Talk:Jin dynasty (266–420)

Untitled

I don't think having (265-420) in the title is a very good idea, even though there have been more Jin dynasties. I think First and Second Jin Dynasty are better (though I'm not sure these names are really in use). -- jheijmans

These "first" and "second" names are never in use. Major confusion around the dynasty names are western tranliterations of the chinese characters. 晉 (pinyin jin4) and 金 (pinyin jin1) represent different dynasties but their pinyin transliterations are same. IMO (265-420) shows the duration of the 晉 dynasty, which cannot be confused by the 金 founded in the 12th century. Would you recommand other ideas to settle the isuue? -- User:kt2

Several Jin dynasty related articles have named the dynasty as "first" Jin and the one founded by the Jurchen as the second. Let me stress the point here, the "first" and "second" convention is never in use. If one is uncomfortable of a possible ambiguity, the Jin dynasty by the Jurchen can also be named as the Jurchen dynasty. kt2 17:28, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The two Jin dynasties are separated by three facts: The tone, the character, and the dates. Putting all three in the title eliminates confusion completely.Dragonbones 15:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The years are sufficient disambiguation. The problems with putting the Chinese character and the tone in the title are:

1. Some readers will not be able to read them. (For Windows-based systems, they need Chinese fonts installed, and they might not have installed them.) This will confuse them and/or their browsers.
2. It is against common convention here on Wikipedia not to include non-Roman characters into article titles.
3. It is unnecessary -- again, with the years, it's already sufficient disambiguated.

--Nlu (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So now the disambiguating dates have been removed? Adding the tone marks helps, if you know Chinese is tonal and know to pay attention to the tone, but it's not enough, because many readers won't know to look at the tone marks. "First" and "second" are not established usage and rub me the wrong way, plus that would create confusion with a third period, the Later Jin Dynasty (of Five Dynasties; 936-947). Sorry, but I'm reverting to the version with the dates, and adding a clarifying sentence at the end of the first paragraph for both Jin pages. If someone types "Jin dynasty" they go through a disambiguation page but if they reach the page via any other link, confusion is possible. Others might choose to remove the dates from the titles again (and I'll of course bow to consensus if it exists), but a minimum, I think we need a line within the text of each Jin-period page (say, at the end of the intro para.) mentioning there are other Jin periods, and directing the user to the disambiguation page here Jin Dynasty.Dragonbones 02:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is generally against Wikipedia style to try to provide comprehensive information about the subject in the title. The main purpose of title disambiguation is simply to provide distinct URLs for the articles in question, preferably in a format that a reader would be able to guess (not too likely) or at least remember after the first time they see it. Someone who is confused about which Jin Dynasty they are reading about can clear that up by reading the first sentence of the article. Consequently, I think Wikipedia style is clearly against double (or triple) disambiguation; once is sufficient. We should either have the tone mark in the title or show the years in parentheses. I have no strong preference, although Nlu might be right that the tone mark presents technical problems for some users. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the line I've added at the end of the introductory paragraph in all four Jin-related titles. Feel free to improve it of course. "Note that there are four periods of Chinese history using the name "Jin" (see clarification here)." There really wasn't anything in the intros to these pages to alert readers to the possibility of confusion, which is part of the reason I was pushing for disambiguation within the titles. I still prefer adding the tones, Chin. char. and dates, but won't push the issue; after further reflection, it seems to me this additional line may be adequate. Cheers! Dragonbones 06:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dates not clear

Can we please add "AD" or "CE" (or whatever the politically correct term is) to the dates? They are not at all clear for non-specialists (me!) and I have to look through the text to find out when the time of this dynasty relative to our European dating system. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Michael (talk • contribs) 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Per WP:DATE, unspecified dates are always AD. --Nlu (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nlu, that's good to know. Nick Michael 13:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jin Map

I restored the map that Balthazar deleted. He had a point about it only showing Jin, but it's better than no map whatsoever. I have two maps that show Jin and much more (East-Hem 300ad.jpg and East-Hem 400ad.jpg), but I plan to crop the large maps into smaller maps (Europe, Asia, etc.). That won't be ready for another few weeks, but until then, the existing map is better than none! Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are the map options currently...

1. Previous map The Eastern Jin Dynasty (yellow) and the state of Former Qin in 376 CE

2. Balthazar's map The Eastern Jin Dynasty .

3. Asia Map in 400 AD Asia in 400 AD, showing Eastern Jin after loss of the Northern territories.

Which map do we wish to keep on the article? Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

want a larger map

I love the asia map (300ce)! Great cross-cultural reference. Oh yea, and the second one (400ce). Should be links connecting them. But, it's tiny! And cramped. And, you click down on it expecting to see a magnified version, and instead you zip off to one of the links.

The original map image for both is available in thousands of pixels, but the overlay with the links don't come with it for free. In fact... I can't even find where those links are. Here we are... seems like the overlaid links are part of an Annotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Annotation which is something I've never done before. And I don't have time to learn it now. sorry. Anyway, each map should have a LARGE version. Maybe on a page all its own. In fact, each one should be converted to a simple, small .png, replacing what's there, which links to the large one. This way the user's not thrown off when they click on it, actually clicking on GUPTA EMPIRE, and they go to 'Gupta Empire' instead of to an enlarged image. There's maybe a way to enlarge the annotation location coordinates, without having to change each by hand? Without also magnifying the text? maybe not.

400

ROURAN KHAGANATE

Kyrgyzs

Kokel

Gaoju
Turks

CHAM-
PA

FUNAN

Sargat

Khotan

HYMYAR

EASTERN
JIN

NORTHERN
WEI

GOGU-
RYEO

WESTERN
SATRAPS

VAKA-
TAKAS

GUPTA
EMPIRE

KIDARITES

XIONITES

AFRIGHIDS

SASANIAN
EMPIRE

BYZANTINE
EMPIRE

HUNS

Jushi

TOCHARIANS

TUYUHUN

N. LIANG

Paleo-Siberians

Samoyeds

Tungus

MEROË

AKSUM

class=notpageimage|

The Eastern Jin dynasty and contemporary Asian polities c. 400

Try some experiments (see by editing this section). Original sidebar map as in the page, see on right →

400

ROURAN KHAGANATE

Kyrgyzs

Kokel

Gaoju
Turks

CHAM-
PA

FUNAN

Sargat

Khotan

HYMYAR

EASTERN
JIN

NORTHERN
WEI

GOGU-
RYEO

WESTERN
SATRAPS

VAKA-
TAKAS

GUPTA
EMPIRE

KIDARITES

XIONITES

AFRIGHIDS

SASANIAN
EMPIRE

BYZANTINE
EMPIRE

HUNS

Jushi

TOCHARIANS

TUYUHUN

N. LIANG

Paleo-Siberians

Samoyeds

Tungus

MEROË

AKSUM

then, on the left, get rid of caption. The Rectangle (plain) is just the box enclosing 'EASTERN JIN', the numbers after Annotation are the coordinates for the box location. But the numbers do something. so we can remove the box ←

but the Title (not shown on page!) defines which Annotation: {{Continental Asia in 401 CE|right||{{Annotation|0|0|}}}} so you see you get an error cuz 'Continental Asia in 401 CE' is not found. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Article move

It's been since late June that User:Stargate756 has moved this article to Jin Dynasty (266-420) without any explanation for his actions. Sima Yan forced Cao Huan of Cao Wei to abdicate and then was enthroned as Emperor Wu of Jin in 265; end of story. Can this user please explain his actions? Your edits seem disruptive and I dare say unwelcome at Wikipedia.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mergers of Jin Duchy (240–264) and Jin Kingdom (264–265)

I propose that the two recently-created articles Jin Duchy (240–264) and Jin Kingdom (264–265) be merged to Jin Dynasty (265–420) or History of the Jin Dynasty (265–420).

The duchy and the kingdom were actually vassal states nominally under the control of the state of Cao Wei in the Three Kingdoms period. The last Wei emperor Cao Huan granted the title of "Duke of Jin" (晉公) to Sima Zhao in the 260s, which was how the dukedom or duchy came about. The title "Duke of Jin" was previously held by Sima Zhao's father Sima Yi. In 264, Sima Zhao was promoted from a duke to a vassal king, "King of Jin" (晉王), hence the "Kingdom of Jin". His title was inherited by his son Sima Yan, who was briefly "King of Jin" before he forced Cao Huan to abdicate the throne to him, thus ending Cao Wei and establishing the Jin Dynasty (265–420). Throughout that period of time, the Cao Wei state was still in existence even though Sima Zhao (and later Sima Yan) had become the de facto rulers of Wei. Therefore, since the duchy and the kingdom still paid nominal allegiance to the Wei emperor, they should not be viewed as independent states. Rather, they were the forerunners of the Jin Dynasty (265–420).

I'm sure it would be totally absurd to create individual articles for the domains (or fiefs) of all the persons in Cao Wei who held the titles of dukes, princes, or vassal kings. If not, we'll be seeing articles like Cao Zhang's Principality of Rencheng or even Sun Quan's Kingdom of Wu (222-229). LDS _{contact me} 10:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly. _dk (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I realise that the information on Jin Duchy (240–264) and Jin Kingdom (264–265) was actually copied from Sima Yi and Sima Zhao. There is nothing fresh and new that can be merged to Jin Dynasty (265–420). I'll just redirect them since they are no more than just duplicates of existing pages. LDS _{contact me} 15:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:KO.2, the creator of those two pages, removed my notification from his/her talk page. I'll assume that he/she does not wish to participate in this discussion and has no objections to the merge. LDS _{contact me} 15:30, 5 March 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Jin Dynasty (265–420) → Jin Dynasty
• Jin Dynasty (1115–1234) → Jurchen Jin Dynasty
• Jin Dynasty → Jin Dynasty (disambiguation)

– The disambiguation years are too difficult to remember and in my opinion unnecessary. Alternatives are to rename the second one to Jīn Dynasty, like what the Italian page it:Dinastia Jīn is using, or Jinn Dynasty, which according to that page had also been used to disambiguate, but not nearly as frequently used as "Jurchen Jin Dynasty" according to books.google.com Timmyshin (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - personally I'd be sorry to see the years go. I don't need to remember the years to Google or RH search box either, but the years being there is very helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It makes editing quite painful. I also can't see how those years are helpful. Should we also label Liu Song Dynasty as Song Dynasty (420-479) and Song Dynasty as Song Dynasty (960-1279)? No, we just pick the shorter dynasty, add an adjective to it and move on. Timmyshin (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • In the case of Liu Song and Song dynasties, there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so the choice is obvious. In the case of the two Jin dynasties, however, you'll get a different answer depending on who you ask. People who study Daoism will tell you the Jin Dynasty (265–420) is absolutely crucial, whereas those who study the Qing dynasty or the history of Chinese medicine will swear the Jin Dynasty (1115–1234) is more central. I don't think the shorter time span should be a factor. Madalibi (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm fine with the principal of taking the dates out the title but I'd like to see some proper discussion and evidence that Jin Dynasty (265–420) is really the primary subject. Subjectively, I feel that Jin Dynasty (1115–1234) is the primary and that the suggestion above is just making Jin Dynasty (265–420) into Jin Dynasty because it is the easiest way disambiguate and not because it is the primary subject. Objectively, I can see that someone has considered this before and decided that there is no clear primary subject for Jin Dynasty and so set that to redirect to the disambiguation page. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• I support the move of Jin Dynasty (1115–1234) to Jurchen Jin Dynasty, but I am undecided opposed to moving Jin Dynasty (265–420) to Jin Dynasty.--Typing General (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • And before any move occurs, someone needs to fix the articles linking to the disambiguation page for Jin Dynasty.--Typing General (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's also called the Former Jin Dynasty (compare Later Jin) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The results of a google books search for "Jin dynasty" are fairly evenly divided between these two, implying that neither is the primary topic. Kanguole 01:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the move of Jin Dynasty (1115–1234) to Jurchen Jin Dynasty. The dynasty is simply known as Jin Dynasty or sometimes Jurchen Dynasty (emphasizing the ruler). I did a search as well, and "Jin Dynasty" (with mentioning of Jurchen rulers somewhere) is far more common than "Jurchen Jin Dynasty" (a combo), and the title is redundant. Its a phrase (such as calling Mongol Yuan Dynasty or Manchu Qing Dynasty) but its not a proper title. Its common to see something along the lines of "Jurchen-ruled Jin Dynasty" or "Jurchen-controlled Jin Dynasty", etc. in Google Books, but that's the same as "Jurchen Jin Dynasty".--TheLeopard (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on TheLeopards comment, would Jin Dynasty (Jurchen) be more acceptable as the Jurchen section is not the title but the disambiguating factor. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Jurchen Jin is not the proper title of the dynasty, but it is a common way for historians to disambiguate the Jin Dynasty. There are multiple instances of it in Frederick Mote's book on imperial China, and it's listed as an alternative name (under Jurchen Chin) for the Jin Dynasty in the Glossary/Index of The Cambridge History of China Volume 5, Part 1. These are the Google Book results:

• "Jurchen Jin Dynasty" (combination) 2,830 results
• "Jurchen" "Jin Dynasty" 2,880 results
• "Jurchen-ruled Jin Dynasty" 7 results
• "Jurchen-controlled Jin Dynasty" 5 results

Also, a Google Books search for "Jurchen" and "Jin Dynasty" (separately) will include most of the books with "Jurchen Jin Dynasty" (combination) in its results.--Typing General (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment did anyone check about usage of the term "Former Jin" which is also used to refer to the first Jin dynasty ? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a good point, but the Jin Dynasty (1115–1234) itself is sometimes called the "Former Jin" when contrasted with the "Later Jin" (後金), another Jurchen dynasty that was renamed the Qing dynasty in 1635. Madalibi (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Then, shouldn't we retarget Former Jin to the disambiguation page? Although, "Later Jin" was repointed away from the disambiguation page.-- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, not sure how to answer... When I redirected Later Jin away from the DAB page and toward Later Jin Dynasty, I added a hat note saying that "Later Jin" was also the former name of the Qing dynasty. I just assumed (and I still think this is right) that Later Jin referred more commonly to one of the Five Dynasties than to the pre-Qing Later Jin. Now we have to ponder what the most common referent of "Former Jin" is: is it Former Jin 晉 (Jin Dynasty (265–420)) or Former Jin 金 (Jin Dynasty (1115–1234))? Based on my impression, the main place the Jurchen Jin 金 are called "Former Jin" is in studies on the Qing dynasty. I think we have two options: (1) we add a hat note to Jin Dynasty (265–420) similar to the one I added to Later Jin Dynasty to point out that there is another Former Jin out there; (2) we redirect Former Jin to Jin Dynasty (disambiguation). But the second option has two drawbacks: it risks making readers have to click twice to get to Jin Dynasty (265–420), and it removes a convenient way of linking to that page without having to write all the dates. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. However, I find it more proper to move "Jin Dynasty (1115–1234) " to "Jin Dynasty (Jurchen)" as mentioned above. --Cold Season (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose 1) Nothing indicates that Jin Dynasty (265–420) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to the other dynasties listed on the dab page 2) The proposal is editor-centric instead of reader-centric. Just for the benefit of getting rid of those pesky dates, the reader is sent to a random article of the many covering "Jin" and "Dynasty". Moving to "Jurchen Jin Dynasty" had at least the advantage of eliminating parenthesis per wp:natural, but since it's seems incorrect according to editors above, there is not even that. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think there's a problem with the current titles, and I think the proposed changes would actually make it harder for readers to find the page they're looking for. Readers who type "Jin dynasty" would be automatically sent to Jin Dynasty (265–420) even when they're looking for the Jin Dynasty (1115–1234), or they will have a choice between "Jin dynasty" and "Jīn Dynasty," which are impossible to differentiate. In both cases there's a good chance they will be sent to the wrong page and will have to click twice to find the article they're looking for. Right now the dates of the two dynasties automatically appear in the search box when you type "Jin dynasty," so they're not a hassle to our readers, and they serve as an ideal disambiguation. Editors who find the dates annoying (and I am among them!) can always use Sima Jin and Jurchen Jin instead of the long forms. Madalibi (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment On a related note, Later Jin redirects to the disambiguation page, but the article Later Jin Dynasty is undisambiguated in comparison, this seems to be at split purposes, if "Later Jin" is ambiguous enough to require pointing to the disambiguation page, then Later Jin Dynasty itself is also so encumbered, and thus would also need to be renamed to add a date. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good point! I just changed the target of the Later Jin redirect from Jin Dynasty (disambiguation) to Later Jin Dynasty because I think "Later Jin" is mainly used to refer to that dynasty. I also added a mention of the Jurchen-founded "later Jin" to the top of Later Jin Dynasty. Would this solution be more coherent? Madalibi (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the result of the nomination supposes that this page is primary over the other, yet the nomination makes no refererence as to why that would be the case, and in fact judging by other comments here it appears as if this is not a primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2013 (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.

Move request to decapitalize all Chinese dynasty articles

There's a move request to decapitalize "dynasty" in the Chinese dynasty articles, as in Han Dynasty → Han dynasty. For more information and to give your input, see [1]. --Cold Season (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This was a state headed by an emperor

Of course it is sometimes known as an "empire". We don't need a page move: "Jin dynasty of the Chinese Empire" is still more common... but Jin Empire has plenty of attestations and, not only should its use not be removed, it needs to be mentioned in the article as an alternate name. See also Google Scholar for scholarly use. — LlywelynII 01:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you looked at the links you provided? They are talking about the Jurchen Jin dynasty that 800 years after this dynasty. I've long identified you as a competent editor, but I must express my disappointment. _dk (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"distinguished as the Sima Jin and Liang Jin" means what?

"Distinguished as the Sima Jin and Liang Jin" means what? If these things belong in the lead they need to be explained there. Siuenti (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect time

Jin was established in the year 266, not 265. According to Book of Jin, the dynasty was established in the December of 265 [of the Chinese calendar]. If we use Julian calendar, it should already be in the year 266!--Alvin Lee 00:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved. NoNews! 10:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Wu of Jin which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Qing dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)