Talk:Three Kingdoms

message: The lead section should be slashed in half. I think it's safe to add it even now. --Jiang 19:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: "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
:These are not my figures; these were figures that were previously given.  You changed them without citing sources.  Now that you've cited sources, go ahead and reinstate your changes if you so wish, and we'll let the community at large decide what to do with them.  I'm no sociological historican.  --Nlu (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manpower figures

message: 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)
replies: text:  err shouldn't koei character be in koei rtk(game) article? there are much more historical drawing of said character for this historical article. i am confused; obsolete topic? Akinkhoo (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You may not see anything wrong, but using a game's portrait to decorate a historical article does not fall within the definition of acceptable use of non-free content on Wikipedia. _dk (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portraits from Koei games?" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Start-end

message: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: Depends on if you are talking about the three kingdoms (Wei, Shu, and Wu) or the time that these states existed. Other than that they should be the same meaning. _dk (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The 3 Kindoms of China is called "Period" not "Era". Please stopy revert my redirect. KEIM (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Era is used for long period of time in history. The Chinese 3 kingdoms lasted only a short time, while the 3 Kingdoms of Korea lasted for several centuries. Era is for Korea. KEIM (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: haha, "Era is for Korea"? Who said so? Do you have reliable sources? Don't publish original research! --蘇州宇文宙武 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Three Kingdoms Era]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cao Cao receiving Emperor Xian 

message: 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)
replies: text:  I partly agree with you but in my cynical way I believe it was a bunch of raw grabbing for power no matter how much the Emperors and generals invoked the Mandate of Heaven.  There should be some reliable third party sources that discuss this but again cynically I'm sure you can find sources on both sides of the question.  The kingdoms weren't participative democracies and if your senior family members or overlord told you to go fight, you did.  It's like in the Roman Empire, the paterfamilias had the right of life and death over his sons and daughters and the sons' wives and children while the married daughters fell under the rule of the head of their husbands' households.  On the other hand, read the Romance of Three Kingdoms.  I'm pretty sure the mass desertions by the troops reflect that they were conscripts, not volunteers for the most part in other words that it's pretty true to nature.   Further the boundaries shifted constantly as one general or another grabbed a particular city.  That's the kind of thing you go to a reliable history book for, not an encyclopedia.
4.249.63.25 (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that's all true (and I don't have any major quarrel with it), I still feel that the genuine economic divisions between the Kingdoms probably played an important role (and were probably a motive for the attempted power grabs) in the causes of the war, and the article should do a little more than mention them in passing. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic/Political causes of the war 

message: 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)
replies: text: Excellent. I agree with your view of the English page. I hope the Chinese page also presents an intelligible section on the causes of the wars. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: "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)
thread_title:  don't understand 

message: 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)
thread_title: Attention Needed Tag

message: 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)
replies: text: If you can find that map in a vector image format, it would be much, much, easier to change all the text. siafu (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Yeah the current gif used on the article is BS. How the heck China taking control over the capital of Goguryeo since the birth of Goguryeo? Kadrun (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  detailed map 

message: The "South of the Yangtze" subsection starts as follows:
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)
replies: text: The year of death is in dispute. This is the case where the best sources disagree. Talk:Sun Jian has more details. However mentioning this dispute would probably cause WP:UNDUE. I think we should say something vague like "Shortly after 191" to avoid getting into details. --Skyfiler (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious time and date contradiction 

message: http://www.eastasianhistory.org/sites/default/files/article-content/01/EAH01_01.pdf
Rajmaan (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper on the The Kingdoms and Western Jin 

message: The notes to this statement do not confirm the assertion:
# Robert Marks, China: Its Environment and History devotes pages 106-109 to the fall in North China population from a Han dynasty high of 60 million in the period 300-600 CE, but does not give a total figure, much less a comparison with other death tolls.
# I cannot access Wallechinsky, so please supply a page number, but in any this is clearly not acceptable as an RS because it is WP:TERTIARY. 
# White p. 58 gives the geometric mean death toll as 4.1 million, which he uses to rank this as only #25 in his list on p. 530. 
# A search of Caselli found no reference to "Three Kingdom" or in 39 hits for "China" (including those in the index) is there any ranking of democides. Please forgive me if I missed one, but also please supply a page number.
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)
thread_title:  Third bloodiest in history 

message: 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 America1000 06:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Three Kingdoms]] for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah these two bois don't have biographies, and at some point we probably had links to their disambiguation pages, where they're listed under their real names 張寶 and 張梁, but some past editor probably came through and "fixed" the dab links by choosing the least unlikely target candidates. I've removed the links for the moment since we don't have any information on these people apart from their relation to Zhang Jue and year of death. They might not have existed, if I recall correctly. Folly Mox (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Folly Mox Quite possible they didn't. thanks for the update. W.A.A. IV (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect links