A fact from Han conquest of Dian appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 July 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The so-called evidence here is in fact simply regional lifestyle goods found all around Yunnan of the time probably including Tibet, definitely including north-eastern India and Burma, modern Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, the latter possessing a more obviously evidenced cultural link to Dian via the Dong Son bronze drum culture complex. Claiming a bronze mirror is evidence of Sinification is just too obtuse without additional citations and evidence. Hence, I have added an NPOV section notice. Feel free to improve this section as you see fit. prat (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
