Talk:Tang dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleTang dynasty is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 29, 2008.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 22, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 28, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 3, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 18, 2009, June 18, 2010, June 18, 2011, June 18, 2012, June 18, 2013, June 18, 2015, June 18, 2018, June 18, 2019, June 18, 2021, and June 18, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Change the map of infobox[edit]

I tried to change the map of infobox [1]. This is Tang Dynasty greatest extent. Other articles all used the map of greatest extent in their infobox like Achaemenid Empire, Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire. I think this article should also use the greatest extent as the map in infobox.

This is the picture which I want to use:

  • Its more attractive than the current image but the countries are not in English. I couldn't say if the map is accurate or not.--MONGO 23:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This map was discussed previously at Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive 3#Map. This map, with its various shaded areas and lines to indicate different relationships to the Tang, is too complex and contentious for the infobox. In addition, the existing map is more in line with maps one sees in most sources. Kanguole 23:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about this map?
    • I believe this map is good enough, and I think the map should be changed, in order to be "fair", I suppose.--Alvin Lee 14:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about being "fair", but reflecting reliable sources. Apart from the complexity, this animation is full of expansive patches of colour that would be hard to reliably source. Kanguole 14:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a suitable map for this article. And I also believe that the map used in the article has several major mistakes. For example, Yunnan was not included. I doubt that that map was "Reflecting reliable sources".--Alvin Lee 07:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could try the maps in the Sui-Tang volume (no. 3) of the Cambridge History of China, e.g. maps 8 and 11. At that time, Yunnan was ruled by the Kingdom of Nanzhao. Kanguole 14:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should have a look at the article Kingdom of Nanzhao. In 750, Nanzhao rebelled against the Tang Dynasty. If Tang dynasty never ruled Yunnan, how would the Nanzhao people be able to rebel against Tang dynasty? --Alvin Lee 11:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should also NOT rely only on one map. I don't think one reliable source will be sufficient to determine the Empire's map.--Alvin Lee 12:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. As for the map, I cited one (particularly well-respected) source, but you'll find similar maps in other academic histories. Kanguole 13:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I've found many maps about Tang Dynasty that are far from the map used in this article. Secondly, the independence of Nanzhao is not only showed in the Wikipedia article. Many other Chinese historic books and maps that are reliable also states that Tang dynasty has actually ruled over yunnan, such as Tan Qixiang's Historical Atlas of China. Nanzhao's independence is a FACT. We should not deny it.--Alvin Lee 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Historical maps from China tend to include larger areas of Chinese territory than maps from elsewhere, presumably reflecting modern political concerns. Kanguole 01:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Historical maps from Western countries tend to include smaller areas of Chinese territory than maps from elsewhere, presumably reflecting modern political concerns. For example, The Aksai Chin will never be included in Chinese's territory, even though it is actually controlled by China. Also, if Chinese maps will overestimate the territory of Chinese dynasties, then we should not use maps about ancient Western countries, such as Roman Empire, that were made by Western people.' That seems legit.--Alvin Lee 03:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Nanzhao's independence is a FACT, and you should not ignore it. How could a country obtain independence if she was not ruled by any country? This is quite awkward.--Alvin Lee 03:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The symmetry you suggest just doesn't exist. China has territorial disputes with its neighbours, and is particularly sensitive about its historic claims to its minorities and the territories they occupy. State-approved atlases like Tan's support political objectives by promoting the impression that these areas have always belonged to China, by expanding the territory of historical empires with dubious claims (like Nanzhao above). Kanguole 02:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are avoiding my questions. Nanzhao was once ruled by China, which is a fact that cannot be neglected. And you just say that all of this was only about politics. You are not viewing history with a correct perspective, but just thinks that all China's maps are incorrect and Western maps will always be correct. Do you ever think that Western country, such as USA, will make maps about China, which is smaller than what it actually was, in order to fulfill their political aims? This can be seen from the example of Aksai Chin. USA and China's relationship, I am sure that you should know about it, and it is usual for the Americans to draw maps which underestimate China's ancient territory.--Alvin Lee 04:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Tang Dynasty do established some administrating regions in Yunnan, such as 姚州, which was disestablished at 750, the same year when Nanzhao gain independence. Please refer to New Book of Tang 《新唐書》.--Alvin Lee 06:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are many problems of the map used in the article. Firstly, Tang dynasty conquered Goguryeo and Baekje, but the article used a map that does not reflect this fact. Also, Tang Dynasty once controlled Tuyuhun, and this was not shown too. Moreover, Tang Dynasty defeated and conquered Eastern Turkic Khaganate and Western Turkic Khaganate. All of these were not shown in the maps used. How could you say that map was "suitable"? It is even far from accurate.--Alvin Lee 09:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nanzhao wasn't ruled by the Tang; it was set up by Piluoge uniting six tribes outside the Tang empire, encouraged by the Tang as a counter to their Tibetan enemies. Aksai Chin seems irrelevant, unless you are making the surprising claim that American scholars exclude it from historical maps to further US policy. The Tang occupation of part of Korea was brief, and well over by 700 AD. The Tang defeated the Tuyuhun and the Eastern Turks, but did not rule their territory. The area of the Western Turks is included; you probably mean the protectorates of Sogdiana and Tokharistan, but they were also short-lived, and long gone by 700 AD. Kanguole 01:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You got the point. The map in 700 AD was not the greatest extent of Tang Dynasty. Isn't it strange and incorrect to not use the greatest extent map for this article?--Alvin Lee 06:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems about your points. Firstly, Tang ruled Yunnan by Jimi system, which could also be considered as territory. secondly, China DO ruled over the land of Eastern Turks by 燕然都護府, and you cannot just ignore this historical facts again. Thirdly, the Aksai Chin example means that even now Western countries do make incorrect maps in order to fulfill their political aims, why wouldn't they do so on historical maps? Even the CIA The World Factbook is misleading--The land area of China is smaller than USA, where the Americans includes sea territory of America, but not for China. And you say no politics are included. So why are you sure that politics will not influence history? --Alvin Lee 07:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the map in the infobox is to give the reader an idea of the territory of the empire. Using the greatest extent, when this includes briefly-held territories, gives a misleading impression.
You say "could be considered as territory" – the meaning of such relationships is contentious, and most historians don't consider these areas as Tang territory.
Modern maps produced by government agencies tend to depict the borders recognized by their governments – this tells us nothing of the practice of historians. Your complaint about the CIA World Factbook is irrelevant. Kanguole 13:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that "most" historians don't consider these areas as Tang territory? I doubt that. And also, why Western empires uses maps showing their greatest extent, and this is not applicable for Chinese empires? Shouldn't all articles be unified? Allow me to use the example of Byzantine Empire:

The territory of Byzantine Empire in AD 555 is in its greatest extent, but that does not last long. So why not use the map showing the territory held by the empire which was not controlled briefly? The AD 867 map should be more appropriate instead. --Alvin Lee 03:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no responds, then I will change the map of this article. Thank you.--Alvin Lee 04:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that an infobox map on Wikipedia should show the largest extent of an empire/country instead of the one most commonly given in reliable sources seems truly ridiculous to me. I'm not a Tang expert, but I am inclined to agree with User:Kanguole that a map from The Cambridge History of China would probably be a reliable choice.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've posted the same text at Talk:Ming dynasty, I've replied there. Kanguole 00:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the greatest extent map that I suggested was inaccurate and somehow overestimated the territory. However, since the map has to show the influence and military strength of an empire, why will you still insist to use a smaller one, but allow western empires to use one which shows the greatest extent? It is both ridiculous and misleading. As I said, Tang had once controlled more land such as Goguryeo, and that was not shown in the map. I won't force you to use the map I suggest, but I totally disagree to use the map used currently. Moreover, why in this article, the Cambridge map was considered as ""Reliable"", but in the Ming article, the map was said to be unreliable? That was awkward and unbelievable. If you still insist not to use the greatest extent map for Eastern countries, but saying yes for Western empires, I have no word to say.--Alvin Lee 05:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what other articles use? They probably have problems of their own, and we, probably not being experts on Byzantine history, can't really comment on what goes on in those articles. We only need to care about what we can do here with the reliable sources we have. _dk (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh, so now you say "who cares". So from now on articles should not have similar structures, and we could write articles without following certain formats. It will be a mess! That's why we need to unify the formats of article! Also, the Byzantine Empire example is used to disprove the statement "It is not necessary to use maps showing greatest extent". It seems that you have mistaken.--Alvin Lee 08:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "now you say", since that was my first time commenting on this thread. You also have fell onto a sort of slippery slope, exaggerating a relatively minor issue about maps into one about "following certain formats". To my knowledge, there is no style guide that says we must use the maximum extent of a former country. Perhaps an adequate solution is a map with more than one shade of colour showing Tang's "normal" possessions and another shade showing the greatest extent. _dk (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So please explain why Western empires' map uses those shows their greatest extent? Don't throw out the Wikipedia:Othercrapexists--Alvin Lee 03:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't I? _dk (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Chinese)为什么英文维基百科包括很多西方历史图集里面唐朝的地图不包含蒙古高原和高句丽? - 知乎 我从这个问答找到这里了。看来还是没解决?--林卯talk? 14:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The map of Tang dynasty have a lot of problem 1.貴州 was a part of tang dynasty 2.Mongol, northeast and middle Asia was a part of Tang about 50~100 year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.176.219.250 (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kanguole:being historian does not mean being sceptical and cynical. Just because those protectarates were short lived does not mean they did not exist. Alexander's Empire were also short lived, but why is there a page about that? If you claim that the protectarates should not be shown on the map, none should the colonies of the colonial empires be shown. of course we should show the maximum extent of the dynasty on the map, cause that was the peak of the dynasty. Also, if we do not show that, it will misguide the readers and other wiki pages. the page of the list of largest empire, for example, had already been misguided. it will only reduce the credibility of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 16:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:林卯:我也被这个蠢材给气到了 这是旧唐书的一些关于版图的介绍 你自己看看吧

高昌 汉车师前王之庭。汉元帝置戊己校尉于此。以其地形高敞,故名高昌。其故垒有八城。张骏置高昌郡,后魏因之。魏末为蠕蠕所据,后麹嘉称高昌王于此数代。贞观十四年,讨平之,以其地为西州。其高昌国境,东西八百里,南北五百里。寻置都督府,又改为金山都督府。

  柳中 贞观十四年置   交河 县界有交河,水源出县北天山,一名祁连山,县取水名。地本汉车师前王庭   蒲昌 贞观十四年,于始昌故城置,县东南有蒲类海,胡人呼为婆悉海   天山 贞观十四年置,取祁连山为名。   北庭都护府 贞观十四年,侯君集讨高昌,西突厥屯兵于浮图城,与高昌相响应。及高昌平。二十年四月,西突厥泥伏沙钵罗叶护阿史那贺鲁率众内附,乃置庭州,处叶护部落。长安二年,改为北庭都护府。自永徽至天宝,北庭节度使管镇兵二万人,马五千匹;所统摄突骑施、坚昆、斩啜;又管瀚海、天山、伊吾三军镇兵万余人,马五千匹。至上元元年,陷吐蕃。旧领县一,户二千三百。天宝领县三,户二千二百二十六,口九千九百六十四。在京师西北五千七百二十里,东至伊州界六百八十里,南至西州界四百五十里,西至突骑施庭一千六百里,北至坚昆七千里,东至回鹘界一千七百里。   金满 流沙州北,前汉乌孙部旧地,方五千里。后汉车师后王庭。胡故庭有五城,俗号"五城之地"。贞观十四年平高昌后,置庭州以前,故及突厥常居之。   轮台 取汉轮台为名。   蒲类 海名   已上三县,贞观十四年与庭州同置。   瀚海军 开元中盖嘉运置,在北庭都护府城内,管镇兵万二千人,马四千二百匹。   天山军 开元中,置西州城内,管镇兵五千人,马五百匹。在都护府南五百里。   伊吾军 开元中置,在伊州西北五百里甘露川,管镇兵三千人,马三百匹,在北庭府东南七百里。   盐治州都督府 盐禄州都督府 阴山州都督府   大漠州都督府 轮台州都督府 金满州都督府   玄池州 哥系州 咽面州   金附州 孤舒州 西盐州   东盐州 叱勒州 迦瑟州   冯洛州 已上十六番州,杂戎胡部落,寄于北庭府界内,无州县户口,随地治畜牧。   安西大都护府 贞观十四年,侯君集平高昌,置西州都护府,治在西州。显庆二年十一月,苏定方平贺鲁,分其地置濛池、昆陵二都护府。分其种落,列置州县。于是,西尽波斯国,皆隶安西都护府。仍移安西都护府理所于高昌故地。三年五月,移安西府于龟兹国。旧安西府复为西州。龙朔元年,西域吐火罗款塞,乃于于阗以西、波斯以东十六国,皆置都督,督州八十,县一百一十,军府一百二十六,仍立碑于吐火罗以志之。咸亨元年四月,吐蕃陷安西都护府。至长寿二年,收复安西四镇,依前于龟兹国置安西都护府。至德后,河西、陇右戍兵皆征集,收复两京。上元元年,河西军镇多为吐蕃所陷。有旧将李元忠守北庭,郭昕守安西府,二镇与沙陀、回鹘相依,吐蕃久攻之不下。建中元年,元忠、昕遣使间道奏事,德宗嘉之,以元忠为北庭都护,昕为安西都护。其后,吐蕃急攻沙陀、回鹘部落,北庭、安西无援,贞元三年,竟陷吐蕃。   北庭都护府 本龟兹国。显庆中,自西州移府治于此。东至焉耆镇守八百里,西至疏勒镇守二千里,南至于阗二千里,东北至北庭府二千里,南至吐蕃界八百里,北至突骑施界雁沙川一千里。安西都护府,镇兵二万四千人,马二千七百匹。都护兼镇西节度使。   安西都护所统四镇   龟兹都护府 本龟兹国。其王姓白,理白山之南。去瓜州三千里,胜兵数千。贞观二十二年,阿史那社尒破之,虏龟兹王而还,乃于其地置都督府,领蕃州之九。至显庆三年,破贺鲁,仍自西州移安西府置于龟兹国城   毗沙都督府 本于阗国。在葱岭北二百里,胜兵数千。俗多机巧。其王伏阇信,贞观二十二年入朝。上元二年正月,置毗沙都督府,初管蕃州五。上元元年,分为十。在安西都护府西南二千里   疏勒都督府 本疏勒国。在白山之南,胜兵二千。去瓜州四千六百里。贞观九年,遣使朝贡,自是不绝。上元中,置疏勒都督府,在安西都护府西南二千里   焉耆都督府 本焉耆国。其王姓龙,名突骑支,常役于西突厥。俗有鱼鳖之利。贞观十八年,郭孝恪平之,由是臣属。上元中,置都督府处其部落,无蕃州。在安西都护府东八百里。   西域十六都督州府   龙朔元年,西域诸国,遣使来内属,乃分置十六都督府,州八十,县一百一十,军府一百二十六,皆隶安西都护府,仍于吐火罗国立碑以纪之。   月氏都督府 于吐火罗国所治遏换城置,以其王叶护领之。于其部内分置二十四州,都督统之   太汗都督府 于嚈哒部落所治活路城置,以其王太汗领之。仍分其部置十五州,太汗领之   条枝都督府 于诃达罗支国所治伏宝瑟颠城置,以其王领之。仍于其部分置八州   大马都督府 于解苏国所治数瞒城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置三州   高附都督府 于骨咄施国所治妖沙城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置三州   修鲜都督府 于罽宾国所治遏纥城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置十一州   写凤都督府 于失苑延国所治伏戾城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置四州   悦般都督府 于石汗那国所治艳城置,以其王领之。仍分其部置双縻州   奇沙州 于护特健国所治遏密城置,仍分其部置沛薄、大秦二州   和默州 于怛没国所治怛城置,仍分置栗弋州   挔扌敖州 于乌拉喝国所治摩竭城置   昆墟州 于护密多国所治抵宝那城置   至秬州 于俱密国所治措瑟城置   鸟飞州 于护密多国所治摸廷城置   王庭州 于久越得犍国所治步师城置   波斯都督府 于波斯国所治陵城置。   右西域诸国,分置羁縻州军府,皆属安西都护统摄。自天宝十四载已前,朝贡不绝。今于安西府事末纪之,以表太平之盛业也。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl72099 (talkcontribs) 16:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC) @User:林卯:隋季丧乱,群盗初附,权置州郡,倍于开皇、大业之间,贞观元年,悉令并省。始于山河形便,分为十道:一曰关内道,二曰河南道,三曰河东道,四曰河北道,五曰山南道,六曰陇右道,七曰淮南道,八曰江南道,九曰剑南道,十曰岭南道。至十三年定簿,凡州府三百五十八,县一千五百五十一。至十四年平高昌,又增二州六县。自北殄突厥颉利,西平高昌,北逾阴山,西抵大漠。其地东极海,西至焉耆,南尽林州南境,北接薛延陀界。凡东西九千五百一十里,南北万六千九百一十八里。高宗时,平高丽、百济,辽海已东,皆为州,俄而复叛,不入提封。2A00:23C5:3405:1700:89C2:EE07:4481:5579 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus christ. The map again. Why are you so intent on using a map of that specific year in the Tang Dynasty to represent its extent? Even more, that map technically represents the Zhou Dynasty of Wu Zetian, not the Tang Dynasty. However, that's besides the point. The ultimate dispute is over the map. The greatest extent map is undoubtedly not used for the Tang Dynasty, despite its use in almost all other historical empires. Me and many other users do not think that is right. I can understand if you have doubts about the sourcing, but comments by users like 2001:e60:104a:1e07:3dc3:e5cf:635c:344a indicate that some also believe the Tang dynasty did not exert control over areas of the yellow map not included by the current teal-green map, including territories in Korea, modern-day Mongolia and Central Asia. That is patently false, and it is even contradicted by the Tang Dynasty article itself, which states that the Tang exerted control "to a point north of Kashmir bordering Persia in the west, to northern Korea in the north-east." If you truly did believe that Tang control outside of China proper was limited only to modern Xinjiang. why would you only change the map and nothing else in the article which support the map? Now you resort to well-timed protections of the article immediately after it is reverted by someone baseless-ly accusing people who disagree with him of being sock puppets. --User:Danfrost12345 3:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Danfrost12345, this map issue has been discussed for years and already was settled three years ago, why the hell the maps again are keep being removed? Then resort to timed protection right after it's removed? The editors even started labeling people who disagree with this behavior as "puppets"? What is this abominable trick? Just because someone suddenly is mad that map shows the greatest extension of Tang dynasty which may cover some countries you from right now? Or hurt your fragile ego? Stop this nonsense. The current map in info box is not even representing Tang dynasty but a map of Wu Zhou period.
Editthat1 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The yellow map is not representative of maps found in reliable sources. For example, it includes NanZhao, Mongolia and the shores of the Aral Sea. Also debatable are the central Asian protectorates (apart from Anxi), which were more puppet states than parts of the empire, and northern Korea, which the Tang only ever partially controlled. Moreover they didn't occur at the same time: the western protectorates overthrew their puppet rulers in 665, before the Tang-Silla defeat of Koguryo in 668. A map at 669 might include the latter but not the former.
The portion of the the article that you quote has been altered so that it no longer reflects the source it cites. That should certainly be fixed. Kanguole 19:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanguole No. I wager you can't read Chinese? That yellow map is based on the records of "Old Book of Tang"(舊唐書) and "New Book of Tang"(舊唐書) which are the most primary sources of Tang dynasty history, more reliable than most modern Western sources, you can even find the whole books on Wikisources since they're part of Twenty-Four Histories(二十四史), the relevant Chinese scripts quoted from these sources were already posted by others above at 18 November 2017, you obviously can't read them judging by your reactions. And the map doesn't include entire Nanzhao, only part of it, because Tang dynasty did control these lands until NanZhao was established, NanZhao wasn't established until 738AD, before that, they were controlled by Tang dynasty and belong to one of major Tang protectorates, so your argument is invalid. It's even already explained in this Tang dynasty article itself at Protectorates section. Discuss and introduce Chinese history but neglect the primary Chinese sources is very unreasonable, absurd and unreliable deed.
61.228.120.60 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should not be based on primary sources. Kanguole 08:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanguole. Which wiki rule says "Wikipedia articles should not be based on primary sources"?? What a load of nonsense you spewed2001:B011:4004:2311:3C76:6477:C9D1:594C (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY. Kanguole 23:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you say that, because a lot of the other Chinese history articles on wikipedia cite the 24 histories, such as the Jin dynasty article. So if citing the 24 histories is not allowed, there will have to be a lot of changes to other wikipedia articles, which I don't see happening (hmm, I wonder why?).
I also do not see how the Books of Tang could be considered primary sources here. The Old Book of Tang and New Book of Tang were both written after the Tang dynasty had ended. When they discuss the events of the early Tang dynasty (the timeframe of the maps), they are discussing events that occurred centuries before they were written. Hmm, maybe this is why the Book of Jin is cited in the Jin dynasty article--because it was written centuries after the Jin dynasty had ended. Additionally, a huge chunk of what modern scholars know about Chinese history comes from these sources (the 24 histories). When it comes to events in China that happened over a millenia ago, there really isn't that much other information out there.
According to Harvard: "Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented." This evidently does not apply here. Ratata6789 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See footnote d of Wikipedia:No original research for examples of what are considered primary sources for the purposes of Wikipedia policy. These sources are indeed vital for modern scholars, but the issue is that those scholars' expertise is required to sift and interpret them. The same issue arises in the history of other parts of the world, including Europe. As for why this hasn't been fixed everywhere, Wikipedia is huge and time is short. Kanguole 15:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll concede that, that's my bad. I can see why the 24 histories would fall under that. Ratata6789 (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Tang certainly exerted control over what is now Mongolia in that time. Please refer to the Anbei protectorate. I really don't understand how you could refute that. I can see why the inclusion of some territories in the southwest could be questionable, but please know that the kingdom of Nanzhao was not founded until the 700s, which is after the time of the yellow map. But if you are going to attempt to support biased map choices, you should at least get your facts in order. Ratata6789 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question for a simple infobox map is whether Mongolia was part of the Tang empire, and the answer is that it wasn't. (Presumably that is what the lighter yellow in the yellow map is intended to indicate.) When Nanzhao was founded, it was not created out of a chunk of Tang territory. Kanguole 15:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume the lighter yellow indicates looser control--ie: the Anbei Protectorate. Again, Mongolia was part of the Tang dynasty, via the Anbei Protectorate. You're simply stating falsehoods here. And although Nanzhao wasn't formed out of the Tang dynasty, it did conquer large areas from the Tang dynasty--resulting in a loss of Tang territory in the southwest after Nanzhao's rise. Ratata6789 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, looser control – it wasn't administered as part of the empire like, say, the Tarim basin was. Kanguole 17:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Loose control is still control. The seat of the Anbei Protectorate was literally in modern Mongolia for a time (in Hanhai, and at the time it was called the Hanhai Protectorate). Ratata6789 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taizong designated designated a local leader as commander-in-chief of Hanhai. Later the "Hanhai army" was the garrison in Beiting. The Anbei protectorate was based in a garrison on the northern loop of the Yellow River, later moved to Juyan Lake (both within modern Inner Mongolia).
This is indirect and partial control, very different from say Anxi, despite the parallel names. Kanguole 20:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps removing the map of the Tang dynasty at it’s greatest extent? I’m running out of patience for people who thinks the green map based on a source from 1935 is accurate. If you’re going to use a western source because you shun non-western sources so much at least use one that is more recent when knowledge about Chinese history improved. I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be non-biased, and I completely agree with those who have voiced concern before me. This map by far has been the most accurate map of the Tang dynasty I have found on Wikipedia after it’s territorial extent settled down (745 AD). The much vaunted green map doesn’t include large portions of southwest China, the Ordos Loop, the Shiyang river and Juyan Lake Basin that juts north of the Hexi Corridor, and eastern Transoxiana that was controlled by the Tang dynasty during that period. 2601:645:C380:2E70:1F:B162:5CAA:ACA (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think realistically, this thing still isn't resolved simply because all maps in question are horrible. Therefore my proposition is, try it with a good map for once.
I don't want to talk about the present map, since it's not even about Tang. Pathetic. I'm in "maximum extent" camp since it's the established norm, and at least a proper definition instead of "I like this".
As for the Chinese one, there are three major problems for me.
1. It's in Chinese. This is the English Wiki.
2. Not every line and colour in the map is even in the legend. That's just awful, or purposefully misleading.
3. The purpose of the top map in this article is to show Tang territory. Including Tibet there is ridiculous. I get the map's intentions, but then it's just not suitable for use here.
Someone just make a better map. EnTerbury (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

I want know why the map should not include Protectorate General to Pacify the North, It should have been the area under the effective control of the Tang Dynasty @kanguole Ooodjr (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the sources do not consider this area to be part of the Tang empire. Kanguole 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that it changed depending on the era, but there was a time when it was under effective military control, and it is properly recorded in historical materials.
Do you think there is an error in the historical materials? Ooodjr (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should not be based on primary sources such as ancient histories (WP:PRIMARY), because they require specialist expertise to weigh and interpret. Kanguole 16:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the detailed content of "expertise to consider and interpret" be a separate item in the article? For example, why the "expertise" of modern Western scholars is more credible than ancient Chinese national compilations Ooodjr (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be missing the point about WP:PRIMARY. Kanguole 18:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to explain in detail
the answer to my question
Thank you for your time Ooodjr (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could start by reading WP:PSTS. Kanguole 19:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that well, I'll change the wording
Could you write in this article based on "the expertise" on why Protectorate General to Pacify the North should not be included in the Tang Empire's sphere of influence? Ooodjr (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox map, as with maps in other infoboxes, shows the territory of the empire, not its sphere of influence. Kanguole 22:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“the territory of the empire”
Empire of Japan Ooodjr (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been half a day already... are there any more objections?🧐 Ooodjr (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments: change the map of infobox[edit]

There are many mistakes in the intelligence box map, it does not match traditional East Asian sources, it is very abstract and full of prejudice. I think this map in the first paragraph is superior to the current infobox map: Map_of_the_Tang_Empire_and_its_Protectorates_circa_660_CE.png I was objected to by user @kanguole earlier when I tried to exchange maps, I asked him why he objected to me, but he didn't answer all my questions. I hope to get the opinion of a wide range of experienced Wikipedians. thanks very much. Ooodjr (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the Tang Empire and its Protectorates circa 660 CE, including the "Anbei Protectorate" or "Protectorate General to Pacify the North".
sorry Ooodjr (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been two months since I submitted my opinion without any objections, so I made the change. Ooodjr (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that there were no objections is clearly false.
The map, like the rest of the article, must reflect reliable secondary sources (see WP:V). Kanguole 14:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, while this man criticizes other people's sources, he does not offer any "reliable secondary sources" himself.
Lmao Ooodjr (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox maps are supposed to be abstract, in line with the aim of infoboxes to present key facts at a glance (WP:INFOBOX).
Wikipedia articles (especially Featured articles like this one) should be based of reliable secondary sources, and not directly on primary sources such as ancient histories (WP:PSTS).
The year of 660 seems an odd choice, since that would exclude the protectorate of Tokharistan, which was established in 661.Kanguole 16:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will rework the explanation a little when replacing the map.
could you please answer me why "Protectorate General to Pacify the North should not be included in the Tang Empire's sphere of influence"? More than this question. Ooodjr (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a map of the Tang empire, not its sphere of influence. The map must be based on reliable secondary sources, and these do not include that area in the Tang empire. Kanguole 16:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
say the same thing to your daddy, pls
empire of japan Ooodjr (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a point in there, you have not made it clear. In any case, the issue here is this article, not any other. Kanguole 18:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so, this person either doesn't answer my question or pretends not to hear it like this lol Ooodjr (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered your question.[3] Kanguole 18:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please answer this question "scientifically" again with the materials you have at hand?
@Kanguole Ooodjr (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is that the map must reflect reliable secondary sources, such as those cited by the current map and numerous others that present a similar picture. Articles should not be based on Wikipedians' own scientific analysis, but on such secondary sources. Kanguole 19:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So don't be shy, please add the details of the source so that we general readers can see it. Ooodjr (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are maps, and this map faithfully reflects them. Kanguole 19:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that today's scholars do not use words when conducting research.
Lmao Ooodjr (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooodjr Let's not use rude language in talk page discussions, please ("LMAO", "say the same thing to your daddy"), this is not a text message conversation, this is an encyclopedia website where such talk is an indication of sockpuppet behavior for moderation to consider. Aside from that, I am neutral about the inclusion of your map, and wouldn't even mind having it as one of two lead images to satisfy everyone so long as it is properly sourced. However, I have reverted your edit, since you introduced some serious errors as well as claims that require additional citations from scholarly sources. I'd like to see a quotation from at least two sources saying the Tang dynasty conquered "most" of eastern Eurasia. Mind you, it was a very large territory, but "most" would imply a far larger continental landmass beyond the territories they held in Central Asia. The Tang didn't even control all of Vietnam (Champa was independent), let alone Silla Kingdom Korea, Siberia, Tibet, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, etc. There's no need to alter the WP:LEAD section at all, which is clear enough about Tang military campaigns and has been stable for many months if not years as a Featured article (nominated by yours truly). Pericles of AthensTalk 17:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry for my reckless behavior. You may not know it. I did it out of necessity.
Some people always like to deliberately take historical records of other countries out of context and distort facts, so that third parties will have a stereotyped impression of that country's history. This kind of behavior is particularly serious in the Chinese history industry, and history buffs in the Chinese-speaking world have been putting up with this kind of thing for a long time. Ooodjr (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many history books and archaeological evidence clearly show that the Anbei Protectorate and the Shanyu Protectorate located on the Mongolian Plateau clearly existed; the eight emperors from Tang Taizong to Tang Daizong also served as co-lords of the nomads in the northern grasslands.However, the predecessor's map had no markings on the two Protectorate's Mansion, as if they had never existed from the beginning.

I'm going to sleep now Ooodjr (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The recently added sources (from File:Map of the Tang Empire and its Protectorates circa 660 CE.png) do not support the map they're attached to:
  • Map 2 (on page 119) of Warfare in Chinese History covers only the western protectorates, and matches the maps in the Blunder & Elvin and Twichett & Wechsler sources on that area.
  • Page 33 of Eurasian Crossroads doesn't have a map, but deals with the same area.
  • Map 3 (on page 131) of Warfare in Chinese History depicts frontier outposts along the Yellow River, and so even contradicts the map.
None of these deals with the east or the south. Kanguole 18:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please upload the picture so that the majority of Wiki readers can see it. Ooodjr (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pages are linked on the Commons page of that map. Kanguole 19:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please create wiki pages and publish them
Or use words to refute the evidence about the existence of the Anbei Protectorate and the Shanyu Protectorate, based on Chinese historical records. Ooodjr (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a history chat board. We use reliable secondary sources to support the content of the article. I have shown how the sources you provided did not support the map you added. Anyone who wants to check can follow the links to those sources on File:Map of the Tang Empire and its Protectorates circa 660 CE.png, from which they come. Kanguole 19:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, where are the images of reliable secondary sources that directly demonstrate the accuracy of the predecessor maps? Ooodjr (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are listed here in the section that says "sources". 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the new reliable secondary sources, just as you wish.
[1][2][3][4][5] Ooodjr (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Ven, Hans van de (2021-07-26). Warfare in Chinese History. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-48294-4.
  2. ^ yabuki (2017-02-04). "唐(王朝) | 世界の歴史まっぷ" (in Japanese). Retrieved 2023-09-06.
  3. ^ 田村, 実造 (2023-09-06). "https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/237908/1/shirin_052_1_65.pdf" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  4. ^ 氣賀澤, 保規 (2005-06). 絢爛たる世界帝国 : 隋唐時代 (in Japanese). p. 286. ISBN 20807786. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Check date values in: |year= (help)
  5. ^ "唐代疆域圖;唐代中外交通示意圖;唐代亞洲形勢圖;玄奘出國往返路線圖;漢代紙的傳播;安史之亂路線圖;唐代藩鎮圖;黃巢之亂路線圖;唐─朝鮮─日本交通圖". www.pro-classic.com. Retrieved 2023-09-06.
None of these sources seems to contain a map, so I don't see how they could support either side of this debate? Unfortunately, I can't read the text; could you please explain what they say specifically that supports your position? Furius (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one contains a map of the western protectorates (on page 119). The second and fifth seem to be self-published sites. Kanguole 17:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; the map on p. 119 conforms to the red map, doesn't it? It certainly doesn't show Tang extending out to the Aral Sea as in the yellow map. Furius (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:I see this map ( Tang outline map in the right side) dividing the territory of the Tang Dynasty into three parts,civil administration, military administration and briefly-controlled areas. Based on this claim, this map is not correct because it contains the part of briefly-controlled areas which is not the territory civil administration nor military administration. Then it should be briefly Jim area. You separated it from civil administration and military administration, then it means this area did not have any Tang military presence and did not have any government institutions from Tang. Then it should contains Protectorates General to Pacify which means the Map of the Tang Empire and its Protectorates is correct. Kangoule said it was not a map of Tang's sphere of influence. Then why does it have briefly-controlled areas which is not the territory civil administration nor military administration? By the way, this map itself claimed it is the map for Tang in 661 but never clam it is the Tang in its greatest area which should be in 669. It is the second error. If you contain briefly-controlled areas , then "Map of the Tang Empire and its Protectorates circa 660 CE" is more correct

However, I suggest to use the original version. Use this map "Tang_China_669AD.jpg" This one is better or we can keep both.

Lijing1989 (talk) 08:19, 7th September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The problem is that this map seems to cite no sources, so it is unclear where the borders it presents come from. Furius (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, I see the Map of the Tang Empire and its Protectorates offered by Ooodjr have 5 sources cited so it is enough for citation. The source problem is solved. By the way, Tang outline map (the second map in this discussion) did not claim it is the greatest extent which is misrepresentation of the source and it has so many error if you contain briefly-controlled areas (which no civil administration nor military presence) in the map. Hence, I suggest to replace by the first one. Lijing1989 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to just produce some number of citations. They have to actually support the map. It's difficult to start with the content you want and afterwards try to find sources for it. Kanguole 17:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is enough because the sources themselves actually support the map by the same way the Tang outline map has Lijing1989 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The outline map is derived from the maps in the cited sources. It's much harder to find a source with exactly the same boundaries as some map you wish to add. Kanguole 17:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least four of the sources exactly give the boudaries the first map shown, Two of them even have the picture. Lijing1989 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If one takes a snapshot of 669, there would be extra territory in Korea, but by that time the four western protectorates had overthrown their Tang-installed rulers, so the total territory would be smaller. Kanguole 17:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is if you use the second map ( Tang outline map). Then you cannot explain the briefly-controlled areas. As I said before, the briefly-controlled areas are not the civil administration nor military presence that means it is just briefly jimi which should be much larger than it. You said it is not sphere of influence, then you should not accept the second map ( Tang outline map). Another thing is the map itself did not claim it is the greatest extent which is misrepresentation. We cannot misrepresent the source which is a violation of wiki rule. If that, we can simply delete all map in infobx. I think it can solve all problems. Lijing1989 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources describe this area as part of the empire, and say that it was the greatest extent of the empire (e.g. Twichett & Wechsler p. 280). Kanguole 17:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the part of the empire is not the same as briefly-controlled areas which are not the civil administration nor military presence. If that is the part of empire, then you use the briefly-controlled areas which not civil administration nor military presence as the definition is incorrect. And if you contain the briefly-controlled areas, then that means the briefly jimi or sphere of influence Lijing1989 (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The protectorates were not all the same. That is why we have to rely on what the sources say about them. Kanguole 19:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between these protectorates are whether they have civil administration, military presence or the briefly-controlled which have neither. Some had civil administration, some had military presence,Some have neither. But if you included the briefly-controlled which have nether civil administration nor military presence in the map, then every protectorates satisfy this standard. That it is why the Tang outline map is incorrect and should be replaced.
Then about the sources. The Map of the Tang Empire and its Protectorates offered by Ooodjr indeed have sources supported. Two of these sources even have pictures which are exactly the map he offered. Hence use his map to replace current is the solution. Lijing1989 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources offered by Ooodjr are mostly nonsense. One is 464 page book cited without a single page number to a map that supports the proposed map, two are random web sources which have no indication of being authoritative, one is a PDF which does not include a single map, and one is a Japanese book given without a publisher, a fake ISBN and no way to verify. This hodgepodge of random sources is proposed as overriding direct page numbers from one of the most authoritative surveys of Chinese history every (the Cambridge Chinese history), a literal atlas and a survey of Korean history—all with direct page numbers, reputable scholars and noted publishers. This is a joke, please stop wasting everyone's time. Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think "the Cambridge Chinese history" is one of the most authoritative. You should at least correctly cite this source. Did you ever read that book before? Do you think I don't have this book? I have this book and read it before.
Let me tell you how bad the current red map cited this book.
At first, the citation used in the map is "Kao-tsung (reign 649–83) and the Empress Wu: The Inheritor and the Usurper", in Twitchett, Denis; Loewe, Michael (eds.), Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires"
However, there is no such chapter "Kao-tsung (reign 649–83) and the Empress Wu: The Inheritor and the Usurper" in Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires. Moreover, Cambridge History of China: Volume I does not even mention anything about Tang dynasty.
The chapter is in Cambridge History of China: Volume III:Sui and T'ang. Hence it is at first a citation mistake.
Then I read Cambridge History of China: Volume III:Sui and T'ang 589-906, there is no such map in that book. I read the whole book and did not find the red map in that book. It never had a map in 661.
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.
Then, in the chapter "Kao-tsung (reign 649–83) and the Empress Wu: The Inheritor and the Usurper" there is the paragraph "The revival of the Eastern Turk" write that "In 679, almost half a century after the destruction of the Eastern Turkish qaghanate by T'ai-tsung, Turkish tribes rebelled against T'ang control in the region beyond the Great Wall in the north of modern Shansi province. The revolt was put down at the end of 681, after great loss of life on both sides. However, at the end of 682 ..............."
That means from the destruction of the Eastern Turk (630) to 679, the territories of previous Eastern Turkic Khaganate beyond the Great Wall was controlled by Tang dynasty so that Eastern Turk tried to rebel in 679. Moreover, the rebellion failed in 681. Hence, even in 681. the territories of previous Eastern Turkic Khaganate was still under the control of Tang, Then why the red map did not include any territories beyond the Great Wall which was previous Eastern Turkic Khaganate territories?
You said the source is one of the most authoritative but how can you write something totally conflict with the source when you cited it? It seems you need a strong source so you choose this to cite but what you write is totally contradicts with the source. As I said before, the map is a misrepresentation of the source.
Then I read korean history in maps. This book did not have the red map either. How did you cite these books as the sources when these book did not mention or was even contradicts with your map.
I don't think make a source citation is a joke no matter how do you consider the source. I believe it is a joke if you choose an authoritative book as a reference but write content that completely contradicts the information in that book. Actually, I am really confused, do you really ever read the Cambridge History of China: Volume III and korean history in maps before? Based on the current referencing method, I can put any map in the infobox with Cambridge History of China as the sources. Lijing1989 (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the error in the CHC citation. Indeed the Twichett&Wechsler chapter cited is in volume 3.
As for greatest extent, Twichett&Wechsler say, on page 280:
"Other foreign people previously under the suzerainty of the Western Turks in western Sinkiang, Russian Turkestan and the valley of the Oxus, were also placed under formal Chinese control in 659 and 661. The T'ang empire then stretched from the China Sea all the way to the borders of Persia, and part of the new territory under Chinese control was named the 'Persian' government-general (Po-ssu tu-tufu). These new territories were, however, so vast, and T'ang forces spread so thinly, that it is not surprising that this further extension of T'ang authority lasted only briefly. At the beginning of 665 both the Tu-lu and the Nu-shih-pi tribal federation rebelled against their pro-T'ang qaghans, and regained their independence from the Chinese."
Map 8 on page 281 depicts the central Asian territories described here and the western limit of civil administration.
Your bolded quotation refers to the 679–681 revolts in the Ordos, which is inside the dark red area on the map.
The Korean History in Maps source depicts the boundaries of the state of Baekje just before it was conquered by the Tang and became the Ungjin Commandery. Map 9 on page 283 of Twichett&Wechsler gives a less detailed depiction of the area. The remaining boundaries come from the cited map in the Blunden&Elvin source. Kanguole 08:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving me 24 hours freedom of speech
And what do you want to say? Can I change the map now? Ooodjr (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is misrepresentation the sources again.
-----------------------The Korean History in Maps source depicts the boundaries of the state of Baekje just before it was conquered by the Tang and became the Ungjin Commandery.
That was happened before 660 which should not represent the map in 661. It showed a small part of northeastern Tang before 660 without any detailed description. How can you cite a source which does not have the boundary in 661 without description as the source for the map 661? Moreover, it even did not give all parts of northeastern Tang. It just have a small boundaries between Tang and korea.
--------------Map 9 on page 283 of Twichett&Wechsler gives a less detailed depiction of the area.
The Map 9 also draw the Tang take part of Goguryeo in 661 which did not show in the red map and take Pyongyang in 668. You personally defined the 661 is the greatest extents so you ignore the whole parts from 661 to 669.
However, I read the whole book, it never said the Tang reach the greatest extents in 661. It just claim Tang reach peak during Gaozong. Do you how long the Gaozong's regin?
------------------------Your bolded quotation refers to the 679–681 revolts in the Ordos, which is inside the dark red area on the map.
"In 679, almost half a century after the destruction of the Eastern Turkish qaghanate by T'ai-tsung, Turkish tribes rebelled against T'ang control in the region beyond the Great Wall in the north of modern Shansi province. The revolt was put down at the end of 681, after great loss of life on both sides"
The source itself did not mention Ordos in this revolts.
Then you are attempting to mislead readers by equating the occurrence of a rebellion with the control of territory. Everyone know that the region rebellion happened was not equal to the whole area controlled. From the sentences the source mentioned, the eastern Turk started the rebellion to break the Tang's control of the whole eastern Turk. Based on these, Tang briefly controlled the whole eastern Turk. That is why I said if you included the area briefly controlled which did not have civil administration nor military presence in the map, then the red map is incorrect. Based on the the Cambridge History of China, if you need to include the area briefly controlled, then the whole territories of eastern Turk should be included. Lijing1989 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation certainly does not say that "Tang briefly controlled the whole eastern Turk". It says there was a rebellion in northern Shanxi, which is depicted as part of Tang on all the maps that have been discussed. Kanguole has provided above a good quotation for seeing 661 as the point of greatest extent. Furius (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says the rebellion happened beyond the Shanxi(not in). Then as I said before, the rebellion happened does not mean the whole area controlled.
-------------above a good quotation for seeing 661 as the point of greatest extent
Which quotation. I check the whole book, there is only a description that "during Kao-tsung's reign, this period saw the T'ang rise to a peak of military power and prestige" During Kao-tsung not 661.I checked every parts which mentioned 661. None of them claimed the greatest extents. Lijing1989 (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Korean History in Maps is only cited for the border of Baekje, which became the Ungjin Commandery, not the mainland borders of Tang, and only because it draws the border in more detail than Twichett&Wechsler's Map 9.
Regarding Goguryeo, Twichett&Wechsler's Map 9 says "Su Ting-fang's abortive invasion 661–2", with a bit more detail in the text on p282. It also shows that Goguryeo was successfully conquered by Tang and Silla in 668, but as the above quote from p280 shows, by that time Tang had lost the western protectorates, so that its total territory was smaller.
The quote about the revolt of 679–681 is somewhat vague as to location, but that revolt took place in the Ordos in the six Hu prefectures where the defeated Eastern Turks had been forcibly resettled in the 630s (Skaff Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors pp.273–274, 357). Pages 222–223 of the CHC volume describe this resettlement. Kanguole 12:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, why not my map and information sources?? please answer me in detail

@Aza24@Furius@Kanguole Ooodjr (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, the issue is sourcing. You should try addressing the concerns that have been raised about your sources, e.g. by Aza24 above. Kanguole 11:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly as you say, sorry to my explanation was insufficient. Ooodjr (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly as you say, sorry to my explanation was insufficient.
I didn't know what the ISBN in quotation 4 was at first, so I just randomly inserted the number written on the book's information site.
Book information site → https://iss.ndl.go.jp/sp/show/R100000002-I000007800596-00/
Since this is the website of the National Diet Library of Japan, I believe it is highly reliable, I think that the reliability is sufficiently secured.
田村 実造 of quote 3 is the “reliable secondary information source” you are looking for.
Chapter 3: Tang and the North Asian World (page 8) says:
「...翌年(六四七)唐朝が突厥の本拠地の都斤山(外蒙古オルコン河畔のQara-balghasun)に燕然都護府(後に安北都護府と改名)を設けたのは東突厥投降後の北アジア遊牧諸部族を統治するためである。」
“...The following year (647), the Tang Dynasty established the Yanran Protectorate (later renamed the Anbei Protectorate) on Dupeishan (Qara-balghasun in today, on the banks of the Orkong River in Outer Mongolia), the stronghold of the Tuchus, after the surrender of the Dongtuchus to rule the nomadic tribes of North Asia. “
“...次年(647年),东突厥投降后,唐朝在突厥据点都斤山(今外蒙古奥尔孔河畔的Qara-balghasun)设立燕然都护府(后改称安北都护府)统治北亚的游牧部落。” Ooodjr (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
氣賀澤 保規 is one of the most prestigious professors of Chinese Tang dynasty history research in Japan.
wiki link→ja:氣賀澤保規
田村 実造 is a little inferior to 氣賀澤, but he is also an expert enough to get on the Japanese Wikipedia.
Wiki link→ja:田村実造
Both graduated from Kyoto University, one of the best universities in the world and a place of academic freedom.
To say that the research by these two professors is nonsense, all three of you must be extremely knowledgeable people than they. Ooodjr (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this does help and you're right that it should be included. Is there a map anywhere showing what the specific borders of Anbei were? Furius (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any pictorial intelligence that shows the red map is correct?
Is there any Academic Information Sources showing that the Anbei Protectorate does not exist along the Orkhon River in Outer Mongolia?
Please answer my question first.
For those of you who are knowledgeable, this question must be very simple😊 Ooodjr (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The red map is based on maps in the cited sources. Kanguole 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
where? ? Why can't I see it? ? Ooodjr (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are quite precise. If you're asking me to post scans of the maps, sorry, Wikipedia frowns on copyright violations. Kanguole 14:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so, it is mean there is no way to prove the reliability of red maps, right? Oooodjr (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanguole: Why do the cited sources for the red map exclude the Anbei protectorate? Furius (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him the same question many times
He always answers:
“Secondary sources cited are not indicated as such.” Oooodjr (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Protectorate General to Pacify the North
Khan of Heaven
↑Explanation for those who don't know about the Anbei Protectorate Oooodjr (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't explicitly say. If I had to guess, it would be that there are varying degrees of control, the Tang adapted their methods to local situations, and that the parties may have interpreted arrangements differently. For example, Zhenping Wang Tang China in Multi-Polar Asia: A History of Diplomacy and War (2013) pp. 45–46:
"To better control the steppes, the Tang court established loose rein prefectures headed by Uighur chieftains under the indirect jurisdiction of the Yanran protectorate-general (located on the northern bank of the Wujia River, Inner Mongolia). The Uighur leader, Tumidu (r. 646–648), accepted the Tang military title Civilizing General-in-Chief (Huaihua da jiangjun), which he interpreted as Chinese political recognition of his claim that he was qaghan of other Uighur tribes."
That doesn't sound like a part of the empire. Also note that Wang (like most other authors I've seen) places the Yanran garrison far to the south of the Orkhon River named in the above quote of Tamura. Kanguole 16:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was certainly the case when the Yanran Protectorate (precursor to the Anbei Protectorate) was first established in 647. But we are now talking about the 660s, which is considered to be the heyday of the Tang Dynasty. Oooodjr (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you tell me like this from the beginning?
I'm just asking out of interest. Oooodjr (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any answers regarding this question?
@Kanguole Oooodjr (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What question? I made a guess at Furius's request, but that's all it was. What matters is the sources. Kanguole 08:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that assumption based on the source? Huh, maybe it's different? ? 😅 Oooodjr (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful. Looking for a more detailed account, focussed specifically on the Mongol region, I have found: Skaff, Jonathan Karam (2012). Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors: Culture, Power, and Connections, 580-800. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199950195., which says p. 23:
"The First Türk Empire fragmented further in the late 620s, as a formerly subordinate Tiele tribal union in Mongolia revolted and established a new khanate under the leadership of the Sir-Yantuo. The Tang finished off the remaining Türks in Inner Mongolia in 630 and began to rule over them while the Sir-Yantuo remained in control of Mongolia (Duan 1988). Two decades later another Tiele tribe, the Uighur, overthrew the Sir-Yantuo with Tang military assistance and established a relatively weak khanate (Cheng 1994, 51–61). The next change in power occurred when the Türks in Inner Mongolia revolted against the Tang in 682, reconquered the Mongolian Plateau, and established the Second Türk Empire (Sinor and Klyashtorny 1996, 335–6; Xue 1992, 431–584)."
and on p. 248:
"Tang bridle administration originated in 629 as an ad hoc response to a typical phenomenon of the Turko-Mongol world. As the First Türk Empire crumbled, various tribal leaders and their adherents revolted against Illig Qaghan and fled to the Tang (chapter 9). In contrast to the Sui policy of investing Turko-Mongol elites with native titles, Tang frontier officials began to organize the surrendered pastoral nomads into “prefectures,” using the nomenclature of local administration (Wu 1998, 198). The ad hoc measures of 629 were elaborated and formalized in 630 after the Tang conquest of Illig Qaghan and court debate on the disposition of the Türks (chapter 2). Eventually, six prefectures under the jurisdiction of four area commands (dudu fu) were established in the grasslands around Xiazhou in the southern Ordos (Iwami 1998, 109–23; Pan 1992a, 64–9; Wu 1998, 185–206; Zhao 1993)."
The book doesn't mention direct rule any further north than that. It does have a couple of maps of the region, but the author has chosen not to depict borders and are focussed on the 8th century. So, not the most helpful. Furius (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page 249 of that book makes a distinction between the direct administration of tribes resettled in Guannei and the indirect handling of the Tiele (under Yanran, later renamed Hanhai and then Anbei), in which "regular Tang military officers of the protectorates exercised authority over client chiefs, but only seem to have interfered in internal tribal affairs at crucial junctures, such as succession."
Like Wang, Skaff places the controlling garrison of the protectorate at Xishouxiang on the Wujia River, later moving west. Kanguole 23:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would have been better to carry out exploitation and genocide in order to establish "dominance"?
↓Just like this country
empire of japan Oooodjr (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about what was virtuous or not virtuous; the question is simply: "Do maps of the Tang dynasty in WP:Reliable sources depict these territories as part of the Tang dynasty." So far some evidence has been provided that the Tang dynasty exercised some influence in Mongolia (nobody doubts this), but no evidence has been presented that scholars ever depict this in map form. Furius (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking; As you said.
How about the Historical Atlas of China (1980) ? It was produced in Taipei, China, and has long been an authority on historical maps of the Chinese-speaking world. Oooodjr (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed a WP:RS. What does it say on this issue? Furius (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked what Wang says about the 660s, but have since deleted the question. Anyway, the answer (from pages 47–48) is:
"Tang-Uighur relations entered a precarious period after the death of Porun in 661. Some Uighur tribes raided Chinese borders in 662. But the Tang court normalized the situation by a combination of force and appeasement. The successive Uighur rulers knew that good relations with the Tang were in their own interests. Chinese recognition was indispensable in strengthening their position among Uighur chieftains, and at times Chinese protection was crucial for the survival of a Uighur confederation when threatened by hostile forces."
Incidentally, Wang has a map of Tang China at the start of the book, reproduced from East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History by Ebrey, Walthall and Palais. It depicts a territory including the Tarim basin but not the Mongolian plateau. Kanguole 10:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a website where I can see that map? Oooodjr (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None that I know of. Kanguole 11:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Ebrey map is visible here. The Times "Atlas of World History" Tang Empire map here.पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orthogonal to the sourcing issues above, the map is not readable at its default size on the article; its breadth is too big. My instinct is to have two maps with one centered on 'China proper' and the other on Central Asia if one wants to stack both in the infobox. If I can get a clear list of sources, and what to include where, I will be happy to make these maps using SVG and Generic Mapping Tools. Remsense (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(The above comment relates to File:Tang Protectorates.png.)
Because of the limited map size and the focus of infoboxes on providing summary information, maps in infoboxes should be fairly sparse. Detailed maps are best placed at appropriate points in the body of the article. Kanguole 16:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I'd still be interested in working on such a map for later in the body of the article if anyone else thinks it would be useful. Remsense 17:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with the map of the Tang Dynasty used in the article[edit]

I noticed that on the map, Yunnan and Guizhou, as well as parts of the northern part of the Korean Peninsula and Juyan, are not depicted on the territory of the Tang Dynasty, what is the reason for this?

The first map is very problematic mainly in the southwest and northeast. The Bohai Kingdom did rise, but is there any evidence that he took away the entire Andong Protectorate? The problem in the second map is similar to the first, and I will briefly describe a few administrative institutions set up by the Tang Dynasty on the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau.

In 621, the Tang Dynasty established Yaozhou(姚州) in Chuxiong City, Yunnan, and it was not taken away by Nanzhao until 750, and it was never lost in between.

姚州(剑南道姚州)_百度百科 (baidu.com)

In 634 AD, the Tang Dynasty changed Nanning Prefecture(南宁州) to Langzhou(朗州), and the seat of governance was in present-day Qujing City, Yunnan. We ruled here from the Han Dynasty until it was occupied by the Southern Zhao in 755, and the area belonged to the Han Chinese.

南宁州_百度百科 (baidu.com)

In 625 AD, Gongzhou(恭州) was renamed Quzhou(曲州), and its seat of rule was in the city of Zhaotong in present-day Yunnan Province. The region was annexed by Southern Zhao between 750 and 756.

曲州(古代地名)_百度百科 (baidu.com)

The Tang Dynasty established Juzhou(矩州) in 621 and its jurisdiction was in present-day Guiyang City, Guizhou Province. I don't know exactly when this area was lost, but it is certainly later than the above districts.

矩州_百度百科 (baidu.com)

In 639 AD, the Tang Dynasty split Langzhou(朗州) and added Bozhou(播州), which governed the city of Zunyi and its surrounding areas, which the Tang Dynasty never lost in Zunyi, present-day Guizhou Province.

播州区_百度百科 (baidu.com)

In 676, after the end of the Silla War, the Tang gave up most of the Korean Peninsula, but this did not include Pyongyang. In 735, Silla attacked the Balhae Kingdom and suffered heavy losses. The Tang Dynasty gave land south of the Taedong River to Silla in order to compensate Silla, but this did not include Pyongyang. It is now widely believed that the Tang Dynasty completely lost all the land on the Korean Peninsula after the Anshi Rebellion.

As for the area around Juyan Lake, since the Han Dynasty acquired, this area has been subordinate to Jiuquan, with the existence of Jiuquan, disappeared with the loss of Jiuquan, in 700 AD, the Tang Dynasty's rule in the Hexi Corridor was very solid, there is no evidence that Juyan Lake was lost.

In this article, it is called the largest territory of the Tang Dynasty in 661? I wonder about this, shouldn't it be 668 AD?

Below I will provide a website about historical maps, the part of the site about Western history may not be very accurate, but the section on Eastern history is already very accurate.

时空地图 | 全历史 (allhistory.com) 李双能 (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you cite (Baidu Baike and allhistory.com) are not reliable sources.
Regarding 661 and 668, in 668 the Tang conquered Goguryeo, but before that time the four western protectorates had revolted, so the total area was smaller than in 661. Kanguole 20:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a Southern region for Military and Foreign relations part when it should be?[edit]

To many people look and read this article may feel unusual while toggling down to Military and Foreign relations and see that why the Southern region is still missing? Is this part of the original plan of editors that try to avoid bringing or talking about the southern region of the Tang dynasty at all costs that they completely excluded, skipped it over or maybe it deems insignificant to mention despite Southern China at this time which including the maritime Silk Road and neighboring kingdoms in South-East Asia that matter such as Nanzhao, Champa, Dvaravati were quite important for understanding the history the Tang dynasty. There were military concerns too should be included in the main article Nanzhao-Tang wars Champa-Tang wars Huang Chao massacre Tribal revolts in Southern China and Northern Vietnam 2601:204:D200:135C:299D:E80D:6246:1DC6 (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by 129.255.248.57[edit]

I reverted a recent edit by 129.255.248.57 (talk · contribs) as it seemed to insert some WP:POV-hedging language. I suggested in my edit summary that this should be discussed on the talk page. That IP then reverted me with a bad-faith edit summary. I suggest this content shouldn't be included without consensus. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too many Chinese propaganda[edit]

There are so many Chinese propaganda in the current text. China never ruled many territories shown on the map. China even never influenced Korea, Vietnam, and Japan. These lies serve to support the Chinese Communist Party's imperialist ambitions. These contents should be erased and the map need to be replaced. 50.224.188.150 (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific passages or examples, or do you find any of sources cited in particular objectionable? No one can actually address your issue if you're not specific. Remsense 07:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Zetian interregnum justifying discontinuity in establishment years in infobox / header?[edit]

Under what historiography, dynastic classification, or academic authority is this article justifying Wu Zetian's Zhou dynasty be considered a discontinuity in Tang dynasty? The Zhou dynasty (690–705) article itself even states Traditionalist Chinese historiography considers the dynasty as a period of the Tang dynasty. Deviating from that means this article (Tang dynasty) is choosing a different historiographic viewpoint.

I agree with the need of the article Zhou dynasty (690–705) and the fact that it is prominently mentioned in a major section in this article. Unless academic consensus can be identified, I am wondering if this is applying European/Egyptian dynastic conventions to Chinese dynasties. Voidvector (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources do tend to treat it as part of the Tang period. Perhaps User:Morrisonjohn022, who made this change a few years ago, whould care to comment. Kanguole 11:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wu Zhou is typically considered part of the "Tang period" or "Tang era" (唐代) for historiographical purpose. But Wu Zhou is not part of the "Tang dynasty" (唐朝). A distinction needs to be made between historiographical "period"/"era" and "dynasty". In addition, proper sources such as (i) The Sinitic Civilization Book I: A Factual History Through the Lens of Archaeology, Bronzeware, Astronomy, Divination, Calendar and the Annals; (ii) Digitized Statecraft of Four Asian Regionalisms: States' Multilateral Treaty Participation and Citizens' Satisfaction with Quality of Life; (iii) Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors: Culture, Power, and Connections, 580-800, etc. do in fact label the Tang dynasty as "618–690, 705–907". Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Zhou Dynasty article says in the lead "Historians generally view the Wu Zhou as an interregnum of the Tang dynasty." That seems to be the same viewpoint as presented by the infobox here (which includes the Zhou Dynasty dates in small type, below).
I don't see how European/Egyptian dynastic conventions are relevant. Furius (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map problem[edit]


The current map has make much of arguing, why don't replace it with another map? Even the Chinese map can't be used in English wiki, when compare with other maps that only have western reference, it also shows many problems:
Like this map in below:

The current map ignore the territory of Tang Dynasty which located in modern-day Mongolia, as User:Alvin Lee said in 2015, why using a maps showing their greatest extent is not applicable for Chinese empires? This question is raised 9 years, but no one can gave a qualified response. 86A32980X (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't mind the map improved (see Roman Empire with their 2 maps - 1 snapshot, 1 animated). However, at minimum you need to back up your claim with citation. Instead of wasting your time giving me citations on a talk page. You should go improve a more detailed article, namely Protectorate General to Pacify the North. If we cross-reference the text in that article right now, almost all of the place name mentioned are in modern day Inner Mongolia. Even after Anbei and Chanyu were split, both of their capitals were still in Inner Mongolia!!! I would say, it is uncontroversial to have a map that includes Inner Mongolia in some shade. However, including Mongolia and Siberia is unsubstantiated by the current articles. --Voidvector (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now we have the concesus that the current map need to include Ordos Loop (or other part of modern day inner mongolia), right?
The article of Protectorate General to Pacify the North also need to add more citations, because it only mentioned that where is the modern location of its capitals, but Protectorate only have its capital is theoretically impossible, and the 13 place names in the History part also be ignored: Hanhai (翰海府), Jinwei (金微府), Yanran (燕然府), Youling (幽陵府), Guilin (龜林府), and Lushan (盧山府), Gaolan (皐蘭州), Gaoque (高闕州), Jilu (雞鹿州), Jitian (雞田州), Yuxi (榆溪州), Dailin (蹛林州), and Douyan (竇顏州), Almost all of these places also locate at outer mongolia expect Gaoque can't be clearly know where is its modern location, and Douyan which locate in lnner mongolia. 86A32980X (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for anything. I don't see citations to reliable secondary sources anywhere. Frankly, this map has been discussed (and edit-warred) to death and I'm not even sure what is being proposed anymore. Aza24 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think now we at least have to sloved the below questions:

1. Why the current map ignored the Anbei and Chanyu Protectorate, but label another territories that have same status? If the status of Protectorate has dispute, so Protectorate can't be label as the territory of Tang Dynasty, then remove all of it, only show the proper territory of Tang Dynasty, similar to what this map did:

2. Why the current map said that Tang Dynasty was reach the greatest extent in 661, but the data of areas in infobox using the information at 715? If someone have the data of areas of Tang Dynasty in 661, then go to replace the current area data; If the data in 715 is correct, then please find a new map that also base on the information in 715 (or more close to 715) to represent it, we already have these maps inside the article. 86A32980X (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All three of the above maps include the Ordos Loop.

The reason the current map includes some areas and not others is that those areas are included in the maps in the cited references.

The citations given for the animated map were:

  1. Twitchett & Wechsler (1979) p. 281 (also cited by the current map): a map of Gaozong's protectorates in central Asia c. 661.
  2. Benn (2002) pp xii, 4: the first is a map of Tang in 742; the second is the text:
    "In the seventh century Tang forces extended Chinese dominion over a territory greater in extent than previously known. By 661 the armies had established the dynasty's sway over Central Asia as far as a point north of Kashmir, on the border with Persia. In 668 a combined force of Chinese and southern Koreans (Silla) conquered northern Korea (Koguryo), a feat that had eluded both the last emperor of the Sui and Emperor Taizong. However, the Tang was not able to subjugate the country completely. Furthermore, a new and very powerful kingdom in Tibet began to encroach on China's western territories."
  3. van der Ven (actually Twitchett) p. 131: a map of Tang northwestern defences in 738, showing fortresses and armies along the loop of the Yellow River and in the Hexi corridor.

These sources do not support most of the areas shown in the animation.

The sources given on Commons for the orange map are:

  1. van der Ven (actually Twitchett) p. 119: essentially the same map as ref 1 above.
  2. Millward Eurasian Crossroads p33: the following text:
    "When Tang forces defeated the Western Turks at Issyk Kul (in modern Kyrgyzstan) in 657, the Tang emperor installed two rival khans to rule the vast Western Turk empire, and scattered Tang protectorates-general and garrisons throughout it. Tang suzerainty thus extended thinly from Talas and Tashkent in the north, over Samarkand, Bukhara, Kabul and Herat, and as far southwest as Zarang in modern Iran. Tang thus abutted the frontiers of the expanding Arab empire. Cartographers tend to choose this moment of the Tang's greatest extent to depict historical maps of the Tang, but five years later, by 662, the western Central Asian regions nominally under Tang protectorates and prefectures were in rebellion, and after only a few years the Western Turks succeeded in overthrowing their puppet khans and restoring their independence throughout their former territories."
  3. ref 3 above

These sources support the western part of that map, but not the rest.

The reason that the area entry in the infobox cites a different year is to do with availability of sources. The only source for an area figure that people have found is Taagepera (1997), in which 715 is the year given the largest area, and 660 is a little less. There are no maps to show what is included. It's not a great source. Kanguole 11:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the ”animated map“ is this one, right?
.
These 3 references both have some problem, but basically match the status of Tang Dynasty that showing in the animated map:
1. The gif contain 19 photos, in photos No.8 (which represent the status of Tang Dynasty in 662), we can see Tang Dynasty was losted half of modern-day Xinjiang and all of its Central Asia territory, is Tang Dynasty still keeped these territories in 661? No, this photo has gave additional explanation in lower left: Tibet has cut the transportation between Tang Dynasty and Tocharian after they conquer a state locate at Pamir Mountains call 護密 (Humi) in last year (661), the Jimizhoufu out of Pamir Mountains also conquest by Umayyad dynasty at same time, so I don't know why Tang Dynasty still control part of central asia, and almost all the modern-day Xinjiang & Afghanistan at that time in your map, it is 660, not 661.
2. I don't know why you use a paragraph of explanation of Tang Dynasty in 661 and 668 to represent the status of Tang Dynasty in 742 and answer my question, between these 3 years has almost 100 years - which can make a country beyond all recognition, but the reign of Tang Dynasty has recover modern-day Northern Kashmir in near (or before) 741, that was showing at photo 12 (which represent the status of Tang Dynasty in 741), maybe it is the reason?
3. Photo 12 is showing that Tang Dynasty still control the loop of the Yellow River and in the Hexi corridor in 741, this year is too close to 738, so I will not make another explanation.
For the orange map, I only want ask one queation: you agree that the western boarder of Tang Dynasty‘s reign is out of Bukhara, but why this boarder in your map is look exclude this city and modern-day Tashkent? Your map has concave in the position near Tashkent. 86A32980X (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the animated map that was added to the article. It has a lot of detail, and only a tiny part of it is supported by the sources that were provided.
I quoted paragraphs to show what sources were being claimed for these maps, and how they did not support those maps. Benn (2002) has the 742 map on page xii and the quoted paragraph on page 4 (the two pages referenced in the original citation).
The reason the current map does or doesn't include some area is because that's what the maps in the sources cited for it do. In fact it does include Bukhara and Tashkent. The dent you refer to is in the area of the Ugam Range northeast of Tashkent. Kanguole 14:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't gave the reasonable interpretation that why the animated map is unacceptable in this article, right? You just say the animated map is only match a tiny part of the references that were provided, but I already explain that why the 3 references in above can basically match the status of Tang Dynasty that showing in the animated map, are you ingore this and say it is unsupported by the sources one more time?
And you still haven't answer why your map is ingore the Chanyu and Anbei Protectorate, your map only contain modern-day Ordos City, but where is another parts of Inner Mongolia? Maybe the another parts of territories of Anbei Protectorate is dispute, so its can't be labeled in your map, but it is not the reason why only 1 of 7 capitals of Anbei Protectorate is potentially listed in your map. The article of Anbei Protectorate has listed these 7 capitals, but your map only contain the one is locate in modern-day Gansu of these 7 capitals. 86A32980X (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 references support some of what is depicted in the animated map, but most of it is not supported (including the north Asian parts), and sourcing is vital, particularly in a featured article like this one.
I've explained that the boundaries in the map come from the maps cited as sources. As for the protectorate seats, the eastern five are on the boundary shown in the map. Kanguole 20:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you agreed that the animated map can added to the article, but it need to have more sources to support it first, right?
And I can't clearly see that the eastern five capitals of Anbei Protectorate is contained in your map, especially the first and fifth one that farther from the boarder, I proposal that you point out the specific location of these 7 capitals in your map, or at least point out the second one, because it is the capital of Anbei Protectorate in 661. 86A32980X (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maps can't be included anywhere in the article without references supporting what they show. That one shows a lot of detail, and so would need a lot of references.
There are extra requirements for infoboxes, which aim to concisely and clearly present clear information (WP:INFOBOX), so the map should not be complicated. The animation would be a problem for this purpose. The Chinese text is also an issue.
Looking closely, I see that the map in the Anbei article places Yanran and Hengsai at the location of the modern Urad Middle Banner, when Yanran was to the southwest of that, and Hengsai was to the west of Yanran. Still, they are just north of the boundary in the Blunden and Elvin map. I've updated that part of the map from another source map with a slightly different northern border, that is north of these places. Kanguole 22:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that using a dozen of references is more wasting the space than make a small description for your map in this article?
Concisely is not equal to clearly, you ingore some of the territory of Tang Dynasty, divide it to be a 3 groups in your map, and you call one of these group is "Briefly-controlled areas" with no clearly reason, it will only make the reader be confuse. 86A32980X (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The animated map has 18 maps, with colours, hatching and outlines. That would need a lot of sourcing, but it's also very complex in itself.
I've already answered why the parts you want aren't there, and the reason for the distinctions is the same: that's what the sources do. "Briefly-controlled" is surely clear. Kanguole 23:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your map also have colours and outlines, then why your map is concisely and clearly, but the animated map is "very complex in itself"?
Surely clear? Then why "Briefly-controlled area" have contain the Area Command of Persia (波斯都督府) that only exist as 2~3 years, but totally excluded the Anbei Protectorate which the exist time is more longer than Area Command of Persia? 86A32980X (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]