Talk:Chinese historiography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 13 January 2016. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

An angry tangent in "ethnic inclusiveness"[edit]

"Therefore, blaming the ethnic inclusiveness theory..." Blaming it for what? This entire section sounds like an angry defense of an unclear idea. Who is blaming the idea of Zhonghua Minzu for what problem? That Vietnam, Mongolia, and Korea are independent nation-states? This is a fact of modern geopolitics, not a problem of Chinese historiography. What should be discussed here is what different viewpoints exist on the issue of, essentially, how to resolve the historiography of all the overlapping nations that exist within modern (and have existed within ancient) China.

If this paragraph isn't neutralized before long, I will do it myself. Amhaun01 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

The name of this article is not apropiated: in the translation to spanish we have opted by Interpretaciones de la historia de China. There is two reasons:

  • First: there is only two chinese historian cited here, all others are occidental.
  • Second: Science is one, and so one historiography (historians can be clasificated by time, nation, class, ethnics, sex... and even object of study)--Ángel Luis Alfaro 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ERA[edit]

Per this edit, the usage of the page is BC/AD and should be kept consistent as such. [edit: fixed] — LlywelynII 16:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this seem a little biased or non-neutral?[edit]

Bass77 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


In my edit, I changed the header(so that it sounded simpler) and corrected a few mistakes. As I was reading it, I noticed that some parts about historians seemed to praise or talk about them in ways that didn't seem encyclopedia-like. Here compilation of biased parts, between >arrows<:

• "were more >conservative< but remained >innovative< in their >response to world trends< " • "The ensuing years saw >historians such as Wu Han master both(theories)< Western theories, including Marxism, and Chinese learning" • "historiography >viewed mankind as living in a fallen age of depravity< , cut off from the >virtues of the past<. " • "this political restriction is >less confining than it may first appear< in that the Marxist historical framework >is surprisingly flexible<" • " >There are several problems< associated with imposing Marx’s European-based framework on Chinese history"

Philosophy and Criticism don't go well with wikipedia articles. I think this article needs a big overhaul on that basis.

Bass77 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)