Talk:Xiahou Dun

Untitled

more info from the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms can also be useful. kt2 05:35 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Shu Dynasty?

Shu Han was announced by Liu Bei to be the genuine Han Dynasty, not another Dynasty.

i understand that the matter is rather complicated here. Although Liu Bei would like to think that his reign was a legitimate continuation of the Han Dynasty, from history's point of view Han ended when Emperor Xian abdicated in 220. History then officially entered the Three Kingdoms period. After some considerations i suggest calling it "Shu-Han Dynasty" to avoid confusions. Counsel? --Plastictv 07:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you use the Kingdom of Shu instead.

That wouldn't be quite right either since Liu Bei and Liu Shan were not kings but bona fide emperors. As you recall, the "Kingdom of Wei" existed while Cao Cao was still alive, but only after he died did Cao Pi become emperor and start the "Wei Dynasty", in a way of speaking. Let me research more on that before giving you a satisfiable answer. --Plastictv 14:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the use of the Shu-Han Dynasty. It differentiates Liu Bei's dynaty from the Han Dynasty, and it was more than just a kingdom. It wasn't the Shu Dynaty, as Liu Bei did consider himself heir to the Han, but it wasn't the Han Dynasty either. Shu-Han is both accurate and the more widely accepted term. --Tiamatty 2:14 am, 16 May 2005

Ok. After much deliberation, i propose calling it "Kingdom of Shu" (and similarly "Kingdom of Wei" and "Kingdom of Wu"). These "kingdoms" are generally not considered "dynasties", primarily because they did not unify China. This is similar to the Warring States Period, where each state, though being an independent and hereditary monarchy, was not considered a dynasty.

Of course the hassle lies in determining when exactly these kingdoms began. Strictly speaking they began in 220, 221 and 222 respectively. But by mid-210s the three kingdoms had already taken shape. So i do urge caution in using the abovementioned terms, using instead names of their leaders (Cao Cao, Liu Bei and Sun Quan) where ambiguous. --Plastictv 09:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Xiahou Shao

Was he a direct descendant of Xiahou Dun?(泰始二年春帝正月（原注﹕《史通·模擬》云：“孫盛魏晉二《陽秋》，每年首必云：某年春帝正月。因元年無正月，故標於此。）高安鄉侯夏侯佐卒，惇之孫也，嗣絕。詔曰﹕“惇，魏之元功勛書竹帛。昔庭堅不祀，猶或到此之，況朕受禪於魏，而可以忘其功臣哉！宜擇惇近屬劭封之。（孫盛《晉陽秋》·《三國志注》九，《類聚》51）P.103。)

This would depend on whether you choose to take the extra information given in the annotation by Pei Songzhi. Chen Shou merely stated that "廙薨，子邵嗣。" But《晋阳秋》added what you put down above. According to it, Xiahou Zuo was the grandson of Xiahou Dun, but he died without children. Hence Sima Yan, in his second year of reign, chose a close relative of Xiahou Zuo to succeed the title. As to how Xiahou Shao is related to the others i cannot say.

P.S. Please sign off using two "-" and four "~". :) --Plastictv 14:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. i just saw the change that you made. Yes i do agree with you that it is safer to say that Xiahou Shao was not a direct descendant of Xiahou Yi. :) --Plastictv 14:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

File:Xiahou Dun 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Xiahou Dun 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Xiahou Dun 2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

image

Hey can someone ask permission from Koei to use a picture of Xiahou Dun, then we will move the current image to the archives or thumbnails at the end of the article. Or do you want me to? Dark Liberty (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The hostage taking-possibly move to Han Hao

That Xiahou Dun was seized and held hostage during Lu Bu's invasion of Yan is correctly in the wiki but the delving into Han Hao rescuing Xiahou Dun feels less about Xiahou Dun and more about Han Hao. For whom the entire incident is not mentioned in his wikipedia. I would suggest we transfer the details of the scene to Han Hao's wiki (with appropriate edits and crediting back to Xiahou Dun article) since the details are about his actions that day. Then whittle down the scene in Xiahou Dun's to: that he got captured and how, then the bare fact that he got rescued. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. _dk (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Expand the Romance section?

Should we update and expand the Romance section or is the brief summary, with the links to some of the more famous fictional tales, enough and should focus on Xiahou Mao/Han Hao/Shi Huan wikipedia entries? DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello DZ, I agree with what is written in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms "In fiction Describe major deficiencies from history only. Do not retell the person's story according to Romance of the Three Kingdoms and other works of fiction." Unless major changement or important character, I think the summary should be brief. Highlight his role in the novel and most memorable actions. I'm also not sure if it's relevent to have another novel version since the Mao is so famous and people may misinterpret the "record" as another historical document. TheWayWeAllGo (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest then Xiahou Dun (plain language version) deleting the Bowang one, maybe the Baima and the next to last paragraph. In terms of not doing it at all, _dk and I did discuss if we included pre novel fictions and we thought so. Might be something for a wider group discussion and that if we do so, what we do to try to make clear about the plain language not being the records (becuase I have seen that confusion before) DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It is up to you, I'm just giving you my opinion. For me, Lu Su and Zhou Yu section of the ROTK in the current wiki are how I would do it. For the novel version, you can just include them into the ROTK section and add subsection "Sanguozhi Pinghua" "Sanguo Yanyi" with a brief explanation of which one is what (the former and current version of the novel) along with notable differences between versions.TheWayWeAllGo (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The Pinghua was a separate book, I would not suggest treat it as the same as the novel. Something the novel seems to have borrowed from but quite different. We could indeed put all the ancient fiction in one section, just would need to change the section title to reflect that. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)