Talk:History of China

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

In the subdivision of the history section called 'Republic of China (since 1912)', I request for where It says "Having defeated the warlords in the south and central China by military force, Chiang was able to secure the nominal allegiance of the warlords in the North and establish the National government in Nanking" to "Having defeated the warlords in the south and central China by military force, Chiang was able to secure the nominal allegiance of the warlords in the North and establish the National government in Nanjing" please. 95.147.145.134 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done for consistency with the rest of the article. 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The gif must go

It's time to remove the gif of territorial changes. What is a reader supposed to gain from it? It moves so quick that it hardly conveys much information (except, that China got bigger over time? Well, didn't every major power?). No other articles of this kind have anything like this, see History of India, History of United States, History of Iran, History of Japan etc. This is the kind of article that does not need a lead image; especially because of our huge navigational sidebar, which does fine on its own. Eventually, the lead will have to be trimmed, which will push the sidebar down even further.

Furthermore, there are some fundamental issues with the gif's content. It shows the Xia dynasty, which is not historically proven. It excludes the entirety of prehistoric and modern China, effectively failing to summarize the history in question. Aza24 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Oof, that must be newish. I missed a few months. I agree that the gif is problematic. Apart from the Xia dynasty problem already mentioned – which, I struggle to understand why anyone just accepts it uncritically – showing the Shang dynasty and Western Zhou (mislabeled "Zhou dynasty" as if the Eastern Zhou didn't count) as contiguous, unbroken territories as if their influence were geographically total like a modern jurisdiction: that's misrepresentation of the modes of political power in early China.

It's sorry enough that the article jumps straight along the hoary path of dynasty, dynasty, dynasty, without attempting to engage any more modern forms of historiography: we don't have to ensconse it with a slideshow reel as well.

I don't find that it moves too fast for me, but too discontinuously. Giving every period the same frame count irrespective of historical duration misleads understanding, and the granularity is so low for some periods that we're not seeing the back and forth and major conquests and losses, just a sudden jump to a magical new area of control.

I feel like there could be a place for this, maybe Dynasties in Chinese history or Imperial Chinese dynasties or whatever it's called these days? I don't want the creator to feel invalidated or ashamed, but I don't feel like it's an appropriate image for this article, and especially not right up top.

Also, sorry about the lead. Folly Mox (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with removal and with the wider issues surrounding a focus on political history, although the second is a tougher nut to crack. CMD (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

In light of these comments, I've removed the gif in question. I certainly agree that the overall article could use quite a bit more nuance than its current presentation. Aza24 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No link to "Five thousand years of Chinese civilization"?

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)

I think it's unduly recentist. Remsense诉 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)