Talk:History of China/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Please remove this 

These states became independent and warred with one another in the following Warring States period

and add this 

These states became independent and fought with one another in the following Warring States period

"warred...in the Warring States Period" is redundant, so a synonym for "warred" would be better. 64.203.186.93 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

I believe that the historical period denominations be changed from the Christian centric BC and AD (Before death and After Death.) to the more inclusive BCE and CE (Before Common Era and Common Era.). It would be more exclusive to non- Christan people, especially considering that the majority of China is atheist. Thank you for your time. 2603:8080:E704:A090:C554:C3D1:8578:77F9 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Consensus on the talk page is required to change all of the dates from BC to BCE form (as well as AD to CE). See MOS:ERA for reference. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's true though - BCE and AD is more respectful, even regardless of the subject of the article Yinwang888 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree- but do you mean BCE and CE Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sotchoud.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shaune91.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

i want to correct grammatical errors on the page Ri3yoni3 (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please let us know specifically what the errors are that need to be fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

“Eritou”

There is a mistake word in the page.It should be "Erlitou",instead of "Eritou"。 RomanEmperor101 (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This makes this whole page even more a joke. "Erlitou" can be mistaken as "Eritou". lol 71.231.160.7 (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch. Thank you. Folly Mox (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Shang writings do not indicate the existence of the Xia???????????

Please define what is "Shang writing"? Shang writing is NOT equivalent to "Oracle bone script". Oracle bone script is the only known Shang writing while most likely writings came in a variety of forms in Shang dynasty as Oracle script only serves for divination and sacrifice.

Also the study of Oracle bone script is well ongoing where it's still controversial if Xia is really mentioned or not. For example some researchers argue 西邑 actually represents Xia. 71.231.160.7 (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucracy and the dates of the Xia

I've just reverted a revert by @Aza24: (whom I respect as an editor and whose work I appreciate) of an edit by @Borgon44: The edit I've reinstated does two meaningful things: removes the dates of the Xia dynasty, and places the development bureaucratic systems sufficient for direct rule by the central court of vast territories in the Warring States period rather than the Han and afterwards.

To the first point, the dates of the Xia dynasty are approximated by calculating backwards from the already approximate start of the Shang dynasty using reign lengths of Xia monarchs mentioned in early records, specifically the Bamboo Annals, and assume total accuracy of the records, no overlap between the two dynasties in question, and some answer to the open and unresolvable question of whether the initial mourning year of Xia monarchs was counted as part of their reign (if this tradition was even observed). The Xia dynasty as a political reality is not itself firmly established sufficiently to regard it as anything this side of "semi-legendary", and given the three assumptions described above I don't believe it to be in service of the reader to include such an approximation in this high-level article. No opinion on the specific wording mention or describe.

To the second point, I would recommend Li Feng's Bureaucracy and the State in Early China (Cambridge University Press, 2008), a 300+page monograph studying the bureaucratic apparatus of the Western Zhou, based entirely on epigraphic evidence, at once deeply fascinating in its groundbreaking research and sleep-inducing in the dryness of its prose. In his conclusion, Li writes [the Zhou] installed an initial condition that would allow the growth of the first bureaucracy in China and one of the oldest bureaucracies in the world, specifying that [f]rom the beginning of the mid-Western Zhou, signs began to appear clearly indicating the structural compartmentalization as well as operational systematization of the Zhou government. (p 301). The Western expanse of the Zhou domain, around the bend of the Yellow River, from the predynastic capital under Mt Qi to the twin capitals Feng and Hao near modern Xi'an, was directly administered by the central court. Whether this counts as a "vast territory" is largely immaterial if what we're concerned about is conveying the timeframe of mature bureaucracy in Chinese political history.

However, given the political fragmentation of the Springs and Autumns period, wherein a great number of regional states with less complex, aristocratic forms of government took the fore, I do think that in the interest of simplicity without misleading, the placement of the development of powerful centralized bureaucracies in the Warring States period is adequate or even preferable, since it is during this period that they became ubiquitous. Regarding specific wording, I slightly prefer entire states over vast territories, but someone can probably do even better.

Happy Sagittarius season! With love, Folly Mox (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer not to argue about the Xia, a subject which I find endlessly tiring and convoluted to discuss, since many editors seem to have preconceived opinions with no balance of Chinese & Western scholarship (e.g. Borgon's edits summary "Erased the date of the Xia dynasty, since mythical kingdoms don't have official dates"). As such, I have no issue with Folly's revert in that regard; I only included that in my revert since the dates are used in the body text, and the lead is fundamentally a reflection of the body.
I am not familiar with Li's work, but I am certain that the traditional lens of Chinese historiography views the Han as 'correcting'/expanding upon the—sometimes detrimental, sometimes effective—administrative changes in the Qin. As such I don't consider noting the "signs began to appear clearly indicating the structural compartmentalization [in the Zhou]" nearly as meaningful (especially in the lead) as the actual compartmentalization that fundamentally defined Han society. Any foreshadowing the Zhou made in this regard must have been hugely different due to their smaller state, and much less important to their stability. Aza24 (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Section name

"Six Dynasties and Sixteen Kingdoms" doesn't seem like a very accurate section name, because it also covers more than just the Six Dynasties and Sixteen Kingdoms. Would "Era of Disunity" or "Period of Disunity" be better? Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what periods aren't covered by the name. Are you using the "Six Dynasties" only for the states with capitals in Jiankang? It can also refer to the entire period (minus the Sixteen Kingdoms; see Wilkinson, p. 11, note. 6) and does so for Britannica, the CHC volume and Dien's monograph of the subject, Six Dynasties Civilization. Our Wikipedia article on the subject is rather incorrect. Aza24 (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Would "Six Dynasties" be a better section title? Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Six Dynasties emphatically does not belong before Three Kingdoms. Reordered the links, but I can definitely see the argument for calling Template:See also for Six Dynasties under the subsection for Jin rather than Northern and Southern dynasties. I'm not the biggest fan of the term "Six Dynasties", as it lends undue legitimation to the ethnic Chinese polities at the expense of the others who also wielded power over portions of geographical China at the time. I do like Period of Disunity, and am slightly biased towards Between Empires due to the physical copy of Mark Edward Lewis's China between Empires (Harvard Belknap Press, 2008) on my shelf in the shared dining room, but all told my preferences on the section name are weakly held. How does the Cambridge History of China refer to the period? That was the academic standard in Western Sinology in past decades. Folly Mox (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
As I said above the Cambridge history uses Six Dynasties. I do not understand your rationale for removal (or why you’ve done so in the middle of a conversation on the topic). Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I've self-reverted. I missed your "CHC" acronym. The academic tradition I come from goes Han → Wei—Jin—Nan–Bei chao, with neither "six dynasties" nor "sixteen kingdoms" nor indeed "three kingdoms" mentioned anywhere. I was very startled to see "Six Dynasties and Sixteen Kingdoms" appearing to precede "Three Kingdoms" chronologically, since the Three Kingdoms overlapped significantly with the Han. The rationale I'm not understanding is why that section header is where it is, regardless of what it's called. Folly Mox (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of a scholarly article sourced that leads to misinformation

In the Ming Dynasty Subsection, Wikipedia article reads: "raids from Taiwan and the Philippines by the Pisheye also ravaged the southern coasts." and sites https://www.jstor.org/stable/29792550?seq=1. This article actually states that the Pisheye were not Taiwanese. This should be changed to prevent misinformation. UnitedInSonder (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It's laughable if compared with "History of India"

Compared with "History of India": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India I don't see the start of India history must be strictly "written", while the very first sentence for "History of China" is "The earliest known written records of the history of China date from as early as 1250 BC"????????? Kidding me? This is clearly a BIAS which leaves an impression that Chinese history started from 1250BC. And the history of all ancient human civilization must have written record as evidences? What a joke. 71.231.160.7 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

IP editor from August, there exists a widely but not universally held perspective that History, per se, is precisely the written record and its study, and the rest of it belongs to other disciplines, chiefly archaeology and anthropology. Folly Mox (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, then for Indian history page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India, please also start with "earliest known written records of the history of India" just to be fair. 174.164.136.130 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
oh yes history is precisely just written record and its study:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Egypt The history of Egypt has been long and wealthy, due to the flow of the Nile River with its fertile banks and delta, as well as the accomplishments of Egypt's native inhabitants and outside influence...... Ancient Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India According to consensus in modern genetics, anatomically modern humans first arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa between 73,000 and 55,000 years ago. However, the earliest known human remains in South Asia date to 30,000 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran The history of Iran is intertwined with the history of a larger region known as Greater Iran, comprising the area from Anatolia in the west to the Indus river and the Syr Darya in the east, and from the Caucasus and the Eurasian Steppe in the north to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman in the south......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan The first human inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago have been traced to prehistoric times around 30,000 BC. The Jōmon period, named after its cord-marked pottery, was followed by the Yayoi period in the first millennium BC when new inventions were introduced from Asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Korea The Lower Paleolithic era on the Korean Peninsula and in Manchuria began roughly half a million years ago. The earliest known Korean pottery dates to around 8000 BC, and the Neolithic period began after 6000 BC, followed by the Bronze Age by 2000 BC, and the Iron Age around 700 BC. 174.164.136.130 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

Under "See also" Add a link to another wikipedia page "Christianity in China" Spellingwhiz (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Illusion Flame (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

New section: Terminology

Could we have a new section, before "prehistory" about terminology? Specifically, we need to point out that the idea of "China" as a coherent territory with a seamless history was actively constructed/invented from a jumble of contradictory evidence by nationalist historians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The ideas, arguments and narratives that they borrowed, adapted and asserted were products of those times but they continue to guide the actions of the Chinese leadership to this day. Some historians today try avoid using the term ‘China’ except where it is appropriate – generally from the period after the declaration of the Republic of China in 1912. To use it before this date is to fall into the nationalist trap of projecting terms (and their meanings) back into a past where they don’t belong. This opens the question of exactly how we should refer to this piece of the earth’s surface through time. Dirlik used the term ‘East Asian Heartland’, which is useful but unwieldy. For the period between 1644 and 1912, it is probably good to use the term ‘Qing Great-State’, borrowing from Timothy Brook. Brook argues that ‘GreatState’, or Da Guo, was a uniquely Inner Asian form of rule and was the term that states, from the Mongols onwards, used to describe themselves. Nero Calatrava (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This is an important edit. Lines like "With thousands of years of continuous history, China is among the world's oldest civilizations" are modern propaganda. We could just as easily say the same of Iraq, but no one does because it is absurd. We could use something like "History of the area now known as China". That is wordy, though, so I support Nero Calatrava's proposal: keep "History of China" and be upfront early in the article about the fact that the article is really about many distinct states and cultures within the territory of modern China. In addition to (probably) having a section on the issue, the point needs to be made within the first paragraph of the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscragun (talk • contribs) 02:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Compare first paragraph of different ancient civilization wiki pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Egypt The history of Egypt has been long and wealthy, due to the flow of the Nile River with its fertile banks and delta, as well as the accomplishments of Egypt's native inhabitants and outside influence...... Ancient Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India According to consensus in modern genetics, anatomically modern humans first arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa between 73,000 and 55,000 years ago. However, the earliest known human remains in South Asia date to 30,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran The history of Iran is intertwined with the history of a larger region known as Greater Iran, comprising the area from Anatolia in the west to the Indus river and the Syr Darya in the east, and from the Caucasus and the Eurasian Steppe in the north to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman in the south......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan The first human inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago have been traced to prehistoric times around 30,000 BC. The Jōmon period, named after its cord-marked pottery, was followed by the Yayoi period in the first millennium BC when new inventions were introduced from Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Korea The Lower Paleolithic era on the Korean Peninsula and in Manchuria began roughly half a million years ago. The earliest known Korean pottery dates to around 8000 BC, and the Neolithic period began after 6000 BC, followed by the Bronze Age by 2000 BC, and the Iron Age around 700 BC.


OK NOW HISTORY OF CHINA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China

The earliest known written records of the history of China date from as early as 1250 BC, from the Shang dynasty (c. 1600–1046 BC), during the reign of king Wu Ding. Ancient historical texts such as the Book of Documents (early chapters, 11th century BC), the Bamboo Annals (c. 296 BC) and the Records of the Grand Historian (c. 91 BC) describe a Xia dynasty before the Shang, but no writing is known from the period, and Shang writings do not indicate the existence of the Xia.

Please change the title of this wiki page to "Written history of China" to be more accurate please. lol lol lol 174.164.136.130 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

These are good comparisons, and I agree that the opening paragraph should not be about the earliest writing in the area now sometimes called "China", but I think these comparisons suggest a bigger problem: the article champions the false idea that the many cultures, states, and ethnic groups in the region currently within the territory of the PRC were really a single entity. Rscragun (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I moved the final paragraph of the intro to the beginning because the paragraph gives a broader overview of history of the area. I then added a single sentence about early development of writing to the (new) first paragraph. I think this helps solve the problem. Rscragun (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Change to era/dating system

Given that this is an article on ancient CHINESE history and not western history or Christian history, the dating format used should be BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era). This would help promote the neutral point of view in the article as a whole. I will be making these changes in the next few days if there is no discussion on the topic. EuCJD (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this, and thank you for your efforts if you do make the changes, but caution is warranted as MOS:ERA may apply. Folly Mox (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I oppose the change. Wikipedia doesn't decide on era styles based on religion or history like that. Imagine the squabbles that would happen in articles both Jews and Christians claim? I think MOS:VAR applies and it should stay BC /AD. Masterhatch (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Object and reverted. No one responding on the talk page does not equal consensus, and MOS:ERA and MOS:STYLEVAR require consensus to change and substantive reasoning to make the change from how the article was originally written. This is to prevent edit warring over people's personal preferences. Canterbury Tail talk 18:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Canterbury Tail: respectfully, I responded supporting the change, and no one else replied for a further ten days. I won't make the argument that two editors can create a consensus by themselves, but modern scholarly material in this topic area does use the BCE/CE system almost without exception. Folly Mox (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Support. The value of the BCE/CE format is that it avoids squabbles over personal preferences (unlike BC/AD, which takes a strong stand in favor of a particular group of people). Rscragun (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo in "Divisions of Chinese History" graphic

in "Divisions of Chinese History" graphic, "First" in vertical phrase "First Chinese Empire" is misspelled as "Firest" 68.44.150.241 (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the graphic is gone now. Rscragun (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the lead section is about ancient history

Most of the lead section is about ancient history (pre-Qin), with everything after crammed into the last paragraph. We should definitely add more paragraphs, like maybe one for the Qin-Han period, the Six Dynasties, the Sui-Tang period, the Ming dynasty, the Qing dynasty, and modern history. A good example of what we should aim for would be something like the History of India lead section. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I think the lead section of this article would be well-served by ditching altogether the hoary periodisation by dynasty and adopting a different structure that gives space to political economy, ethnic integration, literature, and religion. I feel personally that the lead in the History of India article is a bit long and overlinked, but I agree the lead present here could do a lot better. Folly Mox (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Periodisation by dynasty is probably best in my opinion because the article itself is organized by dynasty/period, and the lead section should probably reflect that. Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@Folly Mox, I like your idea about avoiding exact and bland chronology in the lead (this is not "a timeline of Chinese history), but the new lead is so long that its worth considering reverting in full. I know you said to "feel free to trim", but you really should not be writing something thats 3 or 4 times the size of a typical lead and expect others to make it work.... Aza24 (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to revert it, @Aza24: I won't put it back. It is pretty long. I can trim it myself tomorrow and try again. Folly Mox (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll be completely transparent and state for the crew here that I added so much stuff because I'm aware of my own biases and commensurately uncertain what best benefits the general reader. Folly Mox (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd rather start from what you have and trim. If I had more time atm I'd love to help, but it would be irresponsible for me to make any Wikipedia commitments with how busy I am IRL. I would avoid as much as possible naming specific people unless they are hugely important (Confucius, Qin Shi Huang, maybe Emperor Wu, Mao etc.). Naming specific movements or trends would be better for a general overview (i.e. Tang poetry instead of Li Bai and Du Fu, NeoConfucianism instead of Zhu Xi, etc.). If people want specifics there are plenty of better places to find them; this is the initial summary for a summary article about summary articles after all. Aza24 (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I think I cut out about ⅐ of what I added. Bedtime. More input / edits welcome.
To address real quick the thesis that periodisation by dynasty is best for the lead because it's how the article is structured, I both agree that that's how an article lead should do, but also think maybe restructuring the article to move away from the traditional historiographical school is the ideal (at the cost of significantly more work), and also simultaneously I kinda still structured the lead by dynasty cos I come from the same academic tradition and it turned out I couldn't not. Folly Mox (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Comparison of lead sections mentioned in February, as of now. Rough word count and ZeroGPT LLM similarity score.

So we're not quite there on concision, but it looks like our prose is significantly livelier. I've tried to cut out way more individuals per Aza's recommendation, and thank Mucube for their edits. I've been trying to keep in mind the criticism referenced in the section header here, but also affording space for stuff outside the realm of political control. I'm not super sure where to go from here, and I'm experiencing a degree of attachment to the prose, so I'm planning on stepping away from this section for a bit and hopefully touching up some of the later sections when I get the time. Folly Mox (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Doubtful Secondary Source Used to Support Major Events

The section titled "People's Republic of China (since 1949)" says: "The PRC was shaped by a series of campaigns and five-year plans. The economic and social plan known as the Great Leap Forward caused an estimated 45 million deaths." supported by a secondary source published in The Independent of London by Arifa Akbar who is the current Guardian's Chief Theater Critic and former literary editor of The Independent, where she worked from 2001 to 2016 as a news reporter and arts correspondent before joining the books desk. It would seem her qualifications are not adequate to reference the "estimated deaths of 45 million people". 2403:6200:8856:5DD0:58C1:66F1:B92A:B2F6 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. At a glance I couldn't find a scholarly source that gives a rundown citing the mainstream estimates (i.e. ranging from 15 to 55 millions), but that should probably be how the sentence is rewritten. Remsense诉 00:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
A simple look at any population chart of China published by anyone, anywhere shows that such claims are extremely doubtful. The Chinese population dipped between 1850 (Second Opium War) to 1949, after which it literally skyrocketed from 593 million in 1953, to 695 million in 1964, to just over 1 billion in 1982, to 1.412 billion in 2020. The "15 to 55 millions" does not register on any of these charts. 2403:6200:8856:6BF8:FDE8:1E4B:2503:EF1B (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
2403:6200:8856:6BF8:FDE8:1E4B:2503:EF1B, that is not a sufficient source for this particular claim. That would be a prime example of original research, of the most surface-level kind. (And, no, it's not a basic calculation. Population statistics are some of the most intricate and subtle statistics.) I was referring to the slate of estimates given on the GLF page itself. — Remsense诉 00:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_China/Archive_5&oldid=1219766802"