Talk:Tang dynasty

Wu Zetian interregnum justifying discontinuity in establishment years in infobox / header?

Under what historiography, dynastic classification, or academic authority is this article justifying Wu Zetian's Zhou dynasty be considered a discontinuity in Tang dynasty? The Zhou dynasty (690–705) article itself even states Traditionalist Chinese historiography considers the dynasty as a period of the Tang dynasty. Deviating from that means this article (Tang dynasty) is choosing a different historiographic viewpoint.

I agree with the need of the article Zhou dynasty (690–705) and the fact that it is prominently mentioned in a major section in this article. Unless academic consensus can be identified, I am wondering if this is applying European/Egyptian dynastic conventions to Chinese dynasties. Voidvector (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the sources do tend to treat it as part of the Tang period. Perhaps User:Morrisonjohn022, who made this change a few years ago, whould care to comment. Kanguole 11:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Wu Zhou is typically considered part of the "Tang period" or "Tang era" (唐代) for historiographical purpose. But Wu Zhou is not part of the "Tang dynasty" (唐朝). A distinction needs to be made between historiographical "period"/"era" and "dynasty". In addition, proper sources such as (i) The Sinitic Civilization Book I: A Factual History Through the Lens of Archaeology, Bronzeware, Astronomy, Divination, Calendar and the Annals; (ii) Digitized Statecraft of Four Asian Regionalisms: States' Multilateral Treaty Participation and Citizens' Satisfaction with Quality of Life; (iii) Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors: Culture, Power, and Connections, 580-800, etc. do in fact label the Tang dynasty as "618–690, 705–907". Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The Zhou Dynasty article says in the lead "Historians generally view the Wu Zhou as an interregnum of the Tang dynasty." That seems to be the same viewpoint as presented by the infobox here (which includes the Zhou Dynasty dates in small type, below).

I don't see how European/Egyptian dynastic conventions are relevant. Furius (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Morrisonjohn022: This article is not about bloodlines, it is about a historical country/regime. The name "dynasty" is simply a proxy for the country/regime. Most books use the historiographical definition -- simply search Google Books for "Tang dynasty", there are two appearances of "618-907" on the first page of the search result (don't even need to click into individual books). It is possible to cherry-pick sources to get results you like, but AFAICT those are unorthodox. The current definition also misses other short-lived rebel dynasties such as that of Yan (An–Shi).

@Furius: I am simply questioning 1) What is this article's definition of "Tang dynasty" or "Chinese dynasty" in general in terms of start/end year? 2) Who's definitions are those or what source did they come from? 3) Are those sources of sufficient authority to overrule Chinese histographical convention? --Voidvector (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I am going to change the current header from "618–690, 705–907 (690–705: Wu Zhou)" to "618–907 (690–705: Wu Zhou)". This is consistent with more common convention I mentioned above, while still mentioning the notable achievement of Wu Zhou. I will also add footnote item indicating it is an interregnum by the Empress. --Voidvector (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Anbei protectorate and chanyu protectorate

Please explain why anbei prptectorate and chanyu protectorat should not exist,User:Kanguole. 163.136.36.58 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The northern areas are not included in the map of Tang territory because the cited source maps do not include them. Kanguole 10:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

How many reliable are the "cited source maps"? 163.136.36.56 (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

(Just so you know, you only pinged me with that by creating a piped link.)

• Cambridge and Oxford University Press are generally reliable sources according to our content guidelines. Particularly, The Cambridge History of China is a very well-respected anthology.
• Denis Twitchett and Mark Elvin are fairly well-known as sinologists go. Michael Shin is a director of geography at UCLA.
• More concretely, there have been no criticisms of the research (or self-retractions) from fellow academics like that of the other proposed source material as far as I am aware of.

Is there an answer to this question that will satisfy you? Please rebuff me if I'm being insensitive, but it seems there's an unbridgeable gap because we do not happen to be using sources originally published in China. Remsense诉 11:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's probably a mistake when copying and pasting the mention link, don't worry about it.

Therefore, please write not only the names of the researchers, also write it down their claims in the main body of the article.

Otherwise it won't solve the problem. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Lucky for you, the sources are cited inline one after another in the map caption. Are you asking for me to copy-paste the relevant passages in their entirety? Remsense诉 11:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like the article on "Tang Dynasty" to be written in an easy-to-understand manner.

To ensure that the infobox map, article text, and real-world historical materials do not contradict each other. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you know how to edit Wikipedia articles? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blunden & Elvin (1983), pp. 26, 92–93: https://archive.org/details/culturalatlasofc00blun_0
• Twitchett & Wechsler (1979), p. 281: https://books.google.com/books?id=idu6-Ie1MhwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Volume+3%3A+Sui+and+T%27ang+China%2C+589%E2%80%93906&newbks=0&hl=en&ovdme=1&ovso=1#v=onepage&q=281
• Shin, Michael D., ed. (2014), pp. 39, 47: https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781107098466/page/n1/mode/2up

Feel free to compare and contrast with the sourcing given in the image description, I hope I've already done the needful. I've been very generous with my time and I'm not really interested in doing rote verification of fairly accessible material by those who should be able to do so themselves. Remsense诉 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it true that even though it has been edited over 20,000 times, you still don't know how to write the content of the information source in the article? ? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you find any discrepancies between the map and its cited sources. Remsense诉 11:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to find a contradiction

It would be enough to simply explain to Wikipedia readers "Why Anbei protectorate and chanyu protectorate cannot be included in the map of the Tang dynasty's territory." 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

As the title of this discussion says, I have said it over and over again.

so don't be shy, I'm sure you can do it. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm easily accessible, but is that the case for the masses who read my articles?

I guess you've never thought about it seriously. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you upset with the concept of citation? That's not my problem. Let me know if you find something. Remsense诉 11:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not that I'm angry.

There is a good chance that everyone who will refer to Wikipedia from now on will feel confused and angry at the contradictions in the article.

Are you willing to fulfill your role as an editor? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

would you have the sources of the researchers' claims at hand? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll come tomorrow or the next night to check your results. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't bother unless you're pointing out a specific contradiction between the article and the sources it cites. Remsense诉 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The Territorial Map is completely inaccurate

Where is Korean peninsula for the Tang's territorial map? I think it was well documented around 660 AD Tang has full authority control over the entire Korean peninsula yet the map does not show it at all. More importantly, modern Mongolia and the area all the way extending to lake Baikal was also controlled by Tang Dynasty ( 646--696) and who exactly is the editor behind the map page here? So many factual errors within one map, this territorial map should be taken down immediately before giving misinformation to the general public! 165.82.221.183 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The Tang never had control of the entire Korean peninsula. In 660 Tang (allied with Silla) defeated Baekje in the southwest and established the Ungjin commandery (shown on the map). In 668 Tang and Silla conquered Goguryeo in the north. Goguryeo was in rebellion 670–674. Tang was pushed out of Ungjin by Silla in 670 and out of northern Korea in 676.

The map is based on maps in the cited sources, which do not represent Mongolia as being part of the Tang empire. Kanguole 07:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The source itself never claimed the 661's territory is the Tang's greatest extents. Let me copy what the source said "Whatever the verdict on internal politics during Kao-tsung's reign, this period saw the T'ang rise to a peak of military power and prestige, surpassing even that of T'ai-tsung. For a few brief years the dynasty controlled greater territories ............... " It just said Tang reach its greatest during Gaozong who regined from 628-683 but never said the greatest is 661. I check every paragraph which mentioned 661 and I did not see anything related this conclusion. Actually, many other sources claim that should be 669. - by Lijing1989 in 07:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

你無視了一切你認為對你不利的理據，而且你完全沒有解釋為何你在有確切證據證明唐朝曾統治外蒙古的情況下依然堅持否認唐朝曾統治外蒙古，你只是在重複一些只有你自己才相信的東西而已

。 86A32980X (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

According to the book "Early Tang China and the World, 618–750 CE", section "Expansion in Central Asia and Korea"[1]: "There's also the issue of conflating symbolic expansion via the creation of jimi polities with actual military occupation: It's often though that Taizong "conquered" the entire Mongolian steppe by incorporating it into the jimi system in 647, though this was only a form of suzerainty and not a conquest stricto sensu." Not to mention its existence was quite short-lived, as all such symbolic expansion in the area was expelled when the Second Turkic Khaganate was established in 682. --Wengier (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

他的地圖從來沒有明確指出羈縻地區和軍事管轄區有何區別，而且他同樣把一些唐朝只是短暫控制過的地區（例如波斯總督府）列為唐代領土，我到現在還是不明白為甚麼外蒙古是例外 86A32980X (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There is already consensus among the editors on various issues, and there seems no need to continue the discussion. Wouldn’t you like to check the archive properly? Argument cat (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's you who should read properly more, not him. 163.136.36.56 (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm begging you not to unarchive that thread—if we have to continue arguing about the map forever, we should at least start a new thread, because that one is totally unwieldy and impossible to actually read. No more comments should be added to it for purely practical reasons, and archiving it is the only way no more comments will be added to it. Remsense诉 08:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

These discussion logs have not yet been agreed upon, but is it such a hurry to move them out of sight? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think an agreement will be reached; do you? Unless some fundamentally new evidence upturns everything; one side is familiar with site policy and the other isn't, in my view. The point is that other people can have a hope of reading and understanding what is being argued—the old thread is completely unnavigable already. If I wanted to hide previous discussion, I'm doing a really bad job by putting it in an archive one can search through with one click—which is a habit regular users have. Take me seriously when I give my reasons for things here, please. Remsense诉 09:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Judging by the "meta-argument" in Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 4, it seems like he has already achieved consultation to archive past logs with another user.

Is my perception wrong? Argument cat (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

如果你是在說我的話，很抱歉，我從來沒有同意過任何東西，我以為共識達成的前提是所有參與討論的人都已經基本同意了由某人提出的最少一項主張，原來不是嗎？
有些人在遇到無法回答的問題就只懂迴避不答而已，別跟我說什麼「他很忙沒時間」之類的話，他有那時間去回覆別人，沒時間回覆我是嗎？有些人是不是真覺得我會看不到2則回覆的發布時間就只相差了4天啊？
86A32980X (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

當然如果你說的是"meta-argument"的話，那我沒有任何異議
86A32980X (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Are the IPs and the recently banned account all the same person?

User:HabichuelasBeans has been proven to be a sock puppet, given the similarity of the arguments theyre making with User talk:86A32980X and the IP it might be the same person in this case. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

About past logs

I came to this talk page for the first time in a few years and it seems like all the past logs have been wiped. Perhaps an agreement has been reached and all the questions resolved? Argument cat (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

They haven't been wiped, they've been archived. Every possible argument has been explored and re-explored as regards the content policies on the English Wikipedia. There continues to be a consensus among those familiar with said policies that (1) the current map accurately represents its sources, and (2) it is well-suited for use in the article. Remsense诉 09:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I see, could you please let me just check them? Argument cat (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Links are at the top of the page like where archives can always be found. Remsense诉 09:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It was helpful. Argument cat (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I took a quick look at it, and as you said, it seems certain that the discussion on those issues has ended. Argument cat (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:MORATORIUM Proposal

I am proposing an indefinite WP:MORATORIUM for discussion related to removing or changing the infobox map in this article. This topic has been discussed to death and has wasted too much valuable editor time... for 17 years! Its featured a host of usual suspects: nationalist SPAs, random IPs, now-banned users and loads of sockpuppets. I would imagine that such a moratorium would require an overwhelming consensus to overturn, and without such, new threads could be immediately closed with an explanation/link to the moratorium.

The map has been discussed since 2007, featured in multiple threads in all four talk page archives (as of writing). It began with innocent/genuine concerns, see Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 1#The Tang Map & Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 1#The Map but has quickly spiraled into the same unproductive discussions over and over, almost always 1–2 IPs/sockpuppets/SPAs arguing against a clear consensus. Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 4 features four threads in less than a year, while this talk page as of writing has two (in addition to a now deleted one begun by a sockpuppet mere hours ago!). This doesn't even include the enormous 2017–2023 thread, that result in (as expected), no changes.

At some point, we need to put our foot down and move on. This is not a major concern for this featured article and there are infinitely more places in which editor time can be better spent. Aza24 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I second this proposal, the sockpuppetry is absurd and also, if 17 years has been spent on this, it's just better to keep it as it is. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. This has been such a problem for far too long. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should start the process then, @Aza24 would you like to submit the proposal? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Afaik, this kind of this kind of thing is decided on individual talk pages, so I believe my initial comment suffices as a proposal. We would just need to hear more input from the community and then request that the thread be closed.

Hey @Argument cat, Remsense, and Kanguole: you've all been active in these discussions above. Any opinions on having a moratorium for the issue, as described above? – Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I wish that we didn't have to consider this, and I'm sure that isn't a feeling unique to me, because I genuinely do think such restrictions are usually destructive at some abstract level. But, I'm not going to object in the slightest, as the status quo has been perennially demonstrated to be worse. Remsense诉 03:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Qing dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

On the issue of Gejis and courtesans or prostitutes in the Tang Dynasty

I need to point out that in China, many people misunderstand the functions of Gejis and prostitutes. Geji is not even equal to "courtesan" in Western society, just as the choice of Japanese geisha is separated from "courtesan". Many Westerners also cannot distinguish the different relationship between the two. The book by Western scholars cannot be used as a reference. He confuses the functions of courtesans or prostitutes in red-light districts with the functions of Jiaofang(教坊) gejis in the Tang Dynasty. I quoted the original documents of the Tang Dynasty, such as "Beili Zhi(北里志)" and "Jiaofang Ji(教坊记)". Comparing the difference between the two, you will know the error of the entry. 清风与明月 (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source: we do not publish our own analyses of primary sources. While I think more than a sentence or two on this subject would be undue for this article, you're welcome to cite Chinese-language secondary sources if you think they're filling in information that Western sources have missed. Remsense诉 02:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I have provided the most original documents from the Tang Dynasty in China. Both "Beili Zhi" and "Jiaofang Ji" were written by people from the Tang Dynasty. The different descriptions of these two books fully explain the difference between the two. North Hamlet is a red-light district, a prostitution community in Chang'an City. "Beili Zhi" clearly states that the madams would beat the courtesans or prostitutes. Wiki says that these madams have status, which obviously glorifies the madams and pimps. At the same time, the confusion between female artists and high-class prostitutes, those priority geji are not respected, and the contribution of geji to poetry is given to the women in the red-light district in this wiki. 清风与明月 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Please reread what I've written above, and consult the guideline I've linked as well. We can't directly interpret sources from the previous millennium for more than the most basic details like dates of birth, and even then we require support from secondary sources.Remsense诉 05:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

But I also added the secondary source, which also explains the artist organization in the Tang Dynasty, written by modern people, why was it deleted? And why were the Chinese dance wiki and the Ming Dynasty wiki also deleted? Keeping the English expression "courtesan" but pointing to "Geji" is also not allowed? Please give an explanation. Why are the ancient references plus the modern references, both of which are deleted? 清风与明月 (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how Dillon (1998) supports the claims you're trying to make in the article. It seems you're still trying to synthesize new claims from the sources, but just using a secondary source as a starting point in your interpretation of a primary source. Every claim made must be stated explicitly by the secondary sources—else it is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 05:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. But why are the Chinese dance and Ming dynasty wikis also deleted, keeping the English description of courtesan but pointing to Geji, isn't this allowed? 清风与明月 (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

What have Chinese dance or Ming articles got anything to do with what you said about Tang China? Hzh (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Because these were all deleted by the same administrator. 清风与明月 (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll try again, why did you changed the word courtesans in the Chinese dance and Ming articles when it has got nothing to do with Tang dynasty? It looks like OR, and a lot of what you wrote in Gējì also look like OR. Hzh (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

courtesanModified like this.The English expression "courtesan" is retained, but the link points to "Gējì" 清风与明月 (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

How do you know that authors like this who wrote about beauties and courtesans - [2] meant "geji" and not courtesans? It looks to be your OR. Hzh (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Because I have a comprehensive understanding of the culture of ancient Chinese gejis, most of the dancing women described by ancient Chinese literati were singing and dancing artists. So in the wiki related to art and culture, I don't want to further confuse them with high-class prostitutes. During the Ming Dynasty, more "courtesans" who had romantic relationships with men were actually singing and dancing girls, highly educated female singing and dancing artists. 清风与明月 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, so you know better than authors who wrote books on it. A pity that Wiki policies and guidelines won't allow us to accept what a random Wiki editor claim without a good source. That author who wrote the book also mentioned "dancing girls" in a later sentence, which means he knows the difference. It also doesn't make sense to change courtesans to gejis since he wrote was that "famous beauties and courtesans" were no longer praised for their dancing in later dynasties. I would advice you not to do OR, frankly what a lot of what you wrote on the geji article smells a lot like OR, you should revise what you wrote in that article. Hzh (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say I know more than the author of the book, I just said I didn't stir up trouble for no reason. I don't care if the author of the book knows the difference between the two, I just want to emphasize that the relevant content on the Tang Dynasty and Chang'an wiki pages is wrong. I don't have a personal OR, I have really read a lot of ancient Chinese literature to come to this conclusion. North Hamlet in Chang'an is a prostitution community, not a community for artists and musicians. The women in North Hamlet did not contribute much to Tang Dynasty poetry. The Geji of Jiaofang in the Tang Dynasty made a greater contribution to Tang Dynasty poetry. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Still nothing to do with the dance and Ming article. You edits (and your replies here) do not make any sense. Hzh (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I can directly read the documents of Beilizhi and Jiaofangji, which were clearly recorded by people in the Tang Dynasty at that time. It is precisely because Wiki confused the difference between the two in the Tang Dynasty that I would use Jiaofangji and Beilizhi to make corrections. 清风与明月 (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant to your edit on the dance and Ming articles. Hzh (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

But the reality is that in the current wikis of the Tang Dynasty and Chang'an, the two are confused and mischaracterized. North Hamlet is a real prostitution community,they have little influence on art and poetry. They are

have art, but their profession itself is prostitution. The Gejis of the Tang Dynasty Jiaofang were the ones who had a key influence on Tang Dynasty art and poetry. 清风与明月 (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the Geji in the Tang Dynasty Jiaofang and the women in North Hamlet. North Hamlet is a prostitution community, not a community of artists and musicians. In the Tang Dynasty, the main influence on poetry was the Geji, not the women in the red-light district of North Hamlet. Wiki not only confuses the difference and contribution of the two in the Tang Dynasty, but also glorifies prostitution in words. The girls in North Hamlet were beaten by the madams. Wiki says that the madams in the red-light district are rich and have status, which really glorifies the madams and pimps. These differences and situations are mentioned in the Beilizhi and Jiaofangji, and I think the reference value is higher than the personal understanding of the author of this book. At the same time, the Chinese article I submitted can also prove that the contribution of female artists or Gejis to the song, dance and poetry culture in the Tang Dynasty was greater than that of the women in the red-light district. 清风与明月 (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why can Japanese geisha use their own traditional terms, but Chinese geji must use "courtesan" and must not use their original names on it? Japanese geisha do not use courtesan because their functions are different from those of "courtesan" in Western culture, and similarly, ancient Chinese geji are also different from the functions of Western "courtesan". The word used in this Chinese paper is "Geji", so why must they be called "singing courtesan" on Wikipedia? The situation is very complicated, because now in English, high-class prostitutes and female singing and dancing artists in ancient China are both called "courtesan", and further distinction is needed to avoid misunderstanding. In a wiki about art, it is geji, not high-class prostitutes, who contributed to ancient Chinese drama.Why was Theatre of China also deleted? 清风与明月 (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I need to understand why, thank you. 清风与明月 (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)