Talk:Han–Xiongnu War

War?

Is this really a war? Seems to be more like a series of battles carried out against a particular enemy over a long, long period of time. Was there ever a formal declaration of war and such? Did China consider itself to be in a state of war throughout this period? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, its a war between Han and Xiongnu, not civil wars. Eiorgiomugini 07:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

To my mind Miborovsky's question makes sense, while Eiorgiomugini's reply seems exactly to miss the point. A single war lasting 222 years against a convenient "Confederation" seems like a rather artistic construct to me.

Whether there was yet a China considering itself a state is an interesting thought. Where did this word "Xiongnu," often translated "Huns," come from? Who were they?

I'm sure the overall cultures and governances in the areas by "A.D." 89 differed from those around in "B.C." 133; I'm not sure that a single war between two neatly defined forces, one a state, the other a somewhat unspecified confederation, is anything but a collection of historians' buzzwords.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Should probably be Han-Xiongnu wars, plural. We have similar topics such as Roman–Parthian Wars and the Germanic Wars. Ahyangyi (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Han Wu Da Di

I'm watching Han Wu Da Di, and I see numerous other battles between Battle of Mayi and Battle of Mobei. Does anyone have information on those? Hanfresco 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A paradox

This article is declared the main article at the beginning of the section Xiongnu#War with Han Dynasty. However, that section is considerably longer than this article, and at a glance seems to be adequately referenced, while this one isn't. I suppose that just incorporating a copy of that section should improve this article considerably; but shouldn't a "main article" contain more than the section to which it refers? JoergenB (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. There is clearly disagreement on the point that these are not proper names.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Sino-Xiongnu War → Han–Xiongnu war
• Gojoseon–Han War → Gojoseon–Han war
• Goguryeo–Wei War → Goguryeo–Wei war
• Goguryeo–Sui War → Goguryeo–Sui war
• Goguryeo–Tang War → Goguryeo–Tang war
• Silla–Tang War → Silla–Tang war
• Ming–Kotte War → Ming–Kotte war
• Ming–Hồ War → Ming–Hồ war
• Mongol–Jin War → Mongol–Jin war
• Gaya–Silla War → Gaya–Silla war
• Goguryeo–Yamato War → Goguryeo–Yamato war
• Goryeo–Khitan War → Goryeo–Khitan war

– There seems to be some "grandfathered" convention to capitalize the first letter of war in Eastern Asian-related military history topics. However, I think it should be lowercase as these article titles are descriptive in nature and not proper names of the wars. Although, I'd like some comments from other editors. Note: Deviated in the first article from "Sino-Xiongnu" to "Han–Xiongnu" too, since it's more known as a war between these two main entities. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Cold Season (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This is important. Srnec (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Lowercase "war" is better (Support lower case "war"). I think that it is better to use parallel nomenclature for the belligerents: that is, Sino–Xiongnu war or Han–Chanyu war. A convention of consistently using the name of a Chinese dynasty versus an inconsistently named opponent (based on nation, ethnicity, or dynasty or other ruling group) could be misleading. However, if source references show a preferences, this should be considered, too. Dcattell (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The sources generally state that the Xiongnu were considered a certain entity (confederation, made from several tribes) during this period, thus the war ending with the disestablishment of it in 89AD. It's no different than the Han as an entity (empire). The sources state of the two parties as the "Han" and the "Xiongnu" in this conflict. Chanyu is a title of a single person, the ruler of the latter. --Cold Season (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • True, Chanyu is a title. However, Sino–Xiongnu war seems to have a certain consistency with, say, the Sino-Indian or Sino-Soviet conflicts. However, I'm supportive about whatever you want to do. Dcattell (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (mostly) – a quick look at List of wars shows that almost all Wikipedia articles on wars have the word "War" in uppercase. For the sake of consistency it's better to leave them the way they are. However, I do support moving Sino-Xiongnu War to Han-Xiongnu War (with a capitalized W) as the Qin Dynasty also fought with the Xiongnu. -Zanhe (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Consistency has nothing to do with it; these are distinct wars with different namings. A look in the descriptive names... I also see the "X–X war" format when clicking few, it is not all that consistent. The articles here clearly meet the criteria for lowercase at WP:NOUN, whether some other distinct war capitalize it or not; they are descriptive names getting capitalized against the MoS. --Cold Season (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; 'War' is standard, using lowercase will confuse the readers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME fails here, because if it was followed, then it would be decapitalized, since these are not proper nouns and thus not a common name. It results in following WP:NOUN and decapitalizing "war". "War" with a capital is not standard in descriptive names, there's no policy or accepted guideline for it (it even goes against). Capitalization is the one that is confusing, not lowercase as you claim (How is it confusing?), because the only thing that would be confusing is that descriptive article titles are displayed as proper names of the war, while it is not a proper name.--Cold Season (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The word "war" is conventionally capitalized in the names of wars in English. (i.e. World War II, the Korean War, the Sino-Japanese War). I can't remember ever seeing the name of a war without the word "war" capitalized in the name. If you are aware of a body of reliable sources that do not capitalize "war" in the name of wars, please provide a list of examples. A very cursory gsearch for the descriptive name "Sino-Japanese War" reveals that capitalization is the rule followed by Encyclopedia Britannica, Harvard, and Yale (third paragraph).Ferox Seneca (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • World War II, Sino-Japanese War, and Korean War are proper nouns, widely accepted as such by scholary sources. However, these here are article titles that Wikipedia editors, myself included, made up to place an article, thus it does not relate to WP:COMMONNAME. --Cold Season (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment if these are names you and others invented to place the wars at a title, then all of them fail WP:NOR. They should instead use descriptive titles, like "Year X-Y war between A and B". However, since many, if not all, of these wars have been featured widely in many publications, we should be able to figure out names used by a majority or plurality of sources. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:NDASH states that that a ndash can be used as "and", "between", "versus" etcetera, so it is only WP:NOR if decapitalization does not happen. So yeah, they should use descriptive titles, that's what I'm proposing. There is no guideline that states that your proposed format should be used, although it still would be better than the current. --Cold Season (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
        • ndash can be used as "and", "between", "versus" etcetera -- that's not clear enough for a descriptive title, which should describe the subject. If you use the "and" term for one of these wars, as two allies who participate in a war (ie. the French and Indian War, was the British vs France and its Indian allies) and you use "versus" in another, then having the choice makes the description rather ambiguous. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Then your view differs from the MoS (WP:NDASH), including its given examples. It can be replaced by those words under criteria. Ndash is used when it's "parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements". That would mean that "Britain–India war" is incorrect, as they are one element (allies) in the context (war) as would "Britain–India–France war" would be incorrect too; "Britain and India–France war" and "Britain–India alliance" would be correct in context, ignoring the awful format of the former. Per MoS about ndashes. --Cold Season (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: if these wars have been covered in reliable sources, then we should use the precedent set by those reliable sources. If these names only exist on Wikipedia, then we should use the precedent set by the names of similar wars in reliable sources (such as the Sino-Japanese War, the Sino-Indian War, or the Sino-French War). In case no direct precedent exists, I believe that the precedent set by similarly-named wars strongly favors capitalization.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The article titles will stay misleading as proper names with that acceptance of this "precedent" that also goes against guidelines. --Cold Season (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If these are made-up names, what was the selection criteria used to place the order of the polities? Shouldn't these all be alphabetic or reverse-alphabetic order in the two states? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no preference or care for the order of the made-up names of the current article titles, thus I choose the same order of the proposed descriptive titles. I would not be against alphabetizing. --Cold Season (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment for the case of "Sino-Xiongnu War", it looks rather much like this should be pluralized, as a series of wars, and not a single war. A period from 133 BC and 89 AD is over 200 years! 70.49.127.65 (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Most all sources use capitalization of the word war when specifying a particular war. How would "World war II" look? The complete name of the war acts like a proper noun to describe what war is being identified. To make a parallel, substitute the word "street". Compare the statement, The street is wide." with "Chestnut Street is wide." One is describing a street, but the street is unspecified to the reader. The second street is specifying Chestnut Street and not any other streets. I have never seen the American Civil War cited any other way than the Civil War. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You give proper names as example, which is unrelated as the listed names here are descriptive and not proper names. Ofcourse sources capitalize it, because those are actual names, while these article titles are descriptions. An example would be "I'm walking at Chestnut Street." vs "I'm walking at a British street." The article titles are parallel to the latter, i.e. a "war between X and Y". --Cold Season (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Ferox Seneca. If these wars have no accepted names, we should give them descriptive names, not make up names that look like proper names but aren't. But do the sources have names for these wars? In the case of the Xiongnu, it seems more like a long period of hostility with a series of wars than a single war. Kanguole 00:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The sources do not, thus the move proposal to a descriptive title. --Cold Season (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Then I suggest fully descriptive names instead of the "A–B war" formulation, which looks like a neologism, attempts a symmetry which may be unrealistic, and attempts to fit ancient conflicts to modern models. I suggest this be done case-by-case, e.g.
      • There is some usage of "Xiongnu wars" for Sino-Xiongnu War. The name is asymmetrical, but history often is. (cf Peloponnesian War, Vietnam War)
      • There is some usage of "Mongol conquest of (the) Jin" for Mongol–Jin War, and it's more informative too.
      • Goguryeo–Yamato War gives the impression of a war with a Japanese state, an idea that is very controversial and poorly supported, and reflects only part of the article anyway. Indeed the only source for the article is a translation of a 5th century stele. "Military campaigns of Gwanggaeto" might be more appropriate (if the article can be properly sourced).
    • Having more (or even any) sources for several of these articles would help. Kanguole 10:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
      • The proposed titles are fully descriptive and the WP:NDASH fits. It's along the lines of titles like France–Germany relations and other articles, including about wars. It is fully descriptive and uncapitalized. "Xiongnu wars" is bad as is usage of proper names of wars as example for it. This move makes the title fully descriptive. To the other issue, those are issues of editors characterizing it as such, maybe wrongly and maybe per source; if you don't agree, feel free to raise it there. But I know that it is not a proper name, thus this move. --Cold Season (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The closing administrator should be aware that most of the oppose "voters" have not correctly understood the move rationale. It is not a question of standard English practice, but of nomenclature. The titles in question are descriptors (common nouns), not names (proper nouns). Srnec (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  To reply to that, I think that’s a bit steep; I’m pretty sure I’ve grasped it, and I’m pretty sure everyone else has too.

If you are both saying that these weren’t actually wars, or that there isn’t a recognized historical term for them, then I suggest (per Kanguole) they be moved away from those titles completely, to avoid setting a bad example. Some more descriptive titles to the first three (at random) might be “Han wars with the Xiongnu”, “Han campaign against Gojoseon”, "Wei invasion of Goguryeo".

But doing it this way is a bad idea. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's not that steep. WP:COMMONNAME was used, I said it was not a proper noun and it applies to proper nouns only. Who said that they are not wars, he definately didn't and nether did I. Nothing wrong with using ndashes in descriptive titles per WP:NDASH, so do plenty of other war-related articles or articles in general too. For example France–Germany relations. --Cold Season (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Zanhe, Bushranger, Ferox and Cuprum. The convention in English is to capitalize, and it would be misleading to do otherwise. What do the sources call them, anyway? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It is against policy and guidelines. It is convention to capitalize proper names and decapitalize those that are not, which quite a lot of article titles do adhere. What do you mean "what do sources call them?", I have stated that it is descriptive and there are no proper names. --Cold Season (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Zanhe, Bushranger, Ferox, Cuprum, and Xyl 54. They are titles of the wars and should therefore be capitalized. All titles of wars are considered proper nouns in English. If these particular titles were simply made up (rather than being literal translations, which is what I suspect they are), then the renaming of the articles can be discussed on their talk pages. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Per who? Most of them make arguements that only apply to proper names, for article titles that are not proper names. Yet no one seems to refute that these are not proper names (there is no proper name), which their arguements are based on. The fact is that they are not the titles of the wars. Literal translated names does not equal proper names in English (some are also clearly not proper names in foreign wikipedia pages, but that is beside the fact) and they are still made up in English, which in fact still means that the current article titles are wrong and the proposed article titles are not (as they are descriptive). If someone want to move it further out of "preference" of format, then it's up to them. Either way, the current titles are inccorect and the proposed ones are not. --Cold Season (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • • Must you attack everyone and anyone who disagrees with you? We already know your position, and your tone in your messages verges on attacking those who disagree with you. If it is a title of the war, it is a proper noun. You apparently disagree with that. That's fine, but please don't attack those who happen to disagree with you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
        • No, I must not, because I'm not. Neither am I on the verge. However, I may write counter-arguements to anyone. This is a discussion, simple. Sorry that you don't like my tone, but sometimes plain text is like this. Now back to the matter: If it is... Sources don't have it as proper name as there is none. --Cold Season (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm: What you don’t seem to be getting here, ColdSeason, is that if these are supposed to be descriptive names, then your chosen format, 'A-B war', is simply not adequate. As A-B War is the conventional way of labelling a conflict in English, then your format looks like a proper name that has been incorrectly capitalized. If you want descriptive names (and you may have some support for that, it depends (as I think I asked) on how the sources describe them) you need to come up with titles that don’t resemble proper names. As Kanguole and myself have suggested to you.

So unless you have some other reason for insisting on this particular format (along the lines of WP:NEO, for example) I suggest you re-think this along those lines.Xyl 54 (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Don't mistake something for me "not getting it" as that is preference what your pointing out. I have explained above why this format is correct. According to the explanation and examples at WP:NDASH, the format is correct. Here are some examples of likewise descriptive titles in the article space:
  • Japanese–German industrial co-operation before World War II
  • Pakistan–United States relations
  • China–India relations
  • Polish–Georgian alliance
  • Polish-Romanian alliance
  • Polish–Czechoslovak border conflicts
  • Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict
  • Seleucid–Parthian wars
  • Frisian–Frankish wars
  • Berke–Hulagu war
  • Tokhtamysh–Timur war
  • Metal–insulator transition
  • Core–mantle boundary

According to MOS:CAPS, the current title is incorrect as the article titles are not proper names and only proper names are capitalized. If you have a preference of whatever title format the article should be due to "resemblance", feel free to start a move request afterwards as the proposed names are correct either way. In the end, this is an oppose to this move to a correct descriptive title instead of a wrong proper name title. All, but one, used arguements that only apply to proper names. So, either the opposes are out of preference (not a good arguement against the move) or people don't grasp that it isn't a proper name (plain wrong). --Cold Season (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference, in that "war" refers to a particular event, so the phrase looks like a made-up name for that event. I would say that Berke–Hulagu war and Tokhtamysh–Timur war (not from MP:DASH) are just as badly named. Kanguole 18:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A war is a war, whether it has a name or not. "X-Y War" (with the capitalization) is a name for a particular war, while "X-Y war" (without the capitalization) refers to a war between X and Y. Although, I don't fully understand what you mean (?). --Cold Season (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose These names of war are proper names regardless whether they are made-up names or commonly accepted names. Even if they are made up names, they are intended to be proper names. So it should be capitalized per WP:MILTERMS. Also see Writing Style Guide: Military terms. The word "relation" is an abstract name. So it cannot be a proper name. A name can be a proper name only if it is a concrete name. Therefore X–Y relations cannot be X–Y Relations. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:NOR, one does not just make up a name so it can be "intended" to be something that it is not (in this case a proper noun). WP:MILTERMS state that it must be an accepted proper noun, consistently capitalized in sources, for it to be capitalized. That guide explicitly state "titles" of wars; these are descriptions. It fails all that per sources; a quick search confirms it. --Cold Season (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You have an obsession that these names of war are "descriptions" not "title of names" and repeated the idea everywhere. It's nothing other than your original research. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I quote from MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." It is not on me to proof that these are not proper names, but I have above. Just look up the current article titles (with quotation marks) in Google books or something (don't even to bother with the capitalization, since I know that the article titles won't bring any credible amount of hits in itself). I'd like to see sources that have these "proper names", quote the usage of it. --Cold Season (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't it a time to close this simple requested move? It already passed seven days and "there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed." ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Every reference I've ever seen on any "named" war makes the full name a proper noun. Should we also change it to First World war? (war with the First World? Gulf war? (War with Gulf? War over Gulf?) Where does it end? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestions

I was contemplating beginning the GA review for this page, and may still do this, but wanted to offer a couple content suggestions first.

• Is it possible to include more background on the relationship between the Xiongnu and the Qin and (more importantly) Han dynasties? My understanding is that the Xiongnu state and the Han arose at roughly the same time, and that early on during the Han dynasty the Xiongnu were regarded with a considerable amount of fear and admiration (they did, after all, manage to defeat and nearly capture Liu Bang). Diplomatic relations were based on the intermarriage system, and premised on the notion of brotherly equality between the Xiongnu and the Han. This arrangement was interrupted when emperor Wudi determine that the arrangement was demeaning to the Chinese, and thus began the decades-long campaign against the Xiongnu. This context seems to be missing.
• I thought the Yuezhi did ally with the Han. Maybe I'm confusing the Yuezhi with the Wusun?
• The current article structure is largely a chronological account of various battles, which is perfectly fine, but I'm wondering if there is a way to adopt a more thematic approach to a couple of the important components of the war (this isn't necessarily a prerequisite to GA status, but it might be nice). In particular, it might be good to have a more focused discussion on how the war impacted the military strategies of the Han dynasty, the development of the tribute system, etc. This could potentially be part of the 'aftermath,' or perhaps a new section on significance.
• A clear articulation of Wudi's goals and the core components of his strategy may be helpful, perhaps in the lede. For instance, Thomas Barfield described Wudi as adopting a four-pronged strategy that involved allying with the Xiongnu's adversaries, aiming to push them back to their Qin-era frontier, cutting off supply lines from the Tarim Basin, and then just wearing them through repeated punitive expeditions.
• There doesn't seem to be any information on the Xiongnu's (sort of) surrender in 54 BC and adoption of the new tribute system. Did I miss that? It's important.
• I think the aftermath section would benefit from a slight expansion. In particular, the page is a little thin in noting the split between the southern and northern Xiongnu, and it doesn't seem to mention much about what became of the northern Xiongnu as they were pushed north and west. Also, it might at least be worth noting that some historians draw a link between the northern Xiongnu and the Huns. Finally, the aftermath section might say something about how the battle paved the way for Han expansion into these areas.

I hope these are helpful suggestions. Homunculus (duihua) 04:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Aside from that massive requested move about the name of this article, is this a single war or a series of wars? It seems to me, since it occurred over a period of over two centuries, it should be pluralized... -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you intend for this comment to go in the thread above? Homunculus (duihua) 16:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No. I left a comment about it in the thread above. It also applies to seeking GA status. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. My understanding is that there was a protracted series of campaigns carried out under both the Qin and Han dynasties, and this article deals with the Han-era war. The campaigns may have spanned a considerable time (so did the Hundred Years' War), but there is arguably enough continuity in the policy and objectives of the Han to support the description as a singular "war"—even though there is really no consensus in the literature on what this war ought to be called. A more descriptive title also seems like a viable option (eg. "Han dynasty campaigns against the Xiongnu," or something more concise). I have no strong opinions either way. In any event, I would hope this issue can be resolved before a GA review. Homunculus (duihua) 06:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I will revise the article with your suggestions and some other ideas. I have withdrawn it for now for an overhaul. Anyway, The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 1 chapter about the Xiongnu and Han begins the conflict with the title "War with the Hsiung-nu" (page 389; beginning with the peace treaty breaking and Mayi), ending the chapter with the aftermath until 91 AD. I will go with that for now, singular war. --Cold Season (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cold Season. Please let me know if I can be of assistance. Homunculus (duihua) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think that title refers to a continuous state of war, rather than a war, i.e. an uncountable noun rather than a singular one. Kanguole 00:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good way of putting it. Homunculus (duihua) 00:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• EHan cavalry.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)