User talk:PericlesofAthens

• 
  Battle of Normandy, June of '44, quite possibly my favorite pic on Wiki.
• 
  Animated naval gun turret, this pic has to be my favorite animated illustration on wiki.
• 
  Pangea breaking up into the continents we know today. Amazing.

Hey guys, and welcome to my user talk page. Feel free to ask anything on your mind, or any general help with articles. If you would like to look over old talk page discussions, simply view the archive links in the box to the right. -->

If you are looking for my image gallery page, click here.

If you are looking for my minor edits and DYK page, click here.

For the freewebs.com website I maintain that is dedicated to the history of science and technology in China, visit this link here.

Uliger

Hi Pericles. Hope you had a good Christmas. I was just thinking. Uliger is up for deletion.. I wondered if you had anything on it in your books seems as its concerns a neck of the woods you seem to be resourceful in and is engrained in Mongol history. Do you think you could find something related on it to expand it? Thanks The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Well User:Latebird nominated it, who of course can be quite difficult with certain Mongolian subjects. Personally I think it is a notable subject and potentially using such sources could be expanded fully. It is an intergral part of Mongol and Buryat culture and history and would semeingly be quite broad in scope and have a lot that could be written, The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got access to it, I'd imagine you have to pay a subscription? Well as I've commented at the afd I'm very surprised Latebird didn't want to discuss it first. The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I look forward to seeing the Han dynasty article once completed. My town library of course is diabolical with only one book on Tibet for instance. Cardiff library, Cardiff being the capital city of Wales is better, but from my experience does not have the kind of special books that would be required in detail on such topics. The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

The article still need some work though, see talk page for details. We need more sources comparing the two empires directly. you can use some of the information for your rewrite for han dynasty(technology, history, others) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 02:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I saw Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PericlesofAthens and I was wondering if you are planning on accepting or declining the nom, as it has been hanging around the RFA space for a couple weeks now and I wanted to know how to handle it. MBisanz ^talk 09:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

JingKiang incident

I'm just interested, did the Jin forces use cannon in the capture of Kaifeng? Cause Song defence earlier against the Liao, despite loss of the natural borders to the north(16 prefectures) was successful due to use of gunpowder. Is part of the reason the cities fell so quickly were that by this time Jin had learned to use cannon? As I was writting my comparison article about the Han(section about Wu Hu invasions), I became aware that nomadic cavalry would have hard time against a well-stocked city, defended by crossbows; not just gunpowder weapons. How could the city fallen so quickly if artillery was not used???? Because a similar example at Luoyang in 310, the Jin court was able to hold the city for years without any aid whatsoever, and with largely civillian volunteers. Yet the song court(which was much richer and powerful) could not hold Kaifeng, with much more advanced technology and considerably more stores. It just doesn't make sense until one takes into account potential use of artillery. Either that, or the martial spirit of the Chinese empire has seriously deteoririated.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The cowardly civilian mandarin beauracrats of song were strictly against the military, and military was placed under civilian control, resuslting in a loss of martial vigor present from the shang and tang dynasties.Dentisn (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures for comparisons of Roman and Han Empires.

I believe this article is a B-class article, but for need of some pictures. I'm just wondering, how do you get some? Cause i'm having some trouble; can you help explain to me/help me upload some?Teeninvestor (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Never mind, I got some. By the way, what areas do you think the article needs to improve in order for it to become a Good article? I read over the criteria and think that this article meets most of it.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Can you help me identify some statements that need to be sourced, expansion, general work, to bring this article up to a GA. If you have sources that can source some of my statements to bring it up to GA, please do so. Also, if I can be of any help during your revamp of han dynasty(I have read chinese history extensively), please contact meTeeninvestor (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are searching for a source. In sections where I lacked a comparison, we put the facts side by side without comparison. I should add more inline citations, as more citations are at the end of paragraphs. Anyways, thank you for your advice.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Open invitation

Hi, please check User talk:Arilang1234#Co-editors needed for new article Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 Arilang ^talk 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nie Wengyi

Hi PoA. The characters for Nie Wengyi are 聶翁壹. Yan Shigu, a sixth-century annotator of the Hanshu, explained that Nie's personal name (ming 名) was Yi, and that "weng" only indicated that he was an "old man" (this is the chief meaning of weng). So you could say "Nie Wengyi" meant "Old man Nie Yi." Yan also said that later accounts sometimes used yi 懿 instead of 壹, but that this was wrong. And Mayi is 馬邑. (Of course I knew none of this before looking it up! Lol.) Glad to see your draft developing: it looks great so far! Madalibi (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The characters for Huduershi are 呼都而尸. I have no idea why, but his name appears only twice in the Hanshu and not once in the Hou Hanshu. And man, you're a fast writer! I'm gone for two days and your draft is almost finished?! Wow! Madalibi (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

100,000 bytes! Yeah! Madalibi (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's not just the meerkat itself, it's all the stuffing too! Lol. Madalibi (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just saw it a few minutes ago. It looks amazing, and I can't believe how fast you wrote it! Congratulations for what will undoubtedly be a new featured article. Madalibi (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You built and decorated the house. I'm just changing a few light bulbs, removing some sratches on the floor, and retouching a few wallpaper seams. That way the article is sure to pass the FA nominaton the next time around. But congratulations for that new president you got yourself! And they say playing goalie for the Montreal Canadiens means pressure... Madalibi (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that you're back to work on Wikipedia with your two new articles. I'll try to read and comment on them when I have time. (Just a quick and superficial one for now: Nishijima Sadao's surname is Nishijima, not Sadao.) Sorry I stopped proofreading the History of the Han Dynasty article: I'm overwhelmed with real work right now, and I've spent a lot of time responding to arguments by Teeninvestor about comparisons between the Ming and Qing. Interesting debate, by the way, but very time-consuming. It's on my talk page, so feel free to drop by and tell us what you think about it! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure. His name in Japanese (where surnames also come first) is Nishijima Sadao 西島定生 (see this Google search), where Nishijima is clearly a surname and Sadao a personal name. The Cambridge online site is wrong, probably because someone who doesn't know Japanese wrote the bibliography. Madalibi (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The real horse patoot is the editor of the Cambridge online site! Confusions like this happen because some scholars cite Japanese and Chinese names in the native order (Nishijima Sadao, Mao Zedong, etc.), while others try to Anglicize them by reversing them (Sadao Nishijima, Bozhong Li, etc., though I've never seen "Zedong Mao"). Some people get tricked because they see the well-meaning second format ("Sadao Nishijima") and add a comma after the first part, thinking it's the surname because they know that surnames appear first in Chinese and Japanese. And that's how someone got "Sadao, Nishijima" as the author's name on the Cambridge site. In my bibliographies, I always keep Japanese and Chinese names in their native order, and I don't add a comma after the surname because the whole name is already in the right order. And I don't want to sound like a wild ass's posterior, but you'll have to learn Japanese at some point if you want to become a sinologist, especially if you want to study the Song or the history of science. But you'll have a much easier time learning Japanese once you know more Chinese characters, so don't worry about it for now! Madalibi (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember to call collect. Madalibi (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Economy of the Ming dynasty

How come there is no article? I have some figures on Ming steel production, economy, etc.... How come there is no section on economics in the Ming dynasty article. Would you object if i created such an article using your sources and some sources i compiled?Teeninvestor (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Han

Oh well - there's still WP:DYK. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that your article violates stability. Heaps of new articles have been put on FAC before and passed after the FAC period. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey

But since I apparently violated the "spirit of Wikipedia" (to use User:Gene Nygaard's own phrase), I think I would like others to have a look at History of the Han Dynasty first and comb through it. User:Madalibi found a few mistakes that I was unaware of. In any case, I will submit the article for FA status at a later date (hopefully sooner rather than later). Cheers! :)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd be better off reading Nygaard's block log and come to your own conclusions. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

Hi there, I'm doing a GA sweep of the Asian history good articles promoted before August 2007, many of which seem to be your work. I can't see any of your articles being at risk of delisting during this process, although I probably will have some comments on them as I work my way through. Just giving you a heads up and suggesting that if you have time to have a quick read though the articles in the next couple of months to check that there hasn't been any deterioration it might save us both some time. All of the articles coming under review are listed here. I do have a question though: my knowledge of Chinese history of the periods covered in the Song dynasty articles is not what it should be and I'm finding myself becoming lost occassionally. Is there some sort of timeline article around that gives a clear overview so I can use it to reorientate myself? Also, I'm not sure on how far wikipedia has expanded in these areas since the articles were written, but I'm interested in military history and was wondering if there were more detailed articles available for the wars and battles mentioned in History of the Song Dynasty and if not whether there are long term plans to create them? Reagrds--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban Chao

Hi, just wanted to tell you that I removed claims about an (alleged) expedition by Ban Chao to the Caspian Sea or even to Ukraine in 97 AD from a number of pages. The reason is I could find no mention of this expedition in a number of relevant books. Since you are probably more interested in and more familiar with Chinese history than I am, maybe you could look into it a bit, too. Just wanted to let you know. Regards, Yaan (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems the claim "Ban Chao made a military expedition to the Caspian sea" seems to be older and more common than I thought. On the other hand it's not mentioned in The Cambridge History of Iran, either. I won't re-insert it until I see this claim be made by some specialist on the Han Dynasty, or the Parthian empire, or the Huns, but until I find someone who calls this claim bunk, I also won't remove it either. Maybe you could look around a bit? Regards, Yaan (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Found something in J. Oliver Thomson, A History of Ancient Geography, Cambridge 1948, p.311: "He [Ban Chao, Y] stopped a Kushan Army which had crossed the Pamir, and he won expressions of homage from as far west as Fergana, though it is a misreading to suppose, as some have done, that he himself advanced to the Caspian". "Some" are apparently Richthofen, China, 1877, I, 469 and some others, they are denied by Yule-Cordier, p.40, Chavannes, Seidenstrassen, p.8, and by Teggart, Rome and China, 1939, p.144. I'll look if I can tun up Chavannes. Teggart is not available in my library. Regards, Yaan (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sima Ai

Thanks for alerting me. Please see my response at Talk:Sima Ai. --Nlu (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2009

(UTC)

Arilang's response

Please check comments at my talk page. Arilang ^talk 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

check my response to arilang's racist assertions and cantonese insolence.Dentisn (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi, user Teeninvestor has written an article Economy of the Ming dynasty, and I have left some comments on it's talk page. Could you have a look when you have some spare time? Thanks. Arilang ^talk 17:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Need your help again

Please check User talk:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Lao Baixing, your opinion is needed. Arilang ^talk 03:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to ask for help AGAIN. This time your expertise is really needed, I have picked a bone too big for me to chew(pardon my Chinglish). Please have a look at User talk:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian and the Unification of All-under-heaven(temporary name). My idea of the article is, throughout this 3000 years of East Asia history, how this HYZB ideology affected the foreign diplomatic relations, defense policy, inter-racial relationships, wars, revolutions, etc etc, among all the three major East Asiatic countries, namely China, Japan and Korea. I am sure once you come in, this article is sure to be a success. Arilang ^talk 09:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Lao Baixing

Since Lao Baixing is created, I think most of the English word Chinese in all of these history articles such as Qing, Ming and Song, Ming can be replaced with Qing Lao Baixing, Ming Lao Baixing, and Song Lao Baixing. What you think?

DYK for History of the Han Dynasty

On January 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of the Han Dynasty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I LOVE your new article History of the Han Dynasty! How come you have not updated the main article yet? Let me know if i can be of any help.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya I thought that the economy article needs more work because it would be very strange if the main article was actually better than the specialized one. Thanks!Teeninvestor (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Added economy section. Hope you don't mind!Teeninvestor (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your knowledge of china is extraordinary.

As a chinese, I am extremely surprised at your knowledge of China, and I applaud you for the work you've done on all the articles on China. It's people like you who make wikipedia function!Teeninvestor (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, do you have any sources on the Liu Song dynasty (420-479) as I don't have a concrete source(bits here, bits there.)Teeninvestor (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

About the Liu Song, I found the best source possible, the history of the Liu Song dynasty itself: 《宋书》.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My plan is to use it to depict chain of history events only, as you can figure out roughly what happens reading the history, like, what happened during the reign of each emperor.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Any plans for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PericlesofAthens? I am cleaning out the RFA namespace and wanted to know if it needed deleting or should be left as is. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sivin strikes again!

If you're interested in Guo Shoujing and Chinese astronomy (and I know you are), you HAVE to check Sivin's fantastic new book Granting the Seasons. It has hundreds of pages of "introduction" followed by hundreds of pages of translations, plus several long appendices, an amazing index, pictures, and all the scholarly goodies you can possibly imagine. Wow! I'm taking a break from Wikipedia right now, but I thought you'd like to know. I think the book is available on Springer (I mean SpringerLink, not Jerry Springer), but I don't have access right now. Anyway, enjoy! Madalibi (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Han dynasty

I revamped partially the article because it was so confused. Grouped some information into a history section. Hope you dont mind and can take a look at it and improve it, cause ill be off wiki quite a bit. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty

"2,000 words equal 10 KB" equation is wrong, as page size is calculated on basis of characters, not words because words vary in length. Also, I are not talking just about the technical "60 KB" mark, I am talking about the ease of readers. Also, the "Page size" tool I am talking about is User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, which is primarily used for DYK readable prose size calculation. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

History of the Han Dynasty is too long (88KB) too. Since it is in development stage, I am not adding the tag. Let the tag remain on Ming Dynasty, if you are busy, someone else might see the tag and do the work. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that one needs to branch the article, i am saying one needs to shorten the article as much as possible. Afterall, writers write for the sake of readers. A long article creates inconvience to a reader. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge online histories of China

How do you access them? I can't. I want to see if you can access them like in the online library of liberty.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for Song military weakness

As one of the four unified period of Chinese history(the other three being Han (206BCE-220CE), T'ang (618-907CE), and Ming (1368-1644CE), Song should have been quite strong militarily. These other three periods were able to prevail over the barbarians(at least at the height of the dynasty; Ming was conquered later, mostly due to surrender of Wu Sakuei and Little Ice Age) and preserve their independance. Yet, Song which had many technological and economic achievements(invented printing press which made modern society possible, gun powder/fire lances, etc...) was very weak militarily compared to other chinese dynasties. Why?

My view(which is very incomplete) is that the Song were weak because of the imperial distrust of generals, because they had caused fall of T'ang. Also, Song lost natural frontiers in the North(sixteen prefectures.) What do you think are the reasons the Song are weak? Teeninvestor (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Was Liao, Xi Xia, and Jin really stronger than say, the Huns of Han or the Turks of T'ang? As nomadic horse archer nations settle down, they usually lose their ferocity and end up employing armies in a similar manner to the Main chinese state, and get routed as the main chinese state(Song) has much more resources than them.

What I really think is that the Song were too content with their current situation. In the Wu Hu uprising of 310CE, Jin forces held up in Luoyang for two years rather than let the barbarians in, despite the fact Jin military was virtually completely destroyed. Song military could not hold Kaifeng even with ample reinforcements and an obviously better situation. In T'ang and mIng for example, they had similar situations. It was a heavy loss of martial spirit that ironically came from the very economic achievements of Song itself.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

shang and qin dynasties were the most warlike and violent of chinese. i have sources which say the shang specifically targeted enemies like the Qiang for human sacrifice for the gods, ancestors and shangdi like the Aztecs because they though they were subhuman. skulls have been found showing human sacriface. shang dynasty enjoyed killing people. in qin they have a big icentive to kill more enemies, you get more land. and speaking of shang, all those wine drinking bronzes that were found, they had more than enough alcohol to get severely drunk. and xi xia werent horse archers

History of the Han Dynasty

The Celestial Masters are my area of Chinese expertise (I did several papers about them while in university), so it was my pleasure to correct any misinformation. As for the Economy article, I looked over it and did not see any issues. I must congratulate you on the two terrific new articles. If you need any assistance, I would be more than happy to help!Zeus1234 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic revolution of Song

Economies of Song and Ming have a fundamental difference from han and T'ang. Maybe this deserves its own wikipedia article?

Song had printing press, allowed for spread of ideas. Song liberalized the economy. Overseas trade/investment started taking off in the Song. Banknotes, bills of exchange started in Song. Merchant elite took over from aristocrats through examination system. etc...

There was a fundamental difference. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the difference between the economic development of the later 2 chinese dynasties, the Song and Ming compared to the earlier Han and T'ang.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For economic history, i will need lots of help. I'm planning ot split into feudal, mercantilist, proto-capitalist sections with sections on each dynasty. As you can see, that will require lots of sources. Can you give me some? thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China

I plan to completely revamp it something like this:

Feudal Era

Beginnings- Xia

Further development, metallurgy- Shang

Jing tian- Zhou

"Bastard feudalism"- Spring & autumns

Mercantilist Era

Warring states- reforms, collapse of Jingtian/feudal system

Qin's reforms- Legalist, absolutist state established, China unified, standards, etc..

Han- early partial reversion, appearance of highly profitbale iron/salt industries, plantations, etc..

Three Kingdoms & Jin- Devastation, recovery.

Wu Hu& North/south dyansties- disruption of trade route, restoration of fedualism early on, etc...

Sui- instates examination system, revives Han laws, introduciton of Sotian system.

T'ang- government starts withdrawing, more liberalization, etc.., collapse of the Sotian system.

"Proto-capitalist" Era

Song- invention of printing press, economic revolution, paper notes, collapse of hereditary nobility, investment, first overseas trade, etc..

Yuan- Mongol devastation of North, state-sanctioned trade at Quanzhou.

Ming- expansion of Song, privatization of enterprises, merchant class is empowered through examination system, overseas trade expanded, economic imperialism(Langfang republic, Tungning kingdom).

Qing- Intial feudal disruptions(Booi aha), destruction of shore line, slow recovery in Kangxi, stagnation later, effects of opium, and gradual decline in 19th century.

Modern Era:

ROC- initial attempts at reform, militayr industries developed for war with Japan, stock markets, etc..

PRC(Mao)- transition to planned economy, Great Leap forward, cultural revolution & stagnation.

PRC(Deng)- transition to market economy, prosperity, liberalization, "chengbao" system, now almost 80% of US industrial production, revival of Chinese civilizations, etc...

I have only one source dealing with pre-ROC Chinese economic history, a 2000 page book called "5000 years of CHinese history". It has some details, but one paragraph for each section would do. Can you help me get some sources? thank you. Note: notes you had with Han and Song dynasties will be appreciated. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I added a SOURCED sentence to teh Ming dynasty article, hope you don't mind.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Ya, my plan is to add a brief paragraph in each seciton using the sources I have now, and then flesh out the details(like your Economy of the Song dynasty. I'm probably going to need your help. On wikipedia, I usually do contribute a lot fo content, but I'm not too great at details(Lack of details made me lose my 98 mark in science, and thus 95 average! Urg!). And plus, I am a "teen" investor after all. The book I have is strange, it seems to have more detail about pre-Han , rather than later.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge Histories of China

Do you know any way of accessing them? I would need them severely but I do not have any way of access them. I don't want to resort to torrents. If wealth of nations and history of the decline/fall fo the Roman Empire is available, I don't see why Cambridge isn't.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Structure of Economic histoyr of china

I'm setting up the structure, and filling in the gaps, as we go, can you help me fill some using information fromEconomy of hte Han dynasty and Economy of the Song dynasty.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a sinking feeling my ambition overran itself; check Economic history of China. Do you think I overdid it?Teeninvestor (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

New Plan: As I finish each section, I move most of the content to another article like Economic history of Feudal China, Economic history of Warring states China, etc...Teeninvestor (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BS figures for List of regions by past GDP

Han, T'ang and Song had much more population than India, as well as better agricultural technology(India was mired by feudal system of production and caste society, and was in constant warfare). India's population did surpass China at one point, at the Gupta dynasty(because of Wu Hu) but that lasted barely 50 years, and once the Gupta collapsed(to Huna, aka the avars/rouran) the resulting depopulation was about 30-50%. Even the height of Gupta(India's golden age, along with earlier Maurya)was barely 40 million, less than Sui dynasty. How could they say India had highest GDP for so long? the figures are obviously made up by a man who has not much knowledge. India in 1000CE probably ahd even less population than Gupta due to constant warfare. What do you think, Pericles? Also, what percentage of world GDP did Song have? I suspect it is over 40%, as Ming had over 30% and by then Europe/Arabia was catching up. Song had one-third of world's population and if they maintained same percapita, it would be over 50%! However, I would not put it in without sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, take a look at economic history of China, I've written the lead and leads for all the eras.What do you think of the prose? By the way, I think that I'll need some help. Maybe Arilang1234, Madalibi, etc.., can help?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya I had an early interest in economics starting when I read "Introduction to Microeconomics" When I was 13. Didn't understand it! but i'm sure you have lots of info as you wrote Economy of the Song dynasty and Economy of the Han dynasty.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can work on Han dynasty info as you still have the notes? I am done feudal era(basics). Not much to say about these eras due to lack of data.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Done warring states & Qin now; maybe i skip Han to do wei & Jin, while you do Han?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

migration of northern chinese to southern china

am i correct in asserting that the majority of southern chinese are ethnic chinese migrants who came from northern china after northern peoples ie. Wu hu, xianbei, Jurchen, Mongol pushed them south?. there must be documentation of the migrations in your history books. because someone has been pushing a B.S. POV that everyone in china stayed static for the past 5,000 years, and that the southern chinese are descendent of Yue people, and that northern chinese have been in the same place for 5,000 years! i beleive in Mr. Gernet's books, he mentions ethnic han chinese migrations to the red river in vietnam, and other places in southern china, and wuhu, xianbei, and jurchen migrations into northern china. this should be reinforced and correct the misleading assumption that all peoples in china were static for the past 5,000 years. And i think linguistic evidence supports this- it has always been asserted that southern chinese dialects are closer to Old Chinese than Mandarin Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.79.163 (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But of course the vast majority of southern Chinese are directly related to migrants who came north throughout the centuries. This is well-documented. The first great migration south occurred during the Eastern Han period (25–220 CE); the Han census of the 2nd century CE reflects this very well (about 10 million new inhabitants around and south of the Yangzi region). The second great migration happened after the Jin Dynasty moved its capital to Nanjing in the 4th century CE. Migration south continued in the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE), as urban centers, rice paddy agriculture, and seaports in the south became more prominent. However, the greatest shift occurred during the Southern Song (1127–1279) when the Han court was moved from Kaifeng to Hangzhou, along with new borders between Song and Jin around the Huai River. Southern maritime trade during the Southern Song period exceeded the levels of trade in all other periods of Chinese history up to that point. By the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644 CE), southern China was considered far more developed than northern China. See the article on the Korean traveler Choe Bu for this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

it would help if you can put a few sources on this at the Han Chinese talk page, because an ip troll kept inserting info from a taiwan independence website that claims "southern chinese are descended from yue, and are different from ....blah blah.... the "pure" northern chinese... blah blah blah". theres also a vietnamese user trying to do something similar at nanyue, claiming that cantonese and vietnamese "share a common ancestry in ancient yue peoples". and that nanyue people are pure vietnamese. several anti chinese users jumped on this oppurtunity, by supporting the ip troll to keep his paragraph in the han chinese article. if the correct information goes down on the talk page, the ip troll will have to shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.79.163 (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

example of the vandalism and trolling

anon ip claiming southern chinese are not chinese, using the source i mentioned this guy is making himself look so stupid its laughable every single linguist would disagree with him.

I've taken a look, but to be honest, I can't help right now. I'm really busy and cannot be on my computer for the rest of the day. I'll take another look at this later.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I read those two articles which are cited in the Taiwanese section of Han Chinese; both news sources looked legit and cited the research of actual geneticists, professors, doctors, etc., such as Lin Mali. However, the person who mentioned Yue peoples failed to mention something already pointed out in the article: that these people have been mixed over time with Han Chinese settlers who came from the north in waves of migrations. I have amended the article to fit what the source has to say in full. I hope this is enough for you, because the topic of genetics really doesn't interest me. Right now I'm working on several different articles for the Han Dynasty, not Han people.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont mean to bore you more, but a quick glance at the bottom report, which shows that there are unique markers among vietnamese people, based on history, im not asking for you to take a position because these have been used endlessly in political POV fights, but shouldnt the 7 new markers in this report be the "Yueh" markers, and the southern chinese descended from the ancient migrant from north, right in Gernet's book he says people from north china migrated to vietnam red river valley during 3 kingdoms. Dr. Lin decided to twist her findings into a political game, and claims that the southern chinese DnA/markers, or whatever she found were yueh, despite the report which shows that there are unique markers among vietnamese, which would logically correspond to the yueh peoples, she claims southern chinese are yueh and that northern chinese are pure, despite the fact that the wu hu, jurchen, and mongols mass migrated into northern china. After all, Dr. Lin has no Phd in history and this should qualify for the removal of the "descedants of yueh peoples". its just like mahmoud amadenijad denying the holocaust, despite the fact that his doctorate is in electrical engineering and not european history

Hmm. You make good points. She failed to mention anything about the intermarriage of Han Chinese with various northern nomadic groups throughout the centuries, but then again that wasn't the focus of her study (i.e. "Taiwanese people", or more specifically, those who were "Hoklo people" originating from parts of southern China). Still, the use of "pure" even for northern Chinese would be a ridiculous term to use, considering the genetic diversity of people who consider themselves northern Chinese (or for that matter, the genetic diversity of those who consider themselves southern Chinese). I wouldn't jump on this and immediately say it is politically motivated, but it is kind of fishy, I will admit. Have you mentioned Ivanova, Astrinidis, and Lepage's article in the page for Han Chinese yet? (I haven't looked.)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

i did but someone removed it. i think it would be better if Dr. Lin had just presented the results (the specific genetic markers and DNA), and kept her mouth shut, we should just display the direct results of these tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.243.209 (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Miao_people#History_according_to_Chinese_legend, this is unsourced, but ive heard this elsewhere and im sure this is part of the ancient legends of the chinese and miao peoples. this would logically correspond to the fact that the hakka, cantonese, other chinese, and the Miao, originically came from northern china, after the ancestors of the current northern chinese, the wuhu, jurchen etc. pushed them south, and the yueh obviously would have migrated southn, and set off a chain reaction where the negritos were driven to small enclaves. given that Dr. Lin's comment is displayed on the article despite the fact that she has no PHD in history, should also qualify for a statemet that says those seven markers are the only remnants of yueh, and that the "southern chinese" DNA is from the north. Since this would qualify original research, Dr. Lin's statement is equally original research, because she has provided zero sources and no credentials to back up her ridiculous claims. the fact that Taiwanese aboriginals have different DNA from hakka and minnan should be an enough giveaway to blow her claims to pieces, because they would logically be related to the yueh peoples.

Also the fact that japanese Red Cross Central Blood Center, Tokyo, Japan , 4 Department of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan is mentioned in there is suspicious. if your familiar with taiwan independence movement, you'd know that they are heavily backed up and supported by japan. take a look at the DPP's website, they are a pro independence party in taiwan, and they even have a japanese language version, no such japanese language version exists on the KMT's website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.243.209 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If Dr. Lin's research is faulty, surely a credible authority and reliable source exists somewhere out there which criticizes or proves false her findings. If you can find that source and scholarly authority, use it to counter Lin's research (much more effective than removing her claim, since it presents her claim and then debunks it for the reader). I really don't feel like going on a scavenger hunt for this myself, since I'm doing other things right now. Don't you want to see all the Han Dynasty articles completed soon? Lol. Take care.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

i think its exactly the point that no one has countered her is because her research is literally junk, therefore we should not keep junk on here. if a respected and well known rocket scientist claims ancient egyptians were launching rockets, do you think you'd want him to show us his PHD in egytology?

and dont you want to publish any works you write in the future, putting them on wikipedia is a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.237 (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the clarification on the matter of the invention of paper. Just a suggestion though. Should the Chinese inventions page state "Paper-making process" rather than "paper" so that it would accurately clarify the development of the history of paper?

I myself visit the Chinese inventions page from time to time. I am one of the writers of Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries as a bunch of us are continuously working on updating and adding citations to our American list. Nevertheless, thank you for explaining the reasoning behind the paper invention. --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly what you are saying. One quick question though, there seems to be a big emphasis on Chinese inventions from antiquity. Has China not invented anything modern within the past 200 or so years worth mentioning? I am not an expert on Chinese inventions or anything developed from the East as you seem to be. So I am just wondering. --Yoganate79 (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Compared to the U.S., China doesn't appear to be technologically advanced in the fields of space exploration, modern medicine and biotechnology, as well as computer science. Granted, China has overwhelmingly accomplished so much in its history, but their notoreity stems from ancient times whereas the U.S. is the modern day leader in inventions. I just wonder when China becomes more powerful in the future if that will one day change and match American innovation and ingenuity. --Yoganate79 (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Economy of the Han Dynasty

On February 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Economy of the Han Dynasty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in Economic history of China

Ya, I already had 3 instances of vandalism, for some reason ppl r starting to vandalize stuff. By the way, i haven't worked on it since I finished Wei & Jin, will until next week. Can you do Han and Song, and say, Madalibi do Qing, cause this is a pretty big project. I plan to do a basic point for each section, and then read Cambridge history of China, Chinese Economy in economic persepctive, and update it with details. Then I will move it out of hte userbox.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Thank You!Teeninvestor (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I haven't been working on it lately due to other things. Will be working on it on the weekend.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New book on 秦始皇

Please have a look at http://news.boxun.com/forum/200902/lishi/11116.shtml, it should be a very interesting book. Arilang ^talk 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Science and technology of the Han Dynasty

A real bitch-from-hell on wheels! I've only surveyed it, but it looks well written, well referenced, and of FA quality (yes, as usual...). Just one small detail for now: I can't find "Deng (2005)" in the bibliography (yeah, I know!!!!). For this whole effort on the Han, your barn should soon get a new sidereal decoration on it (as soon as I figure out how to use those damn templates, that is). Bye! Madalibi (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sui, T'ang, Ming, Qing, Modern Era, still up for grabs.

The article is about 40% complete but I still need to do Sui, T'ang, Ming, Qing, and Modern Era while you do Han and Song. The sections I've already finished are not the important ones, I feel that Han, T'ang, Song and Ming are the important ones(Main Chinese dynasties). When will you start working on the economics article? What do you think of the work so far? I'm thinking of skipping Sui and Tang and doing Yuan and Ming first. Also keep in mind just to put very small details in each section, right now the point is to have something for each section. I still haven't decided to make this a single article or a series of articles(e.g. Economy of the Sui dynasty, Economy of the Han dynasty, Economy of the Song dynasty, etc...). I like the single article idea better, though the article is already 66KB. Maybe we will have get rid of the modern era, and rename it Economic history of Pre-1911CE China. Or we could have different articles, but im not sure Economic history of the Song dynasty is much different from Economy of the Song dynasty. The economic history might end up being a timeline, e.g. development of paper, banking, Jurchens come in, moves south, continued development, Mongols come in. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with GA review of Thomas Metcalfe (US politician)

Pericles, could i request that you have a quick glance of the article Thomas Metcalfe (US politician) that i am doing a GA review on and add some comments to the review page? I have made a few comments but your opinion would be helpful. MarquisCostello (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, at your convenience. I made further progress with it anyway. MarquisCostello (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a glance Pericles. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My plan for Economic history of China

Sorry I have been negligent in adding citations. My stocks were tanking and I was in distress for several days. My plan is to add citations after I finish the article. Anyways, my plan is this. First, I want to pack as much info as I can in. Then, you and others can help me pick the relevant points. The excess info will be transferred to articles such as Economic history of pre-Qin China, Economic history of Absolutist China, Economic history of post-Tang China, etc... Then what is left will be retained as the main article. Anyways, I am still a bit distressed/I hope you can help me a bit, sorry for incoveniencing you. As you can see I am writing overview sections for each dynasty and adding in details as I go. Once the article is finished the overview sections will be part of the article and the details will go in a seperate article. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry, please accept my apologies.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya I am finished all the Pre-Song eras. As I said, when all the info is filled in we will pick up important points & keep'em while removing excess content to extra articles, which will be replaced by a sentence or too. By the way, there are many articles who exceed 100KB, including Ming and 2007 in Iraq. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reign of Kaiyuan and Reign of Zhenkuan(Tang)

Perhaps we should work on these after we are done economics article. I was surprised there were no english versions of these two articles.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good articles

http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/History/31218600.html This is the best ever article I have read on internet, which explain the fatal weakness with Ming military force. Arilang ^talk 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Article explained Zhu was a muslim. http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/History/31218545.html Arilang ^talk 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Article explains why Ming went bankrupted http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/History/31218940.html Arilang ^talk 16:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Stupid Comments at talk:Tang Dynasty

I am sorry that I have to break the news to you this way, but it appears that the recent stupidity that has taken place at that talk page may be the work of sockpuppets. I have reported the matter at User_talk:Ryulong and have identified the user I believe was behind it. When I have time, I will be looking up the suspect user's name to see if that user has a sockpuppet history as I seem to recall seeing the suspect user's name in a sockpuppetry report (as an observer on the sidelines of course). Lobbyist911 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tibet during the Ming Dynasty

LaGrandefr is back. Bertport (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm back! (╰_╯)# --LaGrandefr (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Needham"?

This edit is puzzling. You don't identify the book's title or date of publication, nor any more about the author than a surname. Via Google Books I find this, mentioning Cavalieri on pages 141 and 142—nothing on page 143 and nothing to indicate that this is "volume 3". Also this, on page 59. Can you make this more specific? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I never thought I would be approached about an edit from April 2007, but I stand corrected! Lol. I have added the full source name.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I see that you are capable of producing excellent quality articles. I was wondering where you usually obtain your sources from, and by what method you compile them in? Here in Canberra, Australia, our public libraries are small, and most Internet sources are unreliable. Thanks, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Science and technology of the Han Dynasty

On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Science and technology of the Han Dynasty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you change the name of an article

Ya, see title.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

new article

Please help to build up an article I have just create2009 Auction of Old Summer Palace bronze heads

I cleaned it up a bit. I'm busy with Han Dynasty articles right now, though.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation again. Please check Talk:Society and culture of the Han Dynasty Arilang ^talk 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If only we had someone like you to write about old Vietnamese history....At least Dai Viet was part of the Han Dynasty in those days, we can get a bit of collateral improvement. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I included a great deal of info about Vietnamese history in History of the Song Dynasty, although it was striclty about diplomatic, trade, tributary, and hostile relations with Song China in the 11th century. What's funny is that I actually know a bit more about Vietnamese history than my Vietnamese friend Khoi. Hah. Perhaps my library has a treasure trove of sources on old Vietnamese history. However, after I am done with this Han Dynasty project (and helping with an Economy article for another user), I think I'm going to take a long Wiki break.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your wiki break! Well deserved! Yeah monkey we could sure do with several thousands clones of this guy to write articles all Asian history. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, if they had cloned me instead of Dolly (sheep), think of what we could have achieved! Lol. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty map/ Tang influence on the Caspian Sea

China under the Tang dynasty in light yellow, at the end of Emperor Taizong's reign following his campaign against Goguryeo. Areas that were protectorates of the Tang or were Tang vassals are shown in dark yellow.

Hi,

I guess you were already made aware of the Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty article. At the moment, there is a bit of reverting in connection to that map on the right side, also some discussion on the article's talk page. Since you have worked so extensively on the main Tang Dynasty article, I guess you might also have a wider insight into sources relevant to the map. My main point of concern at the moment is not the map's (or its legend's) treatment in Goguryo in 649 or of what is now Yunnan. My impression - please correct me if I am wrong - is they are simply mistaken, and that this is reason enough to dismiss that map. I am more interested in the extension of the Tang's influence to the Caspian. I have been able to find sources for the Western Turks expanding to the Caspian in 630, and for them submitting to the Tang some time later, but I don't think this implies that the Western Turks controlled the Eastern Shore of the Caspian at the time they submitted to the Tang, or afterwards. Maybe you can help out? Yaan (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The part that is bright yellow is not Yunnan, but Western Sichuan.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

and by the way, when are you going to start your work on Economic history of China???? You promised to start your work on it a week ago but you decided not to.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're satisfied for now with what I just added to your sandbox. ;) That should hold you off for a while. I'll add more later. As for all this monkey business with Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, I'll deal with that later, as I will be busy tomorrow with work, going to see a movie with friends, and have my sights focused on rewriting Government of the Han Dynasty. Full steam ahead.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks as if the discussion is gonna take place here. But why do we discuss this map and not the other one? This map contains "Mongol tribes", a serious anachronism, and for this reason alone it can never be used in an article about actual history. On the other hand, I still don't understand the other map, why it is wrong or correct, and would really like to know that. G Purevdorj (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute about inner asia during the Tang dynasty

Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty. A map that is sourced from wikimedia commons keeps on getting removed by users with bias, for no reason. Supposedly it is "unsourced"; it is in wikimedia commons! Please check it out.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Economy of the Han Dynasty

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Society and culture of the Han Dynasty

On March 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Society and culture of the Han Dynasty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, awesome.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese history

I included a great deal of info about Vietnamese history in History of the Song Dynasty, although it was striclty about diplomatic, trade, tributary, and hostile relations with Song China in the 11th century. What's funny is that I actually know a bit more about Vietnamese history than my Vietnamese friend Khoi. Hah. Perhaps my library has a treasure trove of sources on old Vietnamese history. However, after I am done with this Han Dynasty project (and helping with an economy-related article for another user), I think I'm going to take a long Wiki break.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many Vietnamese know nothing of Vietnamese history. Most of them don't know who [[Gia Long, Quang Trung, Le Loi, Ngo Dinh Diem, Phan Dinh Phung are. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another good article

What do you think of the comparison between 王莽 and Hu Jintao/Wen Jiabao ? I think this article(http://news.boxun.com/forum/200903/boxun2009a/42405.shtml) says a lot about Chinese politic.

1. It is very interesting that you are also into Vietnamese history, please have a look at the Sino-Vietnam War, I add a bit of Additional sources there. Many Chinese netizens know the true reasons of the war, that is, Deng Xiaoping used the war to signal to the USA that China will be friends of USA in the unlikely event of USA going to war with then USSR.
2. According to many Chinese historians, those Vietnameses, Cambodians and Thai people all share a common ancestor Descendants of Yan & Yellow Emperors Arilang ^talk 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet another good article

Yet another good article:华夏民族的终极亮剑——武悼天王冉闵 Arilang ^talk 04:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

People like you are the reason people like me join Wikipedia. I actually found your request for assistance with History of the Han Dynasty while looking for someone with experience to improve anti-Qing sentiment (which in turn I found through articles needing copyediting :-P). Maybe you could take a look at it some time.

I'm going to take a closer look at the Han article later but wanted to let you know I'm always available for copyediting. Once again, great work. Natural Cut (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll focus on those articles instead. The anti-Qing article isn't in a terrible state, but the reason I didn't touch it was that I wasn't sure on things like the distinction between anti-Qing and anti-Manchuism, what "the Qing" refers to (a dynasty, a people, a set of practices) and the significance of the Chinese phrase in the intro paragraph. I'm sure you'll do a fantastic job if you get around to it. Cheers. Natural Cut (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

History of the Han Dynasty

Wonderful article, but needs a bit of cutting down. It's on hold for now, but I am truly amazed you find the time to make these terrific articles. Let me know what you think about my proposed changes.Zeus1234 (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi PoA. Society and culture of the Han Dynasty is fantastic work, even more so than the other parts of your Han series. I'll try to say a few well-deserved words, but I'm afraid I don't have time to delve into this right now, because my parents are coming to visit in two days, and I have to finish some very urgent work on my dissertation before they arrive. Ok I'll get started right now, but I will have to be brief. Congatulations again! Madalibi (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok done! Now I really have to get back to work. I'll be on another long wiki break beginning this week-end, but will look forward to reading your improved version of Government of the Han Dynasty when I return! Madalibi (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So I'm the only one making a decision! Go ahead with the copy-editing. Reducing the size of the article will help to make it a featured article in the future. As for my new e-mail, Willam sent me only one answer and didn't reply any further. I guess everyone is concerned that I'm a hacker using a fake new e-mail. I did mention my meerkat joke (you know, with the stuffing) to you in the first message I wrote from that address, and a few more things that other members can confirm are coming from me. It's fine to be prudent. I actually opened a new e-mail because I thought my original address was either unsecure or under attack. I also changed all my passwords just in case. I have to go eat lunch, but I'll try to write again this afternoon. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you're online. Good, because I'm about to sign off for the day. I may only be able to pass the article late next week, because I'm going to pick up my parents in HK tomorrow, and I have to finish a few dissertation-related things before I leave. But I'll be back on Thursday. I also doubt I'll be able to check my e-mail, but rest assured: I'm in full control of my two addresses (those that start with "fa" and "ma"). It seems that things are taking a good turn, though, since the parasitic site seems to be down, and we know the perpetrator's identity and address. You can of course delete all the details from my messages that are unrelated to Wikipedia. Have fun editing! Madalibi (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll pass the article a bit later today, because I think that there's been improvement. I do however think that the people at FA will probably want you to shorten it even more though, so there may be hard choices up ahead. Good work!Zeus1234 (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Society and culture of the Han Dynasty

The article is possibly misleading because it only mentions silk cloths. I'm wondering whether all Hans wore silk all the time.

Another issue are the non-official traditions such as Mozi's. Perhaps you could better highlight what other traditions there were aside from Legalism and Confucianism and better explain why they didn't suit the court. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I had to refresh my memory. There were the Hundred Schools of Thought followed by the persecution during the Quin era and a relaxiation during the Han era. However, the Han first took over Legalism and later modified it with Confucianism (with Taoism in private affairs). What happened to the other schools of thought, at least the major ones, and how they eventually influenced what is blatantly labeled Confucianism and Legalism would help the reader to better understand the intellectual background of that time.

I do have access to all the mentioned books within this week and can help you on this aspect. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Salt Monopoly?

Hi Pericles --

I posted a question on Song Dynasty talk page suggesting that this is a neglected but important topic which needs to be coordinated through a number of articles. It would be great to get your input. ch (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty

A tag team of Tenmei, G Puveroj, and GenuineMongol are disrupting the article and attempting to delete it. Please check edit history for details.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Should I report their acitivity since they tried to disrupt the article again; they asked for scanned text and translations for every citation. That is a very biased obstructionism.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The above three have again tried to delete my material/circumvent 3RR rule by reverting without explanation. Can you please show up at the talk page and explain to them why they are wrong in doing so.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Tang dynasty map shows inner mongolia under Ughyur control. Strange considering Tang had prefectures such as Dingxiang and others which I believe was in Inner Mongolia.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I plan to withdraw from WP:3RR because it is ineffective and no uninvolved editor has shown the willingness and temerity in wading into this escalating dispute.

Instead, the dispute resolution processes of formal mediation are necessary. If that fails, the resort to arbitration may prove helpful.

We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes. In my view, the the words and actions of what Teeninvestor wrongly characterizes as a "tag team" have been consistently informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

• 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
• 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
• 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
• 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes— and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality.

As I see it, your participation has not been reliably focused on aspects of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty which would lead to a stable, credible article.

What seems to be missing is a method by which a determination on whether content policies are being followed can be made authoritatively. Mediation may help resolve the issues which mark this minor article as a battlefield. --Tenmei (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This guy is out of control, man. That's all i have to say.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China update

All the pre-modern sections are finished except Han and Song which I hoped you could do and Qing which I hoped Madalibi would do.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)