Talk:Battle of Talas

There are obvious errors in the records of Tang Dynasty history text

In the previous English Wikipedia page, we can see the following passage: "The Tongdian (801), the early narrative for battle itself by either side, suggests 30,000 deaths, and the Old Book of Tang (945) counted 20,000 deaths in this battle

But in fact, the record of "The Tongdian" is "高仙芝伐石国，于怛逻斯川七万众尽没。" This should be translated as "When Gao Xianzhi attacked Tashkent, his seventy thousand troops suffered total annihilation at the Talas River."

The Old Book of Tang records that "仙芝惧，领兵二万深入胡地，与大食战，仙芝大败。会夜，两军解，仙芝众为大食所杀，存者不过数千。" This should be translated as "Stricken with fear, Gao Xianzhi led twenty thousand troops deep into barbarian lands to engage the Arabs in battle, where he suffered a crushing defeat. When night fell, the two armies disengaged, and Xianzhi's forces were slaughtered by the Arabs, with barely thousands survivors remaining."

In fact, The Tongdian records that the death toll of Gao Xianzhi's troops was 70,000, while the Old Book of Tang records that the death toll was above 10,000 but below 20,000. PhiLia093 (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. Chinese sources state that their army numbered 30,000 soldiers. Claiming that 70,000 died in the battle while the army only had 30,000 makes no sense. R3YBOl (🌲) 09:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know whether you can grasp a very basic concept: namely, different historical sources may present different accounts. If you lack a concrete understanding of Chinese sources, I can give you an example from Roman historiography. In Historia Augusta, we are told that Alexander Severus personally commanded the army against Ardashir, but in Herodian’s account he stayed with his mother.

Your approach of conflating the accounts in Old Book of Tang and Tongdian is like mixing Historia Augusta with Herodian’s account, and concluding that Alexander Severus was a Japanese ninja who could split himself, or that his mother fought alongside him against Ardashir.

The actual number of Chinese troops’ deaths is a separate topic. If you want to study that, you should set up a separate section. But you cannot arbitrarily alter what an original record says just because you find it unreasonable.

This will mislead people who want to consult the original records. PhiLia093 (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Tang's influence in Transoxania

Hello, if we keep reverting each other, it won't lead us to any good, but to an edit war and other big problems so let's sort this out here @Qiushufang.

it seems to be that you verified and saw the source that talked about the end of Tang's influence in Transoxania. arabic sources referred to Transoxania as "Central Asia" and you may see the same name repeated in these following other sources:

1. you translate the title of this page, it will be translated in english as Wars in Central Asia
2. and the same here written The victory of Abbasids in Central Asia but it's actually referring to Transoxania and not Central Asia itself.

regarding what you said here:Why did you change this? I changed it to this view because it is actually more accurate, you can see here historians debate whether this battle ended Tang's domination in Transoxania or not. I was insisting to keep the dot of Tang's end in Transoxania since the source I used is the most modern source among all of the other historians who called it out of no significant importance.As even BBC stated the same regarding the battle and Tang's expansion. BBC is a reliable website and the 3 historians who talked about the battle are also reliable and specialized in the field of history (you can read about them and their specializations in the field of history) Best. R3YBOl (🌲) 17:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Reliability is relative. Even if BBC is a reliable site, that does not by itself make a source more worthwhile of inclusion or more accurate than another. Certainly a brief video source is not as appropriate as a dedicated monograph.

The parts you changed that I reverted with the edit summary Why did you change this? do not refer to anything about the Tang's domination in Transoxania and I do not see any contradictory info. Tang domination over Transoxania or lack thereof does not negate the parts you removed here. Chinese involvement in the region could refer to Central Asia as a whole, which includes the Tarim Basin or the steppes further north, or that Shash received titles from the Tang years later. See Li 2025 Chapter 5: "Despite that defeat, the Tang troops were still in fast hold of the Western Regions. The appointment of local officials from the vassal states and their tributes continued as before. The Tang Dynasty even recovered Major and Minor Palur in 753 AD, and appointed Turgis Khan in the area of the former ten tribes of the Western Turks".

Because the Abbasids did not advance any further after the battle, no significant loss or gain of territory occurred and the borders remained relatively unchanged. is also true. The Abbassids did not advance any further after the battle and Shash was a minor state on the very far edge of the Tang empire at the time, so its loss or that of Transoxania did not constitute a significant gain/loss. This is from Frankel 2021 p. 19: "Because the battle caused no significant territorial loss or gain, and the borders remained virtually unchanged, its geopolitical consequences were minor". Millward and Perdue 2004 p. 39 also: "Still, this battle is not as important as is sometimes implied, for the Arabs did not advance. What really marked the end of the Tang forward posture in Central Asia was the An Lushan rebellion in the Chinese heartland". Millward 2007 p. 36: "this battle in and of itself was not strategically important: the Arabs never advanced into Xinjiang".

The Muslims continued to solidify their control over western Central Asia and viewed the battle as a mere border skirmish. is from Frankel 2021 p. 19: "Arabic sources hardly mention the victory at Talas, which was treated more as a border skirmish than a great military victory... Muslims continued to consolidate their hold on western Central Asia, while the Chinese retained significant influence (political, economic and cultural) in its eastern extremes".

the battle was of no significant importance on a strategic level is subjective but seems to be true overall. The Tang dynasty continued to influence Karluk, Gilgit, Shash, and Tarim oasis affairs. The Tang's core interests were preserved while the Abbasids seem to have put little weight on the battle, barely mentioning it.

Frankly, I am not sure what you are arguing. You seem to mistake me removing the point in territorial change as denial of it, but in reality it is already covered in the above point more precisely. Further, the sources you are referring to are older (2006, 2014, 2017) than some of the ones in English (2007, 2021), which are preferred on English Wikipedia anyways, so I don't see how they are the "most modern source among all the other historians" as you put it. Qiushufang (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

do not refer to anything about the Tang's domination in Transoxania and I do not see any contradictory info well that's right, I wasn't trying to refer to Tang's domination here, I was clarifying my edit of why I did the changes in the aftermath section, but it seems to be that the section is better for reading anyways, Since there is a huge conflicting accounts about Tang's Dominance in Transoxania. R3YBOl (🌲) 18:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Qiushufang I know it's been a while, but wanted to discuss that with you again.. I was busy for a while and I was available today to make a little research regarding the battle's case.

Chinese involvement in the region could refer to Central Asia as a whole, which includes the Tarim Basin or the steppes further north, or that Shash received titles from the Tang years later. The claim that Tang influence continued is directly contradicted by the historical record. In 753 CE, the same year you mention Tang recovering territories, the ruler of Ushrusana requested Chinese military aid against the Muslims, and China refused to respond. According to the sources, China refused because they recognized Muslim power in the region. This proves that nominal titles meant nothing without actual military support or power projection. [Source: Mustafa 1973, p. 348; Joudah 2014] Because the Abbasids did not advance any further after the battle, no significant loss or gain of territory occurred and the borders remained relatively unchanged. This conflates "no Arab territorial advance" with "no strategic significance," which misses the point entirely. The battle's importance wasn't about Arabs conquering eastward. it was about consolidating Muslim control in the Region. After Talas, Muslims secured Transoxiana by establishing defensive lines from Rāmitīn and Bukhara to Shash, eliminated the Eastern Turk threat, and the Abbasids actively consolidated their authority. al-Mansur defeated Ferghana's ruler and forced tribute, deterring any Chinese revanchism. According to the sources.. The battle determined the fate of Transoxiana both culturally and politically through: (1) withdrawal of Chinese political influence beyond the Tarim Basin, (2) severing the Turko-Chinese alliance system, and (3) Muslim control of Central Asian trade routes. [Sources: Joudah 2014, pp. 80, 84-85; Mustafa 1973, pp. 348-350] The Muslims continued to solidify their control over western Central Asia and viewed the battle as a mere border skirmish. Multiple Arabic historians who specialize in this period explicitly describe Talas as decisive, not a "border skirmish." The battle decided that Arab civilization prevailed over Chinese civilization in Transoxiana according to the orientalist Barthold, put an end to Chinese presence in Transoxania. If Arabic sources treated it as insignificant, why do these historians dedicate substantial coverage to analyzing its far-reaching consequences? [Sources: Omar 1977, p. 228; Omar 2009, p. 336; Khalaf 2014, p. 285; Mustafa 1973, pp. 348-350] the battle was of no significant importance on a strategic level as above I did mention that it was decisive and one of the great Battles. This is contradicted by the empirical evidence. After Talas: (1) China refused military aid to its allies in 753,just two years after the battle and two years before An Lushan; (2) The Turko-Chinese alliance that had lasted decades was permanently severed; (3) Muslims gained control of international trade routes through Central Asia (Transoxania). These are not the hallmarks of an insignificant border skirmish. [Sources: Mustafa 1973, pp. 348-350; Joudah 2014] What really marked the end of the Tang forward posture in Central Asia was the An Lushan rebellion in the Chinese heartland. This oversimplifies the causation. While An Lushan (755) made China's withdrawal permanent, Talas (751) was the direct cause that ended Tang's effective presence in Transoxiana. The timeline proves this: China had already abandoned the region before An Lushan even began. In 753—two years after Talas but two years before the rebellion—China refused to help its ally Ushrusana against the Muslims. Why would China abandon its allies if Talas hadn't already broken their power and will to intervene? One source explicitly states the defeat "coincided with other events that made the withdrawal final and permanent," including An Lushan meaning Talas initiated the withdrawal, and An Lushan prevented any possibility of return. Talas ended Tang presence; An Lushan ensured it stayed ended. [Source: Mustafa 1973, p. 350]

Here are the list of sources:

• Omar, Farouk (2009). الخلافة العباسية: عصر القوة والازدهار [The Abbasid Caliphate: The Era of Power and Prosperity] (in Arabic). Vol. 1. Dar Shorouq. p. 336.:This battle was decisive, in which 50,000 Chinese were killed and about 20,000 were captured. Its results were far-reaching, including: -It decided,according to the orientalist Barthold, that Arab civilization prevailed over Chinese civilization in Transoxiana. The influence of this civilization is still evident in many of the buildings in this region
• Douri, Abdulaziz (2006) [1945]. العصر العباسي الأول؛ دراسة في التاريخ السياسي والإداري والمالي [The Early Abbasid Era: A Study in Political, Administrative and Fiscal History] (in Arabic). Centre for Arab Unity Studies. p. 74.: Ziyad ibn Salih defeated the Chinese army led by Kaohsien-chih. Arab historians say that the Chinese dead numbered between 45,000 and 50,000, and that the prisoners numbered between 20,000 and 25,000. The Chinese, however, claim that the Chinese army did not exceed 30,000. The battle had a far-reaching impact, as it decided that Arab civilization prevailed over Chinese civilization in Transoxiana
• Khalaf, Mahmoud Mohammed (2014). بلاد ما وراء النهر في العصر العباسي [Transoxiana in the Abbasid era] (in Arabic). General Egyptian Book Organization. p. 285. ISBN 9789774489341.: The rest fled to China.One of the most important results of this battle was that it put an end to Chinese presence in Transoxania
• Omar, Farouk (1977). العباسيون الأوائل [HISTORY OF THE EARLY ‘ABBĀSIDS] (in Arabic). Vol. 1. University of Baghdad. p. 228.:This battle was decisive, in which 50,000 Chinese were killed and about 20,000 were captured. Its results were far-reaching, including: It decided,according to the orientalist Barthold, that Arab civilization prevailed over Chinese civilization in Transoxiana. The influence of this civilization is still evident in many of the buildings in this region
• Joudah, Sadiq (2014). العلاقات العربية الصينية ايام اسرة تانغ [The Arab-Chinese Relations during the Tang Dynasty] (in Arabic). Yafa House Publishing. page 80 says: If we wish to clarify the matter further, after the defeat of the Chinese army, we can see that the outcome was devastating for the forces hostile to the Muslim troops. The situation can be summarized as follows:

1. The influence of the Eastern Turks waned after their dispersal, and the states that emerged from them—such as the Karluk and Oghuz principalities—were too weak to stand firmly against the Muslim forces in Transoxiana.
2. The Turkish forces belonging to the Eastern Turks near the Chinese border were no longer able to shift the situation in their favor in Transoxiana. They turned into scattered bands carrying out sporadic raids here and there, with no clear impact on the course of events.
3. The Abbasid Muslims became secure from the threat of the Eastern Turks in Transoxiana. This gave them the opportunity to fortify their eastern frontiers in this important region. They established a defensive line stretching from Rāmitīn and Bukhara to the lands of Shash, to provide security for the inhabitants of the region and to enable them to carry out Islamic projects there with ease and safety, away from danger. page 84 and page 85 state:Thus, the Abbasids remained constantly on guard against any potential movements by the Eastern Turks whenever they sensed danger from them. They also acted swiftly to suppress any unrest at its inception in that strategically sensitive frontier region. In this regard, we see that the Abbasid caliph al-Manṣūr waged war against the ruler of Farghāna, compelling him to sue for peace and pay tribute. This served as a lesson to other local rulers and a deterrent against any thoughts of rebelling against the caliphate, particularly out of fear that the Chinese might exploit the situation and seek revenge for their previous defeat.

• Mustafa, Shakir (1973). دولة بني العباس [The Abbasid Caliphate] (in Arabic). Publications Agency of Kuwait, Fahed al Salem St.: pages:348, This clash came to the forefront in the incident of the land of Shash. The Ikhshid of Farghāna had a dispute with the ruler of Shash, so he sought help from the Emperor of China. The Chinese ruler, according to Arabic sources, responded by sending an army of one hundred thousand men. They besieged the ruler of Shash, who eventually submitted to Chinese authority. The Chinese did not harm him or his followers at that time. However, it appears that they later conspired against this ruler and killed him. His son then sought assistance from the Muslim forces in Khurāsān at the end of the year 133 AH / spring of 751 CE, urging them to act against Chinese intervention. The Muslims' swift response to this plea reveals the extent of their awareness of the Chinese political and economic threat. Ziyad ibn Salih al Khuzaiy immediately set out and engaged the Chinese army in a battle on the Talas River in Dhū al-Ḥijjah 133 AH / July 751 CE. It was one of the decisive battles of history,as the Chinese commander Gao Xianzhi (Kao Hsien-chih) was killed, along with between 45,000 and 50,000 troops according to al-Maqdisī and Ibn al-Athīr. Between 20,000 and 25,000 were taken prisoner, and the remainder fled back to China.[..]..This battle would not be so frequently mentioned were it not for the fact that it determined the fate of Transoxiana, both culturally and politically, for it resulted in:

1-: The withdrawal of Chinese political influence, and the final retreat of Chinese civilization from the region to beyond the borders of the Tarim Basin. The area was left to Islamic political control first, and then to Islamic civilization in its religious, intellectual, artistic, and cultural dimensions. an influence that continues to this day. In fact, in the year 134 AH / 753 CE, the ruler of Ushrusana sent a letter to China for help against the Arabs, but the Chinese refused to respond.([I would like to note that from Sadiq Joudah's work.. when he cited Shakir mustafa in the notes, he described this event in the following way: "the Ruler of Sharusana sent a request to China for help against the Muslims, but they did not respond to him. This was in the year 134/753 CE, because they knew how powerful were the Muslims"])

2-: The removal of China from the ongoing conflict between the Arabs and both the Eastern and Western Turks, and the severing of the old political, military, and economic cooperation between the Turks and the Chinese empire. This cooperation shifted from eastern Turkestan to its western part, meaning that after this battle, the Turks changed the axis of their orientation and influence. They had to confront Islamic power on their own, relying solely on their own efforts and resources. This led to their fragmentation, with some being co-opted by the Arabs while others fought against them for a long period, before ultimately becoming part of Islamic civilization.

3-: Finally, China gave up the control over the international trade routes passing through Central Asia to the Muslims. These were the same routes that had always been the reason for China's involvement in Turkic affairs. From that point on, all branches and paths of these routes came under Muslim control.

for An Lushan Rebellion argument.. the same source stated in [pagehttps://archive.org/details/1_20241003_20241003_1558/page/n349/mode/1up 350]: However, the defeat of the Chinese army was not the only reason for the complete Chinese withdrawal from the region.That defeat coincided with other events that made the withdrawal final and permanent: namely, the An Lushan revolution in China in 754, which led the Chinese emperor to seek help from al-Mansur or from the resident Arab–Islamic community, who assisted him in defeating the rebels.

• if you are concerned about the reliability of the Historians that I used here, you may see these links (if you are concerned to Verify their reliability):

1. Farouk Omar (Already has got Wikipedia Page)
2. Abdulaziz al-Douri (Different website that described his career)
3. Mohammed Mahmoud Khalaf (External website that described his specializations and Career)
4. Sadiq Joudah (Arabic wiki)
5. Shakir Mustafa (Arabic wiki)

R3YBOl (🌲) 14:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This is unreadable. It's a text wall. Qiushufang (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

And to be frank all your sources seem to be Arabic. I'm sorry but this is the English Wikipedia. Relying solely on non-English sources for any discussion on an English site when there are perfectly good English sources is ridiculous. Qiushufang (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This is unreadable. It's a text wall The message appears long because I quoted the sources directly to show what they actually say, which is necessary when someone disputes their conclusions. You can read through the arguments, the source list at the end is just for reference. And to be frank all your sources seem to be Arabic. I'm sorry but this is the English Wikipedia. Relying solely on non-English sources for any discussion on an English site when there are perfectly good English sources is ridiculous. It is indeed English Wikipedia, not "English-sources-only Wikipedia." Wikipedia's policies explicitly allow and encourage non-English sources, especially when they're from subject matter experts. The article already cites Chinese sources. Arabic-language historians specializing in Abbasid history and Islam are perfectly legitimate sources for a topic involving the Abbasid Caliphate, just as Chinese sources are legitimate for Tang history and are cited in different articles in English Wikipedia regarding Chinese history. If we're going to dismiss Arabic sources on Islamic history simply because they're in Arabic, should we also dismiss the Chinese sources already cited in the article because they're not in English? Or do non-English sources only count when they support a particular narrative? R3YBOl (🌲) 14:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This article cites Chinese sources but not base an entire argument or an entire article on Chinese sources. It is also one thing to have a Chinese source and another to base one specific argument solely off of Chinese sources, which is the case here for Arabic. Frankly this seems tendentious in its intent and at least one thing you have highlighted is completely wrong:

It was one of the decisive battles of history,as the Chinese commander Gao Xianzhi (Kao Hsien-chih) was killed,

Gao Xianzhi was neither Chinese nor died in the battle by most accounts.

But with that said, I must repeat that it is impossible to engage in a conversation when one side is arguing solely based on sources which are inaccessible to the vast majority of users on English Wikipedia, nor is the way you have presented it easy to understand or clear. Please reconsider how you handle these discussions in the future, especially when it has already long ended. Qiushufang (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This article cites Chinese sources but not base an entire argument or an entire article on Chinese sources. It is also one thing to have a Chinese source and another to base one specific argument solely off of Chinese sources, which is the case here for Arabic. I'm not basing the argument "solely" on Arabic sources. I'm presenting Arabic sources that contradict the interpretation in your English sources. You're effectively asking me to accept Frankel and Millward's view as definitive while dismissing five historians, all of whom broadly agree, simply because their work is in Arabic. There's no policy-based reason to exclude Arabic sources here. As WP:NONENG makes clear, reliable non-English sources are valid, and language alone doesn't disqualify them. Frankly this seems tendentious in its intent and at least one thing you have highlighted is completely wrong: "It was one of the decisive battles of history, as the Chinese commander Gao Xianzhi (Kao Hsien-chih) was killed," Gao Xianzhi was neither Chinese nor died in the battle by most accounts. Arabic sources may have referred to him as "Chinese" or "Tang general" because he served under the Tang Empire, that's a common historiographical shorthand. Regarding his death: the Gao Xianzhi article itself relies on primary sources (Zizhi Tongjian) for his fate. I didn’t find any secondary sources in that article discussing his death. Disagreement between reliable sources, especially on details like a commander's death, is normal in historical scholarship. The presence of different accounts doesn't invalidate the Arabic sources; it simply shows that historical sources sometimes diverge. R3YBOl (🌲) 15:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The secondary source on Gao Xianzhi's fate already exists within this article, so I'm not sure why you would have to go to another one to find the source. Qiushufang (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. - per WP:NONENG Qiushufang (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

If you would like to continue, I suggest going to a third party Wikipedia:Third opinion or arbitration of some kind like the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard since we seem to be at an impasse. Qiushufang (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to read more of your argument and it seems like the main contention you have is that this battle was of strategic significance and importance to the Abbasid side. But most of this is already properly attributed to the right authors, containing statements with attribution to their sides and is how competing viewpoints of equal value is supposed to be represented on Wikipedia. For example, the part about "no strategic significance" is attributed to certain authors rather than a blanket statement. Regardless of the sources, I don't see how your rebuttal on Tang influence in Central Asia makes sense. The article does not say that Tang influence did not diminish or that it was negatively impact, but simply that it did not disappear, which is the case here. There is also a statement in the article that these states had already requested help from the Tang decades prior to the battle, which they had also refused, so that was already their policy to begin with apparently. I'm not sure what exactly you want to be done here. I can't read the sources, so everything I can say is based on what you claim they are saying, and most of the statements you seem to take issue with are already properly attributed to their authors, which is how Wikipedia works anyways. Qiushufang (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

If you would like to continue, I suggest going to a third party Wikipedia:Third opinion or arbitration of some kind like the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard since we seem to be at an impasse. I don't think we need to take it to dispute resolution because it will take long, we can solve that through discussion. I want to add the perspective of these five Arabic historians alongside the existing English sources, with proper attribution, the same way Frankel and Millward's views are currently presented. But most of this is already properly attributed to the right authors, containing statements with attribution to their sides and is how competing viewpoints of equal value is supposed to be represented on Wikipedia. Exactly. That's what I'm proposing. Currently the article presents one interpretation (minimal significance, An Lushan as main cause). I was gonna add some sentences in the same paragraph that discuss the significance of the battle as a historian debate. I could have done that but I was thinking of showing the sources in the talk page and present the alternative view from those historians: Omar, Douri, Mustafa, Khalaf, and Joudah (decisive battle, ended effective Chinese presence), also with attribution. Both perspectives represented, neither as absolute fact. Though it's worth noting that 5 historians agreed on one interception, while 2 present another. Regarding your Reverts here. The numerous sources in the article have stated it as an abbasid victory, and not "Karluk-Abbasid victory" this is one of the sources that I quickly checked that I found cited in the article. the last time the result was changed to that, it was added by an IP who was banned for being a sockpuppet. R3YBOl (🌲) 17:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written as a debate. You seem to be arguing for something completely different in response to something that was never said half the time. Like your rebuttals of statements that don't exist. Like how one statement says "Tang influence in Central Asia did not disappear" and your rebuttal is "but Tang did not help other states against Abbasids". These are not mutually exclusive statements. Nothing in the article says that An Lushan was the main cause for the cessation of Tang expansion but rather the final and complete withdrawal from Central Asia. The withdrawal of the Tang from the northwest is also given as the An Lushan rebellion as a conclusion, so I'm not sure what it is that you want to add or what your grievance is, because nothing in the article states that An Lushan was the only or first reason why Tang influence declined in Central Asia.

As for your argument about reverting "Karluk-Abbasid victory" also doesn't make sense because that was not the reason given in your edit summary, where you attributed Karluk assistance to serving the Abbasid army, which is nowhere stated in any of the sources or could realistically be interpreted that way.

Your argument about having five historians, all of which are in Arabic, in agreement in comparison to two historians in English does not exactly bode well for their veracity. For one, it is not clear what two sources you mean, because you seem to take issue with many more English sources including Millward, Perdue, as well as the Chinese sources as well. When multiple sources across different languages agree, usually that means it is of greater reliability. Plus you seem to have conveniently ignored WP:NONENG again, However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.

Regardless, I agree that multiple viewpoints can be represented. The question is what exactly do you want to add and how will it be framed? Because right now the only thing that seemingly differs from what the article already states is the importance and emphasis of certain aspects, like the importance of the ejection of the Chinese Tang dynasty from Transoxiana, or that it resulted in the Silk Road being possessed by the Abassids (which is also already stated), neither of which the article deny to begin with. So my question is what exactly do you want to be added in clear terms? A statement that multiple Arab authors believe that the battle of great importance to the Abassids and that it resulted in Arab domination over the trade routes? How does that differ from the current article? Qiushufang (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

To give you an example of what I mean by arguing against statements that don't exist, you put down six sources simply to reiterate what the article already says, that the Tang presence was ended in Transoxiana, that the alliance between Turks and the Tang was ended, and that the Silk Road came into possession of the Arabs. As for An Lushan, the source seems to agree that the Battle of Talas was not the only reason for the Chinese withdrawal but also the An Lushan rebellion. Notice how none of this is against what the article currently states. The only difference is emphasis on the importance of the matters. To the Abassids or Arabs, obviously control over Transoxiana would be of great important, but to the Chinese, Transoxiana was a far off frontier on the furthest periphery of the empire, probably only controlled loosely at the best of times through tributaries, and thus was no doubt of little importance. It seems like your entire argument is that you wish to put in statements that X Arab authors' perspective is that this battle was actually of great importance for the above reasons. Is that correct? If so, I don't see any need for changes other than for a statement to be made that Arab authors disagree with the other authors, and "believe the battle was important for X Y Z reasons". Qiushufang (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate your fast responses meanwhile I do apologize for taking some time in replying back late. As for your argument about reverting "Karluk-Abbasid victory" also doesn't make sense because that was not the reason given in your edit summary, where you attributed Karluk assistance to serving the Abbasid army, which is nowhere stated in any of the sources or could realistically be interpreted that way. I gave a random reason in the edit summary, and another one here. there are multiple reasons why "Karluk-Abbasid victory" is problematic. Karluks served under Abbasid command in this battle. But more importantly: Tibetans and other Turkic groups also participated. By your logic, the result should read "Abbasid-Karluk-Tibetan-Turkic victory" which would be absurd. The sources consistently describe this as an Abbasid victory. That's why I'm restoring it to how it was previously represented. Your argument about having five historians, all of which are in Arabic, in agreement in comparison to two historians in English does not exactly bode well for their veracity. For one, it is not clear what two sources you mean, because you seem to take issue with many more English sources including Millward, Perdue, as well as the Chinese sources as well. When multiple sources across different languages agree, usually that means it is of greater reliability. The sources that I cited are made by established historians specializing in Abbasid history and Islam, while some of them specializes in both Islamic and Transoxanian history. since you mentioned that When multiple sources across different languages agree, usually that means it is of greater reliability. I did find a western source that almost agrees with everything that the previous sources had stated. as well as Arabic historians cited Bartold for stating that "Arab/Islamic civilizations prevailed over chinese civilization in Transoxania" Regardless, I agree that multiple viewpoints can be represented. The question is what exactly do you want to add and how will it be framed? Because right now the only thing that seemingly differs from what the article already states is the importance and emphasis of certain aspects. As how chinese and western sources represented the battle as having minimal strategic significance. What I want to add is the Arabic view that it claims the battle was strategically significant. Specifically: The sources I cite argue that The battle decisively ended effective Chinese political and military presence in Transoxiana, not just reduced it ( Mustafa 1973; Khalaf 2014) It determined that Arab/Islamic civilization would dominate the region culturally and politically (Omar 1977, 2009; Douri 2006) The battle severed the Turko-Chinese alliance permanently, forcing Turkic groups to either accommodate or fight Muslims independently (Mustafa 1973) China's refusal to aid Ushrusana in 753,two years before An Lushan, it demonstrates that Talas, not An Lushan, was the primary cause of withdrawal (Mustafa 1973; Joudah 2014). To give you an example of what I mean by arguing against statements that don't exist, you put down six sources simply to reiterate what the article already says, that the Tang presence was ended in Transoxiana, that the alliance between Turks and the Tang was ended, and that the Silk Road came into possession of the Arabs. The article states these things happened but I guess that it needs better wording and to add more new information from these sources that I found, and as long as the sources that I am using are reliable and made by specialists. My sources directly contradict this, calling it "one of the decisive battles of history" that "determined the fate of Transoxiana." That's not a minor difference in emphasis, it's a fundamental disagreement about historical interpretation. As for An Lushan, the source seems to agree that the Battle of Talas was not the only reason for the Chinese withdrawal but also the An Lushan rebellion. yes you're right, Mustafa (1973) states the defeat "coincided with other events that made the withdrawal final and permanent," including An Lushan. But the timeline shows causation: China refused aid to Ushrusana in 753, two years after Talas, two years before An Lushan. This proves Talas caused the initial withdrawal; An Lushan made it irreversible. The current article frames An Lushan as "what really marked the end," which understates Talas's role. To the Abassids or Arabs, obviously control over Transoxiana would be of great important, but to the Chinese, Transoxiana was a far off frontier on the furthest periphery of the empire, probably only controlled loosely at the best of times through tributaries, and thus was no doubt of little importance. This is exactly the kind of interpretive framing that deserves representation from both sides. Arabic sources argue it was strategically important; Western and chinese sources argue it wasn't. Both perspectives should be in the article with attribution. It seems like your entire argument is that you wish to put in statements that X Arab authors' perspective is that this battle was actually of great importance for the above reasons. Is that correct? it's mostly about re-writing some parts and including adding information. as I also found other new information that would be useful to add for Abbasid assistance for the chinese during the An Lushan rebellion. R3YBOl (🌲) 21:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, That's the western source that mentioned almost the same claims of the previous sources:

• Muhamad S. Olimat (27 August 2015). China and Central Asia in the Post-Soviet Era: A Bilateral Approach. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-4985-1805-5. the book doesn't have page numbers unfortunately, but I can tell that I took this text from page 25 : Ibn Al-Athir estimated the Chinese army at 100,000 soldiers, but provided no estimate of the Muslim army; Chinese sources estimated the size of their army at 10,000 and the Muslims at 100,000. However, a battle-description by Ibn al-Athir confirms that, the two armies were roughly equal at 100,000 each. The Muslim army was decisively triumphant. Gao Xianzhi, the Korean general who led the Chinese army lost 50,000 soldiers; an additional 20,000 were taken as captives while the remaining 30,000 fled back to China. The Tang blamed their defeat on the Qarluk Turks’ supposed defection to the other side. Nevertheless, historians have found no evidence that the Qarluk Turks had fought on China’s side or had switched sides during the battle. On the contrary, they were an integral part of Islamic-Tibetan and Turkic alliance fighting the Tang. It was these captives who transferred the knowledge and techniques for making paper to Central Asia and then to the Islamic empire; this information eventually entered Europe through Andalusia. The Abbasids were in great need of an indigenous paper industry, for they valued knowledge and thus devoted substantial state resources to education, science, and astrology, as well as to an official campaign of civilizational-knowledge transfer and translation of Greek, Chinese, and Indian manuscripts.The outcome of the Battle of Talas consolidated Abbasid dominance in Central Asia well into the mid-thirteenth century, and Islam spread among the Turkic people. According to Arab sources this battle ended Chinese expansion in Central Asia. Best.

R3YBOl (🌲) 21:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

To be concise, none of the sources you've provided fundamentally changes any of the statements already provided in the article. You seem to be just reiterating that Transoxiana did not belong to China at this point, which has already been well established for a long time now. Your claim that the Karluks served the Abbasid army is ludicrous and is not supported by any of the sources whether Muslim, Chinese, or English. I've already put in the Arab POV and clarified whose viewpoints belong to whom. Is there anything more? Qiushufang (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

calling it "one of the decisive battles of history" that "determined the fate of Transoxiana."

Using "decisive" is WP:PEACOCK language and is avoided on Wikipedia. Qiushufang (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Tibetans and other Turkic groups also participated. By your logic, the result should read "Abbasid-Karluk-Tibetan-Turkic victory" which would be absurd. The sources consistently describe this as an Abbasid victory. That's why I'm restoring it to how it was previously represented.

The Karluks made up a significant part of the military forces involved, at 20,000 soldiers, it was up to 40% of the entire force involved on any side, making them nearly equal to the Abassid forces in size, and thus far more important than another group. More importantly, the Chinese side, the only one with contemporary records on the battle, attributed their defeat to them. Nor does the Muslim sources deny the Karluk involvement. So there's no sources that deny Karluk participation or their crucial nature in the battle at all. Qiushufang (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

China's refusal to aid Ushrusana in 753,two years before An Lushan, it demonstrates that Talas, not An Lushan, was the primary cause of withdrawal (Mustafa 1973; Joudah 2014).

The article already contains this though. It already says that the Battle of Talas ended Tang expansion into Transoxiana, not elsewhere. None of the sources deny that. What is being said is that the An Lushan rebellion was the primary cause for Tang withdrawal from Central Asia altogether, not the Battle of Talas. So if you are trying to say that this the case, none of the sources say that, and you are confusing the matter. Qiushufang (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The current article frames An Lushan as "what really marked the end," which understates Talas's role.

That statement was already previously attributed to specific authors so I'm not sure what the problem is there. Can you give an example of where the article states unambiguously that the An Lushan rebellion was "what really marked the end" to Tang expansion in Transoxiana? For Central Asia, that is correct. Qiushufang (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Your claim that the Karluks served the Abbasid army is ludicrous and is not supported by any of the sources whether Muslim, Chinese, or English The english source (Muhammad S.Olimat) stated here that they served under the army of the Tibetians and the Abbasids:The Tang blamed their defeat on the Qarluk Turks’ supposed defection to the other side. Nevertheless, historians have found no evidence that the Qarluk Turks had fought on China’s side or had switched sides during the battle. On the contrary, they were an integral part of Islamic-Tibetan and Turkic alliance fighting the Tang. I will remove the Karluks from the result.. this same source explains how we shouldn't add Karluks in the result column as well.. the battle should be stated as either "Abbasid Victory" or "Abbasid-led victory" I would rather go with the first option because almost every source in the article possibly have stated it as Abbasid victory with its allies (refers to Abbasid-led victory) or Abbasid victory.. as the source mentioned. Olimat mentioned the Tibetian, Abbasid, and turkic tribes alliance against Tang and its allies. and in page 26 he stated that Both Tibetans and Abbasids defeated the Chinese. so there would be an Option 3 (Abbasid-Tibetian Victory) and Option 4 too (Abbasid-Tibetian-Turkic-Karluk Victory) that's why I insist that the Abbasids should be stated alone in the result, since the result mentioned them the most and how they carried the battle, regardless of Karluks, their situation is somehow debated, as the source mentioned: "The Tang blamed their defeat on the Qarluk Turks’ supposed defection to the other side. Nevertheless, historians have found no evidence that the Qarluk Turks had fought on China’s side or had switched sides during the battle. Chinese sources justified all their defeat by the Karluks while modern historians find that as somehow impossible. R3YBOl (🌲) 17:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Qiushufang I edited the article and the infobox, where I added the points and removed the previous ones (Since sources claim abbasids didn't only conquer Shash, but also a part of Xinjiang), Furthermore I added more information about the arab view of the battle and added Citations of the historians and clarified their view of the battle itself. If you think there is something odd to add or anything, I wouldn't mind discussing it here. R3YBOl (🌲) 17:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that you said that you would provide different viewpoints and elucidate the Arab ones, but you fundamentally changed the perspective that was attributed to other authors, so I have reverted your changes. For example, you changed the statement about the Tang turning down petitions to aid the states that requested help against the Abbasids for decades. You also put in statements that were not attributed to the authors but put in as objective facts, again like the attribution of why the Tang did not help those states. Moreover, removing the Karluks because one source says that it was an excuse made up by the Tang when several other authors either agree with the Tang source or offered other interpretations is not how Wikipedia works. Qiushufang (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You also put in statements that were not attributed to the authors but put in as objective facts, again like the attribution of why the Tang did not help those states. May you tell me what is not attributed to authors regarding tang and the aid of the kingdoms, since only chinese and arab sources have talked about this. I can represent both of the views if it is that concerning. R3YBOl (🌲) 17:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You removed the explanation from one of the above paragraphs on why the Tang did not send aid to the states which requested help. You can see the difference below

In 754, all nine kingdoms of Western Turkestan sent petitions to the Tang to attack the Abbasids, which the Tang continued to turn down as it did for decades.

was deleted

and the below statement was added

the Tang empire refused to help, Possibly because the Tang knew how powerful the Muslims were, so they continued to refuse as it did for decades.

Frankly I see this type of framing and deletion to be malicious in intent and I think we fundamentally disagree on how this article should be represented. I'm also somewhat certain that there is at least some slight WP:COMPETENCE issues on your part considering the way you write certain sentences, spacing, and lack of capitalization. While that is not a sin, paired with your tendentious push for certain viewpoints, I think it's fair to say we've run the course of this discussion. I suggest we go to a third party opinion and further arbitration before this turns into a bigger edit war. Qiushufang (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Another place where you have worded statements to appear authoritative is the below paragraph where you take one author's stance as de facto truth:

However, Historiand have uncovered no support for this account, neither that these Turkic groups initially supported the Tang nor that they changed allegiances during combat. Historical evidence instead indicates the Qarluk were consistently aligned with the coalition of Islamic, Tibetan, and Turkic forces opposing the Tang from the outset.

When it is actually based on a Muslim source written centuries after the battle and repeated by other authors, at least one of which has questioned its veracity and the Karluks' true intent. Do you see how the preamble is inherently biased? Qiushufang (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You can see the difference below I think that was the only thing in which I mixed up the views of two sources. if it is that concerning we can represent both views and in a neutral way:Arabic sources mention that in 752, the King of Ushrusana requested help from the Tang empire against the Arabs and the Tang refused, possibly because of the power of the muslims, Chinese sources mentioned that In 754, all nine kingdoms of Western Turkestan sent petitions to the Tang to attack the Abbasids, which the Tang continued to turn down as it did for decades. Isn't that better to represent or you still have got other thoughts? spacing, and lack of capitalization everyone does mistakes in typing, when you were promoting the article, you used to type the Abbasids as "Abassids" and I fixed the words back and didn't say anything When it is actually based on a Muslim source written centuries after the battle and repeated by other authors, at least one of which has questioned its veracity and the Karluks' true intent. Do you see how the preamble is inherently biased? I really don't know about the karluk part, other historians' opinions about the karluks were described in the Arabic view of the battle. I do suggest we move the modern views of the Karluk's defect discussion into the "Modern Evaluation" Thoughts? R3YBOl (🌲) 17:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Notice how I did not say anything about spelling errors. The way you write is hard to parse because you do not use paragraphs and spacing effectively, making every discussion with you burdensome since I have to read a text wall every time. And half the time it is not clear what you are referring to when talking about the article.

While I do think there are parts of your additions that can be worked into the article, I've noticed that you have a consistent habit of aggrandizement by selectively deleting, reworking, re-adding statements to appear more authoritative. The problem with your preamble is that you are not presenting the authors' viewpoints as a perspective, but objective truth. When you start with a sentence such as "Historians think this" when multiple perspectives by multiple historians are given, that is bias. And the two parts where this has happened that I pointed out are not the only areas where this is the case, which is what makes your edits so frustrating. You say one thing, and then you do another.

Another issue I take with your editing is that you keep misconstruing statements as opposed to each other. For example, here you added

One of the outcomes of the Abbasid consolidation over Transoxania well into the mid-thirteen century, which Islam spread among the turkic people.

before

According to another source that claims a small number of Karluks converted to Islam. However, the majority would not convert until the mid-10th century, when Sultan Satuq Bughra Khan established the Kara-Khanid Khanate.

But these two sources aren't actually mutually exclusive or even opposed to each other. There is no need to say "another source" when these two are saying the same thing, just that one source provides a quantity. These aren't competing statements but I suspect you added it and framed it in such a way because well, the first sentence sounds better than the one following it.

Another issue is of course, your insistence on finding sources, in this case Olimat, to support statements that are overwhelmingly against the prevailing narrative supported by every single other source. As far as I can tell, the claim that the Abbasids seized Xinjiang is sourced entirely to Olimat per the following sentence:

When the Abbasids seized control over Xinjiang, they managed to build a new cooperative relationship with the Tang empire based on trade. Chinese control over the region would not be successfully reestablished until the Qianlong Emperor's conquest approximately one thousand years later.

This is WP:FRINGE for obvious reasons: only one source against every single other source, no other source or part of the article supports this assertion, and is based on a source which does not specialize or treats the relevant subject as the primary focus or even secondary focus. Why such a source does not bear the same weight as one which is the opposite should be obvious to any reasonable person. Qiushufang (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:FRINGE for obvious reasons: only one source against every single other source, no other source or part of the article supports this assertion I was suspicious about the seizing of Xinjiang under the "Islamic domain" myself. Good to see that another user came and clarified that there was already a Chinese dynasty that conquered Xinjiang. I don't mind deleting Olimat's quote about the Xinjiang part. And half the time it is not clear what you are referring to when talking about the article. I do apologize for that. Last time I was referring to something in the article where I meant to say, why do we not move Olimat and Filippo Donvito's views about the Qarluk defection discussion into Battle of Talas#Modern evaluation? R3YBOl (🌲) 18:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a "modern evaluation" section at all. ALL of the current viewpoints are modern interpretations barring direct statements attributed to historical authors. Qiushufang (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

And I do not agree with putting Olimat and Donvito's viewpoints on the same level. Donvito is a source that is solely about the battle and treats the subject as the primary focus whereas Olimat has already expressed fringe perspectives on the subject. Qiushufang (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

And I do not agree with putting Olimat and Donvito's viewpoints on the same level I will restore my edits and fix the Tang's support of the kingdom (To represent the both views of arabic and chinese sources for neutrality), remove Olimat's view about the Karluks and Xinjiang parts. To sort out for the battle's result, I will change it to "Abbasid-led victory". R3YBOl (🌲) 18:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Abbasid-led victory is just another euphemism. Leave the results as is. And frankly I do not trust your edits as you have proven yourself incapable of WP:NEUTRAL many times now. Qiushufang (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Olimat is a general source that only mentions the battle in passing and focuses the vast majority of the book on another topic that is far removed from this article. It is not of the same quality and relevance as other sources that are about the relevant era. Qiushufang (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused by this standard. Dr. Olimat is an Associate Professor of Middle East Studies with relevant expertise who discusses the battle in detail, yet you dismiss him as "general." Meanwhile, Chang Hsin-kang has degrees in civil, structural, and biomedical engineering with no historical credentials whatsoever, yet you cite him. How is an engineer with no history training more reliable than a Middle East Studies professor writing within his field of expertise? This appears to be an inconsistent application of source evaluation standards. R3YBOl (🌲) 17:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Chang's source is about the Silk Road and the era which the battle took place in. Olimat's monograph is not about the battle or the era which it took place in at all, mentioning it only in passing. Qiushufang (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You're applying a double standard. You say Olimat "mentions it only in passing" while accepting Chang who also mentions the battle casualties in passing. Both discuss the battle within broader contexts - Olimat within China-Middle East relations, Chang within Silk Road history. The critical difference is that Olimat has actual credentials in Middle East Studies, while Chang has zero training in history, his degrees are in civil, structural, and biomedical engineering. If we're evaluating sources by relevance to the topic, an engineer writing about historical battles should be questioned far more than a Middle East Studies professor. If we're accepting sources that mention the battle 'in passing,' then both should be acceptable or neither should be. You can't reject the qualified historian for being "general" while accepting the engineer with no historical training. Which standard are we actually applying here - source expertise or level of detail? Because right now it appears you're rejecting sources with proper credentials while accepting sources without them. Additionally you can't remove the whole additions just because of 2-3 problems that I can easily fix. Just point out the paragraphs and I can fix them. I added information of the arabic view of the battle in the view of the islamic sources in the battle section, the chinese sources are represented like that as well. I don't understand where is the problem exactly? If it is about the Tang and the aid of the Kingdoms. this issue can be easily fixed. R3YBOl (🌲) 17:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

See above. Qiushufang (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Qiushufang I restored some of the edits, and removed the ones you asked for. I kept the result as "Abbasid-Karluk victory" per the discussion. and I hope we don't have any more issues here. R3YBOl (🌲) 19:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

A concern, Xinjiang was conquered/ruled Western Liao/Qara Khitai

• "Chinese control over the region[Xinjiang] would not be successfully reestablished until the Qianlong Emperor's conquest approximately one thousand years later."

This recently added sentence appears to leave out some history, namely the Qara Khitai, also known as the Western Liao.

According to Sino–Russian Policies in the Center and Periphery: A Comparative Analysis, Samra Sarfraz Khan, page 24;

• "In 1124, an official of the Liao dynasty (916 CE–1125 CE) commanded his tribe, the Khitan, for the conquest of Xinjiang. Having conquered the province, he established the Kingdom of Western Liao in Xinjian."

According to The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World, Michal Biran, page 129;

• "This concept not only accepts the Liao as a Chinese dynasty, it also locates the Qara Khitai firmly within the span of Chinese history, due to their rule in the region of modern Xinjiang." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  The previous statement appended to the one you have issue with is also not supported by any of the other authors cited in this article as far as I can see.

  When the Abbasids seized control over Xinjiang, they managed to build a new cooperative relationship with the Tang empire based on trade.

  The source (Olimat) is primarily about modern politics and the era relevant to this battle is obviously not their forte. I'd also say their grand statements and peacock language reveals some level of bias that makes it even less credible than a general source for this specific topic. Qiushufang (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

R3YBOl's POVPUSH behavior and the "Aftermath" section

R3YBOl's behavior

I've recently noticed that this page has been under a POVPUSH by User:R3YBOl. The gist of the POV is an Arab Islamic Abassid bias to influence the description of this battle to portray it in a light casting it as the defining factor and historical moment in which the Arab Abbasid Islamic civilization triumphed over the Tang Chinese civilization in a clash of civilizations over supremacy in Central Asia.

This explains why it was so important for R3YBOl to fight against the inclusion of the Karluks as one of the primary victors in the conflict since the narrative is supposed to be about how the Arab Abassids conquered Central Asia from the Tang Chinese. This also explains why R3YBOl is now scrounging up an army's worth of passing anecdotes just to say that the Abassid victory was very important and that they indeed not only stopped the Tang advance into Central Asia, but played a fundamental if not the most important role in their complete withdrawal from Central Asia.

The problem with Arabic sources

There is just one problem with this - neither Chinese or Arab primary or secondary sources actually make a big deal out of the battle. That is why modern tertiary sources, whether Chinese, English, or Arab give only terse descriptions of it. The reality, when you look at the sources involved, is much less interesting unless the author deliberately plays up the civilizational angle.

Due to the scarcity of material to work with, the only source cited in this entire Wikipage that deals with the Battle of Talas as the primary topic is a short article spanning four pages with picture inserts by Filippo Donvito called "Treacherous auxiliaries: The Battle of the River Talas" in the Medieval Warfare journal (2015). Aside from the battle itself, the details of which are scant, the purpose of the article is an analysis of why the Karluks may or may not have betrayed the Tang army to conform with the theme of the issue it was published in - "Traitors in the Middle Ages". No other source in any language in the entire Wiki article mentions the battle beyond a passing anecdote, at best devoting a page to it. The most substantial of these passing anecdotes in English include Civilizations of the Silk Road by H. K. Chang (2023) p. 139-141, Mapping the Chinese and Islamic Worlds by Hyunhee Park (2012) p. 25, and Islam in China by James Frankel (2021) p. 18-19. Chang and Park provide some details on the battle but they are mainly concerned about it for the possibility of papermaking technology transfer through Chinese captured in the battle. Frankel does a bit better and devotes one and a half page to the battle.

More importantly, Frankel notes that not much of anything happened in the immediate aftermath of the battle. According to Frankel, no significant change in territory occurred and the theory of papermaking transfer is described as a legend. Furthermore, he states that the battle was essentially treated like a border skirmish by the Abassids and "the Battle of Talas does not figure prominently in Islamic historiography of the time" (p. 18). Herein lies the problem. There are zero contemporary Arabic accounts of this battle. For his comparison between Arabic and Chinese accounts regarding the Karluks, Donvito uses Al-Dhahabi (1274–1348), who lived 600 years after the battle. The other Arabic sources referenced by modern Arabic scholars include al-Maqdisi (945-991) and Ibn al-Athir (1160–1233), 200 and nearly 500 years after the battle. In comparison to Chinese sources, both the Tongdian (801) and Old Book of Tang (945) contain info on the battle and are much closer to the date it occurred. The Tongdian in particular is directly connected to the event through its author, Du You, the uncle of Du Huan, one of the Chinese captured in the battle. After returning to China, Du Huan authored a record of his travels, of which some extracts have survived in the Tongdian. So you can see how there can be some skepticism regarding Arabic sources.

In addition to Frankel:

Adam Ali says that the sources on this battle are rather scarce. Despite it being a Muslim victory, the Arabic sources say very little about it; most of the detailed information that we have regarding the Battle of Talas comes from Chinese sources.

Niv Horesh says that contemporaneous Arab sources like al-Tabari (839–923) do not mention the battle at all, suggesting it wasn’t thought of as very consequential at the time.

Barry Hoberman says On the Arab side, our key informants on the Battle of Talas are the renowned historian Ibn al-Athir (1160-1233) and the comparatively unheralded al-Dhahabi (1274-1348). (Curiously, the most outstanding early Muslim historian, al-Tabari (839-923), has nothing to say about the Battle of Talas - indicating, perhaps, that from the medieval Islamic perspective, the battle seemed a rather peripheral encounter.)

R3YBOl's use of WP:FRINGE

While representing all significant view can make an article better, the unreliability of Arabic sources and the way that R3YBOl uses sources constantly crosses into WP:FRINGE territory, contradicting information provided by more numerous sources much closer to the subject. Mustafa 1973 citing al-Maqdisi and Ibn al-Athir claims that the commander of the Tang army, Gao Xianzhi, was killed in battle. This directly contradicts the Old Book of Tang (945) and the Zizhi Tongjian (1084), both of which describe in detail the role that Gao played during the An Lushan rebellion and his execution. It is unreasonable to believe that Arabic sources, separated by hundreds of years, language barriers, and vast tracts of land, would be more familiar with a Tang dynasty figure than an earlier Chinese source. To believe that Mustafa and the sources he is citing are correct, we would also have to believe that both the Tongdian and Old Book of Tang made up Gao's role in the rebellion and the end of his life, or perhaps they got him completely mixed up with someone else.

This lack of credibility is repeated with claims that the battle ended Tang presence in Central Asia, which was already a subject of contention in the prior argument with R3YBOl above. While the cessation of Tang advance to the west into Transoxiana is true and consequently the establishment of Islam and the Abassid empire in that region, this is often mixed up with the Tarim Basin and other areas. R3YBOl consistently cites low quality WP:FRINGE sources or sources that barely touch on the battle to conflate Transoxiana, Central Asia, and the Tarim Basin together. At first I thought it was simply a misunderstanding on their part, but they have done this twice now, using low quality sources (Olimat and Drake) to push the idea that the Abassids conquered Xinjiang. Olimat's text is about the post-Soviet era whereas Drake is from 1943. I have already explained to them why this kind of source is unreliable for this topic in addition to contradicting every single other source. Frankel, James A. Millward, Peter C. Perdue, Wang Zhenping, and countless others state that the Abbasids stopped at Transoxiana and that many troops were withdrawn from Xinjiang during the An Lushan rebellion, in addition to action on at least one occasion in Baltistan.

In Muslim conquest of Transoxiana, they also recently added force numbers supporting the most maximalist claims of 100,000 Tang soldiers, even though this article provides both modern estimates and most of the reliable sources agree that the hundred thousand numbers by both sides are exaggerated. I do not believe R3YBOl is ignorant about the way these things work. I've recently checked their history. They have been explained to more than adequately several times by multiple users how reliable sources work. User:Kansas Bear being one among many. It seems like they acquiesce for only a moment and then come back to do the same thing again and again.

R3YBOl habitually treats this article as a nationalistic aggrandizing fiesta with the purpose to overload it with enough citations, no matter how poor the sources are, to prove a point. Because the historical Arabic sources actually say little to nothing about the battle, and the Chinese ones are barely any better, most of the tertiary sources are passing mentions of little value. They repeat stereotypical claims of civilizational struggle, providing ammo for citation dumping a bunch of sources that are not low quality in of themselves, but treat the battle and its aftermath as a curious afterthought. Unfortunately this topic is too niche to attract a large enough audience for quality control and is simultaneously controversial enough to attract this kind of behavior. Just today I found a citation covering a quarter of the battle that said nothing about the battle at all and referred the reader to another source for more info, which also didn't say much about the battle other than that it happened and Karluks were involved. My disappointment is that this kind of thing goes unnoticed for an entire year or more and instead we have editors whose only motive seems to be POVPUSHING in the Aftermath section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiushufang (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)