Talk:Silk Road/Archives/2014

Edit request on 19 May 2013
The road length is not 4 km surely, I don't the correct length but perhaps 4,000 km

106.120.75.195 (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done - Thank you - it seems to have been a semi-automated script error which broke it when "fixing" stuff - oops. I'll let the editor responsible know. Many thanks again (4000 miles, actually)  Begoon &thinsp; talk  15:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Permission sought to change wording
As a Brit, seeing overland trade repeatedly refered to as "shipping" seems decidedly odd, and potentially confusing. As such, I'd really like to change it to something more logical. However, I recognise this is an established American term that has been used since the very first version of this page, so as per ENGVAR I can't just waltz in and change it without discussion. So - would anyone object if I change "shipping" to "trade" throughout? Iapetus (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As a Brit, I'd like to point out that "shipping" isn't an Americanism. I used to work for a road transportation firm and we would ship things all the time. At no point did shipping refer to nautical arrangements. In which case ENGVAR does not apply. If find the current wording confusing and you wanted to change the term to freight transport (which is where shipping redirects) or something similar, then that should not be an issue. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone - I was reading this article out of interest (I know very little about the subject), but I find it very poorly written, and with a very strong but unreferenced Han Dynasty bias (especially in the introductory paragraphs) [I find it hard to believe that the Silk Road "started" in 212 BC; I would imagine that there were many many long undocumented years of activity before then, since people didn't sprout from the ground fully formed at the start of the Han Dynasty!]. Additionally, there are a lot of grammatical errors (which I could fix, but sometimes the meaning is absent anyway, so not much point in fixing them if I can't improve the content) and bad structure where meaning is lost. Anyway - like I said, I know very little about the subject and so can't help improve the article, but I did need to tell someone that it's very poorly written and needs a hand to become a better article. Thanks Katiemur (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Please improve this article: content, grammar, and references.
Hi everyone - I was reading this article out of interest (I know very little about the subject), but I find it very poorly written, and with a very strong but unreferenced Han Dynasty bias (especially in the introductory paragraphs) [I find it hard to believe that the Silk Road "started" in 212 BC; I would imagine that there were many many long undocumented years of activity before then, since people didn't sprout from the ground fully formed at the start of the Han Dynasty!]. Additionally, there are a lot of grammatical errors (which I could fix, but sometimes the meaning is absent anyway, so not much point in fixing them if I can't improve the content) and bad structure where meaning is lost. Anyway - like I said, I know very little about the subject and so can't help improve the article, but I did need to tell someone that it's very poorly written and needs a hand to become a better article. Thanks Katiemur (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you read beyond the lead paragraphs into the history section, you will find the explanations you are looking for. The northern Chinese silk road didn't really get going as a trade route until after the Han–Xiongnu War cause what is nowadays Western China to be settled by the Han making the route viable. There was some trade by this route before then, but it was on a much smaller scale and considerably more hazardous. In addition, prior to this time (the short Qin and then Han dynasties) China was divided and not such a major trading power. India and Persia dominated the international trade and thus a more southerly route was more popular. The Persian route is mentioned in the history section of the article.


 * There is still allot that needs done in this article, hence why it is graded only C-class. If you see grammar errors, fix them. Seeing someone actively edit an article will often encourage other editors to contribute too. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ugly collapsible picture section
At the section labeled Chinese exploration of Central Asia, which has this collapsible picture section in it. This would be fine if it weren't for the fact that it goes RIGHT INTO ANOTHER PICTURE! I would try to fix this myself, but unfortunately I myself haven't edited much on wikipedia yet and I am not that good with HTML yet. Could someone maybe look into this? It would slightly improve the general look of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajs541 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This gallery was inserted on September 9 2013 and it interfered with another picture. I moved the gallery down some so it wouldn't overlay that picture. GroveGuy (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As of 19/3/14 this problem still persists. There's also one other instance of text overlapping a picture in this article. Could someone please look into it, thanks. 122.172.8.66 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Tang dynasty
Excerpts from this article have been copied from Tang dynasty following the rule Copying within Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My recent edition
The Silk Road begin in 1st BC or 1st AD. There was some trade by this route before then, but it was on a much smaller scale and considerably more hazardous. Hence, I think Hellenistic era should be a pre-event of silk road. I will not deny Hellenistic era was an important factor for silk road but Persian Royal Road was also a key factor to establish the silk road. If add Hellenistic era as the event after silk road establishment, I think we should fairly add the Persian Royal Road. As the same theory, Chinese and Central Asian contacts and Cross-continental journeys are also important event which should be added as main event. For chronicles order, they are all pre-event or Precursors. Then silk road was established based on multiple contribution (Han empire, Rome empire, Persian Road, Hellenistic era, Tang, Byzantine, etc) but each of them are independent event. Hence, it is really hard to say Han dynasty following the Greek trade network. Using a different approach we could also say Han dynasty following the Persian Royal Road or Cross-continental journeys or even Hellenistic era following the Persian Royal road. Another thing is this article did not offer any source to show trade network establishment by Hellenistic era. It seems to involve a little bit original research. Miracle dream (talk)

Biblical Book of Esther as source?
Hey, I just found a blog post by the author of Dark Fire, Michael S. Keyton (a real, living, human being, not an amalgamation of a bunch of unknown fishermen who never existed), where he argues that Conan stories actually took place along the Silk Road.

Why not source that?

Conan beats Esther and her puny god any day. And he is more awesome. And he has a sword made of Atlantean steal. Which is also awesome. And he is stronger than Esther. And has more muscles. And he beat wizards and monsters and stuff. And he is stronger.

Just put something like "There were wizards living along the Silk Road. Then Conan killed them all. With a sword." --89.146.188.169 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)