Talk:Ancient Chinese coinage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatics articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Although this article seems informative, it needs additional citations to prevent it from either being considered "copied-and-pasted" or "personal opinion." It also needs its sections wikified. --Strangerer 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

this is very much work in progress davidhartill Davidhartill 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

strange comments[edit]

Is SteinBDJ who keeps adding funny comments to my "Chinese Coins" article a man or a machine? And what do the comments all mean? The article is beautifully laid out, and I cannot do links to other areas as this completely new information that I am adding. I find Wikipedia machinery very difficult to understand.

Regards, DavidDavidhartill 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope of article[edit]

Information about the modern and contemporary coinage of China should be added or the article should be renamed Historical coinage of China. — AjaxSmack 21:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No response/changes yet so here goes. — AjaxSmack 19:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ying Yuan[edit]

I am of Chinese heritage and understand that Ying Yuan is money that would be carried into the proposed afterlife, just as Egyptian tombs contained object meant to keep for the person's afterlife. However, I cannot find a source for this other than private family documents, which are not published and will never be. Therefore, I did not edit the article. Is it possible that anyone else may be able to find a source for this? Yangosplat222 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest! I know of two types of Chinese mortuary money, of which one is coins or coin-like artefacts (used for almost as long as there have been coins), and more recently "bank notes" (bills) that were/are burned as part of the funeral ceremony. The coins or coin-like things are occasionally found by archaeologists, and they are subject to serious study by numismatists. I don't know of any particular sources, but try following the links I provided and read some of the threads, you'll probably find something. Have a go at it, it's fun and interesting if you like these things. You might also be interested in the Charon's obol article. Alfons Åberg (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


I noticed that large parts of the text are from the book by David Hartill, CAST CHINESE COINS. For instance the part about the Tang dynasty Kai Yuan coin is largely from Hartill's book, p. 103. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am David Hartill and am the originator of this article. The book is mentioned as the main source. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhartill (talkcontribs) 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Material posted on Wikipedia is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, whereby it may be freely used by other people for any purpose, with (almost) no restrictions. Because of this, there are strict procedures that Wikipedia insist on to ensure that material copied from elsewhere are properly handled. If you wish to contribute material that is your copyright (and has not, for instance, been irrevocably assigned to your publisher), then you may care to check out Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Hope this help. Hallucegenia (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Needle tip knives and pointed tip knives[edit]

David, could you help clarify the exact types identified here as needle tip knives and pointed tip knives? I gather that needle tip knives are 针首刀 in Chinese. But what is the Chinese equivalent of pointed tip knives? Is it 尖首刀 or 剪首刀 or both of them combined? Thank you! Alfons Åberg (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


The only way to sort out an article like this, is to remove all unreferenced 'facts', and to insist that anything added has appropriate reliable sources, conforming to our community-agreed policy on verifiability.

Thus, I record below the sections I just removed. If anyone can reinstate theis information, with appropriate sources, please do. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  02:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

<redacted pending verification of permission>

Great info, but useless without references.  Chzz  ►  02:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding above removal[edit]

Davidhartill (talk · contribs) undid the above edit [1].

Davidhartill responded on my user talk page [2] [3], and I have copied the message here, for discussion.  Chzz  ►  11:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


"But in practice not everything need actually be attributed." WIKI guidelines.

I think you have overreacted in your editing of my article. The facts are all contained in the literature cited, and there is nothing contentious unless indicated in the text.

As edited by you the article becomes useless.

Hope you will take the time to look at the article and grasp my point.

Davidhartill (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the Wikipedia policy (not guideline), Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is a core content policy, fundamental to Wikipedia, in conjunction with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
It does say what you wrote, but you are quoting it out of context. The full paragraph is,

To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.[Note 1]

  1. ^ See the discussion about sources in WP:NOR that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources.
I am challenging the above material. The policy goes on to say that Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed.
Unsourced information is of no benefit to Wikipedia. Anyone can change the facts, and we have no way to know which is 'correct'.
I am mindful of the need to allow time to reference information, and I am quite happy to allow time. Even though, as shown at the top of this talk page, this issue has been of concern since its inception in early 2007.[4]
The bulk of the article was added by Davidhartill in 2007 [5] [6].
It has remained without footnotes, throughout that time. I believe that, without 'drastic measures' as taken above, the article is unlikely to be corrected to meet the requirement for verifiability. However, I will not re-removed the text, for now; I will I tag the article appropriately, to denote the need for footnotes. I sincerely hope that the article can be improved. I will see if there is anything I can to to help improve it, and will otherwise revisit the footnote concern in a month or so. Best,  Chzz  ►  11:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


We could of course add a reference to a page in my book to every coin. Would this really help?

The article does not contain 'facts'.

Possible Copyright Infrigement[edit]

This article is largely taken from my book "Cast Chinese Coins" and I am quite happy for this much of it to be in the public domain.

If I had not had to put unneccessary citations on, we would not have had this problem.

David HartillDavidhartill (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Author of "Cast Chinese Coins".

Yuan, Ming and Qing[edit]

Is there any reason why the article ends with the Song dynasty? What about the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasty coins? Rincewind42 (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The title is "Ancient Chinese coinage" About a thousand years ago was a convenient cut-off.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhartill (talkcontribs) 02:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
In Chinese nomenclature, we usually use ancient to describe pre imperial China, e.g. before 221 BC. Then use imperial China for the period form 221 BC to the revolution in 1912 (which could be split into medieval and early modern). See the structure of the article history of China for an example. This article really covers both ancient and imperial China. In fact, only a trivial portion of the article is in ancient China. The vast majority of the article is about imperial Chinese coinage but leaves the imperial period half done. I know there is another article at Chinese coinage in the Ming Dynasty but this still leaves the Yuan, Liao, Jin, Western Xia, and Qing unrepresented. Wikipedia also lacks articles covering the Republican period's coins but that should be other article. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the distinction between "Ancient" and "Imperial" would be lost on most Western readers. "Early" would seem to be the best word. I gave up adding to the article as the Wiki-condition that every single coin had to have a citation against it proved too much like hard work. Davidhartill (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Davidhartill (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


Most of this article references one book by Davidhartill who also is the author of most of this article. However, it leaves one asking, what were the sources used to write the book? Can some of the current citation be replaced with more direct sources? Rincewind42 (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments 14th November.[edit]

This article has already been edited by two Wiki experts. The summary, in particular, was drastically cut by one as it was too general. There seems to be a lack of consensus among these Wiki experts.

Cast Chinese Coins is the standard work on the subject. The vast number of attributions are not controversial. Where they are, this is discussed. Davidhartill (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no lack of consensus. The former introduction was not fitting of an encyclopedic article. Please read MOS:LEAD for details. To quote the introduction on that page:

... The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic leads serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads.)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many read only the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.
Rincewind42 (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Confusing grammar[edit]

The text, "Chun Hua yuan bao Chinese: 淳化元寶; pinyin: chún huà yuánbǎo(990-94). Regular, running, and grass script. Small iron coins. Large iron coin." is rather confusing. Can this be put into regular English with proper verbs, prepositions and conjunctions rather than just strings of nouns and adjectives. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


Can someone clarify where these locations are: "At this time, there were copper coin mints at Yongping in Jiangxi, Yongfeng in Anhui, Kuangning in Fujian, Fengguo in Shanxi, and in the capital." using present day names. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)