Talk:List of recipients of tribute from China

message: Those states that received tribute from China were highly depended on imports from China, espesially steppe people like Mongols. They imported many goods from China, so tributes, especially those which were paid in silver and not in commodities like silk, returned back to China through trade. So paying tribute to these states didn't effected China economically very much. I think this must be mentioned in article.78.191.91.99 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

message: 1.Non-Enlish sources are as valid as English sources. It is true that they are difficult to verify for those who don't know that language. But this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used. Not every information is available in English.2. http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en has a capability to translate from 10 languages into English. It allows to tranlsate a whole web page by providing the web address as well as selected sentences by pasting those sentences into the corresponding boxes on the screen. Gantuya eng 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-English references 

message: WP does actually have some kind of policy regarding verifiability: WP:VERIFY. I couldn't find anything that rules out non-English sources there, just a statement that english sources are preferred, which seems quite natural to me. 
Also, to me it does not seem as if vassalage is a necessary implication of paying tribute. But I am no native speaker. It is true that (formal) vassalage was usually an implication of the Chinese tribute system. But that is not what the article is about. What about the Danegeld or the taxes of the Delian League? Both seem to be called tribute in the relevant articles, and while the latter may be arguable, the former does not seem to have implied anything but military weakness. Maybe the article should make more clear what definition of tribute is referred to. -- Yaan (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 cents 

message: I am going to say almost the same thing that I did on the talk page of List of tributaries of Imperial China. 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 the recipients of tribute from China as a topic in itself. Each concerns only a particular recipient. The significance of this list overall is thus debatable. In addition, almost all of the sources are Web pages that are not that reliable, as mentioned in the English Wikipedia policy Verifiability. Some of the content may be incorporated into their respective articles such as Mongolia, but their notability, compared to China's concessions to the West in Modern Times, for instance, eludes me.
DXDanl (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: i question the use of a mongolian source for the qi and zhou dynasty tribute. find another source  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitla Gruppels (talk • contribs) 07:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As indicated in the article there is Sinocentrism problem. So Chinese sources are more likely to be unreliable. Elknz (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongol source for qi and zhou dynasty tribute? 

message: Nepal received tribute from Tibet between the mid-1850s until 1953. Does that mean it should be included in this list, or not? I guess the answer depends a bit on whether you accept that Tibet at that time was an integral part of China or not, but maybe some kind of compromise can be figured out. Yaan (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should include only those cases when tribute was received from so called China Proper itself. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Qi and Zhou dynasties had a hybrid sino-turkic leadership, so according to your logic we should take it off?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.159.250 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepal 

message: How about the payments made by Qing China under the treaties of Nanjing, Tianjin, etc. Could they be classed as tributes? Rincewind42 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nineteenth Century