Talk:Cai Lun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cultural depictions of Cai Lun

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 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

castrated

Does anyone know when exactly this guy was castrated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.165.50 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2005 (UTC)

Does it matter? - User:DNewhall —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it matters, but anyway some eunuchs were castrated at birth or in childhood by their parents, others were castrated when sold into slavery, and still others underwent castration in order to obtain positions in the Imperial bureaucracy that were only available to eunuchs. Perhaps that's why the other guy asked.

More importantly, we know that the Egyptians had paper in the deep BC (the word paper is in fact derived from the name of the Egyptian reed "papyrus"). I have made the minimum number of corrections to indicate this, but I have serious doubts about the claims to introduction of paper from China to Europe. Medieval Europeans attributed the invention of paper to egypt, and I believe archeology bears this out.

This whole article seems highly suspect to me, but I am not expert in Han history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "paper" may be derived from "papyrus," but this doesn't mean the thing paper itself was derived from papyrus as well. As for whether the Chinese or the Egyptians can claim to have invented paper--that depends on your definition of paper. As I understand it, papyrus was not manufactured the same way as *modern* paper is, whereas Cai Lun's papermaking method is roughly the same as today's. See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper#History —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.250.53 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Papyrus is not paper - Papyrus is reeds cound together in a cross fashion. Actual paper, which is made from cellulose pulp, was invented in China. After the battle of Talas, technology spread to the Arabs, which was the main factors contributing to the rise of Islam. The Koran/Quran could be produced in mass with this new invention since paper was cheap. The Arabs thus spread paper making technology to Europe. The same goes for moveable type and gunpowder - Europeans intially thought they invented both, but they were actually both invented in China

• I saw documentaries on the history channel regarding paper making and gunpowder invented in China - which confirms my point.

-intranetusa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intranetusa (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Improvements

I just added a reference, citations, and expanded the article.--PericlesofAthens 20:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Cai's process lost to history?

It says in the article that the exact process was lost to history, but I'm not sure that's correct. See for example Ancient Chinese Inventions by Yinke Deng which describes Cai's process in detail. This book is not an academic source, so it could be completely wrong, but I just wanted to know if anyone knew otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

Biographical facts added in [1] and [2] need citation. --Doodee (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

New Sources

Here are some sources of information if people want to add this to the article Google Book link, Another link another link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

AD/CE

I changed this back to the original consistent usage before an IP changed approximately half the AD's to CE's. I'm not trying to impose a POV here; I'm just going by what it says in the MoS. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Palace Intrigue

The part about Cai Lun's involvement in Consort Song's death should be expanded significantly. The story is pretty complicated though, so it may take a bit of work to flesh out. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

中常侍

Paperwork secretary is 中常侍? Newone (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like "emperor's personal attendant" might be a better translation.[3] Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Biographical Dictionary of the Later Han and Three Kingdoms translates it as "Regular Attendant" or "Regular Palace Attendant". I've updated the article to use the later. Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cai Lun/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.

Article needs major expansion. Kaldari 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 10:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Guiyang County

Omnipaedista insists on using the redirect of Guiyang Commandery to the city of Leiyang rather than using a red link and ill link. Firstly, ill links are common practice from what I've seen because

1. They provide a link to something when no suitable article exists (google translate exists – to be fair)
2. They encourage an editor to translate the article across wikis

Either way, if you still think that, as you said "a small paragraph in English is still more informative than an article in a foreign language" (which if I may add is a single sentence) then the other issue I have with such a redirect is that the ancient Guiyang county seems to have included parts of the modern day Hunan, Guangdong and Guangxi provinces, so redirecting it to a the history section of a single city in one of the provinces is misleading to the reader. What makes a redirect to Leiyang make more sense than any of these provinces or to any other city in them? In my mind, such a redirect is like redirecting (an extreme example I recognize) the USSR to a single sentence in the history section of Kiev, so I'm not sure how this is helpful to the reader. In any case, I had come across both "county" and "commandery" but was unaware they are interchangeable, I'll change to commandery since it does clarify the difference further between the ancient Guiyang county/commandery and the modern day Guiyang county. Aza24 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed then. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

2021 improvements

@Wehwalt: I've been working a lot on this one lately, and have added a few new sections and quite a bit new content. I would very much appreciate if you can give it a look, specifically, see if the article makes clear Cai's position in the history of paper. I'm also still confused about the bamboo & wood texts issue you brought up earlier. At the end of this page Carter says, Wood was "largely used for shorter messages, bamboo for larger writings and books; but in page 203 of Eyferth, as you said, Eyferth says "Big matters were recorded on wooden boards, small matters on bamboo slips." I don't really know what to do here! Aza24 (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would mention both. Sometimes sources differ. I will look things over.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I may ask on the reference desk about this. Btw, good news, I emailed Rafe de Crespigny about the article and he has graciously responded with a short list of suggestions. Though he said in general the article was in great shape, so I'm feeling a lot better about it (Apparently he's a fan of WP!). Aza24 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Some comments

I'm going to do editing hands-on where it's just a matter of word choice, but other comments I'll leave here.

Sounds good to me, the edits you have done so far have definitely improved the prose. Aza24 (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Much of the discussion about Guiyang confusion could probably be put in a footnote. The focus should stay on the subject of the article.

• Good call, did that and moved the Fan Ye quote box to the text.

• " Former director of The Paper Museum in Tokyo, Kiyofusa Narita, suggests that Cai may have traveled to the capital city by funds from the Iron foundry.[10]" Should "The" in "The Paper Museum" be capitalized? And the sentence is ambiguous. Does it means that he earned the money to travel at the foundry or that he was entrusted to bring the foundry's money to the capital?

• I rephrased it, I'm assuming "the Paper Museum" just based on what I gather from their website

• You say "suggests" in the above quote. I see that when you cite historians and scholars in the text, you sometimes refer to them in the past tense and sometimes in the present. Suggest consistency, either all present or all past (probably preferred), or the living in the present and the dead in the past (that may lead to maintenance issues).

• These should all be fixed now

• You might want to give a sentence or two regarding the role of eunuchs at the time. The reader may not know whether it was a punishment or a necessary qualification for the position.

• Good idea, I'll look into that

• Have (finally) added a sentence on this Aza24 (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• "in order to have her adopted son crowned prince.[16]" Does this mean "crowned heir"? If so I would say so.

• Changed

• Are any of the materials from a JSTOR search for Cai Lun of use to you? I can email them if so.

• I now have JSTOR access through WP (I didn't when I had written the bulk of this article), so I'll take a look
• Alright, I've looked through JSTOR and couldn't find much (I don't have access to the book you mentioned below). The only thing I did find was a couple references to ths book as one for "further information" on Cai Lun. Doesn't seem easily available though. Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Writing had a long history in China with substitutes for paper originally being wood for short text and bamboo for lengthy text.[26][27]" Is this backwards? You mention the Emperor's library being written on wooden boards, and I'm poking around and doing a little research on my own, "Big matters were recorded on wooden boards, small matters on bamboo slips." from Making and Using Paper in Late Imperial China: Comparative Reflections on Working and Knowing beyond the Page" by Jacob Eyferth in the book Working with Paper, p. 209 (that I got off JSTOR).

• Oh man... my source (Carter p. 1) says "Wood was largely used for short messages, bamboo for longer writings and books" hmmmm. My other source there (Hunter p. 48) simply states that both Wood and bamboo were first used. Any ideas? Aza24 (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Upon further digging, it looks like Carter may have been referring to bamboo strips being strung together into books, that would make more sense then? Aza24 (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Looks like these are what's in reference. Aza24 (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, was tangled up in something else. Getting back to this. If you send me an email, I can send you the chapter of the book I mentioned. I'll keep commenting on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the materials I sent you mean there's more to be said about his influence in China.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Wow that is a lot of information I didn't know existed... thanks for taking the initiative to find it. Just so you know, it will probably take me a couple of days to go through and get all the info from those three articles. Aza24 (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• "translated by sinologist Rafe de Crespigny as "Gentleman at the Yellow Gates",[3] which was a "gentlemen inside the palace".[26]" Can the tense be massaged?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Emperor He came of age in 92 and sought to regain his power from Dowager Empress Dou," Is "regain" the proper term? He never had it, really.--Wehwalt (talk)
• "well associated" What does this mean?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• In connection with the "Folklore" section, it might be worth saying that the burning of fake money remains common in Chinese cultures.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

To add later

Putting this here so I don't forget to add it to the historical assessment:

Wang Yin relays an account that he said was from Ts'ui Pao's (fl. 290–306) 232 CE lexicon, Ku-chin tzu ku (古今注; Record of Things Ancient and Modern), compiled by Chang Chi.

References

- Aza24 (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Use this too Aza24 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• crespingy 310, (classics 549, 593, 748)
• Double check [4], [5], [6], [7] Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Hòu Hànshū suggested that this promotion was due to Cai's talent and ingenuity, and says that Cai was willing to both praise and criticize those in power.

References

WW Review

Aza24 (talk · contribs) asked me to look over the article in its current state and give recommendations for its improvement. Here are my thoughts:

To Fix

• (I already fixed some issues with inconsistencies in quoted Chinese text and the infobox.)
• There are many instances where a Pinyin name or title is wrapped in the {{lang}} template, which results in them being displayed in Asian font letters that are jarring to the eye. These all need to be changed to {{transl}}. The {{lang}} template with the "zh" parameter should only be used for Chinese characters.
• There are a few instances of Wade-Giles romanizations being used needlessly (e.g., Footnote C.) Convert these to Pinyin. It's strange to mix the two.
  • Have done these, I hope properly. Aza24 (talk)

Recommendations

• The "Folklore" around him is part of Cai's "Legacy", and I don't see any need for these to be separate sections.
• The same is true for your "Sources" and "Historical assessment" sections. I think these would work better as a single section—perhaps with two or more subsections—that describes the historical deficiencies in our sources on Cai's life and on the attribution of paper's invention to him. I think your "Sources" section contains a level of detail that is more suited to an academic article than an encyclopedia, though.
• Throughout the article as a whole, the prose is somewhat stilted. There are a lot of instances, in which a pause, is needlessly indicated, or, a clause jumps forward, when it really, does not need, to be there. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Try smoothing it out. I can do a few paragraphs for you if you want an example of what I'm recommending.

Overall, you have done some really good work here. I think you have found good sources, which is half the battle. Following de Crespigny and Tsien are probably your best bets. Also, I personally dislike red links, though they're perfectly acceptable in the community at large.  White Whirlwind  02:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight on reconstructing—I've gone ahead and moved some things around into what I think it a more natural and sensible format. Yes, I had noticed the prose issue(s) a bit, but your comment is making me sure that I'll need outside help—I'll reach out to a copyeditor. Thanks again! Aza24 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyedit request

• His position in the Palace Workshop [...] This is tricky, because I know with Chinese there's no distinction made for capitalising, and it's mostly left up to editors and translators. Perhaps a source refers to "Palace Workshop" as a proper noun? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah Crespigny capitalizes it, but I'm not attached to it if you think strongly. Aza24 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done. Leaving as is; if the source capitalises it I'm fine with keeping it unchanged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• While in China he is revered in ancestor worship, the subject of folklore and deified as the god of papermaking, he is mostly unknown outside of East Asia. Wikilinks removed. It seems like the ideas could be combined here; I feel like the shared verb "is" is too early in the sentence. How about Although he is revered in ancestor worship, deified as the god of papermaking, and given significance in folklore [...]? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That's definitely better—changed. Aza24 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done. Reworded as such.
• [...] who is quoted referencing Cai's papermaking accomplishments in the 10th-century leishu encyclopedia Taiping Yulan. Wikilinks removed, italics in original. Is that the right book? The romanisation doesn't look like it matches the characters it's supposed to transliterate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah I don't know where I got those characters. The book is definitely correct but I've fixed the characters now. Good catch Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Sinologist T H Barrett suggested this was because "Cai Lun was, after all, a palace eunuch, precisely the sort of person normally viewed with antagonism by the regular bureaucrats who controlled the writing of official (and even most unofficial) history". Wikilink (actually) removed. I noticed the period is placed outside the quotation marks. Is this part of a sentence? Was there something before or after? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely supposed to be a complete sentence. Those punctuation-quotation rules always trip me up, switched now. Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• The Hòu Hànshū reports that he was first employed toward the end of the Yongping era (58–75) of Emperor Ming. Wikilink removed, italics in original. Was he employed during that time, or was he specifically employed by Ming? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% sure what you're asking as I don't know that the emperor himself would individually employ people. I've changed to "during the end of..." is that clearer? Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done by requester. It was a question to confirm that the sentence is saying what it means; since Cai has been employed in the Imperial Court, I was asking if he was hired by Ming for his first job. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• [...] he would have been responsible for the production of instruments and weapons for imperial use. Emphasis added. Is this unclear in the sources? I feel like it could be less speculative. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I was going off a source that described the role that other sources said he had, if that makes sense. Since the source didn't directly attribute these tasks to him (but to the role itself) I phrased it as such, though I definitely see why it might be confusing. With this in mind now, what do you think? Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done. Keeping as is. If possible, it'd be ideal to track those sources down for more accuracy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• In 114 CE, he was awarded the title of marquis and enfeoffed him [...] Wikilink removed, italics in original. Who enfeoffed him? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It doesn't say, presumably Deng but I don't know that I should put that in based on the assumption. Maybe I put the "Imperial court" or something?
    •  Done. It just needed a subject to enfeoff him, but I think "imperial court" is general enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• An ordered Cai to report to the Ministry of Justice in order to answer the charges—presumably death. Wikilink removed. Right now it sounds like the charges are death instead of being sentenced to death. I suggest rewording this to something like An ordered Cai to report to the Ministry of Justice in order to answer the charges, and presumably sentence him to death. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Loads better, changed to your suggestion. Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Tsien explains that the term used in Cai's ancient biography, tsao i [...] Is there no hanzi provided? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think 造意, added now. Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done by requester. Consistency is good. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• During the late 7th-century of the Tang dynasty [...] Wikilink removed. I'd say either remove "Tang dynasty", or remove "late 7th-century" with a relative time phrase, like During the late Tang dynasty. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed to early Tang Dynasty, which I think makes the most sense. Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Born in Leiyang county [...] Looking at the provided wikilink, Leiyang appears to be a city. Would it be appropriate to omit the mention of "county" and only mention "county" in its article? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes I had some trouble with this one. I had found this table (which I misread) that says "prefecture" so I should perhaps switch the word county to that?
    • "Prefecture" would definitely make more sense; I think the question is: Was Cai Lun born within the area of Leiyang Prefecture, or was he born in a village or town that is called Leiyang? If it's the former I'd go with Leiyang Prefecture. You might want to link to what a commandery is, as even I'm unfamiliar with that level of jurisdiction. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
      • Okay, I've looked further. It doesn't seem like sources actually specify what prefecture (I might have just assumed Leiyang prefecture based on the shared name); they all say Guiyang Commandary in modern day Leiyang—so I've adjusted to this throughout. Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh, also, commandary should already be linked in "Guiyang was a southern commandary". Aza24 (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
        •  Done by requester. I've changed the second a to an e for consistency. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cai Lun's improvements to paper and the papermaking process are considered impactful to human history, spreading literature and knowledge around the world as well as revolutionizing the means of communication.

Already edited. Looks like a run-on sentence to me, particularly with the sudden use of the gerund after the first verb. Might be better to do something like

Cai Lun's improvements to paper and the papermaking process are considered impactful to human history; they also spread literature and knowledge globally, and revolutionized means of communication.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• • Hmm what about "...impactful to human history as they resulted in the..."? I agree the current situation is poor but your alternative seems to separate the ideas too much, though my solution may not be ideal. Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Suggestion: Ah, I think I see what you're getting at now: his improvements are considered impactful to the three ideas that follow after. I think what would be best is if the latter two ideas used nouns that aren't "spreading" or "revolutionizing". Changing spreading to the spread of would be simple enough. I'm trying to think of a good noun to substitute for "revolutionizing"; "improvements" could work, but that's already been used, so I'd like to consider that a last resort. Maybe advancements to communications? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Good ideas—I've tried your phrasing, but feel free to make any adjustments. Aza24 (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
        •  Done. Added a missing word and a comma. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• She awarded Cai for his imperial service in 114 CE; he received the title of marquis. Wikilink removed, italics in original. Is marquis being used here as an equivalent position? I don't think China started interacting with western nations until much later on. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure, I mean the sources translate whatever title he was given as marquis but I see your point, I've unlinked it. Similar cause with enfeoffment actually, but in that case I think the basic idea is enough to warrant linking.
    • This is tricky; a solution could be to explicitly attribute the sources in-text equating Cai's position with marquis. I'll trust that the sources describe the process of land acquisition accurately as enfeoffment even if they don't explicitly say so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done. Going to leave as is, but will leave my above comment unstruck for consideration. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to your answers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Aza24, I think that's everything on my end. Let me know if there's anything, but I'll consider everything done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything looks amazing. Thank you so much! I will plan to bring this to FAC in the next few days. Aza24 (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Dating of paper

The article cites two journal articles (from 2011 and 2001 respectively) to the effect that paper was known in China as early as the 3rd century BC. However, the oldest fragment of paper mentioned in History of paper#Paper in China (with photo) is dated only to the early to mid-2nd century BC. I wonder what the 3rd-century date is based on. Do the cited articles explain this? Have there been new finds in the 21st century that aren't mentioned in Wikipedia yet? Or has the dating of the Fangmatan tomb where the fragment of the paper map was found changed? Could this tomb have been confused with Tomb 1? I'm struggling to explain the discrepancy. 179 BC is definitely not in the 3rd century BC. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I included note i to explain exactly this; I have no idea what the accuracy or how up to date other articles are. Aza24 (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Poo Mu-chou citation wrong

Poo Mu-chou's surname is Poo, not Mu-chou. I recommend having the citation as something like "Poo Mu-chou (2018). Daily Life in Ancient China". Mucube (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, good catch! Now fixed. Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)