Talk:Ancient Chinese wooden architecture

A fact from Ancient Chinese wooden architecture appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 September 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that zaojing, an elaborately ornamented wooden ceiling, shaped like a well and often painted with water plants, was believed by the ancient Chinese to prevent wooden buildings from burning?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/September.

Wikipedia

Received third opinion on merge

I asked for an honest opinion from an editor who writes many articles, including several Feature Articles, on Chinese history and Chinese architecture. His reply:

If you want my honest opinion, I think it is Caisson that needs to be merged into an article on zaojing (preferably as a separate explanatory section), not the other way around. I say this in consideration that it only focuses on the Forbidden City, while the zaojing covers a much wider time frame. That's just me, though.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

--Mattisse 14:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take over this article and completely change citation method without discussion with editors who wrote the article

This behavior is against Wikipedia policy. Mattisse 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change method of citation unilaterally without consultation with other editors - please change citation method back to the way it was.

Please change the reference method back to the way it was -- until you reach consensus with other editors. Mattisse 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merely fixed a problem created by the method you chose; several different page numbers did not appear in the "Notes" section because they were overrided by the citation method you were using. I have left you a message on your talk page about this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, no one is stopping you from reverting or changing my edits; if you prefer the other type of citation template, make sure that the "notes" section fully displays the different amount of page numbers you were using. For example, instead of simply making a citation that looks like this --> <ref name="nancy"> <-- you should elaborate on your reference so that it appears properly in the notes section, like this --> <ref name="nancy 1 5">Nancy, 1–5.</ref> or <ref name="fu 76">Fu Xinian, 76.</ref>.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also had to correct your mistake about the Chinese authors' last and first names, which you had reversed and mistaken as vice versa! Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections of mistakes are welcome. Actions against wikipedia policy are not. Nor is taking over an article and completely reformulating it without consensus! Lol. Mattisse 15:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you deleted all of the material I just added from the Steinhardt article (2004), I take it then that you believe describing the oldest existent wooden architecture in an article about ancient wooden architecture is unneccessary? I thought the info was rather relevant to the topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to resolve the citation issue first. If you are willing to follow the original citation method and to incrementally work on the article, that would be welcome. It is not welcome for you to suddenly take over the article, just because I have been tied up in litigation on wikipedia originally resulting from your support of User:PalaceGuard008 destroying the original article. Lol! Mattisse 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have a question: why do you like using that citation format of typing out the entire book reference for every single inline citation found in the article? It seems a bit laborious, excessive, and time-consuming to me (let alone adding unneccessary Kilobytes to the article), and a lot of effort could be saved by simply writing the full book reference one time in a "reference" section that is split from a "notes" section. Plus, I think it looks cleaner to have a notes section with a simple author's name and the page number next to it, as you would see in most books or journals that use footnotes to cite source materials that they label in full at the end of the book or journal.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to type out the whole reference each time. You can use named references. Remember, this is the article I rescued and put together after the User:PalaceGuard008 take over. I should have kept it in my sandbox. I have been tied up with the fallout from the User:PalaceGuard008 issue, the ultimate resulting arbitration from the whole thing just ending a week or so ago, January 16, I believe. Please let me catch my breath. I copy edited extensively one of your article for FAC and did not make fun of your mistakes or ridicule you as you are doing to me. I respected you and your article. Mattisse 15:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridicule and make fun of you? Now you've lost me. Is it because of the "lol" at the end of my sentence above about author names? Hmm. I really wasn't "laughing out loud" at you Mattisse...I wish there was a way to soften the "lol" in the context of "breaking the ice"...you know, like a laugh with a pat on the back or a genuine smile. I'll try to use the "lol" with more discretion now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation method is a matter of preference

Wikipedia policy recognizes this. That is why policy states change of citations method is to be by consensus. I put up with your method on the article you originated it, although I think it is messy and difficult to decipher. The citation method is a matter of preference; an attitude of superiority on your part is uncalled for. Mattisse 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Mattisse, get a hold of yourself. I'm trying to improve the article you've created here, not Lord over you or your work. If I was some jerk-off trying to "own" your article, would I still be here talking to you about citation methods and discussing possible material to add to this article from Steinhardt's in 2004?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actions, not words, characterize behavior more accurately. I see what you did to the article without any attempt at consensus. What you say in the face of that has less relevance. The "I know best" attitude also is not helpful. Mattisse 15:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I now see that you were claiming the article on your user page, based, I guess, on your wholesale take over. As I said, actions... Mattisse 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you're ignoring my own non-action; that is, me not trying to revert your edits and instead discussing article issues here. Have you had a look at the Cambridge Companion book I used to cite the Augustus article? That is a pristine example of how a book with authors who wrote individual chapters should be cited. Seriously, for the benefit of this article, I think the refs should appear as they do for the Augustus article. That's just my input. Take it or leave it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, on my user page I added Ancient Chinese wooden architecture as a major edit or expanded article of mine because I added the entire section (and a new picture) about the oldest existent wooden architecture. I counted that as a major edit; since you've deleted that material, it really discounts what I've done to this article, so I took it off my list. Sounds reasonable, no?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have different standards. I would not count for myself what you did as a "major edit", but rather as a fairly ordinary addition to an article. As for Augustus, I have no interest. However the similar Cambridge book on China is not well referenced from my point of view. Nor is the Yale book, Chinese Architecture. Mattisse 16:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the style of how I cited Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus includes two things that your current full-reference inline citations here lack: full, written-out page numbers for the entire individual chapters written by different authors, for example (and I will use bold text to indicate the chapter pages):

Guo, Daiheng. (2002). "The Liao, Song, Xi Xia, and Jin Dynasties," in Chinese Architecture, ed. Nancy Steinhardt, 135–199. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-09559-7.

...as well as a note that Nancy Steinhardt is the chief editor of the book, i.e. "ed. Nancy Steinhardt,..." This is the proper way to cite books with multiple authors who write individual chapters. Also, your current citations are missing the location of Yale University Press, which is at New Haven, Connecticut.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am not defending my mistakes in this article. I rescued it after it had been cut/paste into another article and very quickly tried to add more to justify it's existence as a separate article. I should have kept it in my sandbox (where a copy of it still resides). Immediately after the User:PalaceGuard008 issue and your defense of him, I was forced to enter into a "Mediation" over my "responsibility" suddenly for fixing his copy/paste of article I had written into his Caisson article. That ultimately resulted in an Arbitration case that just ended. I did not realize this new article would be under attack so soon. I wrote you previously (at the time the Caisson cut/paste was occurring), User:PericlesofAthens, of my disappointment in your not supporting my dream of writing an article on Chinese architecture, as I did for so many Indian architecture articles, using and legitimizing the Chinese terminology, rather than falling back always on Greek/Roman/Western words. I also said that, because of your views, I was sorry not to be able to work with you anymore. Now, of course I cannot prevent you from intruding once again into my attempts to fulfill my dream regarding an article on Chinese architecture. But I certainly will not let you take it over against wiki policy without resistance. Mattisse 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I cannot prevent you from nitpicking my mistakes. But please realize there is not just one method of citing, but at least four authorized methods, maybe more. Please read WP:CITE, WP:Footnotes and the arguments raging on the WP:Citing References policy pages. I do not think that because I was under pressure, discouraged about how articles I created were being treated (especially since you were the one people who could have helped me with PalaceGuard008 but refused to do so), and the fact that I was forced to defend myself in an arbitration and had little time to turn my attention to this article, gives you the right to take over the article. Mattisse 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I understand your position, frustration, and wanting to preserve your writing; you've stated this now multiple times. However, your flowery wording of offering "resistance" against evil-doers who would dare crush your "dream of writing an article on Chinese architecture" makes it sound as if we're fighting against each other in some cheesy epic battle. I'm just trying to add relevant info of Tang wooden buildings to an article about Chinese wooden architecture because I think the subject is cool, period. Please don't treat me like I'm your arch nemesis PalaceGuard008; or maybe I should just start over so you get the point.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This characterization of my view is hardly constructive if you are desiring a collegial and collaborative relationship with me. I do not think demeaning the other editor or being sarcastic is constructive. Mattisse 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Pericles. Nice to meet you Mattisse. Can I gain consensus with you about adding some minor material about the oldest existent wooden buildings of China into your article on ancient Chinese wooden architecture? Following your already-present model of inline citations, of course.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little sarcasm never hurt anybody as long as the intent is not to be taken as cruel or offensive; I was merely trying to lighten the mood after you have repeatedly misconstrued my intentions. However, I am serious about working on this article. If you don't mind, I'm going to add my material about Tang wooden architecture while keeping with the standard citation style that you have designated for the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article structurally now makes no logical sense

It has gone off on a tangent. Perhaps those specific artictectural structures need to be in sub articles as the intent of the article has now been completely changed. Mattisse 23:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're speaking of the oldest existent buildings from the Tang era? I could create separate articles from Steinhardt's article, I suppose, but that will take time, and my weekend is now over.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea; how about you put the first three sections present now in an overall "History" section, and the last two present sections of the article in a "Features" section. That way everything won't be categorized so chaotically.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., that may work. What I am interested in is the history of Chinese architecture in light of the new findings, as much as been misrepresented because of lack of archaeological evidence. Also, as I said before, I want to bring out the Chinese terminology as I was able to in the archeology of India. China does not deserve to have its archaeological concepts subsumed under Western Greco-Roman terminology which buries the unique Chinese meanings. I hope to have Chinese architecture stand on its own, as Indian architecture does. Thanks! Mattisse 13:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I cleaned up the references?

I would like to continue to use the same Wikipedia reference template through out, instead of the mixed style you have added. Mattisse 23:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 3 is screwed up and I do not know why as I did not fiddle with the paragraph containing it. Too tired to figure it out right now, but I did try to figure it out. Mattisse 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 3? That's from my article; it doesn't look messed up. Are you sure it is footnote 3 that is messed up?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote that note, I discovered what was wrong and fixed it, so nevermind! Mattisse 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Hope you do not mind. I would like to list some links here that are possibly relevant to the article because I tend to lose them. So this list is a memory aid for me only as I try to figure things out! Mattisse 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neolithic cultures of China
Dawenkou culture
Longshan culture
Prehistoric Beifudi site
Luoyang —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattisse (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

There's no reason why I should mind these; the list is perfectly fine here or on your user page or wherever. As to preserving Chinese terminology, have you considered adding an "Etymology" section to the article? That way specific terms and their meaning in Chinese can be addressed to inform the reader before they confront the same terms in the rest of the article. You should also consult someone knowledgeable in Han characters (whether they speak Mandarin, Cantonese, Fujianese, etc. is not of the biggest concern in regards to portraying the correct character symbols for these terms, although Mandarin Pinyin should be the standard when writing in the Latin alphabet).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine with me. I think we should be free to "feel" our way through this article. For the India architectural articles, I wrote many sub articles explaining specific Indian terms. Then the Indian architectural articles could link to those terms, as those editors prefer to use the specific Indian meanings. It has been a long road to get some of those articles through FAC, but in the process India is building a great body of knowledge that distinguishes the architecture of India from all others. Mattisse 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of wooden architecture, have you seen the new pictures that I've added to the galleries over at Puning Temple and the Putuo Zongcheng Temple? Their wikicommons links have even more pictures for you to cruise around through, although I wouldn't call these "ancient", since they were built during the Qianlong Emperor's reign in the 18th century.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are great pictures! I have a hard time finding pictures on the commons. What do you mean by their "wikicommons links"? For me over there, I just find pictures by chance it seems. By the way, I may be swayed to your footnote approach. Usually I have more sources so that it is not a problem that I have to overly rely on one. But here might be different. The book, Chinese Imperial City Planning is blowing my mind. Her view is that Chinese architecture, unlike anywhere else in the world, is completely tied to imperial control. (This is unlike Indian architecture, where the rulers only loosely supervised the building of structures, if they supervised at all. Building was in the hands of craftsmen basically. And merchants and other rich people could build temples and such however they wanted.) Also, the the origins of Chinese architecture are various, Steinhardt says, but because it so quickly became bureaucratized it seems similar over time but with subtle changes. On another topic, I have been mulling over the date issue.

Cool! Jonathan Spence says the exact same thing in his Search For Modern China book (1999).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I was thinking, per Steinhardt, sticking to the origins and the eras that are pretty much ignored before the well known architectural works kick in. But the more I read, the more complex it gets. My Global Architecture book quotes Steinhardt often but explains the beginning more simplistically, saying early Chinese architecture (4th millennium BCE) is "a continuous fabic of settlements" with "a shared symbolic order", but "whether the religious geography coincided with the political one has not yet been clearly established." Maybe this cannot be all one article. What do you think? Mattisse 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't have a reference for Baoguo Temple. I have looked and looked for it. Mattisse 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, it's not a big deal. About the WikiCommons link: if you go back to the temple articles I linked on the talk page here, at the bottom right of either page you will see a small rectangular box with the link in blue and the WikiCommons logo. For example:

Or you can do it this way: go to Wikicommons, and in search bar to the left, if you type the words "Category:Putuo Zongcheng Temple" or "Category:Puning Temple" you can find them that way as well.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese architecture and ACWA teamup

I've been editing Chinese architecture a bit and I noticed a bit of overlap in this article. I've mentioned there a bit about building layout with timbers, and I was going to add more on it. You guys here have talked a bit about the roofing structures and ornamentation as well as a bit about tamped earth walls. Do you care to team up and do a bit of info exchange and editing? Sjschen (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds cool, but I honestly do not own any books on Chinese architecture; I can help out with some scholarly journals from JSTOR since I have access to that database. However, scholarly journals tend to have a very narrow focus within a broader subject and therefore the articles I could use wouldn't be very helpful to the broader subject of Chinese architecture (just a tiny subject within it). If you need help with anything very specific and narrow in focus, let me know.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually wondering which parts of each article belong to which. I was going to try and put together a wooden framing section in Chinese architecture but I think that probably belongs here instead. There are also things here in this article about the foundation and the roofs that feels like it belongs more in the Chinese architecture article. Do you have any thoughts on what each article should focus? Sjschen (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested generally, depending on the seriousness of your offer. I have books on Chinese architecture as well as architecture in general and am interested in the overall progression of architectural form in China. However, it seems that Chinese architecture is not taken seriously by many people who write the Chinese architecture articles, so I have gotten discouraged. If you are interested in a more serious approach than one normally sees in these articles, then I would be willing to put some effort into it. At the moment my feeling is that it is a mistake to do anything outside my sandbox. Mattisse 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only two books on Chinese architecture (CA), but I think with your help we can turn these two articles to something informative and worth reading. Perhaps we can by structuring the articles first. I think ACWA should have more info on the "wood" aspects of CA and include information like wood joinery, timber layout, architect elements of beams, and perhaps even type of trees used, while Chinese architecture focus more on general building layouts and concepts, as well as none wood based building elements such as walls, foundations, tiles and what not. Thoughts? Sjschen (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree. I also would like to include the historical development as in one sense Chinese architecture all looks like the Forbidden City, as Nancy Steinhardt says, because the bureaucratic manuals mandated a certain uniformity. But looking closer, there are many variations and also there is an evolution over time. Most of the articles that just describe the structures themselves do not get into this and conflate the variations in materials and design over time. CA is interwoven with history, religion and politics (divine rule) for the important structures. It is also necessary to consider archeology, as according to Steinhardt, the drawing and written manuals often do not match what is found in the excavations. I have a good book on general architecture by Francis D.K. Ching that does a good job of giving definitions for many words (materials, types of joints, stonework, etc. -- ) and a very good book by the same guy for the overview relative to other civilizations. Then I have, like you, two books on CA. Also, I have noticed there is more on the internet regarding Chinese archeology than there used to be. Mattisse 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation method suggestion

Reading FA editor User:SandyGeorgia's page, she just recommended two articles as examples of proper reference formating: Autism and Asperger syndrome. Perhaps we should these articles as a model for reference citations. Mattisse 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I might intercede with a third way which you might both find acceptable? The Manual of Style usually recommend two section headings at the end of the article one usually called notes and the other references. Notes contains your inline citations whereas References contains the full listing of each periodical or book including the ISBN. We can then in-line cite say Steinhardt (2004), p.233 in the notes section - a short form and less labourious and leave the full periodical details in the References section so Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman. "The Tang Architectural Icon and the Politics of Chinese Architectural History," The Art Bulletin (Volume 86, Number 2, 2004): 228–254. Page 233..

Personally I find the MOS way of doing things a little confusing to readers and prefer 1. a Section called citations for, you know - citations 2. A references section as described above, and 3. a notes section for actual footnotes. See Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal for an example. I've yet to take something with this system to FAC, but ultimately there's a little latitude in citation and (hopefully) more clarity is difficult to argue against. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already suggested this style of citation and referencing, Joopercoopers, and Mattisse "vehemently" opposes this idea; refer to Mattisse's talk page for why she opposes this idea, because for her "it is not intuitive, meaning I guess, my training is in a science and the professional citation system I was trained in is very different".--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am used to User:PericlesofAthens deciding the future of articles I start, so I doubt my views will be respected here. I did object though because User:PericlesofAthens unilaterally took over the article and changed the method of citing (as well as the direction of the article) which is against policy without some kind of discussion. I prefer the MoS version as the other is not easy to follow and requires a lot of going back and forth. When I was copy editing User:PericlesofAthens's articles I did not try to change his method. However, when I started this article, I used my preferred method. I gave an example of the FAC article main editor's preference above. That is my preference also. However, User:PericlesofAthens always gets his way. What I would rather do it break up the article, since User:PericlesofAthens completely changed the direction of it, let him take his part of the article which did not fit into the over all conception of the article anyway , and then you and he can use the citation method he prefers. Regards, Mattisse 23:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link my user name enough times? Seriously, that's creepy, Mattisse.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pericles - if Matisse is the principle author of this page, ie. did the research, wrote it, placed the images etc. Parachuting in and dictating stylistic aspects is perhaps a tad insensitive and you would do better to respect that. Matisse, my comments were offered as a suggestion, you are of course at liberty to reference your articles in any way you wish. Before submission to FAC, articles only have to demonstrate verifiability, there is no requirement by policy, that should insist it is referenced in one way or another - just as long as they are referenced in some way. My suggestion? Pericles, leave Matisse to write his article - Matisse, write your article up to the point when you are happy with it, then submit to peer review or FAC, where there are usually lots of knowledgeable people who know how to format articles to 'community standard'. Style isn't important in the grand scheme of things - its content, content, content - thankyou for adding to the encylopedia. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much. Lets hope he respects your advice Mattisse 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you two even talking about now? Who said I was going to change Mattisse's citation style again? After Mattisse and I had a gigantic and unneccessary fight over this rather insignificant side-note of a side-note concern (which I had no problem with when Mattisse reverted back to the original citation format, like I care), the last thing I would want to do is start all that crap over again. And what is wrong with the section I added, Mattisse? Please, explain to me how that has nothing to do with wooden Chinese architecture.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"However, User:PericlesofAthens always gets his way." What the hell is that supposed to mean? Listen lady (I'm assuming you're a women from the title of awards on your user page), quite making up all this ridiculous drama, as if I personally know you or you know me. We don't know each other, period. Quit acting like you have personally witnessed anything I've ever done that would lead you to believe I "always get [my] way." That has to be the biggest load of **** I have ever seen.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will the pair of you frickin' chill out? Top tip - if you're pissed off, don't write a response, wait until you're calm, the bitterness is palpable. Kiss and make up or take it to WP:RFC, but please stop biting chunks out of each other - we're all trying to improve the encyclopedia, it's supposed to be fun. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Han Dynasty Model Tower.JPG

A Han Dynasty pottery tomb model of a tower with corbel brackets supporting balconies, 1st-2nd century.

I also disagree with you removing my content. Considering how the only reliable information we have on truly ancient wooden Chinese architecture survives only in a few wooden temples from the Tang Dynasty; that and tomb models from the Han Dynasty, like this picture to the right. I'm starting to think you care more about smiting me than allowing quality sourced material that I have to provide. Good riddance, I'll start my own article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I just dumped everything into Chinese architecture. It's relevant under the "materials" section for building.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how dare you accuse me of having anything to do with that blockquote in the article for Chinese architecture; have you lost your mind? Check the edit history before you start slinging random and unfounded accusations at me. Seriously, I think you've gone insane.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding section "Archaeological Record"

This comment was present in the article text itself: [first sentence of the section]... "[Note that this formulation implies, if not promises, a subsequent argument in favor of the contrary view, but the contrary view never materializes! The beginning of the next paragraph seems on track to deliver the implied contrary view, but it quickly peters out without providing any concrete evidence that can challenge the stereotypical view – dear author (or anyone else), please improve this otherwise excellent article if you do indeed have concrete evidence that can support the "contrary" view!] "

I felt that such discussions should be held in the discussion page, not in the article itself. Hence, removed it and copied it here.

83.248.200.72 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]