Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Han Dynasty/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:24, 21 April 2009 [1].

---

Han Dynasty

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has already passed the Good Article "smell test" so to speak, and I believe it meets FA criteria. I think anyone with a general interest in history will also consider this an enjoyable read. Cheers.Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I find the first passage in Structural engineering, well, optimistic. Could you please further eloborate what architectural remains above-ground still exist in China from Han times? Because AFAIK, except for ruined rammed earth and dry brick structures at the extreme northern and north-western periphery, I am not aware of any substantial remains from that age. Also, I am sceptical about your portrayal of the architectural richness of the sites of Chang'an and Luoyang, making them almost sound like Pompeii. And which underground shafts reached depths of several hundred meters? If I am not mistaken, the section puts the whole architectural heritage of Han China in a misleading light. As it is, nearly nothing remains in fact, and the first intact above-ground buildings in China only stem from the 6th/7th century AD. There are also issues with an over-optimistic representation in the following chapters, but for the moment let us concentrate on this section. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I take it you didn't read Science and technology of the Han Dynasty yet, particularly this section. I used Morton and Lewis (2005) for the mentioning that in Gansu the ruins of 30 beacon towers and two fortified castles still stand. Chang Chun-shu (2007) also describes how the wall ruins of towns, fortresses, and outposts in Inner Mongolia were constructed with stamped clay brick instead of rammed earth, although the watchtowers in the region were typically made of rammed earth. As for the aboveground rammed earth walls and brick-laden structural drainage systems of Chang'an and Luoyang, I used Wang Zhongshu's source, which is a very good one if you're able to pick it up (it has pictures of wall ruins, drainage-system arches, towers, carriage ruts, etc., as well as interesting photos of Han frontier fortresses which still have their crenellations). I've taken extensive notes from it here. He describes the archaeological surveys taken at those sites, the measured areas encompassed by the walls, the length of each wall, the average height of their surviving ruins, and the fact that Luoyang's southern wall was washed away when the Luo River changed its course. Wang also gives an excellent description of Han tomb structures. While Wang mentions the tall stone pillar-gates ("que"), so does architectural historian Nancy Steinhardt (2005) in the work I cited. As stated in the Science and Tech of Han article, twenty nine of these aboveground stone monuments still stand and even imitate wooden architectural components (there's an early 20th-century photo of one I included in the main Han article if you look at the religion section). As for the mining shafts and boreholes reaching hundreds of meters beneath the earth, these have long ago been discovered, as Michael Loewe (1968) was even discussing them back in the 1960s (see his Everyday Life in Early Imperial China during the Han Period 202 BC–AD 220. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.; New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. ISBN 0872207587). For the boreholes and mining shafts, you could also refer to Wang Zhongshu (1982), Robert Temple (1986), K.S. Tom (1989), and Colin A. Ronan (1994) which I cited. The mining shafts were found to have some very spacious chambers, timber frames as supports, tall ladders, and iron tools left behind. The boreholes dug for lifting liquid brine are mostly located in today's Sichuan province. I corrected the article on the issue of mining shafts (for gathering metal ores), since those already found are only over a hundred meters deep (not several hundred) according to Loewe and Wang, yet the sources I consulted for boreholes (such as Loewe and Ronan's work) say those were dug several hundred meters deep to lift brine with bamboo tube-buckets that acted as suction-lift pumps with valves.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So to recap on the very last issue (in case you got lost there), mining shafts for gathering ores were only over a hundred meters deep, while boreholes dug for collecting brine with a bucket system reached several hundred meters beneath the earth's surface.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the article recently, but I have two scholarly books on Chinese architecture (published in 1990 and 2002) that describe in detail above ground architectural remains from the Han dynasty, so I am surprised to learn there are none. Also a 2007 History of Global Architecture describes extant Han ruins. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's some Han-era aboveground structures still around, just not wooden architecture, unfortunately. Also, Gun Powder Ma, I take it you are unfamiliar with the Great Wall of Qi? Sections of this stone wall (picture here) from the Eastern Zhou period still stand in Shandong province, which predates Han-dynasty architecture by centuries. However, this particular wall looks much more primitive than Han wall architecture, since that wall has a sort of haphazard arrangement of stones placed one on top of the other. Han walls that weren't made of rammed earth used carefully-measured and standard-stamped fired-clay bricks that were carefully arranged.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Main concerns met (19th April 09): Support. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

I am afraid, my concerns have not been addressed, and the section on structural engineering, as the whole paragraph on Science, technology, and engineering does not do justice to the archaeological situation on ground. My main points of criticsm are: Strange weighting of evidence: The article should make it sufficiently clear to the reader that no intact above-ground buildings from the Han dynasty remain (other than a few mudbrick fortifications on the northern border), that there is a real dearth of such structures up to the Tang dynasty. If fire-brick and stone buildings from the period stand, as you claim your source says, why not adding pictures of them instead of ceramic models? Specifically, I am missing kind City walls: Chinese city walls were until the middle Song dynasty typically of wood and rammed earth, even those of the capitals. No mention of that. Arch bridges: you are content to say there were known, but AFAIK only through two literary sources. As you well know, there are no bridges extant from the period, so the evidence is overall rather meagre, but no mention of that. In sum, the section should make it clear that little was built in Han times in terms of above-ground stone and fired-brick buildings and nearly nothing remains. Vaults and domes were, with the exception of the few arch bridges, confined to underground structures, where the problem of lateral thrust is negligible The rest of the section reads more like an item list, than a story, IMO showing a lack of deeper understanding of the real interplay between technology and society. For example, what do have, for example, sliding calipers to do with collapsible umbrellas? The reader is totally left in the dark what is so significant about them? Wouldn't it be more interesting to learn what social role umbrellas did have? "Zhang was the first to install an additional tank between the reservoir and inflow vessel". In China or world-wide? Because inflow clepsydra in Greece were known by the 3rd century BC. The section on water power rest totally on literary evidence gathered in the 1960s, but what about the actual archaeological situation? It is simply not true that waterpower "was applied to a wide array of uses", because, as the passage itself has, only a limited number of industrial uses were actually known. Corn-grinding, in contrast, the far and away most common application of watermills remained unknown in China until the 5th century. As elsewhere, the author seems to be more concerned with establishing that this and that "invention" was known in China, but we hardly ever get a glimpse of the really relevant question of how much these techniques were used and what impact they had on society. non-encyclopedic diction: "incredible growth of the money economy", "comparable to the incredible scientific and technological growth during the Song Dynasty". In agricultural, pre-industrial societies which grew 0.1% per year, if they were lucky, such over the top expressions are clearly out of place Overall, I find the greatest deficit of the article is that it reads in many parts more like a listing of loosely related items, laid out indiscriminately before the reader, who is confronted with a large bulk of 'raw material' without sufficient interpretation. This should be made much more ingestible. And, perhaps even more important, there are glaring omissions. Often, the article reads like 'look there is still a drop in the galleon', but isn't it much more objective to conversely state that the galleon is practically empty? This is certainly true of the architectural section, where you mention a couple of extant foundation walls, instead of bringing the attention of the reader to the fact that there is actually very little left in terms of archaeological traces of what once was a 60 million people empire spanning 400 years. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I'll try to address your concerns as best I can. First I want to answer your suggestion that I post pictures of aboveground structures dated to the Han. If you read the passage I made above, I explicitly directed you to the religion section of this article, with this picture of an Eastern-Han stone pillar gate. According to Steinhardt, Nancy N. (2005). "Pleasure tower model," in Recarving China's Past: Art, Archaeology, and Architecture of the 'Wu Family Shrines', 275–281. Edited by Naomi Noble Richard. New Haven and London: Yale University Press and Princeton University Art Museum. ISBN 0300107978...this is one of twenty-nine aboveground stone pillar gates that have survived from the Han Dynasty. If you want a more recent photo of a stone pillar-gate, look here on page 55 of Liu Xujie's book chapter in Chinese Architecture (2002, Yale University Press). As seen in the picture, this Eastern-Han double-body stone gate tower still stands 6 m (20 ft) in height; it is located at the tomb of Gao Yin in Ya'an County, Sichuan Province, China. As for the rammed earth and brick ruins of Chang'an and Luoyang, as well as the frontiers, I've already pointed out which sources I used and which you can consult. What else should I do? Visit these sites myself and take pictures? Wikimedia Commons really doesn't have much in regards to pictures of Chinese architecture, I'm afraid, let alone what's left of Han architecture. You wrote: If fire-brick and stone buildings from the period stand, as you claim your source says, why not adding pictures of them instead of ceramic models? Yet I've already pointed out Wang Zhongshu's book to you as an excellent source with pictures of these ruins. I make it clear in the article that all the wooden architecture has disappeared and what is left are simply walls, tomb chambers, beacon towers, and stone pillar-gates. Exactly how is any of this a gross exaggeration of what is left of Han architecture? Also, I made it very clear in the article that what we know of bridge architecture comes from literary sources; I made no mention of archaeology or existing structures. I don't know why you felt the need to include this as a point of contention. Are you sure you know exactly what it is you are (strongly) opposing?--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Secondly, with the comment about supplying pictures as further evidence, are you accusing me of misrepresenting my sources? Please consult them if you think there are problems, but I must remind you that on Wiki we assume good faith about the intents of other editors. I'm especially perplexed by your response since I've been more than helpful with addressing your questions about which sources were used (and for what contents) in my first passage above made on April 9th.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC) You wrote: Chinese city walls were until the middle Song dynasty typically of wood and rammed earth, even those of the capitals. No mention of that. Sure, I don't mention the Song Dynasty, but I write in this article: The ruins of rammed earth walls that once surrounded the capitals Chang'an and Luoyang still stand, along with their drainage systems of brick arches, ditches, and ceramic water pipes. I clearly mention that rammed earth was used here for city walls. Just to be safe, I have clearly specified which item was made of what in this reworded sentence: This includes stone pillar-gates, brick tomb chambers, rammed-earth city walls, rammed-earth and brick beacon towers, Han-era rammed-earth sections of the Great Wall, and rammed-earth castles in Gansu with crenelations. I still have all the notes from these sources to back up my claims.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) You wrote: Vaults and domes were, with the exception of the few arch bridges, confined to underground structures, where the problem of lateral thrust is negligible. And? I limited the discussion of vaults and domes to underground tomb architecture. Are you suggesting that I have done otherwise? Here's the only sentence in the article where "vaults" or "domes" appear: Over ten thousand underground tombs dating to the Han Dynasty have been found, many of which feature archways, vaulted chambers, and domed roofs. That's it. So what exactly is the problem? Again, are you sure you have sufficient grounds for (strong) opposition?--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Your umbrella comment kind of baffles me; you write: Wouldn't it be more interesting to learn what social role umbrellas did have? Gun Powder Ma, there's only so many roles or functions that an umbrella can have. Are you suggesting that I mention that umbrellas were often mounted on fancy chariots to shade wealthy Han-era folk from the sun and rain?. I reworded the sentence with something to that effect; but seriously, no more has to be said. Again, should this rather simple and easily-fixed item be considered grounds to strongly oppose an FAC nomination? I do see what you mean by listing so many inventions together which are unrelated; I have reworded that into several new sentences. Better now?--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, I'm well aware of the inflow clepsydra in the Greek world. However, I did not make the claim the Chinese were the first to create the inflow clepsydra. Is this what you are suggesting? I only mentioned the addition of a tank between the reservoir and inflow vessel. And yes, Zhang Heng was the first in China to do so, as noted by Needham (hence I reworded that sentence to include "first in China" instead of just "first" Better?). I don't know if the Greeks had such an arrangement with an additional tank, but the Chinese expanded on Zhang's idea and added several tanks in the following centuries (as Needham notes on that same page I cited, 479 of Volume 4, Part 2).--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Hmm. I see what you mean by the value judgement of "incredible" in certain spots. I have changed the waterwheel statement (i.e. I removed "was applied to a wide array of uses"), the mentioning of the money economy in the intro (changed "incredible growth" to "significant growth"), and reworded the beginning sentence in the science and technology section. However, I challenge your assumptions about the growth of the money economy during Han. The growth of the money economy is extensively covered by Sadao Nishijima (1986, Cambridge History of China) which I explained in the "Taxation and property" subsection of this article. Refer to my notes here from Nishijima's source, virtually a page by page paraphrasing of his work (I also quote him extensively). As I was only able to briefly outline in the article due to size constraints, Nishijima discusses the major sociopolitical impacts that the expansion of the money economy had during Han times. The widespread circulation of coinage, which far surpassed that of previous eras, changed not only how common business transactions were conducted, but also how salaries were paid (in a shift from paying largely in kind) and how poll and property taxes were paid. The latter forced farming peasants to become heavily engaged in urban markets to sell wares and sideline products for cash, while it enriched successful merchants who could invest money in land and hence join the landowning class. These huge societal changes have hardly gone unnoticed by historians. I would suggest that you read Nishijima's source (if anything) to understand why I felt such a statement was warranted in the lead. With this, I have to ask you once again: are you sure you understand what you are (strongly) opposing? I'd like to hear your take on the Han-era money economy, given that you provide scholarly sources for your ideas.--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC) You wrote: This is certainly true of the architectural section, where you mention a couple of extant foundation walls, instead of bringing the attention of the reader to the fact that there is actually very little left in terms of archaeological traces of what once was a 60 million people empire spanning 400 years. Well, none of my sources explicitly state this, except for when some of them mention that no wooden architecture has survived (which I've already explained in the article). Actually, Gun Powder Ma, could you quote a scholarly source here that explicitly says, and in no ambiguous terms, that only a couple foundational walls are left from the Han period? In other words, exactly where did you get this idea? The sources I used would simply refute this statement. Not only do rammed earth sections of the Han-era Great Wall still exist in Gansu, but also the ruins of thirty beacon towers and two entire fortresses. Han wall ruins and beacon towers can also be found further east in Inner Mongolia. I've mentioned the wall ruins of both Han capital cities, which Wang Zhongshu provides excellent details for and pictures. Also, if you're looking for pictures in a source that you can access, I know you've read some of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China series in the past. For example, on Plate V in Volume 1: Introductory Orientations, he shows a picture of the top ramparts of a Han-era rammed earth fort at Dunhuang which still have defensive crenellations crowning the top.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC) You wrote: As elsewhere, the author seems to be more concerned with establishing that this and that "invention" was known in China, but we hardly ever get a glimpse of the really relevant question of how much these techniques were used and what impact they had on society. For one, there is absolutely nothing wrong with outlining what technologies existed during Han. As for their impact on society at large, I included brief notes (i.e. see sentences with "Of great importance to textile manufacture"; and "enabled farmers to carefully plant crops in rows instead of casting seeds out by hand"; and "Once experiments with this system yielded successful results, the government officially sponsored it and encouraged peasants to utilize it"). However, the scarce amount of literary sources dating to the Han only allow us to reconstruct bits and pieces of the overall picture; the same goes with surviving artwork. For example, there are only a handful of Han-era maps penned on silk that have survived, so we know they used maps, but with only a handful of Han literary sources that describe maps, not much can be asserted as to how widely they were used. Given this, it is my opinion that this is yet another questionable reason of yours to (strongly) oppose the article. Even if I was able to find a great source on this topic with page after page discussing how each individual invention impacted Han society, such extraneous detail surely does not belong in this article and is more suited in the main article: Science and technology of the Han Dynasty.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Hi, I find some of your comments a bit odd. First of all, you still did not address my main concern that your article sounds in many parts more like a loosely connected item list, rather than the narrative the FAC status calls for. For example, I am a bit surprised that you completely missed the social role of umbrellas in ancient societies as status symbol for distinguishing rank. Instead of pointing at the collapsing nature of umbrellas, wouldn't it be much more relevant to know whether the parasol in Han times was reserved to women of status, as in Greece, or to high official, as in the Ancient Near East, or if it were a rather democratic affair as in Ancient Rome? Please see for more: M.C. Miller: „The Parasol: An Oriental Status-Symbol in Late Archaic and Classical Athens,” in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Bd. 112 (1992), S. 91-105 The fact that there is very little evidence of arch bridges in Han times is important, because arch bridges are masonry bridges, and this type of bridges constitutes by a huge margin the most important bridge type before the industrial age, being the only one solid enough for heavy loads. Water power: Mistake by omission. Historians of technology are very careful to differentiate between industrial mills and corn mills but the article still lacks a clear statement that water power for corn-grinding was unknown in Han times. As for "invented first" and similar phrases which are much used throughout the article (why by the way?), it should be sufficiently clear in each case, whether the first claim refers only to China or globally. For example, the "invented the first known zoetrope lamp" seems to claim a global reach, while in the next sections on Zheng you want it to be read in the first sense, but how can the reader know that in each specific case? Vaults and domes, as the largest solid structures of solidly roofing a space, feature in the history of architecture primarily important in their use above-ground function (churches, tombs, mosques, basilicas, city halls etc.), not so much below ground where they other methods of roofing like props-and-lintel. Hence, it should be made clear that their use was rare or even unknown for normal Han buildings. But I am most surprised about the treatment of the archaeological remains, or rather the lack thereof, in the article. A number of important treatments of the subject make it crystal-clear that there exist a real dearth of them from this period. For example Thorp in the very first sentence: While no buildings survive from the early Imperial period, i.e., the Qin and Han dynasties (ca. 250 B.C. - A.D. 200), new archaeological information, combined with literary and visual data, allows a preliminary inquiry into the architectural principles of this early age in China. Robert L. Thorp: “Architectural Principles in Early Imperial China: Structural Problems and TheirSolution“, The Art Bulletin, Vol. 68, No. 3. (1986), pp. 360–378: 360 The complete absence of extant wooden buildings (376): No pre-Tang wooden structures survive on the Chinese mainland, and the early halls that do exist, both in Japan and in China, have certainly been restored many times. The obstacle which the scarcity of remains poses to a deeper understanding of Han architecture (363): Today the most renowned Qin and Han edifices are only vaguely understood, a far cry from the medley of ancient sources and modern archaeology that can be applied to the principal architectural monuments of ancient Greece or Rome. If you dig deeper, you will also find that fortifications were built until Song times as rammed earth structures with wooden crenellations. Since stone or (fired) brick walls were commonly employed elsewhere, for example in the Ancient Near East and Greece, since the turn to the 1st millenium BC, this curious absence of a developed fortifications in China also warrant a comment. There are really many more issues with the article, even factual errors I noticed. It would be a great help, if you checked your sources again, because listing all issues here is impossible and should not be made task of the reviewers. Nonetheless, I am going to look up a few more points. Generally, I would suggest a rewrite to make it a true narrative. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC) You write: If you dig deeper, you will also find that fortifications were built until Song times as rammed earth structures with wooden crenellations. I don't necessarily doubt this (since I know you have access to sources written by credible scholars and authorities on architecture), but I must ask you something essential for your claim: says who? If you look at Plate V of the Needham source I mentioned, the defensive ramparts of that Han-era Dunhuang fort clearly have crenallations made of the same rammed earth as the walls.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC) You write: Water power: Mistake by omission. Historians of technology are very careful to differentiate between industrial mills and corn mills but the article still lacks a clear statement that water power for corn-grinding was unknown in Han times. If we are talking solely about watermills and not hydraulic-powered trip hammers here (the latter which were used for pounding and threshing cereal grains as explicitly mentioned by Huan Tan in about 20 CE, indirectly mentioned by Ma Rong in the late 2nd century CE), a quick glance at Needham (p. 396–405 of SCC, Vol. 4, P. 2) shows that watermills were known in literary sources from the 5th century CE onwards (one was erected by Zu Chongzhi in about 488 CE). There is an ample amount of literary sources in the Sui and Tang Dynasties which describe watermills, but not illustrated in any book until 1313 CE with the Nongshu by Wang Zhen (official). I suppose that when Needham's book was published in the 1960s, Needham was unaware that some Northern Song paintings (960–1127 CE) prominently featured watermills. In any case, Needham writes on page 396 QUOTE: It is curious that references in early Chinese literature to the mill par excellence, the rotary millstones driven by water-power, are much rarer than those to the water-driven trip-hammer. This may arise perhaps from a fluidity of terminology at that time, especially among the scholars whose qualifications were not technical. It would not have been difficult to confuse chhui, the equivalent of the grain mill proper, or even wei (cf. p 188 above) with the word chui (hammer) used for tui (the tilt- or trip-hammer). Moreover, in the texts already referred to, some books and some editions write wei or mo instead of tui, thus attributing to Tu Yü (+222 to +284) multiple mills worked from a single water-wheel by gearing; and water-mills instead of water-powered trip-hammers to Chhu Thao (c. +240 to +280) and Wang Jung (+235 to +306). There seems, in effect, little reason to doubt that water-driven quern mills were working at least as early as the hydraulic blowing-engines of the +1st century, and perhaps some time before them. ENDQUOTE. We all know how Needham likes to speculate, but since it was later Chinese scholars who inserted into earlier texts that watermills were used instead of water-powered trip hammers, there is really no sufficient evidence to say that the watermill existed in Han. However, is this truly a grave fault of mine? Am I now to list or mention every single technology that didn't exist during Han? That seems silly and extraneous. I hope that's not what you are suggesting. However, I just now made a quick mention that there is no sufficient evidence for the watermill in Han times.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC) You wrote: The fact that there is very little evidence of arch bridges in Han times is important... Fair enough. I recently added this to the article: However, there are only two known references to arch bridges in Han literature.[373] In terms of art, only a single Han relief sculpture in Sichuan depicts an arch bridge.[374] This issue should now be put to rest; look in Science and technology of the Han Dynasty for more, or that Liu Xujie (2002) source I provided a link to above.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC) You wrote: As for "invented first" and similar phrases which are much used throughout the article (why by the way?), it should be sufficiently clear in each case, whether the first claim refers only to China or globally. Well, Gun Powder Ma, I believe credit should be put where credit is due. Nevertheless, I have reworded several sentences to fit this suggestion (which is a fair one). Let me know of any specific places where I might have missed a "first" that was ambiguous in terms of a world's first or simply first in China.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC) You wrote: Vaults and domes...it should be made clear that their use was rare or even unknown for normal Han buildings. Again, not a bad suggestion. Using Watson (2000), I added these two short sentences to the structural engineering sub-section: Underground vaults and domes did not require buttress supports since they were held in place by earthen pits.[366] The use of brick vaults and domes in aboveground Han structures is unknown.[366]. This should be entirely sufficient, and I believe completely addresses this specific concern of yours. Moving on...--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC) You wrote: For example Thorp in the very first sentence...That's a very strange comment by Thorp in the beginning, considering how he provides contradictory info on page 363 when mentioning the existing sections of the Han-era Great Wall and existing segments of guard stations there, as well as the archaeological surveys which have identified the aboveground walls of the two capitals (Wang Zhongshu, also writing in the 1980s, provides much more in-depth information on this). I also find it curious that he knows nothing of Han-era aboveground stone pillar-gates (perhaps he is simply referring to the absence of existing wooden buildings?). Nevertheless, Thorp's source is very useful and I thank you for bringing it to the table after I suggested you present such a source. I have used Thorp's source to mention the "dearth" of existing Han architecture (as you describe it); here is what I recently wrote in the article: Architectural historian Robert L. Thorp describes the scarcity of Han-era archaeological remains, as well as the often unreliable Han-era literary and artistic sources used by historians for clues about non-existent Han architecture. With this, I hope you are entirely satisfied, because the prose size of that sub-section on structural engineering is getting a bit larger than it needs to be.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC) You wrote: Instead of pointing at the collapsing nature of umbrellas, wouldn't it be much more relevant to know whether the parasol in Han times was reserved to women of status, as in Greece, or to high official, as in the Ancient Near East, or if it were a rather democratic affair as in Ancient Rome? It sounds like you are suggesting that the utilization of certain devices by particular social classes is more important than functionality and descriptions of technical achievements. I don't mind adding some info about the social implications of any device, but the journal article you provided on Classical Athens says nothing about the Han-era people's utilization of the collapsible umbrella. Needham must have thought that the social implications of such a device didn't merit mentioning in his book, since he focused solely on technical details; since I used this source for the umbrella, the article thus reflects this priority. However, since you seem concerned about the "Mechanical and hydraulic engineering" sub-section mentioning inventions without further narrative context, I will try my best to wrap them into a narrative structure, using some additional research.--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Well, Gun Powder Ma, in addition to all your other points of concern which I've addressed, I am proud to say much of the "Mechanical and hydraulic engineering" sub-section has been reworded and given a true narrative form, as you desired to see. Here is the newly-reworded part: Literary evidence of Han-era mechanical engineering rests largely on the choice observations of sometimes disinterested Confucian scholars, since professional artisan-engineers (jiang 匠) did not leave behind detailed writings of their work.[377] Han scholars who had little or no expertise in mechanical engineering sometimes provided insufficient information on the various technologies they described.[378] Nevertheless, some Han literary sources provide crucial information. For example, in 15 BCE the philosopher Yang Xiong described the invention of the belt drive for a quilling machine, which was of great importance to early textile manufacturing.[379] The inventions of the artisan Ding Huan (丁緩) are mentioned in the Book of Later Han. Around 180 CE, Ding created a manually-operated rotary fan used for air conditioning within palace buildings.[380] Ding also used gimbals as pivotal supports for one of his incense burners and invented the world's first known zoetrope lamp.[381][382] The discovery of Han artwork through modern archaeology has brought to light inventions which were otherwise absent in Han literary sources. As observed in Han miniature tomb models but not in literary sources, the crank handle was used to operate the fans of winnowing machines that separated grain from chaff.[383][384] The odometer cart, invented during Han, measured journey lengths, using mechanical figures banging drums and gongs to indicate each distance traveled.[385] This invention is depicted in Han artwork by the 2nd century CE, yet detailed written descriptions are not offered until the 3rd century CE.[386] Modern archaeologists have also unearthed actual specimens of devices used during Han. For example, Han-era sliding metal calipers used by craftsmen for making minute measurements were found to have inscriptions of the exact day and year they were manufactured, yet this tool does not appear in Han literatary sources.[387][388] Isn't she pretty! (lol) I'm glad you nudged me a bit to rewrite this section, because it sounds much better now. What do you think?--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad that you find all of the changes satisfactory. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! Very good to hear. And thanks for adding italic type marks (i.e. '' '') to Wang's 1949 journal article in the reference section.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• Fix the 6 disambiguation links (there are also 2 self-redirects, I don't know if they are intentional or not)
• Ref formatting (checked with WP:REFTOOLS) and external links (checked with the links checker tool) are up to standards.--Truco 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the DAB links. However, I couldn't find those two self-redirects of Eastern Han and Western Han. Could you point them out? Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't find them either, I think the server on the dab finder is running slow.--Truco 17:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This might be a silly question, but could it be that the links in the Template:History of China are being factored in? That is the only place in the article where I see Western Han and Eastern Han links.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Notes: Some of the date ranges in the infobox need WP:ENDASHes. There are many left-aligned images under third-level headings (see WP:MOS#Images and WP:ACCESS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello SandyGeorgia. I fixed the endashes. As for the left-aligned pictures under third-level headings, I am aware of the general rule not to place them there. However, I figured it would be ok if there is a "further information" {{see|Example}} link buffer in between the headings and the pictures, just how any amount of prose text could act like a buffer for left-aligned images and third level headings. Was I wrong to assume this?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes; WP:ACCESS lays out the order of items within sections, and still calls for no left-aligned under third-level headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I hate to have so many images aligned to the right, but if that's the way it has to be, then so be it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the images. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose reluctantly. While the illustrations and research are excellent, the article needs a complete and thorougoing copy-edit to bring the prose up to standard. I had intended to list the passages which need attention, but there are so many of them that it would involve half the article being here. Generally the problem is an attempt to heap too much information into each sentence, which results in them becoming, overlong, ungrammatical. full of diversions, and therefore confusing.

Extended content

Here is the 2nd paragraph of the Lead: When the Han Empire was founded, its territory was divided between commanderies controlled by the central government and semi-autonomous kingdoms, which were eventually ruled only by close relatives of the emperor. Following the Rebellion of the Seven States, the imperial court directly appointed the administrative staffs of the kingdoms, which remained nominal fiefs of the kings yet came to resemble more or less the regular commandery. Another threat to Han's control was the nomadic Xiongnu Confederation founded by Modu Shanyu (r. 209–174 BCE), which spanned across the eastern portion of the Eurasian Steppe and, following a victory over Han forces in 200 BCE, negotiated terms of a royal marriage alliance and tributary relations in 198 BCE with Han as the de facto inferior partner. When the Xiongnu continued to raid Han's borders despite the treaty, Emperor Wu of Han (r. 141–87 BCE) launched several military campaigns against them which would eventually force the Xiongnu to accept vassal status as one of Han's tributaries. Yet these war campaigns achieved more than subduing the Xiongnu; they expanded the Han realm into the Tarim Basin of Central Asia (with additional conquests of what are now modern northern Vietnam and North Korea) and established the vast trade network of the Silk Road that stretched to the Mediterranean world of the Roman Empire. The Han court upheld relations with distant states such as the Kushan Empire of South Asia and the Arsacid Empire of Persia. The problems here are: Too much detail for the Lead. The lead itself is too long. A lot of sentences too long, rambling and confusing Some grammatical errors (spanned across etc.) Ugly sentences which are hard to understand. For example, the first two sentences of this paragraph would read better if simplified to something like: When the Han Empire was founded, its territory was divided into areas directly controlled by the central government, known as commanderies; and a number of semi-autonomous kingdoms, which gradually lost all vestiges of their independence, particularly following the Rebellion of the Seven States. In the rest of the article there are also numerous problems with prose. What follows are a few examples: Despite the portrayal of the Qin Dynasty as a brutal regime by Han scholars such as Jia Yi (201–169 BCE), much of the statutes in the Han law code first compiled by Chancellor Xiao He (d. 193 BCE) were derived from the Qin law code (supported by archaeological evidence such as finds at Zhangjiashan and Shuihudi). Sentence too long and convoluted. It should be split. It should read: "many of the statutes", not "much". And there is a passage ungrammatically tagged on in brackets. However, state organs with competing interests and institutions such as the court conference (tingyi 廷議) which used majority consensus pressured the emperor to accept the advice of his ministers on policy decisions (lest he alienate the bureaucracy). Same as the above, but with punctuation problems. When a male commoner reached age twenty-three, he was drafted into the military for one year of training and one year of service as a non-professional, conscripted soldier (zhengzu 正卒) serving on their frontier, in a king's court, or under the Minister of the Guards in the capital. Another long sentence, which loses structure andbecomes confusing toward the end. Due to wood's rapid decay over time, what remains of Han wooden architecture are scattered ceramic roof tiles, yet non-wooden buildings made of brick, stone, and rammed earth still stand, such as pillar-gates, tomb chambers, city walls, beacon towers, Han-era sections of the Great Wall, and fortified castles in Gansu with towers and crenelations. Tenses ungrammatic. This should be two or three sentences. Ranked below the Three Excellencies were the Nine Ministers, who each headed a specialized ministry and had many subordinates who expanded the various roles of their ministry. We can assume the existence of subordinates and their function. There are some good passages of prose, however, such as the Taxation and property section. Some Other Points: The traditional Chinese characters, the simplified Chinese characters, as well as the Pinyin and Wade-Giles transliterations of Han Dynasty are rightly in the first line of the article. However continuing to do this with subsidiary names such as Western Han Dynasty and Later Han Dynasty is a problem. This unnecessary and repetitive information makes the first paragraph of the lead practically unreadable. "It was briefly interrupted by the Xin Dynasty (9–23 CE) of Wang Mang, which divides the dynastic era into two periods," If you're going to mention Wang Mang in the second sentence, we need to give some indication of who or what he was. Someone, like myself, with little expertise in Chinese history, has no idea whether Wang Mang is a person, object or philosophy, without following a link. Adding "the usurper Wang Mang" might make things clearer. Also it would be better to replace "divides" with "separates". Under "social class" the interesting topic of the Four occupations is hidden beneath a link labelled "heirarchical social order", and not mentioned on the page. Instead the article talks about other ranking issues. Xandar 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Hi, Xandar. These are very legitimate concerns; I'll try to address each one. So far I have moved that painfully long description of Former/Western and Later/Eastern Han down to Wang Mang's usurpation section, which I think is the appropriate place to explain this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I have to run and go to a language class, but I will be back sometime later tonight to continue copy-editing the article. So far I've made some major changes; have a look.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I have addressed each one of these concerns you have raised here. Please feel free to list all concerns you might have with the article. Do not feel shy about listing every contention you might have with the article. I have already reworded, combined, and split various sentences that you did not even mention in your list of grievances above. If there's anything else you find objectionable, now is the time to mention it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The changes are certainly an improvement. However, reading through the article again, I still see an awful lot of work that is needed on the text to bring it anywhere near to "brilliant prose" levels as demanded by the Featured Article Criteria. You really need some help with this. I think it will take several days hard work by several editors to solve the problems on this long article. As an example I have done a copy-edit on just the lead - which took me several hours. If you hate what I've done, feel free to revert it, it's just an example - and even then I don't suppose it's perfect. You can see the differences on a compare under the article history tab. Hopefully you can find some people willing to help copy-edit the rest of the text. Xandar 02:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC) No, I won't revert your edits. What you did wasn't radically different, but it looks and reads a bit smoother since your copy-editing. Thank you for that. I wouldn't worry too much about the prose, which of course still needs tweaking in a lot of areas, but that's not an impossible task to handle. Although this will entail a lot of work, I don't mind tackling this problem at all. In fact, I'll continue copy-editing the article this weekend. As for outside help, should I contact the Guild of Copy Editors? They are kind of slow at things and have a lot of articles in the backlog; perhaps you know someone who could help out immediately? Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC) There's still a lot of problems with the grammar/comprehensibility/hanging brackets etc. However you still have a week or two to sort this out. You can put the article down as needing urgent attention on the list on the Guild of Copy Editors page. It might also be useful to look down the list of volunteers on that page and put in some individual requests for help on their talk pages. At the moment there are too many sentences in need of attention to list them all here. In fact listing them and explaining the problems would take longer than copyediting myself! The first paragraph of the Wang Mang section is a case in point: A succession of male relatives to Empress Wang Zhengjun (71 BCE – 13 CE)—who was first empress, then empress dowager, then grand empress dowager during the reigns of Yuan (r. 49–33 BCE), Cheng (r. 33–7 BCE), and Ai (7–1 BCE) respectively—held the title of regent.[59][60] The sentence is too long and the main idea is split apart by extraneous information. It would be best to start with the reign and titles of the empress. Then information on husbands, then another sentence on the regents. Her nephew Wang Mang (45–23 CE) was appointed regent over Emperor Ping (r. 1 BCE – 6 CE), yet when he died in 6 CE, Grand Empress Dowager Wang appointed Wang Mang as acting emperor over the child Liu Ying (d. 25 CE), who Wang promised to relinquish his control to once he came of age. Another huge sentence. Should be "regent for" rather than "regent over". It isn't immediately clear whether Ping or Wang Mang died. "Grand Empress Dowager Wang" is confusing here, better to just say "the empress dowager". The last clause should be a separate sentence, "Wang promised..." etc. Despite this and several revolts of the nobility against him, Wang Mang claimed that signals sent from Heaven ushered in the end of Han and the beginning of his own dynasty: the Xin Dynasty (9–23 CE). "In spite of" is better than "despite," here. "signs" is better than "signals". I also think it should say "the Han dynasty" for clarity, and "dynasty" could be lost at the end. Xandar 22:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Ok, these are all good suggestions. I have edited the article according to them. I'll try to contact some individual people of the Guild, since notifying them on their main page would perhaps be less effective (and produce a belated response).--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the prose of the article has improved enormously with the work of the proposer and various copyeditors, and has certainly reached a state where I can withdraw my oppose pon these grounds. Xandar 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I hope that I'm able to improve the article to such an extent that you consider supporting it. Take care.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I have a couple of suggestions. Firstly, I don't think you need the 'further information' listings below 'main article'. This is especially true because of all the repetition this creates. Getting rid of some of these listings will make the article a bit shorter. I also think that some mention of medicine should be made in this article, especially because the Han Dynasty was an important period in the development of medicine. The comments above are correct in that the article needs a copyedit. I've done a bit myself, but there is still more to be done.Zeus1234 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Zeus. I included a medicine section in Science and technology of the Han Dynasty, but did not think of adding a sub-section in this article (simply for the sake of keeping the prose size to a minimum). I can add a very small sub-section on medicine if you'd like. Also, "further information" links do not add anything significant to the article's size, since WP:SIZE states that only the prose text size of the article is evaluated in terms of the article's KB size.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As promised, I added a small medicine sub-section. I believe this should be sufficient. Keep in mind that I don't think any substantial amount of text should be added to the article hereafter. The article is at a pristine prose-text size at the moment, according to the WP:SIZE standard.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if WP:Prose doest not consider the 'main article' links to add to the prose size, I still think that they crowd the article, and links for the same articles should not be repeated in subsection after subsection. I mean, for the history subsection, I think a link the 'history' article and the list of emperors is appropriate, you don't need the other links for articles below that only have passing information on the history.Zeus1234 (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, you're right. I just got rid of those further info links and the article looks a lot less cluttered.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am reading the article very closely and copy-editing as I go. There is still some work to be done here. I have run across a sentence which confuses me:

In central and southern China, paddy fields were chiefly used to grow rice, while Han-era paddy-field farmers along the Huai River used methods of transplantation.

Does the second half of the sentence (after while) have anything to do with the first half? Transplantation of what? Rice plants? The whole sentence needs to be clarified, I have no idea what the second half means and how both halves link together.

The waterwheel first appeared in Chinese records during the Han, yet it was already applied to a wide array of uses.

If it only appeared in Chinese records in the Han, how could it be already applied to many uses? Are you implying that it existed before Han times? This should be clarified. Zeus1234 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the comment about paddy-field farmers, tacking onto the end in growing rice to clarify that transplantation methods were used in rice-paddy agriculture. Use of the waterwheel is unheard of in records dating before Han; during Han, there is all of the sudden numerous recorded uses of the waterwheel. I changed the sentence a bit so that it sounds less confusing.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I am currently copyediting this article. The lead is excellent. Under "Western Han", "enfeoffed" is such an uncommon word that I think it should be replaced. More will follow. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

"Enfeoffed" is perhaps not used very often, but it is the correct terminology. In any case, thanks for copyediting! I need some outside help. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Is it? Was China technically feudal then? Even if so, you could still spell out that they were given kingships in reward for service, instead of using a word that isn't in common use. – Quadell (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, there was a clearly-established nobility, although their "fiefs" were not organized in the European sense, since they were more like counties and commanderies. Unlike Medieval Europe, there were also no serfs, although wealthy nobles did have retainers. Yet the latter were not used in agriculture; tenant farmers represented the majority of workers on the estates of the wealthy (and small independent owner-cultivators represented the majority of farmers overall). If you think there is a clarity problem with "enfoeff", I can reword that sentence. Hold on to your bootstraps, though...--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Wow, I'm not sure "ennobled" is any better. Not sure the best way to handle this. Perhaps you could go back to enfoeffed, but link the word to Fiefdom? – Quadell (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Hah! I kind of figured "ennobled" would be easier to understand since it sounds close to the word "noble". I guess I was wrong! I'll change it back to enfeoff if you think that is more appropriate. However, I added an inter-wiki link to the Wiktionary definition of "enfeoff" just to be safe.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC) In the fifth paragraph of "Western Han", you mention "commanderies", another unusual word that could be explained. And following that is a sentence with five parenthetical phrases and five sources, which needs to be broken up. – Quadell (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think it's necessary to explain what a commandery is in this particular section, especially since it is covered in the "Government" section below and is linked to a separate article where it is explained. Also, which sentence needs to be broken up? I'm kind of confused here. Could you copy-and-paste the sentence here, so I know which one you are referring to? Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC) "Even before Han's expansion into Central Asia, the travels of the diplomat Zhang Qian from 139–125 BCE established Chinese contacts with Dayuan (Fergana), Kangju (Sogdiana), Daxia (Bactria, formerly the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom), and knowledge of Shendu (Indus River valley of North India) and Anxi (the Persian Empire of Parthia), all of which eventually received Han embassies.[37][38][39][40][41]" I changed the sentence to the version you suggested on your talk page. Good idea!--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC) The article tends to overparenthesize. In parts, nearly every sentence has a parenthetical phrase. Certainly temporal notes like "(d. 106 BCE)" are helpful, and belong in parentheses, but others are not. Most of these should be rewritten to not use parentheses. Some can just be removed, as I did here, with no loss in readability; others will need sentence splitting. It looks like you link to people's articles when they have articles, but list people's Chinese names only when they don't. I'm not sure this is useful. Instead, I think it would be better to create stubs for figures like Huhanye Shanyu and Gan Yanshou, and leave the Chinese spellings of their names out of this article. – Quadell (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Adding the Chinese characters for names of people who do not yet have articles follows the guidelines provided in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language). I wouldn't mind creating stubs articles for these people, but I'd like to get more sources on them first and more info about them. Otherwise, we're talking about one-sentence stubs. As for the parenthetical phrases, I will get to work cleaning that up.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I just finished a major cleanup of the article, rewording various sentences that had statements in parentheses and splitting apart rather large sentences into two or three. I hope you guys like the new improvements to the prose of the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Your changes are good. I made a few copyedits, and commented some on my talkpage, though I'd like to keep discussion here as much as possible. I'll continue reading and commenting today and tomorrow. – Quadell (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Excellent! The article looks and reads much better now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I'm a little confused by this sentence: The general Zhang Huan (張奐) sided with the eunuchs and engaged in a shouting match with Dou Wu and his retainers; when the latter gradually deserted Dou's side, he was forced to commit suicide. Was this "shouting match" a one-time event where members of the court were yelling at each other? Why was this notable? What does it mean that Dou Wu deserted his side? Does "Dou" mean Dou Wu or the Empress Dowager? And who committed suicide? – Quadell (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Also, "...while Emperor Ling spent much of his time play-acting with concubines..." Does this mean acting in plays? – Quadell (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Also, "After Yuan died, Cao was able to eliminate his sons who fought over his inheritance." Does this mean Cao was able to kill Yuan's sons while they fought over Yuan's inheritance? Or that Cao marginalizes their influence by encouraging them to fight over an inherinence? – Quadell (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I'll try to answer this point by point. Was this "shouting match" a one-time event where members of the court were yelling at each other? Why was this notable? What does it mean that Dou Wu deserted his side? Does "Dou" mean Dou Wu or the Empress Dowager? And who committed suicide? You can read the whole story here at User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Cambridge2#The Fall of Han, or in the article History of the Han Dynasty#Partisan Prohibitions. I don't have room to discuss it in the main Han Dynasty article, but Zhang Huan basically had just come back from a military campaign on the frontier, and was informed that a coup was happening. He was forced to join sides (and didn't want to wind up on the wrong side of the coup). He was told that Dou Wu had become a traitor, so marched his forces up to the palace gate in a confrontation with Dou Wu. Both sides hurled insults at each other and accused each other of being rebels. Gradually, Zhang Huan won this verbal argument, as everyone began to desert Dou Wu's side. With almost no one left to defend him, Dou Wu decided to kill himself rather than be arrested and face "justice" in court (where a decision would no doubt be influenced by the eunuchs' desire to have him killed). It's amusing to note that no one besides Dou Wu died in this confrontation, as no actual physical fighting broke out. I can reword this sentence a bit if it is still confusing to you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Does this mean acting in plays? No. As explained further in History of the Han Dynasty, he literally dressed up like a traveling salesman in his harem and had his concubines dress up as female market vendors who would flirt with him and fight over him and steal from each other (as was the stereotype of petty market merchants in Han times). Does this need to be clarified? Rafe de Crespigny used it as an example of how Emperor Ling showed little concern for state affairs (leaving that to his powerful eunuchs) and was much more concerned with messing around and having fun with women.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Does this mean Cao was able to kill Yuan's sons while they fought over Yuan's inheritance? Or that Cao marginalizes their influence by encouraging them to fight over an inherinence? Actually, as detailed in History of the Han Dynasty, the infighting allowed Cao Cao to first eliminate Yuan Tan, who was busy fighting his brothers at the same time. Yuan Shang and Yuan Xi did not want to share his fate, and so fled to the Wuhuan people. However, after Cao Cao defeated the Wuhuan chieftain Ta Dun, these two Yuan brothers fled to Gongsun Kang, who killed both of them and sent their heads to Cao Cao in submission (since he did not want to be liable for these two if Cao Cao came to Gongsun's territory to finally punish them). Perhaps I should reword this as well?--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I just reworded these, except for the play-acting thing with Emperor Ling. Does that really need to be reworded?--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Your rewordings are great. The entire article should be clear to someone who knows nothing about the Han Dynasty, and those changes help. I also reworded the play-acting part as "spent much of his time [[Sexual roleplay|roleplaying]] with concubines", which I think is an accurate description. – Quadell (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Dude! Why didn't I think of that first! Lol. Roleplaying. It's so obvious! Good thinking.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Under "Education, literature, and philosophy", the first sentence of the last paragraph looks out of place. "The student, scholar, and bureaucrat could be aided by a multitude of texts." But then you list works created by Han scholars, rather than previously created works used by Han scholars. Perhaps it should be replaced by something like "A multitude of important texts were created by Han scholars" or words to that effect. – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I'm left with a number of questions under "Law and order" (though it's well written). What was legal and what was illegal? Was it legal to murder your wife, or slave? Were penalties different for different social classes? Was it illegal to speak against the Emperor, or Confucius, or the gods? Were alcohol or other drugs illegal? Prostitution? – Quadell (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Under "Clothing and cuisine", I see no milk or cheese products. I'm no expert, but isn't that unusual? Worth a mention? Also, does the clothing information refer to both sexes? Were there modesty requirements that are different from the modern English-speaking audience? Any info on cosmetics, or hairstyles? I understand not wanting to crowd the article with information, but a sentence seems appropriate to me. The Han Chinese clothing article says "Many East Asian and Southeast Asian national costumes, such as the Japanese kimono, the Korean hanbok and the Vietnamese áo tứ thân, all were influenced by Hanfu." That seems worthy of mention. (By the way, I'm finding rather little to do as a proofreader. It's written quite well.) – Quadell (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC) The "Religion, cosmology, and metaphysics" section directs readers to see Silk Road transmission of Buddhism for further information, but the section mentions neither Buddhism nor the Silk Road. Shouldn't Buddhism get a mention? – Quadell (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC) In the caption for File:Painted figures on a lacquer basket, Eastern Han Dynasty2.jpg, the phrase "Paragons of filial piety" is unclear. Who are paragons? The artists, the figures, or the members of the commandery? – Quadell (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC) The "History: Western Han" section says "To placate his prominent commanders from the war with Chu, Emperor Gaozu enfeoffed some of them as kings for their services. By 157 BCE, the Han court had replaced all of these kings with royal Liu family members, since their loyalty to the throne came into question." But the "Government: Kingdoms and marquessates" says "In the beginning of Han, the kingdoms—roughly the size of commanderies—were ruled by the emperor's male relatives as semi-autonomous fiefs." Is that a contradiction? – Quadell (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Once again, I'll answer these point by point. But then you list works created by Han scholars, rather than previously created works used by Han scholars. Perhaps it should be replaced by something like "A multitude of important texts were created by Han scholars" or words to that effect. Sure, those are works created by Han scholars, but they are also works that would have been utilized by Han gentry scholars for other gentrymen. Otherwise, there would be no point in writing a philosophical work if you had no audience to read it! Lol. But you're right in terms of this sentence needing to be reworded. Perhaps something like "A multitude of important texts were created and utilized by Han scholars." That's perhaps the best model, as it covers both.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I'm left with a number of questions under "Law and order" (though it's well written). What was legal and what was illegal? Was it legal to murder your wife, or slave? Were penalties different for different social classes? Was it illegal to speak against the Emperor, or Confucius, or the gods? Were alcohol or other drugs illegal? Prostitution? Hmm. I'm not sure if prostitution was ever made illegal, but yes, you would be sentenced in court for murdering your wife, the same for murdering a slave. This is actually covered in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty, in various sections (not just the law and order section of that article). Alcohol was made a government monopoly and was a commonly taxed item when it was not a monopolized industry, so no, it was not illegal. I don't believe the ancient Chinese had any conception of making certain medicinal substances illegal either. And yes, it was illegal to profane the emperor, as discussed in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty. I think that there's simply not enough room in the main Han Dynasty article to include all of this stuff. These are things that are already discussed in the main article for society and culture where there is sufficient room for these details.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Under "Clothing and cuisine", I see no milk or cheese products. You are a keen observer! Yes, even in modern times, the Chinese diet lacks dairy products of any kind, although with recent Western influences this is changing (very slowly, and perhaps only marginally). The Chinese viewed milk and cheese as foods fit for the northern pastoral nomads, whom they considered uncilivilized (and hence condemned dairy products as an uncivilized foodtsuff...an unfortunate development, I would say, since I don't know how anyone could live without provolone and cheddar! Lol). I'll try to find a source that says something about dairy foods during Han times. As for the clothes, everything mentioned except for skirts were unisex, including the materials used such as silk, wool, and furs. As for the traditional Hanfu robes spawning traditional clothing types in other countries, you are definitely right to assume this deserves mentioning here. I will try to find a source for that pronto. Hold on to your bootstraps...--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't Buddhism get a mention? Yes, it should. I'll get on that right now. The reason I didn't add anything here to the main article is because this info was already found in the branch articles I created, and I was worried about the size of this article. I don't think that's too much of a concern now, since it seems very unlikely that the addition of one more sentence will cause people to raise objections over article size.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Is that a contradiction? Yes it is. I meant "early", but said "beginning" instead. I just fixed that statement so that it agrees with the earlier one. Thanks for catching that!--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC) There should be a sentence on the navy under "Government: Military". Was it conscripted? – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Sure thing. I just added a sentence listing the three branches of the armed forces: infantry, cavalry, and navy.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Under "variations in currency", I don't think the weights of each coin are important enough to be in the article. The fact that Lu Zhi's coin was much lighter is important, but I would cut a lot of this section out, and include it only in "Ancient Chinese coinage". – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, the info is found at Economy of the Han Dynasty. Exactly which ones do you think are the most extraneous? All of them except for Empress Lu Zhi's coin?--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Since you asked, I got rid of most of them.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC) At the top of the "Science, technology, and engineering" section (above "Writing materials"), I think there should be a sentence or two introducing the advancements, saying that this period "witnessed some of the most significant advancements in premodern Chinese science and technology" or "had an organized study of the natural world" or that "independently of Greek philosophers and other civilizations, ancient Chinese philosophers made significant advances in " yadda yadda. – Quadell (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I'll see what I can do.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think it's good to say anything unless I get a specific scholar's viewpoint. Otherwise, it will simply look like original research or an opinion of the Wiki editor.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I hope you find what I just added sufficient, because I do not think any more additions would be helpful for the overall prose size of the article. That said, I think you'll like the new addition to the science and tech section!--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, all my concerns have been addressed. This article is absolutely top-notch. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much for your patience and invaluable suggestions. Without your input, this article wouldn't be half as good! One more question though: would you mind if I put our conversation in a collapsible text box?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. Collapsible box it is (I discussed this with User:Quadell on his talk page).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think the article is now up to snuff. Zeus1234 (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for reviewing the article!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Per request by Pericles, I am reading through the whole article, copyediting as I go. Unfortunately, simply because this article is very long and I do not have huge blocks of time to donate, it may take several days. I have only been through the lead and the first section so far. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for using some of your spare time to copyedit this article. It is very appreciated, I assure you!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There's an awful lot of consecutive notes in the article. I'm referring especially to those that are after the sentences that begin with the following: "All of these countries...", "Han was eventually victorious...", "The issuing of coinage...", "The liquor monopoly...", "These included the outlawing of slavery...", "He abolished all...", "Using a water clock...", "A few Han mathematical treatises...", "They also theorized...", "Moreover, Han ships...". None of these examples contain citations used elswhere, which could motivate separation, and these are really just the ones that are in the four-to-six-note (!) range. There's plenty more in the two-to-three-range. These citations obviously belong together, but are still listed separately. Stacking notes in this manner doesn't appear to achieve improved verifiablity, but rather adds a whole lot of clutter. Multiple references supporting the same sentence(s) could just as well be listed within the same footnote. The end result would be just as exact, but without the need to keep track of up to six separate citation links. Peter ^Isotalo 22:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm very used to tacking inline citations one after the other. In fact, I've been doing it for years at Wiki without any objections or complaints raised by others about producing clutter and saving space. You can see many other featured articles do this as well, let alone the vast sea of non-featured articles using multiple citations for the same sentence. However, I am open to the idea of amending the article according to your suggestion. But only if a significant amount of editors here happen to agree with your suggestion. Thoughts, anyone?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think having multiple citations in one footnote is a good idea. I do however think that consolidating excessive footnotes is.Zeus1234 (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple citations within the same note is standard practice with note-based references everywhere. If you cite Smith, Johnson and Simpson for the same statement you put them in the same note, or place notes so that they reference different parts of a statement. To the best of my knowledge the use of notes as seen in this article does not exist anywhere else. I've seen this in other Wiki articles before, but this time it's been taken to a rather extreme extent. Hence the heads up. Consecutive notes can sometimes be meaningful, like when you're working with full-info notes, or, as pointed out, with notes that are used multiple times. I can also understand that it's a bit easier to work with when articles are in the process of expansion. But with an FAC that is supposed to be mature and stable, and with shortened notes no less, it really just a matter of superscript clutter without added verifiability. You might not notice it because you're used to it by now, but it looks incredibly cluttered to anyone who understands citation standards and isn't heavily involved with Wikipedia, ei a hellofalot of readers. And if you think it's not bad in your browser, just imagine how much more complicated it must be in print.

There's no guideline that recommends this practice, and I've seen no discussion supporting it either. I'd really like to hear exactly why you oppose the suggestion, Zeus.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen an article that puts multiple references in the same footnote. Please point one out for me so I can see exactly what you mean.Zeus1234 (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 (note 16) is one example. I've used it in FAs that I've worked on as well, like Vasa (ship) (notes 2, 23, 47). I don't see why you're treating this as something exotic, though. You can probably find it in any print work that contains notes. More relevant, in my view, is that this appears to be a Wikipedian invention that you can't find anywhere else. Considering that we're usually trying to follow the various real world citations standards as closely as possible, this usage should be avoided unless there's some really strong argument in favor.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comment — Very nice article, but it could benefit from some copy-editing, in particular the "Structural engineering" subheading. Also, the lead is too long and still misses important information. Pergamino (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pergamino. I've assembled a team of copyeditors who are working on the article right now, all of them from the Guild of Copyeditors. An enormous amount of progress has been made. I'll see what I can do about the "structural engineering" sub-section and shortening the lead section. However, please keep in mind that much has already been excised from the lead. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pergamino. There's a problem with having so many paragraphs in the lead. Wikipedia:Lead section states that the introductory text should be no more than four paragraphs. The lead cannot have five as it does now. Since you want more info about Society/Culture/Economics/Government/Science and Tech in the lead, some of the info summarizing the History section in the lead has to go. The political and military history dominates the lead section at the moment.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for supporting the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Just out of curiosity, why do you have as many as six footnotes after a statement? Is this not a summary article? Why are so many citations needed? (I commend you for assemling a team of copy editors! In general, I am a fan of your articles, but this one is a bit overwhelming.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added many citations in certain spots so that the reader may choose from a variety of sources to verify a statement. I take it that you accept User:Pergamino's proposal about multiple source citations in a single footnote? If so I will now seriously consider amending the article according to Pergamino's proposal.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Small correction: the suggestion was mine, not Pergamino's. Just so he doesn't start taking flak for my pointers. :-) Seeing this explanation, though, I'd like to raise a word of caution. Make sure that all cited references can support the entire statement. It's not that likely to draw criticism, but if someone looks up one of the bonus references and doesn't find all the facts, they might start complaining that the citations are unclear. To avoid this, you might want to consider placing the most relevant reference(s) first and placing the rest after a "see also". If we take the sentence "Han-era mathematical achievements..." it could looks like this:

"Dauben (2007), 212, 219–222; see also Liu, Feng, Jiang, & Zheng (2003), 9–10; Needham (1986a), 22, 24–25, 99–101, 121; Temple (1986), 139, 142–143; Shen, Crossley, & Lun (1999), 388; Straffin (1998), 166."

Peter ^Isotalo 10:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha! Yeah, sorry, that was me coming home from the bar a bit drunk last night. I got those "p" user names mixed up! Haha. I'll have to lay off the "Washington Apples" and Jack-and-Cokes for a while. They're a doozy. And good point. I'll put the most relevant references first (the sentence in mathematics is a great example of where each item is taken from one or two of the citations), but really, most of the multiple citations do support the whole statement.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I just finished fixing the citations in the entire History section! I'll take a break for now, but by the end of the day, all of the citations will conform to Peter's suggested model here. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The citations are now all done! There are no longer any sentences with multiple footnotes tacked one on top of the other.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Must have meant quite a bit of tinkering. Good job!

Peter ^Isotalo 08:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for image concerns as follows:

• File:History of China.gif: who is the copyright holder of this image? Hell's coffeepot (地狱牌咖啡壶)? For admins: do image files have a "Deletion option" before the version column? Reason for my asking: (删除该图像的所有修订版本) = Delete all revisions of this image.
• File:Guardians of Day and Night, Han Dynasty.jpg: these are painted reliefs, 3-D images (i.e. PD-Art does not qualify).
• File:Que, or pillar gate, at the Wu Family Shrine.jpg: this can be stored on Wikipedia if it was published (not just taken) before 1923, but its status is iffy for Commons. What proof is there of the photographer's death beyond 70 years (aside from questions on the photo's publication status)?
• File:Gold animals.JPG: unlike the other Gary Lee Todd photos, this does not specify an OTRS ticket nor is it licensed under GFDL. Is this correct? Is it under another OTRS ticket?
• What is with the five File:Blank.svgs in the Infobox?
• File:Mold for bronze gear Han dinasty.JPG: Not part for an actionable oppose; it would be nice to know the location where this was taken.

The OTRS's for Gary Lee Todd's pictures are excellent! All OTRS templates should be done in such a manner (but should it be done as a personalised template?). Just a few items need clarifications or actions. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm busy fixing the article's citations at the moment and I'm about to eat dinner, but I can tell you one thing about one of these images. The setup you saw at File:Gold animals.JPG was an old one which I replaced with a Gary Lee Todd template. I just fixed that image so that it now has the updated Gary Lee Todd template. I'll address these other concerns shortly. But for now my ravioli and pasta shells are calling me! Lol. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What is with the five File:Blank.svgs in the Infobox? You mean the File:Blank.png? There's five of those in the infobox. Usually, a national flag is located there of the new nation or country that succeeded the one under discussion. For example, look at the infobox for Qing Dynasty. There was no such thing as national flags during Han times or even immediately after. This is a 19th-century Western introduction to China. File:Blank.png is actually not included in this article, but is simply part of the infobox template. I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to mess with that for the sake of this article. I believe that would produce technical problems elsewhere, no?.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

??? File:History of China.gif is no not included in this article. However, File:History of China.png, placed in the Template:History of China, is located in this article. It also has an appropriate license (i.e. {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}). Is this still a problem?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Que, or pillar gate, at the Wu Family Shrine.jpg was most certainly taken by an author who died more than 70 years ago, because it was taken by Édouard Chavannes (died 1918) when he visted the Wu Family Shrine in Shandong around the turn of the 20th century. I forgot to specify that when I originally uploaded the picture, although I have just edited it over at Commons to note that it was authored by Chavannes.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that File:Guardians of Day and Night, Han Dynasty.jpg is a relief and not just a flat painting? The caption in the source I used, Robert Temple (1986), simply states that they are Han paintings on ceramic tile. Isn't a tile supposed to be flat? That's what I assumed. It's difficult to say if the image is raised or not, but it looks pretty flat to me.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As for File:Mold for bronze gear Han dinasty.JPG, I left a message on the talk page of User:Hispalois, the uploader of the image, asking him where he took the photo (most likely from a museum).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(reset indentations) For the Infobox, would it not be better to leave out those preceding and succeeding states? It seems weird and confusing to those of lesser know to see blank rectangles with arrows and no indication on what each is for. The Infobox creators should have catered for this circumstance.

File:Que, or pillar gate, at the Wu Family Shrine.jpg: Chavannes' death becomes irrelevant if this image was first published between 1923 and 2002. Was this image published before 1923, or was it unpublished until this book?

File:Guardians of Day and Night, Han Dynasty.jpg: from my encounters with Chinese arts, it is quite likely these are reliefs; not fully raised like those of Greek works, but just slightly raised from the tile surface (or the outlines are etched into the tiles). The textures of the surface around the outlines of the guardians and symbols suggest the "raised" style. However, Commons and Wikipedia operates on the principles of verifibility, so if Temple says they are simply paintings, we can take his word for them unless someone else brings another reliable source (or expert opinion) to dispute it; thus stricken.

File:Gold animals.JPG: the licenses include cc-3.0 sharealike and unported. The terms for the two have a slight but crucial difference—attribution for derivatives. Were there two OTRSs for Todd's images? If not, is Unported the correct license, or is it Sharealike?

By using the template, File:History of China.gif is considered part of this article. The main concern is whether this image is indeed free, and whether the copyright holder is correctly identified. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I edited Template:History of China and explained the problem in my edit summary. I also got rid of those blank boxes in the infobox.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Was this image published before 1923, or was it unpublished until this book? That's a good question. I do not know. If I remember correctly, the caption in Recarving China's Past (2005) does not specify if it was published previously. I take it this is a bad thing? I'll go by my school library tomorrow and check out the book again just to make sure.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As for File:Gold animals.JPG, the unported license was simply a leftover from a long-ago previous edit that I forgot to delete. That license does not belong on the page, so I have stricken it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have stricken some, and have also clarified the issue with File:History of China.gif at Template talk:History of China#Image has no copyright (the explanation for removal is a bit off). Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Just to be safe, I have stricken File:Que, or pillar gate, at the Wu Family Shrine.jpg from the article, until I can go to the library tomorrow and confirm if the picture was not published until 2005, or sometime earlier (i.e. 1923 or before). Is that the last obstacle for you to strike your opposition?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, remaining images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Opposition so stricken. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha! I just visited the library as promised, and I am relieved to find out that I can add the picture back to the article! I checked out Recarving China's Past at the library and found out that the que pillar-gate picture was originally published in Mission archéologique dans la Chine septentrionale by Édouard Chavannes (Paris: E Leroux, 1909-, Series Publications de l'École française d'Éxtrême-Orient, vol. 13, pt. one.) So, Jappalang, since the picture was originally published before 1923, can I add it back to the article now?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please add it back. I have added the relevant tag in the image page. Jappalang (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.