Talk:List of tributary states of China

message: Was Japan really a tributary of Imperial China?? When? My perhaps limited understanding was that Japan established cordial relations in the 600s but was independent. Can anyone clarify? 71.255.251.105 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, any state that had formal diplomatic relations with Imperial China would have been a tributary, since the court recognized no equals. However, the level of actual control differed from state to state. Some merely engaged in the tributary system to benefit from the trade relations, others were allies that enjoyed considerable autonomy and priviledges, others were protecterates or conquered areas that weren't formally administered as provinces, and others were various tribes and indigenous peoples that for whatever reasons weren't governed the same way farmers and cities were. The system really covered a lot, which is why compiling a list is such a challenge, and why even on the list, I gave a brief history and explanation for each entry. --Yuje 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: During Ashikaga shogunate, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu and Ashikaga Yoshinori got the cefeng, even Ashikaga shogunate continued until 1573 though. The name in the list of Japan should be Ashikaga shogunate or Ashikaga clan. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea, it was Ashikaga shogunate. But the Emperor of Japan didn't receive the cefeng. It is said Ashikaga wanted to trade with China. I also think the name in the list should be Ashikaga shogunate or Ashikaga clan of Nippon-218.110.154.51 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: Instead of just mass listing every single country that paid tribute at one point or another, there should be some kind of organization to this messy article. I suggest doing it by dynasty, listing the tributaries to Han, Tang, Ming, etc dynasties, instead of to "Imperial China". 2000 years is a long time span to cover, and most of the countries shifted in and out of the tributary system at one point or another, so the listing should be by dynasty, and each listing should cover the years during which they were tributaries. --Yuje 12:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It is dubious whether Japan can be considered a tributary after the 15the century, if at all. --Niohe 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started filling in information for the Han Dynasty period, but someone needs to fill information on some of the later dynasties. I don't have any convenient references on hand for those at the moment, and not very familiar with the history of some of those periods. Ming and Qing periods are more clear, but some of the dynasties between I'll leave to more knowledgeable people, or until I get a reference on hand. --Yuje 10:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously the situation differed from state to state and among the different time periods, but there were tributories over which the empire exerted very real power. Take for example the Ming Dynasty and the Mongols of modern-day Inner Mongolia. The trade relationship kept the Mongols economically dependent on the Chinese for trade, and the Ming controlled which areas in which they could graze their herds. The Ming also were the ones to assign titles to their leaders and this made those leaders politically reliant on the empire for their legitimacy. The Mongols were called on to supply cavalry and horse for the Ming army, and several ethnic Mongols even became serving generals. --Yuje 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think this is definitely an interesting topic, but you are absolutely right, the situation with each state differed.  I would love to expand this article to actually discuss what the tributary relationships were like, but it would probably take a lot of reading and fact finding.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The emperor of China was the only son of heaven and it couldn't accept other kind of emperors. Any states that wanted some kind of relationships would have had to represent themselves as king, prince or duke. The emperor of China did not have soverignty over its vassals. The emperor was recognized as the one with heavenly accepted authorities of all things exist on earth. Think of emperors of the holy roman empire. The emperor of Rome was not the sovereign ruler of France or England or any other states that co-existed, but more of ceremonial ruler of the world that the west recognize. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.169.222.234 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs organization

message: The accuracy of "ChineseTributaryStates.png"(above) made by 24630 is suspected. Moreover, according to mapmaker's comment, he doesn't include Qing dynasty in Imperial China. So, I've deleted that map for following reasons. 
#Imperial China, not limited Han Chinese Empires, must include Qing Dynastay assimilated into the Chinese culture. 
#What does mean "Core" Chinese Empire(green. named by mapmaker)? And is it made on the base of  reliable source derived from academical research? The boundary and definition of core always are controversial. 
#Territories that were under the direct adminstration of the Chinese Empire(light green)is not accurate, too. 
#Reliable source needed 2SteamClocks 12:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Japanese Emperor (the top of the nation) didn't. Ashikaga did. This point should be clarified. If not, Chinese surrounding countries in China has to be written as China. China paid tribute for Imperial China?? That is Strange. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And what about the China's tirbutes paid to the Xiongnu after Han was defeated by Modu chanyu? On the other hand, what is the purpose of this page? With the same success, a page "List of tributaries of Russia", "List of tributaries of Mongolia", etc. etc. etc. can be created. Gantuya Eng.
we already have an article for that, and the reason we have an article for this is because china is the only country thaat had a tributary system, not when some ruler just came over and asked you to pay up  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.77.75 (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of an inaccurate map 

message: It should also be noted that Japanese shogun engaged in tributary relations with the Chinese court. Many corresponded with the Chinese Emperor under the name "King of Japan."
::But Japanese Emperor (the top of the nation) didn't. Ashikaga did. This point should be clarified. If not, Chinese surrounding countries in China has to be written as China. China paid tribute for Imperial China?? That is Strange. --222.144.8.172 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan's Status 

message: In the case of T'ang-era China / Tibet trade, each side routinely described the trade goods which it received as "tribute," and those which it exported as "gifts." If such accounts are to be admissible in terms of showing Tibet to have paid tribute, should we not accept them as evidence of China's vassalage?  Mortimer
:And what about the China's tirbutes paid to the Xiongnu after Han was defeated by Modu chanyu? On the other hand, what is the purpose of this page? With the same success, a page "List of tributaries of Russia", "List of tributaries of Mongolia", etc. etc. etc. can be created. Gantuya Eng.
we already have an article for that, and the reason we have an article for this is because china is the only country thaat had a tributary system, not when some ruler just came over and asked you to pay up  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.77.75 (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about tribute paid by China to other powers ? 

message: THIS SECTION NEEDS MASSIVE CORRECTION.
1) KORGURYO KINGDOM, BALHAE KINGDOM ( TWO KOREAN KINGDOMS TERRITORY EXPAND NORTHERN KOREA TO MANCHURIA/RUSSIA REGIONS). TWO KOREAN KINGDOMS FOUGHT THE CHINESE.
KORGURYO KINGDOM AND BALHAE KINGDOM WHERE NOT CHINA TRIBUTARY STATE. WIKIPEDIA INFORMATION IS WRONG. YOU GUYS NEED TO DELETE KORGURYO, BALHAE, BAEKJE BEING TRIBUTARY STATE TO CHINA.
CHOSUN DYNASTY: 500 YEARS HISTORY: DURING CHOSUN DYNASTY KOREANS ADOPTED CHINESE CONFUSCIOUS CULTURE BUT DON'T EVER EVER FORGET. DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME.
KOREAN KING SEJONG INVENTED " KOREAN ALPHABET" AND KOREAN WRITTEN LANGUAGE WERE BORN.
KOREA AND CHINA HAD WARS AND TRADE. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT KOREANS OR NATION OF KOREA WAS CHINA TRIBUTARY. DURING 5 THOUSAND YEARS OF KOREAN HISTORY IF KOREA WAS CHINA TRIBUTARY TO IMPERIAL CHINA. KOREANS MUST EAT AND BREATH CHINESE CULTURE. BUT IN REALITY CHINESE OR CHINA THEMSELVE WHERE TRIBUTARIE TO MONGOLIANS AND MANCHURIAN EMPIRES.
LETS NOT FORGET MONGOLS ( GHENGHIS KHAN) RULES CHINA, MANCHURIANS RULED CHINA FOR THOUSAND OF YEARS. EVEN THOUGH TWO ALTAIC GROUPS PRETTY MUCH LOST LANGUAGE AND CULTURES.
KOREANS ARE ONLY ALTAIC GROUPS IN NORTHEAST ASIA THAT HAS LANGUAGE, CULTURE, NATION, ETHNIC IDENTITY AS KOREAN PEOPLE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1manchuria (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This subject should be remove as not only they are not accurate and also deeply offending.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.184.8 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify the above comment, the sources indicating this aren't completely Chinese. The Samguk Sagi, a Korean source, indicates this as well. Here's a version translated into English by the University of Hawaii. The book indicates pretty regular tribute missions. An example from book 20:
*King Yŏng’yang (590-618)
**Year three (592), spring, first month, a tribute mission was sent to Sui.
**Year eight (597), summer, fifth month, a tribute mission was sent to Sui.
**[Emperor of Sui threatens to invade, king apologizes]
**Year eleven (600), spring, first month, a tribute mission was sent to Sui.
*King Yong'nu
**Year two (619), spring, second month, a tribute mission was sent to Tang
**Year six (623), winter, twelfth month, a tribute mission was sent to Tang. 
**Winter, twelfth month, a tribute mission was sent to Tang. 
And so on. --Yuje (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goguryeo as a tribute state 

message: There seems to be some confusion as to whether or not Chenla sent tributes to China.  The only English-language source that I can find is hosted by geocities, and so I don't know if that can be considered a reliable source.  Chinese-language sources (one example - ), on the other hand, states that Chenla (真腊) paid tribute to Ming dynasty China.  But the Chenla article states that Chenla's reign ended long before the Ming dynasty.  This may be a naming difference in Chinese historical texts, where the 真腊 name continued to be used long after the Chenla rulers were eliminated.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the geocities source is ok. Good friend100 01:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chenla/Zhenla 

message: The sentence that introduces the list is imprecise: "used to pay".  Doesn't say when, for how long, reluctantly, deviously, just says "used to pay."  The material below the list is more valuable, including dates and more detail about the relationships, but it needs to be fleshed out.  An article based on a list has limitations.  This is not purely a list, or an article, but somewhere in between.  It needs to be reorganized, rewritten, turned into a good article that presents all sides and if this were done, your conflicts could at least be different and more interesting, if not resolved.  Undertake to improve the entry, cast your attention elsewhere in it, and the rest will follow.  -Jmh123 05:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comment 

message: Alright guys, can we try to discuss again instead of revert-warring?  Coming to an agreement on what the article should say is infinitely more productive than reverting each other's edits back and forth.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto my comments from the section right above...  What else is there to say?--Endroit 04:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to come up with a compromise that'll satisfy all parties?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More attempts at discussion 

message: The source of the table is, as referenced, John K. Fairbank and Têng Ssu-yü. "On the Ch'ing Tributary System." Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 6, no. 2 (1941): 135-246. A lot of names seem unclear and are only given in Wade-Giles transscription by Fairbank. I have tried to change them into pinyin, but I may have made some errors. Yaan 12:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ming Dynasty 

message: These lists are inherently inconsistent. And readers and (even editors) don't know what they actually mean. First of all, tributary was not state-to-state relationship, but relationship between the emperor and a ruler. Usually we don't have to make this distinction since a state was in possession of the monarch. But it does matter when a state was not centralized and more than one player got involved in diplomacy. Take Japan for instance. The emperor of Japan, who possessed Japan in theory, did never pay tribute to China. It was, say, Prince Kanenaga, who paid tribute, although he controlled only some portion of Kyushu. 
To keep these lists, we must accompany them with detailed explanations:
# Before showing these lists, we should explain in the first place what is "to pay tribute": what kind of rituals were performed in the imperial court? How did foreign envoys behaved and how did the emperor respond?
# Then, explain its significance in China. Motivations behind the tribute system, both ideological and practical. Chinese scribes were trained to describe varying foreign relationships in the same ideologically-motivated format. (That's why Chinese history books are boring, and they are difficult to analyze because we have to notice what they did NOT record.)
# Also, we need its significance outside China. In ancient East Asia, rulers utilized tributary relationship as an external source of authority/legitimacy. I think Sadao Nishijima's sakuhō taisei theory (system of patented enfoeffments) and criticism against it should be introduced here. And the tributary relationship as a means of trade. Westerners often focus on tension between Eurpoean countries and the Manchu Qing Empire, but Esen Tayishi's case is really interesting. Japanese trade with the Ming (and the Ningbo Incident of 1523) is also notable.
# This kind of article tends to be overrun by Chinese logic. But other perspectives are important to note. Most non-Chinese groups did not leave their own records. Altan Khan is a notable exception. According to the Biography of Altan Khan, the Mongols considered that the Ming had offered "imposed tribute" (alba tatalγ-a) for Altan Khan. Buyanküü's short article (The Mongols in the Eyes of the Ming Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty in the Eyes of the Mongols, Bulletin of the Japan Association for Mongolian Studies 31; in Japanese) is relevant, I think.
# Lastly, modern Chinese re-interpretation, and its relationship with Chinese nationalism/expansionism. In China, history is not an academic discipline but a tool for political strife. So it's important to decompose current Chinese narratives into actual history and re-interpretation. I think the re-interpretation can date back to an attempt by the Qing Empire in her final years to adapt the traditional Chinese system to international law of Western origin. Korea (Joseon) was a critical case.
--Nanshu 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately I don't understand Japanese and also lack the enthusiasm and knowledge for writing more than a mere list (I could add the even more obviously case-in-point Qing tributaries, though). What about you? Yaan 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is somewhere on my ever-increasing todo list :) --Nanshu 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: Chola was a South Indian kingdom, which had suzernity over the Java, Sumatra and Broneo Islands during the early centuries of the second millennium.  Since China was also a key  player in that region the Chola had a relationship with the Chinese Emperor of the time.   They had been never a Tributary of China. Of the present day India probably parts of North east and the north eastern portion of the State of Jammu & Kashmir might have been tributaries and not calicut, kollam, chola and all.
As had been the custom during the earlier times, traders from all these places would have appeared in the courts of the Chinese Emperors and have submitted their gifts.
These gifts could never mean that the place they represent to be a tributary of China.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujithprabu (talk • contribs) 08:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chola was tributary for China. 日本 册封 

message: The Wikipedia general notability guideline endorses a topic "if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case, none of the sources are meant to discuss Imperial Chinese tributaries as a topic in itself. Each concerns only a particular tributary state or time period. The significance of this list overall is thus debatable. In addition, some of the sources, such as the About.com and the geocities Web pages, are not that reliable. Some of the content may be incorporated into articles such as China, but the notability of the rest eludes me.
DXDanl (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The neutrality of this article is already disputed. Good friend100 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I think this article would be better presented in a table format listing Chinese name, English name, present day location, year of tribute, etc.
Also I think the would-be table should have different columns for citations from both Chinese sources, the respective tribute nation, and neutral sources (i.e. 3rd party) if available. If there is a conflict of information then it is up to the reader to determine which source is more authoritative, not us editors making disputed judgment calls. --Voidvector (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table and NPOV 

message: country's name "Nippon" represents era of 1,400years.(even nowadays)
in contrast, "Ashikaga Shogunate" represents 200years. I think Ashikaga Shogunate is better usage for explain it more correctly.
so, I type Ashikaga Shogunate instead Nippon(日本). if their is proof more than two people got cefeng during another era of Nippon, I will fix it again. 61.99.38.227 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan fixed 

message: made unconstructive edits. 
*Addition: Coconut91 added descriptions found by googling the web without the knowledge of the history. 
**Yamato is the same as Wa. This is based on the Chinese Book of Song. See Five kings of Wa. Also see  "Five Yamato kings, also known as Five Kings of Wa, send tributes to the court of the Chinese Liu Song dynasty."
**Muromachi Period is the same as Ashikaga Shogunate. See respective articles.
*Deletion: Coconut91 deleted the sourced contents again.  Coconut91 was blocked from editing for 55 hours for the similar edits before.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unconstructive edits by Coconut91

message: I reverted to once per year because that is how I understand the paper by Fairbank/Teng. To me, it seems as if neither of the two sources for "three or four times per year" made clear which time frame they meant. Yaan (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency of Korean tribute during the Ming dynasty 

message: Historiographer -- Please accept my apology for not responding to these two diffs sooner: 
*  diff  11:21, 24 January 2011 Historiographer (39,397 bytes) (Various China-related articles in Wikipedia adopted an ancient sources. Don't remove the original links, and I also added some English source that you’d like) 
*  diff  12:03, 24 January 2011 Historiographer (39,468 bytes) (Undid revision 409744070 by Phoenix7777 (talk), See talk. You don't disregard not only ancient sources but modern one) 
Yes, your recent edits at Japanese missions to Sui China are a good step in our process of collaborative editing.  It is important to  and applaud this good step.  For example, Note 21 does provide specific excerpt sentences from specific cited sources.  As you know, our list includes Japanese missions to Sui China ( tribute missions), and it is followed by four citations:
:*Note 18. Nussbaum, Louis-Frédéric. (2005). "Kentoshi" in ; n.b., Louis-Frédéric is pseudonym of Louis-Frédéric Nussbaum, see Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Authority File;
::*Note 19. Yoda, p. 40. at Google Books; excerpt, "... Japanese missions to the Sui [Dynasty] (581-604) ... were recognized by the Chinese as bearers of imperial tribute ...."
:::*Note 20. Book of Sui, vol. 81
::::*Note 21. Imperial envoys made perilous passages on kentoshi-sen ships to Tang China 
This is encouraging.  This is a good step in a collaborative editing process.  --Tenmei (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Good step in process of collaborative editing

message: I think that the reference to Italy really means the Holy See, since there was no indipendent state named "Italy" in 1818. Lele giannoni (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=xIh0u1tw4R0C&pg=PA121&dq=Malacca+ming+prestige+robes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z9DiUt7RBqXgsASdrILoCA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Malacca%20ming%20prestige%20robes&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=E6MLAAAAIAAJ&q=Malacca+ming+prestige+robes&dq=Malacca+ming+prestige+robes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z9DiUt7RBqXgsASdrILoCA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ
http://books.google.com/books?id=OuSsxBuALQYC&pg=PA199&dq=Malacca+ming+dragon+robes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WdDiUracONWysQSbg4GgCA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Malacca%20ming%20dragon%20robes&f=false
09:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robes were bestowed on tributary vassals by the Ming dynasty 

message: I quote: "Annan (annually, every three years on average)". Since when was every three years considered to be annually? Then we have "Korea (three or four times a year; 435 embassies, 1637-1881)" That's a period of 244 years for 435 embassies so the numbers would actually average out at less than twice a year.
In addition, Great Britain was never a tributary to China. The 1793 event mentioned in the article was the Macartney Embassy which the Chinese mistakenly labelled as tribute when it was in fact no such thing. The mix up is quite famous. Thus Great Britain should not be lists. Many of the other nations listed are also dubious and lacking quality references. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with numbers 

message: The present title if this article is misleading. 
It should be called something like "List of places Imperial China claimed were tributaries". Clearly many of these places never considered themselves to be tributaries and any relationship which only one party ever agreed or believed existed is more or less a fantasy.  
IMO All places listed lacking a citation with reliable evidence should also be removed.
Many lack any citation at all.
Chris Fynn (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading title, lack of citations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of tributaries of Imperial China. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522195229/http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/SEA-China-Interactions-Cluster/Others/BoniInChineseSources-edited4.pdf to http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/SEA-China-Interactions-Cluster/Others/BoniInChineseSources-edited4.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120524174828/http://dispatch.opac.ddb.de/DB=4.1/PPN?PPN=128842709 to http://dispatch.opac.ddb.de/DB%3D4.1/PPN?PPN=128842709
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627064126/http://www.wenhuacn.com/lishi/shiji/13suishu/082.htm to http://www.wenhuacn.com/lishi/shiji/13suishu/082.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905010101/http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps07_093.pdf to http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps07_093.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Tributaries of China. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190844/http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C09/E0901.htm to http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C09/E0901.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The opening of the article currently states "This list of tributary states of China encompasses suzerain kingdoms from China in Europe, Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia."
However I can find no African countries listed in the text. Can anyone else?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbis 3 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africa 

message: please read the statement made in this page
the fantastic claims made in this page is nothing but day dreaming western scholars who use too much dosage of sinophilia.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/history-tributary-states.htm 213.247.1.39 (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  reeks of sinophilia 

message: The Three Kingdoms period consists of Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla. Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla were independent countries and had never received political intervention from China. Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla used their own era names and engaged in independent politics and diplomacy.
Moreover, Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla continued to wage war with China. 
Goguryeo won the war against the Sui and Tang kingdoms. 
Silla allied with Tang, destroyed Goguryeo and Baekje, and won the war with Tang. Baekje was also destroyed during the war with China. As you can see, these countries maintained their status as independent countries by going to war with China.
In particular, Goguryeo attacked Manchuria and expanded its territory and received tribute from neighboring countries. The king of Goguryeo called himself the emperor, which caused a lot of friction with China.
Goryeo is also not a tributary country of China. Goryeo fought many wars with China and won.
A tributary country is a client state. However, Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla, and Goryeo paid tribute to China for economic purposes, not because they were politically subordinate or weak. 
Most of the evidence that Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla, and Goryeo are tributary countries is not accurate. We need to look at the old records and the magnitude of the force at that time.
ex)Goguryeo–Sui War, 1st conflict of the Goguryeo-Tang War, Silla–Tang War, Goryeo–Khitan War Dreamkid05 (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You must provide sources to back up your claims. The information that you have been reverting comes from a scholarly source titled "Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary" (https://books.google.com/books?id=vj8ShHzUxrYC&q=tribute+korea+china&pg=PA482#v=snippet&q=tribute%20korea%20china&f=false). And if you look at what the source says, on page 482, it is written "Koguryo sent 173 tribute missions the courts of both the Northern and Southern Dynasties in China, Paekche 45, and the most remote, Silla, only nineteen. In return they received eight, six, and two respectively as acknowledgement of Chinese recognition". You must provide reliable sources to back up your claims. You also left out the fact that Goryeo was invaded by the Yuan dynasty and became a quasi-vassal state of the Yuan. In Henthom's work "Korea: The Mongol Invasions", Chapter 5 is titled "Submission and Alliance". On page 150, it describes the Goryeo crown prince setting out for the Yuan court carrying gifts, and that in response to the Mongol demands, the fortified walls of Kanghwa island were demolished (https://archive.org/details/koreamongolinvas00hent/page/150/mode/2up). Akshaysmit (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again you have provided no sources to back up your claims. I'm not sure what you mean by "the kingdom of Goryeo is Mongolia, not China". I don't recall ever saying that Goryeo is either Mongolia or China. Akshaysmit (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  The source used regarding Silla, Baekja and Goguryeo is a book (not a journal) titled "Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary" by scholars at Durham University (https://www.amazon.com/Korea-Historical-Cultural-Dictionary-Durham-ebook/dp/B00HDE2VXA) which does not strike me as being particularly unreliable. You have not presented a single source to back up your claims and are instead continuously removing this sourced content. Akshaysmit (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

text: You claim that the sources cited in this section are unreliable, but haven't provided any alternatives so far. This won't help to advance your claim. As for the claim that "Korea has won all the wars with China", this is demonstrably false. The state of Gojoseon was destroyed by the Han dynasty's invasion during Han's conquest of Gojoseon. Akshaysmit (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goguryeo,Baekje,Silla and Goryeo were not tributary state of China 

message: I have been reading the book Day of Empire by Amy Chua and using it mostly for religious-related citations. However, after reading it, I know that articles about Chinese tributary states could be remade better.
For instance, in 1818, the naivety of the Qing Dynasty led them to mark European countries like Russia and the UK as tributaries alongside Kelantan, despite them having little to do with each other. However, if I were to cite this (which I want to), I would put it near a section about Kelantan as a Qing Dynasty tributary. But no such section exists, and most of the tributary relationships are extremely sparsely described. I think List of tributary states of China needs a major update. GoutComplex (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaking this article to represent each era better