Talk:China

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dy1001 (article contribs).

Proposal to rename back China to People's Republic of China, and Taiwan to Republic of China

Per the discussion here and the ROC Talk page.

I seen the related discussions about the naming the articles related to the both Chinas.

Since the use of the colloquial names, despite them are simpler, this caused confussion on the people who haven't read the articles and understanded the delicate situation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party (and caused absurd discussions, specially in other projects like the Spanish Wikipedia, see Bellow), and worse, caused a mess in both articles.

The rationale applied by the Spanish Wikipedia community to use the official names instead of the colloquial ones is strong, and this was demonstrated in a large discussion in ROC talk page at Spanish Wikipedia and also here. By contrast, the rationale applied here to use the colloquial names seems to be weaker for me, and specially by the mess caused in the ROC article.

Therefore, I'm finding concensus (or at least listening opinions) to change the title or keep them. I know what issues could cause this, but inverting redirections should not cause major problems I guess. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Why not do a big fix up just like the article Korea for example and the Zhongguo article in the Chinese Wikipedia. Its a complex region but divided similar to how China is today. The ROC still has control of Fujian's small islands and whole Taiwan province. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is needed. Taiwan is a mess, a mix of the history of Taiwan with the history of the ROC, and I insist, this is caused due the use of Taiwan as synonym of Republic of China. This is why I proposed also there, and propose deep changes.

This will take some time and coordination. Once the mess is fixed (I don't have much time to edit rather than minor ones), the articles may be renamed, if the community agree. I thing the Village Pump is a better place to discusse this, due the large amount of articles related to "China". --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To move a page you need a requested move. But it is very unlikely to succeed. We had one which examined this thoroughly and the consensus was to move the page to its current title, "China". See Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26. Nothing has changed since then, except we probably have even more evidence that the country is overwhelmingly known as "China". So I cannot see the outcome being any different, and a further requested move discussion would be pointless.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to this change. Keep the usual names, China & Taiwan. Pashley (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I am strongly oppose to this change. This has long been debated for many many years and the general consensus is to keep China/Taiwan. Taiwan just lost 3 diplomatic allies since you proposed this (Burkina Faso, Dominica Republic, and El Salvador). Rwat128 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I support Amitie 10g's proposal. After the end of Chinese Communist Revolution between 1946 and 1950, China is divided by two Chinese regimes: "People's Republic of China" which only de facto controls Chinese mainland, and "Republic of China" which only de facto controls Taiwan area of China, but the two Chinese regimes claim the sovereignty of whole China. Thus, it is ridiculous to regard the regime "People's Republic of China" as the country "China" and regard the regime "Republic of China" as the area "Taiwan". MouseCatDog (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Having the government officials running away and hiding on an island after their forces got their asses kicked in combat does not provide any sort of real state continuity. The people who set up the ROC on Taiwan may be the same as the ones who ruled the ROC as actual China, they may use the same constitutional framework, but it is ridiculous to consider them the same state. The ROC (China) fell, then the ROC (Taiwan) was founded. Anything else is simply delusional posturing. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me answer in parts:

• does not provide any sort of real state continuity: Have you any proof of your claiming? Or it is just pro-communist POV? The ROC still existed and never dissapeared. They just moved the capital from Beijing to Taipei, where the PRC established its capital there, then, both Chinas claimed the territories until today. Even, the United Nations still considered the ROC as the legitime "China" until 1971, where the countries dicided to consider the PRC as the legitime one.

• they may use the same constitutional framework: The constitution of the ROC has not been (substantially) changed until 2005. In other words, the used the same constitution since its foundation in 1912. The PRC, obviously, created a new constitution according to their interests (you know how are the communists actually).

• The people who set up the ROC on Taiwan may be the same as the ones who ruled the ROC as actual China: The ROC was founded in the early XX century and still existed until today; the just moved its capital from Bejing to Taipei, but the state never disasapeared.

By mentioning actual what do you mean, actual or current?

• If you mean current, both are the "current" Chinas, and both claim the same territories. The effective control of territories is another story.

• If you mean actual, both are the actual Chinas, where most countries have formal relationships with the PRC but not the ROC, while few others (including the Vatican City and some countries of Latin America) have formal relationships with the ROC but not the PRC.

• but it is ridiculous to consider them the same state: The only ridiculous is your comment

• The ROC (China) fell, then the ROC (Taiwan) was founded: Is just the opposite, the PRC has been founded in 1949, while the ROC still existed.

--Amitie 10g (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

1) The only proof is the fact that the ROC, as a state controlling the territory that had been known as China for centuries, ceased functioning as a government of that territory.

2) You do realize that my statement shows agreement that the constitution of the ROC is the same? I'm not sure what you are objecting to here.

3) There was a little more going on than just relocating the capital. The effective state fell apart and reconstituted itself on Taiwan using the existing constitution.

4) By "actual" I mean the territorial accumulation that had developed over millennia as "China" before the island of Taiwan came under its for a time.

5) So, if a revolution tomorrow toppled the US government and Trump and company fled to Hawaii to set up administration there, you would consider both the mainland and Hawaii to be the United States?

6) see 4

--Khajidha (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• commentAmitie 10g is now trying to re-open this discussion at the Taiwan talk page for anyone interested. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the Manchu name from infobox

Please remove the Manchu name ᡩᡠᠯᡳᠮᠪᠠᡳ
ᠨᡳᠶᠠᠯᠮᠠᡳᡵᡤᡝᠨ
ᡤᡠᠨᡥᡝ
ᡤᡠᡵᡠᠨ (Dulimbai niyalmairgen gungheg' gurun) from the multilingual infobox.

Reason: Manchu has never been an official language of People's Republic of China (PRC), and PRC is never known to have published its official Manchu name, so I believe this 'Manchu name' listed in the infobox is an original research. --Pawmot (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above. For all we know, it could be just gibberish anyway. FineStructure137 (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: There is no designated "official language" of the PRC. It's a touchy subject in a country with so many "dialects," regional languages, ethnic languages, etc. etc.

The 1982 COnstitution of the PRC here does not specify an "official" language, whether Putonghua, Manchu, or any other, but guarantees equal treatment. A Google image search finds Manchu used commonly on currency. Here, for instance, the (slightly) smiling face of the late Chairman adorns one side of a Five Yuan note, and in tiny font on the other are the five languages, including Manchu.

In 2000, the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language (Order of the President No.37)" directed in Ch. ! Article 2 that "For purposes of this Law, the standard spoken and written Chinese language means Putonghua (a common speech with pronunciation based on the Beijing dialect) and the standardized Chinese characters" and Article 8 that "All the nationalities shall have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages," and that the "spoken and written languages of the ethnic peoples shall be used in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Law on Regional National Autonomy and other laws." See also Pan, Haiying (2016), "An Overview of Chinese Language Law and Regulation", Chinese Law & Government, 48 (4): 271–274, doi:10.1080/00094609.2016.1118306

I assure my friend FineStructure137 that the writing is not "just gibberish."ch (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you could justify doing all 56 of China'a national languages. But it seems to me we have to draw the line somewhere. The banknotes currently display five languages: Han, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, and Zhuang.[1] FineStructure137 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Support. Seeing as the current banknotes hold the official name of China in Mandarin, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, and Zhuang, there's no reason to keep a potentially unofficial name of the country in the infobox. Maybe it would belong better somewhere in the article, if it correlates anywhere. Bailmoney27 ^talk 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. The only thing achieved by the proposed edit is to make it harder to find out what the Manchu name is, so it's a net loss, with nothing of any consequence gained. Scriptions (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that there are five languages on the banknotes, but we have six. Five is an important number in Chinese culture, what with five elements, five thousand years of history, five stars on the flag, etc. In all of these cases, somebody worked things out so there would be exactly five. Adding Manchu messes up the numerology. FineStructure137 (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding to that, the name would still be accessible at Names of China anyway, wouldn't it? Bailmoney27 ^talk 05:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You actually seem to seriously think that numerological concerns constitute a valid argument. Scriptions (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I'm sure I am not only one who appreciates your amateur psychological musings. FineStructure137 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

‘[A]mateur psychological musings’? You literally wrote: ‘Adding Manchu messes up the numerology.’ No psychology, amateur or otherwise, needed. Scriptions (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Support because this is actually hilarious. The Manchus had never heard of the People's Republic of China, so this was never the "name" used by them for anything, i.e. there is a flat misstatement in the infobox now in that it suggests there is or ever was such a name. Beyond that, we have the simple principle that a line has to be drawn at some reasonable level and an end put to the scripts presented to readers. If some level of judgement is not exercised, pages just bloat with useless, irrelevant clutter. sirlanz 06:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

‘The Manchus had never heard of the People's Republic of China’? There are ten million Manchus currently living in the People's Republic of China, some of whom still speak Manchu. Sure a line has to be drawn somewhere, but this isn't like adding Assamese because the PRC claims some minor parts of Assam. We're talking about the language of the ethnic group that ruled China for most of its recent history. Scriptions (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

WP tells us that there are 10 native speakers of Manchu - yes, 10, not 10 thousand or 10 million. Putting the Manchu script of "People's Republic of China" up on this page is as risible as providing Middle English for England Latin for European Community. Curious, even fascinating, but really just a linguist's divertisement. sirlanz Sirlanz 01:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

To follow up on Scriptions's point, please note that the article is "China," not "People's Republic of China," so the relevant point is not the number of speakers in the PRC but the role that the Manchus and the Manchu language played in constructing "China." Manchu was the language of China's rulers from 1644 to 1912, longer than the PRC has been around (what the Qing "official" languages were is another and probably anachronistic question).ch (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The transcription is of "People's Republic of China" which is the time-warped incongruity to which I have drawn attention. It is doubtful the expression was ever printed in Manchu; WP could be a first. sirlanz 07:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

What? The article is called "China", yes, in reference to the People's Republic. It's literally right there in the first sentence of the article. While the "History" section provides a timeline of events of previous states that led to the present-day PRC, this article is primarily about the PRC, not any other "China". That's what we're focusing on here. Bailmoney27 ^talk 07:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess this is getting a bit esoteric and Bailmoney27 has not had time to read into it. The issue was whether, in addition to the mainstream transcriptions of "People's Republic of China", we should have the Manchu version. My point was that Manchu-speaking society died out long before the PRC was established and thus the expression was never uttered; absurd to "create" it on WP. There would be no objection at all to the Manchu for "China" in an appropriate historical context. sirlanz 01:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That does make more sense. Hard to follow the conversation at this rate. Thanks for clearing it up, still agreeing with your point, doesn't make sense to invent the term on the article. Bailmoney27 ^talk 01:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the lively discussion, friends. After reading the points brought up, I have no beef with the outcome (though the Edit Summary explaining the removal should have noted the correct numbers in support and opposition). However, this discussion does point to the need for further pruning to make the article about the PRC. I will start a new section to start a discussion. ch (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the originator of the material is not to be counted in the outcome of the debate, hence the numbers in the summary. If I'm wrong in that, my apologies to all, especially Scriptions. sirlanz 06:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific: there were two of us opposed. ch (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Religion gallery

We seem to have a small problem of the unsourced image gallery in the religion section being implemented over and over despite WP:BURDEN problem raised and our MOS WP:GALLERY. There is a few problems with having a one off gallery causing undue weight to the section per WP:UNDUE and the fact WP:GALLERY discourages galleries of this nature that add content without sources that overwhelm a section. Have to ask is religion the most important part of this article that it needs 10 or more images - 5 times as many as other sections? Also would be good to review WP:SANDWICH as this has also been corrected a few times and reverted with no explanation. --Moxy (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This isn't just a selection of pictures: the pictures come with informative captions that decisively add to the section. Obviously no one is going to derive their ideas of the importance of religion in China from the number of images in this section, so that's a non-argument. It also doesn't ‘overwhelm’ the section.

Instead of ploughing through with legalism, it would behoove you to take a step and back and notice that this gallery improves the article, while removing it would worsen it. There is a certain kind of editor who thinks that WP:IGNOREALLRULES is the only rule that can be ignored. Don't be one of those editors. Scriptions (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Temple of the Great Buddha in Midong, Urumqi, Xinjiang. China has many of the tallest statues in the world, and most of them represent deities and buddhas.
• 
  Temple of the White Sulde of Genghis Khan in the town of Uxin in Inner Mongolia, in the Mu Us Desert. Religion in Inner Mongolia blends Chinese and Mongolian folk religious traditions.
• 
  Xuanyuan Temple in Huangling, Yan'an, Shaanxi, dedicated to the worship of the Yellow Emperor (said to be the ancestor of all Chinese) at the ideal sacred centre of China.
• 
  Temple of Guandi in Chaoyang, Liaoning. Religion in Northeast China is characterised by the interaction of folk religions of Chinese and Manchus (Manchu folk religion). Confucian religious movements like Shanrendao are widespread.
• 
  Taoist priests of the Zhengyi order bowing during a rite at the White Cloud Temple of Shanghai. Taoism is a set of orders of philosophy and rite that operate as frameworks of Chinese religion, alongside vernacular ritual traditions.
• 
  Larung Gar Academy of Tibetan Buddhism in Sêrtar, Garzê, Sichuan. Founded in the 1980s, it is now the largest monastic institution in the world, with about 40,000 members of which 1/10 are Han Chinese.
• 
  The City of the Eight Symbols in Qi County, Hebi, is the headquarters of the Weixinist Church in Henan. Weixinism is a 21st-century renewal movement of Chinese religion and philosophy.
• 
  Temple of the City God of Sheng County, Zhejiang. City Gods are tutelary deities of administrative units whose worship became common by the late Tang dynasty. Generally, they are deified historical persons from that given locality who distinguished themselves through extraordinary attainments.
• 
  Temple of the Culture Deity (Confucius) in Liuzhou, Guangxi. Confucius is widely worshipped as the Culture Deity in popular religion. Confucianism as a religion is practised by Confucian churches, for instance the Holy Confucian Church established in 2009 in Shenzhen.

Apologies to Scriptions, who has done excellent work on this article, but I agree with Mr. James Dimsey and Moxy who have removed the gallery before. The captions are indeed informative, but captions should not be mini-essays, only about the images. The Gallery distracted rather than enhanced because the size is out of proportion with images in the rest of the article and show only architecture.ch (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Why should the captions be shorter when they're so much better at their current length? How could the fact that the number of images is greater in this section than in others distract anyone from anything, and why would that be a problem? Why is it an issue that most (not all) of the images are of architecture?

You would find me more inclined to take your arguments into consideration if you explained what the issues were with these things rather than just state that there are issues with them. Currently you're just removing a lot of valuable content for no comprehensible reason. Scriptions (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I see two points of discussion. One is the need for a Gallery at all and whether it is distracting because it is out of proportion, which I and two other editor have agreed on.

The other is the captions. WP:CAP offers criteria for a good caption:

1. A good caption clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious;
2. is succinct;
3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article;
4. provides context for the picture;
5. draws the reader into the article.

The captions here, aside from being unsourced, do meet criterion #1. Not #2, #4, or #5, because they are short essays, set off from the article and do not refer to it. Indeed, much of the material in the captions is independent of the image, which is too small to see anything visually informative. Much material in the captions is not mentioned in this article at all, e.g. Religion in Inner Mongolia, Yellow Emperor, folk religions of Chinese and Manchus, vernacular religious traditions, City Gods. These images would indeed be welcome if placed in appropriate spots at the Religion in China article.

BTW, this Religion section could stand a reworking, so maybe you could use your talents to incorporate these points into it. All the best!ch (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You're still not explaining how anyone could be distracted by this gallery. Even if they could, I don't see why that should be Wikipedia's concern. Surely, if a section is so good that a reader is distracted from whatever else they're doing, then that's a credit to the section.

I'm pleased to finally see someone recognise an issue that is one of my main concerns, namely that you and the others have been removing textual information along with the photos rather than incorporating said information into the rest of the section. One thing is to remove pictures, another to remove relevant text instead of incorporating it. After this, I'm expecting you to incorporate the information into the running text before removing the gallery again.

The captions containing material that is not mentioned in the rest of the section is a feature, not a bug. One of the main qualities of captions is the ability to express information there that doesn't fit into the running text. Succinctness is not in itself a quality in a caption, and ideally, all captions on Wikipedia would include as much extra information as those in this gallery.

As to the size of the images, they're clickable, so that doesn't matter.

As for providing context for the picture and drawing the reader into the article, that's precisely what these captions are so good at. I was pleasantly surprised to see so many pictures and such long captions in an encyclopaedia that generally has far too few pictures and overly short captions, and I think it's a shame that so many editors fail to see how this sort of thing makes Wikipedia better, not worse. Scriptions (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I see that the religion section has many images that should be diversify, Because the rest of the other sections do not contain the amount of these many images. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, the problem is that there are too few images in the rest of the article, not that there are too many in this section. A gallery like this, particularly with similar amounts of extra information in the captions, would be a welcome addition to every section of the article. Scriptions (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Dont get blocked WP:BURDEN. So at this point we have only one editor that is unable to explain why we should not follow policy and guidelines on this..... so removed again as per above. We need to disuss with Scriptions the unsourced changes. At this point we are going to require sources for your changes. --Moxy (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:IGNOREALLRULES is a policy as well, you know, and I do explain above why we should follow that policy here, but you refuse to address my specific points. If you genuinely wanted to improve Wikipedia, rather than entertain yourself by identifying imagined policy violations and ‘correcting’ them, you would react to unsourced information that is obvously correct by either sourcing it or letting it be, because no encyclopaedia is served by the removal of correct information. But all you want to do is remove correct information on the pretext that it's unsourced – like most of Wikipedia – never mind that it's perfectly transparent that you're using it as a vicarious argument. Scriptions (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"Succinctness is not in itself a quality in a caption". This is absolutely, positively, categorically, 100% WRONG. If you have that much to say about the topic, write a paragraph about it and use the image to illustrate. it.--Khajidha (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If you think something is wrong, saying that it's ‘absolutely, positively, categorically, 100% WRONG’ is not going to convince anyone. Explaining why you think it's wrong might. As I pointed out above, one of the main qualities of captions is the ability to express information there that doesn't fit into the running text. Scriptions (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Explain? have you not read any of the links provided? What your saying is the opposite of protocols. --Moxy (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, Moxy. And the text you placed in captions isn't something that "doesn't fit into the running text", you didn't even try to fit it in the running text. --Khajidha (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't try to fit it into the running text because ... it doesn't fit into the running text. Anyway, I'll bow out now, as I'm obviously not getting anywhere with you two. Neither of you seems to understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive statements. Scriptions (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Reduce irrelevant mattter in pre-1949 sections?

The article retains too much material that is not relevant to the PRC, which is the subject of the article. The lede now spends a long but scattershot paragraph on pre-1949 history, leaving too little room for PRC material. The History section of the article occupies something like 1,500 of the article's roughly 14,000 words but its coverage is so haphazard so as to be nearly useless.

The Science and Teachnology, Religion, Culture, and Cuisine sections are only a little out of balance, but the literature section has only one sentence on PRC literature.

Any objections to cutting perhaps a total of 1,500 words, mainly the History section?

Cheers, ch (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the country of China. The article covers the entire history of China, not just the current regime of the PRC. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Khajidha. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No objections. It makes sense to me. Bailmoney27 ^talk 12:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

About first dynasty in infobox

@Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) . At first, Qin dynasty is not the first Chinese dynasty. Shang dynasty and Zhou dynasty is earlier than more than 1000 years. Even Qin itself was established in 897 B.C which was 600 years earlier than 221 BC. There are lots of archaeological writing discovery about these two dynasty. Consider you claim previous (than qin) non-imperial dynasties are of lesser importance, I see page Ancient Rome put 753 BC as the founding date when Rome was only a city state, not the 27 BC when Augustus became the first Emperor of Rome.
Then, the date 753 BC was based on myth, Capitoline Wolf myth, not the historical record. Page Ancient Rome also used mythological kingdom as the first kingdom. Except page Ancient Rome, page South Korea did the same thing. Use the mythological Gojoseon dynasty in 2333 BC as the first dynasty. It seems there is no rule to forbid the semi-legendary.
At last, Xia is in controversy. There is no consensus whether Xia is myth or not. The discovery of Erlitou site was defined as Xia by some scholar. It remains unclear whether Xia is Bronze age Erlitou site. Hence, Xia is claimed as semi-legendary. The full mythological first kingdom of China was Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors before Xia.Miracle dream

I did not claim the Qin were the first dynasty overall, but the first imperial dynasty, the first unified chinese state and the dynasty of which the name China originates. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You do not have concensus to change the history-section. Gain concensus or forget it. The Xia is not considered relevant in regards of the establishment of the chinese state. The Qin were the first unified chinese state and is also the origin of the name of modern China itself. The history-section in the infobox is about China from it's first establishment as a unified state to it's modern version. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Why are you so arrogant when you don't understand Chinese history? The Xia dynasty was considered mythical by many historians until scientific excavations found early Bronze Age sites at Erlitou, Henan in 1959 (It remains unclear whether these sites are the remains of the Xia dynasty or of another culture from the same period). Even if excluding the Xia, the Shang and the Zhou should not be neglected. Not only the autocratic emperor's rule, but the three feudal dynasties are also Chinese nations. The three dynasties are not unified, but each of them is a unity like the feudal system used in medieval Europe.Rzzgn (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The Xia dynasty remains mythical in the sense that the list of kings given in traditional sources and the stories told about them are dubious at best. Whether or not it was a literal dynasty, there was a neolithic people living in China at this time and they built Erlitou and other archaeological sites. It is not for us to blaze a trail. The Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project and Cambridge History of China, the two most authoritative sources on the subject of Chinese eras, both include the Xia.
I have to concur regarding the Shang and Zhou dynasties. They are fully historically dynasties and there is no basis to leave them out. How can a Chinese history leave out the era that Confucius lived in? FineStructure137 (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

At least, it seems both Rzzgn and FineStructure137 supported my idea in this discussion.

1. For your claim, you said the name of China originated from Qin dynasty is all about English language. In all East Asian language including Chinese, Korean, Japanese or other Southeast Asian language, the name of China nothing related about Qin dynasty. For example, China are called Middle Kingdom in both Chinese and Japanese. Chinese never call the country China or anything Qin-related country. I really confuse why the name of China was defined by English which most of Chinese never use in their regular life.

2. Then as I said before Xia remains unclear whether bronze Erlitou site are the remains of the Xia dynasty or of another culture from the same period.Then Qin is the first imperial dynasty but not the first united dynasty. Can you tell me when western Zhou dynasty ruled China, are there any other Chinese state in the same period? Then one of most important Chinese people, Confucius, lived earlier than Qin dynasty about 300 years.

3. At last, I really confuse why cannot put mythical period in infobox? Are there any rule about it in wiki? Please check wiki page Ancient Rome and page South Korea. Page South Korea use mythical Dangun as the establishment of Korea in its infobox. Page Ancient Rome use Capitoline Wolf myth of 753BC as the establishment of Rome in its infobox. Why South Korea and Ancient Rome can use myth as the establishment in infobox but others cannot? Miracle dream 07:47, 26 December 2018‎

The word "China" is from Sanskrit Cīna. This word is used in Indian literature centuries before the Qin dynasty appeared.[2] It must have referred to another country before it referred to China. As for the Xia, Cambridge notes that ancient literature refers to "Ten Thousand Kingdoms" that are said to have flourished during this era. So the period was not necessarily a dynastic one. FineStructure137 (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, "China" is the English name of this country, even it is from Sankrit word, it is just Sankrit not East Asian language. There is no Chinese called its country "China" or any Qin-related word. Chinese and Japanese use "Zhongguo"(which means "Middle/Central Country") as the name of China."China" itself is a totally foreigner word for Chinese. Chinese never use any Qin-related word to refer their country or people.

For the problem of dynasty, we can put the Xia period or period of Xia or something similar in infobox to avoid the dispute. Miracle dream

China is a superpower

I have edited the last sentence of the lead to reflect the growing consensus in the West that China is now a superpower. I have cited that claim with numerous reputable sources (from New York Times, The Economist, etc).

Here are my problems with the old sentence: it was based on older sources (like a BBC article from 2012) and it did an awkward job of capturing China's significance to the current international system. While I don't dispute that the United States still remains the world's leading superpower, it's highly dubious to classify China in the same league as, for example, Britain or France. China is more important to the world order than both of those two countries put together. So it's not "just another" great power. It's the world's largest economy (by purchasing power) and the current obsession of everyone from Patagonia to Siberia.

The language of this article should reflect China's new standing in the world.UBER ^(talk) 02:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

Please change '"Laogai" in Chinese means forced labour and reform.' to '"Laogai" in Chinese means labour reform.' because the sentence is providing a translation, which should be precise. Fl580 (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done: The material on Laogai in this paragraph is out of date -- one source is from 1991 -- but I added one that is perfectly adequate. For more details, see Laogai, which should have been linked to begin with.ch (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018

I want to put this country on the microwiki 64.125.67.45 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

When did the population double?

The article says: The Chinese population almost doubled from around 550 million to over 900 million. This seems right, since the population is well above one million now. But it is rather meaningless, since it does not say what time period it is refering to. It should. --Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The Source says during Mao Zedong leadership.--Moxy (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, fine, I think it would be an improvement if you put that in the article.--Ettrig (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Chinese Political Meritocracy: Skill NOT Popularity

A majority of the population believe that China is a pure dictatorship which is completely and utterly false and do not understand how China selects its leaders. Numerous scholars and news articles have stated that China selects its future leaders based upon skill not popularity . It is time that this is mentioned and emphasized, preferably with its own section in order to explain to the general population that China selects its leaders based upon skill. I would like to be given editing authority.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AvikemArruters (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

FineStructure137 (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC) REPLY:

What about corruption in China? Perhaps we can classify the country as a kleptocracy. In the course of his career, Xi Jinping was promoted by 18 separate personnel boards. Previous leaders were the proteges and successors of earlier leaders. Xi worked his way up from the bottom. He should be the best the meritocratic system has to offer. Yet he is hugely corrupt. His secret overseas investments are documented in the Panama Papers. I can only conclude that he is the best they have and that other candidates for party leadership are even more corrupt. If Xi has a skill beyond giving extremely long speeches, the party has been keeping it quiet.

AvikemArruters (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC) REPLY:

We're here to discuss whether or not my proposal should be implemented. There is a separate page for corruption in China and I believe that if it is not already, corruption can be acknowledged on this page, however, I remind you that people utilize Wikipedia for academic purposes/ to lead to other sources and the inclusion that China is a kleptocracy WITHOUT proof (and in clear contradiction of academic consensus AND REALITY in political science circles) would degrade Wikipedia's authenticity and integrity. In regards to your other comment, Xi has other skills, however, defending him will not help my cause as 1 example cannot prove a point.