Jump to content

Talk:Great Wall of China/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RobertYe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hushan wall was built on top of the Goguryeo-Balhae ruins

One can easily see the significant difference between Chinese wall and Korean,Japanese wall. reason being Chinese walls were built of bricks whereas Korea and Japanese walls were built of stones. before China built the Hushan wall from 2006, Korean scholars have already visited some of the ruins of Goguryeo and took pictures before China built the Chinese-style Ming great wall on top of it.

Baekje wall in Seoul, South Korea
Goguryeo wall in Pyongyang, North Korea
Goguryeo wall ruins in China 2
File:Japanese wall .jpg
Japanese wall
File:Chinese style brick wall 2.jpg
Chinese style brick wall 2
@Traineek:
  1. The photo of Goguryeo wall ruins in China you put up is actually Yanzhou Village, the Baegam of the Cheolli Jangseong, and it has remained the way it looked til this day.
  2. Hushan wall was first restored in 1992, and last restored in 2000.
  3. There is a museum on site opened in 2003 exhibiting the original Ming great wall brick and pottery discovered at the location.
  4. It's not just Samguk Yusa, all your Korean wikis about Goguryeo Cheolli Jangseong is saying it stretched from northeast Buyeoseong to southwest Bohai Bay that ended in nowadays Jinzhou County dalian: English wiki page, Korean wiki page Namu's wiki page, encyclopedia of Korean culture page; however China's great wall in Liaodong area stretched from northwest Kaiyuan, Liaoning to southeast Dandong, which doesn't overlap with the Cheolli Jangseong's line.
  5. I saw the Ming dynasty map you put up earlier. And i have to thank you for finding that map showing there was in fact walls built beyond Shanhai pass to the west in Liaodong area, which you previously denied of their existence saying the wall ended at Shanhai pass. And as for the ending of the wall drawn on the map, you can see how twisted the Shandong peninsula was drawn because of lack of precision in the 16th century. I also searched for some map, showing the Ming great wall towards Yalu river which is the nowadays China–North Korea border, and ended around the Hushan Wall's location.
  6. As for the other topics, i'll wait and see if the administrators allow us to comment inside the collapsable section. Ouatssss--23 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ouatssss--23:
  1. I did not say China built walls on my photo of Goguryeo wall ruins in China. That was a one of the ruins of Goguryeo wall left in relatively good condition that shows how Goguryeo style wall looked like, and it definitely not resembles the Chinese wall.
  2. Hushan was non-existence before 2006. The photo of Hushan wall shows clearly, the bottom part of the wall were built of stones instead of bricks. indicates it was a wall built on top of Goguryeo-Balhae-Goryeo ruins.
  3. Goguryeo did not build a wall in the style of The Chinese Wall. They built a series of fortified cities that loosely draws a line on a map. Take a look at the remains of the Goguryeo wall, The Ming style wall outside Liaodong and the newly built Hushan great wall in Dandong. See the significant difference of materials used between the top and the bottom of the wall? Yes, the newly built Hushan great wall was built on top of the remains of the sporadic Goguryeo walls.
  1. Referring to the 3 maps you posted, you realize how poorly studied and how out of proportion the maps look right? compare it with the map drawn by Ming. see the huge difference in the details.
  1. Of course there are walls in Liaodong area, there have always been the walls and fortress in Liaodong built by different people ancient states that occupied the region through history since Gojoseon era. But the wall built by Ming was from Jiayu Pass to Shanhai Pass. The map just shows there were walls in the Liaodong, and that's all it says, it doesn't make it built by Ming. The map shows clearly that there is no wall in today's Hushan wall claimed by China. That's the main point of it. --Traineek (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Traineek:
  1. There is no evidence of the accusation about China restored the walls on Goguryeo wall ruins, while there are Ming bricks and pottery found on the restoration site.
  2. Hushan great wall were first found in 1989, identified as Ming wall in 1990, restoration started in 1992, museum opened in 2003; all prior to your alleged 2006.
  3. How is that Goguryeo wall ruins resemble the under section of Hushan wall? Goguryeo wall ruins were built of rectangular bricks with alignments, while the under section of Hushan wall were built of irregular shaped stones. There are other segments of great wall that used those alike structure.
  4. The Ming map draw approximate locations of then territory, because of the lack of technology and field visit. And History of Ming clearly stated the border defenses started from east Yalu river: “终明之世，边防甚重。东起鸭绿江，西抵嘉峪，绵亘万里，分地守御。初设辽东、宣府、大同、延绥四镇，继设宁夏、甘肃、蓟州三镇，而太原总兵治偏头，三边制府驻固原，亦称二镇，是为九边”[1] And Ming Shilu recorded the repairing of the Ming great wall extended to Yalu river: "欲于各堡仓分支给臣惟东路自开原直抵鸭绿江南北绵亘千有馀里边墙坍塌类多险阻人力难施"[2]
  5. The Ming map you put up draw the Ming great walls that located east of Shanhai pass. You just refused to admit it. Beside the above texts, there are other historical records showed the process of Ming dynasty building the walls east of Shanhai Pass: History of Ming - "翺乃躬行邊，起山海關抵開原，繕城垣，浚溝塹。五里為堡，十里為屯，使烽燧相接" in 1442 AD[3], also “築邊墻自山海關迄開原叆陽堡凡千餘里” in 1502 AD.;[4] Ming Shilu-“当修筑墙台，在全辽保障，自锦州迤东抵三岔河，又自三岔直抵旧辽阳”[5]; <读史方舆纪要>- “永乐时，筑边墙于辽河，内自广宁东抵开元，七百余里，若就辽河迤西，径抵广宁，不过四百里。以七百里边堑堡寨，移守四百里，若遇入寇，应接甚易” between 1403－1424AD.[6];<全辽志>: <宦业志>“乃自巡边，沿山海抵开原，高墙垣，深沟堑，经略屯堡，易置烽燧，珠连璧贯，千里相望” in 1442 AD, also <宦业志>:“时边垣圮废，夷虏猖獗，题请修筑边墙，自辽阳三岔河北，直抵开原，延亘五百余里，崇墉深壕，虏莫敢犯” in 1506 AD, and <边防志>“国初毕恭守辽东，始践山因河，编木为垣，久之乃易以版墙，而墩台城堡，稍稍添置” ?－1452 AD. I've listed these records for you before, and you just intentionally ignored it.
For the similar structure I mentioned above:
Ouatssss--23 (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ouatssss--23: You discredit the territorial map drawn by Ming as lack of technology when it doesn't fit your narrative. well, in fact, even the territorial map of Qing shows the wall liaodong ends at 连山关, exact same location of Today's Lian shan guan in Liaoning province. There is no Hushan mountain at all in built by Ming. it was modern day fabricated fake historical site of China. --Traineek (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Traineek:It's a fact that the map didn't show Ming dynasty's own record of the walls stretching to Yalu river. With Later Jin (1616–1636)'s aggressive expansion, Battle of Sarhū occurred, and the walls between Lianshan pass and Hushan was ruined due to the Latter Jin's attack. Later after Manchu conquered Ming dynasty and established Qin dynasty, there was no need of defensive structures to fence of northern threats, so the walls remained ruined until they were found in 1989 and named Hushan same as the name of town and village (辽宁省丹东市宽甸满族自治县虎山镇虎山村) where it was found. The Qing and Ming maps from the same map book drawn in Qing or later era showed the walls' then status after the section's ruined.Ouatssss--23 (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ouatssss--23: 1. The battle of Sarhu never occurred in Dandong. 2. There was no reason for Manchurians to destroy the hundred miles wall when all they had to do was just attack one pass to get through. 3. The Hushan wall was built on top of the Goguryeo ruins called Bakjak Fortress. Check out list of Goguryeo fortress [[1]]--Traineek (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ouatssss--23: 4. China destroyed Goguryeo Bakjak fortress in the name of cultural heritage protection and built a new wall on top of Goguryeo ruins that looked completely different. No country builds a already destroyed historical building and calls it cultural heritage. If every country were to follow China, the Parthenon would have long been renovated and looking as new as Hushan wall, let alone what China did was not just re-building a destroyed historic site, but created a non-existing wall on top of Goguryeo ruins and destroyed true historic culture heritage of Goguryeo.--Traineek (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Traineek:
  1. The battle of Sarhu occurred near Dandong, and later the Later Jin controlled over the area.
  2. It is the fact that the walls between 连山关 and hushan were ruined after its being build and the Later Jin's aggressive expansion.
  3. There is no proof that Hushan wall was build on top of Bakjak Fortress. The wall was rebuild on the 600 meter-long ruins with Ming bricks and pottery found on site.
  4. Give me any proof that China destroyed Goguryeo Bakjak fortress. In fact there were no findings of Goguryeo fortress in the Dandong area like the finding of Yanzhou Village.
  5. You Koreans rebuilt the destroyed Woljeong-gyo and called it historic culture heritage; you rebuild destroyed Geoncheonggung, Taewonjeon, Jaseondang and called them historic culture heritage.
Ouatssss--23 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ouatssss--23: 1. The location of Battle of Sarhu is in Fushun, 130 miles away from Dandong. Please base your argument on facts, not emotion.
2. there was no walls between Lianshan pass and Hushan, and claiming it was destroyed by Manchurians are nothing but your imagination.
3. 4. Korean scholars have been to Dandong before China built the Hushan wall, the new walls were built on exact same location where the Goguryeo ruins were. The Goguryeo fortress in Dandong are nowhere to be seen.
5. I don't agree with everything Korea does, rebuilding destroyed buildings are one of them. Still the difference is the replica of the destroyed buildings in Korea were based on the buildings that really existed built on the exact location, whereas Hushan walls were non existent and built on top of Goguryeo ruins, Bakjak Fortress. still i do not endorse rebuilding already destroyed historical sites. I consider that replica, not historical site--Traineek (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Traineek:
  1. The Later Jin attacked with Battle of Sarhu in Fushun, and later conquered the area with multiple attacks, which in the process ruined the walls there. And i searched for more information, saying in the process of making Willow Palisade, the ruins were further damaged.
  2. I've given you plenty historical records saying Ming dynasty built the walls between Lianshan pass to nowadays Hushan, but you just refuse to acknowledge them and saying it's my imagination. Seriously, there are both texts and material evidence showing the walls' existence.
  3. Show me your evidence of Korean scholars finding Goguryeo Bakjak fortress in Dandong. I searched through the internet and could not find any. Accusing Hushan wall built on already disappeared fortress is not valid.
  4. The Hushan great wall were built on the structural 600 meter line newly found in 1990, which later proven to be part of Ming great wall because of the Ming bricks and potteries found on site.
Ouatssss--23 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ouatssss--23: KBS documentary 고구려성, 만리장성으로 둔갑하다 shows clearly China removing Goguryeo walls and replacing them with the Great Wall of China. Ruins of Goguryeo walls were found under new Chinese type of walls described as the Great Wall to tourists. @Traineek:Those two pictures of Baekje and Goguryeo walls in Seoul and Pyongyang are bad examples. They are reconstructions. Baekje's walls in Seoul were made of rammed earth. A Baekje fortress from a 2019 discovery was made of stones. Donkkas (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Donkkas: So the documentary shows the prove of Goguryeo Bakjak fortress in Hushan's existence; it cited the Chinese archeology yearbook writing "在虎山上，高句丽山城环山而建，明长城为南北通过，两城墙恰好形成一个‘中’字", translated to "On the mountain of Hushan, Goguryeo's mountain town was built around the mountain, Ming great wall passed through from in south-north direction, the two walls forming a '中' character". And then the documentary simulated how the two walls crossed over; later the documentary filmed the ruins still suspected to be of Goguryeo remaining next to the restored Hushan wall. Then the documentary shows more of the Chinese archeology yearbook, stating there were Goguryeo ruins near the Ming walls, and later show the 1990s photo of Ming wall ruin found on top of Goguryeo ruin. How does the documentary show that China removing Goguryeo walls and replacing them with the Great Wall of China? ‘’‘There is no removing, as the ruins still remain on site; and the Ming walls were found there so China restored the wall on top of the Ming wall.‘’‘ Then the documentary referenced the 明长城考实 trying to prove there is no Ming wall on Hushan only Goguryeo ruins, however the 明长城考实 was published in 1988, and the Ming walls were found in 1989 and proved in 1990, the outdated text can't justify the denying of new discovery.Ouatssss--23 (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "91". History of Ming.
  2. ^ "191". Ming Shilu - 宪宗实录.
  3. ^ "177". History of Ming.
  4. ^ "186". History of Ming.
  5. ^ "16". Ming Shilu - 神宗实录.
  6. ^ "37". 讀史方輿紀要.

Request for comment on Controversies section

Should we improve the information in the Controversies section?
I request for outside input concerning the content about this recent contribution. FYI, please see Great Wall of China: Revision history starting March 2. Ericgyuminchoi (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  • This RFC is way too soon, there has barely been two days of discussion on the talk page. The topic of the RFC is also extremely vague and does not really address the matter at hand appropriately. I suggest closing this. Aza24 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There currently is no "Controversies" section (and I'd oppose it, see previous section), so the question about improving something that isn't there doesn't make any sense. Whether or not it is premature is one thing, but making no sense at all is a far more compelling reason to close this RfC forthwith. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Aza24 and Francis Schonken: Hi. Just helping out. I understand what you mean, but I respectfully disagree. I realise both of you are editors involved in the discussion in previous section, but it did not seem like the dispute was going to be resolved easily, or anytime soon. Please kindly wait patiently while uninvolved editors are invited to assist in the discussion. It would be informative to have the content in the proposed section after all. Ericgyuminchoi (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
    Ericgyuminchoi, I think you're missing the point. Your help is appreciated, but RFCs are more useful when there is disagreement between many editors. At the moment there is one user attempting to insert poorly sourced POV edits and edit warring in the process. This user has been reverted by my self and at least 7 other editors, demonstrating that there is a clear consensus to not add the information. Regardless, the RFC it self—as Francis said above—does not make sense. It says "Should we improve the information in the Controversies section?"—but at the moment there is no controversy section hence there is nothing to be improved so the question is impossible to answer. Furthermore, you're saying that it did not seem like the dispute was going to be resolved easily, or anytime soon but there is no real dispute here, it's just one editor disagreeing with eight others, which is a clear example of consensus against said editor. Aza24 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
    Aza24 Thanks for your response. I agree with you that the edit warring and other methods employed by the user Traineek were without a doubt unconstructive, which has resulted in him/her being blocked for 31 hours. To explain the context of my inquiry and the reasons for the RFC, the Controversy section was there at the time I was composing the RFC - I'm aware that this has since been reversed. The revision history in the past week shows that the user Traineek was problematic because of copyright violations/word-for-word plagiarism and citations. The discussion in the above section was between Traineek, Ouatssss--23, Aza24, Francis Schonken. Nonetheless, I still feel the Controversy content has potential to be more informative and useful, in the form of a clear and concise quick NPOV overview as per the policies and guidelines. I would have suggested that the Controversy section be moved to the bottom of the article. The methods Traineek employed were wrong, but he/she does seem to have a point, if we see past the negative frame of a vandal. I feel it could be beneficial to see what other editors view the matter at hand, seeing as it could provide readers with a "world view". I'm wondering if there would be any other hobbyist and expert editors who would be willing to contribute and help out. Ericgyuminchoi (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
    Anyhow, I'd think WP:DRN more likely to yield result in this case if the issues talked about in the #"Controversies" section above would not be getting otherwise resolved, than an RfC (well, that is, after Traineek's block expires some time tomorrow – I just saw they received a 31H block for edit-warring – other editors don't seem to have enough of a disagreement for either RfC or DRN). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC); updated 04:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Ericgyuminchoi, I have just finished reading the edit histories and this discussion. The other users are all correct. There was no need to bring this to RfC. This should be speedily closed. Augu❤Maugu 💕 01:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ericgyuminchoi, I don't think you have completely understood what the discussion in the previous section is about. Currently, most of the editors here are opposed to Traineek's content and the reasons are not just plagiarism or mishandling of sources, but also WP:WEIGHT and WP:CRITICISM. There should not be a discussion about improving the controversies when the consensus is against addition of said content in the first place. Esiymbro (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


@Francis Schonken: @Wretchskull: @Aza24: @Beeblebrox: @Ericgyuminchoi:

1. First of all, I would like to apologize for not been able to ask for consensus in talk page before adding the contribution to the page. 2. what User Esiymbro said is untrue, My contribution to the page of great wall of china are well sourced. in fact it wasn't even reversed for the content itself in the very beginning, but for word-for-word plagiarism of the talk page. 3. Below is brief summary of what happened.

  • The very first time my contribution got reversed for word-for-word plagiarism of the sources by Editor Underbar dk in 17:29, 2 March 2021.
  • So i rephrased my content and posted it again the next day. and on 09:39, 3 March 2021, editor Ouatssss--23 amended my content, saying only Korean scholars showing skepticism.
  • So i provided extra links to show that non-Koreans are showing skepticism.
  • Until here, the dispute is not on adding the controversy section itself rather the rephrasing and the minor details of the content.
  • It was then the user Esiymbro started reversing my contribution with reason that i didn't get consensus in talk page. I was not aware what that meant at that time exactly, so i undo his reverse and wrote my reason while editing again on the edit page.
  • We reversed each other back and forth. and it drew attention from other editors and gave an impression that I was vandalizing the page.

Basically, that was the main reason my contribution got so many reverses mostly from user Esiymbro, it has nothing to do with the content itself, but more of intentional sabotage by Esiymbro to censor my contribution.

Basically, both South and North Korea, and some experts in the field are refuting the claims by China that the great wall of China ever extended all the way into Korean peninsula and even questioning whether some of the walls in Liaodong area should be included to the great wall of China as some of the walls were Goguryeo walls built to defend against China. and China has been revising the length of the great wall of China since 2001, the same year China started the controversial North-East project to rewrite the history of all ancient nations that existed in modern day Chinese territory in the region. The main idea of North East project is to revise all previously perceived history of ethnic minorities in the border region and make it the history only belongs to China. These are all factual events that anyone can find online covered by all major news agencies. I am not making things up and there should be no reason to silence the fact that not everyone agrees with the China's modern day claim. Therefore the controversy section is necessary on the issue especially China is claiming the great wall existed in Korean peninsula despite no archaeological studies ever been conducted by China in Korea. if anyone has different opinion on my contribution, we can have a discussion, but censoring the controversy section completely is not in line with the purpose of the wikipedia as open platform for exchanging ideas and presenting voices from all sides to give audience a broad and balanced understanding of the issue. --Traineek (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Below are the 3 main points that I would like to include in the great wall page, and i am willing to listen to everyone's opinion :

1. China has been revising the length of the great wall of China since 2001, the same year China started the controversial North east project.

2. The wall has been a source of controversy between China and North Korea since 2009 CE when the Chinese government claimed they had only recently discovered portions of the Great Wall close to the border with North Korea by the Hushan Mountains. North Korea claims that is the Goguryeo's Cheolli Jangseong, the defensive walls built by the ancient Korean Kingdom to defend against China's invasion.

3. China claims that the Great Wall, ordered by Emperor Qin Shi Huang who unified China's kingdoms during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, extended through North Korea's Chongchon River and reached up to the Taedong River estuary despite there is no archaeological evidence to back the claim. Both North and South Korea and non Korean experts and scholars are skeptical about China's claim. --Traineek (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you are pinging me here, as I have tried to get you to understand that I am not and will not be involved in the content dispute, my involvement here is strictly in an administrative capacity. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@Traineek:, it seems like you could have summarized what you find to be a controversy in a very short neutral brief. Why wasn't this done from the beginning? I doubt it would have recieved as much attention if this was done. Augu❤Maugu 💕 02:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@Traineek: These are all factual events that anyone can find online covered by all major news agencies. Sorry but none of these are as factual as you claim. I've responded point by point here. In addition, this thread should be moved out of the RfC section. Esiymbro (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@AuguMaugu: True, but i was new to wiki edit and didn't know how to use the talk page. Thank you --Traineek (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@Esiymbro:I have already presented my reasons above. Not gonna copy paste the same thing again here in the same page. If you cannot refute that the controversy on the certain part of the great wall exists between China and other parties on the issue, please do not engage in edit war against me again. Please respect different opinions. Thank you --Traineek (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


Off-topic and procedural

Not for this talk page, not in any section, per discussion in prior section.
Closed by Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ouatssss--23:On controversies of the great wall by China in modern times, I'm not interest whether China claims it officially or privately, You can see the Great wall map released by China, what else do we need? and it is clear that China is claiming the great wall extended all the way into Korean peninsula. All along i have been saying one thing, that not everyone agrees with China's one-sided claim and some sees China's continous extension of the great wall as modern day history revisionism. That is why i said the one-sided claim of China is controversial unless there is joint archaeological studies to verify China's claim. Long story short. Mount Jie-Shi 碣石山 is the exclusive toponym indicating the one and only 碣石山 in Hebei China today. There is no mountain called 碣石山 in entire Korean peninsula present and past, you can try find one mountain ever called 碣石山 in Korea and prove me wrong like how i did by citing ancient Chinese records written by Chinese to show you that the 碣石山 in ancient Chinese records is exactly where 碣石山 is today. About the Qin wall. According to ancient Chinese history record, 『史記正義 』遼東郡在遼水東，始皇築長城東至遼水，西南至海. In English it means the Great Wall built by Emperor Qin reached 辽水 Liao river in the east, and reached the sea in the southwest. You should know where Liao river 辽水 is right? Don't tell me 辽水 the Liao river is in Korea again? The location of Lelang is controversial among scholars in South Korea, so do not cite some South Korean scholars that on board with China's claim and portray it as the is universally accepted fact in South Korea. As i have said earlier, due to no on-site archaeological studies conducted by South Korea, the mainstream opinion in South Korea is neither deny nor acknowledge the China's claim which makes it controversial among different scholars. and this is also the difference between single voice China and Korea that guarantees academic freedom. In China, the scholar from CASS with government position title and communist party membership says one thing, that becomes the universally accepted fact in entire China, no objection is allowed. but that's not how things work in South Korea. Korea guarantee different voices and opinions.

File:Qin map based on ancient Chinese history records.png
Qin map based on ancient Chinese history records
File:Qin wall based on ancient Chinese history records.png
Qin wall based on ancient Chinese history records

"Wherever you heard that '乐浪' name origin story from, it is wrong. The Liaodong region between 饶乐Rao-Le and 白浪 Bai-Lang were already in Han dynasty's possession succeeded from Qin dynasty,"  It seems to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. Look, i never said 饶乐Rao-Le and 白浪 Bai-Lang are in Liaodong, did I? Please read again what i wrote earlier, in fact, both 饶乐Rao-Le and 白浪 Bai-Lang are in Liaoxi which is Hebei, the map shows clearly they are in Hebei, have you even take a look at the map? I've circled the toponyms to prove to you the starting point of the great wall the ancient Chinese record indicates match 100% with the map, and you are just denying for the sake of denying, without even understanding whether i was referring to in Western Liao or Eastern Liao. about Jizi Joseon, I have presented you my reason with evidence why Jizi Joseon is fabrication by Simaqian, if you have any question on Samguk Yusa, you are free to point it out, i'm always open to different opinions and i will not stop anyone from pointing out. Dangun could be myth created by Korean people to worship a common ancestor or could be the real leader of ancient Korean state, or could be half real and half legendary like Jesus Christ. There are limited sources about Dangun, North Korea claimed to have found Dangun bones from tomb of the Dangun. it could be Dangun or it could be someone else. I'm open to it. You can call it controversy. I have no problem with that. Same as the great wall topic, China's claim is just one-sided claim, i have shown you the examples how the Chinese history records on the location of the great wall is inconsistent and often contradicts one another. like this one, 《晋书·卷一·宣帝纪》遂进师，经孤竹，越碣石，次于辽水. It says [At last, the soldiers advanced, passed through 孤竹 Guzhu, crossed the 碣石 Jieshi, and reached 辽水 Liao river]. All these places mentioned are in Hebei China today. If mount Mount Jie-shi is not in Hebei as you claimed, where could it be? Can you explain to me? another Chinese records say『史記』卷二夏本紀【索隱】地理志云「碣石山在北平驪城縣西南」。太康地理志云「樂浪遂城縣有碣石山，長城所起」。又水經云「在遼西臨渝縣南水中」Bei Ping 北平 is in Hebei China, Sui Cheng 遂城 is in Hebei China, Lin Yu 臨渝 is in Hebei China, Mount Jie-shi 碣石山 is in Hebei China, the starting point of the great wall 長城所起 is Hebei China, Would you discredit『史記』for this?  Qin was not just short-lived regime, the fact is Qin never even had war with Gojoseon, and no wall was ever built by Qin in Korean peninsula. If you mean the former Gojoseon territory in Eastern Liao in China which was occupied by Yan, that is not on Korean peninsula. see the map of Qin and the description. It matches the ancient Chinese record, 遼東郡在遼水東，始皇築長城東至遼水，西南至海 which means the Great Wall built by Emperor Qin reached 辽水 Liao river in the east, and reached the sea in the southwest. Liao river is in eastern Liao of China today. Not Korean peninsula. Now, will you finally acknowledge that the history records of Chinese on the location of great wall are inconsistent and contradicts one another? Yes or no? --Traineek (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Traineek: 1.China only claimed the walls inside the Chinese territory. In all map released by China authority the Great wall ended at China's border. 2.Didn't I referenced ancient Chinese record to you to show there was 碣石山 and 遂城 in Korean peninsula? The Book of Han (111 AD) clearly stated 遂成(城) as district of Lelang county: "樂浪郡，戶六萬二千八百一十二，口四十萬六千七百四十八。縣二十五：朝鮮，俨邯，浿水，含資，黏蟬，遂成，增地，帶方，駟望，海冥，列口，長岑，屯有，昭明，鏤方，提奚，渾彌，吞列，東傥，不而，蠶台，華麗，邪頭昧，前莫，夫租。"[1] The Lelang county is not in Liaoxi or Liaodong region, as the Book of Han(111 AD) listed all three county of same level: "遼西郡，戶七萬二千六百五十四，口三十五萬二千三百二十五。縣十四：且慮，海陽，新安平，柳城，令支，肥如，賓從，交黎，陽樂，狐蘇，徒河，文成，臨渝，絫。//遼東郡，戶五萬五千九百七十二，口二十七萬二千五百三十九。縣十八：襄平，新昌，無慮，望平，房，候城，遼隊，遼陽，險瀆，居就，高顯，安市，武次，平郭，西安平，文，番汗，沓氏。//樂浪郡，戶六萬二千八百一十二，口四十萬六千七百四十八。縣二十五：朝鮮，俨邯，浿水，含資，黏蟬，遂成，增地，帶方，駟望，海冥，列口，長岑，屯有，昭明，鏤方，提奚，渾彌，吞列，東傥，不而，蠶台，華麗，邪頭昧，前莫，夫租"[2] And Jin dynasty (266–420)'s 太康地理志 wrote 樂浪遂城縣有碣石山 長城所起 that there were 碣石山 in the 遂城 inside Lelang county. 3.Thank for the correction, both 饶乐 and 白浪 were in Liaoxi and are in Hebei neither. However, both Liaoxi and Liaodong were conquest by Yan state and later succeeded to Qin dynasty and Han dynasty, just like the map you put here. 4.碣石 is not an exclusive word, even today there are two 碣石山 in China, one is in Hebei and other in Shandong. And i've sorted the historical records for you, that "碣石山在北平驪城縣西南" and "遂进师，经孤竹，越碣石，次于辽水" meant for the Jieshi mountain in today's Hebei, "在遼西臨渝縣南水中" meant for that island in Bohai, "樂浪遂城縣有碣石山，長城所起" meant for the Jieshi mountain in Lelang county in Korean peninsula. And the Book of Han stated 遂成(城) as a district in Lelang county,which is not today's Hebei 遂成 that only got its name during Sui dynasty (581–618AD) Book of Sui - “遂城舊曰武遂。後魏置南營州，准營州置五郡十一縣：龍城、廣興、定荒屬昌黎郡；石城、廣都屬建德郡；襄平、新昌屬遼東郡；永樂屬樂浪郡；富平、帶方、永安屬營丘郡。後齊唯留昌黎一郡，領永樂、新昌二縣，餘並省。開皇元年州移，三年郡廢，十八年改為遂城“[3] 5.The original 史记 text is “築長城，因地形，用制險塞，起臨洮，至遼東，延袤萬餘里。” 史記正義 was an interpretation of 史記 in Tang dynasty that said Qin great wall reached to 辽水 in the east, and reached the sea in the southwest; the map you put up is an later interpretation (probably Ming or Qing, since only then start using coloured map) of Qin dynasty territory that shows it crossed 辽水 to the east part of Liaodong peninsula and reached the sea in south. Yes there are inconsistent of Qin wall in Chinese historical records, so Chinese scholars continued to search for historical records and archeological sites to prove the statement that Yan Qin Han wall reached northwest corner of nowadays North Korea, however without the cooperations on the field work in North Korea, such statement was not adopted by the Chinese government. And Chinese government only claimed the walls inside China's territory, including the proved Ming great wall site at Hushan. Ouatssss--23 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me what getting consensus mean exactly? Do i need to convince the Chinese people who would never accept the controversy exists despite how many evidences and contradictions i present about the great wall?

@Francis Schonken: @Wretchskull: @Aza24: @Beeblebrox: @Ericgyuminchoi: --Traineek (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The policy is at WP:CONSENSUS: that might be a good start to get acquainted with the concept. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Thank you for the link, I found this, Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. It's the situation i am facing right now, it didn't say what's the solution in such scenario. Could you advise? --Traineek (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Continue discussion after section closed 1
Continue discussion after section closed 2
abusing power by editor
@Francis Schonken: 3 main points in controversy section.
  1. China has been revising the length of the great wall since 2001. the controversy is 2009 and 2012 revisions.
  2. North Korea refute the 2009 revision. South Korea refute the 2012 revision.
  3. Scholars opinions.
These 3 main points will all have sources to prove the claim exists. Please advise what should i do if the Chinese editors refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on. thank you--Traineek (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Traineek: your attempts to revive the above closed discussion topics are not appreciated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: as previous revert User:Traineek: don't *move* and *change* talk page posts after they have been replied to. Don't revive discussions unsuitable for this talk page. My reply to previous discussion is prohibited whereas Ouatssss--23 can revive the closed discussion as the screenshots on the right? So i am not allow to "move" or "change" talk page posts after they have replied whereas they can "move" and "change" my talk page post after i have replied? are you being fair or being double standard? and why are you keep removing my replies when they are relevant to the topic? --Traineek (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "28". Book of Han.
  2. ^ "28". Book of Han.
  3. ^ "30". Book of Sui.


Horribly untrue

This article is a good example of the problems of "verify" over "fact".

We are told that in the 19th century, the Great Wall was a popular tourist attraction for Europeans. And what backs this up? Written accounts by Europeans FROM the 19th century?

Of course not! It's a book from 1990 by Waldron. So, someone in 1990 knows more about 19th century European explorers than the 19th century European explorers themselves.

And the whole article is like that. 20th and 21st century writers simply saying "This is the way it was!"

FACT: The "Kitai" of Marco Polo was NOT China. FACT: 19th century European explorers went to try to FIND a "Great Wall of China". They were all unsuccessful. FACT: During the 1930's/1940's the Japanese had control over much of China. Japanese scouts/explorers went the width and breadth of China. They found no traces of a "Great Wall". FACT: There are no old drawings of a "Great Wall of China".

So, there were stories, but no physical wall( and no artistic depictions). Even into the 1940's.

Then, the Communists took control of China. China was shut off to the outside world for years. There was a "Cultural Revolution",and a "Rediscovery of the Chinese Spirit".

Then, Communist China opens itself to the world as a tourist destination. And, in the 20th Century, there is the Great Wall of China, looking all shiny and new, like it was only just built. And tourists from all over the world flock to China to have their photo taken on the "ancient wonder" that is the Great Wall of China.

And, the Great Wall stood in pristine condition for "thousands of years", yet only a few years into being a tourist trap, it starts deteriorating.

And, logistics. If every tower was properly manned, and those soldiers needed a nearby supply of available food and water etc., then the entire Chinese population would have had to have lived on or along the Great Wall.

There are also points where the "Great Wall" passes along the BOTTOM of a valley. Thus, any "Mongol" invaders would have been high up above the Great Wall, on the hilltops, putting the "defenders" at an enormous disadvantage. Interestingly, photos of these tactical/defensive nightmares are routinely policed and removed by Google images.

Best of all, the Great Wall of China isn't on the Chinese border. It is entirely deep within China. This is obviously because had it been built on the border, other countries would have noticed this vast Communist undertaking.

And, if it's the OLD Chinese border, then maybe China has no claim to any land on the "other" side of the "Great Wall"?

Yes, the "Great Wall of China" was built by Chairman Mao's Communist regime in the 20th century. It was built to show the world the "Grand History of China", the "Spirit and Hard Work Ethic of the Chinese People", and it was built to milk gullible tourists of their money.

Facts tell you this. Logic leads you to no other conclusion.

But.. Waldron wrote a book in 1990 full of Fantasy Fiction. And that trumps reason and reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blade Breaksdown (talk • contribs) 09:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Please supply WP:Reliable sources to support your statements. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

about South Korean Nationalists rumor

Korean Nationalists was claimed that China extended the Great Wall to Heilongjiang Province in 2012, But the Great Wall  in Heilongjiang is the Great Wall of Jin and Liao Dynasties，The Great Wall of the Jin Dynasty and the Great Wall of the Liao Dynasty were clearly identified in the 2008 Wikipedia entry on the Great Wall，

And in the history of China, there are many dynasties built the Great Wall.The Chinese government is not on the Great Wall to extend, can click on the link to see the Great Wall in 2014 entries and compared 2008 entries,


Please find the photos of "Map of the Whole Wall Constructions" in the entry of the Great Wall in 2008 and in the entry of the Great Wall in 2014 and compare them, 2008 Great wall entry and 2014 Great wall entry, both the Great Wall entries contain photos of "Map of the Whole Wall Constructions" which need to be looked up


2008 Great wall wikipedia entry[2] photos of"Map of the Whole Wall Constructions"In the fifth photo on the left of the article.


2014 Great wall wikipedia entry[3] photos of"Map of the Whole Wall Constructions"In the second photo on the left of the article.


Secondly, in the news of China Intranet in 2006, there was a mention of the Jin Dynasty Great Wall （Jin dynasty border trenches）,Han Dynasty Great Wall was greatly damaged，2006 Chinese great wall new[4].And in a 2009 news report about it, it said that the early Great Wall (The Great Wall other than the Ming Wall) could not be repaired (because it was too damaged)2009 Chinese great wall New[5].According to the Book of Liao, [Liao tai zu] built the Liao dynasty Great Wall：《辽史》载：太祖二年冬十月“筑长城于镇东海口”[1]

References

  1. ^ 《辽史》载：太祖二年冬十月“筑长城于镇东海口”

Social sciences

To give me all the explanation 41.115.108.156 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

well known but untrue myth

this is poor English, does it mean the myth is untrue therefore rendering it as a fact? The words should be changed to something like...

well known myth.

This avoids any ambiguity. However if you want even more clarity perhaps you could say..


well known (yet totally false) myth.

Though this is wordy and can itself be seen as ambiguous.

Just trying to help

Tim Brimelow Australia Timbrimelow (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done I'm not certain that the phrasing as written was problematic, but I can see where you are coming from. I've edited the sentence to be more direct. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

China wall length is fake😡😡😡

21,196.18 km impossible woooooo I'm korea and you bad guys added korea walls to China its scam😩😩 121.167.103.250 (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The figure is well sourced, from the highly regarded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The Korean walls are part of the Great Wall of China.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

A Semi- Protected edit request. On July 15 2022

I wanted to add some more information about this world heritage site. Ane I also some other amazing facts about The Great Wall Of China. I hope you can understand. Please also reply that if you are pleased with this idea. If not no problem at all. Thank you.


The Great wall of China.

It was built over a long period of time since 700 B.C. The wall is made of stone, brick, wood, tampered earth etc.The Great Wall of China is the longest man-made structure in the world. Archaeological surveys found that the entire wall with all of its branches measure out to be 21,196 km (13,171 mi). Ming walls(Wall being reconstructed during Ming dynasty) measure around 8,850 km which is made up of 6,259 km sections of actual wall, 359 km of trenches and 2,232 km of natural defensive barriers such as hills and rivers. Several walls were being built as early as the 7th century BC. These were later joined together and made bigger, stronger, and unified and are now collectively referred to as the Great Wall.Hence Great Wall is not a single wall and not a continuous wall built all at once. Qin Shi Huang,the first Emperor of China built the earliest extensive walls between 220–206 BC. Build to defend the Chinese Empire from Mongolian and Manchu enemies to the north. The Great Wall is 25 feet tall and 15-30 feet wide. That’s wide enough for two cars to drive on! The visibility of The Great Wall of China to the naked eye from the moon and from the low earth orbit is impossible as one would require spatial resolution 17,000 times better than normal (20/20) vision.Although at Earth orbit of 100 miles (160 km) to 200 miles (320 km) high, the Great Wall of China is, indeed, visible to the naked eye!!! In many locations the Wall is in disrepair and those parts might serve as a village playground or a source of stones to rebuild houses and roads. Most of the Wall is built using rammed earth, adobe and stone.Bricks were used after the Ming dynasty. There are more than 10000 watch towers and beacon towers along the Great Wall of China. The Great Wall was called “the longest cemetery on earth” because so many people died while building it. Reports say that it took away more than one million lives. More than 60 km of the wall in Gansu province may disappear in the next 20 years, due to erosion from sandstorms. 112.134.209.48 (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

History.com source in opening section

Source 8 is a video on history.com that, when I checked, isn't even watchable anymore. The thing it "sources" is a matter of opinion, not something provable by the video, even if the video wasn't broken.

Moreover, History.com has an earned reputation as a TV-network that has stepped away from scientific reality and is prone to overhyping the past to get viewership. We can only guess at the contents of the video, but at a runtime of 2 minutes and 14 seconds we can reasonably assume the video was as surface level as it gets. I don't doubt the video at some point said it was recognised as claimed, but that's not a source. That's just something you watched with an alleged "expert opinion" you agree with. US media uses "expert opinions" interlaced with make-believe all the time, especially History.com. Without the ability to review the video we can't tell how weak the claim is.

My previous paragraph is mostly fluff, the fact that the source is broken already means it's not up to Wikipedia's standards. We should be more vigilant about these chauvanist elements creeping into pages about old architecture, I think wikipedia contains numerous claims of "greatest architectural feat" at this point. 62.101.195.234 (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The wall during World War II

I think a section about the wall’s history during World War II (or the preceding years) could be added (see Defense of the Great Wall), where the surrounding parts of the wall were fought over between the Chinese and Japanese armies.2620:101:F000:741:0:0:0:907 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Is there a source for this?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Since you apparently couldn’t be bothered to check the page, here’s one for starters? 2620:101:F000:741:8000:0:0:907 (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

The Great Wall of Han was during the Han Dynasty and was the longest part of the Great Wall of China. It was about 10,000 kilometers. It was built on top of the remains of the Qin Great Wall and extended westward to what is known as the Hexi Corridor to Lop Nur in the Xinjiang Uygar Autonomous Region. This part of the wall spanned over 6,214 miles across deserts, grasslands, mountains, rivers, and plains and took almost two decades to make. It ran from Liaoning and ended near Xinjiang in the west. Safwan02 (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Great Wall of China

Great Wall of China is 3,000km 124.170.15.181 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You sure it’s not Roman??? 210.8.65.14 (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Wall_of_China/Archive_4&oldid=1205027111"