Talk:China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the China article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Chronological Archives
Old, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

[edit] This page has is no longer available in China.

I have access to view the talk page on China, but I can't read the article on China any more. The page must be too controversial. Andyohio 12:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because of this paragraph, which accurately summarizes worldwide views of PRC human rights: "Post-1978 reforms on the mainland have led to some relaxation of the control over many areas of society. However, the Chinese government still has absolute control over politics, and it continually seeks to eradicate threats to the stability of the country . Examples include the fight against terrorism, jailing of political opponents and journalists, custody regulation of the press, regulation of religions, and suppression of independence/secessionist movements. In 1989, the student protests at Tiananmen Square were violently put to an end by the Chinese military after 15 days of martial law." Ashibaka tock 15:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the Tiananmen Square reference is getting it censored by keyword? I wonder what would happen if we called it T1anm3n sq4r3 instead? <very innocent look>. Kim Bruning 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried a little ASCII hack, replacing i with i, but it looks like Wikipedia pre-renders that. Ashibaka tock 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why do we even have a Names of China section?

This section takes up almost half the article over an utterly trivial aspect of China. I think the entire section should simply be moved to Names of China. Does anyone object? --Ideogram 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I say go ahead. Ashibaka tock 21:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we keep a small section there (with a link to the main article Names of China, of course)? Basically saying that the Chinese name is Zhongguo, what Zhongguo means, and explaining the western name "China". I think it would be worth keeping this much information here and giving the more detailed info on the new page. Heimstern Läufer 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What new page? you mean the page that I was saying a long time ago the Middle Kingdom arguement needed to be moved to? --洋金 2006 November 16, 09:56 zulu

Since no one has objected I will go ahead and make the change. (I'm sure after I do it someone will object.) --Ideogram 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks! --Ideogram 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha looks like we've finally settled the pointless Middle vs Central debate. Good job Ideo. --Naus 21:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

/me bows --Ideogram 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:China

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

[edit] A Question about Chinese Science and Technology

Inventions like Paper,Ship Rudder,Gunpowder etc are not in dispute but would members be able to show sources of the rest of Chinese inventions? I don't see how anyone can invent Bronze which is of course just one small point anyway more infomation would be useful as there are no sources or references on the main page thanks in advance for anyone who helps I need this for a project im working on :) -Easternknight Jegal 02:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)11-18-06Jegal 02:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this Sci and Tech section needs to be thoroughly revised or done away with. A list like that is meaningless and its wasting a lot of white space, making the article seem longer than it really is. --Naus 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. --Ideogram 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I remmeber there many story of china for sam kok(three kingdom), 108 bandits, other story not include in this section. and alchemy or chemistry i remmeber there a great books of alchemy in history not mention in this section. Chinabar (merkury) and other medical and mineral knowlegeds not mention in this side.

There still isn't any sources for all the Chinese inventions you can't invent Bronze >_< and the Printing really should be Clay Block-Printing. -Easternknight Jegal 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)11-26-06Jegal 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't get you. Why can't you invent bronze? It's a copper-tin alloy, and rarely found naturally. So the first person to create the alloy would be inventing it.

Also, why do you say clay block-printing? Moveable type was first invented in China: both clay and wooden varieties. See also Bi Sheng. --Sumple (Talk) 01:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you click on the link to Bronze in the article, you will find the following text:

"The earliest tin-alloy bronzes date to the late 4th millennium BC in Susa (Iran) and some ancient sites in Luristan (Iran) and Mesopotamia (Iraq)."

So it seems that it is inaccurate to credit China being first to process bronze.--Niohe 01:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Bronze point has already been made

2. the Moveable Type: There has been a lot of debate from who invented Moveable type printing there are a lot of sources and articles and books and the like some claiming Koreans others claiming Chinese invented it and half of them are all at different time peroids but when I was working on the Korean Science and Technology Article about a month and a half-ago a fair amount of it was about Metal-moveable letterset printing press Iron-printing press Wooden Block-Printing etc when I looked up the actual defination articles they all credited Korea. Right, it also included Chinese Blockprinting from Bi-Sheng from which East Asian Printing Technology derives from. The Point is recently re-reading these articles alot of them nowclaim Chinese invented Move-able type for example that Wang Zhen stub has been re-written and re-written IMO it orginally was claimed he was from Ming and he was placed in the mid 1400's rather then Yuan China. This is what is was orginally:

"Wáng Zhēn (王禎), first Ming eunuch with power in the court; see Battle of Tumu Fortress. The Zhihua Si Temple was built in 1443 at his order. He created the first wooden movable type printing in the world."

and If I remember correctly [ as it was over a month ago]I never saw Moveable on Bi-Shengs Stub

now, the Bi-Sheng inventing Moveable Type is very possiable but again there are no sources confirming it again,all im saying is that there are no sources im not saying Bi Sheng didnt invent moveable type from Baked Clay but I am requesting reliable sources on Moveable and especially on Wang Zhen since the Wikipedia article has been re-written at least 3 times.

also Wood-Block Printing is credited to Koreans from Unified Silla since the kingdom ruled from 668–935 how can it be modeled after Chinese BakedClay in 1041? I read a source a while ago that China first printed books somewhere around 600-650 if so what kind of method? Clay Block Printing?

1. Sources for Science and Technology 2. Sources for moveable and for Clay Block printing in 600-650? anyway for anyone who can help my thanks in advance I might not be able to respons for a couple of days but I will get back to anyone who responds :) Jegal

I have serious doubts about claims of the Korean invention of block printing. In any case, woodblock printing long predates the 7th century. You seem to have block printing and moveable type mixed up: Bi Sheng created moveable type; the Korean prints from the 7th century are woodblock prints. The former means using using many little blocks for different characters, while the latter means carving everything onto one big solid block. In any case, considering that the Koreans were printing in classical Chinese at the time, it seems reasonable that their printing technology was derived from China.

As to Bi Sheng, the reference is Mengxi Bitan ("Essays by the Meng Creek??") by Shen Kuo. Bi Sheng definitely did not invent block printing, since the oldest printed book found (the Diamond Sutra, now at the British Museum) predates him.

The Wang Zhen article seems definitely wrong, since there are extant type-sorting systems from the Yuan dynasty, and you don't need type-sorting unless you are using moveable type. And anyway, Bi Sheng and the Mengxi Bitan predate him. --Sumple (Talk) 01:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I didnt say Koreans from Unified Silla invented Block-Printing itself I said Wooden Block-Printing

2. "The world's earliest known block printed document is thought to be a Buddhist scripture (a copy of the Jikji) believed printed in Korea in 750-751 CE which, if correct, would make it older than the Diamond Sutra." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.183.85 (talk)

So are you saying that Korea invented wooden block-printing?

You are right, the oldest extant print is indeed the korean scripture; however it is not a book. The Diamond Sutra is the oldest book. Anyway, it doesn't matter which one is older - I only wanted to show that printed books preceded Bi Sheng, so it's wrong to say that Bi Sheng invented block-printing. --Sumple (Talk) 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for the input I'll do some more research concerning Bi Sheng and moveable type of printing and the like but on the printing articles on wikipedia the mentioning of Bi Sheng of moveable type has occured within the last month and a half it hasnt been there before not sure if it really matters but it serves as a side note. Jegal anyways thank Sumple ill work on this matter some more. :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.183.85 (talk)

[edit] Linkifying

I thought it was generally advised to linkify only the first usage of a term, and never in headings. --Ideogram 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know.. but this is such a natural place to address the dichotomy. I mean a lot of content has been covered before this section, this a long article, so it's bothersome to go all the way up for the ROC or PRC article links, especially when this section is specifically talking about PRC and ROC as separate entities for the first time (whereas the entire non-lead article before only talked about China). You can change it if you want, but I feel that it's a convenient and natural place for the linkage. --Naus 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Ideogram 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Zhang Ziyi photo

Stay or go? The photo of Zhang Ziyi photo is legal and free for use on Wikipedia. --JakeLM 09:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

move it to her page. she is a cutie, but putting her on here is kind of ridiculous. should we Monica Bellucci, Anna Falchi, etc on the page of Italy??

Why not? Celebrity culture is the culture of the masses. I guarantee you more people know Zhang Ziyi than Lu Xun on an English Wikipedia.--75.33.233.27 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You still miss the point...

I've replaced Zhang Ziyi photo with a photo of the Beijing Modern Dance Company. I think it's fabulous and represents a modern perspective Chinese culture, yet distinctively Chinese. --Mamin27 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movies

Movies are not necessarily "arts", they are mostly popular culture and should not be in the Arts, Literature and Scholarship section, but in the general culture section. This move was unjustified. And how do I discuss the Zhang Ziyi photo when you keep removing it? No one would know it even existed! --JakeLM 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Arts are a subset of Culture. Movies are a subset of arts. And you also reverted my deletion of the paragraph on rice, do you have an opinion on that? Not to mention the paragraph as you wrote it needs to be copyedited.

As for old versions, anyone examining the edit history can click on an old version to see what it looked like. --Ideogram 09:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You will note that the link to Cinema of China is already under the Arts subsection. --Ideogram 09:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How about let's give it a run of 48 hours. It's hard to approve something that isn't there. I don't think it's that offensive to merit an immediate deletion. --JakeLM 09:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not going to revert again. As long as you are willing to talk about it I am in no hurry, and, as I said, all the old versions are still in the edit history. --Ideogram 10:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

You really need to use edit summaries. Do you know what I am talking about? --Ideogram 10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)I haven't seen many people using them.--Johnhardcastle 10:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The purpose of this article

The purpose of this article should be a NPOV uniting country article for the PRC and the ROC (paying attention to the common history leading to their separation), not some vague notion of "Chinese civilization." If one wishes to make a Chinese civilization article, he/she is more than welcome to under the title "Chinese civilization" (or "Sinic civilization"). China is foremost a contemporary country with two modern interpretations today and this is what this article should be about. --Naus 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the lists of scientific and technological achievements of China is useless in the main article and should be moved to a more minor page. Those links have little ties with China and are not explained. A single paragraph summary is more than enough to cover this list. Ideogram had removed the list just 2 days ago, but apparently it's back up again. Someone doesn't seem to get the point. --Naus 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, putting a picture of the Great Wall is controversial as it is Han-centric, and suggestive that China = Han. Again, this article should not attempt to be a Chinese civilization article, but rather a NPOV article on the country known as China, which includes a great deal of peoples traditionally on the other side of the Wall or have no concern for the Wall at all. It should be strongly noted that the Qing Dynasty had very little use for the Wall and modern China is the direct successor of the Qing Dynasty. If one really wants to add that picture (it's a good photo), then put it in the history, culture or technological achievement section. It shouldn't belong in the lead paragraph. You might as well be putting a picture of a panda bear in the lead paragraph. --Naus 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourthly, a geographic/terrain map of China belongs in the Geography/Climate section. China is foremost a country, not a geographic area (which go by the terms: Chinese landmass, continental China or mainland China instead). --Naus 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Chinese Civilization might already be thoroughly explained in History of China, but some article merging and forking could be done to create a separate article if necessary. Cowman109^Talk 04:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would guess a Chinese civilization article would focus more on the various philosophical, religious and cultural movements in Chinese history (which the China article barely addresses at all). The current History of China article is mostly just dry history about this and that dynasty. An article on Chinese civilization will require some very knowledgeable and objective editors. It could easily turn into Han chauvinism. --Naus 04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is only one China

I do not think that putting the words de-facto and de-jure are pro-PRC at all! The United Nations, US, and most countries in the world agree with the 'One China' principle - even those who only recognize the ROC agree that there is only one China.

Therefore, those who recognize the PRC recognize that the whole of China is under the PRC. Those who recognize the ROC think that the whole of China is under the ROC. Therefore, by putting 'two modern states' who not be pro-PRC, in fact it would be rather factual and neutral. It cannot offend both pro-PRC people and pro-ROC people!

I think that only by using de-facto and de-jure terms can one truly understand the current government in China Ghfj007 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for your information, Wikipedia is not a government or the United Nation, granting recognition to real and imagined countries. It is an encyclopedia.--Niohe 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that many countries that don't officially recognize the ROC do in fact maintain unofficial diplomatic relations with it. Most can't recognize the ROC officially because the PRC will not hold relations with any country that doesn't adhere to the One-China policy. Because of this, the fact that few nations recognize the ROC has to taken with a bit of a grain of salt. Anyway, when it comes to de-facto and (especially) de-jure imply, at least to my ear, that Taiwan should rightfully be controlled by the PRC and that the ROC is not legit. This is definitely POV, as it excludes the perspective of the Pan-Green coalition and of Taiwan independence supporters worldwide, as well as those who think the ROC is the rightful government of Taiwan and the mainland. Heimstern Läufer 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, countries that don't recognize the ROC hold no diplomatic relationships at all with Taiwan, whether official or unofficial - they only hold 'informal relationships' with Taiwan. With regards to the de-jure and de-facto terms, I do not agree with with you saying that what I added was biased and pro-PRC. This is because the article can be changed to something which says that the PRC de-facto controls the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao and also makes de-jure claims on Taiwan, while the ROC de-facto controls Taiwan and makes de-jure claims on China, Hong Kong and Macao. I know that Wikipedia does not grant recognition to real and imagined countries - I was just saying that the UN and US recognize one China as the PRC only as an example to support my statement. If you want, I can also make another example that the Holy See only recognizes one China under the ROC. In the light of there only being 'one China', I think it would be better to replace 'two modern states' when talking about the PRC and ROC with 'two de-facto sovereignties'Ghfj007 14:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of countries don't recognize the One-China principle, they simply "acknowledge", "respect", or "take note of" it. See zh:一个中国. -- ran (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Actually it depends on how you think about it. PRC is often known as "China," so there couldn't be two PRCs.--Jerrypp772000 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China, dictatorship and human rights

--- China is a major human rights violator. It is a communist dicatatorship. You cannot even find the word "dictatorship" in this article. What is this? Is NPOV identical with leaving out the most basic FACTS?

Have a look at People's Republic of China. This article isn't primarily about the politics of the PRC (nor of the ROC, for that matter), so you won't find that information here. Heimstern Läufer 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football/Soccer

The reference on Football is completely bogus, and even misinterpreted. It mentions specifically references to a game with balls being kicked around in Japan in 1000BC. I guess Japan is just China too? Also, "many historians", this is b.s. This blurb about balls being kicked around in Japan, China and Rome is hardly a very scientific article. Is there some who just want to show China invented everything? I heard in China they invented the car, motorcycle, space station, computer, etc.? LOL. *rolls eyes*

[edit] POV

The article is full of blatant POV, unsourced nationalist comments like "..For centuries, China was the world's most advanced civilization.." need to be summarily removed.Stanu 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then remove it. I don't understand how editors sit in talk pages and complain about the article's problems. Just fix it if you know its wrong. You don't need permission or anything like that. As long as the wording is NPOV, not exxagerated, etc then its ok. Good friend100 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

actually, if it is true then it is not POV, but it does need to be cited. During the time period cited, China was the world's most advanced civilization... just as Rome, Greece, Egypt were all the most advanced of during their respective heydays.Balloonman 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Reviewer background: Lived in Taiwan for 2 years and majored in Chinese History and Asian Religions at college. (Particular interest included the Taiping Rebellion and Christian Missionaries to China.)

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

[edit] Vandalism

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

[edit] Disabled

I've put this article under semiprotection due to the recent blatant vandailsm. 67.188.172.165 01:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding the semi-protection tag does not semi-protect the article. It requires an administrator to protect or semi-protect an article, and I have just done so. Cowman109^Talk 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know that. 67.188.172.165 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChina_0d00.html"