Talk:Great Wall of China

Lengthening of Great Wall and China's Northeast Project(东北工程)

I am horrified to find the recent attempt to extend the Great Wall into non-Chinese territories as a part of China's infamous Northeast Project, the fraudulent rewrite of ancient Chinese history to support current Chinese communist regime and its territorial claims. The Great Wall was the longest during Ming Dynasty, when China was the strongest, yet its eastern end was Shanhai Pass, barely above Beijing. Qin and Han dynasties were far weaker and were in no position to built the Great Wall into the land of foreign barbarians who routinely raided into Chinese land and demanded huge tributes, the very reason the Great Wall was built in the first place.

The maps of Qin and Han dynasty era is clearly incorrect and must be removed. After all, Wikipedia is not run by Chinese communist party and must not aid a state-organized academic fraud by Chinese communist party. Wikipedia's integrity depends on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.45.112 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Size for visibility from the moon

The article says this "an object of reasonable contrast to its surroundings some 70 miles in diameter (1 arc-minute) would be visible to the unaided eye from the moon, whose average distance from Earth is 384,393 km (238,857 miles)."

Wanting to know in the metric system how much that was I took different approaches and got, from research into the arc-minute article (I was hoping it said something about their length on the globe, and so did it, I got 1,86 km as the length along the equator), I also got a formula I applied to generate an isosceles that, effectively, would be a couple of right angle triangles with a height of 384393 km and the sides opposite to said angle would, together, add up to the length of the diameter an object would need to be to be visible from the moon, with trigonometry I had something that was like 56.87 times larger than what I had when I followed my third approach, of finding how many kilometers there are in 70 miles, which itself was 60 times larger than the earthen arcminute as defined by the arcminute article... With this said I must insist something must be done to correct this or, if the data is not wrong, to clarify it without ambigous info. Personally I can't do so however because I'm myself confused. Undead Herle King (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC) the Great wall of China is BIG!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.132.104.152 (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Qi Jiguang

Shouldn't the efforts of Qi Jiguang to improve the wall to its powerful state (instead of rammed earth) be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xevorim (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Han legend?

The Qin Dynasty wall image has an explaination of what the colours represet (and there's only one wall color) - the Han one has 3 wall colors (and some dotted lines) and doesn't have a legend. Anyone wanna does not give any indication of where in the image the wall is... I for one don't know where it is in the picture. Can anyone add some sort of clarification to the image TheHYPO (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Visible or not?

> The Great Wall has a maximum width of 30 ft (9.1 m), far below the size that would be visible at a distance of 238,857 miles (384,403 km) (the average distance between the earth and the moon). <

This statement from the article is dubious. Look at a radio/TV transmission mast a dozen miles apart. Suprisingly the steel ropes holding the guyed mast vertical are often visible to the eye, even though they are only inches thick (better say thin). However, they are very long and this makes it possible for the human eye to discern them. Similarly the gap in Saturn's ring is sometimes visible with just 20x or 30x binoculars, which is optically impossible based on the comparision of width and eye resultion. However, the ring gap is also very long and this aides the eye.

Similarly the extreme lenght of the chinese wall may aid the eye to recognize it. This definitely needs further research. 91.83.19.241 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement is in question is entirely reasonable. No-one has ever claimed to be able to see the wall from anything other than a low earth orbit - 100 miles or so. The idea that it could be seen from the moon predates space travel and is obvious fiction, unsupported by a grain of evidence.

You could try this test - look at this Google Earth picture Badaling in which the Wall runs North to South - I defy anyone to identify it although many building as perfecty clear. Only when you zoom in will it become apparent.

Also, the idea that the wall is of 'extreme length' is an over-simplification. It snakes in many directions, it condition is often so delapidated as to merge with the rocky landscape and for huge distances it has all but disappeared. I have flown over some of the better preserved lengths and very often, it can hardly be seen from a plane. If you believe it can be seen from the moon, then frankly, you will believe anything.

There are many myths about the Great Wall: That it can be seen from the moon. That is a lie. Astronauts thought that they could see its shadow from space, but it was really just clouds!

--John Price (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to put it into perspective, the notion that the Great Wall is visible from the Moon is equivalent to that of spotting an extremely long piece of string from cruising altitude on a 747. No matter how long it is, it is ludicrous to claim that it can be seen.

Calculations: The average flight altitude of a commercial jet is around 10 km. Given that the Moon's closest point of orbit is 363,103 km from the Earth, a jet is 36,310 times closer to the Earth. Divide the widest point on the wall (9.1 m) by 36,310 and you get a width of 0.25mm.

--Caifeng Blah554 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw a 2cm long piece of string from 18 miles away with the unaided eye. It all depends on your eyes.

Of course you did (!) --Caifeng Blah554 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way - though I've often heard the Great Wall chosen as a feature visible from space, what about the bands of irrigated farms surrounding the Suez Canal and the older canal (dating back to 12th century B.C.) linking the Nile delta with the Bitter Lakes and thereby the Red Sea? Those isolated bands of green meeting at a right angle are a highly visible artificial feature. (See Nile delta for photo) Wnt (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)¨

If the Great Wall should be visible, one could expect to also see *alot* more roads, rails and rivers which generally are vastly longer and broader. --Vin Kaleu (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In 2003, chinese astronaut, Yang LiWei claimed that he was not able to see the Great Wall in space which destroyed what Martian said to make all chinese happy before. 2:46pm November 13th 2011

Capital W?

In this article the word "wall" when used by itself is sometimes spelt with a capital W, sometimes lowercase. Which is correct? And can we keep it consistent? Fantom (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the capital W is the correct one. If the sentence uses the term "great fall", then it should be capitalised. But if the sentence uses the term "the wall", then I think it would be in lower case. Oidia (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Longest/largest structure?

The List of Largest buildings page makes absolutely no mention of the great wall. And it definitely isnt the longest man made structure, the distance it covers in nothing when compared to the Pan-American Highway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.230.183 (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A highway is not a structure, a highway is an infrastructure. Oidia (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A highway is a structure as well as forming part of an infrastructure; the two are not mutually exclusive. The Great Wall of China is, therefore, neither the longest nor the most extensive man made structure. I also have grave doubts as to whether it is the most massive considering the amount of tarmac, earth and concrete that go into building a road. If anyone can offer any more information on this, it would be appreciated. If not, I will be editing in order to remove these erroneous/dubious claims. --Caifeng Blah554 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The wall is the longest the most extensive man-made structure because it is literally man-made. Highways and such are made with the involvement of machinery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.189.26 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The great wall was built with assistance of machinery as well. And it is not continuous. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

building material

what is the differince between the eastern and western building material of the great wall of china? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.84.172 (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The material on the west is positioned slightly differently, it seems to be placed more to the western regions of the wall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Channel special

The Great Wall was featured as part of Discovery Channel China Week, with the documentary "Behind the Great Wall". It's an interesting show if only because it also takes a look at the personalities who conceived of the Great Wall, rather than just the Wall itself. Have a look here: http://www.channelcanada.com/Article1532.html. I don't know if it's appropriate to add a link in the article so I'm just going to leave it at that. But I think some of the content, if accurate, is worth adding to the encyclopedia. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[[Media:Example.ogg]

No human remains in the construction

The article states, "Contrary to the belief peasants were not buried inside of the wall as the stability of the structure would have been threatened once their bodies decomposed." This assertion has no supporting evidence and is just as baseless as the statement that humans were indeed buried inside the wall; therefore the statement should be removed. The latter part of the statement applies a pseudo-scientific argument about the engineering of the wall. It presents no concrete evidence (pun intended) of the engineering infeasibility of putting human remains in the wall and assumes that the actual engineers knew it would create instability. The common belief that there are human remains inside the wall may be an artifact of oral history. It is plausible that there were actual incidents of intentional entombment, or the builders may have merely neglected to remove the remains of those who died during construction. Both the belief about human remains and the number of deaths from the construction may stem from Chinese folklore which states, "Every stone in the wall represents the death of one of its builders." There is no doubt that the wall was built with considerable amounts of slave labor, and given the known brutality of the Wall's conceivers and the deaths observed in the construction of modern marvels, it's not implausible that millions died in its construction. The fact that this page is not editable tells me that there is considerable disagreement of fact, and our observation of Chinese propaganda and censorship of the internet identifies at least one of the parties to the disagreement. 98.207.78.26 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is not editable by anonymous (IP) editors because of recurring vandalism, not because of disagreement over facts.

As far as the decomposed bodies, I removed Contrary to the belief peasants were not buried inside of the wall as the stability of the structure would have been threatened once their bodies decomposed. because (a) no source is given and (b) I think this is trivial (even assuming that the claim was made by a reliable source and rebutted by a reliable source). Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That statement has no substance - It has been estimated that somewhere in the range of 2 to 3 million Chinese died as part of the centuries-long project of building the wall. Needs to be removed as well. --Tigga en (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This article lacks detail

This article lacks detailed information about many relevant aspects. For example, nowhere in the article does it mention the fact that The Great Wall was a site where conquered peoples (such as the ancestors of today's Cantonese peoples) were enslaved en masse.

You need to find reliable sources that will confirm those statements. Oidia (talk • contribs) 12:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very surprising indeed that this article still says nothing about conquered peoples being enslaved. Considering that this is a well known fact, this omission needs to be addressed now. Paradoxically enough, the Wikipedia article Nam Viet does state the following:

The Yue, under the domination of the Han (Han Wudi) was forced, wiped, tortured and enslaved to repair and enhance the Great Wall of China.

Perhaps someone is deliberately censoring material here and on the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.98.211 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is deliberately censoring information; if you want to add information on enslavement find some reliable sources and add the information. I haven't got the knowledge or know of the sources to do so myself. --Caifeng 82.16.98.54 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If that was added, I believe that the neutrality of the article would be questioned. After all, not a single ancient structure have avoided the involvement of the use of slaves.Shawn1cai (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Circular reference

There is a reference to Great Wall of China website. But that website says It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Great Wall of China". I guess we should not use it as source then. --Tigga en (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the Great Wall of China!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.246.148 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't edit semi protected or whatever

But a foot is not 15cm as claimed in the article, it is 30.48cm someone else fix it for me............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.79.148 (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have edited as the figures didn't make sense. Using the analogue of being 100m away the thread would have to be 1.5m long not 15cm or 1ft. More importantly, it is the width (at 2.3μm) which makes it invisible. --Caifeng Blah554 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maps

It would be helpful if the various maps included in the article showed the modern provincial boundaries. Otherwise, it's difficult to get a sense of where in the PRC the various walls actually are. -- Beland (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a map showing the modern political boundaries.Shawn1cai (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

== No word about its functions? ==Wow, I just came to this site to learn. Please, there are young people such as my nephews that I would like to inspire to learn and appreciate sites such as these, but I think the swearing structure should be monitored for the sake of the young and impressionable,and even the old ones too.Thank You

why is this structure built? for art? i cant see any graffiti on it. If protection, what was the efficiency of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.92.126 (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Though the reply was harsh, I must agree that the original comment was very stupid. If you even had read half of the article, you would have known what it was made for.

200 BC - 220 BC

In the intro 200 BC - 220 BC should be 220 BC - 200 BC I guess. Isn't it? -ArazZeynili_talk^contrib_{07:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)}

The great wall was not built for defense. Rather, it was built to keep out evil spirits. This is why the wall has so many dead ends and curves in it. It was not built efficiently to provide any defense at all. In fact, it would actually have been easy for any invaders to scale it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.239.235.166 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

^ Has to be THE most ignorant joke on the page. The Mongolians who built almost their entire empire using cavalry, had to get on boats to get AROUND the wall to invade China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.21.211 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

He/She

"Surprisingly, no lunar astronaut has ever claimed he could see the Great Wall from the moon."

Removed "he or she." No female has walked on the moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heterodyne (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC) the reason why the great wall is there so that the mongoles and othere invaders kill them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.4.213 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

城

城 does not mean wall, it means fortress. so in chinese, it should mean "Great fortress", not long wall. I'd fix that minor mistake, but i'm not logged in. 71.134.59.77 (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think that should be changed. Furthermore, the translation of "万里长城" is not at all accurate; it is in fact very literal and shows little understanding of the actual Chinese meaning. However, the citation given to that translation has a very good translation of the term "万里长城," and I believe that translation should be used instead.Shawn1cai (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How do we know the literal translation is not accurate? It is the same one our Chinese language professor, from China, gave us. Also, I have heard many Chinese translate 长城 as Long Wall. Joe0622 (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The literal translation is correct, but it does not reflect the actual meaning. The literal translation is 10,000 Li Long Wall, but it really means more on the line of "Infinitely Long Great Fort." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.190.155 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How long is it?

It doesnt even tell me how long the great wall is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.168.25 (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article? There is no single 'Great Wall'. There are a lot of walls built over various time periods. Doug Weller (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

does this page get really that much vandalism? --∑ssarege∑ (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is it?

Well... aren't there coordinates for at least one point of the wall??--Fluence (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Great Firewall of China?

The See also: link to The Great Firewall of China has no relevance at all to the topic of this article and should be removed. 90.136.30.103 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to link here because it is a term in popular use inspired by the Great Wall of China. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (length) is also unrelated. As for the firewall, people wanting to learn more about the Great Wall of China will have no use for the Great Firewall article. The is no relationship whatsoever. 90.136.203.150 (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Location

The location given at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph is incorrect. The wall does start at Shanhaiguan in the east, but its western end is at Jiayuguan, not Lop Nur. The wall never even makes it to Xinjiang; it ends in Gansu. Pgmark (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A user's removal of map

User Gantuya eng has been removing a map of the Great Wall in the user's last edits. The user's reason was just one sentnece: "anti-scientific map", and that was it.

The map Gantuya eng removed [1] was created by user Maximilian Dörrbecker/Chumwa. This is a very well referenced map and everything was given and listed (and the German version is even a featured picture). All of the sources that this map used have been in very clear and detailed fashion, listed in the map's Source description. The primary source this map used for the Great Wall of China and the Construction of the Great Wall was based on the National Geographic Society's map [2] of the Great Wall of China, and is listed as one of the main sources by the map's creater Maximilian Dörrbecker. There is absolutely no reason to remove a very thoroughly researched map that is based on a map created by the most reputed organization that specializes on maps. Gantuya eng, did you bother to look at the map's Source section? If you would consider a National Geographic Society's map "anti-scientific", perhaps no one else should make maps then.---Balthazarduju (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The map Gantuya eng deleted is a fraud and his actions are perfectly justified. The eastern end of Great Wall ends at Shanhaiguan; above it are what Chinese called the barbarian land. What that fraud map claims is to claim that Chinese built the wall into the territory of barbarians who were continuously raiding into China; the land of Xianbeis, Khitans, and Koreans. Any map of Great Wall showing extensions above Shanhaiguan pass is a fraud engineered by Chinese communist party and not based on historical facts and should be removed.

This map is incorrect and not accepted by archeologists worldwide (who aren't allowed access to some of the sites until they are 'restored'). 99.236.221.124 (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Who built the Great Wall of China? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.1.114 (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article. There is no single wall and no single builder. This is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not the Great Walls themselves.Dídn't chinese slaves build the great wall of china!!! dougweller (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE LATITIUDE AND LONGITUDE OF THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA?

I am wondering now if these questions are just vandalism. Obviously a long wall would not have a latitude and longitude, and there is no single 'Great Wall' as the article makes clear. dougweller (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks dougweller

HOW MANY PEOPLE DID IT TAKE TO BUILD THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA?

Length Needs Updates

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090420/sc_afp/chinaheritagegreatwall

Length is much longer than initially thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.13.106 (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Condition Section

It states in the condition section of the article that no detailed survey has been carried out of the wall. This does not appear to be true any longer, following the publication of this BBC News Article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8008108.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.187.227 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been quite a few estimations over the years, although I'm not sure which one is the most accurate. This estimate is quite comphrensive, but 4,000 miles seems to be in the middle range, as oppose to 3,107 miles or 5,000 miles, so perhaps we should use this one.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated the information using the BBC source.--Balthazarduju (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Length of wall

The length needs changing, the wall is much longer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8008108.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.172.15 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

comment removed due to vandalismGWST11 (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.47.200 (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the details about length, including the breakdown for lengths of actual wall, trenches and hills and rivers, from the recent comprehensive survey. This supersedes two older, less reliable estimates of the total length, so I've removed them. Cimbalom (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The "older" 6,400 km (4,000 miles) length should be kept, because it is still a commonly cited length. Recent archaeological survey of length should also be noted. Detailed breakdown of the wall perhaps isn't necessary for the lead section.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I took the two older length estimates out because they were unreliable. The first was from a student project, which in the next sentence said that the wall could be seen by the naked eye from the moon. The second was from Encyclopædia Britannica Online, which at first glance would seem reliable, but it gives three lengths, two of which are clearly inconsistent: it gives a length of 7,300 km including all branches, but then says that the Ming sections are 8,850 km, i.e. those parts are longer than all the various parts combined! Note, this reported length of the Ming section appears to be derived from the 8851.8 km of the recent survey reported by AFP, which was said to be of the whole wall. Further investigation reveals that the meticulousness of Britannica's fact checking may be questionable: anyone can submit edits, but Britannica claims that "an abbreviated editorial process allows these changes to be published almost immediately while still being subject to rigorous in-house and external review." I accept that a variety of estimates exist, so perhaps it would be best to give a range of these estimates, with a special mention of the most recent survey, which was reported to be comprehensive. This is what I have just done. Cimbalom (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Britannica length is not just online version, because the information is found on their printed encyclopedia and existed on their online articles long before they allowed edit submission and fact checking. Various encyclopedia sources varies, so I don't think it is necessary to include all of them, or appropriate to include a lesser known encyclopedia's information. Juding from this note, it is perhaps better to not include it, since many other estimations also exist, and including them all is perhaps too much.--Balthazarduju (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the article use the plural form 'walls' more? We aren't talking about one continous long wall, we are talking about various walls in various places at different times, right? Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The correct length of Great Wall is 6,400 km. The Great Wall is no El-Dorado, its location is well known and well researched. It is the Chinese communist party's fraud that's extending the Great Wall due to political considerations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.45.112 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Different sections

I remembered being surprised at how different the Ming Great Wall was in its western sections, which you don't often see. I felt this worth adding.

I also think the 'Notable Areas' section needs editing. It says "The following three sections are in Beijing municipality" - it includes Jiayuguan, way over to the west in Gansu.--GwydionM (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I've removed some unreliable sources, including one from a very short essay by a high school student. I've left the Britannica one by I think encyclopedias are rarely good sources for articles such as this one. Why isn't Waldron used as a source I wonder? I'm also a bit concerned by a tendency for the article (and some of the newspaper sources) to treat what was a series of walls as one long wall. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Content

Can't believe nearly half of the entire article concerns visibility from space. Angry bee (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more interestingly, Marco Polo doesn't mention it in his book, though he would have seen it many times - some modern researchers have picked up on this to suggest he actually didn't visit China but only constructed his book from second-hand reports (other travellers). /Strausszek (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't believe nearly half of the entire article concerns visibility from space. I can. Ask anybody outside China what they know about the Great Wall and they will tell you that it is "the only man-made object visible from space" (or the Moon). Which is absolute bull****, but a myth that continues to be circulated. The section on visibility provides an comprehensive (and not particularly long) demolition of this nonsense. Famousdog (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Great Wall of China

It has been called the wall of death and the longest graveyard in the world.It is the only thing made by humans that can be seen from the space.It stretches for 5500 kilometers,from the sea to the icy mountains in the west,and was built in less than 15 years.This is the great wall of China. When Qin Shihuang united China and become the emperor in 221 BC,he planned a mighty wall which,once and for all, would stop the naomads from attacking his kingdom. The wall was begun in 219 BC and work finished in 204 BC. How the work was organised? It is estimated that brtween 300 000 to 50 000 people worked on the wall. Building the Great Wall required enormous organisation.first the workers had to be found.The Emperor forced many people to work on the wall:farmers were taken from their fields,prisoners were taken from the jails,those who disagreed with the Emperor were taken to the wall,soldiers were stationed there.From all parts of china,they walked to the wall,probably roped together. --[[Navida Rahmani 26/09/2009

It cannot been seen from space. Read the article. Famousdog (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

More and more people knew the Great Wall after president of China, Mao Zedong said "You're not a real man if you're not got to the Great Wall" in 1935. This sentence is used as a slogan of the Great Wall on souvenir. ---Zhu Yongquan 13/11/2011

Random Facts (not really)

The great wall was made in 909094095 BC. Just kidding. Not really. But it was finished in 89849834 AD. Also just kidding. Jeez can't you guys take a joke? But seriously, the first name of the wall was Funkytown, USA. Just kidding, we all know that china is a communist nation and would never give a gift to the USA by name their wall after it. You guys are really gullible, you know that? No, just listen to the things these other REAL people have to say about their famous GrEaT wAlL oF cHiNa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.221.241 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin

I don't think there's enough in the article about who actually built and maintained the wall--that is, who did the actual labor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.109.133 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.64.250.238, 10 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} under Notable areas, there are some grammatical errors. It says, "25 km west of the Liao Tian Ling stands of part of Great wall" Wall should be capitalized and the first "of" should be "a"

72.64.250.238 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done I hope you meant "Stands apart". That's what I changed it into. If it's wrong, someone correct it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To this day china has the great wall in there border. Not all of the wall is left.To this day China is a comunest cuntry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.198.128 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Proud of something so big

I can understand national pride, but readers coming here to find out whether the Wall is "visible from space" ought to be told right off that you need the help of a good lens to make it out. Either a camera or a pair of binoculars.

If we have an article on objects visible from space, this could be enlarged upon.

The only thing easily visible from space is the light pollution from cities. Wealthy cities waste a heck of a lot of light. North Korea's poverty can easily be seen at night, as the entire northern half of the Korean peninsula is dark.

Anyway, let's not allow national pride to get in the way of accurate article writing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This "fact" is absolute nonsense, easily debunked with an ounce of intelligence and a moment's reflection. Famousdog (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As of the moment (this is wikipedia, things can change!) the article goes into this topic in almost too much detail, not just pooh-poohing the idea but explaining the history and optics of several scenarios. It is debunking of the highest order. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Need some Turkish friends to verify this

I heard a rumor that in Turish school text book it claims that"The Great Wall was built to prevent the Turkic invasion" This is true, some sort of true or just a rumor.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.65.20 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Answer to Need some Turkish friends to verify this

It is not a rumor it is true. Yes, Great Wall of China was built to prevent Turkish attacks. But not only built against Turkish. Wall was built against Mongolians too. That can be see in books about Turks and Chinese. The wall was built against to Hun Empire in B.C. 300. Huns are one of Turkish nomadic people. But the wall didn't protect China. The wall was passed by Huns and Mongolians. Wall was repaired many times for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.87.213 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the walls were not built to protect against the Hunnic Empire because that was not 300 BCE but about 400 CE. The article explains why the first walls were built. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are both equating Europe's Huns with Mongolia's Xiongnu. This is a traditional theory proposed in the 18th century that modern scholarship no longer accepts. When the original (Qin) Great Wall was built, the Chinese where already referring to those people to the north as "Xiongnu", whatever they be in modern terms. The Qin Wall was a modest affair, just rammed earth. It was more like a border fence than a military fortification. The pictures you see of the Great Wall are from Badaling and Nankou Pass. These sections were built much later, in the Ming dynasty. Kauffner (talk)

Miss translations and miss interpretations are so common. There are people just north and west of the Great Wall who are today refereed to as Turkmen or Turkic. For example in modern day Turkmenistan. However, that doesn't mean they are the same people as found in modern day Turkey. Though there may be some link between these people in modern language and culture, that does not prove there was any such link 2,200 years ago during the Chinese Qin dynasty, or even later during the Ming dynasty. Rincewind42 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.93.234.93, 1 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

76.93.234.93 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC) put a comma after yan in the history

Not done: See Serial comma. -Atmoz (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Although the use of serial commas is inconsistent. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is inconsistent, self-contradictory, and confusing - on the other hand, the problem is minor, transitory and never confuses readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi, Could a registered user add links in the Further Reading to the Peter Hessler and Julia Lovell pages? I'm too new. Thanks shuijiashaojun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuijiashaojun (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

as the New Seven Wonders

Why don't the encyclopedia have something about great wall as the New seven wonders???!!@!! Do you think that the great wall of china is not worth ed to be one of the seven wonders??!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.224.26 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 27 November 2011

Sylvia.p (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Zidanie5 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011

The length of the wall is greatly misleading and is not backed up by reliable, 3rd party source. Here are some info on that:

http://www.prkorea.com/english/e_video/evideo34.htm http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t302154.html http://www.igoo.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-64569.html http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/09/116_52682.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Project_of_the_Chinese_Academy_of_Social_Sciences

At the very least, the length of the wall should be written as "disputed" and not confirmed as it is now. Millions of students/scholars worldwide are taking what's on Wikipedia as the truth.

Jykang (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Two forum topics, a wiki entry (no mention there), and two unreliable sites with such biased wording. That doesn't cut it. --Cold Season (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011

Compare it to another wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheolli_Jangseong

Jykang (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you want us to compare it? You'd need sources comparing them. I note that that article is badly sourced, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

i have a bunch of info from a school project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitlyn72783 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't do much with that request, you have to supply the specific info that you want added and credible citations. Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

rfc: reference format clean up

I think that the best help to get this article to progress out of C-class would be to re-do the references. I think re-examining and re-formatting the references would be a good thing. I find it difficult to work with a main article text with many references embedded throughout the article, rather than being in a more clear Notes section (and, no offense to Ripley' 1932 book, but these do vary considerably in quality). However, I am making a request for comment on this in the interest of group unity/consensus, since it would require a major change to the of the reference format throughout the article. Dcattell (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)