Talk:Pax Sinica

Comments
Ming dynasty had the Imjin War and Yuan dynasty had the Invasion of Japan. How is that peaceful? --Dangerous-Boy 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pax Romana doesn't imply that Rome didn't fight any wars either. The key is that it's relative peace. T. trichiura Infect me 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There were many dynasties, just because several dynasties were at war doesn't meen that the other ones lived a hard life. Also, the dates of certain things arent exactly accurate. They could be off by several years, so if your source on the war is a few years early, or even accurate(just saying some websites arent even completly accurate), and the time of pax Sinica is a few years ahead, then there are some unavoidable errors.Hornet101 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Something I just now noticed, which comletly contridicts everything I said earlier, there are no dates on the definition. Pax Sinicia could refer to present day china, or ancient china... it just means a tim of peace.During the time of the Invasion of Japan, there may not have been Pax Sinicia.Hornet101 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion
I've sent a notice to the creating author, to provide references. Else, I'm going to proceed with a nomination for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkenobi18 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 11 February 2011‎ (UTC)

Cut the Song Dynasty
The Song, particularly the Southern Song, was very small and in no way dominant. Its political and economic influence was vast, but this is the period when Japan started to move away from China and turn inward. There are people who will know much more than I do about this, but my impulse is that this particular dynasty should be removed from the lists. The Han and the Tang have a far better claim. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Song should not be cut because Japan turning inward, is like saying pax britiana doesn't exist because Qing turn inward and did not want to trade with them. you can't stop other countries from isolating themselves, as long as they are not messing up the peace established, it does not change the balance. initially, I agree with your assessment because Song is indeed a weaker entity, but then i realised it was illogical to compare them since they don't occupy the same time period. at least for the short period before they lost the north, they remain influential in cultural and technological development. however let avoid original research and see what can be sourced before changing this. 2406:3003:2006:C2A4:8CAD:B952:92CE:C327 (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

bias
This article is biased., so i added tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungguk (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

POV issues
If current economic power has important implications for a potential Pax Sinica ("Chinese peace" maintained by hegemony), then those factors that inhibit China's economic development, social stability, and global hegemony should also be mentioned per the standard practice of WP:NPOV, given the number of existing RSes that support these counter-POVs. Normchou  💬 19:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Pax Sinica is primarily cultural. for example the japanese still use kanji which literally means chinese character in japanese and this is under the fact that china has never conquer japan, so it influences is as a center of learning and civilisation due primarily to the scale of human activities not physical power. i find it laughable that people are citing population decline as an issue, china is overpopulated and will remain so and the decline in population is worst for korea and japan. furthermore Pax Sinica is historically about asia, the assumption of it requires being the "world hegemon" is misplaced. Pax Sinica can exist even if China is not a world hegemon. for example US is the "world hegemon" now, US did not stop anyone from joining AIIB, BRI, RCEP thus showing the limit of world power on Asian affairs... 101.127.15.2 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pax Sinica is primarily cultural, which sounds fine, as long as one is consistently following their own argument. So perhaps the "world's foremost economic power lasting two thousand years" and "recent resurgence and possible return because of its GDP" thingy should just be removed from this article altogether. If this is the consensus, then I am totally fine with it. Normchou   💬 06:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "primarily" does not mean it is only about culture. US economic power is already in decline as share of the world GDP. yet we do not consider the Pax Americana has ended... because it remains culturally influential as denoted by the mcdonald map... it is rather bad taste for you to just randomly demand to remove stuff you disagree with. 2406:3003:2006:C2A4:8CAD:B952:92CE:C327 (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)