Talk:Culture of the People's Republic of China

message: Per request on my talk page I've mv'd this thing back to what I hope was its original name. IN seems to have doe some very curious multiple mvs William M. Connolley 08:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page mvs. 

message: "Communist China" is a POV, because many communists, in particular left communists do not regard the PRC as communist at all, not even since 1958, or 1949. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 12:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Leninists aren't communists according to Marxists. — Instantnood 21:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist China 

message: Reference: 
According to WP:CONTEXT, there is no mention to "keep it out of the iterated statement". Rather, we see a line that says "the opening of an article is typically more densely linked than the rest, because many items will appear there for the first time."
It is thus clear, that the tendency is still to link the first occurance of the word, as has been done in many articles across wikipedia.--Huaiwei 14:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I was just reprimanded for linking in the reiterated title once. I think this came from "As a general rule, do not put links in the title; however, this may be acceptable with complex titles or verbose leads, such as those concerning multiple concepts." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one ever told me not to link the title before... I think that requirement arises due to some people's persistance in adding a link to the title which is exactly the same as the title itself, ie, adding a link to Title in the Title page, or linking Chinese language romanisation in Singapore as Chinese language romanisation in Singapore. If you refer to the later article, I instead linked romanisation, Chinese language, and Singapore, thus fulfilling the later condition of "complex titles or verbose leads" I suppose? This article dosent have a very long title, but it does have two main concepts/entities embedded in the title?--Huaiwei 17:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilinking

message: What has my nationality got to do with it? Could you please reply to my second reply: 
:What do you mean by PRC literature? No one said it was written after 1949. Can you imagine talking about the culture or literature in today's United Kingdom without mentioning Shakespeare or Beowulf? It doesn't mean Shakespeare's work or Beowulf was written during the period of the UK's existence. It doesn't mean anyone in today's Britain is "claiming the credit" of writing any of those works. It is included because (1) it is part of today's China's heritage (2) has influenced literature written in the PRC history (3) is read widely and adapted in other forms of media as an expression of its culture and history. Egyption literature is not part of China's heritage nor has it greatly influenced Chinese literature that has been produced in the PRC. If it is good enough for the likes of Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Library of Congress Country Study, then it's good enough for Wikipedia. I think the experts there know more than yourself on historical approaches.
Hadoooookin (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Library of Congress Country Study is mostly a western data mine.  Wikipedia is as close as you'll get to eastern topics in English. I asked for your nationality because it would be rare for a Chinese person to claim traditional Chinese culture with post 1949 PRC culture.  They may admit to some ties, but that is where it stops.  Benjwong (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're honestly saying that no Traditional Chinese culture has had an effect on post 1949 PRC culture? That's completely wrong. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The effect is not what you think.  Alot of people are a fan of feng shui, but is at the level that they are a fan of a football team.  Literally the disconnect is that huge.  Benjwong (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about being a fan of something, I'm talking about its effect. Today it is far more accepting of the classics. Yes, in the earlier periods they were thrown out, but today it is far more accepting. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Confucious is more accepted in the west than the PRC.  If it's not far fetched, I think Confucious is more accepted in the UK than the PRC. In fact it is sooooo disconnected. The government is practically reteaching kids what Confucious is. Here is a recent effort. Benjwong (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's subjective. And you know it. Culture is not just what the kids are taught. But everything from society, social interaction, mindset, philosophy, family relationships, financial and commerical behavior, own way of thinking. These are all inherited from Chinese history and culture before 1949. In other words, almost all people in China today exhibit some form of Confucian behavior. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When was the last time UK had to make a cartoon about shakespeare for re-education purpose. Never. Benjwong (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply. But loads of people can read Confucius texts. Whether it's in Ancient Chinese or simplified Chinese. Just because of what the government is doing, you shouldn't ignore what loads of public citizens are doing. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many people in todays' Britain can read Beowulf in Old English. Doesn't mean it's not part of its culture. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry they are good people, but IMHO far away from any Confucian behavior as people would like to imagine. Benjwong (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you do say it has had a great effect on today's China. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that.  I don't know where you got this from.  If you want a group overdosed on Confucian ethics you are practically talking about Falun gong which are banned. Benjwong (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's millions of falun gong practitioners in China today. How huge an effect is that as an example. I think you keep on mixing up PRC government and PRC country as a whole. Just because of what the government did, doesn't mean it holds huge sway with the people. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not mentioning some books had a few positive effects.  You are throwing in an entire description about traditional text as if the people were somehow tied to it.  They are not.  And they haven't been for a long time.  Benjwong (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about positive or negative effects, I'm talking about the cultural effect of the whole country. Not what the government did during certain periods of history. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Any ancient cultural texts - like those from the hundreds schools of thinking - can be accessed by anyone today in China.Hadoooookin (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is reading, writing, adapting, using any of the classics prohibited today by law? Where's the evidence for this. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those campaigns should really do the talking. Benjwong (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is it prohibited today or for the past 20 years? Hadoooookin (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are looking for some law-prohibited reason yes/no direct answer.  Where I agree with you is that the campaigns are of the past. But to mention it like it is part of today's culture is not doing justice.  Especially to other territories like Taiwan who have done a better job of maintaining traditional culture. In fact this page should have no trace of anything traditional.  Benjwong (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you said they were prohibited today, a few lines above? So you can add in the article that they weren't doing justice in some parts of its history, as well. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really wasn't my intention to dive deep into this article.  Not today anyways. I just couldn't resist making some quick edits because there were slight inaccuracies.  Benjwong (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said there are laws prohibiting reading of ancient texts. Where's the evidence for that? Hadoooookin (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My nationality

message: I really think you should complain to Britannica or LOC because they mentioned the old literature in their country profile of China, if you really feel that strongly. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, I might look into Britannica.  If they mean China, is okay.  If they mean PRC, is probably not okay. Benjwong (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that they were written by professors of Chinese studies. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which professor?  Are they from the mainland?  If so are they paid for by the government? Benjwong (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want me to give you the names will take me some time. But they are all American, European, or HK professors from what I remember. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want me to chase down some professors interesting. Benjwong (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could just go to Britannica's editorial board. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is not just limited to Confucius.  Is a large number of traditional things that have since been modified. Everything from medicine to mythical concepts. I think you were going down the path of.... let's mention all the great old things that everyone loves.  When in reality it should we should be going down the other path. Let's mention all the old things that got trashed and are not really part of Chinese culture today. Then mention the skyscrapers, hooters, new internet cafes, and whatever the new culture brings. Benjwong (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me give you an example. How can you talk about Jin mao tower or Taipei 101 without mentioning traditional Chinese culture. You can't. They were both created only a few years ago but they have been affected by traditional Chinese culture. And therefore should be mentioned. Hadoooookin (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taipei 101 is not even in the PRC so it should not be mentioned.  Jin mao tower whether it follows real traditional Chinese culture or not, is equally as debatable. But these discussions belong in their own page.  Not here. Benjwong (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: E.g. With any new building/architecture which reflects traditional culture you should be able to talk about its cultural influence. If that influence came before the present day country was founded -- it does not mean you have to disregard that cultural influence. Hadoooookin (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just giving you an example that today's culture has been affected by the past as well as before 1949 whether it has been created after 1949. You can't just talk about today as if the past never happened. Hadoooookin (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is the exact problem. You insist on helping, and I know under good faith, that these people have some kind of continuous culture.  When in fact, they have no idea what happened. Is not continuous one bit.  So to say the past never happened... in theory is correct. Benjwong (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is they? Not everyone has no idea. And secondly people don't have to have an idea to be influenced by it. If I was Spanish and I didn't read any great Spanish literature, it doesn't mean that that culture hasn't affected me in a national sense. How can you say the past never happened? You still insist on looking at it from the Chinese government viewpoint which is too narrow. Hadoooookin (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Make a complaint

message: Don't you think its a tragic-irony that text in the Chinese literature article uses text from the PRC country study by the Library of Congress, but you won't allow it to be used in the actual PRC article in Wikipedia. Hadoooookin (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a whole separate article.  If there were 2 pages, Traditional Chinese literature and PRC literature then I'd probably be debating which one belongs in which.  But is just 1 page.  Benjwong (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that any different? No one says the PRC is claiming credit for it.  Hadoooookin (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at the size of the paragraph you were putting in.  Now compare that to the size of the small paragraph in Culture of China#literature.  I mean, come on.  This page in general should not be focusing on this stuff.  It should be focusing on the more exclusive communism influence or modern influence.  Benjwong (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying I should shrink it. Would that be a compromise. Hadoooookin (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably spent a ton of time editing this article, so I most definitely feel guilty asking a large portion of it to be deleted.  But to be consistent with the history.  I think all traces of traditionalism should be wiped off this page. And completely shift gear to everything having to do with communism, followed by modernism. And that includes the very rural and very urban lifestyle. Preferably find someone who lives in the PRC to write it.  Benjwong (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I started on this article because it is very unlikely that some Chinese citizen/s or anyone for that matter will ever get to do enough justice to it. It's been lying there like a dead duck for ages. Tomorrow I'll try to slim it down. Look at the previous talk, people seemed more interested in peripheral issues like naming or small phrases than trying to give it a decent shot. Hadoooookin (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to see how drastically different Culture of China is compared to PRC culture.  Just look at Four Great Classical Novels versus the Communist Little Red Book.  Maybe a pic of the Little Red Book belongs here too.  Anyhow, it can be that much of a contrast.  You are very right in the page lying around like dead duck.  I definitely agree on that one.  Benjwong (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony

message: If I may quote Benjwong's comment: "I think all traces of traditionalism should be wiped off this page. And completely shift gear to everything having to do with communism, followed by modernism.". I glanced through this very lengthy discussion, and I shudder to think that a topic as profound as the culture of the People's Republic of China is being debated by just two individuals in this manner. I am particularly intrigued by this view taken by Benjwong, who seems to staunchly believe that something as fluid as culture can be easily compartmentalised as "traditional", "communist" and "modern". Which other reference in the world today classifies Chinese cultural history in this manner? What references are there to support the view that each sub-culture is completely independent from the other? Is wikipedia headed towards tyranny with one individual demanding a modern-day "cultural revolution" of sorts and wipe all "traditionalism" off an article like this?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By saying Traditionalism = communism, I honestly think you shouldn't even be editing this article.  Let me remind you a couple million people died trying to separate the two.  If you don't agree with that, just say it nicely.  Proclaiming cultural revolution 2.0 is a sick joke (even if you weren't targeting me explicitly).  How about have a little sensitivity for the victims who died.  Who in their right mind would start a topic with such a heading to target another wikipedia user??  Do you not know the title of this article is "Culture of the People's Republic of China". No offense but you made 1 comment so far.  And it appears you are already lacking maturity or lacking common sense altogether for this topic.  Benjwong (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the jokes on you then, for just where is the supposed statement from myself that Traditionalism = communism? From the above, are you suggesting that you edit articles based on how many people are dead? Many of the world's diseases have killed millions more of mankind, so why aren't you extending your crusade over to the world of diseased then and wax lyrical over their sins and evilness? Wikipedia is not a moral education textbook. It is an encyclopaedia, and if thousand-year-old traditions has influenced contemporary cultures in the PRC, then that information has every justification to appear, regardless of how many lost their lives. To be brutally honest, I do not owe anything to them as far as writing a balanced, well-referenced wikipedia article is concerned.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking your quote.  Your so-called "easily compartmentalised of traditional, communist and modern" is anything but easy.  In fact lumping all 3 together is a horrible presentation of reality.  Having seen the PRC with my own eyes, I know how disconnected traditionalism on the mainland has been for a long time.  If you claim to be such an expert and strive for encyclopedic accuracy, defending Confucianism and classical texts as post-1949 culture is what I would expect a tourist would say.  Sure they have ancient wonders, and people are restoring old arts.  But let's be real honest about what makes up post-1949 culture.  Accuracy should be about cell phone culture, censorship, the rural and urban extreme, people with mao photos at home. Dare I say 北妹 culture and Fenqing culture.  I explicitly said it is best to find a person currently living in the PRC today to talk about the culture.  I think you missed that part. Benjwong (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural Revolution 2.0

message: The introduction made of bullet points looks like its been written by an 8 year old. Is it possible for it look more professional and objective, at least in prose. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits are so far off from the actual historical path is scary. Thanks for your effort. But please, I highly recommend you stay off this topic for the time being. Benjwong (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What has historical path got to do with poor presentation and formatting. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not inserting grammar changes. Sorry. Benjwong (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I grammatically change bullet points. I said prose. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Telling anyone to "stay off" any article is considered a sign of WP:OWN. I would advise you not to do it again.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And following people around with personal comments, vendetta and opinions is called wikistalking. I advise you not do it either. Benjwong (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a past contributor to this article, hence explaining its existence in my watchlist. Does anything in Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking rule against those who read their own watchlists? I doubt so, so would you not think your response is a tad immature?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are not a stalker.  But you are still crazy to start a topic with such a heading like "cultural revolution 2.0". And even more nuts to accuse people of being a tyrant.  This poor handling of other people's suggestions is not healthy and not suitable for wikipedia.  Benjwong (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Childlike edits

message: The reason why there are no notes or references is because the  article is almost entirely cut and paste from LOC China Country Study, with Wiki links added in many places. ch (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is cut/paste from Library of Congress Country Study

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Culture of the People's Republic of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903061224/http://yaho.blog.jp/34919/7229064.html to http://yaho.blog.jp/34919/7229064.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140828085206/http://jp.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230412660457950654364769228 to http://jp.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230412660457950654364769228
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903150636/http://news.finance.yahoo.co.jp/detail/20140717-00936002-fisf-bus_all to http://news.finance.yahoo.co.jp/detail/20140717-00936002-fisf-bus_all
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903112120/http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/4899739/ to http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/4899739/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115133331/http://www.chinaculture.org/ to http://www1.chinaculture.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109133103/http://english.ccnt.com.cn/ to http://english.ccnt.com.cn/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified