Talk:Chinese civilization

Mass edits with no oversight of talk page discussion
Should all these edits be undone, and be first proposed through sandboxes and debated in talk pages? 116.48.87.86 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Putting actual content back
I've looked at the various options and figured out that having this page as a disambiguation page doesn't actually help the reader. With this page now moved to Chinese civilization, it is likely to become a much lower-traffic page. As such, would something along the lines of de:China (Kulturraum) be a suitable framework for re-developing this page? Deryck C. 22:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I only know what google translate tells me, but it seems to me that that German page would just duplicate either our Chinese culture or Sinosphere page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we need a German to explain what "Kulturraum" means. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It means a cultural area. I think Chipmunkdavis is right that such an article probably would overlap a great deal with articles like Sinosphere, Greater China and Chinese culture. But ofcourse, if some good sources can be found which talk about the Chinese cultural area as a distinct topic different what those other articles are about, it maybe worth making an article about that topic.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably a userspace draft is needed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just terribly unlikely that any user will hit this page and expect disambiguation, so I think we're better off either expanding this into an article with content, or scrapping it into a redirect altogether. (NB. I can read German, and sorry for not explaining "Kulturraum" - I didn't think it was crucial to the discussion, and thanks TheFreeloader for the explanation.) Deryck C. 13:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is figuring out what the user who hits this is looking for. I think they'll be searching for cultural information, others think historical. The disambiguation allows the reader to clarify. I don't suppose a reader ever actually expects to hit a disambiguation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I think I get the point. I've added Greater China to the list and changed some wording and presentation, just to make it even less ambiguous. Deryck C. 00:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The merge was never discussed and I would suggest a rollback of all articles affected. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was discussed. Quigley (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. The discussion was only about the move. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See this - it was discussed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's what I had missed. It wasn't in-depth at all, and was much less elaborated comparing with the move discussion. Your call for RfC was consistently rejected if not ignored. I wouldn't accept that as consensus at all. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My call for an RFC was unnecessary as no-one objected to the merge - which I didn't expect. Given that even at this point only one person has objected there seems no reason to have an RFC other than to create bureaucracy. Additionally doing it quickly had the significant advantage that links pointing to "China" weren't moved which would then have to be moved back.
 * Given the vast interest in the move request if people really objected to the merge there would have been more complaints that a tiny number of IP editors. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the merge proposal was raised in the move request, and even if it was, it wasn't discussed in much detail. The subsequent merge proposal wasn't well notified among the community, and there wasn't much deliberations. I'd say few people actually noticed it. IMHO we should roll back all articles affected, and discuss the merge proposal for each article in detail, with RfC. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't feed the troll. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:People's Republic of China - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 11:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Consequences of the PRC → China move discussion
In the course of the previous move request discussion in August 2011 it was reaffirmed that other articles, categories, etc., wouldn't be affected. This principle was reaffirmed in CfD in October 2011 and February 2012. But this article was moved. Please discuss at Talk:Demographics of Greater China. Thanks. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

New Content
I've compiled portions of pages on Chinese culture and history to create the basis for a Chinese civilization article. I recently made an edit to add the information to the page, but had my edit reversed because an agreement has been reached to have the page act as a disambiguation page. My last edit, for reference, is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_civilization&diff=500700399&oldid=500699990.

I think a page on Chinese civilization should exist, and that it can be a helpful reference for people to compile things relevant to people looking into Chinese civilization to have many links and references together in one place. I think the page should touch on some basic values, norms, religious beliefs and cultural aspects common to the Chinese civilization; its political, economic, literary, and innovation history; and its influence on its neighbors and the world today. I don't know if my edit does that as well as possible, but think that it is a good start.

I think the article should also focus primarily on Chinese civilization when it was mostly free of strong Western influence. Considering that Chinese and Eastern Asians in general have been greatly influenced by Western/Global ideas, values customs and manners that they seem far removed from traditional Chinese civilization.

Your thoughts? Nanib (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This page exists largely by accident. Once there was a page on the country at People's Republic of China and page at China on an ill defined topic. Ill defined as some people were sure that "China" was something different from the PRC but it was unclear what. Eventually after long discussion it was resolved that the country should be at China, which was not really a separate topic after all. So that was moved to Chinese civilization, its content merged with other articles, and it was turned into a disambiguation page, with links to related articles, the ones it was merged to and the ones most likely to be of interest to anyone typing "Chinese civilization" into the search box.


 * So the consensus after that discussion is that there is no need for such an article. Readers are better off reading China, History of China and Chinese culture which focus on those particular topics than an article which tries to cover all three. China itself serves as an overview, while the other two articles are more focussed. There isn't really a separate topic as "Chinese civilization" and any such article would just duplicate existing ones.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of making an article similar to the one for the Mayan Civilization. The content I put together was mainly from several pages, but mainly Han Chinese and Chinese culture. Some material was also taken from the page on the Sinosphere, the Economic history of China (pre-1911), History of science and technology in China, and the pages on traditional Chinese medicine, numerology, and social norms. This page wouldn't be meant to cover all history, but but key aspects of the Chinese civilization and its significance to the modern world today, which currently isn't in one convenient place.


 * To achieve this in a non time consuming fashion for readers, based on what I've put together, the article could stand to lose chunks of material taken from the Chinese culture page, maybe touch on the religion of China in less detail, and have the history section rehashed to reflect on the Chinese civilization rather than the the Han Chinese ethnic group. Nanib (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not a good idea. As "Chinese civilization" is a difficult article to make that can stand on its own and not just simply be another overview of those respective articles, which is basically what you are suggesting. It needs to be brought into context of the oh-so-much ambiguous term "Chinese civilization", have that and consensus may change. Everyone can state what the culture comprises, but how does it define the topic? Also, you can't just copy-paste things without clear attribution like earlier. --Cold Season (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is fine that some sections link to pages on the history of scientific development or the economic history of China, but beyond that I see what you mean. I have an idea of what material might be good for this, but that is a bit more time consuming that cutting and pasting so I'll produce something to that effect progressively after some time. Nanib (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)