Talk:Three Kingdoms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)

population of China[edit]

Does anybody have any good (or any) sources for the population of china during the Three Kingdoms period? From the few sources I have, the population is reported to have decreased from around 56 million in the Eastern Han dynasty to around 16 million in the Western Jin dynasty. However this conflicts with the numbers listed in Population subsection of the Tripartite of China section (I don't think there's a big population increase from the Three Kingdoms to Western Jin).

I've just noticed this too. There's a huge discrepancy between the census figure of 56 million declining to 16 million as compared to the total population of the Three Kingdoms given as just 7 million! Especially considering the Han Dynasty article confirms that the Three Kingdoms encompassed the whole of China.
So it seems clear that either one set of figures or the other is very very wrong. I'm guessing the census figures are correct (the whole of China with a pop. of just 7 million???) but if someone could provide a full source for these figures - or indeed any other estimates on the page - it would be very useful, thanks. Until then, I think I am going to have to put citation tags on these figures. Gatoclass 12:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess the numbers are for civilians, not officers and militants, and did not count the population in Tuntian system. Chen Qun's estimation in 233-236 states that the population of the whole Wei Kingdom was only comparable to the population of a province in the Western Han. Qiu Songzhi's annotation of Sanguo Zhi noted that at the time of the surrender of Shu (263), Shu had a total of 940,000 civilians, 120,000 militants and 40,000 officers. When Wu surrendered to Wei, Wu had 2,300,000 civilians, 230,000 militants, and 32,000 officers. Simao Biao's Sequel of the Book of Han probably only counted the civilians, and gave a population of 5,372,891 at 263 for Wei and Shu combined. Du You's Tongdian summarized these records and set the population at 7,672,881, which is obvious incomplete. Besides, pretty much like native Americans, minor nomadic tribes did not count, in the Hukou system, so did those immigrants worked under the Tuntian system. The Book of Jin records a population of 16,163,863 at 280, probably included those in the Tuntian system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyfiler (talkcontribs) 16:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
prehap with the warring period, they would not allow for as detail a census as during the imperial Han period, for population whom were displaced to rural region were probably missing from the records. there is no point administrating when they got nothing left to tax anyway... :\ Akinkhoo (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The fall in recorded population reflects a decline in administrative effectiveness - the ability to count people - more than any real drop in population. Entenman (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)entenman

That should be re-added in---it currently says that a significant drop in population is "beyond doubt", which to my hostile eyes, sounds like it was written by a very proud, very stubborn person. AndarielHalo (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Contention about the accuracy of the Han and Jin population census should be listed here with the dispute centered about the work of Bielenstein stating that population count only included those who are taxable, and assuming that the taxable population represented only 30% of the entire population counted, when other empirical evidence have proven this to be untrue. I would first like to see the passage from Bielenstein presenting the case where the Jin measurements for population is incorrect and how it defers from the Han methods of measurements, and what empirical method Bielenstein used to come to such a conclusion. We can start the investigation here, please include a short and accurate summary of Bielenstein arguments or the complete summary on my talk page as that would be most helpful, since I do not possess the source material to Bielenstein's work myself. Almaz89 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The argument that the 16 million figure counts only the taxpayers is ludicrous and comes from a very basic misunderstanding of how the tax system works at that time. The number of households is the most accurate way of counting taxes, while headcount could be useful for military conscription and for use in poll taxes which naturally includes the majority of the population. The economic system during this period was still primarily run on bartering and commodities and therefor taxation could only legitimately be levied on a select number of people. As for the Jin who counted over 2 million household and over 16 million taxpayers, that is if we are to assume the sources provided by the previous editor as accurate, that assertion will still defy all logic. Lets assume the impossible case where they calculated potential taxpayers among every household, that would mean each household having 7 taxpayers which would be an impossible toll to sustain for a single household with little land or productivity, therefor it must be assumed that there was indeed an attempt to count every individual instead of just taxable households.The fact that there was such a large reduction of household numbers proves a correlation to mass depopulation, a loss of territories, or migrations, and that the 16 million figure cannot be counted from tax records as opined. The Jin did attempt to account for all citizens not just households, but every person who had been displaced. Though the census to account for overall population will not be accurate, as we only have the household comparison to reasonably go by through historical records, we can safely assume that it is actually as good an estimation as any to use when determining the entire population under the Jin jurisdiction at that time.

Almaz89 (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must revert you purely per procedure: You did not cite your book specifically enough as opposed to the sourced paragraphs you were trying to replace: Di Cosmo's book here is a compilation of essays and you didn't even name the essay you cited, let alone the page numbers that snuge purveyor (talk · contribs) duly provided in his edit. Without going into the population argument itself, what I am seeing is, at best, a cherry-picking of the source that aligns with your views and throwing other the others; and at worst your original interpretation of primary sources against those of established academia. We at Wikipedia hold verifiability as one of our guiding principles, so no matter how right you think you are or how ludicrous Bielenstein was, we simply cannot take your word against the scholars -- not until you adequately provide your own source that specifically says Bielenstein and the others who support him were wrong. _dk (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

But I am citing Bielenstein revised work, I will quote you the source, Bulletin (Östasiatiska museet), no. 59. Chinese historical demography A. D. 2 - 1982 Page 17. In which he concluded that the Government in AD 280 did attempt to count all individuals not just taxpayers as snuge purveyor (talk · contribs) claimed, so I can only assume that it was not a correct interpretation by that user, or Bielenstein has changed his mind and revised his findings in a later version of his work and as for Di Cosmo's book, no opinions there, just facts from original historical records, I could cite any other sources and it will still be the same. Almaz89 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Manpower figures[edit]

"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. -- 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)

People need to realize that a decline in population is not always attributed to war. While it cannot be denied that alot of people were killed, to argue that the population decline was attributed strictly from incessant warfare is quite illogical. Depopulation could have also occured from inaccurate census taking or migrations. Alot of Chinese civilians could have migrated out of China.As for the census, considering that this was a time of constant warfare, the census takers were probably incompetent or a good portion of the population did a good job of avoiding registration for taxes. These are just plausible things to consider.

I must ask this question - Where there even a billion people in the world at this time? Sumerset {Sumerset|talk} 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There are also many natural disasters that occured throughout the history which could contribute to the decline in population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


This article is almost completely copied-and-pasted from that site. They even borrowed the images.

No, it's the other way around. They got it from Wikipedia. Look at the bottom of their page. -- ran (talk) 00:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Great. Now I feel stupid.

Don't... everyone misreads something now and then. And welcome to Wikipedia. ;) -- ran (talk) 23:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Portraits from Koei games?"[edit]

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)


as long as the person cites the page there is no problem. to cite a page can be easy but it can be hard in easy terms all you have to do is example:let's say where it says picture there's a picture and all you have to say is picture taken from and you write the website

picture picture taken from


is it possible to take screenshots from the koei game?(win 95 game) i'm not too sure how to take screenshots & potraits though.


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)

As long as the person cites the page, I see nothing wrong. And, in my opinion, using koei art/pictures really shouldn't do any harm at all. Especially if we're talking about major figures of that period. I doubt that some people who have played the koei games would actually research about this history. But if they do, at least, with the game pictures, they will easily recognize who is who and give them a better look at each place or figure during this period. Educating the young with something they are familiar with seems like a good way to get them to learn anything at all. --SeijiX (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Regarding 'The Way of Peace'[edit]

I thought it was 'The Essential Arts of Peace'? Or was that just something as portrayed by Luo Guanzhong?

i believe "the way of peace" is the translation for “太平道”, guess the Chinese for "The Essential Arts of Peace" is "太平要术"? if so, it was a book which Zhang Jiao claimed he obtain it from an immortal, said to be contained magical spells and things like. i forgot if it was fabricated by Luo ,or Zhang Jiao really boasted the book in history.


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)

The Three Kingdoms era is now generally accepted to be the periods of time in which at least one of the three titular kingdoms existed, rather than the time in which they coexisted. The period is marked from the creation of the first of the kingdoms (220) to the end of the last of the kingdoms (280). This was the opinion one of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms commentators offered (I believe Mao Zonggang, though I cannot confirm this.) So while I understand your point, I believe that the general consensus is that it covers the era from 220-280 - the start of the first kingdom to the fall of the last. Of course, if anybody can find evidence to suggest that it refers to 222-263 instead, I will gladly advocate the change. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


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)

I agree. With adequate citations, preferably but not necessarily to English-language sources, this article could easily be A- or even FA-class. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Three Kingdoms Era[edit]

anyone could answer a quick question. is Three Kingdoms Era should be the same meaning of Three Kingdoms? (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

moved from "Talk: Three Kingdoms Era":

Three Kingdoms Era IS Three Kingdoms, used more than thousand years in Asia. Gzhao (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The 3 Kindoms of China is called "Period" not "Era". Please stopy revert my redirect. KEIM (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KEIM (talkcontribs)
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)
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)

Cao Cao receiving Emperor Xian[edit]

I thought it was Mao Jie's recommendation, not Xun Yu. Any confirmations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Economic/Political causes of the war[edit]

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)

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. (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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)


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)

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)

I've translated some parts of the population from zh-wiki. Others can have some checks of what I've translated.(User Aronlee90) 09:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

don't understand[edit]

"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." (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Jin Empire was indeed chaotic, with the War of the Eight Princes being fought in its early days and with the 16 Kingdoms existing as rivals to the empire. After the Jin Dynasty fell, the Southern and Northern Dynasties kept China in disunity until the succession of the Sui Dynasty, which finally saw the unification of China, almost exactly 300 years after the fall of Wu. You are quite right: this point is VERY unclear, and I agree that this information should be added in. However, I am not entirely well-acquainted with Chinese history outside of the Later Han-Three Kingdoms era, so I would suggest that someone with more knowledge than me provides some information. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Attention Needed Tag[edit]

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)

detailed map[edit]

Three Kingdoms map

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)

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)

Sinocentrism (China-centrism) and potential anti-British-Isles bias?[edit]

The result of this discussion is no consensus. Note for editors, multipart or controversial title changes, such as this has proved to be, should be discussed with reference to Article Title policy and reliable sources under the move request discussion procedure Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

The problem with the "cursory search" reasoning is that there are simply far more "Chinamen"/Chinese who can read and write English, than the population of England (England and Wales), Scotland and Ireland combined. The term "The Three Kingdoms" definitely means something completely different here on the British Isles (the Kingdom of England (England and Wales), the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of Ireland) and in Europe (Denmark, Norway and Sweden in Scandinavia, and others in other European regions), and definitely not anything remotely Chinese, or even Mongolian. Does the peculiar usage within certain parts of the English-speaking World give precedence over the usage of the language as a whole, including as a lingua franca? Is the simple "(China)" really that unreasonable of a request? -- KC9TV 03:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

-- KC9TV 04:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I had to double-read this. Anti-British bias on this site is borderline laughable. But to answer your question, never have I seen the British Isles referred to as the Three Kingdoms before, unlike the states in China, as this is the official name of the period. Wizardman 04:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms. England, Scotland and Ireland, from the year 1603 to the year 1707, were three semi-independent countries (kingdoms), all with the same Prince, King, Queen (of the House of Stuart) or Lord Protector (regents) (Oliver Cromwell and Richard Cromwell) as the head of state (personal union; specifically in the context of the British Isles "the Union of the Crowns"), with three semi-independent parliaments (legislatures) and governments. Perhaps you would care to put in "", ".ie", "", "", "", "", "", "" or "" to the search, and the results would probably be markedly different. -- KC9TV 05:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Because there once was a War of Three Kingdoms in the British Isles does not mean "Three Kingdoms" was ever used as an official name of an overarching historical period or culture group in the British Isles. Personally, I feel this page should be titled Three Kingdoms period (which currently redirects to Three Kingdoms). I also feel the claims of competing historical moments and geographic units are fairly addressed on the disambiguation page. Snuge purveyor (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlike in China, there is no equivalent of the Chinese (and Vietnamese) concept of "true dynasties", or "朝代" (Cháo dài), or "Triều đại", of different, unrelated reigning families with different surnames on the Throne, here on the British Isles (at least since the year 1371), and different periods were named instead after the name of the reigning Royal House (most of the Kings and Queens at the time were from the House of Stuart, or Stewart, and the period was called "Stuart England", "Stuart Scotland" and "Stuart Ireland"); so therefore, there would NOT had been such a thing as an "official name", which is also a Chinese (and Vietnamese) concept, and unknown in Western Europe ([names of historical periods in Western Europe are also almost always unofficial, and are liable to change in future generations, although they are usually commonly accepted by most contemporaries]). -- KC9TV 06:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
'Official name' was an infelicitous choice of words. Taking your recommendation, I ran a search of "three kingdoms" on academic sites in the UK, and the results are considerably more mixed than a standard search. "Three Kingdoms" is a fairly broadly accepted signifier for Stuart England, Scotland, and Ireland within the historiography of the British Isles. When excluding the phrase "wars of the three kingdoms" on UK academic sites, results are still skewed towards Stuart England, Scotland, and Ireland, but the Three Kingdoms period of Chinese history is also well-represented, as are the three Linnean kingdoms, and the Three Kingdoms period of Korean history. Snuge purveyor (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to edit your comments for posterity, KC9TV, please at least re-sign them with the new date and time so as not to give a misleading impression. siafu (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have never heard the term "Three Kingdoms" used to refer to England, Ireland, and Scotland before this discussion-- I'm American, though, and this may not be surprising. I have heard numerous other monikers for the region, like "British Isles", or even Heptarchy for the supposed seven kingdoms period of pre-English southern Britain. The Chinese period is much more common however, not least because of a number of very popular series of video games made in Japan. IMO, the commonality of the term comes not so much from English-speaking Chinese in China as immigrants of Chinese descent in English-speaking countries like the US and Australia. I tried to do a google test on this, but found as it turns out that even when I searched for "Three Kingdoms -"Chinese" -"China"" the first link, all the images, and several of the other links still refer to the Chinese Three Kingdoms period, and there seem to be as many "random" uses (e.g. "Three Kingdoms of Heaven, Earth, and Hell") as there are references for England, Ireland, and Scotland. Maybe we could put a hatnote for that usage on this page, if needed? siafu (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • People, look at the article names in other wikis. It is the predominant usage in an extremely large cut of the world. I see nothing biased about this. Lguipontes (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Except for some 68 million souls who speak the English language as the first language. (Where the language started, you know? They don't count now, do they? A little arrogant to think that, don't you think?) The very fact that the British Broadcasting Corporation even has to explain this at any length at all [1] [2], demonstrates that the Chinese story of the Three Kingdoms remains unknown to the British Isles. No disrespect or offence (offense) intended, but not everyone upon God's sweet earth is on the Internet, a male, a bachelor, in his 20s or 30s, play computer games, has a North American accent, and is of Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese nationality or descent, you know! The Three Kingdoms is the national epic of China, whereas upon most of the British Isles, in England in particular, thanks to the works of Shakespeare, the closest thing to a "national epic" would be the Wars of the Roses, such as Richard III, at least according to a certain David Starkey, an historian, and a certain Philippa Gregory, a writer. (I currently live in the Land of the White Rose, in a shared house where the Land of the Red Rose is also represented, both by a resident and the spouse of the landlord. Unfortunately, poor old Mister Shakespeare died long before King James, Cromwell, the English Civil War and all that.) Wikipedia is supposed to be for all, not just for young Asians in America! -- KC9TV 03:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
(intrusive new comment) No problem, I'm a teen becoming adult this year, my present favorite activity apart of the internet in itself (I expend most of the time in Wikipedia and Orkut) now that I live in such horrible city is watching TV or do backpacking somewhere else in the vacations, speak Portuguese (relatively close to the non-Vernacular Brazilian lect) and Spanish with a strong accent of people from the region of Rio de Janeiro, learnt English in the last 1 year and a half here in Wikipedia, still need subtitles for media in it and is better at cooking (I only fry eggs or boil instant lamen) than speaking it, and looks like what you get from mixing Central Europeans (mother's maternal side) and Portuguese (especially in my paternal side), and Latin Americans of several combinations of Portuguese, Amerindian and African blood for seven generations (not un-Latin-American but way whitey for my region and socioeconomic strata, really cute as skinny/normal, specially as a child and pre-teen, and funny as chubby/fatty).
Being serious now, dude, did you ever realized that it is the dominant usage not only in Asia? Três Reinos in Portuguese always referred to that period in the history of China, as does in most other European languages, NEVER heard of it referring to the would-be Reino Unido (United Kingdom). You are asking us to be Brit-centric, actually, as your preferred usage is obviously minoritarian, even in the country you so passionately defends. Lguipontes (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Problem is, you're basically saying to move the page because Britain is the world, and by

going with the most common name instead of your country, that we're wrong. That's about as POV as it gets, sorry, we're not going to add a pro-British Isles bias here. Wizardman 03:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that "Britain is the World", and this is quite frankly becoming ad hominem; and is the language not called the English language (the language of the Anglo-Saxons; La Langue des Anglo-Saxons; Lingua Anglosaxonica) for a reason, surely? Why are you even using this language? Don't you have a language of your own? (No, of course you don't! Sorry!) Anyway, how is my suggestion, perhaps, for a move to "Three Kingdoms (China)", "Three Kingdoms of China" or such like (something similar), that unreasonable of a request? This is more precise. (The presumption and the premise, being that everyone knows, or should know, Chinese history, is arrogant, to say the very least.) -- KC9TV 05:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, "Three Kingdoms (China)" and "Three Kingdoms of China" are both confusing. "Three Kingdoms (China)" sounds like it could refer equally validly to the novel (which was translated into English under the name "Three Kingdoms") or to the historical period. "Three Kingdoms of China" is even worse: it sounds like an article about the states of Cao Wei, Dong Wu, and Shu Han, not the historical period during which these states rose and fell. As someone who has edited a number of articles dealing with this historical period, I agree that it is a bit presumptuous to have Three Kingdoms period redirect to Three Kingdoms, rather than Three Kingdoms redirect to Three Kingdoms (disambiguation), although Three Kingdoms period is probably what most English speakers are after. KC9TV, it seems what you're suggesting is adding in a pro-British-Isles bias, which is quite out of the question. It is prima facie ridiculous to propose that Britain, having developed the English language, should therefore enjoy a position of favouritism on the English-language Wikipedia. Snuge purveyor (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Chiming in to say that as a native English speaker (not a Brit, but not Chinese), I have never heard of "Three Kingdoms" referring to England, Scotland, and Ireland. By the way, knowledge of China's Three Kingdoms is not limited to China. In fact, many Japanese and Korean idioms refer to events in that period, and it's a really popular period of history to portray in film, drama, and literature that is exported to Southeast Asia and beyond, somewhat like the Middle Ages to "us". What's really arrogant and ethnocentric is the idea that fringe terminology can trump widespread usage, just because it originates in Britain. By the way, "Chinaman" is an ethnic slur, and the charge of "Sinocentrism" is being used here - as it usually is - in a bigoted way to deflect attention from the user's own Eurocentrism. Shrigley (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Which means really the Asia-Pacific, and not so much the whole world. I did use the term in quotation marks, and it was used in jest; and are "Englishmen", "Cornishmen", "Welshmen", "Irishmen", "Scotsman", "Ulstermen", "Manxmen", "Dutchmen" and "Germans" offensive names now? So, according to your (and Wizardman's) reasoning, Britons have to call one of their national sports "soccer" in Wikipedia, instead of football? While you are at it, why don't the any of you just change the offending article over to "soccer" as well? -- -- KC9TV 04:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point in comparing the "popularities" of either Chinese Three Kingdoms or the British Three Kingdoms, or accusing anyone of bias, or going off into unnecessary tangents. Let us recognize that there potentially can be confusion with having "Three Kingdoms" pointing to this topic, when, as the disambiguation page shows, there are many other possibilities for the term. I therefore agree with Snuge purveyor's suggestion to move this page to Three Kingdoms period (which would have close to zero chance of referring to the War of the Three Kingdoms in Britain, or anything else for that matter), while having Three Kingdoms point to the disambiguation page. _dk (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, "Does the peculiar usage within certain parts of the English-speaking World give precedence over the usage of the language as a whole, including as a lingua franca?", the answer is a simple and definite no. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." This is a global enyclopedia; the only time we take into account the national origin of the source is when the subject itself has an English-language national origin, e.g. using British English is articles relating to Britain.

The Three Kingdoms period in China is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and as such "Three Kingdoms" should not be a disambiguation page. Whether this page should be moved to "Three Kingdoms period" and "Three Kingdoms" turned into a redirect is another matter.--Jiang (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support making 'The Three Kingdoms' a disambiguation page. I do not think that it is at all clear that the Three Kingdoms period in China is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It may be most common on Google but that is mainly because of the video games. From a historical perspective it is much less clear cut. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the statement above, it sould be a disambiguation page. United States Man (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2012 (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.

Serious time and date contradiction[edit]

The "South of the Yangtze" subsection starts as follows:

In 193, Huang Zu led Liu Biao's forces into a campaign against Sun Jian (Yuan Shu's subordinate general) and killed him.[25]

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)

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)

Paper on the The Kingdoms and Western Jin[edit]

Rajmaan (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Third bloodiest in history[edit]

The notes to this statement do not confirm the assertion:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)