Talk:Great Wall of China/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 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)

"Controversies"

@Traineek:

• There was never a time when the total length of the Great Wall was considered "4500 miles (7,300 kilometers) from Jiayu pass in Gansu province in the west to Shanhai pass in Hebei province in the northeast", as the Jiayu-Shanhai course was only relevant to the Ming-era Great Wall. The rest 14,000 km were those built in other dynasties, and the vast majority of those are not controversial. From your sources, doubts were only raised against a few sections in Liaodong.
• Byington's position on the Yan Long Wall is not a "controversy" but a scholarly dispute, so are the other points you tried to add previously. In any case, the walls in Korea were not included in the 21,196 km total length. And I fail to see why any dispute over the Yan Wall should be mentioned when the article barely touches this topic. Esiymbro (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I have restored an earlier revision; it is clear there needs to be consensus for these edits. Aza24 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: @Esiymbro:

• There is no evidence that the great wall of China ever existed in Korean peninsula. the new claims by Chinese government in 2012 has faced skepticism and has been controversial since then and refuted by both North and South Korea. and China has been extending the length of great wall of China since 2001, bit by bit, the same year China started the controversial North-east project which many experts say is history revisionism.
• I never edit or remove any content in Great wall of China page, all i did was just added different opinions and the controversy category to the page. as clear as it is, this is a controversial topic, meaning both sides have not come to a mutual agreement on the topic. Completely censoring and silencing a different opinion is against the freedom of expression furthermore my content do not involve anti-Semitism, sex, crime, history revisionism or any idea against humanity.
• The very first time my contribution was reversed for word-for-word plagiarism of the sources. then i rephrased and amended my content several times to meet the requirement. Then the second time it was removed for not getting consensus. as i mentioned above, i did not change or edit any contribution by others, I do not understand what consensus do i need for adding my contribution which is well cited with and not fabricated content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs)

  1. My questions still stand. Chinese surveys on the Great Wall do not include walls in North Korea, those are not counted in the total length, and the article as it is does not even mention Korea once. I don't see, then, why it should be brought up in the controversy section. Also, by "refuted by both North and South Korea", you mean "disputed by certain Korean scholars". It is becoming a pattern that you confuse views of Korean/Chinese reseachers with the official stances of their respective governments.
  2. "China has been extending the length of great wall of China since 2001, bit by bit". Archaelogical works on previously unidentified sections have been going on long before the 21st century, and there are academic sources for each of them. Again, the vast majority of the walls have nothing to do with Korea.
  3. "As clear as it is, this is a controversial topic." No, really, it is not. I encourage you to search "Great Wall of China" on Google, and see for yourself how many pages you have to go over before seeing anything resembling a controversy.
  4. Practically no other editor supports your controversy section, and I think that speaks for itself on the lack of consensus here. Your views of the Great Wall have been narrowed down quite a bit by whatever nationalistic sources you are consuming. There is so much more in the history and culture of the Great Wall that it is truely unfortunate that there is even such an edit war about these controversy. Esiymbro (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: this talk page? define 2. unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs)

@Traineek: First of, even if you think you are right, you shouldn't edit war (mass-reverts are only okay if you revert egregious vandalism or blatant copyvio). Second of all, please don't use controversial info on Wikipedia using primary sources, especially where that target domain is located (in this case, China) as it is more likely to be primary. See WP:PRIMARY. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's an issue that isn't getting resolved by the editwarring: the third paragraph of the intro currently contains:

Another archaeological survey found that the entire wall with all of its branches measures out to be 21,196 km (13,171 mi)

referenced to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. However much I search, I don't see these numbers (nor the smaller number of the Wall's over-all extent in an earlier sentence of the intro) reappear anywhere in the body of the article (only much smaller numbers referring to limited stretches of the wall). I don't think these numbers should be discussed in a "Controversies" section (its visibility from space could be seen as controversial too, but no "Controversies" section title was needed for that either – I'm basing myself on the WP:CRITICISM guidance for avoidance of such section title if not strictly necessary, and I don't see any such necessity here). Also, I think it should be described in flawless English, not the grammatical train wreck which has now been removed again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I did a little research and the two numbers apparently came from the same report, not two different ones as the intro suggests. In short, the total length is 21196 km, out of which 8851 km is the Ming Great Wall. I also found the 7300 km data that Traineek claimed to be the real total length [1]. It was also referring to the Ming Great Wall (source in Chinese). I can't find when this data was published, but it could not be later than 2006 (certainly not 2009). Esiymbro (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Please update the article accordingly, not only the lead section per your suggestion, but a more detailed treatment of the same topic in the body of the article. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

@Aza24, Esiymbro, and Francis Schonken: To answer the question from Esiymbro, He said that China did not extend the great wall into Korea. this is FALSE claim. Below picture is the the latest controversial revision of great wall extended into Korea all the way to Pyongyang city, the Capital city of North Korea. ​

File:Map of the Great Wall of China North Korea revision by China in modern time.jpg

Esiymbro also said that the extension of the great wall by China in modern time is due to the new archaeological findings. However, there have been no such archaeological works conducted by Chinese archaeologists in both North and South Korea. There is no reliable evidence except few ancient Chinese records [unattested and most of the time contradicts one another], that the great wall of China ever existed in Korean peninsula. the new claims by Chinese government since 2001 is in line with the controversial Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences which China uses to claim on ancient kingdoms that most Koreans consider as part of their own history. It began to receive wide press coverage in South Korea in 2004, which led to public outrage. The Northeast Project has also received strong criticism from academic experts from South Korea and many other countries, including China itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs)

I'm getting tired of this. Chinese surveys on the Great Wall do not include walls in North Korea, those are not counted in the total length. The original 2012 report was linked in one of my earlier edits, read that yourself. Esiymbro (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

source : https://web.archive.org/web/20061019012559/http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200609/200609130027.html source : https://web.archive.org/web/20040911032145/http://atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FI11Dg03.html source : https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2012/06/07/politics/China-says-Great-Wall-extended-to-ancient-Korea/2954136.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs)

Two of these do not mention the Great Wall, and the third, coming from right-wing Joong-Ang Daily is laughably wrong. Hami is off by thousands of kilometers and the length of the so-called "extended sections" depicted there is not nearly as much as what it claims. Esiymbro (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Joongang is one of the most influential news agencies in Korea. Are you trying to discredit my source by labling it right wing newspaper? Joongang is not government owned and does not speak for the government. criticism and different opinions are guaranteed in Korean newspapers. Is there any China based agencies are not CCP owned and any Chinese scholars in major Chinese institutions not related to Chinese government? Do you only cite non China based sources? I don't think discrediting a major Korea newspaper helps your argument. --Traineek (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

For thousand of years before 2001, the Shanhai Pass has been perceived by Chinese people as the eastern terminal point of the great wall of China. People built a great fortress at the Shanhai Pass. As a god-made choke point, or "throat," it formed an important path into and out of China. It was also called the "First Pass Under Heaven," meaning that it was the first gate into China. Through this gate, the Joseon, Mongolian and Jurchen peoples all had access to China. However, after the North East project, China claims that the Shanhai pass is the eastern terminal point of Ming Dynasty only. Source: https://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/History/view?articleId=128785 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs)

Shanhaiguan was built and named in 1381, after the Ming dynasty was founded. Esiymbro (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think people of Ming called Shanhai pass the first gate to China 天下第一关? --Traineek (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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. Therefore, Chinese history textbooks and maps depict the Great Wall as reaching the Taedong River. This claim is in line with other claims that Gojoseon history is a part of Chinese history and reduces the Gojoseon region in a clear distortion of history. Historical records from Records of the Grand Historian, the most reliable source regarding Emperor Qin Shi Huang's Great Wall, indicates that the eastern end of the Wall reached the Liaodong Peninsula. Furthermore, Sagijeongi states, "Liaodong Province is located to the east of Liao River, and Emperor Qin Shi Huang built a great wall to the Liao River." This record indicates that the Great Wall did not extend past the Liao River in actuality. Notably, ruins of the Great Wall can be found in the Fuxin region to the west of the Liao River, but not to the east. Although China claims that the wall near Taeryong River (North Korea) was constructed by the Yan and Qin states, recent research has discovered that the wall was in fact built in the Goryeo era. Therefore, Chinese textbooks that depict the Great Wall of China in the northwestern region of the Korean Peninsula must be revised. Source : https://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/History/view?articleId=128785 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs)

I actually checked the Records of the Grand Historian, and this is what it says: 自始全燕時嘗略屬真番、朝鮮，為置吏，筑鄣塞。秦滅燕，屬遼東外徼。漢興，為其遠難守，復修遼東故塞，至浿水為界，屬燕。 It explicitly recorded that there were walls and fortifications constructed in the former Gojoseon lands. Esiymbro (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The territory of Gojoseon was beyond Korean peninsular. Your Chinese record says some defensives were built in Liaodong after Qin defeated Yan, not Korean peninsular. As i said, No archaeologic works have ever been conducted by China in Korea. There is no evidence that great wall of China ever existed in Korean peninsular therefore the continuous extension of great wall of China since 2001 is history revisionism and controversial. --Traineek (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

At the time, the UNESCO website defined the Great Wall of China as a military structure that ranged 6,000 km in length from Shanhai pass in Hebei Province, to Jiayu pass in Gansu Province. The Great Wall of China is literally "Ten-Thousand Ri Wall" in Chinese, ri (or li) being a unit of distance measurement that is approximately 500 meters by modern standards. Thus, the 6,000 km mentioned on the UNESCO website equates to roughly 10,000 ri. However, China's announcement increased the distance of the Wall by approximately 40,000 ri, which was significantly different from conventional wisdom. Perhaps this is why China decided to change the name from the original Great Wall of China to the Greatest Wall in History. More importantly, controversy surrounding the Greatest Wall in History was further amplified, because the Wall included all castles built by Han Chinese and other pre-modern nations in Northeast Asia. Particularly for Korea, numerous castles Cheolli Jangseong built by Koguryo and Balhae in the once-dominated regions of Manchuria were included in the Wall, changing Korean history to Chinese history overnight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs)

[2] The wall is over 20,000 km long according to UNESCO, and I can't find the 6,000 km figure anywhere. (Interestingly, an older report on UNESCO from 1994 [3] found the Great Wall to be over 50,000 km long! ) It does say Shanhai to Jiayu, but at the same time the page mentiones Liaoning and Jilin which are to the east of Shanhaiguan.

Perhaps this is why China decided to change the name from the original Great Wall of China to the Greatest Wall in History. What does that even mean? Esiymbro (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Source: http://contents.nahf.or.kr/english/item/level.do?levelId=iscd_003e_0010_0020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs)

I checked the linked website, and its front page is loaded with contentious historical issues and territorial disputes. I do not think that it can be used as WP:RS here. Esiymbro (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

With all these different opinions and sources, I don't understand why certain group of people here can pretend not seeing any of these and continue to claim that there is no controversy. No one is claiming the great wall of China is fake or fabricated, the controversy section is not total negation of existence of the great wall. it is to point out that the certain part of the great wall claimed by China is unattested and controversial. I am seeking your consensus to add controversy section to the great wall page and i will rephrased my content if i had to. feel free to point out different opinions but do not censor it completely. thank you guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs)

Tang, Sui, Xianbei

Per suggestion in #Talk page layout section below
Collapsed by Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Traineek: The fact that you deliberately added controversies to the Great wall's wiki page after you vandalised Tang dynasty and Sui dynasty's wiki page shows your intension to mislead viewers to believe China is faking history. And the controversial contents and sources you added are only from Korean-based agencies; there is no report in other countries. Ouatssss--23 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC) long story short, i didn't vandalised any page. I merely added new content to the page. And i just stated that the ruling class of Tang and Sui are Xianbei people, nomadic tribe originated from western Manchuria and Mongolia which is true. Even famous Chinese scholars like Chen Yin Ge 陈寅恪, acknowledged that ruling class of Sui and Tang are Xianbei people and culture of Sui and Tang are Xian bei culture. . And my contributions kept getting removed and censored by certain group of people with Chinese as the first language according to the wiki. The original name of the Emperor of Sui was Puliuru Jian 普六茹 坚 and emperor Li shi min of Tang was Dayeshimin 大野世民. Both are no Chinese surnames. And both emperor married Xianbei women which no Han Chinese rulers do as Chinese rulers regard pureness of Han bloodline seriously. --Traineek (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Is there any rule that says wiki users are not allowed to cite sources from Korea based agencies? The controversies are between Korea and China, of course Korean scholars and Korean newspapers cover the issues the most. Do you only cite sources from non China based agencies? --Traineek (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Traineek The ruling class of Tang and Sui were Han Chinese. The surname 普六茹 was given to Emperor Yang of Sui's father by Xianbei's Western Wei's emperor when he was in the army of Western Wei. So did the surname 大野 was given to Emperor Taizong of Tang's grandfather when he helped Western Wei conquering Northern Wei. Both surnames were awarded by the then ruling Xianbei king to the two Han generals. You didn't acknowledged all informations and arrogantly vandalised the wiki pages. Yes, the Yang and Li family had Xianbei people married into, but it didn't wipe out the Han ancestry of the families, and the main culture of Sui and Tang dynasties maintained Han culture. And i'd like to inform you a small history knowledge: Baekje‘s founding king married Han's Liaodong commander's daughter, so according to your logic Barkje was a Han Chinese kingdom. And at last, about the Korean sources, what i mean is you used the biased skepticism and opinion, regardless of the mainstream recognition of the changes. Ouatssss--23 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Do you know that Han Chinese used to call pants and boots the barbarian costumes? the Sui and Tang costumes were heavily influenced by Northern dynasties which was founded by Tuoba xianbei people, nomadic tribe originated from western Manchuria and Mongolia. There is significant difference between the costumes of Qin-Han and Sui-Tang. By the way, The topic is about the controversies of the great wall, not Sui and Tang. We can continue to debate over Sui-Tang and Xianbei, but i don't think that is the right thing to do here. If you want we can discuss it in Sui and Tang talk page. Back to the topic, My sources are major news agencies like the The Atlantic and JoongAng Ilbo. and who decides if a claim is biased and should be censored completely? whoever disagrees with China's claim is biased and untrue? and only Chinese sources are completely true? the meaning of controversy is different parties do not agree to each other. I'm not trying to force everyone to agree with with me, i'm just presenting the different voices from the other party to let the audience know that there are different opinions to the issue. --Traineek (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC) @Traineek: Han Chinese had worn pants and boots before Shang dynasty. And there were mutual influences between the clothing of Han Chinese and that of Nomadic people since Zhou dynasty, and the influences didn't change their separate developments. Your bringing up the cultural exchanges doesn't prove anything. I brought up your vandalising the wiki pages of Sui and Tang to show your continuously adding controversy section in the Great Wall page is based on your hostility against China; it is you who further discussed the topic to justify your malicious wrong doing. Multiple editors see your content unfit, and all the conversations and information exchanges on this talk page showed your content and opinion invalid. So stop adding the fallacious controversies to the Great Wall page. Ouatssss--23 (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC) @Ouatssss--23: The original Hanfu 汉服 of the Han Chinese pants were Open-crotch pants, the pants that people of Sui and Tang wore were not open crotch pants, but 胡服 Hufu inherited the Northern dynasties which was founded by Nomadic people originated from Mongolia. There is a term in Chinese, 胡服骑射 meaning Barbarian costumes for riding and shooting, suggests that the original Han Chinese costumes are not for riding and that is also the reason why China had no Calvary before later Jin dynasty. The double stirrup for Calvary was introduced to China by Nomadic people in Later Jin. And boots were originally wore by nomadic people in China during the Northern Dynasties (420B.C-581B.C). I didn't vandalize the Sui and Tang page, I added content that even many Chinese historians agree, that the ruling class of Sui and Tang were Xianbei people. it also explains why rulers of both Sui and Tang had marriage with Xianbei women and important government roles especially military command was in the hands of 胡人 meaning Barbarian in Chinese. back to the great wall, My contribution to the great wall of China page are factual and cited with sources, I dont know how that is fallacious controversies to you when two sovereign nations are refuting the one sided claims of China. if that is not controversy, there is no controversy in our world. --Traineek (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC) @Traineek:Please stop spreading false history. Before Warring States period, Han Chinese only worn robes, or shirt with long skirt, as outer garment, with the open-crotch pants underneath the robe; those pants were never worn as outer garment. And 胡服骑射 was implemented in 307BC by King Wuling of Zhao of State of Zhao, when calvary existed for war; the Terracotta Army have plenty calvary figurines. I made a mistake by taking "boots" as "shoes" and boots were introduced to Han Chinese as part of 胡服骑射 in the warring states period. The earliest boot relic unearthed in China was made in Han dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD). Northern Dynasties existed between 420-589 AD. You vandalised the Sui and Tang pages because the ruling class of Sui and Tang were NOT Xianbei people, as i have explained to you above; after the cultural integration and cultural blending in Northern and Southern Dynasties, Xianbei people became an ethnic in the Zhongyuan in Sui and Tang dynasty, that's why there were 胡人 taking government roles, because their nationalities were Sui and Tang and were loyal to the dynasties.///// The controversies you brought up were refuted by all the conversations and factual figures above: 1. The territory of Qin dynasty and Han dynasty were extended to the west-north corner of current day North Korea territory, as the thumbnail you cropped, however the walls that extended into current day North Korea territory were not counted in the official number "21196 km"; the original map you cropped from is a self-made map showing all historical great wall every built, not the official map of nowadays great wall authorised by China. 2. Goguryeo's Cheolli Jangseong was not included in the "21196 km" long great wall, there were no overlaps between them. 3. The "4500 miles (7,300 kilometers)" figure is only about the Ming great wall, while the "13,171 miles (21197 kilometers)" figure is for the total length of great wall within China's territory. Controversy stands when the controversy is from vague definition, however yours are based on biased and fallacious interpretation of well-established facts. Ouatssss--23 (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC) @Ouatssss--23:I never said Chinese people wore open crotched pants as outer garment before Sui and Tang, what i said was the pants wore by Sui and Tang are 胡服 Barbarian costumes as Chinese called it, inherited from Northern dynasties which was founded by nomadic people originated from Mongolia namely Tuoba Xianbei people. The earliest archaeological findings of double stirrup for Calvary in China was found in later Jin era. suggesting there were no calvary in the true sense that existed before Later Jin. Figurings of people riding horse doesn't make it Calvary. It is common sense that before double stirrup was introduced, having a calvary is impossible. The ruling class of Tang was absorbed by the Khitan state of Liao, and entire Khitan state migrated to central Asia and set up Qara Khitai after defeated by Jurchen who set up Jin state in Northern China. So i doubt you can say Xianbei people became an ethnic in the Zhongyuan. In fact Khitay was originated from Xianbei. So basically they are same people. /////There is no archaeological evidence to prove the great wall of China exists in Korea. so the map released by China claiming the so called Qin and Han great wall in Korea is one sided claim and controversial. 2. your claim itself is controversial, unless there is joint research to prove the Goguryeo Cheolli Jangseong was not included in the newly built great walls in 21st century, your claim is just one sided claim of China which makes it controversial. 3. The original great wall was from Jiayu pass in the west to Shanhai pass in the eastern terminal. the gate has been de facto border between Northern nomadic states and China for thousands of years. Reinterpreting the history entirely to serve the current geopolitical agenda is history revisionism. You don't have to agree with me on the great wall, you can still believe the Qin and Han great wall was extended to Korea as China claims, but what i'm saying is not everyone agrees with China's claim especially the countries that are affected by China's new claim. therefore, controversy exists between two sides. i hope i have made myself clear on the issue. I'm not forcing my claims on you, just presenting the counter argument from the other side so that people can have more balanced view on the issue. Hope it clarifies. Thank you @Traineek: Do you about the sinicization of Xianbei's Northern Wei and the cultural integration and blending during the period of Sixteen Kingdoms and Northern and Southern dynasties? The clothing of Sui and Tang are the result of the original Han Chinese clothing with the nomadic clothing's influence after the chaotic cultural integration of that time, and it doesn't change the fact that the clothing of Sui and Tang are Hanfu; just lika Hanbok was influenced by Hanfu yet still stand as a unique style of clothing. Calvary existed way before stirrup was invented, look into it. "The Qara Khitai or Kara Khitai (alternatively known as "Black Khitan" or "Black Cathay", Mongolian: Хар Хятан; 1124[note 1]–1218), also known as the Western Liao (traditional Chinese: 西遼; simplified Chinese: 西辽; pinyin: Xī Liáo), officially the Great Liao (大遼; 大辽; Dà Liáo), was a sinicized empire in Central Asia, a successor state to the Liao dynasty ruled by the Khitan Yelü clan." Get educated.////1.China released the official map of Qin and Han Great Wall, excluded the part extended into northwest of current day North Korea territory that wasn't investigated by archaeologist, so the part was not counted in China's official number of the length of great wall. How are you not getting this? The controversial part you are arguing wasn't in China's official claim at the first place. 2.China's mapping of Great Wall and Korea's mapping of Goguryeo Cheolli Jangseong only have intersections, the lines never coincide. 3.Will you go see through the map of all China's dynasties and say the line from Jiayu pass to Shanhai pass had always been the border of all the dynasties? Jiayu pass and Shanhai pass was only built in the early Ming dynasty. And even Ming dynasty itself have expanded the territory throughout years of ruling. You accused China doing history revisionism, and why are you doing it yourself? 4.It's okay to have counter opinion, but the counter opinion you're presenting is based on never released and counted figures, never overlapped segments, and partial information. Ouatssss--23 (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC) @Ouatssss--23:First of all, regarding the sinicization, the writing system of Khitan state of Liao only looked like Chinese characters, but Khitan characters and Han Chinese characters are not mutually intelligible. Basically Khitan invented a completely new writing system that Han Chinese cannot understand what that means. Not to mention that the Khitan speaks completely different language from Han Chinese. The reason I mentioned Khitan is because you said Xianbei people became ethnics in Zhongyuan which in my opinion is debatable. Based on the history, the Xianbei people were absorbed by Nomadic Khitan state of Liao after the collapse of Tang and the entire Khitan state fled west and settled in the central Asia and set up Qara Kithay after defeated by Jurchen state of Jin who occupied the Northern China. Therefore I doubt you can say that the Xianbei people disappeared and absorbed by Han Chinese as China claims. About the ancient clothing, I don't know why you keep on insisting that the costumes of Sui and Tang must be Hanfu and influenced by Hufu, not the other way around. Because the main feature of Hufu was round-becked, Narrow-sleeved top, pants, boots. All these are also the distinguishable features of Sui and Tang. in that sense, one can also argue that the Sui and Tang clothing was Hufu influenced by Hanfu. About the cavalry, I am talking about the cavalry in true sense, not just people riding horse. saddle-attached stirrup was only introduced to Later Jin period by Nomadic states. /////About the great wall, According to the Chinese history record 『史記索隱』太康地理志 - 樂浪遂城縣有碣石山 長城所起. 碣石山 Jie Shi mountain is in 秦皇岛 Qinhuangdao, 河北 Hebei China, this is the exact same location where Shanhai Pass is located today. The shanhai pass existed way before Ming, just that the name was different throughout different periods of different states that occupied the region. The earliest gate in Shanhai pass was built by ancient Yan state and the Sui built the Linyu pass 臨渝關 in same location where the Battle of Linyuguan took place between Goguryeo and Sui. The Shanhai pass was the de facto border separating different dynasties in China and nomadic states in the North throughout history. Ming did built some defensives in Liaodong, some on top of the ancient walls built by different ancient states that occupied the region including Goguryeo. But the Hushan gate in North Korea-China border was newly built in 21st century, and it is one-sided claim by China as there was no such wall existed before China built it just decades ago. As i said, you don't have to agree with me completely, you can still believe the Qin and Han great wall was extended to Korea as China claims, but what I'm saying is not everyone agrees with China's claim. Therefore, controversy exists between different parties involved. I hope i have made myself clear. I'm not forcing my claims on you, just presenting the counter argument from the other side so that people can have more balanced view on the issue. I hope you can respect different opinions and your counter argument is always welcome in controvery section. Hope it clarifies. Thank you. --Traineek (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC) @Traineek: You seriously need to stop interpret China's history as your own liking. Khitan state of Liao had nothing to do with Xianbei people. Xianbei#Sinicization and assimilation, read it. About clothing, Sui and Tang's Hanfu are mainly long robes with pants underneath, which the long robe had always been the main feature of Hanfu, while Xianbei's clothing were knee-lengthed tunic; (round-becked? do you mean the round collars?) round collar robes appeared in Shang dynasty's cultural relics (way before Xianbei came into Zhongyuan), and Han Chinese continued to wear it as under garment while no such feature were found in Xianbei's hufu, during Northern and Southern dynasties it flourished as outer garment; narrowed sleeves had always been worn by Han Chinese, so many unearthed sculptures can show it 12; Hanfu was influenced by hufu in some perspective, like boots, hats, vests, and minor designs, but hanfu was not replaced by hufu. And there is no denying the fact that Sui and Tang were Han Chinese dynasties, and the clothing of the dynasties are Hanfu; it is just sad to oppose to well-established, antiques and historical records proven, scholars unanimously agreed facts.////"樂浪遂城縣有碣石山 長城所起." 樂浪 is Lelang Commandery, and the commandery was on the Korean peninsula, which means the "碣石山" was not referring to the mountain in current day Qinhuangdao that is under the same name. Go look at Yan (state)'s map, and go look at Qin dynasty, Han dynasty, Jin dynasty (266–420), Tang dynasty, Ming dynasty's maps, all of which borders went beyond Shanhai pass. For evidence showing Ming dynasty built walls and repaired them later in Liaodong: History of Ming: “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”, also "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., and “築邊墻自山海關迄開原叆陽堡凡千餘里” in 1502 AD. 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”, "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" <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. <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. Above texts named Yalu river, Liaoyang, Kaiyuan, Liaoning as places the walls were built on. If you gonna accuse Ming walls were built on Goguryeo architectures, show me your evidence. And i've explained to you how Ming walls never overlapped with Goguryeo walls. Hushan gate was the restoration site built on where Ming dynasty's wall relic was found. There is a museum on site exhibiting the process of finding and excavation of the wall there in 1990s, with photo evidences. Just because you've never been there too see them doesn't mean the evidences don't exist. And at last, historians and scholars all over the world have researched for the Qin and Han great wall to prove their stretching to northwest part of current day North Korea territory; read one of them before you continued asserting your false accusation, would you? <Lovell, Julia (2006). The Great Wall : China against the world 1000 BC – 2000 AD. Sydney: Picador Pan Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-42241-3> Ouatssss--23 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) @Ouatssss--23:I don’t know what makes you say that the Khitan had nothing to do with Xianbei in an absolute manner and speaking as if your claim is the ultimate truth, no objection is tolerated. Kinda like how things work in China, no question ask on government's decision and everyone must obey. Back to the topic, In reality, Both Khitan and Xianbei spoke Mongolic language, and they both originated in Eastern Mongolia. Khitan was originated from Xianbei after all, their only difference is Xianbei left Mongolia for China earlier than Khitan. If Khitan had nothing to do with Xianbei, we can also say that the southern Chinese had nothing to do with Northern Chinese. Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible. A mandarin speaker do know understand what Cantonese says unless they communicate through writing. Same for Hokkien, Hakka, Hainanese etc. Secondly, you insist Sui and Tang clothing was Hanfu influenced by Hufu, well, let’s put it this way. Han Chinese wore open-crotch-pants before Sui and Tang, and Nomadic people wore normal pants all along. And Sui and Tang people wore normal pants. If Sui and Tang costume was based on hanfu, Sui and Tang people should have still wore open-crotch-pants and at most would have some some alteration on the length of the open crotch pants, however the open-crotch-pants were abandoned by Sui and Tang. How can you call this is Hanfu influenced by Hufu when what actually happened was Sui and Tang people never even wore Hanfu pants to begine with. Lastly, about the Sinicization, Khitan didn’t speak Chinese nor used Chinese writting system, the official language of Khitan state of Liao was Khitay, and the writing system, although looks similar to Chinese characters, are not Chinese characters, Khitan people invented a totally new writing system that ONLY look like Chinese characters to non-speakers, but to Chinese people, it is no different to Alien words. And it is also the fact that the ruling class of Tang were Xianbei people and they were absorbed by Khitan state of Liao after Tang collapse. Liao people fled west after defeated by Jurchen and settled in today Central Asia and set up Qara Kithay. So Xianbei people never disappeared or absorbed into Han Chinese as China claims, but survived and continued their legacy in the central Asia. The people in the central Asia are the descendants of Xianbei, Sui, Tang, Khitan, and Mongol all these nomadic people. ////// Thank you for acknowledging that China’s claim on the great wall of China is extended all the way into Korean peninsula. That’s what I have been saying all along and finally you acknowledged it for the first time. You have taken the first step, now it’s time for you to acknowledge the reality that controversy exists on the great wall between China and Korea. First of all, let me make this clear. There is no mountain called 碣石山 in entire Korean peninsula both present and in the past throughout history. period. 樂浪遂城縣有碣石山 長城所起, in English it means The starting point of the great wall is located at Jieshi 碣石 mountain, Suicheng 遂城县 county, 乐浪 Lelang. 碣石山 Jieshi mountain is not a common toponym but an extremely unique toponym well known for its de factor border gate to nomadic states in the Northeast. There is only one place that has both 碣石山 and 遂城县 on this planet and that is Hebei, China today, and Shanhai pass山海关 is exactly at the same location in Qinhuangdao Hebei China. 碣石山 is very famous mountain in China visited by emperor Qin and the warlord Caocao. Caocao even had an well-known verse during his visit to the mountain : 东临碣石，以观沧海. in English it means I see the blue sea from the eastern Jieshi 碣石. Shanhai pass is called the 天下第一关 the first gate to China, the eastern terminal of the great wall, So there is no point denying the very fact that 樂浪遂城縣有碣石山 長城所起 it means nowhere but Qinhuangdao Shanhai Pass. If you are still not convinced, I will cite your Chinese history records,《晋书·卷一·宣帝纪》遂进师，经孤竹，越碣石，次于辽水. In English it says, [At last, the soldiers advanced, passed through孤竹 Guzhu, crossed the 碣石 Jieshi, and reached 辽水 Liao river]. If Jie Shi mountain碣石 is in Korea, this whole Chinese history text are utter nonsense. Other ancient Chinese records prove the location of Jieshi mountain is in Hebei China. 『漢書』卷六 「武帝紀」 行自泰山, 復東巡海上, 至碣石. 自遼西歷北邊九原, 歸于 甘泉. 『漢書』 卷二十六 「天文志」 故中國山川東北流, 其維, 首 在隴、蜀, 尾沒於勃海碣石. 是 以秦、晉好用兵, 復占太白 『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」 File:樂浪遂城縣有碣石山 長城所起.jpg For your record, Bei Ping 北平 is in Hebei China, Sui Cheng 遂城 is in Hebei China, Lin Yu 臨渝 is in Hebei China, Jieshi mountain 碣石山is in Hebei China, the starting point of the great wall 長城所起 is Hebei China, 臨渝 Linyu pass is also known as Shanhai Pass 山海关. File:北平 遂城 榆关（临榆）孤竹 辽西 碣石 河北 山海关.jpg The location of Lelang has always been controversial between China and Korea, namely North Korea, as South Korean scholars did not and could not conduct any archaeological studies in China and North Korea, So their position is neither oppose or acknowledge fully to any claims. Chinese history records on the location of Lelang are inconsistent and often contradicts one another on the exact location of the Lelang, and there is difference between Lelang and Nakrang Kingdom. Very few Chinese people i encounter understand the origin of the toponym Lelang, the Lelang 乐浪 was named after Gojoseon’s 饶乐水, the upper course of the 滦河 Luan river today and 白浪水, 白狼水，狼水，also known as 大凌河 today. The region between 饶乐Rao-Le and 白浪 Bai-Lang are the original 乐浪 Lelang in Gojoseon territory in Liaodong which was later occupied by Han after Gojoseon-Han war. After Gojoseon’s defeated, it lost control of Liaodong, and moved East and together with the refugees, the toponyms in Liaodong were also brought over to new settlements in Korean peninsula. That is the reason why Korea and Liaodong share so many toponyms in common. It’s same as toponyms in the US such as New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey were named after same toponyms in England, like York, Hampshire, Jersey etc. The toponyms in US were brought over to America by European settlers namely English. The Nakrang Kingdom in Korean peninsula was named after the old Lelang region in Liaodong, but the two are not the same place to begin with. Chinese scholars often discredit earlier records that say Lelang was in Liaodong and tend to only take the later revised records written centuries later. Same for the Pyongyang, the original 平壤 Pyongyang was not in the Korean peninsula, but today’s Liaoyang city, 辽阳, in China, previously named 襄阳 Xiangyang was the original Pyongyang also known as the Wangjian city王儉城. It's again same for the Jizi Joseon fallacy, a fictional non-existing state created and named after the Ancient Joseon in Liaodong area by the Simaqian after 1000 years of Jizi's death. About Qin great wall, despite the importance of Qin in Chinese history, in reality, Qin was a extremely short-lived regime that only survived 15 years after it defeated the other 6 ancient states proclaimed onself empire. Considering the transportation capability and technology 2000 years ago, it is impossible for Qin to build a wall all the way into Korean peninsula and most importantly, there is no archaeological evidence to prove the nonsense. Let alone, Gojoseon was not even defeated by Qin, building a wall all the way into capital city of Gojoseon is utter nonsense. China's claim on the great wall extended all the way into North Korea is one-sided claim without archaeological evidence to prove it. As i said many times, you don't have to agree with me, you can still believe the Qin and Han great wall was extended to Korea as China claims, but what I've been telling you is that not everyone buys China's claim. Therefore, you have to admit that the controversy exists between different parties involved on the issue. I hope i have made myself clear. I'm not forcing my claims on you, just presenting the counter argument from the other side so that people can have more balanced view on the issue. I hope you can respect different opinions and your counter argument is always welcome in controversy section. Hope it clarifies. Now, May i have your endorsement to add the controversy section in the great wall page? @Traineek: I'm pretty sure you've never been to China to see how people question and reflect on government decisions; and if you've seen news about China you would know the 2021 National People's Congress meeting just ended, where the people's representative, selected by the people, reflect on government's over and propose new ones. Khitan and Xianbei are two groups of related ethnic for sure, however, Liao dynasty was founded by Khitan and had no relation to the previous Xianbei people, as there were no record showing the Xianbei's appearance. Hokkien, Hakka, Hainanese, Mandarin are all dialects of Chinese language, you don't know that? Or you just want to separate all Chinese culture into pieces the more the merrier? Han Chinese started to wore normal pants since warring states period when 胡服骑射 was introduced, remember? For one more time, ruling class of Tang were Han Chinese, and there is no evidence showing the remainings went to Liao dynasty; Sui and Tang are both Han Chinese regime; just stop re-writing history please.//// 1.When i referred to Korean peninsula, i was talking about the region to the east and south of the China–North Korea border. And now it occured to me i have wrongly used the word, so i will correct my mistakes in all the previous conversations. I've always been saying China's great wall had extended into northwest part of current day North Korea territory, but the official report, numbers, and claim by Chinese government only contain the parts inside China's territory; that's what you're arguing about right, about how Chinese government politically 'invade' North Korea history, which Chinese government never did. 2.碣石 is not the exclusive word for the mountain in today's Hebei; in the map you posted, 碣石 was the name for that island in Bohai Sea. The map you put up draws the territories of Spring and Autumn period (771 to 475 BC), when Yan state hadn't set up Liaodong county yet; during the later Warring states period (475 to 221 BC), Yan state conquered the region from Gojoseon in 4th century BC and set up Liaodong county and build the Yan great walls. The map shows nothing of Yan great wall, not to mention and the following Qin and Han walls, and the 遂城碣石山 in Lelang county. I don’t know what makes you say that 'There is no mountain called 碣石山 in entire Korean peninsula both present and in the past throughout history. period.' in an absolute manner and speaking as if your claim is the ultimate truth. 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。" The Lelang county is admitted by South Korean scholars, saying that its administrative areas as being limited to the Pyongan and Hwanghae regions. 樂浪遂城縣有碣石山 長城所起 The Han dynasty's 遂城 and 碣石山 were in Lelang county as the 太康地理志 wrote, and it was written during Jin dynasty (266–420); and at the same time the 碣石 in nowadays Hebei and the 碣石 island in Bohai Sea also existed, but the three are not the same location; i organised the quotes accordingly for you to acknowledge which one they were referring to. The 遂城 in Hebei today were only named 遂城 in 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.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, who succeeded from Yan state who conquered it from Gojoseon. The Lelang county was funded in Korea peninsula under the order of Emperor Wu of Han (ruling 141-87 BC) after Gojoseon-Han war: Book of Han - "玄菟、樂浪，武帝時置，皆朝鮮、濊貉、句驪蠻夷。" And Lelang county's location in Korean peninsula is accepted by mainstream academic scholars of Korean. (Btw, 辽阳's previous name is 襄平.) 4.If you gonna accuse Simaqian fabricating Jizi Joseon after 1000 years of Jizi's death, then what about Samguk yusa composing the Dangun legend and the funding of Gojoseon after 3500 years with no earlier referencing texts? 5. Qin was short lived indeed, but it doesn't change the fact that the dynasty build the great wall whose foundation were the previously built Qin state, Zhao state, and Yan state's walls. And no one said the wall reached the capital city of Gojoseon, it extended to the northwest corner of current day North Korea territory which Qin succeeded from Yan state. It is the scholars and historical records showing the walls extended into North Korea, not the Chinese government who only claimed the walls inside China's territory, which is what you are proposing wrongly. Ouatssss--23 (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC) References

Talk page layout

@Esiymbro and Traineek: could you both look at WP:TPG and avoid the confusing talk page layout you've both been creating here? Tx. I streamlined some of it. Also, Traineek, {{ping}}s don't work if you don't WP:SIGN your talk page contribution with ~~~~ ("four tildes") --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Traineek:
  1. Your four-tilde signature goes at the end of your talk page comment (not the beginning)
  2. See WP:INDENT for how to produce proper indentation when your comment is a reply to a preceding comment.
  3. Please avoid excess whitespace.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Ouatssss--23: please follow WP:TPG (including not inadvertently changing a post after it has been replied to); see also WP:WALLOFTEXT: some of your posts seem way beyond WP:TL;DR – I'm also not too sure this all actually relates to improvement of the Great Wall of China article, or isn't some collection of essays (with parts of WP:OR?) on "somewhat" related subjects without much bearing on the content of the Great Wall of China article (see also WP:NOTBLOG). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Later posts on that section should be collapsed. Most of them are irrelevant to this article and almost entirely WP:OR, essentially the same issue as documented at Four Commanderies of Han#Revisionism. The sources on that page have covered the issue well enough and I'll just add another one, Byington's The Ancient State of Puyŏ in Northeast Asia [4], since Traineek has cited Byington as an argument for the controversy. Practically every location mentioned in this talk page are discussed in the chapter. Esiymbro (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Traineek: repeating my invitation to get thoroughly acquainted with WP:TPG, and act accordingly. Don't *modify* talk page posts after they are followed by someone else's comment; don't *move* talk page posts around after someone has written a reply under them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, WP:WALLOFTEXT, which I already mentioned above, may be worth to get thoroughly acquainted with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

11 March 2021

Responding to the comment below:

• China has been revising the length of the great wall of China since 2001. This is unsourced. The full length was published only once ever, in 2012, and that was the 21,196 km data cited in the article. Source in Chinese.

In 2001, China reported that the Wall was 310 miles longer than thought, saying it extended will into the northwestern Xinjiang Autonomous Region, where there has been separatist violence between Uighurs who call the region home and ethnic Han Chinese. Convenient that an iconic of China's national history extends into the area. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/koreans-are-skeptical-great-wall-just-doubled-size/325744/--Traineek (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not know how this is relevant to anything we are discussing there. To revise a length, there has to be an earlier version of the length. Esiymbro (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes this is relevant, as this is the cause of the controversy. China has been revising the length of the great wall openly since 2001. --Traineek (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Since 2009 CE when the Chinese government claimed they had only recently discovered portions of the Great Wall. This is wrong. It was in 1990, see Hushan Great Wall. Also, Hushan is only one among thousand of sections of the Great Wall. This is no reason for a standalone controversy section.

• 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. This is unsourced. I've said countless times here that the statistics do not include those in Korea, see the original report linked in the "Course" section. There is no archaeological evidence to back the claim. There are evidences. And there is the Records of the Grand Historian, which you cited, that explicitly mentiones that the Great Wall reaches the 浿水, within the Korean Peninsula. Esiymbro (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The location of Pei river 浿水 is controversial, according to the earliest Chinese record on geography of China's waterways and canals 水經注, the Pei river flows eastward into the sea. 浿水出樂浪鏤方縣，東南過臨浿縣，東入于海 which is impossible if the location is in today's North Korea as the Taedong river is flowing westward into the sea. --Traineek (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you to look up where Lelang 樂浪 and other locations are before posting anything else about these sources. Thank you. Esiymbro (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The location of Lelang is controversial. Even Chinese history records are inconsistent and often contradicts one another on the exact location of the Lelang, and there is difference between Lelang and Nakrang Kingdom. Just like the Jizi Joseon which was created and named after the Gojoseon by the Simaqian after 1000 years of Jizi's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Traineek, You have rewritten your content so many times that the plagiarism is now irrelevant. Now the problem is that the content has become almost entirely your own imaginations. Esiymbro (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not twist the facts, I never rewrite my content, i rephrased it due to word for word plagiarism of the original sources pointed out by Editor Underbar dk in 17:29, 2 March 2021. My content has been consistent throughout. Nobody raised any issue about the content itself including you in the very beginning. the edit war between us back-and-forth happened because you kept undo my contribution claiming I did not get consensus in talk page. All this can be verified in the edit history, so no point twisting the fact. I have presented the source above for my claim. now you should acknowledge it and stop engage in edit war against me for adding my contribution to the page which is based on facts.

1. China has been extending the great wall of China since 2001 openly, people do not care if China studied it earlier internally like you said. what matters is China publish the new study and announce it to the outside world.

2. Both North & South Korea refute the China's claim including non Korean scholars in this field over the great war length revision extending it to Hushan as well as the Qin and Han great wall into North Korea.

3. The New map published by China which extends the great wall of China all the way into Korean peninsular is baseless one sided claim without actual archaeological evidence. There is no great wall of China in Korean peninsular. Ancient Chinese records often contradicts one another and there is a tendency that Chinese historians like to revise and rewrite the previous dynasties histories to serve the current geopolitical agenda. For example, not a single Chinese history record mentioned that the refugee of Shang, Jizi ever went to Korea and set up a nation called Joseon before 史记 and 尚书, both were written a thousand year after Jizi's death. If Jizi really went to Korea, not a single history text mentioning it the thousand year gap between Shang and Han doesn't make any sense. if there is no history record before Jizi mentioned he went to Korea, where did Simaqian get that story from? So it is highly likely that the Jizi story was fabricated by Simaqian to justify the occupation of Gojoseon territory by Han after Gojoseon-Han war. In fact the credibility of 史记 has always been questionable, out of 24 Histories of China, 23 of them were preceding dynasties' histories written by succeeding dynasties, only 史记 was written during the dynasty itself. Considering the freedom of expression in that era, it is likely 史记 was written in the typical 春秋笔法 Spring and Autumn Style to please the ruler. ]

So please if you cannot refute that the controversy exists between China and other parties on the issue, do not engage in edit war against me since i have presented my argument in talk page. thank you --Traineek (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Three days ago -- "Historical records from Records of the Grand Historian, the most reliable source regarding Emperor Qin Shi Huang's Great Wall, indicates that the eastern end of the Wall reached the Liaodong Peninsula." And today -- "In fact the credibility of 史记 has always been questionable". Esiymbro (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Again taking a quote out of contexts, First, the part you quoted is not my words, but direct quote from this source http://contents.nahf.or.kr/english/item/level.do?levelId=iscd_003e_0010_0020 Second, it didn't say it is the most reliable history source as it contains many fabrications especially when it comes to pre-Qin history, for instance, the Shang refugee Jizi, a person who died a thousand year before Simaqian was even born, The quote says clearly and specifically that the 史记 is the most reliable source regarding Emperor Qin Shi Huang's great wall, Qin dynasty was just right before Han dynasty. --Traineek (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Both North & South Korea refute ... The New map published by China ... Such unsourced arguments pop up again and again in your arguments. Who is this "Korea" or "China" that you are speaking of? A researcher? A journalist? A minister? The president? Or is it referring to all the people of the two countries? Esiymbro (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Seoul’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said yesterday that it won’t ignore a distortion of Korean history and it will respond after studying China’s claim. https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2012/06/07/politics/China-says-Great-Wall-extended-to-ancient-Korea/2954136.html

• Seoul’s Northeast Asian History Foundation said the latest study has a “factual error” because it took into account not only the generally accepted Great Wall pieces but also other small and large fortresses scattered across northern China.

“The number is not the actual length of the Great Wall, but a tally of all the lengths of different walls,” the state-run think tank said in a statement.

• Controversy arose at the time as the study defined the Bakjak Wall erected by Goguryeo in the currently North Korean border city of Dandong as a previously unknown portion of the Great Wall. It is not immediately clear if the newest report did the same.
• The former Goguryeo region has repeatedly been a source of diplomatic tension between Seoul and Beijing. China’s so-called Northeast Project aimed to verify that northeastern China has always been under its own control.'''''''

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20120607001283

• There is another angle that must be considered. The Chinese actions in pronouncing the Great Wall’s extension to as far as Tiger Mountain (Longhushan), as upsetting as they may be to others, really bespokes fear, fear of the changes that China faces, in particular fear about the future of Korea and the Korean people, when North Korea changes. So much of Manchuria or Northeast China is Korean. Many Chinese there are ethnic Koreans. Many Koreans there are Chinese nationals. The Great Wall extension claims of China, its imagined community, are a wall and defense against fears of mass exodus or separation. China does not want another Tibet or Xinjiang problem. Unfortunately, it is possible that they will have to face this problem, and it is my opinion that the Great Wall construction only increases that likelihood since it seems to or actually does minimize and disregard the histories of Korean peoples such as Goguryeo. http://www.theasian.asia/archives/27424 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traineek (talk • contribs)

Judging from these reports there are nothing new. No official refutation from the government. The think tank raised a point about the walls definition which is already mentioned in the article. If these are your sources, then they have further demonstrated that your content is just that -- your own imaginations. Also, for the second source in particular, I think other editors could read it and judge its credibility themselves. Esiymbro (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, Do you understand the meaning of the controversy? Is it because in China there can only be one opinion on every issue, so the way you handle different opinion is completely censoring it? Secondly, the government in democratic and free world do not and cannot not interfere academical issues. At most they can do is to show regret on issues that the general public do not agree. Government is not academic institution in Korea. It might be difficult for you to understand considering the different social background of each person grow up in, but in Korea, even researches claiming that comfort women were volunteered and Dokdo belongs to Japan can be published freely without getting trouble. It is up to the general public to judge by themselves and other scholars who disagree to refute the distortion.

Korean scholars, however, refuted this Tuesday, saying the discovery was made more than two decades ago and the new site is not part of the wall.

"I saw the remains that China now claims to be a part of the Great Wall in Hushan when I was studying there between 1999 and 2000. It wasn't made of bricks, unlike the rest of the wall," said Nam Eui-hyeon, a history professor at Kangwon National University in Gangwon Province."Chinese authorities were already refurbishing the wall with bricks with the intention of making such a historically distorted claim."Nam argued that the Chinese government built the new section, rather than discovering it.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/09/116_52682.html

I think by now it is clear that you are unable to refute the fact that the controversy does exist between China and Korea. And I don't think you are able to prove otherwise.

I hope you can learn to respect different opinions and do not engage in edit war targeting me again. Thank you. --Traineek (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that all these articles claim as a fact that China revised the length to be twice as long as before, 8800 to 21100 km, in 2012 and use the "fact" as a basis for further controversies. This claim has been discussed for multiple times in this discussion. Esiymbro (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit: All three date to the same period in 2012, cite the same false claim which they likely copied form each other, and are part of same media hysteria that was rebuked later. Now I am curious about why you still think there is a controversy on the 2012 survey. Esiymbro (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact is countries that are directly involved and affected by the new claims of China refute to China's one-sided claims. Some scholars are showing skepticism on the motive behind the history revisionism. Yes, the claim has been discussed for multiple times but you were unable to refute the fact that the controversy exists between China, the country making the claim and South and North Korea, countries that are affected by the new claims of China. I've been repeating it many times that the controversy is not to deny the existence of the great wall of China completely, but to show that not everyone agrees with the China's one-sided claims, especially the 2009 and 2012 revision that involved Korea. --Traineek (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait, are you now seriously suggesting that it was the Chinese, rather than the Koreans, that made the claim? If so, what about sharing some sources from China on how the length was revised? Esiymbro (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Here you go the China source. In June 2012, The State Administration of Cultural Heritage announced that the total length of the Great Wall of China has been revised and extended to 21,196.18 kilometers. The State Administration of Cultural Heritage has already revised the Ming Great Wall back in 2009. China now claims that the total length of the Ming Great Wall of China is 8851.8 kilometers. http://www.chinanews.com/cul/2012/06-05/3940564.shtml
• Again, only China is making such a claim in 21st century to revise not only the history of 4 hundred years ago, but also the ancient histories like Qin and Han 2000 year ago. In fact Qin survived only 15 years after defeating other 6 ancient states in China, such a short-lived regime building such a long wall all the way into Korea is ridiculous, let alone there is no archaeological findings to prove that the great wall of China ever existed in Korea. --Traineek (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you won't, I'll translate the article's title for you: 中国历代长城总长首次公布：为21196.18千米. Total length of the Great Wall of China in all eras announced for the first time: 21196.18 km Esiymbro (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Define all eras. --Traineek (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's like saying i released my height and my neighbor's height together combined for the first time. Few days later I included my another wife and my son's combined height and claim yet another first time and goes on and on --Traineek (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Great wall length b4 revision.png

The controversy is not to deny the existence of the great wall of China completely. Ironically, most of your sources are doing exactly this. By claiming that the length was revised from 7000 or 8000+ km to 20000 km, they are denying the existence of all walls other than the Ming Great Wall, none of which are included in the first figure. You have made this clear yourself: In June 2012, China claims that the Great Wall is actually 2.5 times longer ... by including the walls not built by the Ming dynasty in the definition of the Great Wall. --the former Controversies section. Esiymbro (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• The eastern terminal of the Ming great wall is Shanhai pass in Hebei province, that is the fact and common knowledge every single Chinese people knows before China revised the length in 2009. The Hushan gate was newly built only decades ago on top of the Goguryeo's Cheolli Jangseong and other sporadic defensive walls built by several other ancient nomadic states that occupied the region throughout history. Many people see the revision of the length of the great wall in 21st century as another history revisionism that in line with the controversial North east project. Scholars are not only skeptical about the baseless claims of Qin and Han great wall, but also the Hushan great wall which was only built in recent years. --Traineek (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have presented my argument for adding controversy section with valid sources that the controversy exists between countries directly involved and affected by China's new claim in 21st century and China. And Esiymbro is still unable to prove otherwise despite being denial to the fact that even the ministry of foreign affairs of Republic of Korea has released strong statement on the issue. let alone the Korean and Nor-Korean scholars who are refuting the China's one-sided claim and call it history revisionism.--Traineek (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

... ministry of foreign affairs ... has released strong statement on the issue. i.e. saying that it would respond but never did refute anything? Or you mean the strong statement from the South Korean state funded organization NAHF, which dismissed the entire controversy as a Korean media distortion? [5] You have to be dreaming to write any of this. I have no words. Let the others who are unfortunate enough to read through to this point decide for themselves. Esiymbro (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• You are parroting the same things over and over being denial to the simple fact that the controversy exists between countries affected by China's new claim and China. I hope you can understand that unlike China, in free world, there is nothing as absolute truth, there are always people agree and disagree on certain issues. What you have been showing is exactly same as what China does to its own people, that is there is only one truth told by the government and everyone must accept it as absolute truth. I've already mentioned above, the government in democratic and free world do not and cannot not interfere academic debates. And they are not in the position to give a final judgement on the issue. At most they can do is to release a statement or show regret on the issue which is exactly what ministry of foreign affairs of Republic of Korea did. Government is not academic institution in Korea. I hope you can learn the basic function of the government bodies in democratic world and also learn to respect different opinions. --Traineek (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• The original great wall was from Jiayu pass in the west to Shanhai pass in the eastern terminal. That's what every Chinese people will tell you before China government revised it in 2009. The Shanhai pass has been de facto border between Northern nomadic states and China for thousands of years. Reinterpreting the history entirely to serve the current geopolitical agenda is history revisionism. You don't have to agree with me on the great wall, you can still believe whatever China claims, but what i'm saying is not everyone agrees with China's claim especially the countries that are affected by China's new claim. therefore, controversy exists between different parties. I hope i have made myself clear enough on the issue. Unlike you, I'm not forcing my claims on anyone, I am just presenting the counter argument from the other side so that people can have more balanced view on the issue. Hope it clarifies. Thank you everyone, awaiting your decision on whether or not the controversy section should be included to show that Korea and some scholars have different opinions on the issue. --Traineek (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@AuguMaugu: @Wretchskull: @Aza24: @Beeblebrox: @Ericgyuminchoi:

Hello, I am a college student who is working as a global history diplomat at VANK, a private public diplomacy organization in Korea. I pay tribute to Wikipedia, which is well received by the public for its free editing and sharing. I raise a question about the map of the Great Wall that extends the Great Wall to Liaodong Peninsula and the northern part of the Korean Peninsula. The Great Wall has never been extended to the northern part of the Korean Peninsula in history. Liaodong Peninsula was included in Korean history until 926, Korea was never part of China, and China occupied some areas for a while, but China never built the Great Wall on the Korean Peninsula. The eastern end of the Great Wall is not Pyongyang on the Korean Peninsula, but Hebei Province in China. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could revise the map of the Great Wall, which is misconnected to the northern part of the Korean Peninsula, and the length of the Great Wall, which is China's one-sided claim, 21196KM. This distorts China's history and invades cultural imperialism. I ask you to keep the value of freedom that Wikipedia pursues.

Resuming discussion of topics relating to the Great Wall of China

@Traineek: For the exact controversy you added to the page:

1. The Hushan Great Wall in Dandong were found in 1990s, and the restoration plan was put out in 1992, not newly found in 2009.
2. According to Samgukyusa, Cheolli Jangseong extended from northeast Buyeoseong (present-day Nong'an County) to southwest's sea, which Korean suggested the sea is Bohai Bay, and the fortress in Dandong was not on the fortress line stretched by Cheolli Jangseong. See Cheolli Jangseong's English wiki page, Korean wiki page Namu's wiki page, encyclopedia of Korean culture page.
3. In June 2012, China claims that the Great Wall is actually 2.5 times longer at 13,171 miles (21197 kilometers) compared to 4500 miles (7,300 kilometers) as previously believed from Jiayu Pass in Gansu province in the west to Shanhai Pass in Hebei province in the northeast, by including the walls not built by the Ming dynasty in the definition of the Great Wall. The referencing text wrote Well, it's more a process of redefining what counts as Great Wall. China is including defensive walls built outside the Ming Dynasty, many of them in poor shape and overlapping, which first suggests China included walls that were not built by Ming dynasty and this is laughable because the Great Wall were not only built by Ming dynasty, and second the walls in poor shape and overlapping were proven by scholars to be parts of great wall that were built during different era.
4. I'm okay with putting the last part about tamped earth and stone in Inner Mongolia and Liaoning on the controversy section.

Ouatssss--23 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ouatssss--23: I've also commented on the other points before, but for this sentence: "Sinologist Nicola Di Cosmo view the remnants of walls constructed with tamped earth and stone in Inner Mongolia and Liaoning province that are attributed to the Yan and Qin periods by Chinese scholars as the cultural remains of ancient nomadic Donghu people", sourced to Di Cosmo's Ancient China and Its Enemies, pp.148-150) – I actually downloaded the book and the actual content is completely different. It was the cultural remains near the wall that belonged to non-Chinese peoples, and I cannot find anything that attributes the wall itself to the Donghu. Later in the book he suggested that the Chinese states built the walls to serve an offensive function. (Compare Traineek's version: Di Cosmo specifically states that these defensive fortifications that were built by non-Chinese nomads were to potentially control the movements of diverse peoples in the prehistoric region and to defend the non-agricultural territory from some external threat.) Esiymbro (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Esiymbro: Thanks for referencing the original text. So Nicola Di Cosmo was talking about dwellings found near the great wall may have been built by Donghu people, and the walls were not in controversy. @Traineek: And now I am also against the last part of the 'controversy' paragraph you put up Ouatssss--23 (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ouatssss--23: Read. According to Di Cosmo, both outside and inside this line of fortifications, the only cultural remains are non-Chinese. The whole area was inhabited exclusively by non-Chinese, mostly pastoral people. Di Cosmo states that “the original dwellers may have been Donghu, that is, a non-Chinese nomadic group that the written sources place in the northeast and against whom the state of Yan fought.” Di Cosmo further states that: “the walls were not built to separate steppe and sown, nomad and farmer. [They were built] to establish a strong military presence…to control the movement of people.” There is no evidence that the walls protected the Han Chinese settlements in areas traditionally inhabited by alien peoples engaged mainly in pastoral activities. We still do not know “the precise function of the walls,” nor “what they were actually defending,” but clearly they served “to defend the surrounding non-agricultural territory” from some threat. The excavation of a large number of bronze objects, such as knives with ringed handles, horse- and bird-motif ornaments, bell ornaments, buttons, earrings, and belt hooks places this area in a cultural context that is fully outside the Central Plain sphere. --Traineek (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Traineek:A more likely hypothesis is that these remains belonged to local people who may have been subject to Yen. From the location of their settlements it cannot be excluded that these people also performed a military service for Yen, having been either recruited or conscripted into the Yen army. Nicola Di Cosmo clearly stated that the people might have been subject to Yan state and recruited to Yan army. They were within control of Yan state inside the Yan wall. I have argued that the walls’ presence in the northern regions is consistent with a pattern of steady territorial growth by the states of Yen, Chao, and Ch’in, which adopted a defense technology developed among the Central States to expand into the lands of nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples and then to fence off the conquered territory from other nomadic people who either had been displaced or had grown aggressive because of the military presence of Chinese states in these regions. He's view is that the walls show the pattern of steady territorial growth by the states of Yen, Chao, and Ch’in, and to fence off the conquered territory from other nomadic people. Can you do reading comprehension or not?Ouatssss--23 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ouatssss--23:We have been debating on whether the walls in Liaodong and South Mongolia were built by Han Chinese and whether or not should be considered great wall of China right? Nicola Di Cosmo said The lines of fortifications (built with tamped earth and stone), alleged to be the “long walls” constructed by the Yan or Qin, are comprised of lookout posts, ramparts, ditches, small and large forts, beacon towers, and stone walls blocking mountain passes. The stone walls are mostly built on hills and high mountain peaks. The largest forts appear on both banks of the Laoha River. (Laoha river is upper course of 饶乐水, also known as the 滦河 Luan river in Hebei Liaoxi) Archeological excavations since the mid-1970s in the section of the wall near Chifeng reveal the presence of the Upper Xiajiadian (1100-300 BCE) and the Ordos bronze cultures. According to Di Cosmo, both outside and inside this line of fortifications, the only cultural remains are non-Chinese. From an archaeological perspective, Nicola Di Cosmo view the remnants of walls constructed with tamped earth and stone in Inner Mongolia and Liaoning province that are attributed to the Yan and Qin periods by Chinese scholars as the cultural remains of non Chinese nomadic Donghu peoples. Di Cosmo specifically states that these defensive fortifications that were built by non Chinese populations were to potentially control the movements of diverse peoples in the prehistoric region and to defend the non agricultural territory from some external threat. Another scholar Mark Byington, also states that China's claims of the Yan Long Wall's easternmost terminus reaching the mouth of the Daenyong River near the Chongchon River is based on "Yan-style" roof tiles that have been excavated at Pakchon. Byington expresses skepticism to this contentious extrapolation made by Chinese scholars, by futher clarifying that the archaeologically undated remains of a wall along the Daenyong River were part of a defensive fortification to defend against an attack from the north. And there is no clear traces of a long wall in the east of the Yiwulu Mountains (醫巫閭山). In spite of the fact that the remains of “wall

segments” do not make any “continuous lines,” they imagine that the Yan Long Wall reaches Tieling (鐵嶺). See Byington, A History of Puyô State, pp. 75-91.

@Traineek: Where did Nicola Di Cosmo said about "The lines of fortifications (built with tamped earth and stone), alleged to be the “long walls” constructed by the Yan or Qin, are comprised of lookout posts, ramparts, ditches, small and large forts, beacon towers, and stone walls blocking mountain passes"????? Where????? I don't see the referenced original text of Nicola Di Cosmo's book accused anything about the wall. Di Cosmo's view is that the walls were built by Yan Zhao Qin I have argued that the walls’ presence in the northern regions is consistent with a pattern of steady territorial growth by the states of Yen, Chao, and Ch’in, which adopted a defense technology developed among the Central States to expand into the lands of nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples and then to fence off the conquered territory from other nomadic people, with the investigators also confirm that both “outside” and “inside” this line of fortifications the only cultural remains are “non-Chinese, of which remains belonged to local people who may have been subject to Yen. From the location of their settlements it cannot be excluded that these people also performed a military service for Yen, having been either recruited or conscripted into the Yen army. If you can't do reading comprehension, i'll translate the text for you: The walls were built by Yan Zhao Qin, to fence off the conquered land from the nomadic people, who once resided both outside and inside the walls. The nomadic people stayed inside the wall after the Chinese states conquered the land, became Yan states' subject and may have joined the Yan army./// You can put up the argument made by Byington, only, I'm currently fine with it.Ouatssss--23 (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ouatssss--23: Where did Nicola Di Cosmo said The walls were built by Yan Zhao Qin? was there definite conclusion that the wall was built by Yan Zhao Qin? By the way, Since the differenct perspective on Di Cosmo, I can exclude it from my controversy section. then can i have you consensus to cite Byington and Wontack Hong? --Traineek (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Traineek:I have argued that the walls’ presence in the northern regions is consistent with a pattern of steady territorial growth by the states of Yen, Chao, and Ch’in I already told you i'm ok with citeing Byington. What's the argument of Wontack Hong??Ouatssss--23 (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ouatssss--23: I removed Nicola Di Cosmo from my original contribution. Here is the revised one, Please take a look and advise. and please bear in mind, controversy meaning two sides have not come to an mutual agreement. You can add your counter argument in controversy section as well.

Controversies In June 2012, China announced that the Great Wall is actually 2.5 times longer at 13,171 miles (21197 kilometers) compared to 4500 miles (7,300 kilometers) as previously believed from Jiayu pass in Gansu province in the west to Shanhai pass in Hebei province in the northeast. This has invited skepticism from Korea on whether this was a politically motivated show rather than being a genuine scholarly inquiry into archaeology.

North Korea has refuted China's 2009 claims of the Great Wall that extend to Dandong suggesting that what claims to be the easternmost outpost of China's Great Wall is in fact part of Goguryeo's Cheolli Jangseong, which is part of a separate monument altogether from China's Great Wall. The 2009 revision of China's Great Wall at 5499 miles (8850 kilometers) includes the poorly preserved remnants of willow palisade fortifications that were built in the eastern periphery of Liaoning during the Ming and Qing era respectively to control the movement of peoples between China proper and Manchuria in modern day northeast China . Stephanie Mot, a Seoul-based blogger and former diplomat has suggested that these perpetual revisions to the length of the Great Wall both in 2009 and 2012 are inextricably linked to the fact that the current Chinese government is contemplating on how to justify their historical claims and connections to alien territories that did not originally belong to earlier dynasties stretching back 4 millennia that ruled over the core heartland regions of China proper, as a pre-emptive measure, to prevent secessionism that is a sensitive issue for national security and stability.

Wontack Hong, Professor Emeritus, Seoul National University, has identified an inconsistency in textual claims for China's Great Wall, known as the Yan Long Wall stretching all the way to the present day Dandong, Liaoning province, China or to the Chongchon River in Pyongan province, North Korea since the Warring States Period (476 B.C.E - 221 B.C.E). Hong is skeptical of these Chinese revisionist claims, saying that the Xiongnu section of Sima Qian's Shiji compiled in the 1st century C.E. states that the Yan managed to acquire 1000 li of Donghu territory and does not mention Gojoseon but Yu Huan's Weilue, compiled during the 3rd century C.E. 4 centuries later, claims that the Yan general Qin Kai invaded both Donghu and Gojoseon acquiring 2000 li of their territory. Moreover, even if the accounts recorded in the Weilue are taken to be true at face value, it never states that Yan's Long Wall was built as a defensive fortification against Gojoseon, with whom it shared a border. Therefore, Hong views that the Shiji's account of Qin Kai's campaign exclusively against the Donghu is more credible than the Weilue, which has suspicions of embellishing the achievements of a historical figure centuries later. Mark Byington, a specialist in early Korean studies further states that China's claims of the Yan Long Wall's easternmost terminus reaching the mouth of the Daenyong River near the Chongchon River is based on "Yan-style" roof tiles that have been excavated at Pakchon. Byington expresses skepticism to this contentious extrapolation made by Chinese scholars, by futher clarifying that the archaeologically undated remains of a wall along the Daenyong River were part of a defensive fortification to defend against an attack from the north.

The 1st century B.C. text Yantielun (Discourses on Salt and Iron) states that the eastern border of the Yan state during the Warring States Period (476 B.C. - 221 B.C.) was demarcated by Jieshi mountain near the vicinity of modern day Qinhuangdao, Hebei province. Shim Jae Hoon, a scholar of early Korean studies says that the Gojoseon and Han border remained at Jieshi mountain, Hebei province since the Yan period, citing the Han era text the Huainanzi from 139 B.C. that refers to the benevolent people of Gojoseon that resided to the east of Jieshi mountain.--Traineek (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

References