1777:
source. The concerns are similar to the issues with complex mathematics. " "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established. Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article. Neutral point of view requires presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue, and may include collecting opinions from multiple, possibly biased and/or conflicting, sources. Organizing published facts and opinions—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research. " Please read all wikipedia policy before preceding to argue. Selectively choosing to obey wikipedia policy and ignore others is a blatant disregard for wikipedia guidelines and violation of NPOV. I think here there is a fundamental misunderstanding of our original research policy.
1671:
believe that will be a difficult task. As to the sources, the sources are completely reliable; i invite you to check the authors of these books' backgrounds. Anyways, my point is that the amount of work you mentioned that would be needed has already been done; I invite you to take a look at the article and come to your own conclusions, rather than check the word of others , which (from my point of view) is horribly outdated. So far i do not see claims that are unsourced, explicit synthesis and other problems. I believe the main problem with the article now is a general cleanup of spelling, grammar, prose, etc... As to accusations of "implicit" synthesis, I would ask you to ask those who claim so to come up with concrete proof; i think you will find, there is none.
1336:. I read this article yesterday and then again today, and it's far too messy and hysterical, almost, to a point of unprofessionalism. It's an interesting topic, an interesting couple of comparisons, but such comparisons as "In professor Sheidel's book..." should be removed, and the desperate attempt at sounding qualified should be rewritten. Also, I'm pro-Han, but the article is written in a way where the bias makes me incredulous. As a newcomer, I may not be as experienced in editing as many of you out there, but it seems fairly obvious that Knowledge (XXG) should look and sound credible. Lastly, not to pick at too many particulars, but after all this voting is over, perhaps someone could look over the grammar as well.
252:(comment: I started the whole process so I'm unsure if my vote counts at all). Teen I have some very limited knowledge about history, historians, former versions of history written by early historians (who in former times "proved" that one contry was indeed better than another to the resounding applause of their contemporary contrymen). I know nearly nothing about Cricket or Baseball. IMHO that article is also very strange and probably also worthy of deletion. BUT as I know nearly nothing about the subjects I'm not going to propose it for deletion. I like to think that I'm an amateur historian and not an amateur sport-specialist. I'm also not a Wiki-laywer.
1464:-- This article has doubled in size and added many references since it was nominated for deletion two days ago. Also, regarding those saying the article is out of place on Knowledge (XXG) and should be found on Wikiversity only: I am a big-time Knowledge (XXG) user and I stumbled across this article just now while looking up whether or not China had a larger population than the Roman Empire at its peak. I would never have found it if it were on Wikiversity. Regarding the formatting problems: they can be fixed if the article is kept; I don't think poor formatting should be a contributing reason to delete an article.
1172:. I agree that the article as it currently stands is full of OR. But... based upon discussions at the NOR noticeboard, it seems that the primary editor of this article has recently found several new sources upon which to base a significanlty rewritten article. I think we should give him/her time to review these sources and do this rewrite. That said, I do wish to note that my keep opinion is based upon a rewrite actually being done... and if this is not done in a resonable time, I would take a much harsher view of the situation in any second AfD nomination.
1557:
do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write
Knowledge (XXG) articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
1266:
from my mistakes). It's all too easy to do it, you read something somewhere, and then compare it with something else you read somewhere else. It makes sense and then you jump to obvious conclusions (that's what I did then and what you made now). What one must/should do in this case is read a couple of books in which these authors compare these two empires which each other (a single book is technically enough but the more the better). The subject of the book must be the comparison of these two empires. Flamarande (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
1254:
please check WP:Assume good faith and WP:Wikiquette. Remember, no personal attacks. If you continue, I may have to file a wikiquette alert. You have yet to produce one factual error about the article, that has not been corrected. Nevetheless, if you do find errors, please contact me and I will correct them. If you didn't notice, many of the editors here are voting delete because they think that shouldn't be any comparison articles on wikipedia, contary to your claim.
1619:
orange-colored things have more yellow pigment than red-colored things to say that oranges have more yellow pigment than apples. That's synthesis. Where you can easily get into trouble is that simply by juxtaposing two things in an article, you can imply or lead readers to assume a third thing. Even if you don't explicitly state that third thing, it can still be synthesis because you have implied it or lead the reader to assume it. This is conceptually similar to
1936:
synthesis. While I take their opinions into account and edit the article accordingly, they completely ignore my opinions. However, sharkD and cmadler, I will need yours and others assistance to set up a chart and subsections to wikipedia. I don't mean to be rude, but i have only been on wikipedia for seven days and I've been forced constantly to learn on the move.
1443:-- This is an article on an interesting subject, but it feels more like what might be set for a student essay than as something for an encyclopaedia. At present the article uses two sources far too many times. Accordingly it must at mpresent be treated as a poor essay, though it is not beyond recovery. I suggest
1113:. Concur with DGG on this, the sourcing so far is admirable but we need to follow rather than lead so we need to show who has already made the comparisons and what they stated. I have little doubt that google books, google scholar and many articles delve into these areas. but these are all regular editing concerns.
1860:
These kind of comparisons are indeed "quite proper subject of scholarly study." This is exactly why it should be deleted. It is an essay, not an article about an actual thing, concept or idea. You can mix as many sources as you want and compile as much information as you want, but only when you start
1706:
The statement "Both armies had good logistics compared to their contemporaries" doesn't appear to relate to the following (cited) statements about troop numbers. The troop numbers contain no context (What were the opposing forces? How were they equipped? How trained? How experienced?) and no apparent
1556:
This is from WP:SYNT: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited
1488:
As written, unencyclopedic and OR. A scholarly monograph is coming out which is devoted to the comparison of the two empires, but even so I'm not convinced that this is ever going to be a good
Knowledge (XXG) article--it will be doomed, I think, to a laundry list of things that are similar and things
1253:
I agree with Aecis in terms of the weight of the argument, but the delete side has yet to produce any arguments besides "inherently original research", "Knowledge (XXG) should not have comparison articles", and other fallacious statements. I believe that is not a "forceful argument." Also, Flamrande,
881:
Here I have found a book directly comparing the two empires by an expert in the field who is a credible historian: Rome and China: Comparative
Perspectives on Ancient World Empires by Walter Sheidel, professor of classics and world history, stanford university. ISBN: 9780195336900 . You might want to
1776:
This is from WP: NOTOR: "Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable
1670:
Cmadler, So far I have not directly compared the two empires without finding a source that does so. see the section about WP: SYNT below. I concur that this article was relatively poorly written before, but now such a massive overhaul has been done to it, i invite you to point out specific issues. I
1637:
I think that part of the problem here is that there are numerous entangled issues. There are unsourced statements. There are statements that are not supported by the citation given (I have not checked, I am taking the word of others on this point), in some cases this may simply result from errors in
1265:
Teen, to be honest: I have nothing against you, the Han empire (I admit that I'm a bit pro-Roman though :), or with such an article (IF it is based upon proper works by accepted historians). I have been there were you seem to be now. Some time ago I have made OR in the article SPQR (and then learned
1935:
I agree completely with sharkD and
Cmadler; However, some editors have been quite disruptive to my editing; neglecting others'opinion, and constantly making unsatiable demands. They even objected to my apple/orange above as they object to information being placed close to each other, saying that is
1911:
SharkD makes a good suggestion, and that should at least be a part of this article. I think a large part of the problem with this article is that it doesn't actually present many comparisons between the two. That is, there is often a statement about the Roman Empire followed/preceded by a statement
1136:
8v6 so far, i think this is definitely a keep. By the way, it is the policy of an encyclopedia to compare things. You can't follow wikipedia policy like dogma, that would kill wikipedia. I mean, use common sense. See WP:Common sense and WP:Ignore all rules. As long as it improves wikipedia and fits
1029:
The topic is of course notable, and of course scholars would have written comparisons between the two empires. The point is, any comparison between two marginally related entities will be a comparative essay and not an encyclopedic article (that would better fit in either WikiBooks or
Wikiversity).
819:
this is clearly original research as almost all of the references only cover one of the empires, and don't appear to cover a comparison between them. Similar comparison articles have been deleted when they've been brought to AfD for this reason. The preferred approach is for the articles on the two
631:
Category:Comparisons seems a mixed bag, but I wouldn't want to lose all the articles there. Anyone know if there are any guidelines re comparisons articles in general, & comparisons & notability in particular? In principle is it OK to bring together topics with a logical affinity, if they
441:
It's an essay, not an encyclopedic article. Other bad articles are not relevant and should not be brought up here, although anyone is welcome to take them to AfD. I won't go into the inaccuracies in the article except to say that they probably exist because it is an essay rather than reporting what
508:
The fact is that 5 sources show ppl are debatign this topic, therefore I source them. Then i find another 5 or 6 sources which show details about both empires, which i list. therefore, we have "proof of notability", "proof that this is not original research(I'm not the one compiling the facts" and
408:
The point is that there are many sources on the internet citing this and that there are other people who study this topic. that was the original contention of this dispute. These sources prove beyond doubt that the article is not OR. The fact is that these sources show that this article is not OR,
359:
The 2nd seems to be (quoting): "a global community effort. Thus, essays do not use the first person nor are they written from a uniquely
American perspective. In order to reflect the collective authorship of the dynamic content contained on Hyperhistory.net, the pseudonym of "Rit Nosotro" has been
1758:"The best practice is to write Knowledge (XXG) articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
1717:"For most of the past two millenia, China was the largest economy on Earth." might be taken to imply that the Han economy was larger than the imperial Roman economy, but it offers no reference to either the Han or Roman empire. Further, 1/2 of the Han period is outside the scope of this statement.
1618:
If you have a source saying apples are red, you can say that apples are red. If you have another source saying oranges are orange, you can say that oranges are orange. With the two sources, you can say that apples are red and oranges are orange. What you CAN'T do is use a third source saying that
1506:
Peterkingiron's suggestion is interesting, but I'm still worried about the article and that
Akhilleus's prediction is correct. Almost everyone who has discussed the OR agrees that except for minor details the sources should only be those that compare the two empires, but that doesn't seem to have
187:
They dont come from one source that compares them either. I challenge you to find one part in the article that is synthesis; like the articles above, I have listed the facts for each empire side by side without making a comparison. As to those who edit or delete saying that it is "unlikely" to be
865:
The main point is whether the article should stay. The point is that this article does fit the criteria for notability, accuracy, source, etc... Even if you disagree with the article's contentions, it is obvious this article fits the criteria for inclusion. As colonel warden said, this is also a
1606:
Does this constitute synthesis? Do I have to find a source that says Apples are red and oranges are orange? Regarding OR allegations, please see the sources. There are four credible sources that directly compare the two empires, and eight for details. Are you saying that I should not have ANY
1761:
Therefore, as long as all your claims are sustained by your sources, it is not original
Research. I would like to see one of the editors who voted delete to back up their arguments by finding a section that is not attributed to a source that directly support their position.
1507:
influenced the article or its creator very much. If
Teeninvestor bit the bullet and removed everything not so sourced, thus showing good faith and letting us see what is left, that might sway my opinion, but if not, and it is kept, it is likely to be a battleground anyway.
1703:"The standing army totaled more than one million men. Roman field armies, in contrast, rarely exceeded 30,000 men." This appears to compare the size of the total Han military to the size of individual Roman field armies, and also provides no context (see next point).
1891:- Maybe it would be better to retitle the article, "Comparisons of the Roman and Han Empires", and refocus the article upon the comparisons that are being made, and upon the people who are making them? I.e., the article should focus on the debate, not the matter.
1403:
I was just looking at the recent changes and I have to agree with Tori-swann, ignoring questions of OR etc, it is not written in an encyclopedic style -- Teeninvestor, please read ] and related pages. This has nothing to do with the AfD but as it's been raised...
1030:
There can be an article about what comparisons have been done by the scholars, but there cannot be an article that makes the comparison itself. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to make comparisons between two topics, that is for the reader to do.
327:
Is this not enough sources on this subject??? Theres a ton of material about this on the web. These sources and probably 100+ others you can find on google shows this article is not original research. THERE ARE FOUR SOURCES SHOWING THIS. Is that not
48:. Good faith disagreement over what material passes NOR criteria, however there is a strong enough belief that a substantial portion does pass it. Therefore a close of NC with an encouragement to rigorously discuss content at the talk page.
1310:
I think this should be subsumed into one of the
Chinese history pages. It does not seem to constitute an independent field of study in academia. If it does, it should be edited to incorporate more established scholarly perspectives.
1912:
about the Han Empire. These statements are often sourced. What is lacking is an actual comparison, putting the statements in context, and keep in mind that such statements need to be sourced (see the apples/oranges discussion about
1047:
if edited carefully -- I didn't expect to say keep, but this is fairly well done. There needs to be an emphasis that not just the facts but the comparisons must be sourced to RS s that actually made thecomparison.
266:
I think you can keep this but only if you can find other people comparing the topics, instead of doing it yourself. Actually this one is much better than the cricket vs baseball one in that respect. - Wronglostboy
1699:
The "Military" section contains lengthy discussions of the pre-imperial Roman military, which doesn't appear to be pertinent to this article. Also, again there are entire paragraphs that are taken verbatim from
369:
The 3rd is an article about the diffrence of coinage. I just know that you're going to argue that it compares the two empires but it doesn't. It could be used in relevant articles about Chinese/Roman coinage
1696:
The citation/bibliographic information for Goldsworthy (notes 7, 12, 14, 17) is never provided, so we have no way of knowing if this source supports the statements given or if it can be considered reliable.
1522:
See WP:SYNT Nowhere does it say putting two paragraphs of sourced facts next to each other is synthesis. Also, the article is in the process of revamp, if you have suggestions please place them in the talk
1560:
Synthesis only occurs when the editor puts together multiple sources. If the editor just puts two paragraphs of facts next to each other (mostly for additional facts) WITHOUT comparing them, that is not
481:
for my comfort): there's nothing wrong with your article, except that it just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (it's really more akin to an academic paper). I suggest working on the Wikiversity version
1067:
Sources exists. The current article is nearly all synthesis though and it's due a major rewrite. Removing those sections that is not sourced to an comparison between the empires would lead to this;
203:
As for allegations that say the article is OR and not based on sources, see Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, (accessed December 26, 2008) which is one of my sources.
769:
Having ISBN doesn't make it a reliable source. Most books have ISBN. What makes it reliable is if it is published by someone who has credentials in that field.There are two Princeton essays, and one
1646:. There are sections of the sort of implied synthesis I mentioned above. Untangling all these issues is difficult. Given the amount of work needed here, you might be better off working this out in
87:
82:
91:
695:
The point is that this article is sourced, its accurate, and its notable therefore it should stay. Its notable, and its sources are reliable, its facts are accurate. therefore it should stay.
74:
1153:
Just for the record, 8 v 6 is not automatically a keep, since this is a discussion, not a vote. What matters is the weight of the arguments, not the number of supporters or opponents.
978:
It's a very natural comparison, which has led to sufficient academic interest and production to support an article, as seen above and from the article refs. Any OR could be eliminated.
120:
611:
It is not the job of an encyclopedia to compare things, but to give the facts about each and let others compare. All articles which compare two (or more) things should be deleted.
958:
458:
Check the sources before you talk, thank you very much. theres four sources in the article pointing to this subject matter. I would advise you read some wikipedia policy.
841:. The exact scope of the article is open to change should we wish to include other ancient empires such as the Turks and we should allow for this in accordance with our
557:
1089:
297:
584:
530:
1192:
1823:
I think you are misunderstanding that section; it simply tells the reader that both armies could deploy thousands of men to the battlefield. That is all.
1187:
Seeing the continued persistince of Teenivestor (who doesn't seem to shut up with his loud claims of quality of the article in question) I suggest that
718:. Perhaps unsourced sections of the article could be cut away, and all the information with reliable sources could be merged to a background section in
486:), and perhaps creating an article out of it later as you find more sources and prior academic treatments. Knowledge (XXG)'s not for everything (see
796:
Still two princeton essays make this topic pretty well sourced. Also, author of the books are experienced publishers who have published many books.
70:
62:
1489:
that are different between the two states, and the substantive comparisons between e.g. processes of state formation will be left by the wayside.
360:
devised. (Writ is an archaic past tense of "written" and Nosotros is the plural pronoun for "us" in Spanish.) The authorship is "written by us"."
946:
1945:
1925:
1900:
1881:
1865:
1850:
1832:
1817:
1794:
1750:
1733:
1680:
1659:
1632:
1585:
1570:
1550:
1532:
1516:
1498:
1480:
1456:
1435:
1413:
1393:
1356:
1326:
1298:
1277:
1240:
1222:
1210:
1181:
1159:
1146:
1129:
1104:
1079:
1059:
1039:
1021:
987:
970:
950:
925:
911:
895:
875:
858:
829:
805:
791:
764:
748:
732:
704:
688:
665:
641:
620:
600:
573:
546:
518:
501:
467:
451:
431:
418:
395:
337:
289:
261:
243:
229:
212:
197:
169:
150:
136:
56:
1318:
1428:
483:
234:
Three new sources have been made available, showing that there is a lot of comparison of the two empires. this is not original synthesis.
959:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QjS7W-BtXOkC&pg=PR17&dq=Rome+and+China:+Comparative+Perspectives+on+Ancient+World+Empire#PPR7,M1
1766:
1375:
1017:
907:
787:
728:
684:
596:
569:
542:
901:
That article only gives a general comparison of Rome and China, not a thorough comparison of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty. --
17:
78:
1371:
1352:
961:
It is a direct online source about Rome and china being compared! What do you have to say about that! This is one of my sources.
298:
http://www.course-notes.org/World_History/Outlines/The_Earth_and_Its_Peoples_4th_Edition_Outlines/Chapter_6_An_Age_of_Empires_R_0
1707:
relation to each other. Also, the battles cited for the Romans are both pre-imperial, and so outside the scope of this article.
755:
What more reliable sources do we need. We have a book with ISBN, princeton essays, several books and encyclopedias, and others.
1007:. It has good potential, if the scope is narrowed. If failing this, the article should be merged into a background section in
1741:
I'll look on it. Also, this is a comparison of Rome and China in general. I plan to change the title if article survives AFD.
180:
477:
Teeninvestor, I'm afraid they're right about Knowledge (XXG) policies (though some of the comments fall a bit too close to
1710:
Notes 21, 23, 25, 33, 35, 41, 44, 53, and 54 should probably be removed/replaced with citations of secondary sources (see
1594:
Say I have an article called "Comparing apples and oranges".(of course this is not notable, but bear with this example).
1841:
per Taemyr and Patar knight. It's probably a suitable topic for an article, and suitable sources can probably be found.
882:
work with that. I am already adding information from this to the article. As for more credible sources check this page
777:
is an actual direct comparison between the two empires. Most of the other sources are self-published projects, and fail
1959:
184:
36:
916:
This article, remember, is abotu a comparison of the two civilizations in general(see effects of barbarian invasions)
1724:
I don't have time to go any further at the moment, but I hope this gives you some ideas for improving the article.
1476:
1384:
Keep in mind I am still editing the article by adding in new information. Criticism and help would be appreciated.
942:
937:
very encylcopedic subject. There's a bit of OR, but it can be removed. No reason to delete the whole article. -
321:
839:
From the 'Great Convergence' to the 'First Great Divergence': Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and its Aftermath
179:
that expresses your own opinion; "Unlikely" to be unencyclopedic; no what are you going to do to this article: "
1958:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
854:
661:
616:
305:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1322:
1862:
1452:
1340:
1314:
671:
1941:
1877:
1828:
1790:
1782:
1746:
1676:
1566:
1528:
1389:
1273:
1142:
966:
921:
891:
871:
801:
760:
744:
700:
514:
463:
414:
333:
239:
225:
208:
193:
842:
350:
The 1st seems to me to be a site which collect essays written by American students for American students.
938:
637:
146:
132:
1916:
above). However, despite all the problems with sourcing and content, I don't think deletion is needed.
1687:
Most of the lead has been taken verbatim from the first paragraph of Worlds Together Worlds Apart ch 7.
1642:(again, I haven't checked them; I'm taking the word of others). There are statements that are explicit
1201:). I continue to stand by my vote of DELETE but see no problem whatsoever with the proposal of Aecis.
1546:
1512:
1409:
1367:
1363:
1348:
1344:
1294:
1236:
1206:
1035:
1008:
846:
719:
447:
391:
285:
257:
1771:
1494:
850:
820:
things being compared to be sufficiently good to allow readers to make this comparison themselves.
657:
612:
499:
491:
218:
1448:
1177:
1114:
1690:"Because of this, they have often been compared." Neither note 2 nor note 3 supports this point.
1620:
1000:
675:
487:
1638:
summarizing. There are statements that are cited, but for which the source can't be considered
1937:
1921:
1873:
1846:
1824:
1786:
1778:
1742:
1729:
1672:
1655:
1628:
1562:
1524:
1385:
1269:
1138:
1099:
1012:
996:
962:
917:
902:
887:
867:
797:
782:
756:
740:
723:
696:
679:
591:
564:
537:
510:
459:
410:
329:
235:
221:
204:
189:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1711:
1647:
838:
478:
1896:
1813:
1581:
1217:
1154:
1075:
983:
825:
648:
There should not be an article comparing wolves and foxes, however both can be described in
633:
426:
164:
142:
128:
1913:
1767:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built
1643:
1576:
The article is posted as a comparison between the two empires, that makes it a comparison.
1004:
774:
313:
1805:
1542:
1541:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a place to publish your own comparative analysis research paper. --
1508:
1405:
1290:
1232:
1220:
1202:
1157:
1031:
443:
429:
387:
281:
253:
167:
1639:
1193:
Knowledge (XXG):No original research/noticeboard#Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
778:
379:
The 4th is a short resumee of an organization which intends to foster US-china relations.
160:
425:
Since the above message is a comment and not a vote, I have struck the bolded preserve.
1801:
1490:
141:
Unlikely that an encyclopedic article can be created on this topic: original research.
773:, is more of a general comparison of ancient Rome and China. Of all the sources, only
1173:
1055:
1772:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Obvious_deductions
1917:
1842:
1725:
1651:
1624:
1096:
181:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Comparison_between_Indian_states_and_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
50:
108:
1892:
1809:
1577:
1071:
979:
821:
185:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Comparison_between_US_states_and_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
1432:
883:
770:
163:. A very good school or college essay, but not suitable for Knowledge (XXG).
1468:
715:
306:
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw07hanromecollapse33100120.htm
678:, which doesn't mention comparisons at all. Not particularly helpful. :) --
739:
There arent unsourced sections; all of the material is sourced and cited.
1050:
999:
has found reliable sources, but the article itself cannot remain full of
343:
No they are not. I suggest that we study the presented sources carefully.
312:
Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires, <
1623:; even if something is reliably sourced it can still be problematic.
837:
This is a quite proper subject of scholarly study. For example, see
653:
1597:
Then I have 2 sentences in the section "color" which are like this:
320:
Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America,
1714:); this seems to be excessive reliance on a single tertiary source.
649:
1952:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
632:
are separately notable, verifiable, etc.? Is juxtaposition OR?
219:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Comparison_between_Cricket_and_Baseball
1591:
I will provide an example of what you guys call "synthesis"
509:
lots of good sources. therefore, this article should stay.
386:
None of them seems to be the work of a credible historian.
1424:
304:
Hyper history net, Decline of Roman and Han Empires, <
1191:
reads carefully my final answer and arguments inside of
775:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf
314:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf
1068:
442:
reliable sources have to say about the subject itself.
115:
104:
100:
96:
714:
It's a fact that Romans and Han empire traded via the
296:
The Earth and its peoples, World history outline, <
188:
encyclopedic or they have "strong opinions", thats OR.
652:. The Roman and Han Empires should be juxtaposed in
1289:
I suggest that you read the large post in question.
1137:with its policy of neutrality, everything is fine.
1603:"Oranges are orange(source: www.orangecolor.com)
280:Article creator Teeninvestor has already 'voted'
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1962:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1861:off with a subject rather than inventing one. —
409:undermining your claims about original research.
1800:It is not a simple logical deduction that the
1116:
845:. Note also that we have a whole category of
1872:Blue Haired lawyer, see Category:Comparisons
1600:"Apples are red"(source: www.applecolor.com)
993:Keep, provided there is a substantial rewrite
558:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
1447:and renominate in a month if not improved.
1423:This article has been transwiki imported to
1090:list of History-related deletion discussions
1429:v:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
884:http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm
771:http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm
585:list of Italy-related deletion discussions
531:list of China-related deletion discussions
484:v:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
217:Do you also want to delete this article?
1088:: This debate has been included in the
583:: This debate has been included in the
556:: This debate has been included in the
529:: This debate has been included in the
71:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
63:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
1693:I can't figure out the point of note 4.
1611:We are saying that when you assert that
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1785:) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1466:
1124:
1119:
1:
1946:17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
1926:15:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
1901:03:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
1882:23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1866:21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1851:16:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1833:18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1818:18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1804:have anything to do with the
1795:14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1751:22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1734:21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1681:19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1660:19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1633:19:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1586:18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1571:14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1551:11:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1533:14:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1517:07:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1499:04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1481:22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
1457:22:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
1436:15:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
1414:07:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
1394:04:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
1357:03:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
1327:02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
1299:19:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1278:17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1241:19:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1223:17:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1211:17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1182:16:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1160:16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1147:15:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1130:13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1105:12:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1080:08:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1060:03:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1040:02:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1022:02:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
988:02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
971:01:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
951:00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
926:01:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
912:01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
896:00:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
876:23:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
859:23:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
830:22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
806:21:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
792:21:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
765:20:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
749:20:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
733:19:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
705:19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
689:20:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
666:19:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
642:19:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
621:19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
601:19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
574:19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
547:19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
519:19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
502:19:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
468:18:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
452:18:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
432:19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
419:19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
396:19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
338:18:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
309:(Accessed December 27, 2008).
290:18:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
262:18:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
244:18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
230:18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
213:18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
198:18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
170:17:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
151:17:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
137:17:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
1607:sources showing details????
866:subject of scholarly study.
323:(accessed December 26, 2008)
317:(Accessed December 27, 2008)
301:(Accessed December 27, 2008)
57:00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1979:
490:for more on that)Â :-). --
1955:Please do not modify it.
1755:Also, see this section:
995:. The topic is notable,
32:Please do not modify it.
1334:Keep if it is revamped
1376:few or no other edits
1198:large post at the end
1378:outside this topic.
1216:What did I propose?
1009:Sino-Roman relations
720:Sino-Roman relations
1227:Ups sorry, I meant
1863:Blue-Haired Lawyer
1262:Quote Flamarande:
44:The result was
1379:
1360:
1343:comment added by
1317:comment added by
1107:
1093:
603:
588:
576:
561:
549:
534:
292:
161:original research
1970:
1957:
1472:
1361:
1359:
1337:
1329:
1231:proposal above.
1126:
1121:
1118:
1102:
1094:
1084:
939:Peregrine Fisher
589:
579:
562:
552:
535:
525:
496:
279:
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
1978:
1977:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1960:deletion review
1953:
1806:battle of Mobei
1479:
1338:
1312:
1100:
1020:
910:
790:
731:
687:
599:
572:
545:
492:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1976:
1974:
1965:
1964:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1904:
1903:
1885:
1884:
1869:
1868:
1854:
1853:
1839:Very weak keep
1821:
1820:
1802:battle of Zama
1765:Also see: <
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1719:
1718:
1715:
1708:
1704:
1701:
1697:
1694:
1691:
1688:
1684:
1683:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1613:
1612:
1589:
1588:
1554:
1553:
1520:
1519:
1501:
1483:
1475:
1459:
1438:
1417:
1416:
1397:
1396:
1381:
1380:
1319:76.193.167.221
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1185:
1184:
1163:
1162:
1150:
1149:
1133:
1132:
1108:
1082:
1062:
1042:
1024:
1016:
990:
973:
954:
953:
931:
930:
929:
928:
906:
879:
878:
862:
861:
851:Colonel Warden
843:editing policy
832:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
786:
752:
751:
736:
735:
727:
708:
707:
692:
691:
683:
668:
658:Northwestgnome
645:
644:
624:
623:
613:Northwestgnome
605:
604:
595:
577:
568:
550:
541:
522:
521:
505:
504:
471:
470:
455:
454:
435:
434:
422:
421:
399:
398:
383:
382:
381:
380:
374:
373:
372:
371:
364:
363:
362:
361:
354:
353:
352:
351:
345:
344:
325:
324:
318:
310:
302:
268:
267:
264:
201:
200:
173:
172:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1975:
1963:
1961:
1956:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1887:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1867:
1864:
1859:
1856:
1855:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1774:
1773:
1768:
1763:
1759:
1756:
1753:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1702:
1698:
1695:
1692:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1669:
1668:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1601:
1598:
1595:
1592:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1558:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1505:
1502:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1478:
1477:Contributions
1473:
1471:
1470:
1463:
1460:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1449:Peterkingiron
1446:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1419:
1418:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1335:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1194:
1190:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1098:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1046:
1043:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1018:contributions
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
991:
989:
985:
981:
977:
974:
972:
968:
964:
960:
957:Heres a link
956:
955:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
933:
932:
927:
923:
919:
915:
914:
913:
909:
908:contributions
904:
900:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
885:
877:
873:
869:
864:
863:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
833:
831:
827:
823:
818:
815:
814:
807:
803:
799:
795:
794:
793:
789:
788:contributions
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
766:
762:
758:
754:
753:
750:
746:
742:
738:
737:
734:
730:
729:contributions
725:
721:
717:
713:
710:
709:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:
690:
686:
685:contributions
681:
677:
674:redirects to
673:
672:WP:Comparison
669:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
643:
639:
635:
630:
626:
625:
622:
618:
614:
610:
607:
606:
602:
598:
597:contributions
593:
586:
582:
578:
575:
571:
570:contributions
566:
559:
555:
551:
548:
544:
543:contributions
539:
532:
528:
524:
523:
520:
516:
512:
507:
506:
503:
500:
497:
495:
489:
485:
480:
476:
473:
472:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
453:
449:
445:
440:
437:
436:
433:
430:
428:
424:
423:
420:
416:
412:
407:
406:
401:
400:
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:
378:
377:
376:
375:
368:
367:
366:
365:
358:
357:
356:
355:
349:
348:
347:
346:
342:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
322:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
291:
287:
283:
278:
277:
275:
265:
263:
259:
255:
251:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
232:
231:
227:
223:
220:
215:
214:
210:
206:
199:
195:
191:
186:
182:
178:
175:
174:
171:
168:
166:
162:
159:, inherently
158:
155:
154:
153:
152:
148:
144:
139:
138:
134:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1954:
1951:
1938:Teeninvestor
1934:
1888:
1874:Teeninvestor
1857:
1838:
1825:Teeninvestor
1822:
1787:Teeninvestor
1779:Teeninvestor
1775:
1764:
1760:
1757:
1754:
1743:Teeninvestor
1740:
1673:Teeninvestor
1605:
1602:
1599:
1596:
1593:
1590:
1563:Teeninvestor
1559:
1555:
1538:
1525:Teeninvestor
1521:
1503:
1485:
1467:
1465:
1461:
1444:
1440:
1420:
1400:
1386:Teeninvestor
1333:
1309:
1270:Teeninvestor
1268:
1264:
1261:
1228:
1218:Aecis·(away)
1197:
1196:
1188:
1186:
1168:
1166:
1155:Aecis·(away)
1139:Teeninvestor
1122:
1110:
1085:
1064:
1049:
1044:
1026:
1013:Patar knight
997:Teeninvestor
992:
975:
963:Teeninvestor
934:
918:Teeninvestor
903:Patar knight
888:Teeninvestor
880:
868:Teeninvestor
834:
816:
798:Teeninvestor
783:Patar knight
757:Teeninvestor
741:Teeninvestor
724:Patar knight
711:
697:Teeninvestor
680:Patar knight
628:
608:
592:Patar knight
580:
565:Patar knight
553:
538:Patar knight
526:
511:Teeninvestor
493:
474:
460:Teeninvestor
438:
427:Aecis·(away)
411:Teeninvestor
404:
402:
330:Teeninvestor
326:
273:
271:
270:
269:
249:
236:Teeninvestor
233:
222:Teeninvestor
216:
205:Teeninvestor
202:
190:Teeninvestor
176:
165:Aecis·(away)
156:
140:
126:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1491:--Akhilleus
1425:wikiversity
1374:) has made
1339:—Preceding
1313:—Preceding
847:comparisons
835:Strong Keep
634:Franciscrot
328:enough?????
177:Strong Keep
143:Itsmejudith
129:Itsmejudith
1561:synthesis.
1543:Voidvector
1509:dougweller
1406:dougweller
1364:Tori-swann
1345:Tori-swann
1291:Flamarande
1233:Flamarande
1203:Flamarande
444:dougweller
388:Flamarande
282:dougweller
254:Flamarande
1914:synthesis
1648:userspace
1644:synthesis
1189:everybody
1167:Keep and
1001:synthesis
716:Silk Road
494:SB_Johnny
1889:Refactor
1640:reliable
1621:WP:UNDUE
1372:contribs
1353:contribs
1341:unsigned
1315:unsigned
1229:Taemyr's
1174:Blueboar
947:contribs
676:WP:Lists
629:comment,
488:WP:PANDA
405:PRESERVE
274:Preserve
121:View log
1918:Cmadler
1843:Cmadler
1726:Cmadler
1712:WP:PSTS
1652:Cmadler
1625:Cmadler
1504:Comment
1441:Comment
1401:Comment
1169:rewrite
1097:the wub
712:Comment
627:Just a
479:WP:BITE
475:Comment
370:though.
127:Reason
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
1893:SharkD
1858:Delete
1810:Taemyr
1578:Taemyr
1539:Delete
1486:Delete
1072:Taemyr
1027:Delete
980:John Z
822:Nick-D
817:Delete
670:Well,
654:Empire
609:Delete
439:Delete
250:Delete
157:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
1769:: -->
1700:WTWA.
1523:page.
1433:mikeu
1431:. --
779:WP:RS
650:Canid
316:: -->
308:: -->
300:: -->
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1942:talk
1922:talk
1897:talk
1878:talk
1847:talk
1829:talk
1814:talk
1791:talk
1783:talk
1770:and
1747:talk
1730:talk
1677:talk
1656:talk
1629:talk
1582:talk
1567:talk
1547:talk
1529:talk
1513:talk
1495:talk
1469:Soap
1462:Keep
1453:talk
1445:keep
1421:Note
1410:talk
1390:talk
1368:talk
1349:talk
1323:talk
1295:talk
1274:talk
1237:talk
1207:talk
1178:talk
1143:talk
1117:Banj
1111:Keep
1101:"?!"
1086:Note
1076:talk
1065:Keep
1056:talk
1045:Keep
1036:talk
1011:. --
1003:and
984:talk
976:Keep
967:talk
943:talk
935:Keep
922:talk
892:talk
872:talk
855:talk
826:talk
802:talk
781:. --
761:talk
745:talk
722:? --
701:talk
662:talk
638:talk
617:talk
581:Note
554:Note
527:Note
515:talk
464:talk
448:talk
415:talk
392:talk
334:talk
286:talk
258:talk
240:talk
226:talk
209:talk
194:talk
183:". "
147:talk
133:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
1427:at
1115:--
1095:--
1092:.
1051:DGG
1032:_dk
1015:- /
1005:POV
945:) (
905:- /
785:- /
726:- /
682:- /
594:- /
590:--
587:.
567:- /
563:--
560:.
540:- /
536:--
533:.
1944:)
1924:)
1899:)
1880:)
1849:)
1831:)
1816:)
1793:)
1749:)
1732:)
1679:)
1658:)
1650:.
1631:)
1584:)
1569:)
1549:)
1531:)
1515:)
1497:)
1455:)
1412:)
1392:)
1370:•
1362:—
1355:)
1351:•
1325:)
1297:)
1276:)
1239:)
1209:)
1180:)
1145:)
1125:oi
1078:)
1070:.
1058:)
1038:)
986:)
969:)
949:)
924:)
894:)
886:.
874:)
857:)
849:.
828:)
804:)
763:)
747:)
703:)
664:)
656:.
640:)
619:)
517:)
498:|
466:)
450:)
417:)
394:)
336:)
288:)
260:)
242:)
228:)
211:)
196:)
149:)
135:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
1940:(
1920:(
1895:(
1876:(
1845:(
1827:(
1812:(
1808:.
1789:(
1781:(
1745:(
1728:(
1675:(
1654:(
1627:(
1580:(
1565:(
1545:(
1527:(
1511:(
1493:(
1474:/
1451:(
1408:(
1388:(
1366:(
1347:(
1321:(
1293:(
1272:(
1235:(
1205:(
1195:(
1176:(
1141:(
1123:b
1120:e
1074:(
1054:(
1034:(
982:(
965:(
941:(
920:(
890:(
870:(
853:(
824:(
800:(
759:(
743:(
699:(
660:(
636:(
615:(
513:(
482:(
462:(
446:(
413:(
403:"
390:(
332:(
284:(
276:*
272:*
256:(
238:(
224:(
207:(
192:(
145:(
131:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.