Talk:China

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

source


Copyright Details
License: This work is in the Public Domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
Source: File available from the United States Federal Government.

Old talk page for China

China's history is in need of revision. At the beginning of the article, it is stated that Chinese civilization began in the year 2200 B.C. This begs the questions, of course: began with what; and did nothing precede it? However, these questions aren't my biggest concern. Rather, I note that the discovery of silk from the silkworm occurred around 2700 B.C. -- a full 500 years before civilization in China began. I find the very notion of five centuries of silk makers living without the benefit of civilization to be quite disturbing. Can we safely take the liberty of adjusting the dates listed in order to resolve the apparent conflict? History will surely be grateful.

Also, if it is to be decided that Chinese civilization began in 2700 B.C. with the discovery of silk rather than the much later 2200 B.C., and if the mentioned Chinese tradition is to go unchallenged, where it is stated that the 14-year-old bride of Emperor Huang Ti discovered silk, then we should also probably point out that the first Middle Eastern settlers in China established almost immediately an imperial form of government, so that the reader isn't left to wonder whether or not an indigenous tribe living in that area prior to 2700 B.C. might have been responsible for the birth of Chinese civilization.

Great edit AustinM, changing The Chinese Communist Party has provided the Bush administration with more than $100 billion in loans via its central bank. to China could manipulate the Dollar as it holds a significant ammount in loans via its central bank. puts the blame on the Communists and not the Bush administation. Well done.
JC 14:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
your getting very close to another ban.--AustinM 14:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I neglected to sign my earlier post.--Blr 01:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Great Wall Of China

Shouldn't this section be under something such as "Tourist Attractions" or some kind of unique features of the country, since it links to a whole new article of its own? niandra 13:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Romanization standard

In articles dealing with China, there should generally be one standard used consistantly for English transliteration. Pinyin is favored by the PRC, the older Wade-Giles is used by the ROC.

What so special about 2200 BC??

No, seriously, this is getting to be beyond a joke. A critic was kind enough to gently query what was so special about the year 2200 BC that it constituted the beginning of Chinese Civilisation, and asked how it came to be that the production of silk in that region is said (2 pars down) to occur in 2700 BC, a good HALF MILLENNIUM before the advent of“Chinese Civilization". And now, MONTHS later, there appears to be so little interest in the fortunes of a nation of ONE BILLION people in an emerging superpower that this pathetic drivel of an article – 418 words long! – has not received even the most elementary of amendments or extensions. 418 words! - that's just twice the length of THIS little note! Is that an example of "clean and concise" writing?

There are 2 line entries on gunpowder (used by the Chinese for firecrackers), and silk. Nothing yet on Fortune Cookies. The place is said to suffer from pollution. There is a solitary text suggested for “further reading”- "Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party” a very anti-communist work. I’m not objecting to its strident anti-communism, just that of the THOUSANDS of works on China, it appears ludicrous that this would be the one and only work recommended as the first primer for someone attempting to learn something about this ancient nation. Nothing here about the dynasties, nothing here about the Great March, about Foot Binding, about the Forbidden City... the list is endless. Oh and if the author of this piece is suggesting 2200 BC as the date of China Civilization (what, like Independance Day or something?) because he figures that that would be about right when you account for how long it would take for Noah's progeny to get over there while developing slanty eyes and yellow skin en route, they WHY NOT JUST SAY SO?? The idea is ridiculous of course. But to simply sweep it under the carpet adds gutlessness to stupidity. MylesP (my page here) myles325@yahoo.com.au (e-mail)

  • The Yellow Emperor is said to have discovered silk and founded Chinese civilization around 2700 BC, but this date is purely mythological. Anyway, this material was apparently taken out of the article long ago. PeterKa 04:50, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Old Talk Page for People's Republic of China

I merged the "China" article into this one. Better form and no point in having 2 articles.--Elamdri 01:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

You have got to be joking. This infantile 1 page drivel is the result of "merging" 2 articles? And you go to University??!! Where you do politics and philosophy. You could write everything about China here on a single lavatory tile.
All you have done is deleted my excellent critique of this mess. You should stop any 12 year old in the street and give him $10 and he/she will do better than this. --MylesP 19:59, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't the PRC refer to Taiwan? Man, it's confusing. GodlessLiberal 15:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind. Should there be some sort of clarification in this article about the PRC/ROC naming debate? Like, how each got its name during the Chinese Civil War? GodlessLiberal 15:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
The Chinese claim Taiwan, but Taiwan claims independence and the US backs it.--Elamdri 02:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
The US definitely does not back Taiwan, and Taiwan does not claim independence. Actually, Taiwanese independence is one of the 4 noes - si bu - that the administration on Taiwan promise not to ever claim so long as the PRC doesn't threaten the ROC. And in fact, the Republic of China claims the whole of mainland China, as well as Tibet AND the republic of Mongolia, which is not claimed by the PRC. By the way, there are also several kinds of concept called "Taiwanese independence".
- that is complete nonsense.

About History I think That we should have much more including a list of dynasties (it would be really nice if we could have a section about each one). Also the amount of space we give to each article is not at all even we should have a link to another article talking about the Leader and much more about the Government in General. Lord Ration

Skull

isn't it anti-conservapedia to have pictures of human fossils in articles, since it relates to evolution and whatnot? and what is the relevance of a skull in an artile about china? -Sundance

Number of Muslims?

If anyone has a citation for the number of Muslims in China, then a reliable, cited estimate of that number would be welcome. But not without a citation.--TerryHTalk 19:52, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Vandalism

It seems that some people have managed to insert liberal bias into the article. For example, why does so much of the article present China as though it is an increasingly prosperous nation? What about the human rights issues? What about the fact that nothing has changed the fact that the nation is essentially morally bankrupt and that this situation will not change in the foreseeable future? Handels584 08:30, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

rename to China

Unless there are objections I propose to rename the article "China." We want our readers to refer to the place as "China" and not to the people's Republic of China, which makes Communist rule too normal. RJJensen 08:53, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Rewriting article

Alright I am new here. Very interested in other nations, and I believe I know enough to help work on this page.

I won't be changing any real facts that have already been established, I just want to improve the quality of the page. For example, one section says "China is expected to surpass the US in CO2 emissions by 2008", but that has already happened if I am not mistaken. I have yet to change this, I am trying to go in order down the list.

Personal tools