Talk:Xuanzang

Hiuen Tsang, or is it Hsüan Tsang

"Xuanzang [ɕɥɛ̌n.tsâŋ] (Chinese: 玄奘; fl. 602 – 664), born Chen Hui / Chen Yi (陳禕), also known as Hiuen Tsang"... Shouldn't that be Hsüan Tsang? Imerologul Valah (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes/no. No, it wasn't a mistake. Yes, the Wade–Giles romanization is more important and should be listed before the older irregular form. No, the language clutter in the lead sentence should be cleaned up anyway and both should be removed to the #Names section. The Chinese IPA is entirely worthless (any reader who can turn those marks into the correct sounds can already read the pinyin just fine and, no, that isn't what the name sounds like in English anyway) and should be left in the infobox where it belongs. — LlywelynII 20:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Pilgrimage vs "Great Tang Records on the Western Regions" article

I am trying to see the connection between the "Pilgrimage" section here and the Great Tang Records on the Western Regions article, which was apparently written specifically to cover the "travelogue" for this pilgramage.

It is not at all clear to me whether the "Pilgrimage" section is based largely (or completely?) on the "travelogue" or also significantly on other sources? Having the "travelogue" material in the dedicated article that was apparently created for it would not only help clarify that, it just seems like a better place for it. And my guess (and it is just that) is that most of the "pilgrimage" material should probably be over there in Great Tang Records on the Western Regions then?

The other issue that should be probably be resolved (or clarified) is the signifant conflict between the two articles in describing the veracity of the "travelogue". The "Great Tang Records on the Western Regions" article talks of "great value" and of the book being "known for having "exact descriptions of distances and locations of different places"", suggesting nothing but an accurate account. But the current article describes it as a mix of "a mix of the implausible, the hearsay and a firsthand account" with several telling examples. This seriously contradicts the impression created by the other article that (I would think) should be a more detailed and more accurate description of the "travelogue".AlexFekken (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

A better wording

QUOTE: his efforts to bring over 657 Indian texts to China, END OF QUOTE

A better wording for 'India' would be South Asia. There was no India as a nation before British-India. As to the use of the word 'India' before that, it is a messy mix of some other words which were quietly converted into 'India' by Arabian and European maritime traders and other outsiders. No one in South Asia could have claimed that they were 'Indians' in those days.

As to 'Indian texts', it might be ancient Sanskrit texts that are being hinted at. These things also do not have any 'Indian' tag on them. These texts were on the verge of entering into oblivion, when the officials of the English East India Company took urgent steps to retrive them from remote Brahmin households from mutually unconnected locations. The antiquity of Sanskrit literature entered into South Asian / British Indian mainstream only when Sanskrit words and usages were poured into local languages to make them develop. 59.97.175.217 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Pilgrimage

The section entitled Pilgrimage attempts to summarize nearly every event in the text discussed. As a result, it is far too long and rambling. I believe it falls under the 'long plot' category. {{Long plot}} RobotBoy66 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Not where that goes. In any case, future editors take note that the version of the page before 12 June 2023 may include helpful details that have been mistakenly removed and might need reinclusion. — LlywelynII 15:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Language

language of Buddhist text was Pali, not sanskrit. Arvindpandey (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The Mahayana sutras he brought from ancient India were written in Sanskrit, Prakrit dialects or Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. JimRenge (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Xuanzang ain't a proper name

the way English parses 'em. It's another honorific title and should be translated just like the others. As above, the names need a lot of cleanup. The Chinese IPA is in the infobox and shouldn't be cluttering the lead sentence. The characters, tonal pinyin, and many many variant transcriptions are already handled in the infoboxes and name section and shouldn't be cluttering the lead sentence as badly as they are now. Minor variants can be left to Wikidata now and the more common present and historical ones should have cites. &c. — LlywelynII 20:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

Inter alia,

• Rong Xinjiang; et al. (2015), "The Semantic Shift of 'Western Regions' and the Westward Extension of the 'Border' in the Tang Dynasty" (PDF), Eurasian Studies, Vol. III, pp. 321–334.

covers the political background for Xuanzang and the reasoning behind the imperial support on his return & its use of his record of his travels. — LlywelynII 15:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Xuanzang's DOB & DOD

I suspect that the dates April 6 to February 5th may be lunar calendar dates, in which case it is not actually Julian April and Julian February (which are actually the 2nd and 12th months of the Julian calendar, because the Gregorian calendar was not in use in the 7th century AD), rather, Xuanzang's DOB and DOD were the 6th day of the 4th lunar month and the 5th day of the 2nd lunar month which were not named as ‘April’ and ‘February’ during the 7th century AD. I am not sure about Xuanzang's DOB, but I have seen it referenced somewhere that Xuanzang's DOD may be directly equivalent to Julian or Gregorian March 6 or 7. Viltiki813196 (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)