Talk:Qin Shi Huang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qin Shi Huang article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Core This article is listed on this project's core biographies page.
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)
More information about this article...
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Contents

[edit] Yu

Yu is the King of Xia Kingdom, not Qin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.73.161 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qin =/= China

He was King of Qin before, but not King of China. That title was held by the King of the Zhou Dynasty. Consequently his father was also never King of China. Such a title does not exist, and is not equivalent to "King of Qin."

[edit] Qin Shi Huang or Qin Shihuang or Shih Huangti or Qin Shi Huangdi?

To-do list for Qin Shi Huang: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • send this article to peer review to get some input for the AID-collaboration

Mandel: I suggest switching the article either to Qin Shi Huang or to Shih Huangti, either of which are much more common than Qin Shi Huangdi. A Google Fight page between 秦始皇 and 秦始皇帝 has the former the overwhelming popularity winner (124 000 vs 159 in favor of 秦始皇). I believe 嬴政 called himself Shi Huangdi (始皇帝), never Qinshi Huangdi, the qin being a term tacked on by future historians. Either way -- Qin Shi Huang by historians, or Shih Huangti by himself -- seems valid, but a term trying the best of both worlds sounds a bit strange. On Google even Shi Huangdi (始皇帝) defeats Qin shi huangdi (秦始皇帝) hands down (on 14 200 votes)

Shi - Huang - Ti is the way the discovery chanel had it in their documentry about it - Sheep01 May 01, 2006 PS This page can do much better for one of the most discussed figures in Chinese history. Lots of info still left unsaid. - - Mandel - Apr 17, 2004

I have never seen the First Emperor referred to this way in English. I've always seen Shih Huangti, or some variant thereof. john k 21:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
"Shih Huangti" is the Wade-Giles version of "Shi Huangdi". Wikipedia uses Pinyin mostly. Brutannica 20:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure whether the rules of hanyu pinyin say anything about how to treat ancient names like this one, but it seems to me that "Qin Shihuang" is much more common than "Qin Shi Huang" in the Western literature about Chinese history. "Qin Shihuang" se)ems more consistent if we think about other commonly used names like Han Wudi or Sui Yangdi. This style of capitalisation seems to mirror modern Chinese names like Mao Zedong, where we have a surname plus a two-sllable name. Even if this is not the case in "Qin Shihuang", I think this style makes it look more like a Chinese name in romanised form. I wonder if there is any reason to prefer "Qin Shi Huang" over "Qin Shihuang"? Unless there is a strong argument in favour of the current form, I would suggest moving the article to "Qin Shihuang". --AngelRiesgo 16:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
According to Chinese romanized name standard, it should be "Qin Shihuang" (Because "Shihuang" can be treated as one word). I think in this case, it is better to stick to Chinese standard. Caiqian 17:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Qin Shi Huang is not a name but a title. --Skyfiler 22:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
His name was Ying Zheng, not Qin Shihuang or Qin Shi huang, but he is usually called Qin Shi huang (three independent Chinese characters) in Chinese because of Naming taboo. Britannica uses another name Shihuangdi (First Emperor)[1], which is less used in Chinese. However, I don't think himself would prefer any of these name. Qin Shi Huang and Qin ShiHuang are equally used on internet, even by the official Xinhua News Agency.--Skyfiler 19:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
As a matter of personal preference, I would lean towards Qin Shi Huang, but I can say that "ShiHuang" if it's made into just one word, needs to be "Shihuang" (lower-case h) because if we're anglicizing we should follow English orthography. The problem, of course, is that the name does not map to either modern names or ancient names that have two characters as one word together (e.g. Sima Qian, Lu Buwei) because it means, literally, first emperor ("August one") of Qin, and is not a personal name per se. siafu 19:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Personal prefernces apart, I was wondering whether the rules of hanyu pinyin would have anything to say about this matter. In the case of modern names, I think the rules say it explicitly that the two syllables of a name must be spelled in one word. So, forms like "Mao Ze Dong" or "Mao ZeDong" or "Mao Ze-dong" are incorrect in pinyin. I don't know, however, whether there are any rules for these ancient names that cannot be analysed as surname + name. I feel it may be a grey area in the rules of pinyin, but I don't know for sure. Another similar case is that of Laozi and Zhuangzi as opposed to Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi. --AngelRiesgo 22:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Three-syllable names are apparently relatively modern (i.e., not at all common back in Warring States Period and Qin Dynasty), at least the Family-generation-personal style that we're using as comparison, so it makes it all rather muddled. Also, zì, as in Han Feizi, Kongzi, Sunzi, etc., means "master" (roughly) so also isn't a name itself but a title. In the end, IMHO, it really is something of a matter of personal preference or aesthetics. Here on wikipedia, the standard for modern names is apparently be "Blah Blahblah", if we want to just stick with convention. As stated, though, it's not clear that that applies to this case. siafu 01:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I support the Pinyin standard of Qin Shihuang. BTW, in violation of the Wiki standard of Pinyin predominance, another user just changed the Qin Shihuang title to WG Ch'in Shih-huang. I've resolved the conflict, I hope, by reverting it to Pinyin (the Wiki standard) and adding the WG parenthetically, in the process adding Shih Huangti. Now we've covered all the bases, but parenthetically and only once in the first line, to avoid clutter. I've also taken the liberty of moving all the comments on this topic to the same section on this page.Dragonbones 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I also support whatever the pinyin standard is as being the most accurate transliteration available, but I also think this page should redirect from all available permutations of the name that are in use, of which there are many, but thats what an Encyclopedia is for, not to punish users who are using a correct (if not technically standardized) spelling. --Cptbuck 02:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the Huang actually mean 'King' and wasn't part of his actual name?

No, that's Wáng (王), and he was also known as "King of Qin", or Qínwáng (秦王), prior to establishing the empire. Huáng (皇) does literally mean emperor, but it was part of his "actual" name inasmuchas it's used to refer to him. Naming conventions of the time are not so straightforward as they are presently; as you can see from the box on the article, he had several names. siafu 01:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A redirect page Qui Shi Haungdi leads here. Does it have any basis as a "legitimate" reference or is it just a bad misspelling (although how one gets "Qui" from "Qin" is beyond me)? If no one is ever likely to put this in a search, I think the redirect should be speedy deleted. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be called Qin Shi Huangdi because nowadays, using han yu pin yin (the way used to write chinese using letters), that would be the way you'd write it. :D Waterairfirearth (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qin Shihuang and the Confucians

Someone wrote "Did he order the burning of the works of the earlier Confucians?"

I'd like to point out that there was only one Confucius (or Kong Fu Zi). There were no other "Confucians"

DaBoulder 13:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do point it out, but is it true? Confucius died when? Obviously at some point there were people who read his books and were influenced by his ideas. Are you saying there were none in 230 BC? It is possible some of the people killed were Confucians and the traditional term used for them, if I am not mistaken (which is possible), is ru. Lao Wai 13:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qin Shihuang controversial?

from user talk:Jiang

Could I ask what in what ways was the statement that "Shih Huangti being one of the most controversial figures in Chinese history" pointless? The fact that the article did not mention the controversial issues about one of most discussed figures of Chinese history (as well as the controversies themselves) does detract a lot from the overall scope of the article, in my view. - Mandel - Apr 17, 2004

The blanket statement adds nothing of value to the article because every historical figure can be considered "controversial". Instead of stating it, please demonstrate exactly how he is controversial. What is the controversy? Is it about what he did or his legacy? --Jiang
Mandel: --To Jiang--. Some figures of history may be considered controversial, but Shih Huangti is certainly one of the most controversial in Chinese history. If everything and everybody is considered controversial (granted everyone has their differing opinion on things) then the term "controversial" would be meaningless. What I really mean is that whilst historical figures like Hitler is presented in a much more consensual view amongst historians, most historians do not exactly know what stance to take when speaking of Shih Huangti. eg. Is he a great emperor or no?
I do agree that failing to write at length about it makes the statement somewhat muddled, but just because of that the statement isn't just simply "pointless"...it'd take space, time for the article, plus possibly more than one opinion, to do it some justice. But the controversial nature remains, is a fact, and not a subjective opinion. The main question of contention is the extent to which Sima Qian tempered and colored public opinion on Shih through his historical accounts. That aside, other issues remain. Could he be considered incontrovertibly a great emperor (like Kangxi or Emperor Han Wudi)? Was what he did justifiable on grounds of political ethics, or could he have found a milder middle ground? Does his ends justify his means? Could what he have done covered up and balanced some of the more controversial acts he mustered (like burying the Confucian scholars)? Did his legacy eventually benefit China or caused more schism? See these articles in Chinese:

http://edu.ocac.gov.tw/class/history/txt/txt3/txt-1.htm; http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/3/8/13/n358433.htm; http://www.cass.net.cn/chinese/s15_wxs/fengcai/chencz/07.htm http://www.smcc-canossian.org/~chinese/writing/0001/3a.htm

It's not a sweeping statement. You can't say that saying The Passion of the Christ is a controversial film is a blanket statement because "most films are to some extent, controversial".
I did say the article is wanting in this aspect. We'll have to skim beyond the surface of the article to make it any better. --Mandel

[edit] Why hasn't Qin Shihuang's burial mound been excavated?

Does anybody know why the mound in Xi'an has not been excavated? A big famous mound (that you can climb up) just sitting there seems like the first thing on any archaeologist's or looter's to-do list. I was there a little while ago and asked this, and someone told me it was because a model had been made in the tomb of the Qin Dynasty's territory, including the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers--with the water simulated by mercury. (There a complete re-creation of this at another site). So they were afraid of mercury poisoning? Something's definitely up there, anybody know what? Mjklin 15:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's because they don't have a clean tent large enough to cover the whole site. The largest tent that is made wouldn't even cover the hill. They need to prevent contamination, you know.

This is weird, yes. They can still get camera or bots in but no. Such a archaeological landmark, biggest discovery ever after finding tomb of Tutankhamen and they don't even want take a peek inside of it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.59.193 (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this might sound bizarre but one BBC documentary - I regret I cannot remember its name - speculated that the Chinese state authorities, nominally secular of course, have never allowed the excavation of he tomb - citing 'technical difficulties' without ever really specifying what these may be - because they think it would be extremely unpopular amongst a very large section of the Chinese population that m,ight consider disturbing the Emperor's resting place to be impious. Does anybody else - perhaps from China - have any view on this? 90.210.59.215 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology is sometimes described as a one time experiment -- you destroy what you are testing and you only have one chance to get it right. Fortunately the Chinese are following what is 'best practice' in archaeology and not excavating something that isn't under any threat. In the UK for instance, most archaeology is rescue archaeology -- going in when a new road is being built or a site threatened in some other way. A tremendous amount of valuable evidence has been lost in excavations in the past. The Chinese are right in preferring remote sensing methods in this case. Until they are have as much knowledge as possible as to what is there, they shouldn't go about tearing the site apart, which is what archaeology does. And don't underestimate the mercury problem.Doug Weller (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was told that it was such a valuable site that they wanted to wait until archaeology and science have advanced further so that when they do go in, they'll be better able to preserve what they find. Personally, I'm skeptical. I figure they have already found through remote sensing that the site is a major disappointment, so they have decided that the mystery and the legends of what's in there will be a greater tourist draw than the reality, LOL. Dragonbones (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lu Buwei

Phew! I just finished adding a bunch of sorely neglected information about his reign. I could use some help from anyone who knows more about the Ten Crimes that I didn't elucidate on. I also need someone to provide a correct link to Lu Buwei, since I don't know how to write that umlaut-u character yet! Brutannica 21:23, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Missing points

I'd like treatment of the following points:

  • Did he order the burning of the works of the earlier Confucians? He also kept an enormous library. I read that the disorder after his reign probably destroyed more books that his direct orders. Anyway, it is mentioned in connection to the Cultural Revolution and other book burnings.
  • Did he choose black ordering his court to use it extensively? What is its significance?
  • He ordered the construction of 6000 km of roads. As much as the Roman roads in a much shorter period. Write about the straight Road to Mongolia.
  • Write about his overpopulated capital. He forced the defeated monarchs to live in replicas of their destroyed former palaces.

Basically, I wanted to check something I read and found the article very lacking.

He did order the burning of books as recorded by Shi maqian. And this caused a really huge loss, much much greater than loss by the Cultural Revolution, since the printing technology had not been invented until 1000 years later. You may know there are so called "five classics" edited by Confucius. Before Qin Shi Huang, there are six classics instead of five. But because of his burning books, "classic of music" is lost forever. And all the hard copy of the "Classic of Rites" are burned. This book is survived only because some smart guy recited it from his memory.

To answer the points, I don't recall where I read it but here's what I remembered

  • He did order burning of "non-essential" books ie those that aren't related to farming or medicine. Apparently the Qin State got strong because of the focus on farming and war. In either case, he did keep a copy of all the books in his palace which is burned down along with the books by rebels.
  • Black was chosen as the state color because it represents water and the Zhou dynasty is represented by fire. The traditional five element scheme has fire replaced by water so black was chosen.
  • He did build highways of some sort to aid the transportation and deployment of troops. In terms of sophistication, I don't think

it got as advanced as the Roman's dig a ditch, fill it with gravel and stone kind of deal. He probably used rammed earth like the Qin's Great Wall. I think a documentary did say that though crude, it was quite effective as only grass can take root in the rammed earth.

  • Don't think this was mentioned much aside from the line saying all weapons were melted down into statues or bells and nobles forced to move to the capital. As for the replica of the palaces, I think those are for himself not for the monarchs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.166.10 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xiao Zhuan

Does anybody know where the Xiao Zhuan font used to write the "Shi Huang Di" inscription on this page can be found? I have been looking unsuccessfully for a Zhuan Shu font for some time.

Thank you!

There is a font named "方正小篆体" or Founder Xiao Zhuan the in Founder Chinese Font Library, a product of Founder Electronics. I am sure there are other Xiao Zhuan fonts. However, Xiao Zhuan was invented by Li Si, Prime Minister of Qin, after Qin Dynastywas found. I think you should use zhouwen, a style of Da Zhuan (see Seal script)which was used in Qin state.

The Academia Sinica's Document Processing Lab has a nice (small) seal script font here: http://www.sinica.edu.tw/~cdp/, along with bronze and oracle bone fonts; see 2nd link, which reads 下載古漢字字型2.4版，7.24M，2006年8月版，收錄 小篆字型7,475字、金文字型1,533字、甲骨文字型760字、楚系簡帛文字字型1,095字。(閱讀安裝及使用說明). Click leftmost link on that line to download.Dragonbones (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huhai

I notived someone wrote that Huhai was the 18th son of Qin Shi Huang. This is the first time I hear that. Is there any reference or citation backing that? Hardouin 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Qin Shi Huang had 4 documented sons. Huhai is the last son. However, the number of his slibings is under dispute.

Words in Records of the Grand Historian:

  • crown prince Fusu was forced suicide
  • prince Jianglu and 2 of his brothers were forced suicide
  • prince Gao was forced to apply for burying himself with Qin Shi Huang
  • 12 princes were killed at XianYang
  • Six princes were killed at Du
  • Ten princesses were killed by Huhai at Du

--Skyfiler 02:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Warrior?

Yesterday I was watching the Discovery Channel, and he was portrayed as a warrior king. Qin Shi Huang has been widely credited as a great and ambitious leader, but has anybody read about his ability as a general? I think Discovery Channel is just BSing us.

Qin's conquest of China was carried out by his generals
  • In 230 BC, 50000 Qin soldiers led by internal affairs minister Teng descended upon Han and destroyed it.
  • In 228 BC, King Youmiu of Zhao surrended to general Wang Jian's forces after the fall of the capital Handan
  • In 227 BC, Crown Prince Dan of Yan dispatched Jing Ke to kill Ying Zheng, but failed.
  • In 226 BC, Ji, then the capital of Yan, was fallen to general Wang Jian's force. Crown Prince Dan of Yan was executed by his father for a peace treaty.
  • In 225 BC, general Wang Ben, son of general Wang Jian, destroyed Wei using flood to destroy the mighty walls of the Wei capital of Daliang.
  • In 224 BC, Chu was vanquished by Wang Jian.
  • In 222 BC, Wang Ben finished the remain forces of Yan and Zhao.
  • In 221 BC, Qi surrendered to Wang Ben and Meng Tian's force.--Skyfiler 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacies removed

I removed from the introduction "Emperor Shi Huang of Qin of China". I don't know where this comes from. In history books and among Chinese Studies scholars he is never called that way. Probably this was invented by an uninspired Wikipedian who was trying to standardize the names of Chinese monarchs. Also, Ying is not a family name. There was no such thing as "family names" in pre-221BC China. There were ancestral names and clan names, but no family names as they exist now. Read Confucius talk page for more information. Hardouin 17:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is totally bullshit. First the "Shi" in "Emperor Shi Huang of Qin of China" is actually meant beginning or starting. Secondly Huang is actually meant emperor, so calling Shi Huang of Qin as "Emperor Shi Huang of Qin of China" is actually calling him emperor twice. Also please check the Chinese famliy name Liang in wikipedia. The truth is that there is a lots of Chinese famliy name that is older than the Chinese famliy name Liang and exist well before "221BCE".

[edit] Misc section

It seems to me like the miscellaneous section has important information and should be part of the main article not in the bottom misc section. And isn't it supposed to be the elixir of life not the philosopher's stone? 128.6.175.86 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - it seems to me that the miscellaneous section has very little important information - most of it has already been mentioned in the article (Qin Shi Huang's habit of changing sleeping place often, for example). Couldn't it simply be assimilated into the main article? 205.233.121.29 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zheng was the empire's strongest warrior

"Zheng was the empire's strongest warrior, extremely skilled in the use of the sword (he carried a two-handed sword with him at all times), the halberd, the crossbow, and other traditional Chinese weapons."

Uhm...this sounds more like propaganda than facts. At the very least he was a skilled warrior, but to proclaim he was the "strongest warrior" of the Unified empire of China...come on! Fred26 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Indian empire

Regarding the image of the Indian empire (recently added by Deeptrivia), I thought that the image should be deleted. First, because the caption refers to the Han empire, which is not quite Shi Huangdi—the topic of this article (moreover, the Han empire didn't exist: rather, there were at least two). Second, because the image claims to show the largest empires in the world at the time but omits the Roman Republic as well as anything in the Americas. Third, the use of "first" emperor is obviously disputable in both cases. More generally, the inclusion of the image appears like an attempt to increase the reputation of the Indian empire rather than something relevant for Shi Huangdi.
—Daphne A 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're free to edit the caption Daphne A to make it more accurate. Also, let's try to learn to assume good faith -- those who want can keep discussing whether the Chinese civilization was any comparision to Indian or Roman ones at that, or any other time, and whose reputation is getting improved by this comparision, but I hope we don't start on that :) From the maps, the Roman Republic appears much smaller even in terms of land area, let alone population. If you have any other concerns, please discuss. deeptrivia (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The image is also inaccurate in drawing the Qin Empire - or even the Han, for that matter. In all, I can't see any good reason to include it as it is at best trivial, and even inaccurate in the event. siafu 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Era name

Recently, an anonymous user (User:67.71.140.161, User: 70.49.243.169) has been changing the era names in this article from BCE to BC. AFAIK, despite there being a lack of consensus on the various proposals involved, it's inappropriate to change the era names without first discussing and building consensus on the talk page. Since the IP address is not the same one every time, I'm not sure if there's any utility to leave a comment on the user's talk, so I'm hoping that the user in question will present his or her viewpoint here on the talk page. Otherwise, the unilateral change is just vandalism. siafu 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), we only need consistency in style. Since the article was already using BCE, there's no justification of changing it to BC. Same changes are being made by anon editors in other history articles too. At this stage, probably we can just revert and explain the relevant policy in the MoS to the anonymous user, hoping (s)he won't keep coming back with the same edit. deeptrivia (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking it might be slightly unlikely that this user will present any rational argument. siafu 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The box uses BC. Even if it didn't, I'm going to change it anytime I see BCE/CE used. If someone wants to come up with a new dating system that works for the entire world, I welcome it. Until that time, I'm going to stick with BC and AD, and avoid the pointless cheesiness of BCE/CE. Personally, were I a non-Christian, I would be more offended by the use of BCE/CE, because it would appear its proponents must think I'm a real pinhead to be fooled by it. Just changing the name doesn't remove religion from it; 50 BC and 50 BCE are identical. BC and AD are still by far the standard used in academia. I know some scholars use the BCE/CE system, but not many. The ones who do are usually well-meaning, intelligent people who are just a bit misguided. 70.49.242.72 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, we did need to fix that box. I don't think "pointless cheesiness" is much of a substitute for an argument, nor the outright statement that consensus will not be respected. BTW, if "BC and BCE are identical", then why do you insist on reverting, precisely? siafu 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You changed the box the wrong way. Your question I already answered. If they are identical, there is no reason in changing to the "new" system. If someone can invent a truly non-religious system, that would be different. That has not happened with BCE/CE. I re-read what I had written, and it is clear. You must just be pretending not to understand, as all supporters of BCE/CE know the system is nonsense. Consensus is being respected by me; despite what many would like to believe, BC/AD is still by far the standard, and that is reflected in this encyclopedia. That BCE/CE is pointless and cheesy was not my argument for retaining the older system - as we both know. (I'm not sure why you're pretending not to understand.) The newer system is a failure because the religious aspect is still present, and it has not solved the lack of a year 0. As I said already, if someone can invent a new system which overcomes those and all the other problems of the Christian system of dating, I would welcome it. Now, that said, I have to say I find it funny that you would lament the possibly of my presenting a rational argument, and then when I do present one, yourself fail to answer it in kind. I find it hard to believe you even read what I wrote! I'm not too optimistic of receiving a reasoned, logical reply to this, that's for sure. 70.49.242.72 23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, "BCE is cheesy" is not a rational argument. It's obvious that you aren't very familiar with wikipedia policy, so I'll just start and end by referring you to WP:CON, Wikipedia:Eras, the above-mentioned Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), WP:NPA, and WP:Civil. siafu 00:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, your not paying attention isn't funny anymore. If you think "BCE is cheesy" is my argument, then you haven't read it. Restating it would be a waste of time; it's right there if you decide you do want to read it. 70.49.242.72 00:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether something is "cheesy" or not is not the kind of argument we are supposed to carry out here. Also, questions such as "whether BC and BCE are identical", "whether BCE is free of religious connotations", "whether it is a failure" etc can best be left to scholars/academics to debate. None of us here can claim to be authorities on these issues, and we can keep debating endlessly and fruitlessly. What we can and should discuss is issues related to the Manual of Style. The MoS says that either BC or BCE can be used -- one just has to be consistent. What is, then, your rationale behind changing from BCE to BC? deeptrivia (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of anything else, [[### BC]] is the direct link, [[### BCE]] is a re-direct ... so if you use BCE it should be [[### BC]]E ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsmcd (talk • contribs)
If consistency within the article is all that matters, when I first made the change the box used BC and the article BCE. Unless it says something about the percentage of usage of one or the other making a difference, I'd say that gave me a right to make the change. All other arguments aside. Few others besides siafu have weighed in on this, and he clearly is incapable of rationale discussion. 67.71.141.85 12:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"... and he clearly is incapable of rationale discussion." — This is almost a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA. deeptrivia (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It's objective fact, something anyone can see just by reading his comments. 70.5 3.108.169 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't be so surprised, deeptrivia. This user has made it clear that civility is not his or her concern. See: [2], [3], [4], [5]. &c. siafu 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess you're hoping people won't notice you've done the same thing, not far above: "I'm thinking it might be slightly unlikely that this user will present any rational argument." Don't think, either, that no one has noticed you too have violated (many, many times) the 3RR. 67.71.141.180 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This is simple vandalism. Though I'm impressed to see you're actually starting to read policy pages now. siafu 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That's okay, I'm impressed you didn't try to deny your own vandalism! 67.71.141.180 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I hate to open up a dead issue but the style guides above offer 260 BC and 260 BCE but not 260 BCE; I can see how it's a compromise, but it's really pretty ugly. Couldn't we just vote on this one way or the other and then leave it that way? Cambridgegames 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view?

I note that there are a number of sentences in the discussion on historiography which I don't feel is neutral - for example the use of "Ideological prejudices", "systematic Confucian bias" and "limitations of traditional Chinese historiography" which suggest that their views must necessarily be wrong, while that of the modern ones must be more correct, an idea which I don't think is warranted. The justification for some of the criticism is poor - for example the author questions the historical truth of the execution of scholars "seems unlikely to be completely true, but we have no way to know for certain" without explaining why that the author think it is so, that is just highly unsatisfactory, sounds more like a personal view and not a valid criticism at at all.

[edit] Unification of China

There should be an article on (or at least a chart showing the progress of) the unification of China under this emperor.

[edit] Cultural depictions Qin Shi Huang

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I love the fact that everyone who edits these Chinese history events, I really apriciate it and I thank everyone who wrote it and use it, I encourage many people to use such articles to their research advantage

[edit] Qin Shi Huang's footwear

Does anyone have an idea why he is wearing such enormous shoes (or whatever they might be)?? :) --B. Jankuloski 04:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The shoes are not enormous as such, rather at the front of each shoe there is an extension which projects and curls upwards, making it looks larger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.102.149 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] General Cleanup

I'm finding this article to be rather badly organized, and would like to add a "General Cleanup" template to it. Is there anybody who agrees with me on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.233.121.29 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Also, for its length, I was surprised to find only one reference....and that sole reference was on the Mao quote. _dk 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qui Shi Haungdi

  • A redirect page "Qui Shi Haungdi" leads here. Does it have any basis as a "legitimate" reference or is it just a bad misspelling (although how one gets "Qui" from "Qin" is beyond me)? If no one is ever likely to put this in a search, I think the redirect should be speedy deleted. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

I have changed a word in a sentence in the first paragraph of this section.

In Chinese antiquity, people never joined family names and given names together as is customary for all >>>Chinese<<< names today, so it is anachronistic to refer to Qin Shi Huang as "Ying Zheng".

I changed it to Chinese from chinks. No need to use offensive words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albalongoria (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph of the "Naming conventions" section is POV and unsupported. I am proposing its removal in its entirety. --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qin Shi Huang's mother

What is the name of his mother? Newone (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qin Shi Huang and not Qin Shi Huang di

Ying Zheng, who later called himself Shi Huang Ti (The first emperor), was later rechristened Qin Shi Huang by later historians (who usually puts the dynasty name in the front). The term Qin Shi Huang Di is never used because it is not a historical convention. At any rate, Ying Zheng never called himself Qin Shi Huang Di, so the lead is changed to read better. Also, as Ying Zheng was a king before he was an emperor, the term 'monarch' (a king, queen, or emperor) neatly sidesteps the issue that he is a king or an emperor. Hence the first line of the article is changed. 124.155.206.12 (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hata Clan descended from him

someone should mention the japanese hata clan which is descended from him on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.165.169 (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BCE vs BC

Acc. the Wiki style guide, both are acceptable, but the article must be internally consistent. Since the article is primarily in BCE I'm fixing the few BC's for consistency. "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article." Dragonbones (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)