Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 15

message: This article is missing key conventions common to other wiki articles about nations.
71.208.229.216 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Economic Data (like GDP). And where is the customary country profile box to the right? 

message: This section takes up almost half the article over an utterly trivial aspect of China.  I think the entire section should simply be moved to Names of China.  Does anyone object?  --Ideogram 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say go ahead. Ashibaka tock 21:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we keep a small section there (with a link to the main article Names of China, of course)? Basically saying that the Chinese name is Zhongguo, what Zhongguo means, and explaining the western name "China". I think it would be worth keeping this much information here and giving the more detailed info on the new page. Heimstern Läufer 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What new page? you mean the page that I was saying a long time ago the Middle Kingdom arguement needed to be moved to? --洋金 2006 November 16, 09:56 zulu
Since no one has objected I will go ahead and make the change.  (I'm sure after I do it someone will object.)  --Ideogram 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So far I like it, Ideogram. Good work! I think what we left behind in this article covers what needs to be covered pretty well, and the new Names of China article is very thorough. Heimstern Läufer 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  --Ideogram 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: /me bows --Ideogram 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we even have a Names of China section? 

message: Please join the discussion at Portal talk:China.  --Ideogram 04:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:China 

message: I thought it was generally advised to linkify only the first usage of a term, and never in headings.  --Ideogram 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know.. but this is such a natural place to address the dichotomy.  I mean a lot of content has been covered before this section, this a long article, so it's bothersome to go all the way up for the ROC or PRC article links, especially when this section is specifically talking about PRC and ROC as separate entities for the first time (whereas the entire non-lead article before only talked about China). You can change it if you want, but I feel that it's a convenient and natural place for the linkage. --Naus 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  --Ideogram 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkifying 

message: You really need to use edit summaries.  Do you know what I am talking about?  --Ideogram 10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: The purpose of this article should be a NPOV uniting country article for the PRC and the ROC (paying attention to the common history leading to their separation), not some vague notion of "Chinese civilization."  If one wishes to make a Chinese civilization article, he/she is more than welcome to under the title "Chinese civilization" (or "Sinic civilization").  China is foremost a contemporary country with two modern interpretations today and this is what this article should be about. --Naus 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like Chinese Civilization might already be thoroughly explained in History of China, but some article merging and forking could be done to create a separate article if necessary. Cowman109Talk 04:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would guess a Chinese civilization article would focus more on the various philosophical, religious and cultural movements in Chinese history (which the China article barely addresses at all). The current History of China article is mostly just dry history about this and that dynasty. An article on Chinese civilization will require some very knowledgeable and objective editors.  It could easily turn into Han chauvinism. --Naus 04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of this article 

message: I do not think that putting the words de-facto and de-jure are pro-PRC at all! The United Nations, US, and most countries in the world agree with the 'One China' principle - even those who only recognize the ROC agree that there is only one China.
Therefore, those who recognize the PRC recognize that the whole of China is under the PRC. Those who recognize the ROC think that the whole of China is under the ROC. Therefore, by putting 'two modern states' who not be pro-PRC, in fact it would be rather factual and neutral. It cannot offend both pro-PRC people and pro-ROC people!
I think that only by using de-facto and de-jure terms can one truly understand the current government in China Ghfj007 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for your information, Wikipedia is not a government or the United Nation, granting recognition to real and imagined countries. It is an encyclopedia.--Niohe 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that many countries that don't officially recognize the ROC do in fact maintain unofficial diplomatic relations with it. Most can't recognize the ROC officially because the PRC will not hold relations with any country that doesn't adhere to the One-China policy. Because of this, the fact that few nations recognize the ROC has to taken with a bit of a grain of salt. Anyway, when it comes to de-facto and (especially) de-jure imply, at least to my ear, that Taiwan should rightfully be controlled by the PRC and that the ROC is not legit. This is definitely POV, as it excludes the perspective of the Pan-Green coalition and of Taiwan independence supporters worldwide, as well as those who think the ROC is the rightful government of Taiwan and the mainland. Heimstern Läufer 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, countries that don't recognize the ROC hold no diplomatic relationships at all with Taiwan, whether official or unofficial - they only hold 'informal relationships' with Taiwan.  With regards to the de-jure and de-facto terms, I do not agree with with you saying that what I added was biased and pro-PRC.  This is because the article can be changed to something which says that the PRC de-facto controls the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao and also makes de-jure claims on Taiwan, while the ROC de-facto controls Taiwan and makes de-jure claims on China, Hong Kong and Macao.  I know that Wikipedia does not grant recognition to real and imagined countries - I was just saying that the UN and US recognize one China as the PRC only as an example to support my statement.  If you want, I can also make another example that the Holy See only recognizes one China under the ROC. In the light of there only being 'one China', I think it would be better to replace 'two modern states' when talking about the PRC and ROC with 'two de-facto sovereignties'Ghfj007 14:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a place for 'recognition' of certain things.  The point is that, if you go up to the foreign affairs department with any country that has diplomatic relationships with either the PRC or ROC, then that they would say that there is only one China - whether they like it or not.  Therefore, I do not see why there is so much fuss on the issue of de-facto and de-jure terms, as long as both the PRC's and ROC's perspectives are mentioned, because both sides both agree that there is only one China.  As a result, the current use of 'two modern states' in the article is not factual at all.  Ghfj007 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it depends on how you think about it. PRC is often known as "China," so there couldn't be two PRCs.--Jerrypp772000 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is definitely a place where things like this SHOULD be recognized. How could you not? There is a law about this! (See Taiwan Relations Act). You place a lot of emphasis on the "One China" policy, taking it for face value. You fail to realize that many countries, including the U.S. walk a fine line between fully supporting the "One China" policy and fully supporting Taiwan's independence. I am not aware of any congressional legislation that supports the "One China" policy - however, I am aware of a military resolution in U.S. Congress that states that if Taiwan is attacked, the U.S. will come to its aid. To say that the U.S. supports a "One China" policy is completely misrepresentative of reality. Contributer314 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There is only one China

message: China is a major human rights violator. It is a communist dicatatorship. You cannot even find the word "dictatorship" in this article. What is this? Is NPOV identical with leaving out the most basic FACTS?
:Have a look at People's Republic of China. This article isn't primarily about the politics of the PRC (nor of the ROC, for that matter), so you won't find that information here. Heimstern Läufer 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When parties get banned as with China Democratic Party for simply offering an opposition its quite as close to dictatorship as it can be. It all depends on how you define Dictatorship. As to the public definition of Communism, it usually doesn't accept oppositions either, hence it should be called that. Calling it the "peoples" or "democratic" is proof of how insolent the state is. I can only send my condolences to the poor souls not being able to place their votes and gain human rights. Sorry. Kenzeitak 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, information like that, which relates to the politics of the PRC, is primarily at People's Republic of China (also at Tibet and other related articles). Heimstern Läufer 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On another matter, China is a communist nation only in name, and is in fact a one-party state and an indirect democracy and not a dictatorship. I agree, the political system may not be fair, but we have no right to judge a nation's decision on was system of government it should or shouldn't use.
--Nat.tang 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're a bit confused here. I didn't write the comment about China being a dictatorship, human rights violator etc.; that was another editor who didn't sign his/her comment. I replied to that editor saying the information in question, if here at all, would be in People's Republic of China, not here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry bout that...i would expect that a bot would have fixed that problem with the unsighed comments...anyways, the comments were also directed towards Kenzeitak... --Nat.tang 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: China, dictatorship and human rights

message: The article is full of blatant POV, unsourced nationalist comments like "..For centuries, China was the world's most advanced civilization.." need to be summarily removed.Stanu 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove it. I don't understand how editors sit in talk pages and complain about the article's problems. Just fix it if you know its wrong. You don't need permission or anything like that. As long as the wording is NPOV, not exxagerated, etc then its ok. Good friend100 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, if it is true then it is not POV, but it does need to be cited.  During the time period cited, China was the world's most advanced civilization... just as Rome, Greece, Egypt were all the most advanced of during their respective heydays.Balloonman 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Reviewer background: Lived in Taiwan for 2 years and majored in Chinese History and Asian Religions at college.  (Particular interest included the Taiping Rebellion and Christian Missionaries to China.)
* The intro should be expanded.  Guidelines are for 3-4 paragraphs and this is a subject deserving more.  And what is there isn't the highlights of China.
*China has the world's longest continuously used written language system.  Er, the written system has undergone several major revisions, I question the accuracy of this statement.
*The prose isn't overly compelling in the dynastic period.  It's a hard subject to write about, but as is, it isn't compelling...
*I would propose a different approach for the dynasties.  The section needs to broken down somehow... and some dynasties need expansion.  "Early history" which would cover the period prior to Tang, a middle period covering the Tang through Ming and a modern covering the Qing through modern.
* Is there a template/table for timelines?  Perhaps that wouldbe the best option for the dynasties?
*Discussion on why the Qing were xenophobic to Europeans should be included in the chapter starting with the 19th century.
*awoke to the significance needs context/explaination.  seems like a "weasel phrase."
*"noble efforts"  cite a source that says that or it is POV
*The section needs to broken into smaller more managable sections.
*The chapters need to be broken into cohesive chapters... right now there might be 2-3 main points in each chapter and they don't work together.  This article, IMHO, needs a lot of work.Balloonman 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Someone has vandalized this entire page. I've reverted it. 67.188.172.165 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I've put this article under semiprotection due to the recent blatant vandailsm. 67.188.172.165 01:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the semi-protection tag does not semi-protect the article. It requires an administrator to protect or semi-protect an article, and I have just done so. Cowman109Talk 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I didn't know that. 67.188.172.165 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disabled

message: Does China consider Mongolia as their own? The map seems to infer that. Good friend100 20:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the official map from the ROC constitution, which still includes Outer Mongolia. The PRC itself already recognized Mongolia as an independent state. Heilme 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolia 

message: With China growing economically by leaps and bounds, any trouble they may have could significantly influence economies in the rest of the world. I'd like to see a section on the China economy with an explanation on how they manage it. It would be nice to know what their philosophy is on this management, as well. Brian Pearson 01:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I discovered a separate article on the economy of China. It should at least be in the "See also" list of links. I will add it, myself. Brian Pearson 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: * Please see the People's Republic of China article for a summary of the Chinese economy. --128.135.96.222 17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese economy? 

message: China and the Industrial Revolution seems to have information that may be better presented in this article, if not already in this article.  Please consider merging China and the Industrial Revolution into this article.-- Jreferee 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge China and the Industrial Revolution

message: Can anyone help me with this question? Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese dragon 

message: That is what the Chinese government calls it. If we were to name it with something more accurate, what would we call it? 69.6.162.160 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current article is quite NPOV. Xiner (talk, email) 00:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re the name, "Peoples Republic of China" 

message: I thought I should explain what I just did. At 800x600, the top of the page looked really bad. I'm sure it's alright at higher, more common resolutions, but I thought this should satisfy everyone. Please let me know if it ain't so. Xiner (talk, email) 00:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The formatting

message: Under Science and Technology section, it says China fell behind Europe in the 17th century, while it should be during the Industrial Revolution that occured in the 18th century. Can someone make the correction?
Also, Zhongguo does not properly translate into "Middle Kingdom" or "Central Kingdom." In English, those two titles denote a geographical sense, while the Chinese meaning includes a sense of importance as in "Kingdom of Central Importance."--141.213.198.142 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual inaccuracies & Zhongguo translation

message: I've been noticing that on many pages, links within articles about Eastern Asian countries sometime list them similar to the following: "Japan, Taiwan, China, Korea, etc." While this is fine, the link of Taiwan directs it to the page of Taiwan, while the link of China directs it to here. Since this article is about the whole Chinese civilization, shouldn't the link of China be directed to the article "mainland China"? I've seen this happening on almost all pages that include both China and Taiwan (and sometimes Hong Kong too) in one list.   Aresmo 12:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This encyclopedia attempts to aim at academic standards rather than that of popular culture, and at any rate, we have links. The convention is that for non-Christian-related entries, we use BCE/CE. El_C 08:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I would prefer the usage of AD and BC, I would have to agree with El_C on this one. CE and BCE are accepted to be the norm and the standard by most Historians and by most university History departments, as well as many other fields of study. Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 13:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China and Taiwan. 

message: Celestial Empire redirects here, but there's no explanation in the first paragraph, which is confusing. The Names of China article does not discuss this term either. If there are a number of names that redirect to China, why not reference Names of China article in the first paragraph? Freder1ck 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celestial Empire 

message: *Hi, I have no idea what to do about this article, or where it should go, I thought you guys might. Its currently the longest page on Wikipedia, and short of WP:COTW or WP:AFD I would have no idea where to start. Is it even necessary or useful? Jdcooper 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Social structure of China]] 

message: Today one editor removed a few pictures saying only "too many pictures".  Another editor reverted soon thereafter with edit summary "rv, why too many?)".  I've mixed it up by choosing a middle ground, somewhere between the two.
I removed the two pictures
:::       
because it seemed to me to be possibly inflammatory.  For instance, which one should be above the other?  I very much like the fact that having them emphasizes the current situation.  But that also could be a problem.
I removed the picture (--->) mainly because of two things.  First, the legend saying "Free area of Republic of China" is going to upset some people a lot.  Second, because it 'seemed' to me to be emphasizing the territorial ambitions of PRC, which might seem to be a slur against them.  It should be discussed in the text to be sure, but the picture as is looks damning.
I put back the two pictures
::       180px|Remains of an ancient Chinese handheld crossbow, 2nd century BCE.
because I think the first really shows multiple languages in use in China, and the second because it shows an example from long ago.  The second isn't that great a picture, though. :(
Anyway, I thought I'd say 'why', to start a discussion if one is needed. Shenme 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned about long pictures in short sections; they tend to mess up the edit links.  But if you really want the pictures I can fix that, let me try that and see what you think.  Also don't put in fixed image sizes, the MediaWiki software can use individual user preferences or pick a size based on the screen resolution of an anonymous reader.  --Wang C-H 18:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More/less pictures 

message: ;April 30 2007
*
*:"The Denver Post asked five scholars in Colorado to review the Wikipedia entries on Islam, Bill Clinton, global warming, China and evolution. The results? Four out of five agreed their relevant Wikipedia entries are accurate, informative, comprehensive and a great resource for students or the merely curious."
*:"University of Colorado history professor William Wei was the most negative voice in the bunch, calling the basic entry on China "simplistic, and in some places, even incoherent." Wei said the Wikipedia entry mishandled the issue of Korean independence from China, for example, and the context of the Silk Road in China's international relations. " "
Lumos3 09:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denver post Review is critical of this article 

message: This article needs a lot of work.  It currently reads like a middle school world history textbook on China. --Naus 16:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I made some changes to the Religion and Language sections.  I got rid of the dry statistics found in PRC and ROC articles and made it more relevant toward the aspect of Chinese civilization.  Also made some factual corrections in the Dynastic Rule section. --Naus 00:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad shape 

message: Can someone add Chinese architecture to See also section?--24.62.238.122 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese architecture

message: Why does not this article have an infobox at the top? After all, it is a country article, and almost all other articles of this sort have one at the beginning, unlike China. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

message: China
:Culture of China
::Demographics
::Chinese philosophy
::science and technology
::Education
::Social stuff
:::marriages etc
:::nationalism etc
:Lifestyle of China (preparing to rename from Chinese society)
:::Fashion
:::Arts
::::Music
::::Movies etc
:::Literature
:::Games
:::Sports
::::Wow, nobody has an opinion about how the section should be done at all???  Amazing!! Benjwong 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing this format

message: There is a poll at this link and we are requesting other editors to join our discussion regarding the name. Good friend100 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  current poll 

message: Someone posted a link that they found the Imperial Seal of China recently.  Did this really happen?  Benjwong 03:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: They found the Seal?

message: Currently, it says "literally middle country". I would think that's not correct, we should rewrite it, how do you think? Check the following source:
:Regarding the accuracy of the translation, Professor Chen Jian writes: "I believe that 'Central Kingdom' is a more accurate translation for 'Zhong Guo' (China) than 'Middle Kingdom'. The term 'Middle Kingdom' does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it — China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term 'Central Kingom', however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation 'under the heaven' and that it thus occupies a 'central' position in the known universe." (Mao's China and the Cold War. UNC Press. )
Maeblie 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "A more accurate translation of Zhong Guo is "Middle Country," and to be still more precise, "Central Country," with "central" being the key word." The Chinese Have a Word for It." McGraw-Hill Professional  / 9780658010781
Maeblie 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Whoever it was that first began calling the country Zhong Guo was using the word "central" in the sense of "heart," "main," or the place where everything starts, and from where everything is controlled." - Boyé Lafayeete De Mente
Maeblie 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal meaning of Zhōngguó