Talk:Warring States period

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sun Bin[edit]

I'm pretty sure that Sun Bun should be Sun Bin --Sudasana 00:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)


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)
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)

Missing Citations and References[edit]

Why would a B class article have missing citations? 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As part of an assignment for a class I added a few citations. I'm new to Wikipedia so please fix my formatting if needed. The references section looks really messy now too, but I'm not sure how to mix inline and general citations. --Regato210 (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

translation of 戰國七雄[edit]

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)

'雄' actually means 'strong' that's also what 'hero' originally means in chinese. '戰國七雄' means seven main forces in the period , there is also other minor state in this period. -- 21:20, 25 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Baoluo's assessment about 戰國七雄. The '雄' implies "leading" or "heroic" but in the context of the statement, it would mean "Warring States of the 7 Leading Factions". (Psychoneko 06:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)) i like big titties — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

..."±800 years after..." and "warring states"[edit]

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)

oldest known military strategy Guide[edit]

"...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. 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"the dagger-axe came in various length from 9–18 ft"[edit]

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: 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 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My Last Edit Summary On Warring States Period[edit]

Forgot to put a question mark, but I meant too, finger slipped and pressed enter. (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Army numbers[edit]

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 (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Date of Chu conquest[edit]

The change has been restored until we get better information. As I understand it: in 383-260 the states weakened each other in mutual wars. In 230-221 Qin conquered the other states (see "Qin's conquest.." section). As for Chu, 223 was the date in 230-221 when it was conquered by Qin. 278 was the date when it was defeated by Qin and its capital captured (see Chu (state)) and therefore belongs in the series of dates when each of the states was seriously weakened. The statement that only Zhao and Qin were left as major powers comes from the Cambridge History of Ancient China, page 638. The Cambridge History seems to be the only available large-scale history of the period in English, but it is mostly non-narrative. A clear history of Chu is especially hard to extract. I plan to update the Chu section of 'Warring States' in a week or so. (I put 278 in the summary section before updating the Chu section, which is out of place anyway, which may explain the problem.)Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not happy with you hijacking this article. As you have admitted, you don't speak Chinese and your only source is The Cambridge History of China. Chu was not conquered in 278. The capital Ying was. The state capital then moved to Chen. Chu was a large state and much territory still remained thereafter. It is your responsibility to cite the sources for your changes, not for me "to wait until we get better information". Check any other history book in English or Chinese and you will find that the Cambridge History of China is the only one that makes this claim. Wikipedia's policy is one of NPOV - what you are doing is refuting the entire accepted history of Chu after 278 BCE. Philg88 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Philg88 has asked me to weigh in on some sort of dispute regarding the date of the destruction of Chu. I've looked through this page's revision history as well as the one at Chu (state), but I'm not entirely certain what the dispute is.... You both seem to agree that Chu's capital was taken in 278 BC and then the state was fully conquered in 223 BC. What exactly do you two want me to weigh in on?  White Whirlwind  咨  16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
er ... This:

The period of Zhao (284-260) After Chu was defeated in 278, the remaining great powers were Qin in the west and Zhao in the north-center. With only two powers there was little room for diplomatic maneuver and matters were decided by war in 265-260. Zhao had been much strengthened by King Wuling of Zhao (325-299). This implies that Chu did not exist after 278 Philg88 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase 'With only two powers' is misleading and should be deleted. Phil must be seeing some problem that I don't see. Is there a better English source than the Cambridge History? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we revise the lines in question, as Philg88 has the correct information for this case. I would be surprised if the C.H.of.A.C. would give erroneous (or just unclear) dates: are you sure you've read them right, Benjamin Trovato? It's quite a reliable book in general....
This is one of those cases where, because the topics are chronology and archaeology, a Chinese source would probably be superior to any English one. Maybe Feng Zhiming's Chu Guo Wang Shi 楚国往事?  White Whirlwind  咨  08:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
How about the Zhanguoce? When I get a minute I will check the relative period. Philg88 (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Revamp? Translate?[edit]

The article in its current form is unacceptably poor. While it contains some good material, the organization and formatting of the chronological history section looks like it was done by monkeys on meth-amphetamine. I'd like to do a revamp with Philg88 and whomever else is interested. I can translate material over from the Chinese version (which is quite well-formatted), though it's not terribly well-cited. I'd like someone to re-do the historical sections, while I re-do the culture sections, augmenting with material from the Chinese version.  White Whirlwind  咨  13:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion White Whirlwind. This article is long overdue for a revamp. Looking at the Chinese page, their focus is different from the English page. Here is a quick translation for non-Chinese readers

1 歷史 1. History 1.1 起始年份爭議之說 1.1 Controversy over dates 1.2 七強並立形勢的形成 1.2 Formation of the Seven Hero States 1.3 戰國前期各國的變法改革 1.3 Early stage political reforms 1.4 合縱連橫和戰爭的變化 1.4 Impact of the School of Diplomacy on warfare 1.5 秦的統一 1.5 Unification of Qin 2 文化 2 Culture 3 经济 3 Economy 3.1 土地私有化 3.1 Land privatization 3.2 农业 3.2 Agriculture 3.3 水利 3.3 Irrigation schemes 3.4 农作物以及漆园、果园等的分布 3.4 Farm crops and the distribution of orchards 3.4.1 粮食作物的种类 3.4.1 Types of grain crops 3.4.2 土壤分辨和田地的等级 3.4.2 Soil types and field ratings 3.4.3 粮食作物的分布 3.4.3 Distribution of grain crops 3.4.4 蚕桑业的发展及麻的分布 3.4.4 Development of sericulture and hemp production 3.5 农业生产技术 3.5 Farming production technology 3.6 农业生产、管理及政策 3.6 Agricultural production management & policy 3.7 手工业 3.7 Handicrafts 3.8 商业 3.8 Commerce 4 技术 4 Technology 4.1 农业技术 4.1 Agricultural Technology 5 相关条目 5. See also 6 参考文献 6 References 7 外部链接 7. External links

The layout is nicely structured and can be improved on by incorporating the history stuff (rewritten) from the current English page with additional sections where appropriate. My suggestion is that we translate the Chinese page first then incorporate the stuff needed from the English article. As more than one person will be doing the work I suggest we first create a Sandbox page (where?) on which the Chinese article is duplicated. Editors can tag a section - "I'm working on this" then paste in the translated text when they've finished. This should avoid duplication of effort. Look forward to comments. Philg88 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It might be easiest to use one of our own sandboxes. Mine is at User:White_whirlwind/Sandbox, and you can switch out your own user name to access (or create) your own.  White Whirlwind  咨  10:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, but let's use a single sandbox (I suggest a sub-page of your current one) to avoid duplication of effort. Ready to start when you are. Philg88 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
A sandbox has been set up at User:White_whirlwind/Sandbox-WarringStates, so let's dive in.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. You guys seem to see a problem that I can't see. Therefore I will drop out. Note that the change will turn the article into an Annales School description of a cultural period and reduce the narrative history of dates, kings and battles. For my part, I would rather understand how a state system breaks down than learn about the distribution of orchards. At some point we may need to add another article for military and diplomatic history.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Benjamin, fear not the intention is not to remove anything that is currently in the article - just to improve what's there and expand its scope. Sure, if it gets too long then the Military and Diplomatic histories can split out into their own pages. Best Philg88 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Benjamin Trovato:"the change will turn the article into an Annales School of description..." Where did that come from? We just need to reorganize the information that's in the article and format it properly. If one printed this article out in its current state and submitted it to any academic setting or a professional encyclopedia (plagiarism stuff aside), it would be rejected immediately. Sure, Philg88 and I will add information from Chinese languages sources, but that's just to improve the article and diversify the sourcing. I do agree that as the article matures we'll need military and literary spin-off articles that are more in-depth. There have been volumes written on those subjects in Chinese for over a millennium, so they certainly deserve some treatment.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I see part of the problem. Traditionally historians wrote a narrative history of kings and battles with degressions on society and culture when these were needed. Over the last seventy-five years the fashion, associated with the Annales School, is to write a syncroneous description of society and culture which treats war and politics as superficial. Many people think this fashion has gone too far, but the proper way of merging the two methods is not clear. The method of writing long blocks of prose is supported by centuries of experience, but, to some extent, it is imposed on us by the physical properties of print. The system of wikilinks strikes me as a major improvement over the old method of searching an index or going to another book. In a block of continuous prose the reader must find the main points and put the details to one side. Good writers can keep the main points prominent, but many lack this skill. Links can move details out of the way. When writing for the web I like to use summaries, paragraph headers and bold face to keep the main points prominent. (Look at The Ruin (Ukrainian history) and see if you could rewrite it as a block of prose without loss of clarity.) Writing for the web probably requires a different style from print, but the exact differences are not clear. I added two new sections that I thought were necessary. I do not intend to add any more.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent dating protocol[edit]

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 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What started the Warring States Period in China?[edit]

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 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

– Lower case "period" is more common in English-language books on Chinese history. Kanguole 22:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. I found Kanguole's assertion to be correct when looking at these five ngrams: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Jenks24 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Accord with usage, along with the Wikipedia presumption of lower case by default (see WP:MOSCAPS). NoeticaTea? 01:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems fine. I'd like to note that a few of the books I glanced through when checking this even omit "period" altogether in many instances, following the original Chinese. See Stephen Owen (1996), for example.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on the basis "if it ain't broke don't fix it". A quick search of Google books here shows upper case "Period" in the majority (and one entry even shows "spring and autumn Period"). If the move goes ahead then technically by extension "Dynasty" should be in lower case too and somehow "Qing dynasty" doesn't look right.► Philg88 ◄ Star.pngtalk 07:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I suggest checking out the ngram links I provided, they are a much more accurate way of using gbooks. Regarding the Qing (D/d)ynasty, you may be interested to know that the Egyptian dynasty articles have recently been downcased. Jenks24 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree in general terms, Jenks. But see how ngram evidence like Warring States Period was,Warring States period was does an even better job of discriminating, because it excludes more title-case occurrences. Such capitalisation (in headings and the like) is irrelevant here, and indeed misleading. NoeticaTea? 01:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, I fully agree that your ngram is even more useful. Jenks24 (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Note also that some books capitalize most words in section titles, but use lower case in the text. Actually the Egyptian dynasties were recently upcased based on usage in that field, but lower case is more common in histories of China. Kanguole 16:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Huh, thanks for catching that, Kanguole. I must have misremembered. Jenks24 (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, the lower-case preference is much more common in the particular instance of "dynasty" in the Chinese field. This has come up before. I sympathize with the opposition because I personally find "Dynasty" to be much more natural based on English's proper noun rules, but the sources are pretty clear on this one.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest: Someone should check a proofreader's manual of style (preferably several) and see if there is a rule. My guess: Upper-upper is a proper noun. Upper-lower is a noun used as an adjective. "The New York Deli is the best New York deli." It seems to depend on whether "period" is part of a compound proper noun. Also, are we going to fix "Han Dynasty"? It not, what is the rule?Benjamin Trovato (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Period of Qi: 285 BC Death of King Min Descrepancy[edit]

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 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

BC --> BCE & AD --> CE[edit]

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 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

256 / 249 BC - What happened to the Zhou-Dynasty?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 11:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So, what is your oppinion?

--WeiservomBerg (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"sophisticated arithmetic"[edit]

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). (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite needed[edit]

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)

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)

Chinese religion during the Warring States[edit]

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 ISBN 9004168354, 9789004168350

Rajmaan (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)