Talk:Qin dynasty/Archive 1

Kings in dynasty list
Why are rulers before Shi Huang Di listed in the table? --Jiang

The reason had already been explained in the note of the table. ''(秦昭襄王 qin2 zhao1 xiang1 wang2) had already been ruling Qin for 51 years when Qin anniliated Zhou Dynasty; however the other six warring states were still independent regimes. (Traditional Chinese) Historiographers thus used the next year (the 52nd year of Qin Zhao Shang Wang) as the official continuation from Zhou Dynasty. Qin Shi Huang Di was the first Chinese sovereign proclaimed himself "Emperor".''

First the table was an abridged copy from a list of Chinese kings in a dated Chinese dictionary (to be specific, it's a Cidan). As with most old sources, the traditional Chinese view of history prevails, i.e. obsession with uniterrupted succession of Chinese rulers. Traditional Chinese histriography recognized rulers of the state since the end of Zhou Dynasty as the de facto rulers of the known Chinese territory even though there was not a single ruler who actually imposed administrative authoirty over all known Chinese territories. The rulers of Qin were powerful enough to dominate but not rule the known Chinese world despite it had to wait until the completion of unificaton in 221 BC. Just as an example, if the state of Chu, but not Qin, had unified China, we would have known the Chu Dynasty and been reading kings of Chu in the dynasty list. So I am supporting removal of Qin kings from the list for clarity.

For this period of history of China: kt² 23:01, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) up to 256 BC: Warring States (including the state of Qin) and a recognized king of the Zhou Dynasty
 * 2) 256 BC to 221 BC: Warring States (including Qin)
 * 3) since 221 BC: Qin Shihuangdi unified China, beginning of Qin Dynasty


 * Maybe we better put the explanation outside the table. If I fail to notice it, many people do. wshun 23:05, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of the kings as the dynastic ruler is actually contrary to official Taiwanese middle school textbooks (and probably HK and Mainlander too). Hence the source of the widespread confusion nowadays. --Menchi 00:04, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The reason the exclusion of the kings as dynastic rulers in official textbook guidelines is to get rid of the traditional standpoints. As I have stated it above, the list of kings was from a dated Cidan, so to avoid copyright issues. IMO it's better to take the pre-Qin Shihuangdi rulers out of the list beacuse no dynasty existed between 256 BC to 221 BC. kt² 01:18, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, the kings should be moved to State of Qin (it's already there, I think). Keep the Note on traditional historiographer's view, however. It's informative, but maybe extend it a bit to clarify more. So basically there are two definitions of "dynasty" in China? The traditional view states that once the old dynasty is destroyed by B, B becomes the dynasty. The new view says that B must unify all China (and proclaim oneself emperor) to be a dynasty? Maybe some of such information is suitable on Dynasty, since it may not be Qin-specific. --Menchi 03:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * No, Qin Dynasty ALWAYS started in 221 BC but traditional historiography takes reigns of Qin rulers of the state to date years between 256 BC to 221 BC. kt² 03:46, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * But the state began at least in 778 BC with Duke Xiang. Do they not recognize that? --Menchi 03:56, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, let me clarify it a bit. Compare these 2 lists.

Course of history:
 * 1) up to 256 BC: Warring States (including the state of Qin) and a recognized king of the Zhou Dynasty
 * 2) 256 BC to 221 BC: Warring States (including Qin)
 * 3) since 221 BC: Qin Shihuangdi unified China, beginning of Qin Dynasty

Traditional historical dating:
 * 1) up to 256 BC: rulers of Zhou Dynasty
 * 2) 256 BC to 221 BC: rulers of the Qin state
 * 3) since 221 BC: rulers of Qin Dynasty

kt² 04:12, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * So they mean indepedent (not subordinate) to Zhou?
 * But the status of Qin as a state (independent or not, pre-256 or post-) is not blurry, right?
 * --Menchi 04:16, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * This involved the concept of mandate of heaven. Traditional historiographers viewed rulers of Zhou Dynasty as the "sons of heaven", despite gradual dwindling of their authorities. So the state of Qin is always in the status of Zhuhou until 221 BC when Qin Shihuangdi became son of heaven. kt² 04:37, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cantonese origin of the word "China"
I don't believe the first part of this statement in the article is correct, nor is it substantiated by anything:
 *  Qin is sometimes spelt as Chin, the Cantonese phonic, due to the fact that cantonese people had earlier contact with the western world compared to Mandarin people. This is also a possible origin of the word "China." (See China in world languages).

I do agree that Qin is probably the origin of the word for China, but the first sentence seems to be pulled out of thin air (a Google search yields nothing). The Cantonese pronunciation of Qin is actually not too different from the Mandarin pronunciation. Using IPA notation, the pronunciation is tsʰiːn in Cantonese and tɕʰin in Mandarin, both of which sound like "chin" to an English speaker's ears since English lacks alveolar affricates. In fact, before Hanyu Pinyin was invented, Qin was romanized as Ch'in in Wade-Giles, a Mandarin romanization scheme.

In addition, from the China in world languages article, it says:
 * Marco Polo described China specifically as Chin, which is the word used in Persian, the main lingua franca on his route.

First of all, this sentence does not mention anything about Cantonese, and second of all, at the time Marco Polo visited China, there was no Cantonese or Mandarin as we now know it, but rather a mix of languages that evolved from Middle Chinese that would eventually evolve into the modern dialects.

So, I am replacing this statement with the following:
 *  Qin, which has a pronunciation similar to the English word "chin," is a possible origin of the word "China" (see China in world languages).

--Umofomia 09:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

See also? external links?
This article needs both these sections. I'm not adding them myself, as I'm not incredibly knowledgeable about the subject. A see also to Social structure of the Qin Dynasty or similar would help. →crazytales← 15:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't need any. We can't make those sections if we don't have anything to fill it with, can we? ....Though a reference section might be nice. _dk 16:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Longnan
Shouldn't Longnan be mentioned as the cradle of the Qin Dynasty? Badagnani 23:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Second emperor??
Was Qin Shi Huang not the first to proclaim himself emperor??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipster (talk • contribs) 2007-05-31 10:34:35
 * He was the first emperor of the Qin Dynasty that unified China, but he was not the first rule of the State of Qin. However, since this article is about the dynasty, someone might want to change that table in the article to only list the rulers of the Qin dynasty.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There was more than just one ruler of the State of Qin before Qin Shi Huang, and anyway, they were kings, not emperors. Whipster

The problem of state religion
The article said that Qin's state religion is Taoism.Taoism as a religion emerged in East Han Dynasty,thus it can't be a state religion of Qin,and Taoism as an thought has been the state ideology of Han for about 60 years,but never of Qin.In fact, almost all of Qin's policy followed a thought called "fa"(法),which means"rule by law".User:Dl dongyuelei 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If it says that (I'm too lazy to read the entire article) then it's wrong. Totally wrong. A while before the Qin dynasty, there was a great debate in Chnese culture over what was the "proper" philosophy of life and government. The four main schools were dao, confucius, meng zi (somewhat comparable to Rousseau's 'noble savage') and xun zi, who could with good reason be called the "first fascist". This is important because in ancient chinese government/culture, philosophy is *important*. Every ruler had a court philosopher, whom he actually consulted and listened to.

Qin was the first fascist government. It also failed with the death of Qin Shihuang because one of the tenets of xunzi was that you could trust *no one*. Qin died of overwork. 15 years of running the empire alone because he could not delegate authority.

Xun zi fell out of favor shortly after and fascism was not tried again in China. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, an addition : it is incorrect to speak of Taoism as a religion without further explanation. There are TWO dao's. One is a philosophy (lao zi, zhuang zi) and the other is kind of a stange mix of old superstitions and animal worship, combined with a militarist Buddhism and god-knows what else. The taoist temples with the fierce bearded flying people belong to Tao Number Two. Altho maybe that's Tao Number One, as it was around before Lao zi. In Chinese it's dao jia and dao jiao.

Neither one was involved with Qin shihuang, except maybe in the movies. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There's some blah blah here using western terminology like fascism, but though I'm not an absolute expert I would agree with the statement that Taoism proper had not emerged as a religion in the time of the Qin dynasty. Despite Taoist mythology, the Tao Te Ching itself had only just emerged at the closing the warring states period. The book "Early Chinese Empires" considers the religion of the Qin empire as being local spirits cults to mountains and rivers, ancestor worship, etc.FourLights (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fall of dynasty
I'm working on an essay for Global Studies, and I was wondering if anyone could provide info on the fall of the Qin dynasty, i.e. how long it took. Thanks a bunch. ToaDjango 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Qin Shihuangdi
My history professor wrote Qin's name like this: QIN SHIHUANGDI. Is that correct, or is it wrong?

Rzwiefel345 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is correct. He himself took the name ShiHuangDi(first emperor) after proclaiming himself HuangDi(emperor), and decreed that every Qin emperor after him should be named ın this style. However Qin dynasty collapsed 3 years after his death, and Han dynasty was established in 202BC. Later Chinese historians added dynasty name in front to produce Qin ShiHuangDi. Since in Chinese names as a rule consist of two or three characters, the last character in Qin ShiHuangDi is usually ommitted resulting in Qın ShiHuang. 88.248.113.212 (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nousernamesleft's version of this article to be merged here?
Recent User:Nousernamesleft departed Wikipedia, leaving a message on his/her userpage asking someone to finish the Qin Dynasty draft he had started for him. Now I cannot be that person (lack of knowledge on the topic, for starters), but by the looks of it, his/her draft contains a lot of extra information, so I propose that it be merged here, to that this article can benefit from that editor's skill. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The draft he started for him? What I understand is that a user that doesn't exist anymore left a draft about the Qin which could contribute a lot to the article. I have no problem with this. Just paste it and it'll be edited by others. Coching (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of that stuff fits more into Qin (state) than here, I think....(Is anyone planning to merge his draft soon?) _dk (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, his version is way better. I haven't gone through both articles thoroughly, but yeah, I would probably be fine with copying and pasting his entire work into this article. This current article isn't in terribly good shape. Gary King  ( talk ) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That version should only be used starting with 221BC. If you guys merge, don't just copy paste.  This page should be short like the dynasty. Benjwong (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've completed the merge (read: complete copy-and-paste). Contrary to what I said before, the things that I previously thought should fit in Qin (state) serve as important background to the emergence and the bureaucracy of the empire. Though relative short compared the the greater dynasties, these 15 years are fundamental to the history of China and thus deserves great attention and detail. and I've seen fit to bombard the previous content into oblivion since they are too focused on individual episodes and not the greater picture. _dk (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Map inaccurate
The map depicts the Qin empire at around 210 BC, with Gaogouli and Chao-hsien to the east. Traditionally Gougouli was not founded until around 37 BC, and Most of the Korean peninsula was tribal land until 19 BC. Chao-hsien did not occupy all of the Korean peninsula, it was centered around liadong and the amnok river. 71.137.247.163 (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, Gaogouli shouldn't be there in the first place, and Chaoxian shouldn't be that extensive. I hope a better map can be found quickly.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

gaogouli (BC37-AC52),qin (BC221-BC206),gaogouli shouldnt be in the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.190.200.244 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the pink part is not qin, it is qi. It is even labelled as such. The qin state is magenta, not pink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Peanuts?
The section on food states that peanuts were harvested in the mountains, but the Wikipedia article on peanuts states that they are a new world plant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.104.174 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

minor thing
Shockingly, this dynasty is shorter than the first dynasty of the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms. 24.1.201.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
 * And yet so much more important. Hence, the greater treatment and historical relevance. ;) — LlywelynII  02:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder about the claim at the end of the first paragraph, "It is also the shortest dynasty in Chinese history, lasting only 15 years with two emperors." What about the Xin Dynasty. Is this not really considered a Dynasty, since it only had a single emperor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonyx (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

State of Qin
Should we break it into State of Qin and Qin Dynasty? We all know that there are only 2 (or 3) emperors of Qin Dynasty, including the pre-dynasty ruler of Qin doesn't make sense. wshun 21:47, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

watching movie maybe know more further about Qin. I appreciate the way they led the people during that time. Anyway Huhai(the last Qin emperor) made a big mistake in Qin dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.90.70 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wertyuiop m Bold 103.96.68.207 (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
The current treatment of Qin expansion is inaccurate. Among other things, the southern expedition began years earlier, with the initial foray ending in ignominy and the death of its general in battle against the Western Valley (Xi'ou) tribes. The article can also benefit from inclusion of Qin Shihuang's generals. There is information in the Baiyue and other articles on the "Southern Barbarians" and Nanyue and linked articles that can used to improve this. — LlywelynII  02:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Qin dynasty's southward expansion is barely covered, and what is there does need improvement.--Taiping Tulip (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Administrative divisions
Article could also use discussion of the administration and administrative divisions of the Qin state.

Alternatively, a bilingual editor might use the Chinese wiki pages (秦朝行政区划 esp.) to improve the History of the administrative divisions of China article's section on Qin and link to it from here. — LlywelynII  09:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Map is Unreadable
Shouldn't maps be readable? Why put a map of a political area using dark brown to mark the area & black lettering? Maybe other map examples in Wikipedia would provide a more succinct visual enlightenment? Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Map: Who are the "Bi"? Do they even exist?
The map mentions a tribe denoted by "BI" (north of the Yelang, south of the Ba). The of this map does not mention this tribe at all; you can still see the Chinese characters for Yelang and Ba, but Bi, which is supposed to be in-between, is gone. I have been unable to find any sources on the Bi either on wikipedia or elsewhere.87.212.129.14 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 鄨, but I don't think that people occupied such a big land. --Je pense, donc je suis (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Chinese religion during the Qin
Title Early Chinese Religion: Part One: Shang Through Han (1250 BC-220 AD) (2 Vols) Early Chinese Religion Editors John Lagerwey, Marc Kalinowski Publisher BRILL, 2008 ISBN 9004168354, 9789004168350

http://books.google.com/books?id=Idhyr1hqS0kC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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. --Cold Season (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Edited and tightened lead and removed template
Edited and tightened lead and removed template.ch (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work! Thanks User:CWH. --NoGhost (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Qin dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140611132550/http://yalepress.yale.edu/YupBooks/pdf/0300081855.pdf?winOpen=true to http://yalepress.yale.edu/YupBooks/pdf/0300081855.pdf?winOpen=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong year
The dynasty collapsed in 207BC, not 206BC, because the dynasty collapsed on the 1st of October, 207BC according to the Chinese calendar, and when we convert it to Julian calendar it will still be in the year 206BC--Alvin Lee 00:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (2 years later) Why hasn't the article been fixed, then? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Unknown Flag
Where is the source for this flag? Where is it from?--The Young Prussian (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dating system
Why is this article written in BC/AD? That's an outdated and Christian-centric dating system. I tried changing it to BCE/CE and was not told not to, why? Jonnyrecluse (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I keep telling you - see WP:ERA. Not everyone shares your prejudices and misconceptions (I assume you are American). Such efforts will not succeed. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Haha, my prejudices? You are such a weirdo. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod I'm sorry for acting inappropriately towards you for and not doing my due diligence on editing guidelines. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

About the map
I don't think that using a population map or whatever to show the territory of a country is suitable, especially for ancient countries with a small population. Using a territory map will be more suitable to show the strength and influence of a country.--Alvin Lee 13:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by "population map or whatever". As this is an ancient country, the current map shows influence not territory. The idea of territory attached to a state with clearly defined borders is a modern one. The exact line where Qin territory beings/ends is not well defined, and not just because the passage of time makes us uncertain, but because the border was never certain even in Qin times. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But I doubt that "influence" could be shown as enclaves and exclaves, since ancient countries does not have such power to control territories apart. Also, why Western ancient countries could have maps which are connected together, while Eastern ones are all exclaves? Doesn't it seems wierd and inappropiate?--Alvin Lee 13:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, there is a major problem if this map is showing the empire's influence. As we all know, the Great Wall of China was built by Qin dynasty, but we could clearly see that the Great Wall was not under the rule of the empire. This, I believe, is the major problem of this map.--Alvin Lee 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's because the Qin Dynasty's Great Wall, extended by the subsequent Han Dynasty, does not match up to the early modern Great Wall built by the Ming Dynasty in the 16th century. Much of the old Qin and Han Great Wall lies in ruins as rammed earth remnants. The stone edifice we see today and recognize as the Great Wall is a later Ming invention. Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)