Talk:Ming–Tibet relations

Title

A title like Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty is not politically correct. The issue of Tibet during Ming Dynasty is debated, but the original title defines completely Ming China and Tibet into two countries. --LaGrandefr (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And your title implies Tibet was ruled by the Ming Dynasty. I undid your move. Yaan (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. But it also implies that Tibet was fully independent from the Ming Dynasty, a belief which a few scholars (Chen, Wang, Nyima) object. Is there a more neutral title that can be used than either of these two? Perhaps "The Ming Dynasty and Tibet"? It's kind of hard to create a title that does not imply some sort of relationship.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, even if you were to agree with LaGrandefr's position that the Ming was sovereign over Tibet, this article isn't only about a political relationship, but also a commercial, cultural, and religious relationship, which means "Sino-Tibetan relations" is perhaps the better candidate. It is, after all, an article about the interaction of Tibetans and Han Chinese during the Ming Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The scope is a little broader than that, isn't it? Since the Mongols come into significant play, too. It's a bit odd to divide the history of one country up into periods defined by another country -- it's like "The United States during the Victorian era". Maybe something like "Ming Dynasty claims regarding Tibet" ? Bertport (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Or what about something like Han-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty? Bertport (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All valid suggestions, but this article isn't solely about "Ming Dynasty claims regarding Tibet", as this article covers other issues than merely Ming political claims (i.e. international relations, religion, warfare, and commercial trade). Also, "Han-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty" is just a bit too close to "Sino-Tibetan relations", although denoting ethnicity with "Han" would perhaps be a more accurate term. This is probably the most difficult thing about this article: how do you stay neutral in the title?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article should be renamed to "Tibet-Ming relations" or "Ming-Tibet relations. Current title is pro-chinese. Thoruz (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that something similar is more accurate. Also for the Tibet during the Tang dynasty article (there is no doubt that Tibet and Tang were independent from each other). --Evecurid (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL! One could argue for "Tibet during the Ming dynasty" as an appropriate title, as explained in this article with Chinese claims to suzerainty, but any claims to suzerainty during the Tang is laughable. Tibet and the Tang Empire were frequently at war with one another, and when they were at peace they were wary trading partners who viewed each other as rivals. Any claim of suzerainty, let alone sovereignty, is more than just an anachronism, it's absolutely false.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if you disagree with what the title suggests, I think my article here has done a fine job in providing the major counterpoint arguments against the pro-PRC view about the Ming dynasty's relationship with Tibet. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What I tried to say about the Tibet during the Tang dynasty article is obviously that it is a biased title per se. It is not about whether Chinese has any claims to suzerainty to Tibet during the Tang or not. Why Tibet during the Tang dynasty instead of for example Tang dynasty during the Tibetan Empire? See what I mean? Why only try to fix the title if there is a Chinese claim to Tibet during that period? Your argument really makes me laugh. --Evecurid (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about what I said back in 2008, and I believe I've changed my mind. To be honest, the article would be fine if it was titled something like "Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming dynasty," which doesn't imply any power relationship at all, just that there were relations in general. The best possible title, though, to reflect the content of the article would be something like "Ming dynasty claims of suzerainty over Tibet."Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming dynasty" is fine for me. As for "Ming dynasty claims of suzerainty over Tibet", I think the word "suzerainty" here is a bit anachronism. For example, was there even a concept of "suzerainty" in China or Tibet during the Ming dynasty? Let alone "claims of suzerainty" by the Ming. --Evecurid (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, suzerain in the same sort of sense that French kings would have considered themselves overlords of the English kings (until the Hundred Years' War), without the European sense of feudal relations, of course. Suzerain in the sense that the Chinese emperors sought to strengthen legitimacy at home by having nearby foreign rulers pay tribute with periodic gifts and acknowledge them as their overlord. That was what these tributary missions were all about, especially the Ming's Treasure voyages of Admiral Zheng He into the Indian Ocean. The entire purpose of those missions were to project China's power abroad, ensure Chinese tributary allies were kept in power (Ming-Kotte War), and to gather tribute in order to increase the prestige of the Chinese emperor (initially the Yongle Emperor)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that you're thinking about Westphalian sovereignty, which the article points out would be an anachronism, not suzerainty. The latter is in regards to loose or indirect rule of one state over another, by having the inferior power acknowledge the stronger power's superiority and authority. Plus, a tributary vassal, or client state in the case of the Roman Empire, was expected to pay tribute. In medieval Europe this meant feudal service like marching into battle for your overlord. In Imperial China this didn't equate to military duties, but it did involve gift exchange between the Chinese emperors and foreign rulers. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What I *was* thinking was that both terms were anachronism at that time. But if there are sources classifying the Ming claims over Tibet as "suzerainty", then I will be fine with it. --Evecurid (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, some of the Tibetan factional leaders paid tribute to the Ming emperors up until the reign of the Jiajing Emperor in the 16th century, as tributary vassals to their nominal suzerain overlord. The Ming didn't have any real power over Tibet, as explained by Wylie, Goldstein, and Hoffman, but they did gain the submission of tributary gifts from the Tibetans in the same manner that the kings of Joseon in Korea bowed to the Chinese emperors and sent him gifts of tribute. This was all about maintaining an international pecking order with the Chinese emperors at the top of the pyramid. As explained in my article, the Ming hardly intervened in Tibet militarily and only conferred onto the Tibetans titles for this and that to keep up the charade that the Ming were somehow in control of what happened in Tibet. In any case I'm fine with the new title for the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Ming didn't have any real power over Tibet as well. Anyway, I have already changed the title to Tibet-Ming dynasty relations. --Evecurid (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll move the article to "Tibet-Ming relations" or "Ming-Tibet relations" in the next days. Current title criticized by many users. Thoruz (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved Tibet during the Tang dynasty to Tibet-Tang dynasty relations. Similar thing will be done for this article. --Evecurid (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Further Source

The following book has several good articles which may be relevant:

• Cüppers, Christopher, ed. (2004). The Relationship Between Religion and State (chos srid zung 'brel) In Traditional Tibet: Proceedings of a Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2000. LIRI Seminar Proceeding Series. Vol. 1. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute. ISBN 99933-769-9-X. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 44 (help)
  

Chris Fynn (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Pseudonyms of multiple people shouldn't be treated as real people

Though Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain were the nominal authors of the book The Historical Status of China's Tibet that is cited by this article, neither is the name of a single person. The names derive from the combination of the names of the five contributors to the book (Wang Gui, Tang Jiawei, Wu Wei, Xirab Nyima, Yang Gyaincain) as indicated by a postscript to the book. So neither should be referred to as a real person. If one tries to search for publications by either author, only this book comes up, because the real authors publish under a different name; e.g. Xirab Nyima has a Wikipedia article in Chinese that lists his publication in Chinese.

The book is a team work of 5 people that express the official position of PRC on the subject (as the project is government funded and published by a press under the State Council of PRC), so instead of treating it as the opinion of two scholars, I propose to treat it as the opinion of PRC in this article. --Happyseeu (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Western Tibet - Elis military-civil Marshall's office

Elis military-civil Marshall's office likely only existed on paper, as Guge and Namgyal dynasty of Ladakh did their own thing. Even the Chinese Wikipedia on 俄力思军民元帅府 says they got invaded without Ming knowledge. --Voidvector (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's really funny how there's a fictitious and fake Ming dynasty flag on a featured article

It's really funny how there's a fictitious and fake Ming dynasty flag on a featured article. Sarcasm btw. The Ming dynasty did not have a national flag and neither did this flag exist in any capacity as a regional flag, military flag or anything else. Will remove it now. NamelessLameless (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)