Talk:Tang dynasty

The Territorial Map is completely inaccurate

Where is Korean peninsula for the Tang's territorial map? I think it was well documented around 660 AD Tang has full authority control over the entire Korean peninsula yet the map does not show it at all. More importantly, modern Mongolia and the area all the way extending to lake Baikal was also controlled by Tang Dynasty ( 646--696) and who exactly is the editor behind the map page here? So many factual errors within one map, this territorial map should be taken down immediately before giving misinformation to the general public! 165.82.221.183 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The Tang never had control of the entire Korean peninsula. In 660 Tang (allied with Silla) defeated Baekje in the southwest and established the Ungjin commandery (shown on the map). In 668 Tang and Silla conquered Goguryeo in the north. Goguryeo was in rebellion 670–674. Tang was pushed out of Ungjin by Silla in 670 and out of northern Korea in 676.

The map is based on maps in the cited sources, which do not represent Mongolia as being part of the Tang empire. Kanguole 07:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The source itself never claimed the 661's territory is the Tang's greatest extents. Let me copy what the source said "Whatever the verdict on internal politics during Kao-tsung's reign, this period saw the T'ang rise to a peak of military power and prestige, surpassing even that of T'ai-tsung. For a few brief years the dynasty controlled greater territories ............... " It just said Tang reach its greatest during Gaozong who regined from 628-683 but never said the greatest is 661. I check every paragraph which mentioned 661 and I did not see anything related this conclusion. Actually, many other sources claim that should be 669. - by Lijing1989 in 07:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

你無視了一切你認為對你不利的理據，而且你完全沒有解釋為何你在有確切證據證明唐朝曾統治外蒙古的情況下依然堅持否認唐朝曾統治外蒙古，你只是在重複一些只有你自己才相信的東西而已

。 86A32980X (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

According to the book "Early Tang China and the World, 618–750 CE", section "Expansion in Central Asia and Korea"[1]: "There's also the issue of conflating symbolic expansion via the creation of jimi polities with actual military occupation: It's often though that Taizong "conquered" the entire Mongolian steppe by incorporating it into the jimi system in 647, though this was only a form of suzerainty and not a conquest stricto sensu." Not to mention its existence was quite short-lived, as all such symbolic expansion in the area was expelled when the Second Turkic Khaganate was established in 682. --Wengier (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

他的地圖從來沒有明確指出羈縻地區和軍事管轄區有何區別，而且他同樣把一些唐朝只是短暫控制過的地區（例如波斯總督府）列為唐代領土，我到現在還是不明白為甚麼外蒙古是例外 86A32980X (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There is already consensus among the editors on various issues, and there seems no need to continue the discussion. Wouldn’t you like to check the archive properly? Argument cat (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's you who should read properly more, not him. 163.136.36.56 (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm begging you not to unarchive that thread—if we have to continue arguing about the map forever, we should at least start a new thread, because that one is totally unwieldy and impossible to actually read. No more comments should be added to it for purely practical reasons, and archiving it is the only way no more comments will be added to it. Remsense诉 08:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

These discussion logs have not yet been agreed upon, but is it such a hurry to move them out of sight? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think an agreement will be reached; do you? Unless some fundamentally new evidence upturns everything; one side is familiar with site policy and the other isn't, in my view. The point is that other people can have a hope of reading and understanding what is being argued—the old thread is completely unnavigable already. If I wanted to hide previous discussion, I'm doing a really bad job by putting it in an archive one can search through with one click—which is a habit regular users have. Take me seriously when I give my reasons for things here, please. Remsense诉 09:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Judging by the "meta-argument" in Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 4, it seems like he has already achieved consultation to archive past logs with another user.

Is my perception wrong? Argument cat (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

如果你是在說我的話，很抱歉，我從來沒有同意過任何東西，我以為共識達成的前提是所有參與討論的人都已經基本同意了由某人提出的最少一項主張，原來不是嗎？
有些人在遇到無法回答的問題就只懂迴避不答而已，別跟我說什麼「他很忙沒時間」之類的話，他有那時間去回覆別人，沒時間回覆我是嗎？有些人是不是真覺得我會看不到2則回覆的發布時間就只相差了4天啊？
86A32980X (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

當然如果你說的是"meta-argument"的話，那我沒有任何異議
86A32980X (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Are the IPs and the recently banned account all the same person?

User:HabichuelasBeans has been proven to be a sock puppet, given the similarity of the arguments theyre making with User talk:86A32980X and the IP it might be the same person in this case. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

抱歉我現在才看到。因為某些人長期以來的刻意忽略，本來我沒打算再做任何回覆，但是有關個人名譽的東西，我還是要澄清一下。雖然我的確有一個（只編輯過我自己或者說那個帳戶的用戶頁3次的）舊帳戶（此信息發佈後該帳戶已停用），但我依然很肯定你提到的第1個帳戶跟我沒有任何關係，如果你有需要作進一步查證，我可以配合。 86A32980X (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

On the issue of Gejis and courtesans or prostitutes in the Tang Dynasty

I need to point out that in China, many people misunderstand the functions of Gejis and prostitutes. Geji is not even equal to "courtesan" in Western society, just as the choice of Japanese geisha is separated from "courtesan". Many Westerners also cannot distinguish the different relationship between the two. The book by Western scholars cannot be used as a reference. He confuses the functions of courtesans or prostitutes in red-light districts with the functions of Jiaofang(教坊) gejis in the Tang Dynasty. I quoted the original documents of the Tang Dynasty, such as "Beili Zhi(北里志)" and "Jiaofang Ji(教坊记)". Comparing the difference between the two, you will know the error of the entry. 清风与明月 (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source: we do not publish our own analyses of primary sources. While I think more than a sentence or two on this subject would be undue for this article, you're welcome to cite Chinese-language secondary sources if you think they're filling in information that Western sources have missed. Remsense诉 02:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I have provided the most original documents from the Tang Dynasty in China. Both "Beili Zhi" and "Jiaofang Ji" were written by people from the Tang Dynasty. The different descriptions of these two books fully explain the difference between the two. North Hamlet is a red-light district, a prostitution community in Chang'an City. "Beili Zhi" clearly states that the madams would beat the courtesans or prostitutes. Wiki says that these madams have status, which obviously glorifies the madams and pimps. At the same time, the confusion between female artists and high-class prostitutes, those priority geji are not respected, and the contribution of geji to poetry is given to the women in the red-light district in this wiki. 清风与明月 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Please reread what I've written above, and consult the guideline I've linked as well. We can't directly interpret sources from the previous millennium for more than the most basic details like dates of birth, and even then we require support from secondary sources.Remsense诉 05:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

But I also added the secondary source, which also explains the artist organization in the Tang Dynasty, written by modern people, why was it deleted? And why were the Chinese dance wiki and the Ming Dynasty wiki also deleted? Keeping the English expression "courtesan" but pointing to "Geji" is also not allowed? Please give an explanation. Why are the ancient references plus the modern references, both of which are deleted? 清风与明月 (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how Dillon (1998) supports the claims you're trying to make in the article. It seems you're still trying to synthesize new claims from the sources, but just using a secondary source as a starting point in your interpretation of a primary source. Every claim made must be stated explicitly by the secondary sources—else it is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 05:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. But why are the Chinese dance and Ming dynasty wikis also deleted, keeping the English description of courtesan but pointing to Geji, isn't this allowed? 清风与明月 (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

What have Chinese dance or Ming articles got anything to do with what you said about Tang China? Hzh (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Because these were all deleted by the same administrator. 清风与明月 (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll try again, why did you changed the word courtesans in the Chinese dance and Ming articles when it has got nothing to do with Tang dynasty? It looks like OR, and a lot of what you wrote in Gējì also look like OR. Hzh (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

courtesanModified like this.The English expression "courtesan" is retained, but the link points to "Gējì" 清风与明月 (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

How do you know that authors like this who wrote about beauties and courtesans - [2] meant "geji" and not courtesans? It looks to be your OR. Hzh (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Because I have a comprehensive understanding of the culture of ancient Chinese gejis, most of the dancing women described by ancient Chinese literati were singing and dancing artists. So in the wiki related to art and culture, I don't want to further confuse them with high-class prostitutes. During the Ming Dynasty, more "courtesans" who had romantic relationships with men were actually singing and dancing girls, highly educated female singing and dancing artists. 清风与明月 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, so you know better than authors who wrote books on it. A pity that Wiki policies and guidelines won't allow us to accept what a random Wiki editor claim without a good source. That author who wrote the book also mentioned "dancing girls" in a later sentence, which means he knows the difference. It also doesn't make sense to change courtesans to gejis since he wrote was that "famous beauties and courtesans" were no longer praised for their dancing in later dynasties. I would advice you not to do OR, frankly what a lot of what you wrote on the geji article smells a lot like OR, you should revise what you wrote in that article. Hzh (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say I know more than the author of the book, I just said I didn't stir up trouble for no reason. I don't care if the author of the book knows the difference between the two, I just want to emphasize that the relevant content on the Tang Dynasty and Chang'an wiki pages is wrong. I don't have a personal OR, I have really read a lot of ancient Chinese literature to come to this conclusion. North Hamlet in Chang'an is a prostitution community, not a community for artists and musicians. The women in North Hamlet did not contribute much to Tang Dynasty poetry. The Geji of Jiaofang in the Tang Dynasty made a greater contribution to Tang Dynasty poetry. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Still nothing to do with the dance and Ming article. You edits (and your replies here) do not make any sense. Hzh (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I can directly read the documents of Beilizhi and Jiaofangji, which were clearly recorded by people in the Tang Dynasty at that time. It is precisely because Wiki confused the difference between the two in the Tang Dynasty that I would use Jiaofangji and Beilizhi to make corrections. 清风与明月 (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant to your edit on the dance and Ming articles. Hzh (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

But the reality is that in the current wikis of the Tang Dynasty and Chang'an, the two are confused and mischaracterized. North Hamlet is a real prostitution community,they have little influence on art and poetry. They are

have art, but their profession itself is prostitution. The Gejis of the Tang Dynasty Jiaofang were the ones who had a key influence on Tang Dynasty art and poetry. 清风与明月 (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the Geji in the Tang Dynasty Jiaofang and the women in North Hamlet. North Hamlet is a prostitution community, not a community of artists and musicians. In the Tang Dynasty, the main influence on poetry was the Geji, not the women in the red-light district of North Hamlet. Wiki not only confuses the difference and contribution of the two in the Tang Dynasty, but also glorifies prostitution in words. The girls in North Hamlet were beaten by the madams. Wiki says that the madams in the red-light district are rich and have status, which really glorifies the madams and pimps. These differences and situations are mentioned in the Beilizhi and Jiaofangji, and I think the reference value is higher than the personal understanding of the author of this book. At the same time, the Chinese article I submitted can also prove that the contribution of female artists or Gejis to the song, dance and poetry culture in the Tang Dynasty was greater than that of the women in the red-light district. 清风与明月 (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why can Japanese geisha use their own traditional terms, but Chinese geji must use "courtesan" and must not use their original names on it? Japanese geisha do not use courtesan because their functions are different from those of "courtesan" in Western culture, and similarly, ancient Chinese geji are also different from the functions of Western "courtesan". The word used in this Chinese paper is "Geji", so why must they be called "singing courtesan" on Wikipedia? The situation is very complicated, because now in English, high-class prostitutes and female singing and dancing artists in ancient China are both called "courtesan", and further distinction is needed to avoid misunderstanding. In a wiki about art, it is geji, not high-class prostitutes, who contributed to ancient Chinese drama.Why was Theatre of China also deleted? 清风与明月 (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I need to understand why, thank you. 清风与明月 (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Issue with Courtesans, and proposed changes.

At present, the article uses Charles Benn's China's Golden Age: Everyday Life in the Tang Dynasty to source a number of claims. Specifically, where courtesans are concerned. The problem with this is that Charles Benn's China's Golden Age: Everyday Life in the Tang Dynasty has been the subject of one critical academic review [3] which reads Template:Tq

I cannot help but question the reliability of the source when it lacks citations and it is noted to contain errors such as the ones expressed above by the reviewer. Moreover, the information which Charles Benn supplies regarding the "North Hamlet" seems to fly in the face of what other researchers have demonstrated. In particular, [4] Visualizing Love and Longing in Song Dynasty Paintings of Women from 2001 states Template:Tq.

Likewise, Benn at the cited page states that government officials and the like would go to the Northern Hamlet for banquets, however during the Tang Dynasty Template:Tq per this book. Which indicates to me that the government officials would not be having official banquets in the Beili. Instead, after the metropolitan government of Chang'an took control over Beili and the city performers, they could be dispatched to perform at banquets by government officials and the like, and they had to pay their false-mothers a thousand copper and had to receive specific permission to leave the district.

Specifically, the above linked book explains also that Template:Tq and Template:Tq. It isn't until the late Tang Dynasty that City Female Performers came to be hired for banquets in Chang'an. Xue Tao, for instance, was a guanji, which were differentiated from the City Female Performers Template:Tq

In particular, the Guanji lived in Yueying, and the courtesans that seem to have inspired the literati and who were poets were primarily guanji, not the women who lived in the Northern Hamlet, as evidenced by Template:Tq. Officials were allowed to go and seek out the yueying where Guanji (the compartively higher class courtesans) lived and attend banquets there. Liu Caichun is specifically credited as being a Guanji, as well as Xue Tao, Template:Tq and Template:Tq

An important difference is that the City Female Performers also included Siji, Template:Tq. So it seems that the women who lived in the Northern Ward were "common" courtesans. I've found another book which states Template:Tq

I think this demonstrates to a degree the inadequacy of the English translations, for starters. All of these categories are legitimately translated as 'courtesan', and while the Beili did have well-regarded occupants, they were well regarded in terms of their status among the "common" courtesans. In terms of the courtesan social ranking, however, the women who occupied the Beili, even the best among them, were still below the other tiers of courtesans. They were "the-best-of-the-worst", if you will. I think the Benn sources unnecessairly muddles the distinction between the different courtesans and affords greater status to those who resided in the Beili than is appropriate.

In general, I would propose that information about the courtesans in Template:Tq should be expanded to account for the social hierarchy and for it to be represented that the courtesans of the Template:Tq were considered common rather than high class, as the article presently represents them as Template:Tq, this could be changed to common, or independent, or just "courtesans". Brocade River Poems 23:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to acknowledge the care and research here, even as the niche is well outside of my wheelhouse. If my surface level understanding of your concerns are apt, I would be in favor of all material that depends on Benn's work to be reviewed and possibly removed if better sourcing can't be found. Remsense诉 01:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

One note, though: the 2020 monograph by Li Wang you cited was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing—considered to be a predatory publisher and ergo not generally reliable for use on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 01:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so it would seem. I hadn't dug into the publisher all that much, though I will state that much of what Li Wang published is supported by other publications as well. Per here [5], books published by CSP are to be treated as WP:SPS. Template:Tq

But I agree that it's best to avoid using it if the publisher has a dubious reputation, especially when other quality sources are available that more or less say the same things. [6]This book also contains further mention of the distinction between courtesans, Template:Tq

This book also provides replacement for the statement drawn from the Li Wang book for the statement that the women of the Northern Hamlet were only really allowed to leave by special permit, and that officials didn't really have banquets in the Beili Template:Tq and Template:Tq

This book contains a footnote that reads Template:Tq.

In basic what the sources seem to agree on is that the courtesans of the Northern Hamlet, as the article calls it, were something of a mixed bag, but among those courtesans some of them were superior than the others. However, in terms of the social stratification of the courtesans, the independent courtesans who occupied the Northern Hamlet were on the bottom of the social ladder. At the top were the Gongji, who were palace courtesans, below them were jiaji, household courtesans who served a specific wealthy household, the Guanji who served the government in an official capacity, the Yingji who were specifically attached to the military, and then finally the courtesans of districts such as the Northern Hamlet, who were independent courtesans associated who worked in the homes of "mothers" and who were associated with specific pleasure districts such as the Northern Hamlet.

To that end, I think it preferable to refer to them as "courtesans" rather than "high-class courtesans". Even the courtesans who were considered the "best" of the Northern Hamlet couldn't really be called "high-class".

Another source, this one, says Template:Tq

Most importantly though, is that source also says Template:Tq

Which clarifies that the majority of literary works that speak about courtesans, aren't talking about the sort of women found in the Pingkang Ward. Brocade River Poems 03:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the compilation. Because the distribution of courtesan in ancient China is quite complicated, there are different names, and some names can be divided into two functions, so it is difficult to have a unified definition. For example, during the Tang and Song dynasties, guanji was divided into two functions. One type of guanji was geji who provided performances for national or official events and celebrations. The other type also engaged in prostitution and provided professional services to officials and rich people. Yingji usually refers to junji, who lived inside the military camp and provided sexual services to soldiers. But some "yingji" is in a broad sense, just that local geji were notified to perform for the army at a specific time, and did not always live in the military camp. The lowest status of courtesan in the Tang Dynasty may be junji and courtesan in Pingkangfang. It is mentioned in the Beili Chronicle that the courtesan in Pingkangfang was beaten by the madam, and their movements were restricted. They could only go out on specific days and had to pay money to the madam. In short, these names are quite complicated, sometimes with multiple meanings, and sometimes with the difference between inclusion and directness, so it is not easy to have a unified definition. 清风与明月 (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty courtesan poems are more likely to be about courtesan in social activities, including Jiaofang, palace and local singing and dancing venues, and geji in the family. Those who lived directly inside the military camp and in Pingkangfang courtesans were mentioned much less than the previous ones. 清风与明月 (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Chiefly, my concern with Benn's work is that while it is published by Oxford University Press, the review of the book notes that there are inaccuracies within the book, that the book doesn't use citations, and that the only Bibliography offered is a "further reading" section that apparently only directs toward English sources. Benn makes definitive claims about the courtesans of the Northern Hamlet that cannot be located to a particular source and verified. Likewise, the claims don't seem to match the way things are described in other sources such as this [7] one. Brocade River Poems 07:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the courtesans in Northern Hamlet did have table manners and would serve wine and food in the red-light district, but this was more of a bar girl. Because these courtesans in Northern Hamlet were very good at accompanying customers to drink, they were called "yin ji(饮妓)" at the time, which means a accompany drinking prostitutes. Because these people would also order songs and dances, Benn may have considered them to be entertainers from this perspective. 清风与明月 (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried to correct the part about courtesan with some books. Some of it was changed back by the administrator. Because the administrator thought that the content about beating North Hamlet courtesan in Bei Lizhi should be described as courtesans in Tang Dynasty, not just North Hamlet. It was too binary to just say that courtesans in North Hamlet were beaten. 清风与明月 (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

However, regarding the issue of many courtesans being beaten by their pimp madames, this issue is recorded in the North Hamlet courtesans. In the Jiaofangji, there is no record of courtesans in Jiaofang in the Tang Dynasty being beaten by their madames, and even if there were, it was certainly not a common phenomenon.The administrators thought that they were all courtesans, and being beaten by madames was a common experience for them. In fact, the hostess of sing and dance venue was not madame, nor was she a pimp. This was different from the madame nature of the brothels in North Hamlet, the red-light district. So the pimp madame beating courtesans or prostitutes cannot be applied to everyone. 清风与明月 (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That was the result of a misreading on my part; I feel that point is appropriate and I readded it. Remsense ‥ 诉 04:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Beili zhi(北里志) records the life of courtesans in the red-light district of Chang'an during the Tang Dynasty, not the life of courtesans in Jiaofang outside the red-light district. There is no record of beatings in "Jiaofang Ji(教坊记)", and it is different from the life in "Beili zhi(北里志)". 清风与明月 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Spelling of Uyghur/Uighur

I noticed in some areas of the page Uighur/Uyghur is spelled as Uighur, while in others it was spelled as Uyghur. I tried to fix this, but I admittedly was new to the word replacement system and accidentally did it wrong, which thankfully was reverted. Anyhow, I was wondering if there was a specific reason for it to be spelled Uighur in some parts of the page? Most of them link to the pages which use the Uyghur spelling (e.g. Uighur links to Uyghur people) and it seems to be the standard spelling. Thx56 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I agree. The issue is that you didn't capitalize it. I went in to fix it, and ended up spending several hours fixing other stuff. Remsense ‥ 论 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! Thx56 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Their origins

I have collected all the resources and I am opening a discussion to correct what is written here. You can't just take this on your own. I want you to look at the sources I gave and correct what is written in the article. You can't claim to be an impartial encyclopedia and ignore all these sources by saying "this is not a forum".

Their claim of Han origin does not reflect their true paternal roots.

Until Emperor Xuanzong, the Tang dynasty was a Sino-Turkic state. Both in origin, language and culture.

2001:1C02:2C1C:AE00:3122:DA6C:A9D:D792 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The Xianbei heritage of the House of Li is already mentioned in the article. The proposed addition is not verified by any of the sources I could check (many are irrelevant to cite this claim, but out of the ones that are, Fairbank, Graff, Ma & Glahn, and Lewis fail verification. Instead, it is an original synthesis. For example, what Lewis has to say is:

The Tang dynastic house and its closest followers had strong cultural ties to the peoples of the steppes to the north and west, who in this period were dominated by Turks. This cultural familiarity allowed the formation of a Sino-Altaic (Turkic) system based on shared diplomacy, warfare, patrimonial political networks, and ideologies of heavenly-sanctioned rule.

which is clearly not equivalent to the OP's claim. Fairbank:

The Tang dynastic founder was likewise a scion of a Li family of Turkic military origins and aristocratic status. These military aristocrats had intermarried both with Chinese and with each other’s families so that they formed a large and homogeneous group of leaders, equal to the onerous tasks of conquest and administration. The nomad rulers of North China adopted Chinese ways, including language, dress, and methods of government so sedulously that their hybrid states seemed in the historical record to be properly Chinese.

Ditto.

As Wikipedia does not accept original research, there is nothing left to discuss. Remsense ‥ 论 22:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)