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 Stubify and rework. Reading through this long debate I am left with two clear mesages. Firstly that this is an encyclopedic subject and secondly, that this effort is so far from what is required that some of the editors working on it have thrown up their hands and decided it is best to start from scratch. There is an overwhelming majority in favour of deleting this version but a clear consensus that a proper article is also permissible. Ordinarily, I would stub the article and close this as no-consensus but given the intractable nature of the dispute I think we need a more refined solution. I have therefore created a subpage to work on the new article and put a place-holder on the main page and protected it. The subpage needs to be rewritten to remove all the synthesis and original research and be created directly from proper sources. Once there is a clear consensus on the sub-page talk-page from both sides of this dispute that the page is ready to go back into mainspace the article can be unprotected and the content merged across. Spartaz Humbug! 16:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See extensive discussion on talk page: this reads as a merger between articles on the two empires, but is distinctly worse than either existing article. Its Roman history is inaccurate; the comparisons are not sourced to the reliable sources that discuss such things - and even if they did, they would be repeating opinions, not - as policy requires - facts about opinions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has also addressed the concerns of its last AFD, and has been dramatically improved since them [article now and then

In addition, all of it is now currently sourced from scholarly sources explicitly comparing the two.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A longer argument on why it should be kept is shown below:

Is the article perfect? No; as of present, it does suffer from signifcant problems. As some of my first contributions to wikipedia, I do admit that I did make many mistakes when creating the article, and had left some of them unfixed as I went on to work to promote Economic history of China (pre-1911) to GA and hopefully FA. However, I just want to address a few criticims of the article, and hopefully show that they are nowhere as near as malicious as some editors have claimed.

WP:OR. This has a complaint raised against the article since the beginning. To have raised it in the days of December 2008, when the article had no sources comparing the two empires, was reasonable. However, a similar complaint has no justification. The article features many sources discussing the two empires, from brief summaries such as W.W. Norton to whole scholarly papers such as work done by Walther Schiedel and Princeton on monetary matters. Yes, sources that only describe one of the two subjects are used- which does not constitute WP:Synthesis or WP:OR. Synthesis and OR refers to the creation of new ideas and thoughts- no new ideas and conclusions are created from sentences describing detailed. For example, on an article comparing apples and oranges, if it is written "Apples are red (source on apples only) and later written "oranges are orange(source about orange only)", it is not synthesis or OR- new ideas and conclusions have been presented. The only effect is that 2 facts are presented to the reader. And besides, the main information in the article comes from sources that do compare the 2 empires; the other sources are used for supporting info.

WP:NPOV . Some critics have accused the article of being NPOV, going as far as to say it is a "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" issue. Not at all true- nowhere in the article can you find a statement such as "Han is MUCH STRONGER THAN ROME" or vice versa. Yes, in some sections there is more information on Han china than Rome(this problem also exists in reverse, for example see the engineering section), but this is due to the limited sources available for use for myself(my main work was on Economic history of China). In order to remedy this problem, I have repeatedly asked other users if they could contribute Rome-related information to the article, which they refused to do so, out of hostility to the article, a factor I could not control.

WP: Encyclopedic This article is obviously encyclopedic. Since its establishment, several new papers by respected scholars have been published on the subject, showing that this is definitely a notable topic, which was confirmed in the last AFD. Just because an article is of poor quality in the eyes of some editors is not grounds for deletion- if you don't like the article, improve it. Some critics have mentioned that they would delete it and rather write a new one- If you have good sources and the time to do so, do so! Simply delete all existing information and replace it with your own (as long as it is good, I will not object). Although the article's quality is not the best, I think it would be very hard to deny that it has improved greatly since the last AFD. Further work is needed, but deletion is not warranted.

My thoughts on the issue - Recently I have not been very active on wikipedia due to school, SAT and other factors, but with the advent of christmas I will have more time to devote to wikipedia. I have already submitted this article to ARS as a first step, and after I deal with another article I will try to improve this article with the other more reputable sources currently available. I feel it would be a great travesty to wikipedia to delete an article on an encyclopedic topic and which, while not perfect, has obviously been much improved since its creation.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Despite their numerous cries about "inaccuracy" and "OR", the editors involved in the AFD have yet to cite a single example of either.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples have been provided. Apart from the examples in my comment above, I started adding tags to the article, but after adding three to the first section (without getting to the end of the section) I thought it would be pointless to highlight every single problem as there were just too many and it would render the article unreadable, Nev1 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue above has been addressed(most of what you tagged was what the source said, literally)- Also, as to your example above, the article is more intended as a comparison between the two civilizatiosn in that time period, rather than the empires in particular.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your destructive personal attacks are most discouraging. You refer to "Virtual clash of Roman and Han Chinese armies and culture". I ask you: Where is it? Where is it? You have not yet presented a single example of what you have said except your boisterous bias. Ignoring your personal attacks and attempts to distract the issue, I ask you: Do you not admit that there are scholarly sources on this topic, which is also a topic of scholarly interst?. You haven't answered this question, because there are scholarly sources on this notable topic, which you have failed to acknowledge, either because of ignorance or bias. Yes, in some areas, most notably the military sphere, sources not comparing the two empires have been used. However, in this case no direct comparison has been made, no new ideas and conclusions presented- therefore there is no WP:SYNT, which refers to new conclusions.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want examples of bias and the lack of scholarly references you provide?
Both armies could deploy large numbers of troops into battle. For the battle of Chalons, the Romans fielded some 50,000 men[17]. During the Battle of Arausio, the Roman Republic fielded up to 70,000 soldiers[18]. In the battle of Mobei (119 BCE), China fielded 300,000 troops, along with about 500,000 porters, auxiliaries, servants, and other support elements. In the battle of Mayi, China also fielded about 300,000 troops.
Stack the deck... You take some random realistic figure of the Roman army and compare it with some unsourced fantasy Chinese number. Are you aware that ancient authors regularly overestimated troop sizes many times because they followed very different writing conventions than modern scholars? Do you know about logistics and the inherent impossibility of feeding and equipping 800,000 men by pre-modern agricultural societies?
China's army benefitted from the fact that the Chinese were the first to invent the horse harness, which allowed grain to be transported overland in massive quantities, unlike the Romans who relied on sea transport.
Wrong due to ignorance and bias or both. The Roman army moved mostly by foot which is why they built the unprecedented Roman road system. And they used just as efficient horse harnesses as the Han (A History of Collar Harnessing in Source-Pictures and ROMAN TRACTION SYSTEMS).
The Han army also had perhaps one of the most deadly weapon of the ancient age: the crossbow. This weapon, which did not spread to other areas of the world until later, gave the Han army a great strategic advantage.
Wrong due to ignorance and bias or both. In fact, the Roman knew and used the crossbow. See gastraphetes for the Greek forerunner and scroll down to "Other ancient crossbows" for the different Roman specimen (also see Cheiroballista). They even had torsion Roman torsion crossbow I and Roman torsion crossbow II which were more powerful than any of the tension crossbows the Chinese employed.
The issues with your 'articles' are countless...really. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You are so knowledgable, Gun Powder Ma, about ancient armies that you do realize that Crossbow is listed under list of Chinese inventions? That a catapault is not a crossbow, and it's firing rate was only a fraction of a crossbow?(which would have made it useless in open field fighting)? If the romans did employ the crossbow, then how come Velites Served in the Roman army until the very end? If the Roman horse was so efficient at transport, how come Rome was dependent on Egyptian grain for travel(don't tell they couldn't grow food in Italy!)? The discrepancy in troop numbers can easily be explained by the massive improvement in agricultural technology in China at this time, including the seed drill and iron farm tools.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teeninvestor, Gun Powder Ma has made no personal attacks and has restricted his comments to the article; please do not obscure the issue at hand by crying that he is attacking you when that is not the case. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe referring to another editor as a "virtual wargamer" who fantasizes about "virtual wargame clash of Han and Roman Empires" is more than attacks. Only the most POV editors would think that is not an attack. These words are clearly implied by Gun Powder Ma. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what he said, but interpreting it as a personal attack is ludicrous. Nev1 (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that he would appreciate it if I started calling him a hippie based on the "free tibet" sign on his userpage?Teeninvestor (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, both empires never had any direct political relationship or even contact on which a valid, encyclopedic comparison could be based. It takes no Albert to see that the whole 'comparison' and its pseudo-scientific 'conclusions' are just a matter of stacking the deck: Take a high count of, say, population size for that empire and compare it with some low count from the other, and you will almost certainly arrive to the desired conclusion. Take a favourable scholarly opinion of the empire, and contrast it with a negative or slighlty outdated one of the other one, and you come to the the desired conclusion. What can our readers hope to learn from that? They rely on us that we present information in a neutral and informed way, but this is next to impossible with such a comparison detached from historical reality.
One year ago, when this article just survived so the first Articles for deletion nomaination, many users who then decided to vote for keep did so with the explicit hope and wish that the fundamental issues of the article will be addressed soon. But the main - and I would maintain insoluble - problem has remained just the same. Not only are the given 'facts' still terribly wrong (and largely unsourced), but there is hardly any actual comparison between the two political entities. And the little there is, is palpably distorted and biased.
As it stands, the 'article' is a sorry effort with a foregone conclusion towards the - alleged - Han China viewpoint. But if it had been the other way round, favouring some Roman viewpoint, it would have been not one bit better. If we go down that path of forcing to compare what only true and unbiased experts at best should compare, we will soon be confronted with more insoluble task like Comparison between the USA and USSR or Comparison between the British and French Empire. I don't want to become Wikipedia a playground for nationalistic sentiments under the disguise of talking about history, therefore the strongest of all delete from my mind and my heart. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to above HongQiGong has posted twice and the quote in question is actually a direct quote from a book by Robert Temple, compiled from the work of Joseph Needham.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it - [2]. Thanks for pointing that out. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it wasn't my fault my vote was posted twice! [3]  :) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You say "it's a standard comparison because of the almost complete cultural isolation between the two". How paradox is that? By that token, almost any political entity, however deconnected, can be compared with any other before our globalized age... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article has been stubified per Taemyr; all sections sourced purely to a source that describes just one empire has been removed. The remaining content is all cited with only citations that discuss both empires.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree: Why is that done? The 'article' roams freely the Wikipedia space for one year, but once a AfD starts all potentially controversial contents is suddenly removed to make it appear better? How can people judge the article now? Tell me this is a joke. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I undid any edit to the point of time this AfD started. All users should be allowed a fair opportunity to form their opinion on the article as it actually is. This is not exactly helpt by edits which remove 3/4th (!!) of the article contents. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in any case, the stubbification has been reversed by User:Gun Powder Ma, a curious claim since much editing work was done during the 1st AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is a car then the engine's rusted to pieces, the steering is stuck so the car only goes in circles, and it would be cheaper to buy a new car. Nev1 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked wikipedia policy never said we should delete an article to improve it.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And are you suggesting we delete this article and recreate a fixed up version? Seems silly to me. I think the easiest and best thing to do is just give a good cleanup. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem with analogies, they fall apart if you look at them too hard (and my weak attempt at wit didn't appear to help). The article needs deleting in its current state needs deleting for the reasons stated above. However, if reliable sources properly covering the subject, rather than tendentious essays stretched to breaking point and contorted to weakly support the article, it can be recreated. Nev1 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's an excellent point indeed and so far splendidly missed by as much the article itself and those who voted for keep. Such theoretical, aloof comparisons have never been an end in itself for historians, but always been meant to shed light on some other, real questions of historical importance. A point totally missed by the article whose whole approach is rather one of letting gladiators compete against one another. Obviously, this type of article is always bound to fall in the trap of a lame zero sum game and therefore encyclopedically worthless and even outright dangerous to Wikipedia ideals. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many editors seem to want to "delete the article" and start over. This is a fallacy- if you wish to start over, delete the whole thing and replace it with your information and/or add your own. Never has wikipedia policy recommended deleting an article that is notable and on the subject to "start over"- that would be a massive distortion of our policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe talk of WP:OR and WP:SYNT for this article is unjustified. The direct comparisons in this article are sourced; otherwise, the information has been listed seperately- which DOES NOT constitute synthesis. If i put two pieces of information close together, it does not constitute WP:SYNT(which is defined as the creation of new conclusions and ideas). For example, putting the seperately sourced statements: Apples are red and oranges are orange together does not create any new conclusions or ideas, and therefore can be used even if the citation only refers to apples/oranges, instead of both.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly can form a synthesis by placing two pieces of information in close proximity. And you do not need to state the conclusion outright... Leading the reader to an obviously implied conclusion is just as bad as one that is stated outright. We can not juxtapose two pieces of information unless a reliable source has juxtaposed those same pieces of information. Doing so most definitely is OR. Now, it seems that there are a few reliable sources that have directly compared specific aspects of Roman and Han society... and to the extent that we paraphrase and summarize what these sources say about those specific aspects, the article is fine... but, the article goes far beyond what these few sources say. It sets up a comparison between aspects that have not been compared before. That is the very definition of OR. In other words... the topic is valid, but the current article is seriously flawed... it is a keeper, but it needs major surgery. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They generally don't engage in any article work, as they're too busy going from one AFD to another.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very much like a personal attack - Kasaalan is simply ignoring our policies and guidelines and arguing against any deletions so far as I can see, which is his right, but you appear to be claiming that the delete voters here 'generally don't engage in any article work'. You might want to strike out the statement above if you can't actually back it up with evidence. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have strucken it out at Dougweller's request. The statement, actually, should read something more like: They don't generally engage in any article work on the article they are trying to delete, even when the source is right in front of them and they're talking about it!Teeninvestor (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One doesnt need to work to improve an article to weigh in on an AFD. AFD is NOT for articles that need improvement. if such an article does come up here, we can refer it to the rescue squadron while also arguing for keep. i WILL add refs to articles i think dont deserve deletion, and that to my eye can be easily improved, but if i dont think an article subject is CAPABLE of being rescued, why bother improving it? the only exception ive made to that is removing BLP violations immediately. And i have also changed my "vote" a few times, usually when someone presents a particularly cogent argument (but usually not due to new information added to article), or in one case where the subject was devilishly hard to research at first (due to a poorly chosen article name and way too few references or notability reasons given). Teeninvestor, your comment is still an unfair personal attack. again, why should i bother to try to improve an article once i have read it, checked the references, checked the arguments here at the afd, and determined to MY satisfaction that it deserves deletion? not a poorly written article, but an unencyclopedic article? i have in fact voted to keep extremely poorly written articles which appear to be capable of expansion, as long as the premise contains a core idea that can be defended as appropriate for WP and the article is not wildly inaccurate or overreaching.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request information[edit]

I would like to know what the WP guidelines say about the editing process while an AfD is underway? Because, once this AfD started, all of a sudden a frantical editing process started and a third of the article has been removed. This hyperactivity smacks a bit of foul play, at least it is patently absurd. How can contributors to this debate form an informed opinion if they don't get to see the article as it was published for so long? Obviously, the users have a right to judge the article based on the version from the time when the AfD was made, not some face-lifted version. If the community decision is to keep the article, we have still all the time in the world for thorough editing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Powder Ma, are you out of your head? When does wikipedia Prohibit improvement of an article? Editing during AFD is not bad; in fact, it is encouraged. Or else, what is the article rescue squadron? You are so biased and malicious towards this article that you're trying to prevent anyone from working on it to improve it? What the heck do you think you're doing? Who the heck do you think you are? Jimbo? Teeninvestor (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we do want to approach this article as legitimate, it should be given redirection to just what the scholars say, not a slew of research which appears to support the position. If that means cutting it down to a summary of the position and the major points that the authors made and comparing the two, so be it. But the extensive support for the argument created in the current article through original research and interpretation IS NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC, as yet only two oxford scholars have dealt with this very broad comparative subject. (Again I can't imagine having the expertise for the research for such a study, you would have to know several dialects of chinese and Latin and Greek to sufficiently cover the scholarship in such topics.) SADADS (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very much agree, though I think the point Blueboar is making in above section, should be thought about. SADADS (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Could a renaming and restructuring resolve the problems here? Instead of entitling the article "Comparison between Roman and Han Empires"... what if we renamed it "Comparisons of Roman and Han Empires"? This would refocus the article away from talking about the two empires (which invites OR juxtaposition of how they were the same/different) to talking about sources and what they say. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good idea, i think it would be a good compromise. It would definitely have to include a large cutting down of material. All sources which do not make this type of analysis would have to be excluded. Anyone else's thoughts?SADADS (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How could a restructuring hope to solve the insoluble problems with such juxtapositions? Let's consider one example: The maximum population size of Han China was by scholarly consensus ca. 55 Mio. But the maximum population size of the Roman Empire differed, depending on the method of calculation, between 55 Mio. and 100 Mio. Given the oscillation in the numbers, how can we hope to make a fair comparison? Depending on which author you prefer to follow, the Imperium was just as populated or twice as populated as the Han Empire. Doing a comparison under these circumstances is meaningless and always bound to be unbalanced. Better treat the subject in individual articles where it belongs. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a restructuring to aknowledge that such a scholarly position exists, not to prove that it is a valid point. SADADS (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can the vast mass of readers who are unaware of such Wiki guideline subtleties really tell the difference? Personally, I don't believe so. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many users are looking for information about the comparison. If properly referenced and discussed, Wikipedia can act as an appropriate tertiary source analysing the scholarship in the field. I don't know what you are worried about. SADADS (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave you an example which you may want to discuss. And let's be clear that there is actually very few scholarship in this field (none of which was btw dealt with in the article). And even this is very specialized, preliminary and does not even touch a fifth of the subjects covered in the WP article. And it is rather in the form of an essay, not at all rigid analysis. But, on the other hand, there is a vast majority of classicist of both Ancient Rome and China who have never done such a 'comparison' and would never dream of making them, knowing their futility. Should we disregard entirely their silent votum because of one, two voices to the contrary? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh, GunPowderMa has his own pro-Roman axe to grind here - e.g., he spent a lot of effort a while back (and gave me a medium sized headache in the process) trying to push the theory that the Romans invented the taijitu. he is not unbiased on these issues. My main worry with comparison articles is that they invariably create implicit meanings. the minute you compare apples to oranges you imply that apples and oranges have something special between them that isn't shared by bananas, persimmons and pears. If scholars are doing that already, or if that's a well-established cultural theme, then that's not a problem. but wikipedia shouldn't be pushing a new comparison, even if it's a decent comparison to make. --Ludwigs2 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly new if there have already been books and papers published on this subject... Even the nominator agreed that this topic is notable. It's just that Gun Powder Ma wishes to delete this article because it offends his POV pro-Roman agenda(they invented gun powder if you ask him). By the way, Ludwigs2, there is an entire category of comparisons articles; see Category:Comparisons and Comparison between Star Trek and Star Wars.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the correct title is Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 17:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, TI, I'll confess that I personally find your (and GPM's) particular style of historical jingoism distasteful, and I am tired of grinding against the same knee-jerk responses with every single post. Making a point once is informative, making it twice is emphatic, making it five (or six, or seven) times is bullying. Stop it. I am not saying there is never a case for comparison articles, and I reject utterly the (absolutely silly) idea that because we allow one comparison article we should allow all of them. I am saying that I don't believe this article is worthy of inclusion in the particular form that it has taken. I might change my Delete vote to a Stubify and Rewrite vote if I see evidence that this is an established academic discussion or a matter of interest to the greater public, but looking at the material presented, it seems to be a niche interest of a couple of cautious scholars and a few die-hard fans such as yourself. how does that meet wp:V? --Ludwigs2 17:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im disappointed at the failure to AGF here – it should be obvious from the work of TeenInvestor that the scholarship of Article Rescue Squad members is second to none! Asking for verification is one thing, flat out contradicting claims made by the ARS is just rude - it amounts to suggesting were either incompetent or lying. Lets have some respect! Before posting to this discussion Id already improved the article with cites to Quiddly . As for Spengler, hes all about comparing civilizations - thats why hes one of the most prominently listed scholars over at Comparative history. To see him specifically compare the Han and Roman empires, look at this table which is from the now public domain DofW. Even if you cant read German it should be clear hes comparing the Han and Roman empires in adjacent columns near the bottom. DotW contains several other specific comparisons of the two empires, which you can easily verify by downloading an English version of the book from a number of places just by googling "Decline of the West pdf" . For example, in the second volume , search for the phrase "Chinese Trajan" to find a nice long passage comparing the two empires. I hope you wont find it POV just because it says the Huns were easily broke on the "Limes" of the Han but then went on to successfully cause the break up of the Roman empire! (all be it partly by the proxy of Germanic tribes) Sources dont have to be actually present in the article to establish its notable, as it says in WP:Notability "Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present". So I wont be further participating in this discussion or improving the article for now – Ive previously massively improved an article with very recent top line Oxford University Press and similar sources specifically on the subject only to see it deleted due to deletionist intransigence. But if this article is saved and Teeninvestor agrees, Ill add a section sourced mainly to Spengler comparing the spiritual outlook / macro development of the two empires which will nicely complement the excellent work already present. Im not saying arguments made by deletionsists prove they are dishonest as not all editions of DoW have the pull out table comparing the empires, and if theyve only read the abridged version there is much less specific comparison of the Han with Rome, however I dont think it could be clearer that at least some of the claims made by deletionsists here are unequivocally and demonstrably false. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary break[edit]

Delete or possibly reduce to a very brief stub -- This article is a confection. It does not "compare" them: in most respects, it merely shows how different they were. If kept, it needs to cite much better sources than Encarta; BBC; The reliance on Worlds apart is also too heavy. The article does cite some academci works comparing the two empires, so that I cannot argue that this is non-encyclopaedic, but the whole can be summarised as "They were quite different in many respects". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hawobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note This editor has made less than 30 edits to wikipedia and he shows up right here? Suspicious.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but improve - The article in its current state is significantly improved from the version this AfD started with. OR and synthesis issues are being addressed and I have been shown enough sources on the subject to convince me a proper article can be made. I am switching to keep but if it still has original research in 6 months I will support deletion. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Rootless_Juice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note This editor has made less than 30 edits to wikipedia and he shows up right here? Suspicious.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already has.Teeninvestor (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per Cmadler, Blueboar, SADADS, and others, the article has been restructured to include only scholarly sources and has been restructured to scholarly comparisons only. In fact, every section remaining in the article can be attributed to these sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was Ludwigs2's fault, actually.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

GPM, I'm sure there are many scholars that you've never heard of. That's why they don't have articles on wikipedia. Actually, for the first paragraph, it is all cited except for the 1st sentence, which is now changed. Also, as to your comments about Rome facing or not facing an existential threat, it's not a matter of what I say or you say. It's what the source said! Take it up with Scheidel. His point was that Rome did not face a highly competitive environment with highly organized enemiesin which whole states can be destroyed easily. The discipline of the Germanic tribes and the other city-states, for example, could not match the organization of the Roman army. A chinese warring state, however, had to face highly organized and centralized armies from its opponents.

But, Gun powder Ma, weren't you complaining about the abundance of WP:OR and WP:SYNT in the article? Can I please see some examples? Teeninvestor (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scheidel did not make such a point. You seem to be again in your wargaming frame of mind of trying to determine by force who was the more competitive empire. With such an work approach, any future article will soon amount to the same lame zero sum game it has now been for a year. There are already numerous 'comparisons' between te two empires in history forums, especially Chinese ones who seem to feel for whatever reason they have to prove a point. The one thread I intensively followed runs for three years now, has been closed a dozen times with numerous posters being permanently blocked. Consensus: none. Vitriole: very high. I really don't know why we should import this combative 'better than you' posting behaviour into an encyclopedia. The whole Internet is for conjecture, but Wiki should remain for facts. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ask firstly, that you stop your frankly uncontributive and destructive personal attacks and strike them out. If your personal attacks continue, I will seek administrator action against you. Secondly, Contrary to your lies, Scheidel did in fact make this very point. If you would look on page 36 of the preview of the book (not available for some reason today), there is in fact the very verbatim quote. In fact, I reproduce this from another paper he wrote:

Beginning in 295 BCE, and certainly after 202 BCE, Rome did not normally face state-level competitors with matching mobilization potentials. This, and the consequent absence of prolonged inconclusive warfare against other states, obviated the need for farther-reaching domestic reforms promoting centralization and bureaucratization. In other words, the benefits of asymmetric warfare (against states that relied more on mercenaries in the eastern and southern Mediterranean and against less complex chiefdoms and tribes in the northern and western periphery) enabled Rome to succeed with less domestic re-structuring than was required in the intensely competitive environment of Warring States China.10

You have been directly contradicted.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Roman and Qin-Han empires were built on templates provided by antecedent states and expanded into a widening ecumene: in the West, from the river cultures of the Middle East into the Mediterranean and on to continental Europe, in the East from the Wei and middle Yellow River valleys into the Central Plain and then on to the south. In the East, the basic context had been created by the Shang-Western Zhou polities (c.1600-771 BCE) and their dominant elite culture and the spread of the Western Zhou garrison cities across the Central Plain region. In the Mediterranean, this role had been performed by the spread of Greek settlements across the Mediterranean littoral (from the eighth century BCE) and the cultural Hellenization of autonomous local elites.

And also, please stop your personal attacks on me such as "wargamer" and your attempt to portray me as illiterate of Roman history. Some of your own ideas about both China and Rome are quite ludicrous (I'm sure Romans didn't invent Yin and Yang, for example. And the Han Empire didn't "collapse completely"; ever heard of the "dynastic cycle"?)Teeninvestor (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salvaging and restructuring[edit]

Workable Keep I change my vote from above, I feel that a careful negotiation through the scholarship would greately improve the article (see some of the more recent edits including my own). Should be titled Han and Roman comparison to help with the refocus. However, that is not neccessary. I volunteer to help make the article more historical in it's approach.SADADS (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not vote "keep" from the beginning? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, Sadads started with a "Strong delete" and has since struck that. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadads, have you located significant sources that directly make this comparison? It is important that we don't attempt to synthesis different sources in the novel hypothesis. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple templates to point at major deficiencies and removed a large part of both internal and external links for a multitude of different reasons (please see edit summaries). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum, see the following papers and books for sources that directly make this comparison. * Edwards, Ronald A. (February 2009). "Federalism and the Balance of Power: China's Han and Tang Dynasties and the Roman Empire". Pacific Economic Review 14 (1): 1-21. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1395142. Retrieved 2009-12-20.

Teeninvestor (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above list exaggerates the actual amount of scholarly references by featuring double entries. Two of the sources were actually working paper of Scheidel which he later included in his 2008 book.
  1. Scheidel, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires is already included in 2008 Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires as chapter 7.
  2. Scheidel, From the 'Great Convergence' to the 'First Great Divergence': Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and its Aftermath, is essentially chapter 1 of the book. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Adshead, Samuel Adrian Miles (2000). China in world history (3 ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780312225650. http://books.google.com/books?id=E8mpbItQVc8C. Retrieved 2009-12-22.
First of all, don't touch my comment. I don't modify your comments, you don't modify mine. Secondly, the papers are still useful because we do not have access to all of the book; therefore keeping these two chapters in hand can allow us to access the information. The papers are also generally more detailed than the book (see for example, the monetary paper). Also, can you show me the 95% of the article that you said to be Original research and synthesis? I'm still looking for it.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you do here is creating a false impression of a larger list of references which actually does not exist. Just as you have immediately undone my addition of templates or have moved the large amount of criticism conveniently to archive. These actions show that you are quite willing to stretch limits of good editorial behaviour just in order to get your article saved. I cross out the double entries, because we don't need here a duplication of sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC
There is also the adshead source, as well as other papers(such as the federalism one). And also, crossing out other editors' comments is extremely bad decorum, and reminds me conveniently of your friend, the blocked User:Tenmei, who routinely crossed out his opponents' comments. I immediately undid your addition of signs because they were inaccurate and I had added new sources, and I shelved away the talk page to archives because if I didn't, it would get unbearably long ; standard wikipedia behavior. Please don't try to attack your fellow editors for archiving month-old talk page discussions; it is you who's making personal attacks and trying to stop editors from editing, behaviour that is clearly contradicting to wikipedia's spirit. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have reconsidered my position based on these sources. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps see the current state of the article? Whatever problems may be in it, I don't see anything related to original research or synthesis?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared? It has separate chapters on each empire, and although there may have been a couple of sentences where comparisons are made, basically despite the title it doesn't make comparisons, it just writes about the two empires separately and leaves it to the reader to draw comparisons. I already said that above. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read part of it. Some of it makes comparisons, most of it doesn't. The part that does can be used though. Even if the information in it doesn't compare the two directly, it can still be used as a source adding details (using a source whose subject is to compare the two empires to add details is not exactly OR).Teeninvestor (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, using sources that discuss the empires independently to make a comparison. It doesn't matter what the book's title is, it can only be used where it makes direct comparisons. This insistence on using sources that don't make direct comparisons is a basic problem of this article. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question should be whether this comparison is considered a valid approach in world history, not that it exists. Obviously it does, even if just as a overarching premise for a larger text. Really, how much analysis do approaches like Comparative government really do? Only as the field has evolved has it really gained a significantly analytical approach. Compartive history is new and changing as Europeans realize that their history isn't the only one and otherones provide insight onto their own. Yes the sources for an article is limited; Yes it has some logical flaws based on Western histories basic assumptions and understanding of Roman history; Does it exist, certainly.
However, we should explore internal criticism from other historians, instead of blabbering away on a back and seldom traveled corner of the internet. Look at Book Reviews, look at other texts if you want to say the approac is not notable. Support the accusations with scholarly opinion. I am pretty sure, very few of us are proffesional historians. (I admit I am one, but still a student, and specializing on a period much later.) SADADS (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think the best source that says that this is both feasable and is an accepted approach amongst historians is THE STANFORD ANCIENT CHINESE AND MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRES COMPARATIVE HISTORY PROJECT even if not all historians agree with the conclusions. The link represents the presence of a number of studies which compare these empires for a variety of reasons. Admittedly this is compiled by Scheidel, who has been the major historian used in the article so far. SADADS (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link does first and foremost provide references which solely concentrate on either one of the two empire. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any of these books would meet WP:NOT and the attempts to move the content will result in it being lost completely. Also, do you not agree that this topic is notable and has scholarly sources? Just cause the article has been nominated twice says nothing; deletionists have nominated some articles for deletion, four, five, six times, yet it does not disprove their notability and usefulness of the article. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are3 saying that these books do not meet the standards for an article, I have to wonder whether they are reliable enough for the article in question. Your first sentence is another reason to delete the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See comments below. And plus, I said I "doubted" an article could be created on the books, but I wouldn't be surprised if an actual article was made on the books and kept.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was to flush out the scholarship, by being very clear who says what and then integrating it into a topical approach article. Because the article appears to be becoming very collabrative and needs to respond to the AFD nomination, it is very hard to show all the concerned users what would be going on in a draft (especially one I can't commit much time to until the coming weekends.) Yes the article is kindof sloppy right now, but I personally plan to reorginize it, however poorly I have communicated that so far. SADADS (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second deletion nomination. It is too late to keep promising some plan. If the article were encyclopedic, it would not take so much effort to come up with an effective way to organize it. And there are still NOR problems. If the only sources that explicitly compare or contrast the two empires are not notable (per Teeninvestor's comment above) then what basis is there for an article? Wikipedia editors cannot use Wikipedia to forward novel theories, interpretations, etc. If you think that comparing and contrasting these two empires will lead to some major insight, write an article and submit it to a journals like Comparative Studies in Society and History and publish original research there, or a journal like it. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein, do you understand wikipedia guidelines on notability and original research? The article's sources have to be related to the subject", reliable (aka academic sources), but there is no requirement for the source to have an article itself. If we had an article on every source that was used in an article, do you know how many articles would have to be created? And if we use more sources in the creation of these articles, do we have to create even more? And, also, you seem to have no understanding of WP:OR whatsoever. WP:OR is original research; if the facts has been documented and sourced to reliable sources that explicitly talk about the article's subject, then there is definitely no OR. These sources are in abundance on this article, which you would known if you looked at the article's sources section. But, overall, your main problem is that you proposed a solution to a problem that doesn't exist; if it is demonstrated the article has no more WP:SYNT and WP:OR problems and is notable, why would you delete it and move it to another section just because some guy had it in his mind to nominated it for deletion? Would you delete the article Earth if someone nominated it twice?Teeninvestor (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kin sumbody splane alll this too me. Chillim-lamebrain (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this user is now blocked as an attack account. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article written by a single editor - by some coincidence, the same editor who replies assiduously to most of the delete comments here. The version nominated is here; it had severe problems, but somewhat different ones than it now has. It now has three:
  • it's an indiscriminate collection of information from some scholars whom the author has found to use Rome and China in the same sentence.
  • It's written by someone whose understanding of Chinese history is limited, and whose understanding of Roman history can be illustrated by the first sentence: The Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire were the principal powers in their respective regions in the first and second century BCE, that is, a century before Augustus founded the Roman Empire.
  • It has a thesis: that the two empires are comparable, and the Han is better.
I would be content (now) to see this moved to user space until SADAD finishes working on it, at which point we will see; but it should not be in article space as it stands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Septentrionalis: in fairness, that date foobar was my fault. I cranked out a quick revised introduction here to shut down what looked like the beginnings of an edit war, and I mooshed things together that shouldn't have gotten mushed. Why my mistake never got addressed in the subsequent flurry of revisions I can't say (particularly since the introduction was revised a couple of times in the process), but it was my original mistake. apologies. --Ludwigs2 07:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I will substitute Rome, on the other hand, never faced an enemy that posed an existential threat after 275 BCE (save for the Punic wars). Setting aside the phrasing, which resembles Tom Lehrer's "We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they've hardly ever bothered us since then", it still omits the Cimbri. (Even if it is Scheidel's opinion, we have an obligation to say so; especially when it contravenes both the judgment of other modern scholars and of the Romans themselves.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pmanderson, the only thing we know for sure is that your knowledge of Chinese history and this article is virtually nil (I doubt you have even looked at it), and your knowledge of Rome is probably not more advanced than your knowledge of your above subjects, and thus you are forced to resort to personal attacks. I have read detailed Roman histories, thank you very much, so I consider myself adequately knowledged upon this subject.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should not have mortified this adolescent's vanity, and I do regret having done so. I would prefer to get back to editing Imperial cult (ancient Rome), were I not on vacation and away from my sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of Pmanderson's repeated personal attacks, I have notified two admins[9] [10] as well as filing a wikiquette alert[11]. Hopefully this will deal with the disruptive behaviour of this editor. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you have more arguments than: "this page is useful because it compares two world superpowers that existed at roughly the same time". Flamarande (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this article we have two empires seperated by thousands of miles with simply too little in common. On one side we have the Roman Empire with its republican past, bloody succession which often ended in civil war, slavery, which was during most of its history polytheistic and then underwent a virtual religious revolution towards monotheism. On the other we don't have any republican background, we don't have slavery at all (we have peasants and serfs but no slaves which could be sold and bought as cattle). We have Confuciusm (which was founded a couple of centuries before the Han Empire) and we don't have a major religious development at all (the Christanization of the Roman Empire should never be underestimated; it was a religious, political, moral, and cultural development of the highest importance - there is nothing comparable in the Han Empire at all). Just read the respective articles carefully, and you will notice that we are speaking about two completely diffrent cultures/states. A diffrent beginning/past, economy, political landscape, military situation and development, and a diffrent end. What exactly are we going to compare? The major and unsurpassable diffrences between the two entities?
I also wish to point out that if we can write an article comparing the Roman empire with the Han Empire, then we also could write articles making comparisions with the Parthian Empire, Sassanid Empire, Mayan Empire, etc. Flamarande (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category