Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-02 Ming Dynasty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Request details
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
- LaGrandefr (talk • contribs • email)
[edit] What's going on?
I offered a map in the article of Ming Dynasty, ming_1443.png, drawn by Sinomap Press, ISBN 7503103841, the original map of Ming china is here. It shows the largest territory of Ming Dynasty in 1443.
Some editors argued that Tibet shouldn't exist in Ming China. But the very reference book for every scholarly research about Ming Dynasty, Mingshi, one of the 24 official Chinese historical works and officially compiled in 1739 by the succeeding dynasty Qing Dynasty says, the territory of Ming begins with Chosŏn in the East, occupies Tubo in the West, includes Annam in the South, reaches the Great Desert in the North.(東起朝鮮，西據吐番，南包安南，北距大磧) And Tubo is the ancient name of Tibet in Chinese, that means Tibet has been part of Ming Dynasty. Besides this, I have given plenty of sources that prove Tibet was under the administration of Ming Dynasty. But some editors stick to several scholars' opinion and ignore the history recorded by the Bible (Mingshi) of the scholarly domain about Ming Dynasty's researches. So I request to make a final judgment of this conflict.
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
I suggest removing the university-drawn map, Ming-Empire2.jpg, replaced by ming_1443.png, which is based on the map drawn by the only national-level map publisher in China. The argument about the position of Tibet in Ming China has already been crushed up by Mingshi. And people can present the situation of Tibet in Ming China in a new section of the article.
[edit] Mediator notes
This case has been filed incorrectly. All parties involved has not been added. Additionally, a mediator can not make binding decisions, and works to foster a consensus between parties. Sometimes, some compromise is required. Parties who are unwilling to negotiate or compromise at all, make mediation impossible. I will await the restructuring of this case, before I accept it. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Resolved.Per the discussion on the talk page, it appears this case is no longer necessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
