Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Was asked to comment

Hi Jalamen, I was asked to comment here. I'm assuming the dispute is about this edit of yours. You're correct to say that editors should edit in accordance with W:V and WP:NOR, and they state that a source must be provided for any edit that is challenged or likely to be challenged (although editors are also asked to use their common sense). You're requesting a source for:

Thank you SlimVirgin (Note that there's another user called Jalamen, so I renamed myself to this account, Jalamen2 has now been disabled). !! Doningj 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1. "The first character zhōng (中) means 'central' or 'middle' while guó (国 or 國) means 'country' or 'region'."

   To the other editors: is there any reason a source can't be found for this?

2. "The term is commonly translated into English as 'the Middle Kingdom'."

   It might be difficult to find a source saying "it is commonly translated as ..." but several sources could be found that do translate it as that, or the sentence could be tweaked slightly "often translated as," "is translated as," "has been translated as ...," whatever is closest to what the sources are saying.

   I agree. As stated before, the better description is the following, the word "literally" is the key !! Doningj 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   The term can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom" or "Middle Kingdom".

3. "It has also been translated as 'the Central Kingdom' based on the archaic meaning of the term Zhongguo as "center part [of the world]".

   Jalamen, I can't see why you've added the fact tag here, because there are three sources: (a) Mao's China and the Cold War. published by UNC Press, (b) Ciyuan (《辭源》). published by the Commercial Press Beijing (北京商務印書館出版) and (c) 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) Are you saying the sources aren't good enough? If so, what is your objection to them?

   The first source (a) is not the source for this claim at all, unless someone can provide the exact citation. !! Doningj 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   The second source (b) 北京商務印書館出版的《辭源》, the exact citation is "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" The essential meaning is "the early people believed they lived in the center of the world, therefore they named Zhong Guo", but Sumple distored the meaning to something totally different. As pointed out earlier, this reliable and verifiable citation is good for the following: !! Doningj 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   "The meaning of Zhongguo is the "Center of the World" !! Doningj 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   The citation of the third source (c) is almost the same as (b), but from another reliable and verifiable dictionary published by the Department of Education of the Republic of China

4. Finally, I can't see why Jalamen's paragraph has been deleted, which is sourced to Chen Jian. What's the objection to it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Doniungj, are you Jalamen? You need to post with one account, please, so we can keep track of who is saying what. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm. My old account Jalamen2 was blocked by another irresponsible sysop. !! Doningj 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Doningj, please quit with the personal attacks. Cowman109, Nlu and others who have been blocking are acting in perfect accordance with Wikipedia policy, as these accounts have been blocked because they are either sockpuppets being used to evade blocks or usernames that are too close to that of an existing user. Continuing to disparage those you disagree with is not going to win any arguments. Heimstern Läufer 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I take back my words. !!Doningj 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Slim, thanks for commenting. In the past, the user supporting this paragraph and his/her sockpuppets has constantly reverted to this version: this version, which clearly prefers the translation "Central Kingdom" by giving no recognition whatsoever to a possible legitimacy of "Middle Kingdom". Recently the user has included a somewhat better version which includes the "Middle Kingdom" citations and his own "Central Kingdom" one: I find this one a bit more workable. I still think it gives more attention to the translation "Central Kingdom" than it should, seeing that "Middle Kingdom" is the more common translation, and that it seems to lean toward endorsing this translation. Realise that people keep reverting partly because this user has broken WP:SOCK and WP:3RR countless times and accuses others of vandalism when they revert him/her and sysops of administrator abuse when they block his/her abusive sockpuppets. While I mean no longer to revert as long as the user allows the information concerning "Middle Kingdom" to stand, I can see why others continue to revert. Heimstern Läufer 00:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful explanation, Heimstern. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the sockpuppets' version is that the lengthy paragraph adds little value to what is already in the paragraph. A citation to that source is sufficient, if that's what the sockpuppets advocate. As to the sockpuppets' objection to the three existing sources for "Central Kingdom", they themselves proposed them originally, so I have no problem if they wish to change those three sources to the Chen Jian source, provided that the lengthy quotation is not added.

Finally, I have no idea why the sockpuppets have a problem with "centre part [of the world]", because the phrase 中國 contains no part that means "world". Please explain how "centre of the world" is different to, or more accurate than, "centre part [of the world]" as a translation of the dictionary definitions. --Sumple (Talk) 02:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't understand the "center part [of the world]" issue; where it comes from, why it's an issue, who says it's archaic. I was thinking that, so long as the Chen Jian quote isn't in these giant quotation marks, it won't be so obtrusive. The point the scholar is making is interesting, if I've understood it correctly: that the name "Central Kingdom" is a political term (China is superior) and not a geographical one (China is in the middle). I'd say the opinion is worth keeping so long as Chen Jian really is a mainstream scholar, but I'm not in a position to judge that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the paragraph Jalamen wants to add could be added as a footnote if it's a minority view; but if the source is a mainstream source and it's not a minority view, I see no harm adding it to the main text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, senior scholar Chen Jian's view is the mainstream source, his book was published in 2001 by University of North Carolia Press, and no counter views can be found so far. The main idea in Chen Jian's quote is that Central Kingdom is a more accurate translation for Zhongguo than Middle Kingdom, and he explains why it's more accurate. Also, I have no problem in adding the following statement based on 2 other reliable and verifible sources, we can provide an English translation with the original-language quote beside it. !! Doningj 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Few sources [footnote with 2 sources] also suggest that the meaning of Zhongguo to be Center of the World "天下之中" !! Doningj 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this for wording, leaving aside the issue of sources for now?

China is called Zhongguo (also Romanized as Chung-kuo or Jhongguo) in Mandarin Chinese. A literal translation of the first character zhōng (中) is "central" or "middle," and that of guó (国 or 國) is "country" or "region". The term is often understood in English as "the Middle Kingdom."

"Zhongguo" has also been translated as "the Central Kingdom," based on the archaic meaning of the term as "center part [of the world]." Chen Jian writes that "Central Kingdom" is a more accurate translation; he argues that the term "Middle Kingdom" does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations, but merely refers to its geographical location. On the other hand, according to Chen Jian, the term 'Central Kingom' 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."

1. The word "region" should be replaced by "kingdom", otherwise, Central/Middle Kinggdom should be translated to Central/Middle Region. !!Doningj 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

2. The word "argues" should be replaced by "mentions" or "writes", since there's no text saying otherwise. !!Doningj 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

3. The line with "archaic" should be removed, as mentioned in your comments below. !!Doningj 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

4. In general, the paragraph is not smooth, please see the "Text for SlimVirgin to approve". !!Doningj 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Add inline citations as appropriate.

Comments

1. Doningj, it's best not to put the Chen Jian quote in these fancy big quotation marks because it draws undue attention to it.

   I agree. I will remove the Wikipedia cquote!! Doningj 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Say who Chen Jian is: not "senior scholar" but e.g. Chen Jian of X University.

   I agree. I will remove the title !! Doningj 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

3. I don't understand the sentence: "The term has also been translated as "the Central Kingdom," based on the archaic meaning of the term Zhongguo as "center part [of the world]." Where does "of the world" come from? Who has said it is archaic? I would say that needs a source because it smacks slightly of editorializing, as though we're trying to undermine Chen Jian's argument before it has even been introduced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   This line is misleading as mentioned before, this entire line should be removed. !! Doningj 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm.... SlimVirgin, why are you giving so much credence to the theory of this one scholar Chen Jian, when almost every single book in any library uses "Middle Kingdom" not "Central Kingdom"? --211.30.236.143 11:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not, but then sources have to be supplied to show that Middle Kingdom is the most common, or a common, translation. We publish only what sources have published, and we cite the sources in cases of dispute such as this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Text for SlimVirgin to approve, feel free to add comments. !! Doning

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, 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." [footnote]

Few sources [footnote] also suggest the meaning of Zhong Guo to be Center of the World "天下之中"

Doningj, can you or anyone else supply a comment from a scholar who supports the Middle Kingdom translation? It would help to have another statement so that Chen Jian's statemnt can be included, but does not overwhelm. We have a policy on Wikipedia that we should all "write for the enemy." Even though you agree with Chen Jian, do you know of another scholarly source you could quote who says the opposite, or who makes it clear that Middle Kingdom is a common translation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, since there's only one view here, so NPOV may not apply. For reliable/verifiable/scholarly sources without any distortion which say something like "Middle Kingom is a common translation", or "Middle Kingdom is more accurate than Central Kingdom", unfortunately, I couldn't find any. !!Doningj 07:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There's only one view here? Hold on, Doningj, I think it has been demonstrated quite clearly that there are multiple views here. No, there is no source that we've found that says "Middle Kingom is a common translation", but the term is in fact used very commonly, as demonstrated by the sources given that use this term. The text you have written does not reflect this, and therefore I object to it. Heimstern Läufer 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Our own articles on Names of China says of Zhongguo that it means: "Central Kingdom (中國/中国 pinyin: Zhōngguó; Tongyong Pinyin Jhongguó) in Mandarin. The Chinese traditionally positioned the Emperor of China at the center of the world, conceiving of concentric rings that extend from the cultural center to barbaric borderlands. This notion was widely accepted in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, and to some degree in other countries. This word can be traced back as early as the Zhou dynasty; however, the actual use of this term only became popularized during the modern age in both China and other East Asian nations." [1]

We can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources, but I thought it was interesting that it seems to support your view, unless you were the one who wrote it, of course. ;-)

Just looking through Google, I certainly see lots of pages saying "Central Kingdom" is correct, both literally and because it was the intent of the users of it that it should convey the political and cultural centrality of China. The other editors have supplied four good sources for their translation, but no source for the claim that it's more common. The problem with emphasizing Chan Jien's view without an opposing view is that it gives his opinion undue prominence. So how about putting all the source information in a footnote, as follows:

"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".

Notes

Would that work for everyone? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think there are still few problems if the text I mentioned in the "Text for SlimVirgin to approve" section gets changed according to your suggestion. !!Doningj 16:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The essential meaning is lost from the main text. First, the accurate English translation of the word, second, the meaning of the word. !!Doningj 16:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

2. List of 4 sources which USE the term Middle Kingdom doesn't make sense and wastes space. The term is explicitly explained word by word, and it's also mentioned in Chen Jian's quote. Do you expect people to find another list of 4 sources which USE the term Central Kingdom as well? I think adding useless information in order to please someone/party doesn't make sense. !!Doningj 16:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember, this is just a footnote. It's normal to list sources in footnotes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Use of the word "However" is not correct. First, Chen Jian never argues whether Middle Kingdom is a common translation in his quote. If some source says Middle Kingdom is a more accurate translation than Central Kingdom, then there's a conflict, but still, use of "However" is subject to NPOV. !!Doningj 16:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the word "however" can be removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Since no one has any objection with the text I specified in "Text for SlimVirgin to approve", the wording I specified should be used as is, unless there're more findings with V/NOR/NPV. !!Doningj 16:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of my change was to put the disputed part in a footnote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dongingj, I admit don't understand why you won't accept the sources provided which clearly demonstrate that "Middle Kingdom" is in fact a common translation. First you insist that there be sources, and then when they are provided, you say they waste space. This doesn't make sense to me. To reply to SlimVirgin: I feel this is a very good way to try to cover all the perspectives. I don't think it's perfect, but it's probably the best we've seen thus far. Heimstern Läufer 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Doningj, this is not about what constitutes a "correct" translation of Zhongguo, but about verfiable usage of the term and that is why the sources are where they are. I suggested these texts when your sock puppet asked for sources, and all I got from you was "What do you want to show here? Let's wait for Sumple to provide a "citation" for his claim."

If you want to argue in favor of one translation against another, please write an article on the topic and publish it. This is not the place for this kind of debate. Period.

SlimVirgin, I'd go with text as you suggested.--Niohe 18:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Doningj, we have an agreement if you're on board. It's not perfect, but hopefully both sides can live with it, and it's properly sourced which is important. The essence of the compromise, Doningj, is that the disputed part is in a footnote. Can you go with that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, well done. I am fine with your version. Although I'd still prefer to see "Middle Kingdom" before "Central Kingdom" in accordance with the common names policy - but that's nitpicking. I'm okay with your version.

Doningj, the word "argues" does not mean that someone is having an argument with someone else. It means, in this context, a person puts forward a certain point of view and backs it up with reasoning or evidence (hence "argue", rather than, say, "claim"). It's a "good" word, not a "bad" word. --Sumple (Talk) 05:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Final version

To SlimVirgin: Even I don't quite agree with the way this issue is handled, especially, claims with V/NOR/NPV are undermined without any reason but to please few people who don't hold any points with V/NOR/NPV, but, by considering the incorrect text which obviously violates V/NOR and misleads readers, I would agree to compromise with you, and let future editors to improve more. !!Doningj 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the final version, please approve, I've also added few sources which USE the term "Central Kingdom" to balance the useless information as you would like to add to please some people.!!Doningj 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"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".

Notes

• Sources using the term "Central Kingdom" include:

• William Edgar Geil, A Yankee on the Yangtze: Being a Narrative of a Journey from Shanghai Through the Central Kingdom..., Hodder and Stoughton, 1904
• Eric Lane, The guide on the Central Kingdom express. Dedalus, 1989
• Yang Cai, From the central kingdom to the gold mountain Chinese immigration to the United States (1820-1943), 1998.
• Aihe Wang, Cosmology and Political Culture in Early China, Cambridge University Press, 2000

• Sources using the term "Middle Kingdom" include:

• 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
• 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

• Regarding the accuracy of translation, Professor Chen Jian writes: "I believe that "Central Kingdom" is a more accurate translation for "Zhong Guo" (China) than "Middle Kingdom." The term "Middle Kingdom" does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it -- China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term "Central Kingom", however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation "under the heaven" and that it thus occupies a "central" position in the known universe." (source for the citation needs to be included)
• Other sources suggest the meaning of Zhong Guo to be Center of the World "天下之中" (source needs to be included)

That's fine by me, except that we should start with the four sources for Middle Kingdom as before, and keep the sources for Central Kingdom together with Chen Jian's argument, and remember that we need a full citation for the quotation from him (book or article title, publisher, date/year of publication). Apart from that, we look set to go. Thank you everyone for agreeing to the compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it's fine by me to start with the four sources for Middle Kingdom as before. Thank you for your help to maintain things with V/NOR/NPV. If you have time, please explain the Wikipedia policy NOR to those people including few inexperienced sysops. !! Doningj 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep to the agreed compromise version in the section above. Adding four sources that say "Central Kingdom" just because there are four listed sources for "Middle Kingdom" misrepresents the relative pervalence of the two terms. A title search on my local university's catalogues finds 0 book matches for "Central Kingdom", and 10 book matches for "Middle Kingdom" in the context of China (many others for the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, of course). Also, "Zhongguo", as a transliteration of a Chinese word, should be one word, in accordance with Pinyin conventions.--Sumple (Talk) 08:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I, too, prefer the original version by SlimVirgin rather than this new one. Doningj: I still cannot see why you object to the sources we have given to demonstrate the commonality of the term "Middle Kingdom", and still less why you would call this "useless information" or imply it is original research or unverifiable. As for this new wording, I find it biased toward the Central Kingdom position in that it spends substantially more time defending the Central Kingdom position than Middle Kingdom. That's my objection here. Heimstern Läufer 15:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've checked with some friends who know more about this than I do, and they concur that Middle Kingdom is the most common translation. A Google search indicates that a lot of the hits for Central Kingdom come from Wikipedia and its mirrors, which we can't trust unfortunately. Doningj, it's important not to give the minority view undue weight, although I have to say that I personally don't see a problem with adding sources to a footnote: the more sources, the better, in my view, so long as they're reliable. But Doningj, the undue weight objection is a reasonable one, so it's best to go with the earlier version that people agreed with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I never agreed with the few versions you proposed originally, and I gave good reasons. In response to the compromise as you suggested, I added 4 sources using the term "Central Kingdom", and now, you're saying something like "ONLY SOURCES FOR THE TERM "Middle Kingdom" ARE ALLOWED", because of 2 users don't want to see those 4 sources. Maybe you can explain to everyone here, is there fairness? is V/NOR/NPV violated here? !! Doningj 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you including your four sources, because they're in a footnote and that's what footnotes are for. But there has been an objection on the grounds of undue weight. Looking at Google, it does seem that Middle Kingdom is more common, in that mainstream sources use it (such as CNN), and it gets 500,000 hits as opposed to 12,200 for Central Kingdom (although MK gets 791 unique hits and CK 754, so I'm not sure there's much difference — the search terms being "'Middle Kingdom' China" and the same for CK).

Doningj, are all four of the books you cite written by academics, and are they all actually books or is one a paper? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please follow strictly Wikipedia V/NOR/NPV policies if new ideas are concerned. For those 4 sources which USE the term "Central Kingdom", they can all be found on the web. Whether they are written by academics, maybe you can educate me if that makes a difference in this case? !! Doningj 04:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, but I'm trying to get an idea of quality of sources so we can arrive at a compromise. Doningj, a question: what makes you think that Central Kingdom is as common or more common than Middle Kingdom? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't care actually, since it's not the business of Wikipedia editors to determine "truth". Again, as I mentioned earlier, those 8 sources are useless information and provide no value at all. The version I would like to see is what I specified in "Text for SlimVirgin to approve", please consider that since my paragraph captures all the essential information without violating V/NOR/NPV. !! Doningj 05:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Doningj, there has to be a compromise between editors. No one editor can have the text exactly as he wants it. Again, I'm asking you what sources make you think that Central Kingdom is as common or more common than Middle Kingdom? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, based on the sources provided, I think it's safe to say "Central Kingdom is more accurate translation than Middle Kingdom", and "the meaning of ZhongGuo is Center of the World". Whether Central/Middle Kingdom is more common, or not common, or why it's common, or why it's not common, or when it first appeared in literature, it involves research. I wish I've answered your question.  !! Doningj 05:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't shown that CK is a more accurate translation; you've provided sources who use it, and one source who says it's more accurate. Why do you feel that that source is the one who should be prioritized? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as I mentioned, the statement "CK is a more accurate translation" is based on the V/NOR source. Also, based on the Wikipedia NPV, all views should be listed, whether sources should be undermined or prioritized, don't you think some people here are just trying to negotiate? !! Doningj 06:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what "the statement 'CK is a more accurate translation' is based on the V/NOR source" means.

The bottom line is that, while I personally see no problem with adding your four sources to the footnote, others do, and they seem to be right that Middle Kingdom is more common; therefore we shouldn't give undue weight to Central Kingdom. Those are the rules, Doningj. Each of the core policies (NPOV, NOR, and V) say that they must not be read in isolation from one another. Jointly, the three policies say that Wikipedia publishes the majority and significant-minority views of reliable published sources, and editors should try to reflect views roughly in proportion to their reflection in the relevant literature. The relevant literature in this case, taken as a whole, seems to favor Middle Kingdom, and therefore that is what this article must do, although Central Kingdom must, of course, be mentioned. In order to make progress, we should stick with the compromise version, although I would make a request to the other editors to relax their view regarding the inclusion of Doningj's sources, given that it's just a footnote, and the reason readers go to footnotes is to obtain more information: therefore, the more sources the footnote lists, the better, within reason. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Chen Jian writes the following:

"Central Kingdom is a more accurate translation for "Zhong Guo" than "Middle Kingdom"

If you don't understand, you may write an email to Chen Jian. By the way, if you insist that "ONLY SOURCES FOR THE TERM "Middle Kingdom" ARE ALLOWED", then there's a problem. Again, if you think Middle Kingdom is more common, you will need to provide a source to support your claim, otherwise, it violates Wikipedia policy NOR. Wikipedia states that:

None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

As a matter of fact, all unpublished views should be removed from Wikipedia. SlimVirgin, please confirm if you would like to make a fair decision on this case, as I stated, my "Final version" was a compromised version, and it's not the version I like to see either, otherwise, I would like to file a formal content dispute request to the arbitration committee, since some people are trying to negotiate the principles of Wikipedia. Sumple, you'll be the other party of my formal request, please confirm that you are willing to write your statement in the formal report. Thank you everyone. !!Doningj 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Doningj, you have not yet answered SlimVirgin's question. What makes you think that "Central Kingdom" is as common as or more common than "Middle Kingdom"?

Note that the question isn't about which one is more "accurate" -- it's about which one appears more in the media and in popular culture. Now, everyone who uses "Middle Kingdom" instead of "Central Kingdom" may be stupid and uninformed, as far as your point of view is concerned, but that does not change the fact that they're using "Middle Kingdom" nonetheless, in large numbers.

I could even put it this way: this dispute is about current usage in the English language. It's a lexicographical issue. "Middle Kingdom" is used more than "Central Kingdom" in the English language. It's like calling French fries "French fries" even though there are many theories for where French fries actually came from. Nevertheless we call them "French fries", because that's what it's called in the English language, not because we're asserting that French fries originated from France.

Finally, I would strongly advise you to keep your cool. Using strong language and making angry accusations does not help with constructive dialogue.

-- ran (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Doningj, it's best not to threaten other users with the ArbCom. First, I doubt they'd hear this case as it's too early in dispute resolution. Secondly, they don't as a rule decide matters of content, but behavior. Third, there are a few sockpuppet accounts they might want to examine more closely. :-)

The onus is on you to show that Chen Jian's view is not a tiny-minority one. The question again is: What makes you think that "Central Kingdom" is as common as or more common than "Middle Kingdom"?

To the other editors, can I ask you to reconsider the issue of including Doningj's four sources in the footnote? It's what footnotes are for, after all, and their inclusion would resolve this dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I never threatened anyone, and I'm serious about requesting a formal dispute resolution, since some people are trying to negotiate on the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Also as a mediator, you didn't state Wikipedia policies correctly, and confused people. As I repeated many times, NOR (No original research) is not negotiable, and Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If you ask me to show that Chen Jian's view is not minority one, then there's problem. Please read NPOV:

"It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view."

For your question, maybe you can tell me what makes you think that I have my own view that "Central Kingdom" is as common as or more common than "Middle Kingdom"? As I said, we must follow strictly V/NOR/NPV to reduce personal arguments, for this particular case, it's NOR, I wish you understand NOR, especially the quote from Wikipedia page: !! Doningj 05:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article."

If we can find a way to include these sources without giving this viewpoint undue weight, I'd be glad to include them. Including four sources for Middle, four for Central and an argument for Central seems to favour this translation, which would be a problem even if we assume that there's equal support for Middle and for Central. I suppose it isn't as big a problem in the footnotes, but still, I don't really like the results. Heimstern Läufer 01:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to manage that by tweaking the writing in the footnote to make clear that "Central" is the alternative, e.g.

Notes

Sources using the term "Middle Kingdom" include:

• 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
• 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

An alternative translation is "Central Kingdom." Sources using this include:

• William Edgar Geil, A Yankee on the Yangtze: Being a Narrative of a Journey from Shanghai Through the Central Kingdom..., Hodder and Stoughton, 1904
• Eric Lane, The guide on the Central Kingdom express. Dedalus, 1989
• Yang Cai, From the central kingdom to the gold mountain Chinese immigration to the United States (1820-1943), 1998.
• Aihe Wang, Cosmology and Political Culture in Early China, Cambridge University Press, 2000
• Regarding the accuracy of translation, Professor Chen Jian writes: "I believe that "Central Kingdom" is a more accurate translation for "Zhong Guo" (China) than "Middle Kingdom." The term "Middle Kingdom" does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it -- China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term "Central Kingom", however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation "under the heaven" and that it thus occupies a "central" position in the known universe." (source for the citation needs to be included)

• Other sources suggest the meaning of Zhong Guo to be Center of the World "天下之中" (source needs to be included)

Would that do? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it's wrong to divide the notes into 2 categories (Central Kingdom & Middle Kingdom). There're actually 4:

1. Sources using the term "Middle Kingdom"

2. Sources using the term "Central Kingdom"

3. Comparison of both

4. Meaning of Zhongguo.

As I mentioned earlier # 1 and #2 are useless information. #3 & #4 should be in the main text. If there're no more big arguments, then use the layout I specified in the "Final version" with those 8 useless sources switched. Undermining V/NOR/NPV sources in a bunch of useless references really degrades quality of Wikipedia. !! Doningj 05:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I put in the four sources for "Middle", based on a list given by Niohe, but I don't think having multiple sources that tell us nothing beyond the fact that they use "Middle" or "Central" serves any purpose. This, afterall, is not the main point of this article. Perhaps we can have "this is commonly translated as "Middle", for example [1 source]; and alternatively as "Central", for example, [1 source]+[Chen Jian source in footnote].

However, if other users all agree to this layout, then I will acquiesce, with only a request that the non-book source be either properly cited or removed, and that the Eric Lane source be checked as to whether it is actually about China.

Also, "Other sources suggest the meaning of Zhong Guo to be Center of the World "天下之中"" (apart from being grammatically incorrect in English and in Pinyin) is redundant if any source is included above. --Sumple (Talk) 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, as I mentioned so many times, Wikipedia is not a place for Origional Research. If you insist that your own research needs to be presented here in some ways, then there's problem, since it violates NOR. (4. Meaning of Zhongguo) provides unique value and it's not included in any other references, on the other side, sources listed in categories 1 and 2 don't give any value, as I mentioned, the arrangement degrades quality of the article, and that's what you're looking for? SlimVirgin is currently taking the mediation job, if that still can't solve the NOR problem, we have to agree that we will need to file a formal dispute resolution. !! Doningj 05:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Doningj, this is not original research: not Sumple's, not anyone else's. That's all there is to it. The sources provided demonstrate that Middle Kingdom is a common translation, and therefore it deserves a place in this article and should not be given less weight than the translation "Central Kingdom". Please stop being rude to other editors and realise that you might be wrong in this case especially given the number of voices here who don't believe the inclusion of this information violates WP:NOR. Heimstern Läufer 06:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, could you answer this user's question whether the statement "Middle Kingdom is a common translation" violates NOR? given the number of existing sources. I don't think I'm rude. For case, maybe you can explain the reason you removed my section "Sysops Cowman109 wants discussion. Let's discuss here what is not reliable and what is Original work and what you want to see"!!Doningj 06:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we've more or less decided on a version; that is if Heimstern is okay with the inclusion of the two extra verified sources Doningj provided (not the paper because we have no full citation, and we don't know whether the Lane book is about China). If you agree to that, we're done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted it. Hopefully that'll be fine with everyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please explain what's happening? !! Doningj 06:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, any idea why (4) should be removed? (4) is unique POV. !!Doningj 06:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. I like it. Heimstern Läufer 06:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Doningj, it's in the nature of compromise that neither side gets exactly what it wants. We've included four sources for Middle Kingdom, and three for Central, including Chen Jian. Two of the sources you offered weren't up to scratch: the Lane one could be about anything and I looked around and can't find a description (and he seems not to be an expert), and the paper didn't include a full citation. But you've got three sources, so it's fine. This single issue has been discussed enough, so I urge you to accept the compromise and return to helping to write an encyclopedia. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Doningj: the fundamental issue here is: which term is more common and conventional in the English language? Middle Kingdom or Central Kingdom? If you demand secondary sources in order to answer this question, I suggest looking through several large reputable dictionaries to see which one, if any, they include. -- ran (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, please change that

Phil joe 06:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Phil Joe, 2:27pm, Nov. 6, 2006, Shanghai.

From [The stalemate of the last Chinese Civil War following World War II has resulted in two separate states using the name "China"] to [The stalemate of the last Chinese Civil War following World War II has resulted in two separate governments using the name "China"]

I am from China mainland and I personally do think Taiwan Island shall be considered as part of the China region. But I am also a realist. So I accept that under the term of "China", there are 2 governments ruling different areas, though one of them is not internationally recognized as the legal representative of China and the Chinese. This is the most proper description of the current status of the political situation of China, which satisfys most people from both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Some may say since the ruling party in Taiwan Island does is targeting to an eventual independence, so the government ruling Taiwan Island shall not be considered as part of China. I don't agree with this idea. As long as the constitution that the government was oriented recognizes the region as part of China, we shall too.

I am so sorry that this page is locked, but I do understand the reason that it is locked. But please the administrator here do something to keep the heat low between the conflicting parties. It's an encyclopedia at all, not a political game board. Thanks.

"Government" may be too weak though, as the word "government" alone does not imply the de facto separation that exists. After all, provinces, cities, counties etc. all have their own governments as well. "State" is a very dry and bare term, describing a political situation without making legal implications, which I think corresponds best to the "互不隸屬的政體" as described on the Chinese Wikipedia. This is unlike "country" or "nation", which are more emotionally charged, and would correspond to "國家". -- ran (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Ran's input. But the problem is: Keeping "states" will definitely keep the fighting going on and on here. In China history, you can say there is no such a political definition as "state", esepcially after the Song dynasty(宋朝). Most of Chinese think they are one nation with one country. Besides, the Beijing government never recognize Taipei's as a seperate representative of a "state" in the political system of China. This is also agreed widely by the world political systems. Even a certain part of Taiwan people thinks they are CHINESE. Even the current consitution of "Republic of China in Taiwan" claims the control of the mainland area as a country called "CHINA". So China's situation is VERY different from what Koreas have: both South Korea and North Korea were accepted as equivalent country level membership in the UN, as well in many other international organization. Thus, I think "governments" makes a better descritption of the current situation.Phil Joe, 9:37am Nov. 11, 2006, Shanghai

This is not a question of what the PRC or ROC governments officially recognize, it's about the actual, de facto situation on the ground. Both the PRC and ROC are de facto separate states that have operated stably and separately for 60 years. In using "state", we're simply describing this objective fact, we are not making a statement about whether this is legal, or legitimate, or accepted, or desired, or recognized. "State" is more accurate than "government" when we wish to present this objective situation, because "state" expresses the de facto separation while "government" does not. -- ran (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why wasn't period after the Han Dynasty(Three Kingdoms)added

Central Kingdom: content dispute resolution needed

Based on comments found in the "Was asked to comment" section, the comment/mediation work SlimVirgin has done failed due the fact that SlimVirgin was biased to one party and unprofessional when Wikipedia policies are concerned, so the final result will be unfair, but still I thank SlimVirgin's work.

Proof of SLimVirgin's biased view:

SlimVirgin wrote: They seem to be right that Middle Kingdom is more common; therefore we shouldn't give undue weight to Central Kingdom.

Doningj wrote: As a matter of fact, all unpublished views should be removed from Wikipedia.

Proof for being unprofessional regarding Wikipedia policies

SlimVirgin wrote:"The onus is on you to show that Chen Jian's view is not a tiny-minority one:"

Doningj wrote: Please read NPOV: "It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view."

Doningj also wrote earlier:

SlimVirgin, senior scholar Chen Jian's view is the mainstream source, his book was published in 2001 by University of North Carolia Press, and no counter views can be found so far. The main idea in Chen Jian's quote is that Central Kingdom is a more accurate translation for Zhongguo than Middle Kingdom, and he explains why it's more accurate.

Since the main namespace has been changed without my agreement, I will take the text SlimVirgin put as a reference point, and make the improved version as I suggested earlier. If you would like to change the new text without any valid reasons on this discussion page, changes will be considered as obvious vandalism.

Here are the explanations for the changes I made based on the version SlimVirgin put:

For the word Zhonguo, we only have 2 POVs

POV #1: Senior scholar Chen Jian's quote which compares Central Kingdom and Middle Kingdom comparison.

POV #2: The meaning of Zhonguo based on 2 reliable / verifiable / creditable sources.

These VOPs are unique and provide unique values to the topic Zhongguo, and based on the Wikipedia policy:

"sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."

those other sources which only use the term "Central Kingdom" & "Middle Kingdom" should be removed since they don't correspond to the claim that "The term can be literally translated into English as "Middle Kingdom" or "Central Kingdom.", in other words, they are not the sources for that claim. And because of that, POV#1 and POV#2 should be listed in the main text.

Please feel free to put comments here, I'm also preparing for a formal content dispute resolution through Mediation Committee and Arbitration Committee if people continue to try to negotiate the principles of Wikipedia, or present unpublished views on Wikipedia. I would like to mention again, Wikipedia policy states that

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a democracy

These are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editors' consensus. !! Doning (Blocked by Nlu & his puppets (JinFX(1698)/Intsokzen/Naus/Dto) who are abusing the Wikipedia privilege)

Doning, the issue has been decided and a compromise agreed upon. That's the end of it for now, at least until a new set of editors arrives and changes everything (editors, I said, not sockpuppets :-) ). You're free to approach the ArbCom, of course, but my guess is you'll get short shrift at best, because they don't settle content disputes — and if they were to take the case, possibly an article ban because you're the only one causing the disruption. Therefore, think carefully before approaching them.

You're welcome to continue discussing the issue here within reason, and particularly if you can produce new sources to bolster your point of view, but if you keep reverting the article, you're likely to keep on getting blocked. So, please, stick to the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the text you put was not in an agreement, and again it violates Wikipedia policy. If you would like to be the other party of my content dispute resolution request, please confirm, otherwise, please put your reasons here please. !! Zusuki stupig 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Doning (Blocked by Nlu & his puppets (JinFX(1698)/Intsokzen/Naus/Dto) who are abusing the Wikipedia privilege)

I don't mean to sound harsh, but Doningj, not a single user has yet agreed with you in this interpretation of policy yet, so I would strongly suggest that you take that as a sign that the current way things are going is not the best. The best route here would have to be a request for arbitration if you would like to suggest that other editors are not conforming to the policies as written, nonetheless, and we would be subject to punishment (and potentially desysopping if we are indeed abusing our administrator powers), so I would suggest that you file an arbitration case. Another note for the arbitration case would be Nlu's sockpuppets, which could be added as a piece of evidence. That would be the best way to settle this once and for all. Cowman109^Talk 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here I would like to have those people who are willing to be the other party of my formal dispute request sign and confirm, then I will request immediately since those are related to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia !! Zusuki stupig 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Doning (Blocked by Nlu & his puppets (JinFX(1698)/Intsokzen/Naus/Dto) who are abusing the Wikipedia privilege)

This is absurd. You talk about Wikipedia rules only when it suits you, and yet you're creating dozens and dozens of sockpuppets to circumvent blocks placed on you. And despite your own self-admitted use of sockpuppets, you make baseless accusations that several sysops are sockpuppets of each other, as if this is supposed to help your case. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously like this?

From now on I will block all of your sockpuppets that I notice, and I call on all other sysops to do the same in accordance with Wikipedia rules. If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest that you:

1. Stop creating more sockpuppets
2. Go back to the first account you created on Wikipedia
3. Wait for the block on that first account to expire
4. Continue then.

Otherwise, there is no reason why the Wikipedia community has to devote any attention to your disruptive behaviour. -- ran (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I invited Slimvirgin over is because she was one of the key people to write those guidelines. If you claim that Slimvirgin doesn't understand the rules, then I'm at a loss as to who else would still be able to help. <scratches head> Kim Bruning 21:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is in fact settled, Kim. We found a good compromise and everyone but Doningj was fine with it; he seemed unwilling to compromise, and so we went with the version most people agreed with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

*Nod* I should have put more clearly that I was in fact talking to Doningj. :-) Kim Bruning 23:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Zhongguo = Central Kingdom

{{editprotected}} Please change the following unsourced and misleading line:

The term is commonly translated into English as "Middle Kingdom", but is also sometimes translated as "Central Kingdom"

to:

The term can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom" or "Central Country" , the less accurate translations are "Middle Country" and "Middle Kingdom". Scholar Chen Jian states:

"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."

Renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente says

"A more accurate translation of Zhong Guo is "Middle Country," and to be still more precise, "Central Country," with "central" being the key word... Whoever it was that first began calling the country Zhong Guo was using the word "central" in the sense of "heart," "main," or the place where everything starts, and from where everything is controlled."

Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

A quote from Jimmy Wales

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.

--Kluokli (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to lock a main article, but quite another to try to lock a discussion page by deleting someone's comments. Kluokli was asked to provide the edits he wants, and he has done so. Please leave Kluokli's comments here. From looking at the earlier discussions, I'm inclined to think that Kluoki is a sock puppet, but an edit war on the discussion page is not the solution.

Kluoki, IMHO your edit is a bit heavy on the POV side. You've provided sources to help support the current text, but is it necessary to include quotes within the main article rather than simply using the sources as citations? If your goal is to provide evidence to overturn the current text of the article, then you'll need more. You've shown that one scholar thinks "central" is more accurate than "middle", but you haven't shown that it is the common view of experts, nor that it is the more common translation. The current text takes no position on which is more accurate, just which is more common.

Personally, I tend to agree that "central" captures the sense of the name more precisely, but I'm certainly no expert. The current article is correct as it stands, even based on your sources. If we want more precision or more details we need more sources, IMHO. Readin (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy have I violated? POV? What is POV? Please provide the link and the text, thank you. --Kluokli (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no scholar. "Renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente" is an author of pop-culture etiquette books. He's not a source for this whatsoever - in fact, there are better sources that say the same thing, but this sockmaster will never listen to any of it. He just wants to slam the exact same text, unchanged, into any etymology of China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hello, don't do personal attack, and be polite, you understand? assume good faith, OK? Don't just delete others' comments, OK? --Kluokli (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. quoting from WP:AGF. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You will need to provide the link to your claim, but not make it up by yourself! Also please concentrate on the content of the article, the discussion page is not a page for discussing sockpuppet issues. --Kluokli (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This quote is VERY interesting "Actions inconsistent with good faith include lying", someone must be violating this. --Kluokli (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I (and another user) have made a few edits to the Names of China article where, I believe, I have added quite a lot of information regarding the "Central Kingdom" or "Middle Kingdom" discussion. Please take the time to read that. I believe it solves the current dispute. Aran|heru|nar 06:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

N Edit request declined, currently no consensus. Sandstein (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)