Talk:History of the Great Wall of China

Comment re: length
This is a pretty well developed article, but I think the length seriously needs to be trimmed (we're at 78375 characters (12941 words) of readable prose size and counting). WP:SIZERULE suggests splitting the article further (since this is already a subarticle, I don't think that's the best approach, but it may work), but I also suggest removing some extraneous information (lifespans of the historiographers, stuff like that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * About that, I've always been unsure whether and when to put lifespans (or reign years) after mentioning a name. Is there a standard somewhere that deals with this? _dk (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's common in historiography, though on Wikipedia it's more of a personal style. IMO, for the emperors etc. the years of their reign provide adequate chronological context (i.e. when, roughly, did these events happen?), but the lifespan of the historians is not really relevant to the topic at hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Arif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.34.88 (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources on the Great Wall construction during the Ming dynasty
Great wall construction

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dj39aC21EQ0C&pg=PA29&dq=1540+great+wall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GPfiUp2wDtWvsQSQ7YDgAw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=1540%20great%20wall&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_ahBEjHRnBcC&pg=PA102&dq=1540+great+wall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GPfiUp2wDtWvsQSQ7YDgAw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=1540%20great%20wall&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA61&dq=1540+great+wall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GPfiUp2wDtWvsQSQ7YDgAw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=1540%20great%20wall&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=erlv2BM04zEC&pg=PA14&dq=1540+great+wall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GPfiUp2wDtWvsQSQ7YDgAw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=1540%20great%20wall&f=false

05:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

MILHIST assessment
Hard to do with such a long article, but a good proofreading would bring this up to "B" standards. The grammar/usage errors appear to be remnants of earlier edits -- the stray word that doesn't fit the current sentence -- and some redundancy, as in an "imperial empire." --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Practice run for GA
Hi everybody. I think did an amazing job writing this article, and judging from the barnstars, many of you agree with me! I propose we now work together to take the article to GA class, and eventually to featured article status. We've got some of the best editors in WikiProject China working on this, so we can definitely do it!

and have both assessed the article as C class, mostly because the lede is too short (Rincewind42's point) and because the text needs a good proofreading (Lineagegeek's point). I agree with both, but I think we're also close to GA status. Looking at the criteria for GA, I'd say the article only falls short on points 1a [prose], 1b (lead section and a few "words to watch"), and 3b ["stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)"]. None of these should pose a problem, though they might take a little time because the article is long.

Now I'd like to start some kind of "pre-GA" review for one section to see how much work we need to do. I chose to start with the first section of "Song and the conquest dynasties (907–1368)". My comments are very detailed, but my goal is not to be picky, it's to improve the article so that it gets the recognition it deserves! If you find this useful, I will try to continue with the other sections. Madalibi (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments on "The Wall of Genghis Khan": walls of the Khitan, Jurchens, and Tanguts Ok, getting very tired, so I'll stop here. See you all around! Madalibi (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In recent times, although these walls...: "recently" and similar expressions are among what the Manual of Style calls "words to avoid" (see WP:RELTIME). Could someone clarify what "in recent times" refers to?
 * they have acquired the nickname "the Wall of Genghis Khan": this name is only mentioned in the NatGeo article, which is about a Western Xia wall that is now in Mongolia. This sentence makes it seem as though the Liao and Jin walls are also called "the Wall of Genghis Khan", which is not true. This sentence belongs in the section's last paragraph, where the Western Xia walls are discussed, and "the Wall of Genghis Khan" should be removed from the section title.
 * These non-Chinese walls were contemporarily referred to as waibao (外堡, "outer fortresses") in Chinese, öngü in Mongolian, and yoqurqa in Turkish. (1) Waldron doesn't say that these walls were called that at the time. His footnote refers to a 1950 study on Genghis Khan and to a work by Paul Pelliot, who probably heard these terms during his fieldwork in the relevant regions. (2) Waldron says that only "the longest Chin walls" were so-called, not all the walls built by conquest dynasties, so this sentence should probably be moved to the end of the section's 3rd paragraph, where Jin walls are discussed.
 * although these walls have no direct connection with Genghis Khan: do they have an indirect connection with Genghis Khan, then? Simplify to "no connection"? Also the NatGeo source only says that this wall "wasn't the work of Genghis Khan or his heirs", but suggests that they were built to fend off Mongols (or at least precursors of the Mongols).
 * Nevertheless these walls are regarded as part of the Great Wall system: by whom? This sentence may actually be unnecessary. The sole fact that we're discussing this "wall of Genghis Khan" shows that we are considering them part of the "Great Wall system", which is the modern concept that allows us to discuss all these walls in the same article even if they were built by different states, at different times, and for different purposes.
 * Amid the feuding warlord dynasties in China in the post-Tang Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, the Khitan chieftain Abaoji...: is *amid* the right word, here? The link sounds vague.
 * ...establishing the Liao dynasty in 907...: maybe I'm being too picky, but technically the "Great Liao" was only founded in 947. In 907, Abaoji only proclaimed himself Great Khan of the Khitans.
 * ...came to possess the crucial border region known as the Sixteen Prefectures through political wrangling...: "political wrangling" sounds more colloquial than encyclopedic. Also, a few more details would probably help readers. They can be found, with the necessary references, on the page Sixteen Prefectures.
 * In 908, Abaoji extended the Great Wall to the mouth of the Liao River: many problems with this sentence.... (1) In 907, they were still nomadic warriors, so 908 sounds very fast for the Khitan's sinicization or turn to a sedentary lifestyle, as suggested by the previous sentence. (2) This sentence also makes it seem like the concept of "the Great Wall" was already used at the time. One of Waldron's points in his book is that this concept is actually quite recent, and that we shouldn't project it into the past. I suggest we rephrase to something less anachronistic. (3) Point 1 is enhanced when we think that the Liao only obtained the Sixteen Prefectures (which contained "the main Great Wall line") in the 930s. If they didn't control the main Great Wall line in 908, how and from where could they extend it to the mouth of the Liao River? (4) Finally I think this sentence sounds more self-assured than the source that supports it. The relevant passage of "Wittfogel & Feng 1946, p. 367" is a translation of "築長城於鎮東海口" from History of Liao (juan 1, p. 3 of the usual Zhonghua Shuju edition) as "The Great Wall was extended to the sea-mouth of Chen-tung." (The translation seems wrong: it should be more like "long walls were built" [see point 2]). In a footnote, they say that zhendong haikou 鎮東海口 "occurs only once in the Liao Shih" and "is difficult to explain". They state that Zhendong "was probably the military name of T'ung 同 Prefecture" and refer to Liaoshi 38, p. 469, which speaks of Tongzhou 同州 as Zhen'anjun 鎮安軍. Even if Tongzhou 同州 was on the Liao River about 200 kilometers off the coast (see Tan Qixiang's historical atlas, vol. 6, pp. 8–9, coordinates 8–11), Wittfogel & Feng conclude that if Zhendong was indeed Tongzhou/Zhen'anjun, "the sea-mouth would then be the mouth of the Liao River". This all sounds pretty speculative to me. Of course, we can't introduce this kind of analysis into our article, so I'm not sure what to do with this sentence. Any suggestions?
 * ...in 1026 the walls saw further extension...: "saw" is a weak main verb. And "north of Nong'an County to the banks of the Songhua River" sounds awfully far from existing walls to be called an "extension"!
 * ...these walls did not stop the Liao vassals the Jurchens...: had they been designed to stop the Jurchens? If so, this fact should be mentioned in the previous sentence. If not, this formulation is misleading.
 * The Jin applied increased energy to the Liao's wall-building activities...: makes it sounds like the Jin worked for the Liao. Could you clarify?
 * Further walls arose: not sure this is the right wording.
 * between 1165 and 1181...from 1192 to 1203...: Waldron 1990 (p. 49) says that "large-scale work was carried out in 1181; and additional construction was completed in 1198". The dates don't match. Is there a good reason to prefer Bush 1981 (who bases her dates on a 1954 study by a Japanese scholar) over Waldron 1990? Do we know where Waldron got his 1198 date? I also note that Bush speaks of 1165 and 1181 instead of a range of dates: correct that?
 * ...inner moats ranging from 10 to 60 m in width, beacon towers at irregular intervals, semicircular platforms on the outside of the wall...: this is too close to Waldron's wording: "with the inner moat ranging from ten to even sixty meters in width. Beacon towers, at irregular intervals, are associated with Chin walls, as too are semicircular platforms on the outside of the walls". Could you rephrase this to avoid copyright violation issues? If these descriptions are too technical to be reworded, they could also be put in quotation marks and attributed to Waldron.
 * stood more than 2.75 m tall: the NatGeo article states that the walls are "preserved to a height of 9 feet (2.75 meters) in places" and that the wall "originally stood at least 2 meters (6.5 feet) taller than it does today." It's hard to give an exact height from these figures. "More than 2.75 m tall" is technically correct, but it suggests less than 3 meters tall, which I think is too short. Not sure how to reword, though...
 * the Xia Great Wall in this location may have been incomplete: was there really a "Xia Great Wall" or are we again being misled by the modern concept of "the Great Wall"? And I don't understand what it would mean for the Xia walls to be "incomplete", here. Clarify?
 * Two general comments based on this section: (1) I think we should hear more about why these states built so many walls. Who were they defending themselves against? I understand that not all studies answer this question, but some do, including the NatGeo article, yet the paragraph based on that article doesn't present this information. (2) I also find that the text takes the concept of "the Great Wall" too much for granted. Waldron is the most cited author in the article (60 references out of 212, and many more if you count merged footnotes), yet his main point that there was no such thing as "the Great Wall" sometimes gets ignored. For example, we hear about "the Xia Great Wall" and we're told that "Abaoji extended the Great Wall". I haven't read the rest of the article as closely as this section, but I think this issue applies throughout.


 * Thank you Madalibi! This is very helpful and exactly what I need. I don't have some of the sources available with me right now (most crucially Waldron 1990), but I will deal with these points the best I can. Then, without going through my sources in detail, I'll respond in a preliminary manner:
 * "The Walls of Genghis Khan" seems to be a catch-all phrase to refer to lines of raised earth that are found throughout Mongolia (According to this Daily Mail article and the attached map). They may be "Great Wall" remnants from the Han (from the Daily Mail article), the Xia (from the NatGeo article), the Liao, Jin, or Yuan (from this China Daily article). Or they may just be irrigation ditches and walls to prevent gazelle migration built by local herders. Strangely, these claims are all attributable to the British researcher William Lindesay. John Man's half-history half-travelogue The Great Wall devotes a whole chapter to his search of the "Wall of Genghis Khan". These are why I saw fit to use that phrase to refer to wall remnants in Mongolia. I realize now that could be vague, so I will remove it from the heading and include an explanation of that term in relation with the Great Wall. The "Wall of Genghis Khan" can be a subject of its own article in the future, I think.
 * The names of the Jin walls: I now think that if those names of the wall were relatively modern, then it is of limited usefulness in an article about history (especially the Mongolian and Turkish names). They can go to a "Names" section in the main Great Wall article.
 * Yes, this could be a good idea! Though I can't find that "Names" section in Great Wall of China... Madalibi (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone will have to write it, likely me :/ I will have to borrow Waldron 1990 again though. _dk (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The gain of the Sixteen Prefectures through "political wrangling": A previous version of the article had a blurb about Abaoji's son gaining the 16 prefectures as a result of helping Shi Jingtang propping up his state, but I later decided that was too much detail on a tangential matter and simplified it. The balance between providing adequate context and not going into too much detail is hard to master :/
 * True indeed, and the article is already very long, but this is the kind of historical detail that could be more relevant than the Mongolian and Turkic names, for example. I'm also thinking that some details about Khubilai Khan's inner Asian policies could be cut, unless we develop the theme of "the wall in Chinese relations to Inner Asia" more explicitly throughout. Madalibi (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Anachronistic references to the "Great Wall": As a result of my jumping around dynasties when writing the article and taking so many other references at face value, I seemed to have lost track of when I should and should not use the term "Great Wall", I'm so sorry Dr. Waldron :(
 * Bush vs Waldron: Indeed, the dates don't match. Since I couldn't find where Waldron got that number I went with Bush instead. However, this is a valid concern and I am not sure whose dates I should use, or both?
 * 1165 and 1181 rather than 1165 to 1181 would get rid of one discrepancy, but 1198 is still mysterious. I'll try to check the History of Jin under that year when I have time... Madalibi (talk)
 * The incomplete Xia wall: That was from the NatGeo article, with William Lindesay saying that the wall didn't seem able to accommodate troops and give smoke signals, basically "half-built".
 * Ok, I see. I think the current wording doesn't convey that clearly enough. Madalibi (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again! Your most excellent input is very much appreciated :) _dk (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad to help, and I'll keep adding comments when I have time! Madalibi (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6652470/Mongolians-destroy-Great-Wall-of-China.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2108127/New-section-Great-Wall-China-discovered-British-researcher.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

New presentation order for the section "Song and the conquest dynasties (907–1368)"?
The section titled "The old Great Walls as Song boundary lines" starts with "Han Chinese power rose again with the Song dynasty (960–1279)..." This kind of opening may be misleading, because the previous section just claimed that Han Chinese lost control of the walls for over 400 years starting in 907. Another problem is that this section takes us back in time, since the previous section has already discussed the Jin till 1203 and the Xi Xia till about 1160. Finally, this arrangement forces us to discuss the Liao in two different sections.

To make the narrative flow better, I propose we re-arrange the first two sections of "Song and the conquest dynasties (907–1368)". Because the Song's wall-related activities predated the entire Jin dynasty, we'd first discuss the Song together with the Liao, then more on to the Jin, and finally the Mongols. The new order of presentation would be: (1) 907: fall of Tang and founding of Liao. (2) The Liao obtain the Sixteen Prefectures. (3) Song–Liao rivalry. (4) The Liao's own wall building activities. (5) Song–Xia rivalries and Xia wall building. (6) Jin defeat of the Liao, seizure of the Sixteen Prefectures, and conquest of the Northern Song. (7) Jin wall building. These would not be section names, just a general order of presentation. I'd say the sections themselves would be: Song–Liao; Song–Xia; Jin (with more elegant titles). :-) And Jin walls built to ward off pre-Mongols would be a great transition to the section on the Mongols themselves!

Would this new order of presentation be ok with everybody? Madalibi (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, but I'll defer to User:_dk's view. Sigh ... if only these Chinese emperors had adopted a consecutive order for their dynasties with no overlap :) ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 11:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My original idea was the keep the two zones separate: 1) Mongolia where the "conquest dynasties" built their walls, and 2) the original "line of the Great Wall". This would limit the geographical leaping back and forth, while keeping the "protagonist" consistent before going to the next one, unified by the narrative of these states defending against "the north". Obviously, this approach has its problems and I'm open to whatever works best, but I thought I should explain why the sections are arranged this way when I wrote it. _dk (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Tiny edit...
(... compared to the list above!)

Article says Work that originally could be done by one man in a month with earth now required 100 men to do in stone... in a month? MBG02 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Map of the Great Wall of China.jpg

The Inner Structure of the Ming Walls
Did the core of the Ming walls still consist of rammed earth and only the outside walls were made of brick? There is a reliable source that indicates the latter. Note that it refers to the Mongol Northern Yuan who were contemporary to the Ming for the entire time: "When crossing the Great Wall, which was mostly made of rammed earth, a vanguard of up to 1,000 men would also carry pickaxes to break down the wall." (Atwood, Christopher P. (2004): Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, Facts On File, p. 410) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Crossing the Yalu
A couple of the images on the page, and on the main Great Wall of China page, depict the wall extending well past the Yalu River, seemingly as far as Pyongyang. But the articles make no mention of the river or of the wall extending into Korea/Gojoseon, and I've found no source for it. 2601:645:100:7D3:51DE:52FE:818B:8C6B (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)