The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:54, 7 April 2009 [1].
I believe this article meets all the requirements for FA status, along with the other Han-dynasty related pages I have worked on. Pericles of Athens Talk 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool. I'll strike these out as I fix them. Is that ok with you?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 09:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply
comment great job with the images, its hard to get an FA on such a broad topic, best of luck Fasach Nua ( talk) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply
...One such source of information would have been the so-called embassy from the king of Da Qin, Andun xyz an twan, that reached the Han court by sea in 166 c.E. Since the name Andun can be plausibly identified either with the emperor Antoninus Pius (reg. 138-161) or his successor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (reg. 161-180), this provides at least one firm link to Rome itself. There is not much else. A point that needs to be stressed is that the Chinese conception of Da Qin was confused from the outset with ancient mythological notions about the far west. In the same way that Da Qin replaced Zhang Qian's Da Xia as the "counter-China," the Weak Water (rud shut §§7fc) and the Queen Mother of the West (XI Wang Mu ffizE M), reported by hearsay as features of Tiaozhi in the Shiji and Hanshu, were moved to the western extremity of Da Qin in later texts. Attempts to identify them with actual western places are obviously futile. Edwin G. Pulleyblank: The Roman Empire as Known to Han China, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 119, No. 1. (1999), pp. 71-79 (78)
Please show me where Pulleyblank speaks of Roman tributes to China. This is nonsense, because, apart from two possible contacts, there was never any direct interaction between Rome and the Han. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 02:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
To beef up the crediblity on this issue, I recently added a citation (page 460–461) from this source:
Yü, Ying-shih. (1986). "Han Foreign Relations," in The Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. – A.D. 220, 377-462. Edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243270.
...who also uses the word "gift", not tribute. However, Yu notes that nothing is entirely confirmed in regards to the occurrence of this alleged visit to Huan's court by Romans.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Although in Pliny's "Natural History" there are several references to the Seres and a very full account of the mining and smelting of iron in all parts of the world that were in communication with Rome, there is no other passage in that work in which the Seres and iron are brought together, nor is there in any other work that survives to us from the Roman and Greek period anything to connect the people known as the Seres with the production of or trade in iron. Yet upon this slender authority rests the assumption that steel was brought overland to imperial Rome from far-away China.
The various referenees to the Seres in the Roman writers cannot be harmonized for any one people, and it is certainly an unneceessary interpretation to identify them with the Chinese, or to transfer the "Serie iron" to China. I have already indieated that the Indian steel, although mainly an Andhra produet, was attributed by the Romans to tbe Chöra Tamils, and then eonfused with the Seres of Turkestan; and I will elose with a further identifieation of one of these ubiquitous Seros, not heretofore made, so far as I am aware.
Wilfried Schoff: The Eastern Iron Trade of the Roman Empire, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 35 (1915), 224-239 (224, 237)
I cross-checked some points and, particularly in the field of foreign relations, I noticed again the tendency of the author to attract notice away from the normal and usual to the unusual, extraordinary and rare. Specifically, I am irritated by some points which are given prominent weight in the lead, but which are only briefly addressed in the continuous text, and which pertinent secondary sources do give even less weight.
As promised, I added a bit of analysis on why Han involved itself in the Western Regions:
The Eastern-Han court periodically reasserted the Chinese military presence in the Western Regions only as a means to combat the Northern Xiongnu. [1] Han forces were expelled from the Western Regions first by the Xiongnu between 77–90 CE and then by the Qiang between 107–122 CE. [1] In both of these periods, the financial burdens of reestablishing and expanding western colonies, as well as the liability of sending financial aid requested by Tarim-Basin tributary states, were viewed by the court as reasons to forestall the reopening of foreign relations in the region. [1]
I hope you find this sufficient, especially since the issue of the article's size does not allow me to add much more. In the next paragraph, the comparison of the cost of putting down the Liangzhou rebellion (24 million cash coins) to the average annual amount of minted coins (220 million) should demonstrate just how the court's finances were suffering and why they could not commit their forces to far-flung campaigns of conquest and settlement. What do you think?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Xan dar 02:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose. I read the article with great interest, but I noticed some problems that need to be fixed before the article becomes featured.
Extended content
|
---|
I will review the Eastern Han part later. Ruslik ( talk) 06:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC) The second part of the review. reply
Ruslik ( talk) 08:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I hope that I have fully addressed all of your concerns; please let me know otherwise.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply So the population of China decreased by 10 million between 2 and 140 CE? And this decrease is attributed to the migration of 10 million to the southern China, which appears not to be a part of China at all? Ruslik ( talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I also noticed that some figure captions are excessively long and duplicate the text: reply
Ruslik ( talk) 10:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support. I think now I can support. However some remaining long captions can be still shortened. Ruslik ( talk) 13:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Comment - The article is too long and detailed. I know it covers over 400 years of history and we should expect a long article, but this is too much. It would benefit from the advice given here;
WP:Summary style. It is certainly well-written, as far as I got, but it would take me a month to produce a thorough review. Please, can some attempt be made to make this more digestible? I am not opposing because I haven't read the whole article, and this is also the reason why I am not supporting.
Graham Colm
Talk 17:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Pasted from my Talk Page:
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:54, 7 April 2009 [1].
I believe this article meets all the requirements for FA status, along with the other Han-dynasty related pages I have worked on. Pericles of Athens Talk 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool. I'll strike these out as I fix them. Is that ok with you?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 09:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply
comment great job with the images, its hard to get an FA on such a broad topic, best of luck Fasach Nua ( talk) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply
...One such source of information would have been the so-called embassy from the king of Da Qin, Andun xyz an twan, that reached the Han court by sea in 166 c.E. Since the name Andun can be plausibly identified either with the emperor Antoninus Pius (reg. 138-161) or his successor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (reg. 161-180), this provides at least one firm link to Rome itself. There is not much else. A point that needs to be stressed is that the Chinese conception of Da Qin was confused from the outset with ancient mythological notions about the far west. In the same way that Da Qin replaced Zhang Qian's Da Xia as the "counter-China," the Weak Water (rud shut §§7fc) and the Queen Mother of the West (XI Wang Mu ffizE M), reported by hearsay as features of Tiaozhi in the Shiji and Hanshu, were moved to the western extremity of Da Qin in later texts. Attempts to identify them with actual western places are obviously futile. Edwin G. Pulleyblank: The Roman Empire as Known to Han China, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 119, No. 1. (1999), pp. 71-79 (78)
Please show me where Pulleyblank speaks of Roman tributes to China. This is nonsense, because, apart from two possible contacts, there was never any direct interaction between Rome and the Han. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 02:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
To beef up the crediblity on this issue, I recently added a citation (page 460–461) from this source:
Yü, Ying-shih. (1986). "Han Foreign Relations," in The Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. – A.D. 220, 377-462. Edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243270.
...who also uses the word "gift", not tribute. However, Yu notes that nothing is entirely confirmed in regards to the occurrence of this alleged visit to Huan's court by Romans.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Although in Pliny's "Natural History" there are several references to the Seres and a very full account of the mining and smelting of iron in all parts of the world that were in communication with Rome, there is no other passage in that work in which the Seres and iron are brought together, nor is there in any other work that survives to us from the Roman and Greek period anything to connect the people known as the Seres with the production of or trade in iron. Yet upon this slender authority rests the assumption that steel was brought overland to imperial Rome from far-away China.
The various referenees to the Seres in the Roman writers cannot be harmonized for any one people, and it is certainly an unneceessary interpretation to identify them with the Chinese, or to transfer the "Serie iron" to China. I have already indieated that the Indian steel, although mainly an Andhra produet, was attributed by the Romans to tbe Chöra Tamils, and then eonfused with the Seres of Turkestan; and I will elose with a further identifieation of one of these ubiquitous Seros, not heretofore made, so far as I am aware.
Wilfried Schoff: The Eastern Iron Trade of the Roman Empire, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 35 (1915), 224-239 (224, 237)
I cross-checked some points and, particularly in the field of foreign relations, I noticed again the tendency of the author to attract notice away from the normal and usual to the unusual, extraordinary and rare. Specifically, I am irritated by some points which are given prominent weight in the lead, but which are only briefly addressed in the continuous text, and which pertinent secondary sources do give even less weight.
As promised, I added a bit of analysis on why Han involved itself in the Western Regions:
The Eastern-Han court periodically reasserted the Chinese military presence in the Western Regions only as a means to combat the Northern Xiongnu. [1] Han forces were expelled from the Western Regions first by the Xiongnu between 77–90 CE and then by the Qiang between 107–122 CE. [1] In both of these periods, the financial burdens of reestablishing and expanding western colonies, as well as the liability of sending financial aid requested by Tarim-Basin tributary states, were viewed by the court as reasons to forestall the reopening of foreign relations in the region. [1]
I hope you find this sufficient, especially since the issue of the article's size does not allow me to add much more. In the next paragraph, the comparison of the cost of putting down the Liangzhou rebellion (24 million cash coins) to the average annual amount of minted coins (220 million) should demonstrate just how the court's finances were suffering and why they could not commit their forces to far-flung campaigns of conquest and settlement. What do you think?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Xan dar 02:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose. I read the article with great interest, but I noticed some problems that need to be fixed before the article becomes featured.
Extended content
|
---|
I will review the Eastern Han part later. Ruslik ( talk) 06:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC) The second part of the review. reply
Ruslik ( talk) 08:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I hope that I have fully addressed all of your concerns; please let me know otherwise.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply So the population of China decreased by 10 million between 2 and 140 CE? And this decrease is attributed to the migration of 10 million to the southern China, which appears not to be a part of China at all? Ruslik ( talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I also noticed that some figure captions are excessively long and duplicate the text: reply
Ruslik ( talk) 10:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support. I think now I can support. However some remaining long captions can be still shortened. Ruslik ( talk) 13:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Comment - The article is too long and detailed. I know it covers over 400 years of history and we should expect a long article, but this is too much. It would benefit from the advice given here;
WP:Summary style. It is certainly well-written, as far as I got, but it would take me a month to produce a thorough review. Please, can some attempt be made to make this more digestible? I am not opposing because I haven't read the whole article, and this is also the reason why I am not supporting.
Graham Colm
Talk 17:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Pasted from my Talk Page: