Talk:Ming dynasty/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reference to Kolmas' book

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)

Coinage

[[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)

As with Talk:Tang Dynasty, once again I realize that this article has no pictures of currency and coinage! Thanks for posting this here, because, once again, I know just where to put it! Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Image is in article now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

christianity

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)

I want help and collaboration fixing violation of Wikipedia's summary and article size policies

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)

I'll be improving summarizing the Ming Dynasty history section so that it's not identical to History of the Ming Dynasty. This is a huge undertaking. For details, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#I_want_help_and_collaboration_fixing_violation_of_Wikipedia.27s_summary_and_article_size_policies --NickDupree (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've finished trimming back and summarizing the content duplicated at History of the Ming Dynasty because I think it is crucial in order for further improvements to even be possible. Some of the most duplicative and detailed content was deleted so people can view it over at History of the Ming Dynasty and one section moved to History of the Ming Dynasty. History of the Ming Dynasty will be the in-depth treatment of the subject, and Ming Dynasty will be a better-summarized overview (though my overhaul will only touch the history heading). Both articles will be better for it. 04:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickDupree (talk • contribs)

What is this supposed to mean ?

"The Ming Dynasty, or anachronistically referred to as Empire of the Great Ming, "

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)

Sure, it's anachronistic to talk about it as "Great Ming" in English. Of course, at the time, people just called it "Cathay" and "China"; plus, it's worse to refer to the geographic entity and political system as a "Dynasty" rather than an "Empire" anyway; so the editor's kinda of correct while totally missing the point and adding needless snark and POV to the article. Just fix it. — LlywelynII 15:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Those names aren't names, they're adjectives: it's "the Hongwu Emperor" every time, not "Hongwu" or "Emperor Hong Wu"

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)

"...smaller loyalist movements continued until the proclamation of the Republic of China"???

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)

Da Ming Lü (Great Ming Code)

http://books.google.com/books?id=RV6WqcAY3zwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2013

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)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I don't see that link in the article. (The closest I can find is a link to Wen Zhengming.) Could you please be more specific about the location of the problem? Rivertorch (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ming capitals?

"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)

Flag

[[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)

I have done a bit of research, unfortunately, it is a hoax. Arilang ^talk 06:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

List of present day countries that were part of the Ming Empire

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)

@Aslanofnarnia7 – There's a simpler reason why Taiwan should be removed: the Ming never controlled it! And just to confirm: by "the above said list", do you mean the "Today part of" section of the infobox? Madalibi (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Ming never controlled the island of Taiwan, but it indeed controlled Penghu (Pescadores), at least for many decades. This book mentions that "Li sent Zheng, who probably had been a leader in one of the Chinese settlements on Taiwan, to persuade the Duth to withdraw from the Pescadores, which were part of the Ming Empire, to Taiwan, which was not". Today Penghu is part of ROC or Taiwan, so "Ming controlled territory that are part of Taiwan" may be true as well. --Cartstyle (talk) 15:57, 25 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)

@Aslanofnarnia7 – Hmmm, it's true that the Yongle Emperor led five large-scale campaigns into Mongol territory, and made the Mongols fear China's military might, but each campaign lasted only a few months, and none produced lasting results. After Yongle died in 1424, his successors never tried to attack the Mongols again. This means that the territory that is now modern Mongolia was never under secure Ming control for more than a few weeks, perhaps a few months. Tan Qixiang's Historical Atlas of China 中国历史地图集 (1982), which usually gives a rather "optimistic" view of China's territory, also doesn't include Mongolia into the Ming realm (see volume 7). For these two reasons – known historical events and a reliable source that is sympathetic to modern Chinese territorial claims yet doesn't include Mongolia in Ming territory – I would say we shouldn't include Mongolia in the "Today part of" section of the infobox. Madalibi (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

Under "Society and culture," the first word of the first sentence ("literature") should be capitalized. Asadron (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for pointing this out, Asadron. Madalibi (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

largest naval battle in history???

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014

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" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Hi Mike, and thanks for this well thought-out proposal! Even if Ming dynasty is already a "featured article" (that is, one of the best on Wikipedia), it can still be improved, and I think your proposal does just that. Among other things, it makes me notice that Ming history from the 1460s to the 1570s is not discussed at all! So I like your new text. All we are missing are references to reliable sources to support all the claims it makes. Do you have access (including online) to such sources? Would you like to add the references yourself or do you need assistance? If you're not sure how to add footnotes, just click "Edit" anywhere in the text and see how it's done. (The semi-protection will be lifted once you've performed a total of ten edits.) Two details: common names in subtitles shouldn't be capitalized (see WP:SECTIONCAPS); and the reign title "Jiajing" was chosen when that emperor ascended the throne, so it can't be seen as a comment on his ruling style. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Mongol Chinese relations during the Ming

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)

Flag

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)

Update there is also a flag that was apparently used to distinguish from the Portuguese. There is information found here. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

All of those images have messages claiming something to the effect of "this flag is fictitious". If you really want to use them then you need to provide reliable sources (which Baidu and personal observations aren't) _dk (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to read closer. It does not say it is fictitious but may be because it is not official. Sure, Baidu isn't the best source but a personal observation and common sense can prove the best source. And consider the note under the banner like I proposed. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The flag looks cool, but it cannot be used without the explicit support from a reliable source. Baidu is not a reliable source, as it is much the same thing as Wikipedia, only the Chinese version. You need to find an academic paper, thesis, article, or book that shows this flag and insists that it was used as a national flag. To be honest, I don't think China had an official national flag until the late Qing dynasty, in emulation of the European tradition of having a single national flag for each country. And by that I don't mean battle standards and flags symbolizing aristocratic clans or ruling houses. I am talking about flags that were deliberately chosen by the government to represent the modern nation-state in the global arena. I would be very surprised if the Ming, even the late Ming emperors, upheld this sort of view or policy in or even before 17th century. Your ideas about flags strike me as very anachronistic for late medieval and early modern societies that did not yet have the notion that there should be representative symbols for nation-states. These ideas began in Europe after the creation of flags like the Union Jack, or Flag of Great Britain, but were used only for maritime purposes to distinguish British ships from others during the 17th and 18th centuries (following the personal union of England and Scotland under the rule of King James VI and I, r. 1603 - 1625). The creation of the national flag of the United States in 1777 was rather exceptional for its time, considering that it wasn't until about the mid 19th century that most countries in Europe adopted a national flag.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe am I thinking of banners? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed

I appreciate Kamek98's move to add something colorful, and the work in finding sources, but in the end I second the view of PericlesofAthens that there is no Reliable Source for this "flag," "banner" or whatever and that the idea of an official flag is anachronistic. ch (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

About the population entry in infobox

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)

Southern Ming and Tungning

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:

The Chengs styled their government in Taiwan a regional government (mu fu) of the deposed Ming dynasty and not a center of imperial government. The Chengs continued to use Yung-li reign dates, although that heir to the Ming throne had been executed in 1662 (Hung Chien-chao 1981: 125, 177, 252, 284). Cheng Ching headed a Ming government that had only a spiritual emperor: "Cheng Ching never failed to perform the rituals of his paying tribute to the non-present emperor on the first and fifteenth day of each month. Similar rituals were followed when he had to make important personnel appointments. On such occasions, he would wear his court apparel, face north, make a report to an empty throne with Chu Shu-kuei [a Ming prince] standing on the left side of it, and then burn the report" (ibid.: 296). Burning memorials is a standard Chinese means of communicating with gods.

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)

The Kingdom of Tungning was considered part of the Ming by the Zheng family and not an independent Kingdom. Ming Prince Zhu Shugui was the appointed representative and stand in for the Yongli Emperor who appointed him as the official Ming Imperial family representative to the Zheng family forces. The Zheng used Yongli calendar dates and used Zhu Shugui as his stand in at ceremonies to Yongli. All accounts are also clear that Queen Elizabeth II has no power and that power in Britain is in the hands of Prime Minister David Cameron. Does this mean we delete the Queen from lists of heads of state? The Governor General of Canada and Governor-General of Australia are Queen Elizabeth's representatives to those countries while the Prime Ministers there hold the real power. The sources show Yongli as the acknowledged head of state and or Zhu Shugui as his representative.

Conflict and Commerce in Maritime East Asia: The Zheng Family and the Shaping of the Modern World, c.1620–1720, by Xing Hang p. 233. says:

"Under the watchful eyes of the Qing envoys, Zheng Keshuang handed over his seals and other symbols of authority that had tied the family's destiny to the defunct Ming and Yongli court."

There are sources for the following at the Kingdom of Tungning article itself:

Realizing that developing his forces in Taiwan into a large enough threat to unseat the Qing would not be achieved in the short term, Koxinga began transforming Taiwan into a practically proper, albeit preferably temporary, seat of power for the southern Ming loyalist movement. Replacing the Dutch system of government previously used in Taiwan, Koxinga instituted a Ming-style administration, the first Chinese governance in Taiwan. This system of government was divided into six departments: civil service, revenue, rites, war, punishment, and public works.[3] Great care was taken to symbolise support for the Ming legitimacy, an example being the use of the term guan instead of bu to name departments, since the latter is reserved for central government, whereas Taiwan was to be a regional office of the rightful Ming rule of China.[8] Formosa (Taiwan) was also renamed by Koxinga as Tungtu, though this name was later changed by his son, Zheng Jing, to Tungning.[3]

This is from Chinese Wikipedia article on Zhu Shugui and its sourced:

1655年（永曆九年），因為永曆帝和明鄭王朝勢力相隔遙遠，永曆帝特准鄭成功設置六官方便施政，同時允許他委任官職，武官可達一品，文職可達六部主事。鄭成功每次拜封官員，都請朱術桂和明朝宗室在旁觀禮，以示尊重體制

Zhu Shugui was the Yongli Emperor's appointed representative and stand in of the Ming Imperial family for the Zhengs.Rajmaan (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is pointless to quote Wikipedia (en or zh) – what matters are the sources. And while we have plenty of sources saying that the Zhengs sought to bolster their legitimacy by presenting themselves as agents of the then-defunct Ming, they do not consider the Zheng regime as part of the Southern Ming.

You have misread Shepherd's note above (which you cited in the article): Zhu Shugui did not stand in for the Yongli emperor at those ceremonies – the empty throne did, and the reports were passed to the dead emperor by burning them. Zhu Shugui was there to stand by the throne, as he might have done when the emperor was alive. Kanguole 14:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

References

I specifically said, "This is from Chinese Wikipedia article on Zhu Shugui and its sourced:", "There are sources for the following at the Kingdom of Tungning article itself:"

The sources made clear that Tungning viewed itself as part of the Ming dynasty and that Zhu Shugui as appointed by the Yongli Emperor to represent him and the Ming Imperial family to the Zhengs.

the Ming government had to establish a temporary capital at Nanking. ... The Cheng family ruled Taiwan for three generations covering 23 years (1661- 1683) . ... In 1683, his grandson Cheng K'e-shuang (f^;£3^) surrendered to the Manchu forces under the command of General Shih Lang (^IJO, and this ended the Southern Ming Dynasty. in this book

They continued to refer to the various short-lived remnant regimes in South China of the Ming princes of the Chu family as the continuing line of the Ming dynasty and followed their reign- titles — Hung-kuang (1645), Lung-wu (1645-46), Shao-wu (1646-47), and Yung- li (1647-61), which continued in Taiwan until 1683 — in their political, calendar, and literary references.

the Ming government had to establish a temporary capital at Nanking. ... The Cheng family ruled Taiwan for three generations covering 23 years (1661- 1683) . ... In 1683, his grandson Cheng K'e-shuang (i3l$j^L$0 surrendered to the Manchu forces under the command of General Shih Lang (56i3&), and this ended the Southern Ming Dynasty.

The death of Koxinga weakened the strength of the Southern Ming. In 1683 (the 37th year of Yung-li) his grandson Chen K'e-shuang surrendered to Shih Lang, and thus ended the Southern Ming dynasty. The people who followed Koxinga ...

The so-called Southern Ming court continued to rule Taiwan until the Qing dynasty took control of the island in 1683.

The role of Prince Tang in the Southern Ming dynasty (1644-1683) [1]

Interest in the history of the Southern Ming (1644–1683) has existed in China for a very long period of time, but comprehensive and systematic ...

Prince Gui (or Yong Li as were his reign title) issued two types of Yong Li coins, but this coin was not issued by Prince Gui. It was issued by a vassal of the Ming called Zheng Chenggong. The coins were minted in Nagasaki, and circulated in Taiwan between 1661-1683. The reason that he used Yong Li's reign title was that he shared the Southern Ming regime's resistance against foreign aggression.Rajmaan (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's obviously going to be standard procedure to date the dynasty to the death of the last ruling member of the family. That said, if the Tungning themselves considered themselves to be Ming partisans and if the guy finds sources that treat them as such, there's nothing wrong with mentioning it in the articles in a secondary fashion. — LlywelynII 17:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Map

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)

I have restored the map used when the article passed FAC because as well as the issues above (which I do not know enough about to comment on) the newer map used Chinese symbols; as most of the English Wikipedia's readers speak English it is more useful to have the map with English labels. Nev1 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Beyond which, there is a huuuuge discussion in the talk archive about those maps. They're quite indefensible & would need strong well-argued support here before they should be included. — LlywelynII 16:19, 14 October 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) 

Change MING Map for Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2017

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)

@Mingdynastyavenger: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This is being rejected only because you did not provide a specific change to make. Your constructive suggestion and editorial discussion is welcome, and someone may yet act on it. It is just not directly and immediately actionable via the edit request system. Please do feel free to provide an updated map for consideration, if you can, and participate in constructive editorial discussion.

Regarding 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.

Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Banner

[link spam commented out below]

05:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghressho (talk • contribs)

Kindly provide some context for your links. Definitely don't just cut and paste all the tracking dreck Google attaches to the URLs. — LlywelynII 06:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Foreign relations and the bureau of translation in the ming dynasty

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

Old Uyghur language

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)

Please don't do that. — LlywelynII 06:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Islamic astronomy in ming china

http://books.google.com/books?id=iA1ZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA107&dq=Hui+hui+astronomy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LYvDULHULKXV0gH8lIDwCQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Hui%20hui%20astronomy&f=false

[link spam commented out below] Rajmaan (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Or that. — LlywelynII 06:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ministry names

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)

It's cute that you claim Charles Hucker, an eminent figure in his field, is in the minority when you cite his older source in all your new Ministry articles. The majority of sinological writing, including the Cambridge Histories of China and the Google Scholar hits that you dismissed out of hand, refers to his 1985 Dictionary for English translations of official titles when writing about the Ming and Qing dynasties. Cheers. _dk (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Any given Wikipedia article is under no obligation to conform to the standards or chosen transliterations of other articles. It is necessary, however, to at least be consistent in using the similar terminology or standards throughout the same article. In that case it usually boils down to editors' choice and for that matter the precedent of what previous editors have chosen for the article. This article, a Featured one for many years, should reach a clear consensus here on the talk page before we start changing the terminology everywhere. That's especially the case when there is no clear scholarly consensus on the matter. Hucker was hardly a fringe author; he was one of the most prominent Sinologists of the 20th century. You should present a much stronger case and justification for changing the titles of ministers on this page. In fact, you should have come here to the talk page first before attempting to change critical details in a Featured article. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It's hardly a "critical detail" and you're both wrong, as well as obnoxiously overbearing to the point of WP:OWNERSHIP. That said, Underbar was polite enough to wait for a second opinion and got one and your error here is one of felicitous translation, not complete mistake. I already ran the numbers, but I'm fine with waiting until we hear from more people or I have time to provide specific sourcing for the correct name in addition to the article's current use of Hucker. — LlywelynII 07:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Instead of stamping your feet and proclaiming that everyone is wrong and you are right, why don't you actually demonstrate your assertion with a (non-exhaustive) list of sources that indicate scholarly consensus on different translations? That would be helpful, more helpful than whatever it is you're doing here. Thanks for at least observing that Wikipedia:Consensus should be observed, especially with a Featured article that requires greater scrutiny before significant changes are made. I consider a systematic change of titles to be a significant modification of the article, but apparently that's my subjective opinion. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Shun and Southern-Ming Dynasties missing from the Infobox.

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)

The infobox is for summarizing key information. The Shun lasted for a few months and never ruled much of the country. The Southern Ming wasn't a dynasty, but rather a collection of claimant regimes. That sort of detail is too minor for the infobox. Kanguole 16:16, 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)

The status of the ROC on Taiwan is obviously a controversial issue, but it's hardly comparable to the Shun. Kanguole 14:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected article edit request

'Can't' in the population section should be 'cannot'. Thanks.

Done! Glad to be of service. Thanks for reading the article! It's one of my old FAs. Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

pirates

Haijin laws intended to protect the coasts from "Japanese" pirates instead turned many into smugglers and pirates themselves.

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)

Maps

Империя Мин

map of 1580

map of 1415

map of 1580

Harvard University Press Atlas published this map in History and Commercial Atlas of China

Louisiana (New France)- only 200 French troops were stationed in the entire area several times, with tens of thousands of Native Americans surrounding them

Entire Mississippi River basin claimed by France

New Spain - a few missions and priests in California counts as control

Britain shown as controlling everything east of the Missisipi

America had to fight for over 100 years to actually subdue the natives and rule over all the land they "claimed" to own.

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)

I don't think using a map of an Empire which is near her doom is suitable. This is similar as using a map showing the Eastern Roman Empire which is under the Turkics' attack. The misleading part is that you just use a small map instead of a map showing the greatest extent of an empire. I suggest you use the map in early 15th century.--Alvin Lee 13:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the 1415 map was similar to the map made by Harvard–Yenching Institute, "Historical and commercial atlas of China" (1935). I believe it is a reliable source.--Alvin Lee 13:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Extent of the Ming ended in the 15th century but the Ming state existed in 1368-1644. Andequer (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the point. The map used should show the greatest extent of the Ming, in order to let readers to know the influence of the Empire.--Alvin Lee 06:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not say that 1580 was Ming near its doom. A map of that time would be effectively the maximum extent of the Ming. It wasn't until towards the end of the Wanli Emperor's rule that a decline could be noted. I suspect the 1415 map date was chosen so as to include Yongle's north east expedition but i agree with Jopin that that expedition doesn't count as bringing the far north east into Ming control. If we went down that route then we would have to include the places that Zhenghe's treasure ships landed too. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joplin & Rincewind that the 1580 map is both more handsome and more useful in its clear presentation of important features. The map also shows gradual shading of the borderlands, which is more faithful to the historical reality that there were no sharply defined borders. 1580 is probably the height of Ming in terms of culture and economy, so it is as good a date as any and better than most.

Could we find an appropriate place later in the article for the 1415 map?ch (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Rincewind42 Joplin's claim that the 1415 map is misleading is incorrect. The map was not made by a random user's imagination but based exactly off this map in a book by Harvard University Press. The building of a few forts and stationing a couple of troops in areas with tribal natives is in most cases taken as an acceptable basis for claims of sovereignty by most historians. The same thing is shown for the Russian Empire during the expansion into Siberia. Just a few hundred Russian Cossacks put up a few forts like Albazin and suddenly claimed the entire area for the Russian Empire, while vast stretches of the land were empty or controlled by native tribes. The same thing is portrayed on maps of America during the early 19th century- when America made the Louisiana Purchase from France and claimed the Oregon Territory, for many years when it officially "owned" the territories, in fact there were just a few forts and a few American army troops stationed with the government signing treaties with the local Native American tribes, who wielded actual control over the area. Same thing when France owned Louisiana (New France)- essentially France claimed a massive gigantic piece of land, but actually what they had were only a few forts and a couple of troops and recognized the local Native American chiefs titles. At times only 200 French troops were stationed in the entire area with tens of thousands of Native Americans. I've seen western history books and they all show the entire piece of Louisiana all the way from Montana down to the Mississippi as blue colored and under French control. To think that it was actually under their rule is a massive joke. Same thing with New Spain. Spain only had a few forts and missions in California, basically some missions only had a couple of Spanish Priests and nothing else, yet historians color the entire area as under Spanish rule despite Native Americans being in actual control. Same thing with British colonial America. They only had a few forts in the Ohio River Valley and other areas, with Natives controlling most of the land, yet everything east of the Mississippi is colored red for British on colonial maps Why is there a different standard for China and for European nations? The Yongle Emperor sent Yishiha to set up the Nurgan Regional Military Commission 奴兒干都指揮使司 in the area which is essentially the same as what Europeans did when they established colonies in America. The destroyed temple was rebuilt, see Yongning Temple Stele. It says Nurkan (Nurgan) right in that area next to the Sea of Okhotsk where it is part of the Ming on the Harvard University Press map. Nurgan was the administrative name of the area when it was under Ming rule. Zheng He never set up an administrative seat like the Nurgan Regional Military Commission in any areas he went to. Your logic comparing Yishiha and Zheng He's voyages is a straw man argument, this is like comparing Henry Hudson to Humphrey Gilbert, and saying since Henry Hudson went exploring but didn't establish any colonies for Britain, that Gilbert didn't establish any colonies either and St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador was never part of the British Empire. If you insist on the 1415 map as illegitimate, we must delete all the maps of New Spain, New France, and colonial America on the grounds that they are all misleading and were never an "integrated part" of those nations.Rajmaan (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And the Qing control of the region was essentially the same as the Ming- the Qing Emperors only maintained a tiny amount of tribal Evenk, Daur, Oroqen and other Bannermen to guard the area from Russian incursions, leaving the Evenks, Daurs, Oroqen and others under the control of their native chiefs, and left it largely to themselves and mostly empty, with few administrative structures. So in 1858 Russia was able to walk in with its Cossacks and settlers and openly seize the area during the Treaty of Aigun.Rajmaan (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2015 (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."

Finally, someone do agree that Nurgan Regional Military Commission was the territory of Ming. And there are several expansions in early 15th century which no longer under Ming's control in late 16th century, such as Annam and territories to the north of the Ming Great Wall.--Alvin Lee 01:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the map used should show the greatest extent of an Empire, in order to reflect her influence and military strength. Both "economy" and "culture" cannot be reflected from that map, thus this is NOT a valid point.--Alvin Lee 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Also Hami Prefecture and the Ordos Loop were both ruled by the Yongle Emperor along with Annam and much of Inner Mongolia and "Manchuria", and were lost by the 16th century.Rajmaan (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. So please use the greatest extent map to show the power of the Empire.--Alvin Lee 04:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion of North America is off-topic – we should follow reliable historians of China. The History and Commercial Atlas of China (1935), published by the Harvard-Yenching Institute but written by Albert Herrmann, is considered dated nowadays. In particular modern authors would not include the expanse to the north, because Yongle's campaigns failed to establish control of the area.

I disagree with the dictum that the infobox map must show the empire at its greatest extent. The objective of the map in the infobox is to give readers an impression of the extent of the empire. A map that depicts borders that were stable for three quarters of the period of the dynasty does this better than one based on short-lived, unsustainable and partial control, such as Yongle's disastrous 20-year occupation of Annam.

Regarding the shading of the borders, I agree that it depicts an important reality in many areas, but it makes no sense at the coast, and there were well-defined parts of the boundary along the Great Wall and for much of the border with Annam. Kanguole 09:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

If you claim its considered dated, then show us a modern map depicting the extent of Yongle's rule by an alternate historian instead of comparing it to the 1580 map. Yongle's occupation of Annam was not partial or unstable from 1407-1418, the Lam Son uprising only started after a decade of Yongle's rule. Hami Prefecture was under Ming sovereignty for decades in the 15th century and the Ming made a conscious decision to later to abandon the Ordos Loop when building the Great Wall in the 16th century. Most of eastern Qinghai was also under Ming rule before it was lost in the 16th century. And instead of citing unspecified "modern authors", show us the actual sources. The Temple was rebult by Yishiha on his second expedition. The Cambridge History of China has an alternate map which shows a big piece of Inner Mongolia north of Hebei as within the "Early Ming frontier".Rajmaan (talk) 17:57, 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 map you've linked is a good example of what I mean. You'll note that northeastern limit of the "Early Ming frontier" in that map is in the area of modern Shenyang, rather than near the mouth of the Amur. Kanguole 01:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It is still missing both Hami, northeastern Qinghai and Annam, and the first two were part of the Ming for decades.Rajmaan (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox map must show the empire at its greatest extent. Why Western empires uses maps showing their greatest extent, and this is not applicable for Chinese empires? Shouldn't all articles be unified? Allow me to use the example of Byzantine Empire:

• 
• 

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)

Despite your bold type, there is no such rule. Focussing on a border around the greatest extent, including briefly-held and unsustainable possessions, gives a misleading impression of an ancient state. Reliable sources tend to use maps of the typical territory when giving an overview (which is what the infobox is for). There's no reason to follow the example of Byzantine Empire. Kanguole 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So could you kindly explain why Byzantine Empire article uses a map that shows the greatest extent with many briefly-held and unsustainable possessions? Do not avoid my questions.--Alvin Lee 08:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Because those territories were held and truly incorporated (provincial government offices, garrisons, taxes collected, etc.) even if for a relatively small time (a quarter of a century or more, actually. As such, this was truly the Empire at its greatest extent. There is a vast difference between establishing a state territory, and a military campaign that does not consolidate or set up a true government. 104.169.36.161 (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

And could anyone explain why Annan and Nurgan should not be considered as territory? And for the boarders, why Western empires uses clear and specific boarders instead of the blur ones, and yet no one talked about it? --Alvin Lee 01:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Kanguole needs to respond and prove that Nurgan was not a territory of the Ming if he wants to maintain the current map.Rajmaan (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Cambridge History that you pointed to shows that they don't consider Nurgan to have been Ming territory. In the text, you'll find them saying that Yongle's campaigns didn't establish control over the regions they went through (and indeed the diversion of resources to them led to the abandonment of the "Early Ming frontier" marked on that map). Kanguole 02:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I already noted that the map is incorrect, it doesn't show Hami prefecture, a massive piece of northeastern Qinghai, nor Annam as part of the Ming in any point in time. I pointed to it as an "alternate map", not a correct one.Rajmaan (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Still the Cambridge History is a particularly well-respected source. There is a discussion of Hami and its relations with the early Ming on pages 247–249 and 215–254 of Volume 8, where Hami is described as a tributary state, but not governed by the Ming. While the Ming did occupy Annam for 20 years, their hold was limited by a series of uprisings throughout that period (not just in the last 10 years). It is hardly representatative of Ming territory. Kanguole 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A source at Qara Del says Hami was turned into a Ming prefecture.Rajmaan (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Temporarily. Andequer (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have access to that book at the moment, but I notice that the reference was originally attached to "The Qara Del accepted the Ming supremacy to save its existence in 1404."[2] The addition "and came under Ming control as Hami Prefecture" came later from a different editor,[3][4][5] who also added the claim (without a reference) to Hami Prefecture.[6] I'll check the book when I get a chance. Kanguole 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Annan again. When a country controlled a territory which upising happens, you just don't consider that as its territory? Fabulous deduction! Many countries' greatest extent will not be considered as territory in your logic. So please, do not use such reasons to exclude territories of the empire. Also, you can't just ignore the 130 North East military posts. It seems that you are having a Double Standard on Eastern and Western countries. Please look at both of them fairly, not just saying "We should not use greatest extent map for this article," while using greatest extent maps for Western countries.--Alvin Lee 06:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So please explain, how would Ming establish a Military Commission and about 130 military posts "Wei-so" 衛所 in North East, and yet has no power over them? Also, you still have yet respond to my doubts on Annan.--Alvin Lee 04:39, 17 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)

Didn't the Ming consciously decide to abandon the Ordos Loop to the Mongols and build the Great Wall at its southern end?Rajmaan (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Kanguole Alternative map.Rajmaan (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to add the map of 1424 from Chinese Wikipedia , including the Jimi system areas, to this discussion. --Emphrase 03:02, 13 June 2016 (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

Imperial Seal

So, I found an image of a possible imperial seal.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

It's interesting. The picture is at least properly sourced and provides visual proof as well. It's certainly a dragon pattern that was featured on the robes of the Wanli Emperor. I'm not an expert on this, so I have no idea if it was also the same pattern used for official seals of the dynasty. You'd need a source for that, preferably with quotations here. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Since Jlr3001 mentioned this discussion when arguing for this image's inclusion in List of countries by population in 1500 and List of countries by population in 1600, I should spell out what PericlesofAthens hints at: This is a pattern sewn into the Wanli Emperor's robes, and there is no source suggesting this was used as an official seal, and certainly none that suggests this pattern represents the Ming as whole. This image should therefore not be used to identify the Ming dynasty in any article, and WP:FLAGCRUFT aficionados should direct their efforts elsewhere. _dk (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems a fair assessment. I concur.Jlr3001 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)