Talk:History of China/Archive 3

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.

Is China the world's oldest continuous civilization?

Discussion moved to Talk:China#"one of the oldest" vs. "the oldest", as announced below on this talk page. --MarkSweep 15:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Series Implementation

Yeap guys, the series template or table had been implementated. Feel free to discuss of how to make it better!!! 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 00:53, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

repost of Jiang's comment on my talk page:

Should Xia Dynasty be added to the table? (Answer on my talk) --Jiang 08:49, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

end of repost

Xia dynasty has been viewed as a semi-mythological ruling entity before Shang Dynasty, the first recorded dynasty. Distinctive and clear-cut evidences have yet to be excavated to show that the Xia Dynasty had existed. 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 00:53, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Xia article says evidence have been found. Nevertheless, we must include pre-Shang Dynasty history (under whatever we want to call that). --Jiang 08:12, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The page history suggusted that those informations about the existence of Xia dynasty were copied from Library of Congress. IMO credibility about the history of China from Library of Congress is doubted beacuse of my previous editing experiences on Lei Cheng Uk Han Tomb Museum. LOC stated the wrong origin of Tomb; in fact it should be originated from Eastern Han.

Anyhow, excavations from Erlitou and Longshan proved existences of pre-Shang civilizations but not necessarily of Xia Dynasty (i.e. no clear-cut or direct evidences). I don't mind including pre-Shang dynastic history and calling it prehistory of China, as sugguestd in previous discussion, or some other names. However I am extremely releuctant to name it Xia Dynasty. 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 07:52, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Go for it! --Jiang

Brilliant prose (Featured Article)

Attempting some copy editing, in order to remove my own objection to the article's retention in Brilliant Prose. Some of the changes are picky, but some are to correct things that I find hard to parse. I know nothing of the subject matter--learning it is why I started reading the article--so please make corrections and accept my apologies if I start mangling the sense. Dandrake 05:56, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I am unable to decipher the sentence "The word China was probably derived from "Chin" (Qin), whereas could be "Sin" from archaic Chinese, the engendered of tonal bifurcation and voicing distinction of Middle Chinese still remains in many dialects like Cantonese as well as Japanese and Korean." Does this mean that that syllable might have been pronounced "Sin" in antiquity but is now pronounced "Chin"? Does it then go on to explain that two different patterns of pronunciation of such words have developed? If so, could someone explain what and where and when those two patterns are? Dandrake 04:25, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Since nobody knows what the sentence means, or no one cares, it has been killed. Dandrake 19:46, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

Took the liberty of changing a section heading, "Revival of Civlization", because it's hard to picture civilization as being dead, or even pining for the fjords, in Kubla Khan's China. I suggest "Revival of Chinese Culture" because that seems to be what happened, open to correction by people who know.

Another text that defeats copy editing:

These laws might have paved the way to social harmony and removed the worst of the poverty during the previous regimes. The laws against the merchants and the restrictions under which the craftsmen worked, remained essentially as they had been under the Song, but now the remaining foreign merchants before Ming era also fell under these new laws, and their influence quickly dwindled.

The first sentence, read strictly, seems to mean that social harmony etc might have improved if the previous regimes had made these changes. I doubt that that's what's meant. Maybe someone said flat-out that these Ming changes did improve things, and someone questioned it, so there was a change to weasel-wording in a way that made the meaning unclear? Maybe it means, "These laws may have paved... and relieved the poverty that had increased under the previous regimes" or something like that?

Then the second sentence seems to assert that the laws didn't really change, but just got applied to powerful foreigners. In that case, the argument just before, that the Ming dynasty made fundamental changes in the regulation of Chinese society, seems to be contradicted. Clarification would be welcome.
Dandrake 20:03, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

Re-format

 This article is part of the

Here's a narrower table, if someone would implement this... --Jiang 08:44, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay, i did it for Shang, ROC, and PRC. Someone else can do the rest. --Jiang

The Ming retreat & Qing decline

"By the end of the 15th century, Chinese imperial subjects were forbidden from either building oceangoing ships or leaving the country. The consensus among historians of the early 21st century is that this measure was taken in response to piracy. In any case, restrictions on emigration and shipbuilding were largely lifted by the mid-17th century."

To a simple outsider, piracy looks like a remarkably feeble excuse for the withdrawal of a mighty navy from the whole ocean. Maybe this is an Anglo-Saxon prejudice: we cheerfully bash pirates when we're not doing the raiding ourselves. But seriously, if piracy really is the consensus explanation among scholars, we could use some reference to what they're thinking, because it sure looks like a triumph of the isolationists who earlier had been defeated in the sending of these expeditions. Dandrake 03:35, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Corruption was rampant, population growth and cheap western imports had impoverished the people." Well, that's a nice counterpoint to the perennial gripes about Asian imports, but just what does it mean? Usually cheap imports are good for consumers, but bad for the legions of industrial workers; what industries were undermined by the machine-made junk that Europe was sending in? I'm not saying the statement is wrong, just looking for some elaboration on what looks to the ordinary reader like an odd claim. Dandrake 05:49, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Deaths of Guangxu and Cixi

I don't know who it was that wrote it, but someone put that Guangxu was poisoned by Cixi. Now I'm not saying that the theory isn't out there, but it certainly is nothing more than conjecture, and so I did the honours of changing it to a more neutral statement.

-Kelvin

Not a Wikipedia member, so if you have any personal concerns email me at chan (underscore) ka (underscore) yin (at) hotmail (dot) com

Helped wanted: History of TCM

An article on the History of traditional Chinese medicine needs to be written. Any volunteers? heidimo 01:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The article has been extracted from the general TCM article, but perhaps you can improve upon it. heidimo 16:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Series box

The box that is currently on the History of China series of articles is here: Template:History_of_China, but there is an alternative at: [[]]. The two main differences between them are the width and the centering, not the content. As the creator of the first one I obviously prefer it, primarily on the grounds that it is narrower and therefore does not impinge on the article as much as the alternative does. The alternative was modeled on boxes to be found on pages such as History of South Asia and History of the United States. Others may disagree with my opinion, so in the interests of reaching some kind of consensus I think it would be helpful to hear people's comments as to which model is preferable, and any suggestions for further improvements. - Madw 06:14, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

The difference between MediaWiki:HistoryofChina and MediaWiki:History_of_China and is that the former is intended for use in History of the People's Republic of China, as it contains links to 4/4 pages of the individual PRC history article (PRC (1, 2, 3, 4), while the latter is intended for use in every other article. The latter does not contain links to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pages of the PRC history article, which would be extraneous in any article but the PRC entry. 172 10:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually it does contain those links - they were absent for a brief time earlier today when someone removed them, but they have been restored. The difference between these two boxes is style, not content. - Madw 10:07, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, please change the style of MediaWiki:HistoryofChina so that it corresponds to that of MediaWiki:History_of_China as you see fit. I have no preference as to whether the individual entries embedded in the series or centered or not, nor any preferences regarding the font size difference. Thanks.172 10:29, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

The true history of China?

Let me emphasize that "CHINA" AS A COUNTRY WAS TWICE ELIMINATED IN HISTORY BY MONGOL EMPIRE and MANCHU EMPIRE. it is always anachronistic to say "Qing dynasty" and "yuan dynasty" synonymous with "China".

• How ignorant of you, just because a country is temporarily conquered, it does not mean the country is eliminated. France was conquered by Nazis during WW2, are you saying the French nation and its culture is eliminated? Russia for centuries were under Tatar rule, are you saying the Russians were eliminated? Both the Mongol and Manchu conquerors adopted the Chinese system and eventually assimilate to the Chinese culture to a certain degrees. Nowdays almost all Manchu call themselves Chinese. China has a continuous history like France or England, just because China was conquered temporarily by barbarians, the history of China does not stop and the Chinese nation as well as its culture are not eliminated. Next time when you want to say something, think before you make a stupid comment!
• dude, what does 'eliminated' mean? -__-
• In Yuan Dynasty, the mongols adopted the Chinese system, and Chinese culture and arts thrived as well as they did in the Songs. Qing was a little different as the most prominent example was the hairstyle, which is ugly to say the least, is of Manchu and not chinese. However the political/government system was that of the Chinese, which has been in existence since the First Emperor in 221 BC.
• Eliminated..riiiight. LG-犬夜叉 18:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Please, please, whoever you are, get this message across and convince the people of China of its truth. Then they'll lose interest in bringing home the masterpieces of the Tang and Qing dynasties, and I'll be able to grab more of them at the auction houses. (Then, can you do something about the Song dynasty getting so pricey?) OTOH, fat chance. [Don't blame me for the heading; just trying to keep the page organized.] Dandrake 01:06, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the proper attribution of historical cultures is often somewhat arbitrary. Is the ancient Egyptian culture part of the heritage of the current inhabitants of Egypt? Some say yes; some say no. Is the ancient Macedonian culture part of the heritage of the Republic of Macedonia or of Greece? A bitter dispute continues over that issue. Etc. Especially given the tendency of Chinese culture to gloss over differences between what in other contexts would be considered separate ethnic groups, peoples, and languages, it's a tricky issue. We can certainly say the people of China believe [..], but we might also counter that with, e.g., linguists think [..], like we do in the Chinese language article. Nothing particularly odd about Chinese culture really: it's unlikely that any group's self-image is entirely in accordance with actual fact (just consider what Americans think of the US versus what non-Americans think of it). --Delirium 23:17, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

When the Viking uprise invade England, did the Viking count as a history of Viking? And should Norweigian take Viking as part of the history? When we talk about "History of China", it means of "what happen in China once upon a time". When different people meet, they are part of the history. So if Manchuria still exist today, they can claim Manchu empire as part of thier history. sltan 08 feb 2005

The idea that the Chinese of today aren't really the heirs of the ancient Chinese because the population was 'replaced' (that is, most of the real Chinese died out and were replaced by non-Chinese) can often be encountered among the Japanese. This particular point of view must be understood against the peculiar background of nationalist rivalry in East Asia. The Chinese have an unfortunate tendency to assert their superiority to other Asian cultures by virtue of their vastly longer history. One Japanese response to this is to deny the legitimacy of these assertions by saying: 'They weren't your ancestors anyway! We have just as much claim to be the heirs of ancient Chinese culture as you do' At least that is my take on the curious statement above. Bathrobe 15:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, many neighbouring barbarians who conquered China were eventually assimilated into the Chinese culture and thus became Chinese themselves, the Han Chinese (native Chinese) recognise them as Chinese as well. The Han Chinese today are mostly the posterity of the Chinese who created the Chinese civilisation since even when the Barbarians temperorily occupied China, their vastly inferior number were unlikely to significantly change the genetic pool of the native Chinese people.

Looking again, the poster above doesn't appear to be claiming that most of the true Chinese died out (although I have seen that claim made elsewhere), it is questioning the treatment of barbarian states as legitimate Chinese dynasties. This is a historigraphical issue. The Chinese have always placed great emphasis on deciding who are the legitimate heirs to the mandate of heaven, not least because the heir gets to write the official history of the preceding dynasty. Historians have on not a few occasions been forced to modify their criteria (for example, the fact that the Southern Song had no base in the traditional Central Plains caused considerable consternation and a change in the rules). At any rate, the whole idea of an unbroken succession of dynasties is itself an ideology of history, the legitimacy of which the poster appears to be challenging. We could say it doesn't matter, but it does. For instance, treating the Yuan as a Chinese dynasty allows history to be turned on its head by claiming that 'the Chinese' once ruled an empire that extended as far as Europe. This is presumably because the Chinese claim the entire Mongol empire as one of their own dynasties. (The notion that the Mongols are one of the Zhonghua Minzu is also behind this preposterous claim). Bathrobe 23:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of which points you were tring to get to, but Yuan is a unique case.

Their rule was short, the 3rd shortest in the history of all the dynasties. However, in much of Inner Mongolia and nothern China, there are many descendents of the mongols, though they have largely adopted the culture of the Han Chinese, especially since the fall of Yuan.

Textbooks and history books in China always say Yuan is the dynasty comes after the Song, because the Chinese people still made up the vast majority of the population in Yuan was Han Chinese. To the average citizen in the 1300s, most weren't affected by the invasion of mongols, because they didn't bother to attack cities and destroy them.

Qing is another story, which is more complicated. The army of Qing drafted people from everywhere and they all had to adopt their "pony tail" hairstyle, and their presence was quite significant from the north to the south.

The practice of State Exams continued, and the emperors practiced Chinese writing and Confuscious teaching from a very young age. They were Han Chinese converts.

Zhonghua Minzhu does not mean just the Han Chinese. I"ll probably get into that later. Got Class. LG-犬夜叉 18:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 202.72.131.230

I notice this edit was reverted without comment and marked as "minor". Was that material simply without support, made up, that is, or is it part of the legendary history of China? Fred Bauder 11:37, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the History (like the computer-screen equivalent of turning two pages at once). 202's edit looks to me like one of those probably accidental quasi-vandalisms that happen when a newbie's finger slips. Or am I misreading it? Dandrake 22:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

You're right I misread the history. Fred Bauder 00:18, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Chronological Maps of China

I have found maps of China according to the different ages here. According to the website, "All text documents, images... are for non-commercial, educational and/or personal use only. None of the materials published here within may be reused in the public domain. Any commercial use or re-publication is strictly prohibited. Copying, redistribution, or exploitation for personal or corporate gain is not permitted." This sounds like we can use them? THough, of course we should recreate the images with our own maps to be published under GFDL before long... --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Before we try to get these maps: I think I have doubts about how accurate they are though... like how exactly did the Five Dynasties manage to rule all the way south to Guangdong? And what's with that fragmented map of the Sui Dynasty? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 23:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Not only that, the maps did not specify what year they are in. Just in the Western Han Dynasty, china grew to twice its size. If the maps represent the dynasty at the height at its power, then the Sui Dynasty map is definitely wrong, because they did control all of China at one point. Also, I don't think anybody refers to the period 220-581 as Six Dynasties, unless they're referring to the "proper" dynasties according to confucion ideology (Wei, Jin, and the southern dynasties), but then the map is completely useless because we don't know what it represents (Wei only controlled northern china, Jin controlled northern china at the beginning, all of china at one point, and southern china afterwards, and the southern dynasties are self-explanatory). Yes there's lots to complain. -- quantum cyborg

People do talk about the Six Dynasties (liu4 chao2 shi2 qi1)... they refer to Wu (from the 3 Kingdoms), Jin, and the 4 southern dynasties (Song, Qi, Liang, Chen). But you're right, these 6 dynasties did NOT control the same territory and lumping them together in one map is kinda silly.

Another thing is that Westerners and Chinese people seem to have different ideas on what "control" is... Chinese maps show the Qin and Han Dynasties controlling the entire coastline.... Western maps show Fujian as being outside the empire. So yeah, there's definitely some ambiguity there.

Ah well, maybe one of these days when I've got some free time I'll make my own maps. :D -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 15:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think you meant Wei instead of Wu (from 3 kingdoms). There are some (confucian historians) that thinks Wei is the "proper" dynasty of china, while there are others that thinks Shu Han is the one, but I don't know of any that designates Wu. And what is (liu4 chao2 shi2 qi1) in chinese? I can't figure them out.

六朝時期. I've seen it being explained as the "six dynasties of Jiankang (Nanjing)". -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 04:35, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

As to whether the southern coastline part of the territorries of Qin dynasty, it's debatable since that area is sparsely populated and rarely referred to in history books, and is usually considered as barbarian lands. I know that in early Western Han, the southern coastline is basically independent with their own kings (though they do recognize the Han emperor as their superiors), and that they were absorbed by Western Han during the reign of Liu Che.

My copy of Zizhi Tongjian has some nice maps of various chinese eras. Maybe I can reproduce some of those for use here... if I can just get myself off my lazy ass =p -- quantum cyborg

GFDL does not guarantee non-commerical use. This means we shouldn't use them w/o massive modification. --Jiang

The map "China Proper" has been removed, since the map appear in the Qing Dynasty chapter without much context. Many maps related to the China History are utterly amateurish, and need to be replaced once better maps are available. Tue Aug 30 17:05:48 EDT 2005

Forgotten Kingdoms?

Though our history of China is absolutely superb (and still growing), an examplar and paragon to which all history series' should aspire - we seem to be missing out several interesting kingdoms in the history of China. The khanates importantly such as Western Liao, and the mysterious people of the Western Xia - who had their own language and culture (derived from Chinese), which died off after the conquests of the early Yuans. Though Wikipedia has a few badly written, unclear articles on these subjects - we should work on integrating them more into the History of China (and necessarily History of Mongolia) - anyone have any ideas as to how this could be achieved?--[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 11:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, just keep writing, I guess. ;) You can also come to WP:ZHWNB and post a request for expansion. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 15:15, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Dynastic History?

The History of China presented in this page uncritically accepts the traditional dynastic view of history. However, many historians question this analysis of history, which conceals real developments in and changes in China's social structure and economy that do not necessarily match the dynastic classification. (Even Marxists have a different way of looking at Chinese history, with their classification into 'slave societies', 'feudal societies', etc). Could someone who has a bit more knowledge of these things put these reservations into the article, at least in the introduction?

Bathrobe 15:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, wrote too soon. All we need, by the look of it, is a link to Chinese historiography.

It is my reading experience that the dynastic approach is the standard beginning to studying the big picture of Chinese/Asian history. Different study structures simply 'come under the heading' of the dynastic outlines. It is also my reading experience that native Asian scholars put more emphasis on the changing nature of China as represented in the dynasties and also for the advanced student in the royal names. Cf the terms 'Elizabethan' and 'Victorian' in U.K. culture. Using words like Tang and Song is very conversational. Cf the use of the terms 'medieval' and 'tribal' in describing the culture of Europe/America.--McDogm 17:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

18 provinces

Does anyone notice that there is only 17 provinces in the 1812 map of China proper by Arrowsmith and Lewis? I am a little confused. It is said that China proper has 18 provinces, isn't it?

The map is wrong. It mistakenly marks Hainan and Taiwan as provinces (Hainan was never a Qing Dynasty province and Taiwan was made into a province several decades after this map was published); but it shows old Ming Dynasty borders, like Gansu being a part of Shaanxi, Hubei and Hunan together as Huguang, and Anhui and Jiangsu together as Jiangnan. 17 - 2 + 3 = 18. ;) -- ran (talk) 22:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

old Ming Dynasty borders? If my memory dosen't go wrong, this is not old Ming Dynasty borders. Ming had 15 provinces,not 17 provinces. Please post a new and correct map.

Read before responding! I already said that Hainan and Taiwan were marked out by mistake. "Ming Dynasty borders" referred to Shaanxi+Gansu, Huguang and Jiangnan, this is why I used the word "but". There's a more accurate map at China proper. -- ran (talk) 18:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

nope.Taiwan had never been part of Ming's Fujian province, OK? Hainan was originally part of Ming's guangxi province, but later became part of Ming's guangdong province after 1370. And I have some doubts about the more accurate map. In that map China proper included a large chunk of Xinjiang. It is very strange, isn't it?

What's wrong with you? I already said twice that the Ming Dynasty border comment applies only to Shaanxi, Huguang, and Jiangnan. Taiwan and Hainan were marked by mistake. Ah forget it. Keep ranting if you like. -- ran (talk) 13:11, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

so why don't you post a new and correct map? It is very likely to mislead the readers.

By the way, manchus is not a central asia people, and they came from northeast asia.(look at the map, manchuria is not in central asia)And if manchs were alien conquerors, then Khitan Liao Dynasty ,Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Mongols Yuan Dynasty and Northern Dynasties were also all alien conquerors in the same standard.

How strongly are Fujian Province and historical/current day Taiwan related culturally? --McDogm 17:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Yahoo and Muzi

One should paying attention to the movie stars and breaking stories on such sites as Chinese Yahoo, Korean Yahoo, AOL Japan and the excellent Muzi in order to maintain perspective on just exactly what is going on in China. As the work progresses it lends life to the written product. The History of China series seems to be looking for readability. Of course this occurs naturally as the article expands. It just seems to be a good thing to say, sort of as a guideline for aspiring Wiki scholars in this ponderous field.--McDogm 17:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Written In The Sand

Is it obvious or ridiculous or both to assert that written words started by drawing on the sand at the beach? This origin of writing might be drastically underrepresented.--McDogm 17:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism In Mongolia + The Yuan Dynasty

What is the relation between Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia? It seems to me that this is very very important for talking about Yuan dynasty issues. As a native Westerner who is familiar with the Tibet lobby (see R.E.M.) I can assure you all that this link is completely absent from what we know here. If well-meaning Westerners had a clue about the Yuan Dynasty and its role in the military of 1st and 2nd millenium Asia they would just have to sit down and think about it instead of being really animated about it. I really would like to know more about this link. I suppose I should request something at the Village Pump.--McDogm 18:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"one of the oldest" vs. "the oldest"

See Talk:China#"one of the oldest" vs. "the oldest". --MarkSweep 14:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Early Manchu atrocity

I don't want to be rude, and I'm very definitely not an expert on Chinese history, but I have to ask:

Are we really expected to believe that between 1620 and 1651 China lost eighty percent of its population? Or, for that matter, that there were only 10 million in the mid-17th century? Some kind of discussion of the soundness of these numbers, here or in the article, would be useful.

One reason the claim beggars the imagination is that one has some idea of what happened in Europe when it lost a mere 25-30% of its population in the 14th century. There are plenty of documents on the impoverishment of the countryside, the abandonment of lands, the culture of Death. Anything like that from China (which has notably good historical records putting Europe to shame for many centuries) of such things a mere 350 years ago?

Less than a century after this supposed depopulation, China had a major cultural Golden Age, which from an artistic point of view looks like one of the high points of all human history. OK, I'm prejudiced, I like their pretty pots. However nasty the Qianlong Emperor may have been, he and his predecessors generated a lot of nifty stuff that looks very much like a peak achievement of a great and prosperous civilization.

Since I don't like nationalism, whether Han, Manchu, Japanese, or American (or Other), I'm inclined to see ethnic/nationalist propaganda here. But objectively it's hard to tell whether it's Han (Look at what the evil Manchurians did to us) or Manchu (Look what we achieved after clearing the Han out of the way). Now I am getting quite rude, but the point is that neither of those positions looks like good history. Can we gat any clarification? --Dandrake July 6, 2005 19:38 (UTC)

Redirects

There are a few red links to Chinese history periods that can probably be redirected here: War_cycles#Comparative_studies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV issue regarding whether "almost all Chinese" want "peaceful" reunification with Taiwan

User:61.51.68.202, User:221.216.167.157, and User:221.216.166.14 (although i suspect you are the same person), I do not believe it is a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) to state, as you did:

Almost all Chinese regard Taiwan as a part of China and endeavor on reuniting the country peacfully.

If you disagree, please explain why you think I am incorrect (and perhaps why I'm not following the NPOV policy) here, rather than repeatedly reinserting the comment.

--Nlu 16:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Han-centric

It sounds to me this article is too Han-centric. If it is an article on the history of China it should cover the history of all places within the territories contemporarily known as China (e.g. history of Tubo (present-day Tibet) and Nanchao, that co-existed with the Tang empire in the same period of history, should be included). I suppose there would be strong opposition if the pre-union history of Britain focuses only on England (or England and Wales, or Scotland), or the pre-confederation history of Canada focuses only on Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Québec). — Instantnood 11:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you just raised your own objection, however, to your suggestion, if you look at your analogies carefully. It would necessitate that, for example, that History of Russia deals with the people of what is now Asian Russia, even though historically, up until about the 17th century, Russia had nothing to do with Asia -- or that History of Germany does not account for Germany's ever-shifting borders, but rather insist that the article deal with the territory that is currently Germany proper at all times. --Nlu 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

All analogies have to be looked at carefully. Until very recently history of Germany was history of the Germans, and history of Russia was history of the Russians. This is not the case in the history of China. Han Chinese, although the dominant ethnic group, was rarely the only ethnic group. Other ethnic groups did appear in its history, and there were often states which kings were not Hans. History of a certain time of China should not be focusing only on the big empire ruled by Han emperors, with little mention of the smaller or less powerful non-Han states. — Instantnood 10:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You appear to imply that Russians and Germans were the only ethnic groups of their states during their entire existence until recently. That is not true -- the situation is a lot closer than China's situation than you suggest, in my opinion. Further, even if what you say is true, that only begs another issue which you referred to. There is a reason why there is little mention of the "smaller or less powerful non-Han states; there is little historical records about them. (I'm referring to such states as Bohai and various Qiang states during the Han Dynasty; basically, for states without their own written language, any records are going to be limited to their contact with the dominant Chinese state of the time -- which, as I should note, may not necessarily be Han (such as Northern Wei of the Xianbei).) You can't write what isn't there. --Nlu 15:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Under the section for the era of Tang Dynasty, for instance, Tubo was not mentioned, and Nanchao in one sentence. That section is basically a section on the Tang Dynasty, but not a section on the history of the geographical region of China during that period of time, when a number of states existed. Although Northern Wei of the North and South Dynasties is mentioned, Northern Wei is a state with a majority population of Han, and the Xianbei ruling class is highly sinicised (or han-ised to be more accurate). The section for the period of Ming Dynasty made no mention of what had happened in present-day Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet, although the history of these territories are well-documented. Tibet, for instance, was 烏斯藏都司, some what between direct governing and a tributary state. The later history of Yuan Dynasty during the period after Dadu/Shuntian was seized by new established Ming, i.e. the period of the Mongol state which Han people call Northern Yuan, with the capital in Karakorum, is not mentioned at all. — Instantnood 16:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You did not respond to my assertion -- that a lot of this (not all, I admit) was necessitated by the lack of records. For example, there is very little written information on the internal workings of the Northern Yuan before it effectively disintegrated into its constituent tribes. --Nlu 17:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's true that the history of many non-Han states are not well-documented.. but still there's a lot to write, especially those that has plenty of records, like Tubo. — Instantnood 17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about the first paragraph

Is it just me, or does the first paragraph seem completely at odds with the facts stated later under Ancient History? 10000 years as the date of the first written records? 5000 years as the beginning of the chinese empire? I propose we change these to 4000 and 2000, respectively. Let me know what you think. --Scipantheist 19:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You changed the bit about the turtle shells to place them into the Shang Dynasty. That seems wrong: AFAIK, the turtle shells are much older than that, however, whether the markings on them can be considered to be some form of writing is debatable. As far as Imperial China is concerned, its beginning is usually equated with the Qin Dynasty. Pre-Qin history at some point crosses over into mythology, so it's a bit difficult to give a reliable date for the first Chinese feudal rulers. --MarkSweep✍ 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the writing on the turtle shells is supposed to be from the Shang dynasty [1] . I think even the Records of the Grand Historian that talks about the Xia dynasty is on turtle shells from this period. If there is another source that says otherwise, let me know.--Scipantheist 19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sui Dynasty

I split off the personalities section of the Sui Dynasty section and created a page called Legends of the Sui Dynasty. There is a link to it on the Sui Dynasty page. I think this makes it more professional.

-Scipantheist

Grammar/Style

The following sentence keeps changing back and forth between 2 versions:

"2,000 years ago is used as the date when China became unified under a large kingdom or empire"

vs.

"Two thousand years is used as the date since China became unified under a large kingdom or empire"

Which one fits your preference? According to my understanding, you should never start a sentence with Arabic/Indian numerals (it's just plain bad style), and secondly the phrase '2,000 years ago' fits awkwardly with the rest of the sentence.

You are right about this.[2] I will fix it accordingly. --Scipantheist 19:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

ming dynasty crops

In the ming dynasty, it is stated:

"It was also during these centuries that the great potential of south China came to be fully exploited. New crops such as maize, cotton, and sweet potato were widely cultivated, and industries such as those producing porcelain and textiles flourished."

However, to my knowledge cotton and potatos were both indigenous to the Americas and is highly unlikely to have become planted in China at that time. Maize and potatoes even now are not found in China in large quantities and are not considered a staple food. Cotton I am less sure about but I don't see much of that being planted as well. I suggest this be taken out. Responses?

I don't know about cotton and maize, but note that this passage did not refer to potato; it was referring to sweet potato, which is a totally different plant. --Nlu 04:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I erred, I meant to put sweet potato. However that doesn't change anything. Sweet potatoes were still indigenous to the Americans while the normal potato was indigenous to the Andes of South America. Either way neither of them should have been found in china at that time.

Zheng He

I removed the section about Zheng He from this page. It seems to me that since there is already an extensive page dedicated to him, that it is redundant to have much more than a link to that page here. --Scipantheist 02:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)