Talk:China/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Undo Vandalism Please!

My profile is too new for me to edit this article to remove the reference to "DAN KIM" and "PIONNY" in the terminology section just above the part labelled "China". 15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)It's vandalized again.

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's vandalized again. --AiR 11:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's vandalized again.

The Historical Overview section in Territory is also vandalized --- 20th April 2006

---

28 April -- more vandalism. See the changes by "170.158.108.166" -- "slant eyed land" &c. I did a Revert; it overwrote the manually-entered changes someone else was doing, but I believe that (a) a Revert is the "correct" thing in such a case (b) the manual fixer had overlooked a couple of minor points.

24 May 06---- Vandalised again "I AM A CHINESE MAN! CHING CHONG, CHUNG HAI!" takes up much of the page.

New Cultures of the World article

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

Chinese ban on Wikipedia

According to many news sources, China has recenty banned Wikipedia, which is used as a basic resource for many in China, due to the site's commitment to neutrality on issues such as Taiwan, etc. I plan to support our chinese Wki communities by raising awareness to the issue and wearing my wiki t-shirt to school starting next week. I encourage you to do the same, especially fellow American of Chinese descent. Free knowledge is necessary to China's next stage of development, as well as our best hope to ensure peace between the two countries.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060110.wxwikipedia10/BNStory/International/


I am not at all surprised of this move by the Chinese government. Though wikipedia has a policy of neutrality I am of the opinion that this site is being hijacked by far left liberals who revel at bashing conservative establishments such as one like China. I have read the article on Tienanmen Protest of 1989 and found it to be riddled with notions critical of the Chinese actions and either conveniently or deliberately leaving out the Chinese point of view. I will now go over to the Taiwan and Tibet articles and see what the ruse is all about. Talk about free speech, theglobeandmail.com conveniently closed that article for further comment and showing only three of which all are critical to the Chinese action. If this isn't hypocrisy what is? That site could learn a few things from the like of National Geographic where all sides are given fair opportunity to express themselves. Likewise wikipedia isn't free from blame either. Why does this article for example needs to be protected? There is no statement that it is done so because of excessive vandalism, so what is the excuse? I find that the last paragraph under Political History to be out of place and undue attention given to organizations that are working against the Chinese government. A comment has already been made in the preceding paragraph regarding the Tienanmen incident of 1989 and readers can look it up further in another article where this incident is covered in more detail. Excessive treatment on this issue here seems to render the whole effort on this major article look amateurish. Ultimately, the wikipedia community have to decide what it wants this site to be. A mouthpiece for the far left or a source of reference to rival Britannica and Encarta. (Free Citizen 05:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)).

This doesnt surprise me either. And I sure hope Wikipedia doesnt give in like Google did. The Chinese government is now saying that North Americans and Europeans are stretching the Tiananmen Square incident to discredit the government and slowly feeding their children lies. That came from someone on a forum who could not even identify himself for fear of being arrested. And the thing that bothers me more is Chinas increasing political and economic position. Enjoy free speeech while you have it.

Disambiguation

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

I think it's reasonable. Suppose someone is confused about the names of the political entities and doesn't know where to start? Woogums 08:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

They will enter the names of the political entities and find those articles. Most of the time they come across "Republic of China" on wikipedia, it will be linked. If theyre using a search engine, then the Republic of China article will pop up first.

If there is confusion, then that should be stated in the text, especially the lead section, not the disambiguation notice. The disambiguation notice is not for related and side topics, it is for topics that share the same name with what is discussed in the article. Subtopics do not count as disambiguations. --Jiang 09:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

not to mention some POV: "For the two polities that govern the territory of China nowadays..." implies that Taiwan is part of China. --Jiang 10:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

First paragraph

I edited the lead paragraph because it was too wishy-washy, only to be contradicted by the second paragraph. My apologies if this was arrived through broad consensus - i scanned the archives but could not find a convincing argument.

The original version stated that "Modern China has been described as both a single civilization and multiple civilizations" but the second paragraph states "With one of the world's longest periods of mostly uninterrupted civilization" with "uninterrupted civilization" implying that there is only a single civilization. While the Chinese state enroached, enveloped, and assimilated "minority" and "barbarian" civilizations as it expanded and became influenced by these previously distinct peoples, I do not see the continuity of the Chinese civilization being denied. While it has surely evolved, the civilization has surely existed in continuous form.

As for the notion of "multiple states" and "multiple nations", no one not previously versed in Chinese history and culture will understand this unless we present it in specificity. The information is just too general and ambiguous to be any help. --Jiang 04:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

History

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

"However the primary cause of the decline of the Chinese empire was not European and American interference, but rather the consequence of a series of internal upheavals". I think the upheavals were important cause but not the primary cause. The decline of Qing Dynasty is largely due to the incapability of the emperors. Winkin

I think different scholars will have different opinions as to what is the primary cause of the decline of the Chinese empire. It would probably be better if we cite some sources for these statements. --Hong Qi Gong 18:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Economy

This has nothing to do with vandalism but I am a student looking for information and I was unable to find a section on the Economy of this country. If you could add a section that would be great. Thanks >Armando<

Can't you people read?! It says very clearly that the actual states are covered under the articles of People's Republic of China and Republic of China.
BTW, I think we really need to do something about this steady trickle of people asking about the economy of Greater China. Perhaps a note in the article itself? -- ran (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've started an Economy section. This may also be a good opportunity to write some new info on the economic history of China. -- ran (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

China's Human Rights Abuse

I find it disturbing that it is not mentioned in this encyclopedia on China's wide spread and ongoing human rights abuse. Not only do you not mention how they indiscriminately persecute Christians and those who stand up to the government, you choose not to mention it at all. If you are to properly represent China, you need to give the whole picture, not little tidbits. 07:18 January 31 2006 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? You are also an editor of this encyclopedia! The article mentions Tiananmen repression and suppression of religion. Maybe you should quote the Amnesty International or the US State Department Human Rights Report and edit the article if you feel so strongly about it. --Krukowski 03:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You guys are at the wrong article. Please, at least read what the article is about and understand its scope before making comments. -- ran (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you guys answered quick. You see, I do not have enough faith in my writing skills or research abilities to edit the actual article. So I figured that I would bring this deficiency to light so more knowledgeable people would edit. 07:51 January 31 2006 (UTC)

See Human rights in the People's Republic of China.--Krukowski 04:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Units of measurement

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

Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week

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

question marks

what's the deal with all the question marks in parentheses? Is that typical? Maybe b/c I'm new to wiki, but this seems to be so informal and unprofessional.

Those are Chinese characters. You'll need to install Chinese font support if you want to see them. Markyour words 13:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


anybody know about the iranian nuclear program, and what it has to do wih china?

why hasent anyone answered

Ham / Han?

Should 'Ham' not read 'Han' (thrice), in the section Demographics? "The Ham speak several mutually unintelligible tongues"

Yes! Fixed, thanks. Markyour words 23:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Darn! And I thought we were talking about such an intelligent pork meat :P nihil 02:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Padron

What about a padron for the page? For exemple like area, population, national flag etc...as it is for Russia, Canada, Brazil?

I've no idea what a padron is, but note the first sentences: This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the state known as China in common usage, see People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation). Markyour words 23:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia

It may be debatable that Mongolia was ever under "Chinese rule", however, it was part of Manchu-ruled China, in the Qing dynasty[1]. Hong Qi Gong 19:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a moot point. Manchurians are a Chinese nationality, hence Mongolia was under Chinese rule during the Qing dynasty. The English word for Chinese refers to Zhonghua minzu 中華民族. 128.135.203.241 02:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I personally agree with you. But there are probably those who do not. --Hong Qi Gong 03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Changed photos

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

Zhongguo

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

blasphemy

There is a blasphemy above the contents table. Am I wrong or can anyone else see that statement word too? I checked some other countries' pages too, but i couldn't see that blasphemy in those pages. I also tried to delete it by editing the page however I couldn't find the statement in editbox.


What are you talking about?

Pascal's Triangle

Does anyone have a source for Pascal's Triangle being discovered by that Chinese gentleman? If they do, perhaps they should add it to the article, and also edit the Pascal's Triangle article, which states that the first mention is from an Indian text. 65.78.8.9 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese were the first to clearly draw it out (see below, made by Zhu Shijie), whereas the Indians had merely vaguely mentioned something of that idea (very vaguely to the point of being useless). Nishishei 06:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
image:Yanghui_triangle.gif


The triangle appears to have been discovered independently by both the Persians and the Chinese during the eleventh century.
Although no longer in existence, the work of Chinese mathematician Jia Xian (1010-1070) demonstrated that he was using the triangle to aid in extracting square and cube roots of numbers. Omar Khayyam (1048-1131), a Persian mathematician, also appeared to have had awareness and understanding of the so-called Pascal's Triangle to produce a method for extracting roots of numbers. In China, after Chia Hsien's discovery of the connection between extracting roots and the binomial coefficients of the triangle, Yang Hui (at ca. 1261-75), a Chinese algebraist, continued work on this topic to solve higher than cubic equations. It is Yang Hui who has provided the earliest display of Pascal's Triangle. Further to this, Chinese mathematician, Zhu Shijie showed a visual illustration of the triangle in 1303, in his work referring to the triangle as being ancient in his time. Thus, Pascal's Triangle and the use of its binomial coefficients were known long before the mathematical mind of Pascal came into this world.

Zhongguo again

Contrary to some claims that the term chauvinistically paints China standing at the center of the world, Zhongguo (中國) as used today is actually an abbreviation (by the combination of the first and last characters) for the full names of both the Republic of China (Zhonghua Minguo, 中華民國) and the People's Republic of China (Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo, 中華人民共和國). Do we have a source for this? Markyour words 21:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

no, since Zhongguo is just a name. It's been that way for a long time. BlueShirts 10:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Before Republic of China, no one used Zhongguo as a legal term. Because Republic of China was called Zhonghua Minguo (中華民國), there was now a legal basis to use the abbreviation Zhongguo (中國). The actual conceptual term for China or Chinese is Zhonghua (中華), not Zhongguo. Zhongguo on the otherhand is a legal/political term, an abbreviation of the official name. Like Qingguo / Qing Dynasty (清國) is an abbreviation of Daqing Diguo / Great Qing Empire (大清帝國). (Anon)
the term has certainly been around for some time, see s:훈민정음--Jiang 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If that's right, then our current discussion of the term is irrelevant and should be removed, but you still haven't provided a source. Markyour words 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

how can there be a source for long time generally accepted facts? --1698 05:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously not 'generally accepted', since we already have an extensive section to the contrary. Markyour words 12:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two origins of Zhongguo. One is the historic usage, which was never a political nor legal term, but a cultural term, similar to calling the U.S. as the "Land of the Free", etc. The use of Zhongguo as an abbreviation for the full country name provided the political and legal justification to using the cultural term. The two origins merged. So the discussion of both the political term as it is used today and the cultural term is relevant.

I think the reason is just because the Chinese get used to call a state's short form name rather than the full name under informal/sometimes formal circumstances. For instance, the Chinese usually call The USA "Mei Guo"美國, the UK "Ying Guo"英國, the Russia Fed "E luo si" or "E Guo"俄羅斯／俄國, France "Fa Guo"法國, Thailand "Tai Guo"泰國, Germany "De Guo"德國, Korea "Han Guo" or "Chao Xian"韓國／朝鮮...etc. I think it is just the nature of the Chinese language and its users' custom.

I changed the picture of the Great Wall

Is it better than before?--Pierre Pierre 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The date

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

China's historical timespan

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

No, not really. It is ambiguous as to when history begins, depending upon what defintion of history you follow. If you notice, your source does not prove anything and only says that scientists WILL prove Chinese history is older. The Xia (2200-1800 BC) probably exsisted, but that has not been conclusively proven yet. Anything older than the Xia is seen as mythical. It also depends upon when the actually history began to be written (as opposed to after the fact). I do not know who actually who was the first to write down what happened and whether they can be trusted. For an example from Western civilization, no one really believes Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus. It is just not history. Anyways, there seems to be not enough evidence to prove it and 5,000 years might be an attempt to make China as old as Mesopotamia or Egypt which are definitely at least 5,000 years old.

To elaborate on what I said, such claims may have connection with the idea that China has the longest uninterrupted civilization (which I would say is not special since there are other nations that clearly have uninterrupted histories and where civilization is continuous for even longer).


Technological acheivements

Under the technological acheivements section, I think think the following text is a little lacking about technological acheivements and a little POV for a section that is not about human rights in China. "After World War II, the Communists under Mao Zedong established an autocratic socialist system that, while ensuring China's sovereignty, imposed strict controls over everyday life and cost the lives of tens of millions of people. After 1978, his successor Deng Xiaoping and other leaders focused on market-oriented economic development and by 2000 output had quadrupled. For much of the population, living standards have improved dramatically and the room for personal choice has expanded, yet political controls remain tight."

Dynastic rule

What do you guys think were pro's/benefit and Con's of dynasties in Ancient China? I am writing an article and would love some information from anyone who knows about chinese history.

Indochina war for a piece of land

The conflict between India and China.One of the biggest nations of the world and also one of the oldest one, the combat between these two nations on a land controversy, was it good?

     I think that problem between these two realms for the land of tibbat could better sort out through peaceful talks without hampering each other.
     But my question is that, among these two nations who was responsible for that battle? IS it politions who are responsible for all this?
 I cant comment much about that because i am an Indian student of class 12th and as well as dont know much about the cause of this conflict.So i cant blame any of them. 
 But it is true and whole world knows very well that if Chaina and India join hand togather then both of them can beat any problem.Since India is a rising star in the field of I.T and Commerce and China better knows the stipulatement of twodays market,
thats it.


selling prisoners' organs reference

The Falun Gong article is closed from general editing. I was thinking of adding an excellent reference I just found: [2] (BBC headline: China "selling prisoners' organs" ) -- the subject is already explained in the write-up (Allegations of organ harvesting section), only this additional reference is appropriate -- but even though the Falun Gong subject is the most common source of this allegation, the reference I found is more general (the BBC article does not mention Falun Gong) and appropriate to a section or article on Chinese controversies (where censorship allegations, political persecution allegations, Tiannenman square "massacre" allegations, etc, would also belong). Thank you.

p.s. In case you do not find my reference appropriate for this article, please add it (since I can't) into the Allegations of organ harvesting section in Falun Gong.

Only the additional reference is needed.

Why don't you just add it here: Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Allegations_of_organ_harvesting. Hong Qi Gong 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Request this article be merged with the PRC article

This article as it stands is redundant and can be easily merged with the PRC article, in turn the PRC article should be renamed China. The PRC is the contemporary and succeeding nation-state of what is commonly understood as "China." I reiterate that the PRC is a nation-state, and not simply a political state as some argue. All established English-language encyclopedias associate China directly to the PRC. The Taiwan issue can be easily summarized within the PRC article.

Reasons for removal of the current China article:

  • The long Names of China section in the current article is not particularly relevant. There is already a more informative Names of China Wikipedia article.
  • Geography and Climate section is redundant, and is more suited for the country article (i.e. PRC) per Wikipedia Country template recommendations.
  • Demographics section completely redundant, and also more suited for the PRC country article.
  • Religion section equally redundant.
  • The current China article doesn't even have a Culture section, while the PRC article has a decent summary.
  • The current Science and Technology section is a joke, simply an arbitrary collection of topics that are better placed in separate articles like Science and technology in China.

That leaves essentially nothing left for the current China article except history. In other words, the current China article has nothing to do with its purpose of being a "civilizational article" on China. What kind of civilization article doesn't even bother summarizing Chinese culture? The current China article is simply political POV against the ruling government of China.

Separate PRC article from China is certainly also one of the reasons why Wikipedia is banned in China. Naus 02:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

you've given reasons on why this article needs improvement, but not reasons on why the articles should be merged. Who said this article had to be limited to a "civilizational article"? Please show how the PRC and "China" are synonymous and how this is a widely accepted, and non-controversial viewpoint. Political pressures by government should never be a reason to impose self-censorship: this has been reiterated may times before on the mailing list. We can only strive to be NPOV.--Jiang 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In current form the China article is nothing but a poor copy of the PRC article plus more history summarization. Simple choice: Either make this article unique enough to stand on its own, or merge it with the PRC article. In the English language, PRC and China are synonymous in the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is synonymous with North Korea. If you believe that "China" is a country article, then "China" should direct to the PRC article; on the other hand, if you believe that "China" is a civilization article, then the current China article needs to be vastly rewritten. Naus
Bad analogy - Democratic People's Republic of Korea is synonymous with North Korea, but it is not synonymous with "Korea", the same way that the PRC is not synonymous with "China". Ever heard of the Greater China region? What the PRC is synonymous with is Mainland China. Hong Qi Gong 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong, Hong Qi Gong. Naus's analogy was actually very correct. PRC is NOT synonymous with Mainland China. Hong Kong is part of the PRC, but is Hong Kong part of Mainland China? No. PRC is synonymous with China in modern English usage. Likewise, ROC today is synonymous with Taiwan. You are arguing against Naus's proposal without even basic understanding of the differences in the terms. Intsokzen 09:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps in the Western news media, "China" is synonymous with mainland China, but that does not mean the three articles should redirect to each other and it is not widely disputed that HK and MO are part of China. Of course, there are many references to "China" outside the realm of politics in the Western news media that do not make the same implication. Why can't the China article be both a country article and a civilization article?--Jiang 06:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In western news media usage, China includes Hong Kong and Macau. China is synonymous to PRC, not to Mainland China. Some of you guys are arguing without even basic understanding of the differences in the terms. Intsokzen 09:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually what I said was that "PRC" was synonymous with "Mainland China". I didn't say "China" was synonymous with "Mainland China". Hong Qi Gong 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Hainan island on Mainland China? Heilme 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Paracel Islands on Mainland China? Heilme 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think even the phrase "Mainland China" is not synonymous or compatibly equivalent to PRC. Heilme 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Hong Kong part of Mainland China? No. Is Hong Kong part of PRC? Yes. Is Hong Kong part of China? Yes. Intsokzen 09:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The term "mainland China" or "Chinese mainland" as it is commonly used in Chinese as 中國大陸 unambiguously refers to the territories under the PRC, HK and MO excepted. So yes, Hainan is part of mainland China while Kowloon is not, despite the literal meanings of the terms. --Jiang 06:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So now you resort to "commonly-used" argument. Heilme 07:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, can somebody explain what synonymous mean here? In other words, what's the criteria to be synonymous? If it means exactly equivalent to one another, then China ≠ PRC because there are other meanings of "China". But please note that this would mean that France ≠ French Republic because there are many other meanings of "France". And there are other examples too. But going by Common-Name, China = PRC easily. Heilme 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The vast majority of links at Special:Whatlinkshere/China are PRC-irrelevant, while most of the rest use "China" as if it encompassed more than the PRC. This does not contradict common usage, which extends beyond modern politics. --Jiang 07:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the controversy in France? --Jiang 06:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
France, or should I say Mr. France can refer to Anatole France. Or perhaps somebody might think of the French civilization?? But it's a dead link for now. Nobody thought of that yet I guess. Heilme 07:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Those are mutually exclusive independent topics, as opposed to varying definitions of what is essentially the same thing.--Jiang 07:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Varying definitions that essentially mean the same thing... . So going back to your argument about Georgia, Georgia (U.S. state) vs Georgia (country) are mutually exclusive independent topics. And so, all users are directed to disambiguation page when they searched for "Georgia". Is not the PRC and ROC mutually exclusive independent topic as well? PRC doesn't govern the ROC while the ROC doesn't govern the PRC. The current de facto territorial area of PRC and ROC are in mainland China and Taiwan respectively. In one way or another, aren't this similar to the Georgia case? Heilme 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
not so, because people do not search for "China" looking solely for the "Republic of China". There is no disambiguation to be done between the terms "mainland China" and "Taiwan". If the PRC and ROC (i.e. political entities) are in mind, it is either the PRC only, or both the PRC and ROC, not the ROC only. People looking for "Georgia" will never seek both at once. --Jiang 08:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you done some kind of research study or survey determining that people searching for "China" are never looking solely for the "Republic of China"? Or is that "common sense" a.k.a. POV? Heilme 08:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Because if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:China#Disambiguation (or just scroll above) under User: Bayerischermann, at least there is one user who tried to look solely for the ROC when she/he searches for "China". Heilme 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It is "common sense" but I don't think the evidence of people looking for "Republic of China" as "China" exists. Any such link would have been made in mistake out of confusion between the ROC and PRC. The exception: mentions of China in the period 1912-1949, but the "China" in question is also not a mutually independent topic competing for the same space as the PRC. The link Bayerischermann was expecting does exist in the article - in the lead section. Bayerischermann did not imply that he expected an article on the Republic of China, merely a link to Republic of China.--Jiang 08:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What constitutes "common sense" for one person does not necessarily represent the view of the entire Wikipedian community. In fact, from the way you argued, you should support merging China with PRC and then put a little disambiguation header linking to the Republic of China and other uses of "China" (just as how the current China article has a disambiguation header linking to the PRC and other uses of "China"). Heilme 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Because similarly, it is (my) "common sense" that when people search for "China", they come either looking for PRC, or PRC + Chinese civilization, but never the Chinese civilization (culture, history, geography) itself. I have never read nor heard any books or news referring "China" solely as the Chinese civilization itself. Usually, it is only the PRC or combination of PRC and the Chinese civilization. So maybe we can merge China with PRC since they are not mutually exclusive? See, this is what's wrong with "common sense". You aren't going to agree to my common sense, and neither will I to you (because after all ROC is still Republic of China -> although I admit minority may refer to as such). Heilme 09:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
References of China that have nothing to do with the PRC: Yixin, Prince Gong: "He was in charge of the government of China in the 1860s and 1870s..." Guqin: "This legend states that the legendary figures of China's pre-history — Fuxi, Shennong and Huang Di..." Cao Cao: "When Dong Zhuo was eventually killed in 192 by his own foster son, mighty warrior Lü Bu, China fell into civil war." Xiongnu: "Very ancient (perhaps legendary) historic records say that the Xiongnu descended from the founders of China's first dynasty, the Xia Dynasty" History of Tibet: "Tibet is situated between the two ancient civilizations of China and India" --Jiang 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Then we should instead expand the article in PRC to include the history, culture etcetera of the territory and the people that the PRC is governing right now. All those info you said about Cao Cao, Yixin Prince Gong etcetera should be written in the PRC article. You cannot just limit the History section of the PRC page to the PRC itself. Because that's political history and not pure history. Plus there is a Main article link to the History of China in the PRC's History section yet it talks NONE about it....no Cao Cao, no Qin Shihuang, no Han Wudi...Heilme 00:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I support Naus's proposal. China is no different from Cuba or Germany. The existence of Taiwan is a non-issue, because encyclopedic conventions use common names. Besides for the extra history, the current China article is a duplication of the PRC article. This is violation of Wikipedia standards, and also confusing for the uninvolved reader. All we have to do is expand slightly the history section of the PRC article to include Shang, Qin, Han, Tang, Song, Qing dynasties, and the Republic of China and the Chinese Civil War, and the Taiwan ROC split. One extra paragraph would be sufficient to make the PRC article inclusive as a China country article. After the expansion, we should rename the PRC article into "China." This is the standard arrangement of country articles in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias.Intsokzen 09:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is hardly a duplication - they are quite different and distinct issues and entities. If the sections are a joke, then we just need to summarise better. It is confusing to any uninvolved reader, who will need to read up on the subject. It is in no way a violation of standards. Cuba isn't mired in a civil war that's still ongoing, and Germany was reunified a long while ago. Strong opppose. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Naus has provided a list of the similarities above. The onus is on you guys to improve the article so that it is no longer a duplication. As it is right now, I see a strong case for merging this article with the PRC article. Everything is the same, except the history section. Your strong opposition is mired in personal conviction and has no substance. Intsokzen 10:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
see Ireland and Macedonia for comparison. I don't see how this article is not in line with Wikipedia standard or precedent.--Jiang 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Naus. The political issue is entirely superfluous and yet the political issues over-ride our common guidelines on every single article about China. To most of the world China refers to the PRC, including politics, history, culture and everything else. This idea that the "state" is different from the geography, or whatever else, defies common sense. The government of the place exists because of the geography and people there, whether the people there like it or not. If the political issues of the KMT on Taiwan are disregarded, nothing else about these arguments make any sense. The KMT position should not create Wikipedia policies. SchmuckyTheCat 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see how the political issue is "entirely superfluous". It is major, important, and relevant. Please show how China always refers to the PRC outside of politics, namely, "history, culture and everything else". The links I have previously provided suggest otherwise. No one here is suggesting that People's Republic of China be purged of its geography section, so I don't see an argument affirming that a state comes with a defined territory: this is not the dispute. --Jiang 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, besides the US supports the One-China, two governments policy. 132.205.45.148 19:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The US is one of the few exceptions to the full One-China policy, which explictly states that the sole legitimate government of that One China is the People's Republic of China in Beijing. The current Wikipedia position is therefore not NPOV as it is kissing arse to a minority opinion in the international arena of foreign relations with the PRC, specifically the opinion of the United States versus 100+ other nations. Intsokzen 20:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
We are not the US Government. We don't make any claim to how many Chinas there are. We just describe what China is. SchmuckyTheCat 20:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
nor does NPOV mean following the majority opinion. NPOV means accurately representing the many different POVs on an issue, not selecting the one that seems to have the most support. The entire argument presented here is irrelevant.--Jiang 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Naming the article on PRC after the common name of the PRC that it uses itself is not POV. China is such a common name for the PRC that just explaining to people that another country (ie, the ROC) uses it confuses them. It is not a "majority" opinion, it is a basic fact of the english speaking world. The only people that care about the ROC usage and "One China" are those that care about that one issue in Chinese politics. Those politics are more than adequately explained on Wikipedia, which completely satisfies any NPOV problem. Our policies are not dictated by the existence of the KMT. SchmuckyTheCat 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Be careful. Because if "China" is merged with the "PRC", then it only makes sense if "Taiwan" is also merged with the "ROC". Then, both mainlanders and Taiwanese will hate Wikipedia. Especially the mainlanders. Or, maybe because the use of Taiwan (island) and Taiwan (ROC) is mutually exclusively independent of one another, we might have a disambiguation page on Taiwan too. Heilme 00:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is weak rationale though, as the major issue is in Common Names. Taiwan is indeed the common name used in the English language. This is the English language Wikipedia, I don't care what the Chinese language version does. China merging into PRC, does not mean the article needs to remain titled as PRC, it should be renamed as "China." Also, just because China can be merged, does not mean Taiwan should be merged into Republic of China (ROC). From the perspective of the PRC, the ROC ended in 1949, from the perspective of the United Nations, the ROC ended in the 1970s. The ROC article should remain as the ROC article because it is a historic reference for some, and a state for others. China on the otherhand is umabiguous. --Intsokzen
  • Very weak support btw. Heilme 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose There is absolutely no need to erroneously equate China to the PRC, thus furthering a common misconception. The PRC is mentioned right at the top of the article, emboldened, so what's the big deal, anyway? If the article isn't well written to suit its title, it can certainly be fixed, but that is no excuse to merge it based on Western ignorance. This is where geographical facts take precedence over "common usage". -- WGee 03:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Western ignorance"? Can you back that statement up? Do you have any evidence of "geographical facts" besides unsubstantiated innuendo? China is not a geographic term, it's the name of the country. Again, I notice the people who are opposing provide no real verifiable data, except their personal opinions that are clearly driven by their POV political agendas. The current setup is POV as hell, it caters specifically AND ONLY to the KMT viewpoint. That is BS. --Intsokzen 06:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this merge is approved, we might as well merge North America with USA. The geographical region and the political entity are, IMO, distinct entities which should have seperate articles. Tevildo 16:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is about the Chinese civilization, which also includes the Republic of China on Taiwan, so you can't merge it with the article on People's Republic of China. Is this really one of the reasons the CCP banned Wikipedia in China? If so, then this article might best be named "Chinese civilization" instead, as it does have to do with the civilization. If there's a merge, I'm afraid we might not be able to merge the article on Taiwan with the PRC if that's really what the Chinese Communist Party wanted.--Ryz05 t 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wellm Taiwan is a geographic entity that's thought to be a "province" of the PRC. If the PRC controlle Wikipedia, they wouldn't want to merge Taiwan. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Naus has a good point about the structure of this article. Since the article is about the Chinese civilization, the sections should probably only include and be arranged like this:
  1. Pre-history
  2. History
  3. Current division

And other topics like Culture and Religion should be mentioned and linked to its main articles. This change requires serious edits. Better yet, Chinese civilization can be structured like that for Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, or Ancient Greece, which are more like how it looks now.--Ryz05 t 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The PRC is really more of the current period or "dynasty" (in the sense) of China, much like you have Han Empire or Qing Empire. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Western media tends to be way too sloppy with names, muddling the fine differences between terms like "China", "Mainland China", "PRC", "ROC", and "Taiwan" and as a result, completely misrepresenting the situation. There is no reason for Wikipedia to lower itself to that level. -- ran (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

suggestions to save article from removal/merge

If you guys want to save this article, it should focus more on the traditions of Ancient China, such as ancient Chinese economy, banking, coinage, social and political structure, fragmentation vs. centralization, philosophy (legalism, confucianism, neoconfucianism, taoism), arts, imperial culture, folk culture, etc. As it is right now, it should be merged with PRC article. I have no sympathy for weakly disguised political agendas. The only thing good about this article right now is the different pictures. Intsokzen 10:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. The article can be titled Ancient China, like that for Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, and Ancient Greece, and be structured like those articles. However, one thing I dislike about the title "Ancient China" is because the Chinese civilization is continuous and intact, whereas the others (in terms of their language, territory, and writing system among other things) are long gone or greatly altered. It's perhaps better to name it "Chinese civilization" instead.--Ryz05 t 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Then in case of the above, the name "China" for the current article on China should be changed to "Chinese civilization" as per "Roman civilization". Heilme 00:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Plus whoever doing the changes needs to make sure that the new article is different from Culture of China. --Sumple (Talk) 01:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If the article focuses enough on say the central themes of Chinese civilization such as its interchanging periods of fragmentation (feudal, independent states) and centralization (centralized dynastic rule), its various political structures and development, its policy and cultural tendency toward large-scale assimilation, its attitudes toward foreigners (foreign policy) over history (critical here are comparisons of the open Tang Dynasty and the closed Ming dynasty), its complex relationship with various religious bodies (its use/manipulation of religion for state power), its economic systems throughout various eras (including periods between dynasties), and foreign impressions of China (foreign observations, say Marco Polo's Cathay or later English critics of China), then it would be sufficiently different from Culture of China and also History of China. Again, the current article is trash, merely a rehash of the modern PRC country article. A Chinese civilization article should be sophisticated and nuanced, not a collection of cliches and stereotypes. --Intsokzen
I really do love this new suggestion, but I think we simply need to focus on ancient China meaning from pre-historic to 1911 (fall of the last medieval dynasty). Heilme 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this suggestion is great! I don't think I have seen any Wikipedia article that discusses Ancient China topic in the same way of Ancient Rome such as ancient banking, coinage, law, economy, government. Sarangburung 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like this suggestion because the equivalent of the ancient Rome article for China already exists at Han dynasty. In fact, the group of Chinese dynastic articles provided a much more comprehensive and accurate description of ancient China. It is wrong to equal ancient Rome with ancient China, because ancient Rome, in terms of both time span and mutability, compares only to one dynasty or at most one period (several dynasties) in "ancient" (read pre-1911) China.
The difference between the Qin and the Qing, for example, is just as great as, say the Roman empire compared to the Holy Roman Empire. --Sumple (Talk) 05:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, after much thought, Sumple is quite right to say that Ancient China story can be divided into each dynastic period. Ancient Rome is just like one dynasty. Heilme 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

TWO CHINA ?

NOW THERE HAS TWO CHINA : THE People's Republic of China(Communist) AND Republic of China (FREEDOM). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.126.53.211 (talk • contribs).

But some people want to merge PRC to "China" and ROC to "Taiwan". =( -- ran (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChina_Archive7_7f2e.html"