Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 13

message: Ok, Sorry to bother you but do you know when China was founded or whatever you call it? I'm doing a report for school and i need to know the closest to an exact date as i can as soon as i can. Thanks! If you really don't know-- because i've searched on every site and the date isn't clear-- you can tell me so. = ) I know it was a really long time ago so i don't expect anyone to know an exact date ; )
--Camillacream 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainland China celebrates October 1st as its national holiday. Also the Republic of China was founded on January 1st, 1912. -- ran (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a Date.... = ) 

message: OK. Let's start the discussion, HongQiHong and others. Some of my arguments for ROC (Taiwan) are:
1) That is what the government of Taiwan calls itself right now.
2) To distinguish it from the now defunct Republic of China, which ruled the mainland 1911-49. Taiwan was not part of the constitutive terriory of the old ROC, which only ruled over vthe island for four years. As far as I know, prior to the Sino-Japanese War, the ROC did not even claim Taiwan, neither did the CCP.
3) It is more inclusive to write ROC (Taiwan) than just ROC, and less confusing. Anything relating to the "old" ROC could be moved to the history of the ROC.
Just my two cents. Let's see who will violate the three revert rule first...--Niohe 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic of China (Taiwan) 

message: This is unrelated to the current dispute, but I thought this Talk page would probably be one of the best places to get the attention of any interested editors - I've nominated article Chinese currency for AID.  Please vote if you would like the article to be selected - Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive.  - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated to current dispute, but... 

message: "The term "China" can also be used toe refer to"
should this be?
"The term "China" can also be used to refer to"
: Yep, it's most definitely a typo. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 00:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a typo? 

message: Heimstern, if you continue to violate the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule,  your account will be blocked!!! Nlu, keep an eye on this guy. -- Finger man3 03:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Finger man3 is a single-edit account: . --Sumple (Talk) 23:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heimstern Läufer should be blocked 

message: Mary512 has repeatedly added this image of a rocket from the PRC's space program to the section "The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China". This image seems to me to say nothing about the situation between the two governments and could even be offensive, implying either PRC supremacy or the suggestion of warfare between them. I think I've reverted this article enough recently, so I'm not going to now, but I do believe this image should be removed. Heimstern Läufer 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this image, it's also on the Chinese Wikipedia. By the way, you should continue to revert, since you have plenty of time and you don't want to see the fact. Latouu 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying the image isn't good, but it has nothing to do with the section it's being added to, and doesn't really belong on this article anyway, since it's about the Chinese civilization rather than the state(s) of China. This image might work very well in the article People's Republic of China (perhaps in the section called "Science and technology") but it doesn't fit here. Heimstern Läufer 20:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image has been returned to this place in the article, this time by a User:Jojoha, a single purpose account. I would like to request that someone revert this, and am wondering if anyone thinks we have a case for sockpuppetry. Heimstern Läufer 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I blocked Mary512 for a week and Jojoha indefinitely for being a clear sockpuppet. Cowman109Talk 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly suspect that it is. I'm not going to put up a suspected sock report now, but I will if this happens again. To whoever's making these edits, I warn you, you're playing with fire. The administrators don't look kindly on those who use sockpuppets to evade blocks. Heimstern Läufer 03:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image added to article 

message: According to the article "Besides football, the most popular sports are martial arts, table tennis, badminton, basketball, American football, and more recently, golf."  I think that this is ridiculous.  I have never seen anyone play football, I've never seen a football, and I don't think they could recognize the sport if I described it to them.  I don't want to be a pain, but I would like to see some evidence that this sport is semi-recognized by the populace, otherwise this should be removed.  ABart26 04:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're not being a pain; you're right to bring this up. "Ridiculous" might be a bit strong, but I'm rather skeptical of this, too. I was under the impression that American football had negligible popularity outside North America, and I certainly didn't hear anything about American football when I was in China this summer. Heimstern Läufer 04:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, rugby is played, and China does field teams in the rugby world cup qualifying matches. perhaps the original contributor was confused between gridiron and rugby, since both involve a non-spherical ball? --Sumple (Talk) 04:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe; that certainly seems possible to me. Heimstern Läufer 04:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Football? 

message: But the ROC is not recognised by the UN, how can it appear as a co-state with the recognised PRC? 161.74.11.24 10:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Okay folks, this is crazy.  First of all the UN does not recognize ROC.  Secondly, when someone says "China" they mean peoples republic of China.  Unless they are from Tiawan, they are refering to the Peoples Republic of China.  This article should be about the PRC.  Nothing else.  With a link at the top to disambiguation.  But the default should not be culture.  The fact is ROC is not a real country, it is something that did exist.  China is the peoples republic of China, I do not know how blunt I can be, and EVERY country in the world agrees.  This should go with the most common usage of the term and that Is PRC, period. PERIOD. PERIOD. Hong Kong is part of PRC, Macau is part of PRC, and Tiawan is going to be part of PRC.  Tiawan is Tiawan anyway, despite their calling themselves "China" They dont even inhabit any of the landmass of China, they inhabit an island.  Besides they should go back just like Hong Kong and Macau, 1 China two systems. --74.104.48.172 05:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you trace the history, the ID of this guy is 212.51.199.173, and this guy claimed that Taiwan is a not a province of China, but a country. Is it true? +-+ Latouu 04:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Our current naming system is an effort to reflect both sides of the debate as well as possible. It's not what I'd consider perfect, either, but it works OK. Please note that this page is not a place to speculate who would win if a war ever broke out over the Taiwan issue, but to discuss how it is now (among other topics related to China). Heimstern Läufer 04:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no debate here!  The facts are the facts.  THERE IS not a single serious country that recognizes Tiawan, they all see it as a breakaway republic.  See places that dont EXIST.  It exists but it doesnt.  In APEC they must participate as CHINESE Tiapai.  An inference to the one China policy.  (For the record a country that is not a serious country would be something along the lines of a bananna republic, Sudan etc.)  In popular usage if you go up to someone and say you are going to China it is taken to mean the peoples Republic of China.  NOT ROC.  Because most people do not know what the ROC is.  I would say 95% of people asked on the street would ask you what ROC was, because China means PRC in common usage.  The other point here is that neither Encarta nor Brittanica even reference ROC when China is querried you get the PRC.  I should also like to add that in the CIA world fact book, China links to the PRC, not the ROC.  The conventional short form for the PRC is China even in the PRC.  Encyclopedia articles are not places for debate, they should reflect the reality.  The Reality, China means PRC, NOT ROC.  Sorry its just the facts.  And encyclopedias are about facts.  One more point we do not call Dominion of Canada the Dominion of Canada on wiki do we?  No we use common use, and common use here points China to the PRC.  The fact that this querry is not linked to PRC defies the naming convention and should be changed.--Meanie 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with User:Meanie. We should change this page definitely. --Tic tam 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No. In any event, you will find it impossible to move People's Republic of China to China just yet.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, do it. This page is about civilization, not China. Unix jaick 04:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to be somewhat expeditious because this is an inaccuracy.  We have a cultural page substituting for a country page because of a disputed country name, ROC, which is not commonly used anyway.  And as I have said before at a risk of sounding like a broken record if you ask someone what the ROC is they will either say what or assume you are talking about PRC.  Tiawan is now Tiawan because of common use.--Meanie 17:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am somewhat mystified by the distinction being made here between "China" and "Chinese civilisation". China = the place where Chinese civilisation occurs.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cant really understand that.  For EVERY other country their country name links to their country page.  WHY ON EARTH, would China be any different.  This should link to the PRC, and not any other page.  China is the Peoples Republic of China, China should redirect to the article about the Peoples republic of China.  The Article United States is not about United States Culture.  The logic you and other users are applying to this article (Primarily the ones who did this in the first place, because it was not always like this) Is akin to taking Canada and making that the title page for Canadian culture.  The Article Chinese Culture should be Chinese Culture.  Not CHINA.  The peoples republic of China in common use is CHINA.  Hence in keeping with the standards applied to every other country in this and every other encylopedia this querry China should be to the Peoples Republic of China.  That said this is about standards, we do not have this going on with any other country page.  Austrilia is not about Austrialian civilization it is about the Country.  Mexico is not about Mexican civlilization it is about the country.  Hence we should be keeping with some form of common standards and link China to the actual country not to the civilization.  Chinese Civilization should be called Chinese Civilization not China.  That is how it is done with every other country in this and every other encyclopedia.--Meanie 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just a further note, that while this is done for Korea, the country is actually divided and both names are used in common practise, hence north and south.  As where when you ask someone on the street about Korea they are likely to ask you north or south.  As where if they are asked about China they will think of the PRC becuase ROC is not really used, and unlike North and South Korea is not actually recognized.  Even still that article is about culture, and I am going to suggest that it be directed to a disambig page, Featuring North, South, Korea (Geographic Region), Culture etc.  The two cases in that way vary significantly.--Meanie 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is a country page. I don't know what you think a country is, other than a civilisation and the place where it is located.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is NOT a country page it is a cultural page, that is filling in for a country page.  A country is a nation, a legal entity recognized by the United Nations.  The Peoples Republic of China is the country,  Chinese Civilization is the civilization.  This page is not conforming to the stated naming conventions with regards to countries.  We use common names not long form, and that is why this page NEEDs to drirect to the article currently called Peoples Republic of China.  I would like to point out that if this is a country page, where are the stats, the figures, the flag, and the government structure as well as all of those other things that every other country page has.  For a template of what this page should be if it is a country page see France.  By wikipedia standards that is a country page, not a culture page. France doesnt link to French culture or civilization, and for that matter niether does any other country.  Anyway, by wiki standards this is not a country page, regardless of what you wish to call it. And by the wiki naming convention this name should be reserved for China in common use which refers to the Peopels Republic of China. --Meanie 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anyway, by wiki standards this is not a country page, regardless of what you wish to call it." Where exactly are these "wiki standards" that you are referring to? When you say, "This page is not conforming to the stated naming conventions with regards to countries", which naming conventions are these, exactly? FYi, "a nation, a legal entity recognized by the United Nations" is hardly the only current definition of a "country" (certainly not the part about the United Nations). I don't think it's even the most common in formal usage. It's pretty clear that what you want is specifically a "state page" about the Chinese state which is currently paramount, but I fail to see why that's necessary or desireable in this case.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people will close their eyes and never face the reality.  China has been divided since 1949. It was the year PRC established and ROC diminished to a state on the island of Taiwan with some islands in Hokkien and South China Sea.  China cannot never be solely referred to PRC unless unification runs successfully, or PRC excludes Taiwan from her proposed territory and ROC is caesed to exist.  Korea is another example with similar situation.  Neither North Korea (DPRK) nor South Korea (ROK) owns the name of Korea solely.  — HenryLi (Talk) 03:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia naming convention is common usage.  Korea is not used to refer to one or the other in Common Ussage.  In common usage China refers to the People's republic of China. The naming conventions on wikipedia for countries are for common usage.  Loook them up. I did that is how I discovered that there was a problem.  Point being if you type in Canada or practically any other country you will get that country and its page about it.  Not its cultural page.  If you have actually been to the region you would automatically know that the country is called Tiawan, even though they maintain ROC as their official title.  But our naming conventions dictate we use common names, not long form names.  Hence why USA is the United States and not the United States of America. This is because this is the common name.  The naming convention for all articles is the common name not the legal name.  Hence Madonna's Page is Maddonna, not Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritche, even though that is her name.  Do you understand?  The titles are not a place to have a debate about what is or what should be, they are for common names. In common practice and common language according to the wikipedia conventions on page naming the querry China would take you to the Page about the People's Republic of China.  You see the situation in China and Korea on wikipedia are different.  In common usage Korea does infact refer to the entire peninsula.  In common usage China does not refer to the Island of Tiawan.  Hence the page defies the naming conventions and it is time to move it. As for why it is nessesary and desierable?  On wikipedia the conventions of naming have been set up to keep order to make the encylopedia easier to use, hence we can not have an ad hoc approach as you suggest to naming them.  These pages need not be named for wikipedians like us, they need to be named for Joe Schmo who comes on wikipedia to do his research.  Hence why it is important to follow the conventions.  Just imagin how messy wikipedia would be if we used your suggested approach to naming.  Which is why we have rules and it is important to follow them.  All I am trying to do is bring about uniformity for this page with every other like page, and it doesnt currently have it.   --Meanie 19:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am quite familiar with the naming convention to use common names. Although "China" can refer to the PRC in common usage, it's certainly not the case that it refers to the PRC alone. For instance, the statement, the PRC was founded in 1949, but the statement, "China was founded in 1949," would be regarded by anybody as nonsense, and rightly so. This being the case, I thought you might be referring to some other naming convention, one that actually supports your position.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In common usage China still is not used to apply to the Island of Tiawan.  The sentance would read, the current government and political system in China came to power in 1949.  They are the successor government of the previous governments of the civilization.  And in common usage China does refer to PRC.  Not Can, it does.  That is simply a fact, If I go out to the street right now and ask them to name a city in CHINA they will name bejing or Shanghai.  I WILL NEVER get Tiapei.  Or if I say I am going to China, they will assume the PRC.  That is common ussage. I dont know which common usage you are refering to because any time I have heard China spoken of, EVER in my life it is in reference to PRC.  While you make a good enough argument ROC is not used and China in common usage for all practical purposes is NEVER used to refer to ROC.  If I was not informed of the situation I would not even know there was an ROC.  90%+ of the population knows no other meaning than PRC for the name China.  I am sorry but in common usage there is no other instance in which China is commonly used other than in reference to the PRC, or history.  But when we reference it in history we are refering to the present territory of the PRC.  --Meanie 07:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dont forget we are the only English encyclopedia that does it this way.  Eitherway this is English wiki, and the majority of users of it are from English countries.  Thus the majority of our users on English wiki use China to refer to PRC.  I am not proposing to name PRC page China.  I am proposing to rename this page so that the search querry China can redirect to PRC.  There is a difference.  Just as USA redirects to the United States, I want China to redirect to PRC. Its just a matter of common use, all I am asking is that we follow the naming convention.  Iregardless most Chinese wiki users do not even look at the english version, and this version should reflect the fact that its users are from a certain area of the world.  IE that since most of English Wikipedia is from the United States we should be using the US common usage to organize things.  This is organizational in nature, and it is nesscessary to make wikipedia easy to use.  The current method is confusing for the inexperienced user.  (IE most of wikis users, the ones who NEVER contribute, aka 99% of the visitors to this website who use it for information and learning.) And at this point I would settle for a disambiguation page, because the current configuration is somewhat politically loaded.  And we try to be neutral here.  Disambiguation would be less than Im looking for but it is the least I will settle for. --Meanie 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought, while we have not settled on Moving PRC here, and wont be right now as I have not yet managed to get agreement on it.  Would their be oposition to renaming this particular page to Chinese Civilization?  Thus leaving China open to for the time being bring up search results, and perhaps at a later time a disambiguation page/PRC.  Irregardless of what we decide to do with the PRC page, that is the appropriate name for this page.--Meanie 02:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Absurd

message: I really like to know if this is a good practice for solving a dispute? Unfortunately, some sysops (Nlu & Cowman109) are doing this, here's one example: "Lazizl" who edited the page 3 times regarding the "Central Kingdom" dispute for the last few days, then Cowman109 blocked indefinitely this user with the following reason:
: Sockpuppet of user adding irrelevant pictures to articles + apparently acting against consensus..
First, did Lazizl add pictures here? Cowman109, COULD YOU ANSWER? Second, did Lazilzl act against consensus? Cowman109, please ANSWER what was the consensus you were referring to.  +-+ Latouu 20:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had multiple accounts of a user mysteriously adding pictures of a Chinese missile completely irrelevant to the article, and now we have multiple users adding a picture of the great wall of China which serves no purpose in the opening section and strangely rewording parts of the opening paragraph. Could you please explain why you are doing this? If it's not you, I apologise, but I assumed as such from your contributions. Cowman109Talk 20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you've answered perfectly to my 2 questions asked. Next time when you want to block users, make sure you give an honest reason, don't always use an apology to be an excuse. Note also it's definitely not the business of sysops to determine "truth", the standard and official policy for Wikipedia is verifiability, WP:V, based on reliable sources, WP:RS. +-+  Latouu 22:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what you mean. I blocked the user and its other sockpuppets as clear single purpose accounts that have no intention of discussing their edits that are causing quite a bit of controversy. When the user was asked to explain themself, they simply made a new account and continued the disruptive action. I will continue to indefinite block such obvious abusive sockpuppets as the user is clearly trying to game the system by using sockpuppets to engage in tendentious edit warring. Cowman109Talk 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've just said what's needed: When you want to block users, make sure you give an honest reason. Also it's definitely not the business of sysops to determine "truth", the standard and official policy for Wikipedia is verifiability, WP:V, based on reliable sources, WP:RS.  +-+ Latouu 04:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, we heard that the first time. You say, "When you want to block users, make sure you give an honest reason." Cowman did give an honest reason: because the users in question were abusive sockpuppets. Note also that he's not alone: Kilo-Lima has also blocked several of these users for the same reason. This is not a unilateral action. Heimstern Läufer 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Block editors and then accuse editors for using sock puppets?

message: Please vote below for your preferred version among these two:
I think this is not a good idea in this case. --Latouu 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: # Sumple (Talk) 00:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 2

message: There are more than 2 mistakes in the following misleading statement:
: The term is commonly translated into English as "the Middle Kingdom"[citation needed]. 
The first mistake is, everyone should know, the term "Zhongguo" is translated into English as "China". Second, there's no source for claim, so it should be removed definitely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tic tam (talk • contribs) 
::Here is one source, if you're interested, by an "old school" US Sinologist: Williams, S. Wells. The Middle Kingdom: A Survey of the Geography, Government, Literature, Social Life, Arts, and History of the Chinese Empire and Its Inhabitants. Rev. ed. New York: Scribner, 1883.
::Then we have a couple of others:
::Wilson, James Harrison. China: travels and investigations in the "Middle Kingdom." A study of its civilization and possibilities; with a glance at Japan. New York, Appleton, 1887.
::Rossabi, Morris, ed. China among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th-14th Centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
::Zhang, Yongjin. China in the international system, 1918-20 : the middle kingdom at the periphery. New York : St. Martin’s, 1991.
::Do you want more citations, or is that enough? Perhaps I should fill the gap between 1887 and 1983? Now, you give us a quotation for "Central Kingdom". A book title would be nice, I coulnd't find any.--Niohe 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you want to show here? Let's wait for Sumple to provide a "citation" for his claim. -- Tic tam 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sumple's version is DELETED from the article

message: Everyone, please remember the word from our good sysnop studerby: "the Wikipedia policy requires that all differing viewpoints that are verifiable with reliable soources be presented, see also WP:POV" Discussion is the way to go
Here I try to simpifly the version first to:
:China is called Zhongguo (also Romanized as Chung-kuo or Jhongguo) in Mandarin Chinese. The first character Zhong (中) means "central" or "middle" while guo (国 or 國) means "kingdom" or "country". The term can be literally translated into English as "the Central Kingdom" or "the Middle Kingdom"
Any objections? Since no one was able to provide a source for the few statements I mentioned above. Later on, we can add more statements/claims, but make sure all claims must be VERIFIABLE and RELIABLE.
Here's the new version:
:China is called Zhongguo (also Romanized as Chung-kuo or Jhongguo) in Mandarin Chinese. The first character Zhong (中) means "central" or "middle" while guo (国 or 國) means "country" or "kingdom". The term can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom" or "Middle Kingdom". Regarding the accuracy of the translation, senior scholar 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. 
::: Quote from Mao's China and the Cold War. published by UNC Press  ISBN: 0807849324 -- Tic tam 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Niohe wrote "So where is the citation to this quote?", I've just provided. --Tic tam 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that it should be restored to the original version. This one seems to me to endorse the perspective that "Central Kingdom" is the correct translation by giving it substantially more coverage than the more usual term "Middle Kingdom". The original version seems quite fair to me, in that it notes the most common translation and then explains, briefly, a dissenting view. Heimstern Läufer 14:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever without source will be removed, PERIOD. -- Tic tam 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said, I can see the rationale for both Central Kingdom and Middle Kingdom, but this is not the place to pass verdict on correct translations. We're writing an encyclopedia, right? And what's your hurry? Tic tam? Why this aggresive tone ("PERIOD")? Sumple hasn't responded yet, so can't you give him more time? You will soon earn yourself a 3RR block or a user check if you go on like this.--Niohe 15:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NEW Version

message: Please provide a source for the sentence -- Tic tam 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "though such claims remain politically controversial" will be deleted from the article

message: Why isn't there a section on how the country is goverened? What about economy? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh, this is about the area not political country, my bad. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing major items 

message: This page needs to be broken up into multiple pages.  Links to the major debates regarding China can be put on the main page.  
Major debates:
1.  The debate over what area is to be considered 中国 / "zhongguo" / "the central land" / "the central kingdom" / or whatever you call it.
2.  The debate over the history of China's name.
3.  The conflict between China and Taiwan.
When someone looks up China on Google or Yahoo, what information do they expect to find?  
1.  A　picture of The Great Wall?  Certainly that sounds acceptable.  What better symbol is there for China?
2.  A picture of a rocket?  This can also be acceptable, if we consider what it stands for.  Here in China, it stands for China's space program, and not for China's missile tests near Taiwan.
3.  Information for someone visiting China is also welcome.  The Chinese people seem to love foreign visitors, but westerners also may be surprised about some things about Chinese culture.
Another note:  Wikipedia is now accessable from mainland China again.  I found a magazine in the school library this week which was promoting Wikipedia.  The magazine was in Chinese, but I understood what its images meant.  Wikipedia, with its extensive foreign language support, is now allied with China's policy of internationalization.  It seemed to have the founder of Wikipedia's picture, and was labelling him as a hero.
:This would be a very recent change.  The reson being is that when I was in China in August I tried to access wikipedia for curiosities sake and I could not. (from HK most certainly could.)  However that said CNN for example is not blocked, nor is CBC, the US government, the CIA factbook, Government of Canada, UN, Fox, etc. The internet is really opening China.  And the main paper in Shanghai criticised the government for its environmental record. The next day the government awknowledeged fault. Times are a changing in China, really really changing.  And the indepentance movement in Tiawan is waning and the party there is trying desparately to stop it.  My personal prediction having just come back from the region is that in our lifetime we could possibly see a peaceful reunification, along the lines of One China Two systems.--Meanie 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lets move this page to where it belongs and the PRC back to where it belongs.  Then we can deal with issues with the culuture page.--Meanie 18:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree with Meanie. I will go ahead and do it soon. Latouu 04:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, there's "Chinese Civilization" page for civilization only. +-+ Latouu 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate on China is too complicated 

message: I think we need to remove some of the comments from sock puppets, or modify them under the same username if it's an legit argument. It's extremly confusing and annoying,
and tough for anyone that attempts to review the situation. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)� 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that a swarm of sockpuppets was created on October 21st and the user is using them to continually change the opening section of the article. At first I read it as original research as well, but did not see the quote inside of it representing the view of a certain author (so I'll correct myself on the note about it being original research, as it's not), but regardless of the contents, this user is abusively using sockpuppets to inappropriately edit the article without discussion, so I've blocked a few more sockpuppets and will request a checkuser to root out any more. Cowman109Talk 02:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry 

message: There is grave need for a historical overview section above or below the names section. Regardless of modern political squabbles, the great civilizations that occupied the region are given short shrift in the article as written. It is shockingly short comparatively to other great national empire regional articles. Even the British Empire's Queens have longer articles. 
In the meantime, this name "Ch'in Shihuang", whose tomb was just covered on the history channel needs the name redirected to whomever this article should be more clearly crediting with his fabulous tomb with it's hundreds of terra cota soldiers. Best regards // <B>Fra</B>nkB 23:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Emperior and Organization of Article 

message: Why was the link to China (disambiguation) and other possible meanings of China removed from the top of the article? These are editorial tools to make it easier for readers to navigate across Wikipedia. Cowman109Talk 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it was removed in an attempt to fork this article to Chinese civilization, but this page was copy-and paste moved there. This cannot be done as this breaks the editing history, however, so I've reverted the edits. The proper place to do this would be Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you wish to rewrite this article to speak about the cultural region of China instead, I would recommend first starting in a subpage before replacing the article, perhaps in China/rewrite. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I advocate the moving of this page I do not advocate cut pasting moving this page, that would make a mess.  Rather I would advocate a proper move.  Which if there is no objection to my strait out move I will do sometime next week (there has not been.) I must state this is different, as at this time I would not be moving PRC to the China page, merely the disambiguation page would be moved to China. At least untill I can build a consensus to move PRC there. It seems that the objectors to moving PRC to China dont seem to have a problem with this.  So folks you have a week to speak up, if there is dissagreement I will hold back untill we discuss it further. AND I WILL NOT BE CUT PASTE moving the page. --Meanie 06:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is a pretty drastic change from what this article has been for a long time. I don't really have an opinion on the matter (I honestly couldn't care less - I'm Latino :P), but as this would be a big change you might want to make note of this discussion in the village pump to get more opinions of people who might have something to say. I'm sure there's lots of people who might have an opinion who just don't watch this talk page regularly. Cowman109Talk 22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too long ago it was China disambiguation page was it not? --Meanie 03:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation removed 

message: I've just unprotected the article, so now everybody can edit.  It had been semi-protected since 5 October. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I reprotected it. The article immediately started experiencing vandalism again, and we're still dealing with a swarm of abusive sockpuppets that semi-protection is somewhat keeping out. Cowman109Talk 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: It seems that sysops Cowman109 and Nlu (his sock puppets are JinFX(1698)/Intsokzen/Naus/Dto) are continually blocking people from adding the Central Kingom statement to this page. I think they are abusing their privileges since the statement they would like to see is not VERIFIABLE, so it can be considered as Original Research. It was originally proposed by Nlu's sock puppet "Naus", Naus wrote:
:"Middle Kingdom dominates Central Kingdom by a margin of 100:2 for the English searches.", 
then Sumple rephrased it to
:"The term is commonly translated into English as "the Middle Kingdom"[citation needed]."
Again, there's no citation, it violates Wikipedia policy NOR.
By the way, the following new statement is reliable and is from a
senior scholar Chen Jian:
:"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."
Also the following statement has been verified  to be true:
:Wikipedia policy: V/NOR/NPOV are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.
::The only reason you are being blocked is because you are using sockpuppets to edit war on this article. If you stayed with one account you could discuss the merits of including information to the article. Despite the contents of your edits, you are inappropriately using sockpuppets to push your own point of view and edit war on an article tendentiously. Could you please refrain from making multiple accounts and instead discuss these edits? That's all we really want. And for the record, your accounts have been blocked by at least 10 separate administrators, so it would be safer to say that the entire community is abusing their editing privileges by disagreeing with you, so please look at this from our perspective. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 05:25
, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Glad you can read this, someone here even deleted this section FEW TIMES already in order to hide something? Since you blocked my only account, then I created another one, that's all, by the way, I'm very happy with one account. Yes, dicussion is good, and you as a sysop should make this site a happy place, and not just remove text with V/NOR/NPOV and replace with something which violates V/NOR/NPOV, I will put the text in the following and see if anyone wants to disagree. !! Jalamen2 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the issue is that several users have disagreed with the inclusion of the information for some reason, and when that happened, you went on to create another account (checkuser confirms you've made dozens, and it would really make it easier for all of us if you stopped). The issue seems to be the way you're going about adding this information rather than the content of it. We are supposed to discuss potentially controversial edits such as these, however, so if you're willing, perhaps we can have a discussion concerning that instead of this fruitless edit war. :) Cowman109Talk 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, no one pointed out the information I put was wrong, or not reliable, or not verifible. Check my next section. !! Jalamen2 06:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sysops Cowman109 and Nlu are abusing their sysop privileges