Talk:Yuan dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Yuan dynasty:

Please keep the focus of this page to the impact on china (whether good or bad) under the Mongol system as this page was designed. It is a not a page for ethnocentric Chinese political statements or revisionist history.

  • Add more information to "Impact" - their legacy - artistic and intellectual
  • Add sections dedicated to the economics, trade and technologies
  • Add an entire section dedicated to the four-class system
  • Find out if the Yuan emperors understand themselves as Chinese emperors or Mongol emperors and find according sources
Priority 2

Korean place in the 4 class system[edit]

Why is there a focus on Korean people when this page is about Yuan Dynasty, ie. mongol rule over the chinese people? It is an attempt by insecure and racist Chinese nationalists to insult Koreans and other Asians. This shows a distortion of history and the terrible character of nationalistic han chinese. Koreans were included along with Northern Chinese, Khitan and Jurchen in the third class, as "Han ren".,+even+Koreans.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nt4fU9udOubL0QHW6oDYAQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=thereby%20including%20not%20only%20the%20Chinese%20who%20lived%20there%20but%20also%20the%20rather%20substantial%20numbers%20of%20Khitans%20and%20Jurchens%2C%20even%20Koreans.&f=false,+including+Chinese,+Khitan,+Jurchen,+and+Koreans&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MOEfU5bcIIbp0QHq04Bw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=of%20the%20northern%20Chinese%20territories%20of%20the%20former%20Jin%20dynasty%2C%20including%20Chinese%2C%20Khitan%2C%20Jurchen%2C%20and%20Koreans&f=false,+including+Chinese,+Khitan,+Jurchen,+and+Koreans&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MOEfU5bcIIbp0QHq04Bw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=of%20the%20northern%20Chinese%20territories%20of%20the%20former%20Jin%20dynasty%2C%20including%20Chinese%2C%20Khitan%2C%20Jurchen%2C%20and%20Koreans&f=false,+Kitan+(Liao+H),+Niizhen+iz+M+(Jin+it),+Koreans,+and+four+other+minorities+who+lived+north+of+Huaihe+River+in+the+Jin+territory.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XeIfU87OCcqk0gG41YCwCQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20third%20class%20was%20%22Han%22%20including%20Han%20Chinese%20that%20lived%20in%20Northern%20China%2C%20Kitan%20(Liao%20H)%2C%20Niizhen%20iz%20M%20(Jin%20it)%2C%20Koreans%2C%20and%20four%20other%20minorities%20who%20lived%20north%20of%20Huaihe%20River%20in%20the%20Jin%20territory.&f=falseŏ+took+the+examination+with+the+han+and+Jurchens.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IuIfU_-ZJJDE0AGa_IDYAQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=candidates%20from%20koryŏ%20took%20the%20examination%20with%20the%20han%20and%20Jurchens.&f=false,+together+with+the+Han+Chinese,+the+Jiirgens,+and+the+Khitans+that+were+conquered+earlier+in+northern+and+southwestern+China.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qOMfU6O4Oaji0QGLu4HYDg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Koreans%20were%20placed%20in%20the%20third%20social%20rank%20as%20they%20were%20classified%20as%20%22Hanren%22%20in%20the%20Yuan%20dynasty%2C%20together%20with%20the%20Han%20Chinese%2C%20the%20Jiirgens%2C%20and%20the%20Khitans%20that%20were%20conquered%20earlier%20in%20northern%20and%20southwestern%20China.&f=false

Semu men would marry Korean women.,+Uyghur,+and+Indian+descent)+and+Korean+women,+see+Ma+Juan,+%22Yuandai+semu+Gaoli+tonghun+juli.%22+182.+Quan+Heng+and+Ren+Chongyue,+Gengshen+waishi+jian%5Eheng,+p.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=suEfU-DtOKXf0gG9yYFo&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=For%20intermarriage%20between%20semuren%20men%20(including%20those%20of%20Turkic%2C%20Uyghur%2C%20and%20Indian%20descent)%20and%20Korean%20women%2C%20see%20Ma%20Juan%2C%20%22Yuandai%20semu%20Gaoli%20tonghun%20juli.%22%20182.%20Quan%20Heng%20and%20Ren%20Chongyue%2C%20Gengshen%20waishi%20jian%5Eheng%2C%20p.&f=false

A rich merchant from the Ma'bar Sultanate, Abu Ali, was associated closely with the Ma'bar royal family. After falling out with them, he fled to Yuan dynasty China and was granted an official job and a Korean woman as his wife by the Mongol Emperor.

Page 315

Rajmaan (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

official languages[edit]

Rajmaan (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Intermarriage between castes[edit]

This entire passage is irrelevant to Mongol rule over China. It is a feeble and chauvanistic writing to show han Chinese male intermarriage with other ethnicities. What does this show other than han Chinese male insecurity?

"Shi Tianze was a Han Chinese who lived in the Jin dynasty. Interethnic marriage between Han and Jurchen became common at this time. His father was Shi Bingzhi (史秉直, Shih Ping-chih). Shi Bingzhi was married to a Jurchen woman (surname Na-ho) and a Han Chinese woman (surname Chang); it is unknown which of them was Shi Tianze's mother.[30] Shi Tianze was married to two Jurchen women, a Han Chinese woman, and a Korean woman, and his son Shi Gang was born to one of his Jurchen wives.[31] The surnames of his Jurchen wives were Mo-nien and Na-ho; the surname of his Korean wife was Li; and the surname of his Han Chinese wife was Shi.[30] Shi Tianze defected to Mongol forces upon their invasion of the Jin dynasty. His son Shi Gang married a Kerait woman; the Kerait were Mongolified Turkic people and were considered part of the "Mongol nation".[31][32]" has very little to do with the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty. it is a Chinese ethnocentric and chauvinistic addition highlighting marriage of non-han women with han Chinese that has nothing to do with the history of the article. PLEASE ERASE this passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

There seems to have been no rules on intermarriage between the Semu caste and the Chinese, because these sources I found mention Chinese males marrying women from the Semu caste and even Mongols like the Kerait tribe during Yuan rule, and it made no mention about laws for marriage. (In most soceities with castes, men from lower castes are not allowed to marry women from upper castes) if someone can find laws on this or if these were exceptions then they should post their references here.

Shi Gang (1237-1315) was from a prominent Han family during the Yuan dynasty.

His father was Han, his mother was Jurchen and his wife was a Kerait. His father also had Korean and Han wives as well.

Page 204

Meng Fanfeng iS^ll# "A study of the Yuan painter Shi Gang's epitaph" Tnttfc&SfettiE&Bi, WW, 1997:7, pp 71-74 ^ Discovered in the northern area of Shijiazhuang city, ... The epitaph reveals that Shi Gang's life spanned the years 1237 to 1315.

His father Shi Tianze'i-ch'ing+1994&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D7VWU52OFILQsQTNoICgCg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=hsiao%20ch'i-ch'ing%201994&f=false

Shi Tianzi and his Jurchen, Korean, and Han wives.'ien+tse+1202+1275&source=bl&ots=uoldXccTd8&sig=yu_OyQhSMh9mu3FJQ_uwWDiuUBA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OLVWU-j_I6TksATD94C4Aw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Shih%20t'ien%20tse%201202%201275&f=false

Other information about Shi'ien+tse+1202+1275&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GctWU8zCOsbjsATb0YKYBw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Shih%20t'ien%20tse%201202%201275&f=false'ien+tse+1202+1275&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GctWU8zCOsbjsATb0YKYBw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg'ien+tse+1202+1275&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GctWU8zCOsbjsATb0YKYBw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Shih%20t'ien%20tse%201202%201275&f=false'ien+tse+1202+1275&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GctWU8zCOsbjsATb0YKYBw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Shih%20t'ien%20tse%201202%201275&f=false

Page 200

Page 33'ien+tse+1202+1275&dq=Shih+t'ien+tse+1202+1275&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GctWU8zCOsbjsATb0YKYBw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg's+six+daughters+married+a+son+of+the+influential+Shih+T'ien-tse+(1202-1275),+a+member+of+a+Chinese+clan+that+was+recruited&dq=One+of+Meng-ku+Pa-erh's+six+daughters+married+a+son+of+the+influential+Shih+T'ien-tse+(1202-1275),+a+member+of+a+Chinese+clan+that+was+recruited&hl=en&sa=X&ei=msxWU4DeFdTRsQTno4DADg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

Of Meng-ku Pa-erh's seven sons, one was appointed to the office of Sung-chou ta -lu-hua-ch'ih/3 One of Meng-ku Pa-erh's six daughters married a son of the influential Shih T'ien-tse (1202-1275), a member of a Chinese clan that was recruited ...

Page 58'ien+tse+1202+1275&dq=Shih+t'ien+tse+1202+1275&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GctWU8zCOsbjsATb0YKYBw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBw

Page 208'ien+tse+1202+1275&dq=Shih+t'ien+tse+1202+1275&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GctWU8zCOsbjsATb0YKYBw&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCA

Page 46'ien+tse+1202+1275&dq=Shih+t'ien+tse+1202+1275&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GctWU8zCOsbjsATb0YKYBw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ

Page 52

Page 115

Page 86,+surnamed+Liu,+once+attended+upon+Vizier+Shi+%5B?Tianze:+1202-1275%5D.+Naturally+Beautiful+was+serene+and+elegant+of+looks+and+air,+with+very+much+an+attractive+appearance+of+the+quiet+country+woods,+and+her+ability+and+artistry,&dq=Her+mother,+surnamed+Liu,+once+attended+upon+Vizier+Shi+%5B?Tianze:+1202-1275%5D.+Naturally+Beautiful+was+serene+and+elegant+of+looks+and+air,+with+very+much+an+attractive+appearance+of+the+quiet+country+woods,+and+her+ability+and+artistry,&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vM1WU8O7HvLTsATB9oCYDQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA

Page 1483

Page 1483

Koko Temur (Wang Baobao) had a Chinese father and a Turkic mother (probably a Buddhist Uighur) and she most definitely belonged to Semu class and came from a pro-Mongol family, being the sister of Chagan Temür. Koko was elevated to the status of a Mongol for his loyalty in fighting against Chinese rebels. The Ming dynasty Hongwu Emperor married Koko Temur's sister to his own brother Zhu Shuang after capturing her.

04:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)

Mongolia never conquered "China".[edit]

Mongolia absolutely conquered China. There was debate whether to exterminate the han population to make room for their horses. Instead the Khan was advised to tax the Chinese peasantry instead.

As we know that Yuan Dynasty is no doubt a Chinese dynasty, even the founder of the Empire clearly stated that in The Yuan Dianzhang (元典章.建國號詔). Mongolian never conquered a country called "China 中國", but Jing 金, southern Song 南宋 and other former Chinese dynasties such as 大理 and 西夏. None of these countries named themselves "中國" but Jing dynasty; however, back in those days, "中國" was never a country name but a concept of a particular region -the "Middle land" 中原/中國. "中國" was also a title for the nations rule over the "Middle land". During the period of the Three Kingdoms, Zhuge Liang 諸葛亮 clearly said that their enemy is "中國" (Cao Wei/曹魏):「若能以吳、越之眾與中國抗衡,不如早與之絕」. 曹魏 was the only nation which can claimed the title of "中國" during that time -yet we all know that the whole three kingdoms, Wei, Shu and Wu (魏蜀吳), is "China 中國" without a doubt. As you can see, before the ROC, "China/中國" was never a formal name of any ancient Chinese nations, but a geographical concept (middle land) of the "rightful central regime".

Moreover, some people here seems pretty upset about how Chinese people calling some ancient Mongolians Chinese(中國人). First of all, the definition of "Chinese" is not always the same. The term "Chinese" was mostly refereed to Han people (漢人), yet nowadays it refers to the Chinese Ethnics Group (中華民族/中國人) which includes Han, Manchurian, Hui, (Inner) Mongolian, Tibetan and other 'Chinese ethnics'. Chinese never called Kublai "Chinese/漢人", but "Chinese(中國人)" [I blamed the translator who made such a mess]. Same as (Inner) Mongolian, Han people (漢人) is just a part of Chinese (中國人). Besides, the descendants of the founders of Yuan dynasty, the Golden Family, are all Inner Mongolian. --No1lovesu (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)鐵木兒塔識


[元史] 列傳第二十七 鐵木兒塔識


[History of Yuan] 鐵木兒塔識 (son of Toqto'a): "Such action of spying on your enemy state is no double expected, but since the world is now a united family, why would they even do such thing? Even if they are really spying on us, let them be. They will see how great China 中國 is and report it to their king and let him obey (us)."建國號詔建國號詔&variant=zh-hant建國號詔其他历史书籍/历史/通史/中国通史(白版)/13/0036.htm


誕膺景命,奄四海以宅尊﹔必有美名,紹百王而紀統。肇從隆古,匪獨我家。且唐之為言蕩也,堯以之而著稱﹔虞之為言樂也,舜因之而作號。馴至禹興而湯造,互 名夏大以殷中,世降以還,事殊非古。雖乘時而有國,不以利而制稱。為秦為漢者,著從初起之地名﹔曰隋曰唐者,因即所封之爵邑。且皆徇百姓見聞之偶習,要一 時經制之權宜,概以至公,不無少貶。我太祖聖武皇帝,握乾符而起朔土,以神武而膺帝圖,四震天聲,大恢土宇,輿圖之廣,歷古所無。頃者耆宿詣庭,奏草申 請,謂既成於大業,宜早定於鴻名。在古制以當然,於朕心乎何有!可建國號曰大元,蓋取《易經》乾元之義,茲大冶流形於庶品,孰名資始之功。予一人底寧於萬 邦,尤切體仁之要,事從因革,道協天人。於戲!稱義而名,固非為之溢美﹔孚休惟永,尚不負於投艱。嘉與敷天,共隆大號!


「誕膺景命,奄四海以宅尊﹔必有美名,紹百王而紀統。肇從隆古,匪獨我家。且唐之為言蕩也,堯以之而著稱﹔虞之為言樂也,舜因之而作號。馴至禹興而湯造,互 名夏大以殷中,世降以還,事殊非古。雖乘時而有國,不以利而制稱。為秦為漢者,著從初起之地名﹔曰隋曰唐者,因即所封之爵邑。且皆徇百姓見聞之偶習,要一 時經制之權宜,概以至公,不無少貶。我太祖聖武皇帝,握乾符而起朔土,以神武而膺帝圖,四震天聲,大恢土宇,輿圖之廣,歷古所無。頃者耆宿詣庭,奏草申 請,謂既成於大業,宜早定於鴻名。在古制以當然,於朕心乎何有!可建國號曰大元,蓋取《易經》乾元之義,茲大冶流形於庶品,孰名資始之功。予一人底寧於萬 邦,尤切體仁之要,事從因革,道協天人。於戲!稱義而名,固非為之溢美﹔孚休惟永,尚不負於投艱。嘉與敷天,共隆大號!」

Zhao 2006, pp.

The Mongols used Chinese to rule Bukhara (in Central Asia) for the same reason they used Central Asian Semus in ruling China[edit]

While the Mongols moved Central Asians to become Semu in China and serve as administrators, they did the same thing in reverse in Central Asia, sending Chinese over to administer Bukhara.


page 137

Rajmaan (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Da Chao[edit]

Genghis Khan adoped the Chinese name "Da Chao" for the Mongol Empire before Kubilai changed it to Yuan.

Rajmaan (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is proved false. See Talk:Mongol Empire#Chinese name adopted by Genghis for the Mongol empire. --Evecurid (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


If the religions listed are to be sorted, Buddhism should definitely be listed in the first place, as it was the de-facto state religion of the Yuan dynasty. --Evecurid (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There may be even other branches of Buddhism such as Korean Buddhism, and there is no need to list all of such branches. The most important thing however is to state that the Tibetan Buddhism was the most significant. I think we all agree with this fact. --Evecurid (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Content deletion[edit]

User:Uniquark9 seems obsessed with airbrushing the Yuan dynasty and Northern Yuan dynasty articles to his personal taste, removing or trimming information about Mongol defeats and losses while trying to aggrandize Mongol victories. Philg88 3family6 TheLeopard PericlesofAthens Nlu

First he removed information about the Mongol capital at Karakorum being sacked by Ming forces by mendaciously insinuating that it was conflated with the Battle of Buyur Lake and that Karakorum was far away from Buyur, ignoring the fact that the Ming won in both areas. [1] The Ming sacked Karakorum in 1388 and took 70,000 Mongol prisoners. [2] [3]
Secondly, as you know, the Yuan dynasty consists of the Chingisid (descendants of Genghis Khan) and more specifically Qubilaids (descendsnts of his grandson of Kublai Khan) who held the title of Khagan or Emperor of the Yuan dynasty up until 1635.
Uniquark9 added Mongols invaded the Ming many times in the following centuries and even captured its emperor (Zhengtong Emperor) after defeating a large Ming army at Tumu in 1449. The high point of Mongol power came again in 1517, when Dayan Khan moved on Beijing itself. Although the Chinese held the Mongols off in a major battle, Dayan Khan and his successors continued to threaten China until 1526. The Mongolian armies raided the Ming Dynasty not only in the north, but also in the hitherto quiet west. The Ming Emperor Zhengde lost his protectorate Hami to the Turpans at the same time. In 1542 Dayan Khan defeated Chinese troops just before his death.
The second thing concerns the defeat of the Ming dynasty at the Tumu Crisis at the hands of the Oirats under Esen Taishi. The Oirats are a different Mongolic group than the Khalkha (eastern) Mongols and the Inner Mongols. The "mainstream" Eastern Mongols and Inner Mongols (now living in Outer and Inner Mongolia) only recognized descendants of Genghis Khan as their legitimate Khans (the Golden Family, Altan urag).
However the Oirat Mongols have no such requirement and their leaders like Esen Taishi were non-Chingisids. Their Khans were not descended from Genghis Khan. Esen Taishi fought against Chingisids and managed to seize power from them and become the effective leader of the Mongols. Esen Taishi was not a member of the Yuan dynasty royal family. [4][5][6][7]
Esen Taishi and his Oirat army defeated the Ming at Tumu Crisis. After being intoxicated with victory, Esen Taishi arranged for his Chingisid son-in-law Agbarjin to be murdered and declare himself the Great Khagan. The Mongols then rebelled at him for claiming the title and killed him. The Oirats were rivals of the Chingisids and fought against them [8][9]
User:Uniquark9 seems to feel the need to remove "Oirat" and "non-chingisid" as descriptors of Esen Taishi and his army, as if pretending that the Khalkha and Inner Mongols under the Chingisids were the ones doing all the fighting against the Ming. Esen Taishi and his Oirats were the ones who defeated the Ming army at Tumu, not a Chingisid. Considering the fact that this article is about the Chingisid Yuan dynasty that is a massive fact to overlook. [10]
Thirdly Turpan was not ruled by the Northern Yuan, it was ruled by the Chagatai Khanate so what does that have to do with the Yuan dynasty article? In fact the Yuan and Chagatai Khanates fought against each other and Esen Taishi himself battled the Chagataids. It seems User:Uniquark9 just wants to insert as much as he can about Mongols winning and delete everything he can about them losing. If he wanted to put the information about Turpan conquering Hami somewhere relevant he would have put it on the Chagatai Khanate article.
Fourthly he keeps removing all information about how the Yuan dynasty was finally ended- the main line of the Yuan royal family was defeated by the Qing dynasty in battle and forced to submit in 1635 under Ejei Khan. In 1675 Ejei's brother Abunai w:zh:阿布奈 and his son Borni w:zh:布爾尼 revolted against the Qing. The Qing then crushed their rebellion, executed them, and exterminated their branch of the Yuan royal family, putting a direct end to the main senior Yuan line who held the title of Great Khagan. [11] [12] [13][14]the Qing then placed the Chahar Mongols under the direct rule of the Qing Emperor. Surviving cadet branches of Chingisids who were ruling the Khalkha Mongols were then forced to submit as subjects to the Qing in 1691 after they were invaded by the non-Chingisid Oirat Mongol Dzungar Khanate under Galdan Boshugtu Khan (a descendant of Esen Taishi). [15][16][17][18][19] He totally deleted all information about how the Northern Yuan ended on Yuan dynasty.
I would like to note that he also followed me to the Northern Yuan dynasty article, and started deleting the same information there too. [20][21][22] If anything the information is even more relevant at that article. How can an article about the Northern Yuan dynasty leave out how the last Great Khagan was defeated and his family was forced to submit to the Qing in 1635? That is like deleting everything about the Chongzhen Emperor from the Ming dynasty article.
The factual veracity of the information was not questioned by User:Uniquark9 as this stuff is pretty much common knowledge among people who have basic background information about the Yuan and Northern Yuan. I provided the sources in the above paragraphs and there are sources on the Chinese wikipedia articles on Abunai and Borni. Everyone who studied early Qing history knows that the Qing put an end to the Northern Yuan and killed the royal family after their 1675 revolt, massacring Ligdan Khan's descendants. And everyone who studied Ming and Northern Yuan history knows on how the Oirats were the ones who defeated the Ming at Tumu and that they were rivals to the Chingisids. User:Uniquark9 is not even challenging it, not in his edit summaries nor on the talk page. He is just blatantly deleting it because he doesn't like it since it is about Mongol defeats, and he knows the information is correct. He keeps reverting my edits without any explanation.
Then finally, User:Uniquark9 goes to another Mongolian User:Toghuchar and tells him in Mongolian that I am a Chinese (hyatadiig) and that he should help User:Uniquark9 revert my edits. He is blatantly telling another editor to engage in an edit war against meRajmaan (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Re. Esen Taishi, judging from the info that uniquark removed, it seems quite apparent that he needed the legitimacy of a Chingisid figurehead, and even tried (unsuccessfully) to ursurp the position of Great Khan for himself. I.e. that he was working within a Great Khanate ideological framework most of the time, and when trying to bend it to his own needs (still not openly working against it), he quickly failed - again proving that Chingisid ideology was alive and well.
The section in its current form makes it reasonably clear that actual political power over the Mongols did not always lie with the Great Khans, although it might be a bit more explicit re. the times of the Tumu crisis vs the times of Dayan and his successors (Altan Khan seems to be completely missing btw).
On the other hand, much of what uniquark removed in the edit in question was clearly questionable: statements such as "The Non-Chingisid Oirat Khagan Esen Taishi seized power from the Northern Yuan Chingisid Qubilaids, defeating the Chingisid Chagatai Khanate", or that (sometime between 1517 and 1526) "The Chingisids fought to take power back from the Oirats.". I also think it should be possible to find much better sources than a number of blog posts, all from one and the same author. Yaan (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The first source I provided was a book by a reputable historian- Denis Sinor, and his book emphasizes Esen as an Oirat leader and even calls their domains as the "Oirat Empire" and mentions that he was a non-Chingisid- [23]. Don Croner's work was ancillary but I found it to be well summarized.Rajmaan (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
And still no explanation why the Chagatai ruled Turpan taking over Hami is relevant to this article and why everything about the last Yuan Great Khan Ligden Khan, his family, and his defeat by the Qing was deleted here and at Northern Yuan. It was deleted again for no valid reason. [24]Rajmaan (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Issues already dealt with which Uniquark9 keeps bringing up[edit]

Uniquark9 referred to this source edit as me trying to "change the name of the Mongol empire"- In 1217 a Chinese title, Da Chao (大朝; Wade Giles: Ta-ch'ao ; English: "Great Dynasty") was adopted by Genghis Khan to refer to the Mongol state, alongside Da Menggu Guo (大蒙古國 ; Wade Giles: Ta Meng-ku kuo), the Chinese translation of the Mongol name "Yeke Mongghol Ulus" (The Great Mongolian State), until Kublai Khan imposed the new name Da Yuan (大元; Wade–Giles: Ta-Yüan). This is what it said in the source : "Chinggis Khan did adopt a Chinese title called "Ta-ch'ao" 大朝 (Great Dynasty) around 1217, after the Mongols embarked on the conquest of China. This state name was in use along with Ta Meng-ku kuo until it was replaced by the new name Ta Yüan under Khubilai Khaghan" I fail to see how I tried to "change" the name of anything by adding paraphrased information from a source. And this has been deleted from the article by Evecurid and hasn't been added back.
As for the Tran dynasty, I added sources which correctly noted that the Tran family originated in China and migrated to Vietnam where they continued to speak Chinese, which is confirmed by numerous western historians- [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]southeast asian history Professor Alexander Woodside outright refers to the Tran family founder as "Chinese"
There were also civility issues with Uniquark9 like at Talk:Genghis Khan so I hope uncivil language is not utilized again in this discussion.Rajmaan (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Address the content you deleted and stop bringing up resolved issues.Rajmaan (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
"In July 1449 Esen Tayisi of the Oirat Mongols launched a large-scale, three-pronged invasion of China with his puppet khagan Toqtaq-Buqa." How can you say it was only Oirats? And oirats are just part of Mongols, not a different ethnic group. You are the person who is writing from a china-centric POV. Uniquark9 (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If the Northern Yuan was being controlled as a puppet by Oirats then why is this important information not being noted on the article? Since Esen Taishi was in effective control of the Yuan court and even trying to usurp the Yuan by declaring himself Great Khagan before being overthrown since he was not a Chingisid, why is this major event deleted from the article? And Oirats and their leaders were not descended from Genghis Khan, and this article is about a ruling dynasty which is descended from Genghis Khan. And what does them being Mongolic have to do with their political agenda. Chingisid Khalkha Mongols submitted to the Qing in 1691 rather than be conquered by the Oirat Dzungar Khanate which was ruled by Esen Taishi's descendants. You deleted that information too.Rajmaan (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
A reminder for Rajmaan: For the info regarding the Tran dynasty, have you responded to the discussion in Talk:Trần_dynasty yet? As for the name of the Mongol Empire, other editors may refer to more detailed discussion at Talk:Mongol Empire#Chinese name adopted by Genghis for the Mongol empire. --Evecurid (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This article focuses on the Yuan state. The Northern Yuan is not Yuan dynasty. Stop adding variuos unnecessary content. If the article contains some information about the Norterhn Yuan then it must be short. Toghuchar (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

When I put information about Ligden Khan and his defeat by the Qing on the Northern Yuan article Uniquark9 keeps on deleting it, he just did it again Philg88. Ligden Khan was the last Great Khagan and the Qing killed his direct descendants in the 1675 revolt.
And as you said, this article is about the Yuan state. So why did Uniquark9 add information about how the Ming vassal Hami got conquered by Turpan, when Turpan was ruled by the Chagatai Khanate. Chagataids are not the Yuan dynasty. This should be deleted and placed on the Chagatai Khanate article.Rajmaan (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Any source on Kublai's edict which named his country as Dai Yuan?[edit]

Any sources on Kublai's edict which named his country as Dai Yuan? Also any sources on official original letters sent by Kublai? It seems he even sent letters to the Pope. I googled, but couldn't find anything. (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Focus on reliable secondary sources in Wikipedia please. Use primary sources such as Kublai's edict only if absolutely necessary. For example, according to the book "Civil Society in China: The Legal Framework from Ancient Times to the 'New Reform Era'", p39, note 69, "The dynasty name Da (Great) Yuan was adopted by Khubilai Khan (1260-1294 CE) in 1271." --Evecurid (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is it is really difficult to know if a secondary source is reliable. And a lot of secondary sources are just copied each others. So, please stop lecturing if you don't have any useful info. (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources on how to identify reliable sources. Also try to find relevant WP policy yourself first please. If you can't, then simply ask in a talk page instead of claiming other people don't have any useful info before even asking. --Evecurid (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I just asked and you started lecturing. Please stop lecturing around. Apparently you don't have any useful info. (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to find the primary source, a translated version of the edict is available in Langlois' China under Mongol Rule pp. 3-4. A google search is no substitute for access to a local library. Many academic sources, both primary or secondary, are not accessible online.--Khanate General talk project mongol conquests 03:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to find that. Evecurid, learn from this man. (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Everyone was just trying to help. I think it is better to focus on content improvements rather than editors. --Evecurid (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The anon from Virginia might wish to keep a civil tongue in his head (or keyboard) if he wants anyone to take him/her seriously here.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Status text[edit]

The infobox for the article currently has three lines of status text, "Nomadic empire", "Conquest Dynasty" and "Division of the Mongol Empire", but I agree there are probably too many. Any suggestions on how to make them look better and more concise? Thanks! --Evecurid (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

It seems that IP user has made a few changes in the article, including the status text, the motto, and the leading paragraph. Please try to explain why you are making such changes when you can, thanks. --Evecurid (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have shorten the status text a bit. "Khanate directly ruled by Khagans of the Mongol Empire" is already fine. As for "Conquest Dynasty in China", I made no changes, since the concept of Conquest Dynasties does refer to the history of imperial China, and Kublai Khan was indeed establishing such a dynasty in China. As for the Motto, please provide source(s) to show it is indeed the motto of the Yuan dynasty, thanks! (It will be removed if no source(s) are provided). --Evecurid (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

IP user, please try to use talk page to discuss your changes, thanks! --Evecurid (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

IP user, please try to use English-language secondary sources in Wikipedia. The term Genghis Emperor (成吉思皇帝) can be simply translations when writing in Chinese language; it does not necessarily mean Genghis Khan had actually adopted the Chinese title of Emperor (皇帝). It would be better to use English-language source which mentions how the title was actually used instead. Also, Wikipedia in other languages are not valid sources, not to mention that I don't agree with that at all. Last but not least, please use talk page to discuss your changes. --Evecurid (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a stake in this discussion, but it should be pointed out that non-English sources are valid sources. _dk (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but as that page says it is preferred to use English-language sources instead. Also, the source the IP editor gave did not actually say Genghis Khan adopted the Chinese title of Huangdi along with Great Khan; rather, it only points out the Chinese term "成吉思皇帝" was found in some Chinese records, which is certainly not a proof that Genghis Khan adopted that title; it may be simply translations when writing in Chinese language. The Chinese source Yuanshi made no mention of Genghis Khan adopting the title of Great Khan, but only mention the Chinese term "成吉思皇帝". In this case, the term "成吉思皇帝" is most likely simply translation of term "Genghis Khan". --Evecurid (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but there is no fault to indicate "used in practice" instead. (anyway, not merely since Kublai Khan) Genghis Khan himself really used the title of emperor administratively in (northern) China and in at least one diplomatic letter to the ruler of Japan using "Emperor of the Great Mogol State". -- (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here. I basically agree with "used in practice", although only in the Chinese language. --Evecurid (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Flag of the Yuan dynasty[edit]

Is there really a flag for the Yuan dynasty? What does it mean by "approximated flag" of the Great Yuan? --Evecurid (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Today part of"[edit]

I wonder why Kwamikagami is currently changing the format of "Today part of" in this and a number of other dynastic articles. Articles for other historic states (not yet changed by him) such as the Mongol Empire, Mughal Empire and Ottoman Empire all have the previous format, and I wonder why s/he is changing the format in this and a number of other dynastic articles. --Cartakes (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Flags are used to indicate official membership, such as members of the UN, or entrants to the World Cup. There's nothing official about one's territory once having been part of the Yuan Dynasty.
What first attracted my attention, though, was the bad mismatch between the countries claimed in this field, and the countries shown on the map. The map's several years old, so I went with it, but if those other countries truly are in what was once China, the map needs to be corrected. — kwami (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the reason, you are obviously changing a large number of articles. I hope you to have discussed and waited for consensus before the actual changes. --02:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


According to Morris Rossabi, "Though Khubilai wished to be considered as more than the emperor of China, he was unable to coerce the other khans into accepting his authority. As the khaghan of the Mongols, he aspired to universal rule and sought recognition of his status as the undisputed ruler of all the Mongolian domains. The Golden Horde in Russia had supported Arigh Boke's candidacy as the khaghan and were not reconciled to Khubilai's victory. Khaidu, who controlled the Chaghadai khanate of Central Asia, was an implacable foe of Khubilai's. Only Khubilai's brother Hiilegii, the founder of the Ilkhanate of Persia, and his descendants accepted Khubilai as khaghan, but they were essentially self-governing. The Golden Horde and the Ilkhans were entangled in their own conflict over their claims to the pasturelands of Azerbaijan, diverting attention from their relationships with the khaghan.". It is incorrect to say "The three other Mongol khanates recognized Kublai as Great Khan" in the article. --Cartakes (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversy: Is Yuan China[edit]

I think there ought to be a section on the controversy over whether Yuan is actually part of China?

See here for example:

Juicebaby (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Goryeo is only vassal of Yuan (not a part of), it is adopted by Chinese scholars[edit]

I am from china and is interested in history. the map of Yuan dynasty is wrong. in our history textbooks, Goryeo is marked as a country instead of a part of yuan. in Historical Atlas of China (1982) (it is regarded as an academic authority books of history in china), it also marked as an independent country. (the map was taken picture and upload here. Goryeo (高丽) marked as a country outside of yuan though it also marked as "Expand east province" (征东行省). in addition, some so-called "province" is exist in name only during yuan dynasty; such as "Jiaozhi province" (交趾行省) in Vietnam, "Champa province" (占城行省) in Champa, and "Myanmar province" (缅中行省 in Myanmar)). many we Chinese think Goryeo is a country instead of a part of yuan, these map of yuan are uploaded by Chinese users[34][35][36]. it prove what I said.

and I also noticed that there is an edit controversy in the map of yuan[37]. the user @Idh0854: from Korea and @Wengier: from china, think Goryeo is not a part of yuan in that time. And in Korean Wikipedia, article ko:원나라 also not use that file; them use [38], marked Goryeo as vassal. so Goryeo is considered as a country in both china and korea, we'd better adopted it. another discussion is started in Wikimedia commons here.[39]-- (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  •  Comment: The wording of the proposal above is confusing, but I think what is asking is that this map be displayed in the article as opposed to this one. The question is a complicated one - undoubtedly, Korea was under the rule of the Yuan dynasty, and I don't think that is under dispute. What the question seems to be is this: Which map is a more accurate visual aid in summarizing the political relationship between the Yuan and the subjugated Kingdom of Goryeo? I did a search in Google Books, and, of the sources which I could access, I have laid out below. Distinct country means the source treats Goryeo as a separate entity of the Yuan, albeit under Yuan control. Part of Yuan means the the source treats Goryeo as merely a constituent of the Yuan dynasty. Neutral means that the source considers Goryeo a vassal or subordinate, but without indicating whether the author considers Goryeo a distinct entity or strictly a constituent of the Yuan. This does involve some interpretation on my part, but I think I've stayed faithful to the source material.
Distinct country: [40], [41], [42], [43]
Part of Yuan: [44], [45], [46]
Neutral: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]
My conclusion: The situation is very complicated, and there isn't a clear consensus in the scholarship other than that Goryeo had some type of subordinate vassal relationship to the Yuan. For the map, I don't care how it is depicted. However, if Goryeo is to be shaded, other vassals, such as the Kingdom of Dali (re-named under the Yuan as Yunnan), need to be shaded as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Idea: If it's a complicated situation then we ought to have a more complicated map. Rather than just having the Yuan dynasty as a solitary blob, Goryeo and other quasi-independent states could be depicted separately and their relationship to the Yuan discussed in the caption or article body. Perhaps the editors of this page could come up with a source-based description of the political situation and take it to the map workshop? (Or I'd be happy to help make the map.) Joe Roe (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking of something similar. Tributaries such as parts of Burma, Vietnam, and Indonesia and Malaysia should probably be included as well as the various vassal states. This would take a lot of research, but it would result in a much better map.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have access to the Cambridge History of China vol. 6 which covers the Yuan dynasty, which is as authoritative a source on China as it goes in Western scholarship. It has a detailed map of its administrative divisions (p.438) and a map of the Mongol khanates and their tributary states (p. 425), and it shows Goryeo, Burma, Annam, and Champa as tributary states. _dk (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
So we see, the situation is complicated. Goryeo is considered as a country by some scholars, while regarded as a provice by others. So, why not use this map? This map mark Goryeo as a special area. And note Goryeo's situation in that time is a historical issues under controversy in the map_caption.-- (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Now I find a historical records in Goryeosa:

Spring January, the tenth year (of Yin Water Pig year), the king was in Yuan. 柳淸臣 and 吳潛 wrote a memorial to 都省 to request establish a province just like in inland China, but (the Yuan emperor) didn't follow the advice.

And, History of Yuan also regard Goryeo (高麗) as one of "foreign barbarian" (外夷) together with Tamna (耽羅) and Japan (日本): "元史 卷208 列傳第95: 外夷高麗 耽羅 日本"-- (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the topic is adequately treated at Administrative divisions of the Yuan dynasty and Korea under Yuan rule. Goryeo is considered a province in name (征東行省) for the purpose of invading Japan, but otherwise left to its own devices as a vassal state. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here, we should just focus on choosing or making the appropriate map. _dk (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
And in answer to the question as to why not use the alternate Yuen 1294 map - because Goryeo was not the only province left largely to its own devices - you also had the Kingdom of Dali, and the tributaries of Annam, Burma, and Champa.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Dali was fully converted to Yunnan province though, so that's not an issue any more. Annam, Burma, and Champa were tributary states, and the "provinces" established in those places only lasted as long as the invasions there (ie. Yuan doesn't consider them as belonging to the Yuan after the armies retreated). Goryeo is apparently a special case in that it retained the "province" name. That said, I do agree we need a more detailed map than the alternate Yuan 1294 map. _dk (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The Duan royal family of the Kingdom of Dali were appointed as Maharajahs of Yunnan during the Yuan dynasty. It was a province with a local monarch. Goryeo was a province with a local monarch. There was also the Kingdom of Qocho which had its own monarch while being part of the Yuan and the Yuan Emperors ranked Qocho higher than Korea. The Yuan also sent Darughachi to Goryeo during its rule which it could not do to the Tran dynasty or Champa. The Yuan militarily defeated Goryeo and made it accept provincial status. The Tran dynasty militarily defeated the Yuan which is why there was no Annam province.Rajmaan (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Goryeo was not militarily subjugated. The Mongols and Goryeo established peaceful relations and Gogyeo sent the crown prince to China as hostage (signifying its vassal status). The crown prince became close with Khublai, and Khublai sent him back to take the Goryeo throne as Wonjong of Goryeo when his father died. (Cambridge history of China vol 6, page 436-7) _dk (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The Mongols rampaged and burned the entire peninsula until Goryeo agreed to fold before the Mongols. The Tran dynasty crushed the Mongol army at Bach Dang River and forced them to leave. The Mongols forced Goryeo to pay massive tributes of silver, ginseng, falcons, eunuchs, and women and sent Darughachi to order them around. Trying to categorize them in the same status as the Tran is misleading.Rajmaan (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Without getting even more sidetracked, the CHoC vol. 6 has another map (p.483) that says Goryeo was a Mongolian vassal since 1258, and "under Mongolian domination" since 1270. I would rather we go by what the sources say than our opinions on what would be misleading. Evidently Obviously, a "tributary state" (eg. Vietnam) and a "vassal state" (eg. Goryeo) don't mean the same thing. _dk (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course they don't - a tributary state is one that pays tribute, whereas a vassal is, at minimum, a subservient state allied with its overlord.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Yuan Dynasty 1294.png[edit]

repeated vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:7800:A4A6:FC00:3867:C4CB:D266:E689 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@2403:7800:A4A6:FC00:3867:C4CB:D266:E689: I have started a discussion, and leave an edit summary just want you come here to discuss. but you still revert my edit again and again and without any discussion; more ridiculous is, you slandered me "repeated vandalism"! you very impolite, rude and stubborn, you are the real vandalism. if you continue your action, I will report it to meta wiki.-- (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Please, see the #Goryeo is only vassal of Yuan (not a part of), it is adopted by Chinese scholars. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Editors should stop clowning around and show some standards. If Goryeo isn't shown as part of the Yuan, then neither should the Kingdom of Qocho. Either show everything consistently or remove all the maps.Rajmaan (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Qocho ceased to be independent in 1335. The map on the article depicts the situation in 1345. Let's turn this around: what do you want to see in a theoretical map of the Yuan, and how should we make that happen? _dk (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
There was a surviving remnant of Qocho 察合台汗國回鶻亦都護 which came under the Chagatai Khanate until the Chagatais converted to Islam and destroyed Qocho during the Ming dynasty. The Duan family of the Kingdom of Dali were Maharajahs in Yunnan at Dali during the Yuan dynasty. Yunnan needs to be marked on a map of administrative divisions. Qocho and Duan both had the previous royal families holding titles under the Yuan. See File:Yuan Dynasty Administrative division.jpg Modifications need to be made since Qocho isn't properly labelled on it.Rajmaan (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yuan dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Intermarriage between Mongols and Han were not illegal during Yuan dynasty[edit]

“諸色人同類自相婚姻者,各從本俗法;遞相婚姻者以男為主,蒙古人不在此限。”-- Kublai Khan

Elizabeth Endicott-West,"Mongolian Rule in China: Local Administration in the Yuan Dynasty", p123

— Preceding unsigned comment added by No1lovesu (talkcontribs) 03:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


This editor has been involved in a slow motion edit war over extensive passages. Several editors have attempted to engage in discussion but with little success. When they do respond, they place comments in random spots on the talk page where they are difficult to find and so do not generate a response. See for example here, placed such that it looks like it is part of another user's comments from last year. Possibly a competency issue. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted two edits because I got the impression that the edits were vandalism. Upon closer examination, that may not be the case, and I apologize to Tongloss. On the other hand, the paragraphs that Tongolss is removing do seem at first glance to be relevant to the topic. I'm not an expert, of course, but if the sources verify that Koreans were a relevant part of the history of this dynasty, this article should reflect that. Mz7 (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Laszlo Panaflex. Han Chinese males are insecure about the history of the Yuan Dynasty because it was a time of Mongolian domination of China. Mongolians and Koreans (along with distant relations with Turks and Hungarians) are related to each other, so these Chinese wiki trolls are misconstruing Mongolian history and adding anything these trolls can to insult Korean history. At the very least, the passages I am removing or editing are relevant to the topic of the Mongolian Dynasty in China. Han Chinese marriage to women of different ethnicities misrepresents this time period of Mongolian imperial rule by making it seem like the han Chinese were ruling that time period, when in actuality they were servants to their Mongolian overlords. It gives an exact opposite impression to what actually transpired in history. Thank you for your apology, and I very much appreciate your attention to the propaganda being transmitted by Chinese wiki trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tongolss (talkcontribs) 22:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not apologize to you; Mz7 did. You continue to remove content without first allowing discussion, and it is becoming increasingly disruptive. Your reasoning above appears highly POV, and does not seem to support what you are removing. As an example, one of the statements you remove is, "Massive numbers of Korean boy eunuchs, Korean girl concubines, falcons, ginseng, grain, cloth, silver, and gold were sent as tribute to the Mongol Yuan dynasty." This doesn't mention Han Chinese and hardly leaves the impression you claim. Please gain consensus of other editors before removing sourced content. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This article has some odd material and emphasis that one wouldn't see in most books on this dynasty:
  • the middle two paragraphs of the Background section, focussing on ethnicity
  • the last paragraph of Founding the dynasty, about descendents of Confucius
  • the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Military conquests and campaigns section, again focussing on ethnicity
  • the last paragraph of the Impact section, on Ilkhanids
  • the whole Imperial Harem section, focussing on Koreans
  • the focus on Islam in the Religion section (the summary in the Social classes section would have been adequate)
  • the last four paragraphs of the Social classes section, again focussing on ethnicity
All of this material is referenced, but typically very poorly, to disparate Google books snippets, often passing mentions in books on other subjects. A particularly egregious example is a passage on Korean eunuchs and concubines in the Yuan with one of its citations to Sex Among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations.
One would expect any account of the Yuan to deal with the ethnic makeup of the empire and the relations between the groups, but to do it in one place (say the Social classes section), not all the way through the article, where the intrusions disrupt the narrative. One would not expect the descendents of Confucius material at all.
In summary, I would remove all the material deleted by Tongolss, and more, to focus the article on the Yuan rather than these ancillary topics. Kanguole 00:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not opposed per se to removal of the content or refocusing the article. I am urging a discussion of the issues rather than the slow motion edit war that has been going on for weeks now, involving numerous editors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Tongolss: Please do not claim my support for your edits, as you did here, when you still refuse to discuss your edits here. Long explanations in edit summaries do not substitute for addressing the issue here and finding consensus, as Wikipedia standards require. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex:He did the same thing again.--No1lovesu (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

For that IP who keep editing unreliable source and content[edit]

Read these:

and this:

In the process of the Mongols invasion of China proper, many Han Chinese were enslaved by the Mongols rulers.[1] According to Japanese historian Sugiyama Masaaki (杉山正明) and Funada Yoshiyuki (舩田善之), there were also certain number of Mongolian slaves owned by Han Chinese during Yuan. Moreover, there is no evidence that Han Chinese, who were considered people of the bottom of Yuan society by some research, were suffered a particularly cruel abuse.[2][3]

--No1lovesu (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Rodriguez, Junius P. The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery. ABC-CLIO. p. 146. ISBN 9780874368857. Retrieved 20 March 2017. 
  2. ^ Sugiyama Masaaki(杉山正明), "忽必烈的挑战 (Large turn of world history by the challenge of Mongolia Kublai Khan)", 社会科学文献出版社, 2013, p44-46
  3. ^ Funada Yoshiyuki, "The Image of the Semu People: Mongols, Chinese, Southerners, and Various Other Peoples under the Mongol Empire", Historical and Philological Studies of China's Western Regions, p199-221, 2014(04)