Talk:Tang dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Tang dynasty is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 29, 2008.

Introduction of Indian Numerals[edit]

As per the page on the Gautama Siddha, it is stated that he introduced Indian numerals with zero (〇) in 718 in China as a replacement of counting rods.[1][2] Did this mark a decisive change in Chinese mathematics ? And if it did, shouldnt it be mentioned in this article ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Qian, Baocong (1964). "Zhongguo Shuxue Shi (The history of Chinese mathematics)". Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe. 
  2. ^ Wáng, Qīngxiáng (1999). Sangi o koeta otoko (The man who exceeded counting rods). Tokyo: Tōyō Shoten. ISBN 4-88595-226-3. 

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Han Dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

9th century[edit]

is this dyansty found during the 9th century? plz tell me i need to know its very important

Change the map of infobox[edit]

I tried to change the map of infobox [1]. This is Tang Dynasty greatest extent. Other articles all used the map of greatest extent in their infobox like Achaemenid Empire, Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire. I think this article should also use the greatest extent as the map in infobox.

This is the picture which I want to use:

  • Its more attractive than the current image but the countries are not in English. I couldn't say if the map is accurate or not.--MONGO 23:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This map was discussed previously at Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 3#Map. This map, with its various shaded areas and lines to indicate different relationships to the Tang, is too complex and contentious for the infobox. In addition, the existing map is more in line with maps one sees in most sources. Kanguole 23:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • How about this map?
    • I believe this map is good enough, and I think the map should be changed, in order to be "fair", I suppose.--Alvin Lee 14:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not about being "fair", but reflecting reliable sources. Apart from the complexity, this animation is full of expansive patches of colour that would be hard to reliably source. Kanguole 14:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a suitable map for this article. And I also believe that the map used in the article has several major mistakes. For example, Yunnan was not included. I doubt that that map was "Reflecting reliable sources".--Alvin Lee 07:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You could try the maps in the Sui-Tang volume (no. 3) of the Cambridge History of China, e.g. maps 8 and 11. At that time, Yunnan was ruled by the Kingdom of Nanzhao. Kanguole 14:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You should have a look at the article Kingdom of Nanzhao. In 750, Nanzhao rebelled against the Tang Dynasty. If Tang dynasty never ruled Yunnan, how would the Nanzhao people be able to rebel against Tang dynasty? --Alvin Lee 11:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You should also NOT rely only on one map. I don't think one reliable source will be sufficient to determine the Empire's map.--Alvin Lee 12:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. As for the map, I cited one (particularly well-respected) source, but you'll find similar maps in other academic histories. Kanguole 13:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I've found many maps about Tang Dynasty that are far from the map used in this article. Secondly, the independence of Nanzhao is not only showed in the Wikipedia article. Many other Chinese historic books and maps that are reliable also states that Tang dynasty has actually ruled over yunnan, such as Tan Qixiang's Historical Atlas of China. Nanzhao's independence is a FACT. We should not deny it.--Alvin Lee 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Historical maps from China tend to include larger areas of Chinese territory than maps from elsewhere, presumably reflecting modern political concerns. Kanguole 01:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Historical maps from Western countries tend to include smaller areas of Chinese territory than maps from elsewhere, presumably reflecting modern political concerns. For example, The Aksai Chin will never be included in Chinese's territory, even though it is actually controlled by China. Also, if Chinese maps will overestimate the territory of Chinese dynasties, then we should not use maps about ancient Western countries, such as Roman Empire, that were made by Western people.' That seems legit.--Alvin Lee 03:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, Nanzhao's independence is a FACT, and you should not ignore it. How could a country obtain independence if she was not ruled by any country? This is quite awkward.--Alvin Lee 03:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The symmetry you suggest just doesn't exist. China has territorial disputes with its neighbours, and is particularly sensitive about its historic claims to its minorities and the territories they occupy. State-approved atlases like Tan's support political objectives by promoting the impression that these areas have always belonged to China, by expanding the territory of historical empires with dubious claims (like Nanzhao above). Kanguole 02:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You are avoiding my questions. Nanzhao was once ruled by China, which is a fact that cannot be neglected. And you just say that all of this was only about politics. You are not viewing history with a correct perspective, but just thinks that all China's maps are incorrect and Western maps will always be correct. Do you ever think that Western country, such as USA, will make maps about China, which is smaller than what it actually was, in order to fulfill their political aims? This can be seen from the example of Aksai Chin. USA and China's relationship, I am sure that you should know about it, and it is usual for the Americans to draw maps which underestimate China's ancient territory.--Alvin Lee 04:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Besides, Tang Dynasty do established some administrating regions in Yunnan, such as 姚州, which was disestablished at 750, the same year when Nanzhao gain independence. Please refer to New Book of Tang 《新唐書》.--Alvin Lee 06:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
There are many problems of the map used in the article. Firstly, Tang dynasty conquered Goguryeo and Baekje, but the article used a map that does not reflect this fact. Also, Tang Dynasty once controlled Tuyuhun, and this was not shown too. Moreover, Tang Dynasty defeated and conquered Eastern Turkic Khaganate and Western Turkic Khaganate. All of these were not shown in the maps used. How could you say that map was "suitable"? It is even far from accurate.--Alvin Lee 09:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Nanzhao wasn't ruled by the Tang; it was set up by Piluoge uniting six tribes outside the Tang empire, encouraged by the Tang as a counter to their Tibetan enemies. Aksai Chin seems irrelevant, unless you are making the surprising claim that American scholars exclude it from historical maps to further US policy. The Tang occupation of part of Korea was brief, and well over by 700 AD. The Tang defeated the Tuyuhun and the Eastern Turks, but did not rule their territory. The area of the Western Turks is included; you probably mean the protectorates of Sogdiana and Tokharistan, but they were also short-lived, and long gone by 700 AD. Kanguole 01:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You got the point. The map in 700 AD was not the greatest extent of Tang Dynasty. Isn't it strange and incorrect to not use the greatest extent map for this article?--Alvin Lee 06:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
There are problems about your points. Firstly, Tang ruled Yunnan by Jimi system, which could also be considered as territory. secondly, China DO ruled over the land of Eastern Turks by 燕然都護府, and you cannot just ignore this historical facts again. Thirdly, the Aksai Chin example means that even now Western countries do make incorrect maps in order to fulfill their political aims, why wouldn't they do so on historical maps? Even the CIA The World Factbook is misleading--The land area of China is smaller than USA, where the Americans includes sea territory of America, but not for China. And you say no politics are included. So why are you sure that politics will not influence history? --Alvin Lee 07:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The point of the map in the infobox is to give the reader an idea of the territory of the empire. Using the greatest extent, when this includes briefly-held territories, gives a misleading impression.
You say "could be considered as territory" – the meaning of such relationships is contentious, and most historians don't consider these areas as Tang territory.
Modern maps produced by government agencies tend to depict the borders recognized by their governments – this tells us nothing of the practice of historians. Your complaint about the CIA World Factbook is irrelevant. Kanguole 13:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure that "most" historians don't consider these areas as Tang territory? I doubt that. And also, why Western empires uses maps showing their greatest extent, and this is not applicable for Chinese empires? Shouldn't all articles be unified? Allow me to use the example of Byzantine Empire:

The territory of Byzantine Empire in AD 555 is in its greatest extent, but that does not last long. So why not use the map showing the territory held by the empire which was not controlled briefly? The AD 867 map should be more appropriate instead. --Alvin Lee 03:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are no responds, then I will change the map of this article. Thank you.--Alvin Lee 04:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The notion that an infobox map on Wikipedia should show the largest extent of an empire/country instead of the one most commonly given in reliable sources seems truly ridiculous to me. I'm not a Tang expert, but I am inclined to agree with User:Kanguole that a map from The Cambridge History of China would probably be a reliable choice.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you've posted the same text at Talk:Ming dynasty, I've replied there. Kanguole 00:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the greatest extent map that I suggested was inaccurate and somehow overestimated the territory. However, since the map has to show the influence and military strength of an empire, why will you still insist to use a smaller one, but allow western empires to use one which shows the greatest extent? It is both ridiculous and misleading. As I said, Tang had once controlled more land such as Goguryeo, and that was not shown in the map. I won't force you to use the map I suggest, but I totally disagree to use the map used currently. Moreover, why in this article, the Cambridge map was considered as ""Reliable"", but in the Ming article, the map was said to be unreliable? That was awkward and unbelievable. If you still insist not to use the greatest extent map for Eastern countries, but saying yes for Western empires, I have no word to say.--Alvin Lee 05:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Who cares what other articles use? They probably have problems of their own, and we, probably not being experts on Byzantine history, can't really comment on what goes on in those articles. We only need to care about what we can do here with the reliable sources we have. _dk (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Ohhh, so now you say "who cares". So from now on articles should not have similar structures, and we could write articles without following certain formats. It will be a mess! That's why we need to unify the formats of article! Also, the Byzantine Empire example is used to disprove the statement "It is not necessary to use maps showing greatest extent". It seems that you have mistaken.--Alvin Lee 08:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "now you say", since that was my first time commenting on this thread. You also have fell onto a sort of slippery slope, exaggerating a relatively minor issue about maps into one about "following certain formats". To my knowledge, there is no style guide that says we must use the maximum extent of a former country. Perhaps an adequate solution is a map with more than one shade of colour showing Tang's "normal" possessions and another shade showing the greatest extent. _dk (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
So please explain why Western empires' map uses those shows their greatest extent? Don't throw out the Wikipedia:Othercrapexists--Alvin Lee 03:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Why can't I? _dk (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
(Chinese)为什么英文维基百科包括很多西方历史图集里面唐朝的地图不包含蒙古高原和高句丽? - 知乎 我从这个问答找到这里了。看来还是没解决?--林卯talk? 14:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The map of Tang dynasty have a lot of problem 1.貴州 was a part of tang dynasty 2.Mongol, northeast and middle Asia was a part of Tang about 50~100 year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.176.219.250 (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole:being historian does not mean being sceptical and cynical. Just because those protectarates were short lived does not mean they did not exist. Alexander's Empire were also short lived, but why is there a page about that? If you claim that the protectarates should not be shown on the map, none should the colonies of the colonial empires be shown. of course we should show the maximum extent of the dynasty on the map, cause that was the peak of the dynasty. Also, if we do not show that, it will misguide the readers and other wiki pages. the page of the list of largest empire, for example, had already been misguided. it will only reduce the credibility of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 16:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:林卯:我也被这个蠢材给气到了 这是旧唐书的一些关于版图的介绍 你自己看看吧

高昌 汉车师前王之庭。汉元帝置戊己校尉于此。以其地形高敞,故名高昌。其故垒有八城。张骏置高昌郡,后魏因之。魏末为蠕蠕所据,后麹嘉称高昌王于此数代。贞观十四年,讨平之,以其地为西州。其高昌国境,东西八百里,南北五百里。寻置都督府,又改为金山都督府。

  柳中 贞观十四年置   交河 县界有交河,水源出县北天山,一名祁连山,县取水名。地本汉车师前王庭   蒲昌 贞观十四年,于始昌故城置,县东南有蒲类海,胡人呼为婆悉海   天山 贞观十四年置,取祁连山为名。   北庭都护府 贞观十四年,侯君集讨高昌,西突厥屯兵于浮图城,与高昌相响应。及高昌平。二十年四月,西突厥泥伏沙钵罗叶护阿史那贺鲁率众内附,乃置庭州,处叶护部落。长安二年,改为北庭都护府。自永徽至天宝,北庭节度使管镇兵二万人,马五千匹;所统摄突骑施、坚昆、斩啜;又管瀚海、天山、伊吾三军镇兵万余人,马五千匹。至上元元年,陷吐蕃。旧领县一,户二千三百。天宝领县三,户二千二百二十六,口九千九百六十四。在京师西北五千七百二十里,东至伊州界六百八十里,南至西州界四百五十里,西至突骑施庭一千六百里,北至坚昆七千里,东至回鹘界一千七百里。   金满 流沙州北,前汉乌孙部旧地,方五千里。后汉车师后王庭。胡故庭有五城,俗号"五城之地"。贞观十四年平高昌后,置庭州以前,故及突厥常居之。   轮台 取汉轮台为名。   蒲类 海名   已上三县,贞观十四年与庭州同置。   瀚海军 开元中盖嘉运置,在北庭都护府城内,管镇兵万二千人,马四千二百匹。   天山军 开元中,置西州城内,管镇兵五千人,马五百匹。在都护府南五百里。   伊吾军 开元中置,在伊州西北五百里甘露川,管镇兵三千人,马三百匹,在北庭府东南七百里。   盐治州都督府 盐禄州都督府 阴山州都督府   大漠州都督府 轮台州都督府 金满州都督府   玄池州 哥系州 咽面州   金附州 孤舒州 西盐州   东盐州 叱勒州 迦瑟州   冯洛州 已上十六番州,杂戎胡部落,寄于北庭府界内,无州县户口,随地治畜牧。   安西大都护府 贞观十四年,侯君集平高昌,置西州都护府,治在西州。显庆二年十一月,苏定方平贺鲁,分其地置濛池、昆陵二都护府。分其种落,列置州县。于是,西尽波斯国,皆隶安西都护府。仍移安西都护府理所于高昌故地。三年五月,移安西府于龟兹国。旧安西府复为西州。龙朔元年,西域吐火罗款塞,乃于于阗以西、波斯以东十六国,皆置都督,督州八十,县一百一十,军府一百二十六,仍立碑于吐火罗以志之。咸亨元年四月,吐蕃陷安西都护府。至长寿二年,收复安西四镇,依前于龟兹国置安西都护府。至德后,河西、陇右戍兵皆征集,收复两京。上元元年,河西军镇多为吐蕃所陷。有旧将李元忠守北庭,郭昕守安西府,二镇与沙陀、回鹘相依,吐蕃久攻之不下。建中元年,元忠、昕遣使间道奏事,德宗嘉之,以元忠为北庭都护,昕为安西都护。其后,吐蕃急攻沙陀、回鹘部落,北庭、安西无援,贞元三年,竟陷吐蕃。   北庭都护府 本龟兹国。显庆中,自西州移府治于此。东至焉耆镇守八百里,西至疏勒镇守二千里,南至于阗二千里,东北至北庭府二千里,南至吐蕃界八百里,北至突骑施界雁沙川一千里。安西都护府,镇兵二万四千人,马二千七百匹。都护兼镇西节度使。   安西都护所统四镇   龟兹都护府 本龟兹国。其王姓白,理白山之南。去瓜州三千里,胜兵数千。贞观二十二年,阿史那社尒破之,虏龟兹王而还,乃于其地置都督府,领蕃州之九。至显庆三年,破贺鲁,仍自西州移安西府置于龟兹国城   毗沙都督府 本于阗国。在葱岭北二百里,胜兵数千。俗多机巧。其王伏阇信,贞观二十二年入朝。上元二年正月,置毗沙都督府,初管蕃州五。上元元年,分为十。在安西都护府西南二千里   疏勒都督府 本疏勒国。在白山之南,胜兵二千。去瓜州四千六百里。贞观九年,遣使朝贡,自是不绝。上元中,置疏勒都督府,在安西都护府西南二千里   焉耆都督府 本焉耆国。其王姓龙,名突骑支,常役于西突厥。俗有鱼鳖之利。贞观十八年,郭孝恪平之,由是臣属。上元中,置都督府处其部落,无蕃州。在安西都护府东八百里。   西域十六都督州府   龙朔元年,西域诸国,遣使来内属,乃分置十六都督府,州八十,县一百一十,军府一百二十六,皆隶安西都护府,仍于吐火罗国立碑以纪之。   月氏都督府 于吐火罗国所治遏换城置,以其王叶护领之。于其部内分置二十四州,都督统之   太汗都督府 于嚈哒部落所治活路城置,以其王太汗领之。仍分其部置十五州,太汗领之   条枝都督府 于诃达罗支国所治伏宝瑟颠城置,以其王领之。仍于其部分置八州   大马都督府 于解苏国所治数瞒城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置三州   高附都督府 于骨咄施国所治妖沙城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置三州   修鲜都督府 于罽宾国所治遏纥城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置十一州   写凤都督府 于失苑延国所治伏戾城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置四州   悦般都督府 于石汗那国所治艳城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置双縻州   奇沙州 于护特健国所治遏密城置,仍分其部置沛薄、大秦二州   和默州 于怛没国所治怛城置,仍分置栗弋州   挔扌敖州 于乌拉喝国所治摩竭城置   昆墟州 于护密多国所治抵宝那城置   至秬州 于俱密国所治措瑟城置   鸟飞州 于护密多国所治摸廷城置   王庭州 于久越得犍国所治步师城置   波斯都督府 于波斯国所治陵城置。   右西域诸国,分置羁縻州军府,皆属安西都护统摄。自天宝十四载已前,朝贡不绝。今于安西府事末纪之,以表太平之盛业也。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 16:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC) @User:林卯:隋季丧乱,群盗初附,权置州郡,倍于开皇、大业之间,贞观元年,悉令并省。始于山河形便,分为十道:一曰关内道,二曰河南道,三曰河东道,四曰河北道,五曰山南道,六曰陇右道,七曰淮南道,八曰江南道,九曰剑南道,十曰岭南道。至十三年定簿,凡州府三百五十八,县一千五百五十一。至十四年平高昌,又增二州六县。自北殄突厥颉利,西平高昌,北逾阴山,西抵大漠。其地东极海,西至焉耆,南尽林州南境,北接薛延陀界。凡东西九千五百一十里,南北万六千九百一十八里。高宗时,平高丽、百济,辽海已东,皆为州,俄而复叛,不入提封。2A00:23C5:3405:1700:89C2:EE07:4481:5579 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Organization of this article[edit]

Hi, I just discovered this article a few days ago and it seems to be a well referenced article (although I have no access to the books that it uses as references). There seems to me to be a major problem with the article readability though. It's currently rather confusingly organized with just about everything being placed under the section heading "history" and then the actual history of the Tang Dynasty (it's establishment, rise, decline and fall) all being scattered throughout the page. In addition some of the sentence structure is extremely difficult to follow and even things in the history section doesn't necessarily follow chronological ordering. Does anyone have any suggestions on how this can be fixed? I think an easy way to fix it would be to follow a similar format to a country page and remove things like "Military and Foreign Policy," and "trade" from the history section and let the history section simply provide a general overview of the dynasty's period of rule.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Silk road[edit]

Excerpts from this article have been copied to Silk Road following the rule Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ERA[edit]

This edit established the usage of the page as BC/AD. Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 15:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR[edit]

Similarly, this edit established the usage of the page as American English. Kindly eschew Britishisms. — LlywelynII 15:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead clutter[edit]

WP:MOS-ZH advocates not including the Chinese and other languages in the lead a third time when we've already got everything available in two separate infoboxes immediately to the right. I'm all for that, although we might want to force {{Chinese}} to display the romanizations by default. In any case, pinyin is phonetic and there is never any reason to display Chinese IPA: it's completely unhelpful both to people who don't know enough Chinese to read pinyin and to those who already do. Leave it in the infobox or at Wiktionary and link the characters. — LlywelynII 15:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

With this sentence

The dynasty was briefly interrupted when Empress Wu Zetian seized the throne, proclaiming the Second Zhou dynasty (October 8, 690 – March 3, 705) and becoming the only Chinese empress regnant.

I'm all for keeping the information on the page, but I think it's distracting rather than helpful to have such overly precise dating for the overview section. — LlywelynII 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the information was wrong. Fixed, with cites. — LlywelynII 16:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam[edit]

The current treatment is pretty risible. Vietnam wasn't an "influenced" "neighboring" "polity" and "state". Vietnam itself was a fully annexed part of the country from the establishment of the dynasty. It derived its name "Annam" from the Tang administrative reforms. (There were also another 5 or 7 'protectorates' formed for the Tang borders that we should mention, along with providing a list of the provinces, &c.)

The territory of present-day Vietnam had some independent states, but they weren't Viet but Cham, Khmer, &c. — LlywelynII 16:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Quotations[edit]

One editor objected to a three sentence quote from a leading scholar on the Tang Dynasty. It follows the guidelines, wp:QUOTE ="Quotations are a good way to comply with the no original research policy". Paraphrasing this 60-word succinct summary of the latest scholarship would be a challenge--let the critic try his hand and I bet he cannot paraphrase it well. Rjensen (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It can be paraphrased, and that is part of encyclopedic writing. As WP:QUOTE says further down, "Quotes shouldn't replace plain, concise text". In particular, we shouldn't have a quotation dominating the introduction. Kanguole 10:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sogdians[edit]

Looking back on writing this article, I am wondering why I left out the Sogdians so much, considering their prominent role in Tang affairs. I've since tried to remedy this, by adding information like the changing of Li Baoyu's surname from An to Li in the nobility section. Some more could be said about them under the foreign relations section.Pericles of AthensTalk 09:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I also just added info about them in regards to their spreading of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Manichaeism.Pericles of AthensTalk 11:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Native name of the Tang Empire[edit]

How come Middle Chinese is not used as the native name of the Tang Empire, interested in understanding Alexis Ivanov (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Alexis Ivanov! I'm not even sure where to find the Middle Chinese pronunciation for "Tang Dynasty", even though there are books on the subject of Middle Chinese (modelled on the dialect of the Tang capital Chang'an, centuries before early Mandarin Chinese developed from the spoken dialect of the Yuan-dynasty capital Dadu, or Khanbaliq, modern-day Beijing). I think the older research by Bernhard Karlgren has been largely superseded by Edwin G. Pulleyblank, but you could probably refer to the works of either of them. Perhaps one of them mentions the Middle-Chinese pronunciation for the "Tang Dynasty", at least in passing. Good luck finding it! Pericles of AthensTalk 12:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I never really noticed it before, but if you look at the language info box right in the introduction, and click the "show" button, it shows you the pronunciation of "Tang Dynasty" in not only modern standard Mandarin but also Cantonese, Min, and Middle Chinese! The Middle Chinese pronunciation of "Tang Dynasty" was dang djew. Compare that to Standard Mandarin: Táng cháo, Wu Chinese: Dáõn záu, Yue Cantonese: Tong4 ciu4, and Southern Min: Tông tiâu. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tang dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained massive addition of content in new "religion" section, even though there's already a "Religion and philosophy" section below[edit]

Recently, an editor added a massive amount of new information on religion, or should I say information that is more or less a repeat of information already found lower down in the article? This introduces multiple hectic and unnecessary problems for a Featured Article, which is supposed to have very high standards and to remain fairly static, without huge sweeping changes. You are certainly not allowed to add a massive amount of material without discussion on the talk page first, if not building consensus and approval for your additions by the Wikipedia community. Please do not add this information back into the article. I will see about accommodating some of it in the already existing "Religion and philosophy" section, which you seemed to have entirely ignored. I added a link to "Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution" for now, but to be honest, the current section already covers most of what you tried to introduce into the article, with a needless second section on religion. By the way, the first sub-section "Religion and politics" only exists to explain a very limited subject, that is how religion interacted with the political sphere. A more thorough discussion of religion is given below, in the appropriate sub-section where all that material belongs. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 19:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yprpyqp: this article is also quite large as it is per the constraints and rules of thumb in WP:SIZE (I recommend that you read this entire page before editing articles in the future). Perhaps you could make a new sub-article about religion during the Tang dynasty, and link it here in the main article? That way your information won't be lost, but at the same time it would not be bloating and ballooning an article that is arguably a bit too large as it is. --Pericles of AthensTalk 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Area in infobox[edit]

The recently introduced area figure of 12,370,000 sq km is sourced to a self-published article, presumably calculated based on Tan Qixiang's maps. While Tan's Atlas is certainly an academic source, other reliable sources have specifically disagreed with his expansive drawing of the outer frontier. For both of these reasons, we should not use the figure in the infobox, which should represent the scholarly consensus. Kanguole 09:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll note that the above figure has also been added at List of largest empires, with no source to support it. TompaDompa (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

the maximum size of the Tang empire should be somehow included in the size page. since the size of the empire was the direct reflection of its military force, human resources and natural resources. in the historic atlas of China from historian Qixiang, it clearly showed that the land area of the empire reached its maximum size in 669AD[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 12:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I have already responded to this above. Kanguole 12:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

the data of 12370000 was derived from a chinese website[2]. it seemed to be the project of a university student. But, the point here is the Tang empire reached its maximum size at the year of 669, which could be backed up by the primary source, the old book of Tang[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 12:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

it is also visually self-evident that the tang was around the similar size with the Qing dynasty at its maximum size from the atlas of tan qixiang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 12:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

To repeat: the figure is from a self-published source, and so is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Primary sources like the Book of Tang are also unsuitable references. As for the map that the student project appears to be based on, Tan's Atlas is certainly an academic source, but other reliable sources have specifically disagreed with his expansive drawing of outer frontiers. It therefore does not represent scholarly consensus, which is what is needed here. Kanguole 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

if the primary source is not reliable, what could be counted as reliable sources? are you sure the secondary sources would be more reliable than the primary one? if the primary sources are not reliable, then none of the sources would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 12:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. TompaDompa (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

also, many topics are under acdemic debate, but can you not create a page for those topics? if so, many wikipedia pages could be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 12:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

moreover, the page of largest empire clearly get the data wrong, since the year 715 was cetarinly not the largest extent for the Tang Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 12:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Academic debates can be presented in a balanced fashion in the body of an appropriate article. But we can't just pick one side and present that as the definitive data in the infobox. (Leaving aside that this figure doesn't come from one side of the scholarly debate, but from a student paper.) Kanguole 13:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

im pretty sure many land area of acient empires are debatable, can you explain how did wikipedia presented those datas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 13:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

also i did not add my own interpretation on the old book of Tang, i just simply extracted the hard facts and datas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 13:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

the old book of Tang was the historic census for the state that that time, how come it is unsuitable for the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 13:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As with any issue, we seek the consensus of reliable secondary sources.
The problem with using ancient histories is that they provide an insider's view; we need modern historical scholarship to interpret them. Kanguole 15:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

but for things like the facts, the primary sources could provide a more accurate data basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 15:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC) obviously, some historians like Qixiang had already extracted useful information from the primary sources. i don't see why you still doubt the year of 669 was the largest extent of Tang territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 15:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is about the area, not the year. Kanguole 21:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

but my point is the year should be mentioned. it's also visually self-evident that the area was around that number by comparing to the map of Qing dynasty. of course, if we can find a better data for that year we should use it.Gl72099 (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa:also in the page of largest empire, it clearly got the wrong informationGl72099 (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC) the year 715 was clearly not the largest extent of the Tang Dynasty. Therefore, it will misguided the readers and reduce the credibility of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 10:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: you have mentioned that there are other academic sources and scholars who disagree with the figures for the Tang Empire's surface area as presented in the The Historical Atlas of China (1982-1988) by Tan Qixiang. Can you list these other sources please? With page numbers? Links and quotes would be nice if you could muster them as well. All of this would be helpful in order to demonstrate that there is indeed consensus among reliable sources that Tan's work is either outdated or simply incorrect. The last thing we need is an edit war over something so trivial as the infobox in an otherwise Featured Article. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen Tan Qixiang's atlas criticized by other scholars as well (such as James Millward in his writings about Xinjiang and Central Asia), but the criticism is less about accuracy than the practice of painting borderlands in solid colours and giving a misleading impression of solid control when in reality the empire's hold on remote borderlands was fleeting or tenuous. This is a problem that plagues most maps of ancient empires (especially at their "greatest extent"), not just Tan's. Tan's atlas is still widely cited and has not been superseded by a more authoritative or updated work, although his student Zhou Zhenhe has published the 13-volume General History of Chinese Administrative Divisions, which revised many details of Tan's work, mainly based on new archaeological findings made in recent decades. -Zanhe (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The surface area figure being pushed does not come from Tan's altas, but from some student paper on the web. It is, however, claimed to be calculated based on Tan's maps. Tan's altas is considered authoritative for many things, but one aspect it has been criticised for is the portral of extensive outer boundaries of earlier empires, including the Tang, often based on contentious claims, e.g. references 5, 6 and 7 in the Atlas article. Kanguole 23:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)the

@User:Kanguole: according to your logic, none of the area of ancient empires should be approved and put on wikipedia, including the Roman Empire and Macedonian Empire, sincev they were all debatable. I think I have already made my point very clear here that we should include the largest territory extent of Tang dynasty in this page, no matter with 12,370,000 or not (if you can provide a better one, that will be great).Gl72099 (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There already was a figure in the infobox, but for some reason it did not show up on the page. I fixed that. TompaDompa (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa:the problem is that figure of 715 was not the largest extent of Tang dynasty, i think people here would all agree with that.Gl72099 (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa:that is why i say it will misguide the readers and other wikipedia pages, if we don't put the largest extent of the dynasty on the page.@User:Kanguole:Gl72099 (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually I'm not sure that 669 was the high water mark: if follows the successful Korean campaign in 668 and precededs the Korean revolt in 670, but is also postdates the revolt of the Dulu and Nushibi in 665. Tang control over the periphery was unstable over much of this time. We need to rely on reliable sources, and there is a reliable source for the 715 figure. Kanguole 13:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole:it is under schoolar concensus on that year. it could be backed up by the evidence from the primary source. here is one description from the old book of tang:自隋季丧乱,群盗初附,权置州郡,倍于开皇、大业之间,贞观元年,悉令并省。始于山河形便,分为十道:一曰关内道,二曰河南道,三曰河东道,四曰河北道,五曰山南道,六曰陇右道,七曰淮南道,八曰江南道,九曰剑南道,十曰岭南道。至十三年定簿,凡州府三百五十八,县一千五百五十一。至十四年平高昌,又增二州六县。自北殄突厥颉利,西平高昌,北逾阴山,西抵大漠。其地东极海,西至焉耆,南尽林州南境,北接薛延陀界。凡东西九千五百一十里,南北万六千九百一十八里。高宗时,平高丽、百济,辽海已东,皆为州,俄而复叛,不入提封。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 13:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole:高昌 汉车师前王之庭。汉元帝置戊己校尉于此。以其地形高敞,故名高昌。其故垒有八城。张骏置高昌郡,后魏因之。魏末为蠕蠕所据,后麹嘉称高昌王于此数代。贞观十四年,讨平之,以其地为西州。其高昌国境,东西八百里,南北五百里。寻置都督府,又改为金山都督府。

  柳中 贞观十四年置

  交河 县界有交河,水源出县北天山,一名祁连山,县取水名。地本汉车师前王庭

  蒲昌 贞观十四年,于始昌故城置,县东南有蒲类海,胡人呼为婆悉海

  天山 贞观十四年置,取祁连山为名。

  北庭都护府 贞观十四年,侯君集讨高昌,西突厥屯兵于浮图城,与高昌相响应。及高昌平。二十年四月,西突厥泥伏沙钵罗叶护阿史那贺鲁率众内附,乃置庭州,处叶护部落。长安二年,改为北庭都护府。自永徽至天宝,北庭节度使管镇兵二万人,马五千匹;所统摄突骑施、坚昆、斩啜;又管瀚海、天山、伊吾三军镇兵万余人,马五千匹。至上元元年,陷吐蕃。旧领县一,户二千三百。天宝领县三,户二千二百二十六,口九千九百六十四。在京师西北五千七百二十里,东至伊州界六百八十里,南至西州界四百五十里,西至突骑施庭一千六百里,北至坚昆七千里,东至回鹘界一千七百里。

  金满 流沙州北,前汉乌孙部旧地,方五千里。后汉车师后王庭。胡故庭有五城,俗号"五城之地"。贞观十四年平高昌后,置庭州以前,故及突厥常居之。

  轮台 取汉轮台为名。

  蒲类 海名

  已上三县,贞观十四年与庭州同置。

  瀚海军 开元中盖嘉运置,在北庭都护府城内,管镇兵万二千人,马四千二百匹。

  天山军 开元中,置西州城内,管镇兵五千人,马五百匹。在都护府南五百里。

  伊吾军 开元中置,在伊州西北五百里甘露川,管镇兵三千人,马三百匹,在北庭府东南七百里。

  盐治州都督府 盐禄州都督府 阴山州都督府

  大漠州都督府 轮台州都督府 金满州都督府

  玄池州 哥系州 咽面州

  金附州 孤舒州 西盐州

  东盐州 叱勒州 迦瑟州

  冯洛州 已上十六番州,杂戎胡部落,寄于北庭府界内,无州县户口,随地治畜牧。

  安西大都护府 贞观十四年,侯君集平高昌,置西州都护府,治在西州。显庆二年十一月,苏定方平贺鲁,分其地置濛池、昆陵二都护府。分其种落,列置州县。于是,西尽波斯国,皆隶安西都护府。仍移安西都护府理所于高昌故地。三年五月,移安西府于龟兹国。旧安西府复为西州。龙朔元年,西域吐火罗款塞,乃于于阗以西、波斯以东十六国,皆置都督,督州八十,县一百一十,军府一百二十六,仍立碑于吐火罗以志之。咸亨元年四月,吐蕃陷安西都护府。至长寿二年,收复安西四镇,依前于龟兹国置安西都护府。至德后,河西、陇右戍兵皆征集,收复两京。上元元年,河西军镇多为吐蕃所陷。有旧将李元忠守北庭,郭昕守安西府,二镇与沙陀、回鹘相依,吐蕃久攻之不下。建中元年,元忠、昕遣使间道奏事,德宗嘉之,以元忠为北庭都护,昕为安西都护。其后,吐蕃急攻沙陀、回鹘部落,北庭、安西无援,贞元三年,竟陷吐蕃。

  北庭都护府 本龟兹国。显庆中,自西州移府治于此。东至焉耆镇守八百里,西至疏勒镇守二千里,南至于阗二千里,东北至北庭府二千里,南至吐蕃界八百里,北至突骑施界雁沙川一千里。安西都护府,镇兵二万四千人,马二千七百匹。都护兼镇西节度使。

  安西都护所统四镇

  龟兹都护府 本龟兹国。其王姓白,理白山之南。去瓜州三千里,胜兵数千。贞观二十二年,阿史那社尒破之,虏龟兹王而还,乃于其地置都督府,领蕃州之九。至显庆三年,破贺鲁,仍自西州移安西府置于龟兹国城

  毗沙都督府 本于阗国。在葱岭北二百里,胜兵数千。俗多机巧。其王伏阇信,贞观二十二年入朝。上元二年正月,置毗沙都督府,初管蕃州五。上元元年,分为十。在安西都护府西南二千里

  疏勒都督府 本疏勒国。在白山之南,胜兵二千。去瓜州四千六百里。贞观九年,遣使朝贡,自是不绝。上元中,置疏勒都督府,在安西都护府西南二千里

  焉耆都督府 本焉耆国。其王姓龙,名突骑支,常役于西突厥。俗有鱼鳖之利。贞观十八年,郭孝恪平之,由是臣属。上元中,置都督府处其部落,无蕃州。在安西都护府东八百里。

  西域十六都督州府

  龙朔元年,西域诸国,遣使来内属,乃分置十六都督府,州八十,县一百一十,军府一百二十六,皆隶安西都护府,仍于吐火罗国立碑以纪之。

  月氏都督府 于吐火罗国所治遏换城置,以其王叶护领之。于其部内分置二十四州,都督统之

  太汗都督府 于嚈哒部落所治活路城置,以其王太汗领之。仍分其部置十五州,太汗领之

  条枝都督府 于诃达罗支国所治伏宝瑟颠城置,以其王领之。仍于其部分置八州

  大马都督府 于解苏国所治数瞒城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置三州

  高附都督府 于骨咄施国所治妖沙城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置三州

  修鲜都督府 于罽宾国所治遏纥城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置十一州

  写凤都督府 于失苑延国所治伏戾城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置四州

  悦般都督府 于石汗那国所治艳城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置双縻州

  奇沙州 于护特健国所治遏密城置,仍分其部置沛薄、大秦二州

  和默州 于怛没国所治怛城置,仍分置栗弋州

  挔扌敖州 于乌拉喝国所治摩竭城置

  昆墟州 于护密多国所治抵宝那城置

  至秬州 于俱密国所治措瑟城置

  鸟飞州 于护密多国所治摸廷城置

  王庭州 于久越得犍国所治步师城置

  波斯都督府 于波斯国所治陵城置。

  右西域诸国,分置羁縻州军府,皆属安西都护统摄。自天宝十四载已前,朝贡不绝。今于安西府事末纪之,以表太平之盛业也。le]]:it was certainly unstable, but does not mean it was not the largest extent.Gl72099 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole:if you can understand classic Chinese, you will understand the largest extent of the dynasty in 669 is not only under schoolar's concensus, but also a common sense for many people.Gl72099 (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have explained why we cannot use ancient sources, but in any case that quotation does not substantiate the figure you want to add. Kanguole 14:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: please read all my comments and reply. show some respect ok? I have already stated but for things like the facts, the primary sources could provide a more accurate data basis. and those descriptions were all simply the descriptions of facts, i did not add a single of my own interpretation.Gl72099 (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC) @User:Kanguole: do you actually understand the policy of wikipedia or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 14:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


@User:Kanguole: even for the map of Qixiang Tan, I don't think it showed the full size of the Tang empire, since the primary source mentioned the Tang Dynasty set up a Persia protectorate in modern day Iran 波斯都督府 于波斯国所治陵城置。

@User:TompaDompa: thanks for replying. I think we should consider to change the page of the largest empire first, since I think we had made consensus here that the year of 669 was the largest extent of the Tang Dynasty instead of 715. the dispute is only about the precise number.Gl72099 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. We need to have a single source for both the year and the area. TompaDompa (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa: what do you mean by that?Gl72099 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The year and the area need to come from the same source. We can't use the year from one source and the area from another, because that violates WP:SYNTH. TompaDompa (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa:but the problem is that page produce wrong information now, since it supposed to provide the largest extent of empires, and the year of 715 was not the largest extent for the Tang Dynasty. we had made consensus about that. it is a huge error if we simply ignore it.Gl72099 (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no such consensus. I see two different academic sources that place the peak in 715 with the area 5.4 million square km. In case you can't access Taagepera's article[4], here's what it says on the relevant page:

T'ang-Chin-Sung

610 3.1 He,W Sui unification of China since 589
650 3.6 W T'ang dynasty since 618; He: 3.0 Mm2
660 4.9 He,W +/-.5 W. Turkestan conquered
670 3.9 W,He +/-.8 Turkestan lost, Balkash region added
692 4.9 W,He +/-.5 Turkestan retaken from Tufan
715 5.4 W,He +/-.3
751 4.6 W,He +/-.5 Balkash region lost; conflict with Arabs
766 3.6 W,He +/-.5
(The table then continues on the following page.) At most, what you can do is remove it wholesale, per our WP:Editing policy: on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content. TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa: it is not even the problem of debatable or not. it is the problem of wrong information. it is more serious and problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 22:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC) @User:TompaDompa: so in your opinion, how should we fix it?Gl72099 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Either locate a WP:RELIABLE source that verifies your assertion and cite it, or remove the area for the Tang dynasty altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa: removing area for the Tang Dynasty does solve the problem, since it still provide wrong information. the source you provided does not show many conquer and lost territory of the Tang Dynasty, the korean part for example. none did it claim that 715 was the largest extent of the Tang Dynasty. but the map from historian Qixiang had shown that 669 was the largest extent of the Tang Dynasty. so in your opinion, which source should we use? I even cited the primary source, the old book of Tang to back Qixiang's map up.Gl72099 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa:I think the problem here is only about the precise number not about the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 22:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa: removing the Tang Dynasty only makes the list more incorrect, since it indicate that the Tang Dynasty was not on the list.Gl72099 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow. Taagepera clearly gives 715 as the year of the greatest extent (as do Turchin, Adams, and Hall[5]), and the area as 5.4 million square km. I don't understand what you mean by I think the problem here is only about the precise number not about the year. I'd also argue that the list being more incomplete does not make it more incorrect. TompaDompa (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa:I think we should probably use the data of 12,370,000 sq km first, since it was s project based Qixiang's map, and it is the closest data to the actual facts so far.Gl72099 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa: and if we can find a better data later on, we could change it.Gl72099 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa: cause it did not mention all the protectorates of the Tang Dynasty documented in the primary source, making it less reliable source.Gl72099 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not an option. We can't replace two scholarly sources with a student project. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa: that actually makes sense to me if the list is still incomplete, but we should mention it.Gl72099 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:TompaDompa: I think we could actually remove the Tang Dynasty from the list for now, and mention the list is still incomplete.

@User:TompaDompa: as for the source you provide, I think it would understandable for that scholar to make some mistakes, since he did the statistic for so many empires; however, Qixiang was an expert in Chinese history, who knew classic Chinese very well, making him more expertise on the issue of Tang Dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 23:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC) because he could get the access to the primary sources easily.

@User:TompaDompa:you actually have your point here that we should not replace the works from scholars by student project, but I don't think it will make the list necessarily more reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 23:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You say the figure is incorrect, but it is directly supported by reliable sources. If you wish to propose an alternative figure, you will need to provide one that is reliably sourced.
You keep suggesting that we use primary sources, although it has been repeatedly pointed out that this is against policy (WP:PRIMARY). Your remark about a Persia protectorate is an excellent example of the reason for this policy. Kanguole 09:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: please go read and understand the policy first ok? “Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.” how many time should I repeat myself that i only used the facts part of the primary source? historian Qixiang's map was also based on the Old Book of Tang. don't make me feel that Im talking to an alien.Gl72099 (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statements in an ancient source are not "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". They are the views of someone writing from a particular viewpoint for particular purposes. They need to be assessed by modern historians, weighing multiple sources and considering the context of their authors. Your reading that the area of modern Iran was part of the Tang empire is a case in point: it would surely be contradicted by Arab sources, many of them written in the area in question. Kanguole 13:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: I don't see why a simply statement of the facts in the primary source would have a particular purpose. as i mentioned before, you are being extremely sceptical and cynical. If you say it is contradicted by Arab sources, please cite the primary Arab source.Gl72099 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: do you know history? did you even study history in the university? the basic requirement for history students in university is using facts from primary sources instead of secondary one. you can only use facts from the secondary sources if you can not find the primary sources.Gl72099 (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Control of an area is not a straightforward matter, and claims of control have an obvious political dimension. I won't be engaging in comparing primary sources, because my point (and Wikipedia policy) is that we should leave that to the specialists, but you might like to read up on the Muslim conquest of Persia. Analysing primary sources (which are seldom simple facts) is indeed part of historical research, but such research is explicitly rejected as a means of writing Wikipedia articles, which are supposed to be based on the published research of subject experts. That is the essence of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Kanguole 15:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Kanguole is correct here about Wiki policy regarding the use of primary sources. Primary sources can be used, but they should almost always be buttressed by input from modern scholarship on the matter. Come on, Gl72099, is it that hard for you to find a secondary source that corroborates the figure you've cited for the maximum area of the Tang Empire in the 7th century? If you have access to a university library, as you seem to be hinting here, then by all means find a reliable source on the matter. Otherwise, this conversation is rather pointless. A better conversation would be a discussion about academic consensus and whether the secondary sources disagree with one another on this issue specifically. I am now well aware about the general criticisms aimed at Tan Qixiang's historical atlas, but it would be great if someone could find a secondary source directly refuting the accuracy of his maps for the Tang Empire. In the meantime, I have looked around for articles on JSTOR, but haven't found anything relevant to this topic. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
As for Google Books, the only thing I've been able to find is this quote from John J. Butt's Daily Life in the Age of Charlemagne (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002, p. 11): "Far from the Carolingian Empire, the great Tang dynasty of China provides an interesting comparison. After the famous Han dynasty that was comparable to the Roman Empire, China fell into an extended period of division and civil war. China was reunified under the Sui, but the Sui overextended themselves. The Tang dynasty that followed lasted for three hundred years, 618-907, and was contemporaneous with the Frankish empire. The Tang ruled an area more than 1,000 miles wide by more than 1,500 miles long, an area well over twice the size of the empire of Charlemagne." Obviously these nice round figures "1,000 miles" and "1,500 miles" are approximations and not precise figures. Perhaps it is better to couch things in vague terms, though, considering the apparent haziness of the Tang empire's borders. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual (2012), p. 246 says:
"In his 1987 afterword to volume 8, Tan points out that many non-Chinese local rulers, particularly in the South, were simply not included.
He also states that the editorial policy of drawing the boundaries of China to include all jimi Zhou 羁府州 in the Tang and Song and tusi 土司 in the Yuan and Ming, and jimi wei 羁府衛 and suo 所 in the Ming was a weakness."
The jimi are the primary source of the difference between the boundaries in Tan's Tang maps and those of other authors. Kanguole 19:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: from the quote you provided, it seems to suggest that the Tang territory was even bigger not smaller than Qixiang's map, since it suggested many areas were not included.2A00:23C5:3405:1700:DDDB:B0C3:D9B2:D411 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it suggests the opposite: he drew the boundaries in his maps to include these areas, but later regretted it. Kanguole 20:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:PericlesofAthens: the logic here is that the Old Book of Tang is the primary source. Qixiang's map is the secondary source. Qixiang's map was based the old book of Tang, so it is the interpretation of the primary source. that is why I put the facts from the primary source.Gl72099 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:PericlesofAthens: we can see from the primary source that the Tang territory extended from east to west 9510 li(4755km), and from north to south 16918 li(8459 km).(凡东西九千五百一十里,南北万六千九百一十八里) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 20:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: can you quote the full citation here?

If you mean the book I was quoting: Wilkinson, Endymion (2012). Chinese History: A New Manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard-Yenching Institute; Harvard University Asia Center. p. 246. ISBN 978-0-674-06715-8.  If you mean the text of Tan's afterword, I don't have access to it. Kanguole 21:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: also what is the political dimension for that? please explain it. it is as absurd as we should not use UN data for American land area.Gl72099 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: no I mean the quote directly argues against Tan's map.Gl72099 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I gave the above quote in response to Pericles' question. I hope he finds it helpful. Kanguole 21:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: because the quote you provided was from Tan himself. from my understanding of the quotation, he suggested that many areas were not included. it means the map is smaller than the true size of the dynasty. Moreover, it only admitted the weakness. it cannot suggest that the map does not have its credibility.Gl72099 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are unable to understand the quotation. I hope others will find it more useful. Kanguole 21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Kanguole: having weakness does not mean it is unreliable.

@User:Kanguole: Im asking you to provide a secondary source that directly argue against Tan's map.

@User:Kanguole: what secondary source does not have its weakness anyway?

@User:Kanguole: and I also asking you to provide the full context of his words and cite it, just like what I did for my sources. otherwise, your argument would not be convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 21:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tang dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ qixiang tan, historic atlas of China, volume 5, http://www.guoxue123.com/other/map/zgmap/009.htm. the land size of China,https://wenku.baidu.com/view/ddbb91ea284ac850ad0242c2.html
  2. ^ the land size of China,https://wenku.baidu.com/view/ddbb91ea284ac850ad0242c2.html
  3. ^ http://www.guoxue123.com/shibu/0101/00jts/041.htm
  4. ^ Rein Taagepera (September 1997). "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia". International Studies Quarterly. 41 (3): 492. doi:10.1111/0020-8833.00053. Retrieved 16 September 2016. 
  5. ^ Turchin, Peter; Adams, Jonathan M.; Hall, Thomas D (December 2006). "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires". Journal of world-systems research. 12 (2): 222. ISSN 1076-156X. Retrieved 16 September 2016.