Talk:Tang Code

Dates of the Tang Code : Done

Please review the dates of which you've posted about the Tang Code. If you look carefully, you're dates are wrong. You state that the code was first created in six hundred twenty something BCE, and then state that it was revised in 630-something BCE. You are going back in time with your dates. Please fix this as this is one of the very few sites on the web about this subject in English.

140.254.225.132 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. It should obviously be AD instead of BC, which would make sense since 624-637 AD is during the Tang Dynasty's reign. I've looked at a few other websites about the Tang Code, and they seem to use 624 AD and 637 AD too. Mathias-S (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Accuracy

There are some serious errors in this article. To mention but a few, there are 29 (arguably 30) Sections (not 12) to the Tang Code and they bear no relation to the table of contents shown. For example, the first section of the Tánglǜ Shūyì (唐律疏議) deals with the Five Punishments, Ten Abominations and Eight Deliberations mentioned nowhere in the article. (See Tánglǜ shūyì) at Wikimedia Commons. The severity of punishments had nothing to do with the offender's relationship with the victim. All Dynastic Chinese legal codes dealt with the correct periods of mourning according to one's relationship with the deceased - maybe there was some confusion there but this was nothing to do with the Criminal Code. Specific offences carried carried specific penalties and these involved relationships such that a concubine scolding her mother in law which laid out a fixed punishment. Note the word "fixed". For certain members of society these could be lessened according to the Eight Deliberations but this has nothing to do with blood ties between the offender/victim (if any). A further blatant error is that the code is based on that of the preceding Sui Dynasty which in turn used parts of earlier law. My suggestion is to delete the whole article and start again with a translation from the Chinese article. Philg88 (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the article - including the 12 chapters- is 100% based on Gernet's [French] book which is quite... trustworthy. But you seems to know a lot. Isn't there any confusion between different aspects of the Tang legual code ? or is it a translation trouble ? (old zh -> new zh -> Gernet French -> English). In particular, Gernet say that "It [Tang Shu 唐律] is composed of 12 sections that contain a total of more than 500 articles.[1] It was created in 624, modified in 627 and 637, and enhanced with a commentary (the Tánglǜ shūyì 唐律疏議) in 653." Thus, the Tang Shu and the Tánglǜ shūyì 唐律疏議 (short name 律疏) are likely not the same text. Yug (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yug, I see where the confusion on my part arose now. The Chinese WP article is based on Tánglǜ shūyì whilst Gernet's book is based on an earlier version. On that basis I have removed the {{disputed}} template. The issue we have now is that the Tang Code that the article currently covers is not the final version - the Tánglǜ shūyì is, such that technically in English a reference to the Tang Code means the later. Maybe we can address this by having sections on Evolution which is what's in the article now with some minor edits. Thereafter we have a section called Commentary and finalisation or something like that. The content for that section can come from a translation of the Chinese Tánglǜ shūyì article which I'm happy to do. What do you think? Best Philg88 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Chinese is still not good enough to translate content. But 1. for me the "Tang code" title don't refer to any real text, but rather to the legal system which was set up by those first emperors. 2. From my understanding and memory (I also did read the Cambridge history of China some time ago, without integrating my reading there), the current article's content is the "theorical framework" : 12 chapters, key concepts, etc. Then, the need of a longer, more "human friendly" text arisen : that's the Tánglǜ shūyì.

Accordingly, its [Tánglǜ shūyì] introduction should just follow within this article. A later split may be need if we really want to talk about "texts" as 2 different entities, in 2015 or nearby ;). Yug (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I will get around to adding a translation of the Tánglǜ shūyì stuff at some point - but let's make that split in 2020 :) Best,Philg88 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]