This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Three Kingdoms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 11, 2013, December 11, 2014, December 11, 2015, and December 11, 2016. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Lolhah123456789.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The lead section should be slashed in half. I think it's safe to add it even now. -- Jia ng 19:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does anybody have any good (or any) sources for the population of china during the Three Kingdoms period? From the few sources I have, the population is reported to have decreased from around 56 million in the Eastern Han dynasty to around 16 million in the Western Jin dynasty. However this conflicts with the numbers listed in Population subsection of the Tripartite of China section (I don't think there's a big population increase from the Three Kingdoms to Western Jin).
The fall in recorded population reflects a decline in administrative effectiveness - the ability to count people - more than any real drop in population.
Entenman (
talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)entenman
Contention about the accuracy of the Han and Jin population census should be listed here with the dispute centered about the work of Bielenstein stating that population count only included those who are taxable, and assuming that the taxable population represented only 30% of the entire population counted, when other empirical evidence have proven this to be untrue. I would first like to see the passage from Bielenstein presenting the case where the Jin measurements for population is incorrect and how it defers from the Han methods of measurements, and what empirical method Bielenstein used to come to such a conclusion. We can start the investigation here, please include a short and accurate summary of Bielenstein arguments or the complete summary on my talk page as that would be most helpful, since I do not possess the source material to Bielenstein's work myself.
Almaz89 (
talk) 14:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Almaz89 ( talk) 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I must revert you purely per procedure: You did not cite your book specifically enough as opposed to the sourced paragraphs you were trying to replace: Di Cosmo's book here is a compilation of essays and you didn't even name the essay you cited, let alone the page numbers that snuge purveyor ( talk · contribs) duly provided in his edit. Without going into the population argument itself, what I am seeing is, at best, a cherry-picking of the source that aligns with your views and throwing other the others; and at worst your original interpretation of primary sources against those of established academia. We at Wikipedia hold verifiability as one of our guiding principles, so no matter how right you think you are or how ludicrous Bielenstein was, we simply cannot take your word against the scholars -- not until you adequately provide your own source that specifically says Bielenstein and the others who support him were wrong. _dk ( talk) 20:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
"In terms of manpower, the Wei was by far the largest, retaining more than 660,000 households and 4,400,000 people within its borders. Shu had a population of 1,940,000, and Wu 2,300,000. Thus, Wei had more than 58% of the population and around 40% of territory. With these resources, it is estimated that it could raise an army of 2,400,000 whilst Shu and Wu could manage 840,000 and 930,000. "
The figure used is questionable: 2,400,000 Soldiers from 4,400,000 people? 840,000 Soldiers from 1,940,000 people? 930,000 Soldiers from 2,300,000 people?
These are the correct figures from Sanguo Zhi. In times of war, usually the maximum population that can be drafted into the army is around 10%.
Wei, 660,000 Households, 4,400,000 People, possibly 440,000 soldiers can be drafted. When Shu surrendered, the record indicated 280,000 Households, 940,000 people, and 100,000 strong standing army. When Wu surrentdered some twenty years later, the record indicated 523,000 Households, 2,300,000 people, and a standing army of 230,000. -- 152.2.175.178 1:40, 7 April 2006
People need to realize that a decline in population is not always attributed to war. While it cannot be denied that alot of people were killed, to argue that the population decline was attributed strictly from incessant warfare is quite illogical. Depopulation could have also occured from inaccurate census taking or migrations. Alot of Chinese civilians could have migrated out of China.As for the census, considering that this was a time of constant warfare, the census takers were probably incompetent or a good portion of the population did a good job of avoiding registration for taxes. These are just plausible things to consider.
I must ask this question - Where there even a billion people in the world at this time? Sumerset { Sumerset|talk} 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There are also many natural disasters that occured throughout the history which could contribute to the decline in population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.138.58.201 ( talk) 12:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.answers.com/topic/three-kingdoms
This article is almost completely copied-and-pasted from that site. They even borrowed the images.
Great. Now I feel stupid.
I'm not too familiar with copyright and fair use rules, so could someone please clarify if I (or anyone else) could use an image of a character from the Koei historical figure the character portrays?
RealmKnight 00:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Response.
as long as the person cites the page there is no problem. to cite a page can be easy but it can be hard in easy terms all you have to do is example:let's say where it says picture there's a picture and all you have to say is picture taken from and you write the website
picture picture taken from Koei.com
Cec018
is it possible to take screenshots from the koei game?(win 95 game) i'm not too sure how to take screenshots & potraits though.
danz80
As long as the person cites the page, I see nothing wrong. And, in my opinion, using koei art/pictures really shouldn't do any harm at all. Especially if we're talking about major figures of that period. I doubt that some people who have played the koei games would actually research about this history. But if they do, at least, with the game pictures, they will easily recognize who is who and give them a better look at each place or figure during this period. Educating the young with something they are familiar with seems like a good way to get them to learn anything at all. --
SeijiX (
talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was 'The Essential Arts of Peace'? Or was that just something as portrayed by Luo Guanzhong?
i believe "the way of peace" is the translation for “太平道”, guess the Chinese for "The Essential Arts of Peace" is "太平要术"? if so, it was a book which Zhang Jiao claimed he obtain it from an immortal, said to be contained magical spells and things like. i forgot if it was fabricated by Luo ,or Zhang Jiao really boasted the book in history.
The article says: "In a strict academic sense it refers to the period between the foundation of the Wei in 220 and the conquest of the Wu by the Jin Dynasty in 280."
Wouldn't the Three Kingdoms start in 222, when the third kingdom (Wu) was founded, and end when the first kingdom (Shu) ended, in 263? In 220-221 it was only two kingdoms, and after Shu's downfall it was only two kingdoms. Unless someone disagrees, I'm going to change it to 222-263. -- Cao Wei 00:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The Three Kingdoms era is now generally accepted to be the periods of time in which at least one of the three titular kingdoms existed, rather than the time in which they coexisted. The period is marked from the creation of the first of the kingdoms (220) to the end of the last of the kingdoms (280). This was the opinion one of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms commentators offered (I believe Mao Zonggang, though I cannot confirm this.) So while I understand your point, I believe that the general consensus is that it covers the era from 220-280 - the start of the first kingdom to the fall of the last. Of course, if anybody can find evidence to suggest that it refers to 222-263 instead, I will gladly advocate the change. Benjitheijneb ( talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Wei Start in 215 when Cao Cao appointed King of Wei, because Cao Cao can run his own goverment at Ye city. Shu start in 219 since Liu Bei declare King of Han Zhong. Wu start in 229.
For Decline, Wei fall in 251 (De coup by Sima Yi), Shu fall in 263, Wu fall in 280. Yosakrai ( talk) 19:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a cracking article and the lack of citations really does let it down. Would editors familiar with the sources be prepared to improve it? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 14:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. With adequate citations, preferably but not necessarily to English-language sources, this article could easily be A- or even FA-class. PKKloeppel ( talk) 14:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
anyone could answer a quick question. is Three Kingdoms Era should be the same meaning of Three Kingdoms? 66.7.131.163 ( talk) 03:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
moved from "Talk: Three Kingdoms Era":
Three Kingdoms Era IS Three Kingdoms, used more than thousand years in Asia. Gzhao ( talk) 05:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was Mao Jie's recommendation, not Xun Yu. Any confirmations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.210.239.194 ( talk) 09:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Xun Yu's plan, you can read this chapter. Yosakrai ( talk) 19:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Reading this article gives me very little feeling about the underlying causes of the wars. The article simply portrays powerful emperors vying for power, without giving us any idea why the people felt a need to give their loyalty to their leaders and follow them into war. It would be like portraying the U.S. Civil war as a power struggle between Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, without mentioning slavery or tariffs. There's one brief section that tells us that the boundaries of the three empires reflected genuine economic divisions, without giving even the slightest hint about what those divisions actually were. This kind of information is far more important in understanding an era than telling about what battles were fought and whom was overthrown by whom. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
4.249.63.25 ( talk) 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm about to begin the requested translation from the Chinese version. The current English page is fairly well-developed: which sections in particular need the additional material from the Chinese page? EDIT: The current English page is actually a giant historical summary that is erratically and confusingly divided into headings and sub-headings. I'll translate Section 1 of the Chinese page now, then compare it with our current English page and see what the English page might have in terms of additional details. White whirlwind ( talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article contains a translation of 三国 from zh.wikipedia. |
I've translated some parts of the population from zh-wiki. Others can have some checks of what I've translated.( User Aronlee90) 09:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"and the beginning of a break in the forthcoming 300 years of chaos." forthcoming means something that's about to occur. Was the Jin empire chaotic? If this is a reference to the Three Kingdoms period, the word should be "foregoing" or better yet "preceding." 4.249.63.25 ( talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The Jin Empire was indeed chaotic, with the War of the Eight Princes being fought in its early days and with the 16 Kingdoms existing as rivals to the empire. After the Jin Dynasty fell, the Southern and Northern Dynasties kept China in disunity until the succession of the Sui Dynasty, which finally saw the unification of China, almost exactly 300 years after the fall of Wu. You are quite right: this point is VERY unclear, and I agree that this information should be added in. However, I am not entirely well-acquainted with Chinese history outside of the Later Han-Three Kingdoms era, so I would suggest that someone with more knowledge than me provides some information. Benjitheijneb ( talk) 22:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added the attention needed tag on account of the low number of sources (3) for this article. This isn't enough for something this important. I might be able to work on it in a few weeks from now, during Christmas vacation, but I also have a very long to do list that needs just as much attention. Sven Manguard Talk 07:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
zhwiki uses quite a flashy, detailed map at File:三国行政区划(繁).png which shows regions, cities and significant events; would it be reasonable to create a translation and use it within this article? I'm thinking that it would be better if we had such a map at the beginning of the article. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 10:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The problem with the "cursory search" reasoning is that there are simply far more " Chinamen"/ Chinese who can read and write English, than the population of England ( England and Wales), Scotland and Ireland combined. The term " The Three Kingdoms" definitely means something completely different here on the British Isles (the Kingdom of England ( England and Wales), the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of Ireland) and in Europe ( Denmark, Norway and Sweden in Scandinavia, and others in other European regions), and definitely not anything remotely Chinese, or even Mongolian. Does the peculiar usage within certain parts of the English-speaking World give precedence over the usage of the language as a whole, including as a lingua franca? Is the simple "(China)" really that unreasonable of a request? -- KC9TV 03:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-- KC9TV 04:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
going with the most common name instead of your country, that we're wrong. That's about as POV as it gets, sorry, we're not going to add a pro-British Isles bias here. Wizardman 03:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no point in comparing the "popularities" of either Chinese Three Kingdoms or the British Three Kingdoms, or accusing anyone of bias, or going off into unnecessary tangents. Let us recognize that there potentially can be confusion with having "Three Kingdoms" pointing to this topic, when, as the disambiguation page shows, there are many other possibilities for the term. I therefore agree with Snuge purveyor's suggestion to move this page to Three Kingdoms period (which would have close to zero chance of referring to the War of the Three Kingdoms in Britain, or anything else for that matter), while having Three Kingdoms point to the disambiguation page. _dk ( talk) 16:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
To answer your question, "Does the peculiar usage within certain parts of the English-speaking World give precedence over the usage of the language as a whole, including as a lingua franca?", the answer is a simple and definite no. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." This is a global enyclopedia; the only time we take into account the national origin of the source is when the subject itself has an English-language national origin, e.g. using British English is articles relating to Britain.
The Three Kingdoms period in China is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and as such "Three Kingdoms" should not be a disambiguation page. Whether this page should be moved to "Three Kingdoms period" and "Three Kingdoms" turned into a redirect is another matter.-- Jiang ( talk) 06:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The "South of the Yangtze" subsection starts as follows:
In 193, Huang Zu led Liu Biao's forces into a campaign against Sun Jian (Yuan Shu's subordinate general) and killed him.[25]
However, the article on Sun Jian, and the article on his better-known son Sun Quan seem to disagree, saying that Sun Jian died in 191. This could potentially throw the entire dating of the section in disarray, so someone with access to sources, please read the section and uncover the truth. Yannis A. ✆| ☑ 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.eastasianhistory.org/sites/default/files/article-content/01/EAH01_01.pdf
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The notes to this statement do not confirm the assertion:
True, the Wikipedia article List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll does list post-Han deaths at 39 million, ranking it #3, but a Wikipedia article is also not a reliable source. In this case, it is an extremely unreliable one! The notes are to Marks and Caselli, also without page numbers, which do not confirm this number. ch ( talk) 18:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Three Kingdoms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Three Kingdoms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 06:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Make pictur mor big - Ravishsingh00724 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ravishsingh00724 (
talk •
contribs) 01:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
In the history section there are links to Zhang Jiao's brothers. These links are both incorrect and lead to the pages of two different people who are not the brothers of Jiao. W.A.A. IV ( talk) 14:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Three Kingdoms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 11, 2013, December 11, 2014, December 11, 2015, and December 11, 2016. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Lolhah123456789.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The lead section should be slashed in half. I think it's safe to add it even now. -- Jia ng 19:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does anybody have any good (or any) sources for the population of china during the Three Kingdoms period? From the few sources I have, the population is reported to have decreased from around 56 million in the Eastern Han dynasty to around 16 million in the Western Jin dynasty. However this conflicts with the numbers listed in Population subsection of the Tripartite of China section (I don't think there's a big population increase from the Three Kingdoms to Western Jin).
The fall in recorded population reflects a decline in administrative effectiveness - the ability to count people - more than any real drop in population.
Entenman (
talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)entenman
Contention about the accuracy of the Han and Jin population census should be listed here with the dispute centered about the work of Bielenstein stating that population count only included those who are taxable, and assuming that the taxable population represented only 30% of the entire population counted, when other empirical evidence have proven this to be untrue. I would first like to see the passage from Bielenstein presenting the case where the Jin measurements for population is incorrect and how it defers from the Han methods of measurements, and what empirical method Bielenstein used to come to such a conclusion. We can start the investigation here, please include a short and accurate summary of Bielenstein arguments or the complete summary on my talk page as that would be most helpful, since I do not possess the source material to Bielenstein's work myself.
Almaz89 (
talk) 14:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Almaz89 ( talk) 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I must revert you purely per procedure: You did not cite your book specifically enough as opposed to the sourced paragraphs you were trying to replace: Di Cosmo's book here is a compilation of essays and you didn't even name the essay you cited, let alone the page numbers that snuge purveyor ( talk · contribs) duly provided in his edit. Without going into the population argument itself, what I am seeing is, at best, a cherry-picking of the source that aligns with your views and throwing other the others; and at worst your original interpretation of primary sources against those of established academia. We at Wikipedia hold verifiability as one of our guiding principles, so no matter how right you think you are or how ludicrous Bielenstein was, we simply cannot take your word against the scholars -- not until you adequately provide your own source that specifically says Bielenstein and the others who support him were wrong. _dk ( talk) 20:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
"In terms of manpower, the Wei was by far the largest, retaining more than 660,000 households and 4,400,000 people within its borders. Shu had a population of 1,940,000, and Wu 2,300,000. Thus, Wei had more than 58% of the population and around 40% of territory. With these resources, it is estimated that it could raise an army of 2,400,000 whilst Shu and Wu could manage 840,000 and 930,000. "
The figure used is questionable: 2,400,000 Soldiers from 4,400,000 people? 840,000 Soldiers from 1,940,000 people? 930,000 Soldiers from 2,300,000 people?
These are the correct figures from Sanguo Zhi. In times of war, usually the maximum population that can be drafted into the army is around 10%.
Wei, 660,000 Households, 4,400,000 People, possibly 440,000 soldiers can be drafted. When Shu surrendered, the record indicated 280,000 Households, 940,000 people, and 100,000 strong standing army. When Wu surrentdered some twenty years later, the record indicated 523,000 Households, 2,300,000 people, and a standing army of 230,000. -- 152.2.175.178 1:40, 7 April 2006
People need to realize that a decline in population is not always attributed to war. While it cannot be denied that alot of people were killed, to argue that the population decline was attributed strictly from incessant warfare is quite illogical. Depopulation could have also occured from inaccurate census taking or migrations. Alot of Chinese civilians could have migrated out of China.As for the census, considering that this was a time of constant warfare, the census takers were probably incompetent or a good portion of the population did a good job of avoiding registration for taxes. These are just plausible things to consider.
I must ask this question - Where there even a billion people in the world at this time? Sumerset { Sumerset|talk} 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There are also many natural disasters that occured throughout the history which could contribute to the decline in population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.138.58.201 ( talk) 12:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.answers.com/topic/three-kingdoms
This article is almost completely copied-and-pasted from that site. They even borrowed the images.
Great. Now I feel stupid.
I'm not too familiar with copyright and fair use rules, so could someone please clarify if I (or anyone else) could use an image of a character from the Koei historical figure the character portrays?
RealmKnight 00:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Response.
as long as the person cites the page there is no problem. to cite a page can be easy but it can be hard in easy terms all you have to do is example:let's say where it says picture there's a picture and all you have to say is picture taken from and you write the website
picture picture taken from Koei.com
Cec018
is it possible to take screenshots from the koei game?(win 95 game) i'm not too sure how to take screenshots & potraits though.
danz80
As long as the person cites the page, I see nothing wrong. And, in my opinion, using koei art/pictures really shouldn't do any harm at all. Especially if we're talking about major figures of that period. I doubt that some people who have played the koei games would actually research about this history. But if they do, at least, with the game pictures, they will easily recognize who is who and give them a better look at each place or figure during this period. Educating the young with something they are familiar with seems like a good way to get them to learn anything at all. --
SeijiX (
talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was 'The Essential Arts of Peace'? Or was that just something as portrayed by Luo Guanzhong?
i believe "the way of peace" is the translation for “太平道”, guess the Chinese for "The Essential Arts of Peace" is "太平要术"? if so, it was a book which Zhang Jiao claimed he obtain it from an immortal, said to be contained magical spells and things like. i forgot if it was fabricated by Luo ,or Zhang Jiao really boasted the book in history.
The article says: "In a strict academic sense it refers to the period between the foundation of the Wei in 220 and the conquest of the Wu by the Jin Dynasty in 280."
Wouldn't the Three Kingdoms start in 222, when the third kingdom (Wu) was founded, and end when the first kingdom (Shu) ended, in 263? In 220-221 it was only two kingdoms, and after Shu's downfall it was only two kingdoms. Unless someone disagrees, I'm going to change it to 222-263. -- Cao Wei 00:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The Three Kingdoms era is now generally accepted to be the periods of time in which at least one of the three titular kingdoms existed, rather than the time in which they coexisted. The period is marked from the creation of the first of the kingdoms (220) to the end of the last of the kingdoms (280). This was the opinion one of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms commentators offered (I believe Mao Zonggang, though I cannot confirm this.) So while I understand your point, I believe that the general consensus is that it covers the era from 220-280 - the start of the first kingdom to the fall of the last. Of course, if anybody can find evidence to suggest that it refers to 222-263 instead, I will gladly advocate the change. Benjitheijneb ( talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Wei Start in 215 when Cao Cao appointed King of Wei, because Cao Cao can run his own goverment at Ye city. Shu start in 219 since Liu Bei declare King of Han Zhong. Wu start in 229.
For Decline, Wei fall in 251 (De coup by Sima Yi), Shu fall in 263, Wu fall in 280. Yosakrai ( talk) 19:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a cracking article and the lack of citations really does let it down. Would editors familiar with the sources be prepared to improve it? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 14:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. With adequate citations, preferably but not necessarily to English-language sources, this article could easily be A- or even FA-class. PKKloeppel ( talk) 14:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
anyone could answer a quick question. is Three Kingdoms Era should be the same meaning of Three Kingdoms? 66.7.131.163 ( talk) 03:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
moved from "Talk: Three Kingdoms Era":
Three Kingdoms Era IS Three Kingdoms, used more than thousand years in Asia. Gzhao ( talk) 05:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was Mao Jie's recommendation, not Xun Yu. Any confirmations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.210.239.194 ( talk) 09:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Xun Yu's plan, you can read this chapter. Yosakrai ( talk) 19:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Reading this article gives me very little feeling about the underlying causes of the wars. The article simply portrays powerful emperors vying for power, without giving us any idea why the people felt a need to give their loyalty to their leaders and follow them into war. It would be like portraying the U.S. Civil war as a power struggle between Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, without mentioning slavery or tariffs. There's one brief section that tells us that the boundaries of the three empires reflected genuine economic divisions, without giving even the slightest hint about what those divisions actually were. This kind of information is far more important in understanding an era than telling about what battles were fought and whom was overthrown by whom. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
4.249.63.25 ( talk) 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm about to begin the requested translation from the Chinese version. The current English page is fairly well-developed: which sections in particular need the additional material from the Chinese page? EDIT: The current English page is actually a giant historical summary that is erratically and confusingly divided into headings and sub-headings. I'll translate Section 1 of the Chinese page now, then compare it with our current English page and see what the English page might have in terms of additional details. White whirlwind ( talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article contains a translation of 三国 from zh.wikipedia. |
I've translated some parts of the population from zh-wiki. Others can have some checks of what I've translated.( User Aronlee90) 09:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"and the beginning of a break in the forthcoming 300 years of chaos." forthcoming means something that's about to occur. Was the Jin empire chaotic? If this is a reference to the Three Kingdoms period, the word should be "foregoing" or better yet "preceding." 4.249.63.25 ( talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The Jin Empire was indeed chaotic, with the War of the Eight Princes being fought in its early days and with the 16 Kingdoms existing as rivals to the empire. After the Jin Dynasty fell, the Southern and Northern Dynasties kept China in disunity until the succession of the Sui Dynasty, which finally saw the unification of China, almost exactly 300 years after the fall of Wu. You are quite right: this point is VERY unclear, and I agree that this information should be added in. However, I am not entirely well-acquainted with Chinese history outside of the Later Han-Three Kingdoms era, so I would suggest that someone with more knowledge than me provides some information. Benjitheijneb ( talk) 22:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added the attention needed tag on account of the low number of sources (3) for this article. This isn't enough for something this important. I might be able to work on it in a few weeks from now, during Christmas vacation, but I also have a very long to do list that needs just as much attention. Sven Manguard Talk 07:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
zhwiki uses quite a flashy, detailed map at File:三国行政区划(繁).png which shows regions, cities and significant events; would it be reasonable to create a translation and use it within this article? I'm thinking that it would be better if we had such a map at the beginning of the article. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 10:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The problem with the "cursory search" reasoning is that there are simply far more " Chinamen"/ Chinese who can read and write English, than the population of England ( England and Wales), Scotland and Ireland combined. The term " The Three Kingdoms" definitely means something completely different here on the British Isles (the Kingdom of England ( England and Wales), the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of Ireland) and in Europe ( Denmark, Norway and Sweden in Scandinavia, and others in other European regions), and definitely not anything remotely Chinese, or even Mongolian. Does the peculiar usage within certain parts of the English-speaking World give precedence over the usage of the language as a whole, including as a lingua franca? Is the simple "(China)" really that unreasonable of a request? -- KC9TV 03:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-- KC9TV 04:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
going with the most common name instead of your country, that we're wrong. That's about as POV as it gets, sorry, we're not going to add a pro-British Isles bias here. Wizardman 03:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no point in comparing the "popularities" of either Chinese Three Kingdoms or the British Three Kingdoms, or accusing anyone of bias, or going off into unnecessary tangents. Let us recognize that there potentially can be confusion with having "Three Kingdoms" pointing to this topic, when, as the disambiguation page shows, there are many other possibilities for the term. I therefore agree with Snuge purveyor's suggestion to move this page to Three Kingdoms period (which would have close to zero chance of referring to the War of the Three Kingdoms in Britain, or anything else for that matter), while having Three Kingdoms point to the disambiguation page. _dk ( talk) 16:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
To answer your question, "Does the peculiar usage within certain parts of the English-speaking World give precedence over the usage of the language as a whole, including as a lingua franca?", the answer is a simple and definite no. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." This is a global enyclopedia; the only time we take into account the national origin of the source is when the subject itself has an English-language national origin, e.g. using British English is articles relating to Britain.
The Three Kingdoms period in China is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and as such "Three Kingdoms" should not be a disambiguation page. Whether this page should be moved to "Three Kingdoms period" and "Three Kingdoms" turned into a redirect is another matter.-- Jiang ( talk) 06:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The "South of the Yangtze" subsection starts as follows:
In 193, Huang Zu led Liu Biao's forces into a campaign against Sun Jian (Yuan Shu's subordinate general) and killed him.[25]
However, the article on Sun Jian, and the article on his better-known son Sun Quan seem to disagree, saying that Sun Jian died in 191. This could potentially throw the entire dating of the section in disarray, so someone with access to sources, please read the section and uncover the truth. Yannis A. ✆| ☑ 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.eastasianhistory.org/sites/default/files/article-content/01/EAH01_01.pdf
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The notes to this statement do not confirm the assertion:
True, the Wikipedia article List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll does list post-Han deaths at 39 million, ranking it #3, but a Wikipedia article is also not a reliable source. In this case, it is an extremely unreliable one! The notes are to Marks and Caselli, also without page numbers, which do not confirm this number. ch ( talk) 18:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Three Kingdoms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Three Kingdoms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 06:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Make pictur mor big - Ravishsingh00724 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ravishsingh00724 (
talk •
contribs) 01:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
In the history section there are links to Zhang Jiao's brothers. These links are both incorrect and lead to the pages of two different people who are not the brothers of Jiao. W.A.A. IV ( talk) 14:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)