| Revision as of 02:48, 12 July 2011 editBenjwong (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers23,209 edits →Clicking China today← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:26, 7 December 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,944,013 editsm -redundant class params (6); cleanupTag: AWB |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=y}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=y}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=2006-12-01 |
|
|action1date=2006-12-01 |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied|from=Chinese civilization|to=People's Republic of China|date=21 September 2011}} |
|
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|China}} |
|
|
|
{{Copied|from=Chinese civilization|to=Religion in China|date=21 September 2011}} |
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
|
{{Copied|from=Chinese civilization|to=Culture of China|date=21 September 2011}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Copied|from=Chinese civilization|to=History of China|date=21 September 2011}} |
|
{{WikiProject China|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Southeast Asia|importance=Top|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject China}} |
|
{{WikiProject Taiwan|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject East Asia}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Southeast Asia}} |
|
{{WPMACAU|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Taiwan}} |
|
{{WPHK|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Macau}} |
|
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Geography|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Hong Kong}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Notice | On September 20, 2011, the article '''People's Republic of China''' was moved to ''']''' and the article '''China''' was moved to ''']''' following a lengthy ]. "Chinese civilization" is now a disambiguation page, and its contents were consolidated into ''China''. All sub-pages including talk pages were also moved. |
|
{{Notice|{{find}}}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 23 |
|
|counter = 27 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:China/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=60 |dounreplied=yes|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== "China" redirect == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why China doesn't redirect to here? Isn't that biased? In other[REDACTED] languages the term China redirects to PRC. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Dear Mr. Unhappy in SAO PAULO. Just get the PRC to announce that Taiwan is <b>not</b> part of China and we'll fix that right up for you. ] (]) 21:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::That wouldn't actually help seeing as the ROC nominally claims China. --] ] 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::That wouldn't make sense since Republic of China (Taiwan) claims all of mainland China (PRC + Outer Mongolia) as ROC national territory.] (]) 20:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
The current situation is that we have two governments who each claim to the legitimate government of all China and that they'll merge at some point in the unknown future. The opposition in Taiwan has called for a split, but they don't set policy. ] (]) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Yes, China is the PRC, and China is not ROC, for all intents and purposes. However, the main 'China' article talks about China as a continuous civilization, a nation-state, or a cultural unit or identity... so I like the way it is now. It is fine.] (]) 20:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: '''Political reasons within wikipedia'''. The redirect should '''send readers where most readers are expecting to go when typing ]'''. <small>This answer is for the original poster.</small> ] (]) 13:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::: For the last time, this is a <big>'''NON-ISSUE'''</big>, and ''will remain one'' so long as Taiwan is ruled by a government different from mainland China. Read ]. --<small>HXL's</small>] <span style="color:red">and</span> ''']''' 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: ]. Read ] ] (]) 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: '''I <big>''DON'T''</big> need IPs to tell me about policy''' and to talk down to me like that. So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is '''inevitable'''. Besides, China has existed in some form for '''far longer''' than the PRC. Similarly, the Republic of China had '''significant''' history on mainland China before it hopped over to Taiwan. This is ''another'' reason why we '''don't''' even ''consider'' these merges and that this is a NON-ISSUE <big>'''FOR THE LAST TIME'''</big> --<small>HXL's</small>] <span style="color:red">and</span> ''']''' 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=424862903&oldid=424862781 . I moved it here instead of naming conventions because this is not about naming conventions, but about a redirect, something far more specific. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I will just summarize what i said with: The redirect should '''send readers where most readers are expecting to go when typing ]'''. But i guess wikipedians as well as people in real life tend to stick with the same opinion over and over, mentioning only what favours their opinion, forgetting that the decision shoud be based in a balance of the pro and cons, a balance that is subjective. ] (]) 18:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Not redirecting to PRC article is correct because it is NEUTRAL and educates English readers who likely are mostly non-Chinese to become aware ] exist, despite the international lie the Chinese Communists are able to push on UN. Misplaced Pages is for educational and reference purposes, not political. --] (]) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:BTW, why doesn't ] redirect to ]? ] (]) 21:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Because not all the countries in Europe are in the ]. Cheers, ] (]) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think that was a rhetorical, sarcastic question. Hehe –<small>HXL's</small>] <span style="color:red">and</span> ''']''' 23:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is '''inevitable'''" isn't ]? According to Misplaced Pages's ROC article, the majority of the ROC public favors the political status quo and a plurality doesn't identify as Chinese anymore (opting for Taiwanese as an identifier). Most people that search China have very little at stake, and this particular "international lie" (which is being given unduly weight) ''frankly isn't what they meant to search''. China is not unique in the fact that there is a conflict of interest over its name; this is a really weak reason for keeping this bizarre arrangement on Misplaced Pages. This reminds me of when Iranian nationalists try to push the name Persia onto the Iran article just because Persia "has existed in some form for '''far longer''' than" Iran. Oh wait, who do I sound like now? The current article on ] gives as much representation of the ] as the ] article does to the ] article. Unfortunately the rationale being used here is heavily rooted in blind nationalism that's preventing any productive change from taking place. -] (]) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thank you for your relatively calm tone. Take note here that many of us who support this arrangement are from the PRC, and PRC nationalism would be screaming things like "PRC only!", and as the current state effectively is "Two Chinas" ], there is no such thing as a "China nationalist". There was an argument raised at ] that "as long as the Persian people see themselves as Persians living in Iran...so will the world" that is a good point: many in Taiwan think they are not only Chinese ethnicity, but people of China (中国人). It is not Misplaced Pages's task to disregard these viewpoints in favour of the retarded Western viewpoint equating China with PRC and Taiwan with ROC. —<small>HXL's</small>] <span style="color:red">and</span> ''']''' 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How about the non-Persian Arabs who where born in Iran? (At least in English there is a clear distinction between Han and Chinese.) ] (]) 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I personally don't see the issue with representing multiple views. However, the fact that both the PRC and ROC are being given this default 50/50 say is where it starts coming across as POV. Most people who do search the topic of China were ''just not looking for this article'' (hence why, going through the archives, etc. it's very obvious that this issue hasn't and will not go away). Most English-speaking people ''do in fact'' equate China with the PRC. As it already stands, the PRC article mentions Taiwan 4 times and the ROC 2 times in its opening section alone, and the ROC article mentions the PRC twice in its opening section. This nominal dispute is touched on in all of these articles, regardless of which of the three articles you read first. Now throw articles like ] and ] into the mix, and now you just have an article on ] that is literally just a reiteration of articles that are already in existence, but lacking in its own clear purpose (other than, seemingly, to push the POV that the PRC is not China per se). ''It is completely redundant and could have whatever little, unique information that it has funneled to other articles easily''. Certain sections of this article are rightfully problematic, like the economy section. I'm sure most people that looked up China, interested in learning about its economy, would like a summary of the PRC's economy, no? I'm sure this is a frequently searched topic. Instead this article provides a list of loosely-related links on every Chinese state or dynasty's economy under the sun. Completely unhelpful and hides the information that the majority of these people were looking for behind redirects. |
|
|
|
|
|
:And what about Iranian Arabs..? Getting way off topic and missing the point, but there are many nations already in existence in which the line between ethnicity and nationality is ambiguous (e.g. What about French Algerians? German Turks? Turkish Kurds?). "Iranian" is in fact the Persian word for "Persian" and '''is''' equated with a particular ethnicity in Persian language. And I apologize for the long post; I'm not very concise :) -] (]) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Equating PRC with China will force Misplaced Pages to take a side on Whether or not Taiwan is a part of the PRC, and we can't do that without violating NPOV. ] (]) 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ROC/PRC order and T-1000's revert of my change and claim of NPOV == |
|
|
|
|
|
] reverted my changes and claimed it was NPOV. How is it NPOV? I only stated the facts and placed founding of ROC first and described briefly. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=China&oldid=425969425. Anyone else agree I'm not NPOV? I'll revert his change tomorrow if no objections. --] (]) 20:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hi, your edits clearly state Two Chinas, this POV is contradicted by both the "One China" and the "One China, One Taiwan" POVs. ] (]) 01:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Seconded. "ROC and PRC" or "PRC and ROC" in the section header would be preferred for neutrality. —<small>HXL's</small>] <span style="color:red">and</span> ''']''' 01:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
Prior to my edit, it already says "Two states with name China emerged" with "two states" linking to Two Chinas. So mine isn't any different. Besides, the existence of two Chinas is a fact, not an opinion or POV. But "One China Policy" is a POV of each government, which is presented in its respective articles. --] (]) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, two Chinese government exists ], but we must also maintain NPOV about ]. The Two Chinas article talks about the two China POV, while clearly stating it is not accepted by the PRC or TI. ] (]) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
Whether the ] is de jure is unresolved in ]. Where's the Misplaced Pages policy about NPOV about de jure, or disputed de jure issues? And besides this is irrelevant. As I said, the original article PRIOR to my change already lists the two Chinas. So my improvement to switch to chronological order and add the info about the first Republic in Asia I think is justifiable. Any other thoughts? ] (]) 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy is to state every notable viewpoint. "Two states with name China emerged" is different from your edit, which is "China's territory became divided into ]." since your edit imply a POV that China = PRC+ROC. I am sure you know the TI POV that Taiwan left China in 1895 and was never given back. Furthermore, The Two Chinas article define it as a ''Term'', while your edits states "Two Chinas" as if it were a ''fact''. |
|
|
This reply was unsigned. I assume it's by T-1000? I guess "TI" is referring to "Taiwan Independence". Isn't "Two states with name China emerged" stating the fact there are two Chinas? And the "Two Chinas" article is not just defining a term but describing the reality there are two Chinas. And what's wrong with China=PRC+ROC? The Communists conquered territory of the ROC to establish the PRC, so PRC split from ROC as a result of the Civil War, so the ROC became ROC+PRC. I am aware of the TI POV but that seems irrelevant because ROC did get possesion of Taiwan (whether the possession is a separate issue), and is in essence "East China" like PRC being "West China", kind of like North Korea and South Korea (which is Republic of Korea). Make sense? |
|
|
:"The ROC is named China" and "The ROC is China" are two different things, the former is a fact, the latter is a POV. The thing wrong with China = PRC+ROC is that there is a notable POV that Taiwan is not part of China. There is no Korean Independence movement in South Korea. As discussed many times before, to Whom Taiwan belongs to is a disputed issue, The Reds views it as belonging to PRC, the Blues belonging to ROC, the Greens as independent,and that the ROC is a government in exile. Because of the Disputed status of Taiwan, China means different things to different people. And that's why Two Chinas is only a POV. Finally, in the ] article, it specially said that "One '''opinion''' in Taiwan is that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both sovereign, thus forming "two Chinas", so the article does not state that it as a fact. ] (]) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request from Kyletroth, 9 June 2011 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
There is a grammatical error under Prehistory in the History section. It reads, "Although much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains, a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa." This is not a complete sentence. Please change to, "Much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains (a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa)." |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
Kyle Roth. I are wiki 05:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}. I also moved the references to the end of the sentence and removed the beginning "Much", since I don't think it adds anything. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">] <font size="-2">] | ])</font></span> 11:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{movereq|multiple=yes |
|
|
|current1=China|new1=Chinese civilization|current2=China (disambiguation)|new2=China}} |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] → ] |
|
|
* ] → ] |
|
|
Because China can refer primarily to the current article before 1912, whereas in a more modern context it refers generally to the People's Republic of China, but also to the Republic of China - with all three being listed at the top of the disambiguation page. -- ] <]> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Given China's 5000 year old history this is the primary topic for the term in the past, whereas ] is generally considered the primary topic for current usage of the term. Additionally the disambiguation link is currently not particularly clear if you want to read about china in the context of fine porcelain. |
|
|
|
|
|
I want to keep the Republic of China's de-facto status in the current article as a sub-primary topic to reduce the scope of this move request, any issues with that its status with regards to being a primary topic can be sorted out later. Of note while generally disambiguation pages have only one primary topic, it seems to make more sense here to have multiple primary topics to aid the reader. This has also been done at ] for example. -- ] <]> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Comment''' of note this has spun out from discussions at ]. -- ] <]> 17:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::A matter of ], it should be ] as in ]. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 06:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't understand why Hong Kong English is the variety of English to use here. Chinese civilization, of which the British colonization of Hong Kong is only a short and small part, is not attached to any national variety of English. The ] article uses the z, and though Chinese civilization was never a full-fledged article, {{history|Chinese civilization|"Chinese civilization"}} was created and used from 2004, while {{history|Chinese civilisation|"Chinese civilisation"}} was created in 2007, so we should ]. ] (]) 06:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mass edits with no oversight of talk page discussion == |
|
*'''Support'''. With the current configuation, many articles link to this article ("China") about Chinese civilization when they mean "China" as in the "People's Republic of China". It is definitely correct that Chinese civilization is not the primary topic for current usage of the term, and even the assertion that "this is the primary topic for the term in the past" is shaky, as historical articles refer to past Chinese countries and ruling dynasties at least as often as they refer to China in the ethno-cultural sense. This move will help people clarify what they mean when they say "China", and will help people using semi-automated tools to clear up any ambiguity in the future, while retaining the status quo of not favoring either the PRC or ROC viewpoint about who has primacy over the use of "China". ] (]) 17:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*:That would support the first part of the move, but otherwise the rationale that the PRC is what people mean when they link here would favor redirecting the base name to the PRC article and linking the dab page from a hatnote there. -- ] (]) 20:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. The ] is the nation of China, it's history, civilisation, it's people, etcetera. That's what the current article is about, as it should be. There is only ]. As for what government constitutes China, that's disputed, and it's not for Misplaced Pages to decide. The hatnotes on the current article effectively make it a disambiguation page anyway, but with context. Most readers searching for "China" are only going to want one of three items: Chinese civilisation, the PRC and the ROC, and they get easy access to them all on that page. A ordinary disambiguation page with links and messy explanations just means they're forced to click more. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 18:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
** Its not going to be an ordinary disambiguation page. That isn't what's been suggested at all. What's been suggested is making Chinese civilisation, the PRC and the ROC all "primary" topics linked at the top of the list. -- ] <]> 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*** '''Comment''' see for a preliminary example. -- ] <]> 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And how is this a better setup than the current ] page, which provides easy redirection through hatnotes and content central to the primary topic? How would readers benefit from ordinary links on an otherwise blank page more than they would from arriving at what is essentially an introductory article for a complex subject? '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As it stands, it is currently ambiguous whether editors intend to send readers to the Chinese civilization article or some other (primarily, PRC) use of "China". If <nowiki>]</nowiki> links to a proper disambiguation page, then editors are forced to clarify whether they mean the PRC, Chinese civilization, or something else. Readers benefit because as a result, less of them will come to the Chinese civilization talk page (as many have done above this discussion) to complain, "why was I sent here when I wanted PRC?" I'm not convinced that Chinese civilization (which is ''distinct'' from China the country, by which I mean not only the PRC and the ROC but also the various historical dynasties) is the primary topic for "China". You have asserted this but provided no evidence for it. ] (]) 19:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ahem. By "readers complaining above this discussion" you mean the confirmed sock and the IP who cites in-depth Misplaced Pages policy? Editors won't be "forced" to disambiguate their links, and they won't bother. The clerks at ] will clean up after them as per usual. And given that this is currently the ''']''', that's a battle that won't be won anytime soon. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 19:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::At least with a disambiguation page you have a better chance of cleaning the links up, it makes it clear that they are broken so people can then pick the most sensible one rather than worrying about whether the editor in question wanted to actually link to this article. Additionally making this a disambiguation page aids people using semi-automated and automated tools to resolve the linking issues. |
|
|
::::Additionally going straight to a disambiguation page means that other uses of the word china, such as for porcelain become more prominently linked. -- ] <]> 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>Wikiprojects ], ], ] and ] notified. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
*<s>'''Oppose'''. ] should remain a valid link target, and the topic discussed in the current ] article is a reasonable compromise between the vernacular primary topic ] and the political tension resulting from that vernacular usage. -- ] (]) 20:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)</s> Struck by ] (]) 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
** Actually frankly the current China article is a mess. The lead is really poor as it attempts to disambiguate the topics without being a disambiguation page. Additionally this change will keep the Republic of China's position. While that article could be removed after completing this move, it could also be quite easily removed before completing it. -- ] <]> 20:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think the lead reads fine. It effectively outlines the issue in a way that <span class="plainlinks"></span>, or any list of links on an otherwise blank page, could never hope to. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You could easily take most of the context from the two bullet points and add them to the disambiguation page. -- ] <]> 20:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No you can't. Context is established not just through text, but also via wikilinks to articles providing elaborative information to the reader. Under ], extra links are forbidden and text is generally restricted to one line per item. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I don't think all the extra links are necessary, but I take your point that they do add some value. -- ] <]> 20:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per Quigley. ] (]) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. To me, this serves visitors best: |
|
|
::*China --> Chinese civilization (because that's what the article is about) |
|
|
::*People's Republic of China --> China (because when people click China, 99% of the time they want People's Republic of China) |
|
|
::*Salt and pepper with hatnotes as you see fit. ] (]) 00:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Page hits to People's Republic of China is currently around 10k/day, and China is 13k/day. I'd bet if clicking China went directly to People's Republic of China, then the article on civilization (currently named China) would drop to 2k/day, as visitors hit their mark. As it stands now, the vast majority of people landing on China click the hatnote to People's Republic of China within 5 seconds. |
|
|
:::This is ''not'' a move request involving the move of the PRC article to China alone, which would most surely be defeated. The reasons for not performing such a move have been discussed to death. —<small><span style="color:red">HXL: </span></small>]<span style="color:navy">和</span> ''']''' 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::From the ] in 2008, and the ] earlier this week, it seems that that formula is too controversial to gain a solid consensus. The current move proposal is a compromise from that but also an improvement in the way of leading readers to what they are searching for. ] (]) 01:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Hear hear. The most sensible course of action if you are pressing for change, even if I do not necessarily support or oppose this proposal. —<small><span style="color:red">HXL: </span></small>]<span style="color:navy">和</span> ''']''' 01:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' The wording on the current China page is that "Two states with the name China", which means China currently is already pretty much a disambiguation page. Moving ] to ] is just forcing the user to click one more time which is not helpful. ] (]) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' This is a good overview article that covers all China. No need ot have the disambiguation page here. I think this exact proposal failed recently; and similar move requests have failed many times. ] (]) 04:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Per above.--] (]) 07:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
* HXL's figures about readership of the two articles show without a shadow of a doubt that this isn't the ] for the term 'China' and therefore it should be a disambiguation page. Even if we assume that everyone is getting to the right article 13k over 10k isn't enough to make this the primary topic. By any reasonable view recentism doesn't apply as the communists have been in power for 60 years. -- ] <]> 08:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong oppose'''. "China" is the commonest English language name for the world's biggest country and one which will likely overtake the US. You won't disambiguate ] but it could be ''United States of Britain''! ] (]) 09:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
** <small>Above comment is made by a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet so should be ignored. -- ] <]> 13:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:*The above is a good example of the confusion that having an article of this type at this location creates. The writer takes it for granted that "China" refers to the People's Republic. ] (]) 10:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::*You think that the article at this location ''caused'' the writer to take it for granted that "China" refers to the PRC? That's a stretch. Many English-speaking people take it for granted that "China" refers to the PRC -- that's how the effect communication when talking about the PRC, the speaker says "China" and the listener hears "China" and they both assume PRC, even if they don't know that the country's official name is the People's Republic of China. Similarly they use "Taiwan" when they mean (and possibly don't know) RoC. That's the vernacular usage, and would be the primary topic here except for the controversy behind these particular entities. But having an article of this type does not cause any of that resulting confusion (if there is any confusion). -- ] (]) 11:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*That's not what I meant. I meant that the writer assumes that an article named "China" must be about the PRC, despite the fact that the nominator explains that this is not the case. ] (]) 12:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*99% of the planet assumes article "China" is going to be about PRC, and then they have to click to the right place. I think all rules should be ignored, and we should serve the visitors. Then solve other hatnotes/dabs etc. ] (]) 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::*But everyone seems to forgetting that, especially in the airline industry, 'China' often points only to the mainland, which is not equal to the PRC. As an additional example, the US government does not treat Hong Kong as just another Chinese city. Please quit citing a number without evidence. —<small><span style="color:red">HXL: </span></small>]<span style="color:navy">和</span> ''']''' 13:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should all these edits be undone, and be first proposed through sandboxes and debated in talk pages? ] (]) 05:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
*'''Support''' - pretty much sick of this discussion and agreeing mostly with Quigley and Eraserhead. its silly to throw around numbers but it is clear that English uses China to refer to the state, its territory and its population. So we should give them information about that, except the political controversy requires a disambiguation. Sounds like a good compromise to me. ] (]) 22:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Putting actual content back == |
|
*'''Strong oppose''' - If this move were to set a precedent, then many countries in the world should also have a disambiguation page which is ridiculous. Unless someone lives in a cave in deepest Borneo they know about China and Taiwan being two places (for now at least) - China is the People's Republic of China which is why it has a seat at the United Nations and Taiwan doesn't. There are hundreds more arguments against such a move but linking the keyword "China" to a disambiguation page would make Qin Shihuang turn in his mausoleum. My two RMB's worth ] <sup>]]</sup> 07:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::You realise that the China article ''isn't'' about the People's Republic of China... -- ] <]> 07:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - Before voting please read the article ] for Chris' sake: the article doesn't deal with China (the country) at all, but rather with Chinese culture. IMHO the most common meaning for the name 'China' is the ''de facto and de jure'' the ]. Therefore I'm simply going to choose between two different evils: the current status-quo (which carefully avoids giving the name 'China' to the PRC because "the PRC is an evil dictatorship") and a lesser evil in which the name 'China' becomes a disambiguation page. IMHO his move is merely a step into the right direction. ] (]) 10:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*:I have seen what happens after other similar moves, and I can tell you will happen if this article is renamed '''Chinese civilization'''. People who are looking for PRC article will no longer click on it, and it will gradually disappear in the result rankings for "China". So the practical effect is the same making the term "China" lead to the PRC article (assuming that is fact the article that people typing in the term "China" want to read). ] (]) 12:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Somebody will verify these results in a couple of months/years and make the obvious conclusions; he/she will make a move proposal of 'China' towards 'China (disambiguation)' and 'People's Republic of China' towards 'China'. I already know that I'm going to vote in favour. ] (]) 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As has been stated repeatedly, the second notion is too controversial to have even a weak consensus. I assure you that that move request simplifying the name will be swiftly defeated as was the case many times in the past (you can go look for yourself). This is good enough of a compromise as it is...anything further will be flagrant violation of policy and a major hassle. Just think how many <nowiki>]</nowiki> links there are that have a pre-1949 context. —<small><span style="color:red">HXL: </span></small>]<span style="color:navy">和</span> ''']''' 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've looked at the various options and figured out that having this page as a disambiguation page doesn't actually help the reader. With this page now moved to Chinese civilization, it is likely to become a much lower-traffic page. As such, would something along the lines of ] be a suitable framework for re-developing this page? ]] 22:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
*'''Support''' (replacing my earlier !vote) as an improvement towards the goal, per Kauffner and (I believe) the requester. -- ] (]) 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I only know what google translate tells me, but it seems to me that that German page would just duplicate either our ] or ] page. ] (]) 22:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think we need a German to explain what "Kulturraum" means. -- ] <]> 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It means a ]. I think Chipmunkdavis is right that such an article probably would overlap a great deal with articles like ], ] and ]. But ofcourse, if some good sources can be found which talk about the Chinese cultural area as a distinct topic different what those other articles are about, it maybe worth making an article about that topic.] (]) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Probably a userspace draft is needed. -- ] <]> 07:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It's just terribly unlikely that any user will hit this page and expect disambiguation, so I think we're better off either expanding this into an article with content, or scrapping it into a redirect altogether. (NB. I can read German, and sorry for not explaining "Kulturraum" - I didn't think it was crucial to the discussion, and thanks TheFreeloader for the explanation.) ]] 13:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The problem is figuring out what the user who hits this is looking for. I think they'll be searching for cultural information, others think historical. The disambiguation allows the reader to clarify. I don't suppose a reader ever actually expects to hit a disambiguation. ] (]) 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Okay I think I get the point. I've added ] to the list and changed some wording and presentation, just to make it even less ambiguous. ]] 00:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: The merge was never discussed and I would suggest a rollback of all articles affected. ] (]) 12:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
* '''Support''' I agree with points above that in current vernacular China refers to the PRC. In fact most (if not all) of the citizens of the ROC I have met balk at being called Chinese, and insist that they are actually Taiwanese. At the moment I've seen many times when "China" is linked in a list of countries by[REDACTED] editors and IP's, a link clearly meant for the PRC. If such links now lead to a disambiguation page, they would be easily picked up on and fixed. In the end, I'm fairly sure that when people search "China" they aren't searching for Chinese civilization. ] (]) 14:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::: Actually, it was discussed. ] (]) 16:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: No it wasn't. The discussion was only about the move. ] (]) 18:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::See ] - it was discussed. -- ] <]> 18:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Thanks. That's what I had missed. It wasn't in-depth at all, and was much less elaborated comparing with the move discussion. Your call for RfC was consistently rejected if not ignored. I wouldn't accept that as consensus at all. ] (]) 02:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
*'''Support''' At some point a primary topic discussion should happen. ] (]) |
|
|
|
:::::::My call for an RFC was unnecessary as no-one objected to the merge - which I didn't expect. Given that even at this point only one person has objected there seems no reason to have an RFC other than to create bureaucracy. Additionally doing it quickly had the significant advantage that links pointing to "China" weren't moved which would then have to be moved back. |
|
|
:::::::Given the vast interest in the move request if people really objected to the merge there would have been more complaints that a tiny number of IP editors. -- ] <]> 07:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Where is it from to get silly Idea of making Civilisation stand in for modern Nation. ]? ?? 1949 is no bright Line for China or 1947 for India. Just admit this Civilisation Arrangement is KMT Propaganda. You hate CCP. Admit. People want to read about China here like all other Nation.] (]) 23:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
:::::::: I don't think the merge proposal was raised in the move request, and even if it was, it wasn't discussed in much detail. The subsequent merge proposal wasn't well notified among the community, and there wasn't much deliberations. I'd say few people actually noticed it. IMHO we should roll back all articles affected, and discuss the merge proposal for each article in detail, with RfC. ] (]) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Don't feed the troll. ] (]) |
|
* '''Support (with reservation)'''. Most of the sources use ''China'' as the '''common name''' for the PRC. ] (]) 11:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**I'm sorry, but you (and others before you) have apparently misread the proposal, which is to make ] a disambiguation page. This won't affect the PRC's article. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 11:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::: My point is: I don't support using the current ''China'' article solely for ''Chinese civilization'' because it's the common name for PRC; and I support the use of a disambiguation page for Wiki readers to choose what they want (including the PRC article). ] (]) 12:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks for clarifying. {{=)}} '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 16:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' Although it doesn't save visitors the extra click to get to what they are probably looking for (PRC), it's a step in the right direction. ] (]) 11:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
<s>*'''Oppose to the highest degree'''. The biggest proponent to refer the PRC as China is due to WP:Common Name but the biggest reason why the PRC article is where is it and the China article is about the Chinese nation since antiquity to the present day is due to an even more important[REDACTED] policy of ]. In no way can[REDACTED] afford to move away from such a core policy as to actually deviate from being a neutral entity by designating the PRC as the sole government of "China". As an overseas Chinese, I am appalled by this suggestion. Such a move has been suggested numerous times before, and repeatedly rejected due to the very reason of this being a huge minefield, and the same outcome should prevail today ]. And the ] article is no precedent when it comes to sensitive topics, especially of divided nations and disputed name usage. ] and the ] are also treated in this manner, just as ] and the ] are named as such.--] (]) 17:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
**'''Oppose'''. I just realised I was too jumpy and misread the proposal. Still, I would prefer the articles remain where they are, for the opening line "China is seen variously as an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and/or a multinational entity." is quite apt and serves its purpose well, and is also a visible reminder that the Chinese civilisation did not end in 1950.--] (]) 17:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:*We are '''only''' proposing to move this page on the Chinese nation/civilisation to ']' and moving the ] to <nowiki>]</nowiki>. A move from PRC to <nowiki>]</nowiki> is NOT in the works here. Please consider this...even though I oppose the move from PRC to China as strongly as you do, I have not voted on this proposal. —<small><span style="color:red">HXL: </span></small>]<span style="color:navy">和</span> ''']''' 17:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Move discussion in progress == |
|
*'''Support''' as a first step to getting Misplaced Pages to recognise what is obviously the primary, unambiguous meaning of "China", i.e., the People's Republic of China. Unfortunately, editors still stuck in the Cold War/Chinese Civil War will block action to rectify that. However, at least one should allow readers to see a DAB page upon typing "China" rather than the mealymouthed gobbledygook <small>("China is...an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and/or a multinational entity".)</small> they are confronted with now. — ] 22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at ] and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:People's Republic of China crosspost --> —] 11:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
* '''Oppose''' – Both the PRC and ROC have never agreed to call their shared-past-country as "Chinese civilization". ] (]) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Why does Misplaced Pages care about that? ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Consequences of ] == |
|
*'''Support''' move of <nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Not sure about the other half of the proposal because "Chinese civilization" seems an inadequate title. --] (]) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the course of ] it was reaffirmed that other articles, categories, etc., wouldn't be affected. This principle was reaffirmed in CfD in ] and ]. But ] was moved. Please discuss at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 15:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
* '''Oppose''' redirecting PRC to China is not neutral, as it imply the ROC is illegitmate. Therefore, the next best thing is to have China be a general article like the current setup. ] (]) 21:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:* Redirecting the PRC to China is ''not'' the proposal. Please read the move request again and reconsider your opposition. ] (]) 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:* some people here definitely need to read ]. ] <small>]</small> 09:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::*And some people need to remember what this proposal is about or realise the overriding power of consensus. —<small><span style="color:red">Xiaoyu: </span></small>]<span style="color:navy">和</span> ''']''' 13:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New Content == |
|
* '''Oppose''' Not really needed. PRC can't be here because of NPOV, and it's one click to reach the PRC article. ] (]) 22:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> |
|
|
:* Redirecting the PRC to China is ''not'' the proposal. Please read the move request again and reconsider your opposition. ] (]) 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::* I presume the opposes like this one will be ignored when the discussion is closed. -- ] <]> 08:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Strongly Oppose''' having a commonly used term like 'China' go to a disambiguation page is unacceptable, especially when there is a good page there now. Commonly used terms only redirect to disambiguation pages if there are several ''unrelated'' commonly used meanings for the term (see ], for instance). ] (]) 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
** The issue is that the current article clearly isn't the ] for the term - see for example the number of opposes that assume that China must be about the PRC only in this move discussion. -- ] <]> 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong oppose'''. Both governments say there is only one China, and all world governments adhere to this policy. This article should be about that one China. ] (]) 13:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
** And what "one China" is that? The pre-1912 China? Because basically that's what this article is about. -- ] <]> 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
***Er, no it isn't. The article discusses what all world governments recognise as China, its etymology, geography, it traces its history from prehistoric times to the present, explores everything from the climate in Taiwan to the Olympics in Beijing. Just one example: see the difference between the ] and the ], or see ] and ] for other cases. ] (]) 18:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**** But even so it still isn't the ] for the term. Its hit-count is basically the same as the PRC page, which is what in a modern context is commonly referred to as China. -- ] <]> 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment''' - It's rather unclear what the exact topics would be in the proposed disambiguation page for ''China''. Please clarify to avoid further misunderstanding. ] (]) 15:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::The disambiguation page . ] (]) 16:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It would however have the PRC, the ROC (Taiwan) and Chinese civilisation as "common" topics listed at the top. -- ] <]> 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't agree with "''China'' commonly refers to ROC (Taiwan)" because it just isn't true. What's the exact wording for these "common" topics? ] (]) 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The harm of that isn't particularly great given you need a disambiguation page anyway to differentiate between the PRC and the civilisation and that avoids having to discuss whether the ROC is worthy as well. -- ] <]> 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Although I support the principle of using a disambiguation page, it must be carefully constructed through consensus, e.g., I would list the ROC (Taiwan) as one of the links but not as a common topic as PRC because it gives the impression that there are two Chinas. ] (]) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've compiled portions of pages on Chinese culture and history to create the basis for a '''Chinese civilization''' article. I recently made an edit to add the information to the page, but had my edit reversed because an agreement has been reached to have the page act as a disambiguation page. My last edit, for reference, is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chinese_civilization&diff=500700399&oldid=500699990. |
|
== lower case china == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think a page on Chinese civilization should exist, and that it can be a helpful reference for people to compile things relevant to people looking into Chinese civilization to have many links and references together in one place. I think the page should touch on some basic values, norms, religious beliefs and cultural aspects common to the Chinese civilization; its political, economic, literary, and innovation history; and its influence on its neighbors and the world today. I don't know if my edit does that as well as possible, but think that it is a good start. |
|
Is there a way to create a link for lower case ], as in ], to go straight to the disambiguation page or straight to ]? Right now, lower case ] also goes to the Chinese civilization. ] (]) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:No. The software is coded so that 'asdfghjkl' (for example) is wholly equal to 'Asdfghjkl'. There are no re-directs involved, so this cannot be changed. —<small><span style="color:red">HXL: </span></small>]<span style="color:navy">和</span> ''']''' 14:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:You need to ask the bureaucrats to change the settings on MediaWiki for Misplaced Pages to do that. Wiktionary allows such distinctions, but Misplaced Pages does not. I don't think they'll ever change the settings on MediaWiki to allow lowercase/uppercase first letter distinction though, too many people enter only lowercase letters into the searchbox, so too many people would get to the wrong page. ] (]) 08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the article should also focus primarily on Chinese civilization when it was mostly free of strong Western influence. Considering that Chinese and Eastern Asians in general have been greatly influenced by Western/Global ideas, values customs and manners that they seem far removed from traditional Chinese civilization. |
|
==Clicking ] today== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your thoughts? ] (]) 23:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
It seems, regardless of the topic above, that people keep bringing up the notion that ] should bring visitors to ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: This page exists largely by accident. Once there was a page on the country at ] and page at ] on an ill defined topic. Ill defined as some people were sure that "China" was something different from the PRC but it was unclear what. Eventually after long discussion it was resolved that the country should be at ], which was not really a separate topic after all. So that was moved to ], its content merged with other articles, and it was turned into a disambiguation page, with links to related articles, the ones it was merged to and the ones most likely to be of interest to anyone typing "Chinese civilization" into the search box. |
|
Please don't make me read tons of previous discussions to find out why this isn't so. It seems like commons sense that it should be, and I don't like getting entangled in mazes of circular logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: So the consensus after that discussion is that there is no need for such an article. Readers are better off reading ], ] and ] which focus on those particular topics than an article which tries to cover all three. ] itself serves as an overview, while the other two articles are more focussed. There isn't really a separate topic as "Chinese civilization" and any such article would just duplicate existing ones.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 01:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
The vast majority of editors here want this. The vast amount of clicks on ] are intended for ]. Can't we just do that? Then, all the other hatnote and dab page issues become simple. We're here to serve the visitors, right? ] (]) 10:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:The matter of concern is not so much on the airy conjectures you have mentioned but the political implications of such a move, which I will not repeat. —<small><span style="color:red">HXL: </span></small>]<span style="color:navy">和</span> ''']''' 13:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I was thinking of making an article similar to the one for the ]. The content I put together was mainly from several pages, but mainly ] and ]. Some material was also taken from the page on the ], the ], ], and the pages on traditional Chinese medicine, numerology, and social norms. This page wouldn't be meant to cover all history, but but key aspects of the Chinese civilization and its significance to the modern world today, which currently isn't in one convenient place. |
|
: Logically, ''China'' should be redirected to the ''PRC'' but we have to accommodate the ROC's view, so a disambiguation page would be a comprise for the time being. ] (]) 13:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::More importantly we have to accommodate the Chinese civilisations right to the name. If I go to a museum and go to the "China" section they are talking about the civilisation not the PRC. Given that we may as well accommodate the ROC's view as well.-- ] <]> 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::To achieve this in a non time consuming fashion for readers, based on what I've put together, the article could stand to lose chunks of material taken from the ] page, maybe touch on the religion of China in less detail, and have the history section rehashed to reflect on the Chinese civilization rather than the the Han Chinese ethnic group. ] (]) 02:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
:::Well, okay. I didn't consider that. I just kept thinking only that this is an encyclopedia where visitors search what they want to get to and that's it. I didn't realize so much political correctness should influence that. Sorry to bother everyone. I'll just drop it. ] (]) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::That is not a good idea. As "Chinese civilization" is a difficult article to make that can stand on its own and not just simply be another overview of those respective articles, which is basically what you are suggesting. It needs to be brought into context of the oh-so-much ambiguous term "Chinese civilization", have that and consensus may change. Everyone can state what the culture comprises, but how does it define the topic? Also, you can't just copy-paste things without clear attribution like earlier. --] (]) 03:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
::Logically "China" should cover all Chinese states that could be called China, as an overview article, while the specific state should be named specifically. All countries should also be done thusly. ] (]) 04:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ideally, the ''China'' page should be set up like the one about China by ; and then it should include a link to the ] (Taiwan) in the lead section. ] (]) 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Why should it be like the CIA? The CIA doesn't have a NPOV policy, it follows what the US recognizes: PRC. ] (]) 01:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Most of the sources also recognize the PRC. While the CIA does not even mention the ROC (but USA sells arms to ROC), we would at least acknowledge the existence of ROC in the ''China'' page. ] (]) 02:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::Not only that. But the longest existing "modern" China is the ROC. PRC has just celebrated its ], while ROC is on its way to celebrating the 100th anniversary at the end of this year. No matter how long PRC has been around, ROC has been around longer. 100 > 60 you can even stretch it, and say ROC has been around almost twice as long as the PRC. Possibly clicking China should lead to the Republic of China first, because that came first. ] (]) 02:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
::::I think it is fine that some sections link to pages on the history of scientific development or the economic history of China, but beyond that I see what you mean. I have an idea of what material might be good for this, but that is a bit more time consuming that cutting and pasting so I'll produce something to that effect progressively after some time. ] (]) 00:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC) |
I've looked at the various options and figured out that having this page as a disambiguation page doesn't actually help the reader. With this page now moved to Chinese civilization, it is likely to become a much lower-traffic page. As such, would something along the lines of de:China (Kulturraum) be a suitable framework for re-developing this page? Deryck C. 22:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I've compiled portions of pages on Chinese culture and history to create the basis for a Chinese civilization article. I recently made an edit to add the information to the page, but had my edit reversed because an agreement has been reached to have the page act as a disambiguation page. My last edit, for reference, is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chinese_civilization&diff=500700399&oldid=500699990.
I think a page on Chinese civilization should exist, and that it can be a helpful reference for people to compile things relevant to people looking into Chinese civilization to have many links and references together in one place. I think the page should touch on some basic values, norms, religious beliefs and cultural aspects common to the Chinese civilization; its political, economic, literary, and innovation history; and its influence on its neighbors and the world today. I don't know if my edit does that as well as possible, but think that it is a good start.
I think the article should also focus primarily on Chinese civilization when it was mostly free of strong Western influence. Considering that Chinese and Eastern Asians in general have been greatly influenced by Western/Global ideas, values customs and manners that they seem far removed from traditional Chinese civilization.
