Talk:Han Dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Han Dynasty article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] Han Dynasty at its greatest Extent

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Question Regarding Territorial Maps

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

-intranetusa

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

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

[edit] Added a map image

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

Intranetusa 02:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

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

What has this to do with the Han-Dynasty??

[edit] Rise of the Phoenix

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

and all the three kingdoms games, of course.

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

[edit] The Emergence

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

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

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

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

[edit] Soft Protection

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

[edit] Pinyin Name

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

Kelvinc 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Rise and fall of Eastern Han Dynasty

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

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

[edit] true history

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Han Dynasty including half of Korean Peninsula

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

219.77.64.117

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

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

[edit] The Seres and Rome

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

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

[edit] Needs more sources

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

[edit] BCE/CE vs. BC/AD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Map from Roman Republic

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

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

[edit] What is Goguryeo doing in a map of 87 BCE?

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

[edit] Foreign Trade

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

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

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

[edit] Confucianism?

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

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

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

[edit] Expansion

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

Categories: China-related articles with comments | B-Class China-related articles | B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance | Top-importance China-related articles | Unassessed former country articles | Former country articles with comments | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Chinese)