China Unassessed

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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

Older discussions

• /archive 1
• /archive 2
• /archive 3

Anyone care to throw some votes, to see this Chinese currency as Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week? Then go Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week#Chinese_currency! Joe I 22:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Ancient History," it is inferred that the 2nd Century BC occurred several hundred years before the 13th Century BC. Is this a mistake, or am I reading it wrong? 84.164.104.76 12:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading it wrong. It says that a) the first written records (the oracle bones) are from the 13th century BC. But b) a second century BC source starts its account of history 1300 years before the time of the oracle bones (i.e. around 2600 BC). Mark^{your words} 12:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As some of you have probably noticed, on the Chinese-language version of this series, most of the articles for the different time periods of China linked on the menu have a table at the top with some basic information about the time period in question. For example: Tang Dynasty at Chinese-language wiki.

唐
首都	长安为首都，洛阳为东都
君主  -开国君主  -灭亡君主	共20位 李渊 李祝
成立	(隋末农民战争) (618年)
灭亡	(白马驿之祸) (907年)

Is anybody against putting those tables up at the top of the English-language versions of the articles? And does anybody want to help put them in? All we need to do is basically translate. The wiki code is there, the images are there, and the content is there.

Hong Qi Gong 20:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does anybody have an opinion about doing this? I wouldn't want to start putting in these tables without agreements from others that this is a good idea. --Hong Qi Gong 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The maps in those tables are hideous. I think we already have better maps. The text should go under the map, not to its side, so the table can be wider. I'm not sure if the first ruler is relevant enough for inclusion. --Jiang 18:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the lines dividing the table cells in the table I included are not showing up. If you click on the link to the Chinese version that I provided, you'll see the lines.

The problem I have with the current maps is that they're not standardised throughout all the articles and some of the time periods don't even have maps. Plus, I think it would be better if they were up at the top and listed with some basic information about the dynasty/time period. But I agree, the tables in the Chinese version are not the best looking tables I've seen. The good thing about them is that all we need to do is copy and paste, then do some translating.

This would have to compete with the same space as Template:History_of_China. what to do about that? --Jiang 20:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put something at the top like the Chinese versions do, something that's not verticle like the menu? We don't have to use the same table that the Chinese versions do though. But either I or somebody will have to come up with the wiki code.

So by the way, you're not against this idea as long as it looks good, right? --Hong Qi Gong 20:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting something at the top like at zh: has never been done here. I think that creates unnecessary whitespace and should be avoided. This template (I'm neutral on whether it should be included) would belong in the upper right hand corner of the page, and Template:History_of_China should be converted into a footer.--Jiang 02:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've neutralized the text following the words Many Taiwanese regard Taiwan as historically being a part of China, but are now reluctant to... This text has been altered in the past to reflect one bias or another; I think this debate does not belong here. It's enough to refer to the government of Beijing without labeling it. John Reid 04:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that originally put the part about the communist government in this sentance, but I think someone else added the "give up their freedoms" part. I'm going to restore the sentance so that it simply states communist government. People can decide if they interpret communist government to be positive or negative. --Scipantheist 16:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That takes out the bit which is true and leaves a bit which is false. John's version is much better. I suspect the Taiwanese have various reasons for not wanting to be part of the PRC, and this isn't really the place to make unsourced generalisations about them. Mark^{your words} 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it is John that is making the unsourced generalisations. Why would Taiwan be afraid of Beijing? Beijing is a place, the capital of the old imperial China. It seems to me that the people on Taiwan are worried about more than the location of the capital. Most do not want to live under a communist (even if only in name) government. Furthermore, the government of the mainland has no problem calling itself communist. That is a label they came up with. If you can think of some other reason or show me polls otherwise, please insert. --Scipantheist 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the PRC government calls itself communist is hardly proof that it is. 'The rule of Beijing' in this context means 'the rule of the government in Beijing', as you well know. Mark^{your words} 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way it is now is much nastier to the mainland chinese, but factually equivalent to what you want. Is this acceptable? --Scipantheist 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just say "PRC" or "People's Republic of China"?

• Many Taiwanese regard Taiwan as historically being a part of China, but are now reluctant to accept the rule of the PRC.

That seems the most NPOV to me without also being ambiguous. --Hong Qi Gong 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with either of those. Mark^{your words} 21:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one that has a problem with the map of "Chinese Cultural Influence"? It seems to me if we made a similar map of "Indian Cultural Influence" then it would have to include every buddhist country in the world including China. It seems to me that rather than this map we need to have one that shows just China and former parts of China like Mongolia. --Scipantheist 19:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not the only one. ;) Mark^{your words} 21:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Chinese Cultural Influence" is pretty accurate because most of those regions use Chinese characters and are strongly influenced by Chinese culture.

I am trying to create a timeline for dynasties / kingdoms / etc throughout the history of China and have come across a bit of a discrepancy between the dates ~1800 BC and ~1600 BC. The entries for the Xia and Shang Dynasties state they end and begin at 1800 and 1600 BC respectively, leaving approximately 200 years with no ruling dynasty. Is this historically correct, or is this merely a case of chronological inaccuracy?

The latter. See [1]. -- G.S.K.Lee 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]