Talk:History of China

Years of Reign

Sorry if I am not phrasing this correctly, but how come some dynasties have the years of their rule in the section titles (Qing, Ming, Tang), and others do not? I want to make it consistent. Anybody mind if I go in and do such a thing?DaJiang90 (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the dating style of the sections should be consistent. I would suggest adopting the same style for header dates on all the chronologically ordered sections. Open to options for what that style should be, as long as its clear & consistent

Lx 121 (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

link to commercial page

I am not sure if this is an issue here: as a bibliographic reference there is a link to a page, where they sell this online, as a lecture on DVD. quote: "Hammond, Kenneth J. From Yao to Mao: 5000 Years of Chinese History. The Teaching Company, 2004. (A lecture on DVD.)"Rene 217.231.123.215 (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Wikipeida sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.254.28 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Why the page regarding "History of Zionism" for other languages except french are no longer available? (Bean) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.146.132 (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Silver

I used the find funcion of internety explorer and found that this article does not contain a single mention of silver. Silver became a driving force in China's economy after Europe started trading all they had for porcelain, silk, and tea. It (rather the lack of it) was one of the driving forces in the Opium War as Britain had started essentially trading its opium for China's items. The Qing Dynasty fell due to unrest caused by these wars. The fact that the article about the history of china does not contain this huge part of china's history is amazing to me. I used the checker again and found that the article contains no mention of the civil exams of the Han dynasties forward, another huge probelem with the article.Holoeconomics (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Present Day

I am confused. Why are there long sections in the article dealing with both famous as well as obscure dynasties, but the section on present day China ends with events that happened over 50 years ago? I understand that there is a seperate article about the PRC, but there should be at least a summary of the events of the last 50 years, including the 'Cultural Revolution', the rise and effect of Chinese industry on the world economy, and the transition of power in Hong Kong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.106.130 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(although carbon dating has been proved to be unpredictable)

This parenthetic phrase was recently added "(although carbon dating has been proved to be unpredictable)" to the sentence "Early evidence for proto-Chinese millet agriculture is carbon-dated to about 7,000 BC". First, the correct word would be "unreliable", not "unpredictable". Second, how unreliable is it? Third, why is pointing out that unreliability important here? Do we always point out the unreliability when carbon dating is used, or only in this particular case? I've removed the phrase for now until we have some answers. Readin (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

some vandalism undetected for several revisions

An increasing number of "" like to get "" through the front of all the nomadic people in Northern China Confucianism got "" the most. as personal life guidance and state ideology he would masterbatt while getting his "". becoming gradually assimilated into the Han Chinese civilization. During this rivalry between Northern and Southern China, Buddhism propagated through out China for the first time, despite facing opposition from Taoist followers. Tuo Ba Tao (拓跋焘), a faithful Taoist believer and emperor of the Northern Wei (北魏) Dynasty (one of the Northern Dynasties), issued orders to eliminate Buddhism from the country.-- i took this out, someone fix this please 129.97.219.94 (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Chinese characters

Aren't the Chinese characters redundant in this article? The majority of them have corresponding articles already. -Choij (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Map of Ancient China

The map that changes through the different dynasties on a timeline basis is pretty cool, however is incorrect in that it jumps straight from the last royal dynasty to modern PRC/ROC territories. Tibet was an independent country for most of the first half of the 20th century, as was the present day territory of the Uighurs.Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

--Tibet and Xinjiang were never formally independent. 24.86.114.99 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Says who?! They were soveriegn entities with treaties and consulates and embassies with the British and Russian empires! What countries do you need other than those two to show independence back then? Not really anyone else if those two countries recognized you. And you dont need others to recognize you if you have soveriegnty (yes spelled wrong, not going to look it up right now) over your own land with no other country (even China) being able to dictate law or foreign relations. Chinese propaganda is not NPOV or a legitimate verifiable source for citation. This is an encyclopedia, not state-run media source. History is impartial, can Chinese related articles please start reflecting that?!Camelbinky (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

--I Think that there is no standard of dependence nor independece that is accepted by most countries or people in the world now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.95.28.231 (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the map of ancient China should show the Great Wall of China and what it was like through the dynasties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.195.151 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

disambig hatnote

we have a dab note on this article that is long, badly worded & has irrelevant links. it is also inaccurate; the article does deal with china post 1949, however briefly. that section should probably be expanded, considering the infobox timeline includes post-1949. in any case, the standard template does not fit. i am open to improved wording. Lx 121 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The dab note looks good to me. The post-1949 section should not be expanded. It would be just a repetition of existing content, a content that exists in polemic articles with lots of edit wars between pro-Taiwan and anti-Taiwan POV pushers. Let's leave all those nationalistic fights out of this article, please. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(copied from article by Enric Naval) Disagree: there is no WP: We Are Leaving Stuff Out To Avoid A Fight. The article is "History of China" & it overviews all of Chinese history. you cannot cut it off in 1949. there is FAR too much that has happened in chinese history since then. there must be some wording you can agree on? if not, it needs a rename, though i have no idea how to word it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 February 2009

yeah, but there is WP:IAR: ignore all rules if they prevent you from improving the encyclopedia. We would just be repeating the content from History of the People's Republic of China and History of the Republic of China. We are not cutting it, we are offloading it to other articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Enric Naval. We should avoid expanding the post-1949 section any further. The comment about the end/results of the Chinese Civil War is ok I think, because it is just finishing off something that was mostly pre-1949 - the war. And what it states - that something did not happen, applies as much 1949 as it does to 1999. The comment about whether the two sides should be sued back into fighting each other because they didn't sign a treat is more questionable but that's more of an undue weight problem than a chronological problem. At least the current wording is better than the earlier wording. Readin (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Modern history

Is there a reason the article doesn't have any history beyond the beginning of the PRC? Is there another article that contains the modern history of China (or the PRC)? TastyCakes (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a naming convention that says Wikipedia shouldn't equate the PRC with "China". If the "History of China" were to cover the PRC, but not the ROC, we would be treating Taiwan as not a part of China. However, we also have a convention that we don't treat Taiwan as part of China. Covering the post-1949 ROC in a "History of China" article would therefore violate NPOV. For that reason, rather than taking a position on which states should be covered post-1949, the reader is revered to the specific articles on those states. It is a delicate balancing act as we avoid taking a position on whether or not Taiwan is a separate country from China or whether Taiwan is a country within a larger country China. Readin (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that rule, but couldn't the history of China article give a modern history of both the states, as well as the SARs? It wouldn't even have to be that deep, just some kind of description of the broad strokes of history. For example, "after the war the ROC was pushed off of the mainland and maintained sovereignty over only the island of Taiwan. Hong Kong and Macau were returned to British and Portuguese rule, respectively, until they were handed over to China in 1997. Mainland China, now controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, experienced further turbulence"... and so on and so on. In other words, this is an article about China as more than the PRC or the ROC, it is more a history of the Chinese people. I don't see any reason why this history needs to be cut off at the political turning point that is the communist takeover. TastyCakes (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that rule, but couldn't the history of China article give a modern history of both the states, as well as the SARs?' Not unless we chuck NPOV out the window. Whether or not Taiwan, the current location of the ROC, is part of China is POV. It is a POV officially shared by the PRC and ROC constitutions, as well as the CPC and KMT political parties (both of which originated in China while Taiwan was part of the Japanese empire). It is not a POV shared by the DPP political party that originated in Taiwan. Nor is it a POV shared by 2/3 of the democratically elected presidents of Taiwan. Both POVs, that Taiwan is part of China and that Taiwan is not part of China, are significant and neither is considered NPOV. Readin (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the post war history could not be given without inherent POV. I don't think the argument has ever been that Taiwan is not Chinese but that it is not part of the PRC. With that in mind it seems clear to me that Taiwan should be included in modern Chinese history. My main concern with the article now is that it's so glaringly lacking in anything past 1949. You go into fantastic depth for the earlier periods and then right when it gets interesting and relevant, bam, nothing. TastyCakes (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Note than in the China article, there is a section (People's Republic of China and Republic of China (1949–present)) which outlines the history in what seems to me well written, NPOV language. Do you think that section should be removed as well? It seems very strange that the "China" article could have a history section where the "see main article" tag points to this article, but there is way more detail on the most relevant part of Chinese history in the original (supposedly overviewing) article. TastyCakes (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. The China article should have that section reduced also. Readin (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I was going for here ;). My feeling is that both Taiwan and mainland China qualify as "China" for the purposes of both the China article and, by extension, this article. TastyCakes (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that both Taiwan and mainland China qualify as "China" for the purposes of both the China article and, by extension, this article.

And my feeling is that Taiwan does not qualify as "China" for the purposes of the China article and, by extension, this article (post 1895 except for a brief period between 1945 and 1949).

People have different feelings, which is why we have the NPOV policy. In truth it can be impossible in some cases to have a truly Nuetral POV. If Taiwan is part of China, it gets mentioned in the China article. If it is not part of China, then it shouldn't be included even by reference. The best that can be done is a compromise. In this situation, an good approach is to note that Taiwan's status is disputed, and link to the Taiwan-specific article that has more details. The POV that Taiwan is part of China gets to have Taiwan mentioned in the China article (which it wouldn't be if we took the POV that Taiwan is not part of China) while the POV that Taiwan is not part of China gets the details in a separate article and the notation that the question is disputed. Readin (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the China article exists in the first place (in addition to the PRC and ROC articles) in order to talk about "the two Chinas" while not giving an opinion on the legitimacy of either. The article (in my opinion) defines "China" as a cultural and historical entity that is currently made up, politically, of two states, the PRC and the ROC. As the "History of" article for that article, shouldn't this article take a similar stance on what it's defining as "China"? TastyCakes (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been many thousands of lines written on the Talk:China page to discuss what the article should be about. There has been no solid consensus. The current wording in the article says it is about "Chinese civilization". The idea that the article should be about the ROC and PRC together has certainly been discussed, but the suggestion very strongly reflects a Chinese POV rather than a Neutral POV. Readin (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Chinese POV"? TastyCakes (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, when saying that, I'm saying it from a non-Chinese-Nationalist POV. Chinese in the PRC, and the Chinese who came to Taiwan with the KMT, usually have strong feelings that Taiwan is part of China. I've found this to be the case even for children who live in the U.S. whose parents went from the PRC area to Taiwan in the 1940s and 1950s. That's why I call it a "Chinese POV". It is a POV usually held very strongly by people who consider themselves "Chinese". Readin (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So you mean a "mainland Chinese POV"? While I understand it is a difficult, sensitive subject, is it not more that Taiwanese do not consider themselves part of "mainland" or "communist" China? From the Taiwanese people I've talked to, I've always got the impression they were very vigorously opposed to being considered part of the PRC, but that they were certainly "Chinese". Is that a disputed point, in your opinion? Is it not similar to both North and South Koreans considering themselves "Korean"? If it is a disputed point, I think the "China" article is very steeped in it, as it's written now. TastyCakes (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Taiwanese have more varied opinions. They lived under 40 years of KMT propaganda. They also have memories, or relatives who have memories, of the time before the KMT showed up. And some have met people from PRC and come away with different impressions as to what extent they are the same or different. And some have other reasons for their opinions. I've met Taiwanese who are as you describe, who consider themselves "Chinese". I've also met quite a few who do not consider themselves "Chinese". Whether you say "mainland China" or simply "China" is also POV, but I think I can safely repeat this "That's why I call it a "Chinese POV". It is a POV usually held very strongly by people who consider themselves 'Chinese'." This includes people in the PRC, people in Taiwan who consider themselves "Chinese". And I suspect it is even true of people in third countries like Singapore, the U.S. and Vietnam who consider themselves "Chinese". Readin (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to have a long discussion about whether Taiwanese are Chinese, we should take it to our user talk pages. The fact is that a significant number of Taiwanese do not consider themselves Chinese, and that one of the two major political parties does not consider itself Chinese, and that 2 of 3 elected presidents in Taiwan did not consider themselves Chinese. So whether it is right or wrong, it is a significant POV and one that must be respected as we strive to achieve NPOV. Readin (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not take this to our talk pages since I think this is a relevant discussion for this page and my intention here is to improve the article rather than arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't think this issue has been resolved here, it seems to be more that the stronger opinions on what constitutes a biased position (apparently held by yourself and Eric, above) have won out because no one else really cares. You have not really convinced me my position is incorrect: that the China article makes reference (in the intro, no less) to its definition of "China" being a cultural and historical one that often includes Taiwan, rather than a political one which would be difficult POV-wise. I am not fully versed in the positions of Taiwanese politicians on this matter, however the fact that it remains the Republic of China makes me think you are overstating the position, and the controversy, around calling Taiwanese "Chinese". It also seems quite possible to present the modern history of both states in a neutral manner, that doing so would improve the article, and that your portrayal of the "inevitable POV issues" is overblown. I note, however, that the History of Korea article stops at the division of the North and South and the reader is directed to the History of North Korea and History of South Korea. At the very least, I think the article should be more clear in steering readers to the histories of the PRC and ROC. TastyCakes (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

...it seems to be more that the stronger opinions...have won out because no one else really cares. Believe me, plenty of other people care. And I don't see how my opinion has won out. If it had, the article would finish with information about the PRC (since the PRC is China now) and make no reference to the ROC post-1949 except as a separate country with which the PRC has interacted.

You have not really convinced me my position is incorrect... The standard is neutrality, not correctness. If you want to argue correctness, we should do it on our user talk pages.

...however the fact that it remains the Republic of China makes me think you are overstating the position.... Long before Taiwan became democratic, the KMT in China (mainland China) wrote a constitution which they brought at gunpoint to Taiwan following the military defeat of the Japanese administration who had been governing Taiwan. This constitution named the new government the "Republic of China". This government for 40 years ruled Taiwan as an authoritarian 1-party state. Saying things like "Taiwan is not part of China" was forbidden. When democracy finally came in the 1990s, Lee Deng-hui, a staunch anti-China politician favoring greater recognition for Taiwan's independence, was elected and re-elected. Chen Shuibian who held similar views was elected and re-elected next. For 16 years Taiwan chose presidents who considered themselves "Taiwanese". However given the nature of constitutions (they are very difficult to change) and the opposition they faced in parliament, it was impossible for them to change the name. Similarly, had the name already been "Republic of Taiwan", the KMT would have found it impossible to change it to "Republic of China". Simply put, the name "Republic of China" is not there because any Taiwanese chose it, it is there because it was put there by the authoritarian Chinese KMT and because it is very difficult to change a constitution in a democratic constitutional system where there is a diversity of opinion.

It also seems quite possible to present the modern history of both states in a neutral manner... It's not so much a matter of presenting it in nuetral manner, the question is where it should be presented so that the context does not change the neutrality. Would the same text on Taiwan be considered "neutral" were it moved to the "History of Japan" article?

At the very least, I think the article should be more clear in steering readers to the histories of the PRC and ROC. I agree that it should be very clear. In looking at the current text I'm not sure how it could be clearer. What do you have in mind? Readin (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, do you not agree that the introduction to the China article has a much different approach? Why does it say, in the first paragraph, that there are two countries that refer to themselves as "China" and then proceed to talk about both of them?

As for the changes I had in mind, I'll make them and see if you agree... I don't think you'll find them controversial but I guess we'll see ;) TastyCakes (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I havent looked at TastyCakes changes, but what I think about the introduction wording mentioned above is a semantic problem. There is one country, but there are two states, so the wording should be that there are two states that refer to themselves as China, not two countries. China is the name of a country (and technically doesnt, and this article shouldnt, include places such as Tibet, the Uighurs, Inner Mongolia, etc unless in context to China proper their history is not the history of China), the PRC and the ROC are names of states. And I dont understand the discussion above that mentions that it would be a POV position to treat Taiwan as part of China and wikipedia conventions says we cant...BOTH PRC and ROC believe that the ISLAND of Taiwan IS a part of China, they just disagree on whether or not the ROC or PRC is the legitimate government of all of China. How exactly would it be POV to say Taiwan is a part of China by covering it in the history of China? Since the ROC that is in power on the island of Taiwan IS the same state that ruled ALL of China prior to 1948 to continue with the history of the ROC on this page along with that of the history of the PRC doesnt seem like it would be all that hard. For brand new European countries like Montenegro we dont start Montenegro's history section with 2006 and simply direct readers to other articles for history earlier. And as for the idea that "there are some Taiwanese who dont think Taiwan is part of China" well, ok, really- who cares?; wp:fringe comes to mind for those people. Even though I agree with those Taiwanese, I say go ahead and declare separate statehood and screw the mainland, but I'm in the minority and am a fringe (in this one instance not in general!). If they werent a fringe then they'd have won enough of a majority to push for a change to the "one china policy" that both countries adhere to (and we'd be at war right now). We dont base guidelines, policies, conventions (can you tell me where this "convention" you speak of on wikipedia where we dont consider Taiwan to be part of China or we do consider Taiwan to be part of China?) or anything on what a minority or fringe group might think or find offensive. And anyways, wp:ignore all rules allows us to ignore any "conventions" on the status of Taiwan in articles that have been set up as they are preventing editing and therefore anyone who wants to start putting Taiwan info in, go ahead and be bold. Camelbinky (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

History gif

If anyone knows how to modify a gif file, it the history gif needs to be modified. For most eras where there are multiple political entities, the colors are distinct enough to tell them apart. However for the PRC/ROC, the colors are very close, making the map resemble a map published by the PRC. If the ROC is going to be included at all, it should be a clearly different color. Even better would be to use a striped color (opaque alternating with transparent) to note that whether the ROC is still in China is disputed. Readin (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs to be changed with more than that, Tibet was NOT part of China in part of the period that it is shown. There is a reason China had to invade and kick out the Dalai Lama, because it was independent, same with the Turkish northwest. Even during the Chinese Republic of Chiang Kai-shek (or however people want to spell it) several "provinces" had declared themselves independent. But mostly I'm concerned with the lack of understanding in the map and with Chinese related articles in general that Tibet really was independent at all and into the modern-age. If we are going to include as part of China any country that sent tribute to China then we'll have to include Thailand, Sumatra, Bali, parts of India, Sri Lanka, even the coast of Africa, and even in the 18th century through the mid 19th in order for Europe and even the US to trade with China the European countries and US had to give the Chinese "tribute", so lets just show a map of the entire world and say the Chinese once ruled everything. Lets begin to have NPOV applied to China.Camelbinky (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Was it independent? I was under the impression it was under Chinese Suzerainty, at least according to the British. A sort of semi-sovereignty. TastyCakes (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be interesting to have the ROC as of 1912, maybe shown with warlodism (and Manchukuo as well, since it was virtually occupied) following the Qing dynasty and then only PRC and ROC ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.197.86 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Chinese History From 1940's - present day

there is no information on the post opium wars- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.132.250 (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion above. It was decided that the article shouldn't cover the history of divided China, instead to redirect to history of the PRC and history of the ROC. TastyCakes (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The little man

I think it should be mentioned that the size of the China has grown enourmously due to acquired land due to territorial disputes with other countries, namely India and through invasions. The size of the country has increased by at least one third.RRRAD (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)RRRAD.

Somebody should expand more on the population drop during the Yuan Dynasty. While it is conventional wisdom to blame Mongol warfare for the drop, some historians such as the highly revered William H. McNeill suggests it was more due to plague rather than Mongol bararity as the main cause. In fact, in his book "Plagues and Peoples", he quotes it numerous times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.247.154 (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Wording

Maybe someone should rewrite the two sentences at the end of the "Spring and Autumn" section of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_history#Spring_and_Autumn_Period). The author uses present-tense, and I think that the author did not mean to say that China presently consists of hundreds of states. "The Spring and Autumn Period is marked by a falling apart of the central Zhou power. China now consists of hundreds of states, some only as large as a village with a fort." I think a better wording, like "The Spring and Autumn Period was marked by a falling apart of the central Zhou power. China consisted of hundreds of states, some only as large as a village with a fort," should be inserted. J1MATHMAN (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole article needs to be rewritten. there are too many instances of incorrect grammar, wrong tense, incomplete sentences, etc... Dauto (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect link!

This is only a minor detail, but a blunder in any case. Section 2.3 of this article deals with the Zhou Dynasty in a reduced form, and as such links to the original Zhou Dynasty article. The problem with this History of China article in the section in question is that the reference (link) to the Shang Dynasty (as in "The Zhou were a people who lived west of Shang... ", where hypertexted "Shang" is supposed to be the link to the Shang Dynasty (as it is in the original, or full, Zhou Dynasty article)) is in reality a reference to a musical instrument "(Tibetan: gchang)", NOT the Shang Dynasty article. End of message :). Wikiaide (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Doubt

what came first the zhou dynasty or the tang—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.190.13 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 19 May 2010

Changing BCE/CE to BC/AD

(Moving discussion here from User talk:Machine Elf 1735#Changing BCE/CE to BC/AD)

Hi, i see you reverted my edits on History of China. Well my reason that I change it to BC/AD is because that has been in use for about 2000 years and has been the standard and the BCE/CE is not widely used. People are familiar with BC/AD but may be confused by BCE/CE. Does for example 1323 BC equal to 1323 BCE? and besides, BCE/CE are secular in idea. Wolfdog406 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's important to be consistent. The section headers on History of China were changed but the entire article uses BCE/CE and so does Template:History of China. That broke section links from other articles. Please see WP:ERA about changing from BCE/CE to BC/AD. 1323 BC is the same date as 1323 BCE.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please see WP:ERA. The article used BC/AD from the beginning until it was changed in violation of WP:ERA. It is only important to be consistent within an article. No other article or template has a bearing as far as WP:ERA is concerned. If something else got broken, then it should be fixed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@VMS Mosaic, I suggested Wolfdog406 see WP:ERA, so perhaps you could infer I've seen it, and I'm acting according my interpretation of it? The History of China article has been using BCE/CE for over a year and, as I mentioned, there have been well over 500 edits since then. That implies a long standing de facto consensus. There must to be a good reason + consensus for you to make your desired change at this time. You combined your attempt to change it to BCE/CE with a vandalism revert and marked it as minor. One reason I oppose the change is because it will break wikilinks to sections of the article that have BCE/CE in the names. You do not yet have consensus and I suggest you refrain from edit warring.

I see that Template:History of China was designed to go either way via a parameter. I agree that the choices made in other articles are not sufficient justification to make such a change, however it's something editors might like to consider in terms of reaching a new consensus.

I'm reverting the article back once again and moving this discussion to the article's talk page. Let's continue it there please.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've had a chance to take a look over the article's history and I'd like to explain why I believe you're mistaken when you say it was changed in violation of WP:ERA. The MOS guideline is straightforward:

• "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."

The change was made 02:49, 24 May 2009 and the reason given was: "Avoid Christian terms for Asian history". Editors today may (or may not) have a problem with that reason, but it wasn't forbidden or capricious. The change was not contested, and plenty of editors were active at the time—so consensus for it is clear enough: 2 weeks later on 8 June, an editor mistakenly added a year in the BC style (for an unrelated reason) and that was corrected on 24 September (along with a few other instances that had been overlooked).

From your talk page, I see you've done a lot cleanup work regarding WP:ENGVAR, which is apparently canonical once set for article. Possibly that's what you were thinking of? Also, sorry if I implied you have general preference either way. Some people do for religious reasons, but I'm guessing you actually don't (and didn't mean anything by marking them as minor.)—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

All my edits are auto marked as minor, but you are correct that I should have unchecked the minor check box in this case. While trying to undo the vandalism, I noticed that the date format had recently been disputed. A quick investigation showed that originally and historically the article used BC/AD until a little over a year ago. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If I can give my two cents... The article was started with BC, and it stayed like that during something like 8 years. However, the guy who changed it to BCE actuallly gave a reason "Avoid Christian terms for Asian history"[1]. Now, WP:ERA says: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.". So, I suggest that you forget about what was the original and that you answer a) was that a substantial enough reason for the change? b) do the editors here agree that it was a good change?. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah well, sorry for the repetition... Agreed, it's always open for discussion if anyone wants to propose another switch, but it's just been far too long to treat it as a miscarriage of justice. Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the reason given was substantial enough, and in May and February other editors reverted to BC/AD although I don't agree with the reasoning for doing so. The reason given for the original change to BCE/CE appears to have been based on a particular POV instead of a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. However, I'm not up for another knock-down dragout fight (see Talk:Wine) over it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Wine#Article date format was an interesting read, thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"as I mentioned, there have been well over 500 edits since then. That implies a long standing de facto consensus." Rather it implies that the editor who violated WP:ERA did a lot of work that those of us who objected simply didn't have time to go through and fix his violation. If someone has make the correction, more power to them. Before the editor violated WP:ERA, several attempts were made to discuss and get consensuse for a change, but they were shot down. So the editor simply ignored the other editors and acted despite the discussion. It needs to be fixed. Readin (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You didn't have time? I'm glad you've found the "Undo" button because the user's edit was also an easy diff to "fix". I'm going to !abstain from participating. I'll support whatever tacit or explicit consensus forms around the merits of your revert. However, as you've also piled–on with more specious accusations against the user, ("...flagrant violation of WP:ERA"), an edit with which none of the "objectors" could be bothered; it's only fair to let them know they're being discussed.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese Cities?

Can anyone please add information/detail about the earliest Chinese cities? As far as I can tell, the earliest mentionend in this article is Sanxingdui (founded ca. 1600 BCE). Is this the earliest? Thanks.70.179.92.117 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes

I am sorry but the zhou dynasty did not broke apart. Zhou had been a country that leads other countries from its beginning. The Zhou Tian Tsi(king) gives commands which other countries should obey. Other countries respected Zhou until when The ( Xi )Western Zhou dynesty went over. This brought Zhou into the (dong)eastern Zhou dynesty (it is called as "Eastern" because its king moved its capital).Some powerful countries started to mess up the peaceful China and started invation for other litte countries. That leads to the end of Zhou after ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvinluk (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Organization of the Page/Eras

When I was in history class in China they did not organize eras by "Ancient Era", "Imperial Era", "Modern". In fact the names given to approximately the dynasties and kingdoms were "Slave Era" in place of "Ancient", "Feudal Era" in place of "imperial", and "semi-feudal, semi-colonial" in place of modern. I also have seen this classification elsewhere. Please correct the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.48.80 (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The sort of classification of eras mentioned by the anonymous editor above are those promoted by the present government in China. I, for one, object to a single period of history being labelled the "Slave Era" - especially as it is misleading - suggesting that the use of slaves was limited to a particular era when, in fact, like many other countries, slavery was common in China until relatively modern times. There is no reason for the WP article to have to adopt the categorisation of historical periods promoted by the Communist Party of China, which are based on Marxist theories of the development of societies. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

First evidence of human activity in China

dates back to 1.7 Ma, (from the control of fire page):

"In Xihoudu in Shanxi Province, China, there is evidence of burning by the black, gray, and grayish-green discoloration of mammalian bones found at the site. Another site in China is Yuanmou in Yunnan Province, where blackened mammal bones were found in 1985 and dated to 1.7 Ma BP."

Considering that the History of India page "dates back to evidence of human activity of Homo sapiens as long as 75,000 years ago". For consistency sake, this evidence probably should be included at the beginning of the China page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lezhao (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)