Talk:Emperor Taizong of Tang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emperor Taizong of Tang is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
November 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Contents

[edit] Date conversion accuracy??

The Xuanwu gate coup took place on the 4th day of the sixth month in 9th year of the Wude era 武德九年六月四日. The article converted the date to July 2. I don't doubt the year conversion because historians had mapped the Chinese eras to Western calendar quite accurately. I wonder what kind of conversion was used to come up with the lunar month and date to July 2. Both Chinese and Western calendars had been adjusted and corrected over the years. Most calendar conversion tools work well within the recent few centuries because no adjustment was introduced. How accurate is this converted date? Did it factor in the Calendar adjustments? Kowloonese 22:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Chinese date was converted into the Western calendar using the Chinese Calendar Converter software made available by the Computer Center of the Academia Sinica of Taiwan (中央研究院). The date given is in the Julian Calendar that was in use in Europe at the time. It is not in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. Hardouin 18:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More about Dates! According to my reference, Taizong was named crown prince 3 days after the coup on July 7th in chinese calendar (not 2 days)... thoughts?

And day of death... may 26th, may 29th was announcement of death, june 1st-crown prince took throne..... buried aug 18th.... anyone care to convert those dates?

But,you know, this article is still good,though.User:WELL 13:54,6 Aug 2005(NC)

[edit] Needs more work

This article has a good description of Taizong's early life, but it badly needs a discussion of his reign as emperor: his policies and accomplishments in power. It could also use some copy editing to correct awkward language. If only I had time to do the research.... Marco polo 15:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And I also seriously doubt that any Korean person, even ancient Gogureyo generals, had such Chinese-sounding names such as "Gao Yanshou" and "Gao Huizhen" as referenced in the section concerning Taizong's campaign against Gogureyo. I've grown up in Korea and went to school there, and I have never even heard of such generals or such battles (and I believe that Korean education is relatively unbiased with exception to events concerning Japan). Can anyone please cite sources for the existence of these generals? MoeOfFoe 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)MoeOfFoe

These are Sinicized (or, more exactly, Mandarinized) versions of the names; obviously they would not be pronounced the same way in Korean (or in ancient/medieval Chinese, for that matter), but some standardization is required nonetheless. If they came from Chinese sources, using pinyin is proper. See WP:MOS-ZH. --Nlu (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] his reign

I have began a new section about his achievements during his reign. Olorin28 02:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] famous stories

having been one of the first to start this article 1-2 years back, its great to see how it has progressed and that my bits and pieces are still hanging around. as much of chinese history is written and learned in story format, i was thinking maybe starting a section about it. much can be said about his interactions with his officials etc... a breif mention of his use of substances in hopes of prolonging life but instead causing possible premature death and other health problems would be useful. we obviously want to do him justice as one of the greatest emperors, but at the same time show him as the human that he was. Fukui 05:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Emperor Taizong of Tang

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language - Edit Requested

Reading this article, it is very thorough and informative. Skimming through I didn't see major grammar errors, however the language and style used in general could be improved, and it would be ideal if someone who has time and is English speaking could go through the article and just make the subtle changes to improve the writing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrosscan (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, it took me all morning when I could have been working, but I've gone through the whole article and proofread all the obvious typos and clarified and condensed repetitions. Hopefully it should read better and people can use their time editing content instead of typos. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DChang • Sydney 1:52PM, 5 January 2007(UTC).

[edit] Taizong be concerned in a refutation.

Transferred over from User talk:Nlu.

(rv; there's absolutely no evidence that Goguryeo troops were in the outskirts of modern Beijing or that Tang forces were "totally defeated"; all evidence pointed to an orderly retreat with low losses)

a refutation: Do you Know 慌糧臺?

慌糧臺 was 臨愉關-北京 at regular intervals be situated. when Yeon's forces pursued Taizong is set up 慌糧臺. detailed contents→internet a search.

some grammar errors understanding request. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Korea history (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

And where is your source for this? Nothing in Zizhi Tongjian, Old Book of Tang, or New Book of Tang that I can see supports that either he got there or that your correspondence to modern local location is right. Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, and popular novels, if that's where you found your information, are not verifiable or reliable sources. --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, this passage in New Book of Tang (vol. 220)[1], if correct (and there is no reason to doubt that it was correct given that Ouyang Xiu had no reason to manufacture it), pretty much disproves it:
詔集戰骸葬柳城，祭以太牢，帝臨哭，從臣皆流涕。 帝總飛騎入臨渝關，皇太子迎道左。
I'd translate this as: "The emperor issued an edict to collect the bodies of the dead soldiers at Liucheng [in modern Zhaoyang, Liaoning], and sacrificed an ox, a sheep, and a pig to them. He personally attended the mourning and cried, and his accompanying officials all wept. He then commanded the cavalry into Linyu Pass, and the Crown Prince met him there."
(Incidentally, all sources I can find indicate that Linyu Pass was where Shanhai pass is now -- nowhere near Beijing.)
If he were under attack, there was no way that he would have allowed the Crown Prince (the later Emperor Gaozong of Tang) to meet him at Linyu Pass. Further, if he were under attack, he wouldn't have taken the time to carry out a ceremonial mourning. --Nlu (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am copying and pasting this discussion over to Talk:Emperor Taizong of Tang, where it belongs more. --Nlu (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

contention source:Sin Chaeho written 朝鮮上古史 題10篇 對唐戰役 That´s it.

北京 順義縣 高麗營 reliable evidence. other opinion don't respect an erroneous idea!. some grammar errors understanding request. --korea history (talk) 00:18 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Do you have either a link to the source or the source text itself? And remember that Beijing was not known as Beijing then. It was You Prefecture (幽州, later Fanyang Municipality (范陽府), although that would not be until way later), so unless there is a reference to You Prefecture, it would not be referring to Beijing but the Goguryeo northern capital (which, without further knowledge on the subject, I'd assume was Liaodong). --Nlu (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can see now that you were referring to Joseon Sangosa, which wouldn't be online since it is still under copyright protection (published in 1933). Still, the particular passage in question can be quoted as fair use, so I'd encourage you to do that. But I'd argue that the (understandable) bias of the author makes it an unreliable source on this issue, in any case. It was published in an era where the Korean people were resisting Japanese assimilation and his publisher, the Chosun Ilbo, was a leading publisher in the cultural resistance movement. He (and the paper) had plenty of reason to exaggerate, much like the Chinese sources of the same era had reason to exaggerate and I therefore consider unreliable. (It should be noted further, when he published the book, Beijing incidentally was also not named Beijing -- it was then Beiping/Peiping.) Unless Sin himself cited ancient sources, I would be very skeptical of its claims with regard to Goguryeo's boundaries. --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Japanese Occupation(1910~1945) written book completely exaggerate(or unreliable) egoism.

you friends korean exist? if any We asked friend to do us a translation. demand an explanation you. --korea history (talk) 09:25 18 January 2007 (UTC).

I await your friend's translation. Based on your edits, however, you are clearly capable of writing better English than this. Please make at least an effort -- or otherwise, I'll have to begin to assume that this isn't a lack of language ability, but feigning. --Nlu (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tarim_Basin.2C_Tibet.2C_and_Western_Turks section needing expert ?

  1. What is clearly the means of the template ? Where is the unclear statement ?
  2. If it's the year of mariage, in my french book I found that Cheng princess was married in 641, establishing Tibetan vassality.

The article of the Tibetan Emperor indicate the same year : princess sent in 640, married in 641. Yug (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I understood the objection to the map previously -- in that Goguryeo was not conquered. However, the alternative version of the map was even less accurate, in that Silla and Baekje were clearly at least nominally vassals. I believe that the map that covered the entire Korean and Manchurian regions is correct in the sense that while Taizong failed to conquer Goguryeo, Goguryeo nominally continued to be a vassal in that the states continued to exchange messengers, and Goguryeo, in those exchanges, acted as a vassal, notwithstanding the otherwise hostile relationship between the states. I think "at least nominal" made the map sufficiently NPOV. If you disagree, please discuss your reasons. --Nlu (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I found an other version in the Cambridge history of China. I will look for more information, but [from my memory], the war re
I the french article, I wrote :
French : "Inquiété par l'émergeance de la puissance Chinoise [...] En 642, un coup d'État reverse le roi favorable et place la faction hostile a la Chine à la tête du royaume, qui cesse d'apporter le Tribut annuel. En 645, Taizong, agacé par l'autonomie et l'arrogance de Goguryeo, lance une campagne militaire contre ce royaume"
English translation : "Fear by Chinese grow [...] In 642, a Coup d'État overthrow the Goguryean king, vassal of Taizong, and put into power the opponents to the Tang who stop to send tribute to Tang [Taizong]. In 645, Taizong, exceeded by Goguryeo autonomy and arrogance, lunch a military campaign against this kingdom."
I understand the "stop to send tribute" as "stop to be vasal". But, I don't remember where I have read this (Cambridge C. H. ? J. Gernet ?), so I will look in my sources to check accuracy. I think the misunderstanding may be that Goguryeo was vassal of the Tang from 619 to 642 [according what I wrote in the French article].
The map should be considered in the maximum of extension (641? 642 ?) or in Tang Taizong death (649).
If we show a map of 630, we should remove Tibet and the Western Turks.
If we consider 640 : that the same.
If we consider 641 : we should remove the Western Turks.
If we consider 642 : we should remove Goguryeo, and notice that the Tang Army are fighting against Western Turks.
If we consider 649 : we should remove Goguryeo.
I will check my source soon. Please search informations about the accuracy of that : Goguryeo = vassal from 619 + stop to be vassal in 642.
User:Yug 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the Zizhi Tongjian, in 642, after Yeon Gaesomun killed the king of Goguryeo, there continued to be exchanges of emissaries, and nothing was mentioned about the cessation of tributes, and in 644, Yeon in fact offered a tribute of platinum to Taizong (although Taizong refused it on the basis that Yeon had murdered the king). Obviously, one can choose to disbelieve the Zizhi Tongjian, but for one to disbelieve it there should be good reason to do so. I don't think, in any case, though, that the payment of tributes is dispositive as to whether Goguryeo was nominally a vassal; any state that at least acknowledged Tang suzerainty should be considered at least a nominal vassal. --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somebody messed with the page.

"rapidly-deteriorating Sui regime. After this, his poop turned purple.Leading the troops with "

That is just disrespectful. In case nobody noticed while reading somebody added After this, his poop turned purple. I don't know if there were any other altercations, but I think this is crude and somebody will correct this and any other error.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.212.159.84 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reorganization

I am currently still working on several articles or soon-to-be articles on a number of high-level officials who predeceased Emperor Taizong, but soon thereafter (maybe in about a week), I am planning to start cleaning up, expand, and reorganize the article. Therefore, I would like input/suggestion on my thoughts on how to organize it:

  1. I am planning to reorganize it chronologically, for the most part, and
  2. I am planning to cut out several sections and let them branch out as separate articles. The ones that I am considering would include:
    1. 626: Incident at Xuanwu Gate (Chang'an)
    2. ~630: Emperor Taizong's campaign against Eastern Tujue (north: mongolia)
    3. ~635: Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tuyuhun (west: Qinghai, Gansu)
    4.  ?: Emperor Taizong's campaign against Xueyantuo (north : mongolia)
    5. 638: Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan (far southwest: tibetan plateau)
    6. 645: Emperor Taizong's campaign against Goguryeo (north east: Korea and north-east mandchoury)
    7. 648: Emperor Taizong's campaign against Gaochang Emperor Taizong's campaign against Xiyu states (far west: Xinjiang)

These are my thoughts, which are not to be taken as the way that things need to be done. Comments are requested. --Nlu (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Support:
  1. Yes to reorganize it chronologically. The section "political organization of Tang Taizong's China" may need to be on the end.
  2. I think the current lenght of the Tang Taizong's article is fine, it can be a bit shorter, but should not be bigger.
So, I encourage to create separate articles. Sorry to don't have abilities to contribute at your level of quality. --Yug (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)