Talk:China/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Internal links to China

I realise this is too late as regards the above discussion, but I decided to look at the internal links to this page to determine whether they would be better served by a page on the PRC or a page on Chinese civilisation. I only did the first 500 links because, well, it's a hell of a lot of work, and any non-article space links were ignored. If the context of the link was clearly modern day China I put it in the PRC category, if it was clearly ancient China or Chinese culture I put it in the civlisation category. I also put any links referring to the pre-49 Republic of China on the mainland under the Chinese civilisation category, while references to towns or provinces were generally put under the PRC category unless it was clear it was talking about historical China. Any links that were wrongly labelled, unclear or any page which had links to both the PRC and Chinese civilisation were put under the category "ambiguous". I also put any link which talked about "Communist China" under ambiguous, since it's not clear whether it means "the Communist PRC" or "China, which at the time was ruled by Communists". The results are as follows:

People's Republic Civilisation Ambiguous
233 191 51

If anyone wants I can provide which articles fell into which category.

What I think this shows is that though an article about the PRC is the most likely target of an internal link, it's not so clearly so that it would justify making the article just about the PRC. Having said that, there are so many links that would be expecting a page on the PRC that there really does need to be more mention of modern China on this page. --Daduzi talk 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I propose directing "China" to the disambiguation page. About the same number of people refer to PRC or the Civilizational article when they search for the word "China". But the vote has ended with no consensus. I guess would have to wait another year or so before re-opening the case. :P Heilme 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
And there're other meanings of "China" besides PRC or civilizational too. Heilme 23:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a disambig is the answer, simply because it's generally not a good idea to have links pointing to disambiguation pages, which would mean all the links to China would have to be changed manually. That's not a job I envy anyone doing. As to the other meanings, I'm sure there are but from what I saw looking through the links to this page they're not linked to directly (whether they're searched for is, of course, a different matter). --Daduzi talk 08:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but somehow I think directing it to a civilizational article somewhat sidelines the importance of other concepts that pertain to "China". A disambig page may be less preferable but IMO, much fairer. Heilme 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, though, it's a Wikipedia guideline not to link to disambiguation pages, so somebody would have to go back and fix all the internal links, and make sure they stay fixed. I don't envy anyone that particular task.--Daduzi talk 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Disputes

I removed this from the article. I think since this is about civilizational (i.e. China in general), the military disputes section does not fit here. It should be moved to the PRC or the ROC article, so we can have military disputes specific to the PRC and military disputes specific to the ROC. Heilme 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing infobox

China should have a country infobox in common with other country pages on wiki. --RND 14:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well.. The current China article is about the Chinese culture, the countries that related to China are People's Republic of China and Republic of China where they both have their respective country infobox. --WinHunter (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


oh right! thanks for that, I just assumed if I put "China" in search that would be the official country page. Thanks for the clearup. --RND 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a country page, but many of the elements of the infobox—such as government type, leaders, total population and area would be very politically contentious in view of the PRC/ROC controversy if we placed an infobox on this page.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A brief look at other encyclopaedias

The China page of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopaedia and Encarta all take China to mean the PRC, but under the history section include the history of pre-PRC China. It seems to me that we could very easily accomplish the same by merging this article with the PRC article, with modern information from the PRC article and historical/cultural information from this article. This would also satisfy pretty much all the links to and searches for this page. Can somebody explain to me what the problems with such an article would be, given that it doesn't seem to have been a problem for any other encyclopaedia? --Daduzi talk 23:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

EB and Columbia are not exactly neutral sources, and they are biased towards being Western-centric. They are also more insensitive and tend to devote less pages. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, but that doesn't answer the question: what exactly is the problem with merging the two articles into one? How would doing so be Western-centric and/or insensitive? --Daduzi talk 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
To say, "China is the PRC" is clearly a political statement.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Definitely. To say "the term China today (outside of a historical context) is usually used to refer to the PRC" is not, however. The name of articles is supposed to reflect common usage, not empirical or normative reality. WP:Naming is pretty clear on that. --Daduzi talk 01:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
PRC is quite common usage, actually. The difference is this: for example, saying the "Russian Federation" is a less common usage because there is one Russia: however for China it is different. "China" is not the common usage, it just happens to be one of many common references. Note that even political literature inside the PRC itself makes a distinction (just that it claims Taiwan). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(reindenting)The question is not what the common term for the PRC is, it's what China is commonly used to mean. It's true that the PRC is often referred to as the PRC, rather than simply China. That does not, however, change the fact that when people use the term "China" casually when talking in a modern (rather than historical) context they are almost always referring to the PRC. And this is as true in non-western countries (including China) as it is in western countries. --Daduzi talk 06:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That would only come into play when describing Chinese politics, which often is a small amount of the geographical references in China (ie. the Chinese Opera scene in Beijing, "I went to Lijiang in China last summer"). "Chinese minister" or "Chinese politician" can even apply fairly well to both states. When most people say, "China spent x dollars on its military last month", or "Lee Hsien Loong proposes sanctions against China" it would commonly refer to the PRC, but in fact that's quite the small minority of most references to China. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that as someone who's actually been through almost 500 examples of how the term "China" is used in this encyclopaedia I'm going to have to disagree with you. The majority of references to China (provided they are not clearly historical or cultural) are to the PRC. Not a single one of the links to "China" I looked at was referring to the current RoC, and I've never seen a single instance of a Taiwanese official being referred to as a Chinese official. The fact is that for most people around the world modern China is synonymous with the PRC: ask anyone, for instance, what the tallest building in China is and I guarantee you that 99% or so (including Chinese) of those who can give an answer would say the Jin Mao tower rather than Taipei 101. This article needs to reflect the reality of current usage, even if it is a sensitive subject. That being said, there's no reason the article can't make clear the less commonly used meanings of the term. --Daduzi talk 07:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The majority of the modern references to China are to China. That is, it is not restricted by the context to just the PRC. You must consider the definition of Chinese when I brought up that example. It all likelihood a lot of politicians in the Republic of China are going to be called Han Chinese? Then they would be Chinese politicians, after all. And discounting historical and cultural links is in fact an unfair method because there are in no way discountable. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I would agree, which is why I proposed using the historical and cultural sections of the current page, which is pretty much what the other encyclopaedias do. --Daduzi talk 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
While I don't support any move equating China with the PRC/ROC (for unrelated NPOV reasons), I think it is pretty clear that in common English usage, "China" in the political context refers to the PRC (the state), and "China" in the geographical context corresponds with the territory of the PRC (the state). For example, if you asked a guy where he came from, and he said "China", what are the chances that he is from the territory currently administered by the Republic of China? Another example: if you are going to, say, Beijing, for a holiday, and someone asked you which countries you'll be visiting, do you say "China", or do you say, "the People's Republic of China"? --Sumple (Talk) 05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Both can apply. One country, two states, three systems. After all, the Kuomintang regards that Taiwan is very much a part of China, it just disputes that it falls under the jurisdiction of the Beijing Regimists. I went to Hong Kong last year. In China. I also watched Chinese opera in an opera house in Taipei. Perfectly makes sense. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, Wikipedia is being special about this usage of "China". Under the veil of a so-called NPOV policy. Most references of China are in fact to PRC. Not only Western media, Asian media: ChannelNewsAsia, India Times are using that way too. When people and media buzz about "China", it's about PRC or more accurately, the people and territory currently under the rule of the PRC. Heilme 10:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The mainstream POV is not necessarily NPOV. I'm sure they omit it out of convenience, just as it's commonly assumed that, for example on various documentations of mine (both US and Singapore) that my race is "Chinese", which is a nonexistent race as "Chinese" != Han Chinese, as opposed to say Zhonghua Minzu as a nationality (but does not apply to me). These distinctions are important in an encyclopedia documenting the full thing, although overlooked for convenience purposes. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 11:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
POV is irrelevent when determining naming, however, it's common usage that's important. In the case of Chinese People no one definition (Han, Zhonghua Minzu, citizen of the PRC) is clearly more commonly used than the other. That is not the case with China however, the PRC is quite clearly the meaning of China in a modern context. I'm still honestly at a loss as to what the problem would be, in terms of standard usage, with combining the PRC article (for modern information) with this article (for history and culture) and making a hybrid China page. --Daduzi talk 11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
They're commonly assumed to be the same, especially in the West and the mainstream media: they are not. When they say "Chinese" they generally mean race, nationality and culture all in one. (Even my home country, Singapore, specifies my race as "Chinese" and "Chinese" as one of the major four races, which is technically incorrect) Again, just because the mainstream media does this doesn't mean we should too. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(reindenting) It does according to WP:NC(CN):

   
Talk:China/Archive 9
 Names of articles should be the most commonly used name for the following reasons:
  • We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. For example, the pagename is Jimmy Carter and not "James Earl Carter, Jr."; the string "Jimmy Carter" in the page title make it easier to find: search engines will often give greater weight to the contents of the title than to the body of the page. Since "Jimmy Carter" is the most common form of the name, it will be searched on more often, and having that exact string in our page title will often mean our page shows up higher in other search engines.
  • We want to maximize the incidence that people who make a link guessing the article name, guess correctly; people guessing a different name may think there is no article yet, which may cause duplication.
  • Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more.
   
Talk:China/Archive 9

Given that the use of China as a shorthand for the PRC is well established in everyday conversation, the media and academic sources in English, and indeed 中国 is commonly used as shorthand for the PRC by Chinese speakers, there seems to be a very strong case for following the guidlines on this one. This is not just a case of the western media being lazy, it's a case of a term being used in a well established and easily understood context everywhere on the planet apart from Wikipedia. --Daduzi talk 21:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But yet, Jimmy Carter ubiquitously refers to the president in an encyclopedic context, but not so for China, which has had many different regimes during the course of its history. The current standing does not detract from current search protocols. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I must stress again that I am not advocating turning this page into a duplicate of the PRC article, so the existence of prior regimes is irrelevent (they would also be covered). As for not detracting from search protocols, I must disagree: I have little doubt (and the use of internal links supports this) that a significant proportion of users would enter "China" expecting to find information on the PRC. The existence of a disambiguation message on the top of the change does not change the fact that these users are poorly served by the current page. --Daduzi talk 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The PRC can be thought of as a major "dynasty" or period. For instance, even during the Northern Song, the Western Xia was considered part of China - their existence can be alluded to the Republic of China's. There are many other periods where most of a regime's possessions were taken over, but fully taken over - but their dynasty or regime is still given to exist as part of China (and that the dominant ruling regime is not synonymous to China) until it is vanquished. I do not think that readers are poorly served - they are given a larger scope rather than what the mainstream media often tells, excluding significant perspectives in the process. See Template:History of China - the ROC coexists synonymously with the PRC, just like the Liao with the Song, or the Jin with the Song. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
"The PRC can be thought of as a major "dynasty" or period." Well, yes, it can. I don't see why that shows that we shouldn't reflect contemporary usage in the article name, however. "I do not think that readers are poorly served - they are given a larger scope rather than what the mainstream media often tells, excluding significant perspectives in the process." I don't see how it can be a larger scope if the most common usage of the term in modern parlance is excluded. How does excluding make something larger? --Daduzi talk 22:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Unlike a person, China is an entire country. If Wikipedia happened to exist during the Song Dynasty, I bet there would be an argument whether "Song Dynasty" would be equivalent to "China", because "most mainstream references to China at the time usually meant Song China and not the Western Xia", using your logic. Then there would be an argument over whether to merge the Song China and China articles. This logic that Song China is equivalent to all of China, even during the Northern Song period, never mind the existence of the Liao and the Xi Xia, does not follow in history, however. Neither should it apply in this case. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

(reindenting)"Unlike a person, China is an entire country." Just because the guidelines on WP:NC(CN) use a person as the example doesn't mean the guidelines only apply to articles about people. They apply to all articles. "I bet there would be an argument whether "Song Dynasty" would be equivalent to "China", because "most mainstream references to China at the time usually meant Song China and not the Western Xia", using your logic" I really can't comment on what common usage in English was during the Song Dynasty as I wasn't alive then, but if it were common to refer to the Song as "China" then, yes, the "China" article should contain information about the Song. I would stress that this isn't my logic, it's the logic of Wikipedia Naming Conventions: most popular usage takes precedent over all other considerations at all times. The names of articles in Wikipedia are not meant to reflect or determine reality, they're meant to provide the information users expect as easily as possible. --Daduzi talk 00:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But a person is mortal - a country has an indefinite life span till its elimination. The point is not merely about English usage (as it would be in a highly inflectional stage) but rather common reference. The China article at the time would not have precluded Song information, but the concept of the Song and China would be distinct. In historical perspective, they are separate entities, though highly related, as should an encyclopedia. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
We do not sacrifice accuracy in the name of the "common names" rule. To merge PRC with China would imply that China today is equivalent of mainland China+HK+MO (or maybe only mainland China, given what's in the infobox). This would exclude Taiwan/Penghu/Kinmen/Matsu, Mongolia, Northern Burma, and some other places considered by some people to be China. The precedent in Wikipedia for this is the naming of Korea, Ireland, and Macedonia (note that the latter two are clearly the short form for existing states). We would also be subjecting readers of Song (or insert whatever) dynasty articles to an irrelevant red flag and a discussion of modern socialism when the content of the current article would be much more relevant. The setup has existed for so long that the articles that need to link to People's Republic of China and not here already do so (just lookup Special:Whatlinkshere/People's Republic of China to see a gazillion links). --Jiang 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
In current usage, for 99.9% of people "China" refers to the PRC, but that does not mean that there are not other countries/regions/territories that have a majority Han Chinese population, and have cultural and historical links to China. Those countries/regions/territories are not called China but Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao etc. To say anything else is POV, eg to say that "China" = PRC+Taiwan is to agree with the PRC's claim over Taiwan, or Taiwan's claim over PRC. LDHan 01:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The 99.9% figure is arbitrary and unlikely to be true. For example, in the statement, "In 221 BC Qin Shihuang united the warring states and declared himself the first emperor of China", China does not mean the PRC. For a contemporary reference, "According to Census 2000, 2.7 million Americans are of Chinese origin or descent." includes peoples of Taiwanese origin and ethnic Chinese of Vietnamese and Malaysian origin.
Just because Shanghai has a name to it does not make it not part of China. The current setup is meant to be descriptive: it does not assert that China = mainland China + HK + MO + TW though it does present does view. This is how NPOV is supposed to work.--Jiang 02:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The 99.9% just means "the vast overwhelming majority". I'm talking about current usage and the current "China", obviously how you define "China" will vary depending what historical period you're referring to.
"According to Census 2000, 2.7 million Americans are of Chinese origin or descent." includes peoples of Taiwanese origin and ethnic Chinese of Vietnamese and Malaysian origin. This is confusing the issue, here "Chinese" clearly means ethnic Chinese or Han Chinese, and has nothing to do with their place of origin. Are you saying that that Vietnam and Malaysia are part of China? LDHan 04:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No, but you have the issue of Zhonghua Minzu or Han Chinese. Are they immigrants from China? For all you know they could be Hui, Ugyhur, one of the other 55 nationalities beside the Han. Mainstream media incorrectly thinks that "Chinese" is a race or an ethnicity - it is not. Similarly for the PRC/China distinction. The PRC may occupy most of China, but it is not synonymous. When my race is specified as "Chinese", they may mean "Han Chinese" but in all encyclopedic documentary purposes there is a distinction between nationality and race. One can be a Chinese national and not be Han Chinese, one can be Han Chinese and not a Chinese national. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"Vast overwhelming majority" still isn't a good characterization. There's a whole world out there beyond news articles in the international politics section of English-language newspapers: history, arts, geography, etc. Even in politics, the reference is not absolute. The first sentence I read in the book on my desk is "Chinese thinking about the functions of law was shaped by two ancient schools, Legalism and Confucianism." Flipping one page forward, I first see "Fourth, every Chinese constitution implicitly or explicitly gave the government the power to limit rights by acts of legislation." Clearly, "Chinese" here does not refer to the People's Republic of China.--Jiang 07:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
But that's "Chinese" not "China". Similarly, if you replace Chinese with say, German -> "German thinking about the functions of law was shaped by...", or "Fourth, every German constitution implicitly or explicitly gave...", then even German wouldn't have necessarily refer to the current German Federal Government. Could have been Weimar Republic, or Nazi Germany. But usually, people like to associate with the most modern state, unless the author clearly explains "In the 18th century, Chinese thinking about the functions of law..." then in which case we can clearly deduce the CHinese here refers to Qing Dynasty people. And most importantly, it depends on the article you are reading. If the title of the article is about historical topic, then obviously all "Chinese" are non-PRC. But, in common usage (non-historical), Chinese mostly to PRC-related topics in contemporary context. Heilme 08:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"Chinese" used here is simply the adjectival form of the noun "China". It is easy to reword the sentences using the noun form without changing their meanings: "Thought in China about the functions of law was shaped by two ancient schools, Legalism and Confucianism." and "Fourth, every constitution in China implicitly or explicitly gave the government the power to limit rights by acts of legislation."
We are writing a heavily interlinked encyclopedia, not an almanac or a news article. The vast majority of articles that link here are not PRC-specific. Placing PRC-specific information is nothing but misleading. Unlike news articles, many of our references are not refering to "China" in the present tense, and often do not have anything to do with the PRC. In contrast, anything that is newsworthy in China in the eyes of the westerner has to do with the actions of the government. It is important to keep these disparate goals in mind. I don't see how "people like to associate with the most modern state." Why does everything have to do with politics? We want people to click on that link to find information that is relevant in the context in which the link was presented. The current setup best achieves this.--Jiang 10:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
What is this fascination with editing on Chinese topics that the current government doesn't represent the people/geography/history there? AFAIK, this is the only "country" article where the concepts of place and government are treated as seperately as vinegar and oil. SchmuckyTheCat 16:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Right on, Schmucky. As I said, Wikipedia is being special about the usage of "China" and "China" is the only one being given special treatment. If Jiang thinks that when people say "China" it's not related to politics (or the government "China"), then we should embark on changing all of the country articles in Wikipedia. We can begin by moving the main content of France into French Fifth Republic (current govt of France) and treat them separate as such. Because when people say "France", they aren't thinking of politics, right? And we should separate the article Germany into two too: Germany (civilizational) and Federal Republic of Germany. Then also Japan, into Japan (civilizational) and Empire of Japan. And in fact all the countries in Wiki. Heilme 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
China is not the exception. see Macedonia, Ireland, and Korea.
We've been through this same discussion before. France and Germany are relatively "modern" nation-states that have clearly defined borders. Japan, unlike China, is historically continguous (same imperial family, direct patriline for thousands of years). In contrast, the concept of "China" changes much more, even in the modern context. When people speak of "French cuisine", they certainly don't have the government in mind. We are not separating the "civilization" from the state. We are separating the broader concept from the narrower concept. --Jiang 10:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
But those countries aren't mired in a civil war. You wrongly conflate the situations.
Fact is many of the country article name is just an abbreviated name for the long formal name of the government ruling that country. Just as "India" is the short-hand name of "Republic of India". Or, "Venezuela" is short-hand of "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". People does like to associate with the most modern state. I mean, for goodness sake, when you say like "Something happened in Italy", or "Italians are such romantic people", or "Let's go to Italy", you refer to current modern Italians. Not some Italians living 1000 years ago unless they clearly mentioned a time-date. You could have also said something like "Something happened in the Italian Republic", or "Citizens of the Italian Republic are such romantic people". They meant the same, again unless there's a time description such as a thousand years ago or many years ago. The only reason as I have repeated again, of why "China" is currently set up like this is because of PRC/ROC split. There's no other reason. Do not give "we are not writing news article or almanac", or any other reasons. This "discussion" is going to take an entire archive again. Heilme 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What about during something during the Spanish Civil War? The Chinese Civil War is still technically ongoing. Another hypothetical analogy, if Wikipedia existed at the time. You would have both sides (or even three) claiming to be Spain. Clearly, there would be a Spain article, then there would be separate articles on the different states, distinguished by their formal names. In China it is no different. The Chinese Civil War has not ended for a reason. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that is outright wrong. Most people do not know that the full name of Venezuela is the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". People do not associate with the government in every mention of the name, except for names derived from a single governmental entity (e.g. Soviet Union, People's Republic of China). When people say "Yugoslavia", which name are they abbreviating?
Italy did not exist "1000 years ago". The correct term would be "Romans". The Italy of today is historically continguous with the one formed in 1861. Are we now proposing to merge Ancient Rome with Italy? --Jiang 10:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In English "Chinese" almost always means "Han Chinese", it's hardly ever used in English in the way it is used by the PRC (people and government), with the meaning of a citizen of the PRC, including all the non Han minorities (zhonguoren). LDHan 05:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. Don't make this too difficult and give out unnecessary "NPOV" reasons. The only reason why China directs here (civilizational/disambig) is because of current politics (i.e. PRC/ROC), that's all. Don't give out reasons such POV and oversimplified western media blah blah blah.... When PRC & ROC reunify in the future, or, if ROC becomes ROT (Rep. of Taiwan, funny acronym), and assuming PRC still exists then, then China would be equal PRC without any argument. Mr. Qin Shihuang's "China" may be of different look and size from today's "China", but both are still the same "China" (concept-wise by succession of states). The end. Wait for another 20 years then we re-open this argument. Heilme 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if the ROC were to be invaded and vanquished, there might still be a distinction (just as we don't redirect Song China to China), but redirected for common reasons. But not now. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa. Nobody invade or vanquish anyone OK? Peace out. And that Song China to China argument is quite non-relevant. Song China is directed to Song Dynasty, not China. I don't see the connection. Heilme 06:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it is an analogy. Hypothetically if Wikipedia existed during the Song Dynasty, the situation would be similar. Yet in this present day and age we classify it from a historical perspective as one of those many states that ruled China. It is highly relevant. I think you misunderstood me. If Wikipedia existed during the Song Dynasty, which did not control all of China, even during the Northern Song period, you would be arguing to merge the Song Dynasty and China articles. (Because the PRC wouldn't have existed yet.) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the map of the People's Republic of China in the political divisions section gives the implication that China==People's Republic of China. Right now I am listening to NPR on the web and they said that China is part of the "Six Party Talks." I wonder which China they are talking about. But then remember that the press can't give the reader all the intricacies of life and thus have to simplify things.Allentchang 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China is a subset of China. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that anything is being excluded by this article, with its broader focus.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I read and felt both parties does have very valid points to raise pertaining to this topic, and I am still undecided on how best to resolve both concerns at the same time. In the meantime, however, consider which China the following Chinas refer to:

Well, obviously the some of the contributors on this article is either someone who has serious problems with the government of the People's Republic of China or has other agendas; this article on China looks absolutely different (unique?) among the majority of the English encyclopedias' entry on this subject. Not to mention it looks very confusing for someone who may not be familiar with this particular topic. The overall feels of this article seems to suggest that China is actually divided into two countries, PRC and ROC, and almost all cultural and historical references of China should be segregated, and direct to both. I don't think such views are mainstream at all. --67.2.149.224 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is very clear on this; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV:
   
Talk:China/Archive 9
 Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense referring to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China.
   
Talk:China/Archive 9
--Ideogram 06:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"This page is a naming conventions guideline for Wikipedia". It's not a policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things on the other hand, is. --Daduzi talk 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not paper. We don't write articles that are as long as those in other encyclopedias, and we don't need to, because we have links. This article is already longer than most. China is a vast subject and can handle being split up into multple articles. This should be the main article and people wanting to find out more about the politics, government, and economy can click on the link.
The primary reason for this split is of course the fact that there are two political entities that are heir to the history and culture of China. An article that ignores this fact contradicts the One-China principle and the position of the ROC government. --Ideogram 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The One China principle is not Wikipedia policy, however, and so is wholly irrelevant. As is the position of the ROC government (or the PRC government, for that matter). --Daduzi talk 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not overrule the positions of the ROC and PRC governments. --Ideogram 22:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It does on Wikipedia. --Daduzi talk 07:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia doesn't exist to overrule political realities. If enough people support the One-China principle then Wikipedia has to reflect that fact. We don't tell people what to support and what not to support. --Ideogram 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia article naming is not intended to enforce political reality or even reflect it, it's intended to reflect common usage. As such the political reality is wholly irrelevant to article naming, though it is of course an issue that should be covered fairly within the body of the article. --Daduzi talk 07:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Political reality is part of common usage. You aren't going to make much progress by arguing that Wikipedia should ignore political reality. I suggest you try to find arguments that will convince editors who do support the One-China principle, and not try to claim that their reality is irrelevant. --Ideogram 07:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Political reality is part of common usage, but it isn't the whole of it. What I mean by "wholly irrelevant" is not that it doesn't play a role, just that there's no need to discuss political reality when deciding on article names; all that needs to be worked out is what the most common usage is. That may or may not reflect political reality, but it really doesn't matter either way. I've made plenty of arguments to show that the most common usage of the term "China" in a modern context is to refer to the People's Republic of China, and I haven't had a single argument offered in return that this is not the case. Frankly, all I can offer in way of argument to persuade editors who support the One-China principle is that whatever personal political POV you hold should never trump Wikipedia policy, and you should not support naming an article a certain way solely because that way best reflects your political agenda. In the absence of any good argument showing that the modern usage of the term China does not largely refer to the PRC then the China article should include the PRC and all other considerations, political or otherwise, are moot. --Daduzi talk 08:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China or Chinese Empire

What is this article about. This map clearly distinguishes the two regions. PRC is different from "China" because it does include regions that are not traditional "China". Isn't this article supposed to just cover China? All maps on the article cover the Empire (Qing - PRC). deeptrivia (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

PRC is "different" from "China" because as of now, there are two competing states who claim to be "China". They are the People's Republic of China (which most people associate it with), and the Republic of China (which most people might just recognize by the name of "Taiwan"). And because of this ongoing political dispute, "China" in this article gives general info on both the people and territories under the rule of PRC and ROC combined. Chinese empire is different. The Qing map is only used as historical fun fact. Although not many people realize it, that Qing map is actually also equivalent to the de jure official map of the ROC (de facto of course covers Taiwan island only). Heilme 04:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'm talking about real "China" (China proper) vs. areas under PRC rule. deeptrivia (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
China proper is not the "real China". China proper only indicates the region that has been for the longest period of time controlled and majority populated by Han Chinese ethinicity. So don't confuse yourself with the "proper" in China proper to mean that it is the only "real China". Quite a misnomer. Areas under the PRC rule consists of 95% of total "China". The full 100% "China" is PRC (include mainland China, HK, and Macao) + ROC combined. Areas under the PRC rule only includes "China proper", Tibet A.R., Xinjiang A.R., Inner Mongolia A.R., Inner Manchuria, HK S.A.R, and Macau S.A.R. ROC officially includes all territories equivalent to the Qing map that you see, but de facto only covers the island of Taiwan. Heilme 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Plus, a "Chinese" today is a broad nationality term. To equate "Chinese" with "Han Chinese" only is very inaccurate. In the context of PRC, the govt has recognized other minorities so even ethnic Tibetans living in Lhasa are Chinese. Think of "American", no single race. On other context of Overseas Chinese, some of them call themselves "Chinese" but aren't holding Chinese passport but rather they meant culturally Chinese (usually Han). Heilme 04:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you're saying absurd things like Tibetans are Chinese, then perhaps there's no point of this discussion. Few people who haven't been brainwashed by PRC propaganda from childhood will accept such views. "American" does include residents of USA, but not residents of Iraq. Anyway, no point discussing this. deeptrivia (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Well, I clearly have strong views on this, so I'll refrain from any comments. deeptrivia (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You may disagree, but it's the truth. Oh, and I don't think Iraqis hold an American passport. Not that easy. Heilme 06:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not "the truth" or "not the truth". Just an opinion.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Tibetans are supposedly part of the Zhonghua Minzu...and don't forget Five Races Under One Union preceding the PRC. As for me I'm just a Singaporean. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment on Natalinasmpf's observation: The whole question is whether Tibetans were happily embracing the concept of Five Races Under One Union with open arms, or was this just the wishful thinking of someone sitting in Beijing? deeptrivia (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
90% Tibetans embrace that notion. The only crying babies are Dalai Lama and his former serf masters who can barely speak in Tibetan. Some western people are just ignorant and obessed with the one-side story they have been told. It's true that Tibetans is still thinking of Dalai Lama as their religious leader. However, don't get me wrong -- it doesn't mean they support him as the political leader, or the grand serf master he used to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.118.54.193 (talk • contribs) .
I was just pointing out the possibility. I've seen both sides of the argument but we're assuming one side is possible. And by the way, the capital of the ROC was at Nanjing, not Beijing. :P Sun Yat-Sen spent much of his life in exile anyway. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In English "Chinese" almost always means "Han Chinese", it's hardly ever used in English in the way it is used by the PRC (people and government), with the meaning of a citizen of the PRC, including all the non Han minorities (zhonguoren). LDHan 05:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well really? In the West perhaps. 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, don't think so. Anyone holding a Chinese passport is a Chinese. A white, blonde-hair, blue-eyed caucasian holding a Chinese passport will be a Chinese (nationality). An ethnic African man holding a Chinese passport is also to be called a Chinese (nationality). But as I said there are many context to which "Chinese" can be used. It can mean Chinese nationality, or as in the context of overseas Chinese -> Chinese ethnicity (which most people equate to "Han"). In the context of racial profiling in USA (when you make driver license for e.g.), they usually use the term "East Asian" for Han Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. But sometimes if asked, "Are you Chinese?", most likely they mean whether you are Han Chinese. Very inaccurate. Maybe if a petition is made, they can change it :P. In Chinese, Han Chinese is Han ren not simply "zhong guo ren". Heilme 06:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Are there really any blonde-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian who hold Chinese passports? If there are any such people, I doubt very many people would refer to them as "Chinese" in English. Would the average Chinese person start referring to me as Zhōnguórén or tóngbāo if I got a Chinese passport? I don't know; it's kind of hard to picture that situation ...—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me assure you that there is, though not many. And yes, they should be called Chinese when asked for nationality. As for ethinicity, then it could be German, French, etcetera. Heilme 07:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I know one ethnic Russian who is a Chinese national. Green eyes, but not that it makes a difference. Many Americans would have trouble referring to a turban-wearing, swarthy Arab person who holds an American passport as American. Same thing in China. -- Миборовский 18:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, Caucasians are part of the Zhonghua Minzu...? I thought that is usually precluded by the bureaucacy of approval because of the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China. Overseas Chinese on the other hand seem grey. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Caucasians of course is not part of Zhonghua Minzu. Only five stripes in the original flag. But in PRC context, you don't have to be ethnic Han with yellow skin, black hair, and slit eyes to be called Chinese. You can be a Jew and become naturalized as a Chinese citizen/nationality (see Israel Epstein, a Chinese Jew). What User:Deeptrivia, I think, is trying to drift towards is to claim that PRC is imperialist yada yada, and that the "real" territory of PRC should be limited to "China proper". Apparently thinking that "China proper" is "properly China". But "China proper" is just a name. "Great Britain" is not that great anymore (from the days when Britannia rule the waves), or is it still? Heilme 06:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that even in the modern ROC (Taiwan), you don't have to be categorized in that special five ethnicities (Han, Mongol, Manchu, Tibetan, Hui) to be called a ROC citizen, or not? I'm not familiar. I know an ethnic Indian that got naturalized there. Heilme 06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The China of the Qing Dynasty and ROC is shaped like a begonia. The China of the PRC is shaped like a chicken or if you consider the abscence of Outer Mongolia to be hair loss, the China of the PRC looks like Mao Tse-tung. What can we say about the Mongols and the Mongolian Empire . . . . . . could we paint a picture of China in terms of the Mongolian Empire? Just hypothetical questions. Allentchang 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Under "The Official View" of the PRC govt anyone who is a Chinese national is a part of the "Zhonghua minzu". People like Kazakhs and Tajiks (spl?) are part of the 56 nationalities and thus, a part of the Zhonghua minzu. And there are a lot of native-born Caucasians in China. --Sumple (Talk) 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This is very tricky discussion, considering nobody really had a definitive agreement. Heilme, PRC actually controls about 99.5%. But that is a minor mistake so I would not comment on it. I would suggest everyone cool off and start editing about other articles because everyone here is at least a little affected by propaganda.
Myself believes that user Deeptrivia is being very, very one-sided here - actually, personally I think it's difficult for a "Westerner" not to have one-sided views, considering that some newspapers are continually and indirectly attacking PRC, stating things like "China threat" which are actually ridiculous nonsense. But this is OR and I may be POV unknowningly, anyway, so I would not bother to refute the claims. However, I would suggest both Deeptrivia and Heilme to remain civil in the discussion - See WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
I would like to point out some misunderstandings here, though. A Chinese citizen is very different from a Chinese. A lot of westerners actually had passports in Mainland China (and in Macau and HKSAR), and they qualify as Chinese citizens, but they are definitely not what most people would refer to as "Chinese". What most people see as Chinese are those that are directly related and heavily influenced by Han Chinese culture ("minor ethnicities"). Considering Caucasians to be Chinese would be at most a bad joke. Aranherunar 11:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually wondering why some of you think there are "a lot" of Westerners with Chinese passports/citizenship. You need to have at least one parent with Chinese citizenship in order for you, yourself, to apply for citizenship. It doesn't matter that you were born in China. And the handover of HK and Macao only granted Chinese citizenship to those who were Chinese. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic groups in China

I'd like to ask those who might be interested in the subject of ethnic groups in China to weigh in on the current discussion in another article. I proposed that we split the article to a listing of the minority groups and an article discussing ethnic minorities in China. Hong Qi Gong 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China is the world's longest known continuous civilization.

Google "China continuous civilization" and you will see thousands of references from universities such as NYU, WSU etc.

Actually if you guys can name one respected institution of higher learning that says any country other than China has the oldest continuous civilization, then feel free to revert.

This is not an opinion, this is a fact. China is the oldest continuous civilization. It will be taken as fact until new evidence disproves it.

Google "oldest continuous civilisation" and you'll find references to India and Australia as well as China. I do hope that you've also read the eight pages of archived discussion, by the way. HenryFlower 14:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL. The reason why historians say that China is the oldest civilization is because they have continuously used the same language since 1500 bc. This is not true of India. It is historical fact that China has the oldest surviving language. Therefore, this is why respected institutions like NYU state that CHina is the world's oldest surviving civilization. Harvard says this: "China is the world's oldest continuous civilization. Visitors are immersed in a sea of visual and cultural experiences unlike any other in the world. Having developed, for the most part, independent of foreign cultural domination, each geographic area teems with its own unique identity, and represents an energetic variation on the great theme of Chinese civilization. "24.7.34.99 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Not every historian has the same opinion and they certainly do not agree on what constitutes a civilization. See the Civilization page for different opinions on the topic. -Freyr 14:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Same language? Er, really? Following the Spring and Autumn period the languages fragmented - it was only under Qin Shihuang that the languages were reunified again. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
To say that "they have continuously used the same language since 1500 bc" is like saying Latin and Italian are the same language. Actually linguists say that "the Chinese language" is a group of mutally unintelligable but related languages. LDHan 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Phonetically, perhaps. Writing, no. Another key difference is that it's only mutually intelligible at first glance - for example, usually people who know one Chinese dialect do not have to go to extraordinary lengths to "study" the other, because the vocabulary (except for colloquialisms) is roughly the same. Most things are directly translatable, idioms, poems (although it might not rhyme anymore) and such. Usually a dialect is "picked up", not studied, if one already studies the other. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 12:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
(off-topic comment) It is wrong to say that Australia has a oldest/ancient continuous "civilisation" because the aboriginal culture was not a civilisation. no cities, no writing, etc. it is, however, (one of) the world's oldest surviving culture(s). --Sumple (Talk) 11:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I do not think it is actually because of the writing that it is called the 'oldest continuous civilization', rather because it had always been under the rule of Chinese (Including Han Chinese, along with Mongols and Manchus which were considered Chinese AFTER they have sinized). India, however, has been colonized by the British. Aranherunar 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies in Image:ChinaGeography.png

The border between China and Vietnam and also the border between China and Myamar are completely wrong. According to that map half of Myanmar belongs to China.

And Arunachal Pradesh definitely isn't governed by China, therefore why is it included in a way that seems like it is? --84.239.157.217 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Compared to the CIA World Factbook it seems pretty accurate. Sasquatch t|c 02:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation statement

I don't see why we should use the French article's disambiguation statement, and I don't see why it is the most NPOV. --Ideogram 11:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What I'm trying to accomplish

I think I need to explain what I'm trying to accomplish here. Basically, I want to eliminate politics from this article. All discussions of the controversy between the PRC and the ROC can go in those articles. This article should only be about the people, history, culture, and geography of China, as explicitly stated in my version of the disambiguation text. --Ideogram 11:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag icons

I see there is some controversy over the flag icons. Let's have a quick straw poll.

"Should we use the flag icons in this and other articles?"

Support:

--Ideogram 11:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - Flag icons are useful and help explain the disambig statements. --RevolverOcelotX 11:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Inconsistent with most other disambig statements. --Sumple (Talk) 11:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No vote, this poll is silly:

--Icons are suitable for use in some contexts, such as tables and boxes. They are not suitable for inline use within text. Wikipedia is not written for 5-year-olds. HenryFlower 11:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the harm is. I have used these flag icons on other articles and you are the first one to complain. What if you are the only one opposed? Would you still stubbornly insist on having your way? --Ideogram 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not, but yes I would. Which other articles have you used them on? HenryFlower 12:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone else used one on Portal:Taiwan so I used one on Portal:China and recently on Taiwan. --Ideogram 12:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, no edit-warring please! --Sumple (Talk) 12:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me second that. We are all experienced editors here, let's settle this by discussion instead of reverting back and forth. --Ideogram 12:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The dab page for China (disambiguation) and Georgia uses flag icons too for as long as I can remember. Why somebody complains all of a sudden? Heilme 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. There seem to be several disambiguation pages that use flag icons. But are there many that use them in dab lines at the top of other articles? I'm curious. --Sumple (Talk) 06:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Support (and this poll actually quite silly too): A flag is a symbol of a country, and most country can be easily identified more with their flag. Plus, this is the first time someone has complained about flag icons. Very rare indeed. The previous format with the flag icons have existed for about 1-2 months and nobody seemed to complain. Other articles that have flag icons never seem to complain as well. Heilme 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you edit-warring? --Ideogram 18:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not my war. Heilme 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You are reverting changes without discussion. I don't know what you are trying to say, but you are definitely edit-warring. This is not productive. --Ideogram 18:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Plus, that was the original state before this "war" began. Heilme 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the original state was, do you understand that Wikipedia policy is to discuss controversial changes? --Ideogram 18:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss China/PRC split

We are discussing the topic split between China and People's Republic of China at Talk:People's Republic of China. Please join in. --Ideogram 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced pictures

I don't think this article needs that many pictures. Many of the pictures are of dubious relevance to the text. One subsection has three pictures in it, way too much. The geographical picture should go at the top instead of the Great Wall picture, since it pictures all of China. --Ideogram 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation text and first paragraph of lead

Giving ROC coequal placement with PRC is controversial. In the discussion above people even argue that this article should be merged with PRC. I don't think the PRC/ROC split deserves mention in the lead paragraph, since this article is not supposed to be about politics. Please discuss. --Ideogram 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This whole mess is controversial.... Again, the most NPOV solution is to just use the common English usage, per Wikipedia policy. This is the English language Wikipedia, and we should follow English language common usage conventions, I don't care what you do with the Chinese language Wikipedia. In English common usage, China = People's Republic of China, Taiwan = Republic of China (Hong Kong has its own "country article," does that mean Hong Kong is not a part of China? No.) Doing this avoids the problems you have right now, and makes Wikipedia in line with every other English language encyclopedia (online and print). The current setup, however, is absolute garbage. --Naus 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not my problem, it's your problem. You're the one arguing to change the status quo, and you don't solve a controversy by ignoring the other side. --Ideogram 22:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know what your problem is here, the only thing you seem capable of is distorting the comments made by others. You seem to want everyone to follow your proposals, and when others make their own proposals, you raise your arms and say "that's not my problem." Good luck then trying to get any support from the other editors with your attitude. You are the one who without prior discussion made vast edits and blanking to the PRC article, and mass moved content from the PRC article to the China article, and you think you are still abiding the "status quo"? Reality check: status quo was for China to be a civilizational article (that's what was written on the original lead for the past two years). You have tried to alter the status quo so that China is now a bona fide country article, except that this China doesn't represent the PRC (you've tried to strip the PRC article of all its country aspect, and keep only the raw political state information). So your problem has become my problem, by your first unilaterally changing the status quo. Now you come here arguing that the ROC's coequal placement with the PRC in the lead is controversial. No, it's not controversial so long as China remains a civilization article (Taiwan is most certainly a modern state belonging to the Chinese civilization). It only becomes controversial when you see the China article as a country article (which is what you have been trying to alter into). You've changed the status quo, not me. Because you changed it, I proposed a better solution above. It's specifically neither "your problem" nor "my problem"; rather it's merely a proposal which I (and several others here) think is better. Take it or leave it, don't bitch like it has no place in the discussion. That would be called arrogance, which you reek of in your comments. --Naus 17:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep your discussion civil, please, and refrain from personally attacks. -- Миборовский 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second paragraph of lead

The replaced text in this paragraph is vague, often meaningless, and contains weasel words like "mostly uninterrupted", "largely characterized". "divisions and reunifications" and "alternating periods of peace and war" what else is there? "multiple regions of East, Northeast, and Central Asia" well that just about covers everything, doesn't it? We need to establish exactly what this paragraph is trying to say and rewrite it. --Ideogram 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GEOGRAPHY?

Weather? Landscape?

[edit] Religion?

In the "Region" section of the article, there was a list of common religions in mainland China. Mainland China went through the Cultural Revolution several decades ago. At that time, religion organizations were attacked, banned and abolished. Mao Zedong even asserted that "Religions are poisonous" (宗教是毒藥) when he met Dalai Lama many years ago. The Communist Party has also been notorous of oppressing religious freedom. I wonder if religion is really so common in mainland China that one can make a long list of the "common religions in mainland China."

  • It's been 30 years since the end of Cultural Revolution and Mao (40 years if you count the start of CR). 30 years is a long time, a whole generation. 62 years ago, Germany was still run by Hitler; 15 years ago, Russia was still the Soviet Union. They are the common religions in China, and they should be listed as such. If you want to challenge this, please provide some facts and sources, because the current content has sources backing it up. There is already a sentence in the Religion section that says "Due to the Cultural Revolution, 59% of the mainland Chinese from the People's Republic of China (PRC), or about 767 million people, identify themselves as non-religious or atheist." What more do you want? I have removed your tags. --128.135.96.172 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is unnecessary, request for merging or deletion.

China is a duplicate of the PRC article. Either merge the PRC article with the China article, or shorten this article to include just the China/Taiwan conflict so that readers won't be incredibly confused. Most readers will assume when they go to China that it will be about the country of China, and they are surprised not to find a country infobox on the right side. This is because currently the English common name for the PRC is "China" and the English common name for the ROC is "Taiwan." There are no conflicts if we follow the common English name convention. The current layout is discriminatory (POV) against the PRC (as if suggesting PRC is not really China), and some form of NPOV solution should take place.

Wikipedia Policy: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." For more information, see: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions.

Linking to "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" for China is *not* easy nor second nature. Very few people use the terms People's Republic of China or PRC in the English language, the common English term "China" is sufficient. Let's not try to popularize something here (using terms like PRC) in Wikipedia that does not represent reality. --Intsokzen 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose this suggestion, per the previous 231 discussions of the exact same topic. HenryFlower 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restate or link those counter-arguments, please. Old discussions have different arguments from mine. The validity of my argument above holds. Wikipedia is not a place for people to shove their minority and personal agendas down other people's throats, such as forcing us English speakers to use "PRC" and "People's Republic of China" in place of the common and accepted usage of "China." Current arrangement has violated two Wikipedia policies: 1. Wikipedia:NPOV, 2. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions. --Intsokzen 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems that all the arguments you present here have already been just last June (/Archive7#Request_this_article_be_merged_with_the_PRC_article). You come back a year later to see if consensus has changed, but I doubt it will on these arguments alone. If you believe you are bringing anything new to the table, please point it out. --Jiang 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Those arguments above alone should be enough for a merge. Wikipedia policy outweighs guidelines and status quo. As there was no final consensus last time, it suggests this topic is a contentious issue, and therefore a referendum on it should be held frequently, it does not give status quo a free walk ad infinitum. --Intsokzen 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I can just copy and paste the responses from last time, if that's what you want, but how is that going to help achieve a consensus to change the status quo? Based on prior convention and experience, repeatedly bringing an issue up, instead of letting the issue rest before bringing it up again is really counter-productive.--Jiang 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The idea is to generate more discussion from other editors of the China and PRC articles, so that we can have a more *representative* consensus, rather than have 5 people duking it out at each other perpetually, each unashamedly refusing to let go of any ground, however faulty or weak their argument. The last discussion on this topic has been archived for quite some time, therefore the issue is hidden and already "rested." Contentious topics should not be avoided, but continuously discussed, so we may reach a better compromise that maximizes both sides' goals and POVs. Right now, I say "A", my opponents say "B"; neither side is addressing the issues mentioned by the opposite side. I and others who share my views might as well be talking to ourselves. This fetish of status quo is not healthy. Just because there is no consensus, does not make the status quo any more just or appropriate. Maybe if we can all first agree that the current status quo is deficient in many ways, we would have something to work upon from there. --Intsokzen 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • New ideas should always be welcome, if that is what you are seeking. We can either wait for someone to come up with something profoundly different to shake the consensus, or we can keep reposting the same arguments over again: post, argue, argue some more, archive, re-post, argue... We are the same people! Trying to find a "better compromise" means proposing compromises, not reposting arguments. Continuous discussion does not mean repetitive discussion. How can we change the content of the articles to make them less POV? Instead of just discussing what is wrong, what can you propose that we will all agree to?--Jiang 06:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, people see discussions like this as a battle between the different sides of the issue, where people can "duke it out" as he says and whoever has the last laugh/post "wins" the argument, thereby allowing him to make whatever changes he wants to the page. That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a concensus-based community-written encyclopedia, and the right to edit is not a trophy to the winners of an argument. -- Миборовский 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is currently a country article, so there is no need for a change.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per reasons given in the past hundred or so discussions on the same topic. Give it a rest already. There is obviously a complicate and on-going dispute as to what "China" really is, or what governments are involved. It's best to have this article seperate from the PRC article. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Per above. No offense, but an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. Take some time reading articles about modern Chinese history, would you? Thanks. Aranherunar 11:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If anyone needs a simple reason, here and here.
  • Please don't insult the intelligence and knowledge of other editors on Wikipedia. Your comment was offensive and arrogant. Thanks. 68.252.245.109 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So much thanks. I would like to understand how my comment is offensive when you made this contribution yourself? I do not find my comment offensive. Perhaps I have overreacted by calling it 'ridiculous', but it is hard to assume good faith when this has been nominated hundreds of times and there is a very strong reason not to do so. Aranherunar 08:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. that IP belongs to the SBC/AT&T/Yahoo ISP provider, it's not likely going to be the same person. Sorry to burst your bubble. 128.135.60.89 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Because since there are two Chinese republics currently in existence, PRC and ROC(Taiwan), merging two or three China related articles will cause confusion. Especially on the topic about government and military. Awongca 06:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The PRC is about politics and the history of the government, China is about its past and its culture and civilization. Its completely different, and even if ideologically they should be merged, it would be impossible because different articles have put different links. There's thousands and thousands of articles linked differently to China and PRC. Aranherunar 09:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The correct common name for USA in the English language is the United States (note, it's not the United States of America and it's not America). The correct common name for Britain is the United Kingdom (note, not Britain nor United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Your examples are ironically in support of what you actually oppose. The correct common name in English for the People's Republic of China is "China." Wikipedia is currently the only exception out of 4 or 5 English-language encyclopedias I have checked. It's making a fool out of itself. 128.135.60.89 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Your examples are ironically in support of what you actually oppose." No, they are not. If you know anything about Britain, Ireland or Macedonia you know that you are wrong. Ironically for you, my examples support what I support. --GunnarRene 12:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
"The correct common name for USA in the English language is the United States" - I have to oppose that. The article on USA begins with: "The United States of America, also known as the United States". The United States of America is obviously the correct one. Aran|heru|nar 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Yes, Britain is commonly used to mean the UK but neither Britain nor the UK includes Ireland (whether the Republic of Ireland or the geographical island of Ireland). However the UK does include Northern Ireland as the UK consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. See British Isles (terminology). LDHan 11:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. Britain might sometimes be used to referr to all of the British Isles, but it's more commonly used for the UK or Great Britain. --GunnarRene 14:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Great Britain/Britain is commonly used to mean the UK; UK citizens are described as British (although anything relating to N. Ireland is controversal) but to use Britain to refer to all of the geographical British Isles is simply wrong and not used, at least not in the UK, I wouldn't know about other countries though. The use of geographical British Isles is problematic and is best avoided. LDHan 10:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. PRC is certainly not the same as China. Who made this suggestion in the first place?-- Hillgentleman 08:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article size is too big.

The current article size, as of the time of my posting here, is 44KB. The standard suggested size of an article is 32KB. Can we shrink some of the sections that have individuals articles actually dedicated to the subject matter of the sections? --- Hong Qi Gong 18:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

HongQiGong, It is big, but yet it is sketchy. What is China? It is not easy to explain briefly.Hillgentleman 08:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well it seems that alot of stuff with their own articles end up here instead of there. Names of China comes to mind? Maybe this kind of stuff can be moved. --1698 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal top choices for shortening and possibly moving of content to other articles is the "Dynastic rule" section and the Religion section. I think the "Names of China" section is more important as it pertains to the name of the article itself. --- Hong Qi Gong 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proofreading

I made several proofreading changes to this article, but I found 4 problems I couldn't fix by myself.

1. "The Historical Records states..." The context requires Historical Records to be a specific book, but the link goes to History. Do we know the complete name of the book? Even if we don't, it isn't helpful to link to an article about history in general.

2. "After Wen Tans death..." Was Wen Tan a specific person? If so, then it should be "After Wen Tan's death..." with an apostrophe. But I can't find anyone named Wen Tan in Wikipedia or on the Internet, so I left it as is.

3. The link to "Constructive Engagement with Asian Values" is dead, and I couldn't find a replacement link.

4. The link to Asian Games 2006 is also dead. There are other links but I didn't see the statement about China included. Art LaPella 06:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I did some copy editing with the section that mentions "Historical Records". I believe "Historical Records" is a reference to Shi Ji. [1] --- Hong Qi Gong 14:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know of a "Wen Tan" either, and Google didn't turn up anything. Could it be a badly romanised version of one of Yuan Shikai's name, 慰亭 (Wei Ting)? At any rate, I replaced "Wen Tans death" to "Yuan Shikai's death". --- Hong Qi Gong 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I found the "Constructive Engagement with Asian Values" article at archive.org[2], and I've linked it up. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Art LaPella 19:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map-making changes (print)

'Beijing' is an ancient name, different from 'Darfur' or Muscat' which have been stamped on world maps as a political action. 15:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot

[edit] This paragraph about "Middle Kingdom" is absolute fiction

From the Zhongguo section of this article: The translation of Zhongguo into English as "Middle Kingdom" is probably one of the typical examples that exhibit the effect of "Lost in Translation". While it is certainly true that Zhong (中) means "middle", Zhong (中) also means "center", which is where the ancient Chinese believed their country was positioned in the world. So a more accurate English translation of Zhongguo should be something like "Central Nation". "Middle Kingdom" is simply a very poor translation that fails to capture what the ancient Chinese believed their country was -- the center of the world.

  • Zhongguo never meant "the center of the world." That's fiction that Chinaphobes/China-bashers and teenage Han Chauvinists alike (ironic) on the internet fantasize about.
  • Zhongguo as used traditionally simply meant: "the central region of the country." Ancient Chinese capitals were mostly based in this region. There is a Chinese tradition of calling the kingdom/state by the name or region of the capital, hence the term Zhongguo for China.
  • Thus Middle Kingdom ("middle part of the kingdom") is a far better 2-word translation than Central Nation.
  • I have removed the above quoted paragraph because it is utter bullcrap.

--Intsokzen 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The "centre part of the country" - the north china plain - is only one of the meanings of the word Zhongguo. There is more than one meaning to that word, so don't label something as bullcrap until you have looked it up in a big dictionary. --Sumple (Talk) 12:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It is bullcrap. The "middle part of the country" is the original meaning of the word Zhongguo and also the literal meaning. Sure Zhongguo has many other meanings, but the text in the article specifically said "literal." In Chinese, the poetic term 北国 (beiguo) means "North Country" (north part of the country), it doesn't literally mean "northern country of the world." --Naus 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on various creditable dictionaries published in both Mainland China and Taiwan, the original meaning of the word Zhongguo is "Center of the world", please see my Reason of "Central" #2 below. --lafleur127 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In Chinese language, the character “中” can mean "central" or "middle" depending on the context, in general, the word "central" is translated as "中央的", the word "middle" is translated as "中间的". The word "middle" is typically used in an one-dimensional sense, while "center" is especially used in a two-dimensional sense:

Please don't confuse Mandarin Chinese with Classical Chinese. Zhongguo comes from Classical Chinese. Zhongguo as used classically refers to a specific region of China. This region does not necessarily mean central nor middle. It's a proper noun. However, the Chinese character for zhong (中) originally was a linear concept ("top and bottom are interchangeable"); for example in politics, zhong ("moderate") is considered neither zuo ("left") nor you ("right"). This is the Confucian concept of zhong, implying neutrality and moderation. Thus "Middle" is a better and purposely more ambiguous translation than "Central" (too crude). --Naus 22:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see my Reason of "Central" #2/#5 below. --lafleur127 05:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

From Longman

middle, adjective: nearest the center, especially of a row, list, or group of things or people.

central, adjective: in the middle of an object or an area


In English language, some common usage of the word "middle" can be:

  middle name, middle house in a row,

some common usage of the word "central" can be:

  central location of an area, central nervous system

As a result, the translation "Central Kingdom" is much better translation of "中国", since the character "国" or Kingdom has 2-dimensional sense, but not 1-dimensional sense.

--lafleur127 12:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The word "middle" can perfectly easily be used in a two-dimensional sense in English, e.g. "the middle of the room" or "the middle of the town". It's not that middle can't be used to refer to a two dimensional position, rather that central can't (or can only seldomly) be used to refer to a one dimensional position (so you couldn't change "The Middle Ages" to "The Central Ages" but you could change "Central London" to "the middle of London"). If a favouring of "Central Kingdom" over "Middle Kingdom" hinges on the difference between the English words then I have to say it seems highly tenuous to me.--Daduzi talk 05:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that the character “中” is adjective here. The word "middle, adj." should be used in an one-dimensional sense, and the word "central, adj." should be used in multi-dimensional sense. Please see my Reason of "Central" #3 below. --lafleur127 12:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Iron Man statue is in the middle of Victoria Square which is in the middle of Birmingham which is in the middle of the Midlands which is in the middle of England." Please explain to me how this sentence is invalid. --Daduzi talk 04:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Your sentence is valid, but the word "middle" in your sentence is a noun, not adjective. To see the difference, change "in the middle of" to "middle". For example "Midlands is in Middle England"? --lafleur127 08:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You do know what the "mid" in "the Midlands" is short for, right? --Daduzi talk 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you can tell me why there's an "s" in "the Midlands"? Thank you. By the way, have you answered my question? Lafleur127 03:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Because it was historically a group of lands in the middle of the country, hence the Middle Lands. If you're implying that the s means that "the Midlands" is short for "the place in the middle of some other lands", well, come on. And what question are you referring to? --Daduzi talk 07:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
seriously, neither of you have said anything in response to him (her?). The fact is that 中国 has never actually refered to 天下. but as a nation, China is all under heaven. theres only been rare cases of "kingdoms" and never a "middle kingdom" ... well... not until a hundred years ago --1698 07:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the teacher at a university Classical Chineses class, 中国 originally referred to one of the several Chinese states, it didn't mean the centre of the world. LDHan 11:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's one of its (original) meanings. (and that's what Intsokzen was trying to say). Nonetheless, you can't just say that "the word originally meant this, and all other (subsequently developed meanings) are crap." These others meanings developed over time and are commonly used as well. Sure, it's good to find out what originally meant, but subsequently developed meanings are nonetheless legitimate meanings. --Sumple (Talk) 11:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well then when did China = 中国 = center of the world? there have been 2 republics of 中国, have either of them been (or declared to be) the center of the world? So this part of the article is no longer there, thats good. --1698 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Zhongguo has never meant "Center of the World" outside of fantasies and mistranslations. "Center of the World" is not a legitimate meaning for Zhongguo. Please provide some sources that specifically state Zhongguo meant "Center of the World." There are instead plenty of sources that say Zhongguo refers to a specific geographic location. I think lots of people confuse Tianxia with Zhongguo. --Naus 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on various creditable dictionaries published in both Mainland China and Taiwan, the original meaning of the word Zhongguo is "Center of the world", please see my Reason of "Central" #2 below. --lafleur127 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Kingdom vs. Central Kingdom

From Google:
537,000 pages for query: "Middle Kingdom" + China
11,100 pages for query: "Central Kingdom" + China

19,200 pages for query: "Middle Kingdom" + Zhongguo
485 pages for query: "Central Kingdom" + Zhongguo

14,000 pages for query: "Middle Kingdom" + 中国
1,130 pages for query: "Central Kingdom" + 中国

Middle Kingdom dominates Central Kingdom by a margin of 100:2 for the English searches. Reputable sources such as CNN, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, WaPo, Forbes, The Economist, Time, Newsweek, Businessweek have all used the term "Middle Kingdom" and not "Central Kingdom."

I think that settles it. Also, notice the adverbial modifier "usually" in the article text. --Naus 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the Chinese character for zhong (中) has a very strong linear concept; for example in politics, zhong ("moderate") is considered neither zuo ("left") nor you ("right"). This is the Confucian notion of zhong, implying neutrality and moderation. Zhongguo has very strong Confucian connotations: the middle way, enlightened governance, pure mediation, etc. Thus "Middle" is a better and purposely more ambiguous translation than "Central" (too crude). --Naus 22:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Zhongguo translated literally in other languages (from other Wikipedias on "China"):
German: Reich der Mitte
French: Pays du Milieu
Italian: Paese di Mezzo
Swedish: Mittens Rike
Dutch: Het Rijk van het Midden
Danish: Riget i midten
Russian: срединное государство (sredīnnoe gosudarstvo, "middle state")
Japanese: 国の中心 (kuni no chuushin, "center of the country")

The English literal translation "Middle Kingdom" is quite appropriate. Whereas, the "Central Kingdom" (Center of the World) translation is simply a mistranslation used for ulterior agendas (not NPOV). --Naus 02:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reason of "Central" #1

Quote from the book "Mao's China and the Cold War", published by UNC Press. ISBN: 0807849324 --lafleur127 22:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"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."
Whoop-dee-doo, one source, written by a non-native English speaker (Chen Jian, born in Shanghai, educated in East China Normal Univ, M.A. in Fudan Univ) on the Cold War. The author clearly is trying to impose a context greater than what is given with the name Zhongguo because he is using his unique interpretation (translation) of Zhongguo to make a point for his thesis (notice that he has to argue that the Chinese think that "China is superior to any other people" in order to make his point, he can't actually cite anything from the actual historic usage of the term Zhongguo). The character zhong doesn't mean "central" in the literal context of the name Zhongguo. "Central" is too narrow a translation for the name Zhongguo. Also, Zhongguo and "All under heaven" (tianxia) are two different concepts, which the author here mixes carelessly to promote his thesis. --Naus 02:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see Reason of "Central" #2 & #4 --lafleur127 03:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason of "Central" #2

Based on various creditable dictionaries published in both Mainland China and Taiwan, the original meaning of Zhongguo was "Center of the world", as a result, "central" is the proper translation. --lafleur127 03:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

北京商務印書館出版的《辭源》: 上古時代，我國華夏族建國於黃河流域一帶，以為居天下之中，故稱中國，而把周圍我國其他地區稱為四方。
中华民国教育部《国语辞典 》: 上古時代，漢族文化發源黃河流域，以為居天下之中，故稱其地為「中國」。
If you read the description found in those dictionaries carefully, it should read "The meaning of Zhongguo IS the Center of the World". --Old dindong 14:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason of "Central" #3

Based on the common usage of the English language, the word "middle, adj." is used to describe things in one-dimensional sense, and the word "central, adj." is used to describe things in two-dimensional sense, for example, country, land, area and place. Thus, Zhongguo should be translated as Central Kingdom. --lafleur127 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

From Longman:
[middle, adjective]
1 nearest the centre, especially of a row, list, or group of things or people: <the middle house in a row of five> <Two of his middle front teeth were missing.> <the middle drawer of the filing cabinet>
2 halfway through an event or period of time: <They spent the middle part of their vacation in Florida.>
3 in your middle twenties/thirties etc about 25, 35 etc years old
4 middle brother/child/daughter etc the brother etc who is between the oldest and the youngest
5 middle course/way etc a way of dealing with something that is between two opposite and often extreme ways: <The administration is trying to follow a middle course on health care reform.>
6 Middle English/French etc an old form of English, French etc, used in the Middle Ages (=between 1100 and 1500 AD)
[central, adjective]
1 [only before noun, no comparative] a central organization, system etc makes decisions or controls the operation of a whole country or large organization: <central planning> <the central committee of the Communist Party> <All the money is allocated from a central fund.>
2 [only before noun, no comparative] in the middle of an object or an area: <Central Asia> <The houses face onto a central courtyard.>
3 more important and having more influence than anything else: <Owen played a central role in the negotiations.> [+ to]: <The inevitability of mass poverty is central to Malthus's argument.> of central importance: <Environmental issues are rapidly taking a position of central importance in the political debate.> central idea/theme/concern etc: <A responsible press was a central theme running through the speech.>
4 a place that is central is easy to reach because it is near the middle of a town or area: <The house is near Leicester Square, it's very central.>
5 party/comedy etc central informal a place where something is happening a lot: <Tim's house became party central for the band and their friends.> <This bulletin board serves as communications central for the campus.> -- centrally adverb : <Our office is very centrally situated.>
Du Calm, JinFX. But it seems that lafleur's reasons are fundamentally based on a misunderstanding of the word "Middle". Have you heard of the phrase "middle of the page"? AS in, "where is it?" "around the middle of the page". Are you going to tell me now that that's incorrect grammar? --Sumple (Talk) 06:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The word "middle" in your sentence is a noun, not adjective. Note that in English, the word "Middle" used in "Middle Kingdom" is an adjective. --lafleur127 09:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. "Happiness Kingdom" can be rephrased as "Kingdom of Happiness." Likewise, "Middle Kingdom" could be rephrased as "Kingdom of the Middle," which would make "Middle" a noun. The first dictionary entry for "middle" as a noun is: "the point, part, position, etc., equidistant from extremes or limits" and another definition is "the interior portion." But I agree with Sumple, this is all rather pointless. I would go with the more common translation, which is "Middle Kingdom" and not "Central Kingdom." Sorry. --Naus 04:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason of "Central" #4

Quote from www.counterweights.ca editors --lafleur127 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Among many other things, it is now said that China's ancient description of itself as the "Middle Kingdom" is in fact more aptly translated into English as the "Central Kingdom.""


STFU. You have no concept of this at all. 中国 has historically refered to Middle Kingdom, it means the middle section of the world/China/tianxia. There never was a Central Kingdom, cuz if it was central then it would be Empire. There is no "ancient discription" of China as 中国. When I am 圣上, I call my 江山 whatever I want and I've called it 汉唐宋明, but never 中. Only recently with the Nationalist and Communist has my 江山 been 中华民国 and now is 中华人民共和国. 中国 has been used as shorthand for these, but it still isnt "Central Kingdom". Its more like Period of the Two Middle Republics (The next dynasty will be part of the post-modern history and be Fourth Generation but thats besides the point). Did you not see something almost like what you are saying was just removed? --1698 06:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide source for your claim. Also see Reason of "Central" #2/#5 --lafleur127 08:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reason of "Central" #5

Based on the classical explanation of Zhong (中) found in the oldest Chinese dictionary 《说文解字》，the meaning of Zhong is a mult-dimensional concept:

中，内也，从口丨下上通也。

Here, it says:

Zhong, means "interor", with a box, and a stick, either from the bottom or top, leading to the interior.

As a result, "central" is the proper word with 2-dimensional sense. --lafleur127 08:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Zhong... with a box, and a stick, either from the bottom or top, leading to the interior." -- If Wikipedia had signatures, then I would put that quote in mine... or you know what... I'll just go ahead and quote this on my userpage. Thank you. BTW You'll also find on that page that I refer to the PRC as the Central Empire.
As for Zhong meaning the center of the world, yes it did, it meant the area of either the capital or geographically the middlest kingdom (when the land was broken up by kings). As for Zhong being a short form of PRC and ROC, yes it is. As for taking these unrelated facts and pronouncing PRC (or ROC) the center of the world, no its not. Lastly, I said this already and I'll say it again. If it is important and Central, then it would not be a kingdom. Are you mocking China by calling us the Central Kingdom? Or is there a kingdom that was particularly central? --1698 03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many dictionaries definitions or mis-translated quotes ("a box and a stick" indeed) you put up. The fact of the matter is, "middle" and "centre" ("middle" and "central") mean pretty much the same thing in English and this is just a waste of everyone's time.
The argument that one means 2-dimensional centre and the other means 3-dimensional centre is ridiculous. Even if you can prove that "central" means 2 dimensional, so what? Who said that the name "中国" is a two dimensional comparison? Why can't it be a one dimensional comparison? Perhaps it describes the mean of a random variable with a Normal distribution?
What you should be more concerned is the 国. China hasn't been a "kingdom" for 2000 years. Why is it a kingdom? The present state(s) are certainly not kingdoms. Go and dig up some dictionaries on that! --Sumple (Talk) 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Until a consensus can be reached from someone other than lafleur127 himself, I am reverting back to the original "Middle Kingdom" text per status quo. The English translation of "Middle Kingdom" is vastly more popular (see Google search results above) and also has been widely embraced by Western media of various sophistication. It has also been the term used in Wikipedia for well over a year. Please don't change "Middle Kingdom" to "Central Kingdom" again unless a more significant consensus can be established. We have already reached three reverts. --Naus 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Google only provides one view, which may or may not be the right view in terms of language translation. In general, I support lafleur127's careful reasoning. --Peter_zhou 04:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
One can use Google to find countless sources from reputable media outlets using the term "Middle Kingdom" (as mentioned above: CNN, NYTimes, Economist, Forbes, Time, Newsweek, Businessweek, Wall Street Journal). Whereas the usage of "Central Kingdom" is limited to personal websites, academia and editorials. --Naus 04:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Man, we're talking here which one is the translation which matches the actual literal meaning, so we need experts who know both Chinese and English. --Peter_zhou 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you know your etymology, "center" or "central" originally only applied to a point within a circular or spherical body. The ancient Chinese didn't think the world was round nor circular (the world was a square). Whereas, the first dictionary entry for "middle" is "equally distant from the extremes or outer limits"; other dictionary entries for "middle" include "mean", "interior portion", "medium", all of which are consistent with the Chinese connotations of being inside, not extreme, moderation and middle way. Let me repeat, "central" is a far too specific and precise term for a word in Chinese (zhong) that is neither precise nor concrete. Therefore "Central Kingdom" is not suitable as the only translation for Zhongguo; "Central Kingdom" may have its uses in certain contexts, such as the book Mao's China and the Cold War that you cited, but not in a general and neutral context. --Naus 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Man, be aware Chen Jian wrote that book in the U.S., also he is a Standford scholar and a Cornell University Professor. He also shared honors for the 2005 Emmy Award for Outstanding Achievement in News and Documentary Research in New York City. --Peter_zhou 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
He is but one person. The translation of "Middle Kingdom" for Zhongguo has been used by scholars of even greater achievement than him. JakeLM 04:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Joke! As I said, we need experts who know both Chinese and English to find out the right translation. --Peter_zhou 04:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Naus here. "Central" is too precise, it misses all the subtle connotations in the Chinese character "zhong." Most importantly, "Central" misses the meaning of "belonging inside" that is key to the interpretation of Zhongguo. JakeLM 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me say a word, if the original meaning of Zhongguo was "the center of the world", then it should be translated as the "central kingdom". Can someone verify lafleur's claim in reason #2? neilyoung 05:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The word Zhongguo in the Zhou Dynasty (earliest recording of the term) was used for 5 circumstances: 1. The capital; 2. the kingdom that the Son of Heaven (天子) directly administered; 3. Zhongyuan plains region; 4. the domestic country or country interior (国内); 5. country established by Hua peoples. In no circumstance was it originally used for "center of the world." JakeLM 05:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people are forgetting a very important definition of "zhong" in Chinese. That is, "belonging inside" or "in the middle of something." Zhongguo meant the civilized world, being inside Zhongguo meant being a part of civilization, away from the barbaric chaos of the outside world. The word "middle" includes this definition of interior (American Heritage Dictionary for "middle": The interior portion; also note "Inner Mongolia" vs. "Outer Mongolia"), whereas the word "central" does not have this meaning. All this talk of 3D, 2D or 1D is totally nonsense. JakeLM 04:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zhongguo meant "the civilized world"? Please provide source. Also please see my Reason of "Central" #3 Lafleur127 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

HELLO? CAN SOMEONE ANSWER MY QUESTION? Can someone verify lafleur127's claim in #2? What was the original meaning of Zhongguo in Chinese? It's "Center of the world"?? Can you guys Chinese verify those specified in lafleur127's claim #2? If it's "Center of the world", then "Central Kingdom" will be the best translation. neilyoung 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I said this already. Twice. You guys have no concept of this at all. Maybe it will do you (plural) some good to read THIS article. I'll even give you a link. China. And maybe also read the talk page. This page right here that has all this spam over it. I mean, more than the last last paragraph of the talk page. More than what you yourself has written. Consider what others have said. Because you were actually refuted before you even began to talk. I don't care if it took you three hours to write that nonsense. You need to learn to read. Thanks Jake for reverting, but besides "All this talk of 3D, 2D or 1D is totally nonsense.", you have not said anything useful.
"This paragraph about "Middle Kingdom" is absolute fiction... From the Zhongguo section of this article: The translation of Zhongguo into English as "Middle Kingdom" is probably one of the typical examples that exhibit the effect of "Lost in Translation". While it is certainly true that Zhong (中) means "middle", Zhong (中) also means "center", which is where the ancient Chinese believed their country was positioned in the world. So a more accurate English translation of Zhongguo should be something like "Central Nation". "Middle Kingdom" is simply a very poor translation that fails to capture what the ancient Chinese believed their country was -- the center of the world.
  • Zhongguo never meant "the center of the world." That's fiction that Chinaphobes/China-bashers and teenage Han Chauvinists alike (ironic) on the internet fantasize about.
  • Zhongguo as used traditionally simply meant: "the central region of the country." Ancient Chinese capitals were mostly based in this region. There is a Chinese tradition of calling the kingdom/state by the name or region of the capital, hence the term Zhongguo for China.
  • Thus Middle Kingdom ("middle part of the kingdom") is a far better 2-word translation than Central Nation.
  • I have removed the above quoted paragraph because it is utter bullcrap.

--Intsokzen 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)"

"中国 has historically refered to Middle Kingdom, it means the middle section of the world/China/tianxia. There never was a Central Kingdom, cuz if it was central then it would be Empire. There is no "ancient discription" of China as 中国. When I am 圣上, I call my 江山 whatever I want and I've called it 汉唐宋明, but never 中. Only recently with the Nationalist and Communist has my 江山 been 中华民国 and now is 中华人民共和国. 中国 has been used as shorthand for these, but it still isnt "Central Kingdom". Its more like Period of the Two Middle Republics (The next dynasty will be part of the post-modern history and be Fourth Generation but thats besides the point). Did you not see something almost like what you are saying was just removed?" --1698 06:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"As for Zhong meaning the center of the world, yes it did, it meant the area of either the capital or geographically the middlest kingdom (when the land was broken up by kings). As for Zhong being a short form of PRC and ROC, yes it is. As for taking these unrelated facts and pronouncing PRC (or ROC) the center of the world, no its not. Lastly, I said this already and I'll say it again. If it is important and Central, then it would not be a kingdom. Are you mocking China by calling us the Central Kingdom? Or is there a kingdom that was particularly central?" --1698 03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
and then read everything Naus has said... it's everywhere... I know its alot for you. Thats why I hope to not hear from you again for a year (or until Vista comes out, or until the US is hit by a terrorist attack, whichever come first, most likely a full year of course), when you've had enough time to read and understand it. --1698 06:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Can Intsokzen, Naus, JakeLM,Sumple, PeterChou or JinFX, etc elaborate on your points? I just don't get it. Thank you very much. Old timer 21:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that "middle" and "central" mean pretty much the same thing in English, and it's ridiculous to argue that one is "more correct" in this context based on dictionary-matching between a Chinese dictionary and an English dictionary. The sources listed do not support the argument that it should be "Central Kingdom" at all.
I would've had more sympathy if the pro-Central camp had advocated that "Central" was an alternative or more correct version. But they seem to be denying that the term is translated as "Middle Kingdom" in English, which is, of course, ridiculous. Anyone who's ever read a newspaper article on China will know that it is translated as "Middle Kingdom" in English.
Final point. As I've said before, if you are going to talk semantics, then Kingdom is far more incorrect than "Middle". So why not go and dig up some mis-translated dictionary entries on that? --Sumple (Talk) 07:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
yes, but it seem la flower is incapable of reading anything but his own typing. and la flower, dont go creating more accounts just to make it look like theres a "pro-Central camp" of more than just you.
well actually no, theres nothing wrong with kingdom. 中国 does not refer to 天下 or 江山. It is the middle part of 天下 or 江山. There has never been a 大中国. I said this already and I'll say it for the third time. There was 夏商周秦汉隋唐宋元明清. They were central. They were Empire. They were not 中国. They were not "Middle Kingdom". They were not "Central Kingdom".
中华民国 and 中华人民共和国 are shorted to 中国. BUT neither of them are Kingdom, they are Republic (well republic was always a very broad term for anything modern or Roman). Neither of them are central. Neither of them are middle. --1698 07:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Wikipedia process in the central/middle debate

I've been watching the "middle" versus "central" edit war going on for the last week. I watch the article for vandalism, but don't edit it for content. I've got some comments about what's been going on. I know I'm "preaching to the choir" for some of you, but it looks like it needs to be said:

  • Wikipedia policy is that it's not the business of Wikipedia editors to determine "truth". The standard and official policy for Wikipedia is verifiability, WP:V, based on reliable sources, WP:RS. It's not that we don't care about truth, but that different people have different ideas about what the truth is and this is our policy on how to resolve such conflicts.
  • Wikipedia policy is that articles must express a neutral point of view (POV), see WP:NPOV. This does not mean that differing POVs are not included; in fact just the opposite. The policy requires that all differing viewpoints that are verifiable with reliable soources be presented, see also WP:POV.
  • Wikipedia has policies on how editors are to behave towards one another, in particular civility, WP:CIV, and good faith, WP:GF. I know it can be hard to follow these when you think another editor is violating policy, however Wikipedia works best when these are followed. While good faith does not require us to ignore obvious violations of policy, there's no excuse for violating civility.
  • Wikipedia allows multiple accounts per person, but only for certain purposes. Using multiple accounts for certain prohibited purposes is called "sockpuppetry", which is also strongly prohibited, see WP:SOCK. In particular, using alternate accounts to evade the 3 reversion rule WP:3RR, or to create the appearance of more support among editors for a POV are prohibited. In my opinion, there's a good chance the WP:SOCK has been violated already; if such violation doesn't stop, I will file an abuse report with the appropriate administrors, who have more experience with the issue and more tools to confirm or refute my opinion. If they confirm it, users typically get blocked for violating WP:SOCK. I apologize in advance if my opinion is mistaken.
The sysop Nlu and his puppets 1698, Intsokzen & Naus are obviously violating WP:SOCK! Please investigate. --New dindong 14:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sometimes when there's such a sharp disagreement about an article, the disagreement can be worked out in the discussion page by posting and revising proposed text, cooperatively editing it there until a compromise is reached. When there's a sharp disagreement, repeated editing of the main article is more likely to get people upset and hinder compromise.
  • (Putting on my linguist hat) Languages change, and can change very quickly. Sometimes the history of that change can be important and then should be in Wikipedia, complete with sources and any differing points of view on interpretation and importance. In particular, if a significant partisan movement has adopted certain language (or translations of it), that may merit inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • It is sometimes surprisingly difficult for:
    • non-native speakers to translate all the nuances of a language
    • native speakers to understand the implicit nuances and biases built into their language
    • native speakers to recognize changes in meaning within the language
    • native speakers of one group to recognize the validity of alternate expressions or meanings of the language of another group
    • speakers with a point of view to recognize their own bias

Or, to summarize this in my native language (Texan), Y'all settle down and play nice. studerby 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been also watching the "middle" versus "central" edit war going on for some time, and I highly suspect that Nlu, 1698, Intsokzen, Naus & Omicronpersei8 are the same user and they might have violated WP:SOCK, also Nlu/Omicronpersei8 seem to own some kind of privilege. Since this can be really unfair for other WIKI editors, could someone investigate? --Tototo88 19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
* Nlu and Omicronpersei8 are admins and do have more privileges; they certainly aren't the same user. Everything I've seen suggests that they're trying to use their adminship in ways consistent with policy, which will of course cause them to do similar things in the same situation. In particular, Nlu has done what I would have done if I were an admin, although a little bit more quickly. We all have different levels of patience.
Thanks Studerby for verifying this. Could you also verify the first 4 users: Nlu, 1698, Intsokzen, Naus? Since Nlu has privilege, it will be unfair for others if Nlu holds a particular position. --Tototo88 23:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
* There are several levels of privilege within Wikipedia. Privileges get earned, and can be lost for abuse. Anyone can get privileges if they follow the rules and guidelines long enough and build up a reputation for being a good editor. To do that, you have to have an account, and use that one account for a long time.
* Tototo88 is a brand-new account (12:33, 4 September 2006 Tototo88 (Talk | contribs) New user account), and it will be a long time before and adminship is possible.
* In general, editors try to resolve disputes by consensus, see the guideline WP:CON, but when one or more people are clearly ignoring policies and guidelines, they often end up getting ignored in the consensus-building process. In other words, play nice or be ignored.
* Experienced editors and admins see a lot of clever attempts to bend the rules through wikilawyering (see WP:LAWYER) and most of them get good at keeping them from suceeding.
That's what I'm worrying about. --Tototo88 23:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
studerby 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The meaning of the word "Guo" is Fortified City(?)

As I remember, Guo originally means a fortified city. For those of you who do not know: the square surrounding the characer guo denotes the wall. Hillgentleman 08:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that 郭 (guo)? I think 国 can mean capital. --Sumple (Talk) 09:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Most uses I've seen would include more than the capital (city). Each of the 三国 were 国, where 国 would include all land under a single ruler. Thus, the best translation would be Kingdom. (While a 朝廷 would be Empire.) However, modern uses seem to have changed to State or Nation, as pretty much all foreign States are call something-国 espcially during 清朝末年 and in foreign controlled Shanghai and Hong Kong. Both meanings have survived to some extent today. This can be seen as an understanding that the world has increased in size, that there are Kingdoms/nations/states/peoples outside of the tradition 江山. --1698 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
国 can mean capital city, state, or just a region. --Sumple (Talk) 23:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Guo can also mean "dynasty", which is often ignored.--Niohe 00:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Sumple, I must agree with you. I checked my Commercial Press Dictionary, and it contains, as ancient meanings, "Capital" and "Territory" (equivalent to Fang ("square")), but not "Fortified City", for the word guo. Hillgentleman 08:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] s-ʃ(sh)-χ(ch)-k spectrum in European languages

I wanted to humbly submit that the sentence below, currently present under Names>"China", is linguistically inaccurate:

"Some also argue that "China" and the Latin prefix "Sin-" come from different origins; this can be attested by several European languages that spell China today as "Kina", pronounced with a hard k."

The reason that it is inaccurate is that there is in fact a spectrum of phonetic shift between s and k, with a sloppy area involving ʃ(sh) and χ(ch) that can be transitional between them. For example, modern European words based on Greek kīnein, "to move", can vary between /k/ or /s/ (for example, English kinetic and French/English cinema); another example is the fact that English church and German Kirche are cognate. While it may be true that "some also argue that "China" and the Latin prefix "Sin-" come from different origins"; it would not be because of the s-ch-k difference itself that this would be hypothesized. It could be hypothesized for semantic, but not phonetic, reasons. The s-ch-k difference itself does not attest the hypothesis. I am going to remove this sentence. Lumbercutter 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited the paragraph. I now suspect that the entire sentence that first drew my attention was simply one person's invention—he didn't understand how /Chin-/Sin-/ and /Kin-/ could be related, so he decided that "some argue" that they are not. That was weasel word problem number 1. Then there was weasel word problem number 2, which was that someone else decided that because the probable Qin derivation of China isn't fair from a cultural perspective, it must be "still controversial" as an etymology. That's incorrect and weaselly. It wasn't fair that Columbus called central American people "Indians" because he thought he was in India, but that doesn't mean that that's not how the word developed etymologically. Lumbercutter 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This is something that has attracted my attention for a very long time: Has anyone ever proved that the name "China" is really derived from "Qin"? I have read this in lots of places, true, but when I try to look for their sources and some kind of explanation, I cannot find anything reliable. Lots of books, even dictionaries, just parrot the idea that "China derives from the name of the Qin dynasty" as if it were some kind of common accepted knowledge. There is, however, a huge vacuum, both temporal and geographic, between the names 秦 and "China", which nobody, as far as I have seen, has been able to explain. I have always had the impression that this etymology is attractive because of the deceptive similarity between the name "China" and that of the "Ch'in" dynasty in Wade-Giles romanisation. But then, the ancient pronunciation of 秦 was very different from today's, let alone that nobody was romanising it as "Ch'in" or whatever. Can anyone indicate any serious study that explains how 秦 gave rise to "China"? It would really be interesting to know. Gelo 09:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChina_Archive_9_bdb3.html"