Talk:Ming dynasty

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2023

Change from {{See also|Timeline of the Ming dynasty}} to {{For timeline}} in the "History" section. 112.205.182.144 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cherrell410 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Mongol leaders

Please, can you also help me to translate from Chinese these Mongols: zh:董狐狸, zh:长秃, zh:长昂? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.130.38 (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent map change

I noticed that User:Scyhistorian is trying to change the infobox map of the article to the map on the right:

Ming China in 1415 during the reign of the Yongle Emperor

However, the map does appear to have the following issues:

1. All labels and descriptions in the map are still in Chinese (instead of English), such as the texts on the top-left and bottom-right corners, but this is English Wikipedia so clearly maps with English-language texts are preferred;

2. The map includes various areas such as Tibet, Ladakh, north bank of Amur, and the South China Sea (in the bottom-left corner) as Ming territory, but these are apparently disputed (seemingly the common problem of some Chinese-language Ming maps). For example, there was no such thing as nine-dash line or U-shaped line or so for the South China Sea before the 20th century, including during the Ming dynasty;

3. It appears that some disputes relating to the infobox map were previously discussed in the archives of this talk page, and users such as @PericlesofAthens, @LlywelynII and @Kanguole were apparently against such maps. So pinging them for their views on the map.

--Wengier (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I found a seemingly more detailed and historical map on Wikimedia Commons, and it appears to have been drawn for the purpose of studying Chinese culture, which is certainly clearer and more credible:

Compared to the map above which I saw which looked truncated and had no reliable source, I think this map is actually much better. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The top map appears to be based on a Ming overview map for 1433 in The Historical Atlas of China, volume 7, pages 40–41, except that it has been adjusted to 1415 by adding Vietnam, which the Ming invaded in 1406 and lost in 1427. All the maps in that atlas, from the Paleolithic onward, show the currently claimed borders of China, including the 9-dash line – it's not clear that the original map was intended to claim the 9-dash line as part of Ming. Several authors have criticized the base map for advancing dubious claims and presenting them as identical to core Ming territory. The editor of the atlas himself conceded flaws in this respect in his afterword to the last volume. Kanguole 12:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The map above is one based upon the lack of understanding that the Europeans of yesteryear had in regard to the workings of Imperial Chinese administration and authority over its own and bordering territory. The map above fails to make any mention of the various military protectorates that the Ming has established in the regions that bordered it. Some of these aforementioned military protectorates that existed were as followed:

Nurgan Regional Military Commission:

The Yongle Emperor had established with the Haxi and Jianzhou Jurchens of the southern regions of which the West refers to as Manchuria. The Yongle Emperor would later order Yishiha to start preparations for an expedition to the lower Amur River region, to demonstrate the power of the Ming Empire to the Nurgan Jurchen populating the area and induce them to enter into relations with the empire, and to ensure that they would not create trouble for the Ming state when the latter went to war with the Eastern Mongols. In 1413 Yishiha would visit the nearby coastal area of the Sakhalin Island and grant Ming titles to a local chieftain.

Ngari Military-Civilian Marshal Office, Ü-Tsang Regional Military Commission, and Amdo-Kham Regional Military Commission:

The History of Ming is one of the official Twenty-Four Histories that contains annals that pertain to the Ming dynasty, compiled by the succeeding Qing dynasty. According to the History of Ming, the Ming dynasty created the "Ngari Military-Civilian Marshal Office" for western Tibet, the "Ü-Tsang Regional Military Commission" for Ü-Tsang, and "Amdo-Kham Regional Military Commission" for Amdo and Kham regions. The History of Ming further divulges that administrative offices were set up under these high commanderies, including one Itinerant Commandery, three Pacification Commissioner's Offices, six Expedition Commissioner's Offices, four Wanhu offices (myriarchies, in command of 10,000 households each) and seventeen Qianhu offices (chiliarchies, each in command of 1,000 households).

As for the "nine-dash line" in the map above, that merely represents Ming authority in the South Chin Sea, backed by the voyages and documentation from the naval expeditions conducted by Zheng He. Another facet to keep in mind is that the image above is not showing the nine-dash line, because the nine-dash line is a term used to describe the contemporary dispute occurring in the South China Sea, and the map doesn't include the full claims that the People's Republic of China exert. So to adhere to the opinion of another individual on Wikipedia and the maps erected by the Europeans of a bygone era, limited by their technology and understanding of Chinese history is naught short of a fallacy in it of itself. To invalidate the centuries of Chinese history and documentation of their own history, whilst purveying the idea that the West's perception of Chinese history is correct is something that simply had to be amended. Scyhistorian (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an attempt to rewrite the past to better fit the ambitions of today. Gawaon (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a total disregard of how little interpretation we allow ourselves to do when presenting data on the English Wikipedia. Our map isn't meaningfully different from more modern maps of the Ming, but we're expected to trudge through the nuances ourselves as non-experts, or at least adopt the most maximalist representations of the history others have created if we're not to be considered chauvinist Western rubes, I guess.

It's getting pretty damn exhausting and it seems on a course to be flaring up on each major Chinese dynasty article. Maybe that's how it's always been, but I have to wonder, though it would be silly to cast aspersions or conjecture anything concrete, because I don't know. Remsense诉 17:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with your statement, in regards to how exhausting and hypocritical these types of arguments are. The long time debate as to “which of the following maps correctly portrays a certain country historically and aligns with their contemporary claims” is something that stirs a great deal of strife. This is in due part to the fact that quite literally no one can agree and even when the odds are against an individual, they remain incredulous and unyielding to the arguments of the opposing party. One may also argue on the side of or against the idea that Western media is “heavily against China” and “look for any opportunity to undermine them because they are a conservative imperialist force scared of when they triumph over the west.” Either way, it is getting exceedingly tiring to see these squabbles occurring over and over again in a form of perpetuity, with both sides unwilling to concede and remain in touch with their own ideals, dying upon a hill they really should not be. Historymatters456 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess it befalls onto me to acquiesce and be the bigger person. I have reverted the map back to what is considered "proper." Even though I don't fully accept the views of the others as to what accurately represents the borders of the Great Ming, I view it as utterly frivolous and beneath me to continue on with this pointless squabbling on this site prone to fallacy, from your side and mine own. As you continue your fool's errand, I shall abandon mine in exchange for the realm of truth and rationality. Our little dance of knowledge has proven to be utterly useless but did come with its own benefits to my own enjoyment; may all of you future aspiring, steadfast pursuers of knowledge and the truth continue to press on with inquisition and rationale. Scyhistorian (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t even notice this, what a pretentious narcissist. I’m so sorry that “Great China” has done nothing wrong by anyone, and that all who “deign” to think other wise or bring up and opposing view is immediately an ignoramus who doesn’t know what they are talking about. Considering you believe yourself to be an “expert” on Chinese history and that you know better than what the textbook says, by all means, go write one and teach a whole class while you are at it seeing as how “better” and more qualified you are than everyone else. I promise you, try bringing this up in any university, even some in China, they will laugh you out the classroom, even at an elementary school. Historymatters456 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see the validity in the claims of both parties in this situation. Wengier utilizes the maps and evidence that are viewed as more widely accepted by the standards of the modern community, while Scyhistorian uses evidence from records from the Ming and Qing Dynasty to support their claims for the changing of the map, such as references to protectorates and other forms of administration and dominance. All in all, the only ones who would know for sure would be the Chinese from that time period. Historymatters456 (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

In any case, I think it is very important to follow the established English-world history conventions for English Wikipedia. There is no doubt that most English reliable sources do not really consider areas like Tibet and north bank of Amur to be part of Ming (at least they are in dispute). In the case of Tibet, even if we talk about Ming and Qing sources, they were actually contradictory, and of course official Ming sources were more helpful for the Ming-Tibet relations. While the Ming official publication "大明一統志" for instance may list offices like "Ü-Tsang Regional Military Commission", it at the same time placed Tibet part of the chapter "Foreign Barbarians" (外夷). Indeed, Tibet was included in the chapter "外夷" (Volume 89) of "大明一統志"[1] or "天下一統志"[2] in page 13, along with countries like Korea and Japan in previous pages. Clearly Ming did not consider it a core territory. Meanwhile, Melvyn C. Goldstein is generally considered a top authority in Tibetan history, and he concluded in his book "The Snow Lion and the Dragon" that "Relations between Tibet and China continued during the Ming dynasty, but unlike their Yuan predecessors, the Ming emperors (1368-1644) exerted no administrative authority over the area. Many titles were given to the leading Tibetans by the Ming emperors, but not to confer authority as with the Mongols. By conferring titles on Tibetan already in power, the Ming emperors merely recognized political reality"[3]. Indeed, Ming is different from both Yuan and Qing regarding Tibet. --Wengier (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah for convenience and to not ignite World War III over a Wikipedia thread, I believe it to be the most prudent move to simply adhere to what the general consensus is regarding this and future content. Don’t let that user try and ruin it for everyone, when they can’t even bother to properly source from credibly sources and just regurgitate what is already on Wikipedia. Historymatters456 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Qing dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

How about a new map? :D

I have created a new Ming map, based on previous Ming maps and other maps (see description on Commons) and also the map used on zhwiki. What do you think about using this map in this article?

Note: In this map I differentiate the color of Tibet because the status of Tibet may still be a bit "ambiguous". Cc @Remsense, Gawaon, Scyhistorian, Wengier, and Kanguole: ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 12:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If you look at this very page you'll see some recent deliberations on why we have the map we presently do, and why we don't use the 中国历史地图, which your map ultimately references. Remsense ‥ 论 12:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, only in part. But that immediately creates a distinct problem of WP:SYNTH—it's changing some of what is referenced explicitly to one source to what another source says, in so doing creating a new set of claims that disagrees with what any given source itself says. Remsense ‥ 论 12:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)