Talk:History of China/Archive 3

Is China the world's oldest continuous civilization?

Discussion moved to Talk:China#"one of the oldest" vs. "the oldest", as announced below on this talk page. --MarkSweep 15:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Series Implementation

Yeap guys, the series template or table had been implementated. Feel free to discuss of how to make it better!!! 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 00:53, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

repost of Jiang's comment on my talk page:

Should Xia Dynasty be added to the table? (Answer on my talk) --Jiang 08:49, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

end of repost

Xia dynasty has been viewed as a semi-mythological ruling entity before Shang Dynasty, the first recorded dynasty. Distinctive and clear-cut evidences have yet to be excavated to show that the Xia Dynasty had existed. 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 00:53, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Xia article says evidence have been found. Nevertheless, we must include pre-Shang Dynasty history (under whatever we want to call that). --Jiang 08:12, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The page history suggusted that those informations about the existence of Xia dynasty were copied from Library of Congress. IMO credibility about the history of China from Library of Congress is doubted beacuse of my previous editing experiences on Lei Cheng Uk Han Tomb Museum. LOC stated the wrong origin of Tomb; in fact it should be originated from Eastern Han.

Anyhow, excavations from Erlitou and Longshan proved existences of pre-Shang civilizations but not necessarily of Xia Dynasty (i.e. no clear-cut or direct evidences). I don't mind including pre-Shang dynastic history and calling it prehistory of China, as sugguestd in previous discussion, or some other names. However I am extremely releuctant to name it Xia Dynasty. 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 07:52, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Go for it! --Jiang

Brilliant prose (Featured Article)

Attempting some copy editing, in order to remove my own objection to the article's retention in Brilliant Prose. Some of the changes are picky, but some are to correct things that I find hard to parse. I know nothing of the subject matter--learning it is why I started reading the article--so please make corrections and accept my apologies if I start mangling the sense. Dandrake 05:56, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I am unable to decipher the sentence "The word China was probably derived from "Chin" (Qin), whereas could be "Sin" from archaic Chinese, the engendered of tonal bifurcation and voicing distinction of Middle Chinese still remains in many dialects like Cantonese as well as Japanese and Korean." Does this mean that that syllable might have been pronounced "Sin" in antiquity but is now pronounced "Chin"? Does it then go on to explain that two different patterns of pronunciation of such words have developed? If so, could someone explain what and where and when those two patterns are? Dandrake 04:25, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Since nobody knows what the sentence means, or no one cares, it has been killed. Dandrake 19:46, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

Took the liberty of changing a section heading, "Revival of Civlization", because it's hard to picture civilization as being dead, or even pining for the fjords, in Kubla Khan's China. I suggest "Revival of Chinese Culture" because that seems to be what happened, open to correction by people who know.

Another text that defeats copy editing:

These laws might have paved the way to social harmony and removed the worst of the poverty during the previous regimes. The laws against the merchants and the restrictions under which the craftsmen worked, remained essentially as they had been under the Song, but now the remaining foreign merchants before Ming era also fell under these new laws, and their influence quickly dwindled.

The first sentence, read strictly, seems to mean that social harmony etc might have improved if the previous regimes had made these changes. I doubt that that's what's meant. Maybe someone said flat-out that these Ming changes did improve things, and someone questioned it, so there was a change to weasel-wording in a way that made the meaning unclear? Maybe it means, "These laws may have paved... and relieved the poverty that had increased under the previous regimes" or something like that?

Then the second sentence seems to assert that the laws didn't really change, but just got applied to powerful foreigners. In that case, the argument just before, that the Ming dynasty made fundamental changes in the regulation of Chinese society, seems to be contradicted. Clarification would be welcome.
Dandrake 20:03, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

Re-format

This article is part of the History of China series.

Shang Dynasty

Zhou Dynasty

Qin Dynasty

Han Dynasty

Three Kingdoms

Jin Dynasty

S. and N. Dynasties

Sui Dynasty

Tang Dynasty

5 Dynasties & 10 Kingdoms

Song Dynasty

Yuan Dynasty

Ming Dynasty

Qing Dynasty

Republic of China

PRC (1949-1976)

PRC (1976-present)

Timeline of Chinese history

Here's a narrower table, if someone would implement this... --Jiang 08:44, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay, i did it for Shang, ROC, and PRC. Someone else can do the rest. --Jiang

The Ming retreat & Qing decline

"By the end of the 15th century, Chinese imperial subjects were forbidden from either building oceangoing ships or leaving the country. The consensus among historians of the early 21st century is that this measure was taken in response to piracy. In any case, restrictions on emigration and shipbuilding were largely lifted by the mid-17th century."

To a simple outsider, piracy looks like a remarkably feeble excuse for the withdrawal of a mighty navy from the whole ocean. Maybe this is an Anglo-Saxon prejudice: we cheerfully bash pirates when we're not doing the raiding ourselves. But seriously, if piracy really is the consensus explanation among scholars, we could use some reference to what they're thinking, because it sure looks like a triumph of the isolationists who earlier had been defeated in the sending of these expeditions. Dandrake 03:35, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Corruption was rampant, population growth and cheap western imports had impoverished the people." Well, that's a nice counterpoint to the perennial gripes about Asian imports, but just what does it mean? Usually cheap imports are good for consumers, but bad for the legions of industrial workers; what industries were undermined by the machine-made junk that Europe was sending in? I'm not saying the statement is wrong, just looking for some elaboration on what looks to the ordinary reader like an odd claim. Dandrake 05:49, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Deaths of Guangxu and Cixi

I don't know who it was that wrote it, but someone put that Guangxu was poisoned by Cixi. Now I'm not saying that the theory isn't out there, but it certainly is nothing more than conjecture, and so I did the honours of changing it to a more neutral statement.

-Kelvin

Not a Wikipedia member, so if you have any personal concerns email me at chan (underscore) ka (underscore) yin (at) hotmail (dot) com

Helped wanted: History of TCM

An article on the History of traditional Chinese medicine needs to be written. Any volunteers? heidimo 01:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The article has been extracted from the general TCM article, but perhaps you can improve upon it. heidimo 16:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Series box

The box that is currently on the History of China series of articles is here: Template:History_of_China, but there is an alternative at: [[]]. The two main differences between them are the width and the centering, not the content. As the creator of the first one I obviously prefer it, primarily on the grounds that it is narrower and therefore does not impinge on the article as much as the alternative does. The alternative was modeled on boxes to be found on pages such as History of South Asia and History of the United States. Others may disagree with my opinion, so in the interests of reaching some kind of consensus I think it would be helpful to hear people's comments as to which model is preferable, and any suggestions for further improvements. - Madw 06:14, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

The difference between MediaWiki:HistoryofChina and MediaWiki:History_of_China and is that the former is intended for use in History of the People's Republic of China, as it contains links to 4/4 pages of the individual PRC history article (PRC (1, 2, 3, 4), while the latter is intended for use in every other article. The latter does not contain links to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pages of the PRC history article, which would be extraneous in any article but the PRC entry. 172 10:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually it does contain those links - they were absent for a brief time earlier today when someone removed them, but they have been restored. The difference between these two boxes is style, not content. - Madw 10:07, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, please change the style of MediaWiki:HistoryofChina so that it corresponds to that of MediaWiki:History_of_China as you see fit. I have no preference as to whether the individual entries embedded in the series or centered or not, nor any preferences regarding the font size difference. Thanks.172 10:29, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

The true history of China?

Let me emphasize that "CHINA" AS A COUNTRY WAS TWICE ELIMINATED IN HISTORY BY MONGOL EMPIRE and MANCHU EMPIRE. it is always anachronistic to say "Qing dynasty" and "yuan dynasty" synonymous with "China".

• How ignorant of you, just because a country is temporarily conquered, it does not mean the country is eliminated. France was conquered by Nazis during WW2, are you saying the French nation and its culture is eliminated? Russia for centuries were under Tatar rule, are you saying the Russians were eliminated? Both the Mongol and Manchu conquerors adopted the Chinese system and eventually assimilate to the Chinese culture to a certain degrees. Nowdays almost all Manchu call themselves Chinese. China has a continuous history like France or England, just because China was conquered temporarily by barbarians, the history of China does not stop and the Chinese nation as well as its culture are not eliminated. Next time when you want to say something, think before you make a stupid comment!
• dude, what does 'eliminated' mean? -__-
• In Yuan Dynasty, the mongols adopted the Chinese system, and Chinese culture and arts thrived as well as they did in the Songs. Qing was a little different as the most prominent example was the hairstyle, which is ugly to say the least, is of Manchu and not chinese. However the political/government system was that of the Chinese, which has been in existence since the First Emperor in 221 BC.
• Eliminated..riiiight. LG-犬夜叉 18:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Please, please, whoever you are, get this message across and convince the people of China of its truth. Then they'll lose interest in bringing home the masterpieces of the Tang and Qing dynasties, and I'll be able to grab more of them at the auction houses. (Then, can you do something about the Song dynasty getting so pricey?) OTOH, fat chance. [Don't blame me for the heading; just trying to keep the page organized.] Dandrake 01:06, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the proper attribution of historical cultures is often somewhat arbitrary. Is the ancient Egyptian culture part of the heritage of the current inhabitants of Egypt? Some say yes; some say no. Is the ancient Macedonian culture part of the heritage of the Republic of Macedonia or of Greece? A bitter dispute continues over that issue. Etc. Especially given the tendency of Chinese culture to gloss over differences between what in other contexts would be considered separate ethnic groups, peoples, and languages, it's a tricky issue. We can certainly say the people of China believe [..], but we might also counter that with, e.g., linguists think [..], like we do in the Chinese language article. Nothing particularly odd about Chinese culture really: it's unlikely that any group's self-image is entirely in accordance with actual fact (just consider what Americans think of the US versus what non-Americans think of it). --Delirium 23:17, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

When the Viking uprise invade England, did the Viking count as a history of Viking? And should Norweigian take Viking as part of the history? When we talk about "History of China", it means of "what happen in China once upon a time". When different people meet, they are part of the history. So if Manchuria still exist today, they can claim Manchu empire as part of thier history. sltan 08 feb 2005

The idea that the Chinese of today aren't really the heirs of the ancient Chinese because the population was 'replaced' (that is, most of the real Chinese died out and were replaced by non-Chinese) can often be encountered among the Japanese. This particular point of view must be understood against the peculiar background of nationalist rivalry in East Asia. The Chinese have an unfortunate tendency to assert their superiority to other Asian cultures by virtue of their vastly longer history. One Japanese response to this is to deny the legitimacy of these assertions by saying: 'They weren't your ancestors anyway! We have just as much claim to be the heirs of ancient Chinese culture as you do' At least that is my take on the curious statement above. Bathrobe 15:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, many neighbouring barbarians who conquered China were eventually assimilated into the Chinese culture and thus became Chinese themselves, the Han Chinese (native Chinese) recognise them as Chinese as well. The Han Chinese today are mostly the posterity of the Chinese who created the Chinese civilisation since even when the Barbarians temperorily occupied China, their vastly inferior number were unlikely to significantly change the genetic pool of the native Chinese people.

Looking again, the poster above doesn't appear to be claiming that most of the true Chinese died out (although I have seen that claim made elsewhere), it is questioning the treatment of barbarian states as legitimate Chinese dynasties. This is a historigraphical issue. The Chinese have always placed great emphasis on deciding who are the legitimate heirs to the mandate of heaven, not least because the heir gets to write the official history of the preceding dynasty. Historians have on not a few occasions been forced to modify their criteria (for example, the fact that the Southern Song had no base in the traditional Central Plains caused considerable consternation and a change in the rules). At any rate, the whole idea of an unbroken succession of dynasties is itself an ideology of history, the legitimacy of which the poster appears to be challenging. We could say it doesn't matter, but it does. For instance, treating the Yuan as a Chinese dynasty allows history to be turned on its head by claiming that 'the Chinese' once ruled an empire that extended as far as Europe. This is presumably because the Chinese claim the entire Mongol empire as one of their own dynasties. (The notion that the Mongols are one of the Zhonghua Minzu is also behind this preposterous claim). Bathrobe 23:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of which points you were tring to get to, but Yuan is a unique case.

Their rule was short, the 3rd shortest in the history of all the dynasties. However, in much of Inner Mongolia and nothern China, there are many descendents of the mongols, though they have largely adopted the culture of the Han Chinese, especially since the fall of Yuan.

Textbooks and history books in China always say Yuan is the dynasty comes after the Song, because the Chinese people still made up the vast majority of the population in Yuan was Han Chinese. To the average citizen in the 1300s, most weren't affected by the invasion of mongols, because they didn't bother to attack cities and destroy them.

Qing is another story, which is more complicated. The army of Qing drafted people from everywhere and they all had to adopt their "pony tail" hairstyle, and their presence was quite significant from the north to the south.

The practice of State Exams continued, and the emperors practiced Chinese writing and Confuscious teaching from a very young age. They were Han Chinese converts.

Zhonghua Minzhu does not mean just the Han Chinese. I"ll probably get into that later. Got Class. LG-犬夜叉 18:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 202.72.131.230

I notice this edit was reverted without comment and marked as "minor". Was that material simply without support, made up, that is, or is it part of the legendary history of China? Fred Bauder 11:37, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the History (like the computer-screen equivalent of turning two pages at once). 202's edit looks to me like one of those probably accidental quasi-vandalisms that happen when a newbie's finger slips. Or am I misreading it? Dandrake 22:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

You're right I misread the history. Fred Bauder 00:18, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Chronological Maps of China

I have found maps of China according to the different ages here. According to the website, "All text documents, images... are for non-commercial, educational and/or personal use only. None of the materials published here within may be reused in the public domain. Any commercial use or re-publication is strictly prohibited. Copying, redistribution, or exploitation for personal or corporate gain is not permitted." This sounds like we can use them? THough, of course we should recreate the images with our own maps to be published under GFDL before long... --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Before we try to get these maps: I think I have doubts about how accurate they are though... like how exactly did the Five Dynasties manage to rule all the way south to Guangdong? And what's with that fragmented map of the Sui Dynasty? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 23:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Not only that, the maps did not specify what year they are in. Just in the Western Han Dynasty, china grew to twice its size. If the maps represent the dynasty at the height at its power, then the Sui Dynasty map is definitely wrong, because they did control all of China at one point. Also, I don't think anybody refers to the period 220-581 as Six Dynasties, unless they're referring to the "proper" dynasties according to confucion ideology (Wei, Jin, and the southern dynasties), but then the map is completely useless because we don't know what it represents (Wei only controlled northern china, Jin controlled northern china at the beginning, all of china at one point, and southern china afterwards, and the southern dynasties are self-explanatory). Yes there's lots to complain. -- quantum cyborg

People do talk about the Six Dynasties (liu4 chao2 shi2 qi1)... they refer to Wu (from the 3 Kingdoms), Jin, and the 4 southern dynasties (Song, Qi, Liang, Chen). But you're right, these 6 dynasties did NOT control the same territory and lumping them together in one map is kinda silly.

Another thing is that Westerners and Chinese people seem to have different ideas on what "control" is... Chinese maps show the Qin and Han Dynasties controlling the entire coastline.... Western maps show Fujian as being outside the empire. So yeah, there's definitely some ambiguity there.

Ah well, maybe one of these days when I've got some free time I'll make my own maps. :D -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 15:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think you meant Wei instead of Wu (from 3 kingdoms). There are some (confucian historians) that thinks Wei is the "proper" dynasty of china, while there are others that thinks Shu Han is the one, but I don't know of any that designates Wu. And what is (liu4 chao2 shi2 qi1) in chinese? I can't figure them out.

六朝時期. I've seen it being explained as the "six dynasties of Jiankang (Nanjing)". -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 04:35, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

As to whether the southern coastline part of the territorries of Qin dynasty, it's debatable since that area is sparsely populated and rarely referred to in history books, and is usually considered as barbarian lands. I know that in early Western Han, the southern coastline is basically independent with their own kings (though they do recognize the Han emperor as their superiors), and that they were absorbed by Western Han during the reign of Liu Che.

My copy of Zizhi Tongjian has some nice maps of various chinese eras. Maybe I can reproduce some of those for use here... if I can just get myself off my lazy ass =p -- quantum cyborg

GFDL does not guarantee non-commerical use. This means we shouldn't use them w/o massive modification. --Jiang

The map "China Proper" has been removed, since the map appear in the Qing Dynasty chapter without much context. Many maps related to the China History are utterly amateurish, and need to be replaced once better maps are available. Tue Aug 30 17:05:48 EDT 2005

Forgotten Kingdoms?

Though our history of China is absolutely superb (and still growing), an examplar and paragon to which all history series' should aspire - we seem to be missing out several interesting kingdoms in the history of China. The khanates importantly such as Western Liao, and the mysterious people of the Western Xia - who had their own language and culture (derived from Chinese), which died off after the conquests of the early Yuans. Though Wikipedia has a few badly written, unclear articles on these subjects - we should work on integrating them more into the History of China (and necessarily History of Mongolia) - anyone have any ideas as to how this could be achieved?--[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 11:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, just keep writing, I guess. ;) You can also come to WP:ZHWNB and post a request for expansion. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 15:15, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Dynastic History?

The History of China presented in this page uncritically accepts the traditional dynastic view of history. However, many historians question this analysis of history, which conceals real developments in and changes in China's social structure and economy that do not necessarily match the dynastic classification. (Even Marxists have a different way of looking at Chinese history, with their classification into 'slave societies', 'feudal societies', etc). Could someone who has a bit more knowledge of these things put these reservations into the article, at least in the introduction?

Bathrobe 15:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, wrote too soon. All we need, by the look of it, is a link to Chinese historiography.

It is my reading experience that the dynastic approach is the standard beginning to studying the big picture of Chinese/Asian history. Different study structures simply 'come under the heading' of the dynastic outlines. It is also my reading experience that native Asian scholars put more emphasis on the changing nature of China as represented in the dynasties and also for the advanced student in the royal names. Cf the terms 'Elizabethan' and 'Victorian' in U.K. culture. Using words like Tang and Song is very conversational. Cf the use of the terms 'medieval' and 'tribal' in describing the culture of Europe/America.--McDogm 17:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

18 provinces

Does anyone notice that there is only 17 provinces in the 1812 map of China proper by Arrowsmith and Lewis? I am a little confused. It is said that China proper has 18 provinces, isn't it?

The map is wrong. It mistakenly marks Hainan and Taiwan as provinces (Hainan was never a Qing Dynasty province and Taiwan was made into a province several decades after this map was published); but it shows old Ming Dynasty borders, like Gansu being a part of Shaanxi, Hubei and Hunan together as Huguang, and Anhui and Jiangsu together as Jiangnan. 17 - 2 + 3 = 18. ;) -- ran (talk) 22:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

old Ming Dynasty borders? If my memory dosen't go wrong, this is not old Ming Dynasty borders. Ming had 15 provinces,not 17 provinces. Please post a new and correct map.

Read before responding! I already said that Hainan and Taiwan were marked out by mistake. "Ming Dynasty borders" referred to Shaanxi+Gansu, Huguang and Jiangnan, this is why I used the word "but". There's a more accurate map at China proper. -- ran (talk) 18:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

nope.Taiwan had never been part of Ming's Fujian province, OK? Hainan was originally part of Ming's guangxi province, but later became part of Ming's guangdong province after 1370. And I have some doubts about the more accurate map. In that map China proper included a large chunk of Xinjiang. It is very strange, isn't it?

What's wrong with you? I already said twice that the Ming Dynasty border comment applies only to Shaanxi, Huguang, and Jiangnan. Taiwan and Hainan were marked by mistake. Ah forget it. Keep ranting if you like. -- ran (talk) 13:11, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

so why don't you post a new and correct map? It is very likely to mislead the readers.

By the way, manchus is not a central asia people, and they came from northeast asia.(look at the map, manchuria is not in central asia)And if manchs were alien conquerors, then Khitan Liao Dynasty ,Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Mongols Yuan Dynasty and Northern Dynasties were also all alien conquerors in the same standard.

How strongly are Fujian Province and historical/current day Taiwan related culturally? --McDogm 17:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Yahoo and Muzi

One should paying attention to the movie stars and breaking stories on such sites as Chinese Yahoo, Korean Yahoo, AOL Japan and the excellent Muzi in order to maintain perspective on just exactly what is going on in China. As the work progresses it lends life to the written product. The History of China series seems to be looking for readability. Of course this occurs naturally as the article expands. It just seems to be a good thing to say, sort of as a guideline for aspiring Wiki scholars in this ponderous field.--McDogm 17:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Written In The Sand

Is it obvious or ridiculous or both to assert that written words started by drawing on the sand at the beach? This origin of writing might be drastically underrepresented.--McDogm 17:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism In Mongolia + The Yuan Dynasty

What is the relation between Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia? It seems to me that this is very very important for talking about Yuan dynasty issues. As a native Westerner who is familiar with the Tibet lobby (see R.E.M.) I can assure you all that this link is completely absent from what we know here. If well-meaning Westerners had a clue about the Yuan Dynasty and its role in the military of 1st and 2nd millenium Asia they would just have to sit down and think about it instead of being really animated about it. I really would like to know more about this link. I suppose I should request something at the Village Pump.--McDogm 18:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"one of the oldest" vs. "the oldest"

See Talk:China#"one of the oldest" vs. "the oldest". --MarkSweep 14:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Early Manchu atrocity

I don't want to be rude, and I'm very definitely not an expert on Chinese history, but I have to ask:

Are we really expected to believe that between 1620 and 1651 China lost eighty percent of its population? Or, for that matter, that there were only 10 million in the mid-17th century? Some kind of discussion of the soundness of these numbers, here or in the article, would be useful.

One reason the claim beggars the imagination is that one has some idea of what happened in Europe when it lost a mere 25-30% of its population in the 14th century. There are plenty of documents on the impoverishment of the countryside, the abandonment of lands, the culture of Death. Anything like that from China (which has notably good historical records putting Europe to shame for many centuries) of such things a mere 350 years ago?

Less than a century after this supposed depopulation, China had a major cultural Golden Age, which from an artistic point of view looks like one of the high points of all human history. OK, I'm prejudiced, I like their pretty pots. However nasty the Qianlong Emperor may have been, he and his predecessors generated a lot of nifty stuff that looks very much like a peak achievement of a great and prosperous civilization.

Since I don't like nationalism, whether Han, Manchu, Japanese, or American (or Other), I'm inclined to see ethnic/nationalist propaganda here. But objectively it's hard to tell whether it's Han (Look at what the evil Manchurians did to us) or Manchu (Look what we achieved after clearing the Han out of the way). Now I am getting quite rude, but the point is that neither of those positions looks like good history. Can we gat any clarification? --Dandrake July 6, 2005 19:38 (UTC)

Redirects

There are a few red links to Chinese history periods that can probably be redirected here: War_cycles#Comparative_studies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV issue regarding whether "almost all Chinese" want "peaceful" reunification with Taiwan

User:61.51.68.202, User:221.216.167.157, and User:221.216.166.14 (although i suspect you are the same person), I do not believe it is a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) to state, as you did:

Almost all Chinese regard Taiwan as a part of China and endeavor on reuniting the country peacfully.

If you disagree, please explain why you think I am incorrect (and perhaps why I'm not following the NPOV policy) here, rather than repeatedly reinserting the comment.

--Nlu 16:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Han-centric

It sounds to me this article is too Han-centric. If it is an article on the history of China it should cover the history of all places within the territories contemporarily known as China (e.g. history of Tubo (present-day Tibet) and Nanchao, that co-existed with the Tang empire in the same period of history, should be included). I suppose there would be strong opposition if the pre-union history of Britain focuses only on England (or England and Wales, or Scotland), or the pre-confederation history of Canada focuses only on Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Québec). — Instantnood 11:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you just raised your own objection, however, to your suggestion, if you look at your analogies carefully. It would necessitate that, for example, that History of Russia deals with the people of what is now Asian Russia, even though historically, up until about the 17th century, Russia had nothing to do with Asia -- or that History of Germany does not account for Germany's ever-shifting borders, but rather insist that the article deal with the territory that is currently Germany proper at all times. --Nlu 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

All analogies have to be looked at carefully. Until very recently history of Germany was history of the Germans, and history of Russia was history of the Russians. This is not the case in the history of China. Han Chinese, although the dominant ethnic group, was rarely the only ethnic group. Other ethnic groups did appear in its history, and there were often states which kings were not Hans. History of a certain time of China should not be focusing only on the big empire ruled by Han emperors, with little mention of the smaller or less powerful non-Han states. — Instantnood 10:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You appear to imply that Russians and Germans were the only ethnic groups of their states during their entire existence until recently. That is not true -- the situation is a lot closer than China's situation than you suggest, in my opinion. Further, even if what you say is true, that only begs another issue which you referred to. There is a reason why there is little mention of the "smaller or less powerful non-Han states; there is little historical records about them. (I'm referring to such states as Bohai and various Qiang states during the Han Dynasty; basically, for states without their own written language, any records are going to be limited to their contact with the dominant Chinese state of the time -- which, as I should note, may not necessarily be Han (such as Northern Wei of the Xianbei).) You can't write what isn't there. --Nlu 15:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Under the section for the era of Tang Dynasty, for instance, Tubo was not mentioned, and Nanchao in one sentence. That section is basically a section on the Tang Dynasty, but not a section on the history of the geographical region of China during that period of time, when a number of states existed. Although Northern Wei of the North and South Dynasties is mentioned, Northern Wei is a state with a majority population of Han, and the Xianbei ruling class is highly sinicised (or han-ised to be more accurate). The section for the period of Ming Dynasty made no mention of what had happened in present-day Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet, although the history of these territories are well-documented. Tibet, for instance, was 烏斯藏都司, some what between direct governing and a tributary state. The later history of Yuan Dynasty during the period after Dadu/Shuntian was seized by new established Ming, i.e. the period of the Mongol state which Han people call Northern Yuan, with the capital in Karakorum, is not mentioned at all. — Instantnood 16:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You did not respond to my assertion -- that a lot of this (not all, I admit) was necessitated by the lack of records. For example, there is very little written information on the internal workings of the Northern Yuan before it effectively disintegrated into its constituent tribes. --Nlu 17:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's true that the history of many non-Han states are not well-documented.. but still there's a lot to write, especially those that has plenty of records, like Tubo. — Instantnood 17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about the first paragraph

Is it just me, or does the first paragraph seem completely at odds with the facts stated later under Ancient History? 10000 years as the date of the first written records? 5000 years as the beginning of the chinese empire? I propose we change these to 4000 and 2000, respectively. Let me know what you think. --Scipantheist 19:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You changed the bit about the turtle shells to place them into the Shang Dynasty. That seems wrong: AFAIK, the turtle shells are much older than that, however, whether the markings on them can be considered to be some form of writing is debatable. As far as Imperial China is concerned, its beginning is usually equated with the Qin Dynasty. Pre-Qin history at some point crosses over into mythology, so it's a bit difficult to give a reliable date for the first Chinese feudal rulers. --MarkSweep✍ 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the writing on the turtle shells is supposed to be from the Shang dynasty [1] . I think even the Records of the Grand Historian that talks about the Xia dynasty is on turtle shells from this period. If there is another source that says otherwise, let me know.--Scipantheist 19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sui Dynasty

I split off the personalities section of the Sui Dynasty section and created a page called Legends of the Sui Dynasty. There is a link to it on the Sui Dynasty page. I think this makes it more professional.

-Scipantheist

Grammar/Style

The following sentence keeps changing back and forth between 2 versions:

"2,000 years ago is used as the date when China became unified under a large kingdom or empire"

vs.

"Two thousand years is used as the date since China became unified under a large kingdom or empire"

Which one fits your preference? According to my understanding, you should never start a sentence with Arabic/Indian numerals (it's just plain bad style), and secondly the phrase '2,000 years ago' fits awkwardly with the rest of the sentence.

You are right about this.[2] I will fix it accordingly. --Scipantheist 19:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

ming dynasty crops

In the ming dynasty, it is stated:

"It was also during these centuries that the great potential of south China came to be fully exploited. New crops such as maize, cotton, and sweet potato were widely cultivated, and industries such as those producing porcelain and textiles flourished."

However, to my knowledge cotton and potatos were both indigenous to the Americas and is highly unlikely to have become planted in China at that time. Maize and potatoes even now are not found in China in large quantities and are not considered a staple food. Cotton I am less sure about but I don't see much of that being planted as well. I suggest this be taken out. Responses?

I don't know about cotton and maize, but note that this passage did not refer to potato; it was referring to sweet potato, which is a totally different plant. --Nlu 04:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I erred, I meant to put sweet potato. However that doesn't change anything. Sweet potatoes were still indigenous to the Americans while the normal potato was indigenous to the Andes of South America. Either way neither of them should have been found in china at that time.

Zheng He

I removed the section about Zheng He from this page. It seems to me that since there is already an extensive page dedicated to him, that it is redundant to have much more than a link to that page here. --Scipantheist 02:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week

Anyone care to toss a vote, to see Chinese currency as Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week? Then go Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week#Chinese_currency! Joe I 22:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference to centuries BC

Under "Ancient History," it is inferred that the 2nd Century BC occurred several hundred years before the 13th Century BC. Is this a mistake, or am I reading it wrong? 84.164.104.76 12:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're reading it wrong. It says that a) the first written records (the oracle bones) are from the 13th century BC. But b) a second century BC source starts its account of history 1300 years before the time of the oracle bones (i.e. around 2600 BC). Mark^{your words} 12:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Improvement suggestion

As some of you have probably noticed, on the Chinese-language version of this series, most of the articles for the different time periods of China linked on the menu have a table at the top with some basic information about the time period in question. For example: Tang Dynasty at Chinese-language wiki.

唐
首都	长安为首都，洛阳为东都	唐朝疆域范围
君主  -开国君主  -灭亡君主	共20位 李渊 李祝
成立	(隋末农民战争) (618年)
灭亡	(白马驿之祸) (907年)

Is anybody against putting those tables up at the top of the English-language versions of the articles? And does anybody want to help put them in? All we need to do is basically translate. The wiki code is there, the images are there, and the content is there.

Hong Qi Gong 20:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So does anybody have an opinion about doing this? I wouldn't want to start putting in these tables without agreements from others that this is a good idea. --Hong Qi Gong 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The maps in those tables are hideous. I think we already have better maps. The text should go under the map, not to its side, so the table can be wider. I'm not sure if the first ruler is relevant enough for inclusion. --Jiang 18:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

For some reason the lines dividing the table cells in the table I included are not showing up. If you click on the link to the Chinese version that I provided, you'll see the lines.

The problem I have with the current maps is that they're not standardised throughout all the articles and some of the time periods don't even have maps. Plus, I think it would be better if they were up at the top and listed with some basic information about the dynasty/time period. But I agree, the tables in the Chinese version are not the best looking tables I've seen. The good thing about them is that all we need to do is copy and paste, then do some translating.

This would have to compete with the same space as Template:History_of_China. what to do about that? --Jiang 20:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not put something at the top like the Chinese versions do, something that's not verticle like the menu? We don't have to use the same table that the Chinese versions do though. But either I or somebody will have to come up with the wiki code.

So by the way, you're not against this idea as long as it looks good, right? --Hong Qi Gong 20:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting something at the top like at zh: has never been done here. I think that creates unnecessary whitespace and should be avoided. This template (I'm neutral on whether it should be included) would belong in the upper right hand corner of the page, and Template:History_of_China should be converted into a footer.--Jiang 02:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan

I've neutralized the text following the words Many Taiwanese regard Taiwan as historically being a part of China, but are now reluctant to... This text has been altered in the past to reflect one bias or another; I think this debate does not belong here. It's enough to refer to the government of Beijing without labeling it. John Reid 04:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that originally put the part about the communist government in this sentance, but I think someone else added the "give up their freedoms" part. I'm going to restore the sentance so that it simply states communist government. People can decide if they interpret communist government to be positive or negative. --Scipantheist 16:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That takes out the bit which is true and leaves a bit which is false. John's version is much better. I suspect the Taiwanese have various reasons for not wanting to be part of the PRC, and this isn't really the place to make unsourced generalisations about them. Mark^{your words} 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In my view it is John that is making the unsourced generalisations. Why would Taiwan be afraid of Beijing? Beijing is a place, the capital of the old imperial China. It seems to me that the people on Taiwan are worried about more than the location of the capital. Most do not want to live under a communist (even if only in name) government. Furthermore, the government of the mainland has no problem calling itself communist. That is a label they came up with. If you can think of some other reason or show me polls otherwise, please insert. --Scipantheist 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the PRC government calls itself communist is hardly proof that it is. 'The rule of Beijing' in this context means 'the rule of the government in Beijing', as you well know. Mark^{your words} 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The way it is now is much nastier to the mainland chinese, but factually equivalent to what you want. Is this acceptable? --Scipantheist 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we just say "PRC" or "People's Republic of China"?

• Many Taiwanese regard Taiwan as historically being a part of China, but are now reluctant to accept the rule of the PRC.

That seems the most NPOV to me without also being ambiguous. --Hong Qi Gong 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with either of those. Mark^{your words} 21:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

Am I the only one that has a problem with the map of "Chinese Cultural Influence"? It seems to me if we made a similar map of "Indian Cultural Influence" then it would have to include every buddhist country in the world including China. It seems to me that rather than this map we need to have one that shows just China and former parts of China like Mongolia. --Scipantheist 19:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one. ;) Mark^{your words} 21:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Chinese Cultural Influence" is pretty accurate because most of those regions use Chinese characters and are strongly influenced by Chinese culture.

I have deleted the map of Shang, since nothing prove it was the real map of Shang. 216.48.171.235 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Over the history, countries influenced each other mutually. China influenced its neighbouring countries and its neighbors also influenced China. Koreans, Japanese, Mongols and Vietnese use their own language not Chinese. Puting such kind of Sinocenter pic at the beginning of the article is inappropriate. Migye 17:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a big problem with the "Chinese cultural influence map". It's hard to see what it is illustrating. It's quite ahistoric-- current Chinese territory is shown dark green for political, not historical reasons. That is, the map deals in political units, not cultural areas or historical influences. So Tibet and Xinjiang are included as part of Chinese territory while areas that were arguably much more heavily influenced are in light green for purely political reasons (current status as independent countries). Then there is Mongolia, which doesn't use Chinese characters and has never been Confucianist. Of course there has been Chinese influence, but it's quite different from, say, the influence on Japan, which has always been an independent country and voluntarily adopted huge chunks of Chinese culture. Mongolia is only an area of Chinese influence because it was under the Qing, presumably.

For these reasons the map can only be regarded as biased. It supports the current ideology of the Chinese state (current territories have been Chinese from time immemorial and anyone who pretends differently is splittist), the territorial "mind map" of the average Han Chinese (who yearns for Mongolia to return to Chinese control), mixed with a rather contradictory and completely Han-centric view of cultural influence (i.e., it incorporates areas influenced by the Great Tradition -- Confucianist, using Chinese characters -- as the area of "Chinese" cultural influence).

Bathrobe (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and countries linked to Chinese cultural and political history.

Map has been yanked. Readin (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

1800 BC - 1600 BC

I am trying to create a timeline for dynasties / kingdoms / etc throughout the history of China and have come across a bit of a discrepancy between the dates ~1800 BC and ~1600 BC. The entries for the Xia and Shang Dynasties state they end and begin at 1800 and 1600 BC respectively, leaving approximately 200 years with no ruling dynasty. Is this historically correct, or is this merely a case of chronological inaccuracy?

The latter. See [3]. -- G.S.K.Lee 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other inconsistencies regarding dating: "historical records dating as far back as 16th century BC" vs "The earliest written record of China's past dates from the Shang Dynasty (商朝) in perhaps the 13th century BC"

Since "historical records" usually refers to written material of one kind or another, either the definition here is different from that I know or there is a gap of 300 years in the article. I would prefer to see the 13th century since this (actually: around 1300) is what I have found to be the earliest historical records (IE the earliest oracle bones with writing on them). bossel 03:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongol conquest

"Some scholars estimate that about half the population, 50 million Han Chinese people from the south may have perished in total as a result of the Mongols' invasion and conquest, and about 90% of Han Chinese from the north of China perished as a result of Mongol conquest and rule."

Are these scholars serious sources?

Wandalstouring 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Those numbers seem completely and utterly absurd. john k 20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As absurd as it sounds, it's true. You can check it out if you wish 24.224.154.12 01:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite absurd. List of wars and disasters by death toll states that the Mongols killed 30mil-60mil Asia-wide. So 50mil Han chinese is not likely Oidia 11:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ok the article for Black Death stated that 66% of population in China were wiped out by the disease. this happens to be the same time as the Mongol invasion. So maybe the combination of the wars and the disease adds up to 50million han chinese Oidia 13:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should seriously cite FW Mote's Book Imperial China 900-1800. He discusses the Mongol era is great detail and does a great job at debunking the myth that China's population fell by half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.116.20 (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Article too long?

At the time of this post, the size of the article is 44KB. The recommended size is 32KB. Should we trim it? Most sections already have articles to themselves. Sections starting at "Ming Dynasty: Revival of Han rule" could be shortened. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ming Dynasty is very long, why is that? 216.48.171.235 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ChineseText

When ChineseText is added, the layout of the article is messed up. How to fix it? Tim 23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The FAG of China

WTF? I believe this is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule. Hanfresco 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated to the article, but...

This is unrelated to the article, but I thought this Talk page would probably be one of the best places to get the attention of any interested editors - I've nominated article Chinese currency for AID. Please vote if you would like the article to be selected - Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on "the Present"

There is plenty of legitimate doubt on the legality of China's claim to Taiwan given the lack of a legally binding peace treaty handing the island to China following the war. I believe that this ought to be incorporated into the section. Ludahai 01:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion wrt legitimacy was already hashed out on other articles, as the arguments made concerning administration over Taiwan was effectly determined by the Cairo declaration. -Aldis90

Cairo Declaration is NOT a legally binding document. Any assertion that Taiwan is a part of China is strictly POV. Do not remove tag until resolved. ludahai 魯大海 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ancient History

I would like to let everybody know that the records of 5 emperors and Xia Dynasty is not only descpribed by Sima Qian. The bamboo Annals is also very important. The Grand History by Sima Qian is official, and the bamboo Annals is the unoffical, and it is earlier than Sima Qian. The most important thing is that, it gave not only the length in years of each king from 5 emperors to Xia and Shang dynasty in their regime, also gave the start year of each king in form of Tiangan Dizhi(天干地支). Other books refer to the 5 emperors and Xia Kings includes Yijing (周易). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dongwenliang (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

I added 2 most important pictures of the bronze container of both Xia and Shang period.

I also have some questions about the map of Shang, does the picture reasonablely show the actual map of Shang? I suggest to remove the map and keep the picture of Simuwu Ding. 12.47.110.46 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the map of Shang. Firstly, the map only shows archeology findings of Shang cities. We don't konw how many cities Shang really has, so this map does not reflct the area Shang really governed. Also, Zhou itself was a state of Shang during the Shang dynasty, the map should include Zhou as well.216.48.171.235 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hence, as some scholars of China suggest, the Xia and the Shang can possibly refer to political entities that existed concurrently, just as the early Zhou (successor state of the Shang), is known to have existed at the same time as the Shang."

This is not correct. Zhou was Xia and Shang's state(诸侯), and Shang is Xia's state(诸侯). In Sima Qian and Bamboo Annals, events of Xia King and Shang King meeting his head of states are everywhere. When the centre power loosens, one of the state grew stronger and overtook China. 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.171.235 (talk • contribs)

Assuming that you mean what I think you mean, the description you objected to is not erroneous. Zhou being a Shang vassal, for example, does not mean that it did not "exist at the same time as" Shang. Indeed, Zhou cannot be a Shang vassal unless it did exist at the same time as Shang. --Nlu (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is the original post of "political entities that existed concurently" may suggest they are indepent entilies. But as we know, every Xia king or Shang king's throne celebration, all the vassal states came to attend. Also, the centre government has the power to call the army of their vassal. 216.48.171.235 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

When we read two most famous history books, despite the fact that many events are very different as described by these two books(Qi of Xia and Taijia of Shang), they have one thing in common: the first chapter for both books is 3 Sovereigns & 5 Emperors(五帝本纪), the second chapter is Xia. To most researchers, the Erlitou is connected with Xia. 216.48.171.235 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Republic of China" error

The last sentence of said section is messed up. Chiang Kai-shek fled with the remnants of his government and m[Mainland China|Chinese mainland]]. Someone should fix this, I don't have a clue to what it's really supposed to say. --Bcdefg123 00:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Xia writing?

"Early markings from this period, found on pottery and shells, have been alleged to be ancestors of modern Chinese characters."

What is the source of this statement? My books and the Western historians who have taught me clearly state that the earliest writing dates to Shang.--Jiang 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, don't know where that came from. I was not the one that added that initially[4]. But I'll remove it now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Markings were found at Erlitou, there are more than 20 characters. [5]. The originall sentence did not use the word "writing", and used the word "alleged". I don't think you should delete it. Dongwenliang 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the another source,[6] more than 20 characters found at Erlitou site marked on the pottery. Also, the markings are very similiar to the writings of one of the minority people of Shui(水族) in China. Please undelete your post since the original statement is very fair. Dongwenliang 02:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"My books and the Western historians who have taught me clearly state....". This statement is ridiculous. The history of China had not been written by "Western historians", instead, it wrote by a Chinese called Sima Qian and no name in Bamboo Annals. Your Western historians also tought you that Shang was just a lie by Sima Qian until Anyang site was discovered and now they shut up. Please note that except in Mainland China, the historians in Japan, Korea and Taiwan all most all believe in the existence of Xia, which is the second chapter of Shiji(史记). Dongwenliang 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please quote the specific sentences in your sources. And please cite scholarly sources written by archaeologists and historians, not news articles. If you provide your sources, I will provide mine.

Please refer to Wikipedia:NPOV. We can only attribute certain viewpoints to certain parties. e.g. "according to Sima Qian..." We cannot tried either side as truth. Any serious historian can tell you that anything, when put into words is automatically biased. Sima Qian is a secondary source. He had his motives and biases. He lived at a time far removed from Shang and surely had his shortcomings. We know from his writings (e.g. the letter to Ren An) that himself as being even being more powerful than his emperor, with the ability to influence what future generations thought of his present and his past. It is a recurrent theme in Chinese historical writing, for transmitters of the past to criticize the present, indirectly, by either producing an exemplar for all to follow (like how Confucius did with the Duke of Zhou) or by demonizing an individual so as to indirectly tell one's own ruler not to go into excess (like how Sima Qian did with Qin Shihuang). Do you seriously believe that larger than life figures ruled China for tens of thousands of years at a time like Sima Qian suggests?

In following NPOV, I am not asking you to treat the Western interpretation of Shang history as truth. We merely need to represent it as a interpretation held to almost universal credibility in the West. Western historians do not claim Shang did not exist, or did not exist beyond Anyang. The argument is merely that there is no evidence of its existence beyond the archaelogicial records and that therefore the claims being made by government-sponsored Chinese historians should be avoided (not to imply that these claims are false, just that there is no evidence for them).--Jiang 05:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sima Qian is a secondary source. But we don't have the first souce yet unless archaological findings. Also, if we have more than one secondary source independently, the source is realiable. Before Xia, Sima Qian may not be accurate in some ways, but we can not blindly deny all of his record. As of Xia, I can list 5-10 books beside Sima Qian. History was recorded by people, do you believe everything in the article "Korea War" which was happened recently? Any mistakes in that article can let you think the Korea war is a hoax? If you think Sima Qian and Bamboo Annals are totally wrong, it is you need to prove. The problem of some Western historians is they even can not read the current language, needless to say the oracle bone writing which is by the way a well developed writing system include more than 4500 characters. So do you think this system can be invented by over night? 12.47.110.46 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you have no reason to dismiss the word of modern Western-based historians. No one here is claiming that Xia did not exist. We are merely representing the argument that no evidence verifies its existence. Sima Qian is accurate (to an extent) for some periods such as the Qin where he actually travelled to the steles he mentioned to record them...but in other places he relied heavily on myths passed down for generations. Hence different sources, written at different times, saying the same things. Different sources also mention sanhuang wudi. Are we to believe them too? Modern Chinese people cannot read oracle bone inscriptions. David Keightly, for example, can. The historians I am speaking of are fluent in Chinese. I know because I have dealt with them personally before.

Now what is the specific content objection here?--Jiang 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Two facts were missed in your comments on Sima Qian. First, Sima Qian is widely regarded as a serious historian. It is true that he had the motivation to affect what people later would think. What he did was add comments at the end of an event he recorded. So far, there is no evidence that he created "facts" in his book. Most of his records can be verified by others sources. Most likely, he compiled (maybe selectively) the records from resources available to him. The second fact is his records have been proven quite reliable even piror Qin. The Kings list for Shang in his book actually matches what has been found in orcale writings. This implies that the Kings List for Xia could be true too.

I seriously doubt if he had ever read the Records of Grand Historian by Sima Qian and Bamboo Annals himself. Please, read at least these two books by yourself and then we can disuss. Plus, I don't think you should compare David Keightly to common Chinese people, this by the way, shows us how rare the Western Historians like David is.12.47.110.46 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sima Qian is indeed regarded as credible on a number of fronts, but this does mean Shiji is the abolute irrefutable truth or that we should ignore the ongoing historical debates on Chinese bronze age China. The argument you make is one that has been made by modern Chinese historians and should be represented in the article as just that - an argument - amid counter arguments. This is the only way the article can be NPOV. Whether I have finished reading the Bamboo Annals or Shiji is not relevant here. Please acknowledge that controversy exists on this issue and we have to represent the controversy to stay neutral.--Jiang 08:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sima Qian and Bamboo Annals had been proved so many times that they are credible include Xia Dynasty. If you really interested in ancient Chinese history, still you need to read these two books. When the books were written, the authors have more sources available. The differences in these two books are all in very details, but as far as the king list of Xia, they are same, that is 17 kings over 14 generations, plus Houyi and Hancu of 40 years, make total of 471 years. Note that the Bamboo Annals are much early than Shiji, and definitely they are independent sources. The debates were mostly in the past, and the questioning voices decreased lots as the vast discoveries at Anyang and Erlitou site. The debate should be in the article, but the current facts also need enough considerations. Even the New York Metropolitan museum now cited Xia dynasty as credible history of China, please see their website. Another very obvious proof is the style of Bronze, Xia bronzes have very distinguished feature, such as three puffy legs. The tomb of Qin Shihuang were discovered for a long time, but due to most scientists in China are worried that the current technology can not prevent the relics from oxidizing and damaging once it is opened, the tomb is still intact now. I think you may know the great burning of books by this emperor, it will be more than exciting when it is openned. Dongwenliang 03:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. Neither you nor I set the historical debate. The historical debate exists, so according to WP:NPOV we have to acknowledge both sides. You trying to convince me does not do it. Please acknowledge that controversy exists.

New York Metropolitan Museum website article does not have an author. Why wrote it? Could this person be from China? Is this person a historian? I have material that has an author that discusses, in depth, the controversy over early Chinese historiography.--Jiang 09:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be in mind that the article is about history of China, not the historical debates of China History. The debate in article should be only current debate, not historical debates before finding of Anyang and Erlitou. You have an author does not mean your idea is widely accepted and that you are right, also one idea from one person who even never read the most important books of the subject he is talking about is not important and should be ignored. If you think king list of Xia is not true, quote your source accorditng toWP:NPOV. For me, I respect the New York Metropolitan Musuem as a credible agency, indeed the article does have an author, just that you don't know who is the author does not mean there is no author.12.47.110.46 19:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that we cannot pass off disputed interpretations as undisputed truth. Indeed the current debate (to generalize) is that Chinese (as in PRC) historians claim Erlitou to be Xia and assume Shang to have encompassed all of China proper while Western historians argue that the former view is without modern archelogical evidence while the latter (to an extent) is highly unlikely and (to another extent) without modern archelogical evidence. The Chinese view is heavily based on the assumption of the dynastic cycle (a succession of regimes) and the inviolability of the modern nation-state, while the Western view is influenced by post-modernist thinking, and the desire to challenge accepted paradigms and move towards more localized studies. As you practically have most of the (current) non-PRC based historians of China disputing your view, a page the New York Metropolitan Museum website completely lacking authorship or references just isn't going to cut it.--Jiang 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent studies seemed to have given greater acceptance that Erlitou is the remains of Xia. Do you have any recent sources that still claim that specifically western historians doubt this? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete of my picture of Warring State Music Bells

The warring state Music Bells are most important discovery of that period. The bell can play a C tone music and each bell has two sound, depend on where you hit the bell. If you hit the bell on the top, the sound is 1 step higher than if you hit the edge of bell. The picture is not fit into the text because the text is not very long like Ming dynasty. I disagree that you should delete that picture. Anway, my field and interets is Xia Shang and Zhou, other dynasty I don't care too much.Dongwenliang 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Map of Shang

Does the picture reasonablely show the actual map of Shang? I suggest to remove the map. Firstly, the map only shows archeology findings of Shang cities. We don't konw how many cities Shang really has, and is it possible that all cities of Shang had been discovered? so this map does not reflct the area Shang really governed. Please give your source of how this map is made. Dongwenliang 03:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No map of Shang as a contiguous political entity can possibly exist. The historical records do not state precisely where the realm extended. The Chinese did not have a modern concept of a nation-state with international boundaries until the end of the 1800s. So, of course, any map will only show known settlements. This is why I had the caption changed from "Shang civilization" to the verifiable statement, "Remnants of advanced, stratified societies dating back to the Shang period have been found in the Yellow River Valley." --Jiang 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From hunter-gatherers to farmers

I have corrected the earliest date of human erectus in China, based on the newest article published on Nature using magnetostratigraphic method. The Xiaochangliang site, 1.36 ma, Xihoudu site, 1.27 ma.Dongwenliang 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seems inappropriate to mention Homo erectus in the history of China. Together with the assertion that "China is one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations", it gives the impression that the author considers Chinese civilization to go all the way back to Homo erectus. This is implausible, and possibly even insulting (since it casts Chinese civilization as inferior to those originating from Homo sapiens sapiens). Metageek 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is it unclear where the history of homo erectus even ends. Surely, any mention of homo erectus needs to be in its own section. 洋金 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not a good point. Chinese are humans, Chinese history is part of the human history. The homo-erectus and Homo-sapiens are early humans. We should not set strict boundary when we write an articles. These topics are linked related each other.Dongwenliang 16:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

To all editors

Please stop the excessive insertion of Chinese characters.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)#Insertion of Chinese characters says (emphasis mine):

[If a] term does not have an established translation (that is, has multiple translations or none), feel free to provide the Chinese characters…

(To how many of the Chinese terms in this article does that apply?)

Proper nouns' Chinese characters should also be supplied, unless it is Wikified and the target article in the English Wikipedia contains the characters.

(How many of the terms in this article are not wikilinked to an article that contains the characters?)

By these recommendations, most if not all characters can or should be deleted from the article as of 2007-01-25.

For example, we really don't need the characters for Mao or for Chinese cities, both because there are wikilinks to articles that provide the characters and because the characters do not add any value to an English encyclopedia's article about Chinese history anyway. There may be more than one way of writing the names of Mao or Xi'an in English, but those readers who are confused by spelling variants are unlikely to get any help from Chinese characters.

Note that the insertion of superfluous characters just causes unnecessary work both for you and the person who will remove them later. Thank you. Wikipeditor 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think few Chinese characters are necessary to all users and readers here, especially for Chinese History. The history has to use lots of special names, which, expresses by the pronunciation only, causes lots of same words. The worst thing is that the tone of the character is also lost. That is why in Japan and Korea, people no longer use Chinese in many conditions, especially in Korea, but for their names, they all use Chinese characters, otherwise lots of names are same and it causes confusion. Even for an observant English native speaker does not know any Chinese, he can easy find the structure of the Chinese in the bracket after the same English name are different. For example, Jin could be a dynasty(晋), or a minority group or surname(金). Wuyi could be the current female vice prime minister(吴仪), or king of Shang(武乙). For those you don’t like to see, just jump over and please be tolerant, thank you.Dongwenliang 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed some Chinese characters I inserted, but still kept several to avoid confusion or if it is rarely used.Dongwenliang 18:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Help needed from English Expert

I did some translation of the article about Kings from Xia to Shang. I am not satisfied by my work because 3 reasons: firstly my knowledge of ancient Chinese history is limited. Secondly I am not good for ancient language about the people's name and place. Last but not least, my English is not perfect. I added Bamboo Annals to the bottom part of articles, Some articles were tagged deletion in 2 weeks, and can anyone help to translate these articles? Thanks!Dongwenliang 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us the names of the specifical articles that need translation work? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Start form Qi of Xia, the second king of Xia, untill the last king of Shang, Thanks for your help.Dongwenliang 18:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the Chinese content on the Qi of Xia article to the Talk page instead. I don't think we're supposed to have paragraphs full of Chinese here on English WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, that Chinese is not easy to translate. It'll take me a while. Hopefully others will help. But the reason some of the articles were tagged for deletion is because we're not supposed to have non-English content in the articles. I'm going to move the Chinese to the Talk pages. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh god. On how many articles did you insert paragraphs of Chinese text??? Please take them out and move them to the Talk pages. I've managed to do this for all the articles for Xia rulers. But it looks like you did this for Shang rulers as well. Please don't do that because those articles might become marked for deletion for having non-English content. There're a lot to be translated. I suggest you seek help from members of WikiProject China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I planned to translate them by myself, and I already did many of them, at least 15% of kings. Please help some of them if you can. Also, the bronze pictures I uploaded all subject to delete by someone who is malicious, even after I provided the copyright tag. Do I need to get an authorization letter from the website bronzes.ca to let me use these pictures? these are free pictures, can you please tell me how to avoid the deletion of these very important pictures that show the Xia, Shang masterpieces? Millions thanks!! Dongwenliang 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is here. Nardman1 03:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why they are fake tags? I am new to Wikipedia and except the flute image is from Nature, all other bronze pictures are from bronzes.cn and the website does not have any copyright statement about the pictures. Do I need to send them a letter asking an autherization? What should be the right procedure to show these pictures here to the world? What is the requirement for verification of the source? Can you tell me and show some pictures you have uploaded and show the autherizaton letter from the picture taker? thanks. Dongwenliang 03:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hong Qi Gong, please don't remove them. I will try to finish the translation in 2 weeks. there are only 48 kings, 17 from Xia and 31 from Shang. You may also help if you have time. Thanks! The reason I need to expend these articles is that there is a sentence put in every article saying "nothing else is know about his regime", while there are lots of information in the book of Shiji, Bamboo Annals, Zuozhuan, Chunqiu, Zhouyi and Shi, Shu, Li. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongwenliang (talk • contribs)

The very first Statement

This article starts like this: "The history of China is told in traditional historical records that go back to the Xia Dynasty in the 21st century BC". Is this a fair statement? Both The Record of the Great Historian by Sima Qian and Bamboo Annals, the first chapter is not Xia Dynasty; it is the three sovereigns and five emperors. The Xia Dynasty is the second chapter in both books. This is the reason why we say 5000 years history. However, the problem is the two rulers during the three sovereigns and five emperors ruled about 100 years, others ruled about 50-70 years, it is not possible that someone can rule about 100 years, they might be 8 greatest rulers. Similar condition can be found at early Biblical time in the old testaments, many figure live over 100 years.Dongwenliang 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Traditional records go back to the three sovereigns and five emperors. I think we should change that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuous Civilization

Is there really any substantive meaning to the term "continually existing civilization"? It smacks of a nationalistic cliche based on outdated concepts of "national character" and the idea of China as an ancient, unchanging, static society. ValensNYC 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You could also post the same question over at History of Egypt, where the first sentence states, "The history of Egypt is the longest continuous history, as a unified state, of any country in the world." Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on the present

Stating that China is divided once again without any international treaty or legal body stating that Taiwan is a part of China is no more than POV. Removal of this again without resolution of this dispute is vandalism. It has been removed two times in violation of Wikipedia norms. Discuss this or I take this to the next level. ludahai 魯大海 09:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. We are to allow for a tag to remain for at least 24 hours. The tag had been placed there for longer than that without any further discussion about why the section was POV. Removal was justified. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

removal was NOT justified as the dispute was NOT resolved. ludahai 魯大海 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any statement implying that Taiwan is currently a part of China is no more than POV and the wording of this section should be changed accordingly. ludahai 魯大海 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Three sovereigns and five emperors in Ancient Books

Three sovereigns and five emperors period is not a fabricated period by someone in Warring state period. The book of I Ching, starts like this: “In old times the when king Fuxi’s regime, he observed sky and the stars when he looks upwards, and researched the earth when he looks downwards, and watched the birds and beasts, how they live in their environment. He took examples from nearby and far away, and then made 8 Yin Yang signs to simulate the rules of universe. ….. After Fuxi died, Shennong rises. He made Plow and teach people how to raise crops and fishing. He created market and money for the exchange of goods. “

I Ching is a book dated Shang Zhou period, and widely accepted by historians that the book was written in late Shang and very early Zhou Dynasty. So it is very wrong to say that people lived in warring states (around 481-256BC) “fabricated” Three Sovereigns and Five emperors period.Dongwenliang 02:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Throne

Tell me, who was it that decided to redirect "Dragon Throne" to this article without any kind of explanation or mention of the phrase in the text?--24.22.147.202 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Made into disambig page. --Voidvector 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The The

Quick Q: Why is the The all screwed up.

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, inscribed 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 02:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are detailed articles on Chinese characters and Origins of Chinese characters. It's not that notable because it's just a news coverage of a research. From the phrasing of it, he hasn't published his findings yet. If he did, the news report would normally read like "published in this month's _____". --Voidvector 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oracle bone script was not formulated around "2500 BC", Oidia; evidence for oracle bone script is firmly placed from 1300 BC to 1200 BC, and no earlier from what I have read in scholarly journals. The Tomb of Fu Hao, dated around 1200 BC, contains some of the oldest known specimens for oracle bone script. Bronzeware script is old, but did not come into greater use until about 1000 BC--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mnemonics

This section should be deleted as it is entirely in Chinese and has no meaning for the vast majority of English speakers. ludahai 魯大海 12:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Support deletion of the mnemonics. As Chinese, I have never heard of it. Deleted. Unless someone specializing in history identify it is notable, it is not worth reinstatement. --Voidvector 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Info box

Why did the Info box change to this current one? the old on looked a lot better and neater and easier to see. can someone revert it please? Oidia 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Chinese characters

I'm sure I'm offending someone by removing Chinese characters, but putting Chinese characters for all kinds of place names and events simply adds clutter to the article and doesn't really help anything much. For instance, I'm not sure who placing the characters 香港 after Hong Kong is meant to assist. Anyone who knows Chinese knows the characters. Anyone who doesn't know Chinese isn't going to be helped by having the characters there. Similarly for places like Yunnan, Xinjiang, etc. Names of historical events are perhaps more useful, but anyone who wants to find out more can surely click on the links to find more information, including the Chinese names of these events.

Bathrobe 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. I have removed some Chinese characters in the section of Warring States Period and Han Dynasty, perticularly those name of provinces that have a seperate article one can click into on wikipedia. Dongwenliang 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shang Dynasty Mistake

According to the current article, the Shang Dynasty had 9 capitals but changed capitals 6 times. This doesn't make sense, logically.Wilkyisdashiznit 05:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does it not make sense? Before Shang rebeled and completely defeated Xia, Shang people was a tribe that belongs to the Xia Federal. If you read the articles about Kings of Xia, especially the last several kings, you will find that as the article stated, Shang was like a province of Xia, but later grew stronger and Stronger and eventually overthrowed Xia. The 3 capitals you talked about, are the Shang capital before they defeated Xia dynasty. For example, in the 15th year of Jie's regime, the Shang vassal moved their capital from Lu(履)to Hao(亳). In the 33rd year of the regime of Mang of Xia, the Shang Vassal Zihai(子亥) moved his capital from Shangqiu(商丘) to Yin(殷) for the very first time. In the regime of Kong Jia of Xia, Shang moved their capital back to Shangqiu(商丘) from Yin(殷). The last king of Xia, Jie of Xia, was so regret when he was captured by Shang. He said that He should have killed Tang of Shang when last time Tang worshiped him. Dongwenliang 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A source I found

For now, I don't have time to make improvements to the article. Just putting this really good source here so I don't have to find it again when I get time to edit this article. [7] Oidia (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I am quick-failing this article due a near complete lack of inline citations. Make sure that each section has at least one reference before re-nominating this article. Besides this, the article actually looks quite good. Add some references and renominate the article. Zeus1234 06:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

archeology

I found a site @ umd edu that records archeological findings predating those mentioned in this article. "...archaeologists have uncovered urban sites, bronze implements, and tombs that point to the existence of Xia civilization in the same locations cited in ancient Chinese historical texts." source "chaos umd edu." Xia were before 1700 bc and the last Xia ruler was overthrown in that century. Perhaps the Xia began as early as 21 century bc. thanxBen5jaan 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)ben5jaan

archeology

I found a source in wikipedia quoting the book china a new history page 35 "Radiocarbon dating places the site at ca. 2100 to 1800 BC, providing physical evidence of the existence of a state contemporaneous with and possibly equivalent to the Xia Dynasty as described in Chinese historical works.[4]Ben5jaan 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)ben5jaan

Xia Dynasty Kings

A list of Xia dynasty kings was recently added with the statement that it was a list of "all" the kings. However, the list only contained 15 names while another statement in the article said there were 17 kings. Which is correct? Neither the list nor the statement has a citation. Readin (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I yanked this paragraph

There were 17 kings of 14 generations during Xia Dynasty from Yu the Great to Jie of Xia according to Sima Qian and other earlier records in the Spring and Autumn Period and Warring States Period. The names of the kings were: Qi, Taikang, Xiang, Shaokang, Zhu, Huai, Mang, Xie, Bujian, Jiong, Jin, Kongjia, Gao, Fa, and Jie. Jie ended the Xia dynasty.

Because the numbers and list of names were contradictory, no citation was given, and no one responded to discussion. Readin (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)