Jump to content

Talk:Tumu Crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The common Chinese term

[edit]

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)


Contradiction

[edit]

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)[reply]

Date

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bao

[edit]

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)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing out. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 12:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Percieved content bias

[edit]

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)[reply]

Nolan and Cathal's book

[edit]

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)[reply]

Oirat numbers

[edit]

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)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tumu Crisis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Min968 (talk · contribs) 04:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 14:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

As far as I can see this is your first GA. Please regard my comments as suggestions and feel free to disregard any of them if you think it would not improve the article, but please share your reasoning with me. Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am not sure.

Borsoka (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka I have revised the points mentioned above. Min968 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Toghtoa Bukha Khan.
  • Despite not consulting his ministers,... Rephrase.
  • It should also be noted that... Delete.
  • ...this precedent... Precedent is not the best term in context.
  • ...while the head of the dynasty and the empire, as well as the person on whom the world's attention was focused,... Rephrase.
  • Although the emperor thanked him for his concern, he did not allow himself to be swayed from his plans. Rephrase.
  • ...by the a supervising secretary... The or a? Is this a civil or military office?
  • A link to palanquin?
  • Introduce Yanghe.
  • ...which was already in Chinese territory. Already?
  • Who is Hongxi Emperor?
  • This left the soldiers with only a few hours between 1 and 4 August to prepare for the march. I do not understand.
  • ...it is believed... By whom?
  • ...the fallen soldiers from the battle... Rephrase.
  • Decide whether "the emperor" or "the Emperor".
  • ...more soldiers died from starvation than from skirmishes with the enemy. Why?
  • Unfortunately,... Delete.
  • Introduce Yao'erling.
  • Introduce Tumu.
  • It is believed... By whom?
  • Unfortunately,... Delete.
  • Despite offers to negotiate... By whom?
  • ...the Mongols seized a large amount of weapons and equipment, resulting in the deaths of many Chinese soldiers I am not sure that I understand.
  • ...one of the Ming officers killed Wang Zhen. Why?
  • Surprisingly,... Delete.
  • ...decided to inform the Ming side... Of what?
  • I have not read section "Aftermath", but it should either drastically be shortened, or split into subsections. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Academic sources are cited. Although tertiary sources are also cited, the text is verified primarily by secondary sources.
  • Either add location to each title, or delete it everywhere.

Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tumu_Crisis&oldid=1264586103"