Talk:Battle of Talas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

華

This article is maintained by the Chinese history workgroup.

[edit] Note by passby

The decription about the battle contains too many mistakes, such as the size of the troops of both sides(10 times of acutal), and Arabic troops was much bigger than Chinese, etc.

And this battle is not the deciding point of Chinese withdrawal from Central Asia, it is just one of the series of battles between Tang and Arabic world, both won and lost at different times. Only two years after the battle, Chinese troops re-attacked again, only stopped by the big internal rebelion which almost destroyed the empire. And the failure of the battle, was also caused by the rebelion of the local tribe troops....

Indeed. From what I have seen of other wikis I am a little bit surprised that this one has survived in such quality as it has. LMAO at Qogir's revision in the history of this page. Idiot indeed. A flaw that will always plague the Wikis.Heaven's knight 06:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

-The second external citation is broken, a fix would be good.Eiburahamu 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the following sentences:

Centuries of Chinese influence in the region since the Han Dynasty were halted. It would not be recovered until the Qing Dynasty under Qianlong Emperor as the Tang Dynasty dwindled

"China" did not continuously excercise influence over this region. China was able to control it only while she was at the height of her prosperity.
Qianlong Emperor of the Manchu Qing Dynasty did NOT enforce "Chinese" rule there.

--Nanshu 00:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Age of Fragmentation and Western Liao are unlikely candidates for height of prosperity, as considered by the status of the central plains. To be fair Western Liao is a hybridized culture with nomad elite, although long since sinicized by their time in the East, as conveyed by the term "hybridized" Heaven's knight 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO the second sentence did not imply any enforcement of Chinese rule during Qianlong's reign; it only stated that Chinese influence was recovered. Ktsquare (talk) 05:28, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And, for the first sentence, I agree that "continuous influence" would not be correct. My modification would be:

Influences of the Tang Dynasty and from the East were halted and had not been recovered until the Mongolian invasion. The Qing Dynasty under Qianlong Emperor exercised Manchu influence after successful military campaigns. Ktsquare (talk) 05:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all, the article of the Battle of Talas doesn't need to, or shouldn't, overemphasize Chinese influence of centuries later.

I don't know what kind of influence Ktsquare assumes. For political influence, the Chinese were excluded from Qing's administration of Eastern Turkestan. Take a look at 清史稿. Ministers and generals dispatched there were chosen from Manchu or Mongol Eight Banners (the Green Standard were on a rotating basis). The high officials of tulergi golo-be dasara jurgan (Lifanyuan) were reserved for Manchu or Mongol Eight Banners or the imperial family. For cultural or other influence, Chinese entry into Eastern Turkestan was restricted and they were segregated from local residents.

But it is very misleading to say that the Qianlong Emperor exercised Manchu influence. The communication between the dynasty and local leaders were mostly done in Manchu, and bannermen were garrisoned in important points. However, the dynasty minimized Manchu influence. It try to keep the traditional political systems and customs as much as possible. That's the way to maintain the multiethnic empire.

It was after Zuo Zongtang established Xinjiang Province that real Chinese influence began. He enforced an assimilation policy and sparked a backlash from Turkic Muslims. See 中央アジアと東アジアの境界―中央アジアからみた中華世界 by 濱田正美 (境界を超えて―東アジアの周縁から) or Hamada's other works. --Nanshu 03:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Again, although this is an old comment, since we are discussing the relating of events a thousand years apart, one should consider the holding and reconquests of the Tarim by Chinese forces during the Age of Fragmentation as well as the Western Liao. To not even mention the Han conquest and Tang itself of course. Heaven's knight 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

a problem on many of these pages is the loose use of the term "Arab" to describe what should properly be called Islamic or Muslim. To illustrate the problem, simply try to imagine whether the troops fighting against Chinese forces would have been mostly Arabs from the Arabian peninsula. very unlikely.Fixifex 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Du Huan

If the travels of Du Huan were true, shouldn't it be under a separate article? Hanfresco 21:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, my understanding of Molin is in East Africa along the Indian Coast around modern day Ethiopia. [Click for details] Hanfresco 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly is this section even significant to the article about the battle? I suggest removal. --Tone 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Du Huan's account is rather unique and he was after all a participant in the said battle. If we did not bother with the writings of the ancients we would have very little history at all. If you can not grasp the reasoning I wonder what exactly you are doing here Heaven's knight 11:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paper Apocrypha?

Requesting a citation of scholarly sources on the validity of Abd al-Malik al-Tha'alibi claims that paper was transmitted by Chinese prisoners from this battle.

Although the website link I just provided doesn't mention Abd al-Malik in the article, it does list its source (Hunter 1943, 60) about this. That ought to clear it up.

--PericlesofAthens 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I confess that I have not consulted the primary sources myself, but you are the only person I have ever seen who suggests that it is apocrypha. Explain your reasoning, as it is a quite a probable explanation and I have thus far little reason to doubt the secondary reportings. In the meantime I think I will edit out the coloring of the first sentence on paper transmission Heaven's knight 11:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Read Bloom, or any other scholarly account. There is abundant evidence of Muslim papermaking that greatly predates Talas. It is simply not tenable to trace the diffusion of papermaking to this battle, unless the captured Chinese scholars were also capable of time travel. Hansen85 05:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to Cai Lun, as it is well known that paper making in China predates him. I tend to agree that the whole section on paper & Talas be removed. 218.162.154.228 06:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Michael Turton

[edit] Warbox

I've moved the details of the armies mentioned in the warbox to a seperate section called Size of armies. If Eiorgiomugini believes that the 900,000 number from 718 (33 years before the battle) belongs in the warbox, please provide an English translation of what Bai actually said about this before moving it back there. Jagged 85 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the Template:Infobox Military Conflict yourself, it does not said any lengthy explanation should not be included. You addition of sections is good, but the article is right now really too short to be divided into those you perfered, a combined ones seem much better. Eiorgiomugini 16:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the warbox should only give numbers of forces that were actually present in the battle, not numbers from 33 years before it. If what you wrote in the article about the 900,000 number is what Bai actually said, then it does not belong in the warbox. It should only be included in the warbox only if he specifically stated that there were 900,000 Khorasan troops at the Battle of Talas itself, which I doubt he did (unless you can provide a translation here). I divided it into sections to maintain a chronological order of the battle. Feel free to expand the sections if you feel they are too short. Jagged 85 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

However, the point is it not up to you to decide whether the warbox should only give numbers of forces that were actually present, and most importanly to provide a numerical strength of the units involved is optional. But if you insisted since it does not copula with the year and therefore does not belong in the infobox is fine with me to moved them to note as well, I had no problem with it. Bai quoted Ce fu Yuan qui on the volume of 999, which he gained the number for 900,000. And suggest that the number itself was not even exaggerated at all for a foregin country in the area of Kabul. Is a long quote. "Feel free to expand the sections if you feel they are too short" Thanks, I already expanded and divided the sections, and for you had done nothing but rant, why don't you tired something and expanded it with your sources.

I had no idea how could you listed Bibliography under the primary and modern sources. Consider a ==References== header, are put under in a bulleted list with books, articles, web pages, et cetera that used in constructing the article and have referenced (cited) in the article. Whereas an ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Read WP:MOS and WP:REF yourself.

I also noticed that you placed Al-Dhahabi (1274-1348), Tarikh al-Islam al-kabir (Major History of Islam) under the list of so-called Medieval sources. It should be noted that Hoberman did not explicitly stated it was Dhahabi that provided the figure for the Chinese army in the magazine book Saudi Aramco World itself, he only stated "On the Arab side, our key informants on the Battle of Talas are the renowned historian Ibn al-Athir (1160-1233) and the comparatively unheralded al-Dhahabi (1274-1348)." And for 100,000 he barely even mentioned "100,000 according to the Arabs and in July, 751, met the armies of Islam near the town of Talas or Taraz on the Talas River". Nothing suggests Tarikh al-Islam al-kabir (please provide a source that this book actually gives reference to the battle itself) nor Dhahabi is the chief source. In contrast my book from Xue did quoted "The Complete History" (阿系尔全史) and mentioned 100,000 troops from Chinese side in description, with result of 50,000 deaths and 20,000 prisoners. Bartold book's mentioned about 50,000 deaths and 20,000 prisoners but gives no specific sources for this, though agreed the figure 30,000 from chavanes. All sources suggest that it was Athir that only provided the number for Chinese and not Dhahabi. Eiorgiomugini 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about expanding it when I have time (I'm a bit busy with exams at the moment). For now, I've arranged the sections chronologically in order to make it more readable for the readers. Whether it's called References or Bibliography doesn't concern me, but I've added a seperate Further reading heading for the Hoberman article and the primary sources. Jagged 85 00:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not even a chronological manner to began with, I don't under how could you see that as a chronologically in order please enlighten me, consider those sections that you divided are so small in length I woudn't even been bother to look at them. "I'll think about expanding it when I have time" So until then leave it. "I'm a bit busy with exams at the moment" As if this is only in your cases, everybody are busy in their study and life. "Whether it's called References or Bibliography doesn't concern me" Well, I'm following the style per MoS, so if that does not concern you it concern me, hoberman article is the only online source and should be listed as ==External links==. Eiorgiomugini 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of always reverting everything, why can't you just try to co-operate instead? Your version of the article is not in chronological order. It begins with the battle, then the previous background and aftermath combined. No offense, but that just looks silly to me. The article will be more readable if it begins with the background, and then the battle, and then the aftermath, like in almost every other battle article on Wikipedia. Jagged 85 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to co-operate with you, but you're the one who keep reverting without a discussion is made, take a look at the page history yourself. As for background and aftermath, sure, if you insisted, I will tried some sectioning which you suggest in that cases. But for the battle itself is just too short and should leave it as lead section. No offense, but both Dhahabi and hoberman are not even used in the article itself, what makes you think they should even be indicated. Eiorgiomugini 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you were the one that started reverting. Before that, I was making edits and wiki-link corrections to the article before you started reverting it all. Even if the sections are short right now, it's just common sense that the background always comes first, then the battle and then the aftermath. That is the format for almost every other battle on Wikipedia.

As for the sources, according to the citing sources policy:

"An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section."

In other words, there is no reason why Hoberman and Dhahabi should not be mentioned in the article for further reading. Jagged 85 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, I started reverting after you had reinserted your edition from yesterday, check it out yourself[1]. What's wrong with the statement, Read youself "If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section." Therefore, hoberman as the only reference of online source in this article should be listed under ==External links==, I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't know about Dhahabi, but listing his book Tarikh al-Islam al-kabir as the source is clearly wrong. Eiorgiomugini 01:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not revert to my revision from yesterday, which would be obvious if you actually compared them: [2]. In other words, you were the one who started reverting. As for the Hoberman article, it was originally a magazine article from 1982, not an online article. The online link is just an online version of that article. That is why it's wrong to list it under external links rather than further reading when the article itself was not an online article to begin with. The Major History of Islam is Dhahabi's only historical work. The rest of his works are all hadith collections. Jagged 85 01:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever that might meant, its still under a period of 24hrs. As I said hoberman is the material that is available online, thus I'm suggesting an ==External links== for it. You claimed that Major History of Islam is Dhahabi's only historical work and The rest of his works are all hadith collections, where's the sources for this claim anyways, to tell you the truth I have the right to remove it whatever I want it, since I hated any assumes from users when come to discussion. The facts that there's more than just one work listed under his wiki bio. And also, there is no rules that said a section must be created whenever a primary sources is in use, especially when quoting from a secondary sources. Eiorgiomugini 01:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal over a style issue, but the Hoberman article was originally a printed article, not an online article, therefore it should be listed as such. I think it's just silly to list it under external links when the original version was not even an online article, and dates back over 20 years before the online version. If you checked the Wiki articles for al-Dhahabi's other works, it would be obvious that the Major History of Islam is his only historical work. If you have a problem with listing it though, we can just leave it as al-Dhahabi. You're right that there is no rule that you must list primary sources, but there is no rule that you should not list primary sources either. It can go either way, but I see no reason why the reader should not be informed about primary sources relating to this event. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to be informative, and trying to censor out certain sources is unencyclopedic. Jagged 85 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To resolve this dispute (in order to get the article unlocked again), I propose the following:

Mention both the printed and online versions of the Hoberman article.
Mention the primary sources in the main body of text instead of listing them seperately below.

Feel free to agree or disagree, or present an alternative solution we can both eventually agree on. Jagged 85 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal over a style issue" Is not a big deal at all, you're the one who started this nonsense on 30 april. As I already said hoberman is an online article and therefore should not be mentioned whatever printed and online versions as you mentioned. It would still make sense while listing him under the External links. But if you still insisted otherwise, then that's pretty much your problem. As for me I've encountered many online articles (pdf, mag, jounral) that are listed under such header before while surfing the wiki org, are you gonna changed them all. "but there is no rule that you should not list primary sources either" I did listed them, but not in the way you did, the problem is why should you think is even necessarily to create such section at the first point, with all the reverting do you even think it might worth it for you? "but I see no reason why the reader should not be informed about primary sources" They already been informed under the notes, so there's no reasons for you to see otherwise, and for your info all my books used more primary sources than these four you listed, are you gonna listed them all in? "unencyclopedic" Which is why I suggests hoberman to put under the External links, which you seemed had so much problem with it. "The whole point of an encyclopedia is to be informative" While is already done, we have all information including info from primary sources and hoberman link, and put them into the article, what more do you ask for. "or present an alternative solution" I'm thinking the current status is O.K for me, I'm disagreeing for listing the primary source over the article under a section, the reason is we do not have much informations on the subject itself, and therefore the length would be rather short. I'm also disagreeing on listing "(See online version)" of the Hoberman article because it would be rather redundant to do so. "trying to censor out certain sources" Since when did the censor been carried out. Eiorgiomugini 05:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The source you may have been censoring out is al-Dhahabi, who was also a source for this battle. The current article doesn't mention al-Dhahabi at all. If you do know any other primary sources not mentioned here, then I would like to see them all at least mentioned in the article somewhere. The primary sources on any particular event should always be mentioned, maybe not as a list, but at least in the main body of text. It would be unencyclopedic not to do so. By the way, what other Wiki articles have journal and magazine articles listed under External links? Most of the Wiki articles I have seen do not have any journal or magazine articles listed under External links, but usually just original internet content. I don't mind if the Hoberman article is under Further reading or External links, but would prefer if both versions of the article are mentioned. Jagged 85 02:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I left out him simply because my books did not mentioned anything with regard of him nor his sources. What so wrong with that? Even hoberman did not gives much details about him on which specific sources or any descriptions that he had been made for the battle if not little of them can be seen in his article. He simply stated him as comparatively unheralded, and extract a religious quote from him. "but at least in the main body of text" Are you intended to create another section for it? Already is been mentioned under the notes, except maybe for Dhahabi which you whine so much about. "what other Wiki articles have journal and magazine articles listed under External links" I can't simply recall all the the articles that I had get through on wiki org, but I'm sure I did experienced quite alot of them listed under External links. "if both versions of the article are mentioned" Now that's redundant, infact people get the info about the published mag article once they entered the article, thus it would be rather redundant to do so, but if you insisted please address the style you're gonna use under the header. Eiorgiomugini 06:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To settle this minor dispute once and for all, I propose the following:

Dhahabi and any other primary sources not mentioned yet can be included in the Historical significance section.

Hoberman can be listed under External links or Further reading (doesn't really matter which one) as:

Barry Hoberman (1982). The Battle of Talas, Saudi Aramco World.

Would this be fine with you? Jagged 85 21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, since this is a minor dispute and as you suggested and insisted, I had no problem with the style with hoberman and the proposal on Dhahabi. Eiorgiomugini 09:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that it's settled, I think I'll just go ahead and request unprotection. Jagged 85 07:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)