Talk:History of China

The gif must go
It's time to remove the gif of territorial changes. What is a reader supposed to gain from it? It moves so quick that it hardly conveys much information (except, that China got bigger over time? Well, didn't every major power?). No other articles of this kind have anything like this, see History of India, History of United States, History of Iran, History of Japan etc. This is the kind of article that does not need a lead image; especially because of our huge navigational sidebar, which does fine on its own. Eventually, the lead will have to be trimmed, which will push the sidebar down even further.

Furthermore, there are some fundamental issues with the gif's content. It shows the Xia dynasty, which is not historically proven. It excludes the entirety of prehistoric and modern China, effectively failing to summarize the history in question.  Aza24  (talk)   21:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oof, that must be newish. I missed a few months. I agree that the gif is problematic. Apart from the Xia dynasty problem already mentioned – which, I struggle to understand why anyone just accepts it uncritically – showing the Shang dynasty and Western Zhou (mislabeled "Zhou dynasty" as if the Eastern Zhou didn't count) as contiguous, unbroken territories as if their influence were geographically total like a modern jurisdiction: that's misrepresentation of the modes of political power in early China.It's sorry enough that the article jumps straight along the hoary path of dynasty, dynasty, dynasty, without attempting to engage any more modern forms of historiography: we don't have to ensconse it with a slideshow reel as well.I don't find that it moves too fast for me, but too discontinuously. Giving every period the same frame count irrespective of historical duration misleads understanding, and the granularity is so low for some periods that we're not seeing the back and forth and major conquests and losses, just a sudden jump to a magical new area of control.I feel like there could be a place for this, maybe Dynasties in Chinese history or Imperial Chinese dynasties or whatever it's called these days? I don't want the creator to feel invalidated or ashamed, but I don't feel like it's an appropriate image for this article, and especially not right up top.Also, sorry about the lead. Folly Mox (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal and with the wider issues surrounding a focus on political history, although the second is a tougher nut to crack. CMD (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In light of these comments, I've removed the gif in question. I certainly agree that the overall article could use quite a bit more nuance than its current presentation.  Aza24  (talk)   17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No link to "Five thousand years of Chinese civilization"?
Whether China really has a 5000 year of history of not, the expression "Five thousand years of Chinese civilization" (or "5000 years of Chinese history") is a common expression, both in China and outside China. I believe that the said should be linked from this article in some way. --Wengier (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it's unduly recentist given the scope of this article in particular. On the others you've added it to, it seems less undue. Remsense  诉  18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The concept or expression "5000 years of Chinese history" has appeared for over 100 years, at least since the early 20th century (so not really a recent event). Clearly the expression appeared much earlier than expressions like Century of humiliation, which only appeared after 1940. How come "Century of humiliation" is linked from this article but "5000 years of Chinese history" is not? --Wengier (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to put it back, but I'm curious what other editors think. Remsense  诉  19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Just to give a concrete example that the concept "Five thousand years of Chinese civilization" already appeared by the early 20th century - the Manchu–Mongolian–Chinese Interlinear Trilingual Textbook in 1909 stated in three languages that “我中國居亞洲之東，氣候溫和，土地廣博，人民繁夥. 五千年前，文化已開，地球上最有名之古國也...” (see picture on the right), among others. The concept certainly predates both the ROC and PRC, rather than a more recent construction. --Wengier (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This would work in the see also of Chinese historiography, but probably not here. The see also section in this page is too general for such a recent conceptual-model. I'm not sure how 1909 is sufficiently "not-recent" compared to the 5000 year history in question.  Aza24  (talk)   23:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not add to Chinese historiography? This is a good suggestion (EDIT: just done it). As for whether 1909 is considered "recent", I previously added the link to the "See also" section of this article partially considering articles such as Century of humiliation (certainly appeared later than 1909) are also linked from this article. --Wengier (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I notice the following sentence in the current lead of this article: "Throughout pervades the narrative that Chinese civilization can be traced as an unbroken thread many thousands of years into the past...". Perhaps the said article can actually be linked from here. After all, this part of the article is already talking about exactly the same thing, and the link will provide more information about this for readers. No need to place it in the "See also" section of the article anyway any more. This is probably the ultimate solution in terms of this article. --Wengier (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)