Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Good faith disagreement over what material passes NOR criteria, however there is a strong enough belief that a substantial portion does pass it. Therefore a close of NC with an encouragement to rigorously discuss content at the talk page.  MBisanz  talk 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely that an encyclopedic article can be created on this topic: original research. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently original research. A very good school or college essay, but not suitable for Wikipedia. Aecis·(away) talk 17:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep that expresses your own opinion; "Unlikely" to be unencyclopedic; no what are you going to do to this article: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Indian_states_and_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) ". "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_US_states_and_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) They dont come from one source that compares them either. I challenge you to find one part in the article that is synthesis; like the articles above, I have listed the facts for each empire side by side without making a comparison. As to those who edit or delete saying that it is "unlikely" to be encyclopedic or they have "strong opinions", thats OR.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As for allegations that say the article is OR and not based on sources, see Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, [2](accessed December 26, 2008) which is one of my sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you also want to delete this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Cricket_and_BaseballTeeninvestor (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Three new sources have been made available, showing that there is a lot of comparison of the two empires. this is not original synthesis. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (comment: I started the whole process so I'm unsure if my vote counts at all). Teen I have some very limited knowledge about history, historians, former versions of history written by early historians (who in former times "proved" that one contry was indeed better than another to the resounding applause of their contemporary contrymen). I know nearly nothing about Cricket or Baseball. IMHO that article is also very strange and probably also worthy of deletion. BUT as I know nearly nothing about the subjects I'm not going to propose it for deletion. I like to think that I'm an amateur historian and not an amateur sport-specialist. I'm also not a Wiki-laywer. Flamarande (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you can keep this but only if you can find other people comparing the topics, instead of doing it yourself. Actually this one is much better than the cricket vs baseball one in that respect. - Wronglostboy

*Preserve*  Article creator Teeninvestor has already 'voted' dougweller (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Earth and its peoples, World history outline,  (Accessed December 27, 2008)
 * Hyper history net, Decline of Roman and Han Empires, (Accessed December 27, 2008).
 * Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires, (Accessed December 27, 2008)
 * Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, (accessed December 26, 2008)

Is this not enough sources on this subject??? Theres a ton of material about this on the web. These sources and probably 100+ others you can find on google shows this article is not original research. THERE ARE FOUR SOURCES SHOWING THIS. Is that not enough?????Teeninvestor (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No they are not. I suggest that we study the presented sources carefully.


 * The 1st seems to me to be a site which collect essays written by American students for American students.


 * The 2nd seems to be (quoting): "a global community effort. Thus, essays do not use the first person nor are they written from a uniquely American perspective. In order to reflect the collective authorship of the dynamic content contained on Hyperhistory.net, the pseudonym of "Rit Nosotro" has been devised. (Writ is an archaic past tense of "written" and Nosotros is the plural pronoun for "us" in Spanish.) The authorship is "written by us"."


 * The 3rd is an article about the diffrence of coinage. I just know that you're going to argue that it compares the two empires but it doesn't. It could be used in relevant articles about Chinese/Roman coinage though.


 * The 4th is a short resumee of an organization which intends to foster US-china relations.


 * None of them seems to be the work of a credible historian. Flamarande (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "PRESERVE The point is that there are many sources on the internet citing this and that there are other people who study this topic. that was the original contention of this dispute. These sources prove beyond doubt that the article is not OR. The fact is that these sources show that this article is not OR, undermining your claims about original research.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the above message is a comment and not a vote, I have struck the bolded preserve. Aecis·(away) talk 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It's an essay, not an encyclopedic article. Other bad articles are not relevant and should not be brought up here, although anyone is welcome to take them to AfD. I won't go into the inaccuracies in the article except to say that they probably exist because it is an essay rather than reporting what reliable sources have to say about the subject itself. dougweller (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Check the sources before you talk, thank you very much. theres four sources in the article pointing to this subject matter. I would advise you read some wikipedia policy. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Teeninvestor, I'm afraid they're right about Wikipedia policies (though some of the comments fall a bit too close to WP:BITE for my comfort): there's nothing wrong with your article, except that it just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (it's really more akin to an academic paper). I suggest working on the Wikiversity version (Comparison between Roman and Han Empires), and perhaps creating an article out of it later as you find more sources and prior academic treatments. Wikipedia's not for everything (see WP:PANDA for more on that) :-). -- SB_Johnny | talk  19:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact is that 5 sources show ppl are debatign this topic, therefore I source them. Then i find another 5 or 6 sources which show details about both empires, which i list. therefore, we have "proof of notability", "proof that this is not original research(I'm not the one compiling the facts" and lots of good sources. therefore, this article should stay. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It is not the job of an encyclopedia to compare things, but to give the facts about each and let others compare. All articles which compare two (or more) things should be deleted. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a comment, Category:Comparisons seems a mixed bag, but I wouldn't want to lose all the articles there. Anyone know if there are any guidelines re comparisons articles in general, & comparisons & notability in particular?  In principle is it OK to bring together topics with a logical affinity, if they are separately notable, verifiable, etc.?  Is juxtaposition OR? Franciscrot (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There should not be an article comparing wolves and foxes, however both can be described in Canid. The Roman and Han Empires should be juxtaposed in Empire. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:Comparison redirects to WP:Lists, which doesn't mention comparisons at all. Not particularly helpful. :) --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that this article is sourced, its accurate, and its notable therefore it should stay. Its notable, and its sources are reliable, its facts are accurate. therefore it should stay.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It's a fact that Romans and Han empire traded via the Silk Road. Perhaps unsourced sections of the article could be cut away, and all the information with reliable sources could be merged to a background section in Sino-Roman relations? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There arent unsourced sections; all of the material is sourced and cited. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What more reliable sources do we need. We have a book with ISBN, princeton essays, several books and encyclopedias, and others.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Having ISBN doesn't make it a reliable source. Most books have ISBN. What makes it reliable is if it is published by someone who has credentials in that field.There are two Princeton essays, and one http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm, is more of a general comparison of ancient Rome and China. Of all the sources, only http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf is an actual direct comparison between the two empires. Most of the other sources are self-published projects, and fail WP:RS. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Still two princeton essays make this topic pretty well sourced. Also, author of the books are experienced publishers who have published many books. Teeninvestor (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete this is clearly original research as almost all of the references only cover one of the empires, and don't appear to cover a comparison between them. Similar comparison articles have been deleted when they've been brought to AfD for this reason. The preferred approach is for the articles on the two things being compared to be sufficiently good to allow readers to make this comparison themselves. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a quite proper subject of scholarly study. For example, see From the 'Great Convergence' to the 'First Great Divergence': Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and its Aftermath.  The exact scope of the article is open to change should we wish to include other ancient empires such as the Turks and we should allow for this in accordance with our editing policy.  Note also that we have a whole category of comparisons. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The main point is whether the article should stay. The point is that this article does fit the criteria for notability, accuracy, source, etc... Even if you disagree with the article's contentions, it is obvious this article fits the criteria for inclusion. As colonel warden said, this is also a subject of scholarly study. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Here I have found a book directly comparing the two empires by an expert in the field who is a credible historian: Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires by Walter Sheidel, professor of classics and world history, stanford university. ISBN: 9780195336900. You might want to work with that. I am already adding information from this to the article. As for more credible sources check this page http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That article only gives a general comparison of Rome and China, not a thorough comparison of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article, remember, is abotu a comparison of the two civilizations in general(see effects of barbarian invasions)Teeninvestor (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep very encylcopedic subject. There's a bit of OR, but it can be removed.  No reason to delete the whole article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Heres a link http://books.google.com/books?id=QjS7W-BtXOkC&pg=PR17&dq=Rome+and+China:+Comparative+Perspectives+on+Ancient+World+Empire#PPR7,M1 It is a direct online source about Rome and china being compared! What do you have to say about that! This is one of my sources. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a very natural comparison, which has led to sufficient academic interest and production to support an article, as seen above and from the article refs. Any OR could be eliminated.John Z (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, provided there is a substantial rewrite. The topic is notable, Teeninvestor has found reliable sources, but the article itself cannot remain full of synthesis and POV. It has good potential, if the scope is narrowed. If failing this, the article should be merged into a background section in Sino-Roman relations. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic is of course notable, and of course scholars would have written comparisons between the two empires. The point is, any comparison between two marginally related entities will be a comparative essay and not an encyclopedic article (that would better fit in either WikiBooks or Wikiversity). There can be an article about what comparisons have been done by the scholars, but there cannot be an article that makes the comparison itself. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to make comparisons between two topics, that is for the reader to do. _dk (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if edited carefully -- I didn't expect to say keep, but this is fairly well done. There needs to be an emphasis that not just the facts but the comparisons must be sourced to RS s that actually made thecomparison. DGG (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources exists. The current article is nearly all synthesis though and it's due a major rewrite.  Removing those sections that is not sourced to an comparison between the empires would lead to this; . Taemyr (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Concur with DGG on this, the sourcing so far is admirable but we need to follow rather than lead so we need to show who has already made the comparisons and what they stated. I have little doubt that google books, google scholar and many articles delve into these areas. but these are all regular editing concerns. -- Banj e boi  13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 8v6 so far, i think this is definitely a keep. By the way, it is the policy of an encyclopedia to compare things. You can't follow wikipedia policy like dogma, that would kill wikipedia. I mean, use common sense. See WP:Common sense and WP:Ignore all rules. As long as it improves wikipedia and fits with its policy of neutrality, everything is fine.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, 8 v 6 is not automatically a keep, since this is a discussion, not a vote. What matters is the weight of the arguments, not the number of supporters or opponents. Aecis·(away) talk 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. I agree that the article as it currently stands is full of OR.  But... based upon discussions at the NOR noticeboard, it seems that the primary editor of this article has recently found several new sources upon which to base a significanlty rewritten article.  I think we should give him/her time to review these sources and do this rewrite.  That said, I do wish to note that my keep opinion is based upon a rewrite actually being done... and if this is not done in a resonable time, I would take a much harsher view of the situation in any second AfD nomination. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the continued persistince of Teenivestor (who doesn't seem to shut up with his loud claims of quality of the article in question) I suggest that everybody reads carefully my final answer and arguments inside of No original research/noticeboard (large post at the end). I continue to stand by my vote of DELETE but see no problem whatsoever with the proposal of Aecis. Flamarande (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What did I propose? Aecis·(away) talk 17:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ups sorry, I meant Taemyr's proposal above. Flamarande (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Aecis in terms of the weight of the argument, but the delete side has yet to produce any arguments besides "inherently original research", "Wikipedia should not have comparison articles", and other fallacious statements. I believe that is not a "forceful argument." Also, Flamrande, please check WP:Assume good faith and WP:Wikiquette. Remember, no personal attacks. If you continue, I may have to file a wikiquette alert. You have yet to produce one factual error about the article, that has not been corrected. Nevetheless, if you do find errors, please contact me and I will correct them. If you didn't notice, many of the editors here are voting delete because they think that shouldn't be any comparison articles on wikipedia, contary to your claim.

Quote Flamarande:

Teen, to be honest: I have nothing against you, the Han empire (I admit that I'm a bit pro-Roman though :), or with such an article (IF it is based upon proper works by accepted historians). I have been there were you seem to be now. Some time ago I have made OR in the article SPQR (and then learned from my mistakes). It's all too easy to do it, you read something somewhere, and then compare it with something else you read somewhere else. It makes sense and then you jump to obvious conclusions (that's what I did then and what you made now). What one must/should do in this case is read a couple of books in which these authors compare these two empires which each other (a single book is technically enough but the more the better). The subject of the book must be the comparison of these two empires. Flamarande (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Teeninvestor (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you read the large post in question. Flamarande (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be subsumed into one of the Chinese history pages. It does not seem to constitute an independent field of study in academia. If it does, it should be edited to incorporate more established scholarly perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.167.221 (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep if it is revamped. I read this article yesterday and then again today, and it's far too messy and hysterical, almost, to a point of unprofessionalism. It's an interesting topic, an interesting couple of comparisons, but such comparisons as "In professor Sheidel's book..." should be removed, and the desperate attempt at sounding qualified should be rewritten. Also, I'm pro-Han, but the article is written in a way where the bias makes me incredulous. As a newcomer, I may not be as experienced in editing as many of you out there, but it seems fairly obvious that Wikipedia should look and sound credible. Lastly, not to pick at too many particulars, but after all this voting is over, perhaps someone could look over the grammar as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori-swann (talk • contribs) 03:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)  — Tori-swann (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep in mind I am still editing the article by adding in new information. Criticism and help would be appreciated. Teeninvestor (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I was just looking at the recent changes and I have to agree with Tori-swann, ignoring questions of OR etc, it is not written in an encyclopedic style -- Teeninvestor, please read [WP:MOS]] and related pages. This has nothing to do with the AfD but as it's been raised... dougweller (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note This article has been transwiki imported to wikiversity at Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. --mikeu talk 15:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This is an article on an interesting subject, but it feels more like what might be set for a student essay than as something for an encyclopaedia. At present the article uses two sources far too many times.  Accordingly it must at mpresent be treated as a poor essay, though it is not beyond recovery.  I suggest keep and renominate in a month if not improved.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This article has doubled in size and added many references since it was nominated for deletion two days ago. Also, regarding those saying the article is out of place on Wikipedia and should be found on Wikiversity only: I am a big-time Wikipedia user and I stumbled across this article just now while looking up whether or not China had a larger population than the Roman Empire at its peak.  I would never have found it if it were on Wikiversity.  Regarding the formatting problems: they can be fixed if the article is kept; I don't think poor formatting should be a contributing reason to delete an article.  Soap Talk/Contributions 22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As written, unencyclopedic and OR. A scholarly monograph is coming out which is devoted to the comparison of the two empires, but even so I'm not convinced that this is ever going to be a good Wikipedia article--it will be doomed, I think, to a laundry list of things that are similar and things that are different between the two states, and the substantive comparisons between e.g. processes of state formation will be left by the wayside. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Peterkingiron's suggestion is interesting, but I'm still worried about the article and that Akhilleus's prediction is correct. Almost everyone who has discussed the OR agrees that except for minor details the sources should only be those that compare the two empires, but that doesn't seem to have influenced the article or its creator very much. If Teeninvestor bit the bullet and removed everything not so sourced, thus showing good faith and letting us see what is left, that might sway my opinion, but if not, and it is kept, it is likely to be a battleground anyway. dougweller (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SYNT Nowhere does it say putting two paragraphs of sourced facts next to each other is synthesis. Also, the article is in the process of revamp, if you have suggestions please place them in the talk page.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own comparative analysis research paper. --Voidvector (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is from WP:SYNT: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

Synthesis only occurs when the editor puts together multiple sources. If the editor just puts two paragraphs of facts next to each other (mostly for additional facts) WITHOUT comparing them, that is not synthesis.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is posted as a comparison between the two empires, that makes it a comparison. Taemyr (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I will provide an example of what you guys call "synthesis"

Say I have an article called "Comparing apples and oranges".(of course this is not notable, but bear with this example).

Then I have 2 sentences in the section "color" which are like this:

"Apples are red"(source: www.applecolor.com)

"Oranges are orange(source: www.orangecolor.com)

Does this constitute synthesis? Do I have to find a source that says Apples are red and oranges are orange? Regarding OR allegations, please see the sources. There are four credible sources that directly compare the two empires, and eight for details. Are you saying that I should not have ANY sources showing details????
 * We are saying that when you assert that


 * If you have a source saying apples are red, you can say that apples are red. If you have another source saying oranges are orange, you can say that oranges are orange. With the two sources, you can say that apples are red and oranges are orange. What you CAN'T do is use a third source saying that orange-colored things have more yellow pigment than red-colored things to say that oranges have more yellow pigment than apples. That's synthesis. Where you can easily get into trouble is that simply by juxtaposing two things in an article, you can imply or lead readers to assume a third thing. Even if you don't explicitly state that third thing, it can still be synthesis because you have implied it or lead the reader to assume it. This is conceptually similar to WP:UNDUE; even if something is reliably sourced it can still be problematic. Cmadler (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that part of the problem here is that there are numerous entangled issues. There are unsourced statements. There are statements that are not supported by the citation given (I have not checked, I am taking the word of others on this point), in some cases this may simply result from errors in summarizing. There are statements that are cited, but for which the source can't be considered reliable (again, I haven't checked them; I'm taking the word of others). There are statements that are explicit synthesis. There are sections of the sort of implied synthesis I mentioned above. Untangling all these issues is difficult. Given the amount of work needed here, you might be better off working this out in userspace. Cmadler (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cmadler, So far I have not directly compared the two empires without finding a source that does so. see the section about WP: SYNT below. I concur that this article was relatively poorly written before, but now such a massive overhaul has been done to it, i invite you to point out specific issues. I believe that will be a difficult task. As to the sources, the sources are completely reliable; i invite you to check the authors of these books' backgrounds. Anyways, my point is that the amount of work you mentioned that would be needed has already been done; I invite you to take a look at the article and come to your own conclusions, rather than check the word of others, which (from my point of view) is horribly outdated. So far i do not see claims that are unsourced, explicit synthesis and other problems. I believe the main problem with the article now is a general cleanup of spelling, grammar, prose, etc... As to accusations of "implicit" synthesis, I would ask you to ask those who claim so to come up with concrete proof; i think you will find, there is none. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Most of the lead has been taken verbatim from the first paragraph of Worlds Together Worlds Apart ch 7.
 * 2) "Because of this, they have often been compared.[2][3]" Neither note 2 nor note 3 supports this point.
 * 3) I can't figure out the point of note 4.
 * 4) The citation/bibliographic information for Goldsworthy (notes 7, 12, 14, 17) is never provided, so we have no way of knowing if this source supports the statements given or if it can be considered reliable.
 * 5) The "Military" section contains lengthy discussions of the pre-imperial Roman military, which doesn't appear to be pertinent to this article. Also, again there are entire paragraphs that are taken verbatim from WTWA.
 * 6) "The standing army totaled more than one million men. Roman field armies, in contrast, rarely exceeded 30,000 men." This appears to compare the size of the total Han military to the size of individual Roman field armies, and also provides no context (see next point).
 * 7) The statement "Both armies had good logistics compared to their contemporaries" doesn't appear to relate to the following (cited) statements about troop numbers. The troop numbers contain no context (What were the opposing forces? How were they equipped? How trained? How experienced?) and no apparent relation to each other. Also, the battles cited for the Romans are both pre-imperial, and so outside the scope of this article.
 * 8) Notes 21, 23, 25, 33, 35, 41, 44, 53, and 54 should probably be removed/replaced with citations of secondary sources (see WP:PSTS); this seems to be excessive reliance on a single tertiary source.
 * 9) "For most of the past two millenia, China was the largest economy on Earth[19]." might be taken to imply that the Han economy was larger than the imperial Roman economy, but it offers no reference to either the Han or Roman empire. Further, 1/2 of the Han period is outside the scope of this statement.
 * I don't have time to go any further at the moment, but I hope this gives you some ideas for improving the article. Cmadler (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look on it. Also, this is a comparison of Rome and China in general. I plan to change the title if article survives AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, see this section:

"The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

Therefore, as long as all your claims are sustained by your sources, it is not original Research. I would like to see one of the editors who voted delete to back up their arguments by finding a section that is not attributed to a source that directly support their position.

Also see:  and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Obvious_deductions

This is from WP: NOTOR: "Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable source. The concerns are similar to the issues with complex mathematics. " "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established. Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article. Neutral point of view requires presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue, and may include collecting opinions from multiple, possibly biased and/or conflicting, sources. Organizing published facts and opinions—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research. " Please read all wikipedia policy before preceding to argue. Selectively choosing to obey wikipedia policy and ignore others is a blatant disregard for wikipedia guidelines and violation of NPOV. I think here there is a fundamental misunderstanding of our original research policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Teeninvestor (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a simple logical deduction that the battle of Zama have anything to do with the battle of Mobei.Taemyr (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding that section; it simply tells the reader that both armies could deploy thousands of men to the battlefield. That is all.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep per Taemyr and Patar knight. It's probably a suitable topic for an article, and suitable sources can probably be found. Cmadler (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete These kind of comparisons are indeed "quite proper subject[s] of scholarly study." This is exactly why it should be deleted. It is an essay, not an article about an actual thing, concept or idea. You can mix as many sources as you want and compile as much information as you want, but only when you start off with a subject rather than inventing one. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Blue Haired lawyer, see Category:Comparisons Teeninvestor (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Refactor - Maybe it would be better to retitle the article, "Comparisons of the Roman and Han Empires", and refocus the article upon the comparisons that are being made, and upon the people who are making them? I.e., the article should focus on the debate, not the matter. SharkD (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * SharkD makes a good suggestion, and that should at least be a part of this article. I think a large part of the problem with this article is that it doesn't actually present many comparisons between the two. That is, there is often a statement about the Roman Empire followed/preceded by a statement about the Han Empire. These statements are often sourced. What is lacking is an actual comparison, putting the statements in context, and keep in mind that such statements need to be sourced (see the apples/oranges discussion about synthesis above). However, despite all the problems with sourcing and content, I don't think deletion is needed. Cmadler (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with sharkD and Cmadler; However, some editors have been quite disruptive to my editing; neglecting others'opinion, and constantly making unsatiable demands. They even objected to my apple/orange above as they object to information being placed close to each other, saying that is synthesis. While I take their opinions into account and edit the article accordingly, they completely ignore my opinions. However, sharkD and cmadler, I will need yours and others assistance to set up a chart and subsections to wikipedia. I don't mean to be rude, but i have only been on wikipedia for seven days and I've been forced constantly to learn on the move.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.