Talk:Caspian Sea

"Ural Sea" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ural Sea and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 12#Ural Sea until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I meant Aral Sea instead or “Ural Sea”. 2600:6C58:4C7F:FF95:856A:C07:CE58:2CCC (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Tang empire connection

I very much doubt that "in the Tang dynasty (618-907), the [Caspian] sea was the western limit of the Chinese Empire". AIUI, Chinese control has never extended west of the Tarim basin; indeed, it often remained contested within the basin during the reign of weak emperors. Wikipedia's page on the Tang dynasty does not suggest that empire reached the Caspian then, and the only sources listed here in support are (I think) a high-school level world history textbook and a brief side-mention by a non-experts instead studying the reception of Chinese literature (which likely circulated outside the empire proper). Is there a better source in support? Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The Tang Dynasty’s territory indeed never reached the Caspian Sea. However, Tang control was not limited to just the Tarmin Basin either. During the Tang Dynasty’s territory peak, the reigns of Emperor Taizong and Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (626-683), Tang’s territorial control did reach as far as the modern day Aral Sea and western Afghanistan for a brief amount of years. The Western Turkic Khangante, whom the Tang Dynasty annexed under Emperor Gaozong of Tang in 657, did had territorial control over the region around the Caspian Sea. If the Western Turkic Khanganate had control over the Caspian Sea, and the Tang Dynasty brought it under their control, then why didn’t the Caspian Sea become the westernmost extant of the Tang Dynasty? Two possible solutions are number 1, the Western Turkic Khangante lost that territory before the annexation, or the Tang only annexed parts of the former Western Turkic Khangante. 2600:6C58:4C7F:FF95:856A:C07:CE58:2CCC (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Tang Protectorates

2600:6C58:4C7F:FF95:856A:C07:CE58:2CCC (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I meant Aral Sea. 2600:6C58:4C7F:FF95:856A:C07:CE58:2CCC (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

But another issue is that if we take this into account, the Caspian Sea would still not be the westernmost part of the territory of the Tang Dynasty, because the territories of the western Turks went beyond the Caspian Sea, in fact it would go as far as the Sea of Azov, occupying territories including the then cachectic Byzantine Empire. Which would mean, bizarrely, that most of the Tang Dynasty's territory would come from Western Korea to the territories of present-day Ukraine, which would put even the Mongol Empire to shame. If this is true, it would mean that the map we used in the Tang Dynasty article is very incomplete... EXTREMELY incomplete.The Young Prussian (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bernanke's Crossbow I fully agree with you. ArnavacharyaYT (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bernanke's Crossbow I am going to delete this little snippet about the Tang dynasty, it seems everyone agrees that the source doesn't support the claim well enough, it's likely incorrect, and the discussion hasn't evolved in over a year. I would like to find a nice source about the Caspian sea during the Han or Tang periods but I cannot. ProfKnots (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Liana forests?

The article copies a section of text from a WWF ecoregion article, stating: " About 11 plant species are found in the Samur River delta, some forming a unique 'vine' forest that dates back to the Tertiary period." The wiki edit uses the word 'liana' instead of vine.

Lianas and vines do not form forests. The WWF article provides no explanation or list of the species being cited as forming one. I suggest this bit of info be removed unless better reference is found Mo Salahmi (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Another source would be good. In addition to a "vine forest", 11 species (which is what the source says) sounds like a typo. You can easily have 11 plant species in a suburban lawn, I would expect an ecoregion to have hundreds. Nerfer (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I found another source and updated it, explaining that it is a broadleaf & liana forest. I think the WWF wanted to say 11 species of liana (the source I found said 15 "types"). As I suspected, other sources are saying in the neighborhood of 1000 plant species total (this includes trees & vines). Nerfer (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

seems a bit weird for a geographical feature to be targeted. Some kind of border water dispute? 78.150.143.213 (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

You just need to be logged in to a Wikipedia account, this reduces drive-by vandalism.Nerfer (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Second-lowest natural non-oceanic depression on Earth

"The seabed in the south reaches 1,023 m (3,356 ft) below sea level, which is the third-lowest natural non-oceanic depression on Earth after Baikal and Tanganyika lakes."

But Tanganyika lake's surface elevation is about 773m. And it is 1470m deep. So the bottom is -697m. While the Kaspian sea's surface elevation is about -27m. And it is 1025m deep. So the bottom is -1052m.

So it is the second-lowest natural non-oceanic depression on Earth for as far as I can tell. ~2026-17566-32 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)