Talk:History of China

Whether China really has a 5000 year of history of not, the expression "Five thousand years of Chinese civilization" (or "5000 years of Chinese history") is a common expression, both in China and outside China. I believe that the said should be linked from this article in some way. --Wengier (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unduly recentist given the scope of this article in particular. On the others you've added it to, it seems less undue. Remsense诉 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The concept or expression "5000 years of Chinese history" has appeared for over 100 years, at least since the early 20th century (so not really a recent event). Clearly the expression appeared much earlier than expressions like Century of humiliation, which only appeared after 1940. How come "Century of humiliation" is linked from this article but "5000 years of Chinese history" is not? --Wengier (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to put it back, but I'm curious what other editors think. Remsense诉 19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give a concrete example that the concept "Five thousand years of Chinese civilization" already appeared by the early 20th century - the Manchu–Mongolian–Chinese Interlinear Trilingual Textbook in 1909 stated in three languages that “我中國居亞洲之東，氣候溫和，土地廣博，人民繁夥。五千年前，文化已開，地球上最有名之古國也...” (see picture on the right), among others. The concept certainly predates both the ROC and PRC, rather than a more recent construction. --Wengier (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would work in the see also of Chinese historiography, but probably not here. The see also section in this page is too general for such a recent conceptual-model. I'm not sure how 1909 is sufficiently "not-recent" compared to the 5000 year history in question. Aza24 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add to Chinese historiography? This is a good suggestion (EDIT: just done it). As for whether 1909 is considered "recent", I previously added the link to the "See also" section of this article partially considering articles such as Century of humiliation (certainly appeared later than 1909) are also linked from this article. --Wengier (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I notice the following sentence in the current lead of this article: "Throughout pervades the narrative that Chinese civilization can be traced as an unbroken thread many thousands of years into the past...". Perhaps the said article can actually be linked from here. After all, this part of the article is already talking about exactly the same thing, and the link will provide more information about this for readers. No need to place it in the "See also" section of the article anyway any more. This is probably the ultimate solution in terms of this article. --Wengier (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KellykiM123 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)The Mongol Empire eventually conquered all of China, establishing the Yuan dynasty in 1271. This period marked an increase in contact with Europe, particularly through trade along the Silk Road. Under the succeeding Ming dynasty (1368–1644), China saw significant achievements, including global maritime exploration, the production of exquisite porcelain, and numerous large-scale public works projects. These included the restoration of the Grand Canal and the expansion of the Great Wall. Additionally, three of the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature were written during the Ming period, contributing to the cultural legacy of the time.[reply]

The Qing dynasty, which followed the Ming, was ruled by the ethnically Manchu people. During the reign of Emperor Qianlong (r. 1735–1796), the Qing court commissioned a vast encyclopedia of imperial knowledge, which eventually contained nearly a billion words. This era marked the peak of Imperial China's territorial expansion, with the empire reaching its greatest extent. However, this period also saw increasing conflict with European powers, particularly over trade and diplomatic relations. This culminated in the Opium Wars, resulting in the signing of the unequal treaties, which ceded significant territories to European powers and marked the beginning of a period of foreign influence and internal unrest.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Remsense ‥ 论 21:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a space in the "The 12th-century BCHoumuwu ding, the largest Bronze Age bronzeware found anywhere in the world".

To become:

The 12th-century BC Houmuwu ding, the largest Bronze Age bronzeware found anywhere in the world

Thanks. Ablyadobe (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Folly Mox (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split History of China into Ancient China and Imperial China.

This is, of course, a pretty lengthy topic. Current prose size is at 12400 words, which is quite a bit over what is generally suggested as the splitting point. I think that we ought to split separate articles for Ancient and Imperial China off of this; these are often covered as unique topics in their own right, and we can afford more elaborate coverage of each period on a level between this very broad summary style and the articles on each individual dynasty or period. While Ancient China might not need to be condensed much, I feel there's quite a bit of condensing we could with Imperial China (which takes up much of the article) if an article split was made (and we might not necessarily have to section it dynasty by dynasty). I can do the split if need be. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I'd suggest a split maintains the "History of X" format, so the topic is clear. I've had a look to try and figure out the current tree plus the suggested splits, which I've boxed above. Especially in later periods there's quite a few existing subarticles that support this article and which content should be shifted to, which may preclude the need for an intervening layer. I'm somewhat wary of History of Imperial China, as it wouldn't be much more specific than this article is, still encompassing over 2000 years. This article could probably use better summarising in the Modern China period as much as the Imperial period, given its much shorter chronological length. CMD (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's fair; I'd be fine with keeping History of on there. There's terms common in academia such as "Early Imperial China", "Medieval China" / "China in the Middle Ages", "Late Imperial China" that are often used to subdivide the middle period, but the problem is these terms are very poorly defined - Late Imperial is generally the Ming & Qing, but it sometimes goes as far back as the Song. (Also dang, we really need a history of the Republican era separate from the RoC on Taiwan) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • It would be quite simple to split the ROC history, I suspect it would be done as soon as someone invests time into expanding it. Anyway, above is how the 12395 words break down. The obvious caveat is an absolute equal number of words per year is not the ultimate goal for a few reasons (lack of information for earlier eras, geographical and temporal overlaps, normal variation in things happening, etc.). However, it's a useful baseline assumption, and we can see some obvious points. Firstly, Imperial era is an article on its own, and with only a slight nudge would hit similar pain points. Secondly, despite the length of Imperial era, Modern China is covered 5.7x more densely than Imperial era. Thirdly, within Imperial era, there is a wide variation in the density of coverage between different subsections. I'd suggest thus that splits do need to look at subsections. To take the obvious example, we should almost certainly devote more space to the Qin dynasty than the words/year would suggest given its importance, but 8.5x more? It also seems clear that summarising the History of Ancient China might not make a huge difference, although it might still be a good idea for other reasons, such as to consolidate how its early period drifts into myth. CMD (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a split is indicated as much as a rewrite. There's no reason we have to follow the hoary custom of dynastic periodisation, other than that the more recent broader periodisations are not well defined, as mentioned above.

Splitting on political system alone augurs didactic failure as well: the Qin and Western Han periods were a good deal closer in almost all cultural markers to the late pre-imperial period than to, say, the Song dynasty. (Even just the table above elides some very important distinctions: the Western Zhou period was very different to the Eastern Zhou, and both subperiods of the Eastern Zhou – Chunqiu and Zhanguo – were not especially similar. Same with Former Han and Later Han. Often the dynasty name was maintained as a political / historiographical / ideological convenience, while the political actuality had changed fundamentally and never went back.)

I'll try to think about what my optimal outcome here might be, but I can't pontificate too long at present because I have to go to work again. Folly Mox (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, the table is not eliding anything on its own, it is copying the sectioning currently on this page. CMD (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]