This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Dynasty map
I think in the animated map that shows all the Chinese Dynasties, there needs to be a map that shows the area of control by the ROC from 1911-1945. T-1000 23:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It should show the Great Wall of China which is the pride of the Chinese civilization. Gantuya eng 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It turns out that Korea wasn't directly incorporated into Yuan Dynasty. It was a tributary state with its own internal administration. So the part of the map showing Yuan Dynasty needs correction. Gantuya eng 10:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
PalaceGuard008: Central Kingom
PalaceGuard008, the translation of "Zhonguo" is backed up with 2 sources. Please don't try to remove and put something which there's no support. The actual quotes can be found in other page, obviously you deleted those sources, and the behavior is really rude.
The term can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom" or "Central Country" , the less accurate translations are "Middle Country" and "Middle Kingdom". Scholar Chen Jian states:
"I believe that 'Central Kingdom' is a more accurate translation for 'Zhong Guo' (China) than 'Middle Kingdom'. The term 'Middle Kingdom' does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it \u2014 China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term 'Central Kingom', however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation 'under the heaven' and that it thus occupies a 'central' position in the known universe." [1]
Renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente states
"A more accurate translation of Zhong Guo is "Middle Country," and to be still more precise, "Central Country," with "central" being the key word... Whoever it was that first began calling the country Zhong Guo was using the word "central" in the sense of "heart," "main," or the place where everything starts, and from where everything is controlled." [2]
The long established Mongolian translation is "Dumdad Ulus" literally meaning "Middle Country". If it were "Central", it would be translated differently- "Tov Ulus".
The long established Russian translation is also "Срединная" which again means "Middle Country". If it were "Central", it would be translated differently-- "Центральная". It's unclear whether "Zhonguo" meant to imply Chinese superiority. It may have had a more subtle meaning. To be "Central" it should be "Xīn Guo" or "Zhōngxīn Guo" instead of "Zhōng Guo".
Here we are in English Wikipedia and are talking about the English translation of a Chinese term. I don't understand why this has anything to do with other languages. The character "Zhong" in Chinese has the meaning of both "Central" and "middle". As for the name of China of "Zhong Guo", "Zhong" actually refers to "Central". This comes from the term of ancient/tranditional Chinese: since ancient Chinese consider where they live is the center of the world (partially because ancient people don't have the ability to travel far enough to understand the real geograph of the world). Augest 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
That's IMHO to get insight of how other nationalities perceive it. The closest neighbours of China have perceived that word like that for long time. Gantuya eng 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Zhong has more to do with the five cardinal point. Where they believed they are the center of north, south, east, west. Benjwong 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The treatment of the English translation of Zhongguo was settled after lengthy discussion as archived at Talk:China/Archive 11. Please do not unilaterally change it to "central kingdom" without at least justifying your edit, addressing the arguments by which the current version was adopted. To summarise, they are the common names policy (and policy against neologisms); undue weight; verifiability and NPOV.
As there's new source supporting the Central Kingdom translation, the earlier consensus needs to be changed, also putting a big list of book titles doesn't help any. --Peter zhou 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Your "source" was already considered in the last discussion. The conclusion was that the balance of sources justified the current treatment. You will need to come up with some source that says this balance of usage in favour of "Middle Kingdom" has changed drastically to justify your edit. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Really?? As far as I know, the following source couldn't be found, this is about Central Country, not Central Kingdom. Also I think the consensus you mentioned was done in last year, and the current consensus is to use the current version.
Renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente states
"A more accurate translation of Zhong Guo is "Middle Country," and to be still more precise, "Central Country," with "central" being the key word... Whoever it was that first began calling the country Zhong Guo was using the word "central" in the sense of "heart," "main," or the place where everything starts, and from where everything is controlled." [2] --Peter zhou 15:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello? PalaceGuard008, since there's no response from you, I will assume you have accept the fact that you're wrong. Please argue in a rational and coherent way as you said. --Peter zhou —Preceding comment was added at 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Problems with map
The current map is inaccurate and has NPOV problems:
The treatment of other territories disputed with India, such as Aksai Chin, is according to the Chinese POV.
The delineation of countries/states/governments/territories is neither PRC nor ROC POV, but is in accordance with one strand of Taiwan Independence POV, specifically the one (it seems) espoused by Chen Shui-bien.
South China Sea islands not indicated.
Other territories formally claimed by the ROC as "China", such as Mongolia and bits of Burma and Russia, are not indicated.
In the interet of precision and NPOV, I suggest that all of these disputed territories either be indicated via some form of colour variation, such as is done here: Image:China administrative.gif, or a more accurate and NPOV map is adopted, such as this one here: Image:ROC PRC comparison eng.jpg.
Have substituted maps pending the above-listed issues being addressed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There has been extensive discussion of the map on this talk page. The map that you like (the ROC/PRC comparison) was removed precisely because it had so many POV problems. I'm not sure why you are so keen on showing all these territorial claims on the map for "China". Perhaps they would be suitable on a page dealing with "Chinese territorial claims" or "Chinese irredentism", but not this page. Many of these claims are effectively dead; showing them as though they are some kind of "neutral, objective reality" is highly POV and has been disputed by many editors.
The WP:NPOV policy says to "present all (relevant) points of view", not to ignore them.
Just because you don't like certain points of view (here, territorial claims/disputes), does not mean that you should ignore them. The majority of country maps on Wikipedia adhere to this policy by showing disputed territories in a different colour.
The biggest problem with the map, since it deals with China, is point 3: the PRC thinks the ROC doesn't legitimately exist; the ROC thinks (officially) the PRC doesn't legitimately exist. The current map presents neither point of view. Instead, it presents a view that delineates mainland China as "the PRC" and Taiwan as "the ROC", a viewpoint which is supported by neither governments, not hardcore Taiwan independence groups objecting to the authority of the ROC in Taiwan, but most importantly is not neutral.
This whole issue has been talked to death across many different discussions, and there is no need to reopen it now.
Suffice to say that the preferred treatment of the China/Taiwan issue on Wikipedia is ambiguity and neutrality, in that all relevant viewpoints are presented wherever possible. The two-coloured map does not do so, and moreover omits most viewpoints in favour of one narrow strand of interpretation in the spectrum of opinions on the issue.
One way that the PRC/ROC neutrality issue might be solved would be just to get rid of the government names (which, I noticed, were added by User:Jjhcap99 recently. The two colours themselves is not an issue - they can be interpreted as representing the jurisdictional difference between the mainland and Taiwan - a fact - and thus can be interpreted in any number of ways in accordance with various POVs. However, the addition of "country" names narrows the interpretations that can be attached to one narrow band - which violates WP:NPOV. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not that I don't like them. Territorial disputes and claims exist and shouldn't be ignored. The question is how relevant they are here, given pride of place in the general article on China. Especially given that Taiwan has even effectively given up its claim to Mongolia. It is probably better to show areas of effective control, which is why Aksai Chin goes to China and Arunachal Pradesh to India -- facts, not claims.
The PRC/ROC neutrality issue is a prickly one and I don't even want to go into it. Some opinions on the issue are more akin to religious fanaticism than to POV :)
Agree with Bathrobe. This is about Chinese civillization, and the best we can do to present this in a map is outlining the territories currently adminstered by the two "Chinese" pollitical entities. Border disputes and territorial claims are good information - only in respective sections...All thats necessary for the infobox map is highlighting current areas of effective control. I mean some people (like me) dont think Tibet is part of Chinese civillization, but currently it happens to be under the control of a Chinese pollitical entity. Pojanji 07:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with the general sentiment of both of your opinions. Still - the "PRC"/"ROC" labels coupled with the colours is POV, and accomodates only a narrow band of the wide spectrum of opinions on the issue.
My preferred solution is thorough explanation and presentation of all points of view, but the alternative is complete ambiguity - which I think is preferrable to the current situation. Would you agree with reverting to an earlier version without those labels? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Which "earlier version without those labels" are you considering? The presentation of Mainland China as the territory of the PRC and Taiwan as the territory of the ROC is probably as close to reality as you could get :), but is obviously not acceptable to either the PRC or the ROC, neither of whom recognises such a division into two Chinas. The wording would thus have to be careful in order to recognise these claims while at the same time representing the reality on the ground (which is, like it or not, tantamount to two Chinas).
I had in mind this version from two weeks ago, before the "country" labels were added.
The reality could be represented by some kind of key: "red (or whatever colour that is) area currently controlled by the People's Republic of China, purple area currently controlled by the Republic of China". More unwieldy, but more neutral (sticking to the facts), I think. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no objections, providing it's done properly.
Simple way to solve this problem: Use Google Earth to take a borderless snapshot of the general vicinity of th area. --Миборовский 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The real problem with the map is the problem of what this article is really about. The opening sentence "China is a cultural region, ancient civilization, and nation in East Asia." says that this one article is going to talk about 3 different things. Each one taken individually can be very difficult to define, it would seem impossible to define all three in one article. And given the tensions and competing claims about whether the ROC is part of China or simply misnamed, it becomes nearly impossible to maintain NPOV. Even the first sentence shows POV, saying China is "a nation". Well, depending on who you talk to, it might be 2 nations. Perhaps the "China" article should be very short, with the basic purpose of pointing to various other pages where the POVs can be more fairly treated.Readin 22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the current maps are supposed to be the final product of all the haggling, but it's still failing NPOV because it shows the ROC as part of China, which is a subject of dispute.Readin 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Miborovsky, haven't seen you for ages! Nice suggestion.
Bathrobe 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Readin, it may be a subject of dispute, but at this time the island of Taiwan is under the administration of the Republic of China which is basically a state that had been dominated by ethnic Han Chinese for generations and still pretty much is even if several leaders deny it, which makes it a "Chinese" State. Sure many of them have families living on Taiwan for many generations but going back their initial and ancestral roots are on the mainland (As stated on Taiwan#Ethnic groups, which says that "About 98% of the population is of Han Chinese ethnicity"). That is why they might define themselves as Taiwanese and not Chinese. natAlo!Salut!Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 04:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the definition of "China" "a state that had been dominated by ethnic Han Chinese for generations"? If we apply this kind of rule universally, then how many Englands are there? Surely Australia would count as one. For many years the U.S. would have counted as one. Getting back to "China" is Singapore another China? Again, we have to look at what we mean by "China". The current article gives three definitions, making it difficult to draw a map. What if an area fits one definition, but not the other two? Or what if it fits two of three? What if it's status in regard to one of the defintions is disputed? Or its status in regard to two of the definitions is disputed? Given all the meanings for "China", it doesn't make sense to have a long article that tries to cover them all. We should have an article that briefly introduces the name "China" in a few lines, explains that it has many meanings and that some of them are disputed, and passes the reader to various other pages for more details on the subject the reader is interested in.-- Readin (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Vote for the meaning of Zhongguo
Since PalaceGard008 changed the following paragraph which has been here for so many months, I think we better vote and see which one should be here.
Version A:
Only one sentence which covers all the 4 major translations, and all have sources:
The term can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom" or "Central Country" , the less accurate translations are "Middle Country" and "Middle Kingdom".
The actual quotes can be found in the Names of China page (PalaceGard008 also deleted one source, and I undid it), for your reference, I put the quotes here again:
Scholar Chen Jian states:
"I believe that 'Central Kingdom' is a more accurate translation for 'Zhong Guo' (China) than 'Middle Kingdom'. The term 'Middle Kingdom' does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it \u2014 China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term 'Central Kingom', however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation 'under the heaven' and that it thus occupies a 'central' position in the known universe." [1]
Renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente states
"A more accurate translation of Zhong Guo is "Middle Country," and to be still more precise, "Central Country," with "central" being the key word... Whoever it was that first began calling the country Zhong Guo was using the word "central" in the sense of "heart," "main," or the place where everything starts, and from where everything is controlled." [2]
Version B:
I've just checked, in the past, only Sumple was happy with it, and Sumple has already banned by Wikipedia community. The reference part contains 8 book titles, book titles only, lol.
The term can be literally translated into English as "Middle Kingdom" or "Central Kingdom." [1]
As far as I know, 3 Wikipedia editors here prefer the first version (A), please update the following if I put wrong infomation, also please add your names here:
Augest
Benjwong
Peterzhou
For the old version, only PalaceGard008 prefers, again please add your names here if you prefer the old version:
Peter, have you considered making a formal request for comment? I don't think vote-taking is really encouraged. Folic_Acid | talk 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I will do that soon. --Peter zhou 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm noticing an uncanny similarity between the approaches of User:Peter zhou and User:Jalamen 2 and other sockpuppets of User:JackyAustine who have advocated this view in the past. In particular, the similarity in approach includes (1) claiming to represent a consensus that does not exist, and (2) claiming that other users have been community banned/sanctioned when they have not.
That's your guess. If I can guess, based on your description, you are a sockpuppet of Sumple which has another sockpuppet of 211.30.236.143 based on a suspected sock puppet report. --Peter zhou 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, I will state exactly what is wrong with your version:
It gives undue weight to the translation of "Central Kingdom" when, in fact, the weight of literature shows that the more common translation is "Middle Kingdom".
As pointed out by few scholars, "Central Kingdom" is the precise translation of "Zhonguo", and there's no opposite POV, for example, no one says "Central Kingdom" is not an accurate translation. Whether "Middle Kingdom" is commonly used or not, it has nothing to do with the accurate translation POV. --Peter zhou 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
--- Hello? PalaceGuard008, since there's no response from you, I will assume you have accepted the fact that you're wrong. Please argue in a rational and coherent way as you said. --Peter zhou
It gives repetitive quotes on the same point which is already adequately represented in the previous version. Again, a violation of undue weight and NPOV.
No. First, there're 4 translations, and all 4 should be listed, second, the comparison of these 4 translations should be included, the actual quotes should be included as well in my opinion. -Peter zhou 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello? PalaceGuard008, since there's no response from you, I will assume you have accepted the fact that you're wrong. Please argue in a rational and coherent way as you said. --Peter zhou 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It misrepresents the sources: the sources advocate that a "more accurate" translation is "Central Kingdom", but they do not deny that "Middle Kingdom" is the more common translation.
As mentioned earlier, the POV presented by scholars, and the other POV (common translation) are independent POVs. --Peter zhou 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello? PalaceGuard008, since there's no response from you, I will assume you have accepted the fact that you're wrong. Please argue in a rational and coherent way as you said. --Peter zhou 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
All of these issues were the same ones that arose in the last debate, and consensus was clearly established in favour of this version. The only person(s) who opposed it was/were the various sockpuppets of User:JackyAustine, all of whom are now banned.
No, hello, have you seen the second quote regarding Central Country and Middle Country?? --Peter zhou 17:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello? PalaceGuard008, since there's no response from you, I will assume you have accept the fact that you're wrong. Please argue in a rational and coherent way as you said. --Peter zhou 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with PalaceGuard008's view. Temur 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm - that is a bit suspicious. Well, for what it's worth, I prefer the version that includes "Middle Kingdom" - that's all I've ever heard Zhongguo translated as. Folic_Acid | talk 14:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Based on the 2 quotes from both scholars, there're 4 translations, and all 4 should be included: Central Kingdom, Central Country, Middle Kingdom, & Middle Country. --Peter zhou 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Look, I can't respond to you when you edit and split my and others' posts. I can't even tell which are the bits you wrote, and which are the bits of other people's posts that you re-factored. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Pre-History
I think the prehistory is misleading. It states that Humans may have been in china for over 2 million years. Homo-erectus may have been there, but modern humans? Modern Humans (Homo-Sapiens) aren't even 500k years old. Need to restate that line saying evidence of Homo-erectus.Pat-rech78 17:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Should 4 translations be listed and compared?
I've removed the policy RfC template... That template is for disputes centered around a particular policy and its wording, not the application of a policy to a specific article or to disputes relating to the content of a specific article. AvruchTalk 23:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
In the "Etymology" section of the main text, Peter Zhou would like to use the following line:
VERSION A
The term Zhong Guo can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom" or "Central Country", the less accurate translations are "Middle Country" and "Middle Kingdom". [1][2]
The sources are the following: (to save space, only book titles will be used in the main text, the actual quotes will go to Names of China page):
[1] Scholar Chen Jian states:
"I believe that 'Central Kingdom' is a more accurate translation for 'Zhong Guo' (China) than 'Middle Kingdom'. The term 'Middle Kingdom' does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it \u2014 China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term 'Central Kingom', however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation 'under the heaven' and that it thus occupies a 'central' position in the known universe." [1]
[2] Renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente states
"A more accurate translation of Zhong Guo is "Middle Country," and to be still more precise, "Central Country," with "central" being the key word... Whoever it was that first began calling the country Zhong Guo was using the word "central" in the sense of "heart," "main," or the place where everything starts, and from where everything is controlled." [2]
In the "Etymology" section of the main text, PalaceGard008 would like to use the following line:
VERSION B
The term Zhong Guo can be literally translated into English as "Middle Kingdom" or "Central Kingdom." [1]
The sources are the following: (all these will show up in the main page as references, 6 refererences are book titles only, and one reference is scholar Chen Jian's quote)
[1] Sources using the term "Middle Kingdom" include:
Rossabi, Morris, ed. China among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th-14th Centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
Williams, S. Wells. The Middle Kingdom: A Survey of the Geography, Government, Literature, Social Life, Arts, and History of the Chinese Empire and Its Inhabitants. Rev. ed. New York: Scribner, 1883.
Wilson, James Harrison. China: travels and investigations in the "Middle Kingdom." A study of its civilization and possibilities; with a glance at Japan. New York, Appleton, 1887.
Zhang, Yongjin. China in the international system, 1918-20 : the middle kingdom at the periphery. New York : St. Martin’s, 1991.
Sources using the alternative term "Central Kingdom" include:
William Edgar Geil, A Yankee on the Yangtze: Being a Narrative of a Journey from Shanghai Through the Central Kingdom. Hodder and Stoughton, 1904.
Aihe Wang, Cosmology and Political Culture in Early China. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Regarding the accuracy of the translation, Professor Chen Jian writes: "I believe that 'Central Kingdom' is a more accurate translation for 'Zhong Guo' (China) than 'Middle Kingdom'. The term 'Middle Kingdom' does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it — China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term 'Central Kingom', however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation 'under the heaven' and that it thus occupies a 'central' position in the known universe." (Mao's China and the Cold War. UNC Press. ISBN0-8078-4932-4)
Repeatedly posting the same text is not "discussion". Please argue in a rational and coherent way, addressing arguments already raised by others, if you wish to discuss in good faith. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
For RFC, it's required to create a new discussion section put a neutral statement for both, I think you better learn Wikipedia policies. Also you should discuss in good faith and argue in rational and coherent way, if you check all your questions, I've answered all those, and I don't see any comments from you. Does that mean you're OK with my answers? In brief you better answer why only 2 translations should be listed, but not four? As I clearly stated all 4 POVs should be listed, including 2 minority POVs, also comparisons are POVs too, all 2 comparisons should be listed. --Peter zhou 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the problem is. The text, as it stands now, mentions both "Middle Kingdom" and "Central Kingdom." What are you proposing, Peter? If it's the elimination of the mention of "Middle Kingdom," I have to disagree with you. I'm not as accomplished a China scholar as some, but in the majority of the texts that I've read, "Zhong Guo" is translated "Middle Kingdom." If nothing else, it's certainly evident (to me, at least) that there's no agreed-upon translation of the term. I'd prefer leaving the etymology section as it stands now - mentioning both Middle Kingdom and Central Kingdom. Folic_Acid | talk 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There're few problems with the second version:
In Etymology section, the other 2 new translations (Central Country / Middle Country) from renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente were not listed, these are 2 minority POVs.
The 2 comparisons were not listed, and these 2 comparisons should be listed since etymology deals with meanings of words.
Adding a big list book titles doesn't help any, but occupy page space. Also there's Names of China page which should be used.
Deleting renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente's comment violates Wikipedia rule.
I'm proposing to use the previous version (Version A), but not the old version (Version B) since the old version (Version B) doesn't cover minority views (renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente's POVs). Also, in both old and previous versions, we've already included "Middle Kingdom", please read again:
The term Zhong Guo can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom" or "Central Country", the less accurate translations are "Middle Country" and "Middle Kingdom". [1][2]
Oh, and I don't think we should concern ourselves TOO much with adding every single possible translation of Zhong Guo. I think most scholars would translate it Middle or Central "Kingdom," rather than "Country." I'd prefer leaving out "Country." Folic_Acid | talk 03:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia rule says all POVs should be included, so renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente's minority view should be included. --Peter zhou 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What is so renowned about this person, why are they considered a sinologist, and why is his position considered a significant minority position? He appears, by his bibliography, to be a writer of pop-reference books for travelers on half a dozen cultures. SchmuckyTheCat
SchmuckyTheCat, I might use the wrong word "minority view", please ignore my personal comment. --Peter zhou 17:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This echoes much of what I've found about Boyé Lafayeete De Mente, and it doesn't portray him as a "renowned sinologist," but rather (as Schmucky says), a writer of pop-reference books. We need to avoid assigning undue weight to minority views such as this. Folic_Acid | talk 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Renowned sinologist? check [1], here[2], or here[3] --Peter zhou 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, Peter zhou, Jalamen 2, and other "users" in the past make a habit of claiming pretty much anyone who uses "Central Kingdom" as a "renowned scholar" or "famous sinologist" (easy way to qualify oneself for academic stardom, it seems!). There already is one such claimed "renowned scholar" in the footnote. If Peter wishes to replace that quote from another quote from another "renowned sinologist", that is fine.
That does not excuse turning a statement about how Zhongguo is translated into a paragraph promoting a neologism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
PalaceGuard008, Sumple, 211.30.236.143, or whatever, if you want to do some personal attacks, I'm not interested. If you try to promote your own agenda here, it violates Wikipedia rule. If you go to top of thispage, you will see the article policies: no original research, neutral point of view, & verifiability, please learn Wikipedia policies. Also "Central County" is not neologism, even MSN Encarta uses that word, here[4]. --Peter zhou 16:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Does this argument really warrant the entire page to be blocked?
I don't understand why it is so hard for all of you to just say "some scholars say this, while other scholars say this." Wikipedia is about representing all POVs, not siding with the one you have a higher opinion of or think is more favorable.
Besides, I really want to edit this page. Lol.
End this argument soon, for the love of God...or for our deified ancestors in the case of China. Hah. ;)--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Pericles of Athens, I totally agree with you. I've added VERSION C, see below, I think everyone should be happy with it. --Peter zhou 16:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Final version suggested by Pericles of Athens
Here's the verion suggested by Pericles of Athens, this version follows Wikipedia policies, and eliminates any reinterpertation. If no one objects with good reasons, this version will be the final version.
VERSION C
The term Zhong Guo can be literally translated into English as "Central Kingdom", "Central Country", "Middle Country" or "Middle Kingdom". Scholar Chen Jian says:
"I believe that 'Central Kingdom' is a more accurate translation for 'Zhong Guo' (China) than 'Middle Kingdom'. The term 'Middle Kingdom' does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it -- China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term 'Central Kingom', however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation 'under the heaven' and that it thus occupies a 'central' position in the known universe." [1]
Renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente states says:
"A more accurate translation of Zhong Guo is "Middle Country," and to be still more precise, "Central Country," with "central" being the key word... Whoever it was that first began calling the country Zhong Guo was using the word "central" in the sense of "heart," "main," or the place where everything starts, and from where everything is controlled." [2]
Please provide your suggestions, a simple word "too verbose" doesn't help to improve. Also, the title "renowned sinologist" is verifiable and meets Wikipedia policies. --Peter zhou 16:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not verififiable, and does not meet Wikipedia policies. SchmuckyTheCat
I think I've provided few sources, HERE [5], HERE[6], and HERE[7], please let us know your definition of "verifiable". -- Peter zhou 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I think the problem here is that those sites aren't really credible sources. First, they're all referring to the same thing, so if nothing else, they should be treated as one, not three. Also, they're sites for book sellers or reviewers, and as such, they usually get their information about the author either from the book publisher or the author himself. As such, it's pretty unreliable to depend on the author himself to verify his own credentials. It'd be like me calling myself a "renowned historian" or an "expert on political science" since I've worked in those fields for a while. The critical issue here is peer-review. If Mr. de Mente's peers characterised him as a renowned sinologist, then there'd be no concern. Mr. de Mente's characterisation as a renowned sinologist by those who hold a financial interest in his publishing success aren't really credible.
In any case, I'm not really clear why you want to include him and his translation, since (IMHO) it doesn't seem to add much, if anything, to the value of the paragraph. If we're going to list Middle Kingdom, Middle Country, Central Kingdom, and Central Country, why not also add Middle/Central State, Middle/Central Land, Middle/Central Nation, etc? IMHO, such a paragraph would be overly verbose, would confuse the reader (this isn't an etymological treatise - it's an encyclopedia), and would be pretty useless. Rather, I'd suggest noting the meaning of the two characters, and the fact that some academics translate it this way, and some translate it that way. Folic_Acid | talk 17:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia says all POVs with verifiable sources should be listed, please follow Wikipedia policies, deleting valid POVs violates Wikipedia policies. The word "renowned sinologist" has verfiable sources. --Peter zhou 17:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The publishers promotional material for the authors books are not reliable sources about the authors credibility. SchmuckyTheCat
I also object, per Schmucky. I'll try to come up with something that's more balanced. Folic_Acid | talk 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem, you can always add POVs to balance or whatever, but you will need to provide sources which meet Wikipedia policies, also please provide suggestions, a simple word "objection" doesn't help much. --Peter zhou 16:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Peter zhou (talk·contribs) has been indef blocked for being a sockpuppet of JackyAustine (talk·contribs) - a user who apparently repeatedly brings up this topic. At least now we don't have to deal with "renowned sinologists." :) Folic_Acid | talk 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The etymology should say that the usual translation of Zhongguo is "Middle Kingdom".
The current article gets this right by splitting up the meaning of the characters. It provides a simple definition of guó (国), the meaning of which is not important to the etymology. It means country, state, kingdom, land, whatever is appropriate to the context.
The important character is zhōng (中). The current wording doesn't get this strong enough. After mentioning that a standard interpretation is "middle" or "central" in everyday speech, this specific usage was to define Zhongguo as the dominant state in a tributary system, where China literally drew all maps with itself as the center (zhong). We need a wikilink here to to tributary state to define the context of zhōng. SchmuckyTheCat
I have no problem in putting all stuff there, please provide sources for whatever you like to put. Also don't eliminate other people's POVs--Peter zhou 16:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Use whatever terminology you like, it's more about context
Here's a quote from page 13 of Patricia Ebrey's Cambridge Illustrated History of China on the early Chinese mindset about their place in the world when they knew little of the outside (until the Han envoys started traveling into Central Asia, Persia, the Middle East, and India during the 2nd century BC):
To see the Chinese subcontinent as early Chinese saw it, we must erase from our minds all the maps we have seen showing it to occupy only a small fraction of the landmass of Eurasia, and far to one side at that. The Chinese subcontinent is so vast that by the first millennium BC the Chinese thought of it as All-Under-Heaven (tianxia), the entire earthly stage on which human beings acted out the drama of civilization. Surrounding it were vast oceans, wild deserts, steep mountains—regions much less central to the project of civilization. How far they extended, no one knew for sure. But the location of the centre of civilization was not in doubt.
It seems to me that the terminology of two words does not matter much in light of context, because without explanation of the meaning behind them, they have little substance. Sure, you can list all the varying ways to translate Zhongguo (which you should in the first place), but the important thing is not that; the important thing is that people understand the meaning and the context behind it. I think you can apply this same meaning to "middle" and "central," let alone "kingdom" or "country." In the very early Chinese mindset they were the only country! And that country just happened to be a kingdom with a monarch (although he lost much of his power during the Eastern Zhou era). More coming soon...--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no objection to the fact that "Zhongguo" can be translated into "Middle Kingdom" or "Central Kingdom".
My key objection to User:Peter zhou's proposals is that it give undue weight (in the form of two long long quotations) to a minority view that "Central Kingdom is more correct", and obfuscate the obvious point that it is most commonly translated as "Middle Kingdom".
It is more important to include the common usage - which "Middle Kingdom" undoubtedly is - than it is to make some minority viewpoint about relatively rare translations.
IMHO, correctness and commonness are 2 different concepts, that don't correlate with eath other. Maybe you explain why the correctness of translation is "minority view"? include source please. --Train t 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
From my point of view, zhong means central (middle is zhong-jian) and guo means country in normal usage, so it is central country for the best translation. -Amy Xu
Boring Picture
I find this picture very boring and unprofessional. I replaced it with this professional map made by a third party, but my edit was reverted by the creator of Template:Chinese/China/Map. To avoid an edit war, I'm seeking other editor's opinions. Coasilve 05:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
More disputes about the Chinese map... I'm leaning towards Miborovsky's satellite image idea. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, that map was made by the CIA, it may be professional but totally not NPOV. Secondly, the satellite imagery, i like, but the problem is it just shows a big blob of land with island and water but no definition as to what or where is China as someone could define it as all the "greenspace" (aka land - not all of it is green on the map) is all China which could very well mean that indochina region could be misinterpreted as part of China, the indian subcontinent could be misinterpreted as part of China, Mongolia could be misinterpreted as part of China, whole chucks of Siberia could be misinterpreted as part of China, the nothern island of the Philippines could be misinterpreted as part of China, the korean peninsula could be misinterpreted as part of China, etc. You see my point? The current map is better in the sense that it highlights the current boundaries of the "Chinese" States and treats the PRC and ROC equally in the sense that each of their respective current capitals are on the map and each coloured differently to highlight the current reality (and not some claims or politically motivated manouvers or whatever). Avec nat...Le WikipédiaPrends Des Forces! 12:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A borderless satellite image is quite meaningless. I fail to see what a reader can get from it... From Readin's comments above, just about verything about China is subject to dispute (nation, ethnicity, identity...). Yes depending on who you ask, theres going to be "Two Chinas" in terms of a "Chinese nation," but theres going to be one cultural region and one civillization. The most efficient way to define the term China on a map is depicting the areas controlled by the 2 Chinese state (nation). Another way to define China is by the location of Chinese settlement (cultural region) or archaeological evidence (ancient civillization). If the current picture is too boring, have a look at an alternate version. Im happy to modify it to make it as unboring as possible. Pojanji 13:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no POV in the map made by CIA. The truth of fact is that almost all the countries in the world recoganise Taiwan as part of China. Making them two seperate entities is basically POV. The picture made by User:Nat is also inaccurate in the sense that it eliminates all the small islands in South China Sea and East China Sea. I don't think the mainland and Taiwan has reached a border agreement. If you treat them as two seperate entities, how can you put them in two colors in a NPOV way? Coasilve 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that almost all the countries in the world recognize Taiwan as part of China, however, the international community only stated that it recognizes that Taiwan is a province of China and not the People's Republic of China. There is a difference in the fact that the term Taiwan, Province of China is meant to be ambiguous. The PRC and ROC are separate sovereign states even if one has much more recognition than the other: both have a Governing body that effectively control over a geographical location, each have international recognition from multiple sovereign states around the world, Each have the capability to defend itself "from enemies foreign and domestic", etc. It does not matter if they have a border agreement or not, nor is it relevant to this discussion. the areas of effective control are there and that is all that matters, I would fine if we use the one that Pojanji is suggesting, however, the CIA map is out of the question. Avec nat...Le WikipédiaPrends Des Forces! 14:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that the ROC and PRC have de facto respected the center-line of the Taiwan Strait as the line dividing the two states (yeah, even though Kinmen and Matsu are on the PRC's side). Anyway, I think the whole point of the "boring" map was to avoid exactly this kind of dispute - whether the PRC and ROC should be lumped together. While the article doesn't deal with any specific nation-state, I don't think the map, as one of the most prominent parts of the article, should give the impression that we're adhering to one POV or another. What'd be really nice is to have a map showing the evolution of the territorial borders of "China" over the years. In any case, I agree with Nat - I'd prefer not to use the CIA map. Folic_Acid | talk 14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Almost all countries do recognize Taiwan as part of P.R. China, because they recognize the PRC as the only representative of China. User:Nat's picture is not just boring and unprofessional but also inaccurate there are lots of islands in the South China Sea missing and it is not possible to demarcate these islands with two different colors. Coasilve 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This is kind of devolving into a political discussion, but... How do you know that almost all countries recognize Taiwan as part of the PRC? While any country having diplomatic relations with the PRC must recognize the One-China policy as a prerequisite of those diplomatic relations, there's nothing in that policy that states that Taiwan is part of the PRC. For instance, while the United States recognizes the One China Policy, it remains, as a matter of policy, deliberately and specifically vague as to what "One China" actually means. While I can't speak intelligently about the foreign policy of other countries, one must assume that the tacit acceptance of Taiwan Representative Offices and the sales of weaponry to Taiwan by other states (like France and the US) would seem to indicate that the "One China" policy is ambiguously held by a number of states. Thus, it seems a bit preliminary to make the claim that "almost all countries do recognize Taiwan as part of the P.R. China." Folic_Acid | talk 15:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. (as well as most western countries) only "acknowledge" (not "recognize") the PRC's position that there is one China and Taiwan is part of China. U.S. government policy (this is written in some State Department manual somewhere) is to never explicitly say 1) Taiwan is part of the PRC or 2) Taiwan is independent. These two points are left ambiguous, with the recognition of the PRC as the sole China implying neither.
That said, just because a supermajority of state recognizes the PRC as the sole China does not make the view neutral. It only makes it prevalent, and only among governments who have to deal with the PRC, not textbooks, news articles, etc.---- Jiang (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
And let's not forget the significant number of people who consider Taiwan not part of China at all, no matter how many "China"s there are. There is growing support for 1 China & 1 Taiwan. Until we can decide what this article means by "China", it is impossible to draw a map. A short "China" article that introduces the name "China", tells where the name comes from, what it has historically represented and briefly introduces the disputes on what it represents now, then provides links specific articles for things like "Chinese civilization", "Chinese culture", "Republic of China", "People's Republic of China", "Han Chinese", etc. seems like a good solution to me.-- Readin (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Since there are so many disagreements about the map. I suggest to have it removed from the article. Coloring the mainland and Taiwan differently makes people feel there are two China. But the majority of the world still think one China. The current map is POV pushing and misleading. I don't think people will call Taiwan China if it become indepent. -- Coasilve (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. This is a map with the current boundaries of the current "Chinese" States.
Reading, until the Republic of China is dissolved and someone formally and official declares "the State/Republic of Taiwan", doesn't matter if "the significant number of people who consider Taiwan not part of China at all" or "There is growing support for 1 China & 1 Taiwan". And the Singapore argument, while valid, does not have the same percentage of population that is ethnic Han Chinese as what the PRC and what the ROC has, which is roughly 98-99% of the population. And you know what, when the English did start to colonize different parts of the world, those who colonized those land believe that there were expanding English Territory and essentially believed their part of the world WAS England.
Coasilve, your comments shows a lack of understanding of the current and actual geopolitical situation. The current map is one of the closest we've been to NPOV, as it doesn't show any territorial claims, just the current boundary of the current situation in East Asia. Deliberately colouring the States does NOT make it POV, in fact, it give you the facts straight and it shows what the actually defacto boundaries of the "Chinese" States. The fact is there are two "Chinese" States whether we like it or not. What the majority thinks, doesn't always mean that it's right. And also, the international community may say that they only recognize one China, but what they say isn't always what the reality is or what they actually know is true, and refuses to publicly acknowledge that reality/truth due to diplomatic and economic pressures.
Nat says "This is a map with the current boundaries of the current 'Chinese' States." Is "Chinese States" the topic of the article? I didn't think it was. Anyway, why is "someone" declaring "the State/Republic of Taiwan" and dissolving the "Republic of China" so important? You're pushing your POV here. In response to my question about the current status of Australia and England, you mention some points about historical England, but I'm not going to debate you on that because we would be debating our different POVs rather than trying to reach a neutral POV. Is this article about current or historical China (whatever "China" is)? Does anyone know? How can we agree on a map when we haven't even clarified what we're talking about? If we're talking about "states that officially claim to be 'China'", then we should include the ROC on the map. If we're talking about "states formally called 'China'", there are none. If we're talking about "states informally called 'China'", then we should just show the PRC (perhaps showing Taiwan as claimed but not governed by the PRC). But until we know what we're talking about, how can we map it?-- Readin (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we are talking about "whatever "China" is" base on the fact that the word China is not an absolute term, although certain usage of this term might be more popular, such as using it to refer to the PRC. So this article talks about a little bit of everything about China. I cannot see the advantage of a "short" article on "China" when theres so much information on it. Pojanji (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I believe the proper image for china is Image:Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif... But even then... Perhaps a map shouldn't be in the infobox. China is an idea. What is china? What symbolizes china?--Keerllston 23:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Dragons, chopsticks, Confucius, Great Wall?
The Territories of Dynaties image is not so much an animation as a slideshow of different maps. I would love to see a more animated image that could, perhaps, plot the various regimes that had ruled China at different times. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A slideshow of different maps is FINE. The "various regimes that had ruled China at different times" takes us into POV-infested waters. What is a regime that "ruled China", when we're fighting about what regime rules China in the modern age? Deciding "legitimate" dynasties is such a weaselly exercise (Chinese historians love to do this because they are obsessed with concepts like the Mandate of heaven) that (IMHO) we should leave that sort of thing out of it.
I don't exactly see the important difference between it being a dynasty or it being a regime. The only difference I see is that it turns it into one that goes to the modern age. Vitally important more due to current controversy/polemic than facts. You can instead of regime "ruling china" call it different states, or separate administrations. China has been divided into states before. I find it strange to see besides what exactly china is territorially - is Tibet part of China or controlled by China? Was (is) Siberia part of China or was it only controlled by China? - Was the Yuan Dynasty of "Mongols" and not chinese?--Keerllston 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Very good brainstorm, Especially Dragons, I imagine it'd be a hard time getting a consensus. Confucious is very significant to chinese culture - but I imagine getting a consensus would be even more difficult due to his pro-"submission to authority" policies.--Keerllston 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"Islands in the South China Sea"? This is disputed territory. Sorry, Coasilve, your slip is showing. AFAIK, the only country in the world that recognises Chinese claims to those islands in the South China Sea is China itself -- oh, yeah, Taiwan, too. Why are you pushing this one-sided line of thinking on Wikipedia?
Bathrobe (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As to boundaries - my view is you either show all "legal" boundaries, which means all conflicting claims - including that of India, Pakistan, Russia, etc, or you show none. The current consensus seesm to show none - which means that we show all "de facto" boundaries - which are not boundaries at all but merely "lines of control". The current map shows the lines of control of the two regimes, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. It is entirely factual. You can interpret it however you like, depending on your political views, and especially your views on the Taiwan situation.
Personally, my view is that, until the ROC government officially renounces itself as a government of "China", and moreover renounces its territory on the mainland, there are two competing governments both claiming to be the government of China. Whether one is more "legitimate" than the other depends on one's interpretation of international law on the succession of states and statehood (which is not the same as a search for the heavenly mandate, as Bathrobe might put it). They each control a portion of their claimed territory, and so they should be treated how we treat such situations elsewhere, e.g. (to draw an example from Chinese history), the Three Kingdoms.
In that example, regardless of whether one thinks Shu or Wei is the "legitimate" dynasty, we would never colour all of their territories the same colour. Ditto the current situation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Bathrobe, the islands are not an empty claim that both chinese governments often make but they do play an active role in assurting their claims down in the south china sea as both maintain a physical presence in the area, such as the ROC base in the middle of the group of islands or the constant PLA presence. Avec nat|Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 06:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is perfectly aware that the government of China is doing its utmost to annex these islands. That doesn't mean they should be shown as Chinese sovereign territories.
Bathrobe, I thought you argued for this map to me on the grounds that it reflects "reality on the ground"? If it is intended to reflect reality on the ground, then each South China Sea island should be dotted (or not dotted) in accordance with actual control and not someone's (e.g. your) interpretation of the international law claims to them. If I understand correctly, that is precisely what Nat has done. Again, the map is about actual control, not legal sovereignty. If the latter was the case, then as far as I can see, mainstream customary international law holds that Taiwan should be coloured the same as mainland China. However, that is not what the map represents: it represents territories actually controlled.
Off topic, but in my opinion China has a strongly arguable claim to most of the South China Sea islands by either discovery or prescription, especially since they were terra nullius at the time of Chinese discovery. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed a tendency for Chinese (whether in China or ethnic Chinese overseas) to support China's territorial claims. However, Vietnam does make a claim to the islands based on the economic activities of its Vietnamese people over time -- not just ships that happened to sail through there on their way to the South Seas.
And yes, this is off topic, but I would humbly submit that the persistent tendency of some editors to want to show China's full range of claimed territories (including Mongolia) betrays a sneaking sympathy for those territorial ambitions. Otherwise, why would Chinese editors keep pushing to have that kind of map put in Wikipedia? That's why I would rather see it all put in an article on China's territorial claims.
Accusations of "sneaky nationalism" doesn't help discussion. Everyone has sympathies of one form or another in any kind of dispute. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a sympathy based on cultural or racial affinity is no more and no less worthy than a sympathy based on whose propaganda one believes.
The important thing is to cast aside such sympathies as much as possible when discussing editorial issues and be guided by policy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
What I want to do is question the motivation of people who are pushing so hard for this kind of thing. The article is about China, not about Chinese territorial claims, or Chinese territorial control. The desire, one way or another, to continually push for maps that show Chinese claims to Mongolian, Indian, or Burmese territory, or to islands in the South China Sea, seems to show up a real problem. Appealing to "policy" doesn't make any difference to the fact that people are on the extreme edge when they insist on pushing this kind of issue.
I would suggest that Wikipedia should have an article on China's territorial claims. There is a real need for such an article, because some editors' insistence on bringing in issues of territory and sovereignty doesn't help write a better article on China.
As well, if the map was really gearing towards their claims in the sc sea I would have doted all the islands and reefs in the area. Avec nat|Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 06:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
PalaceGuard008, in a couple place you preface your comment by saying "In my view" or "my view is that", suggesting that is is just your POV to serve as an example of what shouldn't be considered. But then you go ahead to suggest what should be done based on that view, and it unclear whether you are suggesting we do that or suggesting we not do that.
If your intention is to suggest we not do that, then I apologize because I'm about to argue POV with you. When you say "until the ROC government officially renounces itself as...", the problem is that what the ROC government says and what it believes are not necessarily the same thing because of threats they are receiving from the China and because of orders they are receiving from the U.S.. China threatens to invade. Taiwan relies on the US for protection from such an invasion. So if the US tells Tawian not to change their name, not to formally renounce claims to China, etc., Taiwan complies. De facto that makes Taiwan "independence" questionable not because someone can claim Taiwan is part of Chian, but because someone can claim Taiwan is part of the US because the most important decisinos Taiwan makes on issues like identity and a new constition have to be approved in Washington. If a gang of bullies threatens to beat you up unless you call yourself an elm tree, and if your gang, wishing to avoid a rumble, tells you "oh just call yourself an elm tree", and you, fearing for your life, call youself an elm tree, does it make you an elm tree?
I hear and read three major points of view regarding the status of China and Taiwan. They can be summed up as "1 China", "2 Chinas", and "1 China & 1 Taiwan"
1 China - There can be only 1 China in the world, and the current political divisions are because one government or the other is illigitimate, or because the civil war is still going on.
2 Chinas - PRC and ROC are each ligitimate governmens, each governing part of the historical and cultural China, and while they may merge at some point in the future for now they are separate states.
1 China 1 Taiwan - Taiwan and China are completely separate countries having nothing to do with each other because they are not politically joined and/or because for historical and cultural reasons are not like Mainland China or part of China at all. The obvious cultural similarities are likened to similarities between Taiwan and China are compared to the similarities between the US and England, Austria and Germany, or Spain and Mexico.
So long as the disputes continue, pretty much every article about "China" or "Chinese" that seeks to include Taiwan, or to obviously exclude Taiwan, will need to mention the dispute, the three major views, and link to the "political status of Taiwan" page to provide a NPOV. And each statement or map will need to be careful about the dispute as well.
Actually, the map is easy. You just show the competing claims. A much more difficult problem would be something like the Betel Nut culture in Taiwan. Should an article about "Chinese culture" include it? Even if you print the dispute while including it, you're still including Taiwan in the article on China. Maybe a link to an article on "Taiwanese culture" would be better. On one hand you acknowledge the view that Taiwan is not part of China by having the separate articles, but at the same time you acknowledge the view that Taiwan is part of China by providing the link on the culture of China page. I hope nobody minds that I've written so much.Readin (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarification Readin, when I talked about my personal view about the international status of China/Taiwan, I was trying to illustrate how the present map is amenable to various interpretations, which is why it is good.
As I said, there are two choices: 1) either show all competing territorial claims, or 2) show the reality on the ground. Personally I prefer the former, but if I understand correctly, that avenue would offend the sensibilities of those holding different views from both the PRC and the ROC - i.e. hardcore Taiwan/Tibet/Uighur/Manchurian independence supporters, who deny the legality of a unified Chinese state per se.
As a result, the current consensus is just to show the reality on the ground: thus all borders are based on lines of control. I think that's a viable compromise. It is viable precisely because it can accomodate all three of the "views" you mentioned:
If you are a "one China" supporter, then the two bits of the map add up to the "one China", but are coloured differently to show their respective controlling powers.
If you are a "two Chinas" suppoter, then the two bits of the map represent the "two Chinas" in terms of the territories they actually control.
If you are a "one China one Taiwan" supporter, the same applies - you just interpret the orange bits as "Taiwan", if you like.
So given that the map is amenable to all three of the interpretations you mentioned, there really is no problem. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"Personally I prefer the former, (i.e. show all competing territorial claims) but if I understand correctly, that avenue would offend the sensibilities of those holding different views from both the PRC and the ROC - i.e. hardcore Taiwan/Tibet/Uighur/Manchurian independence supporters, who deny the legality of a unified Chinese state per se."
You talked above about the danger of accusing people of "sneaking sympathies", but now you yourself accuse people who don't support a map showing Chinese territorial claims of being hardcore deniers of the legality of a unified Chinese state "per se"! Wow! That is rather a bold and illogical leap, and only betrays your true concerns. In fact, if supporters of Tibet/Uighur/Manchurian independence had their way, the map of China would be divided up into discrete territories, not shown as a single block. The problem is not that of "splittism", it's the fact that Chinese territorial claims conflict with the territorial claims of other countries. If you follow the ROC's territorial claims, even Mongolia loses its independence! Or are you really trying to claim that Mongolia is part of China, too?
I recently had a conversation with an official of the Chinese embassy in Ulaanbaatar who described Chinese people who keep suggesting that China should take Mongolia back as 无聊. But according to your thinking, this is not 无聊 at all! This is the sort of stuff that should be shown on Wikipedia! Great! Can you tell me what policy of Wikipedia would justify this?
I have a question: Doesn't this map indirectly affirms that all South China Sea Islands (Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands) are belonged to PRC and POC? (look at its color) small
And is it totally a NPOV map? Magnifier (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the coloured dots are by "actual possession" - as the caption indicates, the map is supposed to illustrate de facto control and not claims. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you'd better check how many of those islands China actually controls.
Also, I'd like to query the use of dots. They look like measles, and they really show up how some editors seem to be obsessed with indicating Chinese territorial control. Is it really so important on a general map of China to make sure that every pinprick of territory is pointedly marked out, to the extent that territories that wouldn't even show up on a proper map have to be shown many times their real size?
Let me bring your attention to an analagous situation. According to the Wikipedia article, Australia has the following inhabited external territories: Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and several largely uninhabited external territories: Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Coral Sea Islands, Heard Island and McDonald Islands and the Australian Antarctic Territory.
Does Wikipedia's map of Australia go out of its way to show every single tiny dot of Australian territory on the world map? The answer is, no. And the reason is that it's not a national obsession in Australia. No one feels that it has be shown on the map, or else all true blue Australians will die of chagrin.
Bathrobe, I agree with you about Burma and Mongolia and all that. Still, I think it's important to appreciate why others feel the way they do. Australia's external territories (with the possible exception of the AAT, but which is frozen (ha ha) under the Antarctic Treaty anyway) are unambiguous and undisputed. Christmas Island, for example, is not also claimed by East Timor, Indonesia and Malaysia. Given the ambiguity, I can see at least an argument that the dots need to be clearly identified. There might be other arguments along the lines of EEZs, but it is a rationally arguable case. I feel that WP:AGF mandates that we must assume good faith and give all editors the benefit of the doubt. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest you do the same. Accusing editors who don't want to show all of Chinese territorial claims on the map of "splittism" is not assuming good faith.
The fact that these territories are disputed, and in many cases not even under Chinese control, seems a good argument for not showing them on the map. Showing them on the map would seem to me to imply support for these claims.
I again put forward my suggestion for an article on Chinese territorial claims. This is a contentious issue (for those who want to show all Chinese territorial claims on a map of China), and it is poisoning the article.
I think we have a misunderstanding here. I didn't accuse anyone of splittism. When I was talking about hardcore secessionists, I was making the point that an overlapping territories map would not be sensitive to the views of hardcore secessionists, and that is why the actual controls map may be preferrable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to be absolutely clear, I support the current map, or in theory, a map that shows only territories of actual control, with a caption that makes it clear. I don't think Mongolia should be shown on a map of "China", except in a historical context relating to the Yuan or Qing dynasties. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And just to emphasise a point - and my apologies if I offend you - I know you have strong objections to Chinese recidivists. However, you should still assume good faith and not interpret everything as a recidivist claim. What I posted above was not in support of recidivist claims over Mongolia, or any of the other outlandish claims. It's unfortunate that you read it as such. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, these are not "outlandish" claims. I've heard them again and again. I've seen Chinese maps that claim the entire South China Sea for China, running right up against the coastlines of Malaysia and Brunei -- including territories that under the Law of the Sea would indisputably belong to these countries. I've heard commentators on Chinese TV (actually HK stations for Mainland audiences) that claim that India stole those territories from China. I am fully aware what kind of thinking is to be found in China. And I maintain my opposition to reflecting this kind of tendency in Wikipedia articles, based on "this policy" or "that policy".
I don't think that there is any policy of Wikipedia that would support magnifying the size of South China Sea islands on the map merely to show that China claims sovereignty or exercises control over them. I appeal to you again: take all the argument about territorial claims to a separate article, and give us a clean, reasonable map of China, not one blighted by territorial sensitivities to show "disputed territories" that actually form the large part of Indian states or measle spots in the South China Sea.
PalaceGuard, it sounds like you and I are pretty much in agreement on the map. We agree that either shows the competing claims, or show actual control. I prefer the actual lines of control, but so long as the caption for the map makes clear what is being shown then either will do. I still have an issue with some of the text of the article because it seems to be written with the POV that Taiwan is part of China, either as two Chinas or one China. Upon reflection this shouldn't be surprising. People most interested in China are more likely to have the 1-China or 2-China POV. People with the 1-China 1-Taiwan POV are not likely to be frequent visitors to the "China" page because they are more likely to be interested in Taiwan, and won't consider China to have a place in that interest except in articles on Taiwan's international relations.Readin (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, to people who feel I sound negative, my position is this: the current map of China, showing territories under the control of China and territories under the control of Taiwan, is fine by me. I oppose moves to show claims by either the PRC or the ROC to territories currently under the control of other countries. I also oppose moves to show every little island as an exaggerated dot on the map. I don't believe that such exaggerated attention to showing territorial details helps us in drawing a decent general map of China.
If these things are to be shown, including Chinese claims to parts of India, or Chinese claims to islands in the South China Sea or East China Sea, they should be shown on maps specifically drawn for the purpose. Those maps belong in a section, or a separate article, dealing specifically with the territorial claims of China. I don't believe that territorial sensitivities, or claims by either recidivists or by splittists, should be reflected in the main map of China -- and that includes measle spots in the South China Sea, which are disfiguring and blow the territorial aspect up out of proportion. That is my position on the type of map that should be used.
If those islands were shown to scale, they would be invisible on a map of this size. Let's show them to scale. Kanguole (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Keer. The content of this article focus on anything but politics, which are covered in PRC and ROC. A picture showing political division is not a properiate here. I think it is a good idea to use some symbols of China, like the Temple of Heaven, the Great Wall, Summer Palace, Chinese garden, etc. Coasilve (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
While the idea of a non-map image is attractive, I have my reservations: people come to "China" expecting to see a map. They expect to see a map of the People's Republic of China, with or without Taiwan. However, given how much animosity the map inspires, we might be better off without one. Perhaps we can treat "China" like ethnicity articles, which use prominent people to represent the ethnicity - thus perhaps a row of small images of things which are iconically Chinese. But that can run into problems as well - do you stick to things in China-proper? If you put in a yurt or the Potala Palace or the CKS Memorial, will the hardcore separatists jump up and down? Probably. But if you include only things which are Han Chinese, that would be Han-centric and insensitive to all the other peoples of China.
I did suggest a separate section on territorial conflicts (which could come under "Territory"). If people feel free to post maps showing Chinese (PRC and ROC) territorial claims, as they did previously, I don't see why anyone should object to devoting a section of the article to this topic.
There are several maps in the middle of the article. The current picture is more appropriate to demonstrate the political status quo across the Taiwan straight. But there is now such section in this article. It shouldn't be in the info box, because most of the articles that link to China refer it on a culture, history, .... setting, not politics. Coasilve (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
We're running into the problem of what "China" is again. If China is a country, is it a country in the sense of a single ethnic group ruled by a single government in a fairly constant territory? Is it a historic empire? Is it an ethnic group? If an ethnic group, then which one? Is "China" the sum of territories ruled by governments that use "China" in their names? Is it the current nation-state that most people think of when they say "China"? Depending on which of these answers you choose, you will get a different map, and you will cover different topics in the article. This is why I proposed earlier that the "China" article be fairly short, providing common usages of the term with links to the appropriate specific articles, as well as some history showing where the term "China" originated and how it has been used historically.
PalaceGuard008 mentions places like Russia and India, but those places don't have the crazy naming conflicts that China has. Does Russia have a neighbors that it claims without governing, but also insists that those neighbors use "Russia" in their names or face invasion? Does Russia make such claims in part based on the neighbors "Russian" ethnicity despite the fact that most of Russia's territory isn't populated by people of "Russian" ethnicity? Is Sri Lanka ruled by a government that used to rule India but now only controls Sri Lanka, while India insists that it governs Sri Lanka and no one other country should recognize Sri Lanka?
The conflict between ROC and PRC that spread to Taiwan has made China's territorial disputes very different from most territorial disputes around the world, and has made it especially difficult to achieve NPOV on a term like "China". In many countries, territorial disputes are just on the edges of both countries involved in the dispute. The name of the country is nearly synonymous with the name of the government and the name of the ethnic group. By claiming Taiwan and preventing the government of Taiwan from choosing another name, the PRC has made "China" a difficult term that doesn't have the same multiple meanings that names like "France" and "Japan" have.
If the decision to include a map is based on the idea that people who come to the "China" page are expecting a map, then the most logical map to show is the map they are expecting - a map showing the territories controlled by what people think of as "China", the PRC. Ask a hundred people to state the formal name of the government of China, most of those who can given an answer will say "People's Republic of China". Ask them which is a more accurate description of PRC: the areas it governs, or the areas it claims, and most people will say that it is more accurate to describe a country as the area it governs.Readin (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
But that's not NPOV - there are also some who regard the ROC as China - or who regard ROC as China also - or who thinks there is no such thing as the ROC!
As to analogies to other countries: (this is off topic) I think the China/Taiwan situation is one that is in transition. Up until, say, 1990, they were two rival governments in the same country: thus the same situation as any other rebel-torn country like Somalia or England during the Civil War. From the 1990s to the present it is transforming into one break-away state and another which wishes to stop it breaking away: thus analogous to the American Civil War (Confederated States being the break-away state and the United States being the state wishing to stop it breaking away). Have a look at Confederated States of America#Relations with the United States: the resemblance in approach between the two parties is so similar that I suspect the Chinese government might be deliberately copying US (diplomatic/politica) strategies from the civil war! The situation may well transform into, say, Russia-Belarus, or India-Pakistan: two separate states linked by cultural or ethnic commonalities in future; however, this stage has not yet been reached. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It's NPOV if the standard is what people come to this page expecting, which you implied the standard should be. As for the suggestion that the Taiwan-China situation is like the American Civil war, the Confederate States of America did not have 60 years of independent government prior to the civil war. As for the time prior in which there were two rival governments, it is true, but unlike England during its civil war, the Taiwan was not experiencing a civil war after many years of unity. Taiwan was governed by China (ROC) for about 4 years prior to 1949, but for 50 years before that Taiwan was governed by Japan. All these facts make the relationship between PRC and Taiwan a very unusual. Most formulations for "country", "nation", etc. are based on assumptions that just don't
No1No2
apply here. As for the map, to me it is fine the way it is, although it grates on my POV because I think Taiwan shouldn't be on that map at all. But the caption is accurate and gives a decent excuse for including Taiwan on the map without making the controversial claim that Taiwan is part of China, so it works as a compromise (I say compromise and not "NPOV" because in truth I think my POV is the NPOV).Readin (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Everybody, can I ask you a question:No1 and No2 which one is more neutral Magnifier (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As a map for the whole article, map no. 2 is better. As a map highlighting sovereignty and territorial issues, map no. 1 is better. The question I ask is, does "China" or "Chinese civilisation" boil down to a bunch of sovereignty territorial disputes? If so, you guys go for it -- no. 1 is it!
Non Votable ProposalI prefer No. 1 - Why? because China is not simple, that huge block of land under the PRC includes areas considered "autonomous territories" - What does this mean exactly? RoC/Taiwan is in a similar position - it is autonomous.
I proposed earlier the picture "territories of the dynasties" which is more related to civilization of china across time. Since it lacks recent history however it seems slightly unfit.--Keerllston 01:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look up the meaning of autonomous, you'll find that the only two autonomous territories shaded on the map are the PRC and the ROC. When people say HK and Macau are "highly autonomous" what they really mean is they're "almost autonomous". When people say Tibet and Xinjiang are "autonomous", they're misleading.
Bathrobe asks, "The question I ask is, does "China" or "Chinese civilisation" boil down to a bunch of sovereignty territorial disputes?" Well, which is this article about? China, or Chinese civilization. If the former, I still haven't seen anyone explain what that is. I like the one showing the territorial disputes myself. Most people think of the PRC when they think of China. Without a formal explanation of what China means, it looks like we're going to use generalities, and generally people think of China as the PRC.Readin (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I also prefer No. 1. I want that to be clear. I'm not sure it was from my earlier post.Readin (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is the "non-votable proposal"? Why isn't it votable?
In any case, I prefer No. 1 because it is more NPOV. But I am okay with No. 2 as well, because it is more parsimonious, if consensus leans that way. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither China nor Chinese civilization boil down to sovereignity or territorial disputes, yet (if I am not too bold I say) chinese civilization/culture/ectetera is distinct from tibetan, siberian, mongolian; And China is distinct from Tibet, Siberia and Mongolia. What does this mean? Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary. India is the country called India but also Pakistan and Bangladesh and maybe Nepal too.--Keerllston 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about that. That's a fairly narrow, Han-centric conception of China. Are you separating out Tibetans and Mongols on ethnic or cultural or historical grounds? What do you think about the Miao, the Uighur, the Korean then? If you are drawing lines on ethnic grounds, then there is more internal diversity among Han Chinese than there is between northern Han and northern non-Han peoples, and souther Han and souther non-Han peoples (see Han Chinese). So would you also say that southern China (see Yue (people)) is also not China? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Do I say that southern China is not China? I am not even saying that Tibet is not China, or that Siberia is not China, not even that Japan is not China - how about northern Thailand? that is China too to some extent.--Keerllston 20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, no one is voting anything or deciding anything through voting, as that would be a violation of our policy on WP:DEMOCRACY. Secondly, No. 1 is the least NPOV and most partisan as it clearly shows the claims of the PRC and clearly this is not an article about the PRC. No. 2 is much more realistic as it shows the actual boundaries of two sovereign states that use China in their names, aka the 98% Han Chinese states, aka the PRC and the ROC. It show reality not some territorial claims some state unilaterally makes or is stated in their constitution.
Kirlston, you stated that RoC/Taiwan...is autonomous. That is completely false especially in the context of the Autonomous Regions of the People's Republic of China. The Republic of China is a Sovereign state with, although few, official diplomatic relationships with other sovereign states. She is not autonomous but sovereign. Taiwan on the other hand the island/province under the control of the Republic of China. Therefore making the statement that RoC/Taiwan...is autonomous is false. Avec nat|Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Survey's are perfectly permissible, and help us see what the problems are. In fact consensus is understood to be gotten when a vote is done and all parties support. Voting to see who disagrees allows to see what problems there are that can be fixed what directions can be taken. RoC/Taiwan is not autonomous? I understood that one had to be autonomous to be sovereign.--Keerllston 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan a sovereign state? There are hundreds of millions of Chinese who would disagree with you. This issue is too contentious to take any specific stand. That is why a simple map with two colours is better. Although Mainlanders would disagree that Taiwan is not part of China, they at least would admit that it hasn't been united with China yet.
Palaceguard's comments bring us to the contentious Zhonghua minzu issue. The idea that these peoples inherently "belong" to China is the basic tenet of Zhonghua minzu. It is almost universally accepted in China, but is itself a kind of ideology. That is why these things should not be shown on the map. (As Palaceguard says, the Han ethnicity could be split between north and south Chinese, and both the Yuan and the Qing actually did so. The unified Han ethnicity is a more modern thing.)
I agree with what Bathrobe said. And in addition: --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Nat, while I like your map and respect your opinion, I don't agree with your statement about "sovereign states". No official body - not the ROC, not the PRC, not the UN, nor any of the other countries of the world - regards the ROC as separately sovereign from the PRC. All international bodies and all sovereign states either regard the PRC or the ROC as representing the entire sovereignty of China, "China" in this context being inclusive of Taiwan.
Now, of course there is a contrary perspective, that represented by Pan-Green politicians and their more hardcore supporters, that the ROC and the PRC are two separate sovereign states. This is a minority opinion whether in Taiwan or elsewhere, and is not recognised by any government or international body. Moreover, it is a simplistic view that assumes a false analogy with, for example, North and South Korea or East and West Germany. Unfortunately, it is a view with a disproportionately large influence on Wikipedia.
I am not against presenting such a view in discussions about China/Taiwan, but it is wrong to assert it as the "unique truth" when it is not supported by customary international law as represented by state practice. Consistent state practice is to treat all of China, including both mainland China and Taiwan, as one sovereign entity, while recognising either the PRC or the ROC as the government that represents this sovereign entity. If anything should be represented as the unique truth, the position at customary international law surely must be it.
My preferred approach is to be NPOV, in the sense of presenting all relevant points of view. Asserting that there are two sovereign states is elevating a minority view over and above all other viewpoints, and is not acceptable.
As I said, my support for the second map is conditional on an NPOV caption that makes clear that the map represents only actual control by governments, and makes no pretences that the split control represents a divided sovereignty. The latter position finds no support at international law, and should be presented only as one point of view among several. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
PalaceGuard, you appeal in several instances to what sovereign nations say about the ROC and PRC. You mention "customary international law" as the best source for "unique truth". But sovereign nations do not have truth as their interest. They routinely lie to achieve their goals, especially when conducting diplomacy. That so many nations claim that their only one of the ROC or PRC is sovereign has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with what those nations calculate it is in their own interest to say. You also claim that the view "the ROC and the PRC are two separate sovereign states" is not the majority view in Taiwan. Put simply, I don't believe you. Please provide proof of that sweeping claim.
Whatever most countries may pay lip service to, in practice they conduct foreign relations with both the PRC and ROC, treating them for all practical purposes as separate sovereign entities. Most countries accept passports issued by both the ROC and PRC. Most countries have separate organizations (embassies, consulates, whatever) to handle relations with the two governments. NPOV cannot ignore the fact that there are two. The challenge is to represent the facts while respecting the different views about the vague term (at least here it is vague as there seems to be great reluctance to define it) "China".Readin (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
To Nat: while the Montevideo Convention criteria are commonly accepted as necessary conditions of statehood at international law, there is considerable debate about whether they are sufficient conditions. This is not the place to go into that debate. Please refer to a public international law textbook or suchlike.
To Readin: It doesn't matter whether you believe me or not. Nor does the truth matter. Remember, Wikipedia is here to document what other sources say, not "the truth". It is clear that most governments officially view China as being under one undivided sovereignty. Some non-official views contend the opposite. There is no denying, however, that the single sovereignty view is well documented. It may also be the better documented view, presented as it is in reliable sources ranging from treaty instruments, to UN resolutions (which are at least persuasive sources of customary international law), and public international law texts.
Again, this is not the place to have an academic debate about public international law. My point is simply this: Wikipedia is about reliable sources. It is not about what you or I believe to be "the truth". The view that China is under a single sovereignty, whether or not it is "the truth", is well documented by reliable sources. The contrary view, while (possibly) also documented by reliable sources, should not be allowed to prevail over a documented view - that would be a violation of the basic NPOV and RS principles.
And just to be emphatic, I am not endorsing the "single sovereignty" view as "the truth". Nor am I saying that it should be the view presented by Wikipedia. What I am saying is that it is a significant view, and the contrary view should not be presented unproblematically as the truth. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: (these points are irrelevant for discussion; I don't want the discussion to be sidetracked by this): 1. "relations with the two governments" - having separate agencies to conduct relations with two governments is not a recognition of separate sovereignty. For years, many governments posted emissaires to the Palestinian Authority, but it was almost universally viewed as not-a-state. In fact, one of the strongest argument for a single-sovereignty view being seen from state practice is the fact that no government maintains diplomatic missions in both mainland China and Taiwan: the AIT, no matter how "like" a mission it is, is not a mission, and is not staffed by serving diplomats. 2. When I said it is a minority view in Taiwan, I was drawing on opinion polls that show a majority of Taiwanese voters favour an "ambiguous status quo". I concede that the conclusion relating to "two sovereignties" is an inference on my part - I withdraw that contention if you object. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You may be right about the number of official sources that support the "one sovereignty' view, but there also a large number of reliable sources explaining that those other sources are doing so simply to curry favor with PRC, not because they are being objective or exhibiting NPOV (and NPOV is what we strive for here). There is a reason why Wikipedia has a very long article on the Political Status of Taiwan. There is little in the China article to challenge the one-sovereignty view. However, the article almost completely ignores the view that Taiwan isn't really part of China at all, that it only has "China" in the name due to past colonialism and historical accident. Of course, as I keep trying to point out, until there is some agreement on what is meant by "China" (is it political, cultural, civilisation, etc.?) then these questions are impossible to answer with NPOV. The opening line of the article says "cultural region, ancient civilization, and nation". Well, those three things all have different boundaries. It should be no surprise that we can't come to agreement on the map or anything else.Readin (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Readin, I think I am inclined to agree with the general tenor of your post. Still, may I urge caution in dismissing otherwise reliable sources by saying that they are "doing so simply to curry favor with PRC"? It is not up to us to second guess the motives of a source, unless an ulterior motive is well documented - e.g. we would not accepted, say, a government document that has been reliably reported as being fabricated or biased.
In any case, if you feel that there isn't really a balance on the sovereignty issue (personally I think that the general treatment on Wikipedia seems to lean too far to the PRC-ROC dual sovereignty view, and neglects the single sovereignty view, and also neglects the separate Taiwanese sovereignty view) -- then the solution is to find enough reliable sources to document that other view. Wikipedia's role is to document what is said by other sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"That's a fairly narrow, Han-centric conception of China." I don't think so. I think noting that Siberia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Tibet, Mongolia, owe much and are considered to greater or lesser extent part of the "Civilization of China" or of "Greater China" or of "Cultural China" as opposed to "Political China" (Political Maps vs. Topographical, etc.) which is "China on both sides of the strait" -PRC and RoC
It's this insistence (subtle or not-so-subtle) on trying to include Siberia, Japan, Korea, and anywhere else in some kind of "Greater China" that irks so many non-Chinese. Such an attitude tries to overlook all the unique features of these particular places in favour of a sinocentric view of East Asia. Politically, China has already engulfed distinct cultural areas like Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. Under the ideology of Zhonghua minzu China now also claims their culture, by claiming their entire historical legacy as "Chinese". In a nice sleight of hand, of course, the "Han Chinese" always occupy pride of place in the mainstream. So when you speak of "Chinese" you normally mean "Han Chinese" (unless specified otherwise), but if you try to distinguish "Tibetan" culture from "Chinese" culture, you get a clamour of protest that the Tibetans are also Chinese! Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
I think we need to get away from this expanded idea of China. It isn't helpful and muddies things that are actually quite clear. The motive is purely a political desire to ensure that no one challenges China's claim to sovereignty or predominance over these areas (sometimes it's hard to separate which is which). We don't need to aggrandise China's territorial and historical reach in order to recognise the greatness of Chinese civilisation and its accomplishments.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.Readin (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Which means that the way is not "One China" called PRC or Roc, or "Two Chinas" called PRC and RoC - but more than both and less than both. China[PRC] did not include Hong Kong, and now it does, did that change the size of China or did that change the size of the PRC? China remained the same, the PRC increased in size.--Keerllston 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll just reply to both of your messages here: You stated quite emphatically that, among other things, "Tibet is not China". That's where I disagree with you. Regardless of whether it was, or will be, or should be, I don't think anyone would dispute that right now Tibet is part of China, or, as you say, "Political China". You seem very sure about that point. That is why I sought to challenge you by pointing out that, once you start ticking off bits of China as "not really Chinese", you slide down a slippery slope - is Uighurland (Xinjiang) part of "China"? Is Inner Mongolia part of "China"? What about the southwest? What about, indeed, all of southern China? Because if you are so sure that Tibet is not part of China, then the same argument could apply - to a greater or lesser extent - to all of these regions. Where do you draw the line? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Tibet is clearly part of "Political China". Is it part of "civilizational China"? Perhaps. Is it part of "Cultural China". Probably not, except for the huge waves of immigration the PRC has been encouraging to dilute the native Tibetan population. I keep getting opportunities to repeat my point about needing a definition for what this article is about. Currently, the page is self-contradictory. Before the opening sentence, there is a disambiguation that says this article is about "Chinese civilization". But the opening sentence then talks about it being a culture, civilization and state.Readin (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I take your point about the confusion. But is it up to us to decide whether "China" is or is not one or another of these (culture, civilisation, nation [not state])? No. So long as any of these conceptions are supported by reliable sources, they should be reported. (Personally, I think "China" is a nation which may be either two states or one state with disputed borders.)
I think that, assuming there are reliable sources to support each of these conceptions, they should each be reported and then clearly delineated in the article. E.g. "China has been described as a culture, a civilisation, or a nation. It is also used as shorthand for one or both of the two governments which bear "China" in their names, being the PRC and the ROC". The article can then go on to describe views about what is China as a culture; what is China as a civilisation; and what is China as a nation.
On a separate note, why is Tibet not a part of "cultural China"? I don't think we can be so definite about it. It really comes down to your conception of China. My view is that any people which lives predominently in (political) China is "Chinese" - and their culture is part of Chinese culture. It is unfortunate that, for example, Western conceptions of "Chinese culture" consists of red lanterns, dragons, and chopsticks. Such a simplistic view masks both the diversity and the commonalities of the cultures of various groups within China - including both Han Chinese groups and non-Han Chinese groups. Again, I think that to say unproblematically that "Tibet is not part of (cultural) China" is to go down a slippery slope, because you will soon find that Wu culture isn't "really Chinese" in the sense of the dominant northern Han Chinese either! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be trying to inlude everything you possibly can in "China". Tibet is part of China even though it is culturally and historically distinct because it is part of "political China. But Taiwan, with a distinct history and not part of "political China", is part of China because of a similar culture, or perhaps because of the name. But by being similarly flexible in definition, we can toss out both Taiwan and Tibet from China because one is not politically unified and the other has a distinct culture and civilization. It is not too much to ask that one article address one topic. It is true that China is used to describe a nation. And it is used to describe a civilization. And it is use to describe dishes! We left the dishes out, should we put them in? No, that's what disambiguation pages are for. And its not a stretch at all to choose one primary meaning for China and put the usual "for other uses of "China", see the disambiguation page" message at the top of the page. Personally, I think PRC is the logical page to go to when someone looks for "China", but the article currently uses "Chinese civlization", and I think that is fine. I'm not an expert on the history of Tibet, but I suspect Tibet should not be included in such an article. Taiwan probably should be as it became civilized when Chinese started immigrating there. What place Korea and Japan would have in such an article is something to debate.Readin (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Not to cut the hairs too thinly - but "fine China" is part of Chinese culture/economy - craftsmen of China were the most skilled in many arts. One Topic - Undivided India, Arab World are also one topic. I disagree that PRC is the logical page, I think this page is the logical page.--Keerllston 03:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"Personally, I think "China" is a nation which may be either two states or one state with disputed borders." The PRC notes itself as a multi-national state. So - not a nation - a state - a political state - a government and a territory? That is not the desired article. The desired article is about "Chinese" culture, nations, civilization, etcetera. "Korea", "Japan" do have significant "Chinese" heritage, and I do not know where "Mongolia" ends and "China" begins (strange use of quotations?).--Keerllston 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe I said that tibet is distinct from china, not that China did not include Tibet. China is clearly not the same as Tibet, Tibet is clearly not the same as China. Tibetan people have a distinct culture, Tibetan Buddhism is distinct from (non-Tibetan) Chinese Buddhism. Ethnically as well, the Tibetan ethnicity is different from other ethnicities of "China" including "Han Chinese". At it's current state, the article does not seem to describe Tibetan Culture/Civilization/history much. Nor Tibetan, nor Cantonese, Nor Mongolian. Broadest is truest and therefore I suggest including those in this article - --Keerllston 03:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice as it sounds to have everyone in the Zhonghua minzu family represented in an article on Chinese civilisation, I am very dubious of the use of a modern political concept to force all these distinct cultures and their entire histories into the article on "China".
But it's not quite just the modern political concept - Just like India is not just the modern political concept- As to what shape putting all that infomration in would take - it would not have the entire articles on mongolia and tibet in this article, that's what the other articles are there for, but it would note that the idea of china encompasses a broad area, lots of nationalities, lots of cultures- it sounds nice? thankyou--Keerllston 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I don't agree with the idea. The "China" that you are talking about is a modern-day successor to the Qing dynasty. It's not ancient at all. Zhonghua minzu is an ideological attempt to tie all these disparate ethnicities into one group and thereby maintain the territorial integrity of the state. This is where the discord between the 'civilisation' and the 'nation' becomes most apparent. It's less than 100 years since this new concept of Zhonghua minzu came along and decreed (out of modern political and territorial exigencies) that all those people with their different cultures and histories are really "Chinese". The problem is that Tibet is not part of Chinese civilisation culturally, although it is no doubt is part of the modern state. Nor is (Inner) Mongolia. Also, I think that your statement that "it would not have the entire articles on mongolia and tibet in this article, that's what the other articles are there for" will run into some stiff resistance from the (outer) Mongolians. They are rather fed up with Chinese people coming along and telling them that their culture and history belongs to China.
Bathrobe (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Bathrobe is right here. Keer said "the idea of china encompasses a broad area, lots of nationalities, lots of cultures" - it sounds nice? thankyou" The problem is that while it sounds nice to you, it doesn't sound nice to a lot of other people, especially the people Bathrobe mentions who are actually part of those cultures you want to encompass who don't believe they are part of part of cultural or civilizational China just because they now live in political China, a political China whose borders are far larger now than they have been throughout most of history.Readin (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat my point from before: you can't just state unproblematically that "Tibet is not part of Chinese civilisation culturally". Of course the point is debatable, but the Tubo have played an important role in Chinese history at least since the Tang Dynasty. Tibetan Buddhism was the predominant denomination in China for more than 300 years (during the Yuan and Qing dynasties). Even today, Tibetan lamas command large religious influence in many areas outside the traditional Tibetan regions, for example in Eastern Sichuan or in Beijing and surrounds. One needs only to look at the architecture of the Potala Palace on the one hand and the temples of Chengde or indeed the Forbidden City to see the cross-pollination of Han- and Tibetan-cultures. The line between, say, Tibetan culture vs Cantonese culture or Taiwanese culture as part of Chinese culture is merely one of degree, depending on when they were conquered or adopted by the northern Chinese dynasty.
Saying that Tibet is not part of the Chinese civilisation in terms of culture should logically mean also that Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjiang and Yunnan-Guanxi are excluded also: they, according to the criteria used to exclude Tibet, also have distinct cultures and ethnic identities. The Manchus, by this argument, are also not part of the Chinese civilisation - a slightly absurd outcome. If they are not Chinese, what are they? Korean?
Excluding certain ethnic groups on the grounds that they "have a distinct culture" and whatnot is clearly Han-centric. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Readin, the views that you expressed (and that I partially backed up) are common in the West, but are anathaema to the Chinese. We are lucky that we are talking to gentlemanly people like PalaceGuard and Keer. If we were talking to rabid Chinese nationalists (and there are an awful lot of these), the gloves would be off in a very unpleasant manner.
I don't have time at the moment to go into this, but I think there are lots of nuances involved. There is nothing cut and dried about it.
Who were the Manchus? The Chinese orthodoxy is that they are "Chinese". That's the orthodoxy of "Zhonghua minzu", and it's the orthodoxy that PalaceGuard unquestioningly accepts when he asks if they weren't Chinese, what were they? Well, living in Mongolia, I have met an old Chinese-born Mongolian, now resident completely in Mongolia, who would claim that the Manchus were Mongolians! So what Chinese people accept as gospel truth is not accepted by everyone. I would humbly submit, however, that the Manchus were Manchus (originally calling themselves Jurchens).
Modern Chinese have a habit of saying: "If they are Chinese now, they were always Chinese. If they are politically Chinese now, then their history and everything else about them is ipso facto Chinese. It's totally artificial to try and draw these boundaries." And since the Manchus have totally abandoned their original culture and language, how can you argue that the Manchus aren't Chinese? Ask a Manzu person in modern China whether they are Chinese or not. They will tell you without hesitation that they are Chinese.
But it's not as simple as that. The Tibetans are one case. They are a people with their own language and culture and a strong cultural resistance to Chinese domination. They have a government in exile, although it's not recognised by anyone :) But they indubitably belong to the Chinese state.
The Mongolians are another case. Part of Mongolia belongs to China, and these Mongolians belong to the Zhonghua Minzu. But Mongolians also have their own state (although there is still very strong sentiment in China that Mongolia rightfully belongs to China) and claiming that these (outer) Mongolians are part of the Zhonghua minzu would provoke a violent reaction.
The fact is that it's a complex situation. I don't accept PalaceGuard's simple explanation of cultural cross-pollination. Under the Qing Tibetan Buddhism was used by the Manchu rulers for various purposes, partly political. Yes, the Qing built themselves a miniature Potala at Jehol (Chengde) for such reasons. But cultural cross-pollination has never been a valid reason for asserting that one country's history and culture belongs to another country. Under that kind of definition China would partially belong to Europe and America, because there are far more Western-style buildings in Beijing than there are Tibetan! And modern China is now far more influenced by Western thought than it is by lamaism.
I would also ask about Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been subject to strong British influence and there are many people who are living there for generations (such as the Indians) who are not Zhonghua minzu. Because this British influence doesn't fit into the political category of Zhonghua minzu, Hong Kong's experience is regarded by many Chinese as an 'aberration' that has finally been set right by the reincorporation of Hong Kong into China. Indians in Hong Kong are regarded as outsiders, no matter how many generations they've lived there. So on the one hand you have Chinese claiming that cultural influence and mixing, historical interactions, etc. mean that Tibet, Xingjiang, Manchuria and Mongolia definitively belong to China, while similar cultural influence and mixing, historical interactions etc. simply mean that the non-Chinese inhabitants of Hong Kong are interlopers and their history is that of outsiders.
What am I saying here? My point is that there is too much ideology involved, and much of it is Chinese state ideology. I don't believe that Chinese state ideology should determine China's treatment on Wikipedia. We know that the boundaries are fuzzy, but that is no reason for collapsing and simply accepting the state ideology, which tries to rewrite history to fit in with the demands of the modern Chinese state. (Incidentally, the state ideology has its own difficulties, which causes conflict with Mongolia and Korea over historical issues.)
I would like to write further and maybe refine what I've written above, but I don't have time. Suffice it to say that, there is a delicate balance between the modern Chinese version of history, which tries to coerce every surrounding ethnicity into a "Greater Chinese" view of history, and the opposite viewpoint, which is almost "splittist" in its implications and tries to deny the legitimacy of Chinese control over places like Tibet or Xinjiang.
I believe the NPOV policy is to note all significant points of view/definitions. I don't believe this has more controversy than, say, Creationism - I agree, Hong Kong is a significant culture often but not always included within "China" and same for Mongolia and Tibet. It is not Han-Centric to note that there are different definitions for "China" and that a significant definition is that of the "Han Chinese" --Keerllston
"America" opens with a disabiguation page, I don't see what China can't as well.
"Egypt" opens with a statement saying "This article is about the country of Egypt. For other uses, see Egypt (disambiguation)." The disambiguation page includes "Ancient Egypt". Why can't the China page do something similar?
"India" opens with a statement saying "This article is about the modern Republic of India. For other uses, see India (disambiguation)."
Even "Mongolia" talks strictly about the modern state and provides a disambiguation page link for "Greater Mongolia".
What makes China so different from America, Egypt, and India that everything is supposed to be covered in one page? If anything, the complexities of the usages of "China" make a disambiguation page even more important, not less.
Although I believe the description "rabid Chinese nationalists" should have no place in our discussions, I think Bathrobe makes a good point about not being a channel for PRC attempts to legitimize their current boundaries and claims. The PRC controls what it controls and claims what it claims. It is not our job to try to fit every culture and land area controlled or claimed by the PRC into a single narrative of "China". We are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive.Readin (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
PalaceGuard writes: I take your point about the confusion. But is it up to us to decide whether "China" is or is not one or another of these (culture, civilisation, nation [not state])? No. So long as any of these conceptions are supported by reliable sources, they should be reported.
Okay, but are we going to end up with a map that privileges one of these conceptions?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
PalaceGuard asks "is it up to us to decide whether "China" is or is not one of these (culture, civlization, nation) [not state])?" We have to describe "China", so we do have to decide for each of those meanings whether there is a China. We do have to decide whether there is a Chinese culture to describe. We do have to decide whether there is a Chinese civilization to describe. We do have to decide whether there is a Chinese nation (or perhaps 2) to describe. And if all of these exist, and we discover that despite overlaps there are significant distinctions between them, we have to decide whether to try to jam them all into one article - a nearly impossible task as we've seen - or to put them in multiple articles. And if we put them in multiple articles, we have to decide if one can be said to be the most common usage, and thus the page first reached for "China", or whether more than one are equally primary and thus, like America and Britain, the first page for "China" should be a disambiguation page. As an American, the primary meaning of "America" is clear to me. But I have to face the reality that plenty of people around the world think differently, and some are even offended when we Americans call ourselves "Americans". Those who think "China" always means one thing to all people need to face the reality that many reasonable people around the world seen clear distinctions between Chinese culture, Chinese civilization, and the political entities that use "China" in their names. There is nothing to be ashamed of in those distinctions. It points out the success of China as a civilization and culture. Smaller countries, cultures, and civilizations generally don't have these distinctions because they didn't control other territories, didn't have their culture adopted by others, and didn't spread civilization.Readin (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I have never said that it is up to us to decide what China is. It is up to us to note the different conceptions of China and the different conceptions of the extent of Chinese Civilization. the general rearrangement will not destroy the article. It will survive as "Chinese Civlilization" or similar. It is not wikipedia policy to run away from controversy--Keerllston 02:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
list of things considered the Civilization of China
"Civilization (British English also civilisation) is a kind of human society or culture; specifically, a civilization is usually understood to be a complex society characterized by the practice of agriculture and settlement in cities."
I think a the proper article should talk about all of these, in a neutral manner, in a scholarly manner.--Keerllston 00:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The India page doesn't try to cover all aspects and meanings of "India". "Egypt" doesn't attempt to cover both the modern state and the ancient civilization in a single page. The "Britain" page doesn't try to cover the modern country, the ancient countries, and the land all in a single article. Egypt and America pages don't try to do everything in a single page. All these cases are much smaller and with fewer meanings than "China". It doesn't make sense for the China article to bite off so much, particularly when discussions keep showing that it is more than can be chewed.Readin (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Bite off so much? Anarchy is a similarly controversial article. Should it just redirect to anarchism? Should it be a disambiguation page? I think it is clear that consensus will not be reached on that China is PRC. I think China could be a disambiguation page - I think the only difference is that this page would turn into "Chinese Civilization" - and China would become China (disambiguation) simply a rearrangement. Britain leads to disambiguation, America leads to disambiguation, India does not.--Keerllston 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[On list of "Territories/Nations" with significant "Chinese" heritage:--Keerllston 15:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]
I find this list puzzling. Japan was never ever a part of China, even though it borrowed immense amounts of Chinese culture. Vietnam was occupied by China for 1,000 years but has since maintained its independence for 1,000 years. It does have an extremely strong Chinese cultural influence. Siberia was occupied by the Qing at one stage (although it was never considered part of China proper), but does not possess a Chinese-influenced culture or civilisation. So what is the point of putting all these together
Civilization is not the same as ethnic group or political control. We seem to have reached some consensus that this article is about a civilization. Given circumstantial evidence of similar farming methods, similar writing systems, and known migrations from Korea to Japan coupled with Korean being right next to China, it is not unreasonable to assume that they civilizations of Korea, Japan and China came from a single source. But before we decide to add details about Korea and Japan to the article, even if merely to note the divergence, someone needs to find some reliable sources.Readin (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Note about caption edit
On a separate note, I've just changed the caption on the map - more unwieldy but more NPOV. In particular, it:
makes clear why these two "states" are depicted on the map: because they use the word 'China' in their names;
clarifies that these are the de facto boundaires: neither side's "legal" boundary corresponds with that depicted.
adds a key to the colours - some readers might otherwise be confused as to which is the official name of "China" and which is "Taiwan". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I like it.Readin (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not just say "Territories currently controlled by the People's Republic of China (in purple) and the Republic of China (in orange)."? Less wordy, and you don't have to decide whether they're states or governments. Most readers will notice that the names include "China". Kanguole (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
But leaving out an explanation raises an NPOV problem. Why include Taiwan if Taiwan isn't part of China? (and a lot of very reasonable people believe it is not) The usage of the word "state" could be problematic to believe that one of PRC and ROC is not a state, so if you can find a better wording that would be fine. But keeping the explanation there is useful. It allows us to give deference to both those who believe Taiwan is not part of China and those who believe it is.Readin (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Opening Sentence
In italics, before the article begins, we have "This article is about the Chinese civilization. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." However, the very first sentence reads "China is a cultural region, ancient civilization, and one or more nations in East Asia." Unless someone gives me a good reason not to, I will change the opening sentence to read "China is an ancient and modern civilization in East Asia". This will make it work better with the next sentence, which reads " It is one of the world's oldest civilizations, consisting of states and cultures dating back more than six millennia." Later we can take up the question of whether "six millenia" is accurate. If we can agree that this article is about the Chinese civilization, not about states, cultures, races, etc., a lot of disagreement should be easier to overcome. Readin (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It just doesn't make sense in English to say "China is a civilization", any more than it would to say that Ancient Egypt or Europe were: they are places where civilizations developed. I realize that this phrasing is an attempt to avoid controversy, but it has ended up being incoherent. Kanguole (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you proposing a new definition for China? "China is a place in East Asia where an ancient and modern civilization devoped?" What would you call this civilization? Would you rewrite the article to remove all places where "China" is used as the name of that civilization? Is the next sentence "It (China) is one of the world's oldest civilizations", rubbish because China isn't a civilization? I think one of the few things we've been able to agree on is that one of the meanings for "China" is the name of a civilization.Readin (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There are 4 places in the article that say China is a civilization; they're all in the lead, and they don't make sense. The rest of the article is fine: "one of the earliest centers of human civilization", "Chinese civilization", etc. Moreover the topics covered by the article are pretty much what I'd expect to find in an article called "China". But the lead is incoherent. I understand how that happened, but it's a pity. Kanguole (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I find information and links I find wouldn't expect in an NPOV article on "China". For example, I find a short discussion about baseball in Taiwan. Baseball is hardly played in China, and what does Taiwan have to do with anything? But of course, some people have a POV that Taiwan is part of China. But when I think of China, I think of PRC, and that is its most common usage. If we are going to talk about things outside the PRC, it needs to be clear that that is what we are doing. Frankly I don't much care how we define China so long as it represents NPOV and is clear enough to solve a lot of the disagreements we're having. I think "Chinese civilization" is a step in the right direction.
It does have it's problems though. The biggest would be whether to include Japan and Korea, and if so whether "Chinese civization" is the right name or something like "East Asian civilization" is better. But if "East Asian civilization is better, then we need a different definition for "China".
I'll keep pondering, I hope others do to.Readin (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There is the term Sinitic civilisation.
It doesn't seem to be common enough to have a Wikipedia article yet, and I can't say I've ever heard the term. And doesn't "sinitic" mean "Chinese"? "East Asian Civilization" is more along the lines of what I was thinking. East Asian civilization seems to have originated in China but spread to places like Korea and Jaan - witness the very similar forms of writing and agriculture - two hallmarks of civilization. But we can probably get away with making the article about "Chinese civilization" if we note that although Chinese, Japanese, and Korean civilizations shared an origin, they eventually diverged enough to be called separate civilizations. I'm theorizing on this, I can't honestly say I know that much about the civilization aspects of these. But at least if we can agree that we're talking about civilizations, we can have a hope of settling some arguments.Readin (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Sinitic civilisation is reasonably common amongst scholars, even if not everyone has heard of it. (Actually, I think the term may be from Toynbee.) If you leave out every single term that everyone hasn't heard of, Wikipedia would shrink to maybe one-fifth of its current size. :) Also, Sinitic doesn't mean Chinese. It refers, I believe, to the civilisation of the Han Chinese -- e.g., use of Chinese characters, etc. etc. In that sense Japan, Korea, and Vietnam might be classed as Sinitic civilisations because they borrowed the characters, the literature, the architecture, the governmental system, etc. of the Chinese "Great Tradition". However, I think would like to clarify the usage of the term before advocating that we adopt it (the above being just a suggestion).
Support original proposal. it should begin "China" is a civilization - to say it is a culture/society after that is repetition - a civilization is a culture and a society. PRC and RoC, Mainland China, Taiwan, "China on both sides of the strait" should be noted in the lead, but the first sentence is not the place. What other things are included in "China" or "Chinese Civilization" also has a place in the lead, but not in the first sentence.--Keerllston 20:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So what is the proposal? Is it:
“
China is an ancient and modern civilization in East Asia.
I was BOLD and did it! - perhaps too bold. - It was a slightly different version due to my POV/Judgement that "ancient and modern" sounds redundant.
“
China is a civilization in East Asia. It is the oldest [...]
”
also separated talk of PRC and RoC to from the second paragraph.--Keerllston 01:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If this article is about "Chinese civilisation", then the animated map is the one to use. Get rid of the PRC and ROC map, and a lot of your controversy is gone...
Actually, if we're talking about "civilization" then we need to get someone with a good grasp of technological and societal history to come up with new maps. Because "civilization" is not the same as dynasties. For example, Tibet is clearly under the control of the current Chinese dynasty, but is it part of Chinese civilization? Do the writing and farming methods come from a similar origin?Readin (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point. Actually, I think this article needs to add contents about other ethnic groups in China, not just the Han Chinese. Coasilve (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Resolutely oppose. Chinese civilisation, for better or for worse, IS Han civilisation. Of course it's been influenced by other cultures, but there is no sense in which Tibetan culture is "Chinese civilisation" or "Mongolian culture" is "Chinese civilisation". I've argued above that the fact that China the modern nation-state includes all these ethnic groups as part of the Zhonghua minzu does not justify rewriting history to make them into "Chinese civilisation". For example, the script used to write Tibetan, Mongolian, Manchu, etc. is/was not a "Chinese" script, although eventually they came to be used by the ruling class during the Qing. I'm not sure which part of the argument you can't understand. Preempting other people's cultures into "Chinese civilisation" to fit modern preconceptions of China's historical and territorial extent is simply not justifiable.
Something like that, yep. - the Civilization article uses the Great Wall of China as it's picture. -seems like that could work..--Keerllston 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you oppose? The proposal for the animated map? the proposal to include Tibet, Mongolia and so on inside the definition of "Civilization of China" has not yet been made - it's next on my list to treat that POV riddled side of the lead in the article on Chinese Civilization. I am perfectly aware that both Zhonghua minzu and Han Chinese as being China have to be noted in an article about Chinese Civilization - the how is something I'd ask you help with.--Keerllston 12:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Country not Civilization
"China (traditional Chinese: 中國; simplified Chinese: 中国; Hanyu Pinyin: Zhōngguó (help·info); Tongyong Pinyin: Jhongguó; Wade-Giles (Mandarin): Chung1kuo²) is a country in East Asia." -- This statement cannot be disputed. Why not use it?--Jiang (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
PRC is a "Country" or "Multi-National State" commonly referred to as China.
China is not quite the PRC - there are certain points of contention between the two terms. Let me clarify those points.
The inclusion of Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Andra Pradesh and so on in the land controlled or claimed by the PRC
AND
The inclusion of "Outer Mongolia", parts of Vietnam, Siberia, - even Korea, Japan in "China" or "Chinese Civilization".--Keerllston 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Lead:"China Proper" or "Zonghua minzu"?
The lead should note the question of what societies are included in Chinese Civilization. Whether it's only Han Chinese are included, or only mandarin-speaking peoples, or only the people currently claimed by the PRC, or even Korea and Japan - It would be nice to get some sources that support the different views or one that speaks about Chinese Civilization over the ages.--Keerllston 12:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[feel free to make your own proposal and/or to make contructive criticism]
What modern societies are part of Chinese civilization could be part of the lead. But given the controversial nature of such judgments we should hold off until someone is able to provide reliable sources/citations for including certain groups. Until I the stuff about the age of Chinese civilization, the age of its writing system, and some of the inventions that have come from it seems ok.Readin (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Proposal 1
China is defined differently by differently people. It is common to define China and Chinese Civilization to be the Civilization of the Han Chinese ethnic group and that Tibet, Mongolia, are different Civilizations. Zhongua minzu on the other hand is the idea that China and Chinese Civilization includes Tibetan, Mongolian, and Han as ethnic groups.--Keerllston 12:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are proposing.Readin (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
He is proposing to distinguish between the modern nation (PRC) with its 50-odd officially recognised ethnic groups, and Chinese civilisation, which by some arguments should be largely restricted to the Han civilisation, and not include Tibet, Mongolia, etc.
We now have the problem of sources. It's easy to find official Chinese sources claiming that all these ethnic groups belong to China. Do we have sources to define the extent of "Chinese civilisation"?
Using Chinese nationalist theory to define "China" is not NPOV. Historical narratives based on an unchanging "Chinese nation" (zhonghua minzu) are deliberate 20th century concoctions of Chinese nationalists to reconcile the precense of multiple ethnic groups within Chinese borders with the Westphalian notion of statehood. In fact, the term "Han Chinese" is an anachronism for any pre-1912 Chinese history. Don't use it.
Please use neither term in a definition. Instead of asking "what societies are included in Chinese Civilization", ask instead, how did successive Chinese states interact with political entities around it, and how did different communities of people away from the capital perceive themselves and perceive others, both those closer to central authority and those further away from it.--Jiang (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, "Han civilisation" is not an accepted term and is meaningless pre-1912. I was using it as a shorthand way of referring to the Chinese core as opposed to cultures of peripheral states and peoples. Your question as to "how did successive Chinese states interact with political entities around it" does seem to beg the question, though. In the end we have to define what a "Chinese state" is. I would be interested to know how your proposal would look in practice.
Prior to the Opium War, there was surely a concept of sovereign power, as in the exercise of imperial authority over the land and people, but no concept of sovereignty itself. Yes, we can call China a state (guo) for this time period, but this does not imply any understanding of Western notions of statehood (equal parity among states, defined territory, etc.). If the sovereign power of the Chinese sovereign theoretically extends to all under Heaven, while the area of direct imperial control is much less, then is it fair to imply that the "Chinese state" only consists of the latter and not the former? The whole system makes any effort to define the state murky at best.--Jiang (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The Westphallian concept of nation-states did not even exist until the 1800s. China's position prior to "modern" times should be conceived in the same way that we would conceive any other empire, be it Roman or Persian. I don't think it's useful to draw a dichotomy between the "Chinse core" versus the modern notion of the "Zhonghua minzu". To describe the two concepts, it would suffice to describe how (in mostly Western sources) the Han Chinese area of inhabitation/culture/civilisation was usually equated to the Chinese, but that successive Chinese empires have always included non-Han peoples (and sometimes those non-Han peoples became absorbed into the Han ethnicity), and that a modern conception of pan-ethnic nationhood (Zhonghua minzu) exists and is commonly subscribed to inside China.
That said, it is important to pay attention to NPOV and find reliable sources for these statements. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I think what is happening is that China is judged to be the area that is consistent in the various Chinese empires/kingdoms/states.
I think (perhaps rather hope) the idea of China/Chinese Civilization as "Han China" is already treated in China proper and Zhonghua minzu in Zhonghua minzu and that those would include references.
I think that the fact that Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, (etc?) Culture owes a lot to Chinese culture is not debated. The writing system, ethical systems/religions/philosophies, literature, music, cuisine, etc, have been highly influential.
I think we should be very careful of non-western sensibilities. Texas is not considered a "disputed territory" of the US because it has been independent or the territory of other states, even though there are still people waving confederate flags, mexican flags, and lone star flags.
I think your comment was very good, I appreciate your input.
I don't have sources with me, but if my memory serves me well, the propensity of Ming China to regard itself as the ruler of all under heaven rather got up the nose of Nurhachi, whose father was killed in a Ming incursion into Manchu territory. The Ming's refusal to observe boundaries was one of the issues in his famous grievances against the Ming. Just because the Chinese subscribed to the idea that they controlled everything under heaven doesn't mean that we have to.
Bathrobe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2nd paragraph
I've always found the second paragraph difficult to work with.
The Chinese Civil War resulted in a stalemate and therefore two political states now use the name China: the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as "China," which controls mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau; and the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as "Taiwan," which controls the island of Taiwan and its surrounding islands. Most foreign governments officially recognise the PRC as the single legitimate government of "China," including the areas administered by the ROC; for details on the dispute, see Political status of Taiwan.
It talks about how there is dispute about which political entity represents "China", and that most governments recognize PRC. But it leaves an impression that there is no dispute about whether Taiwan is part of "China", when there clearly is a dispute. I've considered adding a sentence to say that there is no agreement on whether Taiwan is part of "China" but the paragraph is already pretty verbose and going into tangents. However, now that we seem to be reaching an agreement that we are talking about "Chinese Civilization", I think we can get rid of the paragraph completely, as all it talks about is politics. Certainly the current political situation of the civilization should be discussed somewhere in the article, but it is not core to the civilization and doesn't need to be up at the top.
2nd Paragraph Removal Proposal: Delete the second paragraph discussion of political entities because it is not relevent enough to serve as one of the introductory paragraphs for "Chinese civilization".
2nd Paragraph Move Proposal: Move the second paragraph to another section of the article and include clarification on the status of Taiwan.Readin (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This article should not be limited to the "civilization". It is about the "country". Mention of the controversy can be made with fewer words due to some crappy English in the original:
As a result of the Chinese Civil War two states now use the name China: the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as "China," which controls mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau; and the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as "Taiwan," which controls Taiwan and its surrounding islands. Most foreign governments officially recognise the PRC as the single legitimate government of "China," including the areas administered by the ROC; in Taiwan, there is a movement seeking the abolition of the ROC and cultural separation from the concept of "China"; for details on the dispute, see Political status of Taiwan.
The paragraph is relevant in explaining the existence of this article and disambiguating usage of the word "China" so I think it should stay in the lead. It is helpful.--Jiang (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the re-statement. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have problems with the restatement. Specifically the vagueness of the term "movement" - I think we can treat the controversy of RoC/Taiwan in the proposed paragraph (see Talk:China#Lead:"China Proper" or "Zonghua minzu"?). I agree that it important to note PRC and ROC due to the disambiguation and common referral to PRC as China.--Keerllston 03:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I also have problems with the restatement. The movement is not to seek cultural separation from China, it is to emphasize and maintain existing cultural separation from China. Following the end of martial law in Taiwan, there was a movement to separate from culturally China, but even that wasn't an effort to create new separation, it was an effort to get rid of commonalities forced on Taiwan by the KMT, for example in the way the KMT restricted use of Taiwanese language in favor of Mandarin Chinese.Readin (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I was planning to pipelink movement: [[Taiwan independence|a movement]]. How about "seeking the abolition of the ROC and the establishment of a separate Taiwanese state and identity"?--Jiang (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
At the current time the consensus is that this article is about a civilization, not a country (for the country or countries you go to the disambiguation page).Readin (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem of artificially narrowing the definition. Why keep out relevant, useful information from the article? We must keep in mind that some people will come here wondering why the countries template is missing, and the lead should provide some clue.--Jiang (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
China is the largest country in eastern Asia
Hello, China is a country, and it's the largest country in eastern Asia, also it HAS one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Please see Longman dictionary:
China: the largest country in eastern Asia. Population: 1,221,500,000 (1995). Capital: Beijing. China's population is the largest of any country in the world. It also has one of the oldest civilizations in the world.
To some it is obvious that China is a country with its capital in Beijing. To some (see Kuomintang) it is clear that the capital is in Taipei, Beijing being occupied by a rebel force. Either way, China is also a civilization, and a few other things; that's what disambiguation pages are for. You can scroll back up this page to see plenty of discussion on the topic. Working from precedent and consensus, we're reaching a point of saying this article is about the civilization. Before you unilaterally change it again, please seek consensus on this page.Readin (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see, please provide a citation for that! Thank you. Please see here if you need more info regarding citation: [8] --Quagliu (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting point. Please be calm and do not hurry and/or disrupt this page.
I looked up the statement "China is a Civilization" in I came up with the following:
From
A Donald, T Arnold - Asian Affairs, 1992 - informaworld.com
SIR THOMAS ARNOLD: China is a civilization - not one country, but many countries, embracing the cultural experience of long tradition. ...
From
R Hodder - The Pacific Review, 1999 - informaworld.com
... China is a civilization, a culture, a pheno- menon, which has to be analysed carefully and systematically: and this is a task which requires special training ...
"China is a civilization pretending to be a state" by "Lucian W. Pye is Ford Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and immediate past President of the American Political Science Association."
Mr. Keerllston, Pye's view is really minority view, see some statistics first:
Google search for "China is a civilization" -> 70 pages found! (Click "9", then you will see the actual number, and most of the pages point to this Pye's quote!!!)
Google search for "China is a country" -> 76,000 pages found!
Google search for "China is shit" -> 2,900 pages found!
Google search for "U.S. is shit" -> 16,200 pages found!
Quagliu, you seem to have a very high-handed attitude toward dealing with your fellow editors, which is completely unwarranted.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've shown sources for the use for "China" as synonymn for "Chinese Civilization" - I don't think it is very common usage - but it was preferred rather than a disambiguation page or "PRC" or "China on both sides of the strait" or "China proper"...
the page currently states at the very top "This article is about the Chinese civilization. For other uses, see China (disambiguation). For the modern political entities, see People's Republic of China and Republic of China." If you wish the renaming of this article or the movement of PRC to China - please state this.
I would ask you in turn to cite sources that say that "China is not a civilization, China is a country" or just "China is not a civilizaton"
I don't believe I said I would search on google. I looked it up in google scholar - which received zero hits for "US is shit", zero also for "China is not a civilization"
PS:"US is shit" -received one hit on Google books - from a document by the US government: "by Committee on Government Operations, United States, Congress, House - Communication, International - 1982 - 129 pages"
I don't think doing Google searches on "China is a country" and "China is a civilization" is enough to prove anything. Do a search on "China is a state" and you only get 566 hits. Does that mean that China isn't a state?
I am pleased, .--Keerllston 13:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Searching "Tibet is not a part of China" turned up a source - The Dalai Lama.
While the The Dalai Lama may be relevant - is he reliable? isn't he rather fickle? hasn't he said also that "Tibet is a part of China"? Not to mention that Citing a separatist, on whether Texas is or not a part of the US, gives a predictably POV answer.
'In the dalai lamas speech in 1985 [the dalai lama] said' "In a nutshell, Tibet is absolutely not a part of China" (Pg 8)
""On september 21, the 14th Dalai Lama proposed a "five-point peace plan" to the US Congress. At a press conference in Indiana University on September 24, he openly proclaimed: "Tibet is not a part of China. Tibet is an independent state"." (Pg 47)
This is part of a book called "The 14th Dalai Lama" By Siren, Gewang: Published 1997
Of more interest to me is the way that Mongolia comes up. Poor independent Mongolia is a part of China? The only people in the world who believe that are the Chinese. Isn't it scary living next to a "civilisation" called China? :)
Oh but perhaps I should have specified Inner Mongolia which is part of the PRC or Outer Mongolia which is, I believe, Independent.--Keerllston 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources
HELLO, Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor. --Quagliu (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A quote from Jimmy Wales
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved on 2006-06-11. --Quagliu (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. I would hardly call the Longman dictionary an impeccable source. A simple dictionary entry is well below the standard of sophistication that Wikipedia should be aiming at.
Yes, you will need provide sources!! --Quagliu (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
We do need more sources - Especially in the article Zhonghua minzu, that incidentally has a year-old unreferenced tag --Keerllston 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Try looking up "China is a civilization" -pye (on Google scholar): you get just 3 hits, and maybe they should have cited Pye too. It's become the catchphrase for saying that China is too big and complex to be a unitary nation-state. (Everyone OK with that?) It's hardly evidence that this is a normal usage. Kanguole (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Try looking up "China is not a civilization", I actually found one in "google books" - gotta love google.
"If not, what happened when Buddhism entered China ? Is not a civilization a living unit, an organism, comparable to the body of a plant or an animal?" from 1923 in the The Visva-bharati Quarterly - Page 234
This article is about the Chinese civilization. For other uses, see China (disambiguation). For the modern political entities, see People's Republic of China and Republic of China.
China is China, and it's a country, not a civilization. --Quagliu (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Before you do anything, you have to decide which country it refers to. Also, you are talking about the modern state when you talk about China as a "country". Please give us proper sources for regarding, say, the Southern Song as "China, the country". If you can't provide them, then you will have to delete that section of the article.
China is a country. Use google search, you will see this web site: http://www.chinatoday.com/, or http://www.china.org.cn/, or you can check other encyclopedias to find out. Also this country has a long history, and has one of the oldest civilizations. Also this page should talk about everything related to China, it's political structures, it's history, etc. --Quagliu (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Quagliu, Please discussed this throughly with other editors and gain consensus. Unilaterally changing something that had previously had consensus and that is controversial will result in an edit war with other editors and I guarantee that the article will be locked down so that no one can edit it if that happens. Is that what you want? Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 05:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I will discuss with all users and explain the Wikipedia policies before I actually make the changes!! --Quagliu (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The headline will be:
For other uses of China, see China (disambiguation). For the modern political entities, see People's Republic of China and Republic of China
Please discuss if you have any concerns. --Quagliu (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No the current dab has been created through careful negotiation between several points-of-view, and we need to make it clear that this article is about the civilization called "China". Not only that but the current dab is well phrase unlike your proposal. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 05:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read the change log of the word civilization. It has been replaced at least 20 times in the past Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Civilization. Like Nat and Bathrobe said. This has been talked about before, not a new topic. Benjwong (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
While much of what Quagliu says is rather too simple an interpretation of Wikipedia policy, the question that he raises does have value. What exactly is the article on "China" supposed to be about? At the moment we seem to have accepted the rather fuzzy notion that it is a "civilisation" only because we can't agree on which country it refers to.
--Keerllston 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)