Talk:Qin Shi Huang/Archive 1

Reminder: Please sign your posts

Please sign your posts with four tildas. This will really help admin's. Thank you! WP:SIG HuntHello (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yu

Yu is the King of Xia Kingdom, not Qin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.73.161 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"King of Qin", not "King of China"

He was King of Qin before, but not King of China. That title was held by the King of the Zhou Dynasty. Consequently his father was also never King of China. Such a title does not exist, and is not equivalent to "King of Qin."

As long as we're pretending "China" is a nation which has continuously existed for millennia, sure the title has existed. It was held by the Shang and Zhou (and Xia if they existed). Sure, they were technically "King of the Shang" and "King of the Zhou" but, if you get that technical, the Zhus were the emperors of "the Great Ming Empire" and not "China".

That said, the kingdom of Qin was only the equivalent of "China" between the fall of the last rival state and the formal declaration of the Empire. — LlywelynII 01:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Name

Qin Shi Huang or Qin Shihuang or Shih Huangti or Qin Shi Huangdi?

Mandel: I suggest switching the article either to Qin Shi Huang or to Shih Huangti, either of which are much more common than Qin Shi Huangdi. A Google Fight page between 秦始皇 and 秦始皇帝 has the former the overwhelming popularity winner (124 000 vs 159 in favor of 秦始皇). I believe 嬴政 called himself Shi Huangdi (始皇帝), never Qinshi Huangdi, the qin being a term tacked on by future historians. Either way -- Qin Shi Huang by historians, or Shih Huangti by himself -- seems valid, but a term trying the best of both worlds sounds a bit strange. On Google even Shi Huangdi (始皇帝) defeats Qin shi huangdi (秦始皇帝) hands down (on 14 200 votes) Shi - Huang - Ti is the way the discovery chanel had it in their documentry about it - Sheep01 May 01, 2006 PS This page can do much better for one of the most discussed figures in Chinese history. Lots of info still left unsaid. - - Mandel - Apr 17, 2004

I have never seen the First Emperor referred to this way in English. I've always seen Shih Huangti, or some variant thereof. john k 21:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"Shih Huangti" is the Wade-Giles version of "Shi Huangdi". Wikipedia uses Pinyin mostly. Brutannica 20:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the rules of hanyu pinyin say anything about how to treat ancient names like this one, but it seems to me that "Qin Shihuang" is much more common than "Qin Shi Huang" in the Western literature about Chinese history. "Qin Shihuang" se)ems more consistent if we think about other commonly used names like Han Wudi or Sui Yangdi. This style of capitalisation seems to mirror modern Chinese names like Mao Zedong, where we have a surname plus a two-sllable name. Even if this is not the case in "Qin Shihuang", I think this style makes it look more like a Chinese name in romanised form. I wonder if there is any reason to prefer "Qin Shi Huang" over "Qin Shihuang"? Unless there is a strong argument in favour of the current form, I would suggest moving the article to "Qin Shihuang". --AngelRiesgo 16:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Chinese romanized name standard, it should be "Qin Shihuang" (Because "Shihuang" can be treated as one word). I think in this case, it is better to stick to Chinese standard. Caiqian 17:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Qin Shi Huang is not a name but a title. --Skyfiler 22:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

His name was Ying Zheng, not Qin Shihuang or Qin Shi huang, but he is usually called Qin Shi huang (three independent Chinese characters) in Chinese because of Naming taboo. Britannica uses another name Shihuangdi (First Emperor)[1], which is less used in Chinese. However, I don't think himself would prefer any of these name. Qin Shi Huang and Qin ShiHuang are equally used on internet, even by the official Xinhua News Agency.--Skyfiler 19:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of personal preference, I would lean towards Qin Shi Huang, but I can say that "ShiHuang" if it's made into just one word, needs to be "Shihuang" (lower-case h) because if we're anglicizing we should follow English orthography. The problem, of course, is that the name does not map to either modern names or ancient names that have two characters as one word together (e.g. Sima Qian, Lu Buwei) because it means, literally, first emperor ("August one") of Qin, and is not a personal name per se. siafu 19:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal prefernces apart, I was wondering whether the rules of hanyu pinyin would have anything to say about this matter. In the case of modern names, I think the rules say it explicitly that the two syllables of a name must be spelled in one word. So, forms like "Mao Ze Dong" or "Mao ZeDong" or "Mao Ze-dong" are incorrect in pinyin. I don't know, however, whether there are any rules for these ancient names that cannot be analysed as surname + name. I feel it may be a grey area in the rules of pinyin, but I don't know for sure. Another similar case is that of Laozi and Zhuangzi as opposed to Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi. --AngelRiesgo 22:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Three-syllable names are apparently relatively modern (i.e., not at all common back in Warring States Period and Qin Dynasty), at least the Family-generation-personal style that we're using as comparison, so it makes it all rather muddled. Also, zì, as in Han Feizi, Kongzi, Sunzi, etc., means "master" (roughly) so also isn't a name itself but a title. In the end, IMHO, it really is something of a matter of personal preference or aesthetics. Here on wikipedia, the standard for modern names is apparently be "Blah Blahblah", if we want to just stick with convention. As stated, though, it's not clear that that applies to this case. siafu 01:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I support the Pinyin standard of Qin Shihuang. BTW, in violation of the Wiki standard of Pinyin predominance, another user just changed the Qin Shihuang title to WG Ch'in Shih-huang. I've resolved the conflict, I hope, by reverting it to Pinyin (the Wiki standard) and adding the WG parenthetically, in the process adding Shih Huangti. Now we've covered all the bases, but parenthetically and only once in the first line, to avoid clutter. I've also taken the liberty of moving all the comments on this topic to the same section on this page.Dragonbones 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I also support whatever the pinyin standard is as being the most accurate transliteration available, but I also think this page should redirect from all available permutations of the name that are in use, of which there are many, but thats what an Encyclopedia is for, not to punish users who are using a correct (if not technically standardized) spelling. --Cptbuck 02:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the Huang actually mean 'King' and wasn't part of his actual name?

No, that's Wáng (王), and he was also known as "King of Qin", or Qínwáng (秦王), prior to establishing the empire. Huáng (皇) does literally mean emperor, but it was part of his "actual" name inasmuchas it's used to refer to him. Naming conventions of the time are not so straightforward as they are presently; as you can see from the box on the article, he had several names. siafu 01:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be called Qin Shi Huangdi because nowadays, using han yu pin yin (the way used to write chinese using letters), that would be the way you'd write it. :D Waterairfirearth (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, historians call him Qin Shi Huangdi. (See Cambridge History of China, Patricia Ebrey; The Chinese Tradition in Antiquity, de Bary and Bloom; etc.) as Shi Huangdi was the title by which he referred to himself, combining shi (first, paramount) with huang + di (meaning 'ruler' and 'august' respectively). The tag-on of Qin to his title by historians is because there were others who used this name for themselves in reference to him (see Cambridge History of China, Patricia Ebrey; and The Making of Modern China, Jonathan Spence), as well as the fact that he made a combination of traditional titles dating back to the early Zhou, connecting himself to a time which was viewed by his contemporaries as a golden age.Luminece (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Shi Huang of Qin of China?

I removed from the introduction "Emperor Shi Huang of Qin of China". I don't know where this comes from. In history books and among Chinese Studies scholars he is never called that way. Probably this was invented by an uninspired Wikipedian who was trying to standardize the names of Chinese monarchs. Also, Ying is not a family name. There was no such thing as "family names" in pre-221BC China. There were ancestral names and clan names, but no family names as they exist now. Read Confucius talk page for more information. Hardouin 17:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is totally bullshit. First the "Shi" in "Emperor Shi Huang of Qin of China" is actually meant beginning or starting. Secondly Huang is actually meant emperor, so calling Shi Huang of Qin as "Emperor Shi Huang of Qin of China" is actually calling him emperor twice. Also please check the Chinese famliy name Liang in wikipedia. The truth is that there is a lots of Chinese famliy name that is older than the Chinese famliy name Liang and exist well before "221BCE".

Eh, it's not bullshit but it's overstated. The 'ancestral names' were called by the exact same term as modern Chinese surnames and the 'clan names' are those surnames. They still didn't go together the same way as modern names ("Ying Zheng", "Zhao Zheng"). The rest, I'm pretty sure you agree with each other: he was objecting to the name, not supporting it. — LlywelynII 08:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Qui Shi Haungdi?

A redirect page Qui Shi Haungdi leads here. Does it have any basis as a "legitimate" reference or is it just a bad misspelling (although how one gets "Qui" from "Qin" is beyond me)? If no one is ever likely to put this in a search, I think the redirect should be speedy deleted. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A redirect page "Qui Shi Haungdi" leads here. Does it have any basis as a "legitimate" reference or is it just a bad misspelling (although how one gets "Qui" from "Qin" is beyond me)? If no one is ever likely to put this in a search, I think the redirect should be speedy deleted. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just a bad misspelling. Dragonbones (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Qin Shi Huang and not Qin Shi Huang di

Ying Zheng, who later called himself Shi Huang Ti (The first emperor), was later rechristened Qin Shi Huang by later historians (who usually puts the dynasty name in the front). The term Qin Shi Huang Di is never used because it is not a historical convention. At any rate, Ying Zheng never called himself Qin Shi Huang Di, so the lead is changed to read better. Also, as Ying Zheng was a king before he was an emperor, the term 'monarch' (a king, queen, or emperor) neatly sidesteps the issue that he is a king or an emperor. Hence the first line of the article is changed. 124.155.206.12 (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential move to Qin Shi Huangdi

Several editors on this talk page seem to have supported using "Huangdi" instead of Huang. The article itself includes a cited line "However, the name Qin Shi Huangdi is believed to be the correct one since Ying Zheng joined together the words Huang (Imperial) and Di (ruler), to create Huangdi (emperor).[15]" I'm not very familiar with Chinese naming conventions, but I think a move to "Qin Shi Huangdi" should be carried out. Is there any cited support for the current title?--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's usually either "Qin Shi Huang" or "Shi Huangdi"; the longer version, though it exists, is not very common. siafu (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it is generational. I certainly remember when Qin Shi Huangdi was used quite commonly, in fact the article refers to a work Qin Shi Huangdi Chuan (秦始皇帝傳) written in the 1940s, and I would expect many, if not most, early books or articles to use the full name. Google trends however suggest that the shorter version is preferred now. Hzh (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We need to be careful in using Google Trends as a source for naming conventions – it's not to be used as a definitive answer without checking what is the practice in the reliable scholarship. In fact, the most common name for Qin Shi Huang in English scholarship is actually "the First Emperor" (see, for example, the Cambridge History of China and many others) or "First Emperor of Qin" (Cambridge History of Ancient China et al). A term that is currently gaining in use is "First Thearch", a term championed by Prof. Martin Kern (and some Sinologists) because of its incorporation of the divine element inherent in huangdi 皇帝.  White Whirlwind  咨  08:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think "First Thearch" should not be used as the article title because that is rarely used in popular media, whether it is the fashion in scholarly circle is irrelevant, we are not here to confuse readers. It can however be mentioned in the text of the article as an alternative name. The article title should be the commonly recognized name per WP:TITLE, so Google Trends can be useful, and in fact you get the same result if you use Google Books. The original questioner was asking about its use in Chinese, and my answer was about search results in Chinese. I'm not bothered if the title uses Qin Shi Huang, Qin Shi Huangdi, or "First Emperor of Qin" (but "First Emperor" should not be used because that is confusing without making clear that it's the Qin Emperor). I would say Qin Shi Huangdi is the more accurate title, but Qin Shi Huang is the more popular in Chinese nowadays (I'd suspect only since the 1970s). In English there are more search results for Qin Shi Huang, but the difference is not big enough to be of great significance in deciding what to use, and the more accurate one may therefore be more preferable. Hzh (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

From Google Ngram and Google Books , it looks like "First Emperor of Qin" (16,600 hits), "Qin Shi Huangdi" (10,100 hits), and "Qin Shi Huang" (15,400 hits) are about equally prevalent (naming conventions recommend a hit ratio of at least 3:1 to establish a common name). "First Emperor" is in fact much more prevalent, but I have no confidence that this refers to the Qin Emperor and not some other first emperor.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but note that the search result for "Qin Shi Huang" also includes some that use "Qin Shi Huang Di", so its actual number should be slighly lower, while those for Qin Shi Huangdi would be slightly higher. This simply reinforces your point that the two names are equally prevalent in English. Hzh (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right. "Qin Shi Huang Di" gets 3570 hits, which does bring them closer together.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

For shame

This whole entry is so badly written and so overly edited it makes no sense! Shame on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.120.97 (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Qin Shihuang and the Confucians

Someone wrote "Did he order the burning of the works of the earlier Confucians?"

I'd like to point out that there was only one Confucius (or Kong Fu Zi). There were no other "Confucians" DaBoulder 13:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do point it out, but is it true? Confucius died when? Obviously at some point there were people who read his books and were influenced by his ideas. Are you saying there were none in 230 BC? It is possible some of the people killed were Confucians and the traditional term used for them, if I am not mistaken (which is possible), is ru. Lao Wai 13:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not worth quibbling about on a discussion page. Master Kung had, it is estimated, 3,000 disciples, I believe these persons could fairly be referred to at Confucianists.Miglewis (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's worth quibbling about, but he is (mostly) wrong. It's perfectly common English to refer to the adherents of Confucius's doctrines as Confucians and they were major players during the Hundred Schools of Thought.

That said, (A) it's pretty hilarious to have a Chinese version of "the last Christian died on the cross"/no true Scotsmen and (B) he's correct to draw attention to the fact that some forms of Confucianism weren't developed or codified prior to the Han; that Shi Huangdi persecuted every other school of philosophy apart from his own; and that (while Confucius's texts were preserved or "preserved") some of these once-important schools never recovered. The article should reflect that, similar to the way that the Holocaust article mentions other persecuted groups such as Roma and homosexuals. — LlywelynII 01:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversial

Shihuangdi from user talk:Nanjing

Could I ask what in what ways was the statement that "Shir Huang ti being one of the most controversial figures in Chinese history" pointless? The fact that the article did not mention the controversial issues about one of most discussed figures of Chinese history (as well as the controversies themselves) does detract a lot from the overall scope of the article, in my view. - Mandel - Apr 17, 2004

The blanket statement adds nothing of value to the article because every historical figure can be considered "controversial". Instead of stating it, please demonstrate exactly how he is controversial. What is the controversy? Is it about what he did or his legacy? --Jimmg

Mandel: --To Nanjing--. Some figures of history may be considered controversial, but Shih Huangti is certainly one of the most controversial in Chinese history. If everything and everybody is considered controversial (granted everyone has their differing opinion on things) then the term "controversial" would be meaningless. What I really mean is that whilst historical figures like Hitler is presented in a much more consensual view amongst historians, most historians do not exactly know what stance to take when speaking of Shir Huang ti. eh. Is he a great emperor or no?

I do agree that failing to write at length about it makes the statement somewhat muddled, but just because of that the statement isn't just simply "pointless"...it'd take space, time for the article, plus possibly more than one opinion, to do it some justice. But the controversial nature remains, is a fact, and not a subjective opinion. The main question of contention is the extent to which Siam Sian tempered and colored public opinion on Shin through his historical accounts. That aside, other issues remain. Could he be considered incontrovertibly a great emperor (like Kantian or Emperor Han Audi)? Was what he did justifiable on grounds of political ethics, or could he have found a milder middle ground? Does his ends justify his means? Could what he have done covered up and balanced some of the more controversial acts he mustered (like burying the Confucian scholars)? Did his legacy eventually benefit China or caused more schism? See these articles in Chinese:

http://edu.ocac.gov.tw/class/history/txt/txt3/txt-1.htm

http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/3/8/13/n358433.htm;

http://www.cass.net.cn/chinese/s15_wxs/fengcai/chencz/07.htm

http://www.smcc-canossian.org/~chinese/writing/0001/3a.htm

It's not a sweeping statement. You can't say that saying The Passion of the Christ is a controversial film is a blanket statement because "most films are to some extent, controversial".

I did say the article is wanting in this aspect. We'll have to skim beyond the surface of the article to make it any better. --Mandel

Nah, as the edit stood, he was right to remove it. See WP:LABEL.

That said, as the Historography section makes clear, he has been a controversial figure and (in particular) Sima Qian's bias is profound and influential, to the point it should be addressed in the lead to the article. The term still needs to be explained thoroughly to meet code, though. — LlywelynII 02:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't Qin Shihuang's burial mound been excavated?

Does anybody know why the mound in Xi'an has not been excavated? A big famous mound (that you can climb up) just sitting there seems like the first thing on any archaeologist's or looter's to-do list. I was there a little while ago and asked this, and someone told me it was because a model had been made in the tomb of the Qin Dynasty's territory, including the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers--with the water simulated by mercury. (There a complete re-creation of this at another site). So they were afraid of mercury poisoning? Something's definitely up there, anybody know what? Mjklin 15:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's because they don't have a clean tent large enough to cover the whole site. The largest tent that is made wouldn't even cover the hill. They need to prevent contamination, you know.

This is weird, yes. They can still get camera or bots in but no. Such a archaeological landmark, biggest discovery ever after finding tomb of Tutankhamen and they don't even want take a peek inside of it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.59.193 (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this might sound bizarre but one BBC documentary - I regret I cannot remember its name - speculated that the Chinese state authorities, nominally secular of course, have never allowed the excavation of he tomb - citing 'technical difficulties' without ever really specifying what these may be - because they think it would be extremely unpopular amongst a very large section of the Chinese population that might consider disturbing the Emperor's resting place to be impious. Does anybody else - perhaps from China - have any view on this? 90.210.59.215 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology is sometimes described as a one time experiment -- you destroy what you are testing and you only have one chance to get it right. Fortunately the Chinese are following what is 'best practice' in archaeology and not excavating something that isn't under any threat. In the UK for instance, most archaeology is rescue archaeology -- going in when a new road is being built or a site threatened in some other way. A tremendous amount of valuable evidence has been lost in excavations in the past. The Chinese are right in preferring remote sensing methods in this case. Until they are have as much knowledge as possible as to what is there, they shouldn't go about tearing the site apart, which is what archaeology does. And don't underestimate the mercury problem.Doug Weller (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was told that it was such a valuable site that they wanted to wait until archaeology and science have advanced further so that when they do go in, they'll be better able to preserve what they find. Personally, I'm skeptical. I figure they have already found through remote sensing that the site is a major disappointment, so they have decided that the mystery and the legends of what's in there will be a greater tourist draw than the reality, LOL. Dragonbones (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Dougweller on this and also the fact that they have already had a bad experience with the terracotta warriors. When they first discovered/excavated the terracotta site, the warriors were actually fully painted. the colours however, faded after just a few hours due to exposure to the air and all we have of its once colourful figures are some photos taken right after the excavation. i dont think they want such a thing to happen again considering that this could be one of the last and greatest unexplored archaeological site in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.223.29 (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read at the Atlanta exhibit of a sampling of the Terra Cotta soldiers (High Museum of Art, 11/29/2008) that there are historical references to "rivers of mercury" in the tomb, as part of the decor, to mimic real rivers in diorama like displays. There are also reports of elevated mercury levels in the soil nearby. THere is speculation that the tomb is toxic, with aerosolized mercury contaminating everything. This is part of the reluctance to open the Tomb. Submitted by eclepticearth@hotmail.com, amateur historian and museum-goer.

Theory: I personally think a small team of archaeologist probably opened the tomb, then realized it was looted along time ago, then decided not to reveal it to the public... Or it's too dangerous to excavate and further explore because of the mercury.Phead128 (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lu Buwei

Phew! I just finished adding a bunch of sorely neglected information about his reign. I could use some help from anyone who knows more about the Ten Crimes that I didn't elucidate on. I also need someone to provide a correct link to Lu Buwei, since I don't know how to write that umlaut-u character yet! Brutannica 21:23, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Missing points

I'd like treatment of the following points:

• Did he order the burning of the works of the earlier Confucians? He also kept an enormous library. I read that the disorder after his reign probably destroyed more books that his direct orders. Anyway, it is mentioned in connection to the Cultural Revolution and other book burnings.
• Did he choose black ordering his court to use it extensively? What is its significance?
• He ordered the construction of 6000 km of roads. As much as the Roman roads in a much shorter period. Write about the straight Road to Mongolia.
• Write about his overpopulated capital. He forced the defeated monarchs to live in replicas of their destroyed former palaces.

Basically, I wanted to check something I read and found the article very lacking.

He did order the burning of books as recorded by Shi maqian. And this caused a really huge loss, much much greater than loss by the Cultural Revolution, since the printing technology had not been invented until 1000 years later. You may know there are so called "five classics" edited by Confucius. Before Qin Shi Huang, there are six classics instead of five. But because of his burning books, "classic of music" is lost forever. And all the hard copy of the "Classic of Rites" are burned. This book is survived only because some smart guy recited it from his memory.

To answer the points, I don't recall where I read it but here's what I remembered

• He did order burning of "non-essential" books ie those that aren't related to farming or medicine. Apparently the Qin State got strong because of the focus on farming and war. In either case, he did keep a copy of all the books in his palace which is burned down along with the books by rebels.
• Black was chosen as the state color because it represents water and the Zhou dynasty is represented by fire. The traditional five element scheme has fire replaced by water so black was chosen.
• He did build highways of some sort to aid the transportation and deployment of troops. In terms of sophistication, I don't think it got as advanced as the Roman's dig a ditch, fill it with gravel and stone kind of deal. He probably used rammed earth like the Qin's Great Wall. I think a documentary did say that though crude, it was quite effective as only grass can take root in the rammed earth.
• Don't think this was mentioned much aside from the line saying all weapons were melted down into statues or bells and nobles forced to move to the capital. As for the replica of the palaces, I think those are for himself not for the monarchs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.166.10 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The colour black represents his birth element, in Yi Jing, Zhao Zheng's birth date corresponded with the element water, which is associated with black.--RexRowan (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What straight road? — LlywelynII 06:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Xiao Zhuan

Does anybody know where the Xiao Zhuan font used to write the "Shi Huang Di" inscription on this page can be found? I have been looking unsuccessfully for a Zhuan Shu font for some time.

Thank you!

There is a font named "方正小篆体" or Founder Xiao Zhuan the in Founder Chinese Font Library, a product of Founder Electronics. I am sure there are other Xiao Zhuan fonts. However, Xiao Zhuan was invented by Li Si, Prime Minister of Qin, after Qin Dynastywas found. I think you should use zhouwen, a style of Da Zhuan (see Seal script)which was used in Qin state.

The Academia Sinica's Document Processing Lab has a nice (small) seal script font here: http://www.sinica.edu.tw/~cdp/, along with bronze and oracle bone fonts; see 2nd link, which reads 下載古漢字字型2.4版，7.24M，2006年8月版，收錄 小篆字型7,475字、金文字型1,533字、甲骨文字型760字、楚系簡帛文字字型1,095字。(閱讀安裝及使用說明). Click leftmost link on that line to download.Dragonbones (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A sample of what that page looks like for me:

¤U¸üº~¦rºc§Î¸ê®Æ®w2.7ª©¥úºÐ ¡A120M¡A¦¬¿ý¥j¤µº~¦r165,653­Ó¡F¨ä¤¤·¢®Ñ¦r§Î91,510­Ó¡A¤p½f¤Î­«¤å11,100­Ó¡Aª÷¤å¤Î­«¤å22,729­Ó¡A·¡¨t²©­¤å¦r¤Î­«¤å37,614­Ó¡A¥Ò°©¤å¤Î­«¤å2,700­Ó¡C¥t¦¬¡mº~»y¤j¦r¨å¡n²§Åé¦rªí12,208²Õ¡C

I found the download by looking for the numbers, but it's still rather annoying. What's causing their page to do that? Bad encoding? Is there a toggle I need to hit somewhere on my browser to be able to read archaic Chinese code? — LlywelynII 08:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Descendants

Huhai

I notived someone wrote that Huhai was the 18th son of Qin Shi Huang. This is the first time I hear that. Is there any reference or citation backing that? Hardouin 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Qin Shi Huang had 4 documented sons. Huhai is the last son. However, the number of his slibings is under dispute.

Words in Records of the Grand Historian:

• crown prince Fusu was forced suicide
• prince Jianglu and 2 of his brothers were forced suicide
• prince Gao was forced to apply for burying himself with Qin Shi Huang
• 12 princes were killed at XianYang
• Six princes were killed at Du
• Ten princesses were killed by Huhai at Du

--Skyfiler 02:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hata Clan descended from him

someone should mention the japanese hata clan which is descended from him on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.165.169 (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That article had me until "...Jewish Nestorian tribe..." after which it just seemed like an elaborate prank. Is this some Japanese version of "...Aliens!" or is something genuinely weird going on with this group? Do we have any native Japanese speakers who could go through and clean it up? — LlywelynII 14:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Children

Apart from Fu Su and Hu Hai, Zhao Zheng had many other children according to Shi Ji, so there's a great possibility he has surviving descendants today.--RexRowan (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Martial prowess

Great Warrior?

Yesterday I was watching the Discovery Channel, and he was portrayed as a warrior king. Qin Shi Huang has been widely credited as a great and ambitious leader, but has anybody read about his ability as a general? I think Discovery Channel is just BSing us.

Qin's conquest of China was carried out by his generals:

• In 230 BC, 50000 Qin soldiers led by internal affairs minister Teng descended upon Han and destroyed it.
• In 228 BC, King Youmiu of Zhao surrended to general Wang Jian's forces after the fall of the capital Handan
• In 227 BC, Crown Prince Dan of Yan dispatched Jing Ke to kill Ying Zheng, but failed.
• In 226 BC, Ji, then the capital of Yan, was fallen to general Wang Jian's force. Crown Prince Dan of Yan was executed by his father for a peace treaty.
• In 225 BC, general Wang Ben, son of general Wang Jian, destroyed Wei using flood to destroy the mighty walls of the Wei capital of Daliang.
• In 224 BC, Chu was vanquished by Wang Jian.
• In 222 BC, Wang Ben finished the remain forces of Yan and Zhao.
• In 221 BC, Qi surrendered to Wang Ben and Meng Tian's force.

--Skyfiler 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Having good generals doesn't preclude being a good warrior oneself, but excellent point. — LlywelynII 14:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Zheng was the empire's strongest warrior

"Zheng was the empire's strongest warrior, extremely skilled in the use of the sword (he carried a two-handed sword with him at all times), the halberd, the crossbow, and other traditional Chinese weapons."

Uhm...this sounds more like propaganda than facts. At the very least he was a skilled warrior, but to proclaim he was the "strongest warrior" of the Unified empire of China...come on! Fred26 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia & pop culture

Misc section

It seems to me like the miscellaneous section has important information and should be part of the main article not in the bottom misc section. And isn't it supposed to be the elixir of life not the philosopher's stone? 128.6.175.86 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - it seems to me that the miscellaneous section has very little important information - most of it has already been mentioned in the article (Qin Shi Huang's habit of changing sleeping place often, for example). Couldn't it simply be assimilated into the main article? 205.233.121.29 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the original question, you're right—elixir or herbs or medicine but (in any case) not the European stone. — LlywelynII 09:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Qin Shi Huang

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. That material should definitely be spun out of here. — LlywelynII 14:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Love it

I love the fact that everyone who edits these Chinese history events, I really apriciate it and I thank everyone who wrote it and use it, I encourage many people to use such articles to their research advantage

Maps

Image of Indian empire

Regarding the image of the Indian empire (recently added by Deeptrivia), I thought that the image should be deleted. First, because the caption refers to the Han empire, which is not quite Shi Huangdi—the topic of this article (moreover, the Han empire didn't exist: rather, there were at least two). Second, because the image claims to show the largest empires in the world at the time but omits the Roman Republic as well as anything in the Americas. Third, the use of "first" emperor is obviously disputable in both cases. More generally, the inclusion of the image appears like an attempt to increase the reputation of the Indian empire rather than something relevant for Shi Huangdi.
—Daphne A 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're free to edit the caption Daphne A to make it more accurate. Also, let's try to learn to assume good faith -- those who want can keep discussing whether the Chinese civilization was any comparision to Indian or Roman ones at that, or any other time, and whose reputation is getting improved by this comparision, but I hope we don't start on that :) From the maps, the Roman Republic appears much smaller even in terms of land area, let alone population. If you have any other concerns, please discuss. deeptrivia (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is also inaccurate in drawing the Qin Empire - or even the Han, for that matter. In all, I can't see any good reason to include it as it is at best trivial, and even inaccurate in the event. siafu 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Unification of China

There should be an article on (or at least a chart showing the progress of) the unification of China under this emperor.

Yep. — LlywelynII 14:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Era name

1

Recently, an anonymous user (User:67.71.140.161, User: 70.49.243.169) has been changing the era names in this article from BCE to BC. AFAIK, despite there being a lack of consensus on the various proposals involved, it's inappropriate to change the era names without first discussing and building consensus on the talk page. Since the IP address is not the same one every time, I'm not sure if there's any utility to leave a comment on the user's talk, so I'm hoping that the user in question will present his or her viewpoint here on the talk page. Otherwise, the unilateral change is just vandalism. siafu 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), we only need consistency in style. Since the article was already using BCE, there's no justification of changing it to BC. Same changes are being made by anon editors in other history articles too. At this stage, probably we can just revert and explain the relevant policy in the MoS to the anonymous user, hoping (s)he won't keep coming back with the same edit. deeptrivia (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be slightly unlikely that this user will present any rational argument. siafu 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The box uses BC. Even if it didn't, I'm going to change it anytime I see BCE/CE used. If someone wants to come up with a new dating system that works for the entire world, I welcome it. Until that time, I'm going to stick with BC and AD, and avoid the pointless cheesiness of BCE/CE. Personally, were I a non-Christian, I would be more offended by the use of BCE/CE, because it would appear its proponents must think I'm a real pinhead to be fooled by it. Just changing the name doesn't remove religion from it; 50 BC and 50 BCE are identical. BC and AD are still by far the standard used in academia. I know some scholars use the BCE/CE system, but not many. The ones who do are usually well-meaning, intelligent people who are just a bit misguided. 70.49.242.72 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, we did need to fix that box. I don't think "pointless cheesiness" is much of a substitute for an argument, nor the outright statement that consensus will not be respected. BTW, if "BC and BCE are identical", then why do you insist on reverting, precisely? siafu 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You changed the box the wrong way. Your question I already answered. If they are identical, there is no reason in changing to the "new" system. If someone can invent a truly non-religious system, that would be different. That has not happened with BCE/CE. I re-read what I had written, and it is clear. You must just be pretending not to understand, as all supporters of BCE/CE know the system is nonsense. Consensus is being respected by me; despite what many would like to believe, BC/AD is still by far the standard, and that is reflected in this encyclopedia. That BCE/CE is pointless and cheesy was not my argument for retaining the older system - as we both know. (I'm not sure why you're pretending not to understand.) The newer system is a failure because the religious aspect is still present, and it has not solved the lack of a year 0. As I said already, if someone can invent a new system which overcomes those and all the other problems of the Christian system of dating, I would welcome it. Now, that said, I have to say I find it funny that you would lament the possibly of my presenting a rational argument, and then when I do present one, yourself fail to answer it in kind. I find it hard to believe you even read what I wrote! I'm not too optimistic of receiving a reasoned, logical reply to this, that's for sure. 70.49.242.72 23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, "BCE is cheesy" is not a rational argument. It's obvious that you aren't very familiar with wikipedia policy, so I'll just start and end by referring you to WP:CON, Wikipedia:Eras, the above-mentioned Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), WP:NPA, and WP:Civil. siafu 00:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, your not paying attention isn't funny anymore. If you think "BCE is cheesy" is my argument, then you haven't read it. Restating it would be a waste of time; it's right there if you decide you do want to read it. 70.49.242.72 00:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether something is "cheesy" or not is not the kind of argument we are supposed to carry out here. Also, questions such as "whether BC and BCE are identical", "whether BCE is free of religious connotations", "whether it is a failure" etc can best be left to scholars/academics to debate. None of us here can claim to be authorities on these issues, and we can keep debating endlessly and fruitlessly. What we can and should discuss is issues related to the Manual of Style. The MoS says that either BC or BCE can be used -- one just has to be consistent. What is, then, your rationale behind changing from BCE to BC? deeptrivia (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, [[### BC]] is the direct link, [[### BCE]] is a re-direct ... so if you use BCE it should be [[### BC]]E ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsmcd (talk • contribs)

If consistency within the article is all that matters, when I first made the change the box used BC and the article BCE. Unless it says something about the percentage of usage of one or the other making a difference, I'd say that gave me a right to make the change. All other arguments aside. Few others besides siafu have weighed in on this, and he clearly is incapable of rationale discussion. 67.71.141.85 12:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"... and he clearly is incapable of rationale discussion." — This is almost a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA. deeptrivia (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's objective fact, something anyone can see just by reading his comments. 70.5 3.108.169 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be so surprised, deeptrivia. This user has made it clear that civility is not his or her concern. See: [2], [3], [4], [5]. &c. siafu 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're hoping people won't notice you've done the same thing, not far above: "I'm thinking it might be slightly unlikely that this user will present any rational argument." Don't think, either, that no one has noticed you too have violated (many, many times) the 3RR. 67.71.141.180 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is simple vandalism. Though I'm impressed to see you're actually starting to read policy pages now. siafu 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I'm impressed you didn't try to deny your own vandalism! 67.71.141.180 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I hate to open up a dead issue but the style guides above offer 260 BC and 260 BCE but not 260 BCE; I can see how it's a compromise, but it's really pretty ugly. Couldn't we just vote on this one way or the other and then leave it that way? Cambridgegames 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

They look the same, so I can't see your point. — LlywelynII 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

2

Acc. the Wiki style guide, both are acceptable, but the article must be internally consistent. Since the article is primarily in BCE I'm fixing the few BC's for consistency. "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article." Dragonbones (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But please don't change BC to BCE form in categories. The categories are using BC form. I have reverted your edit on the categories at 02:25, 30 May 2008. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "fine". See below. — LlywelynII 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

BC and BCE

Did the goverment change BC( before christ)to BCE (before common era)? HuntHello (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, just some social scientists. — LlywelynII 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA

We can start a new consensus if you like, but WP:ERA is actually pretty clear that in situations like this this edit (or at the very least this one) established the page's usage as BC and AD. The editors above claiming to restore the 'original' or 'primary' use didn't bother to go check what the actual usage was.

My own opinion is that this is a high-profile enough page that we're going to constantly get non-scholarly editors restoring the standard dating anyway and it's not worth beating the dead horse, especially when the +E crowd is in the wrong. — LlywelynII 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

I note that there are a number of sentences in the discussion on historiography which I don't feel is neutral - for example the use of "Ideological prejudices", "systematic Confucian bias" and "limitations of traditional Chinese historiography" which suggest that their views must necessarily be wrong, while that of the modern ones must be more correct, an idea which I don't think is warranted. The justification for some of the criticism is poor - for example the author questions the historical truth of the execution of scholars "seems unlikely to be completely true, but we have no way to know for certain" without explaining why that the author think it is so, that is just highly unsatisfactory, sounds more like a personal view and not a valid criticism at at all.

I think I will delete or amend the comment about the historical truth of execution of scholars being "unlikely to be completely true" if no one objects. Such claim needed to be backed by reason, but so far I haven't seen any reasonably suggestion as to why that the execution might not be true. I have read that the method of execution was very unusual, but that is not reasonable justication because many events in history were unique and unusual, so something being unusual is not a proper reason for casting doubt. I will also make a few other changes but will wait for comments before changing them. Hzh (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have issues with "Unfortunately, he was not as thorough as he should have been," in the fourth paragraph from the bottom of the historiography section. Has anyone here read any of these "new evaluations" and can edit this paragraph to make it sound less like a value judgment? --Pepperjackcandy (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Qin Shi Huang's footwear

Does anyone have an idea why he is wearing such enormous shoes (or whatever they might be)?? :) --B. Jankuloski 04:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The shoes are not enormous as such, rather at the front of each shoe there is an extension which projects and curls upwards, making it looks larger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.102.149 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Zhao Zheng was 6'5 according to history book Shi Ji, so we can guess his shoe size.--RexRowan (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

General Cleanup

I'm finding this article to be rather badly organized, and would like to add a "General Cleanup" template to it. Is there anybody who agrees with me on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.233.121.29 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Also, for its length, I was surprised to find only one reference....and that sole reference was on the Mao quote. _dk 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Surname

1

I have changed a word in a sentence in the first paragraph of this section.

In Chinese antiquity, people never joined family names and given names together as is customary for all >>>Chinese<<< names today, so it is anachronistic to refer to Qin Shi Huang as "Ying Zheng".

I changed it to Chinese from chinks. No need to use offensive words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albalongoria (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph of the "Naming conventions" section is POV and unsupported. I am proposing its removal in its entirety. --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed:

As today, in Chinese antiquity, people joined family names and given names together.
Therefore, it is anachronistic to refer to Qin Shi Huang as "Zhao Zheng", "Ying Zheng" and "Yang Zhao".

These two sentences contradict each other. If they joined family names and given names in antiquity, it is not anachronistic to refer to him as Zhao Zheng, etc, and vice versa. A reference would be a welcome addition to this point. As far as I know, family and given names were used like today, but I don't have a reference. Joe0622 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In Shi Ji, the history book written by Si Ma Qian, his friend Li Si and others directly called him Zhao Zheng.--RexRowan (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. At least, they don't do it anywhere in the section on the History of Qin and its dynasty. I'm dubious, given the conventions of the time. Or was it in a different section of the Records of the Grand Historian? — LlywelynII 01:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit: It was. Found it and added sources to the article. — LlywelynII 02:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

full name

what was his full name?92.7.239.45 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is to discuss improvements, not a forum page. Btw, his full name is Qin Shi Huang(di)HuntHello (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Qin Shi Huang Di was his title not name, his name was Zhao Zheng. --RexRowan (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Shi Huangdi was his regnal name. Qin Shi Huangdi and Qin Shihuang were later forms adopted by Chinese historians. Qin Shi Huang and Qin Shi Huang Di are unpleasant forms adopted by people with iffy pinyin.

The answer to 92...'s question is not Zhao Zheng, though, and the article is wrong in claiming that it is. In China today, he's known as Ying Zheng but the ancient Chinese didn't employ "full names": they had an ancestral name for their primary lineage, a clan name for their branch of the lineage, and a personal name. The three were used separately and not as a unit as in modern Chinese "full names". (Part of the reason it gets so complicated is that the modern Chinese word for "surname" is the same character as the old "ancestral names": Rex's approach is a hypercorrection against that since the clan names used to be more important.) — LlywelynII 01:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I was wrong. At the very least, it seems we have some sources from the Qin era that have started using surnames and they give Zhao Zheng rather than Ying Zheng. The rest of the account explains why the modern Chinese don't use that name, though. — LlywelynII 02:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

2

Zhao was Zhao Zheng father's sir name, it has nothing to do with the Kindom of Zhao. Zhao was one of the noble names derived from a common ancestor Ying together with another 13 different sir names. In Chinese: Zhao Sir Name. --RexRowan (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

3

Maybe it's more proper to call him Zhao Zheng, but should the article at least mention that he is traditionally called Ying Zheng? Not to mention that there even exist controversial about it. 96.41.84.85 (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly right. Fixed. — LlywelynII 04:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

4

His name is 嬴政 actually ,not 趙正 Cheer16max (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's already addressed in the article, which says " 趙政 or 趙正 ". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What the editor above is talking about is that his given name was Ying Zheng and not Zhao Zheng. It is not well addressed in the article and the whole thing is a bit of a mess. Ancient China had two sets of surnames: the larger xing ("surname", "ancestral name") and the more specific shi ("clan name"). He is certainly better known by Ying Zheng in modern Chinese (and modern English); while Sima Qian seems to use Zhao in preference to Ying, Sima's whole mission was to question his legitimacy and he's not the best source. Could we get someone to weigh in on whether (in his lifetime) he would've been more closely associated with his shi or his xing? — LlywelynII 22:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Found it. Added. — LlywelynII 02:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We're also currently missing his regnal name as King of Qin. Earlier versions of the page had "King Zheng of Qin" but that was uncited. — LlywelynII 22:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Found it. Added. — LlywelynII 02:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Qin Shi Huang's mother

What is the name of his mother? Newone (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

His mother's name is Zhao Ji--冰热海风 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

His mother's surname was Zhao, and was refered as Zhao Ji. Ji just means Lady, she may have no given name. Also, her surname may not be Zhao, Zhao Ji may mean a Lady from Zhao (state)--刻意(Kèyì) 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Section moved out

First

The following section was moved out of then name section:

"Qin Shi Huang had now become the First Emperor of the State of Qin. The official name of the newly united China was still "State of Qin", as Qin had absorbed all the other states. The contemporaries called the emperor "First Emperor", dropping the phrase "of the State of Qin", which was obvious without saying. However, soon after the emperor's death, his regime collapsed, and China was beset by a civil war. Eventually, in 202 BCE the Han Dynasty managed to reunify the whole of China, which now became officially known as the State of Han (漢國), or Empire of Han. Qin Shi Huang could no longer be called "First Emperor", as this would imply that he was the "First Emperor of the Empire of Han". The custom thus arose of preceding his name with Qin (秦), which no longer referred to the State of Qin, but to the Qin Dynasty, a dynasty replaced by the Han Dynasty. The word huangdi (emperor) in his name was also shortened to huang, so that he became known as Qin Shi Huang. It seems likely that huangdi was shortened to obtain a three-character name, because it is rare for Chinese people to have a name composed of four or more characters."

There are a number of mistakes in this paragraph. However if someone wants to find sources for this, please do. The rest of the contents are duplicates already in the article to be cleaned up. Benjwong (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Second

This part was moved out because the ranks may not be something started by this emperor.

Civilian and military powers were also separated to avoid too much power falling in the hands of a single civil servant. Thus, each commandery was run by a civilian governor (守 shŏu) assisted by a military governor (尉 wèi). The civilian governor was superior to the military governor, a constant in Chinese history. The civilian governor was also reassigned to a different commandery every few years to prevent him from building up a base of power. An inspector (監 jiàn) was also in post in each commandery, in charge of informing the central government about the local implementation of central policies, reporting on the governors' exercise of power, and possibly resolving conflicts between the two governors. This administrative system was only an extension to the whole empire of the system already in place in the State of Qin before the Chinese unification. In the State of Qin, feudalism had been abolished in the 4th century BCE, and the realm had been divided into commanderies, with centrally appointed governors.

Please further add reference. Benjwong (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Third

This was moved out since it has more to do with Li Si:

Contrary to popular belief, Li Si did not invent the script, nor was it completely new at the time. Edicts written in the new script were carved on the walls of sacred mountains around China, such as the famous carved edicts of Mount Taishan, to let Heaven know of the unification of Earth under an emperor, and also to propagate the new script among people. However, the script was difficult to write, and an informal Qin script, variously termed vulgar or common writing, remained in use which was already evolving into an early form of clerical script.

Benjwong (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

References to Comic Book

The article contains four references to Rise and Fall of Qin Dynasty by Changhong Ren (Asiapac, 2000). This book appears to be a comic book; see Google Book Search. Surely, there are better sources than this? --ChristopheS (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cruelty

When slaves died building the Great Wall of China, the wall was simply built on top of their corpses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helluvaguy09 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They were not slaves, they were paid workers. --RexRowan (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a chinese, as i know ,most of them are slaves or prisoners,but it doent built on their corpses(we never find any corpse inside the great wall,only sand and stone) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.190.192.74 (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Eh, what you were taught in school is really no better guide than Americans thinking Washington hacked at a cherry tree or Brits that Churchill used to have secret orgies in the air raid bunker. For the most part, it was corvee which is usually not called slavery despite being a form of forced labor. As far as I know, that was part-and-parcel of most Chinese governments (usu. for flood control) up until the end of the Qing. Shi Huangdi just really overdid it.

Also, for what it's worth, you're "a 中国人" but not "a Chinese". — LlywelynII 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Birth Controversy

I have the impression that Western scholars are skeptical about the Emperor's illegitimacy, and Chinese scholars tend to go along with Sima Qian, but I could be entirely wrong. Anyway, thank you to Bao Pu at the Chinese History Forum, where I found the quotation from Knoblock and Riegel's book. Evangeline (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

what is wrong with the infobox?

is it just me or is the infobox different from every other infobox on wikipedia? is this necessary?

just wondering.Stoopkitty (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Shi Huangdi's/Qin Temple

why do people think that his temple doesn't exist? Does it? Can't find any info anywhere!!! sorry i meant the Qin temple --58.96.94.8 (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing

Maybe I missed it, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot about Qin Shi Huangdi's standardization of writing. It is arguably the most important thing that he did to create what we think of as China today. As Frances Wood says, "As it is, a single script covering a massive country where spoken dialects differ greatly has held the country (China) together for over 2,000 years...it was the script that united and informed all Chinese, whatever dialect they spoke."Chinas First Emperor and his Terracotta Warriors(New York; St. Martins Press, 2008)page 96-97. Mark Eddward Lewis says that he "reduced the complex and variable Large Seal script with its curving lines--the kind of writing used on Zhou ritual vessels-- into simpler, more rectilinear forms. The Qin writing system may have suppressed as much as twenty-five percent of the pre-Qin graphs." The Early Chinese Empires: Qin and Han (Cambridge, Massachusetts; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007) 53. China may otherwise "have been like India with many different written languages" Ong Siew Chey, China Condensed: 5000 Years of history and culture, (Singapore; Marshall Cavendish Editions, 20080 27. I would be more than willing to write the section, as I believe that it is extremely important. Vyselink (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A number of problems

There appears to be a number of problems with this page that haven't been addressed, these are just some of them -

1) Why is there a "Youth" section when it is practically all about his birth and nothing about his youth?

2) Part of the biography is written like a story (for example the first paragraph of the "Youth" section"). It's not the style for wiki.

3) What's written is also confusing to the casual Western readers - for example the name Zhao Zheng is introduced without making it clearer that's his given name. The whole section appears to be a jumble of facts without proper organization.

4) Some parts of it should be written in more neutral terms, and value judgement should be avoided. Best to avoid writing things like "ideological prejudices" or "Only in modern times were historians able to penetrate beyond the limitations of traditional Chinese historiography."

5) Some parts are unclear, for example, this line - "Mao Zedong, chairman of the People's Republic of China, was reviled for his persecution of intellectuals." Who reviled him? People inside China (how such opinion can be expressed when opinions in China were tightly controlled?) or outside China?

6) Parts of the article sound clunky and inelegant and need to be written in better English. Hzh (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no one appears to want to do it, I attempted to rewrite some of those parts I think problematic. There is some confusion in the Birth section which I hope someone would sort out - in one line he was supposed to be "the eldest son of King Zhuangxiang of Qin", but then this line "the first emperor was not the actual son of King Zhaoxiang of Qin." Zhaoxiang and Zhuangxiang are not supposed to be the same person? The whole section is unclear as to what is what.Hzh (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume that it is a mistake that King Zhaoxiang of Qin is used here? I'll change it later if no one else will do it, although I'd rather someone who has the original source do that because I'm not sure (this page is too confusing and really ought to be written clearer). It's embarrassing for this wiki page if two different historical figures get mixed up. Hzh (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a google book link starting with the 259 BC, 48th year of King Zhaoxiang. King Zhaoxiang is being used like a date marker. He is not any father. The book 鐵腕: 中國歷史上的皇權博弈 authors 吳光遠, 胡富 has a page that sums it up best. "秦始皇有兩個父親,一個是"仲父"呂不韋,另一個是王父子楚(秦莊襄王)" basically Lu Buwei is the middle father while Zhuangxiang is the reign father of Qin Shi huang. Pardon these horrible english translations. Them two, either one is potentially the father. Basically in a very short time the rule transfer went King Zhaoxiang -> Xiaowen of Qin -> Zhuangxiang of Qin -> Qin Shi Huang. Reference at 王恆偉. (2005) (2006) 中國歷史講堂 #2 戰國 秦 漢. p66 talks about the order of Kings. Many sources refer to old kings like date markers. Benjwong (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Qin Shi Huang/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs references plange 05:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)