Talk:History of China

Older discussions

Series Implementation

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

repost of Jiang's comment on my talk page:

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

end of repost

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

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

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

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

Go for it! --Jia ng

Brilliant prose (Featured Article)

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

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

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

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

Another text that defeats copy editing:

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

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

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

Re-format

 This article is part of the

History of China series.

Shang Dynasty

Zhou Dynasty

Qin Dynasty

Han Dynasty

Three Kingdoms

Jin Dynasty

S. and N. Dynasties

Sui Dynasty

Tang Dynasty

5 Dynasties & 10 Kingdoms

Timeline of Chinese history

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

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

The Ming retreat & Qing decline

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

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

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

Deaths of Guangxu and Cixi

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

-Kelvin

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

Helped wanted: History of TCM

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

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

Series box

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

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

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

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

The true history of China?

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

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

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

Edits by 202.72.131.230

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

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

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

Chronological Maps of China

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

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

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

Forgotten Kingdoms?

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