Talk:The Acrobats

Though this article makes some sense, it's also misleading

Biased, misleading wording and cherry-picking are the routine practices of Western scholars. Can we focus on some real research?

1.Before Qin, there had been many naturalistic figurines in China for as long as 800 years whose style was unique among contemporary East Asian cultures, and the molds used for making metal artifacts were exactly terracotta artifacts, so undoubtedly those figurines could be considered the important prototypes of the Terracotta Army. Also, they are more exquisite than the images selected in this article.

2.From the appearance of the Taerpo Horserider, you absolutely can't tell any specific ethnicity, because it's obviously not a 100% naturalistic artifact. If a child draws someone with a round face and round eyes, does that mean it's an alien? In fact, the horserider's face is flat and eyes are small, so it makes him "Mongolian"? The hat is also different from Saka people's.

3.Even if the horserider were a foreigner, that would only reflect a foreign theme, having nothing to do with the origin of the technique.

4.Despite being Chinese himself, Duan Qingbo clearly showed a reverse nationalism--many of his arguments are either far-fetched or totally wrong. He claimed that the regnal numbering of Achaemenid kings inspired the title "Qin Er Shi" (lit. Qin II), and that Qin's standardization of writing systems and measurements was also inspired by Persia. What? In fact, Achaemenid kings didn't include numbers in their titles. Also, during the Eastern Zhou, each Chinese state had its own writing and measurement system, after the unification, there was only one state and thus only one writing system and one measurement system. This required any inspiration? He did provide evidence for cultural contacts between China and the outside world in the late Warring States period, however, it has neve been a secret--human cultural diffusion easily traces back 10,000 years. So those cultural contacts can't serve as effective evidence. Cwdysg (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Quora is an unreliable site, don't use it per WP:QUORA. Everything else is just personal opinion, and not to be use either. Hzh (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've said this many times but you still don't get it: no source is reliable. What matters is never the source of an argument, but the evidence and the causal logic in it. Historical research is easy and often heavily skewed. In other words, historians aren't physicists, mathematicians, biologists or geographers—their conclusions are FAR FROM hard facts. You have to do a lot of thinking on your own. Wikipedia is worse. Since scholars hold distinct views, both the selection of sources and the wording and placement of sentences are highly subjective, directly shaping readers' perceptions. By your standards, academia and Wikipedia don't even need to exist. So stop equating the status of a source with its value. Cwdysg (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

If you don't understand the concept of reliable sources or want to accept it, then Wikipedia is not for you. Per WP:NOTFORUM, this is not an appropriate place for your complaint, take your arguments to other forums. Hzh (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)