Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 10

message: My profile is too new for me to edit this article to remove the reference to "DAN KIM" and "PIONNY" in the terminology section just above the part labelled "China".
15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for pointing that out. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undo Vandalism Please! 

message: If you're an East Asian buff and could write a short summary for the new article, it'd be a great help.--Culturesoftheworld 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New [[Cultures of the World]] article 

message: According to many news sources, China has recenty banned Wikipedia, which is used as a basic resource for many in China, due to the site's commitment to neutrality on issues such as Taiwan, etc.
I plan to support our chinese Wki communities by raising awareness to the issue and wearing my wiki t-shirt to school starting next week.  I encourage you to do the same, especially fellow American of Chinese descent.  Free knowledge is necessary to China's next stage of development,  as well as our best hope to ensure peace between the two countries.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060110.wxwikipedia10/BNStory/International/
I am not at all surprised of this move by the Chinese government. Though wikipedia has a policy of neutrality I am of the opinion that this site is being hijacked by far left liberals who revel at bashing conservative establishments such as one like China. I have read the article on Tienanmen Protest of 1989 and found it to be riddled with notions critical of the Chinese actions and either conveniently or deliberately leaving out the Chinese point of view. I will now go over to the Taiwan and Tibet articles and see what the ruse is all about. Talk about free speech, theglobeandmail.com conveniently closed that article for further comment and showing only three of which all are critical to the Chinese action. If this isn't hypocrisy what is? That site could learn a few things from the like of National Geographic where all sides are given fair opportunity to express themselves. Likewise wikipedia isn't free from blame either. Why does this article for example needs to be protected? There is no statement that it is done so because of excessive vandalism, so what is the excuse? I find that the last paragraph under Political History to be out of place and undue attention given to organizations that are working against the Chinese government. A comment has already been made in the preceding paragraph regarding the Tienanmen incident of 1989 and readers can look it up further in another article where this incident is covered in more detail. Excessive treatment on this issue here seems to render the whole effort on this major article look amateurish. Ultimately, the wikipedia community have to decide what it wants this site to be. A mouthpiece for the far left or a source of reference to rival Britannica and Encarta. (Free Citizen 05:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese ban on Wikipedia 

message: The listing of Republic of China in the disambiguation satisfies none of the criteria at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Specifically, "Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page." Here, we ask ourselves, when a reader enters "China" and pushes "Go", would they realistically be expecting to view the "Republic of China" as a result? What kind of delusional being would go to "China" looking for the "Republic of China" as if the "People's Republic of China" did not exist? There is no risk of confusion here, so there's no need to list it. Wikipedia:Naming conventions applies to the article titles and links within articles, not disambiguations which sometimes list deviations from common names. --Jiang 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's reasonable. Suppose someone is confused about the names of the political entities and doesn't know where to start? Woogums 08:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ummmmm... I just entered China expecting to find a link to the Republic of China. Bayerischermann 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: I edited the lead paragraph because it was too wishy-washy, only to be contradicted by the second paragraph. My apologies if this was arrived through broad consensus - i scanned the archives but could not find a convincing argument. 
The original version stated that "Modern China has been described as both a single civilization and multiple civilizations" but the second paragraph states "With one of the world's longest periods of mostly uninterrupted civilization" with "uninterrupted civilization" implying that there is only a single civilization. While the Chinese state enroached, enveloped, and assimilated "minority" and "barbarian" civilizations as it expanded and became influenced by these previously distinct peoples, I do not see the continuity of the Chinese civilization being denied. While it has surely evolved, the civilization has surely existed in continuous form.
As for the notion of "multiple states" and "multiple nations", no one not previously versed in Chinese history and culture will understand this unless we present it in specificity. The information is just too general and ambiguous to be any help. --Jiang 04:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph 

message: The following sentence is 'way too' informal to make its way into Wikipedia:
"This state, however, did not last for long, as it was way too authoritarian, destroying many sources of competition for power that were also sources of good governance and development, such as scholars and intellectuals."
The following may be a substitute:
"This state did not last long, due to excessive authoritarianism. The scholar caste was particularly targeted by the Emperor"
Please note that I am not an expert on China at all. This sentence, however, appears less than professional. Also, I'm not sure that scholars were a necessity then as they are now. 85.64.241.31 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This has nothing to do with vandalism but I am a student looking for information and I was unable to find a section on the Economy of this country. If you could add a section that would be great. Thanks >Armando<
:Can't you people read?! It says very clearly that the actual states are covered under the articles of People's Republic of China and Republic of China.
:BTW, I think we really need to do something about this steady trickle of people asking about the economy of Greater China. Perhaps a note in the article itself? -- ran (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started an Economy section. This may also be a good opportunity to write some new info on the economic history of China. -- ran (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: I find it disturbing that it is not mentioned in this encyclopedia on China's wide spread and ongoing human rights abuse.  Not only do you not mention how they indiscriminately persecute Christians and those who stand up to the government, you choose not to mention it at all.  If you are to properly represent China, you need to give the whole picture, not little tidbits. 07:18 January 31 2006 (UTC)
:Who are you addressing? You are also an editor of this encyclopedia! The article mentions Tiananmen repression and suppression of religion. Maybe you should quote the Amnesty International or the US State Department Human Rights Report and edit the article if you feel so strongly about it. --Krukowski 03:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: China's Human Rights Abuse

message: I asked at the Science Ref Desk what units of measurement are used in China. It seems that the SI system was adopted to some extent, but it still isn't clear to me to which extent. Are some or all SI/metric units adopted and how often are old (but 'metricised') units still used. In science / at schools and in everyday life? I've added a link to Chinese units of measurement, but that isn't quite complete either. DirkvdM 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Units of measurement

message: Anyone care to throw some votes, to see this Chinese currency as Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week?  Then go Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week#Chinese_currency!  Joe I 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week]]

message: what's the deal with all the question marks in parentheses?  Is that typical?  Maybe b/c I'm new to wiki, but this seems to be so informal and unprofessional.
:Those are Chinese characters.  You'll need to install Chinese font support if you want to see them. Markyour words 13:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question marks 

message: Should 'Ham' not read 'Han' (thrice), in the section Demographics?
"The Ham speak several mutually unintelligible tongues"
:Yes!  Fixed, thanks. Markyour words 23:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn! And I thought we were talking about such an intelligent pork meat :P nihil 02:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ham / Han? 

message: What about a padron for the page? For exemple like area, population, national flag etc...as it is for Russia, Canada, Brazil?
:I've no idea what a padron is, but note the first sentences: This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the state known as China in common usage, see People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation). Markyour words 23:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Padron 

message: It may be debatable that Mongolia was ever under "Chinese rule", however, it was part of Manchu-ruled China, in the Qing dynasty.  Hong Qi Gong 19:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a moot point.  Manchurians are a Chinese nationality, hence Mongolia was under Chinese rule during the Qing dynasty.  The English word for Chinese refers to Zhonghua minzu 中華民族. 128.135.203.241 02:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, I personally agree with you.  But there are probably those who do not.  --Hong Qi Gong 03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolia 

message: Many of the old photos were poorly matched with the article content (for example the pottery photo besides the content on Chinese writing and literature), I have added more relevant photos and also replaced some photos where better quality variants were available (for example the Great Wall of China photo).  I hope the result is now more satisfactory. 67.175.245.110 08:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed photos 

message: The character zhong (中) in Zhongguo doesn't really mean Central or Center.  It has a very Confucian interpretation of being "morally pure" and "moderated" (that is, a governed land). Only beginners in the Chinese language will associate the zhong in Zhongguo to mean Central or Center.  To translate zhong as Central or Center (center of the world, central kingdom) feeds upon the media's "Red Peril" or "China threat" sensationalism, and makes the term sound more xenophobic than reality. 67.175.245.110 09:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zhongguo 

message: Is it better than before?--Pierre Pierre 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, no.  The new one has too many tourists (which gives a good representation of Simatai or Badaling, but not of the wall as a whole) and doesn't give such a good impression of the length (before anyone says it, I know that no ground-level photo can show the length, hence my choice of words :)). I'm a bit worried about the copyright status of the old one, though. HenryFlower 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the color of the old one is too dark. However, the new one is also not perfect as you said. Could anyone upload a better photo of the Great Wall? Thanks a lot! --Pierre Pierre 06:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I changed the picture of the Great Wall 

message: I'm just wondering if the date in that sentence is correct:
"In 1990 the Kingdom of Tungning established by Koxinga, Taiwan including the Pescadores became a part of the Qing Empire" 213.190.157.130 12:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The date 

message: In the intro, it says its history dates back more than 4000 years, but shouldn't it be 5000 years? "Scientists to Trace Back 5,000 Years of Chinese History"--Ryz05 04:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's historical timespan

message: The Falun Gong article is closed from general editing.  I was thinking of adding an excellent reference I just found:
 (BBC headline: China "selling prisoners' organs" ) -- the subject is already explained in the write-up (Allegations of organ harvesting section), only this additional reference is appropriate --  but even though the Falun Gong subject is the most common source of this allegation, the reference I found is more general (the BBC article does not mention Falun Gong) and appropriate to a section or article on Chinese controversies (where censorship allegations, political persecution allegations, Tiannenman square "massacre" allegations, etc, would also belong).  Thank you.
p.s. In case you do not find my reference appropriate for this article, please add it (since I can't) into the Allegations of organ harvesting section in Falun Gong.
Only the additional reference is needed.
:Why don't you just add it here:  Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Allegations_of_organ_harvesting.  Hong Qi Gong 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  selling prisoners' organs reference 

message: NOW THERE HAS TWO CHINA : THE People's Republic of China(Communist) AND Republic of China (FREEDOM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.126.53.211 (talk • contribs) 
:But some people want to merge PRC to "China" and ROC to "Taiwan". =( -- ran (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TWO CHINA ?