Talk:Terracotta Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terracotta Army article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 38 Years?

According to the article and that on Qin Shi Huangdi (sp?) he died in 210 BC and was burried there. If the work began when it did, (246 BC according to the article) and the emperor was interred in 210 when he died, if the workers spent 38 years building the tomb and presumably the Terracotta army, they would have finished work, TWO YEARS AFTER HE WAS INTERRED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.101.131 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a source which quotes construction taking exactly 36 years which would account for this problem. I am writing a paper on ancient Chinese burial tombs right now, and when I'm done, I'll come back here and try to correct this. If it hasn't been corrected already that is... Eeyore22 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Scholars don't seem convinced that it was started when the text says it was started.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not just warriors and horses

This article says that the collection consists of warriors and horses, in the introduction. There's more to it than that- there are also acrobats, musicians, administrators and other animals like birds. I don't know wikipedia well enough to edit the article to say this or what would be the best sourceto use. There are many out there though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.248.22 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bitch?

I was reading the article and came across this:

... the First Emperor was buried by a bitch alongside great amounts of treasure ...

Is bitch really right?

Pgrote 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't you tell obvious vandals when you see one? 24.89.245.62 05:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal comments for the last paragraph of this original article

The uncalled-for last paragraph about the excluding the Tibetan exhibition is a kind of extreme argument. The phrase "bowed to" and "Chinese pressure" seem Chinese goverment like to destroy culture stuff in the world, even at the moment, Peking regime and all chinese people have seen the Tibetan culture as their own culture rather than a foreign culture, therefore, the exculding of Tibet exhibition at Barcelona in 2004 could be reasonable for Chinese goverment for protecting Tibetan culture and then carry forward it to worldwide.

I agree that the exhibition paragraph is adding bias to the article. It only has peripheral relevance to the topic and is written by someone with an ax to grind. Not that I necessarily disagree with them, but I don't think that it belongs here. --Beirne 15:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contents of tomb

There have been rumors concerning "rivers of mercury", "gems to simulate the sun and planets". Can anyone elaborate with authority on this? -Jimaginator 12:51, December 12, 2005 (UTC)

During my tour, there was no mention about a river of mercury. This might be a subject of legend. I would be cautious about including this information, and would only do so with a clear disclaimer that it is indeed a subject of legend or folklore.

--Heesung 15:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw a documentary that shortly mentioned this - it appears that some chineese historian (Sima Qian I believe) has described this Mousoleum and he mentions not only terracota army, but also a scale model of world inside the tomb - rivers and lakes filed with mercury to resemble waves, lightened by everlasting torches, and gems forming constellations... amazing story. Since tomb is not opened yet there can be only legends about contents of it, but as far I know mercury is very poisonos and I can`t imagine way how builders of the tomb in their time could posibly fill artifical lakes with it -- Xil - talk 06:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that there were actually rivers of mercury, but by the time the tomb was discovered by the farmers the mercury had all disappeared.. evaporated maybe? I could be wrong. --Robin Chen 4:14 February 10 2006
According to a documentary shown on UK television the other day, soil samples have been taken above the tomb to see if they contained any mercury (on the basis that mercury vapour from the tomb (which is still unopened) could have escaped through the roof of the tomb. It was stated that significant quantities of mercury were found, confirming the "rivers and seas of mercury" legend. I see that another editor has recently updated the article mentioning teh mercury. --rossb 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The current version makes it sound as if the mercury is still intact and in the tomb. Is this accurate? --maru (talk) contribs 21:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody knows. The tomb has never been opened (because the archaeologists are afraid it would collapse.) The only source for the mercury legend is Sima Qian, who mentioned it in 89 BCE (over a hundred years after the tomb was closed.) Sima Qian did not mention the terracotta army, which suggests he may not have known about it. The soil above the tomb does contain unusually high amounts of mercury, so that lends some credence to the story. Fumblebruschi (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Have the proper reference(s) been added to confirm the mercury? I would hate for this stuff to make it into the article without confirmation. Anyone know what the name is of the UK documentary? Jimaginator 11:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw this - there's a book by Julia Lovell, "The Great Wall: China Against the World," that has more info on Shih Huang-Ti's tomb. Specifically, and there may be more research out there in this particular area, Sima Qian, a court official from the Han dynasty, is quoted in there (from translated documents) mentioning the tomb, including the mercury. [1] - that link takes you to the quote from Qian, which does explain the supposed contents of the tomb quite well, on page 52. I do remember that when archaeologists were researching, there was an unusually high mercury content found (adding potential proof) at the site, but I can't recall from where that information is taken. Hope that helps out! --Elva barr 03:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] video games?

The section about Terracotta soldiers being featured in a video game... is this really necessary? This section might be more relevant to an article on video games about war. --Heesung 15:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think references to popular culture, while not being perhaps strictly necessary, are certainly interesting. It shows that the Terracotta Army has captured the imagination of popular culture in a relatively short space of time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. A video game is not relevant to the real Terracotta Army. If it were to be relevant, it would need to have a real impact on societies knowledge, such as a society assuming a fact because it is in the game, when infact it is incorrect. Even then, one would need to explain how this video game impacted society. Otherwise, the creation of a game is irrelevant to societies perception or knowledge of the Terracotta Army. Peoples' knowledge would be the same with or without the game. I will remove the section since it is not relevant. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 22:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location!

When I went to visit this summer the tour guide mentioned something about the tomb being placed between two mountains and near a river for reasons of jade resources nearby or something. I don't quite remember what it was exactly, does anyone know? I think there was something about some superstitious belief also... --Robin Chen 4:23 Feb 10 2006

I also was told about that -- the mountains the Shanxii province are a source of jade.--Heesung 14:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious user

Can anything be done about the users who keep defacing this page? IPs 71.134.54.229 and 63.192.31.221 i think?

[edit] Edit, edit edit?

Why the numerous edit links on the bottom? Royrules22 06:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MilHist Assessment

A nice article, with good length and sections, and lots of images. It includes a lot of things not central to the topic (which is a good thing - it's fleshed-out in the direction of becoming potentially a A-class-plus article). However, while the majority of what needs to be said has been, I think the sections still look short, and some expansion would be necessary in order to achieve GA or better status. LordAmeth 12:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article: Trivia

The Terracotta Army under construction in Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom.
The Terracotta Army under construction in Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom.
  • Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom, a computer game simulating the economy and trade of medieval China, includes a sequence on the Qin empire where the Terracotta Army is constructed by the player as part of the scenario goal. Laborers dig out a massive pit, after which carpenters assemble the wooden pillars. Ceramists use clay to make the Army, after which more carpenters hammer a wooden covering over the pit. Finally, this roof-like covering is covered over by dirt.
  • The computer game Rise of Nations includes the Terracotta Army as a wonder that the player can build. The wonder generates a new infantry unit once every minute.
  • In the console game Dynasty Warriors 5, there is an opening movie that shows the Terracotta army turning into real soldiers. This sequence shows them rushing to fight Zhao Yun, a hero of Shu, while others such as Cao Pi look on.

My reasoning to remove them is up there in the 'Video Games' section. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 04:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the trivia section. My reasoning is also up there in the "Video Games" section, and has not changed in the 8 months since I originally wrote it. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 05:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree with you. I would agree it should stay if you can show me the section would not be removed from the game's own article. That is, if you put the same text in the game's article as it stands here in this article. Until then, I will remove it as fancruft. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 09:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
And I still disagree with you. This article is neither the first, nor the last, nor the only Wikipedia article regarding an academic subject that has a section detailing instances where that subject is referenced in popular culture. Please do not remove perfectly valid, verifiable information merely because it does not meet your criteria for relevance. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not the only one who disagrees.

  1. There is a proposal to remove such triva and popular culture references from all but the most relevant articles. It has the support of several users.
  2. The arguement that the section would not be able to stand on its own in the games own article is a valid argument for removal from this article.
  3. This is fancruft. It is relevant to only a small portion of people on wikipedia and not relevant to others. It is generally supported that fancruft and cruft in general should be removed from articles. Read Wikipedia:fancruft for more information.
  4. Just saying it is relevant doesn't prove that it is relevant. Please give me some arguments to support your position that I have not addressed yet.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 12:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Further to the point. Wikipedia:Importance details three qualifiers for importance.

An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

  1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
  2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
  3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.
In the first (1), there is not a reasonable number of people who are, were or might be interested in this subject at any one given point of time. These references are not well known to the community. It being featured in these games is not well known to the community in general if one openly asks them without telling them about it before hand. In the second (2), this section would qualify as a stub or list which is nearly indiscriminate, in that the game only needs to feature the Terracotta Army in one form or another. Third (3), the importance has not been established because it is in dispute. Thus, there is no current reason to display that section at the present time and should be removed until one of the tree qualifiers are met. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. There are people who are opposed to the removal of trivia sections. Therefore, the fact that there are also people who support the removal of trivia sections is not, in and of itself, particularly compelling.
  2. I do not agree that information has to be perfectly symmetrical to justify its existence in an article.
  3. Just saying that it is irrelevant does not prove that it is irrelevant. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The lack of arguments for its relevancy is enough of an argument for it being irrelevant when the section is called into dispute. Wikipedia is not a random list of related information. It is an encyclopedia of relevant information. What arguments are there for its (trivia's) importance or interest? The section is several things. It is a Directory of software that features the Terracotta Army (What Wikipedia is not), it is Trivia with no importance (Wikipedia:Trvia) and it is fancruft. These are all valid reasons for the removal of the section. What reasons are there for the sections inclusion?

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 13:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the section in question fits the description of a directory of games which feature the Terracotta Army. Here is an example of a directory. Wikipedia:Directory

As a matter of policy, which is found on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a directory. The trivia section is bound to this policy and the decision to remove the section is justified. I will remove the section first at 17:00 Copenhagen time to give you time to reply. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The heading "Terracotta Army references in popular culture" is problematic. If this heading merits inclusion, then why not create this heading in every other article? References in popular culture does NOT fit within the scope of this article, especially the bit about video games. This article should be about the actual Terracotta, not about what sort of video game it is mentioned in. Heesung 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No further arguments against removal were made, so either those who objected left the whole discussion, or have no further objections. Removed because it is a software directory; the directory listed games that featured the terracotta army. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of the exact number of figures: 8,099

Can someone provide a citation for this number of figures being 1) exactly determined or 2) untirely unearthed? To my knowledge, which is in no way complete or good, there is only an estimate of figures (somewhere around 8000, so 8099 could very well be correct), and there are still many more to be unearthed. Am I mistaken?Eliteyak 19:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xianyang or Xi'an

Are they located in Xianyang or Xi'an? - Privacy 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names for Pits

Some user has described the pits containing the army as being called "Nii-Sama" and the "baka Mei-Mei room." These are Japanese for "Big Brother" and "idiot Mei-Mei" respectively; I suspect malfeasance. A brief search finds no other references to the pits with these names (the first three appear to be simply numbered Pit 1, Pit 2 and Pit 3, and I do not find reference to a fourth pit at all). I'm not a contributor to Wikipedia but wanted to bring this to someone's attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.69.220.56 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Terracotta Army outside China

  • Forbidden Gardens, a privately funded outdoor museum in Katy, Texas has 6,000 1/3 scale replica terra-cotta soldiers displayed in formation as they were buried in the 3rd century BC. Several full-size replicas are included for scale, and replicas of weapons discovered with the army are shown in a separate Weapons Room. The museum's sponsor is a Chinese businessman whose goal is to share his country's history.
  • China participated in the 1982 World's Fair for the first time since 1904, displaying four terra-cotta warriors and horses from the tomb of Emperor Ying Zheng.


should previous be included? it was deleted by anon but may be in correct place??DUBJAY04 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Whoever it was that deleted the orignal paragraphs (as shown above) seems to have done so in order to vandalize the content. Following is a copy of the vandalized paragraph as seen on 28, January 2007. (Highlighting is mine) Gseletko 07:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


  • China participated in the 1982 World's Fair for the first time since 1904, displaying four terra-cotta warriors and horses from the tomb of Emperor Shi Huandi well he was gay as far as we know but in the 1987 we found out that it is usual for emperors to be gay!

I have restored the original content. Gseletko 07:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I was unsureDUBJAY04 07:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stupid vandals are teh gheys!!!

[edit] Temporary semi-protected

I have "semi-protected" the article (no editing by anons or just registered users) for a period of 8 days, as the article is listed at the current Cosmos Magazine and has been attracting anon vandals. -- Infrogmation 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah! Unfortunately, the bulk of the vandalism predates the Cosmos article. --KNHaw (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] further vandalism: correction needed

i suspect this may be further vandalism on the page. i first tried to make sense of this and then realized it was an incorrect and badly worded sentence at that. someone please delete/replace it:

The terracotta figures were manufactured so that the empire could start a war with god and then make everyone die both in workshops by government laborers and also by local craftsmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htg (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] grammar?

I am trying to understand the following sentence from the article: "The fire was described by Sima Qian, who described them as the consequences of General Xiang Yu, who raided the tomb less than five years after the death of the First Emperor, as that the effects of General Xiang’s army included looting of the tomb and structures holding the Terracotta Army, as well as setting fire to the necropolis and starting a blaze that lasted for allegedly three months, though no other recorded great fire in history ever lasted more than seven days (other great notable fires: Great Fire of Rome, 1871 Great Chicago Fire, London fire, Fire of Moscow (1812))."

It is unclear to me how the "as that the" in the middle fits in. Is the meaning just "Sime Qian says that Xiang Yu set the site on fire"? Is this monster really a correct sentence? Maybe a native speaker could clarify. --Jochen 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a correct sentence. I have re-written the section for clarity. Fumblebruschi (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Jochen (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] terrecttca

What has been said to be the most exciting archeological find of the 20th century, the discovery of an entire army of over 7000 life sized terra cotta soldiers, is nothing short of astonishing. Over 2000 years old, and completely forgotten by the people of China, the Terra Cotta Army was stumbled upon by some local peasant farmers drilling a well to irrigate their fields. The statue army is complete with generals, archers, horses, foot soldier and more, each individual statue being unique. Now from the same villages that the original warriors were produced and using the same techniques, this site is offering replica Terra Cotta Warriors. Bring the 8 Wonder of the World into your home as a decorative piece of art, or use one as a garden statue.



These authentic reproductions are the closes thing you can get to having one of the 2200 year old warriors. They come is sizes from 1/4 to full size of the original.


Offered is a 5 piece set that covers all the major groups of Qin Shi Huang Di's army. It is available in two different sizes 20CM (7.9") and 35CM (13.8").


Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.22.191 (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very poorly written and bad grammar

Just a comment from an interested reader. This page is horribly written and badly organised. It requires a total rewrite. I would do it, but am here to learn about the tom, not to write about it for others. Seriously, some pages are cleaned up if someone spells a word wrong, here it seems it's just left there to rot. When I accessed this page, it said that the tomb was discovered in 1675, and that over a billion people took over 360 years to complete it. Just an example, but another part, which I deleted said that some company doesn't make tents big enough to cover the site blah blah, which was put there as fact, but was blatantly the product of someone's imagination. Regards 84.203.35.113 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope and Name of Article

I think this article needs to cover the finds from the other 594 pits and the mausoleum itself, rather than just treat the army on its own. So, it needs renaming with a redirection page for Terracotta Army. Anyone disagree?--Doug Weller (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A move creates a redir. The question is, move it to what title? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, it's hard to keep it short - what's the longest title on Wikipedia I wonder?

The Terracotta Army and the Tome of the First Emperor? That puts the most popular bit first The Tomb of the First Emperor and the Terracotta Army? That puts the most important bit first, the army is just part of the tomb.

Or -- since we will have a redirect, leave Terracotta Army out of the title altogether. The Tomb of the First Emperor doesn't mention China. The Tomb of China's First Emperor? It's one of the world's most important archaeological sites for a variety of reasons. It's still pretty intact (the tomb itself hasn't been excavated and the remote sensing suggests that the roof of whatever structure is there is still there), it should have some amazing stuff in it, it's going to have to rely on some pretty high tech for future work, etc. The article needs expanding in my opinion is it should not be just about the Terracotta army in isolation from the mausoleum complex (ie the tomb and the other 594 pits).--Doug Weller (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Split into two articles, one Terracotta Army for the statues themselves, and one Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor for the whole structure. _dk (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Since this article is so important, maybe you should take this question up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China... Ling.Nut (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I note that Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor redirects here, which won't help the reader much at the moment.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Name#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things. The policy is that the name should be the one that most people would use and understand. The mausoleum complex is known and understood as the Terracotta Army. Possible alternatives would not be a search item on Google. The main search item would be Terracotta Army, so that is the one policy says we should use. SilkTork *YES! 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you also saying then that the scope of the article should be the whole tomb complex?--Doug Weller (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Sections within Terracotta Army can deal with specific areas or aspects of the complex, then - as and when those sections become too large for the main article - they can be considered on an individual basis for splitting into standalone articles as per WP:Summary style.
I have just come back from the exhibition at the British Museum. The title is The First Emperor, China's Terracotta Army - though it is about the whole tomb complex. Essentially the tomb complex is a hill, which will NOT be investigated until such time as the technology is available to investigate the complex without doing any harm (unlikely in our lifetime), and the digs around the hill. The digs have revealed the stables and other areas, the most notable, dramatic and interesting of which is the soldiers. The term Terracotta Army covers what has been discovered from all the digs - as an army does not consist only of soldiers, but also consists of stables, logistics, etc, which support and enable the army. SilkTork *YES! 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Great exhibition, eh? Glad you made it before it closes, I went last week. I'm not convinced that the term covers, for instance, the artificial river with the bronze birds (I'm really glad they put that in the exhibition). I managed to get the show catalogue from a local Derbyshire library to my surprise. The catalogue/book, like the exhibition, has sections on the making of China, the rise of the Qin and the conquest of the Warring States, The First Emperor /Qin Empire with subchapters on coins, architecture/palaces and gold/jade, Imperial Tours & Mountain Inscriptions, The Afterlife Universe, A Tw0-Thousand Year Old Underground Empire -- and here we have 3 chapters on the Army, Armour for the Afterlife and Entertainment for the Afterlife.
The birds and musicians were found quite a way from the Army (and about equally far from the tomb). This is explained as a way in which the tomb complex crated a whole world. Although I guess we can keep the name, I wouldn't say that the term army covers everything. And at some point the army might be a much smaller part of the article than it is at the moment, but we can wait for that to happen.Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I really enjoyed the exhibition. Army does also mean a large group of people organised for a single purpose [2], so that could comfortably include all those figures in the digs which had been created for the purpose of serving Qín in the afterlife. The thing that is puzzling me, and the catalogue is vague on the point, is the "modern replica" of a "contemporary model" of the workers creating the figures. I loved that model and found it full of life and energy - something lacking in the mass produced life-size models. My companions felt the model was a modern interpretation of the workshop and that "contemporary" referred to modern rather than the past. I feel that the word contemporary in this sense means belonging to the same period as the Army, and wondered why the catalogue would use contemporary in the sense of "same period" when talking about the historian Sima Qian, would use "modern" when talking about the modern replicas, yet slip into contemporary for modern in this one case. Do you know much about the model I'm talking about? I was hoping the Wiki article would have some info, but it doesn't, and my own feeble researches have turned up nothing as yet. SilkTork *YES! 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The model was very striking, but my wife and I disagree as to when it was made. It is catalogue no 115, and the text with the photograph of it talks about division of labour, etc but doesn't comment on the model itself, although a few pages later workshops are mentioned. The catalogue/book is written by different authors which probably explains the differnce in terminology. I feel pretty sure that if that was an artefact or a reconstruction from a drawing it would have been mentioned.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
My companions are also of the view that if 115 was contemporary with Qin then some indications would have been made in the text at some point. SilkTork *YES! 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If that had been an excavated artefact it would have been as marvelous as any other part of the army and would be the subject of academic monographs. It would have been probably a unique example of mass production -- and if course it would almost certainly not have survived intact. On page 167 of the catalogue I've just found the phrase "each workshop", if that helps.Doug Weller (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5 pits.

I just got back from china a few weeks ago, and there are actually 5 pits total, not 4 as detailed in this article. I don't have good enough writing skills to edit this, but there were definetly 5. (only 3 are dug up) also it claims that pit 4 is uncompleted, this is an outright lie. they were ALL completed. there are actually only 5 publicly released pits, and there are numerous other pits that haven't been released to the public from the government. Nafango2 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean 5 pits total? What was in your 5th pit? The exhibition says there are almost 600 pits. That's no secret. A lot more than 5 have been excavated. And how do you know that Pit 4 was completed?Doug Weller (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
let me rephrase that, it was pretty disorganized. This article claims that there are 4 pits total in the facility, three of which have been/are being excavated, and it claims pit number 4 was left unfinished by the workers in the qin dynasty. This is wrong, there are 5 pits total in the facility, three of which are being/were excavated, and the remaining two have not been dug up for a number of different reasons. i see that a few websites on the internet claim to agree with wikipedia, however I have literature purchased from the terracotta army museum IN xi'an, china, that say otherwise. Nafango2 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The army outside China

Let's discuss this before we remove it, please. Thanks--Doug Weller (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The timing is bad for me; I can't get into long discussions 'cause I'm working on a dissertation. But I think the section should go go go. Delete the section without prejudice. It's a list, see WP:MOSLIST. It's unencyclopedic [See WP:NOT]. It smells an awful lot like promotion for various galleries, showings etc. Finally, the info in this section is not notable [NB that "notable" is a slippery concept; but I don't give a flip if you can find newspaper clippings that say these showings exist.The showings are irrelevant to the topic, again see WP:NOT). Ling.Nut (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)