Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Tang dynasty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

is this dyansty found during the 9th century? plz tell me i need to know its very important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:9480:6CF:D8D1:733D:AB83:308 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tang dynasty/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I don't think this is a start class article anymore after my edits and expansions. I think it can be bumped up a level. --PericlesofAthens 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) This is a great article, but I don't think any Japan expert has contributed. Glaring error: Japan was not a tributary state of the Tang. The Ashikaga shogunate had a brief trade-purposed relationship with the Ming. There was a relationship by the Ryukyu Kingdom from the Ming onward that was more long-lasting and manipulated behind the scenes by the Satsuma Domain. Reischauer's great work, Ennin's Travels in T'ang China, is not cited, although there is a good Wikipedia article on the Reichauer translation and commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.25.248.217 (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 22:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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: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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 Athens^Talk 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 Athens^Talk 11:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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 Athens^Talk 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 Athens^Talk 13:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813175029/http://www.xabusiness.com/china-resources/sui-tang-chinese-paintings.htm to http://www.xabusiness.com/china-resources/sui-tang-chinese-paintings.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806080810/http://etext.virginia.edu/chinese/frame.htm to http://etext.virginia.edu/chinese/frame.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140402021617/http://idp.bl.uk/education/astronomy_researchers/index.a4d to http://idp.bl.uk/education/astronomy_researchers/index.a4d

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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 Athens^Talk 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 Athens^Talk 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

It says under «Seaports and maritime trade»:

Chinese envoys have been sailing through the Indian Ocean to India since perhaps the 2nd century BC,[179][180] yet it was during the Tang dynasty that a strong Chinese maritime presence could be found in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, into Persia, Mesopotamia (sailing up the Euphrates River in modern-day Iraq), Arabia, Egypt in the Middle East and Aksum (Ethiopia), and Somalia in the Horn of Africa.[181]

I think someone's confusing the Tang dynasty with Zheng He's expeditions in the 15th century. I've never read anywhere else that the Tang travelled that far – quite the contrary. The source is pages 104-105 in Bowman: 'Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture', but there it only says in the upper left corner of page 105: 'Chinese trading vessels sail regularly between Canton and the Persian Gulf.' But these trading vessels were only 'Chinese' insofar that they travelled to China – it was the Arabs and the Persians that owned the ships and organized the travels to buy goods in China.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasberg (talk • contribs) 14:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Beginning in 785, the Chinese began to call regularly at Sufala on the East African coast in order to cut out Arab middlemen,^[1]

Currently Sufala points to a village in Bahrain. Is there another article or name for the East African Sufala? --Error (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The ruling class of Tang Dynasty was Xianbei people, a nomadic race originated from modern day eastern Mongolia. And here are my reasons. 1. Both Sui and Tang emperors only married Xianbei women, which didn't happen in other Han Chinese dynasties like Han, Song and Ming. Royal bloodline is very important to the ruler of ancient state, marrying a foreign women is abnormal for a Han Chinese ruler it does not help to unite the Han Chinese majority nation under his rule unless the ruler is Xianbei and trust Xianbei more than Han Chinese. 2. Important government positions were on the hands of 胡人 Hu people, namely Xianbei, which a Han Chinese ruler would never do. Unless the Tang ruler was himself a nomad and trust nomad more than Han Chinese 3. Tang emperor had Xianbei name, Tang Tai zong Li shi-min was called 大野世民, 大野 is not Han Chinese Surname but Xianbei. although Chinese scholars interpreted it as the Tang tai zong family was once under Xianbei rule, but still Chinese in origin. But there is no evidence to prove the claim. 4. The Tang costume was more of Hu-fu than Hanfu, reason being Tang people wore pants, boots, round-collar and narrow-sleeves, which was significantly different from traditional Hanfu. 5. based on various ancient Chinese records, Tang emperor claimed to be Han Chinese, but from political perspective, even if he was Xianbei, he had no choice but to claimed to be Han Chinese as the majority people under his rule were Han Chinese. --Traineek (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Traineek: The ruling class of Tang and Sui were Han Chinese.

1. The surname 普六茹 was given to Emperor Wen of Sui's father by Xianbei's Western Wei's emperor when he was following the Western Wei court. So did the surname 大野 was given to Emperor Taizong of Tang's grandfather when he helped Western Wei conquering Northern Wei. Both surnames were awarded by the then ruling Xianbei king to the two Han generals. And both Emperor Yang of Sui who funded Sui dynasty, and Emperor Gaozu of Tang who funded Tang dynasty were Han Chinese.
2. Emperor Wen of Sui married Xianbei women Dugu Qieluo because of the emperor's father relationship in the Western Wei court. Emperor Gaozu of Tang‘s father married another Dugu family daughter also because of the relationship at the Western Wei court. Besides these two women, there were no other records showing the ruling class of Sui and Tang married Xianbei women.
3. Where did you get the information about "important government positions were on the hands of 胡人"?? See the lists and count how many more Han Chinese officials than Xianbei officials.
4. Sui and Tang's costume were Hanfu influenced by Hufu. The people mainly wore long robes with pants underneath, which the long robe had always been the main feature of Hanfu, while Xianbei's clothing were knee-lengthed tunic; round collar robes appeared in Shang dynasty's cultural relics (way before Xianbei came into Zhongyuan), and Han Chinese continued to wear it as under garment while no such feature were found in Xianbei's hufu, during Northern and Southern dynasties it flourished as outer garment; narrowed sleeves had always been worn by Han Chinese, so many unearthed sculptures can show it 12; Han Chinese started to wore normal pants since warring states period when 胡服骑射 was introduced; Hanfu was influenced by hufu in some perspective, like boots, hats, vests, and minor designs, but Sui and Tang's hanfu was not hufu.
5. Various ancient Chinese records said Tang emperors were Han Chinese, and you just refused to believe it? If Sui and Tang emperors were Xianbei people, they could just claim to be Xianbei emperors like Northern and Southern Wei's ruling class do. Seriously just stop making up these nonsenseOuatssss--23 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ouatssss--23: Tang's royal Li clan is not 陇西李氏 Longxi Li clan, but 拓跋 Tuoba Li clan, According to ancient Chinese text 『唐护法沙门法琳别传』“琳闻拓跋达阇，唐言李氏，陛下之李，斯即其苗，非柱下陇西之流也” meaning the surname of Tang emperor is not originated from Longxi li clan, but Tuoba clan. Tang emperor self proclaimed to be the descendant of 李暠， Li Gao from Longxi, and Li Gao claimed ancestry to Han general Li Guang, and Li Ling was direct descendant of Li Guang. But as you know Li ling's entire family in Longxi was exterminated completely by Han emperor because he surrendered to Xiongnu. and not a single record says there are survivors of Li Ling's family. So it is impossible for Li Shi min to be descendant of Li Ling. From political perspective, even if Tang emperor was Xianbei, he had no choice but to claimed to be Han Chinese as the majority people under his rule were Han Chinese. Yes Northern Wei admitted they were Xianbei people, and that's why the regime didn't survive long, the reason Tang was relatively longer lived regime is because the ruling class of Tang self proclaimed to be the Han Chinese which in political perspective, was a right thing to do as the foreign ruler ruling a Han Chinese majority state. The similar examples can be seen throughout history of China, for example Yuan regime founded by Mongolian and Qing founded by Manchurian. Mongolian rulers refused to sinicize and the rulers could not even communicate with Han Chinese people without translator's help, and the Yuan regime survived less than 1 century, whereas another nomadic regime founded by Manchurian, the Manchus adopted the Tang's sinicize policy and the regime survived more than 300 years until defeated by western powers. --Traineek (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Traineek: Emperor Gaozu of Tang's court historian Fu Yi submitted a written statement asking for abolishment of Buddhism; the action created a battle between Buddhism and Taoism. Though the emperor did not execute the abolishment^[1], the emperor was in favour of Taoism and even claimed himself the descendent of Laozi, the founder of Taoism.^[2] And that pissed off the Buddhist priest 法琳, who then fabricated things about Laozi's parents and the emperor's ancestry^[3][4], which he had no proof. And the emperor was furious the Buddhist priest slandering the Li ancestor^[5], he sentenced the Buddhist priest to jail.^[6] The so-called proof you brought up was just a fabricated lie./// If Sui and Tang's ruling class were Xianbei, they could just do what Qing dynasty ruling class did, admitting they were sinicized Xianbei and ruled the country.Ouatssss--23 (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost every single comment said thus far is inadmissible to due to an absence of high-quality secondary reliable sources. The content in this article has been vetted by the community and written with many scholarly sources by an extremely experienced editor of Chinese history. Not enough? Fine, here: Ethnic Identity in Tang China by Marc S. Abramson, Page 194: "Tang: Han Chinese" – now please, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Aza24 (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: Maybe not that clear-cut I'm afraid. See:

• Wechsler, Howard J. (1979). Sui and T'ang China, 589-906. Part 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 151. ISBN 9781139055949. This genealogy claimed by the T'ang royal house established its claim to be descended from a notable Han clan and to be members of a prominent north-western lineage. However, there is some reason to believe that this line of descent, presented as solid fact by the T'ang histories, was in fact a deliberate fabrication. (...) Two of the men who, it has been suggested, were among the ancestors of Li Hu [grandfather of Li Yuan] were the generals Li Ch'u-ku-pa and Li Mai-te, whose names show that they had either adopted or been granted the Chinese surname Li, but retained alien, perhaps Hsien-pei, personal names.
• Chen, Sanping (17 April 2012). Multicultural China in the Early Middle Ages. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 4–6. ISBN 978-0-8122-0628-9. More intriguingly, faced with the opposition of imperial court judges who wanted to uphold the mandatory capital punishment, Emperor Taizong explained that Falin's defamation of the royal ancestry "was not without foundation." Emperor Taizong apparently recognized that the imperial clan's genealogical connections to the Tuoba nobles and other "Barbarian" families were open contemporary knowledge ... The newest proof is the recent archaeological discovery that shows that another prominent Li clan of the period, namely that of Li Xian, a general in chief of the Northern Zhou, with the same claim to the Longxi ancestry, was in fact of unmistakable Tuoba Xianbei descent.

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think any one here is an expert on the topic, and should refrain from trying to debate based on limited sources. Weschler (1979) being cast as an expert opinion on the topic is also just strange. Weschler is a great historian, but he spends one paragraph talking about the subject, and he's actually just quoting Chen Yinke (Weschler calls him Chen Yin-k'o based on earlier Romanization), who IS an expert on the subject (having written several articles on specifically the Tang lineage) but is being misrepresented.

It was Chen Yinke who argued that the Tang emperors fabricated their descent from the Longxi Li; and observed certain parallels between the purported biographies of Tang ancestors and the biographies of Li Ch'u-ku-pa and Li Mai-te, hence the quote. But Chen Yinke concluded, at the end of his series of articles, that the Tang emperors were of Han lineage - not via the line of Longxi, but the line of Zhaojun. Weschler even mentions this but somehow the above quote cuts off that section: "It has been suggested that the Li clan was not connected with the royal house of Western Liang, or with the prestigious Li clan of Lung-hsi, but was a minor offshoot of an eastern lineage, the Li clan of Chao-chun in Ho-pei, who had settled in the north-west under the Toba Northern Wei, and had intermarried widely with the non-Chinese tribal aristocracy." The Zhaojun (or Chao-chun) Li were a well-known Han Chinese clan, second in fame only to the Longxi Li.

Regardless, the debate is not with Weschler, because it's not his research or area. His entire quote is a reference, and his reference isn't even on the same side of Chen Sanping, because Chen Sanping actually opposes Chen Yinke's conclusion. This is just one example of why, without due diligence from real experts, I am not convinced this is an useful "debate." Simply put, there IS a debate, but it's something for subject matter experts, not Wikipedia editors. Lathdrinor (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The adoption of the title Tängri Qaghan by the Tang Emperor Taizong in addition to his title as emperor was eastern Asia's first "simultaneous kingship".

Google books returns a fragment of the cited paragraph (the preceeding page was left black on my visit) and I still didn't understand what, precisely, was simultaneous.

Somehow I suspect diarchy is the wrong answer, so we dig deeper.

• Tang Heavenly Qaghans and Türk Sons of Heaven: The Origins of Simultaneous Kingship in Eastern Eurasia — 2012

Emperor Taizong of the Tang dynasty conventionally is credited with the invention of simultaneous kingship in Eastern Eurasia. Chinese emperors normally took the orthodox titles of "Son of Heaven" and "August Emperor," but in 630 Taizong adopted the additional epithet of "Heavenly Qaghan" (tian kehan). The latter title served to justify his rule over Turko-Mongol pastoral nomads, thus staking claim to simultaneous rule over China and Inner Asia. Although Taizong had coined an original title, the attention lauded on him as the originator of simultaneous kingship in Eastern Eurasia is partly due to his well-known penchant for self-promotion. This paper argues that the title Heavenly Qaghan is only one example of a long-running ideological competition between China-based Sui and Tang emperors and Mongolia-based Turkic qaghans (kings) in the period from approximately 580 to 750.

Why is being one king of two things (peoples, territories) distinguished as "simultaneous"? Alexander became ruler of just about every place he touched or visited, and I've never heard him described as Mr Simultaneous.

Furthermore, Google brings up little of use on the query "simultaneous king Europe", so I don't think the foreign analogy is exactly solid, either. — MaxEnt 18:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The usual European term would be personal union, as with the Stuart monarchs who were both King of England and King of Scotland, but kept the two kingdoms distinct. Alexander just rolled up all his conquests into a single empire, as did other conquerors. Whether it is worth including this point in the article I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Heavenly Qaghan means the the leader of the turk alliances Ericweng (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 Athens^Talk 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 Athens^Talk 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 Athens^Talk 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

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:

• 
  Tang Dynasty at its greatest extent.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.242.96 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Actually, this map is from Historical Atlas of China (1982) and Historical Atlas of China (1980) and it was also used in Chinese wiki [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.242.96 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 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?

• 
  Animation showing Tang Dynasty territorial changes.

• • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.242.96 (talk • contribs) 0:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• • 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Jesus christ. The map again. Why are you so intent on using a map of that specific year in the Tang Dynasty to represent its extent? Even more, that map technically represents the Zhou Dynasty of Wu Zetian, not the Tang Dynasty. However, that's besides the point. The ultimate dispute is over the map. The greatest extent map is undoubtedly not used for the Tang Dynasty, despite its use in almost all other historical empires. Me and many other users do not think that is right. I can understand if you have doubts about the sourcing, but comments by users like 2001:e60:104a:1e07:3dc3:e5cf:635c:344a indicate that some also believe the Tang dynasty did not exert control over areas of the yellow map not included by the current teal-green map, including territories in Korea, modern-day Mongolia and Central Asia. That is patently false, and it is even contradicted by the Tang Dynasty article itself, which states that the Tang exerted control "to a point north of Kashmir bordering Persia in the west, to northern Korea in the north-east." If you truly did believe that Tang control outside of China proper was limited only to modern Xinjiang. why would you only change the map and nothing else in the article which support the map? Now you resort to well-timed protections of the article immediately after it is reverted by someone baseless-ly accusing people who disagree with him of being sock puppets. --User:Danfrost12345 3:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Danfrost12345, this map issue has been discussed for years and already was settled three years ago, why the hell the maps again are keep being removed? Then resort to timed protection right after it's removed? The editors even started labeling people who disagree with this behavior as "puppets"? What is this abominable trick? Just because someone suddenly is mad that map shows the greatest extension of Tang dynasty which may cover some countries you from right now? Or hurt your fragile ego? Stop this nonsense. The current map in info box is not even representing Tang dynasty but a map of Wu Zhou period.

Editthat1 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The yellow map is not representative of maps found in reliable sources. For example, it includes NanZhao, Mongolia and the shores of the Aral Sea. Also debatable are the central Asian protectorates (apart from Anxi), which were more puppet states than parts of the empire, and northern Korea, which the Tang only ever partially controlled. Moreover they didn't occur at the same time: the western protectorates overthrew their puppet rulers in 665, before the Tang-Silla defeat of Koguryo in 668. A map at 669 might include the latter but not the former.

The portion of the the article that you quote has been altered so that it no longer reflects the source it cites. That should certainly be fixed. Kanguole 19:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole No. I wager you can't read Chinese? That yellow map is based on the records of "Old Book of Tang"(舊唐書) and "New Book of Tang"(舊唐書) which are the most primary sources of Tang dynasty history, more reliable than most modern Western sources, you can even find the whole books on Wikisources since they're part of Twenty-Four Histories(二十四史), the relevant Chinese scripts quoted from these sources were already posted by others above at 18 November 2017, you obviously can't read them judging by your reactions. And the map doesn't include entire Nanzhao, only part of it, because Tang dynasty did control these lands until NanZhao was established, NanZhao wasn't established until 738AD, before that, they were controlled by Tang dynasty and belong to one of major Tang protectorates, so your argument is invalid. It's even already explained in this Tang dynasty article itself at Protectorates section. Discuss and introduce Chinese history but neglect the primary Chinese sources is very unreasonable, absurd and unreliable deed.

61.228.120.60 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not be based on primary sources. Kanguole 08:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole. Which wiki rule says "Wikipedia articles should not be based on primary sources"?? What a load of nonsense you spewed2001:B011:4004:2311:3C76:6477:C9D1:594C (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY. Kanguole 23:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's funny you say that, because a lot of the other Chinese history articles on wikipedia cite the 24 histories, such as the Jin dynasty article. So if citing the 24 histories is not allowed, there will have to be a lot of changes to other wikipedia articles, which I don't see happening (hmm, I wonder why?).

I also do not see how the Books of Tang could be considered primary sources here. The Old Book of Tang and New Book of Tang were both written after the Tang dynasty had ended. When they discuss the events of the early Tang dynasty (the timeframe of the maps), they are discussing events that occurred centuries before they were written. Hmm, maybe this is why the Book of Jin is cited in the Jin dynasty article--because it was written centuries after the Jin dynasty had ended. Additionally, a huge chunk of what modern scholars know about Chinese history comes from these sources (the 24 histories). When it comes to events in China that happened over a millenia ago, there really isn't that much other information out there.

According to Harvard: "Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented." This evidently does not apply here. Ratata6789 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

See footnote d of Wikipedia:No original research for examples of what are considered primary sources for the purposes of Wikipedia policy. These sources are indeed vital for modern scholars, but the issue is that those scholars' expertise is required to sift and interpret them. The same issue arises in the history of other parts of the world, including Europe. As for why this hasn't been fixed everywhere, Wikipedia is huge and time is short. Kanguole 15:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll concede that, that's my bad. I can see why the 24 histories would fall under that. Ratata6789 (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The Tang certainly exerted control over what is now Mongolia in that time. Please refer to the Anbei protectorate. I really don't understand how you could refute that. I can see why the inclusion of some territories in the southwest could be questionable, but please know that the kingdom of Nanzhao was not founded until the 700s, which is after the time of the yellow map. But if you are going to attempt to support biased map choices, you should at least get your facts in order. Ratata6789 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The question for a simple infobox map is whether Mongolia was part of the Tang empire, and the answer is that it wasn't. (Presumably that is what the lighter yellow in the yellow map is intended to indicate.) When Nanzhao was founded, it was not created out of a chunk of Tang territory. Kanguole 15:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would assume the lighter yellow indicates looser control--ie: the Anbei Protectorate. Again, Mongolia was part of the Tang dynasty, via the Anbei Protectorate. You're simply stating falsehoods here. And although Nanzhao wasn't formed out of the Tang dynasty, it did conquer large areas from the Tang dynasty--resulting in a loss of Tang territory in the southwest after Nanzhao's rise. Ratata6789 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, looser control – it wasn't administered as part of the empire like, say, the Tarim basin was. Kanguole 17:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Loose control is still control. The seat of the Anbei Protectorate was literally in modern Mongolia for a time (in Hanhai, and at the time it was called the Hanhai Protectorate). Ratata6789 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Taizong designated designated a local leader as commander-in-chief of Hanhai. Later the "Hanhai army" was the garrison in Beiting. The Anbei protectorate was based in a garrison on the northern loop of the Yellow River, later moved to Juyan Lake (both within modern Inner Mongolia).

This is indirect and partial control, very different from say Anxi, despite the parallel names. Kanguole 20:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Who keeps removing the map of the Tang dynasty at it’s greatest extent? I’m running out of patience for people who thinks the green map based on a source from 1935 is accurate. If you’re going to use a western source because you shun non-western sources so much at least use one that is more recent when knowledge about Chinese history improved. I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be non-biased, and I completely agree with those who have voiced concern before me. This map by far has been the most accurate map of the Tang dynasty I have found on Wikipedia after it’s territorial extent settled down (745 AD). The much vaunted green map doesn’t include large portions of southwest China, the Ordos Loop, the Shiyang river and Juyan Lake Basin that juts north of the Hexi Corridor, and eastern Transoxiana that was controlled by the Tang dynasty during that period. 2601:645:C380:2E70:1F:B162:5CAA:ACA (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• 

I think realistically, this thing still isn't resolved simply because all maps in question are horrible. Therefore my proposition is, try it with a good map for once.

I don't want to talk about the present map, since it's not even about Tang. Pathetic. I'm in "maximum extent" camp since it's the established norm, and at least a proper definition instead of "I like this".

As for the Chinese one, there are three major problems for me.

1. It's in Chinese. This is the English Wiki.

2. Not every line and colour in the map is even in the legend. That's just awful, or purposefully misleading.

3. The purpose of the top map in this article is to show Tang territory. Including Tibet there is ridiculous. I get the map's intentions, but then it's just not suitable for use here.

Someone just make a better map. EnTerbury (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nanaho6767, Allison jung, Cora Cm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)