Talk:Han dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nonsense

"at the time. Antoninus Pius died in AD 161. The confusion arises because Marcus Aurelius took as additional names, those of his predecessor as a mark of respect. He is referred to in Chinese history as An Tun (= Antoninus) hence the confusion]--> reached the Chinese capital Luoyang in 166 and was greeted by Emperor Huan."

What has this to do with the Han-Dynasty?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.170.159 (talk • contribs) 2:25, 18 February 2005 (UTC)

This article requires a new Han Dynasty Map

Someone needs to upload a map image of the Han Dynasty at its greatest extent, similar to the one for the Roman empire. Intranetusa 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I just modified the emperor nomenclature to make them more self-explanatory (but not necessarily the right format). BTW what standard shall we use for naming the title of Chinese emperor articles? How about [[Emperor (posthumous name, temple name etc.) of China]] such as Emperor Han Wudi of China? IMO this format is more appealing than just Han Wudi. Another format off the top of my head is "Emperor Wu of Han Dynasty". It shows exactly which emperor of a dynasty but doesn't say he was an Chinese emperor.

The format introduces in Chinese sovereign is the format used in Chinese language, for instance Han Wudi literally means Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty. User:kt2

---

We surely need to break this article into subpages. -wshun 05:43, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sure do, how will we be able to achieve that? kt2 05:45, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Question Regarding Territorial Maps

Why are the Han territorial maps drawn out so strangely? It shows random gray gaps appearing right in the heart of the Han empire's territory. Does this mean that the Han didn't posess those territories? (territories right in the center of their empire too) Also, should the same types of maps be applied to other empires? Such as Rome, Greeks, Persia, etc? Because other territorial maps regarding other civilizations always have a solid shading/shape.

-intranetusa

I have problems with the Han dynasty map also, the "Xinjiang" area was under Han Dynasty control, but not shown in the map. How come? An NPOV map should show the greatest extent of the boundary of the empire not part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.217.139 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the gray gaps you think of as "gaps" are really mountains. very mountanous. -Salamisters1000 67.168.110.252 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Roman Empire map doesn't show gray gaps over the alps or over other mountain ranges or deserts...the map is confusing and is a poor combination of political and geographic elements. Intranetusa (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Added a map image

Added a map image of the Han dynasty. "Boundaries of the Han Dynasty"

Intranetusa 02:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rise of the Phoenix

Just to let you know that an old SNES strategy game, Rise of the Phoenix, was based in some events during the Han Dynasty (divided in four stages you could choose to begin playing: Xiang Yu's Glory, Liu Bang Declares War, The Battle at Guang Wu and The Rise of the Phoenix, starting from year 206. If you ever want to create a list of games based on (at least part of) the Han Dynasty, here is one. -- ReyBrujo 02:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

and all the three kingdoms games, of course.

The only reason I understand the Warring States at all is that it was covered in the Cartoon History of the Universe II. To this day I think of Xiang Yu as "the guy who went AAAAAAAARGH!" and Liu Bang as "the guy who said 'Hey, old pal, how the %$#! you doin'!'" It is an excellent and irreverent treatment of the entire period. --Bluejay Young 02:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Emergence

The leader of the insurgents was Xiang Yu, an outstanding military commander without political expertise, who divided the country into 19 feudal states to his own satisfaction.

- This is a bit confusing. Satisfaction is a broad term. The sentence above could mean that he was just about pleased (satisfied with it) with the split or it could mean that he split up the country to his own end (satisfaction). Would be a lot better if it stated 'to fit is own political aims' or something of that ilk.

Sounds good. Why don't you go ahead and put it in?  :-) --Nlu 16:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

it was also to appease the powerful warlords. --Sumple 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Soft Protection

Too much vandalism by anons, so I soft protected the article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Pinyin Name

Why is the Han dynasty the only dynasty page using the pinyin tone mark in the name? For example, Song Dynasty, not Sòng; Yuan Dynasty, not Yúan. It just seems a bit off to me.

Kelvinc 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been. Wikipedia style is to use the most common English name for titles. No history book or English usage, not even the ones from China, writes in English using diacrtical marks on dynasty names, and no one, not even people from China, will be typing out "Hàn Dynasty" to search for this article. The only result will be a large number of redirects. --Yuje 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rise and fall of Eastern Han Dynasty

"...led the revolt against Wang Mang with the support of the during the reigns..."

That doesn't make sense. With the support of whom? Does anyone know?--Super Pi Maniac 04:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

true history

There is no standing evidence that the han dynasty reached as far out to north korea and pyongyang. Unesco only had a chinese representative during the 1900's, as for korea was busy with vietnam and the recovery of the korean war. This representative lied to Unesco, saying that the Chinese acually pushed the boundries in north korea. There project going on to retrive the history that is true to mankind. I have strong evidence to back up the theory that the Han dynasty did not come into korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.52.13 (talk • contribs)

You have any evidence that the Shi Ji, the Book of Han, the Han Ji, and the Zizhi Tongjian all fabricated the events? --Nlu (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

it seems the whole nation of korea become insane after the economical boom. koreans even boast the whole east Asia's history is all about the koreans. they created the Chinese characters. and the created the first dynasty of China. what a ridicule!

--Jacktance 05:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of that before. Any sources? –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See this: http://static.flickr.com/98/242964036_d8c1dd6707.jpg http://static.flickr.com/97/242964034_6ce949f55d.jpg Koreans are turely becoming more and more aggressive,some of them in order to make their country independent,are trying to fake the history,I'm sure a lot of japanese and chinese are holding the same view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.14.100 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI if any of you want to know the true history of east Asia, this is it. Goguryo or North Korea today, completely rejected Buddhism and Confucianism which is why during the Han dynasty, despite the Chinese claims of usurping the land, there was zero Confucian influence until almost 1000 years later. The Goguryo can be described as the most vicious dynasty of East Asia as it regularly kidnapped and enslaved NE Chinese into the farms of the southern areas.

This slavery continued well into the 1800's although it completely died off in 1910. Up until 1900, this system of enslavement of Buddhist and Confucianists was deep and a part of Korean culture and this is where Japan was born. In the 6th century, slaves starting running away and migrating to the islands known as Japan today. If you haven't noticed that Japan absolutely hates Korea this is the reason, the Japanese are Koreans and Chinese who adopted Confucianism and/or Buddhism and became slaves. They were commonly called "nobi" in Korea which is why you see alot of words rooted in that one korean word which translates into "slave".

Why is this relevant today? the Japanese and to an extent the Chinese go to great lengths to hide and propagate a made up version in order to hide the brutal oppression in Korea of the Confucians and Buddhists. Point of fact, if you look up demographic information of Korea and Japan you will notice opposite proportions of Buddhists and Confucians. Namely you will find over 80% of Japanese following Buddhism, while in Korean it is around 20%. In Korea, Christianity is a much bigger influence as far as religions go.142.150.48.129 (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmmhm. You're Probably Right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.179.183 (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Han Dynasty including half of Korean Peninsula

http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/picts/han.gif

219.77.64.117

You don't need a map to show that the Han Dynasty controlled commanderies in North Korea, which were lost after the Western Jin Dynasty fell apart and retreated south to Nanjing at the beginning of the 4th century. For Koreans, it really shouldn't matter that at one point China had extended its control there. You don't see the Vietnamese complaining, and northern Vietnam (Annam) was dominated by successive Chinese dynasties from the Han Dynasty until the end of the Tang Dynasty. On second thought, ultranationalist Chinese need to get over this reminiscent nostalgia of former conquests. The Vietnamese and Koreans fought for their autonomy from China centuries ago (for the Koreans it ended with Silla unifying the Korean peninsula in the 7th century and effectively cutting the Tang off from their ambitions in conquered Goguryeo, while the Champans had fought the Sui Dynasty, and then the Vietnamese region as a whole became autonomous by the 10th century, during the Five Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms period). However, the Koreans are acting quite rediculous over the whole affair (going as far as to change specific text book info in the schools to extend Korean history into the areas that were once considered myth), and my modern Korea teacher, Ms. Park, is even sort of embarrassed over the whole fiasco. China's aggressive stance is also troubling, though.

Let's keep history strictly as history, gentlemen, while putting modern nationalist issues aside. Remember, this is a wiki article on the Han Dynasty (not a modern issue) and its achievements, which were by far not all in the sphere of its military. --PericlesofAthens 01:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

actually some sources say its the whole korea, and northern vietnam is techinically vietnam proper, considering the fact that champa made up south vietnam, and we DO need a map showing han dynasty at MAXIMUM extent, considering the fact it wasnt the HAN DYNASTY THAT LOST CONTROL OF IT.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Seres and Rome

Under the Silk Road section, this article claims that the Seres were Chinese

The Seres are described as residing between the Scythians and India and are physically described as tall silk traders. Clearly, the Seres are Central Asian culture. Now, I understand that there is a debate today about whether Uyghurs and other central asians are "Chinese", but the Seres are clearly not Han nor were they part of the Han Kingdom.Hoshidoshi 23:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs more sources

At current, there are only 2. This makes verifying facts difficult, obviously. 124.183.101.89 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BCE/CE vs. BC/AD

If you have an opinion on whether this article should use BCE/CE or BC/AD, please discuss here, or alternatively, discuss at the MoS for China-related articles here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(China-related_articles)#Han_Dynasty. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article used BC/AD from the start right up until your recent changes. Following WP:MOS it is clear the version using BC/AD should stay. It is up to you to gain consensus first, not me, as you were making the recent changes to a long-standing version. Please practice what you preach, as in the past you have directed others to seek consensus first when they wanted to change something. John Smith's 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear that either should stay per the MoS; the suggestion that the "original" version should be the gold standard was roundly rejected (and with good reason). What the MoS does say is that a change should not be made without reason. In this case, the reason that has been presented by many is that BC/AD is based on Christian terminology is especially inappropriate for articles on Chinese history, and also apparently resented by a majority of the (commenting) Chinese editors. siafu 20:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Han Empire is Awesome!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.217.154.72 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet the MoS does not support the position that BC/AD cannot be used because of its "Christian terminology" - it says both terms are acceptable. When someone tried to get such as position made policy, it was rejected by a clear majority of wikipedians. So I do not think that argument is valid. Also the MoS does say that if there is no consensus over whether a version has been stable, the first major contribution should be used to decide. Clearly in this and the other linked cases that would be BC/AD. That is why I have not continued to edit articles to use BC/AD whose first major contribution consistently used BCE/CE. John Smith's 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In actuality, all it says on the topic is this:

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted and upper-case—to specify the Gregorian era. Be consistent within the article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE or AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason.

A "substantive reason" can be whatever reason is felt to be justified by the editors; the MoS does not purport to think of any and all reasons and declare if they are valid or invalid. The suggestion of using the first contribution or first major contribution is still nonsense, as the first contribution (what constitutes major?) is often not a very good one-- look back in the histories of some articles and see what the original versions looked like. There is, also, precedent for a group of editors working on a particular topic to change the era names to BCE/CE based on an aversion to Christian terminology (e.g., Iran-related articles), so this argument is as valid as any other. If consensus is, in fact, to be honored in the manner you see it, it follows that lacking a global consensus there is no block to establishing local consensi in either direction. This was the substance of the final decision of the policy you mention, and the ArbCom case that followed it. siafu 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the main MOS does say that "When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor". Now if I'm not allowed to revert changes to the date style without warnings of edit-warring, etc then I want to challenge the two week's supposed "stability". Otherwise I will be forced to revert at least once every day, which obviously is not desirable.

As to there being a "precedent" from changing era names, editors can do that if they wish. But there is also a precedent for people reverting such changes back and telling the other party to gain consensus first. So it can be argued either way. John Smith's 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your quote is about the entirety of the MoS in general, and is meant to prevent just this sort of edit war. I also agree that the edit warring should stop, period. The deference to the "first major contributor" does not, and is not intended to, indicate that changes are not acceptable. Furthermore, my reference to a precedent was just to point out that your claim that argument "is not valid" is erroneous; that point stands. siafu 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the edit warring should stop, but if that is so the changes made in the last week over this matter should be reversed first. John Smith's 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This may be wrong or right, but for the moment it's somewhat irrelevant. If we decide here to go with BC/AD, it will be changed to reflect that. Right now, the article needs to stop flipping as it's getting in the way of actual contribution and vandalism removal. Worse is not better. siafu 00:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's, you seem to have ignored the point that MoS allows for a change if there is a good reason for it. Your only rationale for using BC/AD seems to be that the article had been using it. Under that rationale, nobody should ever edit any articles, really. Furthermore, MoS does not say that the "first major contribution" to the article gets to decide forever and ever whether to use BCE or BC. And I have to assume it doesn't say this for a good reason - because MoS is there to help improve articles, not to keep it at an outdated state forever. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not ignored the point. You raise this every time, and my response is the same every time - there is not a good reason in my view. Either you have a selective memory or you are ignoring what I have had to say. Don't make me have to repeat myself again.

Please do not make silly comments like "Under that rationale, nobody should ever edit any articles, really" - obviously that is not the case. We are talking about style issues where it is not clear which is best for the article, even if you may try to dubiously claim BCE/CE is "better". MOS clearly says that either date term can be used. It's ridiculous for you to keep implying BC/AD is not appropriate for "non-Christian" articles, when as I said that point failed to make policy even by majority and the MOS does not impose such restrictions. John Smith's 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the question at this point is not whether or not you can agree that BCE/CE is better, but rather whether you can at all agree that it is acceptable. In particular-- is BCE/CE somehow worse? It doesn't seem like you care strongly either way, even if you don't agree with the position of those who prefer BCE/CE. Is this the case? siafu 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I can tolerate the use of BCE/CE in wikipedia, I will not support its use simply because some editors are intolerant of BC/AD. John Smith's 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to me to indicate that you accept the forming consensus in favor of BCE/CE on this article, and on Chinese-related articles in general. If you are upset about Hongqigong, you should address that directly with a user RFC here. siafu 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

MoS states that either date can be used, and I believe it is pretty clear that BCE/CE should be the chosen format. It's rather ridiculous that you insist on using BC/AD simply because the article was using it before. Yes, under that rationale, nobody should ever edit any articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a straw man, Hong, as edits on style do not constitute all edits. siafu 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am demonstrating how John Smith's argument is unreasonable and unattenable. I can revise it if you want: under John Smith's rationale, nobody should ever make a stylistic edit to any article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still a straw man argument, Hong. I have never said ANY stylistic edit should not be made subsequently. I said that where there is a dispute over a style that cannot be easily resolved (such as arguing whether American or British English should be used in an article which does not have strong ties to either) the first major contribution should be used. As is my position, I do not think that BC/AD cannot be used simply because the article is non-Christian, so I do not accept the "appropriate" style is clear-cut. Which is why I default to the first major contribution. John Smith's 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but do you accept the use of BCE/CE in Chinese history articles? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to the point where they are to be forcibly changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE as you have been doing this month. John Smith's 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And why is that? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So your only objection is to HongQiGong's recent behavior? siafu 00:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that he accepts BCE/CE, but not if somebody actually wants to edit Chinese history articles to use it. Seems like he is opposing majority preference just for the sake of opposing it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, more accurately, his annoyance at your ham-fisted and non-consensual approach is causing him to dig his heels in. This dispute is not one-sided, HongQiGong. siafu 04:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So he's opposing me because he's annoyed at me? That's an even worse reason. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Hong, it is not about annoyance. It is about your behaviour. I can disapprove of what you do without being "annoyed". Siafu, it isn't just about what Hong has done. It is also because I honestly do not believe in unilateral changes. I do have a personal preference for BC/AD that I have mentioned in the past elsewhere, but no longer to the point where articles that started out with BCE/CE are to be changed over without discussion. So I feel the same way about the reverse situation. John Smith's 10:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, so like I said, you're opposing my edit for the sake of opposing my edit. Or you want to maintain the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Both are rather weak reasons to want to keep BC/AD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're admitting to hypocricy in your last two reversion on "History of Japan", or that you reverted only because I made the changes? John Smith's 15:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this discussion concerns Han Dynasty. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong, if you're going to accuse me of editing on a personal basis then how you act on other articles were are in dispute over is also relevant. I am willing to state that I do not edit on a personal basis. John Smith's 16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "editing on a personal basis"? What I've been trying to say is here is that you don't have a good reason for opposing the use of BCE/CE. Your only reason seems to be to maintain the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You said "you're opposing my edit for the sake of opposing my edit" - that implied it was personal. I am not maintaining the status-quo for the sake of it, as I have said several times - do I need to say it 10 times before you accept that? And your reason because BC/AD is "Christian" is not a good reason to change it in my view. John Smith's 17:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's - that you oppose my edit for the reason that my reason is not good enough is the same thing as wanting to maintain the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Do you have a reason to actually keep BC/AD? From what I can tell, the only reason you have to keep BC/AD is that it had been used. That's a very weak reason to keep it. That's why I'm saying you want to keep the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting what I said. I pointed out that I do not thing your reason for introducing BCE/CE is good enough - I never said that was why I opposed your changes. I also said that I do not merely want to keep BC/AD just because it has been used. I have said more than once (and I find it interesting I have to repeat myself time and time again) that I have a personal preference towards using BC/AD in articles if possible, though I will not force it on articles where BCE/CE have been used from the first major contrib (unless there is a good reason). John Smith's 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then why do you oppose my changes? And why do you want to keep the status quo? John Smith's, you have never given a good reason for opposing BCE/CE, you've only been giving us a bunch of circular logic and pointless rationale. There's no reason why any of the Chinese history articles should not be changed to BCE/CE despite the fact that some of them had been using BC/AD. I think this article should be changed to use BCE/CE because it is not Christian-related. So the question here is - why keep BC/AD? Please answer this question for us. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself again. Your argument that articles should be changed because of the "Christian" nature of BC/AD doesn't hold any water in my view. Rather than asking me the same question over and over, you should come up with a decent argument yourself. The fact you keep asking me the same question suggests you're trying to avoid the weakness of your own position. John Smith's 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my reason for using BCE/CE is that this article is not Christian-related. Do you have a more convincing reason to keep BC/AD? You have only cited that it is because the article had been using BC/AD before. So in other words, you want to keep the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong, as I said, I am not going to repeat myself over and over when you ask the same question. John Smith's 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we can all safely conclude now that you are maintaining status quo for status quo's sake. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that would be putting words in my mouth and distorting what I have said. John Smith's 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, give us a reason why you would oppose my edit other than that it was using BC/AD before. Because that seems to be your only reason. And if so, then yes, you are maintaining the status quo for the sake of status quo. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong Qi Gong, if you are to argue for change on this point, you have to argue for a positive reason other than your personal preference. You are right to say BC was originally a Christian designation, but it has been adopted worldwide amongst most groups, and in almost all contexts cannot truthfully be said to be a statement of the user's or writer's faith. BCE is a Jewish designation, which has, as of date, gained only little currency among the worldwide general public. It is not self-evident that an article on the Han Dynasty should change to a Jewish style with much less currency than the existing alternative that it uses. Foula 09:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree that BCE is a "Jewish designation", as it does not make direct reference to any religious events or figures. My preference for BCE/CE is not just "personal", it is a logical step to improving the article, as it is not a Christian-related article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The earliest example of using "BCE" cited in the Common Era article is a Jewish publication. That article makes it clear that it is a Jewish designation in derivation, coming from a Jewish desire to deliberately avoid referring to Christ. You will also struggle to find any modern-day Jewish publication anywhere in the world that does not use BCE - the same can't be said of any other major grouping of peoples. How this makes it anything other than a Jewish designation, I don't know. As far as it not making direct reference to any religious event, it quite patently does - the dating comes from the presumed birth year of Jesus! Foula 15:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, BCE/CE does not make any direct reference to any religious events or religious figures. Furthermore, BCE/CE is used when people want to avoid religious connotations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you have identified a significant part of the problem. BCE/CE is used, by some, in order to avoid religious connotations. The problem is that by avoiding the common, well-established usage, this is making a statement to those who see no problem with using BC/AD that there is something wrong with it. That statement is distracting. It is a statement that will not, and certainly is not, universally welcomed, and it has nothing to do with the history of the Han Dynasty.

To be honest with you, if I were brought up using BCE notation all the time, and almost everyone in the English-speaking world was okay with it, I can't see I'd have a problem with it. Certainly you'd be able to use BCE notation without risking making that unwelcome statement I refer to above, and to me I don't care whether a particular designation is Christian or Jewish.

Yet this is not the world we live in. It is a fact that BC notation is the most common usage worldwide by a long way. It is also a fact that using BCE notation has caused consternation among many, and using it is seen as making some sort of statement. You should not ignore this: many people see BCE notation as being offputting (through lack of familiarity), unneutral, political correctness gone too far, or even find it offensive. In numerical terms, that grouping of people is far greater than those put off by BC notation.

In an ideal world, we would not have to pick sides, but we do not live in an ideal world. BC notation has a lot going for it just looking at the numbers, something accepted by many whose personal preference is to use BCE notation.

I fear we are not going to agree, however much we continue to debate the point. There is insufficient support for you to claim a consensus to change things to BCE. It's okay for you to be unhappy with that. On the other hand, John Smith's finds insufficient support for him to claim a consensus to change things to BC. Be happy with that. So there are no absolute winners or losers here, and you can both continue to read and edit Wikipedia knowing that at least some articles are formatted in your preferred styles. Foula 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think we are all losers here, and you misrepresent the actuality of what happened, Foula. We have essentially allowed one user to deny consensus because of a personal grudge against the behavior of another. We do not need unanimity to obtain consensus; the solution/decision/whatever simply has to be acceptable to the minority in disagreement in order for consensus to be achieved. John Smith's has said multiple times that he does not have a problem with articles using BCE/CE, even though he doesn't prefer it. So, in short, we were within inches of a resolution, and have been derailed by petty disagreement by HongQiGong and John Smith's. I cannot in any fashion see this as anything but a defeat for all parties involved. siafu 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Map from Roman Republic

I was looking at this map on the Roman Republic page and saw the Han Dynasty appeared on in, but that the image wasn't used on that page. Perhaps it could be? It says it shows the world in about 200 BC for context, so maybe in the Emergence section.--Patrick Ѻ 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, this one.--Patrick Ѻ 21:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What is Goguryeo doing in a map of 87 BCE?

I think it is generally agreed on that the kingdom of Goguryeo was founded in 37 BCE. How come a map of 87 BCE shows Goguryeo inside Han's territory? Somehow it doesn't seem alright. It might even mislead viewers to think that Goguryeo started as a tributary of the Han Empire. (Although that might theoretically be possible, I haven't heard of any work that suggests so.) Any opinions? Yongjik 06:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Post the picture of the map here. I don't see it. Korsentry 04:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Foreign Trade

I've noticed a general lack of detail regarding what was traded between China and the countries it traded with. What did the people during the Han Dynasty sell? What did they want in return for their goods? Information like that would help to round out the article. Raitari (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, a lot of information is needed to "round out" the article. I plan on eventually doing to this article what I've already done for the Tang Dynasty, Song Dynasty, and Ming Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ciouernut\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.20.186 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Confucianism?

If it's not a religion, why should it be listed as a religion in the infobox? Yes, Confucianism was a major ideology in the Han dynasty, and that's why it should be discussed in the content of the article. But listing it as a religion would be like listing the Enlightenment or Democracy as a religion. Doesn't make sense. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying that Buddhism or Taoism isn't a religion isn't either. it's a way of life. -Salamisters1000 67.168.110.252 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

But Buddhism and Daoism are religions...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

yes daoism has gods in it and confuciounism does not, i think theres a seperate thing for state philosophy.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Han Confucianism as synthesized by Dong Zhongshu involved metaphysics and the cosmologies of five phases and yin-yang to explain how the imperial system fit into the natural order of the universe, but I would refrain from calling the system of ethics known as Confucianism a religion, even if Confucius himself was given a place in Chinese ancestor worship! But that is unrelated to his sociopolitical philosophy.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

Just to let it be known, this article is going to look VERY different by the end of this summer, perhaps even by the end of July. If no one has any objections, I plan on rewriting the entire thing, starting from a clean slate. If you are unfamiliar, I'm the guy who brought Tang Dynasty, Song Dynasty, and Ming Dynasty up to featured article status. I'm compiling an enormous amount of resources and notes here at my sandbox. Check it out for the info I plan on using to reconstruct this entire article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

):):) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.189.213 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For more notes that I will be using, refer to Sandbox2 and Sandbox3.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Long time admirer of your work. Keep up the good work, sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.45.192 (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

just wondering if you deleted any important information can you send it to me and ill save it.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted information? So far nothing has been deleted, at least to my knowledge.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

new map please

han dynasty at its maximum extent controlled xinjian, vietnam, military posts in central asia, and one military post in persia(the persian king let them set it up), korea, and part of the great wall from that time period was found all the way on mongolias northern border, plus there wer chinese military outposts in outer mongolia, and inner mongolia was atleast temporarily under its control.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can provide new good looking SVG maps (see here) if you provide me trustable source. You can contact me to get my mail if need. Yug (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

i have a book, and theres another article on wikipedia that describes the military outposts, but i need to find the book first.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You just wrote that you have the book then you wrote you need to find the book first? If your English is not good enough or lying to us then you should not be discuss here--Korsentry 02:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Can Korea claim Han Dynasty as part of Korean history ?

Since China use the term "territorial" aspect when describing past states or country being part of Chinese history such as Goguryeo, Balhae, Mongolia, Tibet etc.. can Korea also have right to claim Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty, Yuan Dynasty and Qing Dynasty as part of larger picture of Korean history? Considering all of them held territory at Korean peninsula. Discuss Korsentry 04:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it cannot its chinese history. There wasn't really a "korean state" until about 1500 and there was no "korean language" until 1950. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's very ignorant of you,since when Han Dynasty is Chinese history when today's Chinese don't speak the Han Dynasty language? Did Mandarin spoken during Han Dynasty? China claimed ancient Korean states like Gojoseon, Goguryo, Buyeo & Balhae just because they occupied todays' Chinese territories, therefore Korea can claimed some Chinese states considering they held their territories in Korean peninsula. Isn't this is fair?--Korsentry 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I think he meant that there was no unified Korean state. We had states here and there, they weren't unified, unlike the Han. There is no sense of ignorance whatsoever, it is one interpretation. There was no "Korean state", there was Silla, Taebong, Goguryeo, etc, but no unified state. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it sounds just as stupid, since there were no "Koreans" at this point either, only proto-Korean people who had no sense of "Korean" identity.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you admit it's stupid but not stupid when Chinese claim other history? --Korsentry 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what we think; it matters what scholarly secondary sources have to say on the matter. If they don't have anything to say, then Wikipedia is no place for this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

So you think when ever China claims it's coming from scholarly POV but how about China's claim on Goguryeo and Balhae as Chinese? Is this another scholarly prospective too? --Korsentry 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, Goguryeo periodically raided the Han Dynasty settlements at Lelang Commandery; they were anything BUT Han Chinese. Yet they weren't "Korean" either. Get it? Now leave, or continue this discussion at an opinionated blog somewhere else, since you are presenting your own view and not that of a credible source (Wikipedia is no place for this discussion, consider it terminated).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No that's irrelevant, I was referring to China [PRC] claiming on other ancient people's history just because they once occupied today's China territory, therefore Korea can do the same, technically speaking Han Dynasty isn't exclusive to Chinese, it can be part of many country as part of their history. And that's fair considering China is now keep on claiming on many cultures that existed inside of today's China boarder. If you think my point was waste of time then speak out to your government to follow the code. --Korsentry 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak for nor do I care for the modern PRC claims about "owning" early Korean history; that's an anachronistic interpretation and a purely political statement by the CCP that has nothing to do with the Han Dynasty article on Wikipedia. You do realize, though, that a sizeable Korean minority existed in China for two millenniums? In that case, yes, Koreans can be considered an ethnic minority within ancient China and the modern PRC, but for them to say that they own the early history of the Korean Peninsula is something different altogether, and would be false, considering that the four "commanderies" set up by Han in what is now North Korea were but tiny, sparse settlements with some far-flung gentry who enjoyed luxury items, traded with local Koreans and sometimes utilized their labor, influenced Korean grave and tomb traditions (such as construction of grave pits and types of grave goods), and on occasion fought with raiding Koreans. That hardly sounds like they "owned" Korean history, doesn't it? Now can we end this tiresome conversation?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a military campaign history of the Han dynasty, but its not very well incorporated into the main text; pericles and others , can you help me incorporate it into main text, help would be very appreciated. Teeninvestor (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you realize that since June of this year I have been planning to not only rewrite this entire article, but to create no less than 5 different branch articles.

• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Han Dynasty
• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for History of the Han Dynasty
• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Society and culture of the Han Dynasty
• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Government of the Han Dynasty
• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Economics of the Han Dynasty
• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Science and technology of the Han Dynasty

Using these notes:

• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox2
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox3
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox4
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox5
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox6
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Cambridge1
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Cambridge2
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Cambridge3

Given that I've been busy all Fall with school, I finally have time to sit down and commit time to writing these articles which I will nominate as Featured Articles like I have done for Tang Dynasty, Song Dynasty, and Ming Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on notes for Emperor Ling of Han at the moment, but once I'm done with that and a few other things, I plan on creating my draft for History of the Han Dynasty first. As for military campaigns, look to the notes in the links I've posted above. I have several good sources which provide in-depth coverage of Han military campaigns.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that i added a campaign history so at least there would be something before you revamp the article. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, more available information is always better, especially if there is a wealth of different sources to draw upon. Your work is commendable.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I love your article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Have you considered adding pictures? There should be plenty in Wikimedia Commons. Do take the time to browse through some pictures for the Roman Empire and Han China. Take care, and Happy New Years!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, reread what I said in full, and in my remarks just below that. I wasn't talking about the commandery colonists from China. Obviously they were Han Chinese. I'm talking about the native Korean peoples who already inhabited the peninsula before Han Chinese settlers set foot there, and the Korean peoples who remained on the peninsula and interacted with the Han Chinese settlers. These are two very distinct peoples were are talking about.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, never mind then. You were referring to the proto-Koreans. Intranetusa (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So, Proto-Koreans aren't Korean??? Who gives Chinese full exclusive rights to claim on Han Dynasty when it was empire, and many of Han Dynasty ruling classes weren't exactly Han Chinese either. Hypocrisy or just biased?--Korsentry 06:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

korsentry's comments

funny because i doubt anyone spoke modern korean during chinese han dynasty.... and goguryeo was a tributary to the han dynasty btw.Paraster (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's your views on my objection then Korea can claim on Han Dynasty since ancient Korean states were tributary states to Han Dynasty. Since when Han Dynasty became exclusive Chinese history? We are referring to "History" right? not nationality? Given China have some rights to claim Goguryeo then Korea have some rights to claim Han Dynasty considering Han Dynasty held territory inside of modern Korea. Take it or leave is not very scholastic, we must take "logic" when it comes to "History". --Korsentry 07:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Again, what is the point of this argument; it has nothing to do with improving the current Han Dynasty page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just drop it, this conversation is worthless, not even worth five cents. We could certainly be discussing more important things, like dates in which Goguryeo delivered tribute items to the Han court or events when Goguryeo launched raids into Han's Lelang Commandery (especially during the chaos caused by the rebellion against Wang Mang). See? By picking little pointless fights with KoreanSentry, you're ignoring things that actually matter.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Korsentri is pointing out the fabrication of the history by chinese government. Korsentri was talking to chinese people who agree on fabrication of the history. Athens is also right that it's irrelevant to this article, but Korsentri just tried to speak to chinese people by this page. wikipedia is un realiable amateur source. Korsentri can talk his own issue in here and pericles of athens can say his own issue too, so pericles of athens shouldn't say to koreansentry "dont talk about your own issue here because that's irrelevant". wikipedia isn't even reliable source of information so everybody talk something they wanna talk if it's relevant or not to article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

History of the Han Dynasty

As promised, I have at least one of the branch articles for this article done, and she is a beauty: History of the Han Dynasty. Glad to be of service.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The map sucks real bad, why all dots not connected? encylopedia britiannica has better images than that...Dentisn (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

im talking about the one on history of han dynasty not this one.Dentisn (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

and the ributary vassal state on the map in the tarim basin are almost always gathered into a single protectorate on other reliable source maps.Dentisn (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, do you mind providing us here with an external link to these encyclopedia britannica maps? By the way, the map you are speaking of is a Featured Image on Wikipedia (for a reason, it is well-sourced), whereas the lead map in this article, Han Dynasty, doesn't even acknowledge any scholarly sources that were possibly used to create it. I'm no expert on cartography, but my first guess about the "dots" would be that not all areas under Han control were truly interconnected and not all areas in between were fully secured; for example, much of the south was undeveloped wilderness with only scattered Han settlements surrounded by tribal and nomadic Dependent States. It was only in the Eastern Han that the south became more developed, with about ten million emigrants traveling from the war-raved north (especially after the Yellow River shifted course) to the fertile promises of the south. As for the Tarim Basin and accuracy, if that is truly a problem, then maybe you could point out specific sources and page numbers and then upload a better map? So far, these are the best available.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

this is a great encyclopedia britannica map- its in the images section[1]

The whole "Korea" thing

I have recently rewritten this article. I briefly mentioned Han's role in Korea; more can be found at History of the Han Dynasty (or even at my User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox in a very brilliant journal article by Hyung Il Pai: Culture Contact and Culture Change: The Korean Peninsula and Its Relations with the Han Dynasty Commandery of Lelang). For the sake of size constraints, I would ask that anonymous IPs and editors here please do not add anything extra to the history section. That would include naionalistic rantings and prolonged discussions about Han's Korean commanderies (which would be the job of another article, minus the "naionalistic rantings" part). Thank you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishijima reference

What is the reference "Nishijima (1986)" that is used throughout the article? I don't see an author of that name listed in the References section. There is also an apparent misspelling in the reference cites, Nishijimia, but that isn't listed either, nor I can find author name which is similar. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake; I simply forgot to add the source to the references section. I also fixed the typo "Nishijimia" to "Nishijima".--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

BCE/CE Vandalism

I reverted the BCE/CE vandalism someone put into this article to push their own political POV. The manual of style clearly states that it should be left in the form it was originally, which is BC/AD. K Thanks. 76.77.225.169 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• A) I don't like being called a "vandal" for my edits, especially after I just bumped this article up to GA status today (check the banners at the top of this page) and
• B) If you haven't noticed I have completely rewritten this article, which now conforms to the dating method (BCE/CE) in five other articles: Economy of the Han Dynasty, Government of the Han Dynasty, History of the Han Dynasty, Science and technology of the Han Dynasty, and Society and culture of the Han Dynasty. I assure you, I have no strong POV against BC/AD; when I rewrote this article, I simply wanted to have a universal, across the board same dating system that all Han articles now use. Is this a serious problem with you?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Your POV is insulting. You broke consensus. Guess I cannot do anything about it though because wikipidea often molds the rules to fit the PTB and the situation. And here's my four stupid tildes. 76.77.225.169 (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You sound completely flustered over nothing, which leads one to assume your outrage is less than authentic. In any case, keep in mind that when you argue for a change in the dating method for this article, you are now arguing for dating method changes in six different but related articles involving Han, five of them summarized in this main article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer BC/AD, which is more widely understood and clearer to the reader than the very similar CE/BCE. However I suppose unity within the article series is a point to be taken into account. Xandar 21:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the date (on the template) to BC/AD, mainly because the BCE and CE on the template left the article with broken red categories, and I thought we probably don't want that. However, if BCE and CE is more suitable, then adjust it according to that.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you're fine.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

While the current state of the article is impressive, the BC/AD format of the article should not have been changed as major additions or improvements are not a good enough reason for changing conventions such as spelling or dating (in order to encourage cooperation and prevent unconstructive bickering). Other Han articles are no more a rason than other Chinese history ones (that use the BC convention)--AssegaiAli (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted edits by AssegaiAli's sockpuppet, User:Mountwolseley.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article using the unbelievably awkward BCE etc.. after so much discussion above and a few sections higher up? Periclesofathens has bent the rules to suit himself--212.74.26.3 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Article size

Just for the record, as of now, the article's prose size (i.e. main body of text) has roughly 8,800 words and 55.8 KB (i.e. that includes characters with spaces in between). I found this by copying and pasting the prose into Microsoft Word. WP:SIZE says that ideally an article shouldn't be much bigger than 50 KB, but that no article should exceed 100 KB (anything more is intolerable according to Wiki standards of length). Given that this article is 55.8 KB, I'd say it is within very safe size limits.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured status!

Pop open a bottle of champagne, it's Featured!

Woo-hoo! Thanks to all who helped me lift this article to Featured Article status! That includes several members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I couldn't have done it without you guys. Cheers!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

N-dash code

Scapler, why do you prefer that the text contain the "&" + "ndash;" code instead of the n-dash? Use of the actual character reduces the size of the file by a perhaps nonnegligible amount. Jacob (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather have a consistent use of one over the other rather than a mix of the two. Jacob, if you are going to change some of the "&" ashes into n-dashes, then change all of them at once! Don't just change some of them; that's awkward. Do one large edit to the entire article if you must. But I don't want patches here and there where one is used and then other areas where the opposite is used.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed two sections this afternoon (when a little time was available), and then I came back a couple of hours later (when more time was available) and made the entire text consistent by finishing changing them all. Then Scapler reverted the last set of changes, returning the article to the state of inconsistency that you deplore. Jacob (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted consensus before you changed it all. If Pericles is fine with it, I will change it back. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Now I see what happened. Thank you for clarifying, Jacob.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another FA candidate

Economy of the Han Dynasty recently won its nomination to become a Featured Article. At the moment, Government of the Han Dynasty is a featured article candidate. If anyone wants to copyedit or review the article, now would be the time. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this article on today's front page - well done everyone. :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Chanyu is preferable to Shanyu

I will go through the article and change the title 'Shanyu' to 'Chanyu' throughout (except in quotes). The reason is that the Guangyun, a dictionary compiled in 601 CE by Lu Fayan, and completed during the Song dynasty, gives three readings for the first character of this title [i.e. Chanyu]: dan, chan, and shan. The form chan is specifically mentioned as being used in the Xiongnu title Chanyu. The reading shan is used as a place or family name; the reading dan means 'single' or 'alone.' Also see, for example: "Early Chinese Settlement Policies towards the Nomads." Pan Yihong. Asia Major, 3rd series, Vol. V, Part 2, (1992), p. 42, n. 2; Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese and Early Mandarin, p. 48. (1991). Edwin G. Pulleyblank. UBC Press. Vancouver; Indo-Scythian Studies being Khotanese Texts Volume VII, p. 32. H. W. Bailey. Cambridge University Press. John Hill (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you John, for observing my suggestion at Talk:History of the Han Dynasty that "chanyu" should be used throughout if it is to be preferred over "shanyu" in any article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of WikiProject Korea banner

Recently, User:Historiographer removed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea banner from this article talk page and other Han Dynasty article talk pages. This choice was made because: "Han was just occupied northern part of Korean peninsula, not whole of Korea." That is true, but partial occupation of the Korean peninsula for centuries (with some interruptions, such as during Wang Mang's reign) should still be considered a significant historic event in Korea's history. Also, by extension of the same logic, the banners for Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam should be removed, because the Han Dynasty's dominion did not extend over the whole of Central Asia (only the easternmost portion) or the whole of Vietnam (only the northern portion). In fact, the Han Dynasty did not extend over the whole of what is now modern-day China! Should we then get rid of the banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject China? No. Of course not. I have reverted Historiographer's edits for these reasons.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So did rest of Korean articles, all contains China and Japan, even Russia banners. I think Koreans also have equal right to add their research if Chinese can edit Korean/Japanese articles. This is wikipedia not communist enforced websites.--Korsentry 06:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

The Chinese empire never extended as far as Japan; that was a strange inclusion on your part. To answer your question, yes, an article like Goguryeo has both Korean and Chinese talk-page banners, because that country existed within what is now northeastern China and North Korea. Anyway, this conversation is terminated, because it has nothing to do with improving the article for Han Dynasty, the one and only purpose of this talk page. Remember, Wikipedia is not a chat forum. Good-bye.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The location of Four Commanderies of Han is disputed, and Han Dynasty is not typically within the scope of Korean history. I can't understand why you insist WPKOREA banner.--Jyusin (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The exact boundaries are disputed by some North Korean and South Korean scholars, but it is a fact of archaeological discovery that Han tombs and settlements have been unearthed at what is now Pyongyang, and the Han material culture clearly had an impact on the local Korean population who adopted some Han technologies such as iron farming tools and began copying Han-style grave and tomb design and funerary goods placed in tombs. Read Huang Il Pai's "Culture Contact and Culture Change: The Korean Peninsula and Its Relations with the Han Dynasty Commandery of Lelang" in World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 3, Archaeology of Empires (Feb., 1992), pp. 306-319. It explains the scholarly debate and the archaeological sites and intercultural exchanges between Han people and local Korean peoples who surrounded the rather sparse and scattered Han settlements.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your point of view is biased.(see Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) It is not necessarily a fact, but just a hypothesis. There is no historical text that proves it. Of course, we can surmise that cultural exchange, but it is not just confined to Han Dynasty. All dynasties in Chinese history are related to Korean history in terms of cultural exchange.--Jyusin (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a hypothesis that Han-dynasty graves and tombs have been unearthed at Pyongyang. A hypothesis is a statement one seeks to prove or disprove with an experiment to gain facts. The existence of Han-dynasty graves and tombs at Pyongyang is a fact, and so is the existence of other Han grave sites throughout North Korea, and if you refuse to acknowledge a fact, then I don't really see how this conversation is worth my time. Especially since you readily assume that I am somehow biased, even though I have just shared an academic source with you that explicitly states my case. As for the Northeast Project, that's a laugh. I'm not a Chinese national, nor do I trust much of PRC scholarship, since their scholars are put in an academic stranglehold by the government on what they can and cannot say or even pursue. As for cultural exchange between China and Korea during later periods, I don't see how this has any relevance to the talk page for improving the article on Han Dynasty. Since it doesn't, I will consider this conversation to be over. Good-bye.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry there was no report of existence of Han Dynasty tombs inside of modern Korean peninsula but citing of Han Dynasty objects, Korean scholars concluded these excavated tombs in Pyongyang and North Korea weren't Han Dynasty tombs. And the regions where supposed four commanderies are still disputed.--KSentry(talk) 07:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a leap in your logic. Modern border is not justified as historical correlation. Although Four Commanderies of Han are clearly part of Han, Commanderies are not representative of the whole of Korea. Thus, this banner is clearly overlap outcome.--Historiographer (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Already, Talk:Four Commanderies of Han have Wikiproject China and Korea banner. Thus, It have to regarded as unnecessary overlap. Vietnam also the same, it has China and vietnam banner in Talk:First Chinese domination.

In addition, Compared with Talk:Roman Empire, this do not include tag of the other of country's that.--Historiographer (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Printed Version looks horrible

If you take a look at the printed version of this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Book&bookcmd=rendering&return_to=Han+Dynasty&collection_id=0247235254573eac ), you can see that it needs quite a bit of work. There are two pages of whitespace before any content begins, and the Infobox table is formatted awkwardly and is cut right before the second page. In addition, the multiple image groups render incorrectly (stacked and breaking text) and the History of China sidebar takes up a lot of unnecissary space. I'm not sure how much of this is due to problems with the renderer versus non-standard coding, but I would reccommend touching up the page, and prehaps placing the History of China sidebar inside Template:Hide_in_print markers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouge568 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I was just reading this article, and there are a couple words in the Fall of Han section that have been replaced with the word 'pie'. I'm not entirely sure what the original words were, but,yeah, if someone more knowledgeable could fix this. Thanks 24.126.72.81 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. 72.65.194.221 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Population in infobox

Would someone kindly add the population size to the infobox? It would be useful.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of hyphens

See Webster's Standard American Style Manual (1985, p. 118), for instance: "Inclusive numbers separated by an en dash are not used in combination with the words from or between, as in 'from 1955-60' or 'between 1970-90.' Instead, phrases like these are written as 'from 1955 to 1960' or 'between 1970 and 1990.'" Rhyme3 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, but oddly enough, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Longer periods explicitly states that "en" dashes should be used for all year ranges. This is something which no doubt will be brought up in a Featured Article Review if the "en" dashes are not kept.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

For now, however, I've decided to follow Webster's standard—until someone complains that it doesn't match the guidelines set forth in WP:MOS.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you're interested, here's what the Chicago Manuel of Style (1993, p. 187) has to say: "...from 1968 to 1972 (never from 1968-72)...between 1968 and 1970 (never between 1968-70)". Rhyme3 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs to show empire size

This page needs to at least show the expanse of the empire in the infobox. Check out the Roman Empire page to see how they added the Area. This page has the area of the Han Dynasty along with sources. --Emb1995 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

money

money in the Han Dynasty was very good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.9.119 (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

??? And? ...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A choice needs to be made: AD/BC or CE/BCE?

This article is riddled with a mixture of both era notations, which is against the WP:ERA guideline which suggests using one or the other, not a mixture. I haven't looked much into the editing history of the era notations in this article yet, but I just wanted to introduce this subject on the talk page first so we can flesh out our opinions on how to resolve this without getting into an edit war. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 22:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This page wasn't initially created by me, but I did bring it along with several related articles up to featured status. In fact, it is now a featured topic on English Wikipedia. All the articles in the topic use the BCE/CE dating system. This article is simply conforming with the other articles within the larger featured topic. I also virtually rewrote the entire article, almost word for word. A look at the earliest history is necessary, though, to establish an argument for converting everything to BC/AD. I'm not averse to this dating system or opposed to a transfer, it's just that it's a pain in the neck at this point to change everything!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Living descendants today?

Was the Han Dynasty completely extinguished? Are there living descendants of the dynasty nowadays? And what about of other Chinese dynasties? --Lecen (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No one? --Lecen (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are only known descendants of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. I'm sure millions of people could try and claim they are descendants of the line of Han emperors, considering how far back in history it is. Sort of like how a modern European could claim loose descent from Julius Caesar and what not. It's really not important in regards to the substance of this article, though. As for the Qing Dynasty, this idea seems far more relevant. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

there are known descendants of the ming emperors.Rajmaan (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Later Han Dynasty"

The usage of Later Han Dynasty is up for discussion, see Talk:Later Han dynasty (Five Dynasties) -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Han dynasty/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article has good pictures and some good information. However, there is not enough well-referenced information to make it to B class at this time. --Danaman5 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 14:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Flag

I found a flag and drew it, then uploaded it. It's File:Han Chinese Flag.png. I think it's official. Shikku27316 (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, barring the fact that you used the wrong font in replicating the flag, we don't have any evidence that this design was the one they used two thousand years ago. _dk (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I just saw it on a search, and it was taken in China, around other flags, so I figured it may mean something. Even if it's just an ethnic flag. Shikku27316 (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Dynasty or empire

A small problem in terminology: in the infobox, the caption on the map refers to it as the Han Dynasty. Strictly speaking, a dynasty consists of a number of rulers, that is people, whereas a map shows the empire they ruled. So it seems to me the caption should be changed to Han Empire, both here and in the hook that's now in the queue to appear as a DYK. I could change it here, but not in the queue, since I'm not an admin. Also, in the DYK hook, "pictured" should be changed to "shown", since a map isn't a picture. Hope this helps. Awien (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The first time I've heard of "Han Empire"... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Nobody says that a dynasty should have a number of rulers ruling all at once. During the Han Dynasty, you had Liu Bang, who more or less started this period. Power then passed on to his descendants, including Liu Bei, and the Han Dynasty went on to become one of the longest-lived dynasties in Chinese history. I hope I've got my stuff right. :P ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I meant that a dynasty consists of a series of rulers, one after the other. But a map shows the realm/empire/lands/? over which the dynasty ruled, not the dynasty as such. Does that make more sense? Awien (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw, when nobody seemed to be around, I asked an admin, Crisco1492, what he thought about tweaking the DYK hook. I wasn't trying to go over people's heads, it was just that time's short. Awien (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just checked: the description of the actual map in question calls it "Han Dynasty empire 87 BC". Awien (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's another map that calls it an empire: [2] Awien (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So specifically, the tweak I'm suggesting for the hook is: ... that the Han Dynasty (empire shown) decided to intervene in a war between Minyue and Eastern Ou because of a belief in the Son of Heaven's mandate as emperor, a Chinese political and philosophical concept?

And after all, an emperor rules over an empire, doesn't he? Awien (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Since time is so short, I've gone ahead and changed the caption. If there are no objections, that will allow an admin to change the hook. Best, Awien (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Smaller new kingdoms or commanderies?

I have corrected the sentence "[...]limiting the size and power of these kingdoms and dividing them into smaller ones new commanderies." to say "into smaller new commanderies" since the previous phrasing was clearly incorrect, and it seemed the intent was to say "new commanderies". However, I have no familiarity with the subject, and it is plausible that what was meant was "smaller new kingdoms", and that there is a significant difference between kingdoms and commanderies. I wanted to bring this to the attention of anyone knowledgeable about the subject so that they may correct the information as appropriate.64.201.173.145 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, apparently some little jerkoff vandalized the page a while ago by removing the word "or" between the two phrases. I just rewrote the last part of the sentence entirely by referring back to Loewe (1986) for clarification. It reads much better than it did before, actually.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)