This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"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)
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)
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 of the Han dynasty. "Boundaries of the Han Dynasty"
Intranetusa 02:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
Too much vandalism by anons, so I soft protected the article. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
"...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)
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)
-- Jacktance 05:39, 14 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)
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/picts/han.gif
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)
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)
At current, there are only 2. This makes verifying facts difficult, obviously. 124.183.101.89 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Han Empire is Awesome!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.217.154.72 ( talk) 03:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
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)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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ciouernut\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.20.186 ( talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
Using these notes:
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)
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)
Ah I see, never mind then. You were referring to the proto-Koreans. Intranetusa ( talk) 02:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
this is a great encyclopedia britannica map- its in the images section [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
If you take a look at the printed version of this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
Would someone kindly add the population size to the infobox? It would be useful. Teeninvestor ( talk) 19:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 in the Han Dynasty was very good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.9.119 ( talk) 01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"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)
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)
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 of the Han dynasty. "Boundaries of the Han Dynasty"
Intranetusa 02:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
Too much vandalism by anons, so I soft protected the article. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
"...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)
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)
-- Jacktance 05:39, 14 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)
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/picts/han.gif
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)
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)
At current, there are only 2. This makes verifying facts difficult, obviously. 124.183.101.89 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Han Empire is Awesome!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.217.154.72 ( talk) 03:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
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)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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ciouernut\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.20.186 ( talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
Using these notes:
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)
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)
Ah I see, never mind then. You were referring to the proto-Koreans. Intranetusa ( talk) 02:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
this is a great encyclopedia britannica map- its in the images section [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
If you take a look at the printed version of this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
Would someone kindly add the population size to the infobox? It would be useful. Teeninvestor ( talk) 19:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 in the Han Dynasty was very good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.9.119 ( talk) 01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)