Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 9

message: I think a present day China section is needed.  China has undergone a lot of changes in the last 30 years and most Americans and many Westerners seem to be stuck in Chairman Mao days when it comes to their outlook of China.  I don't deny that the Chinese government still has many problems including high levels of corruption (especially at local levels), restriction of information and free speech, poor safety and environment controls, etc. but the China of today is still not the same repressive state that most Americans think it is.  
The "free world" should, instead of showing a condescending attitute towards China's repressive history, recognise the changes being made and encourage more of the same but first we have to recognise that China is in fact opening up and this needs to be pointed out in texts like this.
You haven't mentioned how they persecute and kill hundreds if not thousands of Christians in a year, and how they manage to hide this from billions of people on this planet. 17:30 February 6 2006 (UTC)
216.237.220.184 12:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A balanced view of current day China

message: A second vandal has damaged this article, but I received the following message when I tried to retrieve the last good version from the History buffer:
The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "China,oldid=7646760"
Working around this error by manually copying and pasting from the History display isn't working, because my browser doesn't allow text selection in just one column of the difference display, so I would have to copy a line at a time. (Several sections are damaged.)
Please, will someone with more expertise help to fix this? Thanks. --DV 15:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had this problem before... I think waiting a few minutes usually solves the problem. -- ran (talk) 16:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I think the proper translation for "Zhongguo" is "central empire(/country)" which is a non-specific geographic concept and also had also ever been used by other civilizations like Inca empire.(I mean any civilization that considered themselves as the center of the world could also call themselves central empire in its language. more specific for ancient chinese,"Zhongguo" generally means "the center of the chinese culture". Since ancient chinese thought their civilization was the best, that means they also considered themselves as the center of the world) Besides, It is obvious that there is nothing in common between "China" and "Zhongguo" either in meaning or in pronunciation, and "Zhongguo" is not likely the original translation for "China". Does anyone know why "Zhongguo" is picked up as Chinese official name for "China" subsequently in 20th century?
===> Interesting. How did "Zhong guo" become "China?" Anybody who knows feel free to answer. Going back to your previous talks. -User Ran- Lol from me... too many POVs.. sounds like a conversation you experience in some philosphy or culture club or something...and wutsup with this vandalism stuff??? --SirCollin
I believe the ambiguity of “zhong guo” is the key. We know that “china” is a equivocal word as well. All the probable origins of the english word "China"＆prefix "Sino-" have been mentioned in the article. But whatever the origin came from（Chin dynasty,tea (cha) or silk）, it is clear that those probable origins have nothing to do with those non-China proper area like Manchuria,outer and inner Mongolia and so forth. So how come those non-China proper area was inclusively in "China"?This is probably because in ancient times no one in europe(Roman empire) would care about what had happened in far east in detail,and therefore they tended to call everything close to China(seemingly or geographically or something else… ) "chinese"(due to "China" being the earliest impression from far east)although it was virtually not. This is a typical mistake that one swallow makes a summer. In 20th century The *real chinese*(in contrast with manchu despite not the same with ancient chinese 2000 years ago) government noticed that and decided to took full advantage of it. Thus it had to pick up another ambiguous word “zhong guo”(the name which was occasionally used by Qing empire) along with "China" to confuse foreigners, and understandably that’s why even today chinese government still tries to push the definition of "China" to the limit to justify its territorial claim. And this also explain why many modern chinese historians are so *unique* that they claim mongolia part of China despite China merely as part of mongol empire in Middle Ages while all the other countries in central asia and east europe that used to be part of mongol empire considered its rule as mongol "invansion". Their claim is something like Hungary claiming Austria part of it during Habsburg dynasty in 18th century although Hungary was merely part of Austria empire at that time. surely It is a ridiculous claim.In fact, during Ming dynasty(next to mongol rule)the official documents did treat mongols as foreign invaders. But many  modern chinese historians deliberately cover up the facts, and that's why I don't buy the excuse "orthodoxy".(don't be fooled.there didn't exsist so called Chinese political orthodoxy at that time, which is another propaganda out of political motivation and territorial concern.) Moreover this is the same case with Manchu empire as well. Manchus are pseudo-chinese,and they are actually Jurchens. They originally believed in Shamanism, and speak Tungusic language which belongs to altaic languages ,a totally different language group from chinese.Instead of adopting real chinese culture like Xianbei or Xiongnu, they preserved their own traditions like mongols, and even forced chinese to change their tradition like hairstyle.This is a typical foreign military invasion, not infiltrating invasion like Xianbei or Xiongnu(so anyway mongol and manchu empire despite that they had conquered entire china proper could not be counted as real china because they were not the central empire of chinese culture.Let alone Xianbei or Xiongnu had immigrated into china proper and gained their citizenship before they revolted.why? because it was originally designed to "civilize" these nomads and make them less militant according to historical books!) Ironically, as one of the victims of manchu invasion,later the chinese under communists rule became the invading and injuring party after the collapse of manchu empire and a series of international and civil wars. Perhaps some mainland chinese have been "mongolized" or "manchurized " after mongol and manchu rule(but we still need to view history under the background of that time,or a belated viewpoint would simplly makes no sense) and constantly under brainwash from modern government,but that doesn’t mean they can distort the historical facts. In a word, when refering to "China" or "chinese", people need to keep it in mind that “one swallow does not make a summer.”
====> is this vandalism: "As a result, principal rivers flow from west to east, including the Yangtze (Mississippi), the Huang He (central-east), and the Amur (northeast)," first paragraph under section heading Geography and climate
--Lee.shoe 18:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in progress - DATABASE ERROR PREVENTING FIX! 

message: I removed the following, recently added, which may be useful in a more specific article on recent PRC history:
Political reforms initiated by Deng Xaioping in the 1970's opened up China's economy to foreign investment and began China's transition from a command to a capitalist economy. Many areas of Chinese production, however, are still state controlled and by in large running inneficiently. The political transition towards capitalism continues though as does high rates of Chinese economic growth.
Economic prosperity is widley thought to have lessened opposition to one party rule in China. Political freedom and freedom of speech continue to be staunchly dissalowed by the CPC (excluding the special administrative regions of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao)
Although a transition towards capitalism has evidently improved living conditions and economic prosperity in China, a transition towards Capitalism from Communism erodes the original justification for the CPC to take power, that was, to implement Chinese Communism.
Mark1 08:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition and revert 

message: A question has arisen at Talk:Common Era#Use of BCE/CE in China. We need someone competent in the Chinese language to comment on the use of an era whenever Western years are used on either mainland China or on Taiwan. Is an era usually implied as in 2005 年, where nian only means year? If an era is explicitly stated, what Chinese characters are used, and what is their literal translation? Should they be translated as "Common Era", or would "Western Era" or some other phrase be a proper translation? — Joe Kress 03:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
well,I think era=時代 which literally means a long period of time. Besides, the proper translation of "Western Era" is the Christian era. As for "2005年",I don't think it can be counted as "an era" because one year is too short. I would rather call it "the 2005th year of Christian era" in chinese.
:It just means era or period.Amerinese 04:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Era 

message: :As such, the term "China" is subject to heavy dispute.
In many places, "China" means "People's Republic of China" (mainland) and "Taiwan" means the island, and there is no dispute or confusion. So the above statement needs clarification as to who disputes the term, and what the dispute is. As it currently stands it's a bit of a non-sequitor. --Yath 05:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute? 

message: The beginning of the article currently reads, "This article is on the notion of China unconnected to any political state."  The word 'notion' makes no sense here.  Can we agree to some other wording that is acceptable?  The agreed upon change should also be added to the disambig page.  Monkeyman 19:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notion? 

message: Please verify the following
:"Since localization of the ROC government, today, most citizens of the Republic of China would not consider their recent history a part of the history of China."
Is there a poll? How do you the opinion of "most citizens of the Republic of China"?
:"Legend says that Chinese medicine was begun by a farmer who tried many different types of substances and wrote down their different effects.  As a result of eating so many medicines, he died."
Legend says TCM came from the Yellow Emperor. See History of traditional Chinese medicine. --Jiang 08:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you inserted "a farmer", not Shennong. there's a difference--Jiang 22:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even ever been to Shennong?  He was a farmer during the legend and then becomes a deity.--160.39.195.88 17:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rm unsourced content 

message: *In several non-English Wiki's, several delimit Republic of China from 1912-1949 and then have one article for Taiwan. That's strong evidence that many people think that Republic of China, even if you call the old period and the new period on Taiwan the same thing, has some kind of separation. It changed a lot when it went to Taiwan. Thus I added some dates for what people will probably be looking for.  We could say from 1912-1949 and 1949-Present on Taiwan to clarify.
*:The Republic of China still exists. History of the Republic of China describes the history of the ROC from 1949 onwards. Putting 1912-1949 is misleading. -- ran (talk) 02:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
*:What other wikis do is basically irrelevant here. We are bound first by facts and then by our own conventions. --MarkSweep 21:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Reasons for My Edits 

message: China is normally considered a cultural and geographic entity 
I can image a newcomer arriving at this page, reading the above, and going, huh? Of all the ways that we can introduce the idea of "China", this is perhaps not the clearest or most NPOV.
China is more than a cultural and geographic entity. It is POV to say that "China is a single country", but it is also POV to leave that line out completely. The current intro basically endorses the view that there are "two Chinas, a PRC and an ROC", which is not NPOV.
There are a few ways out of this:
#Don't describe.
#:China is located in continental East Asia.
#Since this article is about the Chinese civilization, we might as well do this:
#:The Chinese civilization is a cultural entity originating in continental East Asia.
#Or something more complicated:
#:China is the usual short form for the People's Republic of China, a state in continental East Asia. Due to the political situation in the region, however, this strict correspondence is controversial.
#:More generally, China refers to the Chinese civilization, a cultural entity originating in East Asia.
-- ran (talk) 19:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I have no opinion against your current intro. -- G.S.K.Lee 12:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  China is normally considered a cultural and geographic entity 

message: I have issue with translation of Zhongguo as Central State.  It's so obviously wrong--zhongguo is a term that's been in existence for thousands of years while "state" as we mean it today means something that's existed for a few hundred.  It only means state if you mean PRC.--Mynameissam 16:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: State

message: I found that this article presents far too much emphasis on the history of the chinese civilization, whether political or cultural. Even the opening paragraphs are a short history of China. What needs to happen is those need to be shortened and replaced with a summary and a link to the main article.
There also needs to be separate sections on the language and other aspects of chinese culture, such as cuisine or architecture, and the chinese culture needs to be extended or add something instead of a link. I think that general coherency takes some priority. --Offkilter 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much emphasis on history

message: these are probably link spam or some POV political thing if someone wants to investigate their appropriateness... ~ SchmuckyTheCat 18:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edit

message: In the WikiProject Wikipedia:Nuttall_Encyclopedia_topics, we hit on the "Yung-Ling" mountains, 
:Yung-Ling is a mountain range running north and south, which forms the eastern buttress of the tableland of Central Asia.
Does anybody know, what the current name of these mountains is? The source is from 1907, and Google doesn't help much. Is it Da Hinggan Ling? Thanks--J heisenberg 10:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who knows this mountain range?

message: The map :Image:Map of China (physical).png and the CIA map of China are not NPOV. Theses two maps only show the indian claims border which is China actrual control (Aksai Chin), but not show the South Tibet(indian name is "Arunachal Pradesh") that China claimed and actrual control by India. We can see the map :Image:China administrative.png the area painted in blue. so the CIA map of china and the physical map of China are not NPOV. It must be deleted or must be drawed again.--icywind 10:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two maps are not NPOV 

message: The history section is woefully inadequate.  Would anyone mind if I lengthed it?  Or would an expanded history section go better elsewehre?  Lampros 19:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section is meant to be a brief summary according to wikipedia:summary style. More detail should go into the article History of China. even more detail belongs in the individual articles of the history of China series. --Jiang 20:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yucky History Section 

message: I know that persecution against Christians in China may not be as common as it is in the Middle East or Africa, but persecution against Christians in China is a very real problem. Many Christians have been arrested and fined for proselytizing, and though I understand that proselytizing is illegal in China regardless of religion, there are allegations of unfair treatment of Christians as opposed to the treatment of other religious groups. Many Christians have claimed to have been falsely accused by authorities, and punished more severely than a non-Christian such as a Buddhist might be punished. However more serious are accusations that authorities in China often overlook the harassment of Christians, and often fail to investigate crimes against them in the same manner that they would investigate crimes against other individuals. Lastly, have Christians not been actively discriminated against by political leaders? All of this seems to be minimized or, in some cases even swept under the rug. --Lucavix 16:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion should be put into the talk page of PRC so that it could receive proper attention. This article is about the "concept China", not the nation. -- G.S.K.Lee 13:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution Against Christians 

message: There is no economy text? or is it somewhere else? -- anon
:See People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Republic of China. -- ran (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No economy? 

message: Can anyone provide authoriative information on China's civilian losses in WW2 1937-45?--Berndd11222 23:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's losses in WW2 

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publicatiobn 

message: However the primary cause of the decline of the Chinese empire was not European and American interference, as the ethnocentric Western historians would lead many to believe.
That statement isn't even close to NPOV, first it calls all western historians ethnocentric, and second, it seems to use that attack to try to shade the truth in a very sinocentric way.  While it's true that civil wars did considerably weaken China, by that point most of Asia had not experienced the industrial revolution, and European dominance was not just limited to China.  I think this needs to be changed.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.215.251.179 (talk • contribs) .
:OK, go ahead and propose an edit.  But please do sign your comments.  --Nlu 14:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See People's Republic of China, Republic of China. -- ran (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV 

message: Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment