This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
I've marked the references to Kolmas as needing which book title and year, as it is missing entirely from the article. -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 16:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
[[File:Ming coinage 14th 17th century.jpg|thumb|Ming coinage, 14-17th century.]] - Ming coinage 14-17th century. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 15:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe the "since the Tang dynasty" part about Christianity is rather misleading, as by the beginning of the Ming dynasty, those ealier Chinese Nestorian communities were all long gone.
Also I think one could argue that the Jesuit missionaries would be better treated under 'foreign relations', or at least it should be explained how the topic is relevant to religion within the Ming dynasty - i.e. how much influence Christian religion - rather than European science - had on China. If the situation was the same as in Japan, mentioning the Jesuits under 'religion' would be a no-brainer, but my humble impression is that the religious influence of the Jesuits in China was much less considerable.
Same about the Kaifeng Jews. How much of China's population did they represent? Did any of them do something significant, a la Zheng He?
Yaan ( talk) 17:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone looking over History of the Ming Dynasty and Ming Dynasty to improve and add citations (as I was today) should be disturbed; often sections are identical. Instead of the Ming article containing a briefer summary of History of the Ming Dynasty, it is copied verbatim in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's policies (please see WP:Summary_style and WP:Article_size}. I have a ton of secondary sources on the Ming, and want to add facts and citations but feel I can't until this fundamental, underlying problem is addressed. Can any of you collaborate and help me improve Ming content and rectify this problem that is a stain on Wikipedia's usually excellent coverage of China's important history? -- NickDupree ( talk) 03:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
what is this sentence supposed to mean ? What is "anachronistic" about it ? All this chinese people I know call it that "Da Ming" period. Eregli bob ( talk) 05:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I know it takes some time to wrap your head around, but the Chinese names during this period were pretty complicated and by the time you were emperor the naming taboo meant anyone who could say your name was already dead. Names like the "Hongwu Emperor" and the "Yongle Emperor" reference times and not people. The closest equivalent in English would be something like the "Elizabethan Queen" or the "'90s President" – she's not "Queen Elizabethan" and he's not "Nineties".
It's a mite nitpicky but given the importance of the article to people coming in to learn about the culture, it's worth keeping the idea clear. — LlywelynII 16:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The text says: "Despite the Ming defeat, smaller loyalist movements continued until the proclamation of the Republic of China." What does it mean? There were actual pretenders? There were descendants of the ming dyansty fighting to become Emperors? Who were they? What happened? -- Lecen ( talk) 02:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree this is a very confounding ending to the section, does it actually mean there were pretenders for several hundred years until the 20th century?
The Republic of China was proclaimed by Mao in 1912 afaik. There should either be a citation here or clarification.
Metaldev (
talk)
03:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The wikipage referred for Wen Zhen is wrong as it refers to a Communist Party leader. Check the disambiguation page for Wang Zhen (eunuch). 173.176.120.156 ( talk) 22:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
"Nanjing (Yingtian prefecture) (1368–1644)[1] Beijing (Shuntian prefecture) (1403–1644)"
Shouldn't it be "Nanjing (Yingtian prefecture) (1368–1403)[1] Beijing (Shuntian prefecture) (1403–1644)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.23.129 ( talk) 00:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
[[File:日月旗.svg|thumb|日月旗]] -- I read on Baidu Baike that Ming had a flag called 日月旗, and following instructions here, I constructed the image I post here. However, I don't know much about this flag. I think it would be good if someone could find out more about it and incorporate it into the article. Asoer ( talk) 08:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Also the Senior Grand Secretary Xie Jin redirects to the wrong page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.64.99 ( talk) 17:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
The article clearly states quite a few successful Ming military campaigns in present day Mongolia. Why is Mongolia not included on the above said list? It needs to be included! Also, Taiwan is not a country, it is not officially recognized by the United Nations. As far as official may be concerned, Taiwan is a part of China, so it is absolutely ludicrous to place it on the list. It is redundant, because the official KMT government of the self proclaimed "legitamate country of Republic of China" actually claims mainland China as well, so either way, whether or not Taiwan is a country actually doesn't even matter. By both governments claims, Taiwan is a province of China. So don't put Taiwan on the list, its the same as putting two Chinas. Aslanofnarnia7 ( talk) 05:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Madalibi, I am referring to the "Today part of" section of the infobox. So what is your opinion on the Mongolia issue? I still am quite convinced that at some point or other in time the Ming Empire controlled it. Aslanofnarnia7 ( talk) 04:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Society and culture," the first word of the first sentence ("literature") should be capitalized. Asadron ( talk) 07:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
yet it doesn't appear in the largest naval battles page at all. unless there is an agreement that this battle of lake poyang was one of the largest, this should be changed to just give an idea of how many combatants there were (sorry forgot to login again user: teknotiss) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.151.59 ( talk) 15:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, i can't sign in at the moment, but I would like to question this also. In the linked page on largest naval battles in history there are examples of larger numbers of ships, higher tonnages, and larger numbers of participants. Surely this needs to be changed or referenced to say who argues this and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.150.237.2 ( talk) 10:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose moving a line about the 1556 Shaanxi Earthquake to earlier in its subsection ("Decline and Fall of the Ming Dynasty"), and adding a few lines as to why that event was significant. Probably better would be framing it with a new subsection I propose below.
Line To Move: "The deadliest earthquake of all time, the Shaanxi earthquake of 1556, occurred during the Jiajing Emperor's reign, killing approximately 830,000 people.[64]"
Reasons: 1) At its current location, it is misplaced with events from a century later. This is probably the results of previous edits of the article. 2) Logically, the earthquake can be seen as related to the fall of the dynasty, but it is more like part of the "beginning of the end"; an early event in what was a long decline. An examination of the article "Jiajing Emperor" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiajing_Emperor) supports this notion, as his 1507-1567 rule seems to set the pattern for the end of the Ming. The earthquake comes near the end of that period as that emperor became increasingly disengaged from rule. 3) The article "Fall of the Ming Dynasty" ( /info/en/?search=Fall_of_the_Ming_dynasty), referenced right after the section heading "Decline and Fall of the Ming Dynasty", appears to be a stub article and makes a much less compelling argument than "Jiajing Emperor" that the decline began around 1600. This claim seems contradicted by the sentence I am proposing to move, the information in "Jiajing Emperor" and the information immediately following the reference in the subsections "Reign of the Wanli Emperor" and "Role of the Eunuchs." 4) The sentence I propose moving needs a bit of context, all of which is found in "Jiajing Emperor." Otherwise it is just a meaningless factoid hanging out there.
Proposed New Subsection with Moved Line:
[Inserted after "Decline and fall of the Ming dynasty
Main article: Fall of the Ming dynasty"]
The Era of Tranquility and the Seeds of Decline
Main articles: "Jiajing Emperor" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiajing_Emperor) "1556 Shaanxi Earthquake" ( /info/en/?search=1556_Shaanxi_earthquake)
The Jiajing Emperor presided over China for forty-five years (1521-1567), successfully enough that the period was era-named "Admirable Tranquility." However, his increasing inattention to governmental affairs as time went on is cited as setting patterns that would be disastrously followed by his successors. While he was focused on religious issues and personal pursuits, he cut himself off to access by his ministers and people. Control of governmental affairs devolved to less capable persons of influence and court eunuchs even as the state was faced with serious challenges. The last twenty-five years of his reign saw harassment and invasions by Mongols from the north, country-wide dissent over spending on Taoist temples, and serious piracy along the southeastern coastlines. Compounding these were the long-term economic effects of natural disaster. The deadliest earthquake of all time, the Shaanxi earthquake of 1556, occurred during the Jiajing Emperor's reign, killing approximately 830,000 people.
MikePaulC ( talk) 19:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Mongols in the nobility and military of Ming dynasty China
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2718543
CHINESE IN SOUTHERN MONGOLIA DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40726017
A MONGOL SETTLEMENT IN NORTH CHINA AT THE END OF THE 16TH CENTURY
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41926456
THE MONGOLS IN CHINA : 1400-1450
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40725869
The Ming used Mongols in its military to fight in most of its wars, including crushing rebellions by southern ethnic minorities such as the Li in Hainan
Politics, Force and Ethnicity in Ming China: Mongols and the Abortive Coup of 1461
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2652684?seq=5
Images of Subject Mongols Under the Ming Dynasty
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/late/summary/v025/25.1robinson.html
Rajmaan ( talk) 17:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for use of a flag in the article. As we all know, we will never know at the moment 100% of the flag accuracy for Ming dynasty China. However, there is evidence of a certain flag that has been proposed to be authentic seen here above this pass at Nanjing.
Nanjing was the first capital of the Ming and considering it is only common sense that the Chinese would leave the flag above the gate if it had validity. Who in this case would just leave a random flag up there? It's also quite popular in Ming dynasty portrayal in modern culture.
The flag has been modified for Wikimedia Commons in this form and in this form although the second version's border should be black.
I suggest this but I also suggest noting directly below it as I attempted to do in the recent history of the Yuan dynasty with the popular blue flag (with the white design in the middle) shown in modern day depictions of the Khan's Yuan Dynasty flag. As long as we note DIRECTLY BELOW the flag, I don't see the problem with showing the depicted flag as they will know it isn't official but it is a popular depiction, etc.
Thoughts? Can we come to a conclusion? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The datum 66,598,337 seems correct, but it's not mentioned in the source, which only gives an estimate of 65000000.-- 578985s ( talk) 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Most historians date the end of the Southern Ming to the death of the Yongli Emperor in 1662. Recent edits to this article and Kingdom of Tungning have extended this date to the fall of the Tungning (on Taiwan) in 1683. The cited source, Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier, 1600–1800, by John Robert Shepherd, n.32, pp. 469–470 says:
It is clear that Zhu Shugui's role was merely to be present at this ceremony, not to perform rituals. There is no justification of presenting him as a ruler of Tungning, as recently done at that article. All accounts (including the above) are clear that it was the Zhengs who ruled. To cast this as a continuation on the Southern Ming, in contrast to the sources, is original research. Kanguole 00:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Who made this map? It's complete nonsense. Tibet and far northeast Manchuria were part of the Ming Empire? Really? It looks like something ginned up by Chinese nationalists to justify modern day control over those areas. 174.21.85.72 ( talk) 17:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It is extremely important to remember to be as neutral and nonaggressive as possible. Please do not attempt to instigate Chinese Nationalism into this topic, as this is both insulting to the Chinese government and unnecessary content on Wikipedia. If you continue to feel the senseless urge to condemn the Chinese Government, please by all means do so in front of a well-educated Chinese ambassador, and see what the result will be. If Wikipedia is the only place that you can muster up your punitive courage to protest the Chinese government, then your out of luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslanofnarnia7 ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, did you actually take the time to read the article itself I the first place, I wonder! You claim that Chinese conquests in Tibet were unrealistic and a means of the Chinese government to defense their present day administration of that region. It clearly states in their article of Chinese conquests on Tibet. If you are still skeptical about the article itself, you are more than welcome to bring this issue to the author of this article. Just as some helpful advice in the future, if you want other people to accept your opinions, especially on Wikipedia, you need to procure actual evidence to defend your claim, which, in this case, would be that Tibet was independent from Ming rule. Without any evidence, we will always resort to status quo, in other words, resorting to the original content. More importantly, please use a respectful attitude when addressing sensitive issues such as the Chinese government. Stirring up trouble and resentment and unnecessary political conflicts is never a number one priority for Wikipedian users. If you abide by these suggestions, you will be appreciated by your fellow users. On the other hand, should you choose not to see sense, then you will have to take the consequences of creating a hostile work environment and possibly face being blocked from editing for quite a period of time. If following these simple expectations to function in a safe and informative online environment is asking too much, consider politely removing your presence from this website and creating your own, where, by your own self centered and ignorant and insolent attitude, you will learn the appropriate protocol of the modern day commonly accepted form of online social, verbal, and communicative language. If you wish to go down that road, the all I can say is... Good luck???
Ming Dynasty set 烏斯藏督司 to rule Tibet in 1372, and in north east 女真 surrender to Ming dynasty in 1409 and set 奴耳督干司. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.176.219.250 ( talk) 02:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ming dynasty has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am writing to advocate changing the main banner map of the Ming dynasty~
it depicts only the dynasty at its final, terminal phase of its existence while throughout the entire article there isn't a single map that demarcates the dynasty's greatest territorial expansion. I raise this point to compare to, say: the maps of the USSR, Ottoman, Roman, and Byzantine empires, as well as the Spanish Empire, Imperial Japanese of WW2 and Nazi Germany. Each and every one of them have a map of the empire at its greatest territorial extent, each of them also at least have maps that details the empire at its "middle phase" of its lifespan (most noticeably the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Heraclius and Alexius Kommenos) and a map that details its final phase before collapse (Third Reich in 1944-1945, Roman Empire in 450, Ottoman Empire of WW1 etc) The simple fact that a common, public source of reference for one of the most vital of Asian dynasties is so ineptly (and fallaciously) presented is simply unacceptable~ and the :map section of :talk also reflects many who shares my view. If left unchanged, this will be one of many continuous petitions.
Please hear me out. Thank you Mingdynastyavenger ( talk) 09:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
this will be one of many continuous petitions, I'm a little concerned by that phrase. Please note that it sounds like a declaration of intended disruption, and that you should refer to WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. Disruptive editing often results in a loss of editing privileges, enforced via blocks. If that is not your intention, you have nothing to worry about and can disregard that part of my message.
[link spam commented out below]
05:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghressho ( talk • contribs)
The bureau used to manage foreign relations was the Siyiguan
Later during the Qing the Lifanyuan took over relations with the Mongols, Central Asia, Russians, and Tibet, while the Board of Rites took over relations with the south and eastern countries.
The Tongwen Guan replaced the Huitong Siyiguan
http://www.iolaw.org.cn/pdf/paper/2008/四夷馆与同文馆名称考.pdf
A seperate article on the Ming dynasty bureau of translation ( Huitong Siyiguan) should be created, I have secondary and primary sources here. The primary sources will go into wikisource, which will be linked to the wikipedia article.
The Chinese article on Siyiguan
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/会同四译馆
Chinese–Barbarian Dictionary
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/华夷译语
http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/華夷譯語
Author: (明)火原潔撰
Book contributor: 北京大學圖書館
Looks like Thai or Shan
華夷譯語(一)
https://archive.org/details/02076757.cn
No idea what language this is
華夷譯語(二)
https://archive.org/details/02076758.cn
No idea
華夷譯語(三)
https://archive.org/details/02076759.cn
No idea
華夷譯語(四)
https://archive.org/details/02076760.cn
Persian
華夷譯語(五)
https://archive.org/details/02076761.cn
Persian
華夷譯語(六)
https://archive.org/details/02076762.cn
高昌館來文
https://archive.org/details/02076763.cn
I assume this is Tibetan
譯文備覽
https://archive.org/details/02076764.cn
[link spam commented out below] Siyi guan College of Translators and Thai language
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ka6jNJcX_ygC&pg=PA149#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=aU5hBMxNgWQC&pg=PA198#v=onepage&q&f=false
Chinese and salar language primers of persian and arabic.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ciShtCrJijIC&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false
[link spam commented out below] Rajmaan ( talk) 07:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
[link spam commented out below] Rajmaan ( talk) 21:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
It's fine that our source uses a particular name but we should try to keep names consistent across pages. If it's necessary to provide an alternate source for the alternate translation, pick one. — LlywelynII 06:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
For some reason the Shun Dynasty, and Southern-Ming Dynasty have been moved out of the infobox out of the section "successor states", I understand that by Chinese religious thought of the time only the Qing Dynasty was eligible for "the mandate of heaven", but while not permanently and fully succeeded by the Shun Dynasty, it was a rival government that was carved out of the territory of the Ming Dynasty and should therefore be added back into the infobox, also the Southern-Ming Dynasty was the government-in-exile of the Ming Dynasty and would continue to function for quite some time after the fall of Beijing. -- 42.113.199.17 ( talk) 13:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, whether or not such details can be considered "too minor" for an infobox is subjective, that's like saying that the current Republic of China is "too minor" to succeed the Republic of China in the Republic of China (1917-49) article, and the Shun did see itself as the legitimate successor to the "mandate of heaven". Donald Trung ( talk) 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Donald Trung ( talk) 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
'Can't' in the population section should be 'cannot'. Thanks.
Turned many what into smugglers and pirates? The only candidate nouns I see are laws, coasts, pirates, none of which seem susceptible to being turned into pirates.~ — Tamfang ( talk) 22:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Империя Мин
I recently added the 1580 map (on the right) to this article. As my addition of the 1580 map was twice reverted by User:Bloodyducklips I like the give my reasoning here before I do another revert.
In my opinion the 1580 map, made by capable Czech editors, is vastly superior to the old 1415 map. It has a lot of details (Great Wall, provincial capitals, main roads, names of surrounding nations) and is esthetically more appealing.
The 1415 map has issues in my opinion. The extension of the Ming empire in the northeast all the way to the Sea of Okhotsk is misleading. According to Dardess, John W. (2011) Ming China, 1368-1644 A Concise History of a Resilient Empire, page 18, the Yongle emperor in 1411 send some troops, measuring around 1,000 men, to this region. They built some forts and a Buddhist temple (which was destroyed by locals a few years later) and gave local chiefs a Ming title. Ming influence was limited and only for a couple of years. This was never a integrated part of the Ming empire.
Regards, Joplin ( talk) 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
"At times, fewer than two hundred [French] soldiers were assigned to all of the colony, on both sides of the Mississippi. In the mid-1720s, Louisiana had some 2,500 French, plus 1,500 slaves. In contrast, Louisiana Indians numbered well over 35,000." [1]
The Ming state began to lose their invaded territories since mid-15th century. See Tumu Crisis. We need to clarify about border history of the Ming state. Andequer ( talk) 13:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This book wrote by the Chinese writer: Yuan-Kang Wang, Harmony and War: Confucian Culture and Chinese Power Politics (Columbia University Press, 2013)
...This Tumu debacle marked a turning point in Ming strategy toward the Mongols. It was the end of the era of offensive grand strategy and the last time the Chinese army went beyond the northern border ten masse to pursue the nomads. Instead, China withdrew from the steppe transition zone...the Mongols gradually moved in and used it as forward base to raid Chinese territory. In the second period (1450-1548), Ming power continued to decline. The number of soldiers required on the borders became insufficient, problems of desertion and low morale plagued the Ming military, domestic rebellions were on the rise, and factional conflicts crippled the Ming court. In contrast, the Mongols, aside from brief periods of internecine conflicts, were united under a series of able leaders and became increasingly powerful. They occupied the strategically vital Ordos and projected power from there... Dayan Khan settled in the Ordos in 1500 and used this fertile land as forward base to raid China. The next year, he led 100,000 cavaltymen and launched a major attack on Guyan and Ningxia. The Ming military was incapable of warding off Mongol attacks. Andequer ( talk) 16:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The territory of Byzantine Empire in AD 555 is in its greatest extent, but that does not last long. So why not use the map showing the territory held by the empire which was not controlled briefly? The AD 867 map should be more appropriate instead. -- Alvin Lee 03:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
According to Yuan-Kang Wang's book the Ming dynasty lost Inner Mongolia in the mid 15th century. Andequer ( talk) 09:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I have again reverted the addition of the dated Herrmann map, which is contrary to reliable sources, such as the Cambridge History of China. Kanguole 08:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
References
So, I found an image of a possible imperial seal.
from /info/en/?search=File:Imperial_seal_of_Ming_dynasty.svg
I've not been able to corroborate this in writing, however, viewing http://gotheborg.com/marks/mingmarks.shtml does show paintings of each of the Ming Emperors, many of whom wear this symbol upon their clothing. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlr3001 ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
I've marked the references to Kolmas as needing which book title and year, as it is missing entirely from the article. -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 16:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
[[File:Ming coinage 14th 17th century.jpg|thumb|Ming coinage, 14-17th century.]] - Ming coinage 14-17th century. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 15:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe the "since the Tang dynasty" part about Christianity is rather misleading, as by the beginning of the Ming dynasty, those ealier Chinese Nestorian communities were all long gone.
Also I think one could argue that the Jesuit missionaries would be better treated under 'foreign relations', or at least it should be explained how the topic is relevant to religion within the Ming dynasty - i.e. how much influence Christian religion - rather than European science - had on China. If the situation was the same as in Japan, mentioning the Jesuits under 'religion' would be a no-brainer, but my humble impression is that the religious influence of the Jesuits in China was much less considerable.
Same about the Kaifeng Jews. How much of China's population did they represent? Did any of them do something significant, a la Zheng He?
Yaan ( talk) 17:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone looking over History of the Ming Dynasty and Ming Dynasty to improve and add citations (as I was today) should be disturbed; often sections are identical. Instead of the Ming article containing a briefer summary of History of the Ming Dynasty, it is copied verbatim in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's policies (please see WP:Summary_style and WP:Article_size}. I have a ton of secondary sources on the Ming, and want to add facts and citations but feel I can't until this fundamental, underlying problem is addressed. Can any of you collaborate and help me improve Ming content and rectify this problem that is a stain on Wikipedia's usually excellent coverage of China's important history? -- NickDupree ( talk) 03:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
what is this sentence supposed to mean ? What is "anachronistic" about it ? All this chinese people I know call it that "Da Ming" period. Eregli bob ( talk) 05:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I know it takes some time to wrap your head around, but the Chinese names during this period were pretty complicated and by the time you were emperor the naming taboo meant anyone who could say your name was already dead. Names like the "Hongwu Emperor" and the "Yongle Emperor" reference times and not people. The closest equivalent in English would be something like the "Elizabethan Queen" or the "'90s President" – she's not "Queen Elizabethan" and he's not "Nineties".
It's a mite nitpicky but given the importance of the article to people coming in to learn about the culture, it's worth keeping the idea clear. — LlywelynII 16:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The text says: "Despite the Ming defeat, smaller loyalist movements continued until the proclamation of the Republic of China." What does it mean? There were actual pretenders? There were descendants of the ming dyansty fighting to become Emperors? Who were they? What happened? -- Lecen ( talk) 02:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree this is a very confounding ending to the section, does it actually mean there were pretenders for several hundred years until the 20th century?
The Republic of China was proclaimed by Mao in 1912 afaik. There should either be a citation here or clarification.
Metaldev (
talk)
03:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The wikipage referred for Wen Zhen is wrong as it refers to a Communist Party leader. Check the disambiguation page for Wang Zhen (eunuch). 173.176.120.156 ( talk) 22:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
"Nanjing (Yingtian prefecture) (1368–1644)[1] Beijing (Shuntian prefecture) (1403–1644)"
Shouldn't it be "Nanjing (Yingtian prefecture) (1368–1403)[1] Beijing (Shuntian prefecture) (1403–1644)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.23.129 ( talk) 00:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
[[File:日月旗.svg|thumb|日月旗]] -- I read on Baidu Baike that Ming had a flag called 日月旗, and following instructions here, I constructed the image I post here. However, I don't know much about this flag. I think it would be good if someone could find out more about it and incorporate it into the article. Asoer ( talk) 08:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Also the Senior Grand Secretary Xie Jin redirects to the wrong page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.64.99 ( talk) 17:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
The article clearly states quite a few successful Ming military campaigns in present day Mongolia. Why is Mongolia not included on the above said list? It needs to be included! Also, Taiwan is not a country, it is not officially recognized by the United Nations. As far as official may be concerned, Taiwan is a part of China, so it is absolutely ludicrous to place it on the list. It is redundant, because the official KMT government of the self proclaimed "legitamate country of Republic of China" actually claims mainland China as well, so either way, whether or not Taiwan is a country actually doesn't even matter. By both governments claims, Taiwan is a province of China. So don't put Taiwan on the list, its the same as putting two Chinas. Aslanofnarnia7 ( talk) 05:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Madalibi, I am referring to the "Today part of" section of the infobox. So what is your opinion on the Mongolia issue? I still am quite convinced that at some point or other in time the Ming Empire controlled it. Aslanofnarnia7 ( talk) 04:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Society and culture," the first word of the first sentence ("literature") should be capitalized. Asadron ( talk) 07:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
yet it doesn't appear in the largest naval battles page at all. unless there is an agreement that this battle of lake poyang was one of the largest, this should be changed to just give an idea of how many combatants there were (sorry forgot to login again user: teknotiss) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.151.59 ( talk) 15:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, i can't sign in at the moment, but I would like to question this also. In the linked page on largest naval battles in history there are examples of larger numbers of ships, higher tonnages, and larger numbers of participants. Surely this needs to be changed or referenced to say who argues this and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.150.237.2 ( talk) 10:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose moving a line about the 1556 Shaanxi Earthquake to earlier in its subsection ("Decline and Fall of the Ming Dynasty"), and adding a few lines as to why that event was significant. Probably better would be framing it with a new subsection I propose below.
Line To Move: "The deadliest earthquake of all time, the Shaanxi earthquake of 1556, occurred during the Jiajing Emperor's reign, killing approximately 830,000 people.[64]"
Reasons: 1) At its current location, it is misplaced with events from a century later. This is probably the results of previous edits of the article. 2) Logically, the earthquake can be seen as related to the fall of the dynasty, but it is more like part of the "beginning of the end"; an early event in what was a long decline. An examination of the article "Jiajing Emperor" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiajing_Emperor) supports this notion, as his 1507-1567 rule seems to set the pattern for the end of the Ming. The earthquake comes near the end of that period as that emperor became increasingly disengaged from rule. 3) The article "Fall of the Ming Dynasty" ( /info/en/?search=Fall_of_the_Ming_dynasty), referenced right after the section heading "Decline and Fall of the Ming Dynasty", appears to be a stub article and makes a much less compelling argument than "Jiajing Emperor" that the decline began around 1600. This claim seems contradicted by the sentence I am proposing to move, the information in "Jiajing Emperor" and the information immediately following the reference in the subsections "Reign of the Wanli Emperor" and "Role of the Eunuchs." 4) The sentence I propose moving needs a bit of context, all of which is found in "Jiajing Emperor." Otherwise it is just a meaningless factoid hanging out there.
Proposed New Subsection with Moved Line:
[Inserted after "Decline and fall of the Ming dynasty
Main article: Fall of the Ming dynasty"]
The Era of Tranquility and the Seeds of Decline
Main articles: "Jiajing Emperor" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiajing_Emperor) "1556 Shaanxi Earthquake" ( /info/en/?search=1556_Shaanxi_earthquake)
The Jiajing Emperor presided over China for forty-five years (1521-1567), successfully enough that the period was era-named "Admirable Tranquility." However, his increasing inattention to governmental affairs as time went on is cited as setting patterns that would be disastrously followed by his successors. While he was focused on religious issues and personal pursuits, he cut himself off to access by his ministers and people. Control of governmental affairs devolved to less capable persons of influence and court eunuchs even as the state was faced with serious challenges. The last twenty-five years of his reign saw harassment and invasions by Mongols from the north, country-wide dissent over spending on Taoist temples, and serious piracy along the southeastern coastlines. Compounding these were the long-term economic effects of natural disaster. The deadliest earthquake of all time, the Shaanxi earthquake of 1556, occurred during the Jiajing Emperor's reign, killing approximately 830,000 people.
MikePaulC ( talk) 19:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Mongols in the nobility and military of Ming dynasty China
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2718543
CHINESE IN SOUTHERN MONGOLIA DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40726017
A MONGOL SETTLEMENT IN NORTH CHINA AT THE END OF THE 16TH CENTURY
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41926456
THE MONGOLS IN CHINA : 1400-1450
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40725869
The Ming used Mongols in its military to fight in most of its wars, including crushing rebellions by southern ethnic minorities such as the Li in Hainan
Politics, Force and Ethnicity in Ming China: Mongols and the Abortive Coup of 1461
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2652684?seq=5
Images of Subject Mongols Under the Ming Dynasty
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/late/summary/v025/25.1robinson.html
Rajmaan ( talk) 17:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for use of a flag in the article. As we all know, we will never know at the moment 100% of the flag accuracy for Ming dynasty China. However, there is evidence of a certain flag that has been proposed to be authentic seen here above this pass at Nanjing.
Nanjing was the first capital of the Ming and considering it is only common sense that the Chinese would leave the flag above the gate if it had validity. Who in this case would just leave a random flag up there? It's also quite popular in Ming dynasty portrayal in modern culture.
The flag has been modified for Wikimedia Commons in this form and in this form although the second version's border should be black.
I suggest this but I also suggest noting directly below it as I attempted to do in the recent history of the Yuan dynasty with the popular blue flag (with the white design in the middle) shown in modern day depictions of the Khan's Yuan Dynasty flag. As long as we note DIRECTLY BELOW the flag, I don't see the problem with showing the depicted flag as they will know it isn't official but it is a popular depiction, etc.
Thoughts? Can we come to a conclusion? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The datum 66,598,337 seems correct, but it's not mentioned in the source, which only gives an estimate of 65000000.-- 578985s ( talk) 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Most historians date the end of the Southern Ming to the death of the Yongli Emperor in 1662. Recent edits to this article and Kingdom of Tungning have extended this date to the fall of the Tungning (on Taiwan) in 1683. The cited source, Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier, 1600–1800, by John Robert Shepherd, n.32, pp. 469–470 says:
It is clear that Zhu Shugui's role was merely to be present at this ceremony, not to perform rituals. There is no justification of presenting him as a ruler of Tungning, as recently done at that article. All accounts (including the above) are clear that it was the Zhengs who ruled. To cast this as a continuation on the Southern Ming, in contrast to the sources, is original research. Kanguole 00:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Who made this map? It's complete nonsense. Tibet and far northeast Manchuria were part of the Ming Empire? Really? It looks like something ginned up by Chinese nationalists to justify modern day control over those areas. 174.21.85.72 ( talk) 17:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It is extremely important to remember to be as neutral and nonaggressive as possible. Please do not attempt to instigate Chinese Nationalism into this topic, as this is both insulting to the Chinese government and unnecessary content on Wikipedia. If you continue to feel the senseless urge to condemn the Chinese Government, please by all means do so in front of a well-educated Chinese ambassador, and see what the result will be. If Wikipedia is the only place that you can muster up your punitive courage to protest the Chinese government, then your out of luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslanofnarnia7 ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, did you actually take the time to read the article itself I the first place, I wonder! You claim that Chinese conquests in Tibet were unrealistic and a means of the Chinese government to defense their present day administration of that region. It clearly states in their article of Chinese conquests on Tibet. If you are still skeptical about the article itself, you are more than welcome to bring this issue to the author of this article. Just as some helpful advice in the future, if you want other people to accept your opinions, especially on Wikipedia, you need to procure actual evidence to defend your claim, which, in this case, would be that Tibet was independent from Ming rule. Without any evidence, we will always resort to status quo, in other words, resorting to the original content. More importantly, please use a respectful attitude when addressing sensitive issues such as the Chinese government. Stirring up trouble and resentment and unnecessary political conflicts is never a number one priority for Wikipedian users. If you abide by these suggestions, you will be appreciated by your fellow users. On the other hand, should you choose not to see sense, then you will have to take the consequences of creating a hostile work environment and possibly face being blocked from editing for quite a period of time. If following these simple expectations to function in a safe and informative online environment is asking too much, consider politely removing your presence from this website and creating your own, where, by your own self centered and ignorant and insolent attitude, you will learn the appropriate protocol of the modern day commonly accepted form of online social, verbal, and communicative language. If you wish to go down that road, the all I can say is... Good luck???
Ming Dynasty set 烏斯藏督司 to rule Tibet in 1372, and in north east 女真 surrender to Ming dynasty in 1409 and set 奴耳督干司. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.176.219.250 ( talk) 02:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ming dynasty has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am writing to advocate changing the main banner map of the Ming dynasty~
it depicts only the dynasty at its final, terminal phase of its existence while throughout the entire article there isn't a single map that demarcates the dynasty's greatest territorial expansion. I raise this point to compare to, say: the maps of the USSR, Ottoman, Roman, and Byzantine empires, as well as the Spanish Empire, Imperial Japanese of WW2 and Nazi Germany. Each and every one of them have a map of the empire at its greatest territorial extent, each of them also at least have maps that details the empire at its "middle phase" of its lifespan (most noticeably the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Heraclius and Alexius Kommenos) and a map that details its final phase before collapse (Third Reich in 1944-1945, Roman Empire in 450, Ottoman Empire of WW1 etc) The simple fact that a common, public source of reference for one of the most vital of Asian dynasties is so ineptly (and fallaciously) presented is simply unacceptable~ and the :map section of :talk also reflects many who shares my view. If left unchanged, this will be one of many continuous petitions.
Please hear me out. Thank you Mingdynastyavenger ( talk) 09:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
this will be one of many continuous petitions, I'm a little concerned by that phrase. Please note that it sounds like a declaration of intended disruption, and that you should refer to WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. Disruptive editing often results in a loss of editing privileges, enforced via blocks. If that is not your intention, you have nothing to worry about and can disregard that part of my message.
[link spam commented out below]
05:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghressho ( talk • contribs)
The bureau used to manage foreign relations was the Siyiguan
Later during the Qing the Lifanyuan took over relations with the Mongols, Central Asia, Russians, and Tibet, while the Board of Rites took over relations with the south and eastern countries.
The Tongwen Guan replaced the Huitong Siyiguan
http://www.iolaw.org.cn/pdf/paper/2008/四夷馆与同文馆名称考.pdf
A seperate article on the Ming dynasty bureau of translation ( Huitong Siyiguan) should be created, I have secondary and primary sources here. The primary sources will go into wikisource, which will be linked to the wikipedia article.
The Chinese article on Siyiguan
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/会同四译馆
Chinese–Barbarian Dictionary
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/华夷译语
http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/華夷譯語
Author: (明)火原潔撰
Book contributor: 北京大學圖書館
Looks like Thai or Shan
華夷譯語(一)
https://archive.org/details/02076757.cn
No idea what language this is
華夷譯語(二)
https://archive.org/details/02076758.cn
No idea
華夷譯語(三)
https://archive.org/details/02076759.cn
No idea
華夷譯語(四)
https://archive.org/details/02076760.cn
Persian
華夷譯語(五)
https://archive.org/details/02076761.cn
Persian
華夷譯語(六)
https://archive.org/details/02076762.cn
高昌館來文
https://archive.org/details/02076763.cn
I assume this is Tibetan
譯文備覽
https://archive.org/details/02076764.cn
[link spam commented out below] Siyi guan College of Translators and Thai language
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ka6jNJcX_ygC&pg=PA149#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=aU5hBMxNgWQC&pg=PA198#v=onepage&q&f=false
Chinese and salar language primers of persian and arabic.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ciShtCrJijIC&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false
[link spam commented out below] Rajmaan ( talk) 07:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
[link spam commented out below] Rajmaan ( talk) 21:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
It's fine that our source uses a particular name but we should try to keep names consistent across pages. If it's necessary to provide an alternate source for the alternate translation, pick one. — LlywelynII 06:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
For some reason the Shun Dynasty, and Southern-Ming Dynasty have been moved out of the infobox out of the section "successor states", I understand that by Chinese religious thought of the time only the Qing Dynasty was eligible for "the mandate of heaven", but while not permanently and fully succeeded by the Shun Dynasty, it was a rival government that was carved out of the territory of the Ming Dynasty and should therefore be added back into the infobox, also the Southern-Ming Dynasty was the government-in-exile of the Ming Dynasty and would continue to function for quite some time after the fall of Beijing. -- 42.113.199.17 ( talk) 13:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, whether or not such details can be considered "too minor" for an infobox is subjective, that's like saying that the current Republic of China is "too minor" to succeed the Republic of China in the Republic of China (1917-49) article, and the Shun did see itself as the legitimate successor to the "mandate of heaven". Donald Trung ( talk) 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Donald Trung ( talk) 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
'Can't' in the population section should be 'cannot'. Thanks.
Turned many what into smugglers and pirates? The only candidate nouns I see are laws, coasts, pirates, none of which seem susceptible to being turned into pirates.~ — Tamfang ( talk) 22:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Империя Мин
I recently added the 1580 map (on the right) to this article. As my addition of the 1580 map was twice reverted by User:Bloodyducklips I like the give my reasoning here before I do another revert.
In my opinion the 1580 map, made by capable Czech editors, is vastly superior to the old 1415 map. It has a lot of details (Great Wall, provincial capitals, main roads, names of surrounding nations) and is esthetically more appealing.
The 1415 map has issues in my opinion. The extension of the Ming empire in the northeast all the way to the Sea of Okhotsk is misleading. According to Dardess, John W. (2011) Ming China, 1368-1644 A Concise History of a Resilient Empire, page 18, the Yongle emperor in 1411 send some troops, measuring around 1,000 men, to this region. They built some forts and a Buddhist temple (which was destroyed by locals a few years later) and gave local chiefs a Ming title. Ming influence was limited and only for a couple of years. This was never a integrated part of the Ming empire.
Regards, Joplin ( talk) 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
"At times, fewer than two hundred [French] soldiers were assigned to all of the colony, on both sides of the Mississippi. In the mid-1720s, Louisiana had some 2,500 French, plus 1,500 slaves. In contrast, Louisiana Indians numbered well over 35,000." [1]
The Ming state began to lose their invaded territories since mid-15th century. See Tumu Crisis. We need to clarify about border history of the Ming state. Andequer ( talk) 13:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This book wrote by the Chinese writer: Yuan-Kang Wang, Harmony and War: Confucian Culture and Chinese Power Politics (Columbia University Press, 2013)
...This Tumu debacle marked a turning point in Ming strategy toward the Mongols. It was the end of the era of offensive grand strategy and the last time the Chinese army went beyond the northern border ten masse to pursue the nomads. Instead, China withdrew from the steppe transition zone...the Mongols gradually moved in and used it as forward base to raid Chinese territory. In the second period (1450-1548), Ming power continued to decline. The number of soldiers required on the borders became insufficient, problems of desertion and low morale plagued the Ming military, domestic rebellions were on the rise, and factional conflicts crippled the Ming court. In contrast, the Mongols, aside from brief periods of internecine conflicts, were united under a series of able leaders and became increasingly powerful. They occupied the strategically vital Ordos and projected power from there... Dayan Khan settled in the Ordos in 1500 and used this fertile land as forward base to raid China. The next year, he led 100,000 cavaltymen and launched a major attack on Guyan and Ningxia. The Ming military was incapable of warding off Mongol attacks. Andequer ( talk) 16:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The territory of Byzantine Empire in AD 555 is in its greatest extent, but that does not last long. So why not use the map showing the territory held by the empire which was not controlled briefly? The AD 867 map should be more appropriate instead. -- Alvin Lee 03:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
According to Yuan-Kang Wang's book the Ming dynasty lost Inner Mongolia in the mid 15th century. Andequer ( talk) 09:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I have again reverted the addition of the dated Herrmann map, which is contrary to reliable sources, such as the Cambridge History of China. Kanguole 08:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
References
So, I found an image of a possible imperial seal.
from /info/en/?search=File:Imperial_seal_of_Ming_dynasty.svg
I've not been able to corroborate this in writing, however, viewing http://gotheborg.com/marks/mingmarks.shtml does show paintings of each of the Ming Emperors, many of whom wear this symbol upon their clothing. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlr3001 ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)