Talk:Princess Wencheng

Question about the citations of Tufan militay threat
1) Accdording to the wikipedia entry cited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Taizong%27s_campaign_against_Tufan

Songtsan Gambo was defeated by Tang.

2) Also, according to this cite from Professor Yuan:

http://www.wku.edu/~yuanh/China/tales/princesswencheng_b.htm

The marriage was not by force, but Gambo's admiration for Emperor Taizong of Tang.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
, would you like to discuss what you find problematic about this page? You have been engaged in an edit war and I even warned you about it on your talk page. Please discuss your issues here so we can resolve them. Ogress smash! 22:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Falling in love
According to the article, Songtsen Gampo fell in love with the princess in 634. Did he really fall in love with a six year old girl?Bill (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Bias and Propaganda
I am personally flagging this article for spreading Chinese propaganda. I will be monitoring and assessing this article in due time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * After reading through this article, I am concluding that it is pure Chinese propaganda. Most of the content of this article will be deleted or altered in due time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Evidence -->


 * Quote: In the spring of 634 on an official state visit to Imperial China, Tibetan King Songtsen Gampo fell in love at first sight and had relentlessly pursued the princess hand by sending envoys and tributes but was refused.


 * Reason for review: The phrase "fell in love at first sight and relentlessly pursued" sounds like something out of a romantic novel. This doesn't sound like something which should be presented as facts on Wikipedia. The only way that it might be presented as such is if it were a direct quote from Songtsen Gampo himself or a reputable commentator on his life. Since this sentence has no citation/s, it will be removed or altered in due time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Quote: Ancient Scholars credited Princess Wencheng for introducing Chinese culture to Tibet, whereas Nepalese sources credit Songtsen Gampo's Nepalese wife, Bhrikuti for introducing Buddhism.


 * Reason for review: Firstly, the sentence doesn't actually make sense, since the word "whereas" indicates a contradiction and yet there is no contradiction between the contents of the two clauses. Secondly, simply saying that ancient scholars credit such and such doesn't have much factual weight as these ancient scholars might have simply been state-backed propagandists. Actual evidence consists of scientific and anthropological research from the modern era. The opinions of ancient scholars are mere opinions and should not be presented as facts.


 * Quote: Princess Wencheng’s life is so popular that fictional genre romance writers included her in their novels such as the Maṇi bka' 'bum and the famed historiographies of Rgyal rabs Gsal ba'i Me long.


 * Reason for review: The precise phrase "is so popular" doesn't match the style of Wikipedia. The word "so" in particular indicates that this sentence carries bias.


 * Quote: It is commonly known that his marriages of states to Princess Wencheng and Bhrikuti brought sacred images of Gautama Buddha and Buddhism in which ultimately led to the construction of the Jokhang the city of Lhasa.


 * Reason for review: You can't just say that something is commonly known. I, for one, don't "know" this, so it's clearly not well-known where I'm from. You need to indicate WHO commonly knows this. And anyway, just because something is "commonly known", that does not mean that it is factual. Many things are commonly known but are actually entirely incorrect or misleading.


 * More content in this article will be reviewed in due time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Disproportionate space given to unnamed historical Chinese sources
This article is a mess as a result of repeated edits to neutralize contentious claims from mysterious historical Chinese sources through added expressions of doubt. Adding "allegedly" and "possibly" to the wide assortment of unsupported claims does not add balance, it is just confusing and misleading. These claims need to be verified in a more diverse range of sources, or removed if they cannot be verified. I'll get the ball rolling:


 * Chinese sources credit Princess Wencheng for introducing Tibet with other skills in metallurgy, farming, weaving, construction, manufacturing of paper and ink as well as developing the Tibetan alphabet and writing system.
 * Linguistically, there is no reason to believe this. Tibetan script is a Northern Brahmic abugida, and is nothing like written Chinese. I've gone ahead and removed this claim, since it adds nothing to our understanding of the article's subject. I was able to find more information about the claims concerning paper and ink manufacturing, and have included it with source.

More broadly, I'm also scrubbing the article of references to "bringing civilization" and use of contentious adjectives like "barbaric" to describe Tibetans prior to her arrival. These terms are deeply colonialist and have no place in neutral writing.69.157.63.58 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit the page
I will add some details about the princess' personal information (e.g., family), influence (e.g., the tea culture, sport: polo) and legacy (e.g., Jokhan Temple), as the page is currently lacking information on these areas. And I would like to open four new parts about the route to Tibet, the legend and the Princess Wencheng in chinese literature for this article. I will try my best to do it well, thanks!Helina99880 (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)