Talk:History of China/Archive 3

message: Discussion moved to Talk:China#"one of the oldest" vs. "the oldest", as announced below on this talk page. --MarkSweep 15:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is China the world's oldest continuous civilization?

message: An article on the History of traditional Chinese medicine needs to be written.  Any volunteers?  heidimo  01:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been extracted from the general TCM article, but perhaps you can improve upon it.  heidimo  16:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Helped wanted: History of TCM

message: The History of China presented in this page uncritically accepts the traditional dynastic view of history. However, many historians question this analysis of history, which conceals real developments in and changes in China's social structure and economy that do not necessarily match the dynastic classification. (Even Marxists have a different way of looking at Chinese history, with their classification into 'slave societies', 'feudal societies', etc). Could someone who has a bit more knowledge of these things put these reservations into the article, at least in the introduction?
Bathrobe 15:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynastic History? 

message: Does anyone notice that there is only 17 provinces in the 1812 map of China proper by Arrowsmith and Lewis? I am a little confused. It is said that China proper has 18 provinces, isn't it?
:The map is wrong. It mistakenly marks Hainan and Taiwan as provinces (Hainan was never a Qing Dynasty province and Taiwan was made into a province several decades after this map was published); but it shows old Ming Dynasty borders, like Gansu being a part of Shaanxi, Hubei and Hunan together as Huguang, and Anhui and Jiangsu together as Jiangnan. 17 - 2 + 3 = 18. ;) -- ran (talk) 22:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
old Ming Dynasty borders? If my memory dosen't go wrong, this is not old Ming Dynasty borders. Ming had 15 provinces,not 17 provinces. Please post a new and correct map.
::Read before responding! I already said that Hainan and Taiwan were marked out by mistake. "Ming Dynasty borders" referred to Shaanxi+Gansu, Huguang and Jiangnan, this is why I used the word "but". There's a more accurate map at China proper. -- ran (talk) 18:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
nope.Taiwan had never been part of Ming's Fujian province, OK? Hainan was originally part of Ming's guangxi province, but later became part of Ming's guangdong province after 1370. And I have some doubts about the more accurate map. In that map China proper included a large chunk of Xinjiang. It is very strange, isn't it? 
::What's wrong with you? I already said twice that the Ming Dynasty border comment applies only to Shaanxi, Huguang, and Jiangnan. Taiwan and Hainan were marked by mistake. Ah forget it. Keep ranting if you like. -- ran (talk) 13:11, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
so why don't you post a new and correct map? It is very likely to mislead the readers.
By the way, manchus is not a central asia people, and they came from northeast asia.(look at the map, manchuria is not in central asia)And if manchs were alien conquerors, then Khitan Liao Dynasty ,Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Mongols Yuan Dynasty and Northern Dynasties were also all alien conquerors in the same standard.
How strongly are Fujian Province and historical/current day Taiwan related culturally? --McDogm 17:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  18 provinces 

message: One should paying attention to the movie stars and breaking stories on such sites as Chinese Yahoo, Korean Yahoo, AOL Japan and the excellent Muzi in order to maintain perspective on just exactly what is going on in China.  As the work progresses it lends life to the written product.  The History of China series seems to be looking for readability.  Of course this occurs naturally as the article expands.  It just seems to be a good thing to say, sort of as a guideline for aspiring Wiki scholars in this ponderous field.--McDogm 17:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese Yahoo and Muzi

message: Is it obvious or ridiculous or both to assert that written words started by drawing on the sand at the beach?  This origin of writing might be drastically underrepresented.--McDogm 17:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Written In The Sand

message: What is the relation between Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia?  It seems to me that this is very very important for talking about Yuan dynasty issues.  As a native Westerner who is familiar with the Tibet lobby (see R.E.M.) I can assure you all that this link is completely absent from what we know here.  If well-meaning Westerners had a clue about the Yuan Dynasty and its role in the military of 1st and 2nd millenium Asia they would just have to sit down and think about it instead of being really animated about it.  I really would like to know more about this link.  I suppose I should request something at the Village Pump.--McDogm 18:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibetan Buddhism In Mongolia + The Yuan Dynasty

message: See Talk:China#"one of the oldest" vs. "the oldest". --MarkSweep 14:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "one of the oldest" vs. "the oldest"

message: There are a few red links to Chinese history periods that can probably be redirected here: War_cycles#Comparative_studies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: User:61.51.68.202, User:221.216.167.157, and User:221.216.166.14 (although i suspect you are the same person), I do not believe it is a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) to state, as you did:
:Almost all Chinese regard Taiwan as a part of China and endeavor on reuniting the country peacfully.
If you disagree, please explain why you think I am incorrect (and perhaps why I'm not following the NPOV policy) here, rather than repeatedly reinserting the comment.
--Nlu 16:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issue regarding whether "almost all Chinese" want "peaceful" reunification with Taiwan 

message: It sounds to me this article is too Han-centric. If it is an article on the history of China it should cover the history of all places within the territories contemporarily known as China (e.g. history of Tubo (present-day Tibet) and Nanchao, that co-existed with the Tang empire in the same period of history, should be included). I suppose there would be strong opposition if the pre-union history of Britain focuses only on England (or England and Wales, or Scotland), or the pre-confederation history of Canada focuses only on Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Québec). — Instantnood 11:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you just raised your own objection, however, to your suggestion, if you look at your analogies carefully.  It would necessitate that, for example, that History of Russia deals with the people of what is now Asian Russia, even though historically, up until about the 17th century, Russia had nothing to do with Asia -- or that History of Germany does not account for Germany's ever-shifting borders, but rather insist that the article deal with the territory that is currently Germany proper at all times.  --Nlu 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All analogies have to be looked at carefully. Until very recently history of Germany was history of the Germans, and history of Russia was history of the Russians. This is not the case in the history of China. Han Chinese, although the dominant ethnic group, was rarely the only ethnic group. Other ethnic groups did appear in its history, and there were often states which kings were not Hans. History of a certain time of China should not be focusing only on the big empire ruled by Han emperors, with little mention of the smaller or less powerful non-Han states. — Instantnood 10:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to imply that Russians and Germans were the only ethnic groups of their states during their entire existence until recently.  That is not true -- the situation is a lot closer than China's situation than you suggest, in my opinion.  Further, even if what you say is true, that only begs another issue which you referred to.  There is a reason why there is little mention of the "smaller or less powerful non-Han states; there is little historical records about them.  (I'm referring to such states as Bohai and various Qiang states during the Han Dynasty; basically, for states without their own written language, any records are going to be limited to their contact with the dominant Chinese state of the time -- which, as I should note, may not necessarily be Han (such as Northern Wei of the Xianbei).)  You can't write what isn't there.  --Nlu 15:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Under the section for the era of Tang Dynasty, for instance, Tubo was not mentioned, and Nanchao in one sentence. That section is basically a section on the Tang Dynasty, but not a section on the history of the geographical region of China during that period of time, when a number of states existed. Although Northern Wei of the North and South Dynasties is mentioned, Northern Wei is a state with a majority population of Han, and the Xianbei ruling class is highly sinicised (or han-ised to be more accurate). The section for the period of Ming Dynasty made no mention of what had happened in present-day Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet, although the history of these territories are well-documented. Tibet, for instance, was 烏斯藏都司, some what between direct governing and a tributary state. The later history of Yuan Dynasty during the period after Dadu/Shuntian was seized by new established Ming, i.e. the period of the Mongol state which Han people call Northern Yuan, with the capital in Karakorum, is not mentioned at all. — Instantnood 16:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not respond to my assertion -- that a lot of this (not all, I admit) was necessitated by the lack of records.  For example, there is very little written information on the internal workings of the Northern Yuan before it effectively disintegrated into its constituent tribes.  --Nlu 17:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's true that the history of many non-Han states are not well-documented.. but still there's a lot to write, especially those that has plenty of records, like Tubo. — Instantnood 17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Han-centric

message: Is it just me, or does the first paragraph seem completely at odds with the facts stated later under Ancient History? 10000 years as the date of the first written records?  5000 years as the beginning of the chinese empire? I propose we change these to 4000 and 2000, respectively.  Let me know what you think.
--Scipantheist 19:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed the bit about the turtle shells to place them into the Shang Dynasty. That seems wrong: AFAIK, the turtle shells are much older than that, however, whether the markings on them can be considered to be some form of writing is debatable. As far as Imperial China is concerned, its beginning is usually equated with the Qin Dynasty. Pre-Qin history at some point crosses over into mythology, so it's a bit difficult to give a reliable date for the first Chinese feudal rulers. --MarkSweep✍ 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I have seen, the writing on the turtle shells is supposed to be from the Shang dynasty  .  I think even the Records of the Grand Historian that talks about the Xia dynasty is on turtle shells from this period.  If there is another source that says otherwise, let me know.--Scipantheist 19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the first paragraph 

message: The following sentence keeps changing back and forth between 2 versions:
"2,000 years ago is used as the date when China became unified under a large kingdom or empire"
vs.
"Two thousand years is used as the date since China became unified under a large kingdom or empire"
Which one fits your preference? According to my understanding, you should never start a sentence with Arabic/Indian numerals (it's just plain bad style), and secondly the phrase '2,000 years ago' fits awkwardly with the rest of the sentence.
: You are right about this.  I will fix it accordingly.  --Scipantheist 19:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar/Style 

message: In the ming dynasty, it is stated:
"It was also during these centuries that the great potential of south China came to be fully exploited. New crops such as maize, cotton, and sweet potato were widely cultivated, and industries such as those producing porcelain and textiles flourished."
However, to my knowledge cotton and potatos were both indigenous to the Americas and is highly unlikely to have become planted in China at that time.  Maize and potatoes even now are not found in China in large quantities and are not considered a staple food.  Cotton I am less sure about but I don't see much of that being planted as well.  I suggest this be taken out.  Responses?
:I don't know about cotton and maize, but note that this passage did not refer to potato; it was referring to sweet potato, which is a totally different plant.  --Nlu 04:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ming dynasty crops 

message: I removed the section about Zheng He from this page.  It seems to me that since there is already an extensive page dedicated to him, that it is redundant to have much more than a link to that page here. --Scipantheist 02:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zheng He 

message: Anyone care to toss a vote, to see Chinese currency as Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week?  Then go Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week#Chinese_currency!  Joe I 22:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week]]

message: Under "Ancient History," it is inferred that the 2nd Century BC occurred several hundred years before the 13th Century BC.  Is this a mistake, or am I reading it wrong? 84.164.104.76 12:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reading it wrong.  It says that a) the first written records (the oracle bones) are from the 13th century BC.   But b) a second century BC source starts its account of history 1300 years before the time of the oracle bones (i.e. around 2600 BC). Markyour words 12:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to centuries BC 

message: I've neutralized the text following the words Many Taiwanese regard Taiwan as historically being a part of China, but are now reluctant to... This text has been altered in the past to reflect one bias or another; I think this debate does not belong here. It's enough to refer to the government of Beijing without labeling it. John Reid 04:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one that originally put the part about the communist government in this sentance, but I think someone else added the "give up their freedoms" part.  I'm going to restore the sentance so that it simply states communist government.  People can decide if they interpret communist government to be positive or negative. --Scipantheist 16:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That takes out the bit which is true and leaves a bit which is false. John's version is much better.   I suspect the Taiwanese have various reasons for not wanting to be part of the PRC, and this isn't really the place to make unsourced generalisations about them. Markyour words 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my view it is John that is making the unsourced generalisations.  Why would Taiwan be afraid of Beijing?  Beijing is a place, the capital of the old imperial China.  It seems to me that the people on Taiwan are worried about more than the location of the capital.  Most do not want to live under a communist (even if only in name) government.  Furthermore, the government of the mainland has no problem calling itself communist.  That is a label they came up with.  If you can think of some other reason or show me polls otherwise, please insert. --Scipantheist 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that the PRC government calls itself communist is hardly proof that it is.  'The rule of Beijing' in this context means 'the rule of the government in Beijing', as you well know. Markyour words 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The way it is now is much nastier to the mainland chinese, but factually equivalent to what you want. Is this acceptable? --Scipantheist 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with either of those. Markyour words 21:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan 

message: I am trying to create a timeline for dynasties / kingdoms / etc throughout the history of China and have come across a bit of a discrepancy between the dates ~1800 BC and ~1600 BC.  The entries for the Xia and Shang Dynasties state they end and begin at 1800 and 1600 BC respectively, leaving approximately 200 years with no ruling dynasty.  Is this historically correct, or is this merely a case of chronological inaccuracy?
:The latter. See . -- G.S.K.Lee 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1800 BC - 1600 BC 

message: "Some scholars estimate that about half the population, 50 million Han Chinese people from the south may have perished in total as a result of the Mongols' invasion and conquest, and about 90% of Han Chinese from the north of China perished as a result of Mongol conquest and rule."
Are these scholars serious sources?
Wandalstouring 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok the article for Black Death stated that 66% of population in China were wiped out by the disease. this happens to be the same time as the Mongol invasion. So maybe the combination of the wars and the disease adds up to 50million han chinese Oidia 13:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongol conquest 

message: At the time of this post, the size of the article is 44KB.  The recommended size is 32KB.  Should we trim it?  Most sections already have articles to themselves.  Sections starting at "Ming Dynasty: Revival of Han rule" could be shortened.  --- Hong Qi Gong 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too long? 

message: When ChineseText is added, the layout of the article is messed up.  How to fix it? Tim 23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ChineseText 

message: WTF?  I believe this is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule.
Hanfresco 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The FAG of China 

message: This is unrelated to the article, 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) 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated to the article, but... 

message: I would like to let everybody know that the records of 5 emperors and Xia Dynasty is not only descpribed by Sima Qian. The bamboo Annals is also very important. The Grand History by Sima Qian is official, and the bamboo Annals is the unoffical, and it is earlier than Sima Qian. The most important thing is that, it gave not only the length in years of each king from 5 emperors to Xia and Shang dynasty in their regime, also gave the start year of each king in form of Tiangan Dizhi(天干地支). Other books refer to the 5 emperors and Xia Kings includes Yijing (周易). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dongwenliang (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that you mean what I think you mean, the description you objected to is not erroneous.  Zhou being a Shang vassal, for example, does not mean that it did not "exist at the same time as" Shang.  Indeed, Zhou cannot be a Shang vassal unless it did exist at the same time as Shang.  --Nlu (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing is the original post of "political entities that existed concurently" may suggest they are indepent entilies. But as we know, every Xia king or Shang king's throne celebration, all the vassal states came to attend. Also, the centre government has the power to call the army of their vassal. 216.48.171.235 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient History 

message: The last sentence of said section is messed up. Chiang Kai-shek fled with the remnants of his government and m[Mainland China|Chinese mainland]]. Someone should fix this, I don't have a clue to what it's really supposed to say. --Bcdefg123 00:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Republic of China" error 

message: The warring state Music Bells are most important discovery of that period. The bell can play a C tone music and each bell has two sound, depend on where you hit the bell. If you hit the bell on the top, the sound is 1 step higher than if you hit the edge of bell. The picture is not fit into the text because the text is not very long like Ming dynasty. I disagree that you should delete that picture. Anway, my field and interets is Xia Shang and Zhou, other dynasty I don't care too much.Dongwenliang 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete of my picture of Warring State Music Bells 

message: Does the picture reasonablely show the actual map of Shang? I suggest to remove the map. Firstly, the map only shows archeology findings of Shang cities. We don't konw how many cities Shang really has, and is it possible that all cities of Shang had been discovered? so this map does not reflct the area Shang really governed. Please give your source of how this map is made. Dongwenliang 03:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No map of Shang as a contiguous political entity can possibly exist. The historical records do not state precisely where the realm extended. The Chinese did not have a modern concept of a nation-state with international boundaries until the end of the 1800s. So, of course, any map will only show known settlements. This is why I had the caption changed from "Shang civilization" to the verifiable statement, "Remnants of advanced, stratified societies dating back to the Shang period have been found in the Yellow River Valley." --Jiang 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Map of Shang 

message: I have corrected the earliest date of human erectus in China, based on the newest article published on Nature using magnetostratigraphic method. The Xiaochangliang site, 1.36 ma, Xihoudu site, 1.27 ma.Dongwenliang 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just me or is it unclear where the history of homo erectus even ends.  Surely, any mention of homo erectus needs to be in its own section.  洋金 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a good point. Chinese are humans, Chinese history is part of the human history. The homo-erectus and Homo-sapiens are early humans. We should not set strict boundary when we write an articles. These topics are linked related each other.Dongwenliang 16:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From hunter-gatherers to farmers

message: Please stop the excessive insertion of Chinese characters.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)#Insertion of Chinese characters says (emphasis mine):
:[If a] term does not have an established translation (that is, has multiple translations or none), feel free to provide the Chinese characters…
(To how many of the Chinese terms in this article does that apply?)
:Proper nouns' Chinese characters should also be supplied, unless it is Wikified and the target article in the English Wikipedia contains the characters.
(How many of the terms in this article are not wikilinked to an article that contains the characters?)
By these recommendations, most if not all characters can or should be deleted from the article as of 2007-01-25.
For example, we really don't need the characters for Mao or for Chinese cities, both because there are wikilinks to articles that provide the characters and because the characters do not add any value to an English encyclopedia's article about Chinese history anyway. There may be more than one way of writing the names of Mao or Xi'an in English, but those readers who are confused by spelling variants are unlikely to get any help from Chinese characters.
Note that the insertion of superfluous characters just causes unnecessary work both for you and the person who will remove them later. Thank you. Wikipeditor 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think few Chinese characters are necessary to all users and readers here, especially for Chinese History. The history has to use lots of special names, which, expresses by the pronunciation only, causes lots of same words. The worst thing is that the tone of the character is also lost. That is why in Japan and Korea, people no longer use Chinese in many conditions, especially in Korea, but for their names, they all use Chinese characters, otherwise lots of names are same and it causes confusion. Even for an observant English native speaker does not know any Chinese, he can easy find the structure of the Chinese in the bracket after the same English name are different. For example, Jin could be a dynasty(晋), or a minority group or surname(金). Wuyi could be the current female vice prime minister(吴仪), or king of Shang(武乙). For those you don’t like to see, just jump over and please be tolerant, thank you.Dongwenliang 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all editors 

message: This article starts like this: "The history of China is told in traditional historical records that go back to the Xia Dynasty in the 21st century BC". Is this a fair statement? Both The Record of the Great Historian by Sima Qian and Bamboo Annals, the first chapter is not Xia Dynasty; it is the three sovereigns and five emperors. The Xia Dynasty is the second chapter in both books. This is the reason why we say 5000 years history. However, the problem is the two rulers during the three sovereigns and five emperors ruled about 100 years, others ruled about 50-70 years, it is not possible that someone can rule about 100 years, they might be 8 greatest rulers. Similar condition can be found at early Biblical time in the old testaments, many figure live over 100 years.Dongwenliang 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  Traditional records go back to the three sovereigns and five emperors.  I think we should change that.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The very first Statement 

message: Is there really any substantive meaning to the term "continually existing civilization"?  It smacks of a nationalistic cliche based on outdated concepts of "national character" and the idea of China as an ancient, unchanging, static society.
ValensNYC 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also post the same question over at History of Egypt, where the first sentence states, "The history of Egypt is the longest continuous history, as a unified state, of any country in the world."  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuous Civilization 

message: Stating that China is divided once again without any international treaty or legal body stating that Taiwan is a part of China is no more than POV.  Removal of this again without resolution of this dispute is vandalism.  It has been removed two times in violation of Wikipedia norms.  Discuss this or I take this to the next level.  ludahai 魯大海 09:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism.  We are to allow for a tag to remain for at least 24 hours.  The tag had been placed there for longer than that without any further discussion about why the section was POV.  Removal was justified.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  removal was NOT justified as the dispute was NOT resolved.  ludahai 魯大海 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any statement implying that Taiwan is currently a part of China is no more than POV and the wording of this section should be changed accordingly.  ludahai 魯大海 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute on the present 

message: Three sovereigns and five emperors period is not a fabricated period by someone in Warring state period. 
The book of I Ching, starts like this:  “In old times the when king Fuxi’s regime, he observed sky and the stars when he looks upwards, and researched the earth when he looks downwards, and watched the birds and beasts, how they live in their environment. He took examples from nearby and far away, and then made 8 Yin Yang signs to simulate the rules of universe. …..
After Fuxi died, Shennong rises. He made Plow and teach people how to raise crops and fishing. He created market and money for the exchange of goods. “
I Ching is a book dated Shang Zhou period, and widely accepted by historians that the book was written in late Shang and very early Zhou Dynasty. 
So it is very wrong to say that people lived in warring states (around 481-256BC) “fabricated” Three Sovereigns and Five emperors period.Dongwenliang 02:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three sovereigns and five emperors in Ancient Books 

message: Tell me, who was it that decided to redirect "Dragon Throne" to this article without any kind of explanation or mention of the phrase in the text?--24.22.147.202 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Made into disambig page. --Voidvector 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragon Throne 

message: Archaeoogists in China discovered more than 2000 pictographs dating back to the years 5000 BC - 6000 BC. Those pictographs were unearthed at Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, inscribed with symbols representing both pictures and Chinese characters. This finding means there are older forms of Chinese writing than the inscriptions on Oracle Bones dated back to 2500 BC founded in Henan Province. So should we add this information into the article? Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/18/content_6118003.htm Oidia 02:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are detailed articles on Chinese characters and Origins of Chinese characters. It's not that notable because it's just a news coverage of a research. From the phrasing of it, he hasn't published his findings yet. If he did, the news report would normally read like "published in this month's _____". --Voidvector 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oracle bone script was not formulated around "2500 BC", Oidia; evidence for oracle bone script is firmly placed from 1300 BC to 1200 BC, and no earlier from what I have read in scholarly journals. The Tomb of Fu Hao, dated around 1200 BC, contains some of the oldest known specimens for oracle bone script. Bronzeware script is old, but did not come into greater use until about 1000 BC--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese writing/characters - 8000 years old? 

message: This section should be deleted as it is entirely in Chinese and has no meaning for the vast majority of English speakers.  ludahai 魯大海 12:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support deletion of the mnemonics. As Chinese, I have never heard of it. Deleted. Unless someone specializing in history identify it is notable, it is not worth reinstatement. --Voidvector 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mnemonics 

message: Why did the Info box change to this current one? the old on looked a lot better and neater and easier to see. can someone revert it please? Oidia 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Info box 

message: I'm sure I'm offending someone by removing Chinese characters, but putting Chinese characters for all kinds of place names and events simply adds clutter to the article and doesn't really help anything much. For instance, I'm not sure who placing the characters 香港 after Hong Kong is meant to assist. Anyone who knows Chinese knows the characters. Anyone who doesn't know Chinese isn't going to be helped by having the characters there. Similarly for places like Yunnan, Xinjiang, etc. Names of historical events are perhaps more useful, but anyone who wants to find out more can surely click on the links to find more information, including the Chinese names of these events.
Bathrobe 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point. I have removed some Chinese characters in the section of Warring States Period and Han Dynasty, perticularly those name of provinces that have a seperate article one can click into on wikipedia. Dongwenliang 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese characters

message: According to the current article, the Shang Dynasty had 9 capitals but changed capitals 6 times.  This doesn't make sense, logically.Wilkyisdashiznit 05:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it not make sense? Before Shang rebeled and completely defeated Xia, Shang people was a tribe that belongs to the Xia Federal. If you read the articles about Kings of Xia, especially the last several kings, you will find that as the article stated, Shang was like a province of Xia, but later grew stronger and Stronger and eventually overthrowed Xia. The 3 capitals you talked about, are the Shang capital before they defeated Xia dynasty. For example, in the 15th year of Jie's regime, the Shang vassal moved their capital from Lu(履)to Hao(亳). In the 33rd year of the regime of Mang of Xia, the Shang Vassal Zihai(子亥) moved his capital from Shangqiu(商丘) to Yin(殷) for the very first time. In the regime of Kong Jia of Xia, Shang moved their capital back to Shangqiu(商丘) from Yin(殷). The last king of Xia, Jie of Xia, was so regret when he was captured by Shang. He said that He should have killed Tang of Shang when last time Tang worshiped him. Dongwenliang 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shang Dynasty Mistake 

message: For now, I don't have time to make improvements to the article. Just putting this really good source here so I don't have to find it again when I get time to edit this article.  Oidia (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A source I found 

message: I am quick-failing this article due a near complete lack of inline citations. Make sure that each section has at least one reference before re-nominating this article. Besides this, the article actually looks quite good. Add some references and renominate the article. Zeus1234 06:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: I found a site @ umd edu that records archeological findings predating those mentioned in this article.
"...archaeologists have uncovered urban sites, bronze implements, and tombs that point to the existence of Xia civilization in the same locations cited in ancient Chinese historical texts." source "chaos umd edu."
Xia were before 1700 bc and the last Xia ruler was overthrown in that century. Perhaps the Xia began as early as 21 century bc.
thanxBen5jaan 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archeology 

message: I found a source in wikipedia quoting the book china a new history page 35 
"Radiocarbon dating places the site at ca. 2100 to 1800 BC, providing physical evidence of the existence of a state contemporaneous with and possibly equivalent to the Xia Dynasty as described in Chinese historical works.[4]Ben5jaan 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archeology 

message: A list of Xia dynasty kings was recently added with the statement that it was a list of "all" the kings. However, the list only contained 15 names while another statement in the article said there were 17 kings.  Which is correct?  Neither the list nor the statement has a citation. Readin (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xia Dynasty Kings