# Talk:History of the Han dynasty

PericlesofAthens writes "In fact, we should be discussing ways of reducing the prose size of the article, not increasing it."
This is good, but there are many ways of reducing the article. In doing so, I wouldn't want my reducing become a sort of censorship here like you often did, instead information that can be find in other of your Han's articles should be remove or reduce here, many of them are just over trivial trivia. There are also quite a number of scholarship assumption and affirm here that need to be wipe out, since this is about written "History of Han dynasty" and not about academia view. But since this article had failed its FA review due to its inaccuracies perhaps, I think the whole reducing the prose size of the article maybe be quite unnecessary. I also noted that you recently comments about "your" trademark seal (PericlesofAthens®) article in Allempires[1], you couldn't get enough of the good things don't you, I was hoping while I was editing "your" trademark seal (PericlesofAthens®) articles like Han Dynasty and Song Dynasty you could spend your time looking through Wikipedia:OWN.

Hi 219.74.2.131. I'm not sure I understand your points? If you're trying to improve the article, could you be more specific about what "scholarship assumption and affirm" should be "wiped out," or the kind of "trivial trivia" (ah, comme la neige a neigé...) that could be removed? And what do you mean about "written "History of the Han dynasty"? And what do you have against "academia view"? After all, Wikipedia articles should be compiled from information found in reliable sources, which, in the case of historical articles, are mostly academic sources. Madalibi (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry who are you, I know you're the guy with PericlesofAthens in CHF, but I will still wait for PericlesofAthens's reply. But if you don't understand my post don't bother to response. "could you be more specific about what” I could be more specific if I could edit the article, unfortunately this article is locked. "And what do you mean about "written "History of the Han dynasty"?" Its means written history here, meaning any scholarship assumption and affirm (with exception of some clear evidence ground on archeology ) should be put aside or create a new article on such topic for its own, becuase such debate may only drag the lenght of this article, if we're talking about prose size. "or the kind of "trivial trivia" that could be removed?" Many stuffs, well I see, including details (note that I used detail here) that cover from buddhism-related to "tribute"-related items, and etc.
"And what do you have against "academia view"?" I have nothing held against academia view, keep that in mind, because they belong to another article, we should've deal primarly history on the subject here. I have hundred of Chinese and English-languages journals and books which present global view on each subjects, Han Dynasty-related included as well.
Reducing the size of an article does not mean censorship (especially if material can simply be shifted to other related articles). In fact, it pains me to remove anything from this article at all. I fought tooth and nail against the FAC reviewers on removing too much material, but they were still not satisfied. That is the reason the article failed. It had three supports, and two oppositions, both oppositions being over the size of the prose (although User:Gun Powder Ma had a few other issues I was in the middle of clearing up). Also, are you simply saying that modern scholarly input or consensus on events should be stripped from the article? I'd like to hear a sound argument for that! Especially since, as Madalibi has pointed out, almost all the sources used here are academic, which will indeed have an academic point of view. In fact, one of User:Gun Powder Ma's main concerns with this article was that it did not have enough scholarly analysis, and that it read too much like a chronicle of events (I hope that's not what you're suggesting). Also, I don't really consider information on tributary relations and Buddhism as simple trivia, especially since the arrival of Buddhism says much about intercultural contacts between China and Central Asia at this point. But you're right that some of the detail certainly needs to be cut out. This is one of the essential points of Wikipedia:Summary style. In an article of this size and scope, as long as the main points are covered, everything should be fine. There is, after all, an article for the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the AllEmpires thread was lost on you. If you had a better command of English, I think you would have understood the oozing sarcasm in that AllEmpires thread. Especially my spoof on television salesmen (i.e. taking on their voice to make humor, don't know if you've ever heard of this alien concept in your Vulcan space planet called "Singapore". lol). Obviously Wikipedia is edited by anyone and nobody owns any particular article. But I think it's obvious who has done the lion's share of contributions to these articles (i.e. me, the person who created, expanded, and nominated these for good and featured status). Plus, I see no problem in raising awareness on AllEmpires that the Han Dynasty and its related articles are now of featured and good status, which is obviously the main purpose of that thread. Hence it is named "Han Dynasty at Wikipedia", not the "Glorious Contributions of PericlesofAthens".--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You write: "But if you don't understand my post don't bother to response." Now that's a rude, snarky little comment by you. Especially considering that you do not speak or write English proficiently enough for a native English-speaker to understand you half of the time.--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, I can understand English pretty well, including your little advertising in Allempires, so would you drop that speak or write English proficiently? If you think my English was that bad you wouldn't even bother to dig out some primary source with the help of your friend to bring up an argument. Of course nothing is more laughably than you, a third-year speaker of Mandarin as you claim couldn't even properly make your own conclusion after gathering through the source you needed[2], let not forget that one of my friend who is also third-year speaker can do a better job than you. Since you couldn't read Chinese and yet trying to explain some meaning of Chinese characters to me, why bother to bring up the primary source on the first places? Why not tired whatever you got with your secondary source and see how it does?
"But I think it's obvious who has done the lion's share of contributions to these articles" You know, as people read through an aricle they won't bother whether who has the lion share of this wiki article or who doesn't, probably 4 to 5 years from now, no one would even give a shit about Eric Conner, do you know what I meant in plain English? "Also, are you simply saying that modern scholarly input or consensus on events should be stripped from the article" Do you know what scholarly consensus means? Its means one or two scholars who are obstinacy about their point doesn't make it a "scholarly consensus", in order for you to say that point is a scholarly consensus, you'll need to find more than 10 scholars to second one another, Xia Dynasty is not yet proven, I can easily find tons of information on that through Google Book, this is what you called scholarly consensus.
"Also, I don't really consider information on tributary relations and Buddhism as simple trivia" And what makes you think that I simply dismissed them as simple trivia? The translation of sutra should be input in each of their respectively articles. And whether or not These monks allegedly translated the Sutra of Forty-two Chapters from Sanskrit into Chinese, although it is now proven that this text was not translated into Chinese until the 2nd century CE is not the concern for this article as far as I know, those are details which I am talking about. There are also detail such as When Bi came to pay homage to the Han court, he was given 10,000 bales of silk fabrics, 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) of silk, 500,000 L (14,000 U.S. bu) of rice, and 36,000 head of cattle" do we need "10,000 bales of silk fabrics, 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) of silk, 500,000 L (14,000 U.S. bu) of rice, and 36,000 head of cattle" here? Another one "Huhanye was seated as a distinguished guest of honor and rich rewards of 5 kg (160 oz t) of gold, 200,000 cash coins, 77 suits of clothes, 8,000 bales of silk fabric, 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) of silk floss, and 15 horses, in addition to 680,000 L (19,300 U.S. bu) of grain" do we really need that information here? People had already complain about your style of mentioning "tribute" here. We already have a table for that in Economy of the Han Dynasty didn't we? Because you're not proficiently enough on the History of Han Dynasty and the general pattern of Chinese tribute here, I suggest you to wipe them off. Since you're no real expertise in the History of Han Dynasty, and yet insisting that those were more important than any other events, mind I suggest that the perform of kowtow of Shanyu in front of Chinese diplomats be mentioned in the article as well?
Although I don't want to begin a discussion here on the alleged Xia Dynasty, the only early written source which describes their dynasty at length is Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian, written nearly two thousand years after the fact. There were no contemporary records left behind by the "Xia Dynasty" court, because China's oldest-known written script, the oracle bone script, had not yet been invented. One could choose to associate the Erlitou culture with the Xia Dynasty, but most modern archaeologists and historians are not convinced by this association. The earliest confirmed Chinese dynasty with contemporary records is the Shang Dynasty. Anyways, I'm done with that subject.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As for details about tribute amounts and translated texts, you're right that the former is covered in Economy of the Han Dynasty, while the latter is also covered in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty. These are details which can be cut, and which I intend to cut soon (in a delicate process, don't want to excise too much info). But right now I am focused on passing List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty as a featured list, and passing the Han Dynasty featured topic. As for the kowtow of the Xiongnu shanyu to Han diplomats, I don't see a reason not to mention this in the article, as long as it is brief.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You write: "Why not tired whatever you got with your secondary source and see how it does?" See? This sentence is garbled beyond all recognition. Why exactly do you come to English Wikipedia when you simply cannot write coherent sentences half of the time? You write: "Of course nothing is more laughably than you, a third-year speaker of Mandarin" Well, not a solid three years. I have so far taken a few undergraduate language classes in college in the US, but have never even been to China. If I was a third-year speaker living in China, then yes, I would have no excuse. Nevertheless, I find this comment of yours to be an extremely rude personal attack which has no place at Wikipedia. Which brings me to another comment of yours; you write: "probably 4 to 5 years from now, no one would even give a shit about Eric Conner, do you know what I meant in plain English?" Oh, come, come now! At least give it 10 years. Lol. Seriously, though, who says this on a Wikipedia talk page and wants to be taken seriously? I take it you've never read Wikipedia:Civility.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
In fact, if you cannot remain civil, I will report the IP addresses (in that internet cafe you are using) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where I will request a block on your addresses. Are we clear? I like that we are now talking about ways to improve the article, but if you cannot remain civil, then I will not hold a conversation with you (and you will most likely be blocked). There is a legitimate reason why an administrator blocked anonymous IPs from making disruptive edits to this article last month; I ask that you reconsider your abrasive approach to conversing with others on the talk page (otherwise you might lose the ability to edit even that).--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you calm down? I didn't said anything about your incivility didn't I? You're the one who started all this English proficiently vs sarcasm stuff, and if you think that you should had me blocked, you should go ahead, anyway I got block on occasion everytime I tried to edit here. I don't know why you've so many problem with me here, in contrast I don't felt a thing at all when you said something that can be rude (as well), I knew that wasn't truth anyway. More importantly, I don't see how my suggestion are invaild. The reason I brought out this section is because you did asked for suggestions on how to reduce the size of this article, I tired to help, unfortunately for you had took all this as an offence or something I don't know. I think you really have such an inferior complexity to concern about what people said. You write: 'Although I don't want to begin a discussion here on the alleged Xia Dynasty..." See? Here is the problem that you're clearly rambling, of course you should've know I was just pointing an example as the case for Xia Dynasty. Why exactly do you come to this board when you simply cannot write a coherent argument half of the time?
I believe the phrase you are trying to say is inferiority complex. I really don't care why you've made this assumption about me; but it's yet another personal attack. Pointing out that you have difficulties conversing in English with User:Madalibi and I is hardly a personal attack, especially since it was a rebuke of your comment to Madalibi that he should not respond to you if he doesn't understand your arguments. Pointing out that you failed to understand my sarcasm in a forum that has nothing to do with Wikipedia is also not a personal attack. I also never said your suggestions were invalid (in fact, I've edited the article according to almost all of your suggestions thus far if you go back through the archive of January-May 2009). The only problem I have with your edits here is your constant incivility and personal attacks, which you have astonishingly sustained for more than a month now. You should not be surprised that after all of this I would consider alerting Wiki administrators at their noticeboard. Please, be civil. I will reduce the prose according to your suggestions (which are logical ones).--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. "Please, be civil." I am, and my same advice to you as well. "I really don't care why you've made this assumption about me" Well in that case you should've drop it then, because you're just straying far off course by picking at one statement I made on this talk page that's all. "The only problem.. which you have astonishingly sustained for more than a month now." As if you had remain civil all the time, so you see the feeling is mutual. "but have never even been to China. If I was a third-year speaker living in China, then yes, I would have no excuse." Who said so? Do you know there are people who've been to China and yet still being a third-year speaker of Mandarin? Do you know that there are people who been and lived in America yet still bad with their English. I don't see how all this is related. You're just calculating excuse, that's the only problem I have with your edits. All the time. If you can't properly make your own conclusion with all the sources you gathered you should've step back and drop the issue which you're not familiar with, but no, you insisted to bring up an argument even when you couldn't read Chinese and needs help from friend, it just prove that you're wuss no matter how many years you're as speaker of Mandarin or any language as you claim. I think you're being a bit unreasonable here.
You write: "Do you know that there are people who been and lived in America yet still bad with their English." Sure. My Vietnamese friend's mother can barely speak a word of English (although she's now a citizen). But she's not here to study English (and relies on Vietnamese family and friends to communicate with others). I was speaking only for myself; if I was living in China and studying the language via a university on a daily basis, then I would have no excuse not to be able to understand much of what is written in the Twenty-Four Histories. There's a big difference between that and my friend's middle-aged mom. But enough of that; let's stay focused on the article. Like I said, I'm busy with other things at the moment (namely List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty), but I will commit time to reduce the prose size of this article sometime this week. Sound fair?--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As if you think that studying the language via a university on a daily basis would get you help on Twenty-Four Histories. When it comes to primary source, you'll need some information on the background on each of the phase, it might even required modern commentary sometime. This means you really needs to read Chinese and not just direct reading or recognising 1,700 to 2,000 written characters by heart, I can even point you out some of mistake in Chavannes's translations at Ban Yong, a celebrated sinologist himself, which is the result of direct reading, usually from people who learn Chinese by recognising written characters.
Really? Édouard Chavannes? That's surprising, although in his defense he did live in an age before instant online verification and useful tools such as Wiktionary (I usually go there when I have trouble recognizing various 漢字). You're right, without some commentary, the inexperienced Western learner will have an incredible amount of difficulty translating Chinese works into Western languages. I would imagine that this is especially so for single characters which have many meanings that can alter the entire meaning of the sentence it is in.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure whether Édouard Chavannes should be blame, since he was not the one who make all these English translations into Ban Yong. However, an obvious misunderstood here I found is from Ren Shang It is difficult to foster their good tendencies and easy to destroy them 难养易败, how would you translate it anyway? Easy to destory/attack them doesn't make any sense anyway.
Hmm. A very rough translation based on a character-to-character format would be "difficult to support, easy to defeat", but you're right, that last part doesn't make sense. Also, 养 does not necessarily denote "tendencies". I wish there was more discussion or context for "barbarians" in this passage other than that they have "emotions of wild birds and animals", but there is no more discussion or context.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
For that phase I would simply translate as "difficult to foster and easy to be spoil", that's how I understand the whole dialogue of Ban Chao trying to said.
That sounds right. The passage compares the somewhat disobedient Chinese sons sent to garrison distant borderlands to the even more unruly barbarians who lack Confucian ethics and Han manners. Comparing them to wild animals, wouldn't it be difficult to foster the good tendencies of a wild animal? Wouldn't it be easy for those potentially good tendencies to fail if we are talking about people who can be compared to wild animals? An interesting passage indeed.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There are always many translations problem, it is also good to get one of those authentic translations done by published source if you want to survive in Wikipedia. Here is another I found in Ban Yong I will arrange things so that (Ban) Yong sees the Middle Territories [usually referred to as the 'Western Regions' - mainly the kingdoms in and around the Tarim Basin] with his own eyes while I am still alive, from the phrase it can be easily spot that the author who translate the passage have no understanding on Ban Yong's background, but this cannot be blame since his earlier information ain't found in anywhere, and common sense needed to be appiled here. Thus I wouldn't translate something like "Middle Territories" as "Western Region" here as implying Ban Yong was born in China due to my understanding of Ban Chao's life.
Anyway I'll not here by the mid June, so you see Eric, by the time you got to reduce the size for this article, I'll be long gone from here.
Oh. Really? Well, I can still guarantee you, with the PericlesofAthens® seal of approval (lol), that I will try my best to reduce the prose size of the article in accordance with your suggestions about tribute and Buddhism. This will happen by at least the end of the week. Along with some other painful decisions about shifting material here to other articles. I hate to see it go, but I should hope that one day this article will become a Featured one. The only problem with that is the article's present size. A shame that Wiki policy at Wikipedia:Article size is very strict in that regard. I wish you all the best in whatever it is you plan to do. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
While you're at it, it would be nice to add brief infomation about the expansion of southwest with Yongchang Commantary (69 CE, somewhere around eastern Burma and western Yunnan) and the fall of Yelang Kingdom (then within Zangke Commantary) during its rebellion in 27 BCE, I am sure is easy to find the passing of these events in Google book or in Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms, if you can't you can simply use Zizhi Tongjian vol. 30 and 45 for source.
Thanks. I'll have to keep that suggestion in mind. In fact, you know what? I hate the thought of losing too much material by reducing the size of this article. I was considering actually using this article as a main article for two new ones: History of the Western Han Dynasty and History of the Eastern Han Dynasty. That way I can keep all the material and just shift much of the detail to separate articles where I can elaborate a lot more than I can here in this article which has its size limits. I'll probably do that after I pass the Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Han Dynasty, which will pass soon enough because I just successfully passed List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty as a featured list! I'm pretty elated about that. Anyways, tell me what you think about the possibility of creating two new articles, Western and Eastern Han, which can be summarized in this main article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea too, since Wikipedia has a limit on the size of article, IMHO you should do whatever you thinks that it serve better for the article.
I did a little snooping on wikipedia guideline, I had no idea why you're so eager in featuring an article, there are practically no difference between wiki featured article and an ordinary article (lol), unless you're talking about getting the article on the main page every once a while and letting pack of vandals make their edit so admins could protect the page to prevent them. In fact since ordinary article are not monitored and have little limit on the size of article, technically speaking I would says they are more informative than the majority FA articles. "tell me what you think about the possibility of creating two new articles, Western and Eastern Han" I don't think I can help much on that, my self-interest lies on frontier history and steppe tribes, the north and west and not just Han in particular, probably due to my little interest on ma chao few years back, but that could be impredicative.
Well, a featured article is peer-reviewed and is awarded its status by consensus. I don't know. I might never nominate this article to be featured for the very reason you suggest: size. I don't like the fact that FAC reviewers are so picky about article size even though this article has not exceeded the 100 KB level for prose text (this article has some 80 KB of prose text).--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I will be busy on later, so I will not be able to help you, I guess we're all busy for the moment. One of the greatest drawback I find in Twenty-Four Histories is that many foreign battles and expeiditions (outside or periphery of China) were either cook up or mispresented by literati court historians, you can easily see interposal dialogues from some ministers whenever an expeidition or campign took places, these are called apocryphal stories "to win over emperor's love", they were either made up, or compiled for extraordinary purpose. And that's pretty good assumptions since people are rational and that self-interest was very well known to people of antiquity, court officials were no exceptions since they often downplay on military affairs. That's why Li Shiji was torn apart by the times of Song Dynasty because of his petty intervene that he shouldn't involved with the royal members despite how good he was outside of China. I must say that the ancient dynasty are pretty much like a family enterprise, where we have employee on their biography in these histories written only when their career began with the royal member (CEO), while leaving rest of their life simply unknown, not even their date of birth or story before/after they start their career. You can see the same standard in private works of history by scholar as well since they simply ripped from histories for convenience motive.

I have just been through the article and changed the title 'Shanyu' to 'Chanyu' throughout. 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.' See, for example: Pan (1992), p. 42, n. 2; Pulleyblank (1991), p. 48; Bailey (1985), p. 32.

Fair enough (even though my sources prefer "shanyu"), but I would ask that you change this tile in all the Han articles, not just History. I would like to be consistent. Thank you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Will do my best - but it might take some time. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears that same information can be located in [3] as well. But I guess why shanyu was used, it was probably becuase it was once changed to 善于 by Wang mang and some context thought that might be closer to the original reading.

1, 2, 3 Rajmaan (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit established the use of this page as American English. Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 16:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

is fine for what it is but should probably address that Gaozu (y'know... the thing the note is directly next to) ain't Liu Bang's posthumous name and it ain't even his actual temple name. Like treating the adjectival posthumous names as personal names, it's just a bad habit that people haven't bothered to kick yet. — LlywelynII 17:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)