Talk:Chinese civilization

Han Chinese are descended from Homo Pekinensis "Peking Man" and NOT African Homo Sapiens

edit section header originally titled "Proposal to add new information to "prehistory of China" section of this article due to new scientific evidence that proves the Chinese evolved separately from Homo Pekinensis and NOT African Homo Sapiens like everyone else" SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I am a scientist who specializes in the fields of anthropology and paleoanthropology, I would like to introduce to you the peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting a separate independent evolution of the modern Chinese people from an archaic species of Homo Erectus, specifically the separate species known as Homo Pekinensis. Below I have provided the results of scientific DNA studies that provide strong irrefutable support for an independent origin of the Chinese from Homo Pekinensis. These scientific studies have all been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and are well received by the scientific community. Please take some time to read them and feel free to ask me any questions regarding human evolution.

1.) New Scientist Chinese challenge to "Out of Africa"

2.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

3.) Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

4.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals Global Patterns of Human DNA Sequence Variation in a 10-kb Region on Chromosome 1 by Ning Yu, Z. Zhao, Y.-X. Fu, N. Sambuughin, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins, E. Leskinen, L. Patthy, L. B. Jorde, T. Kuromori and W.-H. Li

5.) BMC Biology Journal of Biology "Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations" by Shi H, Zhong H, Peng Y, Dong YL, Qi XB, Zhang F, Liu LF, Tan SJ, Ma RZ, Xiao CJ, Wells RS, Jin L, Su B.

6.) National Geographic Society Peking Man (Homo Pekinensis) Lived in China 200,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Thought

It is tempting to simply dismiss the new peer reviewed scientific evidence that contradicts the previously accepted "out of Africa" theory of human evolution where, supposedly, all humans were descended from the same group of Homo Sapien ancestors and which subsequently gives "strong support" in favor of an independent East Asian origin of a separate archaic branch or separate species of humans, the modern day Chinese people. But unfortunately, the reality of human evolution during the past 4 billions of life on our planet Earth is not as clear cut as the "out of Africa" theory attempts to address it. The "out of Africa" theory tries to say that "ALL" humans are descended from the same group of anatomically modern "Cro Magnon" or Homo Sapien Sapiens and while some of the older previous studies did initially seem to support that theory, those studies were not all inclusive and did not test many aspects of human genetics and evolution. But within the last few years, new genetic evidence has been discovered as a result of numerous scientific studies that have been conducted which lend a strong support for the theory that the modern Chinese people, or conservatively, a subpopulation of the Chinese gene pool are descended NOT from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens like other humans on Earth, but rather that they are the product of a separate evolutionary lineage going back at least 1.8 million - 2 million years ago to Homo Erectus in East Asia. And that the modern Chinese people today are not necessarily classified as "Homo Sapien," but more accurately they could be classified as a highly evolved anatomically modern form of Homo Pekinensis. You must remember that regardless of whether we are talking about Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Erectus that we are talking about human beings. And even though they are a classified as a separate species of human beings, nothing can take away their "humanity," for if one of them were dressed up in a modern day suit, they would still be recognized as "humans."

Please watch the evidence on these links:

1.) Scientific evidence from the Chinese Academy of Sciences
2.) All Non Africans Living Today Are Part Neanderthal
3.) New evidence that Neanderthals interbred with Humans

Adding further support to the Multi-regional theory of human evolution are the recent DNA discoveries that anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis or the Neanderthal man, in direct contradiction to the thesis of the "out of Africa" theory which specifically states that Homo Sapien did not interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis and that the Neanderthal simply "went extinct." Which has now been shown in peer reviewed scientific studies to be untrue, and that the Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis did indeed interbreed with each other. These studies are additionally supported by previous archaeological finds that show skeletons of humans who show hybrid morphological and anatomical traits of both species of humans, both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis.

Please read the following evidence:

1.) New Scientist Chinese challenge to "Out of Africa" 2.) NewScientist Neanderthal genome reveals interbreeding with humans
3.) Archaic admixture in the human genome, Neanderthal genes in modern humans
4.) Signs of Neanderthals Mating With Humans
5.) Discovery News "Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves"
6.) USA Today Neanderthals and humans interbred, fossils indicate
7.) BBC "Neanderthals 'mated with modern humans'"
8.) Official report Neanderthal/Homo Sapien interbred
9.) Cosmos Humans and Neanderthals interbred, according to our anatomy
10.) Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans

The previous "out of Africa" model is only partial correct, while evidence shows there was indeed an out of Africa migration of Homo Sapiens, it does NOT mean that all humans are descended from this small population of Homo Sapiens. In Europe, the archaic humans, Homo Neanderthalensis, existed independently and interbred with these African Homo Sapiens resulting in the 1%-4% genetic admixture of all non-Africans. And in the case of the Chinese, numerous scientific studies have been published showing both genetic and fossil evidence that the modern Chinese people possess a different nucleotide encoding in their DNA, which in simplest terms means the Chinese have genes and other DNA fragments which they inherited from their Homo Erectus Pekinensis ancestor. Additionally, fossil evidence unearthed at the Zhoukoudian archaeological site have shown Homo Pekinensis fossils to have a continuity of anatomical and morphological traits with many modern Chinese people. All of the archaic East Asian Homo Pekinensis and Homo Erectus fossils studied have shown a continuity of unique morphological and anatomical traits, such as flattened faces, small frontal sinuses, reduced posterior teeth, shovel-shaped incisors, and high frequencies of metopic sutures, which are virtually absent in modern day European, Middle Eastern, and African populations but widely present in the modern population of the Han Chinese.

Thank You Very Much! --72.215.64.102 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm sure some of this material may be userful on the article on Homo Pekinsis. You can sign up for a name and add relevant parts yourself. I'm sure a few sentence expansion of that section won't hurt here, but please be clear and brief. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Not to be rude or anything, but this certainly belongs somewhere else; this is a talkpage for the China article, and is used to discuss the respective article only; placing it here is somewhat off-topic, as talkpages are not forums. You might want to bring this to the attention of an article talkpage that more specifically deals with the topic (such as Homo erectus pekinensis and Han Chinese), or to the Anthropology WikiProject. Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

ROC again

I am starting this discussion to prevent an edit war. Laurent's reasoning for the edits was that people looking for Taiwan would not go to China. However, only half of the ROC page is on Taiwan, so it cannot be assumed that all who goes to the ROC page are looking for Taiwan. Readin, the ROC cannot be described as a previous regime of China, because it still exists in Taiwan. Calling ROC historical would imply that Taiwan is not a part of China, which violates NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

However, only half of the ROC page is on Taiwan, so it cannot be assumed that all who goes to the ROC page are looking for Taiwan. - I think the way Taiwan's articles are organized is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that nobody would type "China" when they are looking for the ROC or Taiwan. They would most likely type "Taiwan" for the modern state officially called "ROC", or "History of the ROC" if they want to know about the history. Your argument that the ROC should be in the hatnote because it used to be in mainland China is not valid either because normally the role of a hatnote is to disambiguate, not to document historical facts or make political points. Otherwise we should also put "Germany" in the France hatnote on the ground that it was part of Germany for 4 years, or "United Kingdrom" in the USA hatnote (all these states still exist, right?). We simply cannot document every historical facts in there, it's not the place for that. Laurent (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Both still use "China" in their national title, your argument is specious. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they still use "China" in their title is not really the point. It's not the aim of a hatnote to list all the articles with shared words in their titles. We only need to do so when there's a potential confusion. However today no one can seriously argue than when users type "China" they are expecting to find "Republic of China", it's not 1949 anymore. Laurent (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If they want to look up China's history from 1912-1945, they would go to the China page first, then go the ROC page. Like I said, you cannot assume everyone who goes to the ROC page is looking for Taiwan. Hence your reasoning for removing the link is invalid. You analogy of Britain/USA is also invalid, as Taiwan never declared independence from ROC, and ROC still claims to be China. T-1000 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

china can not be separated by the government,but an union of its people and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.105.37.118 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, as a frequent wikipedia reader/visitor I find it plain ridiculous too when I search for China to get some facts about this possible emerging superpower instead I'm faced with this page, and reading the discussion arguments against the merge proposal it seems to me there's a political bias given none ever uses China to refer to other "country" than PRC. After all the issue deserves better investigation considering it's the only entry which doesn't follow the standards. In regards to this matter, I don't doubt wikipedia might be suffering manipulation for political expedient to the detriment of facts. That's shameful and really very bad to wikipedia, to the readers, to the knowledge, to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.168.129 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's quite true, I also think the current article is made to please a small minority of Wikipedians to the detriment of the majority of readers. However it would be very difficult to change this situation. In the meantime, all we can do is try to properly inform readers through hatnotes (even that is difficult) so that they don't waste time figuring out where is the article they were expecting (i.e. People's Republic of China). Laurent (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The refusal to let "China" article be about the "People's Republic of China" is one of the most glaring inaccuracies on Wikipedia. Unfortunately some people are still stuck 50 years in the past and want to see the PRC as a clean break from the continuity of Chinese history. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. The current situation is simply outrageous. Virtually every English-language media outlet uses "China" to refer to, well, China; everyone knows exactly what country they mean, and no one would think that they were talking about "Chinese civilization." It's sad that a few blind partisans here seem determined to ignore the fact that no one actually confuses the ROC with "China"; it's infuriating that they've dragged Wikipedia down to their level of willful ignorance.163.1.234.109 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.116.250 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's too early to say China is PRC because KMT is operating on claimed Chinese territory. The mere fact that KMT exist means you still mention it in the article. If you can't get this fact straight, then you don't know what NPOV stands for.Convenience for commonly used search terms for PRC equals China should not be held at the expense of the reality, brutal, factual information at the present moment. Two states exist, both laying claim to all of China. 72.81.233.92 (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Keeping standard format

The article has disambiguation bullets that note:

• People's Republic of China The People's Republic of China (PRC), established in 1949, commonly known as China...
• Republic of China The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan...

May I suggest adding "established in 1912" for the ROC bullet to keep the two bullets in a common format?

China should be redirected to China

China should be redirected to China, not to PRCSlidersv (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What? How do you redirect an article to itself?--Edward130603 (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Edward is right, it is technically impossible. Da Vynci (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

To want location if PRC is not directly related?--12.40.50.1 (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So much bull in this article

How can someone claim this?!:

"China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and is regarded as the oldest continuous civilization."

"For centuries, it possessed the most advanced society and economy in the world through successive dynasties"

For large periods of its history, China was no unified country and when it was it was often ruled by foreign dynasties and powers. But anyway, people should be aware that, as one economic historian had it, there are no quarterly adjusted economic numbers for the last two millennia. To act as if these numbers were facts is deeply unprofessional, and either naive or biased. Maddison says that figures before 1750 are guess work and the margin of error in calculating values such as GDP etc. in the late 19th was still 30%. So, in the light of this, what makes people here so cocksure that China was the leading economy for the last 2000 years?

That should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.72.14 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is sad when people making insightful comments without any sources to substantiate them... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{editsemiprotected}} please add sd:چين

--92.8.202.26 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! SpigotMap 17:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:ProfessorJane

Starting this discussion about User:ProfessorJane. There are at least three POV about the Political status of the ROC, detailed on the political status of Taiwan page. User:ProfessorJane is pushing one of them. This user has also been blocked before as User talk:98.122.100.249, User talk:98.71.6.81, and User talk:74.243.218.94. Opinions on how to deal with this? T-1000 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've shows ProfessorJane evidence that the ROC's status is disputed by the DPP itself, here: [1], but this user does not listen and keeps blanking the page. T-1000 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While there are instances I certainly disagree with T-1000, the ProfessorJane user is not here on Wikipedia to engage in consensus building but merely to assert their POV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

SchmuckyTheCat and T-1000 continually try to put pov-ridden information on this page. The page is clearly edited with a biased pov that makes the Republic of China look like it is a subservient territory of the People's Republic of China. This is a direct violation of official Wikipedia policy on Neutral Points of View specifically dictated in WP:NC-CHINA#Political NPOV which clearly states that the "Republic of China must be treated as a sovereign state equal to the People's Republic of China."

The T-1000 has an obvious history of deceptive pov pushing to anyone who would examine his edit history. My edits have all reflected the need to adhere to the official Wikipedia policy as stated above. ProfessorJane

Read Wikipedia's guidelines on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Can you actually address the issue itself? the ROC's status is disputed by the Democratic Progressive Party's chairperson herself. Do you have a response to that? T-1000 (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I missed this discussion and just posted a message on ProfessorJane's talk page. Yes I agree with T-1000, let's assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Then perhaps we could try to actually improve this article (and it needs it) and stop edit warring. Laurent (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)