Talk:Yangzhou massacre (760)

Sources on the Yangzhou massacre
大食波斯賈胡死者數千人；殺商胡波斯數千人 - dàshí Bōsī gǔ hú sǐzhě shǔ qiān rén ； shā shāng hú Bōsī shǔ qiān rén   - from New Book of Tang

http://books.google.com/books?id=YJibpHfnw94C&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.asia.si.edu/shipwrecked/downloads/17qi.pdf

http://www. chinatravel. com/facts/the-precursor-to-the-grand-canal.htm

http://www.learner.org/courses/worldhistory/support/reading_7_3.pdf

Page 27 Familiar strangers

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y8Nzux7z6KAC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to An Lushan
To add to this article: Tian's relationship to An Lushan and his rebellion. Was Tian one of An's generals? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems not. Kanguole 23:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the mention of the Guangzhou Massacre
I will remove the sentence mentioning the Guangzhou Massacre in this article, for the following two reasons:

LRC.WK (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not directly (in a natural sense) related to the Yangzhou Massacre, and occurred more than a century later.
 * 2) The number of "up to 120,000 Muslim Arabs, Persians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Christians" killed in Guangzhou is extremely suspicious - it violates basic common sense. How large could the total population of Guangzhou be at the time? A very conservative estimate would be that it's less than a million. If 120,000 Muslim Arabs, Persians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Christians were living in Guangzhou, then these people constitute more than 12% of Guangzhou's population at the time. In fact, Guangzhou's population was probably less than half a million, in which case 120,000 would be more than a quarter of Guangzhou's population. It's very unlikely so many Muslim Arabs, Persians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Christians were living in Guangzhou at the time, let alone killed. I suspect therefore that the "up to 120,000" estimate is merely anecdotal, and thus stating it as a matter of fact is most likely very misleading.