Talk:Chinese civilization

Chronological Archives
Old, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

This page has is no longer available in China.

I have access to view the talk page on China, but I can't read the article on China any more. The page must be too controversial. Andyohio 12:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because of this paragraph, which accurately summarizes worldwide views of PRC human rights: "Post-1978 reforms on the mainland have led to some relaxation of the control over many areas of society. However, the Chinese government still has absolute control over politics, and it continually seeks to eradicate threats to the stability of the country . Examples include the fight against terrorism, jailing of political opponents and journalists, custody regulation of the press, regulation of religions, and suppression of independence/secessionist movements. In 1989, the student protests at Tiananmen Square were violently put to an end by the Chinese military after 15 days of martial law." Ashibaka tock 15:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the Tiananmen Square reference is getting it censored by keyword? I wonder what would happen if we called it T1anm3n sq4r3 instead? <very innocent look>. Kim Bruning 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Or even like this? 7!4|\|4/\/\3|\| 5(_,)|_|4I23?

:) 70.101.147.91 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried a little ASCII hack, replacing i with &#105;, but it looks like Wikipedia pre-renders that. Ashibaka tock 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC):A few days after posting the message above, I lost access to this talk page on my computer. I never got to read User:Ashibaka's note while I was in P.R. China. I thought at the time that the Chinese authorities must have found the page distasteful because it doesn't fully agree with the official view about the Taiwan Province.

Pages aren't blocked by keyword in China; a google.cn search on Tiananmen Square in china would yield pages not concerned with the massacre itself. A agree with Andyohio, its probably the Taiwan Province bit. User:RideABicycle/Signature 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No Economic Data (like GDP). And where is the customary country profile box to the right?

This article is missing key conventions common to other wiki articles about nations.

71.208.229.216 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ancient trade

I wanted to know why the India is written and then Indus Valley Civilization in brackets. The Indus Valley Civilization and 'Ancient India' refer to the river Indus which runs through all of Pakistan. This should be corrected as trade relations and links have existed between China and Pakistan for thousands of years. Kindly correct this.. regards!

Why do we even have a Names of China section?

This section takes up almost half the article over an utterly trivial aspect of China. I think the entire section should simply be moved to Names of China. Does anyone object? --Ideogram 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I say go ahead. Ashibaka tock 21:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we keep a small section there (with a link to the main article Names of China, of course)? Basically saying that the Chinese name is Zhongguo, what Zhongguo means, and explaining the western name "China". I think it would be worth keeping this much information here and giving the more detailed info on the new page. Heimstern Läufer 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What new page? you mean the page that I was saying a long time ago the Middle Kingdom arguement needed to be moved to? --洋金 2006 November 16, 09:56 zulu

Since no one has objected I will go ahead and make the change. (I'm sure after I do it someone will object.) --Ideogram 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So far I like it, Ideogram. Good work! I think what we left behind in this article covers what needs to be covered pretty well, and the new Names of China article is very thorough. Heimstern Läufer 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ideogram 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Haha looks like we've finally settled the pointless Middle vs Central debate. Good job Ideo. --Naus 21:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

/me bows --Ideogram 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal:China

Please join the discussion at Portal talk:China. --Ideogram 04:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

China Hype vs 5,000 year failure as culture and as country

We understand when we look at China - the globes most populous country for 1000s of years - why it is an utter failure as a global power when we understand during its entire history and up to modern times (with Mao's purges) that all its intelligensia have been periodically slaughtered and left the country truly ignorant most of its history. (And all its inventions almost entirely only ape/ parrot those in the West showing no mind (i.e. intelligent mind) of any extent in all of China for its entire history. I.e., ZERO Einsteins, ZERO Leonardo da Vinci's, etc.)

We compare that understanding with the inward looking hysterical view of Chinese that the whole rest of the globe are barbarians when Chinese have never in any time in history emerged as anything but a weak regional power.

This is important to understand TODAY, with all the hype about China and its growing economy (which is merely catching up to the modern world) and the claim that China will EMERGE into a global anything. As Mao killed all its intelligent persons, and the leaders today peeping out at the world today are - as stated above, only intelligent as against that vast pool of less than average persons left by Mao's purges. And their tiny view of the world is like a dumb person staring out through a straw.

So those hyping the Chinese as the next global dominant power don't understand the above & much of anything, as China is in fact extreme weak e.g. militarily vs USA or Russia, they are like a lap dog; and ALSO, economically, vs USA or Europe and also JAPAN , they are also weak. And WIll continue to be so ... as their present MASSIVE balloon will break soon leaving China the same as Japan, standing still for 15-50 years (Japan standing still so far 1991-2007= 16 years). —

(Also understand the context of Genghis Khan and his hoardes, armies sweeping across China and Asia and westward up to Hungary 1240-1300 AD etc; and the same succesfully conquering into Europe 700-800 yrs before (450 AD) with Attila. Neither zgENGHIS kHAN OR aTTILA OR THEIR ARMIES were Chinese, both were from steppes and Mongol cultures that derive (as shown by modern excavations of Kilt wearing red heads with blue eyes), from celt, scyths who migrated from north of Black Sea to Mongolia conquering all the way (1800-500 BC), to then intermarry and become Asian, keeping their very large average 6' 5" 250 lb size; and conquer backwards to Europe as Atiila or Genghis Khan hordes. (These Scyths are royal Egyptians whose princess Scota also gave her name Scota to Scotland; and they populated aslo Ireland and Scotland and Britain (1800-100 BC in waves) & Friesland (1200-200 BC) - Northwestern Europe (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc)

Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.183.126 (talk) 23:59, August 26, 2007 (UTC) <willy the g>

see inventions discussed below and note 500 BC China bronze, blank mirrors traded to Western Europe & were then incised by Celts to show the Celt intricate abstract patterns appearing to be a face (the Green man) and 500 BC China silks all throughout Greece and Italy and Britain and worn by the aristocracy and warrior class.

See American BC by Prof Barry Fell establishing heavy copper mining in Michigan peninsula (20,000 coppper mining pits) 2000 BC indicating global trade by the celts (copper ingots to China, those bronze mirrors back to Celt Europe)

A Question about Chinese Science and Technology

Inventions like Paper,Ship Rudder,Gunpowder etc are not in dispute but would members be able to show sources of the rest of Chinese inventions? I don't see how anyone can invent Bronze which is of course just one small point anyway more infomation would be useful as there are no sources or references on the main page thanks in advance for anyone who helps I need this for a project im working on :) -Easternknight Jegal 02:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)11-18-06Jegal 02:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think this Sci and Tech section needs to be thoroughly revised or done away with. A list like that is meaningless and its wasting a lot of white space, making the article seem longer than it really is. --Naus 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. --Ideogram 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I remmeber there many story of china for sam kok(three kingdom), 108 bandits, other story not include in this section. and alchemy or chemistry i remmeber there a great books of alchemy in history not mention in this section. Chinabar (merkury) and other medical and mineral knowlegeds not mention in this side.

There still isn't any sources for all the Chinese inventions you can't invent Bronze >_< and the Printing really should be Clay Block-Printing. -Easternknight Jegal 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)11-26-06Jegal 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't get you. Why can't you invent bronze? It's a copper-tin alloy, and rarely found naturally. So the first person to create the alloy would be inventing it.

Also, why do you say clay block-printing? Moveable type was first invented in China: both clay and wooden varieties. See also Bi Sheng. --Sumple (Talk) 01:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you click on the link to Bronze in the article, you will find the following text:

"The earliest tin-alloy bronzes date to the late 4th millennium BC in Susa (Iran) and some ancient sites in Luristan (Iran) and Mesopotamia (Iraq)."

So it seems that it is inaccurate to credit China being first to process bronze.--Niohe 01:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

THe Chinese made a different kind of bronze by themselves that looked green.CHSGHSF 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Bronze- the Greeks 300-400 BC made the 150 feet tall Colossus of Rhodes statue spanning the mouth of the Rhodes harbor. 1500 years later (c. 1200 AD) the Chinese made an incense burning pot in the ciruclar temple of heaven about 8 feet tall. Compare the dates and the size. Also the brass/bronze "sea" in the temple of Solomon c. 1000 BC was 50 feet across along with brass columns also 50 feet tall.

Consider also the discovery of navigations aid (astrolabe) in sea off Greece dated to 300-400BS and containing 45 brass gears that mimmick the movement of the heavens. Then consider the 1400 AD Chinese tower built of wood and about 40-50 feet tall doing the same thing mimmicking movement of the heavens. One is 3-400 BC and a laptop sized miniature working like a modern computer, the other is hugely crude device 1800 yrs later.

So these couple examples show the apping/ parroting of western huge inventions back in china (greeks and roman's traveled to China emperors courts 100 BC - 300 AD) 100s even 1000 years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.183.126 (talk) 00:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

1. Bronze point has already been made

2. the Moveable Type: There has been a lot of debate from who invented Moveable type printing there are a lot of sources and articles and books and the like some claiming Koreans others claiming Chinese invented it and half of them are all at different time peroids but when I was working on the Korean Science and Technology Article about a month and a half-ago a fair amount of it was about Metal-moveable letterset printing press Iron-printing press Wooden Block-Printing etc when I looked up the actual defination articles they all credited Korea. Right, it also included Chinese Blockprinting from Bi-Sheng from which East Asian Printing Technology derives from. The Point is recently re-reading these articles alot of them nowclaim Chinese invented Move-able type for example that Wang Zhen stub has been re-written and re-written IMO it orginally was claimed he was from Ming and he was placed in the mid 1400's rather then Yuan China. This is what is was orginally:

"Wáng Zhēn (王禎), first Ming eunuch with power in the court; see Battle of Tumu Fortress. The Zhihua Si Temple was built in 1443 at his order. He created the first wooden movable type printing in the world."

and If I remember correctly [ as it was over a month ago]I never saw Moveable on Bi-Shengs Stub

now, the Bi-Sheng inventing Moveable Type is very possiable but again there are no sources confirming it again,all im saying is that there are no sources im not saying Bi Sheng didnt invent moveable type from Baked Clay but I am requesting reliable sources on Moveable and especially on Wang Zhen since the Wikipedia article has been re-written at least 3 times.

also Wood-Block Printing is credited to Koreans from Unified Silla since the kingdom ruled from 668–935 how can it be modeled after Chinese BakedClay in 1041? I read a source a while ago that China first printed books somewhere around 600-650 if so what kind of method? Clay Block Printing?

1. Sources for Science and Technology 2. Sources for moveable and for Clay Block printing in 600-650? anyway for anyone who can help my thanks in advance I might not be able to respons for a couple of days but I will get back to anyone who responds :) Jegal

I have serious doubts about claims of the Korean invention of block printing. In any case, woodblock printing long predates the 7th century. You seem to have block printing and moveable type mixed up: Bi Sheng created moveable type; the Korean prints from the 7th century are woodblock prints. The former means using using many little blocks for different characters, while the latter means carving everything onto one big solid block. In any case, considering that the Koreans were printing in classical Chinese at the time, it seems reasonable that their printing technology was derived from China.

As to Bi Sheng, the reference is Mengxi Bitan ("Essays by the Meng Creek??") by Shen Kuo. Bi Sheng definitely did not invent block printing, since the oldest printed book found (the Diamond Sutra, now at the British Museum) predates him.

The Wang Zhen article seems definitely wrong, since there are extant type-sorting systems from the Yuan dynasty, and you don't need type-sorting unless you are using moveable type. And anyway, Bi Sheng and the Mengxi Bitan predate him. --Sumple (Talk) 01:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I didnt say Koreans from Unified Silla invented Block-Printing itself I said Wooden Block-Printing

2. "The world's earliest known block printed document is thought to be a Buddhist scripture (a copy of the Jikji) believed printed in Korea in 750-751 CE which, if correct, would make it older than the Diamond Sutra." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.183.85 (talk)

So are you saying that Korea invented wooden block-printing?

You are right, the oldest extant print is indeed the korean scripture; however it is not a book. The Diamond Sutra is the oldest book. Anyway, it doesn't matter which one is older - I only wanted to show that printed books preceded Bi Sheng, so it's wrong to say that Bi Sheng invented block-printing. --Sumple (Talk) 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for the input I'll do some more research concerning Bi Sheng and moveable type of printing and the like but on the printing articles on wikipedia the mentioning of Bi Sheng of moveable type has occured within the last month and a half it hasnt been there before not sure if it really matters but it serves as a side note. Jegal anyways thank Sumple ill work on this matter some more. :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.183.85 (talk)

Just to clear anything up about movable type printing, I have expanded Shen Kuo's article, expanded Wang Zhen (official)'s article, and created Hua Sui's article. The first one was the first to describe Bi Sheng (990-1051), the inventor of ceramic movable type in China. The second one was the inventor of wooden movable type in China. And lastly, the third one was the inventor of metal movable type in China, although Wang Zhen had experimented with tin movable type (which was unsatisfactory in his time).

End of discussion on movable type, period.--PericlesofAthens 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Linkifying

I thought it was generally advised to linkify only the first usage of a term, and never in headings. --Ideogram 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know.. but this is such a natural place to address the dichotomy. I mean a lot of content has been covered before this section, this a long article, so it's bothersome to go all the way up for the ROC or PRC article links, especially when this section is specifically talking about PRC and ROC as separate entities for the first time (whereas the entire non-lead article before only talked about China). You can change it if you want, but I feel that it's a convenient and natural place for the linkage. --Naus 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Ideogram 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hot Zhang Ziyi photo

Stay or go? The photo of Zhang Ziyi photo is legal and free for use on Wikipedia. --JakeLM 09:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

move it to her page. she is a cutie, but putting her on here is kind of ridiculous. should we Monica Bellucci, Anna Falchi, etc on the page of Italy??

Why not? Celebrity culture is the culture of the masses. I guarantee you more people know Zhang Ziyi than Lu Xun on an English Wikipedia.--75.33.233.27 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You still miss the point...

I've replaced Zhang Ziyi photo with a photo of the Beijing Modern Dance Company. I think it's fabulous and represents a modern perspective Chinese culture, yet distinctively Chinese. --Mamin27 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Movies

Movies are not necessarily "arts", they are mostly popular culture and should not be in the Arts, Literature and Scholarship section, but in the general culture section. This move was unjustified. And how do I discuss the Zhang Ziyi photo when you keep removing it? No one would know it even existed! --JakeLM 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Arts are a subset of Culture. Movies are a subset of arts. And you also reverted my deletion of the paragraph on rice, do you have an opinion on that? Not to mention the paragraph as you wrote it needs to be copyedited.

As for old versions, anyone examining the edit history can click on an old version to see what it looked like. --Ideogram 09:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You will note that the link to Cinema of China is already under the Arts subsection. --Ideogram 09:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How about let's give it a run of 48 hours. It's hard to approve something that isn't there. I don't think it's that offensive to merit an immediate deletion. --JakeLM 09:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not going to revert again. As long as you are willing to talk about it I am in no hurry, and, as I said, all the old versions are still in the edit history. --Ideogram 10:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You really need to use edit summaries. Do you know what I am talking about? --Ideogram 10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)I haven't seen many people using them.--Johnhardcastle 10:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this article

The purpose of this article should be a NPOV uniting country article for the PRC and the ROC (paying attention to the common history leading to their separation), not some vague notion of "Chinese civilization." If one wishes to make a Chinese civilization article, he/she is more than welcome to under the title "Chinese civilization" (or "Sinic civilization"). China is foremost a contemporary country with two modern interpretations today and this is what this article should be about. --Naus 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the lists of scientific and technological achievements of China is useless in the main article and should be moved to a more minor page. Those links have little ties with China and are not explained. A single paragraph summary is more than enough to cover this list. Ideogram had removed the list just 2 days ago, but apparently it's back up again. Someone doesn't seem to get the point. --Naus 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, putting a picture of the Great Wall is controversial as it is Han-centric, and suggestive that China = Han. Again, this article should not attempt to be a Chinese civilization article, but rather a NPOV article on the country known as China, which includes a great deal of peoples traditionally on the other side of the Wall or have no concern for the Wall at all. It should be strongly noted that the Qing Dynasty had very little use for the Wall and modern China is the direct successor of the Qing Dynasty. If one really wants to add that picture (it's a good photo), then put it in the history, culture or technological achievement section. It shouldn't belong in the lead paragraph. You might as well be putting a picture of a panda bear in the lead paragraph. --Naus 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourthly, a geographic/terrain map of China belongs in the Geography/Climate section. China is foremost a country, not a geographic area (which go by the terms: Chinese landmass, continental China or mainland China instead). --Naus 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Chinese Civilization might already be thoroughly explained in History of China, but some article merging and forking could be done to create a separate article if necessary. Cowman109^Talk 04:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would guess a Chinese civilization article would focus more on the various philosophical, religious and cultural movements in Chinese history (which the China article barely addresses at all). The current History of China article is mostly just dry history about this and that dynasty. An article on Chinese civilization will require some very knowledgeable and objective editors. It could easily turn into Han chauvinism. --Naus 04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

better to talk more about Chinese culture and history.--141.14.232.132 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is only one China

I do not think that putting the words de-facto and de-jure are pro-PRC at all! The United Nations, US, and most countries in the world agree with the 'One China' principle - even those who only recognize the ROC agree that there is only one China.

Therefore, those who recognize the PRC recognize that the whole of China is under the PRC. Those who recognize the ROC think that the whole of China is under the ROC. Therefore, by putting 'two modern states' who not be pro-PRC, in fact it would be rather factual and neutral. It cannot offend both pro-PRC people and pro-ROC people!

I think that only by using de-facto and de-jure terms can one truly understand the current government in China Ghfj007 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for your information, Wikipedia is not a government or the United Nation, granting recognition to real and imagined countries. It is an encyclopedia.--Niohe 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that many countries that don't officially recognize the ROC do in fact maintain unofficial diplomatic relations with it. Most can't recognize the ROC officially because the PRC will not hold relations with any country that doesn't adhere to the One-China policy. Because of this, the fact that few nations recognize the ROC has to taken with a bit of a grain of salt. Anyway, when it comes to de-facto and (especially) de-jure imply, at least to my ear, that Taiwan should rightfully be controlled by the PRC and that the ROC is not legit. This is definitely POV, as it excludes the perspective of the Pan-Green coalition and of Taiwan independence supporters worldwide, as well as those who think the ROC is the rightful government of Taiwan and the mainland. Heimstern Läufer 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, countries that don't recognize the ROC hold no diplomatic relationships at all with Taiwan, whether official or unofficial - they only hold 'informal relationships' with Taiwan. With regards to the de-jure and de-facto terms, I do not agree with with you saying that what I added was biased and pro-PRC. This is because the article can be changed to something which says that the PRC de-facto controls the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao and also makes de-jure claims on Taiwan, while the ROC de-facto controls Taiwan and makes de-jure claims on China, Hong Kong and Macao. I know that Wikipedia does not grant recognition to real and imagined countries - I was just saying that the UN and US recognize one China as the PRC only as an example to support my statement. If you want, I can also make another example that the Holy See only recognizes one China under the ROC. In the light of there only being 'one China', I think it would be better to replace 'two modern states' when talking about the PRC and ROC with 'two de-facto sovereignties'Ghfj007 14:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of countries don't recognize the One-China principle, they simply "acknowledge", "respect", or "take note of" it. See zh:一个中国. -- ran (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for 'recognition' of certain things. The point is that, if you go up to the foreign affairs department with any country that has diplomatic relationships with either the PRC or ROC, then that they would say that there is only one China - whether they like it or not. Therefore, I do not see why there is so much fuss on the issue of de-facto and de-jure terms, as long as both the PRC's and ROC's perspectives are mentioned, because both sides both agree that there is only one China. As a result, the current use of 'two modern states' in the article is not factual at all. Ghfj007 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it depends on how you think about it. PRC is often known as "China," so there couldn't be two PRCs.--Jerrypp772000 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is definitely a place where things like this SHOULD be recognized. How could you not? There is a law about this! (See Taiwan Relations Act). You place a lot of emphasis on the "One China" policy, taking it for face value. You fail to realize that many countries, including the U.S. walk a fine line between fully supporting the "One China" policy and fully supporting Taiwan's independence. I am not aware of any congressional legislation that supports the "One China" policy - however, I am aware of a military resolution in U.S. Congress that states that if Taiwan is attacked, the U.S. will come to its aid. To say that the U.S. supports a "One China" policy is completely misrepresentative of reality. Contributer314 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

China, dictatorship and human rights

China is a major human rights violator. It is a communist dicatatorship. You cannot even find the word "dictatorship" in this article. What is this? Is NPOV identical with leaving out the most basic FACTS?

Have a look at People's Republic of China. This article isn't primarily about the politics of the PRC (nor of the ROC, for that matter), so you won't find that information here. Heimstern Läufer 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

When parties get banned as with China Democratic Party for simply offering an opposition its quite as close to dictatorship as it can be. It all depends on how you define Dictatorship. As to the public definition of Communism, it usually doesn't accept oppositions either, hence it should be called that. Calling it the "peoples" or "democratic" is proof of how insolent the state is. I can only send my condolences to the poor souls not being able to place their votes and gain human rights. Sorry. Kenzeitak 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

China is Communist not Dictatorship. Get your fact right or don't come on Wikipedia.

- Note: More should be mentioned about the controversial Tibetan Issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngakde (talk • contribs) 2007-01-24 18:57:06 (UTC)

Again, information like that, which relates to the politics of the PRC, is primarily at People's Republic of China (also at Tibet and other related articles). Heimstern Läufer 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Pssh. I really doubt you could define China as "communist", as they have such a free market.--Sun zhongshan 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern, we must understand that each nation has their own beliefs of whant human right are and should be. we cannot judge other by our standards. we must also understand that the UNDHR is a guideline and not international law and therefore cannot be used as evidence against a nation.

On another matter, China is a communist nation only in name, and is in fact a one-party state and an indirect democracy and not a dictatorship. I agree, the political system may not be fair, but we have no right to judge a nation's decision on was system of government it should or shouldn't use.

--Nat.tang 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're a bit confused here. I didn't write the comment about China being a dictatorship, human rights violator etc.; that was another editor who didn't sign his/her comment. I replied to that editor saying the information in question, if here at all, would be in People's Republic of China, not here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bout that...i would expect that a bot would have fixed that problem with the unsighed comments...anyways, the comments were also directed towards Kenzeitak... --Nat.tang 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Football/Soccer

The reference on Football is completely bogus, and even misinterpreted. It mentions specifically references to a game with balls being kicked around in Japan in 1000BC. I guess Japan is just China too? Also, "many historians", this is b.s. This blurb about balls being kicked around in Japan, China and Rome is hardly a very scientific article. Is there some who just want to show China invented everything? I heard in China they invented the car, motorcycle, space station, computer, etc.? LOL. *rolls eyes*

they did invented many things!!! don't be jealous!

If you hear "things" they must be true!!! Especially if they are about a country you have never been to!!! (That sure rhyme pretty good!)

FIFA officially recognizes that football/soccer was invented by the Chinese. Here is the article: http://english.people.com.cn/200407/16/eng20040716_149849.html

And there's really no need to be so upset about the Chinese being credited with so many inventions in the past.

POV

The article is full of blatant POV, unsourced nationalist comments like "..For centuries, China was the world's most advanced civilization.." need to be summarily removed.Stanu 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then remove it. I don't understand how editors sit in talk pages and complain about the article's problems. Just fix it if you know its wrong. You don't need permission or anything like that. As long as the wording is NPOV, not exxagerated, etc then its ok. Good friend100 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

actually, if it is true then it is not POV, but it does need to be cited. During the time period cited, China was the world's most advanced civilization... just as Rome, Greece, Egypt were all the most advanced of during their respective heydays.Balloonman 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

Reviewer background: Lived in Taiwan for 2 years and majored in Chinese History and Asian Religions at college. (Particular interest included the Taiping Rebellion and Christian Missionaries to China.)

• The intro should be expanded. Guidelines are for 3-4 paragraphs and this is a subject deserving more. And what is there isn't the highlights of China.
• China has the world's longest continuously used written language system. Er, the written system has undergone several major revisions, I question the accuracy of this statement.
• The prose isn't overly compelling in the dynastic period. It's a hard subject to write about, but as is, it isn't compelling...
• I would propose a different approach for the dynasties. The section needs to broken down somehow... and some dynasties need expansion. "Early history" which would cover the period prior to Tang, a middle period covering the Tang through Ming and a modern covering the Qing through modern.
• Is there a template/table for timelines? Perhaps that wouldbe the best option for the dynasties?
• Discussion on why the Qing were xenophobic to Europeans should be included in the chapter starting with the 19th century.
• awoke to the significance needs context/explaination. seems like a "weasel phrase."
• "noble efforts" cite a source that says that or it is POV
• The section needs to broken into smaller more managable sections.
• The chapters need to be broken into cohesive chapters... right now there might be 2-3 main points in each chapter and they don't work together. This article, IMHO, needs a lot of work.Balloonman 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has vandalized this entire page. I've reverted it. 67.188.172.165 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Disabled

I've put this article under semiprotection due to the recent blatant vandailsm. 67.188.172.165 01:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding the semi-protection tag does not semi-protect the article. It requires an administrator to protect or semi-protect an article, and I have just done so. Cowman109^Talk 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know that. 67.188.172.165 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia

Does China consider Mongolia as their own? The map seems to infer that. Good friend100 20:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the official map from the ROC constitution, which still includes Outer Mongolia. The PRC itself already recognized Mongolia as an independent state. Heilme 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese economy?

With China growing economically by leaps and bounds, any trouble they may have could significantly influence economies in the rest of the world. I'd like to see a section on the China economy with an explanation on how they manage it. It would be nice to know what their philosophy is on this management, as well. Brian Pearson 01:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I discovered a separate article on the economy of China.[1] It should at least be in the "See also" list of links. I will add it, myself. Brian Pearson 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please see the People's Republic of China article for a summary of the Chinese economy. --128.135.96.222 17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge China and the Industrial Revolution

China and the Industrial Revolution seems to have information that may be better presented in this article, if not already in this article. Please consider merging China and the Industrial Revolution into this article.-- Jreferee 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. -- Petri Krohn 11:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Merge it, it can go under the history header, having the 2 pages is completely inapropriate.--Rasillon 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose We can go into a lot more detail about the industrial revolution in China with a seperate article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is nothing wrong with having two articles about it. Also, if any merging is done, it should be to History of China, not here. --Danaman5 23:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The industrial revolution page is merely a stub Roadrunner 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since the Industrial Revolution article is barely a stub, it has lots more potential as a seperate article since the faults and errors in the article are easier to spot in one article than the China article because the China article is very packed already. Also, if there is a merge, it should be done with History of China. 70.244.11.191 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yeah the Industrial revolution article is pretty useless and has a lot of room for growth. If it had all the relevant information, it wouldn't fit in the China article, and as is, it's better being left out anyway. Dan Guan 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. 207.157.65.2 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The resulting article would be too long Wilmot1 22:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a pretty clear consensus I'm going to remove the tag. --Ideogram 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese dragon

Can anyone help me with this question? Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

re the name, "Peoples Republic of China"

That is what the Chinese government calls it. If we were to name it with something more accurate, what would we call it? 69.6.162.160 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the current article is quite NPOV. Xiner (talk, email) 00:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The formatting

I thought I should explain what I just did. At 800x600, the top of the page looked really bad. I'm sure it's alright at higher, more common resolutions, but I thought this should satisfy everyone. Please let me know if it ain't so. Xiner (talk, email) 00:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies & Zhongguo translation

Under Science and Technology section, it says China fell behind Europe in the 17th century, while it should be during the Industrial Revolution that occured in the 18th century. Can someone make the correction?

Also, Zhongguo does not properly translate into "Middle Kingdom" or "Central Kingdom." In English, those two titles denote a geographical sense, while the Chinese meaning includes a sense of importance as in "Kingdom of Central Importance."--141.213.198.142 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

CE System

I propose we change it back to BC and AD, as CE is silly and not in general use. As they are both based on the same starting date, it is nothing more than a nominal change which will serve only to confuse readers. Additionally, it injects an American bias, as this system is mainly an American peculiarity.72.139.50.9 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

CE is used in many Wikipedia articles. If you can convince all of Wikipedia to accept your reasons, you can change it here. Until that happens, none of your reasons apply, and we can continue to use CE here, which is my personal preference. --Ideogram 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Many articles DON'T use the system. Who cares about your personal preference? 72.139.50.9 15:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't give good reasons, which amounts to stating your personal preference. If you can give good reasons (and convince others) then you can go ahead and change it. --Ideogram 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course people have to want to be convinced to be convinced. Also, who's personal preference is being referred to here? The guy you're replying to (at least who I think that you are replying to, based on the indentation of your message) does not seem to have a personal preference. Am I wrong? mike4ty4 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true that it's often hard to change people's minds. But Wikipedia is built on consensus, so it's either get everyone to agree or nothing.

But some people will not want to be convinced, period. Except though in Wikipedia, people should want to be convinced provided a reasonable standard of evidence is given, and not irrationally hold on to dogmatic positions. But even in very well-agreed things there are still some dissenters, so not everyone necessarily agrees. mike4ty4 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

According to what he wrote at the start of this section, the guy I'm replying to is proposing we change it to BC/AD. However, the reasons he listed don't apply at Wikipedia, so all he is left with is his personal preference. I believe I would be willing to change my mind if he gave better reasons, though, and if consensus goes his way I'm certainly not going to fight over such a trivial matter. --Ideogram 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is international, we should use AD/BC because CE is not common outside USA. LDHan 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, the optional use of BCE/CE is one of the reasons some American conservatives hate Wikipedia (see [2]). If you want to change the Wikipedia policy, go ahead and try, but we can't do it on this page (as Ideogram rightly says). Meanwhile, the policy is that either system is acceptable, as chosen by the editors of each article; articles should not be edited simply in order to switch the system used. Andrew Dalby 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The "CE system" is a more "neutral" method of showing the date. Perhaps that is why it is used on Wikipedia? mike4ty4 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Common myth. It is simply changing the acronym -- the date's and more importantly, what they are based on (the birth and death of Christ) remain exactly the same. Moreover, it is not commonly used outside of American academia, and even then not consistently. Most readers even in the United States would have to look up the meaning of CE and BCE. Therefore, it adds nothing but confusion and should be changed to the standard AD and BC which is clear and accurate. A side note, most Spell Checkers don't even recognize CE and BCE -- which goes to its lack of common use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.50.9 (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

CE is more neutral than BC/AD, as is fairly self-evident. It might not be neutral, but it is a step in the right direction- diverging the notation from the original Christian-centric to a less emotive form. Schandhy 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't change the fact that our dates are based on the life of Christ. Changing the symbol to something most people have never heard of is simply silly. I can't honestly believe that BCE/CE kool-aid drinkers think they are pursuing something worthy. It's not worthy: it's silly, confusing and supported only by a vocal minority and thus should be changed back to BC/AD at least on this page, if not the whole of wiki.72.139.50.9 07:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that Jesus was probably not born on AD/CE 1, so the whole datum of our calendar is 100% arbitrary. And the number of supporters does not matter as much since voting is evil, logic of their argument matters the most. mike4ty4 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The CE system is commonly used in many contexts around the world. It is the CE/BCE system that is used in China, for one thing, not the BC/AD system. Please don't try to speak for "most people" unless you've been elected by the people of the world. --Sumple (Talk) 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The CE system is NOT commonly used - especially not outside of the USA. Also, this page is not for the Chinese - it is not even viewable in China (apparently) - it is for the rest of the English-speaking world. As such, Chinese custom on the matter is completely irrelevant. 72.139.50.9 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• BCE/CE is COMMONLY used in China. This article is about China. The Chinese words for CE/AD is 公元 (literally: "Common Era"), and BCE/BC is 公元前 ("Before Common Era"). --Naus 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, please don't presume to speak for "most people" or "outside of the USA". For Wikipedia policy on precisely this point, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. If you have a problem with this policy, you should raise it on the talk page to the Manual of Style, and obtain a consensus to change the policy first. --Sumple (Talk) 06:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• What the fucking hell does CE mean? I feel like a fucking retard, I don't understand what anyone is saying. Dude, this shit is so confusing. I'm sure it stands for something cool, but I just can't create the image in my head of the words, you know, please help me out. Humanproject 23:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  CE = Common Era. More commonly known as Anno Domini (AD). mike4ty4 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Humanproject brings it up, and even though Sumple also correctly pointed to the manual of style for dates, let me include the links afresh:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

and more particularly on-topic

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras

Note especially the first and fourth parts of the 'Eras' section. I have no idea which system was being used first, though probably it was BC/AD. Both systems are described here Anno Domini and here Common Era.

I recently saw a controversy where people were arguing at length, at very great length, over which computer number abbreviation style should be used, MB or MiB. Everyone seemed so very interested in who was right. I and others couldn't get people as interested in just making things unambiguous and understandable for the reader, and correct for the topic. With BC/BCE it is a little better (with the number systems there actually is a real difference between 10⁶ and 2²⁰ unfortunately).

With regard to the reader understanding 'BCE' / 'CE' - that's solved by making the first use of the term linked, BCE and CE, if you choose to use it. For that matter, the first use of BC and AD should be linked.

With regard to which one is 'correct', that's policy, either is correct. The editor changing the existing style has to justify the change. See Common_Era#Support and opposition to the use of CE/BCE over AD/BC for lots of arguments, good and bad, for this.

I have no problem with either system. It's just symbols to me and if I can learn Hanzi I know people can learn/use either BC/BCE system. But I do feel dissatisfied by people who feel it must change to a supposedly neutral system. I feel far too much is done using political correctness as an excuse.   (Much more griping deleted before hitting "Save page")

I'm afraid I couldn't help looking - it was changed from BC to BCE last year. The editor must have felt it more appropriate. I don't see that, at least, not enough for forcing a change.

But both systems are valid. I think it should be left as it is now, because a further change would be just as bad. Neither argument (neutrality,familiarity) is good enough to justify a further action. I remain suspicious of the usefulness of the change last year, but I'm certain about the usefulness of any further changes. No use at all.   Shenme 11:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• BCE/CE is commonly used in China. This article is about China. The Chinese words for CE/AD is 公元 (literally: "Common Era"), and BCE/BC is 公元前 ("Before Common Era"). --Naus 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I, personally, would prefer to use the AD/BC System in referencing dates, the standard system used by Historians and academics is the CE/BCE system. --Nat.tang 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This talk doesn't even really belong here. How about a talk about it on the BCE, CE, BC and AD pages? 121.44.234.44 10:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

China and Taiwan.

I've been noticing that on many pages, links within articles about Eastern Asian countries sometime list them similar to the following: "Japan, Taiwan, China, Korea, etc." While this is fine, the link of Taiwan directs it to the page of Taiwan, while the link of China directs it to here. Since this article is about the whole Chinese civilization, shouldn't the link of China be directed to the article "mainland China"? I've seen this happening on almost all pages that include both China and Taiwan (and sometimes Hong Kong too) in one list. Aresmo 12:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

who is China?

'Eastern Asian countries sometime list them similar to the following: "Japan, Taiwan, China, Korea, etc." 'This is already wrong. Taiwan is not a country so far. So I think Taiwan can be removed from the list and China directs to here.

I think the confusion is mostly around the "CE". It is very confusion as large number of people around the world don't use the term. I propose that we change it back to AD as that is what most people know. I also propose that we abbreviate BCE to just BC Because BCE isn't shows up as a mis-spelling in most word processors and other spell checks. Plus why use 3 letters that most people aren't failure with when 2 letters will look about the same as what we used to use and most people know... oh wait it would be the same.. Ok so yah, BCE/CE are hard to read hard to follow and inferior to the terms AD/BC which is the standard and what I think all readers are familiar with.76.184.118.98 08:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This encyclopedia attempts to aim at academic standards rather than that of popular culture, and at any rate, we have links. The convention is that for non-Christian-related entries, we use BCE/CE. El_C 08:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I would prefer the usage of AD and BC, I would have to agree with El_C on this one. CE and BCE are accepted to be the norm and the standard by most Historians and by most university History departments, as well as many other fields of study. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 13:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Celestial Empire

Celestial Empire redirects here, but there's no explanation in the first paragraph, which is confusing. The Names of China article does not discuss this term either. If there are a number of names that redirect to China, why not reference Names of China article in the first paragraph? Freder1ck 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

Social structure of China

• Hi, I have no idea what to do about this article, or where it should go, I thought you guys might. Its currently the longest page on Wikipedia, and short of WP:COTW or WP:AFD I would have no idea where to start. Is it even necessary or useful? Jdcooper 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

More/less pictures

Today one editor removed a few pictures saying only "too many pictures". Another editor reverted soon thereafter with edit summary "rv, why too many?)". I've mixed it up by choosing a middle ground, somewhere between the two.

I removed the two pictures

      Republic of China flag in Taipei.

because it seemed to me to be possibly inflammatory. For instance, which one should be above the other? I very much like the fact that having them emphasizes the current situation. But that also could be a problem.

Maps of the official borders of the Republic of China include mainland China, Mongolia, Tannu Uriankhai, parts of the Central Asian former Soviet republics, and northern Myanmar.

I removed the picture (--->) mainly because of two things. First, the legend saying "Free area of Republic of China" is going to upset some people a lot. Second, because it 'seemed' to me to be emphasizing the territorial ambitions of PRC, which might seem to be a slur against them. It should be discussed in the text to be sure, but the picture as is looks damning.

I put back the two pictures

     

because I think the first really shows multiple languages in use in China, and the second because it shows an example from long ago. The second isn't that great a picture, though. :(

Anyway, I thought I'd say 'why', to start a discussion if one is needed. Shenme 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about long pictures in short sections; they tend to mess up the edit links. But if you really want the pictures I can fix that, let me try that and see what you think. Also don't put in fixed image sizes, the MediaWiki software can use individual user preferences or pick a size based on the screen resolution of an anonymous reader. --Wang C-H 18:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Denver post Review is critical of this article

April 30 2007

• Booth, Michael (April 30, 2007). "Grading Wikipedia". Denver Post. Retrieved 2007-05-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

  "The Denver Post asked five scholars in Colorado to review the Wikipedia entries on Islam, Bill Clinton, global warming, China and evolution. The results? Four out of five agreed their relevant Wikipedia entries are accurate, informative, comprehensive and a great resource for students or the merely curious."

  "University of Colorado history professor William Wei was the most negative voice in the bunch, calling the basic entry on China "simplistic, and in some places, even incoherent." Wei said the Wikipedia entry mishandled the issue of Korean independence from China, for example, and the context of the Silk Road in China's international relations. " "

Lumos3 09:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sad shape

This article needs a lot of work. It currently reads like a middle school world history textbook on China. --Naus 16:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made some changes to the Religion and Language sections. I got rid of the dry statistics found in PRC and ROC articles and made it more relevant toward the aspect of Chinese civilization. Also made some factual corrections in the Dynastic Rule section. --Naus 00:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese architecture

Can someone add Chinese architecture to See also section?--24.62.238.122 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese man: no way

Chinese writing/characters - 8000 years old?

Archaeoogists in China discovered more than 2000 pictographs dating back to the years 5000 BC - 6000 BC. Those pictographs were unearthed at Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, with symbols representing both pictures and Chinese characters. This finding means there are older forms of Chinese writing than the inscriptions on Oracle Bones dated back to 2500 BC founded in Henan Province. So should we add this information into the article? Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/18/content_6118003.htm Oidia 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

go ahead, it's wikipedia!

Infobox?

Why does not this article have an infobox at the top? After all, it is a country article, and almost all other articles of this sort have one at the beginning, unlike China. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• The China article is a civilizational article focusing mostly on Chinese historical and cultural themes leading up to the modern nation-states. For the infobox and the modern nation-state commonly called China, see the People's Republic of China article. I know it's confusing, but there are many reasons we do it like this. --JakeLM 06:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

China Cultural Section and Cultural Page

Hi I have been trying to fix up the Culture of China because there is a lot of materials that are lost in the links. I would like to propose the following structure at least as a starting point to make it work. Afterwards the main page of China should only have 2 links, the Culture of China and Lifestyle of China. That would be most ideal for organizational purposes. I am really interested in getting a fixed format down that is good enough to expand infinitely. Any opinions and feedback is appreciated. Benjwong 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposing this format

China

Culture of China

Demographics

Chinese philosophy

science and technology

Education

Social stuff

marriages etc

nationalism etc

Lifestyle of China (preparing to rename from Chinese society)

Fashion

Arts

Music

Movies etc

Literature

Games

Sports

Wow, nobody has an opinion about how the section should be done at all??? Amazing!! Benjwong 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I like this format. Let's see it implemented. Oidia (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion section contains misinformation

This article wrongly states, "Christianity first arrived in China after the 7th century AD." Wang Weifan, a Chinese Christian historian has found evidence to back up the claims that Christianity entered into China about 100 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. See the article on Chinadaily.com: http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/22/content_505587.htm

current poll

[3]

There is a poll at this link and we are requesting other editors to join our discussion regarding the name. Good friend100 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They found the Seal?

Someone posted a link that they found the Imperial Seal of China recently. Did this really happen? Benjwong 03:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

China Animal Cruelty

Shame on you china (with lowercase ´C´! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fc64c01153

Flags of PRC and ROC must be put side by side on equal level

The flags of the PRC and ROC must be put side by side on an equal level. Putting one flag below the other implies that the bottom flag is subservient or inferior to the flag on top. The ROC on Taiwan is not in any way inferior or submissive to the PRC as they have their own democratically elected President, Vice-President and Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. The President of the ROC (Taiwan) has resisted the PRC by continuing with his plans to have a democratic referendum on whether the ROC should join the United Nations using the title "Taiwan." The situation between the PRC and ROC is similar to that of the communist North Korea and democratic South Korea except that the PRC has the diplomatic and military power to influence the rest of world into snubbing the ROC (Taiwan) and making them look like a so-called "territory" of the PRC. This hypocrisy continues despite the indisputable fact that the PRC has NEVER controlled or governed any of the current territories of the ROC (Taiwan) not for even one-billionth of one nanosecond! Let us come to a reasonable consensus and focus on reality rather than the diplomatic imagination of the PRC. At the very least, both countries should be portrayed on an equal level to maintain fairness and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.170.77 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-10 17:50:10 (UTC)

Agreed, that does seem logical considering that both the PRC and ROC (Taiwan) are sovereign countries, despite the current diplomatic issues regarding UN recognition due to pressure from the PRC. I fully support putting both countries on an equal level.

Literal meaning of Zhōngguó

Currently, it says "literally middle country". I would think that's not correct, we should rewrite it, how do you think? Check the following source:

Regarding the accuracy of the translation, Professor Chen Jian writes: "I believe that 'Central Kingdom' is a more accurate translation for 'Zhong Guo' (China) than 'Middle Kingdom'. The term 'Middle Kingdom' does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it — China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term 'Central Kingom', however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation 'under the heaven' and that it thus occupies a 'central' position in the known universe." (Mao's China and the Cold War. UNC Press. ISBN 0-8078-4932-4)

Maeblie 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I've just found the source which compares both "middle country" and "central country", here's the source:

"A more accurate translation of Zhong Guo is "Middle Country," and to be still more precise, "Central Country," with "central" being the key word." The Chinese Have a Word for It." McGraw-Hill Professional ISBN 0658010786 / 9780658010781

Maeblie 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet aother quote from renowed sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente:

"Whoever it was that first began calling the country Zhong Guo was using the word "central" in the sense of "heart," "main," or the place where everything starts, and from where everything is controlled." - Boyé Lafayeete De Mente

Maeblie 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nation" should be used instead of MISLEADING "Political entities"

The article should use the neutral word "Nation" instead of the highly misleading and confusing "political entities" The word nation if you read the actual definition simply defines a group of people with the SAME cultural background, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) are similar but NOT the SAME, the PRC is communist while the ROC (Taiwan) is democratic. Plus, the communist Chinese underwent the Cultural Revolution which essentially destroyed alot of the ancient Chinese culture and religions that once existed in ancient China. In contrast, the ROC (Taiwan) did NOT go through any kind of cultural revolution and were as a result unaffected by the communist Chinese culture. The culture of ROC (Taiwan) is descended from the ANCIENT CHINESE culture and blended together with 50 years of colonial Japanese cultural influence and Western influences, predominantly from the USA. While the modern day culture on the PRC is the result of the influences of the Communist Party of China, which destroyed alot of ANCIENT CHINESE institutions during the cultural revolution, and is only now undergoing a minor "cultural renaissance" in which certain aspects of ANCIENT CHINESE culture that CONFORM with the ideals of the Communist Party of China are being resurrected and practiced to some degree in modified form that glorifies the current communist party in power. As stated before, the word "nation" does NOT denote "nation-state" or even "country," a good example of this is the so-called Cherokee Reservation in North Carolina of the United States of America. The Cherokee Indians do NOT call their autonomous territory a so-called "reservation," but rather, they prefer to call it "Cherokee Nation" and even then it is still within the bounds and jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States of America. The word "state" is also neutral as it does NOT denote a country or nation-state. But the terms "political entities" is very misleading to the uninformed reader, as what exactly is "political entity." These are the INDISPUTABLE FACTS: The People's Republic of China is a communist nation while the Republic of China (Taiwan) is a democratic nation. These facts are UNDENIABLE and we must come to a consensus to educate the uninformed general public about these differences, otherwise people who use Wikipedia will be left with the misconception that both the PRC and ROC (Taiwan) are the same nation with the same type of government, and in this case, the majority of people will simply make the erroneous assumption that the ROC (Taiwan) is also a communist nation, which it is NOT. And why you ask? Because VIRTUALLY EVERYONE who has ever studied some geography or watched CNN news knows that the PRC or "CHINA" is a communist country.

Another fact that is INDISPUTABLE is that the Chinese Civil War divided the cultural region and civilisation of "China" into two separate independent sovereign countries in much the same way that the American civil war divided America into two separate independent sovereign countries known as the United States of America (USA) and the Confederate States of America (CSA), or in much the same way that the Korean War divided Korea into the two separate independent sovereign countries of North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and South Korea, officially known as the Republic of Korea (ROK). Similarly, the Chinese Civil War that followed World War II divided "China" into the two separate independent sovereign countries known respectively as the Chinese Communist People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Democratic Republic of China (Taiwan). If the communist PRC and democratic ROC (Taiwan) are supposed to be two so-called "political entities" within the "SAME" nation, then the situation should be scientifically observed to be similar to two "political parties" within one country much like the political situation between the Republican Party and Democratic Party of the United States of America (USA). But that is NOT the case when it comes to the political situation between the communist PRC and the democratic ROC (Taiwan). Any educated scholar or scientist who observes from an objective point of view would be able to see, without much intellectual [ffort, that the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan) are NOT two so-called "political entities" or so-called "political parties" that reside in "one country," which in this case "one country" almost always refers to the People's Republic of China (PRC) due to the diplomatic enforcement of their so-called "One-China Policy." Now what is indeed true is that alot of mainland Chinese people from the communist mainland People's Republic of China (PRC) as well as a small fraction of communist Chinese expatriots or Nationalist sympathizers on the ROC (Taiwan) use their imaginations and dream about the day when "China" will become a unified country. And as result, these pro-PRC sympathizers utilize clever symantics and other media-based psychological strategies to portray the ROC (Taiwan) as either an illegitimate so-called "rebel province" or just another "political party" or the alternatively worded "political entity" as is the case with the current pro-PRC Point of View which certain pro-PRC individuals keep reverting onto this article. It is NOT required that you have a superior IQ 200 to comprehend that the PRC and ROC (Taiwan) are NOT the same country, despite the fact that people "HOPE" or "WISH" that it was a single unified country. Wikipedia is about facts and NOT about certain people's hopes or wishes. If you are one of those irrational individuals that have managed to hypnotically convince your psyche that the PRC and ROC (Taiwan) are just two "political entities" within ONE country, then ask yourself these questions:

1.) Why do both countries of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) have their own Presidents. Aka: President Hu Jintao of the PRC and President Chen Shui-Bian of the ROC (Taiwan).

2.) Why do both countries have their own National governments. Aka: The communist government on the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the democratic government on the island country of the Republic of China (Taiwan).

3.) Why do both countries have an Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines and are constantly in a state of preparedness for war with each other. With the People's Republic of China (PRC) aiming 1000 nuclear weapons capable ballistic missiles at the Republic of China (Taiwan).

4.) Why do both countries have their own separate and independent aerospace research and development industries and indigenous space programs very similar to NASA. For example, the independent research and development of the People's Republic of China resulted in their indigenous Chinese fighter jet, the Chengdu J-10. Similarly, the independent research and development of the Republic of China (Taiwan) resulted in their indigenous Taiwanese fighter jet, the AIDC F-CK Indigenous Defence Fighter or the recently upgraded and technologically superior Hsiung Ying (Brave Hawk) jet fighter.

The differences are obvious to the educated scholar or scientist, the PRC has a powerful communist dictator with near absolute power, who managed to rise up the ranks of the Communist Party of China to become the Dictator of the PRC or the so-called "President of the People's Republic of China," of which their public relations campaign cleverly employs the usage of the word "President" rather than "Dictator" to portray him in a more "democratic" and "benevolent" image to the uninformed international and general public, due to the notoriously bad reputation of the People's Republic of China (PRC)'s extremely poor human rights record. In contrast, the Republic of China (Taiwan) has a democratically elected President of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Vice-President. And are currently in preparations for National Referendum next year on whether or not to join the United Nations using only the name Taiwan rather than the official national title: Republic of China (ROC).Hence, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) are, INDISPUTABLY, and without a question of doubt, in NO way the SAME nation or country with two separate so-called "political parties" or "political entities." That would just be pro-PRC point of view designed to spread and psychologically enforce their so-called "One-China Policy" in order to further diplomatically isolate the Republic of China (Taiwan) and create confusion amongst the uninformed general and international public about the reality of the current political situation in order portray the illusion of Taiwan "being a territory of the People's Republic of China." The undeniable reality is that in our modern day world, there are two Chinas or two separate independent sovereign countries that split and divided during the last Chinese Civil War, with both countries continuing to use the name "China" in their respective official National Titles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created with the altruistic and benevolent purpose of providing free quality information to students and adults who seek information to better understand their world and universe. It should NOT be a place where people deliberately misuse and abuse this forum by trying to spread false pro-PRC propaganda to mislead the public and further the cause of unifying the Republic of China (Taiwan) with the People's Republic of China. Let's face the undeniable facts, as of now, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) are still two separate indepedent sovereign countries. And until the day, sometime in the very far distant future, when the People's Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan) decide that they want to unify with each other, we must recognize this fact and acknowledge it. In short, we must come to a consensus on presenting FACTS to the uninformed general and international public and NOT use Wikipedia as a venue to spread FALSE pro-PRC propaganda as part of their multi-pronged strategy to make the ROC (Taiwan) look like one of their so-called "provinces." And if in any case the island of Taiwan is to be considered a "province" then it could only justifiably be considered a "province" of ONLY the Republic of China (Taiwan) and NOT of the People's Republic of China (PRC). And what is the evidence-based logic for this you ask? Simple, it is due to the indisputable historically documented fact that the People's Republic of China (PRC) has never controlled, never administered, and never governed any of the current territories of the Republic of China (Taiwan). In simplest terms, the flag of the People's Republic of China (PRC) has never flown over even one square millimeter of the territory of the Republic of China (Taiwan), NOT for even one trillionth of one picosecond! And that is an undeniable and indisputable!