Talk:Qin Dynasty

	Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team	Wikipedia 1.0Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial TeamTemplate:WP1.0Wikipedia 1.0 articles
v · d · eThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.   This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

WikiProject China	(Rated B-class, Top-importance)	ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
China portal v · d · eThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Comments: edit · history · watch · purge This article covers history well, but needs more on the legacy of the dynasty. --Danaman5 07:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject East Asia	(Rated B-class, High-importance)	East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaWikiProject East Asia articles
v · d · eThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class)
	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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces and special projects: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Chinese military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Contents 1 State of Qin 2 Kings in dynasty list 3 Cantonese origin of the word "China" 4 See also? external links? 5 Longnan 6 Second emperor?? 7 The problem of state religion 8 Fall of dynasty 9 Qin Shihuangdi 10 Nousernamesleft's version of this article to be merged here? 11 Map inaccurate 12 Peanuts? 13 minor thing

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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

kt² 23:01, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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)

1. So they mean indepedent (not subordinate) to Zhou?
2. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Longnan

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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).