire at different times, and Tibet continued to be ruled by the same vassal that Kublai Khan had put in place even after China was added to the empire.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Mongols conquered North China ruled by Jin Dynasty first (1230s), then Tibet (1240s), and finally South China ruled by Song Dynasty (1270s). There was no unified China at the time of Mongol invasions. Just say "the regions under former Jin and Song dynasties, Tibet ..." will be good enough and can avoid disputes. However, more serious issue is that someone recently claims that Tibet was not at all part of Yuan in that article (see [1]. I have left a comment in that talk page. --207.112.20.214 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Yuan Dynasty 1290.jpg Deleted
An image used in this article, File:Yuan Dynasty 1290.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Jcb for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/maps in History and Commercial Atlas of China
- What should I do?
You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Mongol empire 1290.jpg Deleted
An image used in this article, File:Mongol empire 1290.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Jcb for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/maps in History and Commercial Atlas of China
- What should I do?
You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
History Empty Space
Anyone know why there's a large gap between the, 'History' title and the actual writing for it? Just a little strange to me. Know why? Tell me please: Infinity Warrior — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity Warrior (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Northern Chinese & Southern Chinese or just Chinese?
Did modern classification of northern Chinese and southern Chinese existed back in Yuan era? This is questionable when there was no such classification recorded anywhere from ancient Chinese or Mongolian records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.30 (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- people were not grouped by race. The caste system was done by what empire you were a subject of, not your ethnicity. All former subjects of the jin dynasty, whether chinese, khitan, or jurchen, were grouped togethr in third class, this class was called "han", as in han chinese, while former subjects of the wong dynasty, whether chinese, miao, or other tribal minorities in southern china were grouped together in the fourth class, this class was called "man", which meant "southern barbarians". The fourth class weren't actually called chinese.
Korean place in the 4 class system
Why is there a focus on Korean people when this page is about Yuan Dynasty, ie. mongol rule over the chinese people? It is an attempt by insecure and racist Chinese nationalists to insult Koreans and other Asians. This shows a distortion of history and the terrible character of nationalistic han chinese. Koreans were included along with Northern Chinese, Khitan and Jurchen in the third class, as "Han ren".
http://www.academia.edu/7542628/The_Semu_ren_in_the_Yuan_Empire_-_who_were_they
http://books.google.com/books?id=sNpD5UKmkswC&pg=PA247#v=onepage&q&f=false
Semu men would marry Korean women.
A rich merchant from the Ma'bar Sultanate, Abu Ali, was associated closely with the Ma'bar royal family. After falling out with them, he fled to Yuan dynasty China and was granted an official job and a Korean woman as his wife by the Mongol Emperor.
http://books.google.com/books?id=GSA_AaRdgioC&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 315
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Han Dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Mongolia never conquered "China".
Mongolia absolutely conquered China. There was debate whether to exterminate the han population to make room for their horses. Instead the Khan was advised to tax the Chinese peasantry instead.
As we know that Yuan Dynasty is no doubt a Chinese dynasty, even the founder of the Empire clearly stated that in The Yuan Dianzhang (元典章．建國號詔). Mongolian never conquered a country called "China 中國", but Jing 金, southern Song 南宋 and other former Chinese dynasties such as 大理 and 西夏. None of these countries named themselves "中國" but Jing dynasty; however, back in those days, "中國" was never a country name but a concept of a particular region -the "Middle land" 中原/中國. "中國" was also a title for the nations rule over the "Middle land". During the period of the Three Kingdoms, Zhuge Liang 諸葛亮 clearly said that their enemy is "中國" (Cao Wei/曹魏):「若能以吳、越之眾與中國抗衡，不如早與之絕」. 曹魏 was the only nation which can claimed the title of "中國" during that time -yet we all know that the whole three kingdoms, Wei, Shu and Wu (魏蜀吳), is "China 中國" without a doubt. As you can see, before the ROC, "China/中國" was never a formal name of any ancient Chinese nations, but a geographical concept (middle land) of the "rightful central regime".
Moreover, some people here seems pretty upset about how Chinese people calling some ancient Mongolians Chinese(中國人). First of all, the definition of "Chinese" is not always the same. The term "Chinese" was mostly refereed to Han people (漢人), yet nowadays it refers to the Chinese Ethnics Group (中華民族/中國人) which includes Han, Manchurian, Hui, (Inner) Mongolian, Tibetan and other 'Chinese ethnics'. Chinese never called Kublai "Chinese/漢人", but "Chinese(中國人)" [I blamed the translator who made such a mess]. Same as (Inner) Mongolian, Han people (漢人) is just a part of Chinese (中國人). Besides, the descendants of the founders of Yuan dynasty, the Golden Family, are all Inner Mongolian. --No1lovesu (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.twwiki.com/wiki/鐵木兒塔識
http://finance.discuss.com.hk/archiver/?tid-23343204.html http://www.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=23343204
http://www.discuss.com.hk/archiver/?tid-23160416.html http://www.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=23160416
http://toyoshi.lit.nagoya-u.ac.jp/maruha/kanseki/yuanshi167.html
http://baike.sogou.com/h56642042.htm?sp=l56644345
http://www.chinapage.com/big5/history/y17.htm
「蠻夷小邦，不足以勞中國（Yuan）。張立道嘗再使安南有功，今復使往，宜無不奉命。」
http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-worldlook-1146639-1.shtml
http://www.so-e.ru/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=14758
http://bolin.freevar.com/093b.htm http://www.chinapage.com/big5/history/y14.htm http://taipei.ddbc.edu.tw/sutra/H0001_005.php
［元史］ 列傳第二十七 鐵木兒塔識
鐵木兒塔識曰：「刺探在敵國固有之，今六合一家，何以刺探為？設果有之，正可令睹中國之盛，歸告其主，使知向化。」
［History of Yuan］ 鐵木兒塔識 (son of Toqto'a): "Such action of spying on your enemy state is no double expected, but since the world is now a united family, why would they even do such thing? Even if they are really spying on us, let them be. They will see how great China 中國 is and report it to their king and let him obey (us)."
http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-333-333136-2.shtml
http://www.zhihu.com/question/23225550
http://baike.baidu.com/view/10689255.htm
https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/建國號詔
https://zh.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=建國號詔&variant=zh-hant
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/建國號詔
http://www.uus8.org/4/其他历史书籍/历史/通史/中国通史(白版)/13/0036.htm
http://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=523175
http://www.newsancai.com/big5/traditional/137-prosperity/13789-2011-07-13-00-11-15.html
建國號詔
誕膺景命，奄四海以宅尊﹔必有美名，紹百王而紀統。肇從隆古，匪獨我家。且唐之為言蕩也，堯以之而著稱﹔虞之為言樂也，舜因之而作號。馴至禹興而湯造，互 名夏大以殷中，世降以還，事殊非古。雖乘時而有國，不以利而制稱。為秦為漢者，著從初起之地名﹔曰隋曰唐者，因即所封之爵邑。且皆徇百姓見聞之偶習，要一 時經制之權宜，概以至公，不無少貶。我太祖聖武皇帝，握乾符而起朔土，以神武而膺帝圖，四震天聲，大恢土宇，輿圖之廣，歷古所無。頃者耆宿詣庭，奏草申 請，謂既成於大業，宜早定於鴻名。在古制以當然，於朕心乎何有！可建國號曰大元，蓋取《易經》乾元之義，茲大冶流形於庶品，孰名資始之功。予一人底寧於萬 邦，尤切體仁之要，事從因革，道協天人。於戲！稱義而名，固非為之溢美﹔孚休惟永，尚不負於投艱。嘉與敷天，共隆大號！
「蠻夷小邦，不足以勞中國（Yuan）。張立道嘗再使安南有功，今復使往，宜無不奉命。」
「誕膺景命，奄四海以宅尊﹔必有美名，紹百王而紀統。肇從隆古，匪獨我家。且唐之為言蕩也，堯以之而著稱﹔虞之為言樂也，舜因之而作號。馴至禹興而湯造，互 名夏大以殷中，世降以還，事殊非古。雖乘時而有國，不以利而制稱。為秦為漢者，著從初起之地名﹔曰隋曰唐者，因即所封之爵邑。且皆徇百姓見聞之偶習，要一 時經制之權宜，概以至公，不無少貶。我太祖聖武皇帝，握乾符而起朔土，以神武而膺帝圖，四震天聲，大恢土宇，輿圖之廣，歷古所無。頃者耆宿詣庭，奏草申 請，謂既成於大業，宜早定於鴻名。在古制以當然，於朕心乎何有！可建國號曰大元，蓋取《易經》乾元之義，茲大冶流形於庶品，孰名資始之功。予一人底寧於萬 邦，尤切體仁之要，事從因革，道協天人。於戲！稱義而名，固非為之溢美﹔孚休惟永，尚不負於投艱。嘉與敷天，共隆大號！」
Zhao 2006, pp.
- Zhao, Gang (January 2006). "Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century" (PDF). Modern China. 32 (1). Sage Publications: 3–30. doi:10.1177/0097700405282349. JSTOR 20062627. Archived from the original on 25 March 2014. Retrieved 23 May 2014.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help)
official languages
http://books.google.com/books?id=iN9Tdfdap5MC&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=iN9Tdfdap5MC&pg=PA397#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=iN9Tdfdap5MC&pg=PA532#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=iN9Tdfdap5MC&pg=PA563#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Mongols used Chinese to rule Bukhara (in Central Asia) for the same reason they used Central Asian Semus in ruling China
While the Mongols moved Central Asians to become Semu in China and serve as administrators, they did the same thing in reverse in Central Asia, sending Chinese over to administer Bukhara.
SINO-KHITAN ADMINISTRATION IN MONGOL BUKHARA PAUL D. BUELL
page 137
Da Chao
Genghis Khan adoped the Chinese name "Da Chao" for the Mongol Empire before Kubilai changed it to Yuan.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4528536?seq=3
Rajmaan (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is proved false. See Talk:Mongol Empire/Archive 5#Chinese name adopted by Genghis for the Mongol empire. --Evecurid (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Religions
If the religions listed are to be sorted, Buddhism should definitely be listed in the first place, as it was the de-facto state religion of the Yuan dynasty. --Evecurid (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- There may be even other branches of Buddhism such as Korean Buddhism, and there is no need to list all of such branches. The most important thing however is to state that the Tibetan Buddhism was the most significant. I think we all agree with this fact. --Evecurid (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Content deletion
User:Uniquark9 seems obsessed with airbrushing the Yuan dynasty and Northern Yuan dynasty articles to his personal taste, removing or trimming information about Mongol defeats and losses while trying to aggrandize Mongol victories. Philg88 3family6 TheLeopard PericlesofAthens Nlu
- First he removed information about the Mongol capital at Karakorum being sacked by Ming forces by mendaciously insinuating that it was conflated with the Battle of Buyur Lake and that Karakorum was far away from Buyur, ignoring the fact that the Ming won in both areas. [2] The Ming sacked Karakorum in 1388 and took 70,000 Mongol prisoners. [3] [4]
- Secondly, as you know, the Yuan dynasty consists of the Chingisid (descendants of Genghis Khan) and more specifically Qubilaids (descendsnts of his grandson of Kublai Khan) who held the title of Khagan or Emperor of the Yuan dynasty up until 1635.
- The second thing concerns the defeat of the Ming dynasty at the Tumu Crisis at the hands of the Oirats under Esen Taishi. The Oirats are a different Mongolic group than the Khalkha (eastern) Mongols and the Inner Mongols. The "mainstream" Eastern Mongols and Inner Mongols (now living in Outer and Inner Mongolia) only recognized descendants of Genghis Khan as their legitimate Khans (the Golden Family, Altan urag).
- However the Oirat Mongols have no such requirement and their leaders like Esen Taishi were non-Chingisids. Their Khans were not descended from Genghis Khan. Esen Taishi fought against Chingisids and managed to seize power from them and become the effective leader of the Mongols. Esen Taishi was not a member of the Yuan dynasty royal family. [5][6][7][8]
- Esen Taishi and his Oirat army defeated the Ming at Tumu Crisis. After being intoxicated with victory, Esen Taishi arranged for his Chingisid son-in-law Agbarjin to be murdered and declare himself the Great Khagan. The Mongols then rebelled at him for claiming the title and killed him. The Oirats were rivals of the Chingisids and fought against them [9][10]
- User:Uniquark9 seems to feel the need to remove "Oirat" and "non-chingisid" as descriptors of Esen Taishi and his army, as if pretending that the Khalkha and Inner Mongols under the Chingisids were the ones doing all the fighting against the Ming. Esen Taishi and his Oirats were the ones who defeated the Ming army at Tumu, not a Chingisid. Considering the fact that this article is about the Chingisid Yuan dynasty that is a massive fact to overlook. [11]
- Thirdly Turpan was not ruled by the Northern Yuan, it was ruled by the Chagatai Khanate so what does that have to do with the Yuan dynasty article? In fact the Yuan and Chagatai Khanates fought against each other and Esen Taishi himself battled the Chagataids. It seems User:Uniquark9 just wants to insert as much as he can about Mongols winning and delete everything he can about them losing. If he wanted to put the information about Turpan conquering Hami somewhere relevant he would have put it on the Chagatai Khanate article.
- Fourthly he keeps removing all information about how the Yuan dynasty was finally ended- the main line of the Yuan royal family was defeated by the Qing dynasty in battle and forced to submit in 1635 under Ejei Khan. In 1675 Ejei's brother Abunai w:zh:阿布奈 and his son Borni w:zh:布爾尼 revolted against the Qing. The Qing then crushed their rebellion, executed them, and exterminated their branch of the Yuan royal family, putting a direct end to the main senior Yuan line who held the title of Great Khagan. [12] [13] [14][15]the Qing then placed the Chahar Mongols under the direct rule of the Qing Emperor. Surviving cadet branches of Chingisids who were ruling the Khalkha Mongols were then forced to submit as subjects to the Qing in 1691 after they were invaded by the non-Chingisid Oirat Mongol Dzungar Khanate under Galdan Boshugtu Khan (a descendant of Esen Taishi). [16][17][18][19][20] He totally deleted all information about how the Northern Yuan ended on Yuan dynasty.
- I would like to note that he also followed me to the Northern Yuan dynasty article, and started deleting the same information there too. [21][22][23] If anything the information is even more relevant at that article. How can an article about the Northern Yuan dynasty leave out how the last Great Khagan was defeated and his family was forced to submit to the Qing in 1635? That is like deleting everything about the Chongzhen Emperor from the Ming dynasty article.
- The factual veracity of the information was not questioned by User:Uniquark9 as this stuff is pretty much common knowledge among people who have basic background information about the Yuan and Northern Yuan. I provided the sources in the above paragraphs and there are sources on the Chinese wikipedia articles on Abunai and Borni. Everyone who studied early Qing history knows that the Qing put an end to the Northern Yuan and killed the royal family after their 1675 revolt, massacring Ligdan Khan's descendants. And everyone who studied Ming and Northern Yuan history knows on how the Oirats were the ones who defeated the Ming at Tumu and that they were rivals to the Chingisids. User:Uniquark9 is not even challenging it, not in his edit summaries nor on the talk page. He is just blatantly deleting it because he doesn't like it since it is about Mongol defeats, and he knows the information is correct. He keeps reverting my edits without any explanation.
- Then finally, User:Uniquark9 goes to another Mongolian User:Toghuchar and tells him in Mongolian that I am a Chinese (hyatadiig) and that he should help User:Uniquark9 revert my edits. He is blatantly telling another editor to engage in an edit war against meRajmaan (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Re. Esen Taishi, judging from the info that uniquark removed, it seems quite apparent that he needed the legitimacy of a Chingisid figurehead, and even tried (unsuccessfully) to ursurp the position of Great Khan for himself. I.e. that he was working within a Great Khanate ideological framework most of the time, and when trying to bend it to his own needs (still not openly working against it), he quickly failed - again proving that Chingisid ideology was alive and well.
- The section in its current form makes it reasonably clear that actual political power over the Mongols did not always lie with the Great Khans, although it might be a bit more explicit re. the times of the Tumu crisis vs the times of Dayan and his successors (Altan Khan seems to be completely missing btw).
- On the other hand, much of what uniquark removed in the edit in question was clearly questionable: statements such as "The Non-Chingisid Oirat Khagan Esen Taishi seized power from the Northern Yuan Chingisid Qubilaids, defeating the Chingisid Chagatai Khanate", or that (sometime between 1517 and 1526) "The Chingisids fought to take power back from the Oirats.". I also think it should be possible to find much better sources than a number of blog posts, all from one and the same author. Yaan (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The first source I provided was a book by a reputable historian- Denis Sinor, and his book emphasizes Esen as an Oirat leader and even calls their domains as the "Oirat Empire" and mentions that he was a non-Chingisid- [24]. Don Croner's work was ancillary but I found it to be well summarized.Rajmaan (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- And still no explanation why the Chagatai ruled Turpan taking over Hami is relevant to this article and why everything about the last Yuan Great Khan Ligden Khan, his family, and his defeat by the Qing was deleted here and at Northern Yuan. It was deleted again for no valid reason. [25]Rajmaan (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Issues already dealt with which Uniquark9 keeps bringing up
- Uniquark9 referred to this source edit as me trying to "change the name of the Mongol empire"- In 1217 a Chinese title, Da Chao (大朝; Wade Giles: Ta-ch'ao ; English: "Great Dynasty") was adopted by Genghis Khan to refer to the Mongol state, alongside Da Menggu Guo (大蒙古國 ; Wade Giles: Ta Meng-ku kuo), the Chinese translation of the Mongol name "Yeke Mongghol Ulus" (The Great Mongolian State), until Kublai Khan imposed the new name Da Yuan (大元; Wade–Giles: Ta-Yüan). This is what it said in the source : "Chinggis Khan did adopt a Chinese title called "Ta-ch'ao" 大朝 (Great Dynasty) around 1217, after the Mongols embarked on the conquest of China. This state name was in use along with Ta Meng-ku kuo until it was replaced by the new name Ta Yüan under Khubilai Khaghan" I fail to see how I tried to "change" the name of anything by adding paraphrased information from a source. And this has been deleted from the article by Evecurid and hasn't been added back.
- As for the Tran dynasty, I added sources which correctly noted that the Tran family originated in China and migrated to Vietnam where they continued to speak Chinese, which is confirmed by numerous western historians- [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]southeast asian history Professor Alexander Woodside outright refers to the Tran family founder as "Chinese"
- There were also civility issues with Uniquark9 like at Talk:Genghis Khan so I hope uncivil language is not utilized again in this discussion.Rajmaan (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Address the content you deleted and stop bringing up resolved issues.Rajmaan (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- "In July 1449 Esen Tayisi of the Oirat Mongols launched a large-scale, three-pronged invasion of China with his puppet khagan Toqtaq-Buqa." How can you say it was only Oirats? And oirats are just part of Mongols, not a different ethnic group. You are the person who is writing from a china-centric POV. Uniquark9 (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- If the Northern Yuan was being controlled as a puppet by Oirats then why is this important information not being noted on the article? Since Esen Taishi was in effective control of the Yuan court and even trying to usurp the Yuan by declaring himself Great Khagan before being overthrown since he was not a Chingisid, why is this major event deleted from the article? And Oirats and their leaders were not descended from Genghis Khan, and this article is about a ruling dynasty which is descended from Genghis Khan. And what does them being Mongolic have to do with their political agenda. Chingisid Khalkha Mongols submitted to the Qing in 1691 rather than be conquered by the Oirat Dzungar Khanate which was ruled by Esen Taishi's descendants. You deleted that information too.Rajmaan (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- "In July 1449 Esen Tayisi of the Oirat Mongols launched a large-scale, three-pronged invasion of China with his puppet khagan Toqtaq-Buqa." How can you say it was only Oirats? And oirats are just part of Mongols, not a different ethnic group. You are the person who is writing from a china-centric POV. Uniquark9 (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- A reminder for Rajmaan: For the info regarding the Tran dynasty, have you responded to the discussion in Talk:Trần_dynasty yet? As for the name of the Mongol Empire, other editors may refer to more detailed discussion at Talk:Mongol Empire/Archive 5#Chinese name adopted by Genghis for the Mongol empire. --Evecurid (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
This article focuses on the Yuan state. The Northern Yuan is not Yuan dynasty. Stop adding variuos unnecessary content. If the article contains some information about the Norterhn Yuan then it must be short. Toghuchar (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- When I put information about Ligden Khan and his defeat by the Qing on the Northern Yuan article Uniquark9 keeps on deleting it, he just did it again Philg88. Ligden Khan was the last Great Khagan and the Qing killed his direct descendants in the 1675 revolt.
- And as you said, this article is about the Yuan state. So why did Uniquark9 add information about how the Ming vassal Hami got conquered by Turpan, when Turpan was ruled by the Chagatai Khanate. Chagataids are not the Yuan dynasty. This should be deleted and placed on the Chagatai Khanate article.Rajmaan (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Any source on Kublai's edict which named his country as Dai Yuan?
Any sources on Kublai's edict which named his country as Dai Yuan? Also any sources on official original letters sent by Kublai? It seems he even sent letters to the Pope. I googled, but couldn't find anything.142.255.6.214 (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Focus on reliable secondary sources in Wikipedia please. Use primary sources such as Kublai's edict only if absolutely necessary. For example, according to the book "Civil Society in China: The Legal Framework from Ancient Times to the 'New Reform Era'", p39, note 69, "The dynasty name Da (Great) Yuan was adopted by Khubilai Khan (1260-1294 CE) in 1271." --Evecurid (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is it is really difficult to know if a secondary source is reliable. And a lot of secondary sources are just copied each others. So, please stop lecturing if you don't have any useful info.142.255.6.214 (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources on how to identify reliable sources. Also try to find relevant WP policy yourself first please. If you can't, then simply ask in a talk page instead of claiming other people don't have any useful info before even asking. --Evecurid (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I just asked and you started lecturing. Please stop lecturing around. Apparently you don't have any useful info.142.255.6.214 (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to find the primary source, a translated version of the edict is available in Langlois' China under Mongol Rule pp. 3-4. A google search is no substitute for access to a local library. Many academic sources, both primary or secondary, are not accessible online.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 03:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll try to find that. Evecurid, learn from this man.142.255.6.214 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone was just trying to help. I think it is better to focus on content improvements rather than editors. --Evecurid (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- The anon from Virginia might wish to keep a civil tongue in his head (or keyboard) if he wants anyone to take him/her seriously here.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Status text
The infobox for the article currently has three lines of status text, "Nomadic empire", "Conquest Dynasty" and "Division of the Mongol Empire", but I agree there are probably too many. Any suggestions on how to make them look better and more concise? Thanks! --Evecurid (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes
It seems that IP user 134.148.67.42 has made a few changes in the article, including the status text, the motto, and the leading paragraph. Please try to explain why you are making such changes when you can, thanks. --Evecurid (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I have shorten the status text a bit. "Khanate directly ruled by Khagans of the Mongol Empire" is already fine. As for "Conquest Dynasty in China", I made no changes, since the concept of Conquest Dynasties does refer to the history of imperial China, and Kublai Khan was indeed establishing such a dynasty in China. As for the Motto, please provide source(s) to show it is indeed the motto of the Yuan dynasty, thanks! (It will be removed if no source(s) are provided). --Evecurid (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
IP user 121.44.211.124, please try to use talk page to discuss your changes, thanks! --Evecurid (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
IP user, please try to use English-language secondary sources in Wikipedia. The term Genghis Emperor (成吉思皇帝) can be simply translations when writing in Chinese language; it does not necessarily mean Genghis Khan had actually adopted the Chinese title of Emperor (皇帝). It would be better to use English-language source which mentions how the title was actually used instead. Also, Wikipedia in other languages are not valid sources, not to mention that I don't agree with that at all. Last but not least, please use talk page to discuss your changes. --Evecurid (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have a stake in this discussion, but it should be pointed out that non-English sources are valid sources. _dk (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but as that page says it is preferred to use English-language sources instead. Also, the source the IP editor gave did not actually say Genghis Khan adopted the Chinese title of Huangdi along with Great Khan; rather, it only points out the Chinese term "成吉思皇帝" was found in some Chinese records, which is certainly not a proof that Genghis Khan adopted that title; it may be simply translations when writing in Chinese language. The Chinese source Yuanshi made no mention of Genghis Khan adopting the title of Great Khan, but only mention the Chinese term "成吉思皇帝". In this case, the term "成吉思皇帝" is most likely simply translation of term "Genghis Khan". --Evecurid (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but there is no fault to indicate "used in practice" instead. (anyway, not merely since Kublai Khan) Genghis Khan himself really used the title of emperor administratively in (northern) China and in at least one diplomatic letter to the ruler of Japan using "Emperor of the Great Mogol State". --121.44.211.124 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying here. I basically agree with "used in practice", although only in the Chinese language. --Evecurid (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Flag of the Yuan dynasty
Is there really a flag for the Yuan dynasty? What does it mean by "approximated flag" of the Great Yuan? --Evecurid (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"Today part of"
I wonder why Kwamikagami is currently changing the format of "Today part of" in this and a number of other dynastic articles. Articles for other historic states (not yet changed by him) such as the Mongol Empire, Mughal Empire and Ottoman Empire all have the previous format, and I wonder why s/he is changing the format in this and a number of other dynastic articles. --Cartakes (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Flags are used to indicate official membership, such as members of the UN, or entrants to the World Cup. There's nothing official about one's territory once having been part of the Yuan Dynasty.
- What first attracted my attention, though, was the bad mismatch between the countries claimed in this field, and the countries shown on the map. The map's several years old, so I went with it, but if those other countries truly are in what was once China, the map needs to be corrected. — kwami (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever the reason, you are obviously changing a large number of articles. I hope you to have discussed and waited for consensus before the actual changes. --02:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Source
According to Morris Rossabi, "Though Khubilai wished to be considered as more than the emperor of China, he was unable to coerce the other khans into accepting his authority. As the khaghan of the Mongols, he aspired to universal rule and sought recognition of his status as the undisputed ruler of all the Mongolian domains. The Golden Horde in Russia had supported Arigh Boke's candidacy as the khaghan and were not reconciled to Khubilai's victory. Khaidu, who controlled the Chaghadai khanate of Central Asia, was an implacable foe of Khubilai's. Only Khubilai's brother Hiilegii, the founder of the Ilkhanate of Persia, and his descendants accepted Khubilai as khaghan, but they were essentially self-governing. The Golden Horde and the Ilkhans were entangled in their own conflict over their claims to the pasturelands of Azerbaijan, diverting attention from their relationships with the khaghan.". It is incorrect to say "The three other Mongol khanates recognized Kublai as Great Khan" in the article. --Cartakes (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Controversy: Is Yuan China
I think there ought to be a section on the controversy over whether Yuan is actually part of China?
See here for example: https://www.quora.com/History-of-China/What-is-the-legacy-of-the-Yuan-dynasty
Goryeo is only vassal of Yuan (not a part of), it is adopted by Chinese scholars
I am from china and is interested in history. the map of Yuan dynasty is wrong. in our history textbooks, Goryeo is marked as a country instead of a part of yuan. in Historical Atlas of China (1982) (it is regarded as an academic authority books of history in china), it also marked as an independent country. (the map was taken picture and upload here. Goryeo (高丽) marked as a country outside of yuan though it also marked as "Expand east province" (征东行省). in addition, some so-called "province" is exist in name only during yuan dynasty; such as "Jiaozhi province" (交趾行省) in Vietnam, "Champa province" (占城行省) in Champa, and "Myanmar province" (缅中行省 in Myanmar)). many we Chinese think Goryeo is a country instead of a part of yuan, these map of yuan are uploaded by Chinese users[35][36][37]. it prove what I said.
and I also noticed that there is an edit controversy in the map of yuan[38]. the user @Idh0854: from Korea and @Wengier: from china, think Goryeo is not a part of yuan in that time. And in Korean Wikipedia, article ko:원나라 also not use that file; them use [39], marked Goryeo as vassal. so Goryeo is considered as a country in both china and korea, we'd better adopted it. another discussion is started in Wikimedia commons here.[40]--122.90.84.169 (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment:Goryeo is also marked as a country in maps of Chinese history textbooks. please see 元朝疆域图 【九年制义务教育中国历史地图教学挂图】.--122.90.94.54 (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The wording of the proposal above is confusing, but I think what 122.90.84.169 is asking is that this map be displayed in the article as opposed to this one. The question is a complicated one - undoubtedly, Korea was under the rule of the Yuan dynasty, and I don't think that is under dispute. What the question seems to be is this: Which map is a more accurate visual aid in summarizing the political relationship between the Yuan and the subjugated Kingdom of Goryeo? I did a search in Google Books, and, of the sources which I could access, I have laid out below. Distinct country means the source treats Goryeo as a separate entity of the Yuan, albeit under Yuan control. Part of Yuan means the the source treats Goryeo as merely a constituent of the Yuan dynasty. Neutral means that the source considers Goryeo a vassal or subordinate, but without indicating whether the author considers Goryeo a distinct entity or strictly a constituent of the Yuan. This does involve some interpretation on my part, but I think I've stayed faithful to the source material.
- Distinct country: [41], [42], [43], [44]
- Part of Yuan: [45], [46], [47]
- Neutral: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]
- My conclusion: The situation is very complicated, and there isn't a clear consensus in the scholarship other than that Goryeo had some type of subordinate vassal relationship to the Yuan. For the map, I don't care how it is depicted. However, if Goryeo is to be shaded, other vassals, such as the Kingdom of Dali (re-named under the Yuan as Yunnan), need to be shaded as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Idea: If it's a complicated situation then we ought to have a more complicated map. Rather than just having the Yuan dynasty as a solitary blob, Goryeo and other quasi-independent states could be depicted separately and their relationship to the Yuan discussed in the caption or article body. Perhaps the editors of this page could come up with a source-based description of the political situation and take it to the map workshop? (Or I'd be happy to help make the map.) Joe Roe (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yan.png){kind=link}
![[36]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yuan_in_1335_cn_en.png){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1335%E5%B9%B4%E4%BA%9A%E6%B4%B2.png){kind=link}
![[38]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yuan_Dynasty_1294.png){kind=link}
![[39]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yuen_Dynasty_1294_-_Goryeo_as_vassal.png){kind=link}
![[40]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Yuan_Dynasty_1294.png){kind=link}
- I was thinking of something similar. Tributaries such as parts of Burma, Vietnam, and Indonesia and Malaysia should probably be included as well as the various vassal states. This would take a lot of research, but it would result in a much better map.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have access to the Cambridge History of China vol. 6 which covers the Yuan dynasty, which is as authoritative a source on China as it goes in Western scholarship. It has a detailed map of its administrative divisions (p.438) and a map of the Mongol khanates and their tributary states (p. 425), and it shows Goryeo, Burma, Annam, and Champa as tributary states. _dk (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- So we see, the situation is complicated. Goryeo is considered as a country by some scholars, while regarded as a provice by others. So, why not use this map? This map mark Goryeo as a special area. And note Goryeo's situation in that time is a historical issues under controversy in the map_caption.--122.90.91.123 (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now I find a historical records in Goryeosa:
(癸亥)十年春正月王在元.柳淸臣吳潛上書都省請立省比內地不從.
Spring January, the tenth year (of Yin Water Pig year), the king was in Yuan. 柳淸臣 and 吳潛 wrote a memorial to 都省 to request establish a province just like in inland China, but (the Yuan emperor) didn't follow the advice.— 高麗史35卷
And, History of Yuan also regard Goryeo (高麗) as one of "foreign barbarian" (外夷) together with Tamna (耽羅) and Japan (日本): "元史 卷208 列傳第95: 外夷一 高麗 耽羅 日本"--122.90.90.64 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, the topic is adequately treated at Administrative divisions of the Yuan dynasty and Korea under Yuan rule. Goryeo is considered a province in name (征東行省) for the purpose of invading Japan, but otherwise left to its own devices as a vassal state. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here, we should just focus on choosing or making the appropriate map. _dk (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- And in answer to the question as to why not use the alternate Yuen 1294 map - because Goryeo was not the only province left largely to its own devices - you also had the Kingdom of Dali, and the tributaries of Annam, Burma, and Champa.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Dali was fully converted to Yunnan province though, so that's not an issue any more. Annam, Burma, and Champa were tributary states, and the "provinces" established in those places only lasted as long as the invasions there (ie. Yuan doesn't consider them as belonging to the Yuan after the armies retreated). Goryeo is apparently a special case in that it retained the "province" name. That said, I do agree we need a more detailed map than the alternate Yuan 1294 map. _dk (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Duan royal family of the Kingdom of Dali were appointed as Maharajahs of Yunnan during the Yuan dynasty. It was a province with a local monarch. Goryeo was a province with a local monarch. There was also the Kingdom of Qocho which had its own monarch while being part of the Yuan and the Yuan Emperors ranked Qocho higher than Korea. The Yuan also sent Darughachi to Goryeo during its rule which it could not do to the Tran dynasty or Champa. The Yuan militarily defeated Goryeo and made it accept provincial status. The Tran dynasty militarily defeated the Yuan which is why there was no Annam province.Rajmaan (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Goryeo was not militarily subjugated. The Mongols and Goryeo established peaceful relations and Gogyeo sent the crown prince to China as hostage (signifying its vassal status). The crown prince became close with Khublai, and Khublai sent him back to take the Goryeo throne as Wonjong of Goryeo when his father died. (Cambridge history of China vol 6, page 436-7) _dk (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Mongols rampaged and burned the entire peninsula until Goryeo agreed to fold before the Mongols. The Tran dynasty crushed the Mongol army at Bach Dang River and forced them to leave. The Mongols forced Goryeo to pay massive tributes of silver, ginseng, falcons, eunuchs, and women and sent Darughachi to order them around. Trying to categorize them in the same status as the Tran is misleading.Rajmaan (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Without getting even more sidetracked, the CHoC vol. 6 has another map (p.483) that says Goryeo was a Mongolian vassal since 1258, and "under Mongolian domination" since 1270. I would rather we go by what the sources say than our opinions on what would be misleading.
EvidentlyObviously, a "tributary state" (eg. Vietnam) and a "vassal state" (eg. Goryeo) don't mean the same thing. _dk (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)- Of course they don't - a tributary state is one that pays tribute, whereas a vassal is, at minimum, a subservient state allied with its overlord.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Without getting even more sidetracked, the CHoC vol. 6 has another map (p.483) that says Goryeo was a Mongolian vassal since 1258, and "under Mongolian domination" since 1270. I would rather we go by what the sources say than our opinions on what would be misleading.