Talk:Amban

List of Ambasa in Tibet

Is this list really necessary? I can find the "correct" spellings of the names, little by little, but I don't like the way the whole text is dominated by a list. Shall we delete it or move it to a box or something? --Niohe 13:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

From the map in the Qing Dynasty article, it's clear that these territories were considered part of the Qing Dynasty, not merely accepted Qing's suzerainty (and yes, the meanings of suzerainty and sovereignty are different). Either the relevant wording in this article or the map of the Qing Dynasty should be changed. But if you don't like the word "sovereignty", then let's change it to "authority" instead.--207.112.71.179 (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the categories of "sovereignty" and "suzerainty" are very relevant to Qing China. I would suggest finding another wording ... "authority" might be the right choice.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)