Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 2

Humble suggestion
As per discussion between Madalibi and me at User talk:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name), we kind of agreed that the English word Chinese is at best a very vague kind of word. Especially so in this case. Let me explain. More than 1000 years had passed by, Chinese all over the world do remember, and cerebrate the spirit of Tang in different ways, especially the southern Chinese, such as Cantonnese and the Hokkians, in a sense that in private, instead of calling themselves Chinese, they prefer to be called Men of Tang(Chinese:唐人). 唐人 in cantonnese is Tong Yen, and official Chinese Name of China Town is cantonese Tong Yen Gai, definitely not Mandarin Tang Ren Jia, which is yet another issue.(The reason is Mandarin people never refer to themselves as 唐人)

Likewise, the Hockkian people, who are reputed to have preserve the pure bloodline of ancient Han(古漢人), would prefer to be called Den Lang(唐人 in Hockkian).

What I am saying is, this article's using the English word Chinese to represent Men of Tang may have committed a very serious historical and anthropological error. Just a thought. Arilang   talk  23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

An sort of analogy I could think of, calling Man of Tang Chinese, is like calling Irish or Scottish British. Arilang   talk  00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I honestly, truly understand your point, but for the sake of the masses who visit this Wikipedia page and don't understand the difference, saying something is "Chinese" makes it simpler for them to understand. Plus, this is an article about the Tang Dynasty: its political, social, cultural, and technical history, not the definition of 唐人. That's the job of another article; maybe we can add a single sentence in the introduction to quickly explain 唐人, since it is relevant. However, this should only be a single sentence as this article is already too long to contain a lengthy discussion about the subtle differences of cultural and ethnic identity within "China".-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 01:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * @ PericlesofAthens, like I mentioned somewhere else, this is nobody's fault. If we are going to lay any blame, we can only blame the alphabetic nature of English language. What I am saying is, Chinese word, or character, or Hanji,漢字 is a pictogram,which means that each word is a picture. Many Chinese words are a string of 2 to 3(sometimes even 4) words put together. Now, as the old saying go, a picture says a thousand words. When we have a string of 4 words, it will take a long time to translate its meaning into English. Arilang   talk  02:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See? Both systems truly do have benefits and drawbacks. By the way, have a look at a new article I have recently created from my notes: History of the Han Dynasty. I'm sure you'll enjoy the read. :)-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What arilang is saying is comlete BS. he is trying to give cantonese a special postition. arabs and other desert creatures merchants have migrated in signifigant amounts to guandong province, and interbred with local cantonese. cantonese are not pure, they are in fact the most racially mixed, at least the mandarins are purely NON chinese, they are not mixed, the real descendants of the chinese of shang, zhou, qin, and han come from fujian, southern zhejiang, jiangxi, hubei and hunan, who speak min-nan, wenzhou, xiang, and gan dialects. the mandarin speakers are descdendants of turkic, mongol, manchu, and chinese stock. the half breed turks-chinese of tang are gone. cantonese are half breed arabs. end of story. see map below.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentisn (talk • contribs) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * QUOTE: "arabs and other desert creatures" ...I stopped taking you seriously after this sentence. Whether or not you disagree with Arilang, you have just violated the Wikipedia policy of No personal attacks. You also assume that every Arab who moved to Guandong intermarried with the local populace (wrong), or that every "Cantonese" person during the Tang intermarried with a foreigner (wrong). Your discussion about "half-breeds" and "pure stock" also has nothing to do with the Tang Dynasty article, but perhaps has a place at neo-Nazi Stormfront or better yet, the Chinese version of the latter. And you do realize that there is no pure physical stock of "Han" or "Tang" people? Just as there is no pure physical stock for "Cantonese" people, or "German" people, or "English" people, etc. These are cultural and linguistic appelations we are using.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Asserting that cantonese reserve the exclusive right to brag about being descendants from the Tang dynasty is wrong. arilang assumes that cantonese get to have a "special position" and mentioning all over the article. This can be seen from his userpage, where he talks about expelling "northern barbarians."

i removed the barbarian section on his userpage, it is extremely offensive and arrogant.

not to mention the fact that he tried to claim middle chinese was identical to cantonese.

Cantonese are well known for bragging that they are the pure chinese, and showing off thier british passports. i am partial descended from the "northern barbarians" arilang is insulting in every comment he posts, and his comments should be deleted


 * and i didn't violate no personal attack. i commented on his content, which stated that cantonese were the purest chinese and descendants of tang dynasty stock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentisn (talk • contribs) 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the real issues?
This talk page is about 古代漢唐文化(Ancient Han-Tang culture), also on ancient Han-Tang language, and what is the best way to translate these ancient civilization into everyday English, instead, user Dentism just jump in and start using terms and accusations which would be more suitable in places such as Nazi Germany or Holocaust Denial. I suggest user Dentism next comment should concentrate more on the difference between ancient and modern versions of Han Chinese civilization, which has a 3000 years(may be more than 3000) continuation of written records. Quote:cantonese are half breed arabs.unquoted, this kind of comment is indicative of a both childish and ignorant mind. Arilang   talk  01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam should be included in improvement of article
Tang Dynasty once held territory in today's Vietnam, therefore Vietnam should also claim Tang Dynasty as part of their history considering China is claiming many past non Chinese states because they are now inside of today's China territory. By looking at the map of Tang's territory, Northern part of Vietnam was Tang Dynasty's territory. Please add Vietnam as part of share. --Korsentry 05:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
 * Exactly what does this trolling, anachronistic, and modern nationalistic dribble of yours have to do with the Tang Dynasty page? Exactly which scholarly sources are you bringing to the table which explicitly says "Vietnam claims Tang Dynasty as part of its history"? Sure they could claim the Tang as part of their history (well, the northern Vietnamese at least), but that's just an opinion of a Wiki editor, so until you show us this supposed scholarly source, your opinionated blogging conversation here is unfit for a Wikipedia talk page. Capiche? You should know better by now that this type of conversation just wastes time, space, and energy.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? China claims Tibet, Mongolia, East Turkestan, Korea even central asia histories as part of Chinese history, so all them can claim Chinese history as part of their histories. Trolling? You haven't seen how many of your people trolls at Korean, Mongolia, Vietnam & Tibet topics. If you've got the problem dealing with criticizing and being scholastic then you have problem. --Korsentry 02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
 * we never used chinese historiography here, and, adding "wikiproject [name]" doesnt offend us, as your trying to do here, because wikiprojects are not history projects. theres even and LGBT wiki project, sometimes people who are not gay but involved in studying gays have that on their talk page. you are not accomplishing anything by adding "wiki project". i dont see it saying this is part of [name of country] history. and this can be taken up to an admin very quickly if you troll around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.75 (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * it is indeed part of Vietnamese history, it even says on vietnamese people article that vietnamese have an ethnic origin from chinese, and have chinese DNA, from being ruled by china over 1,000 years, vietnam is almost just another province, just like theres a hong kong wikiproject. you fail at trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.75 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam, Korea, and the rest of the vassal states
@ user KoreanSentry and other IP users,
 * 1) 主僕之分, 長幼有序 For thousand of years, Han Chinese were the boss, 主人, Koreans and Vietnams were vassal states, were 僕人, servants, subordinates. Moreover, they borrowed heavily from Han/Tang Chinese culture; without Han/Tang Chinese culture, there shall not be any Japan, Korea, Vietnam in the present-day forms.
 * 2) See Hua-Yi distinction, only by adopting Confucianism, those small East Asia states were able to come out of the Yi=barbarians image. In front of Han/Tang culture and Han/Tang history, Japan/Korea/Vietnam can belong to sub-section, or just a sentence or two.
 * 3) Editors are free to creat any articles they like, but there is a line to be drawn here, these featured Han/Tang Chinese wiki articles took many hours to build, please do not try to mess it up.
 * 4) All over the world, 唐人街(China Town) is a well known landmark. User KoreanSentry, are you going to change that too, may be turn it into Korean Town, to replace China Town?
 * 5) Regardless of how modern day communist government treat the ancient Chinese history, no amount of Korean-image-building are going to change any ancient historical facts, which is, Han/Tang Chinese culture were the mainstream ancient Chinese culture; all other cultures were sub-cultures. It may be painfull for user KoreanSentry to admit, but, sorry, facts are facts.  Arilang   talk  07:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when Han and Tang Dynasty was exclusively belonged to Chinese when Han/Tang was empires? Also, why Chinese can claim on Tibet, East Turkestan, Mongolia, Vietnam, Korea and now even Japan and rest of SE Asia as part of Chinese cultural sphere and why others can not claim China? Ok, let's me clear, since Japan once hold bulk of Chinese territory can they make claim on Chinese history too?--Korsentry 05:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

IP users entry
There's several IP anonymous users, 68.160.244.221 and 162.84.164.79, who were actively trying to add a large chunk of material (a section called "Xenophobic, racist, and nationalist response to Multiculturalism") onto this article. Now, some of the content are sourced, but these paragraphs are very poorly written with full-on grammatical mistakes, and not to mention they are extremely long for an article of this size. The paragraphs inserted by these anonymous users, if deemed appropriate for this featured article, needs to be copyedited, cut down and modified/re-written with appropriate tone of voice (not a commentary) for this article. I think it is unacceptable for a featured article to include large paragraphs that seems extremely rushed (judging from its grammer, written in a hurry) and un-copyedited.--Balthazarduju (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but you must check the sources. These anonymous IP editors use words like "nationalist" and "racist" and use Jacques Gernet's book (1994) as a cited source, yet if you go to those page numbers (courtesy Google Books, which these editors are probably using), it becomes evident very quickly that they are putting words into Gernet's mouth. Forget the poor grammar, that could be fixed with some copyediting; the real poison here is the misrepresentation of sources to fit some sort of agenda or opinion of the anonymous editor. As we all know, No original research is the central rule here. They should also look to Citing sources for more info.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 05:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the content was almost copied directly from the book. as it was written in french, strange language appears in the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.167.23 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I support user Balthazarduju and PericlesofAthens's comments, that these IP users' inserted content (1) do not seem fit for a featured article (2) those contents are pure fabrications that I have never encountered in any respectable Chinese historical publications.(3) Any more attempts from these IP users of contents of dubious nature warrant the attention of admin action. Arilang   talk  06:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not on this article, but should we be concerned with anonymous user 162.84.164.79 and 162.84.167.23 (and it seems there are a lot of these IP editors adding the same statements) and their edits to bunch of articles such as Pogrom, Antisemitism, Guangzhou, Huang Chao, History of China? Some of those edits in these articles has been reverted by other editors, and I'm unsure if these are inappropriate/inflammatory edits on behalf of these anonymous editor(s)?  Should these edits be removed (if they haven't been already)?--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert; I don't think you should take this editor very seriously at all, especially since they seem to want to make Wikipedia their personal blog.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin action needed if more addition
@user Balthazarduju, these IP users seem to abuse the fact that, Huang Chao (黃巢) who was known to have killed a lot of people(possiblely Jews), and try to pin him as the first ever Chinese to kill and prosecute Jews, and somehow lay blame to all the Chinese. This is not your normal everyday wikipedia editions, but act of malicious racist attack, which should be stopped. To start with, Han Chinese culture had never picked on a single ethnic group and tried to eliminate them, unless they were live-or-die enemies such as Xiongnu or Jurchen. Moreover, Jews had been without a home for thousands of years, they would have a lot of other people to blame, why pick on ancient Chinese? Arilang   talk  12:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I used http://www.linkwan.com/gb/broadmeter/VisitorInfo/QureyIP.asp?QureyIP=116.28.90.253&I1.x=21&I1.y=14 to check these IP users, they come from Washington DC, possible a bunch of high school students?  Arilang   talk  12:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not only a repeat of some of the information already discussed in the article (such as brief persecutions of certain religions during the mid 9th century), but it is also the most anachronistic interpretation of Tang history that I've ever seen. The anonymous IP editor even tried to explicitly compare the Tang to Nazi Germany, then retracted the statement at the end before Balthazarduju reverted the entire section. It's a gross misrepresentation of sources. Sure, the Tang persecuted foreign religions like Buddhism as part of a hysteria during Emperor Wuzong's reign, but there is truly no comparison to the Final Solution or anything that would remotely tie Tang to Nazi Germany. It's like comparing apples with scissors or donkeys with calculators; there is no comparison.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

reading on silk road during tang dynasty and relations with sogdians
someone want to read this and add content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.221 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
It has been proposed the stub Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty be merged into this article. The expected consequence is that the stub article will effectively disappear.

The wrongly-created Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty is indefensible. In any case, the following vandalism warnings were reasonable and entirely ineffective:
 * 162.84.138.30
 * 162.83.161.11 ‎
 * 162.84.136.193
 * 141.155.153.147

Defensive semi-protection from anonymous IP onslaught was sought and denied.


 * See -- Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty

The burdensome effort of dealing with persistent disruptive vandalism by what appears to be one person is pointless. Serial edits from Anonymous IP and other IP addresses have proven to be intractable quandry.

These serial provocations are overwhelming in character; and they cannot be mitigated with reasoned engagement nor with time-wasting resort to futile dispute resolution procedures.
 * See Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty.

Merging that problematic article into this one removes a continuing target for obsessive mischief.

It is impossible for this article or any article to thrive outside a venue in which WP:V has meaning and substance; and no other option but abandonment seems feasible at this point.

The material in this article is adequately covered in other articles, and with no discernible prospect for growth, there is no function served by keeping this article except as an oddly configured battleground.--Tenmei (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

 * Toxic 141.155.157.34 -- I consider the wording of this section heading to be both uncivil and offensive; and I request that you modify the wording immediately. --16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

this request is not the first hoked up request by tenmei. User:Tenmei supposedly had "concensus" to delete Mongolia under Tang rule. an admin spotted it, and realized the so called "concensus" was not covered by G6. tenmei proceeded to blame me for the fact that an admin spotted his fraud request for deletion and realized it wasnt covered by policy. And the fact that most of the discussion on this page is made up of pro mongol editors, shows that tenmei is not willing to pull in a neutral 3rd party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.34 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Toxic 141.155.157.34 -- I consider the paragraph above and the addendum below to contain wording which is both uncivil and offensive; and I request that you modify it immediately. --16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

and the fact that USer:Tenmei is putting warnings on my talk page despite the fact that he knows i DO NOT have a Static IP shows his fraudulence


 * Toxic 141.155.157.34 -- Aha?


 * NO -- I am offended by innuendo -- and in this instance, I'm even more offended that it works so effectively for you. The allegation that "pro mongol editors" have anything whatsoever to do with this thread is not supportable, not provable, hollow.  It offends me that this gambit was effective at Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule before I joined that the AfD thread.  It offends me again that you hazard that tried-and-proven technique here.  It vexes me greatly that this facile poison is so readily given plausible credence.  NO.


 * NO -- This is the first time you've used the phrase "neutral 3rd party," but your sentence implies that there is some back-story in which efforts to work together were somehow thwarted by my unwillingness to examine issues with an unbiased perspective. NO.


 * NO -- I am a neutral 3rd party, and you've ignored all efforts to work constructively. In in the context your edit history creates, your sly gambit is offensive.  I am truly vexed.  NO.


 * NO -- Zeborah is a neutral 3rd party at Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule, and you ignored all efforts to work constructively -- even ignoring pointed questions directed towards you specifically. In the context your edit history creates, he/she found you merely annoying.  NO.


 * This response might have been more strongly worded, but the intent cannot be construed as anything but informed, measured, implacable. --Tenmei (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys off your pills or something?
Everyone settle down. What is all this noise all of the sudden? This article is perfectly fine as it is. This article, Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, is merely a stub article and everything that is stated in it is covered in breadth in this Tang Dynasty article already. What is the point of a merge? Why merge in sparse and redundant material? I hope this can be resolved quickly, because it is a major distraction.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 01:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha. Does that mean that you support a merge?  Good. --Tenmei (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty is a stub article; it would be a joke to merge an article with a whopping six sentences into a credible, behemoth article like this. Besides, the info covered in that stub article is already described in full here. If that's as plain as day to see, why are you pushing for a merge? Why don't you expand Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, and give us all a reason to merge it into this article. Until then...-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 08:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your good-natured response reflects well on you; and I very much enjoyed one well-crafted clause:
 * "... it would be a joke to merge an article with a whopping six sentences into a credible, behemoth article like this."
 * However, this is no joke, nor is my growing sense of offense exaggerated. This disruptive, toxic, long-term warrior has earned appalled contempt mixed with astonishment at the success of tactics and strategies which do not elicit immediate condemnation from my thoughtful, careful peers.


 * Please consider revisiting your first-blush impressions. As you may know, military theorist Carl von Clausewitz stressed the significance of grasping the fundamentals of any situation in the "blink of an eye" (coup d'œil).  Clauzewitz' conceptual "blink" represents a tentative ontology which organizes a set of concepts within a domain. Your preliminary assumptions can't withstand closer scrutiny; and this is relevant to the extent that your descriptive paradigms are affected by the way issues are defined and addressed -- not unlike framing.


 * In other settings, vague misgivings had not coalesced until I read the statement of one of the candidates in the last ArbCom election. Coren identified a specific concern:
 * "More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment ..." [emphasis added]


 * In this instance, I adopt Coren's language when I state bluntly: The disruptive edit history of what is at worst a PRC shill or at best a miscreant youth is exacerbated when he/she uses our rules of civility as weapons.


 * I make Coren's words my own when I state bluntly: This anonymous, long-term warriors is toxic, not vested; and the costs to the community in ignoring his/her trail of harm requires us to investigate beyond surface behavior issues.


 * I merely quote someone else's words I state bluntly: Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia -- see here [emphasis added]


 * Other things interest do me more than this; but if I just let this go, I can anticipate that I will continue to confront similar toxic warriors ad nauseam. In this setting, at least I remain resistant to the "pro-Mongolian" epithet  .... --Tenmei (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

@user Tenmei, I think you worry too much, if you care to read Hua-Yi distinction, you would know that concerning all the articles related to ancient China/East China history, only Huaxia is mainstream, all other culture, or ethnic groups, be it Mongols, Jurchens, or Khitans, or Turkic, they all were sub-culture, sub-groups, they can never become big players, or mainstream. And if some small groups would like to play big in wikipedia, they simply cannot, because they do not have the historical facts to back them up, simple as that. Arilang   talk  15:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. Responding to your words allows me to make plain that my "worry" arises from 21st century disputes in which I take neither side.


 * Please construe my stance as being somewhere on the side of those who reject any scam which would pervert a Wikipedia article as a tactic for affecting contemporary disputes about borders or oil and mineral rights. Count me among those who would hope to mitigate a kind of subtle vandalism which is insidious and pernicious.


 * I am sincerely vexed; and I reject the notion that there is nothing anyone can do. At a very minimum, I can say "no" -- and yes, I don't doubt that it does look like I might be worrying too much.  I invested hours in trying to resolve this problem precisely because I thought WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR provided adequate tools; and in the process of struggling to work within this hortatory policy framework, I encountered what was, for me, unexpected.


 * Issues having to do with Hua-Yi distinction do interest me in the sense that the Foreign relations of Imperial China affect historical Korea, the Ryūkyū Kingdom, pre-Meiji Japan and Formosa.  Tangentially, I am interested in differences the Qianlong Emperor seems to have perceived between The Macartney Embassy and The Titsingh Embassy; and I am vexed that I can't re-write history so that the Old Summer Palace is not demolished by Lord Elgin. --Tenmei (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * @User Tenmei, I think it is ridiculous to merge six measly sentences into this article, and have stated this very clearly. Yet you on the other hand are busy invoking Clauzewitz? How unrelated and irrelevant. So far you have given me the impression that you are a troll, plain and simple, and that your edits here are deliberately disruptive. What normal editor would leave a diatribe like that on a talk page after trying to merge a six-sentence stub into a featured article? I'm done responding to you here, because I think you're only here for attention.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 17:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you misconstrue my intent. We learn from our experiences, and I will bear in mind that you've misconstrued my words.  I'm not trying to turn Tang Dynasty into a battlefield; rather, I'm trying to help eliminate a battlefield by merging it into this "non-battlefield" article.


 * Please hold in mind the merest possibility that I might not be a troll. I take some comfort in knowing that you haven't rebuked me for being somehow "pro-Mongolian" ... which is mildly reassuring, even in this dismissive context. --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ROFL the only reason he didnt accuse you of being pro mongolian is that mongolia is nearly no where mentioned in the article now, and you did not brin git up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.135.20 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Toxic 162.83.135.20 -- You're like a loose cannon; and if you don't understand this phrase, click on the link and learn about a commonly-used English Idiom.


 * Whatever point you think you're making, it doesn't belong here -- see NO. --Tenmei (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Straight talk please
User Tenmei seem to be not talking in English, and using funny kind of words. Come on, please do not play game, we do not have time for that. Arilang   talk  18:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for inviting me to explain again in different words.


 * You and the others who look after this article confronted an awkward problem at Talk:Tang Dynasty above. Working together, you were able to rebuff the disruptive vandalism.  Your group defined that vandalism as badly written propoganda-like material which was (a) unaccompanied by a source citation, or (b) when there was a citation, the published text was misquoted or twisted.  You must have found this kind of attack frustrating.  The citation-checking had to have been time-consuming ... and the edit history for Tang Dynasty shows that the vandalism was repeated


 * A similar dilemma developed at Mongolia during Tang rule, which has now been re-named as Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty; however, nothing seemed to be able to stop or mitigate Toxic 162.84.138.30; Toxic 162.83.161.11; ‎Toxic 162.84.136.193; Toxic 141.155.153.147; etc.


 * When serial efforts to address these problems were unsuccessful, another editor proposed deleting the article. Merging the stub into this one eliminates the battlefield that Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty has become.  Then everyone could devote attention to their other watch-listed articles.


 * As one whose efforts can't be devalued by a complaint that I'm "pro-Mongolian," I took it on myself to try to explain what was going on.


 * You didn't like what I wrote; and I will collapse the text which you didn't like. However, I'm not going to remove it until I figure out how I could have explained the same thing in a more effective way.


 * For today, this is the best I can do. Perhaps it's still not good enough for you; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall put Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty under my watchlist and see what happen next. Arilang   talk  20:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * perhaps you still have not explained you hoax fraud request for deletion, and procceeding to blame it one me when it was the admin who review your request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.135.20 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Toxic 162.83.135.20 -- Everyone recognizes that this gambit is nothing more than "beating a dead horse;" and if you don't understand this phrase, click on the link and learn about a commonly-used English idiom.


 * Whatever point you think you're making, it doesn't belong here; and in the context of consensus-building at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, it's like apples and oranges. Again, if you don't understand what this means, click on the link and learn about a commonly-used English idiom. --Tenmei (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

do not remove islamophboia, iranophobia, white slavery, antisemitism sections
its a fact that tang dynasty persecuted muslims, iranians, iranian religions, buddhism, jews, whites, indians, etc.

its also a fact that tang dynasty chines practiced sexual slavery on white sogdian girls, please do not remove out of nationalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.161.5 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't trust a single edit of yours after you cited Gernet and I read Gernet's book online (courtesy Google Books); the pages which you cited mentioned nothing of what you included in earlier edits (in other words, you like to misrepresent sources), nor did they even use your terminology or "racist" etc. Second of all, you're only here to prove a point and serve an agenda (see Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). Third, this is a featured article and is already getting too large according to prose size (see WP:SIZE). Your massive, unvetted additions are not only unwelcome, but threaten the featured status of this article which I worked very hard to achieve. Get lost. You make Wikipedia a less-respectable place to find information. Why don't you start your own blog where this type of information is more suitable.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This anonymous user has also been adding the same rambling, incoherent and incredibly long information about "white slavery" and "islamophboia, iranophobia, antisemitism" to bunch of other articles.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, even the title of your dubious section is anachronistic to the extreme; in the 7th to 9th centuries, there was no such thing or even the concepts of "Islamophobia", "Anti-Semitism", or "Iranophobia". Did the Tang Chinese buy "white" slaves and turn some fair-skinned prisoners of war into slaves? Sure. But this was a tiny, insignificant amount of the population, dwarfed by the amount of Han Chinese people who were made slaves, and even Han Chinese slaves made up a tiny, 1% of the population. Not only is there already information in the article about the wave of religious persecution for a brief period in the early-to-mid 9th century, but if you wanted to start a legitimate section on Tang-era slavery, why call it "White slavery"? Does that mean a separate section has to be made for "Han Chinese slaves"? That division makes absolutely no sense, and gives away the true reason why this editor created this section: to prove (in a very unconvincing way) that the Tang Chinese were the Nazis of the 9th century. Absolutely ridiculous.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually there are several realible source around that black slaves were very popular as doormen during tang dynasty, bought from arab merchants from east africa. see Ku Klux Klan for similarily behaved people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.165.20 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are some rare cases where black African slaves were imported, but I would ask what you think "popular" is (given that the slave population in premodern China was incredibly tiny and insigificant to the whole) or how you could possibly link Tang-era Chinese slaveholders and practices of slavery to the 19th-century American development of the Ku Klux Klan. Tell me, Mr. Scholar, which credible scholar even makes such a comparison? None, I would guess (not counting the ones who have a crayon-written Ph.D diploma from Peewee Herman's Playhouse University). Lol.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 04:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin action needed to bar 162.83.161.5
Enough is enough, PoA and Balthazarduju, time to request admin action to stop this kind of non-sense once and for all. Arilang   talk  19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Arilang is a fanatic cantonese nationalist, who is trying to elevate cantonese people to god like status among chinese, and pushing cantonese pov everywhere, claiming cantonese are the only "real" descendants of tang dynasty chinese. etc..... arilang claimed cantonese is most closely related language to middle chinese.... lol. other chinese are more closely related to tang dynasty than cantonese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.131.138 (talk • contribs)


 * i find it kind of hyprocritcal that Arilang created Slavery in seventeenth-century China on manchu practicing slavery but is whining about the sections being added here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.129.45 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * People that want to talk about the makeup of Chinese people should perhaps be repairing that article. Is pretty pointless to make these claims in a tang dynasty article. Benjwong (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with creating a Slavery in seventeenth-century China article, since no one is stopping you from creating a slavery in China article focused on any non-Han-Chinese ruled dynasty or any century in time. I wouldn't mind a small discussion of slavery in this Tang article, even though the slave population in all eras of premodern China was relatively low compared to the West (in both Greco-Roman and post-Renaissance Europe) due to the high taxes imposed by the state for owning slaves and the practicality of landlords using loans and tenant-based labor. However, if I see any inserted material about slavery that is steeped in hyper-nationalistic dribble about Han Chinese deliberately targeting ethnic or religious minorities for enslavement, you can expect your material to be removed immediately by yours truly.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 04:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Any evidence on the date
Is "June 18, 618" really 武德元年五月甲子?--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Poem
While I admire the depth and detail in this article, does the Literature section really need an entire poem by Du Fu? It seems excessive to me. A. Parrot (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right. I'm a fan of Du Fu, but this is the main Tang Dynasty article, not a "Literature during the Tang Dynasty" article. What do others think?-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been more than six months, and no one else has said anything, but I've only become more convinced that it should be trimmed. I know nothing about the stature of Du Fu or this particular poem in Chinese literary history, but an analogy makes the point clearer. The "To be, or not to be" soliloquy is one of the best-known passages in the English language, by one of the greatest authors in Western history, but you wouldn't include the entire thing in the article on the Elizabethan era. A. Parrot (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although not a playwright, it would be fair to say that Du Fu, in terms of renown and lyrical excellence, is China's Shakespeare. I have no objections to trimming his poem down, even though I would consider it one of his best (but that's just me!). Others may disagree despite not voicing their concern here. We'll see if objections are raised by the action, not simply the suggestion. If that's the case, we can continue to have a discussion here. Regards.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did that. The deletion would have stacked the two images in the section rather uncomfortably, so I also put the Small Wild Goose Pagoda on the left and moved the emperor's calligraphy to the top of the section (to avoid sandwiching the text). A. Parrot (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I liked the poem. I hadn't realised A. Parrot's idea was to remove all of it. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tang Map
This article is missing a comprehensive map of one of China's most important dynasties. The only map present (in the lead) only shows the boundaries. It doesn't even show the location of the capital Chang'An.

Perhaps someone can find a map showing the major cities?Bless sins (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a systemic problem with all dynasty articles here. There is an insufficient amount of quality maps at Wikimedia Commons which we can utilize here at Wikipedia. Perhaps you could try contacting someone at WikiProject Maps for aid in creating a new map from scratch (but based on scholarly sources with the cited page #s used). A lot of maps at Commons simply have boundary errors or are gross propaganda pieces attempting to show in a very ideal sense the furthest extent of the empire. There is also the issue of presenting a map with a definite, pinpointed year the map is supposed to represent, as borders fluctuated over time and thus any good map should reflect these changes as accurately as possible.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A missing reference?
One passage in the section on the Turkic and Western regions says that "Around 650 AD, Tang forces captured Lhasa, capital of Tibet." The footnote cites "Bell (2000), 28," but that source is not in the bibliography. (The closest one would be "Benn 2002," but this seems like a different book.) Moreover, the (alleged) capture of Lhasa by Tang troops is not mentioned in Charles Beckwith's book (cited in the bibliography) on the Tibetan Empire in Central Asia, which covers precisely that period. Could there have been a mistake? Madalibi (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what source that is. I never added that citation. Someone else did. I can't seem to find Bell's book via Google Books either.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 03:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should find a suitable replacement for that Bell source, one that we can include in the reference section.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking this up. As far as I remember from Beckwith, Tibet and Tang had fairly peaceful relations after 641 when Taizong granted Princess Wencheng as bride to the sovereign of Tibet. Taizong died in 649, and so did the emperor of Tibet a few months later (in 649 or 650). The Tibetan monarch was succeeded by his young grand-son, but real power fell to chief minister Mgar Ston rtsan, who had negotiated the marriage with Princess Wencheng and now controlled the army. Mgar made lots of reforms at the Tibetan court and set out to attack the Tuyuhun, who soon submitted to the Chinese (see Beckwith 1993, 24-27). Relations then became tense between Tang and Tibet, but as far as I know there were no major battles and the Tang never sent armies to Tibet. Anyway, since we have no reference and since the capture of Lhasa is mentioned neither in Beckwith nor in the Sui-Tang volume of the Cambridge History of China, I will erase the problematic sentence until we can find confirmation for this fact. Madalibi (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New Harvard Ref style
Just to let everyone know, after User:Bender235 changed the citation style from the present one to Harvard style for both Song Dynasty and Ancient Egyptian literature, I have requested of him to change the citation style in all of my featured articles, including this one. So please, if anyone has this page on their watchlist, do not revert his edits! He's doing a great job and I applaud his efforts. Regards.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Coinage
Tang coinage  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  13:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what? I like it; and I'm going to use it, because I know just where to put it. Thank you! It's a wonderful image. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome :-)  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Culture
What language did the people speak? How did people communicate with each other (surely there had to be significant differences between the local speeches) and how did the rulers culturally sustain their control over such a vast territory? 60.240.101.246 (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * During the Tang dynasty, like most of imperial China, there were local dialects. They wrote and read 'Mandarin', however, the way modern Mandarin is pronounced is derived from Beijing dialect. Chinese characters are not phonetic, so there is really no record of what they sounded like exactly. Many Chinese poems do not rhyme anymore due to the changes in pronunciation. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Chinese invasion of Lhasa in 7th century did not exist
The following statement is false: "It is held in Tibetan tradition that after Songtsen Gampo died in AD 650, the Tang dynasty attacked and captured Lhasa.

At first I thought I learned something new, I had read books by the Dalai Lama and others but none talked about this Chinese invasion of Lhasa in the 7th century. But I soon realized that it cannot be true. The Tibetans themselves have never mentioned it. Take the “Key events in Tibetan history” a webpage on Freetibet.org for example, http://www.freetibet.org/about/key-dates nowhere is this invasion mentioned. If the Tibetans themselves don’t know it, such event simply did not exist. The Chinese do not know about this either.

A Chinese invasion that reached Lhasa in the 7th century was impossible, given the fact that from the time of King Songtsen Gampo to King Ralpacan, Tibet was militarily strong and dominated the region. The fact that Chinese emperor was compelled to married his daughter to King Songtsen Gampo and that later Chinese emperors in the Tang Dynasty had to pay tributes to the Tibetan King showed the strength of the Tibetan army. In addition to Tibet’s strong army the harsh terrain and severe weather also played significant roles in defense.

Three sources are used to back this questionable statement: 1.	Charles Bell (1992). Tibet Past and Present. 2.	Contemporary China Institute, Congress for Cultural Freedom (1960). The China quarterly, Issue 1. p. 88. Retrieved 2010-07-17. 3.	Roger E. McCarthy Tears of the lotus: accounts of Tibetan resistance to the Chinese invasion, 1950-1962. I checked the sources. 1) On page 28 of Tibet Past and Present it says “Tibetan tradition records that after the death of Song-tsen Gam-po, which occurred about A.D. 650, the Chinese captured Lhasa.” 2) This source merely paraphrase the information provided by the 1st source. 3) This source reported the same information but added some color to it. It appears that the claim was derived from the 1st source Tibet Past and Present.

The author of Tibet Past and Present quoted the Tibetans but the Tibetans themselves were not (and are not) aware of such event themselves. Such false statement should not be included in the article.Tibetsnow (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please try to keep discussions in one place. I have replied to this where you first posted it at Talk:Lhasa. Quigley (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can hypothesize, this invasion did exist. Please notice that Tibetsnow is referring all of his information from pro-Tibetan websites and pro-Tibetan historians. This is biased, as the Tibetans themselves would refuse to admit such an invasion due to their need to preserve their public image and avoid humiliation. Though none of Tibetsnow's references claim such an invasion, please take note that this event is not a key happening, and many historians do not consider it important. True, the Chinese have no written records of this invasion, but as any historian can do, we can easily predict that Tang did not record this invasion because they wanted to hide evidence of this incident, so that friendly relations with Tibet can continue. Besides, if even English historians are backing this theory, you cannot claim that this invasion is only supported by the Chinese themselves. The English have had a long standing influence in Tibet after their conquest of Burma, sending many exlorers into that region, even though they failed to conquer it. The English were very civilized at that time, so you can count on its historical records with 100% accuracy. Therefore, I say we should remove the extremely biased comment about the Tibetan historian denouncing the invasion. This invasion DID exist, whether the Tibetans accept it or not. Aslanofthecountryofnarnia (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think "The English were very civilized at that time, so you can count on its historical records with 100% accuracy" is a good argument at all. The British definitely had an agenda of their own at the time when Charles Bell wrote his book, as imperialism was still prevalent back then. Plus, being civilized does not necessarily equate writing good, objective histories. Generally speaking, asian studies in the West during Bell's time was very biased and crude, and therefore not very trustworthy. However, it has improved dramatically since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, people should try to check more recent scholarship to see if such invasion did take place or not. Also, Bell only mentioned the incident as according to a Tibetan tradition, without showing any other corroborating evidence. He did not specify what tradition it is, nor did he give the source of his information(he didn't provide any citation either). Consequently, we should be wary of his claim. Finally, the Tang and Tibet were not always on friendly terms. So there was really no need to hide any account of warfare between these two states. And, if the Tang did indeed capture Lhasa, how does hiding it helping to continue the good relations between the two sides? I doubt the Tibetans would forget such a terrible incident so easily. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In return, I do not believe the preposterous term "terrible" should be applied the the above said invasion. What say you then, of the sack of Xian by the Tibetans during the An Lushan rebellion? Is that not utterly savage? Though Bell did not specify about the invasion, he mentioned it. That is the bottom line in historical accuracy. Their is no reason to lie about the invasion, since lying about it does not support any party in such a conflict. Due to the barbaric practices of the Tibetans themselves, I doubt Bell would have even had the oppurtunity to interview the local Tibetans. Note also that due to the poor leadership and the organization of the Tibetan government at that time, their own records and annals cannot be counted as reliable. Last of all, due to Songsten Gampo's hostile border ammasings during the Tang Dynasty, the latter empire has every right to invade if it feels that its neighbor is a threat to its own prosperity. In the end, history proves to us that the Tibetans were indeed a great threat to the thriving of the Chinese civilization, due to the savage Tibetan ransack of Xian during the An Lushan rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.145.199 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong area statistics
Don't know if this has been touched on in the archives, but it strikes me as rather strange that an FA class article can have such an obviously erroneous statistic for the total area of Tang China in 633AD to be greater than its current area (11 million km2 vs. less than 10 million km2 today) - particularly since Tang China included neither Tibet nor Manchuria nor Inner Mongolia. Judging from the map I would guesstimate Tang China covering no more than 4 million km2 1812ahill (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you make a good point here. I have looked over a couple articles and have found no sources even for the 11 million km2 estimate. I am not sure, but it seems it may come from Taagepera (whom awhile ago I read that his published work may have grossly exaggerated the sizes of certain Russian-Chinese empires, which led to some contention in the Largest empires article), but currently there is not way to check that, unless you order the work. While looking at least 25 different maps of the Tang Dynasty from the net, it seems its shape was most elongated, but thin, even if it annexed the lower half of Mongolia and or a little of Tibet, as a few to none exaggerated maps show, it could not have exceeded 8.2 million km2 at its greatest extent (this figure comes from 5.4 to 11, if averaged out. Though it which should not be done, but shown here for the purpose of being fair at most possible).


 * The most detailed and probable accurate maps are in the Chinese language, which I found an interesting source on, I'm noting it here not for us using it as a source but, mainly to add or consider in the conversation. The first Chinese map (Tang is always green) shows maybe the lower and or upper parts where conquered, but in the KEY area it says those are borders to other empires (separate from Tang - maybe they gave some tribute), the larger one at the bottom of the page shows the yellow Tibet separate from the Tang, which I have found to be the biggest showing of the Tang Dynasty on a map that one can find on the net, that still looks to be around 8.2 million km2. You can view it here, 1.


 * Unless we can find a reliable source for this new estimate, we have to stick to Turchin's estimate of 5.4 million km2. I have read that it was in around 700 AD (closer to the 5.4 million for 715 AD) when it was largest, but strangely it says for the 11 million km2 to be in 663 AD, thus it is OR and or SYN. Plus, it seems to me that this was a fairly new edit, as noted in the previous message as being odd. Also I think the previous message's guesstimate of 4 million km2 is very close to 5.4 million km2 anyway. So regardless of the guesstimate, UNDUE must be taken into account. Therefore, the reliable sourced material plus the majority of the maps show the Tang Dynasty to be around 5-8 million km2 at its greatest extent. New messages are welcomed, if need be.--Eirione (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the 11 million km2 is plausible because the Tang dynasty did conquer the eastern Göktürks and most of the western Göktürks, here is the size of the Turkic Khaganate. The Tang had also established military government in former territories xueyantuo, which extended from Lake Baikal to the north, the Gobi Desert to the south, the Khingan Mountains to the east, and the Altay Mountains to the west. Most of Korea was also under Tang control for 35 years.

Actually, it would be extremely likely that the Tang Empire exceeded 11 million sq kilometers. In fact, from my research, the Tang at its largest extent reached exactly 15,235,377.14 sq kilometers, or 5,882,412 sq miles. They conquered all of present day China except Manchuria and Taiwan, they expanded into Central Asia and Afghanistan, they conquered all of Kashmir, and they subdued what is now French Indochina, Mongolia, and the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, it would be accurate to claim this area statistic as most correct, if not a tiny bit small. After all, all of these conquered territories were mentioned in the article, so why not add them onto the area statistics? By the way, I am currently working on creating a realistic map of the Tang Empire. When it is ready, I shall post a link on this page. Aslanofthecountryofnarnia (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Map
Are we sure this is accurate? See other maps at and the one at. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. I am not sure this map should be used without an apporpriate description (in English) of what it shows (my guess would be 'influence of Chinese culture' or 'Suzerain states'). Obviously at first look here, it seems like all this land was 'owned' by the Tang (which is not right). 122.106.241.196 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's referring to the current map, but to . Quite a shame that the details aren't translated of the the current one, it's such great quality and sourced too. Although, it is quite obvious what color is suppose to be the Tang. On another note, I'm also fond of this simpler sourced one and in English too. --Cold Season (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A better map is needed here. Territory size of a Chinese dyansty tends to change over time during its rule. When Tang was at her strongest, her territory was bigger than the one shown in the current map. The map in the link given above by Cold Season (the current one link) is probably a better map, it's just that it's in Chinese. Someone should translte it. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * File:唐朝疆域（简）.png, with its various shaded areas and lines to indicate different relationships to the Tang, is too complex and contentious for the infobox. It's also more expansive than one sees in the sources even for the empire at its height – File:China, 742.svg is more representative (though still a bit too detailed for the infobox), and the current map (File:Tang Dynasty circa 700 CE.png is a fairly close approximation to that.  Of course after 760 the territory was considerably smaller, and none of these maps shows that.  Kanguole 09:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The map I am referring to File:唐朝疆域（简）.png, actually spells out the more stable part of Tang's territory and also indicates territories that are subjected to changes throughout Tang's rule (in areas such as modern day Mongolia and Xinjiang, this map also shows the years of occupation/control by the Tang and the type of administrative/governing system [probably in some kind of suzerain relationships with the Tang, and/or a protectorate under the Tang, and/or in any other kind of submissive relationship with the Tang] they were under). So it's a more representative map of the Tang. Tang at its height was certainly bigger than the map shown in the main article. Now, I am not claiming the map I am referring to is the perfect map, as it could also contain inaccurate information. But based on what I know, it is a pretty accurate map overall. So I am not sure what you mean by "It's also more expansive than one sees in the sources even for the empire at its height." Unfortunately, it will take some time to find a better map, if one can find one at all, on the internet. But, the map I am talking about is still better than the other maps listed here, as long as proper annotations and explanations (in English) are provided both on the map itself and also in the article, such as the different types of adminstrative systems the Tang used on its territories, the different kinds of controls, whether it's suzerainty, direct control, or any other kinds of controls. The definition of control and occupation of the territories and also the meanings and details of the various kinds/types of controls these territories were under can be very different during the Tang, when compared to the definitions and understandings of these things in the present-day (basically, the different understandings of the concept of sovereignty between the Tang and the present-day) and it would also be good to include that information and a good explanation of these issues in the main article while making references to the map. The infobox can be very complex and detailed, there is no reason why it can't be (not sure what you mean by too contentious for the infobox). If needed, one should include multiple, high quality maps to show the changes of territorial size throughout the Tang. The point is to give the readers the most accurate information possible. History is a complex subject, and there is no reason why one should try to simplify it, especially at the expense of good, more accurate information. But of course, it will take a lot of effort and time in order to make the changes I am talking about, and given this is wikipedia, someone could easily undo all that hard work. Nonetheless, if anyone out there who has the knowledge and ability, time, intent and energy, that person should definitely do it. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Tang certainly started to decline after the An Lushan rebellion in 755 AD. As for the Tang's territorial size in the later periods of her rule, I think if one looks carefully, the map I am talking about File:唐朝疆域（简）.png does indicate the changes of territorial size during Tang's decline, especially if one pays attention to the dates on the map in areas such as modern day Xinjiang. Again, I am not saying this map is perfect, as it could contain inaccurate information, even the dates themselves. However, this map is more representative of the Tang, is more accurate and does show more details than the other maps people have been putting forward, including the current map in the article itself. Of course, if it's a possiblility at all, having multiple, high quality maps of the Tang from different periods of the dynasty would be the best option. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The meaning of suzerainty/alliance/influence over various regions is still much debated by historians. These issues should certainly be discussed in the body of the article, but there is no room for such subtleties in the infobox.  The map there should be fairly simple and based on clearly defined and uncontentious criteria.  That means the area of direct administration by the Tang.


 * The Tang did decline after 755, but that period represents half of the entire dynasty, and is no less representative. The loss of the Western Regions for the second half of the dynasty is a pretty significant detail.  It's true that that map has the dates, but no-one would see them if you used it in the infobox.  Kanguole 13:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If we translate all the annotations of the map I am referring to from Chinese to English, then the map is still both simple and subtle/complicated enough to be included in the infobox. This map is really not that complicated to be put in the infobox! When readers see the different colors/shades and lines of the map at their first glance (which is a part of the original map anyway) they should be able to understand what it means. If they don't, they can always click the map to enlarge it to see the detailed descriptions on the map. The areas directly controlled by the Tang government also changes over time, just like all of its other territories. And I think this map shows these territorial sizes and their changes the best compared to the other maps here, including the current one in the main article. Again, detailed descriptions of the different types of control (direct, suzerainty, other kinds...etc.,) should be included in the article itself. But the map should also be detailed enough so that readers can point to and make references to the map based on the information in the main article if they want to, and the map I am referring to can do this much better than the current map in the article and the other maps people have mentioned so far.

As for the Western regions, the current map in the main article does not show the changes of that territory very well either. Whereas the map I am referring to does a better job at showing the changes. The size and the definition of the Western regions that were under the Tang's control (direct and indirect), before, during, and after the An Lushan rebellion is extremely complicated, and I am not saying the map I am talking about shows these information perfectly. It's just better than all of the other maps mentioned. Again, people should be expected to click to enlarge the map if they want to know more, such as the dates...etc. File:唐朝疆域（简）.png then has more useful and better information than the other maps, including the current map in the article. Hence, I think it is a better map, a more representative map of the Tang, as it basically covers the territorial sizes at the dynasty's height, during its norm, and its decline. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this map I am talking about is used in the Tang dynasty entry in the Chinese wikipedia. However, there is also a very useful map over there, a map that shows the changes of territorial size over time. Not sure if it's 100% correct, but seems to be pretty accurate. Anyone who is interested should go and check it out. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of an infobox (see MOS:INFOBOX) is to present the reader with key facts from the article at a glance. That requires a simple map.  Just explaining the controversies about the meaning of the light orange shade in that map would require a substantial article, defeating the purpose of an infobox.  You appear to be talking about a map to illustrate the article text, which is a different thing.


 * However the loss of the Western Regions is such a key fact. It could be economically depicted with a map with two shades for the empire in two specified years, e.g. 742 and 822.  Kanguole 14:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously we have different opinions toward File:唐朝疆域（简）.png, as I think it is actually quite a simple map to be included in the infobox here. The explanations of the details of this map should be put in the main article, not the infobox itself, so my suggestion does not defeat the purpose of the infobox at all (I don't know what you mean by "controversies" here, it's not that hard to explain what these different colors/shades and lines are, and I don't think they are very controversial). Of course, the article itself has to be the most important, especially if we want a good article. So we shouldn't sacrifice the quality of the article just because we want a simple infobox. As I wrote earlier, the Tang Dynasty entry in the Chinese wikipedia uses this map in its infobox. This map is also better because it does a better job than the current map in the article at illustrating many key facts such as cities and regions, and most importantly, the different territorial sizes (the different types of control, e.g. direct control, suzerainty...etc.,) of the Tang during the different stages of its rule. Again, I am not saying this map is perfect, it's just better than the current map in the article and many other maps.

I don't know why you keep mentioning the loss of Western Regions (This area, if I understand correctly, was under the direct control of, not just in a suzerain relationship with, the Tang at one time. Also, while the Tang lost this area after the An Lushan rebellion, the Tang did manage to regain control of a large part of the Western Regions for about 40 to 50 years in the 9th and 10th century, before losing much of these regions that have been regained when the dynasty collapsed). The Tang is known more for its expansion of territories than losses. A key reason as to why Tang is significant in history is because it was a powerful empire that expanded China's territories. We are not talking about the Song here, which is also important, but for different reasons. A good, representative map of the Tang should definitely illustrate the territory size of the empire at its founding, then especially, the dynasty's territorial size when it reaches its height, and finally, all the subsequent changes. This is why the map I am advocating is better than the current map in the main artcile, for the former does a better job at showing why Tang is considered to be the golden age in Chinese history. It would be good for the readers to get this key fact at the first glance.

I am not sure why 742 and 822 are that significant years on their own. There are other years one can pick from. Like I said, there is another map in the Tang entry in the Chinese wikipedia that does a fine job at showing the changes of territorial sizes of the Tang from its founding to its fall, which pretty much covers all of the things both you and I have been saying. That map could be used by this article, if it is translated from Chinese into English.

Look, we can have multiple maps in the article, which is what has been done in the Tang entry in the Chinese wikipedia. There is no need to have just one map. We can have different maps illustrating the different territorial sizes of the Tang at different times during its rule, at its founding, at its height, and at its decline. This might be the best option available. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We certainly differ in our ideas of what is a simple map. If a map cannot be understood without reading the article or clicking on the map to study its fine print, then it is certainly not serving the purpose of an infobox to provide key facts at a glance.  Such maps belong in the bodies of articles, not infoboxes.


 * As for the controversies associated with that map, the biggest is the status of the "Anbei protectorate" (depicted as stretching to the Yenisei), which many historians do not consider part of Tang. Nanzhao territories are depicted in light orange, when again these are usually considered to be outside the empire.  The western regions are presented as uniformly part of the empire over the given period, when in fact only the core Anxi protectorate (Tarim and Dzungar basins) was, the Kunling and Mengchi protectorates having lasted only 8 years, and the Soghdiana and Tukharistan protectorates subject to brief and limited control.  (Incidentally the western regions weren't recovered in the late 9th century, just Gansu.)  Baekje and Goguryeo were occupied for just 16 and 8 years respectively.  The outer brown line is particularly vague.


 * Looking at maps in a few books:


 * A history of China, by Wolfram Eberhard, 4th ed. 1977, ISBN 978-0-520-03268-2, Map 5, p. 174.
 * The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 3, Sui and T'ang China, 589–906, Part I, Denis C. Twitchett, 1979, ISBN 978-0-521-21446-9, Map 8, p. 281.
 * China: a new history, by John King Fairbank, 1992, ISBN 978-0-674-11670-2, Map 9, p. 80.
 * A History of Chinese Civilization, by Jacques Gernet, 1996, ISBN 978-0-521-49781-7, Map 17, pp. 284–285.
 * Cultural Atlas of China, by Caroline Blunden and Mark Elvin, 1998, ISBN 978-0-8160-3814-5, pp. 92–93.


 * They're all broadly in line with the current map. Some of them distinguish protectorates from the civil administration.  None of them have Mongolia or Nanzhao as part of the empire.  Kanguole 00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we do have different ideas about what a simple map is and what the function of an infobox should be. But that's okay.

As for the Anbei Protectorate, I do think while some historians might not see that as a part of the Tang, other historians do see it as a part of the Tang. So certainly it can be up for debate. This of course, goes to the issues of the different definitions of sovereignty and the different types of control, which I have talked about previously. Can Tang's protectorates and/or a political entity that is/was in a suzerain relationship with the Tang, and/or any kind/type of vassal state under the Tang be seen as a part of the Tang? This is of course a difficult, important and debatable question. We also have to consider the differences between our ideas of soveregnity and the ideas of soveregnity during the Tang. How did people in Tang's time see all of these things? The Chinese terms here Duhufu 都護府 as in the case "Anbei Duhufu" and in some other cases Dudufu 都督府, also matters. What do/did they mean? Are/Were they different things? If so, how are/were they different from each other? Are/Were areas that are/were called by these two terms a part of the Tang? Again, if people in the Tang saw all of these different types of territories as a part of their empire, maybe that should also be taken into consideration. We should respect the Tang's views on this too. I don't think we should impose our own modern views on history and on people in the past. Any kind of differences between us and people in the past should be explained. One can also debate the size of this territory (Anbei or any other area for that matter), and the changes it went through at different times. Again, various definitions of control and their meanings (such as what constitutes control, and what does it mean...etc.,) during Tang's time also matters.

The Nanzhao part is a bit tricky and maybe confusing. Still, only a portion of that area is shown to be under the Tang. In addition, you will notice that the place is still pretty much separated from the Tang by a light blue line in the map I am supporting. Of course, this map can still be improved upon. If my information is correct, Nanzhao at one time was also in a suzerain relationship with the Tang. Whether Nanzhao was ever a part of the Tang again belongs to the questions of the different definitions of sovereignty and the different types of control I talked about earlier. The same is true with Nanzhao's territory size throughout time, and all of the related issues mentioned previously. All of these things can be discussed.

The light orange color is described as areas that are subjected to change of soveregnity throughout time, so it's not considered to be stable territories of the Tang, while the outer brown line is simply providing a general contour of the empire.

Certainly some of these regions were not under the authority of the Tang throughout its almost 300 years of rule, that I definitely acknowledge. This is true with Korea, which the map I am supporting does not really say it's a part of the Tang, but it does indicate that Tang did occupy Korea at one time, which is useful information. This is also true with all of the various other areas, whether they are in the West, in the North, in the South, in the East and so forth. That the map I am supporting mentions that the Tang did expand into these areas during its rule means that this map is providing good information. As for the Western Regions, I never said the whole thing was recovered in the 9th century (what is the whole thing anyway?). But it is also true that many parts of present-day Xinjiang, Ningxia, Qinghai and Gansu were recovered by the Tang from the mid 9th century onward.

I don't think the map I am supporting portrays the Western Regions under the Tang in a uniform way. The dates are there for people to see. Nonetheless, the details can definitely be improved upon. By the way, I never claim this map is perfect. This map is not the most detailed map, so of course you might find some problems with it. This is also why I think it is a simple enough of a map to be put in the infobox.

As for your sources, I only have access to 3 of them, so I will just concentrate on these 3. The Cambridge History of China map only covers the Western Regions during the Gaozong era, so of course it won't cover the Nanzhao and Mongolia areas. But this map does not dispute the map I am supporting either, in fact, it seems to support my map more. As it looks like the Cambridge map shows bigger Tang territories in the West than the current map in the article, which is consistent with the fact that Tang's territory was the biggest during Gaozong's reign.

As for the maps in both Fairbank and Eberhard (I am using the 1998 edition of the former, 1969 edition of the latter), both of them are presenting Tang's territory in the 8th century. For Fairbank, the map is described as "Tang Empire at Its Greatst Extent (Eighth Century)", whereas in the Eberhard one (p. 171 in my edition), it's "The T'ang realm (about A.D. 750)". Now both maps are generally correct about the Tang's territory at around the 8th century, but Tang achieved its greatest extent of territories in the 7th century, not 8th, so Faribank is somewhat off the mark. By the 8th century, Tang's territory has started to shrink. So to whatever extent Tang had Nanzhao and Mongolia before, I am not sure if the Tang would still have these lands by the 8th century. On page 279 of the Cambridge History vol.3 we are using, it also says that Tang achieved its greatest territorial extent during the reign of Gaozong, which is from 649-683. Given the current map in the article is depicting 8th century Tang, of course both maps from Faribank and Eberhard would correpond more with the current one. However, I will note that it seems the Fairbank map shows greater extent of the Tang in the Western Regions than the Eberhard one. Fairbank's depiction then, seems to be closer, if not pretty much the same as the territories shown in the map I am supporting. Mind you, Fairbank's map also includes a bigger portion of Manchuria and all of Korea as a part of the Tang. This is not shown in the current map of this article.

Let me just say that I think the map I am supporting is more representative of the Tang than the current map in the article because it captures the golden age of the dynasty better. The map I am supporting also does a good enough of a job in showing the distinctions between the various areas under the different ways of control, e.g. protectorates, suzerainty, direct control...etc. Of course, the various dates, the different colorations/shades and lines and other information on this map are also useful. I think showing a 8th century map of the Tang at the top of the article does not do justice to the territory expansion Tang achieved during its rule. I think it is important for the readers to learn about Tang's greatest achievement in territory expansion when they glance at this article for the first time. If you take a look at the Roman Empire entry in Wikipedia, you will find the map over there shows Rome at its greatest extent. I am hoping a similar map can be used here in this entry. As I said, there is a map that shows the changing nature of Tang territory throughout its rule in the Tang entry of the Chinese wikipedia, maybe it can be used here. But someone needs to translate it.

Finally, I think this discussion has been good. However, I am not sure if any further discussion will result in anything constructive. As you recall, I never said I am going to change the main article, for it will take too much time and energy. I only hope to raise this map issue, so that people are aware of it. If any person who has the knowledge, time, energy and desire to improve this article, whether it's about the map or not, by all means do so. 128.104.60.133 (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I definitely need to bring up the fact that the map is extremely out of proportion. Note the fact that the Tang conquered all of Central Asia, Afghanistan, Mongolia, French Indochina, the Korean Peninsula, and all of modern-day China with the exception of Manchuria and Taiwan. This map is so biased that it depicts only a small intrusion into Central Asia and Mongolia and only the northeastern half of the Indochina Peninsula. Where is the rest of Central Asia, Afghanistan, the Korean Peninsula, Mongolia, French Indochina, and the other territories in China? We need to change the map immediately, for it greatly decreases both the size of the Tang Empire and the historical accuracy of the article. 71.146.134.99 (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Xueyuantuo enslaving Chinese prisoners
Please provide accurate, nonbiased information that historically describes that, during the transition from Sui to Tang, Chinese civilians were captured by the Xueyuantuo on the northern frontier. As far as I have researched, there was no historical evidence referenced in any book that I have studied that mentions Emperor Taizong sending envoys bearing gold and silk. Nothing about this supposedly occuring incident is referred to in transition from Sui to Tang. I expect the claimed information to be referenced with absolute accuracy, in a nonbiased sort of manner. Aslanofthecountryofnarnia (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Life in tang china
http://books.google.com/books?id=ile3jSveb4sC&pg=PA244#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Tang china and the steppe nomads
http://books.google.com/books?id=qTm6Yka5GigC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=tDgfAQAAMAAJ

Rajmaan (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tang Conquest of Central Asia
Though the Tang Empire lost the Syr Darya valley to the Arabs, they still held onto the land north of the Talas, that is, most of Kazakhstan and northern Uzbekistan. This can be accurately proven if you carefully examine a map of the Abbasid Caliphate. They exhibited tight control over the Ferghana valley during their Golden Age, but they never expanded north of that. The Gokturks were conquered by the Chinese, so it would be logical to speculate that the Tang still had a stretch of land bordering the northern Aral Sea and the eastern Caspian. Later, with the decline of the Abbasid power in Central Asia, the Tang probably conquered the vacuum space of territory. After all, there were no nomadic tribes residing in the area after the conquest of the Gokturks by the Tang. This should be referred to with more detail in the article, or else it would seem extremely biased as to claim that the Tang officially lost their control of Central Asia after the Battle of Talas, for the Tang conquered the area again later after the decline of the Muslim dominance in the area. Aslanofthecountryofnarnia (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Tang Dominance of the Korean Peninsula
The Tang conquered northern Korea from the Goguryeo Kingdom. However, there is ongoing debate about the southern territories of Korea. We also know for sure that the Tang conquered the Baekje, which means all of southwestern Korea was under Tang control. Please add more detail about this territorial control over Korea in the article. Though historical evidence suggests that Silla expelled the Tang from their territory, note that Silla has a relatively small territory in what is now southeastern Korea. The rest of Korea, therefore, was still under Tang control. The manner in which the article is written con cause great confusion over whether the Tang Empire exhibited control over areas of Korea even after the defeat by the Silla. According to my research, the Silla only managed to repel the Tang invasions, but did not manage to liberate the entire Korean Peninsula from Tang rule. Definite misunderstanding here! Aslanofthecountryofnarnia (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly would you like to change and what are your sources? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What I would like to do is I would want more detail about the continuing Tang Dominance of Korea. As for my sources, I would not need any. It would be absolutely preposterous as to claim that Silla controlled the entire Peninsula, as their is no mention of this sort of "liberation" on the Tang-Silla Wars article. Would not it be perfectly logical to then assume that the rest of the Peninsula was still under Tang control? There was no other ethnic group in the region that had a very extreme influence militarily. 99.150.209.237 (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You certainly would need reliable sources, not personal inferences, to back what you want to add. Wikipedia has a whole raft of policies in the subject.  Kanguole 01:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Then please explain the absurdity of the fact that there is no sources claiming that Korea liberated the entire Korean Peninsula. Please do not demand sources from me when you yourself cannot provide sources of the claimed likewise. Please use some common sense before attempting to debate with me again. 71.146.134.99 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article already contains citations on the points you're complaining about, and you've not said why those sources are unreliable, apart from their reaching different conclusions than you. In this case the current text is cited to Kang 2006 and Graff 2002.  We could add the Cambridge History of China, volume 3, pp282–285.  Kanguole 08:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Li Imperial family
http://books.google.com/books?id=8hOgAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA262&dq=tang+li+imperial+descendants&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ehDqUrqgF4SMyAGn1YHYDg&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=tang%20li%20imperial%20descendants&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=i6pIMVGPkuUC&pg=PR19&dq=tang+li+imperial+descendants&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ehDqUrqgF4SMyAGn1YHYDg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=tang%20li%20imperial%20descendants&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IpXzmOuqiegC&pg=PA97&dq=tang+li+imperial+descendants&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ehDqUrqgF4SMyAGn1YHYDg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=tang%20li%20imperial%20descendants&f=false

The Tang imperial descendants were made dukes by the Later Jin dynasty

http://books.google.com/books?id=R0QpslzUi50C&pg=PT201&dq=tang+li+imperial+descendants&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ehDqUrqgF4SMyAGn1YHYDg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=tang%20li%20imperial%20descendants&f=false

Chengcun village

http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/50676.htm

northwest aristocracy
Tang dynasty, mixed northwestern aristocracy vs "pure" northeastern aristocracy. Northwestern aristocracy were mixed Han and Xianbei

http://books.google.com/books?id=F3baSe8QlPUC&pg=PA168&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3KXRUvqGLI7ksASy5YL4Cw&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=clma-5EymBkC&pg=PA22&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5brRUuTVBMjmsASrtYKgDA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iKX39fOyvNoC&pg=PA177&dq=northeast+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GaXRUrTYAeHLsAS2uYHADw&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=northeast%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ePBeFRJnE_gC&pg=PA196&dq=northeast+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GaXRUrTYAeHLsAS2uYHADw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=northeast%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=VIWC9wCX2c8C&pg=PA196&dq=northeast+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GaXRUrTYAeHLsAS2uYHADw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=northeast%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=F3baSe8QlPUC&pg=PA168&dq=northeast+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GaXRUrTYAeHLsAS2uYHADw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=northeast%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iKX39fOyvNoC&pg=PA177&dq=northeast+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GaXRUrTYAeHLsAS2uYHADw&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=northeast%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=x3zaRttYiekC&pg=PA520&dq=northeast+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GaXRUrTYAeHLsAS2uYHADw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=northeast%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jrv-6_U5gfwC&pg=PT27&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5brRUuTVBMjmsASrtYKgDA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=FJ4PrgBOVwgC&pg=PA148&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5brRUuTVBMjmsASrtYKgDA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=wKpj1YfXfHEC&pg=PA32&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5brRUuTVBMjmsASrtYKgDA&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rTSmYVRYJJcC&pg=PA32&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5brRUuTVBMjmsASrtYKgDA&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=DbfAmvYC3NgC&pg=PA100&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5brRUuTVBMjmsASrtYKgDA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=isIxgPn_zfMC&pg=PA100&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5brRUuTVBMjmsASrtYKgDA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=sV48AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3KXRUvqGLI7ksASy5YL4Cw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=ou-hq_FlQY4C&pg=PA75&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3KXRUvqGLI7ksASy5YL4Cw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=ou-hq_FlQY4C&pg=PA75&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3KXRUvqGLI7ksASy5YL4Cw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

Misc

http://books.google.com/books?id=RkF2zktvSmcC&pg=PA41&dq=northeast+aristocracy+tang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qJ7RUvvoOIu0sQSE14D4Cw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=northeast%20aristocracy%20tang&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=zzEUAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&dq=northeast+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GaXRUrTYAeHLsAS2uYHADw&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=northeast%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=n2WKejUSPRgC&pg=PA158&dq=northeast+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HbvRUsfcILOtsATelYHQDA&ved=0CDsQ6wEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=northeast%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false

09:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)