Talk:Tribute

Tribute in the Modern Era

Is there any evidence for the modern tribute information? It really needs citations.Paladinwannabe2 15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rent, and not only taxes, is the modern form of tribute. It is tribute because it is not the equivalent exchange of one good against another, where both (money, and the goods being exchanged against money)are human products; rather, it is typically money exchanged against access to a naturally occurring good, not a human production. Thus it is literally the giving of money, or any barter good, for nothing, to either a private person or the State; in the cases of a private person, the State necessarily mediates the form of access in the legal form of patents, copyrights and other fees (nowadays known as "intellectual property") or, most historically and commonly, as land title deeds. Hence the State is absolutely necessary for the realization of the private form of tribute, rent. See for one reference "Le Tribut foncier urbain", Maspero, 1974 , by Alain Lipietz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.102.199 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Korean POV

• Do not hide the fact.[1] --Bentecbye (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Korean Source

Does this Korean source [2] being ritten, "Japan had to pay tributes to China from ancient time"? And, is there an authority in the Web site in South Korea?　--Eichikiyama (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that IS from a Korean reputable encyclopedia named Encyclopedia of Korean Culture which deals with Korean and some of neighboring countries such as Japan and China. The source was initially added by Japanese users, not me, just for your information.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. However, Your source is quoted from Empas "http://100.empas.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?i=257083 empas 조공 tribute"　Empas is not Encyclopedia of Korean Culture.

"Japan had to pay tributes to China from ancient time". Does the evidence of this explanation exist only on the Web site in South Korea?(Does it exist in the history document of China and Japan?)--Eichikiyama (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Look closely to the site again. Empas is one of the biggest web portal in South Korea and hosts the "encyclopedia" by contract just like MSN Encarta Japan. The encyclopedia also publishes the same contents in paper as well.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I do not understand Hangul. It made a mistake for that. By the way, when you write the article on Japan, could you teach the reason to use Encalta of South Korea?　--Eichikiyama (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. On Korean articles which has absolutely unrelated to Japan have a lot of Japanese citations attached as sources. Do you think we have to remove all the Japanese sources from such articles? I don't think so. If you're referring to onigiri, because the dish is getting popular in South Korea, and the Korean naming is quite different from Japanese original name. Therefore it is worthy to implement the content with any reliable source, so I used the Korean source. If you can find a reliable English source, please add it to the article.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please teach the part being written that the article on the Empas is "Japan had to pay tributes to China from ancient time". Is not the source written "from ancient time to Kofun Perido"? --Eichikiyama (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please check the history of the article first before complaining something to me as I repeatedly have said to you. The Korean information is already on an edit summary.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We do not understand the Web site Empas written by Hangul. Therefore, I am asking you for the confirmation of the source. Is not the source written "from ancient time to Kofun Perido"? --Eichikiyama (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are "we"? It is written in Korean language. Hangul is a writing sytem of Korean language. None has inserted "Kofun period" to the article. You can freely check the history of the article by yourself and confirm it!--Caspian blue (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"We" is people who do not understand Korean language.

OK, As for your source, the period that Japan gave China is not being written. In the Korean Web site ”Empas”, knowledge of the Japanese history is insufficient. Therefore I will offer the reliable source of information.　Thank You --Eichikiyama (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

-_-;; Did you even look at the history of the article?[3] Besides, you're the one who keeps asking about the Korean source that Japanese users inserted. Well, since you're not so satisfied with the source, I will implement from reliable English sources. I believe you will also do the same since many people don't read Japanese. Regards (I already found a couple of sources).--Caspian blue (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

When I write the Korean history, I quote a Korean history document. And I quote a Japanese history document when I write the Japanese history. And, when the translation and the explanation of the source are requested, I do not reject it.　When I explain Mongolia and China, the Japanese history, I do not quote a document written in the Hangul Alphabet. --Eichikiyama (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Eyerolling* hmmm, please add citations if you have anything useful to make the article enhanced. So by your logic, Japanese sources should be completely moved from Korean history articles if Japan has nothing to do with the subject. Good to know.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You showed a Korean Web site "Empas" to the source of information of "Japan had to pay tributes to China from ancient time". However, the Web site is written in the Hangul Alphabet. We do not understand the Hangul Alphabet. Therefore I ask you for translation. Is not the source written "from ancient time to Kofun Period"? --Eichikiyama (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just ancient time, not to "Kofun period" as I said before. Just saying "I", I'm not included in your definition of "we" since there is none except you and me. I already suggested you to look into the history, why wouldn't you do so but keep continuing this unnecessary discussion? As I said before, please DO edit with RELIABLE sources. And don't complain about the Korean sources that Japanese editors who can read Korean or know how to use a translation tool added.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, The goal has come into view. Then does the Korean Web site written in the Hangul Alphabet write that "Japan had to pay tributes to China from the ancient times to the present age?" --Eichikiyama (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the "to the present age?" -_-;; Please do not add something unreferenced which can mislead the article have "original research". I think to end this silly dispute, I or you have to add "English sources". Are you okay with the suggestion?--Caspian blue (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Have removed this as no-one has thus far provided a reliable English reference. The statement remained too vague as there is no mention of which historical period(s) during which Japan paid tribute, nor any consideration for avoiding conflation between Japan as Wa and the Ryuku_Islands in regards to said tribute (as both countries maintained seperate diplomatic relations with China until Ryuku's annexation to Japan). According to Derek McDougall in Asia Pacific in world politics (Boulder, Colo. : Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007), 'Japanese rulers never paid tribute to China' (pp 8) which demonstrates that English scholarship can be equally problematic - all the more reason to necessitate a reliable English source! Ehma j (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The reliable Korean source was inserted by Japanese editors. And plenty of English sources say that Japan paid tributes to China, so don't worry. If you try hard searching English sources in Google book, you can find a plenty of sources contradicting your claim with no link. --'Caspian'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tribute&action=edit blue 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your free excise of the alteration without source. --Caspian blue 16:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case - namely that adequate English sources exist justifying this statement, why aren't you quoting these English sources? McDougall's quote which you referred to as "my claim" is not the reason why i deleted the statement - but because, as I stated before, it is far too vague, potentially misleading, inherently problematic and also grammatically incorrect. I was simply using McDougall's claim as an example of misleading oversimplification of the tributary relationship Japan shared with China. You should perhaps rephrase the sentence perhaps in reference to the Book of Han and the tributary relationship during 'ancient' times. I would make the change myself, only that I currently have japanese sources for the Book of Han, rather than English. Also, by reverting my alteration, you have also deleted the additionally information I included. In the meantime, I shall revert your reversion. Ehma j (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Then, present the links or quote to show his claim because I can not check on your claim unless you show me with anything. Your assertion without source constitutes WP:Original research. You also distorted the referenced information with the Korean source and added the info without source. If you removed the properly referenced info, you will be likely accused of violating various content policies such as WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:No original research, WP:CITE. Your declaration is nothing but your blatant disregard to WP:Discussion by engaging in WP:Edit warring. Since you seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia policy, I hope you do not make such mistakes. Moreover, book of Han is a primary source, so that is contradictory of your claim of WP:English. --Caspian blue 03:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Using your source, I have now rewritten the statement to reflect the changing tributary relationship that occurred between Japan and China. To be honest, I am quite confused by your actions as you have accused me of not 'showing you anything' even though i provided you with a quote from a literary source with full bibliographical information which was to demonstrate a point - namely that scholarship on the Japanese/Chinese tributary relationship in english is highly contradictory and problematic due in part to the use of unquestioned secondary (translated) sources such as yours. My only assertion, which was demonstrated to be fully justified by the english source that you yourself provided, was that the statement you had presented was potentially misleading considering that "ancient times" refers to a 4,000 year period - anywhere between the bronze age to the early middle ages, and the tributary relationship ostensibly began closer to the first century, not millenia before. Specificity is also important because of the discrepancy between tributary system and relationship which is particularly relevant to Japan. Considering that the Book of Han is the original historical document that forms that basis of all further claims of a tributary relationship, allowing an exception for a non english source at this juncture is unavoidable - especially considering the lack of english scholarship or translation for the document.

However, you did not bother to engage with or acknowledge any of the inherent problems with your statement which I have repeatedly expressed to you. I am unsure as to what you are refering to as my 'declaration'. The only inclusion I made were linguistic terms that are available within the Japanese wikipedia or a Japanese dictionary, similar to the Chinese terms that had been quoted earlier without sources. Is it truly necessary to provide sources in such cases, as it is only a matter of someone providing a stub? Otherwise, I can only conclude that you consider my 'declaration' as the act of temporarily removing your statement until such a time that it was adequately refined to not be misleading (which you no longer need to do, as I went and did it myself). I am new to wikipedia editing, and was thus unaware of the exact policy in regards to reversions and the exact appropriate action to take in a case such as this, so I apologise for removing the statement rather than replacing it with something more specific. I only did so under the belief that the statement as it was at that time was potentially more harmful than beneficial to users; the fact that you had failed to include the english sources you had claimed to have found a year before during the initial discussion was also a factor. I have only tried to make a positive, critical contribution to this discussion and have received an overtly defensive reply in kind. Considering that your original source is in Korean, please keep in mind that as a non-Korean speaker I cannot independently ascertain or verify through a neutral third party whether the statement provided is a summary or a translation from the source as there is no explicit translation of the relevant extract made available, which necessitates an inherently overly critical approach (whether you, another korean or japanese editor initially inserted this source is irrelevant). Ehma j (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Edited as I misread your statement of Japanese editors as those involved in creating the source document, not the wikipedia article. Ehma j (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You first appeared to accuse the source inserted by Japanese editors without any presentation to verify your claim such as ISBN, ISSN, links, direct quotes. Then you complain that I'm not gentle to you even though your hostility is too evident from the beginning. Please remind that if you do not act civil, none would treat you civilly. As for your claim "ancient times" refers to a 4,000 year period -> see this instead, how ancient times in Japan is defined in historiography.Ancient_history#Japan. You declared "I shall revert your edit" until I provided English sources. That is against the spirit of constructive discussion and your intention to edit warring. You don't see what is harmful to the article.

It is true that the Korean citation was inserted by a "notorious sockpuppter" who was endlessly block evading, to make a point that Korea paid to China, but tried to erase the fact that Japan paid to China at the same time. At least three Japanese sockpuppeters appeared to disrupt the article and later got indefinitely blocked. Not once did I accuse that you're same as the notorious sockpuppeter? Not that I'm aware. I fixed the incorrect information inserted by one of such the suckpuppeters, so I left the edit summary to clarify why I fix the existent sentence. Your claim of WP:English source is also faulty because Wikipedia does not prohibit to use non-English source, but you insist that English sources are neutral and Korean sources are inherently biased on Japanese tributary relation with China. You should be aware that not every English sources are neutral or descriptive, accurate. You also contest the Korean source, and blanked the info of Japan having paid to China, but let the Korean info just as it is and then relocated the citation. That selective removals of yours can be called a double standard. If you feel that the citation is inaccurate, and not neutral, you should've blanked out the Korean info as well. However, you did not. The sockpuppeters thought that the source is neutral and accurate, so used it regardless of the language barrier. I provided a direct quote from the source which matched to the info that Japan paid tribute to China from ancient times. If anyone altered the sentence without source, that would be original research. Moreover, any unreferenced information have been deleted by editors here, but you inserted the terms without any source, so you can not falsely accuse me of being harmful because of the deletion of your unsourced information. The Wikipedia policy clearly says "any unreferenced information can be immediately deleted". If you try to change the policy, then you need to talk with many people. Moreover please remind WP:CIVIL. Here is an encyclopedia to build quality articles as amicably as we can, if you can not abide by the rule and guideline, then Wikipedia is not a right place for you.--Caspian blue 16:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

to User:Kuebie

you deleted　this[4]. What is the reason ?--Propastop (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern literature

Can we add a tiny bit about the modern use of tribute in literature for interest, people reading about the Hunger Games may find their way to this page.

The Hunger Games

Idyllic press (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

History

Explain using a right up on the importance of tribute 107.189.31.93 (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Mongol rulers of "russia"?

"The medieval Mongol rulers of Russia also expected nothing more than tribute from the Russian states, which continued to govern themselves" what is that? There was no "russia" or "russian" states in such ancient times, if you want to speak in modern terms than Ukrainian lands suffered and payed tribute the most so refer to them as Ruthenian or Ukrainian states/principalities, but definitely not "russian". 46.118.237.59 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)