Talk:History of China/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
...though recent archaeological findings seem to provide evidence for the existence of at least the Shang dynasty.
I was under the strong impression that the existence of the Shang had been well-known for a long time. There has been the suggestion that things like bronze working and chariot construction link the Shang to Indo-european or related migrants, like the later Tocharians. Some work in west China found spectacularly preserved clothing, from the era and of Celtic design, though on the whole I think insufficient work has been done. But in any case, none of the speculation (which I think would be worth mentioning) would be possible if the Shang was not known and known for a long time, right?
In English texts, new paragraphs are indicated
Like this
Not
like this. :-)
Concerning the paragraphs: I fixed it. Thanks for the tip, though I should have known it ;-)
Concerning the Shang Dynasty issue:
I think, the question was not if there existed some high culture at this time, the question was rather if the accounts of Sima Qian and others, which are quite detailed, are to be trusted entirely. The underlying problem was this (my apologies if I'm trying to tell you things you know;-) :
Sima Qian wrote a history of China from the beginnings until his time (1st century BCE). At the very beginning of his work, there are stories about "cultural heroes" like Shun and Yu, who are said to have invented things like marriage and the use of characters. Now these stories are definitely not historically accurate, but the events related towards the end of his work definitely are, or at least they seem very probable. So, there arose the question where to draw the line. Since there is no written material from the time ascribed to the Xia dynasty and only very few fragments from the "Shang time", Western historians tended to classify these two dynasties as legendary. The "recent archaeological findings" alluded to are inscriptions from the Shang dynasty, which give emperor names that quite agree with Sima Qian's information, hence the Shang dynasty seems to really have existed.
I think I didn't quite make this clear in the article, but my command of the English language is not quite good enough to fix this. Could you perhaps do this for me?
About the theories of Tocharian influence in the Shang dynasty: I think this material belongs into the Shang Dynasty article proper. The "Chinese history" entry should just give a general overview. But if you think it's necessary, well, I'm not THE GREAT BOSS OF THE CHINESE HISTORY ARTICLE :-) Just go and change it, that's what wiki is for, I guess...
-- Xiemaisi
Ok, I've made what changes I feel are apropriate. You may not be the great boss, but you are the original author, so feel free to adjust them as you see fit. :)
Thanks, looks quite good. Just one minor point: You say If the Xia existed at all, they may have been contemporary. What do you mean? Contemporary to whom? To the Shang Dynasty? I'm not sure if this is quite clear from context... Oh, and if you've got material about the Shang at hand, could you perhaps write the corresponding article? The Chinese history page looks a bit sad at the moment with all these unwritten subentries :'-)
Um.. records back 1 million years? I'd think I would have heard of this before... also, is a histiographer the same as a historian?
The records don't go back that far, but the archaeological records do - remains of people dating back that far have been found on Chinese soil. Historiographers and historians are pretty close to the same, but I think the former emphasizes keeping records over research.
- What is this "1 million year" stuff in the first paragraph? Given that homo sapiens is only 100,000 years old, what kinds of animals "inhabitated" China for the 900,000 years prior to that? --AxelBoldt
I made a lot of changes
- I added a note about Xia and Shang being contemporaries
- I have some reservations about characterizing the Chou as the first dynasty for which a reliable historical tradition exist. The historical tradition for the Shang matches the
archeological records, while a lot of the stories we have about the Chou are things that we don't know are true or not.
- I rewrote the section about the Chou dynasty being feudal. The big problem with using the term is that it is part of an attempt to fit Chinese history into a Marxist framework and assuming knowledge of how the Chou worked that we do not have. I changed it to be NPOV.
- Rewrote text describing Spring and Autumn period
- The warring states didn't give up without a fight
- I have a lot of reservations about the statement that Confucianism was the underpinning of all dynasties up until the Qing, but I need to think about how to reword that.
- The Han dynasty section needs to be expanded, but I don't have the expertise to do it
Let me save everything and continue
More changes
- Song Dynasty - The Song didn't lose North China to the Mongols
- The Mongols really didn't get assimilated so I look that statement out
- Not sure I agree with the statement (among the common people)
- I changed the interpretation of stagnation into NPOV
- I removed the statement about the Ming secluding itself. It was popular to believe this about 40 years ago, but it's demonstratably false, and I don't know of any current historian who argues this and will gladly change this to NPOV if anyone else can. For a more updated view look at (The Sextants of Beijing) by Joanne Waley-Cohen or anything by Jonathan Spence. The treasure ship trips to Africa did end in 1430. The Ming did ban maritime commerce in the 15th century, *but* the ban was lifted in 1520 and there proceeded to be large amounts of commerce between China, India and Southeast Asia.
- I changed the view of the Qing to NPOV
- I removed the section about no cultural renovation
- I removed the section about decline, abundant bureaucracy and military weakness. At best they need to be rewritten as NPOV. Abundant bureaucracy cannot be objectively asserted as the Qing bureaucracy was much weaker than the Ming. Military weakness is a matter of the glass being half filled or half empty.
- I removed the section about there being little military resistance. There was a great deal of resistance. It wasn't effective. Also, the reasons for the lack of military effective is far more complex than a general "decline"
- Large areas of China were not ceded to the Europeans. The British got Hong Kong
- Rewrote section on Qing dynasty. A lot of the motivations were wrong
- The view about the 1911 revolution is the one that the Guomindang has traditionally used. Most current historians do not agree with it (See Wakeman's the Fall of Imperial China), and the Guomindang itself really doesn't care that much any more. I've modified it extensively.
- The next paragraph need to be rewritten, will do it when I have the time
- I rewrote the section on Taiwan. The situation there is extremely complicated and worth a paragraph or two.
- Jin Dynasty or Jin Dynasties ? - There were two completely disconnected Jin dynasties, one in 3rd century A.D. another in 11th century. Not a problem if the Chinese characters were written or pronounced.
- Liao Dynasty - Jin dyansty wiped out the Liao; Liao did not wipe out the Jin.
- Northern and Southern Dynasties, Jin dynasty (the 3rd century one) - they deserved more attention than just several sentences. I expanded into a paragraph on the main page. Will do more detailed account of each when I finished Wu Hu and the Sixteen Kingdoms
- Han Dynasty - I will input my account of its emergence and the table of emperors. Will do more especially about social life, technological advancement during its time if time allows. Created links for new pages under personal names of emperors instead of the posthumous names to avoid confusion with other emperors in other dynasties who had the same names.
- the Wu Hu barbarians and the Sixteen Kingdoms - they were nowhere to be found in Wikipedia. Essence of my work will be on these new pages.
- Created pages like Sima Guang, Liu, Tables of Chinese Sovereigns
- Only the most recognized posthumous names were used for all tables of emperors and referencing. For example, many kings of the Ten Kingdoms in the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period had tiresome posthumous names consisting of 10 to 20 Chinese charaters. Why bother quoting them while only clear referencing is needed.
Keep up the good work guys. Ktsquare :-)
Page looks good, but wouldn't the title better be "History of China"? I think most other history pages (as far as they have been converted from subpages) are also named in that way. jheijmans
IMO The description was a bit isoloated from the history of the world until the Marco Polo's trip. More connections can be drawn like linking the tribes lived around China to those known to the West. I'll make a table here for comparison.
Keep up the good work guys. Ktsquare :-)
172,
Why did you delete the section on Pommeranz and Waley-Cohen? You've basically eliminated all reference to any recent scholarship on China which suggests that the paradigm of decline from the mid-Ming dynasty is wrong.
Roadrunner,
Of course I know that the official reason behind the cancellation of Cheng-ho's voyages was the Mongol incursions. Of course I know that commerce continued to expand, and my section points that out. I even pointed out the rise of the silver money economy after contact with the Spanish and Portuguese. These are not recent, startling revelations. Personally, I doubt that the Ming era was not an age of "incipient capitalism" or a true parallel to the age of commercial capitalism in the West because it lacked state support, even though commerce was interested in moving in such a mercantilist direction:
"Although the late Ming, following contacts with the Europeans, saw the emergence of a genuine silver money economy (due, in large part, to trade with the New World), due to the attendant development of relatively large-scale mercantile and industrial enterprises under private as well as state ownership (most notably the great textile centers of the southeast), the Ming age was not one of “incipient capitalism” due to the predominance of the political realm over the economic. Although commerce was stimulated by the flow of silver from the New World, used to pay for Chinese exports of tea, silk, and ceramics, and although Chinese businessmen devised a way of mass-producing cheaper types of porcelain to satisfy European markets, comparing economic patterns to the those in Europe during the genesis of capitalism illustrate why state backing of capitalism was crucial. Generally, unlike in China, these early capitalists, protected and encouraged by governmental controls, subsidies, and monopolies, generated most of their profits from the buying and selling of goods. Hence it was associated with mercantilism, which was attacked early during this Cycle by Adam Smith and laissez-faire. Commercial capitalism, as mentioned, in many ways paralleled some broad economic trends under the Ming before the death of Yung-lo. So, from the standpoint of Historical Materialism or Marxian Stage Theory, we would expect to seem the progression of capitalism along Western lines in China."
I'm not arguing a point. But the comparison is illuminating.
Wikipedia is not a forum for original research or a debating forum. If *you* are arguing a point then it doesn't belong in the article.
In any case, A full discussion of the economic history of China in the late-Ming and early-Qing would require hundreds of pages and be well beyond the scope of a general article on Chinese history.
Roadrunner,
I wasn’t arguing a point. I was responding to you accusation that some accounts were over-simplified. I merely wanted to clarify the logic. Your hostility seems to be getting personal and petty.
--User:172
Whoa,
The text said that current historians of the economic history of China (Waley-Cohen, Pommeranz, and to name two more Thomas Metzger and Jonathan Spence) think that the views of John Fairbanks and Joseph Levinson were highly oversimplified.
The big problem I have with your edits is that you are presenting one particular view of Chinese history, the life of Mao Tsetung, etc. etc. and this is squeezing out alternative interpretations which disagree with the interpretations that you are presenting. Your edits are not doing a good job of presenting an overview of the controversies within Mao's life or within Chinese history. Whether the Ming dynasty was an age of incipient capitalism or not is an issue that could easily take dozens of pages to do justice, and it simply will not to make an argument that it was not without mentioning the other side of an issue.
One reason these issues are controversial is that there is surprisingly little known about Chinese economic history. All of the assertions you are making about China being this way and Europe being that way are debatable.
For example, the statement that
- Generally, unlike in China, these early capitalists, protected and encouraged by governmental controls, subsidies, and monopolies, generated most of their profits from the buying and selling of goods.
is hardly one for which there is scholarly consensus on.
Also, there is a log of old versions of the talk page. To argue that you weren't arguing a point when you just said "I am arguing that" is somewhat embarrassing, but I'm not sure what to make of your going back and changing the talk page to erase that contradiction.
--- User:Roadrunner
Lighten up, Roadrunner:
Do you have a petty and personal vendetta or something? You are the one trying to advance particular interpretations. Some statistics on the Mao era don’t coincide with your interpretation, so you have to use that Taiwan analogy.
The present sections on the Ming history are also fine. You probably didn’t even read it. It’s describing MANY interpretations.
- But your text holds that China was in decline since the Ming dynasty, that China never had a commercial revolution or modern science, that there was an official downgrading of trade during and after the Ming, that state control of the economy was a dominant characteristic of the Ming dynasty. All of these assertions have been questioned by recent scholarship and are quite controversial.
You just seem to want to advance your own correct one.
- My personal belief is that the economics of the Ming/Qing dynasty is far too poorly understood to make any sweeping generalizations.
The current Ming article merely suggests that Western-style capitalism was impeded by a lack of state support, which was provided in the West. This doesn’t really contradict your recent interpretations, which, I admit, counter some simplistic older explanations that over-emphasize Confucian conservatism at the expense of underlying social and economic factors.
And yes, I changed the dialogue. I was a bit inarticulate in the discussion section. I was speaking INFORMALLY. I didn’t realize that you would be so uptight. So what? I stated an opinion on the discussion. That’s why there is a discussion section. By changing my response somewhat, I wanted to reiterate that the encyclopedia article was not written from the standpoint of one interpretation.
READ THE ARTICLE NOW. IT'S PRETTY BALANCED. AT FIRST, THE RECENT INTERPRETATIONS WERE REMOVED BY MISTAKE. NOW, THEY'VE BEEN WOVEN INTO THE ARTICLE, WHICH NOW HAS A MORE COHERENT FLOW.
- The text still makes assertions which are controversial and debatable and which do not have the consensus support of scholars in the field. My main issue with the text is that Chinese history is a very active, interesting, and rapidly evolving field and that the text simply does not capture the flavor of the most recent scholarship. A lot of the most recent scholarship has a post-modern flavor to it and looks at the question of whether or not the traditional questions are even meaningful.
You’re right, Roadrunner. That’s why the article describes many different interpretations. Add more facts or describe other interpretations. By the way, post-modernists often deconstruct good historical scholarship. They’re the cancer of academia. --- User:172
Science progresses when one “community of experts” shatters an outmoded paradigm. Post-modern historians attempt to do so laboriously. Unfortunately, they’re not presenting a creative, new paradigm, but shattering old ones for the sake of shattering old ones. It’s a cancer spreading from the humanities to the sciences that must be stopped.
Roadrunner seems to be preoccupied with advancing this point of view, criticizing me as I briefly describe some scholarship on Chinese history that attempts to be more illumining.
--- User:172
Roadrunner,
Your section on recent post-modern scholarship adds perspective to the article. Some adjustments, however, were required. Your writing overly espoused this perspective and was slanted against other paradigms. Now, the point of view is more matter of fact.
Actually, I was trying to present an accurate summary of recent scholarship.
I toned down revisionist. A lot of current work on Chinese history is revisionist, but a lot of it isn't. For example, studies on the Chinese publishing industry in the mid-Qing dynasty could hardly be called revisionist because there is no dominant paradigm to revise.
It would be a good idea to start writing up a complete list of the paradigms that exist in Chinese history. As of 1970 there were basically three (modernist, China's reaction against the West, and the imperialist/anti-imperialist paradigm). I think I started an article stub in Chinese histiography.
point of view is more matter of fact.
This is an article on Chinese history, not Chinese scholarship on Chinese history. I short aside was fine, but the expanded articles is an obvious attempt to argue on behalf of these revisionist interpretations. The section on recent interpretations has been moved to the article on Chinese historiography.
-- User:172
Guys, This page provides pnnoramic view of Chinese history. Descriptions of Ming economy should be kept as concise as possible. Those paragraphs can be moved to Chinese Economic history or under Ming Dynasty -- User:kt2
No. This page just lacks information on everything else.
-- 172 This page initially lacks inofrmation of a concise overview of Ming and Qing Dynasties. Some paragrahgs on Ming are mostly descriptive of economy and redundant. Move relevant information to Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty. Example: Ming emperors sent seven maritime expeditions probing down into the South Seas and across the Indian Ocean
That's the 7 expedition of Zheng he, which is repeated in next paragarph:
The most extraordinary venture, however, during this stage was the dispatch Cheng-ho’s seven naval expeditions, which traversed the Indian Ocean and the Southeast Asian archipelago.
Don't try to babble ideas over and over again. --User:kt2
Listen, kt2, contribute something yourself. It's much easier to bitch than to contribute. That error was probably due to poor copyediting
Listen, 172. refine your vague generalizations before asking people to contribute. Don't cut and paste lots of info from other sites that others have to read all of them just to think how to edit. If you don't explicitly know what your are trying to say, how could you expect people to edit your stuff? User:kt2
Moved Ming Dynasty text to Ming dynasty Roadrunner
- I agree with the move. The Ming text was specific to the Ming dynasty and not to China. The article with the Ming-specific text was over 35,000 bytes which is unreadably long for an encyclopedia article. Now the article is about 21,000 bytes which is still a bit on the long side (idealy, fully developed articles should be in the range of 10 - 20 KB). --mav
The Ming section is the best one, and you’re destroying it. Lengthen the sections on the other dynasties. The article in Britannica on Chinese history, for instance, is hundreds of pages long because it chronicles each dynasty in detail.
- Each dynasty has its own page. Present the detail there. --mav
Ultimately, I expect there to be thousands if not tens of thousands of pages on Chinese history on Wikipedia. It will not do to have all of that on one page.
As of now, the other dynasties don’t have detailed histories in the dynasty sections. So, deleting the Ming sections would be inconsistent.
- Well get to work and add them.....
- Yep, Ming sections deserve to be moved to Ming Dynasty, expanding the article there. The Ming sections also lack coherence without those cut paragraphs; however including them would be made them off topic. The left behind sections need to be refined so it reads more meaningful. User:kt2
As of now, the other dynasties don’t have detailed histories in the dynasty sections. So, deleting the Ming sections would be inconsistent.
": Well get to work and add them....." WRITE THEM FIRST!!!!!!!!! LEAVE THE MING SECTION HERE ALONE UNTIL THEN!!!!!!!!!
- Whoever put those lengthy sections up here will then be respomsible of all the moving and refining.
- This isn't the place for detailed histories about any of the dynasties. That is why we have (or plan on having) separate articles on each dynasty. This article is supposed to be a broad overview of Chinese history; an introduction if you will. Ideally, each dynasty should have its own small section in this article with an introductory overview consisting of a few paragraphs. Anything more detailed or specific to the particular dynasty should be in that dynasty's own page (and eventually we will spin-off detail in those articles into [History of the X dynasty] articles). This is the WikiWay. --mav
That would be better. But it's just a plan now. I'm going to revert that Ming section until your done with "planning".
- Please note that your text has only been moved/copied to Ming dynasty -- it has not been deleted. I agree with mav; detail should be spun off to specific articles. Please work with us! -- Anon.
As of now, the other dynasties don’t have detailed histories in the dynasty sections. So, deleting the Ming sections would be inconsistent.
You are a hypocrite, Roadrunner. You were chronicling changes in Ming historiography earlier, rather than moving the Ming section altogether. Now you’re just trying to destroy my contributions.
- See my comment about detail above. --mav
- You seriously need a chill-pill, 172. The decision to spin off a new article occurs when the information on that subtopic reaches a critical mass. The suggestion to move it is reasonable. What in the world do you think is the difference whether it's one giant article or many littler ones? --Len
For the sake of consistency, I’m going to revert that section until you finish the detailed histories of the other dynasties in the dynasty sections.
- ? That's not the way we do things here. We add and edit bit by bit. No goddesses come fully grown out of our heads in full battle armor here. --mav
You people are ganging up on me for petty reasons.
- No, we are doing what we feel is the best for the article. --mav
LenBudney: THE OTHER LITTLE ARTICLES DON'T EXIST YET. THAT'S WHY!!
I'll stop reverting this section once the histories of the other dynasties are done
Personally, I can't wait to start the others. I'll get to that once you stop bothering me with this revert/restore game.
- The text has not been lost. Just moved. --mav
I know that the text has been moved; for now that is inconsistent.
Why don’t we compromise? Let’s each pick a dynasty to chronicle. Until those articles are finished though I’m going to be restoring the Ming section.
- Why is this necessary at all? This isn't your article to do with as you please and anything over 30,000 bytes is too long to read or edit. Work on the detail in the correct places -- the subjects of that detail. --mav
I've already moved over the Qing dynasty section and am in the process of moving over the ROC section. The ROC section perfectly illustrates the problem with the current situation as there is dual material that needs to be merged.
You are not the only person on Wikipedia and you need to take into account the opinion of others if you wish for them to take your opinion into account.
- Try not to impose your view of chronicling Chinese history here. They should go to Chinese historiography
- The Ming and Qing sections needs to be moved for a smaller Chinese history article. Respective paragraphs should also be rephrased so they look more coherent. 172, stop your edit war and work on them. Don't try to exploit consistency as an excuse to keep your gaint article here. -- kt2.
The Ming section has to be summarized before it is moved as well.
KT2, before you attack other people’s work, why don’t you contribute something comparable on a Chinese dynasty?
- Check User:Ktsquare/Articles. I'm also the major conytibutor to Han Dynasty, author of Wu Hu and Table of Chinese monarchs, the second longest Wiki article. Check before crticizing others' contributions. -- kt2
I SAW HOW YOU SLANDERED ME EARLIER TODAY, KT2. I MIGHT HAVE REPEATED A SENTENCE DUE TO POOR EDITING, SO WHAT? BUT HOW DARE YOU CLAIM THAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT I WROTE? EVERY WORD WAS MINE.
PLEASE APOLOGIZE FOR THAT INSULT.
I'm not slandering but you have babbled idea over and over. Those sections need to be condensed and moved. That's all I meant.
A redundant sentence? Big deal. I wrote the whole thing on the Wiki prompt. That's fairly difficult.
That sentence is only a example of the whole picture. -- kt2.
Your insult was that I don't have an understanding of the Ming era.
- Where did I say you don't have an understanding of the Ming era? Your sections are just too lengthy and babbling for others to edit. -- kt2
You implied that earlier today. Go through this talk section fight. You probably just have a short attention span.
---
This is the slander for which I want an apology:
Don't cut and paste lots of info from other sites that others have to read all of them just to think how to edit. If you don't explicitly know what your are trying to say, how could you expect people to edit your stuff? kt2
- Here's the whole verse:
- Listen, 172. refine your vague generalizations before asking people to contribute. Don't cut and paste lots of info from other sites that others have to read all of them just to think how to edit. If you don't explicitly know what your are trying to say, how could you expect people to edit your stuff? User:kt2
- I said you don't know what you are trying to say because you keep putting lengthy and vague generalizations. You know you have an understanding of the Ming era but how you expect people to know your thorough understanding from your lengthy and babbling verses. And you don't demand an apology because of your way of putting up long sections. If you refine your sections on a word processor before posting up here, you might not have such lengthy sections.-- User:kt2
172, again: Why is it necessary to keep scores of pages of text here instead of just working on the individual dynasty histories? This is very strange and not at all polite to people who are trying to get a summary of Chinese history from this article. Key word "summary". --mav
Early Imperial, Mid-Imperial and Late Imperial China periodization is a way of periodization but not the only way. Supporters of Chinese Marxist interpretations might not agree with that. It's better to put under Periodization of Chinese_historiography so the History of China article will be as NPOV as possible. User:kt2
- Point taken
- Those headers moved under Periodization of Chinese_historiography.
The length of the Ming Dynasty section is ridiculous. It is fantastic to have this level of detailed history here on Wikipedia, but the top level article of any history should always be a summary. The idea is to make information readily available to readers. Tannin
- You hit the nail right on the head. --mav
The suggestion that the article be kept as is until the history of the other dynasties is finished will not work. It will take months if not years to write a full history of China, and with wikipedia being a work in progress who is to decide what is "finished".
- Yep. That is why all this seems so very strange. --mav
Can the mob allow me to summarize the Ming section myself without butchering the entire article?--172
- Copy the text onto your own personal sandbox and summarize it there. When you are done you can paste it back into the article. user:172/sandbox --mav
- Yes, an excellent suggestion, 172. I want to do a general copyedit and tidy up of expression on the article (not your Ming Dynasty part, the intro and more general parts) and look forward to the edit war cooling off long enough to allkow me to do that without running into edit conflicts.- Tsar Tannin of Mob
-
- Same here written in 2002th year of Gong Yuan
Hm. I can't complain too much about the length now (the article is about 23K in size now). It still could use some weightloss but I see no point in prolonging the edit war now. --mav
Why can't we all be friends?
