Talk:Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires

Restore?

Would anyone object to this being restored?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

err... I think the answer to that would be a resounding "Yes", since it's been like 5 minutes since the AfD came back as stubify and rewrite. --Ludwigs2 16:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The AFD is being reviewed currently at WP:DRV.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

second paragraph of introduction

two issues with this paragraph:

1. using repeated references to the same source on adjacent lines is excessive. one reference to the source to the source at the end of the paragraph is sufficient, unless actual specific quotations are given.
2. can you provide a quote from Scheidel that shows he's talking specifically about the absence of comparative analysis between Roman and Han empires, and not merely about the extent to which western scholars neglect the Han dynasty in general?

--Ludwigs2 17:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

first concern has been addressed. A quote from Scheidel about the lack of comparative scholarship is here:

Teeninvestor (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

well, that was pretty much a bummer. this passage seems to say:

1. no one in the academic world is making comparisons of the RE and HD explicitly (noted both by Scheidel and Hsing I-Tien)
2. a few people have made broader comparisons between the Greco-Roman cultural complex and Ancient China, but mostly in the realm of philosophical and intellectual history
3. and that's a crying shame

and he's right, of course - it is a crying shame. but basically this passage translates to a delete vote on wikipedia, because it shows Scheidel bemoaning the fact that there are currently no useful primary or secondary sources on the specific topic of the article. or am I misreading it? --Ludwigs2 19:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstodo what he was saying. Note that he mentions there are few but not no sources for the article. Also bear in mind that this summary was written four or five years ago; many more sources have been published since, including Scheidel's own papers. Note how this passage shows the importance of this topic:

Recent macro-historical work has highlighted independent parallel movements of socio-cultural evolution in different parts of the globe (Diamond 1998). More specifically, historians of the more recent past are showing great interest in comparative assessments of Europe and China that further our understanding of the emergence of modernity and the Industrial Revolution (e.g., Pomeranz 2000).

.

He also mentions the following sources for this topic have already been published:

Hsing I-Tien 1980, an unpublished thesis, seems to be the main exception in a western language; cf. also Lorenz 1990 and Motomura 1991, and now Adshead 2000: 4-21 and 2004: 20-29 as well as Gizewski 1994 and Dettenhofer 2006 for brief comparisons of the Roman and Han empires. A recent conference focused on literary and ideological constructions of the Qin-Han and Roman empires: Mutschler & Mittag (org.) 2005 = (eds.) 2008; but see now also Mutschler 2008 (org.)

Some of these sources have already been incorporated, butmore could definitely be put into this article. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a side on the issue at the moment. I'm just telling you the wikipedia facts of life. This passage is worse than useless for the purposes of the article - it's a reliable secondary source claiming that (at the time of writing, which was less than a year ago, mind you) no reliable primary sources are available. It is, in fact, precisely the kind of source I would use in an AfD to demonstrate that a topic is not notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. You want to avoid this passage like the plague and use other/later sources that prove it wrong/outdated. This is the problem this article has had all along - you need scholarly sources that are actually making the correct comparisons, not scholarly sources that are working with one side of the equation (where you make the comparison) and not scholarly sources that are commenting on the lack of scholarly comparisons. --Ludwigs2 19:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I merely produced it because you asked for a source talking about the lack of comparative analysis (which I don't think is something I would include in the article anyways.). As for the sources that directly compare the two empires for the article, see biblio and below. I still think this current version should be restored (see DRV).Teeninvestor (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) I cleaned up the lead for subject-verb matches and readability, after not looking at it for a while it seemed a bit stilted and the thought process not quite in logical order.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources (mostly in German)

I searched the biblio of the article and I came up with several sources not yet int he article comparing the two mentioned by Scheidel:

Lorenz, G. 1990 ‘Das Imperium Romanum und das China der Han-Dynastie: Gedanken und Materialien zu einem Vergleich’, Informationen für Geschichtslehrer 12: 9-60 (German?)

Motomura, Ryoji 1991 ‘An approach towards a comparative study of the Roman empire and the Ch’in and Han empires’, Kodai 2: 61-69

Dettenhofer, Maria H. 2006 ‘Das römische Imperium und das China der Han-Zeit: Ansätze zu einer historischen Komparatistik’, Latomus 65: 880-897 (Seems like another German source)

Issues to be dealt with before the article is ready for the main space

A masters thesis is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned and mention of Custer should be removed from the article as well as the source; this would also necessitate removing mention of Romanization which is an outdated and rejected concept in ancient history. I have taken this action myself. There is a good quote from Scheidel explaining the paucity of comparative studies of Rome and the Han Empire which I have added and goes some way to explaining why the article has so many holes.

The article is much better than the version nominated for deletion a week or so ago, but it still has problems, not least of which is that of scope. There was no Roman Empire until the Principate, under the Republic there was a de facto empire, but the article makes no effort to explain this. If the article continues to include the Republic, and I have reservations about whether that is a good idea, it needs to be made clear in the article that there was no official Empire until the Principate was established. I have to say that the article still requires a lot of work, and as such I support working on it in here rather than presenting an article to the public that we know has major problems.

I admit that my knowledge of the Han Empire is virtually non-existant, but I am fortunately more familiar with the Roman Empire. As such there are some gaping holes and imbalances in the article, not to mention some things that are just plain wring (see above regarding the Republic). For example, saying "Rome, on the other hand, never faced an enemy that posed an existential threat after 275 BCE (save for the Punic wars)" is like saying "Europe in the 20th century was a peaceful place (save for two World Wars)". The Punic Wars had a profound effect on Rome that cannot be dismissed so out of hand. If that is what Scheidel actually says it calls into question his validity, however I would not be surprised if he has been misrepresented. Aside from the Punic Wars under the Republic there were slave revolts, civil wars, military coups, the Praetorian Guard trying to control things; all of these were very serious threats to Rome.

The Monetary system section is too narrow and, sources permitting, needs to be expanded to the economy as a whole; it makes no sense to talk about coinage without reference to the economy. Trade was one area where Rome and China actually interacted; China sold silk to Rome through the Persian Empire. In exchange, Rome gave China precious metals which China lacked. This trade was so large that senators in Rome were worried that their reserves of gold and silver would dwindle and wanted to stop trade with China. Later, Rome processed the silk and sold it back to China at a much higher price. And of course, no study of the Roman Empire is complete without mentioning civil war. If the sources do not permit these gaps to be filled, it suggests that this article may not suitable for an encyclopedia.

"The Han Empire's crop was millet, a more durable crop that could be grown in more regions than Rome": I'm not even sure what that sentence means. "Specifically, both empires promoted a similar culture among the elite to foster unity and built roads and walls to enhance communications and defend against their barbarian opponents": how did promoting a culture among the elite lead to roads being built? Also, the use of barbarians is wrong. It was a derogatory term used by the Romans to describe anyone they viewed as uncivilised, and perpetuated by 19th century historians trying to justify colonialism. Some sources still use "barbarians" as shorthand, but we this article needs to be very careful about using it, and should preferably dispense with it altogether. Explain who these supposed "barbarians" were. There' s still imbalance in the article. When mentioning Rome's "burdensome state", it should be mentioned that Rome had the corn dole for around 150,000 people. Did the Han Empire have anything similar to this proto-welfare state? Do people agree with everything that Adshead says? I will have access to Scheidel's Rome and China : comparative perspectives on ancient world empires sometime next month. Nev1 (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Response

Nev1, to answer your question:

- the scope of the article technically includes the two "empires" as well as the phase leading up to their formation, which would be the Roman Republic for Rome and Warring states/Qin for China(and besides, de jure the Principate was still a "republic" and the emperor merely "first among citizens").

-The article about elites and roads was a statement by Adshead who stated two similarities about the two empires, the key word is and. The two are in no way connected.

- The Han did not have a welfare state, they had a strict laissez-faire policy except for Emperor Wu who intervened into the economy to support his wars and his laws were later repealed. (Perhaps read Han Dynasty and Economic history of China (pre-1911)#Han Dynasty for details).

-Civil war is mentioned in the article, when Adshead talks about the peaceful succession of the Han Empire compared to the frequnet military coups during the principate.

-I have added a section on trade and a section on alleged contact based on Adshead's source.

-both empires referred to the nomadic tribes that harassed them as barbarians.

-Scheidel was talking about something that threatened Rome's existence as a state. For example, even if slave revolts had succeeded, it is doubtful they would have conquered all of the Roman republic and established a "Spartacan Empire"? Teeninvestor (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Addressing your points in order:

1. Nowhere is this explained in the article. Why not? It is essential to the understanding of the article and not to mention it is deliberately misleading.
2. The sentence is riddled with misleading constructions (walls improve communication?). The "and" is in fact the problem as it implies a link. As such I have changed it.
3. So why not mention that? It seems distinctly unbalanced to portray the Roman Empire as having a "burdensome state" when it had what was essentially a proto-welfare state.
4. I must be suffering from text blindness, could you point out exactly what Adshead mentions civil war?
5. As I explained, barbarian is a derogatory term that should not be used in the article.
6. To claim, for example, that the slave revolt did not threaten the stability of the Roman Empire is to forget that Rome was a slave society. The Empire would not have been conquered, but it could have been over thrown by the slaves as the state was economically dependant on them (see Moses Finley for more on the Roman economy and the role of slavery).

And while I remember, why does the military section focus only on each armies effectiveness against cavalry? Nev1 (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Second response

1. barbarian has been removed as a term from the article.
2. A new sentence has been added which explains that the two states' predecessors are also discussed.
3. Slave revolts aren't exactly an "existential threat"- it is doubtful that the revolt of ill trained slaves could have succeeded in defeating a well-trained regular army. Besides, the paragraph is based from Scheidel's source. It would misrepresent him to suggest other wise (I will scan the other sources and see what they have to say).
4. Again, it is mentioned in Adshead's source that the Roman state's burden was higher than Han, due to higher defense expenditures(Han basically had eliminated its main threat by 100 BCE), and the proto welfare state you mentioned. But what Adshead said mainly deals with a "burdensome state" in general, primarily military.
5. A section on military coups and pretenders were added from Scheidel's source. In addition, the state burden section was expanded from Adshead's source mentioning Rome's military mutinies and the greater burden (primarily military) of Rome(Han China had eliminated the Hsing nu as a serious threat by 118 BCE).
6. The military section deals with how both armies handled their main opponents of nomadic cavalry, so it naturally deals with how infantry handles cavalry(though the Han did have quite a large cavalry contingent).

Teeninvestor (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts

1. Good, that's sorted.
2. Better.
3. Ok, if that's what Scheidel says we'll have to stick with it for now, but it is seriously flawed. The issue wasn't simply that of slaves defeating an army (which happened several times actually), but that if the slaves decided to secede from Rome its economy would be crippled. That is why it was described as a slave society. To characterise it as not an "existential crisis", or whatever term is used in the article", is ridiculous.
4. State burden is a loaded term, do you mean taxation? You do realise that military mutinies were financed by the generals (or at least their wealthy supporters) rather than through taxation, right?
5. Good, it's short but it's better than nothing.
6. Depending which history you read the Roman Empire was eventually brought to an end by invasions from nomadic tribes (although modern academic opinion is changing more to the stance that there was continuity under the Christian hoards) but that was not necessarily Rome's greatest adversary. The Germans were a perpetual threat, the Gauls were a problem until the region was conquered, and there were rebellions in Judea, in these cases cavalry was not the main consideration.

The article still makes me uneasy as it still seems to presenting people's opinion as fact. An encyclopedia isn't meant to draw comparisons. What I think might solve this problem is to address it as a concept, or area of study. By this I mean look at how the study of Han China and Rome evolved. For example, I would propose a new opening sentence along the lines of:

A comparison between the Roman and Han empires has been suggested since Edward Gibbon in the late 18th century. This is based on the similar scale of the empires, both in size and population, as well as parallels in their rise and decline. Historian Walter Scheidel has commented that "Comparisons between the ancient Mediterranean and China in the works of Max Weber or Karl Wittfogel have had little impact on the research agenda of specialist historians in either field. As a consequence, systematic comparisons between the Greco-Roman world and ancient China have been extremely rare (relative to the total amount of scholarship in either field) and moreover almost exclusively confined to the sphere of intellectual and philosophical history."

From there it can be explained what the purpose of the comparison is – something which really should be explained in the article but isn't. I don't mean the purpose of this article, I mean why academics think it might be a useful area of investigation. This elephant in the room needs to be addressed. What can one empire tell us about the other? Is it simply that historians have found it to be a curiosity, or is it a serious area of study? Can better understanding one empire lead us to a more complete understanding of the other?

I believe the article requires a change of direction and that this should be it. It would allow us to explain the deficiencies of the sources (drawing on Scheidel's explanation that it is a generally neglected area) and explain why there are such large gaps in the article. If this were to be done properly, I would support moving the article back into main space, however this would require a substantial restructuring. Nev1 (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well to address the remaining issues, in order for slaves to secede they would have to first defeat the army. Also, after they succeeded in their coup, the Roman military had a nasty habit of doubling their pay and doing so through higher taxes/ inflation (which is a form of taxation). There was 15,000% inflation in the 3rd century and the entire empire was basically demonetized.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As to your suggestion, do you mean we add the proposed paragraph to the front, or what? I'm a bit confused by your statements above. As to your statement that this article presents people's opinions as fact, it doesn't; that's why the article is split up into several sections, each dedicated to the comparison of one scholar only, which shows that the facts in that section are the idea of that particular scholar only.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My last word on slaves: you're making the mistake of thinking about slaves in military terms when they were firmly embedded in the economy. Had slaves in the Roman Empire – who worked in agriculture and were vital in the grain supply from North Africa, and often did jobs that no one would willingly do such as mining – laid down tools, the empire would have been crippled and there was not sufficient labour in the free market to substitute them, not to mention the wage inflation that would have happened. The empire could have been overthrown without a fight. That was the real threat of slave rebellions, not that they might defeat the army, but that they might leave. A battle was not important; even if the Roman army won it wouldn't matter. A dead slave can't work.

The article does sometimes slip into presenting people's opinions as fact, for example the following is given as gospel truth "In military terms, the Han foot soldier was better armed and equipped than his Roman counterpart to deal with cavalry, due to the Chinese crossbow which was deadly to horsemen". It may well be, but this is in fact Adshead's opinion.

I suggest that something like what I suggested should be the opening of the article to make it clear that there are no stone cold comparisons between the two empires, but that it is an area of study that is still expanding. But my suggestions are more substantial than adding s a couple of sentences to the lead. The historiography section needs to be expanded; Gibbon was one of the first, but when did it become popular to compare the two? What are the problems involved in doing so? What are the benefits? Then the article needs to be broken down by subject area rather than author. We could, for example, have a section on the economy. There could be details of what they traded with each other, Adshead's argument that the staple crop was the most significant difference between the two economies (presumably meaning they were in fact very alike), but that the monetary system differed although Scheidel highlights the similarities in that they both suffered from the debasements of the metals in the coins towards the end of the empires. Nev1 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the article has been restructrured again and I think I've taken in all your suggestions.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Before being moved anywhere, this article requires consensus. There is a time and a place for petitions, but this is not it as they are not condusive to discussion but are tools to pressure people. This is not appropriate here. Nev1 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I archived both petitions earlier for being inappropriate. Teenivestor requested on my talk page that I unarchive them, and I rejected the idea. Below is my reasoning (original posts):

Also, as to the petition, the petition was meant to gauge consensus. I don't think it should be archived. When editors are happy with the article's current status, they can sign it.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Petitions do not gain consensus as they seek only one side. They have their uses, but gauging consensus is not one of them. Moreover, your solicited support from those who supported you in the AfD. If you were trying to construct consensus, this is a blatant breach of WP:Canvas. If you do it again, you risk being blocked. The petitions will not be unarchived. Nev1 (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

With an RfC active (goodness knows why, discussion is ongoing already) if anyone reopens these petitions again it will be a disruptive, and action will have to be taken. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Petition of editors who think the article is ready for mainspace

If you believe the article is currently ready for mainspace and should be there, sign below:

Teeninvestor (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Petition of editors who do not think the article is ready for mainspace

Oppose:The article still bears the main author's intention of proving who is "superior" (and given the one-sidedness of the first version it would have been surprising otherwise). It is already hard enough reading uninformed opinions by Adshead and Scheidel on the Roman Empire which are not shared by the majority of their colleagues (but which are now made unaussailable due to the unavoidable, but inherently bad design of the article that only those authors who do direct comparisons are to be quoted), but selective reading and quoting makes it even worse. For example, why is the article silent on areas where the Romans were pretty advanced, such as their road and sea lane system (Adshead 15f.) or the great Roman building activity in contrast to the paucity of Han Chinese archaeological remains (Adshead 16f.). "Alleged contacts" btw is a extreme minority opinion refuted by all scholars as mere conjecture and thus should not be included according to WP guidelines. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC

I don't understand what your beef is with Teeninvestor but please give us something constructive. For example, if you think a majority of the colleagues would object to this, bring in a BOOK REVIEW and or Historiographic essay that opposes their position. Don't just sit here poking holes in the position of two, apparently reputable, scholars. They teach at two reputable universities, therefore someone must think their research is useful. Give me the thoughts of other scholars, their must be book reviews that refute their ideas. If so, we can cite the reviews in the historiography section discussing how the studies has received a lot of friction. However this does not read like a superiority position, stop making accusations and HELP.

How would you integrate these area of "roman superiority" into the article?

ThanksSadads (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The birth defect of this 'comparison' article

It should be stressed that the AfD guidelines laid out for this 'article', namely that only those (few) scholars who make a direct comparison between the two empires, are allowed to be referred too, have two grave consequences which make the article practically by default a piece of uninformed and outdated opinions.

1. Uninformed views: It allows experts of one side, but amateurs of the other, to be given a podium where they speak about a field in which they don't have any formal training at the expense of the real experts. Thus, sinologists like Adshead or classicists like Scheidel are allowed to talk at length about the Roman Empire respectively Han China. Whereas the mass of the real experts are to be disregarded because they are only concerned with with one or the other empire.
2. Outdated views: It gives precedence of outdated views over current research just because the former happen to be quoted somewhere in a direct comparison, while the latter not. For instance, Adshead (15f.) gives the road length of the Imperium as 48.500 miles, relying on the sinologist (!) Needham there. That would be twice as much as Needham's figure of 22.000 miles for Han roads. But the lead of Roman roads makes it clear that the overall length of Roman roads was 250.000 miles, and that the 50.000 miles only applied to the paved, all-weather roads (which the Han did not have). And that beyond the mere quantitative, the quality of the Roman road system was superb, too. These up to date figures, however, cannot be included because they were made with no relation whatsoever to the Han.

Conclusion: The only acceptable remedy of this intrinsic dilemma with the 'article' is to allow research done separately on each of the empires to be included again. But then, we would immediately face the original situation of synthesis and original research by juxtaposing unrelated pieces of information. Therefore, given the insolvability of this 'comparison', I don't hesitate to repeat my vote of strong delete. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of my suggestion above to change the tack of the article by making it about the research into comparisons between Rome and the Han Empire rather than comparing them directly? I think it helps to address concerns about a comparison article not belonging in an encyclopedia and gives us scope to explain why there are gaps. Nev1 (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Gun Powder Ma, When I said that information could be included side by side without a direct comparison, you called that original research , now you want to delete this article because you can't include your own information from Rome-only sources? What a hypocrite. And when you talk about "not including" the majority of the expert information, well they're not exactly on the topic, are they? You call me biased, but considering your lack of knowledge about the Han (You haggled Pericles saying there were no Han remains until he showed your four photographs of it), and your extremely pro-Roman POV(repeatedly inserting large POV sections into the article), I think it's fair to say that you are definitely not NPOV.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, as to your research about Han remains, let me remind you most of the discrepancy is because Han remains were constructed from rammed earth and wood, while Roman remains were constructed from stone and more durable. That is all. Another reason for the discrepancy would be the rapaciousness of the Roman state, who taxed the people incessantly(I'm sure you're well aware of the Roman habit of doubling their soldiers' pay out of the population's pockets every time the emperor was murdered/changed, eh?) and used their money on public works such as baths, statues, and colosseums that ostenibly was not much useful for the people, but was definitely useful for archaeologists (similar to the Egyptian pyramids). And besides, you forget that there are many large-scale remains from the Han period such as the Zhengguo Canal and Lingqu Canal(which was pre-Han), the Great Wall, and numerous Watchtowers on the Han border. The high number of Roman roads could also be explained by the fact that China was mostly focused in a very tight region(the Yellow river valley), and was less spread out than Rome (and thus needed less roads).(much of this is from Adshead's source, by the way).Teeninvestor (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My position has been consistent all along. Ever heard of what a dilemma is? This article of yours is one: either it is synthesis or it is outdated. That is a simple function of the lack of scholarly references we have. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we leave this conversation and see if we can improve the article. What are your thoughts on the current draft and the discussion at the bottom of the page? Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the baths were frequently used, greatly assisting public hygiene (perhaps suggesting they were useful to the public?), were often free and often funded by the patricians who wished to win public favour for personal gain. Nev1 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I doubt the Roman citizens were all that happy with funding these public works with high taxation (by pre-modern standards) and extreme inflation.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I foresee problems here. Nev1 explained that public works were very often privately funded and yet you miss this point, by accident or design, and repeat that baths and such like were the result of "high taxation". I don't think any historian would make such an egregious error. The article should not be about your opinion but about what experts say. If you are unable to put your own prejudices aside and edit based on the sources, you should probably leave the article well alone. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My small statement is tiny compared to the editor who started this thread. And it is true that most public works were funded by central budgets, especially later on in the dominate era. However, that is not the main crux of the dispute. I have edited by the sources completely (see the current version). See RFC below and the extremely POV statement at the beginning of the thread.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Is this article ready for article space, and if not, what needs to be done?

Please provide your comment on whether the article, as it stands, should be restored to article space. If not provide your suggestions on what needs to be improved.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the sources are being forced to fit a preconceived idea of what the article should be. I'd much rather you started with a blank sheet of paper and used Scheidel's 'Great Convergence' paper, or some other document which deals specifically with this topic, to determine the structure of the article and the key points of contrast/comparison. Only then should you start looking for more sources to build on. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out an area where the sources are being "forced" to fit with the article?Teeninvestor (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor, your enthusiasm is becoming borderline disruptive. There is no rush and the atricle is not yet ready. Please stop trying to force the issue. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• No -- Sino-Roman relations comprehensively covers the contacts. The material on this is good, but not really needed here. Otherwise, the article seems to have little substantive content. A tabular list of aspects of each, comparing them and contrasting them might be of interest, but it is rather like writing an essay to compare chalk and cheese or the person who wrote a book a few years ago suggesting that the British Industrial Revolution had substanital origins in China. I would rather see the article deleted (or blanked), so that a completely fresh start can be made. This kind of thing makes an intersting academic essay, but I do not think it belongs in an encyclopaedia: it is too detailed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, the article is changing direction so that rather than comparing the two empires, which as you say is interesting but isn't the place of an encyclopedia, the article is about the study of the Han and Roman empires. This is exemplified by the proposed new title of the article when it eventually gets moved back to mainspace: Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires. The rewrite has begun (with a huge amount of trimming from this version. The contacts section acts as a summary of Sino-Roman relations to give some background to the subject, but as the one who added it, I am aware that it is perhaps not directly relevant as it doesn't make comparisons. It could do with a trim, but I think the section is useful, although not the most important part of the article.

  Finally, do I think the article is ready to move? No. The RfC probably could be closed actually. Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Adshead

The footnotes just say Adshead, but don't specify which work the come from. When no work is given, is the reference to Adhead's China In World History? Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm taking a short wikibreak from editing this article. I probably will not be here for a few days. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

On Adhead's China In World History

After inspecting several book reviews (some excerpts of which I will post below), I have removed reference to Adhead's China In World History. Unfortunately this has the side effect of making the article heavily reliant on Scheidel. I am working on a new draft, but it will completely revamp the article.

• W J. F. Jenner in The China Quarterly says "Quirky, fast-moving, fact-packed, stimulating and not always reliable China In World History makes very little use of Chinese sources… The right dose is probably 10 pages at a time without worrying about whether Adsheadis getting it right or not."
• Franz Michael in The American Historical Review says "Of much less use are the assessments of China", although the reviewer does say "As a history of China , the book fails; as a history of the contacts between China and the West, the book merits attention".
• Edward L. Farmer in The Journal of Asian Studies says: "Spatially, Adshead's account is built around the interaction of four primary civilizations: East Asia, Western Eurasia, pre-Columbian America, and Black Africa. With the introduction of this schema on the very first page, which collapses Europe, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent into a single cultural unit, readers begin to feel the jarring impact of the author's interpretations.
• Conrad Schirokauer in the Journal of the American Oriental Society says "There is much to admire here both in concept and execution, but every reader will also come away with doubts and reservations. Every writer has his blindspots, and Adshead is unduly fond of making categorical assertions"

Many commend the book for being stimulating and interesting, and integrating China into world history, but I am very concerned about the points raised about accuracy, details, and his somewhat idiosyncratic opinions. The consensus appears to be that while Adshead is well read and the book is interesting, but it is not necessarily useful for this article as it has some significant flaws. Nev1 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, that what as was asking Gunpowder to do above, Sadads (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Idiosyncratic", yes, that it is. What he says is not necessarily wrong, but pretty much arbitrary. He could have come to the opposite conclusion just as well. Scheidel, at least, is very meticulous in his approach and careful not to make sweeping generalizations. The downside obviously is that he leaves aside vast fields of potential interest. He is basically the man for monetization and population, not much more. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. We can't just decide that a source that is prima facie reliable according to WP:RS guidelines, is now unreliable just because of our reading of some reviews of the source. Deciding to exclude a source based on our interpretation of others reviews of it is original research. At the very least, the source needs to be vetted by the people at WP:RSN before deciding what to do with it. LK (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Adshead is nevertheless very widely cited. I'd suggest treating in terms of evolution of scholarship. That Adshead is not as nuanced as the latest scholarship might prefer is as much style as substance. I have read too many individual's reviews (this is generally speaking) which have as their agenda, intentional or not, the furthering of the reviewer's own editorial position. It's one of the downsides of scholars reviewing scholars, one has to minimally also check reviews of the reviewers.

Unfortunately, "synthesis" is a "bad" word on WP when in fact, the best writing requires a process of synthesis of the multiple sources available to construct the unified whole of a flowing and informative narrative. The alternative is an endless succession of "he said, she said."  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

New version

Ok, I've rolled out a new start for the article. What do people think? Before I go any further (ie: starting on Scheidel 2009 and Mutschler & Mittag 2008) I need to know if people agree with the direction the article is taking. The contacts section is perhaps not necessary, but I think it provides some interesting info on the interaction between the two empires. Nev1 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems a good start. I think you need only source statements about the literature when they are challenged (i.e. "X says Y was the first to say A" can often become "Y was the first to say A" with a footnote to X.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this is going to be a collection of opinions (by the nature of the case), it should include the older literature: Toynbee and Spengler, but also Henry Yule's Rome and China. The facts haven't changed that much since 1919. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just read yours after posting mine above, agreed, any article should incorporate the evolution of scholarship on a topic.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely need more sources to build additional sections as compared to what was there.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to put this on my watchlist. This is the first time since I originally saw the original article that I have felt optimistic about it. Thanks, Nev1. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Contacts

We probably have an article on this, in which case this section can be reduced to a summary.

If not, the following should be added:

• There is a Chinese account of an embassy from "An-tun", ruler of "Great Syria", in 166 AD. (Usually taken to be Marcus Antoninus, but Antoninus Pius is not impossible.)
• The Chinese and the Romans both traded with Sri Lanka, and may have made direct contact there.
• The identification of the red-headed, blue-eyed "Seres" with the Chinese has long been doubted; it's mentioned in Bunbury's nineteenth century geography. Searching on Seres and Tocharians is probably a start. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the contacts section is that there isn't a great deal of comparison. I was, for instance, tempted to explain more about the Seres (the article I was using mentioned Pliny's description of the Seres you mention) but the question is how relevant is it to a comparison? I'd happily add more, but it might be too much of a digression. So aside from the contacts section, what do you think about the direction of the article? Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's one reason I made it a subsection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add the link on Sino-Roman relations to the section. I now have [1]. Since at least one person has given what's been done so far a thumb's up, in the next coupe of days I'll start from working on these two sources. And since we do have an article with that stuff already in, feel free to hack away the stuff you think is unnecessary. Nev1 (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) In reading through the current state of the article, contacts may work better at the start of the topic discussion, that is, despite their distance from one another, the empires were not unknown to each other (as one might expect), and perhaps summarized down a bit. The article does need a good deal of expansion regarding actual comparisons, those could be along quantitative lines (size, population, time span,...) and qualitative: government, society, customs, per comparisons that have been done. (The current Society section as is feels a bit of an orphan.)

On the mention of using a thesis as a source, it's not unheard of as long as it has been defended. Also, there's no reason not to create content based on the same sources a thesis uses--a thesis can postulate something new not in the literature but still has to depend on it.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Political structure

Yikes! (and I use that for rhetorical effect, don't anyone take that personally). The current section can be summarized as: "Adshead says stuff comparing political structures. Critics disagree." It's rather missing what Adshead says and what his critics say about it and why, which would be the whole point. I'm afraid this is not very informative. It's good to have a stake in the ground for what section to work on next, but it needs a lot of work.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I added it hoping someone with access to the authors, particularly Scheidel, would be able to add something constructive. The comparison is made again and again however, so ought to be included in some way.Sadads (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed—hence the "stake in the ground" comment. I was only pointing out how far we have to go, not that it's not a place well worth getting to.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this article

I have been looking the AfD and this effort at a rewrite out of general history is historical comparisons. However, I am having trouble identifying the purpose of this article. Neither the Roman nor Han states were static entities. Likewise, the actual historical timeline is that of two states that existed in overlapping, but not identical periods. Why is the comparison limited to the late Republic/Principate Rome and Han Dynasty?

I think the mistake here is to take two states that existed in overlapping time periods and which both have epochs which are regarded in the modern period as examples of a Golden Age for their respective regions. That said, neither state is alone within their timeline, and neither state was actually the penultimate power of the day which is to say that neither one could have marched an army right up to the other one because of all the really powerful states that also existed throughout history.

If a comparative article is really necessary, then it should be limited to apples to apples comparisons. For example, "in the first century AD, the Roman economy was X size and the Han economy was Y size". If the comparison is unknown, it stays out of the article. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Originally, the article was comparing the two; the angle the article is now going for is to examine how people compare the two, ie: to look at the subject as an area of study. This is to compromise between the two sides of the AfD who either said "a comparison is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia" or "there's verifiable information about the subject". This approaches gives us a chance to look at what gaps there are, explain what comparisons have been made, how they have been received, and how research is progressing. In theory anyway, there's a long way to go from where the article is now.

My own opinion is that I'm dubious of the worth of comparing the Roman and Han empires as a valid area of research. Given apparent similarities between the two states, maybe better understanding one could help understand the other when there are gaps in information; but what I've read so far hasn't been very illuminating. But, the result of the AfD is that there should be some kind of article, so I think we should have a go at making a decent job of it. Nev1 (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I took a crack at cleaning this up a bit by refocusing on principles of the comparative study of the two empires, rather than an actual comparison of the two empires. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibbon

I find these claims that Gibbon was the first to compare Rome and the Han very doubtful. What does Roberts actually say (my local copy is out)?

• I cannot find, and do not recall, any such comparison in The Decline and Fall.
• It seems unlikely that whatever Gibbon may have said is not parallelled in Voltaire, Bayle, or Kircher - all of whom were earlier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I scanned the Project Gutenberg text copies of Gibbon. There are mentions of the Han dynasty in Volume 2, but I personally would not describe it as a comparison (Han = X, Roman = Y). The comparison appears more implied in that Gibbon discusses characteristics of the Han dynasty in a book about the Roman empire. (Link to Gibbon's works on Gutenberg is »here).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that based on a quote from this version of the article. JAG Roberts in The complete history of China writes that "[t]he idea that there might be a connection between the fall of the Roman and the early Chinese empires has been current since at least 1788". It was perhaps a bit of stretch to say that Gibbon first suggested it, but saying "since at least Gibbon" seems reasonable. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the "since at least Gibbon", and I would actually be in favor of making it more general than that. It looks like Gibbon made more of a casual comparison, instead of an in depth comparative analysis of the two empires. I also just added a political map of 200 CE to the article since it illustrates the extent of advanced civilizations that existed in the areas between Rome and China at the time. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the well-known passage in which Gibbon argues that the Huns are the Hsiung-nu, expelled by China. That isn't a comparison between the empires, that's a historical link, and belongs under the section about Contact (if anywhere, since we are no longer as certain about it as Gibbon was). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is why I need to get my hands on that volume again. Thanks for weighing in, and I strongly agree with you. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Name

Should we consider a different name for the article's final location? "Comparison between Roman and Han Empires" really reflects the unsustainable version of this article, whereas "Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires" is somewhat more befitting an encyclopedia article. Thoughts? Hiberniantears (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion to me, and reflects the purpose of the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Second that, much better. This will also improve covering the evolution of scholarship, perhaps oversimplifying... somewhat drive-by comparisons to more rigorous current scholarly interest.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It will make it much easier to keep OR out of it also. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, too. That way we can better keep out potential wargamers from the various history forums closing in on the article and it certainly reflects better the preliminary and rudimentary character of the few studies so far. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think this article is ready to move to Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires with Comparison between Roman and Han Empires redirecting to the new location to avoid any original research forking. If we feel strongly about working on the article here in the incubator for a little while longer, I will hold off. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC

I agree with your move proposal. If you wish to move the article, Hiberniantears, please contact User:Spartaz, as he is the closing admin.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to enter this debate (as I'm enjoying my very relaxing retirement from Wiki), but I would also like to endorse Hiberniantears' proposed title. The academic comparative study of both the Han and Roman empires certainly merits an article at Wikipedia.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A request

A gentle reminder to the people editing the article to make sure the article sticks to the manual of style and that no information is lost and that it's all properly cited. In this version, there are two blank references, spaces between references (ie: [4] [5] instead of [4][5]) and an external link in the middle of the prose. Apart from the citations, these are little things, but it's much easier to fix as you go along rather than leave it till later, and since we're building the article from scratch we may as well make a good job of it. Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been gone for a while and I'm taking a look now, was there an agreement not to use Scheidel and Adshead as sources? it seems none of their comparisons were included. Just a question. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not as such. It's explained above that use of Adshead is being minimised because he gets some details wrong and makes some left-field suggests, although it was clear from the reviews that his work is thought provoking and worth reading. Scheidel will be used, although it was easier to scrap pretty much everything and start rebuilding. The focus is now on the comparison of the two empires as an area of study, rather than directly comparing the two which is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia article. Nev1 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Contact between the empires:

After Nev left a note at my talk page it opened my eyes to the superfluous nature of the "Contact between the empires" section. I have since removed the section and converted it into a "See also" section with a link to Sino-Roman relations. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: I have some peer-reviewed material by specialists which discusses all possible instances of direct Sino-Roman relations. In case someone is interested, don't hesitate to drop me an email. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition of areas of comparisons

I have added a section on areas in which the two empires are commonly compared. I hope it will be expanded later on. Nev1's focus seems to be to change the article's orientation to be an article on the "area of study", which I am still a little foggy on; therefore I have just added a stub. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the article title of Comparison between Roman and Han Empires is that it invites the author to make their own comparisons and conclusions. For example, someone could find statistics on the Roman economy and the wine trade and compare it to exports of the Han Empire and stick them next to each other in the article. The reason we shouldn't do that is because it's original research and synthesis and we're not qualified to make those comparisons. When they're made by scholars, then we are free to include them, preferably with explanations. However, because the subject is one still very much in the growth stage, many aspects are not sufficiently covered in the literature (which is basically what Scheidel says). As such, this needs to be explained in the article; hence why the historiography section is well developed and the rest is a bit anemic, although the article is far from complete. The section also attempts to explain why the two are compared.

I was envisaging different sections on the areas in which the two empires have been compared. However, when saying that Scheidel says this, and that Mittag says that, it needs to be explained how much or little is known in that particular subject area, perhaps with a note on the available source, or how much or little work has been done. That way, instead of a section titled Areas of comparison, we'd have one on collapse, governance, and monetary system (by the way, do you mean economy, or specifically currency?). Each section would explain what is known (not looking to history books on each empire, but specifically comparison volumes), how much work had been done, and importantly what one empire can tell us about the other. I think that last point is important. What this area of study tells us needs to be emphasised, otherwise it could degenerate into a pissing contest.

Finally, I've made the request above that the article be consistently formatted. Punctuation should go before references and the system of citation should be consistent – in this instance that means author's surname, year of publication, and page number, put in template:harvnb. It's a simple template to get the hang of and helps navigation of the bibliography. To make it work, {{harvnb|Scheidel|2009|p=13.}} would produce Scheidel 2009, p. 13. It's little things like that which make the article look good. Nev1 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then. So I take it, that if I put the comparisons made by Scheidel on collapse, governance and monetary matters back into the article, you won't mind? I might need help on the citations though.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits temporarily. The reason the article was stripped back to begin with was partly because of how it was phrased. Reinstating the old material is not necessary, although it will provide a useful guide for what to add. It was reintroducing some old problems, such as the use of "barbarians", but apart from that some sections simply need rewriting entirely. For example the geography section. Scheidel's point wasn't "aren't these places different sizes", but that their differening geography posed different problems to the emerging empires and effected attempts at centralisation. What hasn't been addressed are the points above about what are the problems with looking at certain areas, what has been done, and what it tells us etc. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

mainspace stub

Since this article is now being developed under a different name, I'd like to propose the deletion of the mainspace "comparison of..." stub. I don't think the talk page there is still needed (though I can ask to have it moved over as an archive of this page, if you all prefer), and the article itself apparently won't be developed under that name. I thought I'd ask here first, though, to see if there are any objections. --Ludwigs2 17:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I support your suggestion on condition that the article is moved to the title discussed above rather than deleted and I think it's time that the mainspace article was updated. I think the introduction and the first part of the historiography section should be rolled out, although nothing else is yet ready. The history of the page is spread across about three different locations, here, at the old article title, and at the old article's subpage. I think the histories should be merged under the new article title and the talk page preserved if realistically possible. If it's too much hassle (and there are literally thousands of page history merges to be done), then fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I have no problem moving the mainspace article to the new name (I'll go ahead and do that, since it seems non-problematic). I assume that merging the histories takes administer tools that I don't have available - or am I mistaken? I don't have a problem doing the grunt work, if I have the access level for it and a list of pages to be merged. --Ludwigs2 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

whoops, wait - have I gone goofy, or did someone already make that move? the name space article seems to have this name as well.. --Ludwigs2 23:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope- see:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires- ALso, it's still protected.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

right, but what I mean is that's the same name as the article here. I don't know why I thought the name got changed... --Ludwigs2 04:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

?

Can someone explained to me what happened? I saw my watchlist and I saw a massive amoutn of moving and deleting.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As the article has been stable for a month and a half, it was moved back into the mainspace. The deleting was part of the process of merging the article's history with that of comparison between Roman and Han Empires, which now redirects here. Nev1 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

Hi. This is absurd. Why does the redirect above still exist? It was exactly this topic of a direct "comparison" which the Afd found to be not in accordance with Wikipedia's scope. Since the topic is not anymore, the title naturally needs to be removed with it. Now, the link leads to a topic which does not exist and just seems to aim at fishing for readers who won't get, however, what they expect. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There are still a few links to that redirect from article talk pages and their archives, so maybe it is better to keep it. Otherwise there will be broken links with no chance of finding the history. -84user (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am quite aware that there may be some technical difficulties and inconveniences, but they are not insurmountable and should not overrule the much more important considerations with regards to contents. Comparison between Roman and Han Empires is a link with directs to nothing, it is a title without topic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The redirect may be misleading if someone is expecting a direct comparison; as such, the redirect could probably be deleted per point two of WP:RFD#DELETE. There are four links to the redirect, but these could be easily fixed and there would be minimal disruption. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, heavens, not this again. I'll fix the links and delete the redirect. --Ludwigs2 17:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

most of the links there are from old deletion discussion and userspace notifications, so I think they can be safely ignored. I've gone ahead and nominated the redirect for speedy deletion. we'll see what happens. --Ludwigs2 18:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from Comparison between roman and han empires Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just speedy this? The last one was. Nev1 (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not sure of the protocol. can I just remove the RfD and start a speedy? that seems a bit odd... --Ludwigs2 05:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I first made a speedy, but it was declined for some reason, so your comments above would be appreciated. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity link

• Support link to Wikiversity. Concerning the link to Wikiversity, there seems to be a difference of options on it. As I stated in my readding of it, I believe it is just as valid as links to wiktionary and Wikisource, or other things run by the Wikipedia foundation. They may not have the same requirements as the Wikipedia for things, but that shouldn't be a reason to exclude them. Everyone state your opinions please. Someone has reverted me, so the link isn't there at the moment. Should it be there or not? Dream Focus 09:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: The Afd made it abundantly clear that the consensus was to remove the contentious material altogether. What is the point of introducing it again from the backdoor? Does a different URL make it a less worse piece of a tendentious and ill-researched pamphlet? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It doesn't add anything to the article, indeed it detracts from it. Wikiuniversity is where we tell people to go who want to write things that aren't acceptable here. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Oh, heavens... This Wikiversity thing is the article that the Wikipedia community decided should be deleted and reworked, written by the same author who wrote the original piece of wp:synthesis. There is no sense in allowing the monomania of Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) to find its way back into wikipedia via another project. --Ludwigs2 16:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The above comments pretty much cover it. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Outrageous. You might as well hold a vote on whether vandalism should be allowed. Wikipedia policy is to link to sister projects.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Teeninvestor is the author of this Wikiversity piece of. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Gun Powder Ma shows his understanding (or rather lack of) of wikipedia's sister projects here: [2]Teeninvestor (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What you have just been doing is linking to [Teeninvestor has no sense of humour], although your vote shows that you have indeed a weird one when it comes to blow your own trumpet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Teeninvestor has notified selected other users. Isn't this a breach of WP:CANVASS? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about it, Teeninvestor only informed one person, and while the tone of his message was not neutral Patar knight has been involved with this article before and I think it's right that he should have the opportunity to take part in this discussion. Patar knight has already reminded Teeninvestor to exercise more discretion in the wording of his messages, so I think the matter is closed. Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The goals and key policies of Wikipedia and Wikiversity are fundamentally different. One is a encyclopedia, where original research is not allowed. Another is an open-learning environment, which expects its users to create resources using "original research" for others to learn from. Wikiversity is not Wikipedia, and while Teeninvestor's article was unsuitable for Wikipedia, there is no reason it should be on Wikiversity, and that it should be linked from this article. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement to link to wikiversity, especially given the issues with the material pruned from the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Me, too, would like to see now the WP guideline which makes linking mandatory to Wikiuniversity. Where is it? As a side-note, if the link is voted to be reincluded, I will personally set out to rewrite the 'university' pamphlet, so either way there is no chance that the Han nationalistic bias will stage a comeback here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikiversity is a place where we send people who want to do things not acceptable in Wikipedia, be it OR, fringe, nationalism, whatever. In this particular case it was clear that there was a consensus that the material placed on Wikiversity had no place here, and I can see no way having this link improves the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose In line with the other oppose comments. There is nothing wrong with someone building a Wikiversity page, and indeed offering a link to it from a relevant Wikipedia article is fine in the proper context. In this case, the context is lacking given the specific nature of the Wikiversity link that is on offer, which is merely a disposed of version of this article. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all the good reasons above.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary: It's been now something like two weeks since the vote and discussion have been floated, about twice as long as in the 'official' framework of an Afd or similar processes, so please allow me a brief summary: The main argument of keep was that there is some kind of requirement to link to the "sister project", while the main argument of delete was that there is no point in reintroducing a link to material which the community has decided to remove. The votes were 6 to 3 in favour of remove, and, with the latest votes also in favour of delete, there is no discernible trend to the contrary, either, which could warrant to continue the process. I thus remove the link. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)