Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 16

Flag

A similar discussion is been held on Talk:Republic of China#Flag and Talk:People's Republic of China#Flag

Since the flag icon is removed on Republic of China and People's Republic of China per WP:FLAG, shouldn't we do the same on this page for the sake of consistency? nat^tang 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Map

Dear Editors,

Your persistence using an unofficial map, which depicts the territories of neighbouring countries as part of China's territory, worries me and scares me. Please respect the other countries. Gantuya eng 04:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the statement. The neighbouring countries - are you referring to the territories of Mongolia? Or something else? Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 04:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That map you keep inserting is for the PRC. This article is not about the PRC, it's as simple as that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the current map is accurate. Mongolia, parts of Russia, and parts of Burma are still claimed by the Republic of China, which has been based on the island of Taiwan since the ceasefire in 1949 and the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Under ROC law, Mongolia, parts of Russia, and parts of Burma still belong to China, and are "rightfully" Chinese territory. nat^tang 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The map depicts the disputed area in white, so it is not depicting the neighboring countries as part of China's territory. Chris! _{my talk} 05:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

you get what i meant...the ROC is claiming, through its constitution, that those areas are Chinese territory. nat^tang 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the constitution of Taiwan override the constitutions and laws of other nations? Does it override the United Nations? This map is illegal. Gantuya eng 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Taipei has already renounced its territorial claims and officially removed those territories from its map. Gantuya eng 04:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"President Chen Shui-bian said, "In Taiwan it was not until March 2004 that we exercised a basic right and held our first national referendum. But [in Mongolia] you achieved your goal of establishing an independent nation in 1945. This makes the 2.3 million people of Taiwan feel very envious." Sunday, 31 December 2006 , Radio Taiwan International

Gantuya eng 04:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the ROC has not officially renounced its territorial claims - to do so would cross one of the so-called "red lines" that the PRC has laid out as a action on the ROC's part that would lead to a military response from the PRC. While I'm sure it's more-or-less common knowledge that the ROC has little claim on Mongolia and such territories, the ROC constitution continues to define the official territory of the ROC as including all of mainland China, Mongolia, and the other disputed bits. You can read here for more details. --Folic Acid 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's so difficult to understand that this article is not about the PRC and so it is inappropriate to use a PRC flag. Having said that, however, it may be a good idea to provide a better label for the current image - especially to state that the map drawn by the ROC is what is constitutionally claimed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, HongQiGong. You are using such words like "as simple as that" or "what's so difficult to understand" implying that your counterpart maybe silly. Then I don't know "what's so difficult to understand" that Mongolia is Mongolia and China is China. "as simple as that" !. "what's so difficult to understand" that other countries have constitutions too and ROC constitution will not override the constitutions of the member-states of the UN.

Gantuya eng 01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the Republic of China is no longer a member of the United Nations. In our view, "Mongolia is Mongolia and China is China", but through the eyes of those who are Chinese nationalists (note I'm not saying Nationalist as in the Party), Mongolia rightfully belongs to China and is part of China. nat^tang 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Gantuya eng, please read WP:NPA before you continue. nat^tang 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This map also covers territories of the Russion Federation and Burma.Gantuya eng 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. The areas on this map claimed by the ROC corresponds with the boundaries of the last Chinese Empire, and when the empire disolved and the ROC was established, the ROC claim all the areas that belonged to the empire. Since the establishment of the ROC, they have not renounce their claims, and even refused to do so during the rule of the Chiangs. Although the current president wishes to renounce the ROC's claims on these territories, he cannot do so formally as it would require him to change the ROC constitution, which is one of the things he cannot do due to the fact that the PRC has vowed to use military force if the ROC constitution is changed in any way. nat^tang 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"other countries have constitutions too and ROC constitution will not override the constitutions of the member-states of the UN."

I completely agree with you, Gantuya - no country's constitution overrides that of another country. I suspect even most people in the ROC would also agree with you (obviously Chen Shui-bian does, given that quote of his that you used regarding Mongolia's independence). The issue (as I understand it) is not so much what territories the PRC or ROC actually exercise control over (obviously, the ROC does not have any sort of control over mainland China, much less Mongolia, Burma, or Russia), but rather, it's an issue of what the constitution of the ROC defines as the national territory of the ROC. I'm sure many people in the ROC would like to change that definition to reflect the reality of the world as it is today, rather than the territorial claims the ROC had 90 years ago. That constitutional change, however, gets to a very sticky political issue that exists between the PRC and ROC, namely, the PRC doesn't want the ROC to change its constitution in such a way, since that would suggest the ROC is trying to codify its de jure independence - a concept that's anathema to the PRC, and that has drawn promises of a military strike on the ROC were it to occur. So basically, that map reflects the technical territorial claims of the ROC, even though pretty everybody knows that they're completely unrealistic. Does that make sense? --Folic Acid 12:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is: should that map be there at all? This is an article about China. Is it appropriate to have a map incorporating the (almost) fictional claims of the ROC in a realistic map of "China"?

Bathrobe 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a legitimate question. I think the map is there to illustrate the differences between the two concepts of what "China" is. While to most people, the idea of "China" is a pretty straightforward issue, the idea of "China" is a very complex and emotional question for many ethnic Chinese, whether on the mainland or on Taiwan. The map is a way (albeit a simplistic and crude way) to capture some of the nuances of that question. I guess we should figure out if we ought to get into the discussion of what "China" means to various Chinese here, or if that'd be a topic for another article dedicated to that purpose. --Folic Acid 16:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if this map excludes the white areas, it still enchroaches on to the southern, western and eastern edges of the territory of Mongolia (look at the Black dotted lines). This is very bad. Gantuya eng 08:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because this article is not about any current political entity at all, it's about the Chinese civilisation and covers its history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Those lines don't reflect real history. Bring proof for them Gantuya eng 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Take your time to read the history. History is history. There is no need to go any further. Chris! _{my talk} 00:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, History is history. If you have read the history please enlighten me. Please don't tamper with the political map. Please remove this illegal map. Gantuya eng 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Gantuya, please don't remove the map when there is no consensus about it. I'm still curious about what your particular disagreement with the map actually is. Since it's a historical map, are you disputing the history of China and Mongolia, or is there some inaccuracy? Calling the map "illegal" isn't really helpful or enlightening. --Folic Acid 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, per User:Folic Acid. Chris! _{my talk} 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no historical evidence for the "black dotted lines" (as the author of the map calls them) to depict the historical border of Mongolia like that. I think I can remove the map as nobody has actually enlightened me by proving to me that it is "historically" accurate. Gantuya eng 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're challenging the historical accuracy of the map? I'm not really sure what to say to that - it seems pretty clear to me that Mongolia was under the control of the Qing Dynasty. Do you have evidence to the contrary? --Folic Acid 12:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Agreed

Mongolia being under the control of the Qing dynasty does not seem completely relevant to me. So were extensive areas of Siberia and the Maritime provinces of Russia. But they are not included in the map.

Gantuya raises a significant issue. These areas do not belong to China in anything but a highly controversial sense. China is extremely sensitive to foreign encroachments on China's sovereignty, yet this map takes quite a cavalier attitude to other nations' sovereignty.

Perhaps we need a note on the map stating that it claims territories that are recognised as the sovereign territories of other countries.

Bathrobe 09:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You got it all wrong. This article is explicitly about the Chinese civilization, not about the 2 nations. So the map here never reflects that those areas are currently under Chinese control. It only shows the former Chinese territory. I hope that this is clear to everyone. As many editors who doesn't edit this page always raise this discussed issue. Chris! _{my talk} 23:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You can find the following article in Google cache.

Onward to Mongolia

Publication Date：01/01/2003

ROBERT GREEN

Late last year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Taiwan would post a representative to Ulaanbaatar and accept an accredited minister from Mongolia. With this simple gesture, Taiwan, ninety-one years after Mongolia first proclaimed independence, recognized Mongolia as a nation independent of China. The event caused barely a crease in the smooth, flannelled world of diplomacy. Indeed, the entire episode was enveloped in a cloud of determined nonchalance.

On the surface, the new policy appears to call for a simple reshuffling. Files will be removed from the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which will be responsible for the handling of Mongolian affairs in the future. Visa regulations for visiting Mongolians have already been implemented, and talks are being conducted by concerned agencies to arrange things like cultural and commercial exchanges, as well as labor policies.

But the seamless introduction of the policy belies the underlying difficulties of diplomacy for Taiwan--a nation struggling to free itself from the stubborn precedents of history. The new policy bumps up against everything from official map regulations, some of which have already been relaxed, to constitutional constraints. The constitutional issue is patently the most serious and also the most politically volatile. Article 4 of the General Provisions states that: "The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly."

The National Assembly, however, has already been emasculated, with most of its prerogatives handed to the legislature. There is no consensus at present to rewrite the Constitution or to entirely scrap the National Assembly. These questions should be left to the future, but they should not imprison the government of Taiwan or arrest its efforts to move forward.

Until the recent change in policy, Outer Mongolia was officially a province of the Republic of China, whose provisional capital was Taipei. In the words of T.S. Eliot: "History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors." And Taiwan must not get caught in them, feeling its way blindly through a darkened maze. An understanding of historical precedents is essential, but must not steer Taiwan into a diplomatic cul-de-sac, with historical baggage sealing off the only exit. For Taiwan's future, history can be the lock or the key.

The key to a diplomatic deadlock often lies in doing the unthinkable. When there is seemingly nowhere to go, one must still go forward. Action itself prompts a new alignment, an acceptance of the previously forbidden. In this light, the determined nonchalance of the new Mongolian policy starts to make sense. To work through the ramifications of recognizing Mongolia from top to bottom would require the rethinking of the entire history of the Republic of China--from its Constitution to its borders. But with a simple, sophisticated gesture, Taiwan's diplomats have solved with elan what seemed to be unsolvable.

There is even a precedent to counter arguments of unconstitutionality. In 1946, the ROC government recognized the independence of Mongolia, along with the rest of the world, after a referendum stipulated by the Sino-Soviet Friendship Treaty was held in 1945 and Mongolians voted for independence. Mongolia for a second time had proclaimed independence (the first was in 1911 after the overthrow of the last emperor of China). Recognition was withdrawn, however, in 1953 when the ROC government on Taiwan revoked the Sino-Soviet Friendship Treaty and reasserted the claim that Mongolia was ROC territory in order to put pressure on the Soviets. Even from the provisional capital of Taipei, the ROC was engaged in power politics on a grand scale.

Mongolia, in other words, had become a pawn in a geopolitical struggle. Larger, more powerful nations argued over the fate of the country for their own gain and without regard for the wishes of the people of that nation, just as Taiwan presently finds itself in the middle of a hot-handed tug of war for power in East Asia. Under the Kuomintang administration of Lee Teng-hui, however, the Republic of China renounced the patriotic obligation to retake the Chinese mainland. All but the most reactionary Colonel Blimps have given up dreams of restoring the old boundaries of the Republic of China, including or excluding Mongolia. If then neither the ruling party nor the opposition has any future designs on Mongolia and the People's Republic of China has already recognized the independence of Mongolia, it is hard to imagine just what there is left to fight about.

It should also be pointed out that Mongolia entered the United Nations (UN) in 1961, sharing for ten years membership with the ROC government, which withdrew in 1971. Taiwan, which wants its seat back, needs support for its position, and Mongolia should be enlisted in that cause. Taiwan's entry into the UN has been blocked in particular by China and its smaller proxies. Taiwan can build support for its own bid by demonstrating that it can conduct its own foreign policy. Some have even hailed the move as the start of a "go north" policy, but this is overstating the matter, as the economic consequences will be minimal. The significance lies not in economics or trade but in the normalization of a relationship--a feat that Taiwan would like to replicate around the globe.

The recognition of Mongolia, in short, leaves unanswered questions, but it allows progress to be made where before there was none.

Copied by Temur 04:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The current map is much better than the previous version. But there are two titles at the top and bottom which seems confusing. It is the map of ROC right? The top title says "PRC". Temur 03:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an error with the syntax somewhere...i actually added two maps, but one of them isn't showing for some reason. nat^tang 04:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To be more precise, its actually a problem with something on Wikimedia Commons, so all images on Commons will be affected and the images may or may not appear. nat^tang 10:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris, nobody has got anything wrong. The problem is that this map shows the territorial claims of the "two Chinas". It does not show the historical territories occupied by China. The territorial claims of China and Taiwan are a political issue. I can assure you that even a hint of Chinese claims to Mongolia is an extremely sensitive issue in Mongolia. In fact, it might be even more sensitive for Mongolians than the issue of Tibetan separatism is for the Chinese (and anyone who has been to China knows how sensitive that is). Bathrobe 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You still are saying the same thing. First, it doesn't matter if those territorial claims are sensitive political issues. It is not our job here to care about people's feeling. Holocaust remains to this day as a sensitive issue in Europe, but we still has an article for it. And yes, the map is showing the Chinese's claims based on the historical territories occupied. The map is not showing the actual Chinese territory today. History is history. Hiding it away doesn't make it less sensitive. Chris! _{my talk} 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You may notice that my suggestion was to place a note below the map stating that some territories shown are sovereign territories of other states. Unless you are a completely unreconstructed irredentist, I can't see why you are so resistant to this idea.

(Besides which, the choice of which map to use is a political issue. Why is this map more appropriate than other possible maps? I am not talking about hiding history; I am asking why this particular map, with its broad territorial claims, is used at the top of the "China" article.)

As for saying It is not our job here to care about people's feeling, I would like to ask why Wikipedia is so extraordinarily sensitive to Chinese feelings at so many articles. Try China proper if you want to see an article that bends over backwards to accommodate the official claims of the Chinese government and the feelings of the Chinese people, to the extent of almost trying to deny historical perspectives. (And it was worse before I edited it.)

Bathrobe 00:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, User:Nat has taken action to resolve the issue, by showing two maps, one for the PRC, one based on Taiwan's claims. Since the ROC doesn't control China, this at least indicates that the territorial claims are just a fiction.

Bathrobe 00:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Implying that I am an irredentist is insulting. As for your concern about the map, I really don't understand why you insist on saying that map is political motivated. It is clearly not. I am not going to debate with you whether this map is bad or not since we hold completely different views. Using another less controversial map is just a way to compromise to basically end this argument (This has been going on for weeks). And I don't think that Wikipedia is more sensitive to Chinese feeling. That is just false. Actually, I think that Wikipedia is more sensitive to American feeling! Chris! _{my talk} 02:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As for you comment that "it is worse before you edit it," all you did is just reiterate the fact the article is controversial. To really edit with NPOV, you have to put these political feeling and national pride aside. Otherwise, it would be hard for you to continue here. (Please don't take this personal, I am just responding here) :) Chris! _{my talk} 02:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When you tell everybody that they've "got it all wrong", please expect people to respond appropriately.

" I really don't understand why you insist on saying that map is political motivated. It is clearly not." From your own point of view, it's perfectly natural to show a map with the respective administrative and territorial claims of the PRC and the ROC. And indeed, it's an interesting map. The question is whether this map, with its exaggerated territorial claims, should take pride of place at the top of the article on China.

Contrary to what you say, the map is not historically motivated. A historically motivated map would be a map of Qing territories. This map shows Chinese (ROC) claims on neighbouring territories. Rather than letting such claims pass without comment, a note might be in order referring to their nature. You bristled at my comment on irredentism, but you are still silent on the possibility of such a note.

"I don't think that Wikipedia is more sensitive to Chinese feeling." Again, a difference of opinion. In an English-language Wikipedia, it's perfectly legitimate to define and use terms such as "China proper" (and this is not the only problem term), but some people try to discredit it from a point of view that is cravenly political, blatantly nationalistic, and in disregard of the historical and ethnographic facts. (Any further discussion on this should probably be adjourned to the China proper talk page).

Your statement that "you have to put these political feeling and national pride aside. Otherwise, it would be hard for you to continue here" is, I'm sorry, quite personal (like shooing someone out the door). I might suggest that you take the same advice and ponder whether you yourself are really as free of political feeling and national pride as you suggest.

Bathrobe 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not being clear enough. All I think is that the map is not as bad as you think. Yew, the map shows that Mongolia is "part" of China. But so what, the map is not intent to claim in any way that is is currently a part of China. Mongolia was part of Qing territory historically. There is no deny about that. Since this article is about the Chinese civilization (from the ancient time to now), it is perfectly ok to have a map that reflects the history. You can say that is my opinion and you don't have to accept that. If editors think that it is bad for editors to see that map here, then we replace the map with a more neutral one. Problem solved. As for our opinion differences, I don't want to continue this unconstructive conversation. (PS, I am not trying to convince you to accept my POV) To say the least, to keep Wikipedia as NPOV as possible, such differences are necessary. Chris! _{my talk} 06:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is clear that you are still can't put your personal feeling by the way you comment. (Again, this is not personal) I already put my feeling aside. Since I am not trying to convince you to accept anything I say, I am being neutral already. But of course, I like any human have personal feeling. But I never let that impair my judgment. You might say that my support on keeping the map is trying to push pro-China POV. Well, that is not the case as I don't think that map is bad. If you look above, many other editors have the same feeling as I do. But even if we have our personal feeling, we are still trying to make compromise. So please take my advice. Chris! _{my talk} 06:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't respond to your increasingly personal (and patronising) comments.

The point I am making, which you keep rejecting without any grounds, is that this map is not historical. Historically, the Qing encompassed areas of Siberia and the Russian Far East. This is not shown on the map. The ROC's claims to certain territories may be based on historical grounds, but that does not make the map historical. That is why I am pointing out that the map is not historical, it is political (and what is more is implicitly irredentist).

Bathrobe 06:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Bathrobe. The map is not a historical map. North Mongolia was a vassal state of Qing, it was not a part of Qing. The contract was made between Zanabazar and Manchu officials. When Komindan took over China they cancelled all contracts made by Manchu government, which includes the contract bewteen Manchu and North Mongolia. Temur 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Kuomintang did no such thing. What the Kuomintang, as well as the Communist Party, did was announce the cancellation of the Unequal Treaties between the 8 Nations Alliance (As the Chinese like to call it) and China. The Kuomintang did not, at anytime during their rule on the mainland, cancel any other agreements or territorial sovereignty. Mongolia was not a vassal state as there was not any vassal-suzerain relationship, however it was a considered directly part of the empire, unlike Vietnam, Nepal, Siam, or Korea, who did have the vassal-suzerain relationship with the Qing. nat^tang 00:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is territory that we shouldn't go into. Discussing the legal status of Chinese (or Manchu) control over outlying territories is a fraught issue. My understanding is that the Qing did have control over Mongolia in a way that they didn't over Vietnam or Korea, but they also (unlike the current Chinese government) recognised a difference between their Chinese possessions and their other possessions. But I don't think this is germane to the choice of map for this article. Any kind of map can be used to highlight aspects of historical or current reality, but it needs to be made quite clear exactly what the map is showing, especially if there are contentious issues involved.

Bathrobe 00:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The labels for the two maps do not claim that they are historical maps, and they don't state that the maps represent "China" as it was, as it is, and as it always has been. They are maps drawn by the PRC and the ROC, and they are both labeled accurately so. And both maps specifically states which territories are in dispute. I think they are valuable to the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me state for the record that I'm not opposed to the two maps. In fact, I don't even have a big quarrel with the single conflated map, which has its own special interest. (A map comparing the provinces and boundaries of the Qing empire with those of modern China might be equally, if not more interesting.) My point is that a map showing irredentist claims by a government claiming to be the government of China is problematic at the start of Wikipedia's general article on "China", and to defuse this a note should be added. I am glad that you recognise, however, that they are not historical maps.

Bathrobe 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bathrobe, you forget, the Qing empire signed a treaty with the Russians, giving them territories north and east of the Amur river. That is why the ROC does not claim them. Also that treaty was not one of the treaties that was consider an "unfair" treaty by any Chinese government. nat^tang 17:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bathrobe. What are you talking about? In fact the point I am making is that the map is a historical map, a point that you keep rejecting without ground. That is why I think we should keep it here. And no the map is not political since nobody here is using the map to push any political agenda. If you don't agree with anything I say, then fine, just ignore my above comments. There is no point for us to continue this discussion. Chris! _{my talk} 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right. But I'll make one last attempt. When I refer to a historical map, I mean a map that shows territories at a certain point or period of history. (Temur above is actually arguing that a historical map of the Qing should not include Mongolia). In the sense I am using the term 'historical map', the PRC/ROC map is not historical because it shows the claims of modern Chinese governments, as of 2007, not the territorial extent of China in earlier periods of history.

In referring to a "political map", I mean one that shows the political status -- and I'm implicitly referring to the current political status, not the historical one. In this case, the map shows the current political perspective of the ROC. (Wikipedia may not be pushing a political agenda, but a map making such territorial claims almost certainly is). The fact that the current territorial claims of the ROC are based on historical arguments does not make this a "historical map".

If you feel that you have a different or better approach to a "historical" or "political" map, please let us know. If you don't feel that the discussion is worth continuing, let's just leave it here.

Bathrobe 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I get what you mean. But frankly, your interpretation of a historical map is quite different from my interpretation. (I am not arguing with you, just merely stating my point) The map is a historical map in my opinion because it shows territories China occupied in a certain point of history. Whether or not the Chinese still make claim about those territories today are pretty irrelevant in terms of the historical prospect of the map. But I will respect your opinion and hopefully we won't "hate" each other when we get into another argument. :) Happy Editing. Chris! _{my talk} 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you should include Amur river and other territories since whether or not the Chinese still make claim about those territories today are pretty irrelevant. Temur 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The map with description "Map of China drawn by the Republic of China (Taiwan)" is a blatant assault upon a nation's sovereignty. I respectfully demand that the mentioned picture be removed immediately. 110percent 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The historical map is not assaulting any nations' sovereignty. Please review this discussion if you have questions. Chris! _{my talk} 22:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris, the point they are making is the same as the point I was making (although they are somewhat more vehement about it). A map with the title "Map of China drawn by the Republic of China (Taiwan)" is not a "historical" map. It's a map showing the current territorial claims of the Republic of China.

110percent, if you look carefully at the map, its original title is "Republic of China (ROC): Administrative Divisions & Territorial Disputes". Given that it clearly labels the "disputed territory" as such, I don't think that protests about "infringements on sovereignty" are justified. The map doesn't support the territorial claims of the ROC; it merely shows where they are in dispute.

In fact, I don't think the Wikipedia title of the map ("Map of China drawn by the Republic of China (Taiwan)") is totally accurate. The map itself is quite clearly not "drawn" by the Republic of China. Some of the text could only have been written by an outside observer (e.g., "The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China both claim the Paracel and Spratley islands...."). Perhaps the map should be relabelled.

Bathrobe 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the above discussion shows that my interpretation of a historical map is different, so it is a historical map based on my opinion. I don't see the point for you to restate your interpretation. But I do think that the relabeling of title can further eliminate dispute. If you want, make some suggestions on how you want to label the title, then we will go from there. Chris! _{my talk} 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest changing the title to "Fictional claims of ROC as found in outdated ROC constitution which ROC nationalists are weary of updating fearing repercussions by PRC. Not in any way the above picture suggests the nation of Mongolia is or will be any part of China." or please take down this picture immediately. 110percent 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Chris, but your interpretation doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have stated that "the map is not intent to claim in any way that [Mongolia] is currently a part of China". Unfortunately, that is exactly what the map does. I find it hard to understand how you can claim otherwise.

As for the title of the map, how about using the actual title: "Republic of China (ROC): Administrative Divisions & Territorial Disputes"?

Bathrobe 06:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The title on the picture is as misleading as the picture itself. By placing an erroneous political illustration with a legitimate one of PRC on the same spot is sending the wrong message and grossly violating Neutral Point of View principle. This picture needs to be taken down or clarified with the description I supplied, which covers the essence of what has been said in this discussion, thus contributors' viewpoints are equally represented. 110percent 08:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the ROC map is something of a fiction compared to the PRC map, which pretty much represents the actual situation. The ROC map is not much more than pie-in-the-sky. Still, to call it "erroneous" is going a bit far.

Bathrobe 08:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Republic of China (ROC): Administrative Divisions & Territorial Disputes" sounds neutral enough. But calling it fictional and erroneous is clearly POV. And my interpretation is about the historical aspect of the map, not about what the map is trying to claim. I stand by my assertion that "the map is not intent to claim in any way that [Mongolia] is currently a part of China" as neither the map nor PRC and ROC are actually claiming now that Mongolia is part of China. Perhaps the map is not saying that clear enough, Chris! _{my talk} 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is by no means POV to call it "fictional". The long article that Temur posted earlier shows that the territorial claims are virtually a fiction in Taiwan itself. However, while it is a "fiction", it is still the official position of the ROC according to its Constitution. In that sense it is not historical. Please read the map, Chris. It doesn't say "these are the former claims of the ROC that have now been dropped". The map quite clearly shows that these are the current territorial claims of the ROC. There is nothing historical about them.

If it is a "historical map" that doesn't show the current situation, it's hard to see why the map is there. Just out of curiosity, exactly what period of history do you think the map shows? Since it labels Taiwan as "Free China" it must be after 1949. But since it shows Mongolia as part of China, it must be referring to a brief period after the fall of the Qing when Chinese troops actually did control Mongolia. If it is a historical map, then you need to give a year: "Map of China as claimed by the ROC in xxx year". But of course, your assertion that the map is purely "historical" is very hard to reconcile with the use of the present tense on the map in referring to the ROC's territorial claims. Bathrobe 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps my interpretation of a "historical map" is wrong. But the claims are historical. (If I remember correctly, I think that ROC (Nationalists) claimed the territory after the fall of Qing) And if you think the words in the map is incorrect, then I advise you to talk to the map creator about this. Chris! _{my talk} 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that the words on the map are correct. I believe it is your interpretation of the map that is at fault. And yes, the claims are "historical" (although not the map). But why do you want a map showing China's historical territorial claims at the article on" China"? To show everybody that Mongolia "really" belongs to China?

Bathrobe 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is doubtful whether the maps brought by User:Pryaltonian can be regarded as historical. Greece was part of the Roman Empire, but it doesn’t mean that Greece is part of Italy. Similarly, Mongolia was part of the Qing Dynasty, but it doesn’t mean that Mongolia should be included in the map of China. The Mongols were partly persuaded and partly conquered by the Manchu, but not by the Chinese. Doing so, the Mongols did not intend to join China. They joined the Manchu and had agreement with the Manchu. The Manchu Khaan Hong Taiji was to become Khaan of Mongolia in 1636 before he conquered China. As the Qing Dynasty vanished, the Mongols had nothing to do with China. This is what User:Temurjin means in the discussion above. If the Mongols wanted to join China, they would do it during the Ming, but they didn’t because they didn’t want. Within the Qing Dynasty, the Mongols regarded themselves as subjects to the Manchu Khaan but not to China. These relations have been clearly described by Michael Pravdin in “The Mongol Empire: Its Rise and Legacy” translated from German by Eden and Cedar Paul, published in New York, London 1940. This is a significant fact which is frequently ignored. Gantuya eng 10:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that I doubt to be “historical” in these maps is the borders of the so called “Provinces and Municipalities of the Republic of China”. These fictional borders are pushing the official borders of Mongolia inwards into Mongolia. This is called “cartographic aggression”. If they are borders of Northern Khalha “during the Qing Dynasty” then they do not correspond to the historical borders of the hoshuns of Khalha. Gantuya eng 10:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

These maps are also offensive calling Mongolia just a "Mongolia Area". Mongolia had always been a Khanate until it became a Republic. It is the third republic in Asia. Even within the Qing Dynasty, Mongolia was administered by her own khans and noyons. It wasn't merely an "area" populated by some "tribes". Gantuya eng 10:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about China.
It is not about PRC.
It is not about ROC.
It is not about Qing Dynasty.
It is not about the territorial claims of the Chinese governments.
As China is one of the most ancient and continuing civilizations on this planet, there are plenty of interesting things to tell about China in this article. But this map is not about China. These maps are only about the former territorial claims of Taipei which it has already renounced but cannot do it constitutionally as it cannot touch its own constitution because it is afraid of PRC. There is no place for it here in this article. It only detracts the readers from the main topic. It only spoils the otherwise interesting article. If somebody is interested in disputed area, they can be mentioned in articles about disputes only. Gantuya eng 10:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The maps brought by User:Pryaltonian also appear in many other articles:

Administrative divisions of the Republic of China

Chinese government

History of the political divisions of China

List of governments in modern Chinese history

Sixty-Four Villages East of the Heilongjiang River

Republic of China

Province (China)

Tannu Uriankhai

List of territorial disputes

Free Area of the Republic of China

List of governments in modern Chinese history

Portal:Republic of China

Portal:Free Area of the Republic of China

Portal:Republic of China/Intro

Template:Chinese/China

Also they appear in several articles in the Chinese language Wikipedia. These maps go in the Category “Maps of China|Maps ‘’’of’’’ the Republic of China”. Look at the preposition “of” used instead of “by” as if they recognize these maps as current. Those maps are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ROC_PRC_comparison_eng.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.jpg http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=Pryaltonian

I completely agree with 110percent. I would prefer to remove all these maps from Wikipedia. Gantuya eng 10:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Qing dynasty is part of Chinese history, it is regarded so by both Western and Chinese scholars. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about China, not about Qing Dynasty. Gantuya eng 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the Qing Dynasty is part of Chinese history. But I'm wondering why that even matters. The maps are drawn by the PRC and the ROC, and are correctly labeled. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this article is about the Chinese civilization, which include its history. So having a map that shows the historical claims of China is completely legitimate here. But the labellings on the map might be confusing to readers who don't know anything about Chinese history. And for that, I advise you to bring this to the map drawer. Chris! _{my talk} 19:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you show the historical map of China when it was very small, around the river Huanhe? China is China. Gantuya eng 22:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in showing anything. And I am actually answering the comment by User:Bathrobe above, not your comment in particular. Chris! _{my talk} 00:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have nothing to answer to my comments, I understand I can remove the fictional map. Gantuya eng 04:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason why we do not hace the historical map of China when it first began as a civilization is because "China" has expanded significantly. Yes the claims may be unrealistic however the Republic of China continues to claim through its constitution the territories that belonged to the Qing Empire in 1911/1912 when the Empire ceased to exist and the Republic of China was proclaimed. nat^tang 04:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bogdo Khanate of Mongolia was proclaimed on 29 December 1911, before ROC came into existence.

These maps show the territorial claims of the Chinese governments. What do you want to say by displaying them on the top of the article about the Chinese civilisation? That it is an aggressive nation with tremendous territorial ambitions? How will this article benefit from these maps? Gantuya eng 05:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What about if we dont use a map at all, instead just place them under the history section if we really want them. I mean we shouldnt just reflect the mordern territorial claims of China at the very top in an article about its civilization. I also see the possibilty of a map similar to the one over at Ancient Rome, showing the territories of the chinese civilization over the years. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 06:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article is to be a good article, I think it is almost necessary to place some more maps showing different stages of Chinese civilization. It is not enough to just show political maps of the two modern countries, and putting them at the top of the article is odd. In fact, Chinese civilization and culture are spread throughout the globe and on the other hand even inside Chinese political border there are arguebly non-Chinese civilizations/cultures, so (if a map can at all) no political map can accurately locate exactly where Chinese civilization/culture is. For example, Japanese, Korean, and South East Asian cultures are much more closely related to Chinese culture than Mongolian to Chinese, and IMO a 'fuzzy' map showing those territories perhaps with arrow-paths to illustrate the paths along which the culture is transferred would be way more efficient and imformative than the current map. Temur 09:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The ROC map clearly states that the Mongolia region is disputed. That map is drawn by the ROC government, and is correctly labeled as such. So the Bogdo Khanate of Mongolia was proclaimed a mere two days before the ROC was established. That still doesn't change the fact that the ROC's constitution still claims Mongolia. Removing these maps is tantamount to censorship of basic fact, and just because a Mongolian editor has some nationalistic urge to do so. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sticking mindlessly to the current version just because "a Mongolian editor has some nationalistic urge" and "the map is labeled correct" would also prevent the article from growing better. This is not a place to collect all correctly labeled maps or to refuse all the suggestions made by "a Mongolian editor with nationalistic urge". Temur 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this discussion is useless, as nobody from the other side of the argument (the side that want to remove all maps) is willing to make any compromise. You guys are just repeating that we should REMOVE ALL MAPS! and ignore all of our comments. So please don't waste our time discussing this, if you guys have no intention whatsoever to make compromises. Chris! _{my talk} 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that making this article better is also my and others' concern too. I am not simply saying remove all maps, but I stated earlier why the current maps are out of place and how we may improve the article. There is no sign that anybody has read that. You guys (the side that want to leave these two maps at the top of the article and not to add any other map) are just repeating that we should KEEP THESE MAPS! and ignore all of our comments. I do not see why a person who wanted to make the article better is labeled as "having nationalistic urge" as opposed to people who advertise a fictional political map at the top of the main Wiki article on Chinese civilization. Temur 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We are just repeating we should KEEP THESE MAP! You clearly didn't take your time reading this long discussion. We (the side that want to leave maps at the top of the article) already made a compromise by replacing the previous map with these two more neutral maps. Yet your side have no intention to give the maps a chance and made no compromise. (If you find one, then show me the diff. I can make mistake, too) And I never use nor agree to the labeling of "having nationalistic urge," please be clear on that. I am just saying that this discussion is becoming useless, if your side refuse to make a compromise. If you now want to start discussing the possibility to make a compromise, then I am more happy to continue this. Also, I apologize if I sound aggressive on the above comments. Chris! _{my talk} 01:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I just think it would be more appropriate if the two maps are placed in the history section. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 02:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Removing these maps is tantamount to censorship of basic fact, and just because a Mongolian editor has some nationalistic urge to do so." HongQiGong, there are facts and there are facts. No one is talking about censorship of basic facts. User Gantuya has raised the possibility of showing a map of China from the earliest days, when it was confined to the Yellow River area. This is also a fact. Whether it is appropriate or not is another question.

The question is, which facts should be presented in a Wikipedia article on "China"? Is a map showing the near-fictional claims of the ROC an appropriate choice for the head of this article? The PRC is the entity that has been negotiating with neighbours to clarify boundaries, not the ROC. Even the ROC is trying to find a way out of the bind imposed by its territorial claims by tacitly recognising Mongolia, without actually doing so officially. So the ROC map doesn't really tell us much at all...

One problem is the nature of the map as a map of territorial claims. Placing it here highlights to the Wikipedia reading public the fact that China (in the form of the ROC) has lots of unrealised territorial claims. So what exactly is the purpose? To remind us just how big China once was? That the ROC still wants all those territories? That China still wants all those territories? Or, to follow Chris's interpretation of the map (which I don't agree with), to remind us that at one stage in its history the ROC was claiming all those territories? I just don't get it. What is so sacred about a map of ROC territorial claims? To ensure that the PRC and ROC have parity in all Chinese-related articles? (Actually, this seems to be the real reason that such a ridiculous map is still up there.)

As for the accusation of "nationalism". In one sense HongQiGong is right. Mongolian editors are being entirely too sensitive and nationalistic for their own good. Perhaps it would be best to leave the map there just to let the whole world know how expansive China's latent territorial claims are, and that ROC territorial claims still live on in Chinese hearts. I am not joking here. The map seems to embody the conventional view, which many Chinese hold, that China is a succession of dynasties, each following on from the previous one to continuously expand Chinese territory. Or that China is a civilisation that has undergone a repeated cycle of disunity and unity, and the "unifier" somehow has the right to claim back territories that China had before it entered its period of disunity. This unstated assumption is a particular nationalistic view of Chinese history that most Chinese seem to hold, and I feel that it may underlie some of the acrimony over this map. It is a little one-sided to accuse Mongolians of "nationalism" merely because they challenge Chinese nationalistic assumptions. (I'm sorry if this paragraph seem confused. My point is that presenting the ROC map as somehow "factual" or "neutral" is at least as POV as those who are opposed to its use. The map embodies a very real clash in historical views held by Mongolians and Chinese.)

To be realistic, a map of the PRC, with Taiwan shown as "a Chinese province under the claims of both the PRC and the ROC", is the only choice as a map of China in the world today. Other maps are valid -- a map of the Qing dynasty, for instance, to show China at its greatest extent (but the map should clearly show the status of territories such as Manchuria, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet, none of which were actually Chinese provinces). Even a map of China when it was still only a collection of states in the Central Plain is a valid map of China historically. But a map of ROC claims? It's just too weird to accept this as a map of "China", at the top of the China article. It has its place, but not here.

Bathrobe 03:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is something on the accuracy of the map. Quote from the article Outer Mongolia:

The Republic of China (Taiwan) has not constitutionally renounced sovereignty over Outer Mongolia, although Article 3 of the Enforcement Rules for the Act Governing Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, effective from 30 January 2002, has been amended to exclude Outer Mongolia from the Mainland Area (defined as areas under control of the Chinese Communists after the amendement) to treat it as de facto foreign territory.

So, the border between the "Mongolian Area" and the "Mainland Area" (Sinkiang, Kansu,..., Hsingang) should be exactly on the border between the red area and the blue area. Temur 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so Bathrobe, what are you suggesting. Keeping the first map and remove the second map? Chris! _{my talk} 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. My suggestion is to put the second map either at the Republic of China section of the article, or at the Republic of China. And it should be appropriately marked. The information that the ROC makes these territorial claims is useful and interesting. (It could also be put in the Irredentism article, but perhaps that would be going a bit far for some!)

The suggestion for a "Roman Empire-style" map (one showing changes over time) is interesting. But of course, we would need someone to do it. :)

I don't know what other editors have to say to that.

Bathrobe 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, making a new map that everyone could agree with seems like a good compromise. But we should still wait for other inputs before doing anything. BTW, do you know anyone who has knowledge to create a map? That is a problem, if none of us here has the knowledge to do that. Chris! _{my talk} 01:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading all this long discussion, I am still not sure why some people want to keep the second picture (obsolete ROC map). As many people already said it’s truly misleading, historically inaccurate, and offensive picture. It might even give people wrong perceptions that could cause misunderstandings between two nationalities. I suggest the editors not to use this picture at this article. It could be just replaced by a picture of the island of Taiwan that doesn’t cover any other countries territories, but China. Brett

I've tentatively added the ROC map at Irredentism. It think it fits in rather well. I realise that some people may have objections. Please discuss them at the Irrendentism talk page.

Bathrobe 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

New map

Yu Ninjie is capable of making quality maps, so i made this one mostly derived from his work. Comments and corrections welcome.Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

1. It needs a bigger area to represent China. (The last one literally goes "off the map".)

2. What are the criteria for deciding what "China" is? (E.g., Southern Ming is "Chinese", Jin is not? Yuan is "Chinese"? etc.) This lies at the heart of Chinese historiography, which traditionally went to quite a lot of trouble to decide the "legitimate dynasty".

3. Assuming we can decide on the criteria for what is the legitimate "Chinese dynasty" and what is "Chinese territory", which eras should we choose in making the map. I say this because Southern Ming is omitted from your map, and it makes a big difference.

4. What happens when there is more than one state (relevant for the pre-Qin era, the period before the Sui, the Southern Ming, etc.) . Should different states be shown in different colours?

5. What about politically sensitive eras such as the Qing? Politically sensitive right up to the current day because, on the one hand Chinese nationalists would say "the whole lot belongs to China", opposing views would say "the Qing differentiated quite clearly among their territories".

Having expressed interest in your proposal, I can see that there could be some difficulties!

Bathrobe 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The map should cover a bigger area, and ill do that. I think if the names of each dynasty and modern pollitical boundaries are added it would be fine. I mean I dont think the purpose of this map is about defining the "legitimate dynasty" or "Chinese territories", and it doesnt have to be. To me a good map for the top of this article would be one indicating what historical political entity occupied the territories of mordern PRC and ROC. So if Jin and Southern Sung or Qing and Southern Ming occupied half of China at one time, itll say just that. So do you think this map is suitable if i made these modifications? Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it sounds OK, depending on execution! Perhaps you should wait for a few more comments....

Bathrobe 05:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The territories of Qing and Yuan were not built by the Chinese. I know that many historians regard Qing and Yuan as Chinese states, but that's a conventional thing. Conventions are transient things. Gantuya eng 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected! In fact, China is fundamentally different from the Roman Empire, which was a political entity, not a "geographical region" or "unbroken cultural entity". As Ian says, a good map would be one that indicates what historical political entities occupied the territories of the modern PRC and ROC. All Chinese would maintain that whatever entity occupied this area was a "Chinese dynasty". But that is a little different from the Roman Empire, which, once it had disappeared, turned into a past political entity, no matter what states or nations succeeded it on the map....

Bathrobe 07:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the statement that "The territories of Qing and Yuan were not built by the Chinese" is partially false as both dynasties did appoint many "Han" people to high ranking positions - such as Generals, Mandarins, and Governors. Many of the Qing's military successes could not have followed through without the hundreds of thousands of "Han" in the Qing military. Anyhoo, any dynasty who eventually conquer/ruled China eventually became partially sinicized or fully adopt the Chinese culture as their own as in the case with the Qing. Certainly, Yuan and the Qing were "foreign invaders", however their base of power moved from their homelands into one of China's "Four Great Ancient Capitals" - the current Capital of the PRC: Beijing. nat^tang 07:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they conquered China because they wanted to become Chinese. Gantuya eng 09:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the reality is that the Manchurians lost most of their culture soon after the took control of China. nat^tang 09:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Manchu lost their culture. But they attempted to maintain their culture, language and national identity for long. However, they had to disperse themselves among the far outnumbering indigenous population of China in order to maintain control over them. Thus, they were eventually dissolved. Don't think this was what they originally desired. Gantuya eng 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the perfect example of distorting history in this discussion. Some people said Yuan and Qing dynasties were regarded as parts of Chinese history. Yes that’s true, but that does not count as China. For example, have you ever seen that Indians say British Empire is part of our history therefore we can count its territories as Indian country when it comes to history? You see that doesn’t make any sense at all. Not to mention, there were a lot of other countries ruled by Mongol Empire and its descendants they could claim the same thing too, but they don’t because it’s completely different thing. Brett Halo 01:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I tried to say, but couldn't formulate like User:Brett Halo

Gantuya eng 06:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC) :);

You two are arguing from fundamentally different positions. Both sides have their logic, but it's a totally different logic. I think it's fruitless to argue over it. I am aware that the Chinese side of the argument is not always intellectually honest, but on the other hand, trying to maintain the ethnic distinctiveness of the Manchus when it has been swept away by history is also something of an exercise in futility. Perhaps we should just follow Ian's suggestion of showing historical political entities occupied the territories of the modern PRC and ROC. That will avoid all the political implications.

Bathrobe 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Yuan and Qing were regarded as parts of Chinese history. Though the Yuan was also a part of Mongolian history. There is simply nothing nationalistic about history. Chris! _{my talk} 22:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can defend the statement that there is nothing nationalistic about history. History is written by people, and usually reflects hidden (or not so hidden) beliefs or motives. It also reflects the thinking of the times. A history of "China" written now would be totally different from a history of "China" written in, say, 1520 (if there was such a thing). There is simply no such thing as "pure history", untainted by beliefs, ideologies, or motives. Why do you think the Mongolian editors and Chinese editors are clashing over this? The reason is different views of history.

Bathrobe 00:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way to go ahead with this is to take Ian's territorial definition, and show what states occupied China historically. There's no need to worry whether they were "Chinese" or not. If we worry about the historical politics of it, we will be be here until the cows come home.

Bathrobe 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is only one correct version of history (I view history as a story pretty much). People can called history with different names or have different experience, but history itself is essentially the same (For example, World War II happened in the 1940s no matter how you view it or how you call it). But if you view "history" as a life experience or from a particular point of views people have, then of course history is different. You are right though, these argument is fruitless as history is an abstract term. I don't think we are arguing the history itself, but more like how we represent history in a map. :)

So yeah, we will wait for someone to make a map before continuing our discussion. Chris! _{my talk} 02:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your WWII example is a good example of why history is not as cut and dried as you think. Why don't we count the Japanese invasion of China as part of WWII? I'm sure people can come up with reasons and definitions, but waiting for Europe to start the war before it's called "WWII" is a particular viewpoint. For Asian people, WWII started before Hitler's invasion of Poland. That's why history is never neutral.

At any rate, I agree we would be better waiting for Ian to come up with a better map before we go off on tangents about history.

Bathrobe 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the time line of events (an aspect of history pretty much) is really cut and dried. But the political or national views of when an event happen (another aspect of history) is different. So it really depend on how people look at it. BTW, how long can Ian make a map? 1 month or 2 months? Chris! _{my talk} 06:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting discussion; If you ask a Mongolian or Russian who had the most job done to finish WWII, they would say Soviets (They would say the Allies waited until it becomes obvious that Germans will lose on the East front). If you ask a westerner, they would most probably say Americans and the allies. They sometimes go so far as to claim that the use of atomic bomb was justified to save Japan from Soviet hands.

I support the idea of including just what was on today's territory of China. Being a part of nation's history, and being included in nation's history books are different. For example, whether the Hun or Tureg were Mongol states is not clear, but their history is always included in the books on Mongolian history. Temur 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

People, all this heated debate on a talk page really amounts to not much at all. Not to insult anyone, but all of this discussions are not really academically important or enlightening.

If you have taken any history courses in college or read any history books, of course the Qing Dynasty was labeled as China (or be known as), and China back in the mid-17th to early-20th century will also be known as Qing; that is how "mainstream" historians interpret history over the years. The Qing of course presented themselves as Chinese diplomatically and internationally, and you can read The Times or the New York Times that dates back to the 1800s, as the Chinese Empire was the Qing Dynasty, the name they were known back then. I think all this hang ups about the ethnic backgrounds of the ruler is quite ridiculous, the important thing is the label they gave themselves. The Qing called themselves "Ta Ching" (Da Qing), or Great Qing, and they presented themselves simply as Chinese at international events. Just as the Qajar dynasty is Persia despite the rulers not being Persian, The Qing and Yuan are usually viewed as dynasties of China (and the rulers are emperors of China) despite the backgrounds of the rulers and differing opinions here.--Balthazarduju 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Qing may be Chinese, but just because Yuan included China does not mean that Yuan is entirely China. How about Manchu Qing is Mongolia because it included Mongolia? Temur 19:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not about what you and me think is the real version of history, but mainstream academians teaches history that way. You may think of a particular history in one way, and that is okay as everyone has different views, but most teachers in universities would teach the Yuan as a "dynasty" of China (not the same as Chinese ruled or governed, the difference is there, and I'm not saying personally I think it is just China, and not Mongolia), because the rulers viewed themselves as emperors (son of heaven) according to Chinese traditions.

The Qing is a whole different matter because the Qing Dynasty era is in the modern age, and they interacted globally (colonies and opuim war), that is why we have incredible amount of contemporary sources (films, photographs, news articles) to tell the history of it. The Qing presented themselves (or viewed themselves) as Chinese to everyone in the world, this is a point that is difficult to dispute.

You have to remember history is always never the same to each of one of us, that is why shouldn't take it too seriously.--Balthazarduju 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I find the last statement rather incredible. “History is always never the same to each of one of us, that is why shouldn't take it too seriously”. Then why even discuss it? I really don't know where you're from, but history is a bitter political battleground in China and its surrounding countries, and "official" versions of history are used to legitimate regimes, legitimate policies, build up national identity, glorify national culture and sentiment, belittle opposing nations.... you name it! And you say "it shouldn't be taken too seriously"! If you knew anything about the way history is used in East Asia as a justification for all kinds of things, you wouldn't say "all of this discussions are not really academically important or enlightening". The Chinese government uses history to justify its control over Tibet and Xinjiang. They kept asking the Russians to give Mongolia back for year after year, on the basis that Mongolia belonged to them. The justification was, of course, based in history. To wade into a political and historical minefield and base your dismissal of these very real and pressing issues by appealing to "history courses in college" shows a complete lack of understanding of their significance. (I've only mentioned China. Wait till you get on to Korea, Japan, Russia, Mongolia, Taiwan, Vietnam, or any other state in the area.) Bathrobe 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have the new map. User:Nat has put it there, and it looks pretty good. Couldn't we put it at the top of the article? (My only request might be to add the current PRC and the ROC (actual borders) to the chronological map).

Bathrobe 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the animated map should go further back in time to include the boundaries of Western Zhou period, and even the Shang Dynasty. like these maps [1] and [2]. Also, let's not forget about the famous Three Kingdoms period after Han Dynasty [3]. Oidia (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Oidia. I'll put those in. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 07:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought this is a talk page?

A talk page should be focus on the article, not bitching or try to insult the country. VivaLaED 06:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

nope u got it all backwards ....i agree Modelun88 03:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Race of civilizations

"China's science and technology fell behind that of Europe by the 17th century." Wheres the proof of this??

Yeah, it is kind of original research. Some sources I remembered seeing ages ago said "China fell behind Europe in the late 18th, early 19th century". I'll try find them. Oidia (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wanna be precise it's important to distinguish between "fell behind" and "was behind". If it fell behind in the 17th century, then certainly it was behind in the 18th and 19th centuries. I mean, you need to define at which point in time the Chinese civ was overtaken by the Western civ. Gantuya eng 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember (very vaguely) the source said Europe "overtook" China (technology-wise) in the late 18th century. I need to check it myself if I can find it. Put that aside, why do we need to compare China with "the West" for that particular section? Oidia (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is East behind West? This question has always been one of the fundamental. Gantuya eng 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Typically, "East" refers to China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Mongolia. "West" refers to Europe and North America. (Correct me if I'm wrong). So why just comparing "East" and "West"? There are more parts and civilisations on this planet than just those 2. Oidia (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right. In a broader sence, East also refers to India, Muslem world. In an even broader sence, it sometimes involves Africa, Native American civs, etc. In a way, West is West, all the rest is East. And according to some of the Western writers (which icludes also Russia/USSR), the Western civ was dynamic, while the non-Western civs were static. Translated into Chinese, the West is "Yang" and the East is "Yin". Translated into Mongolian, the West is "Arga" (logic) and the East is "Bilig" (intuition). Gantuya eng 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually the Far East refers to East Asia, which includes Greater China, Japan, both Koreas and Mongolia. Americans refers "Asians" as East Asians and Middle Easterners or Indians as south-west Asians. Profession 10:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, those "Western writers" are so lame. Anything that is not like their civilization is considered backward and static. Anyway, back on topic, I found some sources that suggests the time where "the West" overtook China, though they seem a bit dodgy. I'm still trying to find more reliable sources where they would actually have a criteria/formula to measure "technological advancement of a civilisation" and then compare China with Europe base on it. Oidia (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in being static. Last time I asked "Is the mankind happier now than 3000 years ago?" I doubt in the advantages of Capitalism, Western style competitions, race for money and ever-accelerating technological advances. This makes the Earth a "preta realm". That the West is "logic" and the East is "intuition" rather suggests West and East are inter-supplementing. Life requires both logic and intuition. Gantuya eng 15:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is important. You cant change the view of history without reliable sources. Example: To write a thing like "many people are using drugs" without telling what "many" are is just not reliable. Is it 100, 1000, 10000. 1%, 10% or what? and is that really many or few? It gives a false picture. I suggest that the sentence "China's science and technology fell behind that of Europe by the 17th century." will be removed until you find or can show evidence and tell us why! You need to get this right because people rely on Wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC on "a map that best represents Chinese Civilisation"

Let's get some external comments on this issue. That debate/discussion above is not reaching a conclusion anytime soon. Oidia (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the above debate is working towards a conclusion. Ian's suggestion of a map similar to that at the Roman Empire, but "indicating what historical political entity occupied the territories of mordern PRC and ROC" is a good basis for a compromise. As he says, "if Jin and Southern Sung or Qing and Southern Ming occupied half of China at one time, itll say just that."

Bathrobe 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure which maps in Roman Empire you are pointing at. Do you mean the one in the infobox, the one that illustrates the greatest extent of the Roman Empire. Chris! _{my talk} 22:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. The map is at Ancient_Rome.

Bathrobe 00:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the root of the problem is the subject of the article itself. It's difficult to have a map that represents Chinese Civilisation. The current map there shows the extend of geographic/legal/political control over PRC and ROC, which does not necessarily indicate "Chinese Civilisation". Oidia (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is about "China", not "Chinese civilisation".

Bathrobe 00:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

At the very start of the article, it says this article is about chinese civilisation. Oidia (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article is still "China", and it's best to keep that in mind. Whatever the start of the article might say, the title is the most important factor when arguing what kind of map to use. I'm perfectly aware of the difficulties involved given that the concept of "China" itself is not necessarily as old as China itself. What with the mandate of heaven, tianxia, "native" dynasties, barbarian dynasties, zhonghua minzu, etc. etc. etc., the whole topic is fraught with difficulties. Adopting the concept of "Chinese civilisation" as a basis for defining "China" doesn't obviate the difficulties.

You will notice that the issue of what "China" is is still being debated rather passionately at New map above. We need to come up with a basis for a map that will rise above those differences.

Bathrobe 01:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, animated map. This is a good idea. It can resolve any POV problems we have. Chris! _{my talk} 06:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at the new map...I'll still be adding things, but this is what itll look like.Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well! It's rather nice! I'm sure there needs to be some fine tuning, and perhaps a few more eras need to be added (Zhou, Warring States, Spring and Autumn, as well as Three Kingdoms, Southern and Northern, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, etc.). Both the Yuan and the Qing are very clearly different from "native" Chinese dynasties like the Ming (I didn't realise the Ming territory was so small) in that they cover ... indeed, spring from ... areas outside China proper. I'm not sure what other people think.

Bathrobe 04:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Look good, but like Bathrobe said, a few eras is missing. If you fix that, then that is good. Also what sources or references do you based on when you draw the area of different eras? If you draw it according to a legitimate source, I think it is better to provide that in the image page. Chris! _{my talk} 06:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the animated map is the best solution. However, (from my own knowledge) I do believe that the territory of Yuan Dynasty is even bigger. Oidia (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of this article is simply wrong

If we like it or not, the overwhelming majority of English-speaking ppl use the word "China" to designate the PRC. That country is recognized with that name in the UNO and in the overwhelming majority of international organizations and events (Olympic Games being just an example). The "other China" (ROC) is commonly called Taiwan. Any discussion about the Chinese civilization will use the term "Chinese civilization". Any discussion about Taiwan will use "Taiwan". Any discussion about the PRC will use the name "China". Wikipedia fails in this aspect, here we have a mislabeled article (which indeed even admits the mistake in the very first sentence) using that name.

Let us be honest about. The 1st sentence tells it right from the start: "This article is about the Chinese civilization.". Can anyone explain why this article hasn't been moved to Chinese civilization? Please give reasonable reasons for it. Thanks Flamarande 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with user: Flamarande. No matter what people say that’s the reality today. Even the all products from PRC labeled “Made in China”; it never says “Made in PRC” or “Made in Republic of China” and the same principle applies to Taiwan. Since this has become standard all over the world, I think this article has to be labeled as “Chinese civilization”. Thanks Brett Halo 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter what the ppl say? But they (the overwhelming majority of English-speaking ppl) are indeed calling the PRC China. Flamarande 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, by saying “No matter what people say” I was referring to the people who might have different POV about what you said above. And yes, they indeed call PRC “China”. That’s why I support your proposal. Brett Halo 23:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you check out the majority of encyclopedias, whether it is print encyclopedias (Britannica, Collier's...) or web (i.e. Encarta...) they all speaks of China just as China, as a nation, state and civilization... The label Chinese civilization is perhaps unnecssary because if it is created, there would be hardly any links to it and difficult to categorize, since most foreign "China" articles are about the People's Republic of China. It is interesting that even the most scholarly ones, doesn't differentiate China and the People's Republic of China.--Balthazarduju 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, acording to the theory of succession the current China is the inheritor of the old Imperial China (and the ancient Chinese civilization). It has been accepted as such by the overwhelming majority of nations. Flamarande 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly of the opinion that this article should be simply moved to Chinese civilization (proper name) and that the current People's Republic of China-article should be moved to China (here - proper name). No, I'm not a big fan of the current Chinese goverment (or of the of the Chinese Communist party) but we have to try to be fair. Well, that's my proposal. Let us all wait one week, today is the 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC), before doing anything about it. Hopefully anyone who disagrees will read this and present his reasons and arguments against the two proposed moves (this article towards Chinese civilization, and People's Republic of China towards China). A rational debate will hopefully get us towards an acceptable result (my proposals might get defeated - or not). A fair warning for everybody: This is a serious proposal. Please present your arguments in a rational manner. Don't write enormous texts which avoid the true issues. No hateposts. Even if you (dis)agree show some basic respect to the other side. Please don't move the articles before the week is over. Flamarande 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC) PS: I'm also going to leave an invitation in the Talk-page of China (for if the proposed moves are approved that article will be moved also - therefore their opinion also counts)

I don't think its a good idea to move the article into "another" article or rename it, even though the current one isn't particularly good (speak to a lot of the articles here though). The reason is that, first, there isn't any foreign wikipedia articles called Chinese civilization, thus if you create another one, it would be reductant and un-useful perhaps to other users. Second, to many, "China" and Chinese civilization are just the same thing, and many encyclopedias write their articles on China this way (combining the state, entity, and civilization & history). I think it would be difficult to just create "another" name for this article when "China" has been in use for Wikipedia since the very beginning.--Balthazarduju 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To force PRC into this article space would be like universally accepting "China" as the PRC's official name world wide, and it is not.

• In western countries, PRC is loosely referred to as "China".
• In Taiwan, PRC is usually referred to as "mainland China" (大陸).
• In Hong kong, PRC is usually referred to as "mainland China".
• In Macau, PRC is usually referred to as "mainland China".
• In PRC, the term "China", "mainland China" and "PRC" are all equally used depending on the discussion.

I understand the move proposal, but it honestly won't work. If anything this page should clean out all PRC-related links to avoid further confusion. To say PRC is the overwhelming inheritor of the land is fine. To say PRC is the overwhelming inheritor of the civilization would be just insane. Benjwong 02:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet the overwhelming majority of the Chinese ppl, cities, territory, artifacts, languages, etc are located in the PRC. And being quite honest: China is almost unversally accepted and used as PRC's name (UNO, Olympic Games, embassies, Newspapers, TV, movies, etc). A mention of the ROC is a must, no doubts about it, and a proper explanation of Chinese history will explain the issue completly. While I accept your examples as showing that the name is not undisputed, you are overlooking that it isn't in the English language. Flamarande 03:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

China in translation to Chinese is 中國. I can assure you in Chinese-speaking regions, 中國 is not nearly used as much as mainland China 大陸. Making this move would be like moving United States of America to America because that is what people call it today. Benjwong 03:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And if "America" wasn't also the name of the two continents in which other countries are located (or one continent, depending upon the definition) we would call that country America in the article (in fact we do it in everyday conversation, but we don't do it in official events like the UNO, Olympic Games, embassies, etc something which certainly isn't the case with China). Again: You are overlooking that China is used as PRC's name in the English language everywhere. Flamarande 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am almost certain you are taking an all geographic approach. Like I mentioned earlier, yes China and PRC are pretty much occupying the same land. But that is as far as the similarities goes. This is not based on how many times "China" pops up in websites and newspapers. PRC historically have tried very hard to disconnect itself from original China. Sharing the same name is already a misunderstanding. By moving the page over, you are basically saying this misunderstanding is accepted, when it is not. Benjwong 03:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Original China as in ROC? Sorry, but in the English language Taiwan is used both for the island, its goverment, and the political entity (this includes the "made in Taiwan"). Flamarande 03:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Original China = pre-1911 China. That was about last time the name "China" remains undisputed, which is very fitting for the contents currently on this article. You are welcome to interchangeable use China with PRC for any purpose. But the page move will only make sense in terms of geography. Benjwong 03:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1911 could be called "Chinese Empire" in the same fashion as the Russian Empire, German Empire, Roman Empire, French Empire - in other words: creating proper articles about these political entities. How about politics? How about the UNO (with the little name tags "China" before the ambassador), How about the Olympic Games? How about everwhere you look all English-speakers call "China" to the country (PRC)?

RE: To Benjwong, what other places and territories subjectively call the PRC has no relation at all to what this article should be. In particular, Hong Kong and Macau are part of the PRC and part of China. They do not call the PRC "mainland" because they are part of it. They call the parts under direct authority of the CPG "mainland". The losers of a civil war (the ROC) do not get to define what China is, nor stand in the way of the PRC from using that title. See our guideline for naming conflicts.

This split between China/PRC is different from any other nation on the planet with a conflicted past. It is a historical artifact of Wikipedia itself, that the earliest editors of Chinese topics were pan-blue KMT supporters and refused to use the name China to refer to the PRC. That the situation remains now is increasingly untenable and out-of-touch with Wikipedia's core policies. SchmuckyTheCat

Possible articles that might be relevant to this debate include India, Iran and Persia, Russia / Russian empire, Greece, and Germany / Germans. Most of these have disambiguation pages. There is no unanimity of treatment, although most articles focus on the modern state. The problem with China is the political controversy surrounding the modern state.

Bathrobe 04:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my point, the articles India, Iran, Russia, Greece, Germany lead to the modern countries. Disambiguation links are a must, I don't dispute that. Could you explain the political controversy surrounding the modern state? Flamarande 16:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with such a move. It would create needless confusion and dispute. Chris! _{my talk} 06:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusion? How is that? Everybody uses the word "China" when they are speaking about the modern country (PRC). Do you disagree with that? What is truly confusing is present situation. Flamarande 15:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I also have to register my disagreement with this type of move. I think it is important that we separate Chinese civilization from any political entities that may exist. They are in fact not the same thing, although closely related. It is completely true that everyone refers to the PRC as "China", but we are an encyclopedia, and should strive for a higher level of accuracy than the common parlance.--Danaman5 07:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I'm proposing that we move the article about the Chinese civilization into an article named "Chinese civilization" (How more accurate can you get?). China is China (PRC), like Germany is Germany, Greece is Greece, etc. China isn't the Chinese civilization. Notice that the common parlance is indeed presented as such in the English encyclopedias (and indeed in most languages) everywhere. If Wikipdeia truly tries to be a encyclopedia we have to strive to be as accurate as a "normal" encyclopedia, don't you agree? Flamarande 15:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Flamarande. LDHan 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's rational to merge this article with "Chinese Civization". Gantuya eng 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think when Taiwan is officially independent, it will be safe to move PRC over to this page. Until then, it would be like moving East Germany over to Germany. Of the list of countries in comparison, Greece, Russia etc, none of them are in a crossroad. Benjwong 17:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a very weak argument. East Germany was never considered to be the "whole Germany" by the UNO, Olympic Games, media, and the English-speaking world at all and I never ever said that we should merge Taiwan with China (to be true I think that Taiwan should be about ROC with a clear "de facto unrecognized nation" or something similar). And AFAIK Wikipedia isn't afraid of being accurate and "unsafe". That's why I like it and that's why Wikipedia has an uneasy relationship with China (and similar authorityran nations): Wikipedia isn't afraid of telling the truth, being honest, being political incorrect, and most of all: fair. Flamarande 18:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you said it. East Germany was never considered the "whole Germany". Well, PRC isn't considered the "whole China" either. That about sums it up. Benjwong 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, the PRC it is only accepted as China by almost every country of the world, by the ONU, and almost all international organizations. Flamarande 18:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, I see where you're coming from in proposing that this article redirect to Chinese civilization, and the the People's Republic of China redirect to China. Native English speakers (like me) are often imprecise in our language and tend to have colloquial names for things - America when we mean the United States, England when we mean the United Kingdom, Russia when we meant the Soviet Union, China when we mean the People's Republic of China, Taiwan when we mean the Republic of China, and so on. However, that quirk of language isn't really a sufficient enough reason, in my opinion, to change the redirects. While it would be linguistically more straightforward to do as you suggest, it wouldn't be as accurate. Fortunately, however, Wikipedia is flexible enough to have dablinks at the top which allow us to list the other disambiguation pages that a person may have been trying to reach instead (such as the link the PRC article on the China page). So, while you ask for good reasons why we shouldn't redirect the page(s), I'd respectfully point out that in my opinion, you haven't supplied a good reason why we should redirect.

Also, you said the PRC it is only accepted as China by almost every country of the world, by the ONU, and almost all international organizations. Given that logic, though, we should either not refer to the ROC at all, or call it Chinese Taipei or Taiwan Province, since that's what it's called by international organizations. That standard, though, isn't what Wikipedia uses, as far as I know. Perhaps your points would be better served by first addressing naming issues at Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Chinese). --Folic Acid 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about “made in China” labels, that’s quirk of language too? PRC is known as China globally, and widely used all around the world on almost everything as far as I know. Let us be honest about this. Brett Halo 22:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we move the articles, not re-direct them. America, England and Russia (in the times of the old Soviet Union) where widely used in everyday conversation, but were not used as such in international organizations and events.

If you need reasons: How about the fact that the PRC is named China by the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world? How about that encyclopedias (i.e. books written by scholars) use the name China for the PRC, and that the overwhelming majority of country-articles in Wikipedia use the commonly used name (but also giving the official name right on the 1st paragraph, as in the article Germany which uses "Federal Republic of Germany"). That indeed is the standard of Wikipedia which isn't applied here - I humbly suggest you read other articles. ROC is called Taiwan by almost everybody; and the article Taiwan should be also about the ROC IMHO. Flamarande 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Semantics aside (moving vs. redirecting), I really do understand your reasoning. In everyday conversation, I refer to "China" and "Taiwan" - not to the "People's Republic of China" and the "Republic of China." However, given the nature of Wikipedia, particularly the desire for strong encyclopedianess (new word!) and a NPOV, the naming conventions specifically direct that we not do as you suggest with the move. --Folic Acid 19:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't only you, everyone and almost every organization does it. Encyclopedias and dictonaries use China for the PRC Flamarande 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Folic Acid, those Chinese naming conventions have been disputed since the day they were written, at least they have been since 2004. I don't think it's ever been fair to say they have wide consensus. Ignoring those, there are several other guidelines (use common names, naming conflicts, npov) that really do support such a move. SchmuckyTheCat

:) I know, Schmucky - I participated in many of those discussions too. The guidelines you cite, however, do not clearly support such a move. NPOV, in my opinion, is right out, since equating "China" with the PRC gets into the whole political PRC-ROC debate. Naming conflicts seems unclear, since one could argue that the section dealing with "Proper Nouns" would also conflict with the section on historical context. Wikipedia: Naming conventions (geographic names) indicates than in an instance such as this, it might be proper to conduct a vote.

I suppose that my point is - there's a definite lack of consensus on the issue, and just because we call the PRC "China" doesn't mean that we should go with whatever's easiest and move the articles on the PRC to China, ROC to Taiwan, Taiwan (the island) to something else, etc. Currently, the dablinks at the top of the article clearly direct the user to the proper place, if he or she was actually looking for the country article. --Folic Acid 20:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The dablinks would certainly continue to be present in the article (that was never in question). The PRC-ROC debate will have to be mentioned, of course. "We" means academia, the political establisment, dictonaries, encyclopedias, and almost everybody of the English-speaking community. Be honest: when someone is writing "China" in the search-box what do you think he is looking for? The Chinese civilization or the PRC? Flamarande 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems we're continuing to state the same arguments, just in various different ways. In my view, whether or not we refer to the PRC as China is irrelevant. When people type "Korea" into the search box, what are they looking for? When people type "England" into the search box, are they looking for the subsection of the overall United Kingdom, or are they looking for the United Kingdom itself? And what would we say of the PRC-ROC debate? "The political and historical debate between what actually constitutes "China" aside, we have chosen to refer to the PRC as China, because that's just what we call it. For the article on the other state that has historical claim to the title "China" (the Republic of China), please see "Taiwan." For the island of Taiwan, please see "Taiwan Island.""

Yes, that's what we call all those things, but is the current setup really causing THAT much confusion? --Folic Acid 22:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does (IMHO). We (here in Wikipedia) are supposed to follow commons scholarship and academia. "we have chosen to refer to the PRC as China" is false (we haven't chosen anything - almost everyone calls the PRC "China"). The point of Korea and England is a mistake; none of the two Koreas is recognized under the name "Korea" (not the south or the north). While "England" is many times used interchangebly with "United Kingdom" it is not recongnized or used as such by the media (they use "UK") political organizations (like the UNO, UE, etc - in any of such meetings the name-cards (the pieces of white card with the name) say clearly: United Kingdom while the guy frm Beijing gets one with "China" written upon it). On the Olympics the athletes from the PRC get the "China" upon their t-shirts. Flamarande 23:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your categorizing is reversed. Instead of thinking Chinese civilization was a blurb in PRC's history, and PRC is the front and center for China. Is more like the other way around. The PRC is another stage within the civilization. Benjwong 23:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the PRC is another stage. Remember: I want to move this article (which is about the Chinese civilization towards an article called "Chinese civilization". But the English language, Wikipedia (and the world at large) uses the name of a country when they are speaking about the existing state (e.g. Germany and Greece). You aren't propposing that we move the vast majority of country-articles, are you? Flamarande 08:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And isnt this situation a bit similar to Korea? The split isnt half-half here, but everyone knows Korea would require a North or South prefix to specify the pollitical situation because, to me, the media (and everyone) is very fond of covering North Korea. By refering China to PRC, is basically ignoring the pollitical situation (which is what everyone's doing, including some people in the ROC) simply because ROC is not as "famous" as the "legitimate" China. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. First North Korea and South Korean are two fully recognized countries. The UNO, most of the International organizations, and the media uses those names (and none of them is simply recognized under Korea). Flamarande 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Only under the circumstances that the communist party publicly acknowledge PRC is China, and Taiwan is something else.... should we even remotely reconsider this proposal. Even so, I am not sure that would ever be the right move. Right now China is the umbrella page for everything geographic, political and a whole lot more. It is encyclopedic and covers 5000 years as opposed to 50 years under the PRC. There is no global consensus of everyone calling it China. Beijing press pushes hard that they are China, but eastern sources elsewhere say they are just the mainland. NSkorea comparison is close, but still off. I rather not dive into that. Benjwong 23:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly this article is "hostage" to the wishes and decisions of the Chinese Communist party? "There is no global consensus of everyone calling it China" only if you overlook everyday talk, international organizations, international events, media (e.g. news in TV), dictonaries, encyclopedias (to be broader: the use of "China" in the English language). The eastern sources you speak of (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau) don't speak English in their everyday, and are hardly representative of the English-speaking world (and the examples you quoted above were clearly in Chinese). Flamarande 08:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are either not accepting the current political situation or don't quite understand it. I am just providing a rundown of the status. The only true opinion I have, is that this is not exactly the best timing for the proposal. Benjwong 14:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Again I disagree with such a move. Like Benjwong said, there is no consensus that everyone call PRC China and there is no way we can ever be sure that is true. So to avoid the difficulty of maintaining NPOV after such a move, I think we should just keep it the way it is now. Chris! _{my talk} 01:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? Are you claiming that in everyday talk, international organizations, international events, media (e.g. news in TV), dictonaries, encyclopedias (to be broader: in the English language) the PRC isn't called "China"? "there is no way we can ever be sure that is true" is the most extraordinary argument to use in this case. Flamarande 08:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the proposed move. The is just no consensus for moving the article to Chinese civilization and no consensus for moving People's Republic of China to China. nat^tang 08:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is the point of the Talkpages, to debate any action before it happens (if at all). So basicly you are saying that an article about the Chinese civilization shouldn't be named "Chinese civilization"? Flamarande 09:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is what I saying. This article should remain as China, as moving the People's Republic of China to China would be not adhering to our policies on NPOV. The reason for this is that there are two sovereign states in the world called China. While the United Nations as an organization, as well as many other organizations and a majority of nations, recognize the People's Republic of China as China, however there are approx. 24 nations (all of whom are sovereign states and are UN members) recognize the Republic of China as China even if it is commonly known as Taiwan. nat^tang 09:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV at the cost of accuracy? 24 nations out of what? around 200 (not even speaking about all the international organizations, and events)? So basicly Wikipedia should simply ignore everyday talk, international organizations, international events, media (e.g. news in TV), dictonaries, encyclopedias (to be broader: the English language). Is this what is understood as "NPOV" these days? Flamarande 09:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The official name is People's Republic of China. You continue to propose that it should move to the short name, why? Because you have 1 reason that "China" is used a lot in western sources. Well there already seems to be many reasons to stop pursuing this already. You probably are ready for a step1, but I don't think you have the plans for step2, 3, 4, 5. Benjwong 14:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The reasons that were given not to change the present situation are doubtful. The official name for Germany is Federal German Republic (and indeed this is similar with almost every country of this planet). "A lot" as in almost everybody and everything? Could you explain what you mean with step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? Flamarande 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually no. I think you are declaring the reasons doubtful out of your personal opinion. No offense, but at best this is like calling Bosnia and Herzegovina with the shortened "bosnia". Western media is known for the shorthand practices, and you are practically running wild with it. By step2, 3, 4, 5 I am saying this move will cause so much changes in every article and so much dispute, I am not convinced you'll actually stick around for it. Benjwong 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest: avoid all reasons and arguments as you wish: that in everyday talk, international organizations, international events, media (e.g. news in TV), academia dictonaries, encyclopedias (to be broader: in the English language) the PRC is called "China". About the step-issue: Is that a challenge? :) You would be surprised. On the other hand Wikipedia is work of many users and I sincerly think that many users interrested in China, the Chinese civilization (which indeed is fascinating and more than worthy of study), etc would contribute. Large changes are usually not done in a single day (Rome wasn't built in a day) and I never said that I would do everything in a single dayFlamarande 17:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand. The PRC tried very hard to push the fact that they are the "New China". The government never wanted to associate themselves with "China", many historical events have proven this. The international community is mixing the names for shorthand convenience. Just look at the people managing Chinese wikipedia. They too are clear in separating the two (China and PRC). We appreciate your effort, but let's not rewrite history here. Benjwong 17:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm unable to read Mandarin (never said I could :), but I believe you that in the Chinese language(s) the issue is far more complicated and nuanced than in the English language (and yes I suppose that in Mandarin names like "mainland China" are in wider use - unlike English. History says that the english-speaking world calls the PROC "China" and the PROC doesn't seem to object to be called "China" in English everyday talk, international organizations, international events, media (e.g. news in TV), academia dictonaries, encyclopedias (to be broader: in the English language). Face it: the PRC has for several decades been synonymous with China. Flamarande 18:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What if I said I faced the fact that the name "China" is the international shorthand for the ridiculously long name of "People's Republic of China". Benjwong 18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that you knew better than that (IMHO you know that in most of the world the PRC is accepted as, and named, "China" - something with which you don't agree). Flamarande 18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am reading your original proposal. It saids "China should designate the PRC". That is what you intended. It won't work. Sorry. Benjwong 18:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with User: Flamarande. China has multi-fold meaning in English. For modern time, it generally used in many occasions as the short name of P. R. China (that I think what Flamarande said is true). However, China is also used in English to indicate the ancient China. In other words, P.R.China is the modern part of China. Of course Taiwai is also modern part of China, unless they do be independent and use Taiwan offically (I mean, they change their name as something like republic of Taiwai). Even in that situation, they will still be considered as one of the branch of the descendents of ancient China. I think it's more proper to put a note/section to explain China in modern time refer to P.R.China. However, the word China itself is a word "larger" than P.R. China, which I would say is the major modern part of it (China). By the way, Hong Kong and Macau currently are part of P.R.China. In addition, as far as I know, the map of ROC is much larger than Taiwai, unless they changed it recently... I think more efforts should be put to improve the quality of this article by including and explaining all or at least most fold of the word of China than simply move it.Augest 02:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The French version has "Civilisation chinoise", as well as articles the PRC and Taiwan. "Chine" is a disambiguation page.

Bathrobe 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It was pointed out that the propossed moves would be contrary to the current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) (see the last section) and that "here" wasn't the proper place to propose a change of that policy. The case has been efectivly transfered to the talkpage "there". Therefore we welcome your opinions in the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#I humbly propose a change of the "Political NPOV" section. Please give us your honest opinions about the proposals if you are for, or against, the proposed "moves". To begin with I propose you read carefully the allready existing text. We want an honest but rational debate - No insults or something similar, please). Flamarande 21:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative - A disambiguation page?

How about moving this article to "Chinese civilization", and leave the article "PRC" as it is? I don't think the only options are move both and leave both alone. Temur 17:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a better solution. China can then becomes a disambiguation page. Chris! _{my talk} 18:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Temur and Chris!; an article about the Chinese civilization should be found under (and named) "Chinese Civilization" (let us not continue the "other debate" any longer - everybody knows the arguments of the other side). A disambiguation page which shows both "Chinas": ROC and PROC (perhaps even the older Chinese Empire?) would IMHO be better than the present article. I propose something like this:

"China can refer to:

• the People's Republic of China (short: PROC), its capital being Beijing.
• the Republic of China (short:ROC), with its capital being Taipe.
• the older Chinese Empire before 1911.
• Music band (I vaguely remember one with that name).
• etc"

The capitals should perhaps be mentioned (this is a mere proposal - I'm willing to listen to alternatives) solely for the benefit of the average user (who might get confused between the first two). Again: this is a mere proposal - you might disagree with the text but not with a disambiguation page which presents both candidates (not that I seriously agree with one of them ;). Flamarande 19:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We can just work on the details later. Now, we will have to wait for more comments. Chris! _{my talk} 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a disambiguation page China (disambiguation). So we would have to move that page to simply "China", and then add more entries (like Chinese civilization) there. Temur 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is an outstanding idea. I think displaying the capitals (and/or the national flags) of each county would also be something worth considering. --Folic Acid 03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to redirect the title China to China (disambiguation) page and I will also agree to move the content from China to Chinese civilization, however I will not support a move from People's Republic of China to China and I will also not support a move from Republic of China to Taiwan. nat^tang 03:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the word China has so many meanings and thus so hard to explain in one article, I would agree with the idea of disambiguation page - it's probably easy to work on. Augest 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the PRC and ROC issues, it may be also helpful to note when it is started to use China mainly refers to PRC instead of ROC(refered to as Taiwai). E.g, between 1911 - 1949, China definitely refer to ROC (there is no PRC then). I am not sure when people started to use China to refer PRC and Taiwai to refer ROC through...Augest 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the word "China" has a primary meaning. Avoiding politics is not an excuse to use a dab page. SchmuckyTheCat

Well, because "China" have different primary meanings depending on the people who uses it. Using a dab page can prevent the problems of NPOV altogether. Chris! _{my talk} 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dab pages are for mutually exclusive meanings, not for competing and disputed meanings of the same entity. You have a disambiguation page for five different people called "John Smith", but the dispute is "over what China is" rather than "we have a bunch of Chinas - which gets to reside here and which do not"... I fail to see how a disambiguation page is supposed to function here.--Jiang 07:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a political expert on board here? Once Taiwan gains the UN independence seat, there will no longer be a "Republic of China" right? Wouldn't this at least end the confusion, since there will only be 1 link left on the page to the PRC? Is there even going to be a need for a disembig? All these moves seem to be denying China as the undisputed umbrella term. Benjwong 16:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Republic of China" is dependent on its official usage, and has little direct relation to its entry into the UN.--Huaiwei 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fruitless for us to dispute over "what China is." We can never agree with each other what China is because its meaning is different to everyone. And even a political expert would have his/her own interpretation of what China is. What we should focus on now is to see how we are going to express the multiple meanings of China in a most NPOV manner. Chris! _{my talk} 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only for different people, under different occasion, even the so-call the primary meaning of the word China will have different meaning under different time (or can I say the country/government that China indicated to keep changing). China has multi-fold meaning in English. For modern time, it generally used in many occasions as the short name of P. R. China (that I think what Flamarande said is true). However, China was also used in English to indicate the ancient China. In other words, P.R.China is the modern part of China. Of course Taiwai is also modern part of China, unless they do be independent and use Taiwan offically (I mean, they change their name as something like republic of Taiwai). Even in that situation, they will still be considered as one of the branch of the descendents of ancient China. I think it's more proper to put a note/section to explain China in modern time refer to P.R.China. However, the word China itself is a word "larger" than P.R. China, which I would say is the major modern part of it (China). By the way, Hong Kong and Macau currently are part of P.R.China. In addition, as far as I know, the map of ROC is much larger than Taiwai, unless they changed it recently... My original thinking is to make more efforts on improving the quality of this article by including and explaining all or at least most fold of the word of China. However, considering there are so many need to include in this article, I would say dab page may be a better option Augest 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Once Taiwan gains the UN independence seat, there will no longer be a "Republic of China" right? --as for the Taiwan's issue, it has nothing to do with UN. It's about Taiwan, as well as US, doesn't want to change the name of "Republic of China" - to avoid the direct warfare with PRC. Don't forget, Taiwan used to be a member of UN...Augest 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically yes, the ROC was a member of the UN "representing" all of China until 1971, when the General Assembly decided to dismiss the "representatives of Chiang" and invite the representatives of the PRC to fill China's seat at the UN. nat^tang 03:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Is there even going to be a need for a disembig? All these moves seem to be denying China as the undisputed umbrella term."

maybe because of the political language that have being use over the term "CHINA" (from article: 1992 Consensus)

an alleged agreement that both Mainland China and Taiwan belong to one China with both sides having different interpretations over the meaning of that term.

so basically everyone agree to disagree... i don't see how it can be explained really... 222.165.79.13 00:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See the German version of Wikipedia, where "China" is a disambiguation page.

Bathrobe 01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Many people has commented that moving China to a disambiguation page is denying China as the umbrella term. Actually, I think the move will make people see all the possible meanings of China in a clearer way. There won't be any NPOV problems because it presents different POVs whether China means ROC, PRC, both, Chinese Civilization, etc. Chris! _{my talk} 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

good point. Oidia (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See the French version of Wikipedia, where "China" is a disambiguation page. Gantuya eng 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am continuing over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Really I thought this was over a long time ago. Benjwong 00:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this article need to move to an article called Chinese civilization when this article is about the Chinese civilization. People, let's not make this topic even more confusing and pointlessly-debated than it is. Plus, if the article became a disambiguation page, then more problems would emerge; such as many other wiki articles' links also has to be modified, changed or moved, which creates more trouble and possible confusion for users and editors.--Balthazarduju 06:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of yours answers itself. Temur 04:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If this article is about the Chinese civilization, it will be appropriate to call it "Chinese civilization". Just leaving it under the name "China" is confusing. In most other languages of Wikipedia, "China" is either disambuig. page or PRC with reference to Taiwan on top. That's because international community perceives PRC as China and Taiwan as Taiwan. Even in commerce, we see "Made in Taiwan". Most people wanting to learn about Taiwan usually search for "Taiwan" and wanting to learn about PRC usually search for "China". But to avoid bias, it will be preferable to make "China" a disambuig page.Gantuya eng 22:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not limited to the "civilization". For example, what does the first sentence at Yellow River have to do with the "civilization"?--Jiang 04:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your example merely illustrates that "China" is not limited to "Chinese civilization". "China" is not identical to this article. Temur 06:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, why shouldn't it be? There's nothing wrong with having an article on China.--Jiang 07:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There are articles that correspond to the entities that regard themselves at least as part of China, which together perhaps do constitute China. Having an extra article for China-neither country nor state-would be redundant. An article for the Chinese civilisation would be a great idea since China has contributed to the Earth's civilisation immensely and we foresee it will continue a lot in future too. Gantuya eng 07:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This article should be on the country. I noticed that entire sections - sections with content in neither the PRC nor ROC articles - have been purged completely. I prefer the article as it stood in late 2004/early 2005.

When people talk about China in the non-recent political sense, they use the word "China", not "Chinese civilization" (compare "Indus Valley Civilization"). Even if this article is focused on the "civilization", then there's no point in moving from a common name to an invented name.--Jiang 10:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese civilization" is not an invented name. So should the article on PRC be called also "China", since when people talk about PRC, they use the word "China"? Temur 17:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually "China" refers to PRC with explanations of the specific status of Taiwan. Recently I read an article that Taiwan is now trying to show more its Polynesian roots and to show less its Chinese connections. Gantuya eng 06:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan

I just want to say that even though the official name of the government administering Taiwan is the Republic of China, Taiwan should not be considered as part of China. The map in the infobox should be modified.--Jerry 19:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you read the discussion above, you will see that editors have agreed to create a new map. So we will modify it once the new map is created. Chris! _{my talk} 21:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. I've gone ahead and modified it already, I still think a new map is needed, though.--Jerry 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

let see if thats idea really works.--Katherinevalley 17:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

--Taiwan is officially part of China, and despite any personal bias you (jerry) may hold, please remain in the boundaries of objective reasoning. Because Taiwan is officially recognized as part of the PRC, then it should be documented(text, pic, map, etc) as part of China, just like the other special government districts of the PCR.

In fact, Taiwan is always included in the Map of China. And I think China(Mainland) will never give Taiwan up.Shanefeng 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilisation

In the opening paragraph of the history section, could someone please remove the reference to "India". Indus Valley civilisation is the name of the civilisation, the country India cant be used as a reference, most notably because the civilisation is mostly based in modern day Pakistan. Thank you. Xinjao 19:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'll remove "India". I remember seeing on a forum where there is a heated debate whether Indus Valley civilisation is India or Pakistian. Oidia (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Locked?

Someone add the link to the Arabic article http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%8A%D9%86 --69.181.102.134 04:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in Russian Revolution

White Army propaganda poster depicting Leon Trotsky. Notice the Chinese soldiers.

I believe that the poster here reproduced is a racist Propaganda "White" Russian poster and should not be used in the WP article on the alleged role of the Chinese in the Russian Revolution which requires the use of scholarly references. I ask that interested editors on China come to the article and help clean it up of its POV image which I think does not give the proper respect to the great Chinese people and their ancient civilization. Thank you. --Ludvikus 01:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe that a propaganda is always a biased POV. Besides, this article is about 3000-5000 years of Chinese civilisation as a whole, so these minor political materials are probably not noteworthy enough to be in the article. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

New Map

The is a error with the new map. The areas labelled ROC in 1912 actually represent the area it controlled in 1945. 70.42.116.9 08:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll follow it up. Pojanji 08:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean China controlled Mongolia in 1945? Mongolia was independent since 1911 and China had no real control of Mongolia. Gantuya eng 13:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

While Mongolia did declare independence in 1911, the Mongolia article in Wikipedia reads "Chinese troops led by Xu Shuzheng occupied the [Mongolian] capital in 1919." So I would says Chinese influence in Mongolia ended around 1919. Just to clarify. Chris! _ct 02:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. ;) That was just a temporary occupation and was expelled the next year. It was even shorter than, for example, the German occupation of certain European countries during WWII. Gantuya eng 04:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)