Talk:Tumu Crisis

message: is Tŭmù zhī bìan (土木之變). Bìan is commonly used to describe a coup d'etat, revolt or some other dramatic incident involving the use of military force. I originally thought about translating it as "incident" but since it's too close to shijian, I've decided translate bian as "crisis". For this reason I've changed the title to "Tumu Crisis". Also it's more important for its political effect than militarily.--Yu Ninjie 01:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The common Chinese term 

message: There is a contradiction in the troop numbers for Esen Tayisi's forces. The Esen Tayisi page says he had 20,000 calvary, while this page says he had 200,000. I think that 20,000 is likely the right number, given this sentence: The Mongol victory was won by an advance guard of only 200,000 cavalry. .  Kerowyn  Leave a note  04:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Was the emperor really captured on September 8? The article says that the army was surrounded on September 1, and that on September 3 the captive Zhengtong Emperor was sent to Esen's main camp.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.166.132 (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: September 1 is also the date in Julia Lovell book "The Great Wall - China against the world". It might be the difference between Julian and Gregorian dates but the article must show consistency. Avihu (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: For the alternate name "Crisis of Tumubao" the pinyin is given as "Tǔmù zhī Biàn"; surely this is wrong.  Someone who knows the correct tone of bao should fix it. Languagehat (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for pointing out.   Lonelydarksky (暗無天日)  contact me (聯絡) 12:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bao 

message: Much of the unsourced material on this page has a tint of bias in favour of Emperor Yingzong at the expense of Wang Zhen. If any of the material about Wang Zhen was supported by citations that would be one thing, but the entire article holds Wang Zhen responsible for a series of blunders which led the crisis, and none of this information is supported by citation. This appears to be deliberately designed to undermine the role played by Esen Taish and to spare criticism of Emperor Yingzong. This page appears to be informed by a Han-Chinese nationalist interpretation of events. 
Just at a guess, it is likely that no English-language academic text even exists that is supportive of the view taken in this page. This is not an uncommon issue in English-language pages on China and Chinese history on Wikipedia. 
I recommend this article be locked and much of the content about Wang Zhen deleted. If anyone is willing to collaborate I may be able to provide at least some alternative material to cite.  Bernardfitz (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percieved content bias 

message: I'm not sure who added Nolan and Cathal's book as a reference. Please take an in-depth look at it yourselves, it mentions the total number of forces assembled including logistics but not the number that left the walls and partook in the battle itself.
:the article is about the entire crisis, not the indivdual battle, so this seems appropriate. Also the source you're adding appears to be primary - you need a reliable secondary source.Pipsally (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nolan and Cathal's book 

message: Right now the infobox says 270,000 Mongols (uncited) fought 500,000 Chinese. This is contradicted by another paragraph saying only 20,000 Mongols were present (also uncited). Could someone find the correct numbers, both for the Mongols and Chinese? RedStorm1368 (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oirat numbers