Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 13

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Asian abacus
Blast furnace (steel)
Block Printmaking / Printing Technology
Bronze
Clock
Compass
Crossbow
Dry dock
Fans
Fireworks and solid-fuel rocket
Fishing pole (hook)
Gunpowder
Glider
Hot air balloon
Kite
Lacquer
Matches
Metal Casting
Oil Drill
Paper
Paper money and necessary monetary institutions
Parachute
Petroleum well
Porcelain (China)
Rudder
Seismograph
Silk
Stirrup
Trebuchet
Toilet Paper
Toothbrush
Umbrella
Wallpaper
Wheelbarrow
Whiskey (medicinal/surgical use)

Other areas of technological study:

Mathematics, applied to architecture and geography. Pi (π) was calculated by 5th century mathematician Zu Chongzhi to the seventh digit. The decimal system was used in China as early as the 14th Century BCE. Pascal's Triangle, known as Yanghui Triangle in China, was discovered by mathematicians Chia Hsien, Yang Hui, Zhu Shijie and Liu Ju-Hsieh, about 500 years before Pascal was born. Biology, such as pharmacopoeias of medicinal plants. Traditional medicine and surgery have achieved recognition over the last few decades in the West as alternative and complementary therapies. Military innovations, such as the crossbow and the grid sight, the crossbow stirrup, repeating crossbows, the trebuchet, poison gas (smoke from burning dried mustard), tear gas made from powdered lime, relief maps for battle planning, manned kites, the fire lance, rockets, gunpowder incendiaries, and early bronze cannon.

Need a Date.... = )

Ok, Sorry to bother you but do you know when China was founded or whatever you call it? I'm doing a report for school and i need to know the closest to an exact date as i can as soon as i can. Thanks! If you really don't know-- because i've searched on every site and the date isn't clear-- you can tell me so. = ) I know it was a really long time ago so i don't expect anyone to know an exact date ; )

--Camillacream 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

When was China founded? That is a rather vague question. China was not a country that rebelled against some greater country. You can look up China's history for the dates that different dynasties were overturned.

Leon math 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainland China celebrates October 12th as its national holiday, to commemorate the founding of the People's Republic of China, in 1949. 1911 is also an important date, because it was the beginning of the Republic of China and the end of the Qing dynasty. This is when China became a modern nation-state and no longer a feudal empire. Andyohio 13:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainland China celebrates October 1st as its national holiday. Also the Republic of China was founded on January 1st, 1912. -- ran (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taiwan)

OK. Let's start the discussion, HongQiHong and others. Some of my arguments for ROC (Taiwan) are:

1) That is what the government of Taiwan calls itself right now. 2) To distinguish it from the now defunct Republic of China, which ruled the mainland 1911-49. Taiwan was not part of the constitutive terriory of the old ROC, which only ruled over vthe island for four years. As far as I know, prior to the Sino-Japanese War, the ROC did not even claim Taiwan, neither did the CCP. 3) It is more inclusive to write ROC (Taiwan) than just ROC, and less confusing. Anything relating to the "old" ROC could be moved to the history of the ROC.

Just my two cents. Let's see who will violate the three revert rule first...--Niohe 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise on Republic of China (Taiwan)

Alright. I've had extensive discussion with User:Niohe on this issue. My viewpoints are that:

the two states are being listed in parallel
The PRC is referred to by its official name
THe ROC's official name is the Republic of China, no bracket Taiwan.

Hence it should say "Republic of China". I see that User:Niohe has already presented the alternative view.

I am not willing to accept [[Republic of China|Republic of China (Taiwan)]] because it imposes a name on something referred to by Wikipedia by another name. If, say, the Republic of China page gets moved to Republic of China (Taiwan), then the link would be appropriate. Unless there is a legal (read "Constitutional") justification, I find the implication that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is the official name offensive, as no doubt it would be to any detractors of the DPP government.

~~If I understand it correctly, the pro-brackets camp are equally unwilling to accept plain vanilla [[Republic of China]].~~

~~I can see that the judgment as to when an official name is appropriate can be subjective, so I propose the following compromise options:~~

Version 1 (a) - following "... two states," the [[People's Republic of China]], and the [[Republic of Chian]] (commonly referred to as "Taiwan")

Version 1 (b) - following "... two states," the [[People's Republic of China]] (commonly referred to as "China"), and the [[Republic of Chian]] (commonly referred to as "Taiwan")

Version 2 (a) - following "... two states," the [[People's Republic of China]], and the [[Republic of Chian]] (which currently controls [[Taiwan]] and surrounding islands)

Version 2 (a) - following "... two states," the [[People's Republic of China]] (which controls [[mainland China]]), and the [[Republic of Chian]] (which currently controls [[Taiwan]] and some nearby islands)

~~Please express your preferences, or propose alternatives (use consistent numbering please for easy reference).~~ One final note of caution - I do not think we should stray into discussions on what's the "right" name for Taiwan or whether Taiwan "is" Chinese. It suffices for us to know that (1) the Constitutional name of the state in Taiwan is "Republic of China". (2) The government uses "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in reference to itself. (3) Wikipedia uses "Republic of China" as the official name - see Republic of China. --Sumple (Talk) 00:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not accept "(Taiwan)" either, especially in the intro paragraph when the article talks about the question of the legitimacy of the ROC and its governing of Taiwan. That's confusing to the readers. How can the article, in the same breath, talk about how the ROC's rule of Taiwan is contested, while at the same time assign "Taiwan" to the ROC? That doesn't make sense at all. The fact that the ROC has de-facto rule of Taiwan is an absolute necessary fact that we should include, but the inclusion of "(Taiwan)" in the ROC name is controversial even in Taiwan itself. The neutral thing to do would be to not include that.

Also, I must point out, part of the edits that's being reverted back and forth currently includes an edit that says that the ROC is "independent". This is not only POV, but it's plain false, as the ROC has not declared independence. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait a minute, I see the article has moved on beyond what my compromise proposals relate to. Okay scrap this section. --Sumple (Talk) 00:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the fact that ROC (Taiwan) is controversial in Taiwan is not taking the argument anywhere, there are people who never liked ROC to begin with and they would like to take it a step further.

I don't really have a POV on independence itself, but I do think we should respect the name the elected government of a country uses as its official. If the KMT comes back to power and changes that, well so be it, we should reflect that as an encyclopedia. Whether we give ROC precedence over ROC (Taiwan) is not anything I have an opinion on, but to excise all references to ROC (Taiwan) is outright dishonest to the reader. And it seems to me that some people in this discussion refuse to budge and want to take away all references to ROC (Taiwan) - even to the point of breaking RR3 rules, while threatening other people with being blocked.

Anyway, our arguments are getting exhausted and I suggest that we ask an experienced contributor about this. I am interested in seeing how this can be resolved at a principled level. If we lay down that the official name of a country can only be the name in its constitution, then I expect that many countries and regions should be renamed. --Niohe 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers common names, which is why the United States is where it is. However, the China-Taiwan issue has always been a special case, as you can see by the existence of this article at all. The way I understand the present situation, because of the complexities involved in the two-Chinas debate, references to the PRC and the ROC are stringently defined to avoid non-NPOV. Thus, for example, neither country/state is listed under its common name; we avoid labelling either as "legitimate", or as "sovereign" as against the other or separately or collectively; both are labelled by the ambiguous terms country or state, not sovereign state or independent country or nation state.

I don't think it's the ideal situation, but there you are. That seems to be the arrangement most in-line with NPOV as judged by the community (by which I mean nobody likes it, but everyone prefers it to an alternative). --Sumple (Talk) 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to run, but just a quick comment. Why is China-Taiwan such a special case that we need to apply special policies? I am no longer willing to fight for changing the name in the heading of the China article, but it seems that we can even use the term ROC (Taiwan) in the first paragraph or at the disambiguation page of ROC (Taiwan). I never said ROC (Taiwan) is the common name, only that it should be mentioned, once, at a prominent place, but you won't even have that. That's some compromise! What's the next step? Only apporved editors can edit the China article? And that's how you understand NPOV? We can't have a separate policy for each country/state. For you ow reference, see the article on Nagorno-Karabakh and the list of unrecognized countries - where Taiwan is included.--Niohe 11:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your agenda here is probably more appropriate for the ROC article itself. That article ought to mention the controversy surrounding the inclusion of "(Taiwan)" in the name. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

word --1698 07:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. My view of this is that the current ruling party uses the (Taiwan) parenthesis for the same reason that we do: disambiguation. That's why I think it's perfectly acceptable to write Republic of China (Taiwan) when linking to the ROC from articles where this might otherwise be ambiguous. In articles where the PRC/ROC distinction has been made, however, like this one, there's no need to put (Taiwan) after every instance of ROC. Actually, I like this lead [1] since it has less of a focus on the split, and more about the actual civilization. I think it should have a little more about the culture, actually. As for (Taiwan), I think that controversy should be explained in the ROC article or in one of its daughter articles about naming disputes or politics. --GunnarRene 05:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it's better to write Republic of China (Taiwan) than Republic of China (Taiwan)? I think the former is preferrable because it is indeed the disambiguity purpose for which we write the (Taiwan), and (ostensibly) that is why the Taiwanese government writes it too.

To my mind, "Republic of China (Taiwan)" means "this state/country called the Republic of China, which, in case you were wondering, is 'Taiwan'", whereas the latter means "this state/country called 'the Republic of China (Taiwan)' (altogether)". To my mind, the former is more in line with the constitutional and administrative situation in Taiwan (that is, the bracket-Taiwan is used for disambiguity, not a part of the constitutional name. --Sumple (Talk) 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I would go with the first version, but no strong opinion on that. My point is that there is no point writing "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Republic of China (Taiwan)" when the article allready has told the reader about the distinction between the PRC and the ROC. In articles unrelated to the political status of Taiwan and the ROC however, the bracket/parentheses might be appropriate, for example: [2]. --GunnarRene

I agree that there need to be some clearer way to identify Taiwan. Point moot that difference between PRC and ROC is being explained, as these two titles of countries are in first sentence of artictle. What would be wrong about including Taiwan in name? As a reader of articles, it is highly confusing to encounter two such similar denominations as PRC and ROC and having a microscopic flag as the only reference as to their differences.

Zhongguo

Everyone seems to have calmed down, so I thought I'll start another edit war by making a couple of changes.

First of all, since "Middle" vs "Central" arouses such passion, I've deleted it from the heading.

I would like to keep the heading. A9a9 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I've deleted the two ridiculous Chinese translations of the English translations of a Chinese term.

Thirdly, I've re-phrased the highly POV content into something that better reflects the situation. It's called "the Middle Kingdom" in English. BUT, as lafleur keeps on trying to impress upon us, there are some people who think it "should" be "the Central Kingdom", and this is apparently backed by some etymological argument. --Sumple (Talk) 04:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Zhongguo wrote "the archaic meaning of the term Zhongguo as "center part [of the world]". First, that's not archaic meaning, but the actual meaning. Second, it's not "center part [of the world]", it's "center of the world", have your read lafleur's Reason of "Central" #2? --New dindong 14:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It's the "actual meaning". Do you think China is at the centre of the world, i.e. in the Earth's core? Learn some English before you start reverting other people's changes. Here's a link for you: Wiktionary:archaic--Sumple (Talk) 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

man ppl still dont get it (or is new dingdong an old dingdong?)... if zhongguo means center (or center part... its the same thing) of the world, it means the center of China (ie. the know world)...OR it can mean all of China, cuz its short for PRC and ROC, but it does not make China the center of the world. ever. calling it central kingdom will not any different. it can be translated middle kingdom for the archaic meaning or it can translated as PRC or ROC for the current meaning. plz dont call the PRC, ROC, or any other dynasty middle or central kingdom. --1698 07:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Confused, I though middle means equally distant from extremes or limits (from dictionary) like a line, like middle age, middle at the night... but center means the a point or place that is equally distant from the sides or outer boundaries of something, like a center point of a circle area or a sphere. So it confused me a lot when using Middle Kingdom, like Middle English doesn't mean English in the middle, but means "中古英语". I just feel uncomfortable with the world, but if it has been this way on a dictionary, then let it be. By the way, language is only a reflection of experience, if a ancient people feels (or wishes)his country is the strongest around the neighborhood, he will probably call it the Middle or the Center one. Those ancient people are stupid anyway, they don't speak elegant English, and don't know there is sphere, let alone there is a core in it. 203.166.39.164 18:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY SUGGEST Sumple NOT TO CONFUSE OTHER READERS WITH HIS B.S.! Based on my prof's explanation, the meaning of "天下之中" is "the center of the world", my prof said that 天下 means "the world", 之 means "of" with different usage, and obviously 中 means "center". You may also confirm the meaning of "中" with online translation tool http://babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn A9a9 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, and that opinion is already represented in the paragraph here. It is simply WRONG to say that your translation is the "right" translation when millions of books translate it another way and all you have to back yourself up are dictionary definitions of individual characters. Okay?

It's like translating, I dunno, 哲学 as "哲 = sage" , "学 = learning", hence "哲学 = a very smart student".

Okay? Didn't they teach you about postmodernist perspectives in high school, or did you go to high school in Commieland so you think whatever the Great Helmsman said must be the only truth? For every source you can dig up that says "Central Kingdom", I can dig up 20,000 books that translates it as the "Middle Kingdom".

Can you not accept that YOU MIGHT BE WRONG? And it doesn't even matter whether you are "right" or not. If you think you are so right, get it published in an academic journal, then wait for someone to cite it. --Sumple (Talk) 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you've edited this page 4 times today, and your account should be and will be blocked pretty soon, since you obviously violated [WP:3RR]. For the meaning of "天下之中", again, I suggest you not to confuse others. For the meaning of Zhongguo, please see here, they are from China/Archive 9

Reason of "Central" #1

Quote from the book "Mao's China and the Cold War", published by UNC Press. ISBN: 0807849324 --lafleur127 22:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"I believe that "Central Kingdom" is a more accurate translation for "Zhong Guo" (China) than "Middle Kingdom." The term "Middle Kingdom" does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it -- China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term "Central Kingom", however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation "under the heaven" and that it thus occupies a "central" position in the known universe."

The author Chen Jian is a scholar at Standford University, and he's also teaching in a university in the U.S.

Reason of "Central" #2

Based on various creditable dictionaries published in both Mainland China and Taiwan, the original meaning of Zhongguo was "Center of the world", as a result, "central" is the proper translation. --lafleur127 03:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

北京商務印書館出版的《辭源》: 上古時代，我國華夏族建國於黃河流域一帶，以為居天下之中，故稱中國，而把周圍我國其他地區稱為四方。

中华民国教育部《国语辞典》: 上古時代，漢族文化發源黃河流域，以為居天下之中，故稱其地為「中國」。

If you read the description found in those dictionaries carefully, it should read "The meaning of Zhongguo IS the Center of the World". --Old dindong 14:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason of "Central" #3

Based on the common usage of the English language, the word "middle, adj." is used to describe things in one-dimensional sense, and the word "central, adj." is used to describe things in two-dimensional sense, for example, country, land, area and place. Thus, Zhongguo should be translated as Central Kingdom. --lafleur127 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reason of "Central" #4

Quote from www.counterweights.ca editors --lafleur127 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Among many other things, it is now said that China's ancient description of itself as the "Middle Kingdom" is in fact more aptly translated into English as the "Central Kingdom.""

Reason of "Central" #5

Based on the classical explanation of Zhong (中) found in the oldest Chinese dictionary 《说文解字》，the meaning of Zhong is a mult-dimensional concept:

中，内也，从口丨下上通也。

Here, it says:

Zhong, means "interor", with a box, and a stick, either from the bottom or top, leading to the interior.

As a result, "central" is the proper word with 2-dimensional sense. --lafleur127 08:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yah, someone knows how to write the pin yin correct. Sorry, I'm Chinese so I was amd when it wrote Jhong gou. Oh yeah, you need a space inbetween "Zhong" and "guo"

Don't revert war

Can we please not revert war? One more revert and I will ask for the page to be protected. --Ideogram 00:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is not settled, so any version is acceptable strictly speaking. I'll wait another 24 hours and change it to ROC (Taiwan), then I will ask you not to start a revert war. --Niohe 01:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two different issues here. I have my position on the disambiguation sentence dispute, but I will not revert either version. However, I ask the "Central"-pushing user or users to read carefuly what everyone else has said to his/her/its/their posts above, before changing the section wholesale to their preferred version. --Sumple (Talk) 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the above vote for? I would like to know the situation here. Good friend100 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Ideogram just went ahead a got the page protected - I think you are overreacting. Nothing happened after it was reverted back to "ROC", but the mere suspicion of another revert in 24 hours is apparently enough to freeze a whole page. Don't worry, I'm not coming back for a while to this page, it's not worth it. This is not how things should be done. --Niohe 02:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Relax. I don't know why the article protection is causing such a reaction from you. If you or anybody want to edit other parts of the article, then wait till the protection is lifted. The article is not going anywhere. It'll be here tomorrow, it'll be here next week, and it'll probably be here as long as WP exists. There are plenty of chances for you to edit it. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is Ideogram who is overreacting, but never mind. Apparently the correct naming of ROC or whatever you want to call it is more important than anything else.--Niohe 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, if you read what Ideogram said to the editor who blocked the page, he misrepresents what I said and what happened. He is hardly assuming good faith here.--Niohe 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the sysop Nlu and his sock puppets 1698, Intsokzen & Naus are violating WP:SOCK! And this Ideogram may be just one of them, a sock puppet! --New dindong 05:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why New dindong is accusing others (who are definitely not socks of each other... unless it's someone who can type on 3 keyboards at the same time...) of sock puppetry? To me it looks like New dingong is exactly the same as Lafleur, and isn't it such a coincidence that Lafleur has shut up but New dindong is now pushing his or her warped perspective?

A case of (to put it in a way that lefleur/New dindong can understand ...) 贼喊捉贼, perhaps? --Sumple (Talk) 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

i seriously dont think he can read Chinese. sometimes i dont think he can read. period. a box with a stick going from either direction toward the middle? how will he describe 喊? a box inside a part of a box surrounded by a box and alot of lines? --1698 07:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked New dindong indefinitely for clearly being an abusive sockpuppet to avoid the 3rr and for pointless trolling. Please focus on the dispute over content, not about other people. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated to current dispute, but...

This is unrelated to the current dispute, 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) 20:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a typo?

"The term "China" can also be used toe refer to"

should this be?

"The term "China" can also be used to refer to"

Yep, it's most definitely a typo. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 00:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Kina...??

An anon wrote in the article that due to languages' pronunciation of China as "Kina", the etymology from the Qin Dynasty needs to be reconsidered. At least parts of this seems to be original research, and even if it were not, the edits are probably pov since it doesn't take into account linguistical evolution, like why Beijing was Peking. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 00:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the diffs are here and here. I agree: I haven't been able to find any sources that suggest the English word for China derives from the Greek or Hungarian versions. The section says it all:

"The origin of the Kina and Hina forms is obscure, but if they are cognate with the typically Western European form China, then the etymology that explains the word China as being derived from the name of the ancient Qin Dynasty would need to be reconsidered." (emphasis mine)

Yes, it would be interesting if they were cognate, just as it would be interesting if they were cognate with any other form listed in Names of China. According to the aforementioned article,

"[Names for China] used in European languages, however, have indirect names that came via the sea-route and bear little resemblance to what is used in China."

Therefore, all European names for China derive from the same source. The "Kina" section is not only original research, but incorrect, so while it should be removed completely, the other sections appear to need only citations. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Central" camp sock puppetry

Single purpose accounts: User:A9a9: [3] User:New dindong: [4]

User:A9a9 is continuing to revert the relevant section to the "Central" version despite outcome of discussion above. --Sumple (Talk) 06:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Outcome of the discussion was very clear, please see "Talk:China/Archive 9". Also please stop misleading readers, for example, you translated "天下之中" as "center part of the world" which is simply incorrect, it should be translated as "center of the world". Also for your information, "New dindong" was already banned by Nlu(sysop) & his sock puppets JinFX(1698)/Intsokzen/Naus -- A9a9 16:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Outcome of the discussion certainly was clear, and you, A9a9, seem to be violating said consensus, as it is against the term "Central Kingdom". Even if we ignore the fact that your account seems to be a single-purpose account, a likely sign of sockpuppetry, there remains the fact that you continue to edit against consensus. Heimstern Läufer 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? You're saying "天下之中" should be translated as "center part of the world", and not "center of world"? -- A9a9 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I was talking about adding the term "Central Kingdom" to the headline "Zhongguo", which did not achieve consensus on this page. Heimstern Läufer 03:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"center of world" is bad grammar: see World.

Outcome of the discussion is very clear - see above. The outcome of the discussion was that your preferred paragraph, which tries to prove a point of Chinese semantics by resorting to an English dictionary, is simply wrong.

Both sock-puppetry and repeated reverts contrary to consensus can get you banned. --Sumple (Talk) 04:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer should be blocked

Heimstern, if you continue to violate the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule, your account will be blocked!!! Nlu, keep an eye on this guy. -- Finger man3 03:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 19:55, 5 October 2006 Heimstern Läufer
 19:47, 5 October 2006 Heimstern Läufer
 19:38, 5 October 2006 Heimstern Läufer
 16:44, 5 October 2006 Heimstern Läufer

Finger man3, the edit you show from 19:55 was not a revert, therefore the edits you show do not demonstrate that I violated 3RR. Unfortuately, it is true that I made a fourth revert an 03:51, 6 October. I did not realise at the time that unrelated reverts counted toward 3RR; I assumed the rule concerned reverting the same edit three times. I apologise for my action. I would revert my fourth revert, but it's obviously too late for this now. Heimstern Läufer 18:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Finger man3 is a single-edit account: [5]. --Sumple (Talk) 23:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Image added to article

Mary512 has repeatedly added this image of a rocket from the PRC's space program to the section "The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China". This image seems to me to say nothing about the situation between the two governments and could even be offensive, implying either PRC supremacy or the suggestion of warfare between them. I think I've reverted this article enough recently, so I'm not going to now, but I do believe this image should be removed. Heimstern Läufer 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I like this image, it's also on the Chinese Wikipedia. By the way, you should continue to revert, since you have plenty of time and you don't want to see the fact. Latouu 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the image isn't good, but it has nothing to do with the section it's being added to, and doesn't really belong on this article anyway, since it's about the Chinese civilization rather than the state(s) of China. This image might work very well in the article People's Republic of China (perhaps in the section called "Science and technology") but it doesn't fit here. Heimstern Läufer 20:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The image has been returned to this place in the article, this time by a User:Jojoha, a single purpose account. I would like to request that someone revert this, and am wondering if anyone thinks we have a case for sockpuppetry. Heimstern Läufer 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, I've been observing the discussion and the edit history of this article and I really suggest that you request a lock on the article and help from an admin to clear the vandalizers. Good friend100 00:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Mary512 for a week and Jojoha indefinitely for being a clear sockpuppet. Cowman109^Talk 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Image was just added again by User:Jojokau. Don't know if this is a sockpuppet as well. —dto�(talkcontribs) 03:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that it is. I'm not going to put up a suspected sock report now, but I will if this happens again. To whoever's making these edits, I warn you, you're playing with fire. The administrators don't look kindly on those who use sockpuppets to evade blocks. Heimstern Läufer 03:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)D

I think this photo is ok and it reflects the progress of modern China —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lurue (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Another one, this time by Linda 0b (talk • contribs). (Suspiciously similar to Linda 5b and Linda 3b.) —dto�(talkcontribs) 06:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

American Football?

According to the article "Besides football, the most popular sports are martial arts, table tennis, badminton, basketball, American football, and more recently, golf." I think that this is ridiculous. I have never seen anyone play football, I've never seen a football, and I don't think they could recognize the sport if I described it to them. I don't want to be a pain, but I would like to see some evidence that this sport is semi-recognized by the populace, otherwise this should be removed. ABart26 04:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not being a pain; you're right to bring this up. "Ridiculous" might be a bit strong, but I'm rather skeptical of this, too. I was under the impression that American football had negligible popularity outside North America, and I certainly didn't hear anything about American football when I was in China this summer. Heimstern Läufer 04:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

However, rugby is played, and China does field teams in the rugby world cup qualifying matches. perhaps the original contributor was confused between gridiron and rugby, since both involve a non-spherical ball? --Sumple (Talk) 04:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe; that certainly seems possible to me. Heimstern Läufer 04:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

But the ROC is not recognised by the UN, how can it appear as a co-state with the recognised PRC? 161.74.11.24 10:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why is that? Nihow 10:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU THANK YOU. It cant, because technically it is NOT a country. --Meanie 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Absurd

Okay folks, this is crazy. First of all the UN does not recognize ROC. Secondly, when someone says "China" they mean peoples republic of China. Unless they are from Tiawan, they are refering to the Peoples Republic of China. This article should be about the PRC. Nothing else. With a link at the top to disambiguation. But the default should not be culture. The fact is ROC is not a real country, it is something that did exist. China is the peoples republic of China, I do not know how blunt I can be, and EVERY country in the world agrees. This should go with the most common usage of the term and that Is PRC, period. PERIOD. PERIOD. Hong Kong is part of PRC, Macau is part of PRC, and Tiawan is going to be part of PRC. Tiawan is Tiawan anyway, despite their calling themselves "China" They dont even inhabit any of the landmass of China, they inhabit an island. Besides they should go back just like Hong Kong and Macau, 1 China two systems. --74.104.48.172 05:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WRONG! You are living in your idealistic Communist dream! --WHO_IS_THIS_GUY_?_YOU_NEED_TO_SIGN TIME?, DATE? (UTC)

If you trace the history, the ID of this guy is 212.51.199.173, and this guy claimed that Taiwan is a not a province of China, but a country. Is it true? +-+ Latouu 04:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows with some knowledge of geography would know that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is an independent democratic sovereign nation that was, several decades ago, a founding member nation of the United Nations. The Republic of China (Taiwan) was originally a member state of the UN Security Council until they were pushed out by the Communist People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) are two separate countries no matter what kind of distorted political rhetoric that the Communist Chinese use to confuse the international media. The Republic of China (Taiwan) will NEVER submit to the People's Republic of China, and if there is going to be a war, then so be it. The Taiwanese military will just have to build nuclear weapons (a simple gun type uranium bomb would be easy to secretly build and do plenty of damage to the PRC), biological weapons (aka Anthrax), and chemical weapons (aka. VX nerve gas). The only way that the citizens of the Republic of China (Taiwan) will ever agree to unify with the People's Republic of China is if the unification is on EQUAL TERMS, AND NOT THE SCREWED UP ONE CHINA TWO SYSTEMS SCHEME. Unification between the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan) must be based on equality and mutual respect of both China's. The best way for both countries to unite would be a system that is modeled after the European Union. It is true that if war breaks out, both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) will be destroyed. As the Republic of China (Taiwan) is already making military preparations for offensive retaliation against any kind of invasion or military action from the PRC. So when war breaks, it can be guarenteed that the People's Republic of China will also be destroyed by the Republic of China (Taiwan). And even if the ROC (Taiwan) doesn't developed nuclear weapons, they have the capability to quickly develop enough biological and chemical weapons within 3 days to kill at least 1/3 the population of the People's Republic of China. And of course, the PRC will retaliate with their weapons so in the end nobody wins, which is why the Republic of China (Taiwan) will NEVER be taken over, and will NEVER SURRENDER to the People's Republic of China. Oh yeah, your spelling of the word Tiawan is INCORRECT, Taiwan is spelled Taiwan NOT Tiawan! SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE Republic of China (Taiwan) AND THEY WILL SHOW RESPECT BACK TO THE People's Republic of China. -- WHO_IS_THIS_GUY_?_YOU_NEED_TO_SIGN TIME?, DATE? (UTC)

In fact, the current world biggest political club agrees that there is only ONE CHINA with the legal representative as the government of People's Republic of China. The so-called "Republic of China" is regarded as "self-claimed" by most of the nations in the world. However, there is a government called "Republic of China" elected by the people living in Taiwan, which is, though out of the control of the government of People's Republic of China but still the territory of it. This is the reality and I don't see any reason to argue about it. Therefore, I suggest the administrator shall change the sentence of "China is currently divided into two separate countries" into "China is currently divided into two separate governments". This description shall satisfy both sides and meet the reality perfectly.

Hey Im just a Canadian dont shoot the messenger. But most people on the streets if you ask them what the Republic of China is will not be able to tell you. Tiawan lives in a dream world. The rest of the world will not come to help them, in fact Russia will probably help PRC. Besides if Tiawan deployed WMDS it would cause an angry reaction from the Russians. The deterant for ROC to fight back is that Russia will nuke them into the middle of next week. PRC would be damaged, but there would be NO ONE left on the island of Tiawan. Thats just the fact ROC should be linked to Tiawan, the article china should be linked to the PRC. Geographically China is the area occupied by the PRC not Tiwan. Besides the PRC has WMDs if they are going to pick a fight Tiawan wont get the opportunity to respond, theyll just nuke it out of existance and that will be that. Then they will repopulate it with loyal citizens. China is unbeatable. --Meanie 03:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Our current naming system is an effort to reflect both sides of the debate as well as possible. It's not what I'd consider perfect, either, but it works OK. Please note that this page is not a place to speculate who would win if a war ever broke out over the Taiwan issue, but to discuss how it is now (among other topics related to China). Heimstern Läufer 04:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no debate here! The facts are the facts. THERE IS not a single serious country that recognizes Tiawan, they all see it as a breakaway republic. See places that dont EXIST. It exists but it doesnt. In APEC they must participate as CHINESE Tiapai. An inference to the one China policy. (For the record a country that is not a serious country would be something along the lines of a bananna republic, Sudan etc.) In popular usage if you go up to someone and say you are going to China it is taken to mean the peoples Republic of China. NOT ROC. Because most people do not know what the ROC is. I would say 95% of people asked on the street would ask you what ROC was, because China means PRC in common usage. The other point here is that neither Encarta nor Brittanica even reference ROC when China is querried you get the PRC. I should also like to add that in the CIA world fact book, China links to the PRC, not the ROC. The conventional short form for the PRC is China even in the PRC. Encyclopedia articles are not places for debate, they should reflect the reality. The Reality, China means PRC, NOT ROC. Sorry its just the facts. And encyclopedias are about facts. One more point we do not call Dominion of Canada the Dominion of Canada on wiki do we? No we use common use, and common use here points China to the PRC. The fact that this querry is not linked to PRC defies the naming convention and should be changed.--Meanie 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Meanie. We should change this page definitely. --Tic tam 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I will go ahead and rename this page to chinese_civilization, and rename the other document to China. OK everyone? +-+ Latouu 01:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No. In any event, you will find it impossible to move People's Republic of China to China just yet.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, do it. This page is about civilization, not China. Unix jaick 04:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to be somewhat expeditious because this is an inaccuracy. We have a cultural page substituting for a country page because of a disputed country name, ROC, which is not commonly used anyway. And as I have said before at a risk of sounding like a broken record if you ask someone what the ROC is they will either say what or assume you are talking about PRC. Tiawan is now Tiawan because of common use.--Meanie 17:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat mystified by the distinction being made here between "China" and "Chinese civilisation". China = the place where Chinese civilisation occurs.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I cant really understand that. For EVERY other country their country name links to their country page. WHY ON EARTH, would China be any different. This should link to the PRC, and not any other page. China is the Peoples Republic of China, China should redirect to the article about the Peoples republic of China. The Article United States is not about United States Culture. The logic you and other users are applying to this article (Primarily the ones who did this in the first place, because it was not always like this) Is akin to taking Canada and making that the title page for Canadian culture. The Article Chinese Culture should be Chinese Culture. Not CHINA. The peoples republic of China in common use is CHINA. Hence in keeping with the standards applied to every other country in this and every other encylopedia this querry China should be to the Peoples Republic of China. That said this is about standards, we do not have this going on with any other country page. Austrilia is not about Austrialian civilization it is about the Country. Mexico is not about Mexican civlilization it is about the country. Hence we should be keeping with some form of common standards and link China to the actual country not to the civilization. Chinese Civilization should be called Chinese Civilization not China. That is how it is done with every other country in this and every other encyclopedia.--Meanie 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a further note, that while this is done for Korea, the country is actually divided and both names are used in common practise, hence north and south. As where when you ask someone on the street about Korea they are likely to ask you north or south. As where if they are asked about China they will think of the PRC becuase ROC is not really used, and unlike North and South Korea is not actually recognized. Even still that article is about culture, and I am going to suggest that it be directed to a disambig page, Featuring North, South, Korea (Geographic Region), Culture etc. The two cases in that way vary significantly.--Meanie 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is a country page. I don't know what you think a country is, other than a civilisation and the place where it is located.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a country page it is a cultural page, that is filling in for a country page. A country is a nation, a legal entity recognized by the United Nations. The Peoples Republic of China is the country, Chinese Civilization is the civilization. This page is not conforming to the stated naming conventions with regards to countries. We use common names not long form, and that is why this page NEEDs to drirect to the article currently called Peoples Republic of China. I would like to point out that if this is a country page, where are the stats, the figures, the flag, and the government structure as well as all of those other things that every other country page has. For a template of what this page should be if it is a country page see France. By wikipedia standards that is a country page, not a culture page. France doesnt link to French culture or civilization, and for that matter niether does any other country. Anyway, by wiki standards this is not a country page, regardless of what you wish to call it. And by the wiki naming convention this name should be reserved for China in common use which refers to the Peopels Republic of China. --Meanie 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Anyway, by wiki standards this is not a country page, regardless of what you wish to call it." Where exactly are these "wiki standards" that you are referring to? When you say, "This page is not conforming to the stated naming conventions with regards to countries", which naming conventions are these, exactly? FYi, "a nation, a legal entity recognized by the United Nations" is hardly the only current definition of a "country" (certainly not the part about the United Nations). I don't think it's even the most common in formal usage. It's pretty clear that what you want is specifically a "state page" about the Chinese state which is currently paramount, but I fail to see why that's necessary or desireable in this case.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people will close their eyes and never face the reality. China has been divided since 1949. It was the year PRC established and ROC diminished to a state on the island of Taiwan with some islands in Hokkien and South China Sea. China cannot never be solely referred to PRC unless unification runs successfully, or PRC excludes Taiwan from her proposed territory and ROC is caesed to exist. Korea is another example with similar situation. Neither North Korea (DPRK) nor South Korea (ROK) owns the name of Korea solely. — HenryLi (Talk) 03:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia naming convention is common usage. Korea is not used to refer to one or the other in Common Ussage. In common usage China refers to the People's republic of China. The naming conventions on wikipedia for countries are for common usage. Loook them up. I did that is how I discovered that there was a problem. Point being if you type in Canada or practically any other country you will get that country and its page about it. Not its cultural page. If you have actually been to the region you would automatically know that the country is called Tiawan, even though they maintain ROC as their official title. But our naming conventions dictate we use common names, not long form names. Hence why USA is the United States and not the United States of America. This is because this is the common name. The naming convention for all articles is the common name not the legal name. Hence Madonna's Page is Maddonna, not Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritche, even though that is her name. Do you understand? The titles are not a place to have a debate about what is or what should be, they are for common names. In common practice and common language according to the wikipedia conventions on page naming the querry China would take you to the Page about the People's Republic of China. You see the situation in China and Korea on wikipedia are different. In common usage Korea does infact refer to the entire peninsula. In common usage China does not refer to the Island of Tiawan. Hence the page defies the naming conventions and it is time to move it. As for why it is nessesary and desierable? On wikipedia the conventions of naming have been set up to keep order to make the encylopedia easier to use, hence we can not have an ad hoc approach as you suggest to naming them. These pages need not be named for wikipedians like us, they need to be named for Joe Schmo who comes on wikipedia to do his research. Hence why it is important to follow the conventions. Just imagin how messy wikipedia would be if we used your suggested approach to naming. Which is why we have rules and it is important to follow them. All I am trying to do is bring about uniformity for this page with every other like page, and it doesnt currently have it. --Meanie 19:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the naming convention to use common names. Although "China" can refer to the PRC in common usage, it's certainly not the case that it refers to the PRC alone. For instance, the statement, the PRC was founded in 1949, but the statement, "China was founded in 1949," would be regarded by anybody as nonsense, and rightly so. This being the case, I thought you might be referring to some other naming convention, one that actually supports your position.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In common usage China still is not used to apply to the Island of Tiawan. The sentance would read, the current government and political system in China came to power in 1949. They are the successor government of the previous governments of the civilization. And in common usage China does refer to PRC. Not Can, it does. That is simply a fact, If I go out to the street right now and ask them to name a city in CHINA they will name bejing or Shanghai. I WILL NEVER get Tiapei. Or if I say I am going to China, they will assume the PRC. That is common ussage. I dont know which common usage you are refering to because any time I have heard China spoken of, EVER in my life it is in reference to PRC. While you make a good enough argument ROC is not used and China in common usage for all practical purposes is NEVER used to refer to ROC. If I was not informed of the situation I would not even know there was an ROC. 90%+ of the population knows no other meaning than PRC for the name China. I am sorry but in common usage there is no other instance in which China is commonly used other than in reference to the PRC, or history. But when we reference it in history we are refering to the present territory of the PRC. --Meanie 07:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that we are an encyclopedia attempting to represent an international perspective. While it's probably true that most people in the USA (where I live) and possibly other Western countries (though I wouldn't presume to speak for them) perceive "China" as not including Taiwan, I am pretty sure that most people in mainland China (and yes, I've been there) do. Heimstern Läufer 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget we are the only English encyclopedia that does it this way. Eitherway this is English wiki, and the majority of users of it are from English countries. Thus the majority of our users on English wiki use China to refer to PRC. I am not proposing to name PRC page China. I am proposing to rename this page so that the search querry China can redirect to PRC. There is a difference. Just as USA redirects to the United States, I want China to redirect to PRC. Its just a matter of common use, all I am asking is that we follow the naming convention. Iregardless most Chinese wiki users do not even look at the english version, and this version should reflect the fact that its users are from a certain area of the world. IE that since most of English Wikipedia is from the United States we should be using the US common usage to organize things. This is organizational in nature, and it is nesscessary to make wikipedia easy to use. The current method is confusing for the inexperienced user. (IE most of wikis users, the ones who NEVER contribute, aka 99% of the visitors to this website who use it for information and learning.) And at this point I would settle for a disambiguation page, because the current configuration is somewhat politically loaded. And we try to be neutral here. Disambiguation would be less than Im looking for but it is the least I will settle for. --Meanie 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, while we have not settled on Moving PRC here, and wont be right now as I have not yet managed to get agreement on it. Would their be oposition to renaming this particular page to Chinese Civilization? Thus leaving China open to for the time being bring up search results, and perhaps at a later time a disambiguation page/PRC. Irregardless of what we decide to do with the PRC page, that is the appropriate name for this page.--Meanie 02:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Block editors and then accuse editors for using sock puppets?

I really like to know if this is a good practice for solving a dispute? Unfortunately, some sysops (Nlu & Cowman109) are doing this, here's one example: "Lazizl" who edited the page 3 times regarding the "Central Kingdom" dispute for the last few days, then Cowman109 blocked indefinitely this user with the following reason:

Sockpuppet of user adding irrelevant pictures to articles + apparently acting against consensus..

First, did Lazizl add pictures here? Cowman109, COULD YOU ANSWER? Second, did Lazilzl act against consensus? Cowman109, please ANSWER what was the consensus you were referring to. +-+ Latouu 20:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We've had multiple accounts of a user mysteriously adding pictures of a Chinese missile completely irrelevant to the article, and now we have multiple users adding a picture of the great wall of China which serves no purpose in the opening section and strangely rewording parts of the opening paragraph. Could you please explain why you are doing this? If it's not you, I apologise, but I assumed as such from your contributions. Cowman109^Talk 20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've answered perfectly to my 2 questions asked. Next time when you want to block users, make sure you give an honest reason, don't always use an apology to be an excuse. Note also it's definitely not the business of sysops to determine "truth", the standard and official policy for Wikipedia is verifiability, WP:V, based on reliable sources, WP:RS. +-+ Latouu 22:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what you mean. I blocked the user and its other sockpuppets as clear single purpose accounts that have no intention of discussing their edits that are causing quite a bit of controversy. When the user was asked to explain themself, they simply made a new account and continued the disruptive action. I will continue to indefinite block such obvious abusive sockpuppets as the user is clearly trying to game the system by using sockpuppets to engage in tendentious edit warring. Cowman109^Talk 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I've just said what's needed: When you want to block users, make sure you give an honest reason. Also it's definitely not the business of sysops to determine "truth", the standard and official policy for Wikipedia is verifiability, WP:V, based on reliable sources, WP:RS. +-+ Latouu 04:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, we heard that the first time. You say, "When you want to block users, make sure you give an honest reason." Cowman did give an honest reason: because the users in question were abusive sockpuppets. Note also that he's not alone: Kilo-Lima has also blocked several of these users for the same reason. This is not a unilateral action. Heimstern Läufer 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

I do see few disputes here, let's all discuss with verifiable and reliable sources, I will try to list one by one +-+Latouu 22:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people claimed that "天下之中" should be translated as "center part of the world", and others claim that it's should be translated to "center of world". +-+Latouu 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to discuss the assignment of the name China. Because this is an issue, because what we have here on wikipedia is somewhat out of line with the rest of the world.

Everyone, please join and solve the dispute regarding the term Zhongguo

Currently there're 2 versions, let's examine each line to see claims are verifiable and reliable, all Wikipedia editors, please join and discuss and come out with a accurate description. Administrators, if you need to block users, please also specify the correct reason and put it here. --Tic tam 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Version 1:

China is called Zhongguo (also Romanized as Chung-kuo or Jhongguo) in Mandarin Chinese. The first character Zhong (中) means either "central" or "middle" while guo (国 or 國) means "country" or "kingdom". Together, it can mean "Center of the World"[1][2], and can be literally translated to English as "Central Kingdom"[3], while the less accurate translation "Middle Kingdom" can be considered as poor translation since the adjective "Middle" is normally used in one-dimensional sense[4], and it doesn't reflect the actual meaning of Zhongguo.[5].

I think we can add [3]. --Tic tam 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Version 2:

China is called Zhongguo (also Romanized as Chung-kuo or Jhongguo) in Mandarin Chinese. The first character Zhong (中) means "central" or "middle" while guo (国 or 國) means "country" or "region". The term is commonly translated into English as "the Middle Kingdom"[citation needed]. However, there have been arguments that it should be translated as "the Central Kingdom"[1], based on the archaic meaning of the term Zhongguo as "center part [of the world]"[2][3].

Question 1: "guo (国 or 國) means "country" or "region"". Does guo (国 or 國) mean "kingdom" as well? Please answer directly to the questions--Tic tam 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Question 2: Please give source for this claim "The term is commonly translated into English as "the Middle Kingdom"" --Tic tam 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Question 3: Please give source for this claim "based on the archaic meaning of the term Zhongguo as "center part [of the world]"[2][3]." --Tic tam 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Question 4: I think the line "However, there have been arguments that it should be translated as "the Central Kingdom"[1]" does not reflect the actual claim in [1]. --Tic tam 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any end to this discussion? I think we should just give both "Central Kingdom" and "Middle Kingdom" as two possible translations, and refrain from saying that either is more correct than the other. On Wikipedia, there seem to be an awful lot of people who believe that character-by-character literal translations are the only "correct" ones. You need to open your eyes to the fact that some of the best translations are not literal and many ostensibily incorrect translations, such as "Middle Kingdom", have stuck and have a legitimate place in an encyclopedia.

If we reverse the role for a moment, anyone sufficinently proficient in Chinese realizes the fact that many Chinese translations of Western terms are "incorrect" according to these stringent standards. For instance, 共和國 does not accurately reflect the etymology of the term "republic", neither is 內閣 a particularly good rendering of the term "cabinet". Yet, where is the outrage on Chinese Wikipedia?--Niohe 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree: giving both translations, backed by sources, without passing judgment on either, was my intention in the ~~existing~~ previous version. In any case, there is either only one user with many sockpuppets, or two or three users with single purpose accounts who are pushing for the line that 'Central is "correct"'.

Since both sides have canvassed their opinions ad nauseum in the sections above, I think we should limit our discussion to which of the two version is preferred, otherwise I have no doubt new dingdong/old dingdong/whatever his username is today will just copy and paste those massive paragraphs again. Let's take a straw poll to resolve what is the consensus version between the two competing versions at the moment. Further changes can be discussed once a decision is made among these two. I also have serious doubts about the intentions of User:Tik tam in dragging up an issue which has been settled but which only became an issue because multiple sockpuppets continually edit-war. So, in order to verify the consensus, here's a short strawpoll:

Straw Poll

Please vote below for your preferred version among these two:

I think this is not a good idea in this case. --Latouu 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Version 1 as proposed by User:lafleur127

"Zhongguo", the Central Kingdom

China is called Zhongguo (also Romanized as Chung-kuo or Jhongguo) in Mandarin Chinese. The first character Zhong (中) means either "central" or "middle" while guo (国 or 國) means "country" or "kingdom". Together, it can mean "Center of the World" (Ciyuan (《辭源》). published by the Commercial Press Beijing (北京商務印書館出版) "Dictionary of Mandarin (《国语辞典》). published by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of China (中华民国教育部)</ref>, and can be literally translated to English as "Central Kingdom", Mao's China and the Cold War. published by UNC Press ISBN: 0807849324, while the less accurate translation "Middle Kingdom" can be considered as poor translation since the adjective "Middle" is normally used in one-dimensional sense ("Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Updated Edition", published by Longman ISBN: 1405811269), and it doesn't reflect the actual meaning of Zhongguo. ("The Opium Wars were not about opium", published by Greg McCulley).

Version 2 as proposed by User:Sumple

"Zhongguo"

China is called Zhongguo (also Romanized as Chung-kuo or Jhongguo) in Mandarin Chinese. The first character Zhong (中) means "central" or "middle" while guo (国 or 國) means "country" or "region". The term is commonly translated into English as "the Middle Kingdom". However, there have been arguments that it should be translated as "the Central Kingdom" (Mao's China and the Cold War. published by UNC Press ISBN 0-8078-4932-4), based on the archaic meaning of the term Zhongguo as "center part [of the world]" (Ciyuan (《辭源》). published by the Commercial Press Beijing (北京商務印書館出版))(Dictionary of Mandarin (《国语辞典》). issued by the Department of Education of the Republic of China (中华民国教育部)).

Version 1

Version 2

Sumple (Talk) 00:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
--Niohe 00:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)� 05:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sumple's version is DELETED from the article

There are more than 2 mistakes in the following misleading statement:

The term is commonly translated into English as "the Middle Kingdom"[citation needed].

The first mistake is, everyone should know, the term "Zhongguo" is translated into English as "China". Second, there's no source for claim, so it should be removed definitely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tic tam (talk • contribs)

Here is one source, if you're interested, by an "old school" US Sinologist: Williams, S. Wells. The Middle Kingdom: A Survey of the Geography, Government, Literature, Social Life, Arts, and History of the Chinese Empire and Its Inhabitants. Rev. ed. New York: Scribner, 1883.

Then we have a couple of others:

Wilson, James Harrison. China: travels and investigations in the "Middle Kingdom." A study of its civilization and possibilities; with a glance at Japan. New York, Appleton, 1887.

Rossabi, Morris, ed. China among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th-14th Centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

Zhang, Yongjin. China in the international system, 1918-20 : the middle kingdom at the periphery. New York : St. Martin’s, 1991.

Do you want more citations, or is that enough? Perhaps I should fill the gap between 1887 and 1983? Now, you give us a quotation for "Central Kingdom". A book title would be nice, I coulnd't find any.--Niohe 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you want to show here? Let's wait for Sumple to provide a "citation" for his claim. -- Tic tam 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, your claims are deleted, any objections? Please provide source, PERIOD. --Tic tam 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

NEW Version

Everyone, please remember the word from our good sysnop studerby: "the Wikipedia policy requires that all differing viewpoints that are verifiable with reliable soources be presented, see also WP:POV" Discussion is the way to go

Here I try to simpifly the version first to:

China is called Zhongguo (also Romanized as Chung-kuo or Jhongguo) in Mandarin Chinese. The first character Zhong (中) means "central" or "middle" while guo (国 or 國) means "kingdom" or "country". The term can be literally translated into English as "the Central Kingdom" or "the Middle Kingdom"

Any objections? Since no one was able to provide a source for the few statements I mentioned above. Later on, we can add more statements/claims, but make sure all claims must be VERIFIABLE and RELIABLE.

Here's the new version:

China is called Zhongguo (also Romanized as Chung-kuo or Jhongguo) in Mandarin Chinese. The first character Zhong (中) means "central" or "middle" while guo (国 or 國) means "country" or "kingdom". The term can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom" or "Middle Kingdom". Regarding the accuracy of the translation, senior scholar Chen Jian writes:

I believe that "Central Kingdom" is a more accurate translation for "Zhong Guo" (China) than "Middle Kingdom." The term "Middle Kingdom" does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it -- China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term "Central Kingom", however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation "under the heaven" and that it thus occupies a "central" position in the known universe.

Quote from Mao's China and the Cold War. published by UNC Press ISBN: 0807849324 -- Tic tam 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Niohe wrote "So where is the citation to this quote?", I've just provided. --Tic tam 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Any objections? The phrase "The term can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom" or "Middle Kingdom". still needs a source. So it needs to be changed soon. -- Tic tam 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it should be restored to the original version. This one seems to me to endorse the perspective that "Central Kingdom" is the correct translation by giving it substantially more coverage than the more usual term "Middle Kingdom". The original version seems quite fair to me, in that it notes the most common translation and then explains, briefly, a dissenting view. Heimstern Läufer 14:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever without source will be removed, PERIOD. -- Tic tam 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, I can see the rationale for both Central Kingdom and Middle Kingdom, but this is not the place to pass verdict on correct translations. We're writing an encyclopedia, right? And what's your hurry? Tic tam? Why this aggresive tone ("PERIOD")? Sumple hasn't responded yet, so can't you give him more time? You will soon earn yourself a 3RR block or a user check if you go on like this.--Niohe 15:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Interim Straw Poll Result

The straw poll, as of 26 Oct 2006, stands at:

Version 1: 0 votes
Version 2: 4 votes - User:Sumple,User:Niohe,User:Heimstern,(User:AQu01rius
User Tic Tam's version: 1 vote - User:Tic tam.

Judging from the posts on this topic, consensus seems to be:

Include both "Middle Kingdom" and "Central Kingdom" as possible translations.
No passing of judgement on what is the "correct" translation.
Citations required for both translations.

If I am incorrect in my understanding of the consensus, please correct me.

On a side-note, I notice that User:Tic tam has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Sumple (Talk) 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tic tam does raise one worthy point though: the term "zhongguo" means "China" in its most common usage. I propose that the paragraph read instead...

"The term is commonly literally translated into English as ...."

What does everyone think?

Haha, shame on you! --Unix jaick 02:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As for lack of citation on the "Middle Kingdom" sentence, perhaps some or all of Niohe's book list should be added? --Sumple (Talk) 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"though such claims remain politically controversial" will be deleted from the article

Please provide a source for the sentence -- Tic tam 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

missing major items

Why isn't there a section on how the country is goverened? What about economy? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Doh, this is about the area not political country, my bad. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Debate on China is too complicated

This page needs to be broken up into multiple pages. Links to the major debates regarding China can be put on the main page.

Major debates:

1. The debate over what area is to be considered 中国 / "zhongguo" / "the central land" / "the central kingdom" / or whatever you call it.

2. The debate over the history of China's name.

3. The conflict between China and Taiwan.

When someone looks up China on Google or Yahoo, what information do they expect to find?

1. A　picture of The Great Wall? Certainly that sounds acceptable. What better symbol is there for China?

2. A picture of a rocket? This can also be acceptable, if we consider what it stands for. Here in China, it stands for China's space program, and not for China's missile tests near Taiwan.

3. Information for someone visiting China is also welcome. The Chinese people seem to love foreign visitors, but westerners also may be surprised about some things about Chinese culture.

Another note: Wikipedia is now accessable from mainland China again. I found a magazine in the school library this week which was promoting Wikipedia. The magazine was in Chinese, but I understood what its images meant. Wikipedia, with its extensive foreign language support, is now allied with China's policy of internationalization. It seemed to have the founder of Wikipedia's picture, and was labelling him as a hero.

This would be a very recent change. The reson being is that when I was in China in August I tried to access wikipedia for curiosities sake and I could not. (from HK most certainly could.) However that said CNN for example is not blocked, nor is CBC, the US government, the CIA factbook, Government of Canada, UN, Fox, etc. The internet is really opening China. And the main paper in Shanghai criticised the government for its environmental record. The next day the government awknowledeged fault. Times are a changing in China, really really changing. And the indepentance movement in Tiawan is waning and the party there is trying desparately to stop it. My personal prediction having just come back from the region is that in our lifetime we could possibly see a peaceful reunification, along the lines of One China Two systems.--Meanie 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets move this page to where it belongs and the PRC back to where it belongs. Then we can deal with issues with the culuture page.--Meanie 18:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Meanie. I will go ahead and do it soon. Latouu 04:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, there's "Chinese Civilization" page for civilization only. +-+ Latouu 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

V/NOR/NPOV are non-negotiable

I think everyone should know that V/NOR/NPOV are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Soibejuaze

Sockpuppetry

I think we need to remove some of the comments from sock puppets, or modify them under the same username if it's an legit argument. It's extremly confusing and annoying, and tough for anyone that attempts to review the situation. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)� 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that a swarm of sockpuppets was created on October 21st and the user is using them to continually change the opening section of the article. At first I read it as original research as well, but did not see the quote inside of it representing the view of a certain author (so I'll correct myself on the note about it being original research, as it's not), but regardless of the contents, this user is abusively using sockpuppets to inappropriately edit the article without discussion, so I've blocked a few more sockpuppets and will request a checkuser to root out any more. Cowman109^Talk 02:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

First Emperior and Organization of Article

There is grave need for a historical overview section above or below the names section. Regardless of modern political squabbles, the great civilizations that occupied the region are given short shrift in the article as written. It is shockingly short comparatively to other great national empire regional articles. Even the British Empire's Queens have longer articles.

In the meantime, this name "Ch'in Shihuang", whose tomb was just covered on the history channel needs the name redirected to whomever this article should be more clearly crediting with his fabulous tomb with it's hundreds of terra cota soldiers. Best regards // FrankB 23:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation removed

Why was the link to China (disambiguation) and other possible meanings of China removed from the top of the article? These are editorial tools to make it easier for readers to navigate across Wikipedia. Cowman109^Talk 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it was removed in an attempt to fork this article to Chinese civilization, but this page was copy-and paste moved there. This cannot be done as this breaks the editing history, however, so I've reverted the edits. The proper place to do this would be Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you wish to rewrite this article to speak about the cultural region of China instead, I would recommend first starting in a subpage before replacing the article, perhaps in China/rewrite. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While I advocate the moving of this page I do not advocate cut pasting moving this page, that would make a mess. Rather I would advocate a proper move. Which if there is no objection to my strait out move I will do sometime next week (there has not been.) I must state this is different, as at this time I would not be moving PRC to the China page, merely the disambiguation page would be moved to China. At least untill I can build a consensus to move PRC there. It seems that the objectors to moving PRC to China dont seem to have a problem with this. So folks you have a week to speak up, if there is dissagreement I will hold back untill we discuss it further. AND I WILL NOT BE CUT PASTE moving the page. --Meanie 06:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well this is a pretty drastic change from what this article has been for a long time. I don't really have an opinion on the matter (I honestly couldn't care less - I'm Latino :P), but as this would be a big change you might want to make note of this discussion in the village pump to get more opinions of people who might have something to say. I'm sure there's lots of people who might have an opinion who just don't watch this talk page regularly. Cowman109^Talk 22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not too long ago it was China disambiguation page was it not? --Meanie 03:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I've just unprotected the article, so now everybody can edit. It had been semi-protected since 5 October. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I reprotected it. The article immediately started experiencing vandalism again, and we're still dealing with a swarm of abusive sockpuppets that semi-protection is somewhat keeping out. Cowman109^Talk 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sysops Cowman109 and Nlu are abusing their sysop privileges

It seems that sysops Cowman109 and Nlu (his sock puppets are JinFX(1698)/Intsokzen/Naus/Dto) are continually blocking people from adding the Central Kingom statement to this page. I think they are abusing their privileges since the statement they would like to see is not VERIFIABLE, so it can be considered as Original Research. It was originally proposed by Nlu's sock puppet "Naus", Naus wrote:

"Middle Kingdom dominates Central Kingdom by a margin of 100:2 for the English searches.",

then Sumple rephrased it to

"The term is commonly translated into English as "the Middle Kingdom"[citation needed]."

Again, there's no citation, it violates Wikipedia policy NOR.

By the way, the following new statement is reliable and is from a senior scholar Chen Jian:

"I believe that "Central Kingdom" is a more accurate translation for "Zhong Guo" (China) than "Middle Kingdom." The term "Middle Kingdom" does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it -- China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term "Central Kingom", however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation "under the heaven" and that it thus occupies a "central" position in the known universe."

Also the following statement has been verified to be true:

Wikipedia policy: V/NOR/NPOV are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

The only reason you are being blocked is because you are using sockpuppets to edit war on this article. If you stayed with one account you could discuss the merits of including information to the article. Despite the contents of your edits, you are inappropriately using sockpuppets to push your own point of view and edit war on an article tendentiously. Could you please refrain from making multiple accounts and instead discuss these edits? That's all we really want. And for the record, your accounts have been blocked by at least 10 separate administrators, so it would be safer to say that the entire community is abusing their editing privileges by disagreeing with you, so please look at this from our perspective. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 05:25

, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad you can read this, someone here even deleted this section FEW TIMES already in order to hide something? Since you blocked my only account, then I created another one, that's all, by the way, I'm very happy with one account. Yes, dicussion is good, and you as a sysop should make this site a happy place, and not just remove text with V/NOR/NPOV and replace with something which violates V/NOR/NPOV, I will put the text in the following and see if anyone wants to disagree. !! Jalamen2 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that several users have disagreed with the inclusion of the information for some reason, and when that happened, you went on to create another account (checkuser confirms you've made dozens, and it would really make it easier for all of us if you stopped). The issue seems to be the way you're going about adding this information rather than the content of it. We are supposed to discuss potentially controversial edits such as these, however, so if you're willing, perhaps we can have a discussion concerning that instead of this fruitless edit war. :) Cowman109^Talk 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no one pointed out the information I put was wrong, or not reliable, or not verifible. Check my next section. !! Jalamen2 06:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sysops Cowman109 wants discussion. Let's discuss here what is not reliable and what is Original work and what you want to see

Any objections to the following? Remember V/NOR/NPOV, otherwise, you will be out of Wikipedia.

China is called Zhongguo (also Romanized as Chung-kuo or Jhongguo) in Mandarin Chinese. The first character zhōng (中) means "central" or "middle" while guó (国 or 國) means "country" or "kingdom". The term can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom" or "Middle Kingdom". Regarding the accuracy of the translation, senior scholar Chen Jian writes (Mao's China and the Cold War. published by UNC Press ISBN 0-8078-4932-4):

I believe that "Central Kingdom" is a more accurate translation for "Zhong Guo" (China) than "Middle Kingdom." The term "Middle Kingdom" does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it -- China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term "Central Kingom", however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation "under the heaven" and that it thus occupies a "central" position in the known universe.

Remember this Wikipedia policy stated on the Wikipedia web page:

V/NOR/NPOV are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Please also don't give BS, give facts with reliable and verifiable sources.

I personally think that if this was accepted (I'm not familiar with the Chinese language), the text could be reworded a bit, instead of giving a direct quote. It could state that the translation of Zhong Guo is disputed, though person A. says it is best translated as this, but person B. says it is translated as another. Cowman109^Talk 06:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No. You are the sysop, and you should know the rule. Wikipedia editors are NOT supposed to determine truth or create something out of space, but to provide reliable and verifiable sources, please check with sysnop studerby, he can explain better. If you say "something is disputed", you need to provided the source as well. studerby wrote the following: !! Jalamen2 06:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that articles must express a neutral point of view (POV), see WP:NPOV. This does not mean that differing POVs are not included; in fact just the opposite. The policy requires that all differing viewpoints that are verifiable with reliable soources be presented, see also WP:POV.

Yes, I agree with you. I think we are just having difficulties with the language barrier. I'm simply saying that if different reliable sources are giving different translations, it should be stated that there are indeed different definitions. I must go to sleep now, so hopefully this discussion can continue later. Cowman109^Talk 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The reliable and verifiable citation from Chen Jian is written in English actually. !! Jalamen2 06:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Sumple, as pointed earlier, your statement violates NOR, providing a list of book titles doesn't prove your statement is true, please give the exact citation, do you understand?

The term is commonly translated into English as "the Middle Kingdom". [This claim needs a citation]

Are you asking for a citation where someone has acutally written "The most common literal translation of "Zhongguo" into English is "Middle Kingdom"? No one writes things like that. We are not going to be able to provide a single citation for this fact. However, a simple survey (a Google search, a look through the library, you name it) will show that the character for "zhong" is almost always translated "middle" in English, whilst "guo" is usually "kingdom" or "country". The version that the sockpuppets continually revert to is POV: it clearly favours the translation "Central Kingdom" even though "Middle Kingdom" is substantially more common. The alternate version gives both views. That is why I feel this version should stay (with the possibilty of tweaking it, of course, since this is after all a wiki). Heimstern Läufer 07:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

YES. Please refer to Wikipedia page: Citing sources, here's the introduction: !! Jalamen2 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The ability to provide sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that ischallenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

Cowman109, please watch if someone violates V/NOR/NPOV !!Jalamen2

Jalamen2, unfortunately you are the one misinterpreting policy. The other users' edits are not vandalism. This edit warring you are doing is completely inappropriate, and I would rather we not have to continue range blocking your IPs as that is simply no fun for either of us. This is a content dispute, not simple vandalism, and you are subject to policy just as other editors are, so take this to discussion instead of edit warring over it. Technically users are more than welcome to revert your edits as you have used dozens of sockpuppets to violate our policy of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry and Wikipedia:3rr multiple times over, so if you really want to change, not being so hostile to these users would be a good start to see if we can actually get this dispute solved. You also do not own this article, as it is a Wiki, so you should not automatically revert people who have different ideas about the article. Now that that's been said, let's just take this slowly and with civility. Edit warring is not the way to get something done in Wikipedia, but discussion and consensus is. If someone reverts your edits again, instead of reverting them back, we can continue discussing here. The world won't end if the article is not in your preferred version, of course. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sysop Cowman109, I think I understand the policy pretty well. And unfortunately, you're the one misinterpreting policy. As pointed out, reverting that particular paragraph without any valid reason with V/NOR/NPOV is considerered as obvious vandalism, and 3rr doesn't apply to obvious vandalism. For Sockpuppetry, it's never violated from my side. First, the sysop Nlu has sock puppets JinFX(1698)/Intsokzen/Naus/Dto, but that's not my business, but if my only account got blocked without any reason except "sockpuppetry", then obviously I needed to create another one, and this DOES NOT violate Wikipedia policy. Since you're not an experienced sysop, I really like some sysops who are not biased can explain V/NOR/NPOV to some people here, especially this guy Sumple. !!Jalamen2 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do not believe I am correct, I'll see if I can get an uninvolved administrator to comment here, but as long as you don't continue edit warring. Please review Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry in the meantime. Cowman109^Talk 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, we need an unbiased administrator, the higher rank the better. By the way, my previous account Jalamen2 may affect another user called Jalamen, so that account was disabled, I will use this account from now on. !! Doningj 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)