Talk:Han (Warring States)

untitled

Wasn't this a holdover the Han dynasty? Jiang 19:41, 6 Aug 2003

unfortunately no, the state of Han was an independent political entity. kt2 22:30, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think King An and King Fei listed in the article is the same person: King Fei. Hanfresco 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

sources

I'm looking for historical sources besides Shiji that describes the state of Han. Any recommendations? Hanfresco (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hanfresco. Well done on the viscount thing. See the discussion here for where this started. As for information on the State of Han - see chapters 1 - 6 of the 資治通鑒 Zizhi Tongjian (sourced from Chinese Wikipedia). Philg88 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

可以参考《竹书纪年》、《战国策》，现代文献可以看看杨宽的《战国史》。—星光下的人 (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, please make your contributions in English. Thanks. Philg88 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! I will take a look in the near future. Hanfresco (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Zi

The generation before 韓厥 is Hanyu(韩舆) son of Han Jian(韩简，韩定伯) is son of Han Qiubo (韓赇伯) is son of Hanwan (韓万,韩武子) is son of Quwo Huanshu（曲沃桓叔）,this line come from The Book of Lineages (世本).Do you want to translate them to Earl and Viscount?

• “据我们对现有文献记载调查，在一个同氏集团内，大体上只有继位为大宗的人才称“伯”或“子”。比如鲁国季孙氏的季文子、季武子、季悼子、季平子、季桓子、季康子等，皆季孙氏大宗。孟孙氏的孟穆伯、孟孝伯、孟武伯和叔孙氏的叔孙戴伯、叔孙宣伯亦分别是孟孙氏和叔孙氏大宗。因此子服氏的诸“伯”，亦同孟穆伯、孟孝伯、孟武伯、叔孙戴伯、叔孙宣伯、臧哀伯等一样，是子服氏集团大宗的称号”——谢维扬《周代家庭形态》ISBN:7-207-06426-8

So long,but the main idea is Bo and Zi means someone is the head of his family.

—星光下的人 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

星光下的人，我读了一些文献。所读的和你说的符合，所以这篇文章也相对的转回你当时的贡献。古韩国在被晋国灭以前，是侯爵。之后，在晋国当差。韩厥开始，成为晋国卿大夫。直到三家分晋才被周王封侯。

Translation: I did some reading. The reading suggests that after the 'old' state of Han was destroyed, the Han family was no longer a hereditary noble family (zhuhou). Only after the Partition of Jin did they become zhuhou again. I have reverted my revert accordingly.

Hanfresco (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Date

资治通鉴第六卷： 始皇帝十七年（辛未，公元前二三○年） 1　内史〔腾〕(胜)灭韩

Since Zizhi Tongjian says Han was destroyed in 230BC, I'm going to revert your edit. Hanfresco (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hann?

Hi Barefact, I'm just wondering where this "Hann" popped up from in the State of Han article?. It doesn't fit with either pinyin or Wade-Giles and I have never seen it in any publication. Best Philg88 (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

M. Loeuwe, E.L. Shaughnessy, eds, The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221BC, p. 960 etc: Hann 韓; also look up the index there. Also, see for example Qin Shi Huang in WP, it is already there, I only brought it up to disamb and header for consistency. Barefact (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well I don't trust The Cambridge History of Ancient China as it contains mistakes. For example, Hai Rui is referred to as Hai Jui which is totally wrong. Since Hanfresco seems to agree with me that "Hann" does not exist (he reverted your edit in the State of Han article), I thing we need a second source. Best Philg88 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am looking from the standpoint of a person who is looking for information on a subject and can't find it directly. What spelling is used as a primary is irrelevant if you can google and locate information directly, as the encyclopedia is supposed to provide, instead of making you to run in circles. The question is not what is right, because there is no absolute right, but what is used in the literature and need to be understood by people who can't argue the finer points of either side right and wrong. There is no reason to hide relevant spelling, unless one wants to hide something in pursuit of an agenda.

Also, there is an element of timing, the older literature used exclusively Hai Jui, and a good portion keeps using it, even though pinyin came about and arbitrarily changed historically stable English forms, which is the case with Hai Rui and Hai Jui. Without getting into the politics of the issue, I think we should provide the reader with both forms, without trying to advocate right or wrong for either side of the issue. It is English-language literature that uses Hai Jui, what's wrong with using English in English WP? Checking " "Hann state" China " on Google gives plenty of secondary "Hann" usages in English literature, if you need a second source. But anyway, thank you for asking, many useful and valid things get deleted on a whim without asking. Barefact (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point of view and I certainly have no agenda other than to ensure that Wikipedia is accurate. That Hai Jui is used in English literature so it's acceptable is a fallacious argument. Hai Jui is just plain wrong - the 瑞 of 海瑞 has no "Jui" equivalent Chinese pronouncation. The same goes for Hann - there is no double "n" sound in the Chinese language. Using your argument, anyone could just make up their own romanisations as many people did in the past leading to no end of confusion.Philg88 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Barefact, firstly, I appreciate your effort in thinking from the standpoint of those looking for information. However considerate your intentions, I fail to see your point: Google "Hann State China" and the first result points to Han (state). I also do not see any ambiguities between Han and Han, as was the concern of the authors your source. The former is always mentioned in terms of State or Kingdom, while the latter is always mentioned in terms of Empire or Dynasty. Those authors should instead concern themselves with Han and Han (spring and autumn), another state which existed between 1000BC-700BC (This one uses the same character 韩!). After all, their history supposedly covers up to 221BC, which covers both State of Han's existences and excludes the more well known Han Dynasty. Finally, there is no need for Wikipedia to list all alternates, considering "Chung Kuo" is not in China.Hanfresco (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hanfresco and Phil, I did not hear a single argument to justify deletion of useful English form of the name, nor in favor of the absence of such a name in WP in a direct unambiguous format. The only argument was that "Hann" does not exist in English, and it does exist in scholarly works in English, as I have shown to anybody's satisfaction. Unless deletion is justified by a scholarly reference proving that the word does not exist, the deletion was done on a personal whim. Barefact (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The arguments are very simple and laid about above: 1)The "nn" sound does not exist in the Chinese languages 2) Accepted (or standard) Romanisations should be used. 3) Arbitary words (see Hanfresco's Chung-kuo above) should be avoided. Best Philg88 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

These arguments do not apply: 1) Chinese phonetics does not rule English scientific terminology 2) English terminology does not need Romanisation, we do not need Romanised Chinese name for "China", because English already has a term for "China" for scientific and laymen use 3) English Sinology is about 200 years old, and has many words that could be spelled differently, like Shaanxi, which also does not conform to the Chinese Romanisation scheme, but it is used in English in spite of its initial arbitrary origin. The alternate spelling "Hann" is not a new invention, it is a fact of English terminology, as illustrated by time-honored scholarly publications in English, the WP is full of alternate spellings given to create a reliable source of information. We are not reinventing English, just reporting facts supported by credible references. Barefact (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Barefact, there is not much to add. Unless you can show all published names for all articles on Wikipedia are listed, I fail to see why you keep pushing for the usage of Hann here, especially when Hann has insignificant usage like other names that have been thrown out over the evolution of the English language. Have you ever read Shakespeare? If you had you would notice many differences in spelling between Shakespearean English and modern English. If you spelled your words like they do in Shakespeare in an essay today, you would not be looked at as a scholar. You would be looked at as an a guy who can't spell. Hanfresco (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Other things Han unmentioned except for one that shouldn't be.

Nobody is going to confuse one of the Warring states with the modern South Korea. The relation to the dynasty, ethnicity, etc. however is glaring in its omission. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruler names

星光下的人, 你根本没读我留的言。我让你看的是吴语维基的参考。吴语维基的参考是寒山碧著的韩氏三千年。我再次撤销你的贡献。 Translation: you clearly did not read what I wrote. I said read the REFERENCE of the Wu wiki page. If you had, you would notice the Wu wiki referenced a book called "Han Shi San Qian Nian" by Han Shanbi. I will once again undo your edit. Hanfresco (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

我可以告诉你那本书是本族谱，不是可靠来源。史记、战国策、世本、竹书纪年都没有记载那几代韩国君主的名字，可以了吗？I tell you 韩氏三千年 is a Genealogy book,that is not identifying reliable source, all of Records of the Grand Historian,Zhan Guo Ce,The Book of Lineages,Bamboo Annals are not recorded those monarch's name,OK?——星光下的人 (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

星光下的人 is right on this one. The names of several Han rulers are not recorded in history. However, I would suggest that you state your reason in the edit summary when removing content, otherwise people may misunderstand your action as vandalism. --Zanhe (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Hanfresco (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chen (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Shen Buhai military reform source

While Shen Buhai is known, on a tertiary basis, for defensive reforms, the source for Shen Buhai's military reforms in this article sources https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004201644/B9789004201644_002.xml

I don't see how this source relates with Shen Buhai. As the writer for Shen Buhai, I would be interested in locating the relevant source. I don't immediatly how this source pertains to it. It says "Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature (vol. 2)". I will attempt to check this source. If it is located there I will delete this comment.FourLights (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 18:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Han (state) → Han (Warring States) – Dab from other uses at Han (disambiguation)#Former states. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support unlike to be enough for a PADB[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Dubious

I've tagged the sentence Qi to the east as dubious because the map of the Warring States clearly show that Chu is to both the south and east of Han. Banedon (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)