Talk:Yuan dynasty

Convenient Borders

Don't some of the borders of the Yuan Dynasty on the map at the top seem to be conveniently like today's national borders on the map? (I'm not the only one best at wording)

Soy milk emerged at end of Kublai Kahn empire

Bill Shurtleff is cited in the soy milk article as saying that: "a tofu broth (doufujiang) c. 1365 (was noted) amid the collapse of the Mongol Yuan."

References

Factual errors and historical bias

In a discussion of Mongolian imperial rule over chinese states, erroneous comments in this article that are inconsistent with outside academic sources (including those cited here by other wiki contributors) need to be scrubbed.

For example in the actual passage: Mote, Frederick W. (2003). Imperial China 900–1800. Harvard University Press. pp. 490–. ISBN 978-0-674-01212-7,

originally it stated "... the Han, a word usually meaning the ethnic Chinese but in Yuan usage designating the population of the conquered Jin territories of North China and Manchuria, thereby including not only the Chinese who lived there but also the rather substantial numbers of Khitans and Jurchens, even Koreans. Finally, at the bottom of the privilege ladder were the Chinese inhabitants of the Southern Song territories conquered after 1273;; they were called the Nanren, or “southerners.” They of course were by far the largest element...".

The wikipedia article had initially and erroneously had not had the disambiguation of the word "Han" as Frederick Mote had outlined in the referenced article (reference citation #170).

Also the problematic wikipedia article highlighted Koreans in relation to "the Kingdom of Qocho" in the "Social Classes" section. Talking at length and pointedly about other ethnic groups outside of China in a section on the chinese dynasty ruled by the Mongols is Han-chinese biased. Also, even by the problematic logic of the unsubstantiated claims within the current version of this wikipedia article, the Han-chinese inhabitants of the Song Dynasty should be "ranked last" and "at the bottom of the privilege ladder", and not any other group. This needs to be corrected by the editors who are not Han-chinese biased revisionists.

1. Commenting on unrelated non-chinese peoples and states in an article dedicated to the Yuan dynasty is out of place.
2. Koryo (Korea) and other non-Han chinese peoples and states should not be lumped into the same category as the wholly subjugated states of china which had no foreign relations with the Mongol court (they did not retain their royal members to interact with the Mongol court as other nations did)
3. There is a dishonest and concerted effort to elevate the image of Han-chinese people at the expense of neighboring Asian groups, inconsistent both with historical fact and even the sources cited here which speaks to both academic inconsistency and CCP chinese style historical chauvanist revisionism.

References on CCP Han-chinese revisionist examples: 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297887287_China's_northeast_project_and_South_Korean-Chinese_relations 2. https://www.nbr.org/publication/chinas-quest-for-influence-in-northeast-asia-the-korean-peninsula-japan-and-the-east-china-sea/

Sumaiyahle (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I urge you to see WP:RGW and WP:OR as I answered above. Qiushufang (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I have clarified the passage surrounding the Uyghurs and ranking. Made it clear that the Korean king was ranked last among the Uyghurs, Karluks, and Koreans rather than overall. As for the Han Chinese being ranked last I do not see any source info on that. The sources I have seen say that they were split in two, with the southern Chinese "Manzi" being the lowest class while Northern Chinese were grouped along with the other northerners including Khitans, Jurchens, and Koreans. Qiushufang (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I urge you to adhere to international standards of looking at chinese history. See reference from Frederick Mote on classification of Han chinese, southerners in particular, in being ranked last overall among all peoples. It is a direct cited quote. Sumaiyahle (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is already reflected in the article. Chinese Southerners are already their own category and are ranked last as noted in the article. The disambiguation of Han was kept and its different usage in the Yuan dynasty is also mentioned. I'm not sure what you are referring to that you want changed. Qiushufang (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I rearranged the passage since the flow is stilted in talking about different social groups in mixed order, since the Han-chinese of the Song dynasty were to be placed last. Also the word "rebuked" is strange and out of place in description and needlessly emotional in tone in describing foreign states neighboring China. Sumaiyahle (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I've partially reverted your edit because the citation needs to be attached to the content, which was removed, and also because the two paragraphs are obviously talking about different situations. Neither the Han Chinese or situation with the other kingdoms were mentioned in conjunction to each other other than who surrendered first. The comparison was not between Chinese or Korean. Qiushufang (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I wondered why there was a refbomb eight footnotes across citing a single claim in that paragraph! Guess I'll have to verify them or whatever. Any way we can narrow down this dispute to like three or four authoritative sources that deal with it in depth? Folly Mox (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the subject of contention, that Koreans were considered part of the "Han" class or equal to it during the Yuan dynasty, is not very controversial except outside of perhaps a few dedicated individuals. All the sources say nearly identical things. I assume somebody added all these references to "combat" the opposition. Qiushufang (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

All right I got distracted by other bits of the article but I'll see if I can't winnow the refbomb to a reasonable subset, or at least bundle them into a single footnote so it doesn't look so ridiculous.

The sourcing on this article.... I've removed some extremely silly things. Hope I can get it all buttoned up in the next few hours. Folly Mox (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are too many different sources, and too many cited incorrectly. We're probably down to two or three elementary level textbooks, and I think I got all the circular references and things that were completely irrelevant. I was not able to finish today, but the article is in a significantly better state than it was yesterday. Folly Mox (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Folly Mox, it is improved based on your editing. But there is more substantiation and more editing to be done that isn't biased and polluted with ethnic bias. Sumaiyahle (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Apparently User:Qiushufang admitted to authoring the POVPUSH WP:OR changes in the "Social classes" section and the Han-chinese revisionist bias evident in the passage. Qiushufang inappropriately commenting and theorizing about motivations based on the "Arabic" nature of my username and his multiple reversions to Han-chinese revisionist historical stance is reprehensible and considered edit warring and will be reported. Sumaiyahle (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Unsure what you mean by OR/POVPUSH changes again. If you mean the above comment on the citation bomb, I said somebody did that, not that I did. Diff links might clarify your point. Here are all the times I've edited this article. If you would like to report me, you can do so here and here. Like I said Qiushufang (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the flags

I vectorized some military flags of the Yuan Dynasty found in old paintings of the Yuan army, but they got deleted due to them lacking scholarly sources, since I cited images of the paintings as sources. Even if there are no scholarly sources, paintings of the military from the Yuan era should be accepted, especially considering that the same standard is shown in many paintings, further legitimizing it. (I also added the naval flag of the Yuan Dynasty cited in CRW flags.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sci Show With Moh (talk • contribs) 13:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Sci Show With Moh, "Flags of the World" is considered an unreliable source; its entry on WP:RSP reads Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website.". I have reverted your addition, but you are of course free to re-add if you find a reliable source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The website sites the origin of the flag as being a flag on display in the Military History Museum of Vietnam, which could be considered a reliable source for a flag as it's a physical relic from a Yuan warship according to the museum. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A photograph of the flag at the museum would be a reliable source. We are however getting this information through "self-published content without editorial oversight", so it might be untrue/exaggerated/misintepreted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Orthogonal to this, I'm not really sure what |flag= parameters are supposed to capture for this sort of polity. Does it matter whether or not the purported battle standard and purported naval flag are historically accurate? Do they represent the idea of the Yuan dynasty as a state in the way that modern flags are supposed to? According to historical records, the standard of the Great Khan was the nine white tug banners, accepted by scholarly sources, and replicas of which are extant. Would commons:File:Mongolia 9 suldes.png be an appropriate flag icon for the infobox? (Edited to note that I can't tell whether or not I'm asking this question rhetorically)

I can't claim to understand why people make such a big deal of flags, so my opinion might be kinda off base, but I think it is valid to question what any flag would have represented to the Yuan dynasty as compared to what a flag icon in the infobox feels like it should convey. Folly Mox (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if this flag was taken from a Yuan warship, what evidence is there to suggest that it represented the entire Yuan nation? I agree with the sentiment behind your comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point, as the other person said, the standard of the Mongol Nation was actually the nine white tugs banner/sulde. Could I possibly use that instead? (Also, I'm currently searching for an image of the Yuan Banner cited in CRW flags in some videos of the museum where it's supposedly located.) Sci Show With Moh (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Could I use the flag shown in the Catalan Atlas? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it described in reliable modern sources as a flag representing the entirety of the Yuan dynasty? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

For example Sci Show With Moh, this source states outright that such symbols are inauthentically depicted, and suggests that your supposed "Yuan dynasty flag" was actually a Timurid Empire flag. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That's strange, because the Timurid Empire wasn't even on the Catalan Atlas for it to have its flag inauthentically depicted as the Yuan Dynasty flag. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, can you cite the exact place in the source that says that the Yuan Dynasty in the Catalan Atlas was inauthentically depicted as the Timurid flag? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

See pp 149–150 in Kadoi 2010 for that discussion, which seems to be describing the flag image you added most recently. She also translates 九斿白纛 as "white standard with nine tails" on p 146, which probably means that Chinese sources have been understandably mistranslating it based on reading 斿 as a counting word instead of using its base meaning of "tail".

Anyway, have a look at this google images search for "Yuan dynasty flag". Notice how the top results are all different? That's pretty suggestive of there not being an accepted flag design for the Yuan dynasty, and a bunch of people guessing based on different sources. Folly Mox (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too. In my search for an accurate flag of the Yuan Dynasty I found many different flags from different sources. It seems as if there are many different flags and not a single solid one. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure that the Yuan flag that I added to the page was actually inauthentically depicted and was actually a Timurid flag, considering that the Timurid Empire isn't even shown on the catalan atlas. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That's the point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

In that case, could I add some of the atributted flags outside of the infobox? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

If they are attributed in reliable modern academic sources and you place them in related spots, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I could probably make an entire page on the attribbuted flags of the Mongol Empire and Yuan dynasty. What do you think? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You might be able to find scholarly sources in Raven, which publishes papers on speculative vexillology. Most exercises in speculation tend to be unpublished, so I suspect sourcing may prove difficult. It may be possible, and I don't want to dissuade you from pursuing the topic since you seem very keen on it. Folly Mox (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think I should make an entire page of the attributed flags of the Mongol Empire and Yuan Dynasty? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have enough reliable sources to create a page? If yes, why not? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I am of a "flagless until proven nation" position when it comes to these things: our obsession with flags is so excruciatingly recent, see the boneyard of Austria-Hungary's revision history for the persistent a priori assumption that a polity must have a symbol analogous to a national flag (if it's not a "national flag", it shouldn't be hoisted in the infobox for a sovereign state imo), even if they weren't a nation in a way we would recognize. Remsense留 08:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

New map

Hello. I was thinking of reworking the main map for this article as presented in the country infobox. The present infobox contains two maps, one of which (A) is awkwardly cropped in the north and follows modern borders to the T at places (as another user pointed out), and another one (B) which contains perhaps too much information for a infobox which I feel would fit better in the middle of the article, possibly under the "Administrative divisions" header. I propose combining the information of both maps into one, which I have already prepared below.

Old map A

Old map B

New map

Cattette (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What are the sources for the new map? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I also feel that your new map still contains too much information and is too visually confusing. Removing the provinces/province names would help. It's also not very helpful to have the Song borders. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's a simplified version https://imgur.com/a/sAncf5m

The sources I used were the previous map B as well as Droysen's Historical Atlas from 1886 https://archive.org/details/DroysensHistoricalAtlas1886/Map%2028%20The%20Mongol%20empires%20around%201300.jpg Cattette (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on an 1886 map and an unsourced Commons. I just consulted Atwood's Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (2004) which also has a map for the Yuan c. 1294. Good news! It is mostly similar to yours. A couple of points of interest: 1) it doesn't have a strict northern border, but leaves the northern limits of Yuan control undefined as Map A currently does (as is much more realistic than an arbitrary "frontier line" somewhere in the steppe) 2) it includes a "disputed with Chagatai" region around Beshbalik in the West 3) I think the replacement "region names" ("Gobi", "Cathay" etc.) are too misleading to be used. Perhaps we could have the previous province boundaries without the names. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to work with undefined boundaries while still making the polity-of-interest pop. I tried to accomplish this by removing the bold line across the northern frontier, thoughts? https://i.imgur.com/bLgnsun.png Cattette (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That works! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)