Talk:Emperor Wu of Han
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emperor Wu of Han article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Emperor Wu of Han is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|Current status: Former featured article candidate|
|Emperor Wu of Han has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject China||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
I retitled the section 'Impact on history' as 'Legacy' and rewrote it. Bo Yang's comment on Emperor Wu's sexual fetish at castrating was removed, as it appears to me speculation by a single historian on a matter of minor importance doesn't belong to an encyclopedia acticle. The two sentences discussion on Confucianism's pros and cons was also removed, IMHO it's oversimplified and the discussion should be in the main Confucianism acticle anyway. --geckotheside, 20 sep 2005
Miborovsky, your assertion that "created" is grammatically wrong is incorrect. Please see, for example, Prince Charles#Created Prince of Wales. "Create" is the right verb for this. If you have some better reason than it being "grammatically correct" (and please note, for example, your assertion that it is grammatically incorrect would make nearly every single historian who writes on the subject to be grammatically incorrect), please state it now, rather than simply changing all of the instances of the verb "create" again. --Nlu 07:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please also see, for example, . I trust that if you are going to assert again that it's grammatically incorrect, that you'd have some authority to state that Merriam-Webster is incorrect. --Nlu 07:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Suggest removing Copyedit tag
I came to this article from the Copyedit list, it appears to me that the issues that led to it being tagged have been resolved, I suggest removing the tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SailorfromNH (talk • contribs) .
- It was tagged by Jiang to try to improve it further. I do think that it looks fine now, but I'd like somebody else to take another look at it as well. Do you feel confident enough to remove the tag? --Nlu 02:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article has his name as "The Great Emperor Wu of Han", but the title in Chinese is just 漢武帝, which is Emperor (帝) Wu (武) of Han (漢). No great. I've seen him referred to in translation as "The Filial Emperor Wu", but never "the Great". Where does this come from? siafu (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have added a merge proposal on this article. It seems reasonable to merge the quite short article Literature contributions of Emperor Wu of Han into this article. "Emperor Wu of Han" is not an overly long article, so adding the information is no problem, in my opinion. Splitting off articles is, in my opinion, only useful when the primary article becomes too long or when the new article is very detailed and out of line with the original. Both don't seem to be the case here, hence my merge proposal. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- That article is just a stub, it should be merged. It would be another story if a section was considerable large enough to warrant splitting it in a seperate article, which will not be the case for quite a while. --Cold Season (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
How come the main pic (a reproduction) does not coincide with the original pics below which show the always talked about black Chinese? Since China themselves say that most of their DNA is African, how does that main pic of the emperor make it as THE pic as opposed to the real deal below? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Due to a student doing a class assignment requiring him to use their textbook, we now have 2 reign dates in the article. In fact, I think this probably represents a disagreement within the sources and we should show that. Doug Weller (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)