Talk:Daqin

Daqin was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 17, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Former countries

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This page is based highly on speculation. It is not known which state these individuals thought they were going to. The historical records are filled with so many fanciful descriptions that it is impossible to know, nor would they have known had they found it. There are many possibilities as to what they were referring to.

First of all, if you didn't notice - this article is based highly on sources. Find sources that claim otherwise and it will also be included in the article. Now to think about it - a realm seen worthy to be seen as a mirror or parallel to China - it could have only been Rome. I think it's interesting the world has been more open than we can imagine already 2000 years ago. Besides - for those who know how resources were moving around back then - this quote actually also mentions Estonia. Sorent (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. There seems to be an obsession in history that no Westerner nor Chinese ever met or travelled until after 1300's. This is utterly unbelievable to me and lacks common sense. Trade between the dynastic spheres of influence ("countries") would have been fantastically valuable, exotic and risky. It doesn't surprise me that the merchants/bankers/Kings/Queens/Emperors of the day would have taken care not to publicise such valuable trade routes and contacts to all and sundry within plebian (public) spheres. As enjoyable historic information is, it must be cynnically regarded. Chris

Etymology Section[edit]

The Etymology section affirms: The title "Daqin" does not seem to have any phonetic derivation from Latin Roma or Greek Romaikē, although it is possible that the Latin term used for China...

According to Baxter and Sagart, however (as quoted in Wiktionary), 大秦 is pronounced /*lˤa[t]-s [dz]i[n]/ in pre-tonogenesis Old Chinese (here probably meaning Han Dinasty). While it sounds nothing like Roma, it does sound an awful lot like Latini. Is there really no scholarship on the origin of the term that mentions these kinds of reconstrutions, if only to refute them? --Wtrmute (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daqin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924112523/http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&C=1363 to http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&C=1363

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Daqin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carabinieri (talk · contribs) 20:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments/questions[edit]

Hi, thanks for all the work you've put into this article.

Before I start a more in-depth review, I have a more general questions. I wasn't exactly sure what the topic of this article is. There's already an excellent article about Sino-Roman relations, which I see you wrote. This article discusses the term Daqin itself and Chinese perceptions of Rome some, but large parts of it are just about the relations between China and Rome. What are your thoughts on this? What is the distinction with respect to subject matter between this article and the one about Sino-Roman relations?

The article also makes use of long quotations to an extent I feel might be a little excessive. --Carabinieri (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pericles of Athens, if you're too busy right now, I'll put this on hold.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri: hello. Thanks for starting the review! I have been busy with the FAC for Cleopatra, but it's rather quiet now, so I can focus on this. The article isn't meant to be as comprehensive as Sino-Roman relations and is really only meant to cover some of the basics of how the Chinese perceived the Roman world. Notice, also, how there are some details in this article that aren't present in the other one, such as a more in-depth look at Christianity and the explanation about Chinese surnames for foreign peoples such as the distant Romans. As for the lengthy block quotes, I can try to summarize them instead, putting the entire quotes into footnotes if readers are still interested in the primary source materials. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, but the article's subject still isn't quite clear to me. It seems to cover three topics related topics. 1. The term Daqin and its varied uses in Ancient China (referring to the Roman Empire, individuals from Rome, or Christianity). 2. Sino-Roman relations. 3. Chinese perceptions of Rome. Some parts also seem to stray to Roman or Ancient European perceptions of China and Asia. Those seem like distinct topics, though they are certainly related. I'm having trouble finding the common thread that justifies having this article under that particular title.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri: there isn't one exclusive topic of the article; it is a combination of topics related to the ancient Chinese perceptions of the Roman Empire and medieval Chinese perceptions of the Eastern Roman Empire. It follows a similar pattern as the Wiki articles for Dayuan and Kangju, which deserve their own articles aside from Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and Sogdia (see Zhang Qian), because again, we're talking about the uniquely ancient Chinese concepts of these countries. This article, Daqin, also offers a good amount of details that are not featured in the Sino-Roman relations article, while excluding other details, such as Roman geographical ideas of East Asia (which is instead covered in the Sino-Roman relations article). Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: this article covers the Chinese perceptions of how law and order was maintained in the Roman Empire, something that isn't covered in the Sino-Roman relations article, because the latter is more about the interactions and contacts of these civilizations, not exactly about the Chinese thoughts of how the other empire operated and functioned on a similar level. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also seem confused about the Wiki guidelines concerning overlap of material in related articles. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Splitting, Wikipedia:Content forking, and other guidelines, it is acceptable for related articles to contain some of the same or very similar information. This article would be rather incomplete, for instance, if I removed all the information about the contacts of these civilizations in the embassies section, because that provides an enormous amount of context for the other sections of the article and why this article is noteworthy in the first place. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the overlap in content with other articles nor am I saying that this article doesn't have any content not covered by other articles. My concern is that the selection of content in this article feels rather arbitrary. If this article is about Chinese perceptions of the Roman Empire, (by the way, why not give it that name then?) considerable parts of this article seem extraneous to that topic.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's been over a month. I find it hard to evaluate whether or not this article is broad in its coverage, because it's unclear to me what exactly the subject of the article is or because it's about a number of disparate topics. Do you see my point at all?--Carabinieri (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this nomination. Nominator appears to have lost interest.--Carabinieri (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]