Talk:Warring States period

message: I'm pretty sure that Sun Bun should be Sun Bin --Sudasana 00:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. There's not even such a syllable as bun in Mandarin. Be bold next time and change it yourself! :-) --Menchi 00:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sun Bin

message: I think "Warring States Period" is not an appropriate term. The "State" define here is indeed a kingdom, more appropriate, these are independent country that are not taking order from the  Zhou dynasty King. The situation is simulat to the period of 3 kingdom.  Do take note that ancient Chinese scholar love to play with word. 
sltan
:Warring States = Zhan Guo. Guo= state. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  state does not always mean a smaller, dependent political entity within a federation; state is also used to refer to independent political entities, and can mean 'sovreign nation'.  Warring States is a perfectly acceptable translation of 戰國.  Also, please take note that Chinese scholars do not have a monopoly on word play.--Baoluo 08:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Why would a B class article have missing citations? 12.144.116.172 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Citations and References 

message: How did you get 'hegemonial' from '雄'.  Firstly, I don't think hegemonial is even a word, and secondly, '雄' is usually translated as hero, or heroic. I could be wrong, so I'll wait a day or two before changing this.--Baoluo 08:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: translation of 戰國七雄

message: Do you actually realise what ± means? It seems that whoever wrote this article meant to say "approximately" or "about" instead of "±", but maybe not. "±800 years after" means that it was either exactly 800 years before the end or exactly 800 years after. I don't know enough about Chinese history to know for sure what the intended meaning was, but if this really should say "approximately 800 years after", could you please change it. 
In response to the complaint about calling it "warring states period", you should shut up and put up. It has always been called the warring states period and if you want it to be called "warring kingdoms", too bad. If you suddenly changed the name of the period now, it would bring widespread confusion and it's unecessary anyway. Also, I doubt that you fully understand the meaning of "state". A state is not just something similar to a county or province; it can be used to describe a whole country, such as the state of Israel, so the name "warring states period" is indeed correct
The confusing part about Warring States is that it occured twice, in China and Japan. Shame they didnt name it differently. AlexFili (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ..."±800 years after..." and "warring states" 

message: "...The Art of War which is recognized today as the most influential, and oldest known military strategy guide."
Is this the oldest? I thought the Book of Six Strategies, or Liu Tao(六韬) by Jiang Ziya (姜子牙
) is the oldest since the book dated back to before 1046BC.12.47.110.46 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oldest known military strategy Guide 

message: That's alot of guesstimating right there.  9 and 18 feet are a huge difference.  I can't imageing that this is correct
I'm guessing whoever wrote that took it from here: http://books.google.com/books?id=uWwU8kJndD0C&pg=PA7&dq=Ancient+Chinese+Warfare+dagger-axe&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VXIZUZiVDKm20QGS9oCoCQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Ancient%20Chinese%20Warfare%20dagger-axe&f=false  on page 14: "Spears and Dagger-axes fell into two groups, one about nine feet long, the other around 18 feet".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.230.67 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the dagger-axe came in various length from 9–18 ft" 

message: Forgot to put a question mark, but I meant too, finger slipped and pressed enter.68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Last Edit Summary On [[Warring States Period]] 

message: These numbers are RIDICULOUSLY huge. You're telling me a mere state which probably only has at most a few million subjects, is capable of sustaining armies that number in the hundreds of thousands? The ancient Persians and Romans, who had more territory and resources than some of these Chinese states did, never fielded armies in such large numbers. PLEASE SITE A REFERENCE, otherwise I am only considering it to be numbers being pulled out of thin air.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.45.213 (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Samuel B. Griffith's commentary in his translation of The Art of War notes they were peasant armies in the Spring & Autumn period where the campaigns could not interfere with planting or harvesting (ie war only in Summer or Winter) so 100K armies would have been doable, merely from one city alone. Then in Warring States period, there were professionalized armies with a levee of one soldier out of 4 or 8 farmers who would be responsible of the planting & harvesting of the draftee's farm. Again, the numbers are not unreasonable. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army numbers 

message: Wei defeated by Qin (370-340)
All dates under this heading should clearly indicate BC as do the others just above and below it. Under this heading some dates are referenced as BC and others are not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.183.252 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent dating protocol 

message: Yes this article tell alot about what happened and what the aftermath of it was, but it never once tells you what led to Warring States Period in China. If your going to write something informal about an event you also need to inform the reasons of why it happened/what started it.and i also agree that the name should not be changed then if someone wanted to know about the Warring States Period they would not be able to find it because the name would be changed and it would cause confusion throughout the world and it would cost way to much money to change the name in school book across world.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.240.45 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What started the Warring States Period in China? 

message: The paragraph summarizing this year states: "Qi's armies were destroyed and the King Min was slain. [...] King Min himself was later captured and executed by his own followers". The fate of King Min is rather unclear. - DC, 25/8/13  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.35.214 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Period of Qi: 285 BC Death of King Min Descrepancy 

message: The article has been written using BC and AD but these terms feel a bit antiquated and culturally irrelevant for ancient China, how would folks feel about switching to BCE and CE?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.55.30 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally prefer it as it is now (BC/AD).  According to WP:ERA there needs to be a compelling reason for a change.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC --> BCE & AD --> CE 

message: In this article I am missing the years 256 BC and 249 BC,
when the West Zhou Dynasty was annihilated by the Qin.
I think this annihilation of the West Zhou Dynasty was an important precondition for founding a new Dynasty by the Qin and should be metioned and discussed (shortly) in this article.
(By the way, it is a topic in the French version)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeiservomBerg (talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  256 / 249 BC - What happened to the Zhou-Dynasty? 

message: The claim that a multiplication table constitutes sophisticated arithmetic is ridiculous. The fact that multiplication was used, even with fractions or any other bells and whistles, does not warrant the use of the word sophisticated. Multiplication is a quite rudimentary arithmetic operation. It has been present in human writing since the earliest of times, such as in Mesopotamia, and it's earliest occurrence in writing is over one thousand years prior to the bamboo strips. They can therefore be classified as quite typical. In terms of mathematics, 305 BC is contemporary with Euclid and a host of other mathematicians who were concerned with significantly more sophisticated mathematical endeavors than multiplying numbers.
The use of the word "sophisticated" is part of a false portrayal of the ancient Chinese and an exaggeration of their achievements. After all, the table is not "sophisticated" by any modern or by any ancient measure, they are "sophisticated" by the standards of someone who is either baffled by the complexity of multiplication (that is, an idiot) or someone who believes that the ancient Chinese were particularly spectacular as a whole (a fanboy).
90.130.230.125 (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sophisticated arithmetic" 

message: This article's prose is presently either nonexistent or in a very poor state, and nobody seems to be actively working on it.  I have some free time in October and may do a rewrite based mainly on Lewis' chapter in CHAC.  White Whirlwind  咨  17:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree, and thanks for taking the initiative. I also have the book and may be able to help a bit. -Zanhe (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite needed 

message: 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 , 9789004168350
http://books.google.com/books?id=Idhyr1hqS0kC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese religion during the Warring States 

message: I don't see the state of Wu in the map. In this map, the location of the state of Yue is in the modern-day Jiangsu which is supposed to be that of the state of Wu. This map should be replaced. Gustmeister (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wu was conquered by Yue near the end of the Spring and Autumn period, and no longer existed during the Warring States. -Zanhe (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right. I was confused between this map and an another map depicting Chinese plain at the start of the Warring States Period in the 5th century BC . After reading their descriptions more careful, it seems that they describe two periods of time that are slightly different from each other, i.e. this map  is about the early Warring States period, whereas this map  describes territories at the start of the Warring States. Gustmeister (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the states during the Warring States period 

message: As of 2021DEC26 @ 17:40 GMT:
The English language article on Mohism refers to the Warring States period begining in 476 BCE.
This article (Warring States period) gives the start year as 475 BCE.
Could someone who knows whether it is even possible to pick a "better answer" please
"correct" whichever article is "wrong"?
I encountered this while trying to make a tiny improvement to the article on inertia.
2601:1C1:C100:D710:205A:2CD:4C1B:BADA (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start year given in Mohism article (476) differs from year given here (475). 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion