Talk: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)

Re: Talk:China

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. MylesP (my page here) myles325@yahoo.com.au (e-mail)