Jump to content

Talk:Tibetan attack on Songzhou

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tufan

[edit]

Is calling, in an encyclopedia article, the emerging Tibetan state by its Chinese name in Tang annals in accordance with WP:NPOV, esp. since that name is neither the standard narrative voice of contemporary historiography nor the one used in the indigenous Tibetan annals?Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the apge to Tibetan attack on Songzhou, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan → Tibetan attack on Songzhou – There are two problems with the existing title:

  1. English-language sources use the name "Tibet" rather than the old Chinese name "Tufan".
  2. The central military event described here isn't a campaign by the Chinese emperor against the Tibetan empire, but a Tibetan attack on a Chinese city, defeated by a Chinese relief force (all an interlude in negotiations for a marriage alliance). Kanguole 01:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the pattern for names of campaigns like this? We do have an article named Songzhou; should it be Tibetan Empire attack on Songzhou given that in that period the common term for Tibet is actually "Tibetan Empire" (Wylie: bod)? Ogress smash! 07:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This episode is more a minor battle than a campaign. Both "Tibet" and "Tibetan Empire" appear in our sources; I'd favour the shorter form. (The article named Songzhou is about another place – this one is modern Songpan County). Kanguole 11:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Chinese: 松州. Gotcha. Yeah, Tibet is shorter. Ogress smash! 19:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is concerning the marriage alliance between Tang and Tibet. It should not be moved to Tibetan attack on Songzhou.It should be moved to Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tibet.Xander berkeley (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This canpaign is that the Tibetan army was defeated by Chinese army commanded by Niujinda,a Tang's colonel,not by a Chinese relief force (all an interlude in negotiations for a marriage alliance).Xander berkeley (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan should be renamed and moved to Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tibet.Xander berkeley (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This event wasn't a campaign of Taizong or anyone else. There is no parallel with Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tuyuhun, Tang campaigns against the Western Turks, Tang campaign against Kucha, etc. It was a minor battle, consisting of a Tibetan attack on a Chinese city and a Chinese counterattack. Kanguole 12:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Tufan attack on Songzhou" is going to be more clear to readers, and certainly would be privileging an obscure term from Tang-era Chinese that was an attempt to spell a Turkish term phonetically as it is now pronounced in Modern Mandarin (and it's also found as Tubo) ... or did you have a different suggestion? Ogress smash! 22:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV

[edit]

@Xander berkeley:, would you like to discuss the problems you are having with this page? You are reverting a lot of edits without adequate explanation. Ogress smash! 22:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress:, would you like to discuss the problems you are having with this page? You are reverting a lot of edits and adding a lot of Irrelevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander berkeley (talk • contribs) 09:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

[edit]

Regarding this deletion, surely subsequent interactions between the Tibetan and Tang empires, both in general and in the area where this incident took place, are relevant enough for inclusion in an "Other points" section. In addition, removing the text while retaining its supporting reference gives the misleading impression that the reference supports the previous sentence. Kanguole 10:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest delete the reference which is irrelevant with "Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander berkeley (talk • contribs) 11:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is about Tibet's attack on Songzhou, its motivation, and the Tang responses. Why would we delete a referenced comment about the Tibetan Empire invading Songzhou? It's the topic of the article! Ogress smash! 19:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is about Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tufan. It is the campaign between Tang and Tibet(Tufan,tubo) during the Emperor Taizong's period,not all wars in Songzhou between Tang and Tibet(Tufan,tubo). The comment you add is not in the period of Emperor Taizong.It happened 114 years later than Taizong's death.It happened because An Lushan Rebellion which a Jiedushi of tang rebelled greatly weakened Tang. The comment you add is not the topic of the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander berkeley (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add that comment, it was already in the article. Why did you change the name of this section from "relevance" to "irrelevant"? That's rude: we are trying to discuss the relevance of the various edits, not how your conclusions are correct. I concur with Kanguole that given the page's content, it is in fact relevant to keep referenced information about the annexation of Songzhou about a century later as a side comment. You certainly seem free to add creative flourishes like "in fear" and other inappropriate weasel and peacock terms to the article without citation. Ogress smash! 09:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did add that comment.See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emperor_Taizong%27s_campaign_against_Tufan&diff=633794011&oldid=633792655 Why did you lie? You certainly seem free to add creative flourishes and other inappropriate weasel and peacock terms to the article and with accusing me of add "in fear" . I did not add "in fear" , it was already in the article. You or Kanguole falsified "in fear". You shuold check Zizhi Tongjian, It record the "in fear",and it provides citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander berkeley (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Kanguole. And stop repeating my entire comments back at me, it's aggressive. Ogress smash! 10:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one key moment in what was to be a century of radical change which affected larger patterns of world history in that it (a) affected the transmission of Buddhism as a world religion, and its cultural impact also in China (b) was consequential for the slowing of Islam's spread eastwards (d) the flow of East-West trade. To the West, similar consequences flowed from the rise of the Khazar empire (which is indirectly connected since the An Lu-Shan uprising was Sogdian, and Turkish networks were effective in both sides of the empire) which likewise deeply influenced later events. It indirectly impacted the rise of Europe, since it is coincident with Charles Martel's wars. I note that the editor insisting on removing this stuff also wanted to include Charles Bell's note on the Chinese capture of Lhasa, which looks like editing to install a retrospective sinocentric reading of history into the article. That is wholly inappropriate. Tibet at that time and for long after formed no part of the Chinese empire. Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, we should not be referencing to 資治通鑑, which is a primary source. Only modern scholarly analyses of these sources are permitted.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the content you added is still Irrelevant with Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tibet(Tufan).The content you added interfered the article.Xander berkeley (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are editwarring against consensus (b) and you are ignoring the eminently normal practice of writing an Aftermath section to a notable historical incident. Repeat this idiosyncratic bossiness and pushing a single ethnic perspective to make it prevail against other relevant histories, and you will be reported.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to report, Nishidani. I'm watching this and will act if Xander berkeley's behavior continues.  Philg88 ♦talk 13:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani You are adding irrelevant content. This article is Emperor Taizong's campaign against Tibet(Tufan), not the all wars in Songzhou. The comment you add is not in the period of Emperor Taizong.It happened 114 years later than Taizong's death.It happened because An Lushan Rebellion which a Jiedushi of tang rebelled greatly weakened Tang. It is not relevant history of this article and not in the period of Emperor Taizong. The comment you add is not the topic of the article. Xander berkeley (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88 Why are you ignoring the fact that they added irrelevant content into the article? Xander berkeley (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather inadequate article to say the least, and the very complex relationship between Tang China and the outlying nomad or settled kingdoms is simplified more or less as one of the tribes owing tribute, hence accepting Tang sovereignty, rebelling and then being put down. That is what Tang chronicles say. The editor gives the Chinese name for a Kucha king, the last of the Bei family rulers. He had his own Tocharian name however, and that should prevail over any sinifying temptations It is not enough to mention Taizong or some Tang force recruiting Tibetans to fight Kucha, when the campaign though ordered by Taizong, was run by a Gokturk prince who used a comnbination of Gokturk and Uyghur forces, with Chinese regulars in warring down Kucha, etc.etc. We have Tibetan, Uyghur, Kucha, Gokturk perspectives to consider here, not just the perspective either of Tang chronicles or that kind of national historiography which is the handmaiden for contemporary Chinese education of the various peoples in its western regions.
It's not the 'Aftermath' that is problematical, but the rest of the text, which has the same vices. Work is required there to contextualize the war in terms of the many state and nomad/tribal actors, otherwise it looks like some twitter snippet or snapshot which has wholly failed to tell the reader what, historically, was going on.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should illustrate. Take the incipit.

In 638, the Tibetan emperor Songtsän Gampo retaliated against a refusal by Emperor Taizong of the Chinese Tang dynasty to engage in heqin ("marital alliance") by sending an army to attack the Chinese frontier city of Songzhou (松州, in modern Sichuan).

I.e. we have this Tibetan upstart punishing Taizong for refusal to forge a military alliance, and this takes the form of a punitive expedition against Tang.
Well, Taizong was deeply interested in military affairs-he reorganized the military to concentrate power in the throne-and waged expansive expeditions in Central Asia and eastwards in Goguryeo. All of this is lost from view, as the stage is set for a Chinese 'reaction' to a provocation from an outlying state. This kind of writing is fit for comic books, not historical articles.Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tibetan_attack_on_Songzhou&oldid=1203024848"