Talk:Tuyuhun invasion of Gansu

"Peacock" language
I don't know how this got through the process without someone picking up on the fact that "obscene", "lewdly performed" and "erotic" were all making much the same point, in more, and less subjective ways.

If some Wikipedia editor wrote that a piece of music was "beautiful", "magnificently performed" and "triumphant", then two of the adjectives would be deleted immediately, and "triumphant" would be assessed on the basis that it described the nature of the music. The same would go for the description of an artwork.

The same rules have to apply here.


 * To describe something as "obscene" is to say that it was extremely offensive, in the context in which it was presented. The nature of obscenity has been the subject of court cases, because assessing something as obscene is a highly subjective matter.   On what grounds was this dance "obscene"? Did the viewers find it "obscene"?  Was it described by chroniclers of that date as "obscene" (i.e. extremely offensive)?  No indication is given, in the context of the article, that the viewers considered what they were seeing to be "highly offensive".
 * The words "obscene", lewdly" and "erotic" are overkill, in anyone's language. It is sufficient to use one.
 * If you omit "obscene" as being a legal landmine, then you're left with "lewdly performed" and "erotic".


 * Was the performance "lewd"? Like "obscene", this is a matter of judgement.
 * The word "erotic", on the other hand, (while not entirely objective) describes the nature of the dance and sets it aside from other types of dances. (They could have been doing a war dance, for example). It is quite sufficient to say that the dance was "erotic".  The dancers must have performed it in a sexually alluring manner, or else it would not have been "erotic" at all. So the words "lewdly performed" are superfluous, unless there was something quite extraordinarily vulgar about the way that they danced.

If there is strong evidence that the dance was in some way so explicit or vulgar that it caused great offence and was therefore "obscene" then this needs to be stated.

If, on the other hand, the word is merely being used to emphasise the erotic or sexual nature of the dance, then it is misplaced.

What is the evidence that the dance was truly offensive?

Amandajm (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was a sensationalist and regrettable attempt at getting into the DYKSTATS list that ranks the most-viewed DYKs. The flowery language resembles historian Charles Patrick Fitzgerald's own sensationalist account of the battle, recounted with the same tone of telling a funny story. What was appropriate for Fitzgerald's book is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and the language has been toned down.--Typing General (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK hook
Seriously absurd. It reads/read: ‘[DYK] that two dancing girls (statue pictured) performed an erotic dance in front of Tuyuhun soldiers, while Chai Shao of Tang attacked them from the rear with his cavalry?’. The girls were attacked from behind by the cavalry? Ian Spackman (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The mind boggles! 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on my reading of the hook, the general attacked the opposing soldiers, not the dancers.--Typing General (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Worse still: there is absolutely no evidence suppled that the picture used actually depicts (as implied) the young women concerned. Worser and worser, the battle takes place in 623 CE, while the clay figurine is from much later. I’ll remove it. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The picture in the article is of what a Tang dynasty dancer would have looked like. It does not depict the actual battle, but it still gives the reader an impression of what a dancer would have looked like. The picture is less confusing with a modified caption.--Typing General (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)