Talk:Chinese civilization

ROC again

I am starting this discussion to prevent an edit war. Misunderstanding with the topic of china being the 2nd largest country, but it curretly is. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's quite true, I also think the current article is made to please a small minority of Wikipedians to the detriment of the majority of readers. However it would be very difficult to change this situation. In the meantime, all we can do is try to properly inform readers through hatnotes (even that is difficult) so that they don't waste time figuring out where is the article they were expecting (i.e. People's Republic of China). Laurent (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The refusal to let "China" article be about the "People's Republic of China" is one of the most glaring inaccuracies on Wikipedia. Unfortunately some people are still stuck 50 years in the past and want to see the PRC as a clean break from the continuity of Chinese history. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. The current situation is simply outrageous. Virtually every English-language media outlet uses "China" to refer to, well, China; everyone knows exactly what country they mean, and no one would think that they were talking about "Chinese civilization." It's sad that a few blind partisans here seem determined to ignore the fact that no one actually confuses the ROC with "China"; it's infuriating that they've dragged Wikipedia down to their level of willful ignorance.163.1.234.109 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.116.250 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's too early to say China is PRC because KMT is operating on claimed Chinese territory. The mere fact that KMT exist means you still mention it in the article. If you can't get this fact straight, then you don't know what NPOV stands for.Convenience for commonly used search terms for PRC equals China should not be held at the expense of the reality, brutal, factual information at the present moment. Two states exist, both laying claim to all of China. 72.81.233.92 (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Simplistic view on the gap between china and the west in the last 500 years

a bit new to this.From the article "china was one of the largest and most advanced civilizations for most of the last two millenia, until the 1850s. when it missed the industrial revolution." This claim is very problematic,since the gap between the west and china has started a long time before 1850, or the industrial revolution.Right now I don't have the time to do the research but when the British and probably the Portuguese arrived China was already way behind. Probably the Scientific revolution is the tipping point. I believe this claim has POV motives. About 1850 - In the First Opium War starting in 1839 the Chinese were clearly at a great technological disadvantage. adding citation needed for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearfulleader (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Qing Dynasty was very powerful until the end of the 18th century, and China was and is still regarded as one of the most advanced civilization at that time. It went down from the beginning of the 19th century. So perhaps it's indeed too simplistic to say it "stopped" being an advanced civilization in the 1850s, as it happened more gradually than that. Maybe we could rephrase and write "until the middle of the 19th century" or "from the beginning of the 19th century", or something similar, so as to avoid using a precise date. Laurent (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should find sources clearly describing the decline anytime after the beginning of the 18th century to keep the "until" wording at all. I am being such a pedant only because I suspect this sentence is there to pass a POV'ish message. Fearfulleader (talk)

What POV do you believe that (rather dry factual) statement is trying to convey? Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese, as a nation that sees itself as a country that should always have a central place as a world power (Not unlike other nations), tends to explain it's past failure to keep up with the western world in a simplistic way, or a technical way. The fact is that China lost it's "world history edge" as soon as the qing dynasty cut itself off from other countries, believing Chinese culture is superior, long before the 19th century. The "missed the industrial revolution" together with blaming foreign imperialism is a way the Chinese make sense of their perceived, now almost forgotten, military, technological, and economic failure in the last century, but not a fact.Fearfulleader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

Variables, variables, variables. This is all about different variables over time and space. The idea that there was a generic gap between the Western world and China in the past 500 years seems like a simplistic assessment indeed, if no variables or specifics are mentioned to back up the assertion. For example, in terms of gunpowder technology, nautical technology, mathematics, astronomy and the other sciences, the West saw continual development in all fields, while China experienced very little advancement aside from refinement of already old ideas. There are virtually thousands of examples one could give to prove the point. For example, the flintlock rifle was used in Europe by the 1630s, yet Chinese armies continued to use the matchlock firearm well into the 19th century. Just a tiny example, but there are a mountain of others. If such a statement is to be used in the article, one must provide at least a few examples to demonstrate the point, and specifically state which scholars hold these viewpoints.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The economic standard of living in 18th century Beijing, the wealthiest Chinese city at that time, was less than half that of London or Amsterdam.[1] It was comparable to Milan, one of the poorest large cities in Europe at that time. Already in the 17th century, Newton and Galileo showed that European science was in a whole different league than Chinese science. Kauffner (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the article

I have reverted this edit because the current consensus is that this article is not about China but about the Chinese civilization. If Zonghuo wants to change the scope of the article, he should seek a new consensus here. Laurent (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when has there been consensus to have this article changed to be about Chinese civilization? "China" has multiple definitions. The original text was fine.--Jiang (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote has been saying for more than 2 years that the article is about the Chinese civilization, so I think it's safe to assume there's a consensus about that. Also the article can't be both about the definition of the term "China" and the Chinese civilization. Those are very broad topics that shouldn't be treated in the same article. Laurent (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the definition of China, in which the Chinese civilization features most prominently. Why else would we bother to mention the PRC and ROC prominently in the lead section? This was the consensus when we decided to split the PRC article from the China article back in 2003, and as far as I am aware, there was never any consensus to change this. (If we wan't to delve on consensus here.) But for practical reasons, it doesn't make more sense to say "Chinese civilization is a civilization" instead of "China is a civilization". It makes less sense. The former is just redundant. And we haven't even gone through all the definitions yet. We could very well start this article as with the word "China" and focus exclusively on "Chinese civilization"--Jiang (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article is 99% about the civilization. There's just one sentence at the beginning which is about the definition of the term "China". I think we should just start straightaway by introducing the civilization itself as it would make it clear what the article is about and will also avoid any possible PRC/China confusion. If we start with "China is...", the vast majority of readers is going to assume the article is about the PRC.

Moreover, "Chinese civilization" redirects here and so do multiple piped links (i.e. [[China|Chinese civilization]]). The hatnote that has been there for more than two years also indicates that the article is about the civilization. So for all these reasons I still think we should bold "Chinese civilization" in the first sentence. Laurent (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not settled that this article is 100% about the civilization, and the disambiguation at the top and second sentence makes clear that this is not about the PRC. It's been proposed that this article be moved, and that has been repeatedly defeated. "Civilization" is in the definition, so I don't see the confusion.--Jiang (talk)

When I first started editing Wikipedia, the claim was made that the existing concensus was that the article was about the civilization. I don't remember anyone disputing that claim at the time. Attempts were made to reach a new concensus (initiated by me at least once) and the discussion dragged on and on and on (surely you remember) but no new consensus was possible so that default was to stick with the earlier consensus even though not very many people were happy with it. Readin (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not the name of the article, and multiple editors have reverted you. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Would there be any objection if I bold "Chinese civilization" in the first sentence (on top of "China")? This kind of edit is what we should avoid and could avoid by being clear as to what the scope of the article is. Laurent (talk)

03:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well,there's nothing wrong with that edit. china is a country. The sentence "The Chinese civilization is located in a cultural region extending over a large area in East Asia." doesn't make much sense, and talk of the cultural sphere is made in the same section.--Jiang (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that China is a country. The problem comes when we start to define what we mean by "country". China is a country, and that country is formally known as the People's Republic of China. As has been noted many times by many people, "China" is the common name for the PRC. But I know you disagree that this article should be about the PRC. And there are other Chinese nationalists who would also disagree because they want to make every effort to define "China" in such a way that they can include Taiwan. And some of thoese Chinese nationalists would even claim that Taiwan, or rather the "Republic of China" is the legitimate "China". If we can't agree to use the most common meaning for China - the PRC - then perhaps this should go to a dab page. Readin (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A dab page only works when the meanings are mutually exclusive. All definitions overlap. We would otherwise be creating POV forks.--Jiang (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

TAKE OFF THE LOCK ON THIS PAGE!!!!!

I understand there are a lot of political interests that seek to define the scope of the word "China". Far from giving in to these attempts, we should employ common sense when deciding what "China" means. If you watch the news, hear people talk or ask your travel agent to book you a trip to "China", then you will know that the word refers to the People's Republic on the mainland. Taiwan is generally not referred to as China, not even by Taiwanese themselves. This is not the CIA World Factbook, but a collection of human knowledge. Our definitions, too, should reflect this. MAKootage (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

Keeping standard format

The article has disambiguation bullets that note:

• People's Republic of China The People's Republic of China (PRC), established in 1949, commonly known as China...
• Republic of China The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan...

May I suggest adding "established in 1912" for the ROC bullet to keep the two bullets in a common format?

People's vs. Peoples'

Wouldn't the correct English version of People's Republic of China be Peoples' rather than People's. As I understand, plural nouns have the apostrophe after the "s" so it should be s' and not 's.Yongbyong38 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

People's it is. The apostrophe here is used as a possessive i.e. the republic belonging to the people. WHSL ^(Talk) 11:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The apostrophe follows the s in plural possessives only when the plural ends in s. So, for example, while the plural possessive form of kid is kids' , the plural possessive form of child is children's. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

some people don't get what u mean, we are asking about china because we don't know so we would not be able to understand what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.155.238 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Who? What?--Edward130603 (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aleksisfeirvezers, 7 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I am trying to use this information for my social studies project and I need to put it in bibliograpy form and I could not find the editor and the main author of the article about China. Maybe if it is possible You could put that kind of information there. Thank you!

Aleksisfeirvezers (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no main author/editor. See the "history" tab at the top of the article for all the contributors (very very long). Or on the left sidebar, click "cite this page" for an easy cite.  fetchcomms☛ 01:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

China should be redirected to China

China should be redirected to China, not to PRCSlidersv (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What? How do you redirect an article to itself?--Edward130603 (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Edward is right, it is technically impossible. Da Vynci (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So much bull in this article

How can someone claim this?!:

"China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and is regarded as the oldest continuous civilization."

"For centuries, it possessed the most advanced society and economy in the world through successive dynasties"

For large periods of its history, China was no unified country and when it was it was often ruled by foreign dynasties and powers. But anyway, people should be aware that, as one economic historian had it, there are no quarterly adjusted economic numbers for the last two millennia. To act as if these numbers were facts is deeply unprofessional, and either naive or biased. Maddison says that figures before 1750 are guess work and the margin of error in calculating values such as GDP etc. in the late 19th was still 30%. So, in the light of this, what makes people here so cocksure that China was the leading economy for the last 2000 years?

That should be removed!