Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 7

Jiang,

The Republic of China is known almost exclusively as Taiwan internationally so the first time the ROC is mentioned Taiwan must also be mentioned so that people know what you are talking about. And it is not a "fragment" it explanatory text in parenthesis. --mav 06:09 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * alrighty then...but should the second mention that Taiwan=ROC be ommitted when it is mentioned that China is usually synonymous with PRC? Jiang 06:20 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * The other text is fine - it just expands on the point introduced by the parenthetical statement. --mav

---

Added how this is dealt with in the PRC and on Taiwan. Also removed the reference to China=PRC and Taiwan=ROC being a common formula in diplomacy. In most cases, diplomats will go through some extraordinary hoops to avoid making this formulation.

Roadrunner


 * Actually, the people in mainland China and Chinese newspapers do equate China with the PRC because this solidifies its position as the sole legitimate government of China. So your last edit is not accurate. They equate China with PRC (and consider Taiwan to be part of the PRC). Jiang 06:58 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Image caption
What was wrong with the old caption? It was easier to read in one line. Jiang


 * Do you have a wide screen or a small font? In IE6 in Win98, it drags the image table to the right, and making a large empty space beside the picture. And shrink the text area beside the image. I'll change the HTML again, and hopefully this time it will not force a horizontal expansion (as I saw), nor break the lines (for users w/ computers like yours). --Menchi 10:14 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-

The large version of the physical map makes it seem that "Taiwan" and "China" are separate entities. It is best to leave this issue out--and label them with ROC and PRC respectively. --Jiang 01:42 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A holidays chart pertaining to traditional Chinese holidays should be added. --Jiang

Changed this


 * Like provincial administrators, some foreign monarchs sent envoys to offer gifts to the Emperor of China and the Emperor returned compliments to them. The Chinese ostensibly saw that barbarians attached themselves to the virtue of the Emperor, but of course, the foreign people had different perspectives. Since the end of the 19th century, China has tried to interpret this relationship as suzerainty-dependency one based on Western international law in vain. Such foreign kingdoms included:


 * the Bohai Kingdom (today Manchuria)
 * the Tubo Kingdom (today Tibet)
 * the Vietnamese kingdoms
 * the Korean kingdoms

A number of problems.....


 * Always be careful about using the terms "of course." In many, perhaps most, cases the "barbarians" *did* accept Chinese diplomatic theory in part because the Emperor of China was sometimes "barbarian"


 * Also I don't think that China has interpreted traditional power relationships *in vain*. China quickly learned the intricaies of Western diplomatic theory, and has largely been able to use it to its advantage.

User:Roadrunner

Don't use "diplomatic theory". Although it had to do with security, veiwing it as diplomatic protocol is itself a very modern perspective. As the ceremony suggests, it was a personal relationship between the Emperor of China and foreign monarchs. It would be only the Koreans that accepted the Chinese official position. Others thought it was a mere ritual rite to gain tribute from China. The typical examples are Esen, Altan Khan and Muslim merchants. --Nanshu 01:59, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why leave out the list of tributary kingdoms? --Jiang

---

Not quite sure of the precise meaning of this sentence. Perhaps whoever wrote it / someone else would like to rewrite it?
 * The territory since then had been expanding from the West outward in all directions

--prat

---

What is the source of the 'number of kingdoms' in the following paragraph? Who made the estimation? It seems a bit high to me?!?! (It may also benefit from a rewrite of the first two sentences...)
 * China consisted of several hundred small kingdoms since around 1000 BC. All of which were unified under one emperor in 221 BC by the Qin Dynasty. Over the course of centuries, China underwent periods of unity and disunity, order and disorder.

--prat
 * Rewrote to 'many', as the number really seems difficult to guess and nobody has come forward with literary sources. I found a secondary source today (the standard history book at my university, published at Fudan University) which cites 'over 140' kingdoms in eastern Zhou, but has no mention of a larger number.  The source is called &#22269;&#21490;&#27010;&#35201;, ISBN 9-787309-024814 --Pratyeka 12:32, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

God, there are so many Chinas! See:China, Kagoshima-ken, Japan, China, Louisiana, China, New York, China, Nuevo León, Mexico, China, Angola, China, Malawi, China, Mozambique, China, Zambia... Are they worth being written? ;p --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 11:13, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Religion
Regarding the sentence "China has largely been an atheist nation throughout history": I will strongly argue that that is incorrect. The Chinese have: had a tradition of ancestor worship since the very beginnings of Chinese civilization; viewed the emperor as the Son of Heaven; called upon a variety of gods to aid them in daily life, from the God of the Kitchen to the gods of local rivers, and so forth; deified great leaders and generals; been influenced by a wide-variety of philosophies, many of whom could be considered religious or at least semi-religious, including Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and even Christian missionaries; believed in spirits or other supernatural creatures. How could China possibly be considered "largely an atheist nation throughout history"!? --Lowellian


 * Go ahead and change it! I think it's more like there was not much of an established religion. --Jiang


 * I agree. That sentence is misleading. Many emperors and empresses were famed with their temple-building obsession. Be bold! --Menchi 10:29, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I am surprised to know that too......"largely an atheist nation throughout history"? I don't think so...... --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 11:19, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I made a significant expansion of the section on Chinese religion; however, looking at it, it seems it doesn't really belong under the Demographics section. Would it make more sense to:


 * make it a separate standalone section, like Demographics and Culture are currently;
 * move it under the Culture section; or
 * make it a separate article, say, Religion in China

Lowellian 05:25, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I would recommend making a separate article since this topic and Confucianism interwine. A summary in a standalone section here is also nice. BTW Buddhism in China would also be useful to you. :) kt2 05:42, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Inclusion of History of Taiwan
If we included History of Taiwan as a "main article" of History of China, we should also be including History of Hong Kong, History of Macau, History of Tibet (article was deleted for pov copyvio), etc. (We wouldn't want to do that, I presume!) The History of Taiwan article is just regional and cannot be considered a "main" article. The ROC article covers all of China from 1911-1949, and supplements the PRC article (which picks off where History of China leaves off). Taiwan history after 1949 is already included in the ROC article. Why list both the ROC and Taiwan articles? --Jiang 05:01, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm okay with your most recent change, moving things to the bottom of the section. --Lowellian 05:49, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Greater China
Some people, particularly in the business world, refer to "Greater China". Does anyone have a definition of this term? -- Heron


 * If they mean &#22823;&#20013;&#21326;&#22320;&#21312;, then it refers informally to PRC (including HK and Macau) + ROC. --Menchi (Talk)ü| â 10:13, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I've added this term into the article. Correct my definition if wrong. --Menchi 21:52, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It also includes singapore ,especially in the business world.

Kwang-Chou-Wan
I have written a short article on Kwang-Chou-Wan, the former French enclave in what is now Guangdong Province. I was wondering if someone could suggest the ideal place to link it into China pages. --Roisterer 23:33, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

True or false??
True or false: a good title for this article to prevent people from thinking it is about the current country of China is Ancient China. 66.32.249.191 22:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a good idea is to create a China moving poll similar to the one at Talk:Georgia the only difference is the pages it involves. 66.245.115.202 16:04, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Polls should not be started unless discussion has been exhausted. Check out the archives of Talk:People's Republic of China on previous discussions. Ancient China is a bad title. Ancient China is pre-Qin Dynasty. What about Imperial China? --Jiang 21:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Does the title Imperial China make sense?? 66.245.5.89 20:13, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the content here belong there, but simply moving everything is not an answer. --Jiang 21:19, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now, at this moment, what is the BEST title for this article?? With "China", there can be a lot of links meant to be for the modern country that link here. 66.245.66.193 23:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this discussion is a red herring. There needs to be an article on "China", so this page should not be renamed. The questions should rather be, what content should be included in an article on "China", and what other China-related pages should be developed with other content? - Madw 00:25, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * We decided on "China" as a place to develop an article about the Chinese people, their history and culture, however governed. Links to here that ought to go to the article on the PRC should be edited so they do. Fred Bauder 00:38, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Strongly against changing the title of this article. This article is a general overview of the region. "Ancient China" would restrict the article to only dealing with, well, "ancient" China, and "Imperial China" would restrict the article to dealing with either only China while an emperor reigned or those areas of China controlled by the emperor. This is the umpteenth discussion about the title of this article, and "China" really is the best name for this article. --Lowellian 10:15, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

This country is missing an Economy section. Is this for a reason (i.e. past controversy?) or a simple oversight? --Ilya 07:54, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan as a part of China
In the sentence:
 * In 1683, Taiwan became a part of the Qing Empire...

It seems that Taiwan became a part of China only after 1683. This is obviously wrong, as it was offically part of the Ming Empire, and arguably long before that. Tianran Chen 04:02, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)


 * Take a look at History of Taiwan. I don't know if that article is entirely accurate or not, but it is, then it would mean that Zheng Chenggong was the first Chinese to rule Taiwan. -- ran 04:13, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

It couldn't have been a part of the Qing Empire earlier because Zheng Chenggong was holding out on the island, preventing a Qing takeover. The history of Taiwan has been highly politicized in order to justify territorial claims. Based on the western-written history I read, what is at History of Taiwan is mostly accurate (most of the text there was pulled of the U.S. State Department). Britannica states, "In 1683, 20 years after Cheng Ch'eng-kung's death, the island fell to the Ch'ing and became part of Fukien Province." --Jiang 04:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zheng Chenggong's mother was a Japanese and Zheng Chenggong was born in japan. so we can also say he was a Japanese -- anon
 * ... and his father was Chinese, and he was loyal to Ming China. So we can also say that he was Chinese.
 * In this sort of highly-politicized topic it's best if we just stick to the facts, and explain everyone's interpretations, Chinese, Japanese, or otherwise. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 03:34, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Very politic, Ran. Stargoat 03:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Some Victorian guy would've noted that Zheng Chenggong was a "Japanese Chinaman". LOL Rickyrab 03:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course it was NOT offically part of the Ming Empire. Do any one know why the dutch establish the first government in Taiwan? this is because the Ming Empire suggested the dutch who disturbde its coast that they can go to Taiwan because Taiwan was not part of it at that time. Let alone the last generally acknowledged Ming emperer had died in Beijing before Zheng Chenggong defeated the dutch. HARDLY OFFICIALLY!


 * The issue over whether Taiwan is part of "China" is quite a problem really, because given that the Beijing government is considered by most of the international community to be the sole legitimate government in "China" any acknowledgement of Taiwan being part of "China" makes the Taipei government illegitimate, which is of course why despite Taiwan retaining the official name &#20013;&#33775;&#27665;&#22283;, so many Taiwanese do not agree with the statement that the mainland and Taiwan are part of the same country, even though this position is contrary to the position of their own government. --Ce garcon 06:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the external links suck!
All the sites are hosted outside China mainland, and we chinese people have seldomly (if there were any) visited them. I think they provide many prejudiced information. Should we offer some mainstream sites to balance them ? Wait for replies.E 12:24, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh, don't you have things backwards? I think it would be fraudulent for us to link to mainland sites subject to government control and censorship without clearly identifying them and explaining the situation. Fred Bauder 13:41, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Meng Lang: please add more sites. We need balance on Wikipedia &mdash; lots of it. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 14:33, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh and this is to Fred Bauder: what do you suggest, that we have no mainland sites? You may not like the fact that they're always subject to some scrutiny, but seriously, what website is not subject to some level of misinformation, misunderstanding, ignorance, bias, and scrutiny (governmental, corporate, or otherwise)? The value of the unique perspectives of the people living in mainland China (yes, they do think and do put these thoughts online, which you can easily see from any mainland BBS) far exceeds the blemish of any attempt of governmental scrutiny. (And considering that they're now letting all of Chinese Wikipedia with its *scandalous* information through the Great Firewall, PLUS this message that I'm typing from China right now, they really aren't doing a very good job, are they!) -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 15:07, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * And as for your second part, about identifying mainland sites clearly and explaining the situation: why would we need to? Do we put next to every link to a U.S. government website, "this website may reflect predominantly the opinions of the U.S. government"? Do we put next to every link to Geocities, "this website must adhere to Geocities rules"? Aren't these things self-evident? How does the fact that a U.S. government website "may reflect U.S. opinions" take away its value to Wikipedia in any way? Doesn't the fact that it reflects a particular viewpoint, a particular perspective, a particular way that a particular part of the world works, make it more valuable to Wikipedia? If someone sees a website ending in ".gov.cn", I think they can figure out who's doing the talking there, without overzealous prodding on our part. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 15:19, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between totally worthless and not much good or good only as an example of life in a totalitarian state. Since you live on the mainland I know a long prison sentence is probably not in your plans so I'll keep that in mind as I evaluate your thoughts. Live long and prosper.... Fred Bauder 17:24, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's very clever... in constructing this argument, you made sure that no matter what I could possibly say, you can freely construe it in any way you could possibly imagine, to fit the conclusions that you have already reached. Ingenious, that.


 * Do you also happen to argue on the creationist side, by the way, answering every evolutionist argument with "the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes?" -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 14:18, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

To get back to your point. I tried to load the homepage of CCTV, English language, which I watch every day, but it wouldn't load right. So I didn't add it. I tried again today, but it just doesn't load. Fred Bauder 16:29, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Great Wall of China
"the original Great wall of China can be considered as the north boundary of China proper". I don't know why someone tries to delete this statement.


 * I think because China like the Romans didn't simply hide behind the wall but exerted sovereignty beyond it, especially in modern times, for example Manchuria. This is a sensitive point and essentially violates the preeminent principle of Chinese diplomacy, the One China policy, which hold that the peripheral parts of the Chinese Empire are and remain part of China. The alternative view that there is "China" and that the peripheral areas are simply occupied by China is not acceptable either to the Chinese or in international relations. Although that may all change as it did in the case of Russia and the Ukraine. Fred Bauder 13:03, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * You may also take into account the purposes of the Great Wall. It allowed for easy foot traffic along the border region, quick signalling from tower to tower, and while it was easy to scale the wall and enter China, it was difficult to get back out with a pack of valuables.  It was basically like a castle wall.  From European history, it is easy to see that a castle's land did not end at the wall.  It simply created two borders - the protected area and the outlaying unprotected area.  I wouldn't br surprised if you found many references that show towns just outside the wall claiming to be Chinese. Kainaw 14:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

well, no offense.But this is a fact. If you ask any chinese with common sense in Mandarin whether Manchuria and inner mongolia are included in "&#20013;&#21407;"(China proper) or not, I am sure the answer is definitely "NO".

Hmm I think "CHINA" is a very ambiguous term like "Latin" or "europe". geographically speaking, It means "China proper", while politically speaking it may means "people's republic of china." so I think the One China policy is a very ambiguous policy ,and it depends on what "china" means. or in the same logic we can also say in this way, "there is only one nation called mongolia, and people's republic of mongolia is the only legitimate government of mongolia. Inner mongolia is part of mongolia."


 * I've already explained in my edit summary, but apparently you didn't see it &mdash; I deleted it because it was in a weird place: right in the middle of a paragraph about the distinction between the concepts of North China and South China, and how peripheral regions fit into those concepts.


 * You are welcome to add the statement back in somewhere else more fitting in the article, or in the articles China proper, Manchuria, or Inner Mongolia.


 * And guys (especially you, Fred Bauder) &mdash; try not to read ulterior political motives behind every edit, it makes you look silly... -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 14:08, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Another thing: Zhongyuan does NOT translate for China proper. If you asked any Chinese person whether Sichuan, Zhejiang, or Guangdong belonged to "zhongyuan", their answer would also be: "NO". -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 15:47, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

China introduction
This article needs a better introduction. The current intro section dives way too deep intro specifics, like what China's borders are and what all the meanings of the word China are. The first section needs to give a general introduction to the country, its people, its culture, its technology and so on, this is not an inviting article as it is. -- Solitude 08:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. As a temporary measure, I've moved out the terminology stuff to its own section, and put in a picture (a map would make a bit more sense, but the article's already full of them). Markalexander100 09:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What China means matters much in this article because the community decided to put the communist state, the People's Republic of China, at a separate location. We must make it clear in the beginning that China can mean different things. Mention of the "historical capitals of China" be moved to politics and "North and South China" to Territory. Also, the relevance of the image is not explained by the caption. --Jiang 09:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Religion: Order of Appearance
The article claims that Confusianism appeared before Taoism. I could easily be completely wrong, but it is my understanding that Confucius studied at a Taoist temple as a child. That would be impossible if he grew up and invented Confusianism before Taoism was invented. Kainaw 14:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

???
Why is there is no country template?


 * see People's Republic of China and Republic of China. --Jiang 02:18, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cluttered and confusing introduction
The introduction incorrectly suggests that China is a historical entity that today is divided between two states. China is a single country the whole of which two states claim to represent. (Actually, the "ROC" even claims Mongolia and parts of two or three neighbouring countries.) This fact should be made clear in the introduction. Shorne 22:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Mainland China claims that Taiwan (and other islands) are part of China as a whole. Taiwan claims that it is associated with, but not part of Mainland China.  If that is the case, the introduction should state clearly that there is a dispute and then explain both sides of the dispute. Kainaw 13:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Both the PRC and the ROC claim the mainland and Taiwan. And the intro does already indicate a dispute. -- &mdash;Lowellian | Talk 18:10, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * The dispute is not accurately indicated. Notice that user Kainaw misunderstood it. Shorne 21:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Jiang would know better than I, but I believe that the ROC gave up any claim to mainland or mongolia a couple of years ago. Stargoat 22:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The ROC never officially gave up its territorial claims even though Lee Teng-hui said in 1991 that they do not dispute the rule of the Communist Party on mainland China. According to the ROC Constitution, the National Assembly of the Republic of China is given authority to change the national borders and it has never done so. However, we shouldn't be stating that the ROC claims these territories without further clarification because these claims are for the most part ignored, especially by the current DPP administration in Taiwan. --Jiang 23:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * How about one simple paragraph in the introduction&mdash;the second paragraph&mdash;on the political situation? Just enough information to tell people that both states officially claim the entire country (including Mongolia, &c, in the case of the "ROC") and that the "ROC" no longer actively insists on its claims? As I've said elsewhere, the current that China is an entity of merely historical interest that is split up into two countries now, rather than one country that two states more or less seriously claim to represent.


 * Does the "ROC" still have its "Department of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs"? Shorne 00:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I suppose China has two independent governments in one country. This is pretty weird, seeing as an independent government with its own territory generally is a country. Rickyrab 01:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there are other examples, such as Korea. Germany used to be in a similar situation. I don't think Cyprus and Somalia count. Shorne 01:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the British Empire ever counted? Rickyrab 02:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission still exists but I think plans are underway to merge it into the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. We might want to take a look at how the situation is handled at the ROC and PRC articles. Calling them two governments within one country is one POV. The pro-independence view is one country/state on each side. --Jiang


 * I'm not trying to push a view on the issue of Taiwan independence. I only want the status quo to be summarised in the introduction. Shorne 02:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I find it hilarious that Taiwan's "Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission" uses the Cyrillic script for Mongolian. Shorne 02:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I work with a lot of doctors from China. I was at lunch with four of them (three from Taiwan and one from Beijing).  I asked about this and it started a fight.  The ones from Taiwan said that Mao released it from China when he sent everyone he didn't like there.  One even claimed that Mao didn't have the right to release it becaue Taiwan never officially agreed to be part of China.  The one from Beijing said that the whole issue has to do with western trade.  They put sanctions against communist China.  Then they called Taiwan a separate country and traded freely with it - knowing all along that the products came from mainland China.  I don't know a lot about Chinese politics, so I just listened while they fought.  It was very difficult trying to understand the rough Beijing accent and soft southern Mandarin at the same time, so I only picked up a little here and there.  I thought I'd throw it out here even though it may very well be nothing more than nasty things that the northern and southern Chinese say about each other. Kainaw 02:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you didn't misunderstand something? It is unlikely that someone from any part of China would claim that Mao used the province as a dumping ground for undesirables and then got rid of it. Shorne 02:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. I could have easily misunderstood.  As I pointed out, they spoke with two very different accents and when it got heated and fast, the only thing I understood was one calling the other a "huozi pichu" (monkey butt).  I figure it is best if I don't bring up the topic again at lunch. Kainaw 12:37, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Feh. Chairman Mao was a fat dictator. Come to think of it, doesn't skinny and lanky dictator Fidel Castrate sometimes use the good old USA as a dumping ground for the heretics? Rickyrab 03:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page move
Cantus, don't make a move of such magnitude until after discussion first. The present location of this article has been arrived at after a very long discussion process between many Wikipedians, and unilaterally changing it is not the way to go. &mdash;Lowellian (talk)  06:35, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is quite off-putting to type in China and get an article about the historical region. 99% of the people typing China wants to see an article on PRC. Yet because redirecting China to PRC would be somewhat POVish, China should be a redirect to China (disambiguation), where the user would make a choice about what article to read. Arriving to an article about the historical region is nonsense, and it is something that none of the other reputable encyclopedias do. &#8211;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   16:08, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

First, preserving NPOV helps everyone&mdash;including you: some of your edits which present minority views have been allowed on Wikipedia precisely because Wikipedia strives for NPOV. Second, not everyone who types in China expects to get PRC; even if it's a majority, it's not as high as 99%. Third, this article doesn't solely treat China as a historical region, but also as a cultural and geographic region, among other possible classifications. &mdash;Lowellian (talk)  21:27, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Title graphic
Maybe I'm just a format zealot, but I feel like this article really should have some kind of title graphic. That's why I created the shape outline (in which I was very careful to include the entire geographic region of China &mdash; little good it did me). Any sort of flag is obviously out of the question. What title graphic could be used? Derrick Coetzee 04:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think objecting to the outline map is oversensitive: the map doesn't prejudge the question of how many Chinas it shows.  Three maps on the page is a bit of a map overload, but I preferred it to the plain text.   Something visual would be nice, at least. Markalexander100 06:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If any outline is to be used, the caption must specify that this is the de facto situation. Having no caption implies that all of that is outlines part of China and everything else is not. Some think Tibet is under occupation and that Taiwan isnt really part of China. We should address these sentiments. Then we have the ignored ROC claim on Mongolia or the PRC claims in the South China Sea. If we added a caption, then it would be redundant with the other "political" map so I think we're better off thinking of something else, maybe a generic geographical/cultural shot (Great Wall? Three Gorges? Guilin? Forbidden City?). Or we can use a NASA satellite image w/o boundaries and forget about politics.--Jiang 07:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * A satellite image sounds like a reasonable idea. Markalexander100 07:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The licensing of the NASA Landsat images are compatible with usage on Wikipedia, but in all the images I've seen of China from satellite, the lack of natural features to delineate its borders leaves you with an image wherein the country kinda blends into the surrounding countries, unless you overlay an outline of some sort onto the image, which brings us right back to the original question.
 * I agree that the top of the article needs an image of some sort, but just showing a picture of a single location in China, or even simply moving the Panda Bear image up to the top, would give shortshrift to the enormity of the country.
 * Also, moving the political map to the top would put the wrong emphasis on this article, as this article is not supposed to focus on the PRC or ROC (this article is trying to be apolitical, right?). Given the sensitivities that are involved, it is indeed a difficult question to find an image that portrays the country without offending someone's sensibilities.
 * Perhaps this article is doomed to have no introductory picture. (: --DV 09:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I proposed to use a satellite image in order to purposely keep the borders ambiguous. Over the course of history, the borders have changed significantly so as long as we keep most of the country within frame people will know what we're talking about..

I added a pic of the great wall. Perhaps the rivers will be more relevant. --Jiang 09:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jiang that the various recently-proposed maps of China are POV. The Great Wall picture, however, is a very good idea. The Great Wall is such an icon of China that it just seems to fit and introduce the article very well.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   08:22, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Barbarians in China?
The latest minor edit refers to the northern attackers (mostly Mongolians from what I know) as Barbarians. I know that it implies that the attackers are from a lesser society, but it also implies that they are of Germanic society. (Note: Germanic is not German - it refers to a language root that is not Greek or Latin. It sounds like Bar Bar Bar Bar to the Greeks and Latins, therefore, they are called Barbar-ians.)  I simply find it strange referring to Mongolians as Barbarians. Kainaw 15:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That is indeed how it's normally said... in general settled, agricultural societies have similar impressions of nomads competing with them for land.
 * In any case, the Romans were not only attacked by Germanic-speaking peoples, but also Celts, Slavs, Huns, and so forth; and China was only threatened by Mongols from around the 1200's on; before that it was the Jurchen, Khitans, Turks, Xianbei, and Huns (in reverse order). Since the Romans had no problem referring to all of their nomadic foes indiscriminately as "barbarians", I don't see why it would be any different for the Chinese, who called those peoples similarly disparaging names like "man2yi2" or "da2zi". -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 19:17, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Read the barbarian article. Lots of peoples all over the world were called barbarians, not just German ones. &mdash;Lowellian (talk)  08:23, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)