Talk:Qin (state)

message: Shang Yang couldn't have been a "firm believer in the philosophies of Han Fei;" he lived & died a full century before Han Fei. -Bill Henderson
This statement was not dated but was already resolved when I looked at it.FourLights (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronism

message: Why are the king list broken into chunk of three? --Menchi 03:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno but I guessed Spring and Autumn Period, the spot in between, and Warring States Period.  Then I thought the spot in between wasn't that long, and my theory was mush.  Well ... still waiting for an answer! :) --Pratyeka 05:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  The breaks make it look that there are three sub-dynasties though (especially the fact that the numbers get re-initialized to one twice!), when the succession was continuous. It is worth noting when the Warring States Period began in the list; here are the years: . However, I don't know if it is true that the five ancestors of Feizi were "rulers of Qin", as shown on that table. My understanding is that Qin City was not rewarded to this family until Feizi. --Menchi 05:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding is that those 5 ancestors were closer to mythological rulers than actual. Starting the lists with Qin Zhong is appropiate since he fought the western barbarians for the protection of King Li of Zhou. kt2 06:45, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually King Xiao of Zhou was pleased with Feizi's ability to bread horses between the Wei and Qian Rivers and assigned him with the town of Qin and the name of Qin Ying "setting asside land for him so that he may become a dependant domain". And it was from him that the Qin lineage began: Qin Ying, his son Qin Hou (10 years of rule), his grandson Gongbo (3 years of rule), his great-grandson Qin Zhong (23 years). And it was really King Xuan of Zhou (successor of King Li) who after sucurring his place on the throne, sent Qin Zhong to push back the Quanrong people, but he was killed in battle and his son was sent in to replace him and he succeded in defeating the Quanrong so from there King Xiao officially made him Duke Zhuang of Qin. So personally, I think the list should start from either Feizi or Duke Zhuang. --Master Liang 01:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King list

message: Did the state cease to exist when King Zheng proclaimed himself emperor? --Jiang 07:12, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered in the article kt2 07:27, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: King Zheng

message: Why are there several kings deleted?Pookleblinky 03:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted kings

message: This article has a good history section, but it needs to look at other aspects of Qin too. --Danaman5 06:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Why are there no references? And no quotes? Or any box saying this article needs more references? 213.114.210.23 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Quotes 

message: another name... Böri (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ts'in 

message: From a number of maps I get the following list of capitals for Qin: 
1) Xiquanqiu (西犬丘)
2) Pingyang （平阳)
3) Yong (雍)
4) Xianyang (咸阳）(which from its location looks like it was previously Pingyang)
which does not match what the article has right now. Also, Chinese WP says that the Qin capital was unknown (which seems a bit odd to say the least). Can anyone confirm this list? Philg88 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Xichui was a vague area ("Western March") headed by the Ying clan of Quanqiu. It's always been typical in Chinese to refer to the capital by the region's name. Other than that, the list did match yours. (I'll check to see how big the difference between Xiquanqiu and Quanqiu is.) — LlywelynII 14:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitals 

message: Since we've already got several long-timers' attention here, I'd like to invite everyone to join the ongoing discussion at Talk:Marquis of Qin, on whether or not to translate the title of the second ruler of Qin, 秦侯 (Qin Hou), to Marquis of Qin.  --Zanhe (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qin Hou or Marquis of Qin? 

message: The character can have both readings. Accounting for the Wade transcription, Nienhauser's translation of the Shiji uses Zhongjue, presumably for good reasons. Do we have any equally good source reading it as yu or is it conventional in pinyin versions? — LlywelynII 02:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Watson Burton and Feng Li also use Zhongjue. But some dictionaries, such as zdic.net, don't even show the jue pronunciation. Maybe it's the archaic reading, which scholars sometimes prefer. -Zanhe (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zhongyu or Zhongjue? 

message: While we're on the subject, the capital 櫟陽 appears on various Wikipedia pages as Yueyang (as here), Liyang (as here)... and nevermind. Zdic seems pretty clear that Yue is the ancient placename. (Someone double check for me that it's the right place name.) — LlywelynII 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely Yueyang. -Zanhe (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the Tang dynasty articles were especially partial to Liyang (while still obviously talking about a community within modern Xi'an). Is there any reason to think that it changed its name in Middle Chinese or those editors just didn't know that the placename was a special case? — LlywelynII 12:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people are simply not aware of the special pronunciation for the ancient place name. But all dictionaries I've seen note the special Yueyang pronunciation. -Zanhe (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Yueyang or Liyang?

message: Also, I saw that you added content on the origin of Qin based on the Shiji. Please be aware that Sima Qian's account is disputed by many modern historians. Archaeological evidence seems to support the theory that they originated in the east and were moved to the west after Duke of Zhou's suppression of the Rebellion of the Three Guards. See articles by Li Xueqin and by Wu Rui. -Zanhe (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Didn't even have to add the cite, since it was already part of the text: just expanded what was already there. Especially if it's disputed, we should include both theories; you seem better versed in the eastern origin one. Feel free to add it, along with whatever caveats about "the traditional story...", "Sima Qian claimed...", whathaveyou. — LlywelynII 12:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chen (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Substituted at 20:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 19th and early 20th century sources obviously go too far in considering the Qin Empire to have begun in 255 but we still need to move over a block of text and sources from "King Zhaoxiang of Qin" to discuss Qin's ending of the Zhou dynasty, which is now barely even touched by the article. Even if the Nan King was a scarsely-respected figurehead, it was still the end of hundreds of years as the sons of Heaven and a major moment in retrospect.
Similarly, the Huiwen King's assumption of royal dignity and rituals needs more treatment in the article. — LlywelynII 13:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Overthrow of Zhou

message: Chu (state), Qin (state), Yan (state)
It is illustrated in the sources provided that these three states were frequently called "barbarian" by those in the Central Plains, just as Wu and Yue also were. Whether this view is caused by genuine difference in ethnic identity or just snobbery should be addressed. Why are they removed or toned down without any discussion? If you don't believe me, check the sources yourselves. I can go quote it for you if you want. If not I'm going to revert everything. 42.61.172.8 (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  identity issues 

message: The first sentence in this articel dates the state of Qin to 897 BC (traditionally dating) with reference to The Cambridge History of China. The source actually say that Feizi that year was  given a small attached appanage to breed horses for the Zhou royal hose, but according to my understanding this is not to be equated with the formation of a state. The same source also say that Qin 770 BC was rised to full principality, and Qin 750 BC asserted sovereignty. I would propose that the article state the establishment date for the state of Qin to 750 BC or 770 BC. I think 770 BC is the date that correspond most to how establishment dates have been selected for the other feudal states during this period. Best regards, --Bairuilong (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Establishment 897 BC?

message: Im fixing it right now. Unfriendly770 (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Im fixing the kings of states during the warring states period. 

message: Can anyone know what happened to the king category? Unfriendly770 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't delete any other of the script,i just added some kings, but the kings after the 15th wasn't going to show up , can someone teach me how to fix it? Unfriendly770 (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Its says unknown parameter when im previewing it,can someone help me? Unfriendly770 (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Unfriendly770, the lists of leaders and deputies in  are intended to hold first and/or last and/or particularly notable examples. They're not designed to contain every single person who filled one of the roles. That's why the template parameters only go to fifteen, which is honestly already probably too many. Folly Mox (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! This taught me a lesson! Unfriendly770 (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guys help why the kings after the 15th was not going to show up? 

message: Rather shocking (probably affected somehow) and obligatory Ngrams results to be treated with a grain of salt
It seems that the contemporary use of Wade Giles for most political entities (versus, say, Tao or kung fu) is pretty negligible; it does pop up in quotes and refs later but it seems intuit-able enough for a general audience, could certainly front WG in the . Remsense诉 15:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally have no strong opinion about the addition of the Wade Giles spelling. I added it simply because similar articles such as Qi (state), Chu (state) or Qin dynasty have also included Wade Giles spellings in their very first sentences. If there is indeed no such a need then I think Wade Giles spellings can be removed from all such articles. --Wengier (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be my gut feeling but I wanted to check first. Remsense诉 15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I do notice that most other dynasties do not show Wade Giles spelling bolded in the first sentence though. I think perhaps we can indeed fix above-mentioned articles somehow.--Wengier (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So, there's this gut feeling I have that certain historical figures (i.e. Warring States and maybe Tang really) should have more weight to displaying WG as they were the focus of Western scholarship and those spellings will likely be more familiar to more people? Remsense诉 15:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is certainly interesting. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with such historical figures may provide a good answer for this. --Wengier (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need we include "Ch'in" in the first sentence?