Talk:Tang dynasty

Request for comments: change the map of infobox

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

say the same thing to your daddy, pls

empire of japan Ooodjr (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have answered your question.[1] Kanguole 18:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you please answer this question "scientifically" again with the materials you have at hand?

@Kanguole Ooodjr (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

The sources are maps, and this map faithfully reflects them. Kanguole 19:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems that today's scholars do not use words when conducting research.

Lmao Ooodjr (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@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 Athens^Talk 17:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Please upload the picture so that the majority of Wiki readers can see it. Ooodjr (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The pages are linked on the Commons page of that map. Kanguole 19:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Ooodjr (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

：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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@Aza24@Furius@Kanguole Ooodjr (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

It's exactly as you say, sorry to my explanation was insufficient. Ooodjr (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The red map is based on maps in the cited sources. Kanguole 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

where? ? Why can't I see it? ? Ooodjr (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

so, it is mean there is no way to prove the reliability of red maps, right? Oooodjr (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Why do the cited sources for the red map exclude the Anbei protectorate? Furius (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do you have any answers regarding this question?

@Kanguole Oooodjr (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Isn't that assumption based on the source? Huh, maybe it's different? ? 😅 Oooodjr (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That is indeed a WP:RS. What does it say on this issue? Furius (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm passing by, but here's a site that can prove the existence of a map with academic value.

http://www.guoxue123.com/other/map/zgmap/009.htm

If you tap [图] that appears at the top of the text on the page, a map of the cloak will appear. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Is there a website where I can see that map? Oooodjr (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

None that I know of. Kanguole 11:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

It is true that both are wonderful and easy to understand maps, but they are both from the 8th century onwards, a far cry from their heyday in the mid-7th century. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

We go by what sources tend to show, not the period we feel the fondest for. Remsense诉 03:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In other words, does this mean that as long as I provide a reasonably reliable source of information, I can change the map to I want, regardless of the era? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that means we want to show a map of the period that sources tend to illustrate most often, since our job is to balance the body of souces on a subject. Remsense诉 03:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

However, reading past talk records, it seems that more people feel that the current picture materials are not balanced. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because people regularly drop by trying to alter something that doesn't fit their personal conception, and leave when they have to justify their changes in terms of site guidelines—doesn't mean there's an actual controversy among editors reasonably familiar with said guidelines. Regular editors aren't worth more, but they tend to be more familiar with how the site works. Remsense诉 04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Everyone's ability to understand varies from person to person, so it's okay if you can't understand what I say right away.

Should I give you some examples to make it easier for you？ 163.136.36.57 (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of all the users in the history of this map dispute; they were generally relatively inexperienced, and unable or uninterested in discussing changes in terms of site guidelines. Guidelines are essentially a form of global consensus. Remsense诉 04:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The user named "kanguole" seems to have a particularly strong tendency to do so, in particular. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what point you're making, but at the end of the day we make decisions based on consensus in the context of our content guidelines. Editors who disregard guidelines aren't likely to convince others. Remsense诉 04:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So let's discuss those guidelines shall we? After inviting more people. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

First point: please read how we generally consider the reliability of sources. You've cited "many experts", but unfortunately we can't take your word for it, and the direct page you've posted is a blog or other self-published source. It cites a few Chinese-language tertiary works corresponding to the maps, but you're going to have to do some more work to demonstrate that those works are reliable, and that they do indeed support a map before we can consider it Remsense诉 04:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please list all the "work" required. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you please explain in more detail what you mean by "balanced"? I would be even more grateful if you could explain based on past talk records. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I recommend reading WP:DUEWEIGHT. This period is often illustrated in sources, so this is the period we illustrate in order to best represent the whole body of reliable sources that exist on the Tang dynasty. Remsense诉 04:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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聊 17:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

http://www.guoxue123.com/other/map/zgmap/009.htm

This is a highly reliable material based on research by multiple experts.@李双能@Kanguole 163.136.36.57 (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Before you continue posting this, please read what we usually consider when judging the reliability of sources. Remsense诉 04:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Too many Chinese propaganda

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)

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留 07:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

http://www.guoxue123.com/other/map/zgmap/009.htm

This is a highly reliable material based on research by multiple experts. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

The map problem

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

One month alraedy, but the deformity map still exist in this article without further explaination for its problem, seems that all the editors think that the exist of a unclear map in this article wasn't a problem. 86A32980X (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Since no systematic objections have been received, I think it's okay to change the map in the information box to the orange map (year 661). 163.136.36.57 (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There is not consensus to add this map; read Kanguole's responses below. The current map is fine. Remsense诉 03:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

http://www.guoxue123.com/other/map/zgmap/009.htm

This is a highly reliable material based on research by multiple experts.

@86A32980X@Aza24@Kanguole@Remsense@Voidvector@ 163.136.36.57 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a blog. Remsense诉 04:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a blog which is created based faithfully on the published book itself. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

別管了，他們只懂說中國歷史地圖集或者其他中國文獻有這樣那樣的問題，但又說不出個具體，拗不過你的話他們就會裝死不處理而已，反正外國人被自家的人造垃圾誤導跟我們毫無關係～ 86A32980X (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It's extremely rude to write something like this as if I'm not able to read it. Remsense诉 10:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

These are maps from The Historical Atlas of China, which is considered reliable for ancient placenames. However, reviewers have criticized its portrayal of the outer boundaries of various empires as exaggerated and indiscriminate. The editor himself acknowledged flaws in this area in his afterword to the final volume. Kanguole 11:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Meta-argument

Is everyone okay with me archiving the first three or four headings on this page? If people would like, I can try to collate a list of everyone's favorite points that may still be germane to infobox struggles. Remsense诉 12:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not just set bot parameters? Something like

{{User:MiszaBot/config
 |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
 |maxarchivesize = 75K
 |counter = 3
 |minthreadsleft = 4
 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
 |algo = old(180d)
 |archive = Talk:Tang dynasty/Archive %(counter)d
 }}

should do it. Kanguole 13:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Remsense诉 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)