Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 9

A balanced view of current day China
I think a present day China section is needed. China has undergone a lot of changes in the last 30 years and most Americans and many Westerners seem to be stuck in Chairman Mao days when it comes to their outlook of China. I don't deny that the Chinese government still has many problems including high levels of corruption (especially at local levels), restriction of information and free speech, poor safety and environment controls, etc. but the China of today is still not the same repressive state that most Americans think it is.

The "free world" should, instead of showing a condescending attitute towards China's repressive history, recognise the changes being made and encourage more of the same but first we have to recognise that China is in fact opening up and this needs to be pointed out in texts like this.

You haven't mentioned how they persecute and kill hundreds if not thousands of Christians in a year, and how they manage to hide this from billions of people on this planet. 17:30 February 6 2006 (UTC)

216.237.220.184 12:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone count?
original text: China (Traditional Chinese: 中國, Simplified Chinese: 中国, Hanyu Pinyin: Zhōngguó, Wade-Giles: Chung-kuo) is a country in continental East Asia with some outer territories in Central Asia and offshore islands in the Pacific Ocean that since 1949 has been divided de facto between the People's Republic of China (governing Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and numerous other islands) and the Republic of China (governing Taiwan and several outlying islands of Fujian Province).

And also that PRC did not govern HK and Macau since 1949.Mababa 08:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * People are confusing country and nation with sovereign state. Yes, we can count. There is only one land (aka "country") that is known as China and only one people and civilization (aka "nation") that is Chinese. Whether the PRC and ROC are separate states or just separate governments is not implied here. --Jiang 08:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Read state. Both China and Taiwan fit the description.  What higher authority does either respond to?  UN recognition has nothing to do with the definition of a state.  Both states are recognized by some states (China much more, true) so both fit the definition.  Please review Jiang's history to see his list of controversial changes.  Sometimes his changes are fine, but he often does big reverts against anything he sees as slightly against the propaganda of China.


 * well, I know the so called "Zhonghua Minzu"(chinese people) also includes Russians. Is there only one people and civilization that is Chinese? If so it sounds like "soviet people" in ex-USSR to me. -- anon
 * You mean ethnic Russians living in certain border villages. But in any case, what the concept of "China" includes is of course open to debate, but I don't think people are going to dispute the existence of one single land known as China. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 20:24, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Is China a "land"?If it is What about Mongolia? Is Mongolia a "land"? -- anon
 * Sure it is. So is Mongolia. You can also call China a country. Of course, anywhere beyond this (a "nation", a "government", a "legitimate government" etc.) is mined with POVness, which is why this article tries not to go there. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 16:48, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * what about inner Mongolia? When we are talking about the land of Mongolia, we know inner Mongolia is part of it.:) -- anon
 * Sure. This really depends on political POV, but you can say that Inner Mongolia is part of the "land" of China, or the "land" of Mongolia, or you can say it belongs to both (an overlap, in other words). It depends on your point of view. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 05:34, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * When we are talking about the land, we are talking about the geography. If you say Inner Mongolia is part of the "land" of China, it is a political issue,which is mined with POVness. -- anon
 * Of course. And the same goes when you say that Inner Mongolia is part of the "land" of Mongolia. It's not possible to make a statement here without landing in one POV or another. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 06:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * really?then why chinese call it "Inner Mongolia" in chinese if it is POVness for them? -- anon
 * Because that's the conventional name of the region? :D Calling Inner Mongolia by that name doesn't mean you consider it to be a part of the "land" of Mongolia. Or you can also have people who think that Inner Mongolia is part of the "lands" of China and Mongolia at the same time (i.e. there's an overlap). Or you can have people who think that the entire "land" of "Mongolia" is part of the "land" of "China". When we start playing with words like this there can be a lot of ambiguity. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 06:30, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * that's it.that's the conventional name of the region because it is part of mongolia geographically speaking.chinese call it "Inner Mongolia" in chinese,and mongols consider it as part of Mongolia geographically speaking. I don't see there is your so called "an overlap". If you say the entire "land" of "Mongolia" is part of the "land" of "China", it is POVness for mongols. It is something like calling india part of the land of Britain geographically when it is a part of British empire. truly ridiculous, Ran.
 * What is or is not truly ridiculous is not for YOU to judge. Most mainland Chinese find the idea of an independent Tibet truly ridiculous. Most Tibetan independence advocates find the idea of a Tibet within China truly ridiculous. They both have reasons for thinking this way. Wikipedia cannot make judgments about which one is more ridiculous than the other. You can't just push your own views onto Wikipedia like that and call all other views "ridiculous". -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 15:37, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * WOW, you are so emotional,Ran.Take it easy. Republic of Mongolia is an indepedent country, OK? and We are talking about Mongolia, not Tibet.I don't know why you stray from the main subject.:)
 * My comment above was about you calling things "ridiculous", not about Tibet or Mongolia. (I mentioned Tibet to give you an example of people calling things "ridiculous".) On Wikipedia you shouldn't be calling anything "ridiculous", especially if that reflects just your point of view. That's what I was trying to show.
 * This entire "argument", in fact, has consisted of me trying to show you different points of view, and you trying to refute them, with words such as "ridiculous" and so forth. This "refutation" part is not a part of what Wikipedia aims for; the listing of points of view is. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 15:15, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Republic of Mongolia is an indepedent country, don't you agree to it? And of couse it is ridiculous for them when you say the entire land of Mongolia is part of the land of China.I don't has different points of view with chinese because chinese call it "Inner Mongolia" in chinese themself.:)
 * (comment moved from the top) Er, sorry for my earlier changes! I feel so green, not checking to see whether it'd be controversial or not...But I still think we should clarify that the nation of China isn't being discussed on this page and that the disambiguation page has it! --Comrade Tassadar
 * As Jiang stated quite eloquently above, the nation (or country) of China is being discussed in this article. There is a separate article to focus on the sovereign states or government.
 * Also, please add your comments to the bottom of the page, not the top. --DV 10:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I do apologise for my interference then both on the main article and here in the talk page. I did not think it would cause such a stir! But again, perhaps others will also confuse country and nation with sovereign state and be slightly confused and thus a small edit for clarification may be in order? --User:Comrade Tassadar
 * I agree with Jiang and David Vasquez here, and I think the intro paragraph already makes the one historical country - now two governments thing clear.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   00:15, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * But if someone is looking for information on one of the two nations, they may become confused (as has already been expressed on this talk page and on the others). Perhaps saying "For other meanings such as the political entity, see blah blah"? Comrade Tassadar 02:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Originally, the disambiguation read " Alternative meanings: People's Republic of China, Republic of China, China (disambiguation) " if that helps anything. We must keep the disambiguation to one line. the article itself, i hope, does clarify this further. --Jiang 04:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. People learn something new everyday.Mababa 04:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I has a question. People's republic of China claims that it is the sole legitimate government in China after 1971 because it became the member of UN. However, this means People's republic of China was not a country before 1971 according to its one china principle. Here is something very interesting. Is the national birthday of People's republic of China the first day when it joined UN? It is NOT. Its national birthday is still october 1 made before 1971. This means it considered itself as an independent country before 1971! People's republic of China even does not observe one china principle itself! And therefore in the same logic no doubt Republic of China should be also an independent country. -- anon


 * Not really. The position of the People's Republic of China is that it was the only legitimate of China since 1949, and that its seat in the UN was illegally occupied by an illegal regime from 1949 to 1971. The wording of the UN resolution giving the seat to the PRC reflects this too: the resolution doesn't say that it's "giving" a seat to the PRC, it says that it is "restoring" the seat of the PRC.
 * In any case politics is a funny thing, and Wikipedia is not a place for political debates. We put down all points of view, no matter how absurd you may think some of them are. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 19:47, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * But in the viewpoint of UN, if People's republic of China was a country before 1971, then it breaks the one China principle. How can People's republic of China that breaks the one China principle ask others to observe it? It is very strange and a contradiction. Isn't it? -- anon
 * Mmm, what? I'm not following you. How is the PRC breaking the one China principle? -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 16:48, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * PRC breaks the one China principle because it considered itself as a independent country before 1971.
 * We know in the viewpoint of UN, ROC IS the only legitimate of China before 1971. -- anon
 * But that's not the viewpoint of the PRC. The PRC's version of the one China policy explicitly states that "there is one China" AND that "China is the PRC", so from the PRC point of view it was the UN (as well as the USA, Japan, etc...) that was breaking the policy from 1949 to 1971, not the PRC. By never acknowledging the ROC government in any way and claiming Taiwan for itself, the PRC has always followed the one China policy. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 05:24, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think I see what your reasoning is... in Taiwan it is popular to reason that since both the PRC and Mongolia are countries that seceded from the ROC, there is nothing wrong with the ROC legislating itself out of existence and allowing Mongolia, the PRC, and Taiwan to be successor states. But that's not how the PRC sees it at all. To the PRC, Mongolia seceded from the ROC in the 1920's, so it's not even part of the picture; also, the PRC's view is that it has already replaced the ROC in 1949, so it is the only successor state to the ROC. In other words, the PRC does not regard the ROC after 1949 as the true ROC at all, but as an illegal, separatist regime claiming to be the "ROC" and claiming to be legitimate. And from here follows the One China Policy: if a country want to conduct diplomacy with the PRC, it needs to agree that the PRC has completely replaced the ROC's legitimacy in 1949, and anyone claiming to be the "ROC" after 1949 (i.e. the Taipei government) is making an illegitimate claim, because the ROC's legitimacy has been replaced by the PRC. This is the PRC's version of the One China Policy, and it has never "contradicted" it in any way. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 05:44, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * But in the eyes of UN (as well as the USA, Japan, etc...) PRC breaks the one China principle because it considered itself as a independent country before 1971.:)I also remind you Mongolia was still part of ROC untill 1940's.Your data is wrong.
 * Yes, the PRC broke the ROC version of the One China Policy (obviously...), but the PRC has never broken the PRC version of the One China Policy. And since 1971 the UN has only agreed with the PRC version, not the ROC version. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 06:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * really? If Roc was an illegal, separatist regime from 1949~1971, why UN would allow it to be a member from 1949~1971?
 * If we go by the PRC's version of the One China Policy, then that's because the UN made a mistake in allowing an illegitimate regime to stay within its membership. Of course, the ROC thinks in the opposite way. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 06:33, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * too bad, people's republic of China does not has a time machine and can't change the fact.:)Does all the decisions made in UN before 1971 that ROC had paticipated in not work? Of course they work.:)
 * In the eyes of UN (as well as the USA, Japan, etc...) PRC breaks the one China principle because it considered itself as a independent country before 1971.:)If ROC and PRC are two governments in one country, ROC was the only legitimate government in the country in the eyes of UN from 1949~1971, which means PRC was not an independent country. And therefore PRC breaks the one China principle in the eyes of UN because it considered itself as an independent country before 1971.Or it does not matter whether PRC consider itself as an independent country or not before 1971 if ROC and PRC are two different countries.:)
 * You mean, the UN used to think that it was the PRC breaking the policy. But the PRC's One China Policy says that the PRC is legitimate since 1949, so if the UN agrees with that now, then they would think now that it is the ROC breaking the policy all the way since 1949. And take a look at Mongolia. They were independent since the 1920's. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 15:48, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Does all the decisions made in UN before 1971 that ROC had paticipated in not work? Of course they still work.:)And this means UN still recognize ROC as an independent country and consider don't consider PRC as an independent country before 1971 now if they are two governments in the same country.We should remember that all those decisions had became effective before PRC joined UN.And afterwards PRC continuously breaks the Policy by asking UN to agree the PRC's version.(i.e.by asking UN to consider PRC as an independent country before 1971 )I don't mind whose One China Policy you are talking about, but there were obviously two Chinas from 1949~1971 in the eyes of UN if PRC asks UN to consider PRC as an independent country before 1971, which also break the "one" China policy of PRC. Or PRC has to build a time machine and reverse all those accepted conclusions.:)As for the republic of Mongolia,what you said is their version.But in ROC's version, it is still part of ROC untill a referendum in 1940's under the control of Soviet Union.Of couse this means Soviet Union still didn't considered it as an independent country at that time or they would not hold the referendum.
 * Okay, let me try to summarize your reasoning here:
 * The UN has not abandoned all of its resolutions between 1949 and 1971.
 * The ROC participated in those resolutions.
 * So the UN continues to recognize the ROC's legitimacy from 1949 and 1971, even though they say that they now recognize the PRC's legitimacy all the way from 1949, and they say that they should not have recognized the ROC after 1949.
 * In other words, the only way that the UN can truly kick a member out and not recognize its legitimacy is to reverse all of the resolutions that were passed while that member was still around.
 * If the UN still recognizes the ROC from 1949 to 1971, then they should still accept the ROC's One China Policy from 1949 to 1971.
 * Clearly, the PRC breaks the ROC's One China Policy.
 * The PRC also asks other countries and organizations to follow the PRC's One China Policy.
 * Therefore the PRC is hypocritical for breaking what they are advocating.
 * Is that what you are trying to say? -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 15:15, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not really.If ROC and PRC are two different countries,there is no need for UN not to recognizing ROC's legitimacy by reversing all of the resolutions that were passed. But if ROC and PRC are two goverments in the same country, this does matter.:)Therefore if ROC and PRC are two goverments in the same country, the problems is that PRC tries to tell a lie which of course will cause a contradiction. And I also remind you ROC was the permanent delegate in UN before 1971. With the opposition of ROC no decision could be made in UN.:)

I has a question about the history. Were Northern Yuan(the original ruler of China in 13th~14th century founded by mongols but defeated by Ming afterward, fleeing to north beyond the great wall of China and coexisting with Ming for a long time. Both dynasties denied the legitimacy of the other in China.) and Ming dynasty two countries ,or they were one country but two governments? I don't know what chinese think about it ,but I know the mongols do think they were two countries. I guess in the viewpoint of People's Republic of China they were one country but two governments.What do you guys think about it? -- anon
 * Why does it matter though? The Yuan Dynasty article is already in both the History of China and History of Mongolia series. Both views are being reflected already. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 20:24, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

er, I just think there are many similarities between history and now, nothing else. -- anon

Sigh. This is getting way too long. So let me summarize.


 * To anonymous poster: PLEASE GET A USER NAME. This is getting hard to follow. And please do your own paragraphing, I'm getting tired of doing it for you.
 * Wikipedia is for all points of view, not your own. You don't come onto Wikipedia to convince anyone of anything. You come to Wikipedia to make sure that your own point of view, and all other points of view, are reflected.
 * This argument has consisted of me trying to introduce to you different points of view, and you trying to refute them. But Wikipedia is not where you debate. Wikipedia is where you integrate different points of view together. All I've tried to do so far is to help you see other points of view. You trying to refute them is not the point of Wikipedia.
 * As I have finished presenting opposing points of view to you, I don't see any need for this discussion to continue. If you want to refute any of them, go do them on a political forum. If you want to build Wikipedia, then try to understand those points of view, and integrate them with your own to make complete, well-rounded articles.


 * Go ahead and sign. Ran is telling us that he doesn't mean west europe is part of europe when he calls the land "west europe". Hmm... Very special(if not ridiculous), Ran.

-- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 15:37, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

By the way nowadays ROC does not has "one china principle". There doesn't exsist an agreement on it between PRC and ROC. PRC's so called "92' common consensus" is totally out of its own propaganda. ROC didn't sign or agree to this because it knows PRC's tricks very well. That is why PRC feels so angry and tries to lie to everyone with its own propaganda because it found ROC didn't fall into the trap.


 * First of all, I reworded this caption: "Areas currently controlled by the PRC and ROC", which is clear agaunst NPOV policy, as the word controlled suggests badly of both, and the word currently, also suggests that it is ripe to change. Both are very suggestive, seemingly to me, worded as if each were empires, which is just not true, so I changed it to how the caption of the map on the page of the USA.
 * Secondly, I changed back the caption of the Great wall of China because while both were fine, a less desciptive oe was repaced with a more descriptive one, just making it worse.
 * More on the point, maybe the opening description part that is in question could be reworded to something like this: "The name China (Traditional Chinese: &#20013;&#22283;, Simplified Chinese: &#20013;&#22269;, Hanyu Pinyin: Zh&#333;ngguó, Wade-Giles: Chung-kuo) currently refers to two political bodies &#8212; originally as one &#8212; in continental East Asia, with together, some outer territories in Central Asia and offshore islands in the Pacific Ocean that since 1949 have been seperate entities, de facto. That is: the People's Republic of China (governing Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and numerous other islands); and the Republic of China (governing Taiwan and several outlying islands of Fujian Province)." &#8212; Cerceole/(talk) 02:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term "China" does not refer exclusively to political entities. If it does, it usually refers to only the PRC. It's inappropriate to limit the definition when "China" often refers to the entire civilization. Regimes and governments come and go, but China remains. --Jiang 19:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I see you point, scrap that suggestion then.Cerceole|(talk) 03:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regimes and governments come and go, but China civilization/country remains. Then may I wonder why is that Mongolia state, which had been part of Qing longer than Taiwan, is not counted as part of China country if Taiwan is part of China? Why we do not include Korean states into part of China country since it only separated from Qing at the end of Qing almost the same time as Taiwan did? Especially when Korea had being using Chinese language/words longer?

IMO, the only reason makes Taiwan being counted as China is because Taiwan is currently ruled (or occupied) by the Republic of China, and not becasue any other reasons. Not because Taiwan use the same language or shared the civilization(they used to speak Japanese 50 years ago); not because Taiwna had been part of China during Qing(otherwise, Korea and Mongolia should be counted by the same standard); not because PRC or ROC has the legal sovereignty over Taiwan(it is still being disputed).

Thus, it is because the ruling government of China was splitted into two governments, not because China country splitted, that makes Taiwan being entangled into this "China Country" ideology. I still think the original opening statement has already biased and misleadingly make people think Taiwan is historically part of the "China country," which is not true.

The current opening statement fallaciously equated the idea of country with the idea of ruling government. Taiwan and China are two parallele lines that does not cross in the history until Qing. As Jiang eloquantly pointed out regime and the everlasting China should be distinguished, it is not appropriate to spead the idea of a country simply because the culture spreads or the ruling government speads; otherwise, we should also call U.S. part of Britian, or Iraq part of U.S. by the same standard.

I would rather propose that we can use the following statement to reflect the fact that it is the ROC make Taiwan currently counted as part of China. Chinese government split, not the China country:


 * The government ruling China has splited into seperate entities, de facto. That is: the People's Republic of China (governing Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and numerous other islands); and the Republic of China (governing Taiwan and several outlying islands of Fujian Province)." &#8212;

Mababa 04:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But ironically PRC says ROC ceased to exist after 1949, so I don't think currently Taiwan can be counted as part of China. And don't forget president chen shui bian was elected by Taiwan people according to revised constitution,not by the citizens of PRC and republic of Mongolia, who are also included in the first edition constitution of ROC.---anon

Vandalism in progress - DATABASE ERROR PREVENTING FIX!
A second vandal has damaged this article, but I received the following message when I tried to retrieve the last good version from the History buffer:

The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "China,oldid=7646760"

Working around this error by manually copying and pasting from the History display isn't working, because my browser doesn't allow text selection in just one column of the difference display, so I would have to copy a line at a time. (Several sections are damaged.)

Please, will someone with more expertise help to fix this? Thanks. --DV 15:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've had this problem before... I think waiting a few minutes usually solves the problem. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 16:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think the proper translation for "Zhongguo" is "central empire(/country)" which is a non-specific geographic concept and also had also ever been used by other civilizations like Inca empire.(I mean any civilization that considered themselves as the center of the world could also call themselves central empire in its language. more specific for ancient chinese,"Zhongguo" generally means "the center of the chinese culture". Since ancient chinese thought their civilization was the best, that means they also considered themselves as the center of the world) Besides, It is obvious that there is nothing in common between "China" and "Zhongguo" either in meaning or in pronunciation, and "Zhongguo" is not likely the original translation for "China". Does anyone know why "Zhongguo" is picked up as Chinese official name for "China" subsequently in 20th century?

===> Interesting. How did "Zhong guo" become "China?" Anybody who knows feel free to answer. Going back to your previous talks. -User Ran- Lol from me... too many POVs.. sounds like a conversation you experience in some philosphy or culture club or something...and wutsup with this vandalism stuff??? --SirCollin

I believe the ambiguity of “zhong guo” is the key. We know that “china” is a equivocal word as well. All the probable origins of the english word "China"＆prefix "Sino-" have been mentioned in the article. But whatever the origin came from（Chin dynasty,tea (cha) or silk）, it is clear that those probable origins have nothing to do with those non-China proper area like Manchuria,outer and inner Mongolia and so forth. So how come those non-China proper area was inclusively in "China"?This is probably because in ancient times no one in europe(Roman empire) would care about what had happened in far east in detail,and therefore they tended to call everything close to China(seemingly or geographically or something else… ) "chinese"(due to "China" being the earliest impression from far east)although it was virtually not. This is a typical mistake that one swallow makes a summer. In 20th century The *real chinese*(in contrast with manchu despite not the same with ancient chinese 2000 years ago) government noticed that and decided to took full advantage of it. Thus it had to pick up another ambiguous word “zhong guo”(the name which was occasionally used by Qing empire) along with "China" to confuse foreigners, and understandably that’s why even today chinese government still tries to push the definition of "China" to the limit to justify its territorial claim. And this also explain why many modern chinese historians are so *unique* that they claim mongolia part of China despite China merely as part of mongol empire in Middle Ages while all the other countries in central asia and east europe that used to be part of mongol empire considered its rule as mongol "invansion". Their claim is something like Hungary claiming Austria part of it during Habsburg dynasty in 18th century although Hungary was merely part of Austria empire at that time. surely It is a ridiculous claim.In fact, during Ming dynasty(next to mongol rule)the official documents did treat mongols as foreign invaders. But many modern chinese historians deliberately cover up the facts, and that's why I don't buy the excuse "orthodoxy".(don't be fooled.there didn't exsist so called Chinese political orthodoxy at that time, which is another propaganda out of political motivation and territorial concern.) Moreover this is the same case with Manchu empire as well. Manchus are pseudo-chinese,and they are actually Jurchens. They originally believed in Shamanism, and speak Tungusic language which belongs to altaic languages ,a totally different language group from chinese.Instead of adopting real chinese culture like Xianbei or Xiongnu, they preserved their own traditions like mongols, and even forced chinese to change their tradition like hairstyle.This is a typical foreign military invasion, not infiltrating invasion like Xianbei or Xiongnu(so anyway mongol and manchu empire despite that they had conquered entire china proper could not be counted as real china because they were not the central empire of chinese culture.Let alone Xianbei or Xiongnu had immigrated into china proper and gained their citizenship before they revolted.why? because it was originally designed to "civilize" these nomads and make them less militant according to historical books!) Ironically, as one of the victims of manchu invasion,later the chinese under communists rule became the invading and injuring party after the collapse of manchu empire and a series of international and civil wars. Perhaps some mainland chinese have been "mongolized" or "manchurized " after mongol and manchu rule(but we still need to view history under the background of that time,or a belated viewpoint would simplly makes no sense) and constantly under brainwash from modern government,but that doesn’t mean they can distort the historical facts. In a word, when refering to "China" or "chinese", people need to keep it in mind that “one swallow does not make a summer.”

====> is this vandalism: "As a result, principal rivers flow from west to east, including the Yangtze (Mississippi), the Huang He (central-east), and the Amur (northeast)," first paragraph under section heading Geography and climate --Lee.shoe 18:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Addition and revert
I removed the following, recently added, which may be useful in a more specific article on recent PRC history:

''Political reforms initiated by Deng Xaioping in the 1970's opened up China's economy to foreign investment and began China's transition from a command to a capitalist economy. Many areas of Chinese production, however, are still state controlled and by in large running inneficiently. The political transition towards capitalism continues though as does high rates of Chinese economic growth.

''Economic prosperity is widley thought to have lessened opposition to one party rule in China. Political freedom and freedom of speech continue to be staunchly dissalowed by the CPC (excluding the special administrative regions of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao)

Although a transition towards capitalism has evidently improved living conditions and economic prosperity in China, a transition towards Capitalism from Communism erodes the original justification for the CPC to take power, that was, to implement Chinese Communism.

Mark1 08:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are right. "special administrative regions of Taiwan" only exist in the dream, not in this universe. Definitely should get removed.Mababa 20:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Common Era
A question has arisen at Talk:Common Era. We need someone competent in the Chinese language to comment on the use of an era whenever Western years are used on either mainland China or on Taiwan. Is an era usually implied as in 2005 &#x5E74;, where nian only means year? If an era is explicitly stated, what Chinese characters are used, and what is their literal translation? Should they be translated as "Common Era", or would "Western Era" or some other phrase be a proper translation? &mdash; Joe Kress 03:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

well,I think era=時代 which literally means a long period of time. Besides, the proper translation of "Western Era" is the Christian era. As for "2005&#24180;",I don't think it can be counted as "an era" because one year is too short. I would rather call it "the 2005th year of Christian era" in chinese.


 * It just means era or period.Amerinese 04:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ROC/PRC: 2 Chinese governments
Most people accept the notion that ROC and PRC are both states. Unfortunately this is wrong.

When the Qing imperial government was overthrown by Chinese nationalists in 1911, they established a new GOVERNMENT, not a STATE. China already existed. Its offical name during the Qing dynasty is Great Qing.

The KMT changed the offical name of China to Republic of China. Same thing happened in 1949, when Chinese communists overthrew ROC government and established the government of People's Republic of China.

China joined UN under its offical name Republic of China in 1945. There was only ONE UN member state called China since its foundation in 1945. ROC was the sole legitimate Chinese government recognized by UN before 1971.

The UN Assembly passed Resolution 2758 in 1971, recognizing PRC GOVERNMENT as the sole legitimate Chinese government and expelling ROC GOVERNMENT from UN. The ROC is the illegitimate Chinese government since 1971. It didn't have sovereignty on China, Mongolia or Taiwan, because only state can possesse sovereignty. Territory can only have territorial sovereignty.

The states that had/have diplomatic relations with ROC gave/give only GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION to ROC instead of STATE RECOGNITION, because ROC was and is a Chinese government(in rebellion since 1971).

It is simply the doctrine of succeeding governments under international law.

Your viewpoint is very funny. Let me remind you that switzerland was not a member of UN until 2002, but everyone knows it was definitly a state before 2002.


 * You're very confused. Both Taiwan and China fit the characteristics of state very well.  China does not recognize Taiwan because they want to have a legal basis for invading Taiwan.  You're statement about states that have relations with ROC only give government recognition is wrong too.  It doesn't make any sense.  You call it government recognition because you want it to be.

Vandalism
Chinkology and Chinoland need to be removed, but for some reason they don't appear in the editor. Can someone figure out how to fix this? EDIT Never mind, seems to have fixed itself.

Dispute?

 * As such, the term "China" is subject to heavy dispute.

In many places, "China" means "People's Republic of China" (mainland) and "Taiwan" means the island, and there is no dispute or confusion. So the above statement needs clarification as to who disputes the term, and what the dispute is. As it currently stands it's a bit of a non-sequitor. --Yath 05:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nation
If challenged statehood makes it problematic to call Taiwan a nation, then for NPOV symmetry, we cannot call China a nation either, since by symmetry, the PRC is seen by some as illegitimate and thus there is no accepted Chinese state. See Talk:Taiwan. I see many of the same discussants so this should be interesting.--Amerinese 17:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please tell yourself that.


 * Declaring that "This article is on the Chinese nation" is not NPOV since the concept of a single Chinese nation (Zhonghua Minzu) is disputed. This concept only came about when the empire became a republic and is not accepted by non-Chinese nationalists (small n). It is also confusing for obvious reasons.


 * It has nothing to with the PRC being an accepted state. The Kurds are considered a nation too... --Jiang 19:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you even ever been to China?--160.39.195.88 23:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * yes and relevance? --Jiang 00:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Notion?
The beginning of the article currently reads, "This article is on the notion of China unconnected to any political state." The word 'notion' makes no sense here. Can we agree to some other wording that is acceptable? The agreed upon change should also be added to the disambig page. Monkeyman 19:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Rm unsourced content
Please verify the following
 * "Since localization of the ROC government, today, most citizens of the Republic of China would not consider their recent history a part of the history of China."

Is there a poll? How do you the opinion of "most citizens of the Republic of China"?


 * "Legend says that Chinese medicine was begun by a farmer who tried many different types of substances and wrote down their different effects. As a result of eating so many medicines, he died."

Legend says TCM came from the Yellow Emperor. See History of traditional Chinese medicine. --Jiang 08:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I know your Chinese sucks, but he is essentially a ideal farmer god figure.--160.39.195.88 16:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * you inserted "a farmer", not Shennong. there's a difference--Jiang 22:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you even ever been to Shennong? He was a farmer during the legend and then becomes a deity.--160.39.195.88 17:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Some Reasons for My Edits

 * In several non-English Wiki's, several delimit Republic of China from 1912-1949 and then have one article for Taiwan. That's strong evidence that many people think that Republic of China, even if you call the old period and the new period on Taiwan the same thing, has some kind of separation. It changed a lot when it went to Taiwan. Thus I added some dates for what people will probably be looking for. We could say from 1912-1949 and 1949-Present on Taiwan to clarify.
 * The Republic of China still exists. History of the Republic of China describes the history of the ROC from 1949 onwards. Putting 1912-1949 is misleading. -- ran (talk) 02:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * What other wikis do is basically irrelevant here. We are bound first by facts and then by our own conventions. --MarkSweep 21:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Check out the article on the origin of the word China as well as Oxford English Dictionary if you have access to it. Phonological changes across time are a tricky thing, and you can't just say because it sounds the same that it's definitive evidence. The origin is likely to be from Qin but it is not known for sure and there is not consensus among linguists yet (if there will be).
 * ... which is exactly why I removed what was there! "Cha" and "China" may sound similar now but their ancient pronunciations aren't even close. Shouldn't you be telling this to whoever tries to add the cha-china link (i.e. yourself)? -- ran (talk) 02:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a really illogical argument. So it is possible that it came from words that sounded unlike China does today.  And?  How does it make cha less plausible?--160.39.195.91 03:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Because the word that is pronounced cha2 today in Mandarin had different regional pronunciations in the past. That's why you have different borrowings of cha2 into various European languages today, falling into two major groups ("tea" vs. "chai") depending on the likely regional origin of the word. The historical word forms for "tea" and "China" are quite distinct in European languages. --MarkSweep 21:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 160: you've got my argument exactly reversed. My point was that someone just added the cha-china link because they felt that the two words sound similar today; but I was pointing out that they didn't sound similar at all in the past, and moreover there is no corroborating source, meaning that the cha-china link being suggested here isn't plausible. -- ran (talk) 21:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Local identities. Han ethnicity is a tricky thing.  Most Chinese speakers will be well aware that Chinese will naturally identify with being from a local area, whether that be Beijing or from Shanghai or what not. Look at the Beijing article and look at the stereotypes.  Ran deleted my sentence under the reason "oh you have too many examples of CHinese dialects written down", without giving any reasons.
 * Huh? I was referring to the nushu thing. As for the other thing: to say that the "Han Chinese" identity is misleading is POV. Any number of Hanists, as well as general Han Chinese in general will disagree with you on your point.
 * I tried to put something more neutral and you still changed it. Ignoring and deleting is not the same thing as trying to maintain POV.--160.39.195.91 03:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone else removed it, not me. -- ran (talk) 21:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ran changed Politics of Imperial China to Politics of ancient China. What in the world? There isn't even an article on that! What's wrong with the name?--160.39.195.91 02:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Because China was Imperial after 221 BC, and a future article on that topic may also cover pre-Qin politics? -- ran (talk) 02:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that what Imperial China is supposed to mean? It seems like it is more like what China is supposed to mean...--160.39.195.91 03:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Imperial China refers to a certain "Empire of China". This is not the best way to treat this, because 1) there was no emperor before 221 BC and 2) more often than not there was more than one empire. -- ran (talk) 21:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Word China
According to the OED etymology, the most respected English language dictionary in the world: ''[Not a native Chinese name, but found in Skr. as Ch{imac}na about the Christian era, and in various modified forms employed by other Asiatic peoples. In Marco Polo Chin, in Barbosa (1516) and Garcia de Orta (1563) China. So in Eng. in Eden 1555. (The origin of the name is still a matter of debate. See Babylonian & Or. Recd. I. Nos. 3 and 11.)] '' Ran, you should assume that there was a source a long time ago. I fyou just randomly made deletions and told people to prove it, I bet a lot of this article would take a long time to reprove. That's not how it should work.--160.39.195.91 02:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is the source for "cha > china" or "ser > china"? -- ran (talk) 02:49, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * What the... I didn't put it there. I just said that if you randomly challenge things, then they are going to take forever to reprove.  What the OED reference provides, though, is plausibility to alternate explanations.  If there's only one explanation, why would OED be so tentative about it?--160.39.195.91 02:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So it's okay to leave crankpot theories there? How about I put, "The name "China" may also be an ancient Sanskrit word that means "Yellow Dragon"." I can't provide a source for it. Don't you agree it should be removed in this case? -- ran (talk) 21:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

The OED entry is pretty straightforward: Marco Polo used the word Chin, Barbosa and Garcia de Orta used China. China also appears in Eden 1555, the first attested occurrence in English. In early 16th century English, "silk" was spelled as "sylcke" or "sylke". The word for "tea" appears in Europe starting in the late 16th century, as either "chaa", "chai", etc. (e.g. in Portuguese from a Cantonese dialect spoken in Macau) or as "tee", "tay", etc. (the latter being an historical English spelling; the word was borrowed from a coastal Min dialect). At the end of the 16th century, the three forms are clearly distinct and not obviously related. The word "silk" is presumed to go back to Latin sericus, Greek serikos, referring to the peoples of East Asia, and the Chinese in particular. This usage survives today academically (e.g. in the title of the Grammata serica recensa by Bernhard Karlgren). While the origin of sericus is obscure, its 16th century English cognate is "sylcke"/"silk", which is implausible as the source for the English loan word "China". There is simply no plausible evidence to connect the three words. --MarkSweep 22:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC) If north and south korea are both states, then ROC and PRC are both states. See the discussion above. Since ROC and PRC are different states (not only countries), and since ROC had participated in UN before 1971, no doubt ROC is an independent state like switzerland before its entry into UN in 2002. And if north korea prevents south korea from revising its constitution by attacking it, it is an invasion under international law. In the same logic it is an invasion under international law if PRC prevents ROC from revising its constitution by attacking it.

China is normally considered a cultural and geographic entity
China is normally considered a cultural and geographic entity 

I can image a newcomer arriving at this page, reading the above, and going, huh? Of all the ways that we can introduce the idea of "China", this is perhaps not the clearest or most NPOV.

China is more than a cultural and geographic entity. It is POV to say that "China is a single country", but it is also POV to leave that line out completely. The current intro basically endorses the view that there are "two Chinas, a PRC and an ROC", which is not NPOV.

There are a few ways out of this:


 * 1) Don't describe.
 * China is located in continental East Asia.
 * 1) Since this article is about the Chinese civilization, we might as well do this:
 * The Chinese civilization is a cultural entity originating in continental East Asia.
 * 1) Or something more complicated:
 * China is the usual short form for the People's Republic of China, a state in continental East Asia. Due to the political situation in the region, however, this strict correspondence is controversial.
 * More generally, China refers to the Chinese civilization, a cultural entity originating in East Asia.

-- ran (talk) 19:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I have no opinion against your current intro. -- G.S.K.Lee 12:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

State
I have issue with translation of Zhongguo as Central State. It's so obviously wrong--zhongguo is a term that's been in existence for thousands of years while "state" as we mean it today means something that's existed for a few hundred. It only means state if you mean PRC.--Mynameissam 16:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Guo" means a state, either an independent sovereign state, or a tributary state, or a subservient principality or marquisate, or even just a region depending on which part of Chinese history you're looking at. (But whatever the case, it is definitely more accurate than "Kingdom".) -- ran (talk) 17:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

"guo" is, IME, always translated as "country". The English term "country" is ambigous, it can mean either a land or place ("The undiscovered country") or a nation ("our country tis of thee....") I believe "guo" is similiar. I like "central" instead of "middle" for "zhong", though. Lampros 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Some Reasons for my Edits Part II

 * Zhonghua minzu in the first paragraph is unnecessary. It breaks the rhythm of the sentence with jargon that is meaningless for most English-speaking readers.
 * In either case, the ROC maintains its independence.  &mdash; What? What are the "two cases"?
 * It now includes parts of Mongolia, Tibet (actually governed by the PRC) and, according to the definition of the PRC, Taiwan (not governed by the PRC). &mdash; This makes it seem that it is NPOV to say that Tibet and Inner Mongolia are a part of China, but POV to say that Taiwan is. In reality, all of these are POV. Moreover, this implies that being governed by the PRC is a better prerequisite for being a part of China than being governed by the ROC, which is also POV.
 * China is the location of one of the earliest centers of human civilization.  and ...the Qin Dynasty, the first unified centralized Chinese state and the first state that some one consider "Chinese".  and ...Most of China's arable lands lie along the two major rivers, the Yangtze and the Huang He, and each are the centers around which are founded pre-China's major, ancient civilizations. &mdash;; the anon is attempting to imply that before the Qin Dynasty, there was no "China". But China is clearly used to designate pre-Qin civilizations. Do we speak of the Old Kingdom as "pre-Egypt" or Native American peoples as "pre-American"? Of course not. We can speak of them as "pre-Islamic" or "pre-Columbian", and we can speak of the Shang civilization as "pre-Imperial", but it makes no sense to say "pre-China".
 * Specifically, Han Chinese were prohibited from migrating into the Manchu homeland, and Manchus were forbidden to engage in trade or manual labor. Marriage between the two groups was illegal by law. &mdash; this is way too specific for an overview of Chinese political history. The Qing Dynasty article would do well with this info, but not here.
 * In 1912, after a prolonged period of decline, the institution of the Emperor of China vanished and the Republic of China was established.  &mdash; "vanished" is simply poor word choice.
 * The territory varied with several expansions and contractions depending on the strength of the emperor and his dynasty.  There was more than one emperor. And there was one who was female.
 * The historical capitals of China were mostly in the northeast. The four most commonly designated capitals throughout history (imperial, ROC, and PRC) are Nanjing, Beijing, Chang'an (today Xi'an), and Luoyang.  "Northeast" is a strange designation, especially since it is usually associated with Manchuria today.
 * China has many very different landscapes, with mostly plateaux and mountains in the west, and lower lands on the east.  &mdash; Landscape links to landscape paintings.
 * which is a group so diverse in its culture and language that some conceive of it as a group bringing together many ethnicities sharing common traits in language and culture, although each still distinct.  &mdash; my version is more compact and less verbose.
 * However there are some exceptions in order to preserve the memory of having aunts and uncles and also allowing farmers in the countryside to have a son who can help with agricultural type labor. &mdash; unless a source can be provided for the government allowing more than one child for the sake of "uncles and aunts", this is pure junk.
 * This led to a meritocracy among those who were not female or too poor to afford test preparation (doing well still required tutorship). However, it was a set of systems that tended to be remarkably dissimilar to the European system of blood nobility. These tests required applicants to write essays and demonstrate mastery of the Confucian classics.  &mdash; Clunky structures that I improved. No idea why the anon restored the old version.

-- ran (talk) 04:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

"one of the oldest continuous civilisation" vs. "the oldest continuous civilisation"
IF YOU CAN NAME ONE CIVILISATION WHICH IS OLDER THAN THE CHINESE CIVILISATION AND SURVIVES TILL NOW, THEN THE DEBATE CAN END HERE. IF YOU CAN'T, PLEASE DON'T CHANGE THE EDIT UNTIL YOU HAVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW ANY KNOWN CIVILISATION OLDER THAN CHINA'S AND STILL AROUND. And PLEASE do not use Egypt or Greece as examples of earlier civilisation because Egypt now belongs to Islamic civilisation (much younger than Chinese civilisation) instead of the ancient Egyptian civilisation and Greco-Roman civilisation is also younger than China's. BTW, By stating that China is "one of" the oldest continuous civilizations, it can mean that by some definitions China can be considered the oldest continuous civilization. Please defines your definition of continuous civilisation if you think Chinese is not the oldest one. --- Mimiian

There's been some controversy about the description of China as "one of the oldest continuous civilizations" vs. absolutely "the oldest continuous civilization". Let me state for the record that I'm firmly opposed to including the second statement in unqualified form, as User:Mimiian has been unilaterally attempting to do recently, both here and on History of China. The reason I'm opposed is not that I believe that such a statement is necessarily false; rather, I think that it's not a verifiable, factual statement at all. I'm not opposed to citing opinions; so saying something like "so-and-so believes / claims / has argued that China is the oldest civilization" is fine, provided it is relevant and backed up with references, thus becoming verifiable. However, given that the terms "civilization", "continuous civilization" (and sometimes "major civilization" is thrown in as well) have no universally agreed on definition, any statement to the effect "Oldest. Civilization. Evar" is necessarily a matter of opinion, and not a matter of fact.

Among other things, what this means is that there is no point arguing about the factual contents of this statement, since discussants can always redefine their terms so that the statement can be seen as either true or false, depending on what "major civilization" or "continuous civilization" are taken to mean. In other words, we're firmly within the realm of opinion here, and any further debate about the truth or falsity of what "the oldest civilization" refers to is futile.

The way out is as follows: we need to acknowledge that this is a matter of opinion and treat it as such. If party A wrote that "China is the oldest whatever" than we should say something like "China is one of the oldest civilizations. In fact, party A has argued that it is the oldest civilization". I have no problem with properly attributed opinions, because the fact that party A has published that opinion is indeed verifiable.

Several people (myself included) have reverted User:Mimiian, but he/she seems to think that those who oppose his/her bold claims do so because they believe that those claims are false. This is not what the argument is about. The argument is really about whether we should endorse one particular opinion that is exceedingly vague and present it as if it were a commonly accepted fact. I'm also concerned about the fact that User:Mimiian keeps adding those opinions again and again, despite the fact that he/she has been reverted before. I've tried to explain my reasoning on User talk:Mimiian, but apparently without success. I don't think I'm completely off track here, since I'm not the only one who has reverted User:Mimiian. Would anyone else care to talk to him/her? Thanks, --MarkSweep 14:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that China is currently the world's oldest continuous civilization. Other earlier known civilizations such as the ancient Egyptian or Sumerian have vanished from the pages of history and replaced by others. Other earlier civilizations all shared the same fate, leaving behind the Chinese civilization as the world's oldest continuous civilization. It is a fact, not an opinion. It's like the fact that currently China is the most populous country, it is a fact, not an opinion. If your opinions disagree with this fact, please give examples of an earlier known civilization which is older and still surviving and list reasons. If you have no evidence to support your views on this fact, your opinions is obviously unsupported and therefore unverifiable. How can you edit this article if your view is unverifiable? --Mimiian

Where User:Mimiian has certainty, I only have questions: Do we all agree on what a civilization is? Is it clear how to measure the age of a civilization? In other words, how would we tell when a civilization began? What kinds of historical (dis)continuity do we want to take into account? What about civilzations for which there are no surviving historical records? There is no point of us trying to settle who is and who isn't the oldest civilization. Such a debate is futile and IMHO utterly pointless. More importantly, it's not our job to go on a fact-finding mission. Our job is to distill the various opinions presented in the existing literature and present them in a neutral fashion. Repeating myself here: I have nothing against citing and attributing opinions. But endorsing one opinion and presenting it unqualified is not neutral. --MarkSweep 15:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * MarkSweep, you have repeatedly stated: "China is one of the oldest civilisations". By stating China is one of the oldest civilisations, the word civilisation must defines or means something. If the word civilisation has no meaning or definition, then obviously you would not stated China is one of the civilisations. Then if the word civilisation has defintion, you can compare everything against this definition and see if it fits or not. For example, because the word population has a different definition when compare to the word civilisation, then population is obviously not civilisation. If you applies China to the word civilisation, because China fits the definition of the word civilisation, then China is a civilisation.
 * Then because the word civilisation defines something, we can then applies early human societies to this definition and see whether they have developed into civilisation or not. When a society first fits the defintion of civilisation, the society became the first known civilisation.
 * It is also a fact that most of the early societies which fits the definiton of civilisation, or in other words, most of the early civilisations have disappeared or vanished from the page of history. For example, the first known civilisation Sumerian no longer existed, the same goes to the Ancient Egyptian civilisation, which was vanquished by the Hellenic-Roman civilisation around 400 BC. So when all the civilisations which were older than China's no longer existed. The Chinese civilisation obviously becomes the oldest civilisation which exists to present day, or in other words, the world's oldest continuous civilisation. This is why I have repeatedly stated that China is the world's oldest continuous civilisation. I have supported this statement with references and reputable sources. If you do not agree with this statement, please name one earlier society which fits the defintion of civilisation you used and still exist. If you cannot, then the Chinese civilisation is obviously the world's oldest continuous society which fits the defintion of civilisation, or in other words, the world's oldest continuous civilisation. --- Mimiian

To answer Mimiian's question: why is the Chinese civilization and not the Egyptian civilization, for example, the oldest civilization in the world? Did Egyptian civilization really die out? The people of Egypt today feel a kind of continuity leading from the pharaohs all the way to them &mdash; so why isn't Egyptian civilization continuous?

Of course, you can argue that Egyptian civilization has went through many changes. The Egyptian language has been replaced by Arabic. Hieroglyphics has been replaced by Coptic, then the Arabic alphabet. Egypt was ruled by Greeks, then was occupied for centuries by the Romans, and finally was assimilated by the Arabs. And of course, there was the coming of Islam.

But then, China has gone from oracle bone writing to the seal scripts, to the current kai / xing / cao trichotomy, not to mention the recent character Simplification. The Chinese language today is certainly very different from the Old Chinese of the Shang Dynasty (which sounded like Middle Tibetan). China has expanded outwards, and entire provinces today (Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang etc.) are perhaps populated by the descendents of assimilated "barbarians" rather than the original Shang people. And of course, in addition to conquering barbarians China (or parts of China) has also been conquered by barbarians - the Xianbei, Khitans, Jurchens, Mongols, and Manchus, the last of which discontinued the centuries-old tradition of Chinese dress and replaced it with a Manchu one - the pigtail, magua, cheongsum and qipao (most of which have since died out in favour of Western dress). And remember, there was no Taoism, Confucianism, and least of all Buddhism in Shang China. There was no Unified Empire, no provinces and counties, no Emperor-Son-Of-Heaven-May-He-Live-For-10,000-Years, no Confucian bureaucracy, no Imperial Examinations, no local magistrates dishing out tortures to trembling townsfolk. And there certainly was no paper, no compass, no printing and no gunpowder.

So why exactly are ancient Egypt and modern Egypt different civilizations, while Shang China and modern China the same civilization? Clearly to answer this question we need a definition of "civilization", but that definition will also be disputed. As such you cannot simply claim as fact that China is the world's "oldest continuous civilization". -- ran (talk) 16:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ran, are you making some kind of joke or something? Are you saying Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt are the same civilisation? Well, to teach you a simple fact, modern Egypt is currently a part of the Islamic civilisation, while ancient Egypt was clearly a distinctive civilisation of their own. All major scholars agree that Islamic civilisation only emerged from the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century AC, and the Ancient Egyptian civilisation was vanquished by the Hellenic-Roman civilisation around 400 BC. So clearly you can see that ancient Egypt and modern Egypt is not the same civilisation because ancient Egyptian civilisation no longer exist; and clearly a civilisation can no longer be continuous if it no longer exists.
 * For China, I agree with you that China has gone through many changes, but the Shang China or Tang China or modern China still belong to the same civilisation. They are merely different rulers in a continuous civilisation. Change may happened in China, but many of the essence of Chinese civilisation remains.
 * You have also stated: "Hieroglyphics has been replaced by Coptic, then the Arabic alphabet". You should know that these writings are clearly completely different systems of writing. While the Chinese writing today is merely a product derived from ancient Chinese writing which can be traced all the way back to the writing on Oracle bone. --- Mimiian


 * Surely Ran, Egypt, like Sumer, came to an end as a civilization. The people of the today's Egypt may feel pride when they think of the great dynasties of ancient Egypt, but the continuity, as a civilization, was lost in the shifting sands of the Sahara.  On the other hand, is it not true that Chinese dynasties did continue right up to the modern era?  Sunray 16:23, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Egypt came to an end? When did it come to an end?
 * We are talking about the ancient Egyptian civilisation here, not the land of Egypt. The land of Egypt can not come to an end, but the civilisation that Egypt belongs to can.

Or alternately: does the Shang civilization still exist today? -- ran (talk) 16:33, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ancient Egyptian civilisation did come to an end. All major scholars agree that modern Egypt is currently a part of the Islamic civilisation which only emerged from the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century AC, and the Ancient Egyptian civilisation was vanquished by the Hellenic-Roman civilisation around 400 BC. So clearly you can see that ancient Egypt and modern Egypt is not the same civilisation because ancient Egyptian civilisation no longer exist.
 * Hmm... I am not sure what do you mean by Shang civilisation? No major scholars have ever proposed the existence of a Shang civilisation. Shang was merely a dynasty in China, they were merely the rulers of China at the time. Obviously when you replace a ruler in a civilisation, the civilisation does not come to an end. For example, if the president of India is changed today, are you saying India no longer exist? --- Mimiian


 * According to the Wikipedia article on Egypt:


 * The last native dynasty, known as the Thirtieth Dynasty, fell to the Persians in 341 BC... Later, Egypt fell to the Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and Persians again.


 * For hundreds of years there was no Egyptian civilization, merely a province of various empires. You asked for a definition of civilization.  Here is a list of criteria.  Of the various criteria, consider the following two:


 * A social hierarchy. This can be a chiefdom, in which the chieftain of one noble family or clan rules the people; or a state society, in which the ruling class is supported by a government or bureaucracy. Political power is concentrated in the cities.
 * The institutionalized ownership of food by the ruling class, government or bureaucracy.


 * With respect to rulership, I would say that a civilization ceases to be when the rulership pases to an outside empire. In  the case of the Shang, rulership passed to another entitity within the Chinese civilization, no? Sunray 17:12, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

A civilization is not a political concept, or at least, not just a political concept. A civilization can continue to exist as a province of an empire that is based in a different, outside civilization. The Greeks, for example, were ruled by the Ottomans for centuries. Yet the Greeks would consider their civilization (language, culture, religion, etc.) to have continued from their Byzantine forbearers - though under foreign occupation, of course.

Also, your use of the word "outside" creates problems. Is the Zhou civilization "outside" of the Shang civilization, or are they both "inside" the Chinese civilization?

I've seen this debate on a Chinese BBS before. Someone lamented, "Chinese civilization ended when the Manchus (or was it Mongols?) conquered us." Someone else retorted, "Chinese civilization ended when the Zhou destroyed the Shang." (Too bad there was no Taiwanese contributor present, or he would probably have said, "Chinese civilization ended under the communists.") Clearly, what constitutes a "civilization" is a subject of debate. -- ran (talk) 17:33, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Chinese civilisation ended when Manchus conquered China? Joke? I agree with the fact that the Manchus did conquered China and occupied the land for less than three centuries; but keep in mind the Manchus dynasty was eventually overthrown by native Chinese, sharing the same fate with their predecessor Monguls who occupied China for less than a century. You can see China was merely temporarily conquered by Manchus or Mongols, therefore the history of Chinese civilisation did not terminate with the conquest of Manchus or Mongols. Surely you cannot argue that the history of France came to an end when Nazis conquered them. In the case of communists, you should know they are nothing but the current rulers of China, assume they are overthrown today, the Chinese civilisation will still go on. For example if the president of India is changed today, certainly it would be preposterous to propose that the Indian civilisaton comes to an end just because a change occurred in the ruler of India. As for the Taiwanese proposition that the Chinese civilisation ended under the communists, I would like to remind them that majority of them are also ethnically Chinese and their culture is essentially the Chinese culture; even if the Chinese civilisation ended by the communists, it is still thriving in Taiwan. (Please don't argue that because the political status of Taiwan is debatable, therefore their civilisation is also different from China, and please don't tell me the existence of a "Taiwanese civilisation")


 * Well, as you yourself said, we need to agree on the definition of a "civilization." Do you accept the criteria, given above?   With respect to your earlier point, neither language nor religion are necessary criteria for civilization, as there can be many languages and religions within a civilization.  In the case of the Greeks, like Egypt, many of the components of civilization did not survive the Roman occupation.  With respect to the Zhou and the Shang, they are both a part of Chinese civilization, IMO. Sunray 17:47, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree with those criteria. And by those criteria, no civilization has ever died out. Since historical times, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Greece, China, and Central America have been under systems of social hierarchy and institutionalized ownership of food and other resources.

The Greeks are a wonderful example actually. Since Mycenaean times they have spoken Greek. (not the same Greek, but Shang Chinese wasn't the same Chinese either.) Christianity was brought to them from outside, but Buddhism was brought to China even later. They were occupied by foreigners, but so was China. Both assimilated or expelled the foreigners to various degrees. And Greece is still a Christian country, while China isn't exactly a very religious country any more. So why is China a continuous civilization while Greece is not? (I can replace "Greece" with "Egypt" too, except for language, but as you have agreed language is certainly not the only criterion.) -- ran (talk) 18:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * All major scholars agree that Greece today is currently either a part of Western civilisation or Orthodox civilisation (as Huntington puts it). Both Western and orthodox civilisation only came to existence after Christ. So you can already see that the civilisation Greece currently belongs to did not exist before Christ and it's not the same civilisation Greece belonged to three thousands years ago. Even if we assume that Greek civilisation is continuous, it still has a shorter history then the history of Chinese civilisation. BTW, religion was never an essential component of the Chinese civilisation. Unlike most of the ancient civilisation, a priestly caste with considerable power never came to existence in China. China for centuries was governed by a Confucian gentry rather than a religious caste. And just in case you don't know, Confucianism is arguably not a religion.

To get back to the original discussion: we can say that China is one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world, but to say that it is the oldest creates problems that we cannot work out. -- ran (talk) 18:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * You say you accept those criteria, but you then you ignore them. Language and religion are not criteria for civilization.  The Greek civilization was polytheistic.  Greece today is mainly Eastern Orthodox but other religions are part of Greek society.  As with China, many approaches to spirituality are part of the culture.  However, civilization is defined differently than culture or nation.  You seem to have overlooked my point about the two criteria that have to do with rulership and the difference between succession (or revolution) and occupation by an outside civilization or entity. Sunray 19:19, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Okay, since language or religion are not criteria any more, why is China continuous while Greece and Egypt are not? Also, why are the conquests of Shang by Zhou, Chen by Sui, Song by Yuan or Ming by Qing "succession" rather than "occupation"? -- ran (talk) 19:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Was the Zhou dynasty part of Chinese civilization? Were Shang, Song, Yaun, Ming and Qing not also Chinese civilation?  Did one not follow the other in continuous succession (whether violent or not)?


 * Mimiian said: '"It is a fact that China is currently the world's oldest continuous civilization. Other earlier known civilizations such as the ancient Egyptian or Sumerian have vanished from the pages of history and replaced by others." This seems to me to be a verifiable fact.  Let's look around the world and see whether there is a continuous civilization that is older.  I cannot find any.  So why use the vague phrase, "one of the oldest" when a more precise statement is possible.  China is often cited as an example of an ancient civilization that did not disapear.  For example, the historian Ronald Wright in the 2004 Massey Lectures, A Short History of Progress, compared Sumer and other civilizations to China, making the point that the common path was for civilizations to rise, overextend themselves, deplete their resources, and die.  This did not happen with China.  On the other hand, we cannot verify that "China was the most technically advanced civilization.'' Here it seems clear, "one of the most" is as good as we can do and remain NPOV. Sunray 20:19, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

It is questionable whether the concept of a "Chinese civilization" is even meaningful when we speak of the Shang and the Zhou. We know only that there was a Shang civilization, and a Zhou who conquered them and then became "Shangicized". As for the Yuan and the Qing, they were clearly not Chinese when they conquered China, though they did become sinicized after.

Also, I don't see how the Greeks or Egyptians "depleted their resources" and "died". This may be true of Easter Island, but the Greeks and Egyptians, whose civilizations are just as old or older than China, still exist today. They've done their fair share of accepting foreign innovations (Christianity & Islam, for example) and assimilating foreign conquerers (Hyksos, Byzantine Empire). What has China done that they have not? -- ran (talk) 20:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that there is evidence that that is exactly what happened to the Egyptian civilization, certainly Wright documents it in the case of Sumer. However, more importantly, both of the both Grecian and Egyptian empires were conquered and ruled from afar.  China seems to be rather unique in that it has existed continuously in the same place.  The Mongols overtook the empire, but they didn't rule it from afar, they became part of it.  Thus there continued a succession of rulership.  Looked at today, China has, for millennia, been a civilization.  The Greece and Egypt of today are nations, but hardly civilizations.  Sunray 20:52, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

When the Byzantine Empire was conquered by the Ottomans, the Ottomans put their capital at Constantinople, the old Byzantine capital. Yet the Greeks remember the period as one of Turkish occupation. So no, I don't think being ruled from "home" or "afar" really matters when a country is conquered by foreigners.
 * You should know all major scholars agree that the Byzantine civilisation came to an end after the Ottomans conquered them. While though the Mongols conquered China temporarily, they were driven out of China eventually. The Chinese civilisation did not stop after Mongols conquered them temporarily. --- Mimiian

As for Greece and Egypt today &mdash; why are they hardly "civilizations"? Because the civilizations that they have spawned now extend far beyond them? Or because they have now accepted many foreign influences? If so, I can say that China is now a nation in a broader "Confucian" or "East Asian" civilization, or that China has been assimilated to some degree into a "Marxist", or more recently a "Western capitalist" civilization. Certainly China today is nothing like China 100 years ago or 500 years ago.
 * Well, values in a civilisation might change over time, but the civilisation is still the same. Western civilisation has experienced despotism, militarism, nationalism and liberalism. Yet Western civilisation today is still the offspring (I couldn't find any other words) of the Western civilisation which experienced despotism. The same applies to China, Tang China may be despotic, today's China may be Marxist, but you cannot dispute that Tang China and modern China is not the same civilisation. The despotic Tang rulers and Marxist rulers of China today are merely different rulers within the same civilisaion, they might have different values, but they all belong to the Chinese culture. --- Mimiian

I'm not trying to push one view or another here. But I think that to say "longest continuous" creates NPOV problems. -- ran (talk) 20:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * So you are arguing that Greece and Egypt are "continuous civilizations," yet China is not? That makes no sense to me.  Perhaps you could examine your motives more closely.  You do seem to be pushing a definite point of view.  Sunray 21:11, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm trying to argue that it is problematic to call China a "continuous" civilization in the same way it is problematic to call Greece or Egypt "continuous" civilizations. In all of these cases we run into problems with definitions. -- ran (talk) 21:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we do agree that Greece and Egypt are not continuous civilizations. However, I still do not see why China is not.  I will re-read your previous posts to see if I can understand your reasoning better. Sunray 21:23, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Greece and Egypt are not continuous either. It's a matter of definition, like the Ship of Theseus paradox. If you go by a loose definition, all civilizations are continuous. If you go by a tight definition, no civilization is continuous. -- ran (talk) 21:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

As this whole debate indicates, there is considerable room for disagreement, alternative definitions, and so on. The whole issue is far from settled, contrary to what User:Mimiian would have us believe. But, we don't need to resolve this debate. All we have to do is represent the various points of view fairly and neutrally without endorsing any particular view. --MarkSweep 04:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this is beating a dead horse, but I'll like to throw my 2 cents in here. Even though my opinion is that China can be considered the oldest continuous civilization, I do see that this depended on the definition of the term "civilization". Obviously there's no consensus over the definition, as witnessed by this debate. And I'll like to point out: "one of the oldest" is not a contradiction to "the oldest". MarkSweep, ran, and the others are not trying to state that China is not the oldest continuous civilization. By stating that China is "one of" the oldest continuous civilizations, it can mean that by some definitions China can be considered the oldest continuous civilization, and yet the phrasing does not precludes other different definitions. This is the goal of the NPOV doctrine of wikipedia, thus I do not see the problem of using the phrase "one of the oldest continuous civilization". PS: I can't believe there's a page full debate over the inclusion of 2 words... -- quantum cyborg


 * Well put. That's pretty much what NPOV is indeed about in the present context. Re: I can't believe there's a page full debate over the inclusion of 2 words... – Welcome to Wikipedia! Wait till you see the heated debates over a single word. The Gdansk/Danzig talk archive makes for some interesting reading. --MarkSweep 05:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mimiian: The problem with your argument that Greece and Egypt are not continuous while China is, is that you have provided no consistent definition of what a civilization is. Instead, the extents of your civilizations vary arbitrarily according to your purposes.

For example, when you talk about China, then you speak of only one, "Chinese" civilization. This is the same civilization starting from Shang times, despite many episodes of barbarian invasions, starting from the Zhou, each of which introduced new elements to this "Chinese" civilization. No matter how the religion, language, customs, culture, social structure, or government of China changes, China is still the same civilization. And yet when you speak of the West, you introduce many civilizations, including "Egyptian", "Helleno-Roman", "Islamic", "Byzantine", "Western", etc. Every time a different country invades, it's a different civilization. Every time a new religion or language is introduced, it's a different civilization. If you can do this, then why can't I split Chinese civilization into "Shang", "Zhou", "Qin-Han-Wei-Jin", "Wuhu" (五胡), "Sui-Tang-Song", "Khitan", "Jurchen", "Mongol", "Ming", "Manchu", "modern", etc.? What is your consistent definition of a civilization?
 * You do know that Egyptian civilisation and Western civilisation are not the same civilisation right (one existed before Christ and the other after)? While there is always only one Chinese civilisation. And you cannot split the Chinese civilisaiton into Shang or Zhou or Tang civilisation because these are not civilisations, they are dynasties or rulers in a civilisation. No scholar ever proposed the existence of a Shang, or Ming or Wuhu civilisation, they are different rulers in the Chinese civilisation! Therefore the Chinese civilisation which came into being at least 3500 years ago was NOT terminated by Shang or Wuhu dynasties. While the ancient Sumer or Egyptian did in fact came to an end. Modern Eygptian is not a part of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, it is a part of the Islamic civilisation. Therefore Egypt is not a continuous civilisaiton. --- Mimiian

And your comparison of Shang and Zhou with presidents is a bit poor. A better comparison would be the Manchus conquering Ming China. -- ran (talk) June 28, 2005 17:20 (UTC)
 * I am comparing the ruler of Shang dynasty to the ruler of a country (president in this case). When you change a ruler, the civilisation does not terminate. In the case of Manchus, yes they did conquered China and occupied it for about three centuries, but they were eventually overthrown by native Chinese, sharing the same fate with the Mongol rulers who occupied China.

MiMian, the same as you, I am a Chinese, and I love her and I am proud of the long history of China. However, the thing I can not approve is your way of thinking--you know, here in wiki, you should take a view of a outsider rather than an insider--if possible, I would like to write a wiki article as objective as a Martian writes an article about the World War II on the earth. I can not say that your knowledge on China history is less than ran, but I would like to say your knowledge is too subjective, or more presicely, you are applying your history knowledge too subjectively. I do not want to talk about continuity or discontinuity too much, just a very very small example I want to show you, the 'Pythagorean Proposition', which is proposed by Greek, and also independently found by antient Chinese people empirically (in China we call it as 'Shang-Gao Proposition' which Shang-Gao is a man's name). Anyway, the finding of 'Shang-Gao Proposition' does not have any major influence on the later scientific or technological development in China, in this sense, although we know there was once a man called Shang-Gao said this proposition and it seems the antient knowledge is kept, in fact there is discontinuity--Shang-Gao's proposition was never used in China (as far as I know, or more precisely, Shang-Gao proposition never helps to build up later China's mathematics). Let look at what happanes to 'Pythagorean Proposition' in Europe, it survives, it becomes one of the building blocks of modern math--in this sense, the antient Greek civilization is continuous, not only continuous in Greece, but continuous all over the world.
 * Neither Chinese nor Greek first discovered or applied the Pythagorean theorem on a wide scale. In fact it was the Egyptian who first discovered and applied the Pythagorean theorem, but that's beside the point here. I agree with you about the impact of Pythagorean theorem on Europe, but I failed to see how is this relates to the existence or continuity or termination of a civilisation. Yes one of the ancient Greek discovery (not really a Greek discovery) made an impact on other civilisations, but that does not change the fact modern Greece is currently a member of the Western civilisation and it's not a part of the ancient Greco-Roman civilisation. Therefore the history of civilisation of Greece is not continuous because it belonged to two different civilisations at two separate time. And please don't argue that because of the impact Pythagorean theorem the ancient Greco-Roman civilisation is an universal civilisation. An universal civilisation which all countries belong to never existed (if you are interested in the debate of the future possibility of an universal civilisation, you can read Huntington's The Clash of Civilisations).

So, my point is that, if MiMian, you want to say the antient Shang civilization has been passed to the modern China, then I have a stronger proposition than you--the antient Greek civilization has been passed to the whole modern world--we are all descendents of Greek. Can you accept this proposition? Armor (talk) July 13, 2005 20:06 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not really sure if you are making a joke or not. All major scholars agree that modern Greece is currenly either a part of the Western civilisation or Orthodox civilisation (as Huntington puts it), while ancient Greece was a distinctive civilisation of their own. Are you saying the anicent Greco-Roman civilisation is same to the Western civilisation? You ought to know Western civilisation only came into being after Christ while the ancient Greco-Roman civilisation existed long before Christ. The Greco-Roman civilisation is NOT the Western civilisation, therefore Greece is not a continuous civilisation because it belonged to two seperate civilisation which the latter replaced the former.
 * In the case of China, no new civilisation emerged from the land of China after the Chinese civilisation came into being no less than 3500 years ago, so you can see China always belonged to the civilisation (Chinese civilisation in this case) and that's why it's continuous. And PLEASE don't be silly; don't try to argue that Shang, Tang or Manchu are civilisations. They are dynasties in a country, not civilisations. --- Mimiian

Yes, saying "Shang" = "PRC" would be silly. But if you don't know anything about China, you should probably hear that "China is one of the oldest continous civilizations". Scholars will point out that the statement is somewhat misleading - but when those scholars sit down to write an introductory textbook on Chinese history, they still say it. Lampros 19:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well in term of civilisation, the civilisation Shang dynasty belongs to and the civilisation current China belongs to is the same civilisation. It's called the Chinese civilisation. On the contrary, the civilisation which Old Kingdom of Egypt belongs to and the civilisation modern Egypt belongs to is completely different. All major scholars agree that currently Egypt is a part of Islamic civilisation (came to being after Christ), while the ancient Egyptian civilisation was clearly a distinctive civilisation of their own (came to being before Christ). So you can already see that Egypt belonged to two completely different civilisations, thus the civilisation Egypt belonged to is not continuous. --- Mimiian

Economy of China
Is there a reason why the Economy of China (or Economy of the People's Republic of China) article isn't linked from here? This is standard for country articles. Perhaps it was linked (with the requisite summary) and it got accidentally removed? In which case, can we find that content again and have it back? Thanks. Rd232 21:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's linked from People's Republic of China. For NPOV reasons, China isn't laid out as a country article. But of course, you're right in saying that a link would be helpful. It's hard to find anywhere to put it though, since no section deals with it. -- ran (talk) 22:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Edits made by User:220.237.232.127
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35396.htm Says 0.9% are christian. so I change the number. Unsigned comment by User:220.237.232.127.
 * Hmmmm...can anyone verify that those numbers are correct? --Hottentot

anon: where did you get 0.9%? I quote from the article:

''The country has five officially recognized religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism. The Russian Orthodox Church also operates in some regions and other religions exist in the country's expatriate community. Most of the country's population does not subscribe to any religious faith. Approximately 8 percent of the population is Buddhist, approximately 1.4 percent is Muslim, an estimated 0.4 percent belongs to the official Catholic Church, an estimated 0.4 to 0.8 percent belongs to the unofficial Vatican-affiliated Catholic Church, an estimated 0.8 to 1.2 percent is registered as Protestant, and at least 2.5 percent worships in Protestant house churches that are independent of government control. ''

-- ran (talk) July 9, 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on history
I found that this article presents far too much emphasis on the history of the chinese civilization, whether political or cultural. Even the opening paragraphs are a short history of China. What needs to happen is those need to be shortened and replaced with a summary and a link to the main article.

There also needs to be separate sections on the language and other aspects of chinese culture, such as cuisine or architecture, and the chinese culture needs to be extended or add something instead of a link. I think that general coherency takes some priority. --Offkilter 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

recent edit
these are probably link spam or some POV political thing if someone wants to investigate their appropriateness... ~ SchmuckyTheCat 18:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC) ~

Who knows this mountain range?
In the WikiProject Nuttall_Encyclopedia_topics, we hit on the "Yung-Ling" mountains,
 * Yung-Ling is a mountain range running north and south, which forms the eastern buttress of the tableland of Central Asia.

Does anybody know, what the current name of these mountains is? The source is from 1907, and Google doesn't help much. Is it Da Hinggan Ling? Thanks--J heisenberg 10:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep the paragraphs short!!
Guys, stop adding overly long materials onto the first few paragraphs!!! The article suppose to be a general introduction about China and not an detailed explanation consists of every aspact of the culture! The descriptions about Han Chinese ethnicities and and how it compares to Korea and Japan's is totally unncecessary and need to be removed. Plus, the first paragraph should be a general description, not a comparison, and keep it short. --Marienbad

Two maps are not NPOV
The map Image:Map of China (physical).png and the CIA map of China are not NPOV. Theses two maps only show the indian claims border which is China actrual control (Aksai Chin), but not show the South Tibet(indian name is "Arunachal Pradesh") that China claimed and actrual control by India. We can see the map Image:China administrative.png the area painted in blue. so the CIA map of china and the physical map of China are not NPOV. It must be deleted or must be drawed again.--icywind 10:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yucky History Section
The history section is woefully inadequate. Would anyone mind if I lengthed it? Or would an expanded history section go better elsewehre? Lampros 19:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The history section is meant to be a brief summary according to summary style. More detail should go into the article History of China. even more detail belongs in the individual articles of the history of China series. --Jiang 20:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Persecution Against Christians
I know that persecution against Christians in China may not be as common as it is in the Middle East or Africa, but persecution against Christians in China is a very real problem. Many Christians have been arrested and fined for proselytizing, and though I understand that proselytizing is illegal in China regardless of religion, there are allegations of unfair treatment of Christians as opposed to the treatment of other religious groups. Many Christians have claimed to have been falsely accused by authorities, and punished more severely than a non-Christian such as a Buddhist might be punished. However more serious are accusations that authorities in China often overlook the harassment of Christians, and often fail to investigate crimes against them in the same manner that they would investigate crimes against other individuals. Lastly, have Christians not been actively discriminated against by political leaders? All of this seems to be minimized or, in some cases even swept under the rug. --Lucavix 16:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This discussion should be put into the talk page of PRC so that it could receive proper attention. This article is about the "concept China", not the nation. -- G.S.K.Lee 13:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No economy?
There is no economy text? or is it somewhere else? -- anon
 * See People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Republic of China. -- ran (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there is too many political terms involved in the article, and some information is not correct. For example,"Greater China" is a relatively new word created recently by mainland Chinese(including those immigrating to Taiwan after 1949),and don't forget Singapore is also included in it. Without Singapore I don't think there is anything meaningful in it in reality except political motivation. Besides,the information about Great Wall of China in the photo is mistaken because it was built beginning in around 15th century, not 3rd century. By the way, Taiwan is not a "province" of China because Taipei and Kaosiung city are outside Taiwan "province".

-- what does singapore have to do with it?

The great wall of china was really built beginning around the 3rd century.. though not the whole wall... sections and lengths of the wall were later added by future dynasties and emperors.. some emperors joined the wall with other walls too... thus creating the Great Wall of China we see today...

"Zhongguo - Alternative View"
The above view of Zhongguo must be made by someone who searched through all the texts and found the words to be together in a sentence without considering context. I argue "中國" was not the capitalized compound word in those ancient texts as it is now in modern times.

Therefore, given the quote in Historical Records, the translation should have been: "Eight mountains are famed in the empire. Three are with the Man and Yi barbarians. Five are in the central state."

Zhongguo was not the official name of the Han empire. It was not mentioned in the documents of the dynasty so it should not be capitalized as if it were a proper name.

Logically this is sound because if "中國" were Zhongguo, then why did Ssu-ma Ch'ien distinguished it from the lands ruled by the Son of Heaven?

Finally let me point out the following quote from Tang poet 王維: "紅豆生南國，秋來發故枝. "

In a translation of this poem, "南國" should not be translated as Nanguo because that was not the proper name of any country during the Tang dynasty. That should be translated as "southern country". Using this analogy, a translator should translate "中國" as two separate words uncapitalized such as central state or central country.

The words "中國" were used too rarely in ancient texts if it were the proper name that the Chinese called themselves. In fact in most references, ancient Chinese called themselves as people of Han and did not called themselves people of Zhongguo. The transition to Zhongguo properly occurred in modern times which was when the term appeared more frequently in documents and when "中國" became as frequent as "漢".

-- Weizern

China's losses in WW2
Can anyone provide authoriative information on China's civilian losses in WW2 1937-45?--Berndd11222 23:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

publicatiobn
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
However the primary cause of the decline of the Chinese empire was not European and American interference, as the ethnocentric Western historians would lead many to believe.

That statement isn't even close to NPOV, first it calls all western historians ethnocentric, and second, it seems to use that attack to try to shade the truth in a very sinocentric way. While it's true that civil wars did considerably weaken China, by that point most of Asia had not experienced the industrial revolution, and European dominance was not just limited to China. I think this needs to be changed. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.215.251.179 (talk • contribs).


 * OK, go ahead and propose an edit. But please do sign your comments.  --Nlu 14:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

wat happened to the info box??!?? -- User:144.134.53.217


 * See People's Republic of China, Republic of China. -- ran (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)