Jump to content

Talk:Chinese civilization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 187.34.168.129 (talk) at 20:53, 12 January 2010 (→ROC again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeChinese civilization was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 1, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of June 20, 2006.

Discussing possible war between India and China

Why can't we be friends Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=745)


This is an important topic and we should bring it to the attention of readers. I also started a similar discussion in the China page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.218.230 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, again, read the first sentence of the article. Also, the link is dead. T-1000 (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also read WP:CRYSTAL. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when the people made the great wall, meny people died when making it, so the people beryed the people that died in the great wall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.172.197 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLAHHHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.25.152 (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that this is just a good nominee article only. Too much western interpretation and it floods to the translation as well. (beancube2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.146.119 (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well is it fair that China get's to "well brag" a little and not India's page then ? ?

I dont have a problem with the start of this article stating China as an ancient civilazation or as a leader through some of it's history then....but....They won't let me put stuff like this with India's page. And when I asked the dictators of wikipedia why this is allowed for China's page but not India's page then, one of the answer's that was given to me was to bring this up on the China's page of Disscussion then I think then or maybe something like that here and w then . So now here I am bringing it up then . . . . . 71.105.87.54 (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The status of India is not disputed. Pakistan does not claim to be India. T-1000 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer my question. Why does China get to brag but not India then? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up on the talk page for the India article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "bragging" you're looking for is probably at the Indus Valley Civilization article. T-1000 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROC again

I am starting this discussion to prevent an edit war. Laurent's reasoning for the edits was that people looking for Taiwan would not go to China. However, only half of the ROC page is on Taiwan, so it cannot be assumed that all who goes to the ROC page are looking for Taiwan. Readin, the ROC cannot be described as a previous regime of China, because it still exists in Taiwan. Calling ROC historical would imply that Taiwan is not a part of China, which violates NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, only half of the ROC page is on Taiwan, so it cannot be assumed that all who goes to the ROC page are looking for Taiwan. - I think the way Taiwan's articles are organized is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that nobody would type "China" when they are looking for the ROC or Taiwan. They would most likely type "Taiwan" for the modern state officially called "ROC", or "History of the ROC" if they want to know about the history. Your argument that the ROC should be in the hatnote because it used to be in mainland China is not valid either because normally the role of a hatnote is to disambiguate, not to document historical facts or make political points. Otherwise we should also put "Germany" in the France hatnote on the ground that it was part of Germany for 4 years, or "United Kingdrom" in the USA hatnote (all these states still exist, right?). We simply cannot document every historical facts in there, it's not the place for that. Laurent (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both still use "China" in their national title, your argument is specious. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they still use "China" in their title is not really the point. It's not the aim of a hatnote to list all the articles with shared words in their titles. We only need to do so when there's a potential confusion. However today no one can seriously argue than when users type "China" they are expecting to find "Republic of China", it's not 1949 anymore. Laurent (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they want to look up China's history from 1912-1945, they would go to the China page first, then go the ROC page. Like I said, you cannot assume everyone who goes to the ROC page is looking for Taiwan. Hence your reasoning for removing the link is invalid. You analogy of Britain/USA is also invalid, as Taiwan never declared independence from ROC, and ROC still claims to be China. T-1000 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

china can not be separated by the government,but an union of its people and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.105.37.118 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as a frequent wikipedia reader/visitor I find it plain ridiculous too when I search for China to get some facts about this possible emerging superpower instead I'm faced with this page, and reading the discussion arguments against the merge proposal it seems to me there's a political bias given none ever uses China to refer to other "country" than PRC. After all the issue deserves better investigation considering it's the only entry which doesn't follow the standards. In regards to this matter, I don't doubt wikipedia might be suffering manipulation for political expedient to the detriment of facts. That's shameful and really very bad to wikipedia, to the readers, to the knowledge, to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.168.129 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the country

Why don't we have table of information about the country (its GDP, population size etc) as seemingly all other countries have? And also. there is not much information on modern China.--Gilisa (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic information is on the seperate economy page, seems best this way, keeps things clear.
Template:Three other usesT-1000 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I surfed here to find the size of China. So, many articles on China, but couldn't find the size. What I am missing for China is the Infobox Country. I would suggest that it be introduced on the general page of China or the page for the most modern era. --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I see by the previous post where to find the infobox. Highly confusing, since the link in the infobox here leads to the History of instead of directly to the People's republic. If you ask me, there needs to be a giant disambiguation page that clarifies, even though it is not very practical. So, my two cents is... that the structure isn't obvious to the reader. --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible collapse in 2100

Perhaps a small section could detail that the different population groups are a problem to the country's development and that certain people (eg George Friedman) said that china could even collapse by it (in 2100) 217.136.156.187 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are joking, right ? Polylepsis (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLMFAO!Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way is it going to take that long.
  • Corruption and political mismanagement.
  • Global Warming hitting just as the aquifers are pumped dry.
  • Overinvestment and export dependent economy unable to provide jobs.

There will not be a PRC in 2030. Hcobb (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure most of you know this and the suggestions above are a bit of a joke, please see this article about how Wikipedia is not meant to be a crystal ball. TastyCakes (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awh, I was about to mention WP:Crystal. Beat me to it. As an aside... it's funny to see how many people are hot to predict the death of global capitalism. After all that's what the collapse of China would cause. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government in Exile

There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignity of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.

Request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_civilization&oldid=337457946"