Talk:Tang dynasty

Names

What do "Temple Names", "Personal Names", and "Era Names" mean? Please put some explanation somewhere, or at least link to it, since I don't really know what these are. And, this is a dynasty, who were the rulers during the dynasty - the "Personal Names"? If so, why not link all of them to individual articles? -- jheijmans

Linking them to individual articles was not done because of lacking a uniform format of naming convention. Now even with the standards set on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (chinese), articles are still titled at the writer discretion. Once the standards are agreed upon, those individual articles can then be started. User:kt2

Note below

In the table of rulers, "Shao di" and "Ai di" tell you to "see note below the table", yet there is no note? -- Jpta 19:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Five centuries

how can there have been five centuries of military decline for a dynasty that only lasted for three centuries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.128.13 (talk)

Rock band

Tang Dynasty is also the name of a famous Chinese rock band. --sgfhk321

added talk possible edid question

No mention of the Yulan magnoliaIts flowers were regarded as a symbol of purity in the Tang Dynasty and it was planted in the grounds of the Emperor's palace, shouldnt that be noted somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.103.66 (talk)

Added. Aranherunar 05:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible changes and additions

First, Li Shih-min did not claim the title of "T'ang T'ai-Tsung"; these "temple names" are conferred after emperors' deaths by the new emperor and court.

Second, Li Shih-min did not "kick out" his father. He passed it to him (although probably feeling pressured enough to amount as a "kick out"). However, there was no indication that Li Shih-min would've actually forced his father out. In fact, he appeared to be a dutiful son.

Third, to speak nothing of how Li Shih-min came to power is something of an outrage. The "coup" where he killed 2 of his brothers was surely one of the most important events in chinese history - allowed him to become emperor afterall, and probably the best there ever was. Although this rightfully and already belongs to another article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fukui (talk • contribs)

Edited per first problem. Third concern needs someone with the right knowledge, not me. As for the second, it seems common sense that if his father doesn't pass it to him, Li Shih-min would have done so - what else did he kill his two brothers for? It's not only because his two brothers are repeatedly trying to kill him, it also served as a warning for his father, e.g. "The next one is you". Aranherunar 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect content

"The Emperor had three administrations (省, shěng): Military Affairs, Censorate, and Council of State. Each administration had its own job."

This sentence mixed up the three seniors of Han Dynasty with three shěng in Tang Dynasty.

The three seniors of Han led Military Affairs, Censorate, and Council of State.

The three shěng of Tang drafted policy, reviewed policy and implemented the policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.199.46 (talk)

Thanks, I have edited it into: "The Emperor had three administrations (省, shěng), which were obliged to draft policies, review policies and implement the policy. There are also six divisions (部, bù) under the administration which implement the policy, which carries out different tasks." Is that ok? I don't know the English translation of the three sheng, though. Can anyone provide one? Thanks again. Aranherunar 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm begging you! PLEASE tell me when the Dynasty started to when it ended. SHEESH!!

tang ren

ok so i know cantonese people always refer to chinese people as ' tang ren'. i was talking to a guy from fujian who always did this too. i wasnt sure if it was just cantonese people that call chinese people tang ren or are there other chinese people who do this too such as fujian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinoiserie (talk • contribs)

Uh, táng rén isn't Cantonese...it's Mandarin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.248.78 (talk)

people who speak mandarin never refer to themselves as tang ren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinoiserie (talk • contribs)

There should be a brief explanation at article Han Chinese. Aranherunar 04:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

táng rén = 唐人 is of course related to the Tang dynasty, so I think there should be a reference in this article. Tang Wenlong (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

cantonese

was cantonese the lingua franca of this era? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinoiserie (talk • contribs)

The Tang Dynasty was taken over by aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.22.143 (talk)

Cantonese is at best a regional patois that happens to be famous becuase it was the language of the modern gatewate to China aka Hong Kong and Guandong. It definitely was not the common tongue of the Tang Dynasty as Guandong was something of a backwater at that time and the Tang Dynasty was based in Shaanxi which is pretty much on the opposite end of China from from Guandong. Also Mandarin or Putonghua is the lingua franca of China and has been since the Qin Dynasty, Putonghua litterally means Common Together Speach, so there you go.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.80.214 (talk)

Incidentally it spells Guangdong.

I must disagree with you. The spoken language of the Tang people is very significantly different from the Mandarin nowadays. Most linguists would agree that Cantonese is far closer to Tang spoken language than Mandarin - perhaps even Japanese is closer. The reason of that is actually said by yourself - Guangdong was something of a backwater at that time. It was only at the Tang dynasty that the "Tang culture" reached Guangdong, and it has stayed there ever since while in the North the spoken language evolved quite rapidly to be remarkably different from Cantonese. Aranherunar 04:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, although every dynasty has Mandarin, these Mandarins are not the same one. No spoken language can be the same one for thousands years. Current Mandarin is based on current Beijing spoken language, and Beijing is very far from Chang'an(Xi'an). So "Tang Mandarin" is not current Mandarin. This has been confirmed by researchers even hundreds years ago, since China has books recording pronunciations( for poem use).

But can we say which dialect is the closest to Tang's Mandarin? Researcher have done somework, but there is no widely accepted conclusion yet, and I think there won't be one,since EVERY modern dialect has enough differences from Tang's Mandarin.

Cantonese should be more similar to "Tang Mandarin" than Mandarin, but I have to say that most dialet are more similar to "Tang Mandarin" than today's Mandarin, it is not just Cantonese. And remember that we are talking about pronunciations, the written/formal anguage only has one form ( or 2, classic and current), If you listen to HongKong TVB's news and write everything down, you can't find much differences(if any) from a Mandarin one.

By the way, to say Japanese is colser to Tang language than Mandarin is a joke. Chinese(all types of Chinese) and Japanese are even not in the same language family, their structures are completly different. Maybe you mean that "some Japanese (loan) words' pronunciations are more closer to Tang's version". But it is a different story, and at the same time, some Japanese (loan) words don't. Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese have been influenced by Chinese heavily, but mostly on vocabularies, these languages themselves have nothing to do with Chinese.

why do you guys discuss this topic here, I think the "Chinese language" topic has explain this clearly enough.

you are all wrong. the lingua franca was ALWAYS the dialect of the region around the capital, which during tang was chang'an —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.244 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tang_dynasty.PNG

The map on this article has gross errors; first of all, there was no Balhae (Bohai) in 660 CE. Secondly, Baekje didn't have any territories in Manchuria, it was Goguryeo that had expanded in Manchuria (so those two names are actually switched). Also, Balhae and Goguryeo did not co-exist at the same time. I don't know about other states in the map (Tibetan Empires, Gokturks, etc.), but there are lots of errors regarding the states I mentioned. I'm not good with photoshop (or MS paint), so If anyone would like to make a new map or make the changes, I think it would be great. I personally like maps made by Yeu Ninje, those maps are superb. Deiaemeth 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't some distinction be made between vassal and enemy states? --SohanDsouza 10:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC) ~~Well enemy states may become vassals and vice versa.

The vassals and borders changed considerably from generation to generation during the dynasty, and I talk of its powerful years not about the entire span of its history of course. This map is ambiguous and a bit amateur but aside from labelling and ambiguous simplicity, not outright wrong. Except for the SW border :DHeaven's knight 22:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Korea's Role in Tang China

Korea nor Japan were Chinese tributaries at this time. Goguryeo waged war with the Tang Dynasty, and both Baekje, and Shilla were tributaries to Goguryeo. Shilla later broke its ties with Goguryeo, and launched an attack on Baekje. Later, a Shilla-Tang alliance was formed, and then the Shilla Imgeum (Sovereign) changed his title to Wang (King) to show Tang hegemony. Following the defeat of both Goguryeo and Baekje by the allied force of Shilla and Tang, Tang made an attempt to invade Shilla, but was repelled, breaking Shilla's tribute relations with Tang. Relations opened up again, but not tributary ones. The official title of the Shilla ruler was reverted to Imgeum during the war with Tang, according to Sam-guk-sa-gi.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.189.29 (talk)

Japan was definitely not. As for Korea, I'm not sure, because I have read a textbook that says it was. Aranherunar 05:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is too POV with statements of how Tang China stretched all over Asia to the middle east. Also, Korea never paid tribute to China. Why would Korea pay tribute to an enemy? Goguryeo battled the Tang Dynasty heavily and its fall was because of its exhaustion of too many wars, including the ones Goguryeo repelled against the Sui Dynasty. I have edited the article. Good friend100 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"The article is too POV with statements of how Tang China stretched all over Asia to the middle east." it was that big you liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.244 (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

im warning you guys who keep messing with tang territory size, stop it right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.176.163 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

im afraid your wrong. korea did pay heavy tribute to china during the ming dynasty.Historian of the arab people (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Tang Dynasty was a GREAT Success."

This is my first post on Wikipedia, so please excuse any breaks of normal etiquette until I get used to the format.

Just a note: in the section entitled "20 Emperors of the Tang Dynasty," there's a small line after the table saying "The Tang Dynasty was a GREAT Success." I checked the history and apparently its been here since the original edit, back in 2002.

I originally wanted to delete it out entirely, but hesitated after seeing that it somehow survived over 4 years of edits. My problems with it:

• Its an opinion
• If its a proper argument, there's no supporting evidence
• If its a quote, there's no citation

Thoughts?

Jia 23:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..I don't actually see it in edit history. Maybe a vandalism somebody missed. It's not here now, at least. Aranherunar 05:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yo we are jenks students!

This really helps with homework! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.226.126 (talk) I'm in 6th grade and our reasources arnt to great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.30.228 (talk)

Uhh..glad it helps. Goodbye. Aranherunar 04:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Expansion and cleanup

The article is seriously, seriously messy. For god's sake, Tang dynasty is the most powerful dynasty in Chinese history (and one of the most documented one), even shorter than a mere school? It needs a very, very large expansion. There's a lot to talk about Tang dynasty - the history section alone should be larger than the whole article now. Then we'll have to talk about policies, emperors, relations with other cultures, etc. etc. To make matters worse, half the data here is wrong (see talk page comments above). The map is obviously exaggerated, the era names are inaccurate, and the external links section doesn't have a link. The header is actually the whole article except from a list. Would anyone want to do the expansion and cleanup? Thanks. Aranherunar 05:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you want to write a book, long long book :) Even Japanese version is way longer than this. When we talk about history, at least the topic should mention Chu Tang, Sheng Tang, Zhong Tang, Wan Tang(sorry don't know how to spell them in English). When we talk about culture, at lease Li Bai & Du Fu should be mentioned. On the other hand, parts of the article is too detailed. I mean the Imperial examination thing. I don't it is not import, but so much Imperial examination and not a single word about poem? the article needs a good structure before too much details are added.

and the name of the empress is still incorrect, she was not named zetian, her Posthumous name is not Wu Hou, it is much longer, any Empress whoes family named is Wu can be called Wu Hou.

Map

As far as my edits to the article itself, I slightly touched on the article to clarify about the beginning of the decline, specifically with regards certain mentions of talas. Tang decline and subsequent withdrawal from the west is due to an shi rebellion, not a single frontier battle. It seems Talas tends to be overstated and fetishized. Still, I wonder where we shall put it then; by the same reasoning it seems rather too much to give it its own special link in related topics or what have you and yet I am reluctant to orphan it. I'm sure many of us can agree that the Tang dynasty deserves much better treatment than this and a greatly expanded article; little tidbits like Talas then would not be out of place there.Heaven's knight 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Chill, not everything is some kind of evil nationalist conspiracy. The outer areas are ambiguously labelled, I agree. But no one seriously denies or 'forgets' the Tibetans when in discussion of Tang. I might insinuate that you yourself have 'forgotten' history; the Tibetans in fact captured the capital of Chang'an briefly once, but you do not divulge any mitigating circumstances but instead leave it at that.

What IS inaccurate about that map is the southwestern border; Tang control there was rather more, how shall we put it, receded than is shown. also the korean area is obviously mislabelled, as some have pointed out. We do need a better map Heaven's knight 22:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That map on Tang dynasty is seriously misleading. The caption reads 'Tang Dynasty and its allied and conflicting states' - what the hell is that supposed to mean, when the map is coloured in such a way that it insinuates a Chinese preponderance in all the coloured areas? I wouldn't be saying this if that WAS the case, that Tang China DID exert various forms of control on all the coloured regions, but of course that is not the case. Nearly forgotten annals of the Tibetan empire at the time reveal a power that at one time threatened Chang-an itself, and of course various Korean states of Kogureyo (dunno how to spell that) and Silla were at odds against Tang China many times. I say someone strike down that map, because it was obviously made by an amateur and ignorant hand, or was made by an extreme sinophile such as Gavin Menezies quite willing to warp historical truth for China. -- 1tephania

Removal changes

---deleted this part because it had no details. "In 751, Chinese and Arab forces met in Turkestan. The Chinese force was routed." -intranetusa

I'd performed some reorganisation - and stuck in the bit about the climate change - and a lot of that has been let alone. I'm glad of that. Also, some of the text I reorganised has been subsequently erased. As far as I'm concerned that's someone else's problem. However: I'd love to know why Intranetusa and Clee7903 removed my reference to the 751 battle ("Talas River"), and then rearranged it so that the weather change (~ 700 CE) appeared after the An Shi rebellion (756 CE).

I'm willing to accept that the Talas river battle didn't hurt the Tang army much; but it did highlight the Tang command's ongoing decline in the run-up to the An Shi rebellion, which (I submit) is important. Also it was an important point of contact between the Tang and the Abbasid world, inspiring the Tang accounts of Islam which are still worthy of study today.

To Cleo: if you want to delete a bunch of stuff or move it around, that's fine with me, but I'd appreciate it if you could explain why you did it.

To intranetusa: The details were enough for Breitbart and the AFP, dude. If it's not enough for you, then go add to it or flag it with a "{ fact }" tag. And while I appreciate that you did give a reason here, you could have organised it better.

-- Zimriel 03:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)'

To Zimriel. The article regarding the Battle of Talas River has been added. Have a link to that article. Intranetusa 01:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Sources/Citations: Protector of Kashmir=

I am an avid reader of Chinese Imperial history and would be interested to see some more detailed references for the article--specifically on the point about the Tang dynasty being the protector of Kashmir and apparently allied with Assam (based on the map). Could someone please provides some links to expound upon this or some more citations for those who would be interested (all the sites online pertaining to this appear to be linked to the article or directly copying it? I would be interested in reading more about it.Thank you.

It appears the request above has been here for quite some time, but no one has move forward to answer it. Is is safe to say then that the statement that kashmir was a vassal state of china was unsourced and that it is a candidate for deletion? I am avid reader of Tang history and genuinely appreciate their achievements; however, I am also concerned about accuracy, since we all want as many FA's as possible on wikipedia. I wanted to reach out to the main contributors to this article before deleting this statement myself. Are we in agreement that this is unsourced then? Please let me know.

Regards,

Devanampriya

In thoes days, there is not a stated called "Kashmir"? there were some small states. If you say vassal state, I will say no. Tang didn't control Kashmir all the times, and when she did, parts of Kashmir was controlled by 安西都护府,not a state. Some states there were once being Tang's allies, but they could turn to enemies. I think the author is confused with allies and vassal states.

Chinese use the term 西域, which is not the same as Kashmir. If you say 西域 was controlled by Tang, it is OK.

And Assam is also a modern name, you mean north east India? In thoes days, it was very hard to get there from China(there is himalaya), so they were basically isolated.

the map is strange, it seems that "Kashmir" is not on the correct position, and in those days, there were no mongol tribes. And the north east part the map is a mess, Paekche and Balhae didn't exist at the same time and they are not showed on the correct positon. Even Japanese topic of Tang has a better map.

I'm beginning to think the inner yellow area is a distorted Han map. The map overall suffers from enough distortions as it is. While the borders directly ruled by the Empire changed and some leeway can be assumed, the southwestern border is clearly extremely off, resembling a Han map, and on closer inspection the overall impression of the borders is Han. We really need a better mapHeaven's knight 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Droughts and famine

In the section about the decline of the Tang, there is a sentence: "At the same time, natural causes such as droughts and famine due to internal corruptions and incompetent emperors contributed to the rise of a series of rebellions." This sentence is manifestly self-contradictory: how can droughts and famine be caused by corruption and incompetent governance? Is this a reflection of how people have lost faith in the divine Mandate of Heaven of the Tang emperors in their inability to curb natural disasters? Or did they bungle the post-disaster handling? Clearly, this section needs to be expounded on.

AcidFlask 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Article's quality

This article is way too short and simplistic to be about Tang Dynasty. Even Encarta has about five pages solely devoted to it. I believe Wikipedia is one of the worst references when it comes to Chinese dynasties or Chinese history in general, because the contents are often short and has POV problems. Other prominent enyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica has way more informations to say about it. --67.2.148.214 19:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree Heaven's knight 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here. The Wikipedia page of one of the greatest dynasties is way too short, especially for a magnificent encyclopedia like Wikipedia. And I'm not just saying that because I'm Han Chinese. However, since I last read the page, it's improves quite a bit. Geosultan4 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tanjahreeen 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC) The above image must be deleted or edited because its horribly incorrect. Paekche was never located above Goguryeo and Balhae didn't even exist at the time. Plus, it is way too POV. Only the yellow part should be colored in because I have never heard of a Chinese empire that controlled the middle east. Is this a joke or something to Korea? Its offending to see how Korean captions are messed up. Good friend100 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the map of the Tang Dynasty, I reverted back to the original Tang_dynasty1.PNG picture. Gaogouli sent a tribute to Tang in 619 before the invasion of allied Tang-XinLuo (Silla) forces. United XinLuo after the demise of Goguryo effectively became a Tang vassal in 668. This should be addressed in the picture.

Tang also subdued the Western Turks for a while. The Map of Tang should address the greatest extent of Tang influence.

-The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keizhen 07:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

I have a different opinion from yours.

specification user reveal provoke criticism. your first manners towards a other keep. Tang dynasty is not so big. Goguryeo not Tang vassal, also Tang dominate the Manchuria only 668~670s till government. and Tang was not able to altogether conquer the korea peninsula.

once more consider.

korea history(Talk) 07:24, 2 February 2007(UTC)

First of all, please read the map more clearly. The dark yellow area corresponds to the area of Imperial Tang's vassals. Unified Silla was a Tang vassal. Secondly, Gaogouli (Koguryo) did send tribute to Tang in 619 as I said earlier (source: China, Korea & Japan to 1875) just before the Tang-Xinluo (silla) invasion of Gaogouli. A unified Xinluo became a Tang vassal in 668.

empire, imperialism

whenever you confront an imperialist, or imperialist sympathiser with imperialism, the imperialist will often say that "all countries with power will abuse it. if its not the u.s., it will be rome, or uk". however, i am curious about the chinese tang dynasty. i have heard that tang china didnt try to invade, attack or exploit other countries when it had the ability to. during the tang dynasty and throughout most of chinese history, there is no doubt that china had the ability to invade japan but chose not to. i would like to see a military or imperialist section added into the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.35.185 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Song/Liao Contradiction?

First sentence is:

The Tang Dynasty [was] followed by the Song Dynasty and the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period in China.

Doesn't that contradict the box on the right-hand side? That says Tang was followed by Liao and 5D/10K, with Song coming later, if I'm reading it correctly. --193.99.145.162 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New Sub-Section Added

I just added the section on Chinese maritime influence abroad during the Tang era.

--PericlesofAthens 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Name of dynasty

If the Li were the royal family, why is it called the "Tang" Dynasty? Why isn't it called the "Li Dynasty"? And is it mentioned anywhere in the article what "Tang" means or why the dynasty was named that? Badagnani 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, Chinese dynasties are named by their founder, not normally by the surname of the ruling family. Thus, the Ming Dynasty was founded by Zhu Yuanzhang, Yuan Dynasty by Genghis Khan, Han Dynasty by the Liu clan, etc. DHN 04:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, The Tang founding Emperor was the Duke of Tang the before he overthrew the Sui Dynasty and proclaim an Empire which he named after his Duchy.

I've looked through all the articles in question and in none of them does it explicitly state exactly why any of the dynasties are called what they are called. Badagnani 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Qing Dynasty had an explanation of its name: Some sources suggested that the name "Qing" was chosen in reaction to that of the Ming Dynasty (明) which consists of the Chinese characters for sun (日) and moon (月), which are associated with the fire element. The character Qing (清) is composed of the water (水) radical and the character for blue-green (青), which are both associated with the water element. Other suggested that the name change went a long way to rehabilitate the Manchu state in the eyes of the Han Chinese who had regarded the former Jurchen Jin dynasty as foreign invaders. DHN 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Han Dynasty was named so after the Han Kingdom (Han (state), one of many small states) during the Warring States (481-221 BC). The State of Han came into being in 403 BC, when the once powerful state of Jin was paritioned into three smaller states (Wei, Han, and Zhao), a moment that some consider to be the true beginning of the Warring States (although many put its starting date at 481 BC). The State of Han was named after the aristocratic family that was established to rule it, the Han family, led by Han Yuan (韩原), a Zhou era noble. However, other dynasties were given names not because of family clan names, but because of attributes or ideals. For example, the Jurchens, when they established their dynasty in the north by 1115, they named it "Jin", meaning 'golden' in Chinese. --PericlesofAthens 01:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I felt the English term dynasty is a very inaccuracy term to describe Chinese dynasty. If I could change it, I would be better to translate it as empire(i.e. Tang Empire instead of Tang dynasty), but the term "dynasty" is so well established right now there no point in changing it. Most of the dynasty was named after aristocracy titles held by the founder of the dynasty. These titles were usually based upon the geographical area held by the founder. For example, Han dynasty(汉) if I recall correctly was not named after Han kingdom(韩) but was actually named after the founder Liu Bang's title 汉王(King of Han) after he was awarded Principality of Hàn (in modern Sichuan, Chongqing, and southern Shaanxi province). --WikiN00bz?

The Tang Dynasty was named "Tang" because its founder, was the Duke of Tang(唐公爵) in the Sui Dynasty. When he became Emperor, he took the noble title as the new dynastic name. This is what I was taught when I was in school(I am from Hong Kong).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.69.217 (talk) 2007-06-03 07:23:02

The Dukedom of Tang was conferred to the Li family during the Northern Zhou Dynasty. Li Yuan or Emperor Gaozu inherited it from his father. According to the Chinese official history, the so-called dynasty name is actually the country name. In effect, there wasn't a country known as "China" previously, but between 618 to 907 AD, here stands a country known as "Tang". However, throughout the years, the idea of nationhood appears. People no longer saying they are fighting for XX government, but for China. During the 1911 revolution, the word Dynasty was thus introduced. The country thus was no longer "Great Qing", but is China under the "Qing Dynasty", which is justifiable for removal. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.15 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

More Info

I just added some more info on why the Tang Dynasty declined, including the natural calamities that struck during the period.--PericlesofAthens 17:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I just added the infobox.--PericlesofAthens 21:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• It would be better to add the more successor entities and clear lifespan. --24.18.102.154 21:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  I reverted the timeline for the Tang Dynasty back to older versions. Simply because that is how most sources (encyclopedias, reference works) would label the reign of the Tang Dynasty. By seperate its time table into two sections (using Wu Zetian's Second Zhou), I think it creates an uncomfortable gap. I think using the footnotes at the end will be a nice disclaimer, without disrupt the conventional standards or confuse the readers.--Balthazarduju 06:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, just like Wang Mang with the Han Dynasty (although divided into two eras, still the same dynasty and dynastic period).--PericlesofAthens 15:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Status?

It may need many more citations, but what do you guys think? Is this article becoming worthy of Good Article status? Or is it still too messy? In the meantime, I will request a peer review, so please make your comments there. Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, hello! I really don't see anything wrong with the article (maybe besides some ususal checks: grammer, sentences flows, citations). I think the article's quality has drastically improved since past versions. Compare to other ancient/medieval entities' entries (even GA articles), there is not much to complain about. Keep up the good work!--Balthazarduju 04:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And I'm glad there's at least a bit of discussion. I want some feedback from others, though.--PericlesofAthens 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Generally the article looks very good, but a few things need to be fixed. For all of the following issues (not just writing style), I myself plan on helping out with the smaller stuff during the hold period if no one objects.

• One aspect that is easily overlooked in writing introductions is stating the obvious. In the introduction this means stating what the Tang Dynasty is, rather than just when it ruled. While it may seem redundant in the light of the extensive articles providing an overview of Chinese dynastic history, it is important to keep in mind that readers may not come into contact with those articles.
• Is the phrase "prosperity periods" an independent term used by historians? If so, it should be disambiguated or put in quotations to differentiate it as such. If not, it should simply read, "periods of prosperity".
• There are several instances of confused or run-on sentences, such as this:

  "The enormous Grand Canal of China (still the longest canal in the world) built during the previous Sui Dynasty facilitated the rise of new urban settlements along its route, as well as increased accessibility in mainland China to its own indigenous commercial market."

  For better clarity, it should read something along the lines of:

  "The enormous Grand Canal of China, built during the previous Sui Dynasty, facilitated the rise of new urban settlements along its route, as well as increased trade between mainland Chinese markets. The canal is still to this day the longest in the world."

• In the "Establishment" section, if there is a main article for the subject, in this case Transition from Sui to Tang, then that article should be linked with a {{mainarticle|article name}} tag.

2. Factually accurate?: Though the article's references are quite good in type and amount, the article as a whole suffers from a lack of inline citations, whether in Harvard referencing or footnote format. Without this, which facts are supported by sources and which are not is often unclear, which makes it difficult to judge the accuracy of the article. Of course, inline citations are only absolutely necessary for potentially controversial statements, but in consideration of other quality articles, the more inline citations the better. The places I consider specifically needing them are statements such as "Although his rise to power was brutal and violent, he was also known for his benevolence and care for governance." or "The Tang period was a golden age of Chinese literature and art." In other words, statements of historical interpretation.

• In the military section, is it really accurate to say "dominant ethnic group"? The sentence refers to a national conflict. The Tang Dynasty was (according to the article) a diverse, cosmopolitan society that held a diverse congregation of ethnic groups, so it is likely that populations of ethnically Turkic people were within the dynasty.

I think the diverse, cosmpolitan society within the Tang Dynasty in this article were mostly referring to merchants and business dwellers (mainly from the Silk Roads), hence how "cosmpolitan" it is. The Tang Dynasty was actually battling against Turkic tribes, Arabs... and many people/ethnic groups around that time according to this article, due to its expanding empire. I think the statement was referring to different things. --Balthazarduju 06:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: The article most definitely meets this criteria.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article is generally quite good about adhering to a neutral point of view, but occasionally when reading I get the feeling that the text is expounding on the accomplishments of the dynasty excessively. I am concerned about the phrases in the intro's second paragraph that simply compare the dynasty in regards to how it was better than other dynasties. I would like to see some of this toned down, or cited specifically. Another solution is to attribute such evaluations to a specific historian/s. Also, the statements about the relatively good state of women's rights need citations. From the perspective of an outside reader, playing polo and the appreciation of full-figured women do not seem to be substantial improvements in the area of women's rights even for the period. Historically, many countries and periods have had women rise to the ranks of power in a similar fashion to Empress Wu. But this is the exception that proves the rule, not a conclusive example of improved rights for Tang Dynasty women in general.

5. Article stability? The article seems to be sufficiently stable.

6. Images?: The image content is great, but some placement work is needed. One thing to expressly avoid is "image stacking"; the placement of images one on top the other (in a stack).

7. Misc.: This is just speculation, and it's not really a matter of GA criteria, but shouldn't only the first word of the article's title be capitalized? Dynasty isn't really a pronoun in this instance imo.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far! — VanTucky ^(talk) 00:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

One more quick fix concerning factual accuracy: did not the Empress Dowager Cixi of the Qing Dynasty rule for quite some time in reality, if not officially? Perhaps the intro sentence should be changed to reflect this, ala "the first and only woman to officially rule China as Empress". the phrase "rule in her own right" wasn't clear enough for a layman such as myself.VanTucky ^(talk) 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Cixi was a "de facto ruler" who pulled strings behind the scene, whereas Empress Wu was the undeniable head leader, large and in charge (lol). I guess you can go ahead and change it to the alternate sentence if you think it is more suitable. Oh, and btw, I have addressed many (if not all by now) of your points above by making new improvements to the article. For the "dominant ethnic group", I think you became a bit confused; it is not in reference to the Tang Empire, it is in reference to Turks dominating Central Asia, which I can assure you was an absolute truth (you may verify this with a multitude of sources). As for the naming of "Tang Dynasty" to "Tang dynasty", I would advise against this. Every other article for a Chinese dynasty follows the naming scheme of capitalizing the "D" in "Dynasty", and in every text book or other book I own about China, they always capitalize (since it is in reference to a specific dynasty and era of time, not a vague term to any Chinese dynasty). If there are any loose ends in the article left, please bring these to light, and I will "get crackin" on them to make this article all it can be, in the army. Hah.--PericlesofAthens 06:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

After looking about some, including at the GA Song Dynasty article, I see you're correct Pericles. Not a big deal anyway. But what is a big deal is Balthazar's reversions. The first sentence of an introduction exists to define what the subject is in a very basic way. An article whose first sentence does not fundamentally define what the subject is is lacking. While I would hesitate to discount all the other good work done on the article because of such a small thing...this is something that even stub articles get right the vast majority of the time. I don't understand what is so difficult. Debate and shift the word choice all you like so as to prevent repetition or melodramatic language, but an article which doesn't begin by defining it's subject matter is not a good article. VanTucky ^(talk) 08:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I woke up to go take care of bodily necessities for a moment, and I decided to check up on the article. First off, wow. I am not going to let one stupid sentence (in the intro nonetheless) soil all the work I've put into this article. Balthazarduju, please refrain from reverting the edit this time, I usually value your opinion (and you often have good input), but this time it is hands-off.--PericlesofAthens 10:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

One more quick thing. The article goes in to wonderful detail about the development of classical Chinese poetry during the dynasty, but what (if any) classical Chinese novels or other literature were composed during the dynasty? I see some information in Chinese literature and Chinese classic texts that could be included. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow dude, check out my improvements. I went a lot further than just increasing info on poetry and prose stuff. You truly have to love the description of the mechanical wine server shaped as an articial mountain. Brilliant! And drunk as hell, of course. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 04:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 22, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: After the small work that needed doing, this article is very well-written.

2. Factually accurate?: The factual issues I have brought have been addressed sufficiently.

3. Broad in coverage?: I think this article now is very definition of comprehensive.

4. Neutral point of view?: Certainly NPOV; it mentions the brutalities of the dynasty while keeping in mind its place as being considered one of the eras of highest technical and artistic innovation.

5. Article stability? Yes.

6. Images?: Image issues above have been addressed.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — VanTucky ^(talk) 20:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad all the work has finally paid off. And thanks to everyone else who contributed to this article as well, it looks great.--PericlesofAthens 21:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

FA status, perhaps?

I know, I know, I'm really pushing it, since it just got accepted to the level of GA status. However, the article is exceptionally well-written now, broad in coverage, stable, lacking POV (as far as I know), full of inline citations and proper references, etc.

I'd like to get everyone else's feedback.

Eric--PericlesofAthens 19:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In a method somewhat following the model of the Song Dynasty article, I have placed all the stuff about political and military events first, while putting society, culture, technology, economic trade stuff next, and kept the historiography stuff at the end. After reading a suggestion by VanTucky on my talk page, I have decided this is the set up that the article should follow, and the section on historical events and politics should be expanded a bit to counter all of the Tang's achievements in society, culture, technology, economic trade, etc.--PericlesofAthens 22:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on historical articles, so I don't know how much valuable feedback I can give on this article. The format and outline of an article is important. I think the current re-organization is kind of strange, even though it is sorted by themes and timeline. Maybe is because I've seen the older format and now that it is re-organized, it feels kind of harder to read than the earlier version. I think maybe you need to work around a bit about the way these sections would go, and then come to a better solution for the format.--Balthazarduju 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this version alot better, except the "Trade and spread of culture" section should probably go before the society and cultural sections. Giving a comprehensive timeline of the dynasty, and then the discussion of its various aspects makes much better sense to me. It gives a better frame of reference. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a point. I'll see how that looks.--PericlesofAthens 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article looks great, although it is now rather large, a bit too large. I think the FAC commentators would object to this article's size. Therefore, I am going to see what I can do to edit and downsize it a bit. I want to thank everyone for their contributions in adding material to the article, but now I want to focus on skimming it down a bit (such as sentences that are needlessly long).--PericlesofAthens 08:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that Wikipedia:Article size states:

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose.

With that in mind, I am happy to announce that the total prose of the main body of text for this Tang Dynasty article is only 9931 words! Woo-hoo! Lol. Some people may complain about this article's size and argue that separate articles should be made (which I've already done for Song Dynasty, and I am never, ever doing that again knowing the amount of work that takes). To that I would say, "refer to this statement on wikipedia's article size page," which would back my assertion that the article is in fact just long enough for readers to keep their attention span. Hah.--PericlesofAthens 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article size also says this about splitting articles:

Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.

And for articles that are more than 60 KB (Tang Dynasty is 85), it says:

Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

I think the scope of the topic, a 300 year period of China's history that also includes info on society and culture, justifies the large amount of prose text. Don't you?--PericlesofAthens 21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to many general improvements in the past few days, I've gone ahead and nominated the article for FA status.--PericlesofAthens 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Other notes" section

This section only has one sentence, and it says that the world population grew about 50 million during the Tang dynasty. Is this information even necessary to the article? And if so, could it not be incorporated into another section? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way, actually. In the Song Dynasty article, this information is put into a cref-note that appears below the footnotes. I might convert it into that in a moment.--PericlesofAthens 17:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Poets

I'm probably nit-picking here, but the editors that hang around at FACs have become increasingly strict on good writing style. I was looking at this sentence in the intro and was wondering if there's a better way to write it:

Two of China's most famous historical poets, Du Fu and Li Bai, belonged to this age, as well as Meng Haoran and Bai Juyi.

Why are Du Fu and Li Bai mentioned as "famous" historical poets and Meng Haoran and Bai Juyi are not? How come they are notable enough for their own articles if they are not famous? And technically, while the sentence mentions that Du Fu and Li Bai were poets, it doesn't mention who Meng Haoran and Bai Juyi were. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You raise an interesting question. Even without clicking on Du Fu's article and reading it to confirm Du Fu's status, this Tang Dynasty article later explains (in the literature section) the origins of reverence for Du Fu's poetry in Chinese society. As for Li Bai the article later states (once again, in the literature section) that he was famous for his gushi style poems, yet this is not mentioned in the introduction. As for Meng Haoran and Bai Juyi, I will simply change the sentence to: "as well as the poets Meng Haoran and Bai Juyi." That will be sufficient for now until I figure out a way to word the sentence better.--PericlesofAthens 09:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Red crab

The article refers to "red crab"; that particular article is a disambiguation page that leads to dungeness crab (Cancer magister) and Christmas Island red crab (Gecarcoidea natalis), neither of which are native to China. Does anyone know what species of crab the article refers to? Neutrality^talk 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Charles Benn did not specify which specific type of red crab, just plain old red crab. If someone can find an article on indigenous crabs of China that match, be my guest. The more accurate the article is, the better. Thanks for bringing this to attention Neutrality.--PericlesofAthens 04:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The conventional long name of the infobox

唐朝正式國號為「唐」，而非「大唐」。元朝是中國史上第一個把「大」字加入正式國號的朝代。參見明朝人朱國禎《涌幢小品》卷二「國號」條：「國號上加大字，始於胡元，我朝因之。……其言大漢、大唐、大宋者，乃臣子及外夷尊稱之詞。」 [1], it explained that Tang Dynasty's native name is "Tang" but not "Great Tang" or "The Tang Dynasty" --Lmmnhn 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tang Map

I have discussed the Tang map with someone on my talk page, and he shares the same sentiment I have had for a long time about the amateur and poorly drawn map used in this article, as he said: "Seems very amateurish to me, like it was done in Windows Paint. Black water?!?"

I will try to find someone who has the spare time to make a decent map for this article; afterall, this article is a featured article, and a featured article requiring a map should have the best map possible.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the map is really accurate for Shilla's territory especially. Shilla is not the vassal state of Tang Dynasty. Of course, Shilla brought a tribute to Tang Dynasty historically but this does not mean Shilla is the Tang's vassal. you know, Shilla and Tang fought in Korean peninsula for many years and Tang acknowleged the independence of Shilla in effect. So many maps which depict the territory of Tang don't include Shilla in their works. I absolutely agree with PericlesofAthens's opinion, furthermore, I hope anyone who has a thorough knowledge of China and Korea history will make the more accurate map.--2SteamClocks 06:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Although imperfect, I still think the older map made by Briangotts is way much better than this one (Image:Tang (616-710).png). I checked out some sources from the external links such as the Minnesota State University, as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Tang Dynasty, their map's boundaries roughly matches with the older map (Image:Tang dynasty1.PNG); i.e. areas such as the western regions were indeed part of the Tang Dynasty, but other areas might not be. Plus, this map (Image:Tang (616-710).png) only shows Tang Dynasty from the reign of Taizong. Also, this map's Tang Dynasty is kind of too big, and might have problems with some users.--Balthazarduju 21:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize not many people have the time to create maps, but the Tang Dynasty is a featured article (it has come a long way since February 2007), but the map is elementary. If someone has the time, it'd be nice if they could make the style of map used on the Song Dynasty (image:China 11a.jpg). Geosultan4 09:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The map reads "China under the Tang dynasty (yellow) and its allies and at least nominal vassal states (dark yellow), c. 660 CE." (Bold style by me) Do you see any map of country which includes the terrotory of its allies and nominal vassal states featured by same color? It can help readers misunderstand the real territory of the empire and whether a neighboring state is ally or vassal state. The map of Tang with peculiar color should be excluded in the map especially in the introdution section which is shown at first. --2SteamClocks 10:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, after contacting the guy who created the high quality maps for the Song Dynasty article, the Han Dynasty article, and the Ming Dynasty articles says he is too busy to create a new map for the Tang. He also says his knowledge of Tang boundaries is limited and stated that it would be hard to create a concise map since the borders often changed and shifted in the western end of the empire in the Tarim Basin (due to warfare). This is truly too bad, since I do not have the same capability in map-making. Hopefully someone else knowledgable in Chinese history and in map-making will stand forward. I doubt it though.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring interested editors' attention to this map. I have drawn the Tang border according to this and this, which are scanned from "History and Commercial Atlas of China." Although it isnt as nice as those high quality maps, im more than happy to upload the Tong part from the animated map as a separate image, and perhaps specifying it to include neighbouring states and tribes, or colouring the water blue. : ) Comments, suggestions, corrections welcome. Ian Kiu (ha...) 07:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Ive been bold and uploaded the map. I'll appreciate any comments, suggestions, or corrections. Pojanji 23:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for uploading the new map. It looks much better.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What a great map! Thanks for your effort.--2SteamClocks 07:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I take it by all the recent vandalism that this article is becoming somewhat popular! Lol. Well, at least amongst immature middle school students who can't think of anything wittier to say than "penis" and "vagina" and "he sucks weener"...if you're going to vandalize a page, at least make it funny for us adults. Otherwise, why even bother? That's like bothering to mark up something with graffiti but not making it look interesting, cool, or beautiful. In any case, I will jockey to put this article under semi-protection if the vandalism keeps up on this level; so far today, the page has been vandalized a total of 15 times. That's quite a bit for a single day, for any article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

I'm proud to announce that this article has 200 inline citations now! It now rivals the amount in Song Dynasty and Ming Dynasty. I've also added some new pictures to the article. Enjoy!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Colors

The Tang Dynasty had three main colors: yellow, green, and brown. They also had sidebar colors that were not as commonly used such as blue, black, and white. Their colors were presented on robes they wore during events, special occasions, holidays, plays, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.211.17 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, the most dominant colour they had was red. It was changed to silver by Empress Wu, but was reverted after her son's coup against her which restored the Tang Dynasty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staygyro (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Map

The Map does not show the whole empire, only the parts under direct Imperial control, there is a lot more to the Tang Empire than the map suggests. My map is better but it isn't in English, that is fair enough but can someone find a better map in English? Staygyro (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the blank East-Hem map available at (http://thomaslessman.com/History/images/blank-East-Hem.jpg). You are more than welcome to copy that map and edit it to make the map you have in mind. I've got maps of Asia that show the Tang Dynasty's borders in 700 and 800 AD, but not in the way you are looking for. (See Image:Asia_700ad.jpg). I'd recommend a program like GIMP, PhotoShop, or Paint Shop Pro to work on the maps. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as the map is in English for English readers who come here to learn about the Tang; this is, after all, an English encyclopedia.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If/when you have time PericlesOfAthens, your knowledge of Tang China is much better than mine. Would you please look at the existing [Image:East-Hem_700ad.jpg] and [Image:East-Hem_800ad.jpg], and let me know if the borders of Tang are accurate. I'd be happy to crop and customize one of the existing maps, or even create a new one for 750 AD, if so desired. In other words, I'd be happy to zoom-in and highlight Tang areas specifically for the article. I've been experimenting a little with enhancing them, and can probably come up with a unique map as long as I have correct info. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats very good but in your maps you implied that the Tubo (not Tufan), the Khitans, the Gokturks, the Uighurs, the Jurchens and the Turkic peoples east of the Caspian Sea were all independent countries. That was not the case. In reality they were all part of the Tang Empire. Only they were not all under direct Imperial control but are controlled via regional tribal chieftains and warlords, all of whom were subject to the Emperor. They sometimes revolted, but the conflicts were not between countries, but between the central Imperial Government and regional tribal chieftains. What I suggest you do is colour the directly governed regions one colour and draw approximate fading outlines for each of the regional subject authorities in the same colour as their borders were undefined approximations anyway. Staygyro (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What I suggest you do is colour the directly governed regions one colour and draw fading outlines for each of the regional subject authorities in the same colour as their borders were undefined approximations anyway.

I like this idea, as long as independent tributary states, semi-autonomous states, semi-autonomous nomadic territories, and independent nomadic territories are clearly defined by use of heavy and light shading, as well as a neutral color for everything else outside of direct Tang control as well as Tang influence at all.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If/when you have time PericlesOfAthens, your knowledge of Tang China is much better than mine.

Sure, I know much about the Tang, but I have to be honest in admitting that I am no cartographer, and even less capable of showing each little territorial change for each year of the Tang. I suggest getting together a team of knowledgeable editors who can provide valuable input.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Preview Window

Or if there's a problem with the Preview Window not showing up either template correctly, then just bugreport it to Bugzilla (file a bugreport/bug report or whatever).68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Map and federation

I did not remove the recently added info on the Tang federation, or the map with the legend key, but I do ask that it not be shown until a scholarly source is properly cited so that the readers can know exactly where this information came from.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the argument that the Tang upheld a "federation" is supported by any evidence, such as an official constitution which adhered to federalism and that legally bound self-governing entities to the Tang central government. Beyond the marriage alliance, didn't Tibet merely pay tribute during Songstan Gampo's reign? It should also be noted that Taizong was not the only Tang emperor to hold the title of khagan over the Turks (i.e. Emperors Xuanzong, Suzong, and Daizong).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Brides of the Kaghans

The article states that

"The Tang, unlike the Sui, did not send royal princesses to their leaders; instead they were married to Turk mercenaries or generals in Chinese service, and such marriages only occurred in two rare occasions between 635 and 636."

However, I read sources stating that the Tang pursued "a policy of pacification through marriage." Can the following be incorporated into the corresponding section. Here are the relevant quotations:

While waiting for the Turks' weakness to defeat them, Taizong believed China had to pursue what he called "a policy of pacification through marriage." That required sending large diplomatic missions with costly gifts to accompany the Chinese princess brides.Findley, C.V., The Turks in World History, 2005, pp.40, Oxford University Press

.., the Tang emperors saw no choice, if they could not defeat the Turks, but to continue the diplomacy of marriage. For the Tang, too, the policy produced payoffs at a price. In the upheavals touched off by the An Lushan rebellion in 755, the Tang grew desperately dependant on the Uyghurs for aid against the rebels and correspondingly unable to resist Uyghur demands and depradations. Women played critical roles in maintaining the Tang-Uyghur alliance at several moments. In 758, Princess Ningguo(Ning-kuo) was married to El-Etmish Bilge Kaghan... Princess Ningguo was the first of four Tang princesses married to Ughur kaghans.Findley 2005, p.53-54

--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even in the Rebellion and Catastrophe sub-section of this article it mentions of the Tang princess sent to the Uygur Turk leader. The statement in the article certainly needs to be amended.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I never added the statement about the marriages either; I think since it is contradicted by these two sources, it is circumspect and should actually be removed from the article until I or someone else gets to the bottom of it. It's safer just to eliminate the questionable statement for the meantime.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I kept that part of the statement about marriages of mercenary generals to Tang princesses, though. That part is fine as far as I can tell.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)