• 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)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 04:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 04:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 08:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 08:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 09:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 09:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 09:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 19:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 02:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 03:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 05:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 05:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 06:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 06:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 07:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 09:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 06:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 06:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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 Athens^Talk 17:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 22:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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 Athens^Talk 22:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 18:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Excellent! The article looks and reads much better now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 Athens^Talk 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just reworded these, except for the play-acting thing with Emperor Ling. Does that really need to be reworded?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dude! Why didn't I think of that first! Lol. Roleplaying. It's so obvious! Good thinking.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 Athens^Talk 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a sentence on the navy under "Government: Military". Was it conscripted? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I just added a sentence listing the three branches of the armed forces: infantry, cavalry, and navy.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, I got rid of most of them.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll see what I can do.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Athens^Talk 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]