Talk:History of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of China article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week

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

[edit] Reference to centuries BC

Under "Ancient History," it is inferred that the 2nd Century BC occurred several hundred years before the 13th Century BC. Is this a mistake, or am I reading it wrong? 84.164.104.76 12:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're reading it wrong. It says that a) the first written records (the oracle bones) are from the 13th century BC. But b) a second century BC source starts its account of history 1300 years before the time of the oracle bones (i.e. around 2600 BC). Mark ^{your words} 12:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement suggestion

As some of you have probably noticed, on the Chinese-language version of this series, most of the articles for the different time periods of China linked on the menu have a table at the top with some basic information about the time period in question. For example: Tang Dynasty at Chinese-language wiki.

唐
首都	长安为首都，洛阳为东都
君主 -开国君主 -灭亡君主	共20位李渊李祝
成立	(隋末农民战争) (618年)
灭亡	(白马驿之祸) (907年)

Is anybody against putting those tables up at the top of the English-language versions of the articles? And does anybody want to help put them in? All we need to do is basically translate. The wiki code is there, the images are there, and the content is there.

Hong Qi Gong 20:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So does anybody have an opinion about doing this? I wouldn't want to start putting in these tables without agreements from others that this is a good idea. --Hong Qi Gong 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The maps in those tables are hideous. I think we already have better maps. The text should go under the map, not to its side, so the table can be wider. I'm not sure if the first ruler is relevant enough for inclusion. --Jiang 18:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

For some reason the lines dividing the table cells in the table I included are not showing up. If you click on the link to the Chinese version that I provided, you'll see the lines.

The problem I have with the current maps is that they're not standardised throughout all the articles and some of the time periods don't even have maps. Plus, I think it would be better if they were up at the top and listed with some basic information about the dynasty/time period. But I agree, the tables in the Chinese version are not the best looking tables I've seen. The good thing about them is that all we need to do is copy and paste, then do some translating.

This would have to compete with the same space as Template:History_of_China. what to do about that? --Jiang 20:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not put something at the top like the Chinese versions do, something that's not verticle like the menu? We don't have to use the same table that the Chinese versions do though. But either I or somebody will have to come up with the wiki code.

So by the way, you're not against this idea as long as it looks good, right? --Hong Qi Gong 20:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting something at the top like at zh: has never been done here. I think that creates unnecessary whitespace and should be avoided. This template (I'm neutral on whether it should be included) would belong in the upper right hand corner of the page, and Template:History_of_China should be converted into a footer.--Jiang 02:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan

I've neutralized the text following the words Many Taiwanese regard Taiwan as historically being a part of China, but are now reluctant to... This text has been altered in the past to reflect one bias or another; I think this debate does not belong here. It's enough to refer to the government of Beijing without labeling it. John Reid 04:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that originally put the part about the communist government in this sentance, but I think someone else added the "give up their freedoms" part. I'm going to restore the sentance so that it simply states communist government. People can decide if they interpret communist government to be positive or negative. --Scipantheist 16:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That takes out the bit which is true and leaves a bit which is false. John's version is much better. I suspect the Taiwanese have various reasons for not wanting to be part of the PRC, and this isn't really the place to make unsourced generalisations about them. Mark ^{your words} 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In my view it is John that is making the unsourced generalisations. Why would Taiwan be afraid of Beijing? Beijing is a place, the capital of the old imperial China. It seems to me that the people on Taiwan are worried about more than the location of the capital. Most do not want to live under a communist (even if only in name) government. Furthermore, the government of the mainland has no problem calling itself communist. That is a label they came up with. If you can think of some other reason or show me polls otherwise, please insert. --Scipantheist 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the PRC government calls itself communist is hardly proof that it is. 'The rule of Beijing' in this context means 'the rule of the government in Beijing', as you well know. Mark ^{your words} 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The way it is now is much nastier to the mainland chinese, but factually equivalent to what you want. Is this acceptable? --Scipantheist 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we just say "PRC" or "People's Republic of China"?

Many Taiwanese regard Taiwan as historically being a part of China, but are now reluctant to accept the rule of the PRC.

That seems the most NPOV to me without also being ambiguous. --Hong Qi Gong 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with either of those. Mark ^{your words} 21:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Am I the only one that has a problem with the map of "Chinese Cultural Influence"? It seems to me if we made a similar map of "Indian Cultural Influence" then it would have to include every buddhist country in the world including China. It seems to me that rather than this map we need to have one that shows just China and former parts of China like Mongolia. --Scipantheist 19:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one. ;) Mark ^{your words} 21:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Chinese Cultural Influence" is pretty accurate because most of those regions use Chinese characters and are strongly influenced by Chinese culture.

I have deleted the map of Shang, since nothing prove it was the real map of Shang. 216.48.171.235 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Over the history, countries influenced each other mutually. China influenced its neighbouring countries and its neighbors also influenced China. Koreans, Japanese, Mongols and Vietnese use their own language not Chinese. Puting such kind of Sinocenter pic at the beginning of the article is inappropriate. Migye 17:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1800 BC - 1600 BC

I am trying to create a timeline for dynasties / kingdoms / etc throughout the history of China and have come across a bit of a discrepancy between the dates ~1800 BC and ~1600 BC. The entries for the Xia and Shang Dynasties state they end and begin at 1800 and 1600 BC respectively, leaving approximately 200 years with no ruling dynasty. Is this historically correct, or is this merely a case of chronological inaccuracy?

The latter. See [1]. -- G.S.K.Lee 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other inconsistencies regarding dating: "historical records dating as far back as 16th century BC" vs "The earliest written record of China's past dates from the Shang Dynasty (商朝) in perhaps the 13th century BC"

Since "historical records" usually refers to written material of one kind or another, either the definition here is different from that I know or there is a gap of 300 years in the article. I would prefer to see the 13th century since this (actually: around 1300) is what I have found to be the earliest historical records (IE the earliest oracle bones with writing on them). bossel 03:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mongol conquest

"Some scholars estimate that about half the population, 50 million Han Chinese people from the south may have perished in total as a result of the Mongols' invasion and conquest, and about 90% of Han Chinese from the north of China perished as a result of Mongol conquest and rule."

Are these scholars serious sources?

Wandalstouring 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Those numbers seem completely and utterly absurd. john k 20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As absurd as it sounds, it's true. You can check it out if you wish 24.224.154.12 01:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article too long?

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

The Ming Dynasty is very long, why is that? 216.48.171.235 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ChineseText

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

[edit] The FAG of China

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

[edit] Unrelated to the article, but...

This is unrelated to the article, but I thought this Talk page would probably be one of the best places to get the attention of any interested editors - I've nominated article Chinese currency for AID. Please vote if you would like the article to be selected - Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute on "the Present"

There is plenty of legitimate doubt on the legality of China's claim to Taiwan given the lack of a legally binding peace treaty handing the island to China following the war. I believe that this ought to be incorporated into the section. Ludahai 01:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion wrt legitimacy was already hashed out on other articles, as the arguments made concerning administration over Taiwan was effectly determined by the Cairo declaration. -Aldis90

Cairo Declaration is NOT a legally binding document. Any assertion that Taiwan is a part of China is strictly POV. Do not remove tag until resolved. ludahai 魯大海 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient History

I would like to let everybody know that the records of 5 emperors and Xia Dynasty is not only descpribed by Sima Qian. The bamboo Annals is also very important. The Grand History by Sima Qian is official, and the bamboo Annals is the unoffical, and it is earlier than Sima Qian. The most important thing is that, it gave not only the length in years of each king from 5 emperors to Xia and Shang dynasty in their regime, also gave the start year of each king in form of Tiangan Dizhi(天干地支). Other books refer to the 5 emperors and Xia Kings includes Yijing (周易). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dongwenliang (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

I added 2 most important pictures of the bronze container of both Xia and Shang period.

I also have some questions about the map of Shang, does the picture reasonablely show the actual map of Shang? I suggest to remove the map and keep the picture of Simuwu Ding. 12.47.110.46 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the map of Shang. Firstly, the map only shows archeology findings of Shang cities. We don't konw how many cities Shang really has, so this map does not reflct the area Shang really governed. Also, Zhou itself was a state of Shang during the Shang dynasty, the map should include Zhou as well.216.48.171.235 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hence, as some scholars of China suggest, the Xia and the Shang can possibly refer to political entities that existed concurrently, just as the early Zhou (successor state of the Shang), is known to have existed at the same time as the Shang."

This is not correct. Zhou was Xia and Shang's state(诸侯), and Shang is Xia's state(诸侯). In Sima Qian and Bamboo Annals, events of Xia King and Shang King meeting his head of states are everywhere. When the centre power loosens, one of the state grew stronger and overtook China. 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.48.171.235 (talk • contribs).

Assuming that you mean what I think you mean, the description you objected to is not erroneous. Zhou being a Shang vassal, for example, does not mean that it did not "exist at the same time as" Shang. Indeed, Zhou cannot be a Shang vassal unless it did exist at the same time as Shang. --Nlu (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

When we read two most famous history books, despite the fact that many events are very different as described by these two books(Qi of Xia and Taijia of Shang), they have one thing in common: the first chapter for both books is 3 Sovereigns & 5 Emperors(五帝本纪), the second chapter is Xia. To most researchers, the Erlitou is connected with Xia. 216.48.171.235 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Republic of China" error

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

[edit] Xia writing?

"Early markings from this period, found on pottery and shells, have been alleged to be ancestors of modern Chinese characters."

What is the source of this statement? My books and the Western historians who have taught me clearly state that the earliest writing dates to Shang.--Jiang 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, don't know where that came from. I was not the one that added that initially[2]. But I'll remove it now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Markings were found at Erlitou, there are more than 20 characters. [3]. The originall sentence did not use the word "writing", and used the word "alleged". I don't think you should delete it. Dongwenliang 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the another source,[4] more than 20 characters found at Erlitou site marked on the pottery. Also, the markings are very similiar to the writings of one of the minority people of Shui(水族) in China. Please undelete your post since the original statement is very fair. Dongwenliang 02:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"My books and the Western historians who have taught me clearly state....". This statement is ridiculous. The history of China had not been written by "Western historians", instead, it wrote by a Chinese called Sima Qian and no name in Bamboo Annals. Your Western historians also tought you that Shang was just a lie by Sima Qian until Anyang site was discovered and now they shut up. Please note that except in Mainland China, the historians in Japan, Korea and Taiwan all most all believe in the existence of Xia, which is the second chapter of Shiji(史记). Dongwenliang 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please quote the specific sentences in your sources. And please cite scholarly sources written by archaeologists and historians, not news articles. If you provide your sources, I will provide mine.

Please refer to Wikipedia:NPOV. We can only attribute certain viewpoints to certain parties. e.g. "according to Sima Qian..." We cannot tried either side as truth. Any serious historian can tell you that anything, when put into words is automatically biased. Sima Qian is a secondary source. He had his motives and biases. He lived at a time far removed from Shang and surely had his shortcomings. We know from his writings (e.g. the letter to Ren An) that himself as being even being more powerful than his emperor, with the ability to influence what future generations thought of his present and his past. It is a recurrent theme in Chinese historical writing, for transmitters of the past to criticize the present, indirectly, by either producing an exemplar for all to follow (like how Confucius did with the Duke of Zhou) or by demonizing an individual so as to indirectly tell one's own ruler not to go into excess (like how Sima Qian did with Qin Shihuang). Do you seriously believe that larger than life figures ruled China for tens of thousands of years at a time like Sima Qian suggests?

In following NPOV, I am not asking you to treat the Western interpretation of Shang history as truth. We merely need to represent it as a interpretation held to almost universal credibility in the West. Western historians do not claim Shang did not exist, or did not exist beyond Anyang. The argument is merely that there is no evidence of its existence beyond the archaelogicial records and that therefore the claims being made by government-sponsored Chinese historians should be avoided (not to imply that these claims are false, just that there is no evidence for them).--Jiang 05:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sima Qian is a secondary source. But we don't have the first souce yet unless archaological findings. Also, if we have more than one secondary source independently, the source is realiable. Before Xia, Sima Qian may not be accurate in some ways, but we can not blindly deny all of his record. As of Xia, I can list 5-10 books beside Sima Qian. History was recorded by people, do you believe everything in the article "Korea War" which was happened recently? Any mistakes in that article can let you think the Korea war is a hoax? If you think Sima Qian and Bamboo Annals are totally wrong, it is you need to prove. The problem of some Western historians is they even can not read the current language, needless to say the oracle bone writing which is by the way a well developed writing system include more than 4500 characters. So do you think this system can be invented by over night? 12.47.110.46 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you have no reason to dismiss the word of modern Western-based historians. No one here is claiming that Xia did not exist. We are merely representing the argument that no evidence verifies its existence. Sima Qian is accurate (to an extent) for some periods such as the Qin where he actually travelled to the steles he mentioned to record them...but in other places he relied heavily on myths passed down for generations. Hence different sources, written at different times, saying the same things. Different sources also mention sanhuang wudi. Are we to believe them too? Modern Chinese people cannot read oracle bone inscriptions. David Keightly, for example, can. The historians I am speaking of are fluent in Chinese. I know because I have dealt with them personally before.

Now what is the specific content objection here?--Jiang 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Two facts were missed in your comments on Sima Qian. First, Sima Qian is widely regarded as a serious historian. It is true that he had the motivation to affect what people later would think. What he did was add comments at the end of an event he recorded. So far, there is no evidence that he created "facts" in his book. Most of his records can be verified by others sources. Most likely, he compiled (maybe selectively) the records from resources available to him. The second fact is his records have been proven quite reliable even piror Qin. The Kings list for Shang in his book actually matches what has been found in orcale writings. This implies that the Kings List for Xia could be true too.

I seriously doubt if he had ever read the Records of Grand Historian by Sima Qian and Bamboo Annals himself. Please, read at least these two books by yourself and then we can disuss. Plus, I don't think you should compare David Keightly to common Chinese people, this by the way, shows us how rare the Western Historians like David is.12.47.110.46 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sima Qian is indeed regarded as credible on a number of fronts, but this does mean Shiji is the abolute irrefutable truth or that we should ignore the ongoing historical debates on Chinese bronze age China. The argument you make is one that has been made by modern Chinese historians and should be represented in the article as just that - an argument - amid counter arguments. This is the only way the article can be NPOV. Whether I have finished reading the Bamboo Annals or Shiji is not relevant here. Please acknowledge that controversy exists on this issue and we have to represent the controversy to stay neutral.--Jiang 08:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sima Qian and Bamboo Annals had been proved so many times that they are credible include Xia Dynasty. If you really interested in ancient Chinese history, still you need to read these two books. When the books were written, the authors have more sources available. The differences in these two books are all in very details, but as far as the king list of Xia, they are same, that is 17 kings over 14 generations, plus Houyi and Hancu of 40 years, make total of 471 years. Note that the Bamboo Annals are much early than Shiji, and definitely they are independent sources. The debates were mostly in the past, and the questioning voices decreased lots as the vast discoveries at Anyang and Erlitou site. The debate should be in the article, but the current facts also need enough considerations. Even the New York Metropolitan museum now cited Xia dynasty as credible history of China, please see their website. Another very obvious proof is the style of Bronze, Xia bronzes have very distinguished feature, such as three puffy legs. The tomb of Qin Shihuang were discovered for a long time, but due to most scientists in China are worried that the current technology can not prevent the relics from oxidizing and damaging once it is opened, the tomb is still intact now. I think you may know the great burning of books by this emperor, it will be more than exciting when it is openned. Dongwenliang 03:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. Neither you nor I set the historical debate. The historical debate exists, so according to WP:NPOV we have to acknowledge both sides. You trying to convince me does not do it. Please acknowledge that controversy exists.

New York Metropolitan Museum website article does not have an author. Why wrote it? Could this person be from China? Is this person a historian? I have material that has an author that discusses, in depth, the controversy over early Chinese historiography.--Jiang 09:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be in mind that the article is about history of China, not the historical debates of China History. The debate in article should be only current debate, not historical debates before finding of Anyang and Erlitou. You have an author does not mean your idea is widely accepted and that you are right, also one idea from one person who even never read the most important books of the subject he is talking about is not important and should be ignored. If you think king list of Xia is not true, quote your source accorditng toWP:NPOV. For me, I respect the New York Metropolitan Musuem as a credible agency, indeed the article does have an author, just that you don't know who is the author does not mean there is no author.12.47.110.46 19:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that we cannot pass off disputed interpretations as undisputed truth. Indeed the current debate (to generalize) is that Chinese (as in PRC) historians claim Erlitou to be Xia and assume Shang to have encompassed all of China proper while Western historians argue that the former view is without modern archelogical evidence while the latter (to an extent) is highly unlikely and (to another extent) without modern archelogical evidence. The Chinese view is heavily based on the assumption of the dynastic cycle (a succession of regimes) and the inviolability of the modern nation-state, while the Western view is influenced by post-modernist thinking, and the desire to challenge accepted paradigms and move towards more localized studies. As you practically have most of the (current) non-PRC based historians of China disputing your view, a page the New York Metropolitan Museum website completely lacking authorship or references just isn't going to cut it.--Jiang 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent studies seemed to have given greater acceptance that Erlitou is the remains of Xia. Do you have any recent sources that still claim that specifically western historians doubt this? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete of my picture of Warring State Music Bells

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

[edit] Map of Shang

Does the picture reasonablely show the actual map of Shang? I suggest to remove the map. Firstly, the map only shows archeology findings of Shang cities. We don't konw how many cities Shang really has, and is it possible that all cities of Shang had been discovered? so this map does not reflct the area Shang really governed. Please give your source of how this map is made. Dongwenliang 03:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No map of Shang as a contiguous political entity can possibly exist. The historical records do not state precisely where the realm extended. The Chinese did not have a modern concept of a nation-state with international boundaries until the end of the 1800s. So, of course, any map will only show known settlements. This is why I had the caption changed from "Shang civilization" to the verifiable statement, "Remnants of advanced, stratified societies dating back to the Shang period have been found in the Yellow River Valley." --Jiang 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From hunter-gatherers to farmers

I have corrected the earliest date of human erectus in China, based on the newest article published on Nature using magnetostratigraphic method. The Xiaochangliang site, 1.36 ma, Xihoudu site, 1.27 ma.Dongwenliang 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To all editors

Please stop the excessive insertion of Chinese characters.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)#Insertion of Chinese characters says (emphasis mine):

[If a] term does not have an established translation (that is, has multiple translations or none), feel free to provide the Chinese characters…

(To how many of the Chinese terms in this article does that apply?)

Proper nouns' Chinese characters should also be supplied, unless it is Wikified and the target article in the English Wikipedia contains the characters.

(How many of the terms in this article are not wikilinked to an article that contains the characters?)

By these recommendations, most if not all characters can or should be deleted from the article as of 2007-01-25.

For example, we really don't need the characters for Mao or for Chinese cities, both because there are wikilinks to articles that provide the characters and because the characters do not add any value to an English encyclopedia's article about Chinese history anyway. There may be more than one way of writing the names of Mao or Xi'an in English, but those readers who are confused by spelling variants are unlikely to get any help from Chinese characters.

Note that the insertion of superfluous characters just causes unnecessary work both for you and the person who will remove them later. Thank you. Wikipeditor 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think few Chinese characters are necessary to all users and readers here, especially for Chinese History. The history has to use lots of special names, which, expresses by the pronunciation only, causes lots of same words. The worst thing is that the tone of the character is also lost. That is why in Japan and Korea, people no longer use Chinese in many conditions, especially in Korea, but for their names, they all use Chinese characters, otherwise lots of names are same and it causes confusion. Even for an observant English native speaker does not know any Chinese, he can easy find the structure of the Chinese in the bracket after the same English name are different. For example, Jin could be a dynasty(晋), or a minority group or surname(金). Wuyi could be the current female vice prime minister(吴仪), or king of Shang(武乙). For those you don’t like to see, just jump over and please be tolerant, thank you.Dongwenliang 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed some Chinese characters I inserted, but still kept several to avoid confusion or if it is rarely used.Dongwenliang 18:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed from English Expert

I did some translation of the article about Kings from Xia to Shang. I am not satisfied by my work because 3 reasons: firstly my knowledge of ancient Chinese history is limited. Secondly I am not good for ancient language about the people's name and place. Last but not least, my English is not perfect. I added Bamboo Annals to the bottom part of articles, Some articles were tagged deletion in 2 weeks, and can anyone help to translate these articles? Thanks!Dongwenliang 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us the names of the specifical articles that need translation work? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Start form Qi of Xia, the second king of Xia, untill the last king of Shang, Thanks for your help.Dongwenliang 18:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the Chinese content on the Qi of Xia article to the Talk page instead. I don't think we're supposed to have paragraphs full of Chinese here on English WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, that Chinese is not easy to translate. It'll take me a while. Hopefully others will help. But the reason some of the articles were tagged for deletion is because we're not supposed to have non-English content in the articles. I'm going to move the Chinese to the Talk pages. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh god. On how many articles did you insert paragraphs of Chinese text??? Please take them out and move them to the Talk pages. I've managed to do this for all the articles for Xia rulers. But it looks like you did this for Shang rulers as well. Please don't do that because those articles might become marked for deletion for having non-English content. There're a lot to be translated. I suggest you seek help from members of WikiProject China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I planned to translate them by myself, and I already did many of them, at least 15% of kings. Please help some of them if you can. Also, the bronze pictures I uploaded all subject to delete by someone who is malicious, even after I provided the copyright tag. Do I need to get an authorization letter from the website bronzes.ca to let me use these pictures? these are free pictures, can you please tell me how to avoid the deletion of these very important pictures that show the Xia, Shang masterpieces? Millions thanks!! Dongwenliang 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is here. Nardman1 03:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why they are fake tags? I am new to Wikipedia and except the flute image is from Nature, all other bronze pictures are from bronzes.cn and the website does not have any copyright statement about the pictures. Do I need to send them a letter asking an autherization? What should be the right procedure to show these pictures here to the world? What is the requirement for verification of the source? Can you tell me and show some pictures you have uploaded and show the autherizaton letter from the picture taker? thanks. Dongwenliang 03:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hong Qi Gong, please don't remove them. I will try to finish the translation in 2 weeks. there are only 48 kings, 17 from Xia and 31 from Shang. You may also help if you have time. Thanks! The reason I need to expend these articles is that there is a sentence put in every article saying "nothing else is know about his regime", while there are lots of information in the book of Shiji, Bamboo Annals, Zuozhuan, Chunqiu, Zhouyi and Shi, Shu, Li. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dongwenliang (talk • contribs).

[edit] The very first Statement

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

That's a good point. Traditional records go back to the three sovereigns and five emperors. I think we should change that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuous Civilization

Is there really any substantive meaning to the term "continually existing civilization"? It smacks of a nationalistic cliche based on outdated concepts of "national character" and the idea of China as an ancient, unchanging, static society. ValensNYC 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You could also post the same question over at History of Egypt, where the first sentence states, "The history of Egypt is the longest continuous history, as a unified state, of any country in the world." Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute on the present

Stating that China is divided once again without any international treaty or legal body stating that Taiwan is a part of China is no more than POV. Removal of this again without resolution of this dispute is vandalism. It has been removed two times in violation of Wikipedia norms. Discuss this or I take this to the next level. ludahai 魯大海 09:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. We are to allow for a tag to remain for at least 24 hours. The tag had been placed there for longer than that without any further discussion about why the section was POV. Removal was justified. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

removal was NOT justified as the dispute was NOT resolved. ludahai 魯大海 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any statement implying that Taiwan is currently a part of China is no more than POV and the wording of this section should be changed accordingly. ludahai 魯大海 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three sovereigns and five emperors in Ancient Books

Three sovereigns and five emperors period is not a fabricated period by someone in Warring state period. The book of I Ching, starts like this: “In old times the when king Fuxi’s regime, he observed sky and the stars when he looks upwards, and researched the earth when he looks downwards, and watched the birds and beasts, how they live in their environment. He took examples from nearby and far away, and then made 8 Yin Yang signs to simulate the rules of universe. ….. After Fuxi died, Shennong rises. He made Plow and teach people how to raise crops and fishing. He created market and money for the exchange of goods. “

I Ching is a book dated Shang Zhou period, and widely accepted by historians that the book was written in late Shang and very early Zhou Dynasty. So it is very wrong to say that people lived in warring states (around 481-256BC) “fabricated” Three Sovereigns and Five emperors period.Dongwenliang 02:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_China_63a6.html"

Categories: China-related articles with comments | B-Class China-related articles | B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance | Top-importance China-related articles | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Chinese) | Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested) | Wikipedia former brilliant prose