![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The quoted source claims, "Participants and aspiring participants in Pax Sinica, nevertheless, remained sovereign entities, to the extent that they retained their autonomy and independence in conducting their domestic and ‘foreign’ affairs," which splits hairs in its semantics. Generally, "sovereign" is understood as having supreme and permanent authority, but this quote constrains that authority to an entities domestic and foreign affairs. It is unclear if the source means to claim that these entities had full, supreme authority, ie. do these entities' courts and political recognize the right or ability of the Chinese emperor to override their own autonomy?
The source suggests not, as it discusses this sovereignty in the context of "ordered (sovereign) inequality", where it asserts "the organizing principle of ordered (sovereign) inequality defined in civilizational terms makes the political and cultural order centred on Imperial China concentrically hierarchical," (I can't for the life of me figure out what the author(s) meant by "concentric" in this context, other than as an attempt to soften the terms of the relationship). Further context in the source suggests
As such, I have removed "and, in almost all cases, independent as well," as the use of independence here strongly implies a full sovereignty and supreme authority, whereas the source seems to suggest a more-so federated power. That these member states were largely politically autonomous is sufficient for describing this relationship.
Indeed, the rest of the this wikipedia article is in contradiction with the principles of true sovereignty and independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.227.72 ( talk) 08:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Could I deleted the word - "Imperial" of the title?? Because when China was not an empire, the tributary system had already been exist~! 冏 ( talk) 15:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
So first things first, it would help if you used just your main account to edit. It doesn't help when you alternate between accounts because you want to astroturf the debate and somehow want to give the impression that there are more people than there really is who agree with your point of view. Aside from being illegal, the ruse is just very obvious to figure out based on the publicly available information.
Second these edits of yours ( [1], [2]) is not allowed. I was specific in my objections to the things you restored and expect you to provide equally specific explanations in your defense. What i don't expect are blanket reversions accompanied by one-liners that somehow are intended to show how you have expert command of the issues at play. There are problems with attribution ( [3], [4]) and problems with generalisms ( [5], [6]) - if you can't defend yourself against these objections, then you must give way to my edits.
I ask and expect that you respond to this request to debate your reversions and will act acordingly should you fail to do so. Hamsteder ( talk) 17:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The quoted source claims, "Participants and aspiring participants in Pax Sinica, nevertheless, remained sovereign entities, to the extent that they retained their autonomy and independence in conducting their domestic and ‘foreign’ affairs," which splits hairs in its semantics. Generally, "sovereign" is understood as having supreme and permanent authority, but this quote constrains that authority to an entities domestic and foreign affairs. It is unclear if the source means to claim that these entities had full, supreme authority, ie. do these entities' courts and political recognize the right or ability of the Chinese emperor to override their own autonomy?
The source suggests not, as it discusses this sovereignty in the context of "ordered (sovereign) inequality", where it asserts "the organizing principle of ordered (sovereign) inequality defined in civilizational terms makes the political and cultural order centred on Imperial China concentrically hierarchical," (I can't for the life of me figure out what the author(s) meant by "concentric" in this context, other than as an attempt to soften the terms of the relationship). Further context in the source suggests
As such, I have removed "and, in almost all cases, independent as well," as the use of independence here strongly implies a full sovereignty and supreme authority, whereas the source seems to suggest a more-so federated power. That these member states were largely politically autonomous is sufficient for describing this relationship.
Indeed, the rest of the this wikipedia article is in contradiction with the principles of true sovereignty and independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.227.72 ( talk) 08:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Could I deleted the word - "Imperial" of the title?? Because when China was not an empire, the tributary system had already been exist~! 冏 ( talk) 15:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
So first things first, it would help if you used just your main account to edit. It doesn't help when you alternate between accounts because you want to astroturf the debate and somehow want to give the impression that there are more people than there really is who agree with your point of view. Aside from being illegal, the ruse is just very obvious to figure out based on the publicly available information.
Second these edits of yours ( [1], [2]) is not allowed. I was specific in my objections to the things you restored and expect you to provide equally specific explanations in your defense. What i don't expect are blanket reversions accompanied by one-liners that somehow are intended to show how you have expert command of the issues at play. There are problems with attribution ( [3], [4]) and problems with generalisms ( [5], [6]) - if you can't defend yourself against these objections, then you must give way to my edits.
I ask and expect that you respond to this request to debate your reversions and will act acordingly should you fail to do so. Hamsteder ( talk) 17:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)