Talk:Tibet under Yuan rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What would an article titled "Xuangzheng Yuan" be about?[edit]

"Xuangzheng Yuan" is a Chinese term not used in English sources on Tibetan history. It may be reasonable (or it may already be overkill) to have a short article, essentially a stub, that explains the term. But I find zero results for "Xuangzheng Yuan" in Google in English material. The material on the history of Tibet goes into an article with a name that is meaningful to English readers, not here. Bertport (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because you misspelled the title. English academics use "Xuanzheng Yuan" and not "Xuangzheng Yuan". This is why you couldn't find any results. You should copy and paste this time.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. I performed the correct search. I see that the results are mostly from Chinese sources. The term seems suitable to use in a specifically Chinese context, when talking about Peking's administrative structure. It is not suitable as the title for an article on Tibetan history, when English speaking readers are mainly interested in reading about Tibetan history (as opposed to bureaucratic structure in Peking). Bertport (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That's because you're using a basic Google search. Use a Google book or Google scholar search to find reliable English books and papers, avoiding the Chinese propaganda that's flooding the Web. And your rationale is flawed, because it ignores one basic fact. Under the Mongol Yuan dynasty, the Mongols, from Beijing, controlled the administration of Tibet. So in this case, it is suitable for an article on Tibetan history.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it is a Chinese term for an administrative unit. "What happened to Tibet during the 13th and 14th centuries?" "Oh, Tibet was the Xuanzheng Yuan at that time." If that conversation were in any way likely amongst people interested in Tibet, then we could consider it a suitable title. But it is not. Bertport (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it's a Chinese term used by English scholars for the Mongolian ministry that controlled the region. Scholars have transliterated the name into English, but every academic transliterates it differently. And the argument on laymen usage is irrelevant, Wikipedia focuses on scholarly sources, not laymen ones.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a Chinese term for an administrative unit (or ministry) in Peking. It is not a term used for Tibet at any period of its history. It may be used in the context of discussing what was going on administratively in Peking, but it makes no sense as the title for an article on a period of the history of Tibet. Bertport (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It was how the Mongolians governed Tibet, your attempts to emphasize the "Chinese"-ness of this historically inaccurate. During this period, the Mongols maintained military and administrative rule of Tibet through this ministry, separate from the Song Chinese provinces. If you want, the title could be changed to Xuanzheng Yuan administration of Tibet.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't share your concerns over the language of the title, but would you be willing to compromise at "Administration of Tibet by the Yuan Dynasty?--SakyaTrizin (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I could live with that. Bertport (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs dates in lead[edit]

Saw this at the Did you know nominations: interesting article :) But it needs some dates in the lead: the lead at the moment gives no indication of whether this happened 50 or 1000 years ago. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


"Yuan administrative rule of Tibet" is a huge improvement over the original title, but is still problematic. This title sounds like it's about an aspect or part of the Yuan administration. But the focus of the article is on a period of Tibet's history, not on Yuan administration. Better something like "Tibet under the Yuan Dynasty". Bertport (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What about Tibet under Yuan rule? To make it match similar articles, like "Korea under Japanese rule".--SakyaTrizin (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe "Tibet under Yuan administrative rule", because "Tibet under the Yuan Dynasty" implies that Yuan had complete political control over Tibet, when Tibet still had a degree of political autonomy.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The odd thing about this article is that it covers the period from 1236, but the Yuan dynasty was not established until 1271.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the article also covers Kublai Khan prior to being declared Great Khan and his establishment of the Yuan dynasty. Tibet was invaded, and administrative rule established, before the conquest of the Song dynasty and creation of the Yuan. But since the article focuses primarily on the Yuan administrative rule, I've made corrected the lead to make that clear.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The dates need to be sorted out. I just read in Petech's article in Rossabi's "China among Equals" pg. 194 that "there was no contact between Central Tibet and the Mongols before 1240" and "In the years 1268-1270, Tibet was organized as a special region of the Yuan empire, ruled jointly by the emperor and the Sakya sect." Bertport (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The Mongols began their invasions against Tibet in the first half of the 13th cenury, and the region was incoporated into the Yuan in the later half of the century, but the sources aren't consistent on the exact dates. Greg is right, Kublai declared the Yuan in 1271, but Kublai had already established administrative rule in Tibet before then. So let's leave it at "Mongol invasions began in the first half of the 13th century, Kublai established the Yuan in 1271."--SakyaTrizin (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


It is not clear what "administrative" means either in the title or in the article text. If anything "administrative rule" seems stronger than "political ruler", yet the article implies something else. Srnec (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Simply name it Tibet under Yuan rule, similar to Tibet under Qing rule and Mongolia under Qing rule etc. --Cartakes (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)