Talk:Chinese culture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not written in neutral style[edit]

The text in many places reads like a commercial, using glowing terms instead of neutral academic description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.49.121.127 (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5000 years?[edit]

Requesting source of citation. If I remembered correctly, 3000 would be a more appropriate length.

This "5000 years" is simply a part of conventional knowledge among Chinese, much like "Catholics are not really Christians, only Protestants are", another "fact" which almost every Chinese I have met "knows". Saying how old a culture is or isn't is really pretty meaningless: the cave paintings at places such as Lascaux are around 20,000 years old, so does that mean that "European culture" is 20,000 years old? it's simply a matter of what is conventional knowledge. What is more of a problem is that many Chinese, even serious academics, assert that Chinese history is 5,000 years old; if we understand "history" as something which must have contemporaneous written records --- whether they be carved on stone, clay tablets, animal hides, whatever --- then the earliest indisputable source of written records in China is about 1,350 b.c., of about the same age as the earliest records in Greek. But in the popular mind, "culture" and "history" are about the same. Jakob37 12:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC) but china is one of the smallest planets in this world[reply]

History is the study of itself, through language. Chinese language is approx 3500 years old, ergo without making a mockery of the English language not to mention dedication to accuracy, how can you say "5000 years of history?" Chinese consider culture and language to be indistinguishable, not culture and history. Can I see a source for "This '5000 years' is simply part of conventional knowledge among Chinese"? Is "knowledge" there the right word? does the Chinese term you're translating as "history" have the same fundamental connection to the written record as the English word does? Maybe the term in the article should be changed from "History" to "archaeological record"? Or "evidence of a continuous civilisation"? If "common knowledge" is that the US government owns the Federal Reserve, or that the Armenian Genocide never happened, despite what the intelligentsia of the country in question put forward... does that make it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leetrefz (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a the topic "Culture of China" a bit like "Culture of Europe" or "Culture of Africa". I would imagine that there are a number of different cultures in such a large area.

I agree. The culture of China is too broad. This topics needs to be broken out to each province and discussion of the ethnic minorities is worthwhile. Phreakster 1998 22:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone could say something about what the common "culture of china" is, and a bit about the regional cultures and differences. -- Chris Q 10:28 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

Okay, I know this move (Culture of China to Chinese culture) might be controversial. However, the passive voice (e.g., "the son of John") is generally considered very weak English, while the active voice (e.g., John's son) is considered strong and correct. If an aspect of China is in the encyclopedia, let the word China start the entry. Culture of is a weak and sad beginning usually. (Or such is the opinion of one person. I won't engage in an edit war about this, but if I had a print encyclopedia, I would not look up CULTURE if I wanted to know about CHINA. Arthur

Your point is a valid one. Nevertheless, in the template agreed upon in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, you will see that the culture article for all countries in the 'pedia is in the form of "Culture of X". The Chinese one should not be an exception, in my opinion. I am going to move the article back to Culture of China. Thanks to your change, "Chinese culture" will now be a redirect to the article, which at least addresses your point regarding the search for the article. olivier 02:59 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)
Got it. Never read Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Hate the convention but what can you do? :) I wish they'd rethink this. People don't look up culture to find out about Afghanistan. Thank you, though, for informing me. I won't make any other non-conventional changes like that. (Or at least I'll try to be aware. I don't know all Wikipedia conventions.)
Arthur Jan, 03:05 UTC
Dont worry, usually pages such as "X culture" redirect to "Culture of X" as is the case with this article so people who search out this page starting with the word China will find it.

-CunningLinguist 03:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cinema of Hong Kong

The main part of the materials related to cinema of Hong Kong should be moved to the article culture of Hong Kong, as the cinema of China article is about cinema of mainland China. The description here in this article should be referred to China in general. — Instantnood 15:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Photos/illustrations[edit]

I don't know how much I could contribute to the writing, but maybe I could add some photos. I recently visited China on holiday (Beijing, Chongqing, Dazu, Yangtze River, Wuhan, Changsha, Guilin) and if anyone has any requests for photos I could check to see if I have anything appropriate. --Calton 02:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With the rise of Western economic and military power at the turn of the last century, however, non-Chinese systems of social and political organization gained adherents in China. Some of these would-be reformers totally rejected China's cultural legacy, while others sought to combine the strengths of Chinese and Western cultures. This sounds interesting. I read about Hu Shih's 全盤西化派 westernization faction debating with Confucian conservative. Don't know where to add it though. May Fourth MOvement? Wareware 21:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

my response to jakob27- WRONG, they have found artifacts from over 5,000 years ago in china, uncovered a palace complex from the xia dynasty, and numerous other things would have been found if it were not for qin shi huang's book burning..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.131.194 (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless note removed[edit]

I removed:

:''This article is about culture of China in general. See also [[Culture of mainland China]], [[Culture of Taiwan]], [[Culture of Hong Kong]] and [[Culture of Macau]].<!-- NOTE TO CONTRIBUTORS: Materials for Chinese culture development differently after [[Chinese civil war|1949]] should mainly be covered by the articles [[Culture of mainland China]] and [[Culture of Taiwan]]. [[Culture of Hong Kong]] and [[Culture of Macau]] also have separate articles.-->

The first part of this note is not informative--the content is self-explainatory so the note serves absolutely no purpose. It is not a disambiguation. It is just pointless.

The second part is suggesting something that should take place. Material after 1949 is relevant here. I dont see why not... --Jiang 12:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jiang. But please don't use POV labels such as "useless". — Instantnood 12:26, Feb (UTC)
I would say that tag looks quite useful and might even put it back up in the future. ;) --Dpr 08:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive[edit]

This page is almost more of a collection of links than an article. I'll try to come back and work on this. The world's most populous society and it has an article like this? Wikipedia really has too few people dedicated to humanities/cultural topics. --Dpr 08:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great article[edit]

How the hell are we supposed to fit all these elements of diverse Chinese culture in one aricle? Colipon+(T) 05:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penzai/Penjing[edit]

Penzai is a Chinese gardening art which is still common in China. I want to add a small section about it. Any thought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomeying (talk • contribs) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Useful source to includ: http://www.mti.gov.sg/public/NWS/frm_NWS_Default.asp?sid=39&cid=223 --Dpr 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China is not the birth place of eastern martial arts and therefor it should not be said that

there is mutch controversy from where it stared but most agree that it was invented when the buddist traveled from india to china and back

17 Other, to be inserted above?[edit]

does this mean these links need to be moved somewhere else?

Collaboration[edit]

The failure of this so-called "collaboration" (among others, like Tangshan earthquake) is a very clear testament to the amount of wikipedia articles that need improvement that get ignored. I've posted many things on "Pages needing attention", none of which actually got attention. You can't expect simply because there's a formalized procedure that some of these articles will actually get written, not to mention written well. Colipon+(T) 05:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template Box[edit]

I added the 'Life in the PRC' template box to the page. I'm torn, though, about it's appropriateness. On one hand, the box does link to the page, and the page does cover an important aspect regarding life in the People's Republic of China. On the other hand, I'm afraid that it might mislead people into perhaps thinking that the whole page is about PRC culture. What do you think? AustinZ 00:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filthiness, Shoving[edit]

Should these be included as aspects of Chinese culture? Little emphasis on not littering, spitting, children defecating on the sidewalk, etc. Possibly related to lack of emphasis on environment until VERY recently (deforestation since the Ming). Customary to not wait in line and to shove those in one's way. I'll likely be insulted for these comments, but no one who has been to both developed countries and China would not see a marked contrast in these arenas. I'd write it, but I think I'd be too tactless. --Easytoremember 03:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No, don't write that, then I'd have to write an article on every other country listing their faults as well. Besta07 05:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China now in 2007 in the most economically as well as technologically developed country in the world,all those images conjured of increased population controll and filthy streets is all but a thing of the past,most of the world's biggest business firms and industries have all moved to China.China at its' current rate of progression and industrialisation will soon overtake the USA as the richest contry in the world,complemented by their natural resources of coal,iron and various other minerals,their trade with other nations and their tourism industry. user:Wongdai` 12.30 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What does Chinese alleged superior economical power have to do with the streets being filthy? I believe that's a digression, albeit one I predicted. While I'm not sure it has a place in an article like this, it is without doubt true. Southsailor (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you would even consider to place filthiness as an aspect of Chinese Culture disgust me. All those things you mentioned aren't part of Chinese Culture, but the result of poverty and lack of education. This is not culture bound, it exist in every society where people are uneducated and poor. In Chinese cities where the level of education and wealth is the same as european cities there is no sign of the symptoms you mentioned. You mentioned deforestation since the Ming, but do I need to remind you that the western world only gave a crap for the enviroment only after W2. Only hunter-gatherers treated nature with respect. Agricultural societies has exploited the nature like a product. Which includes Europe and China. Europeans cared no less than the Chinese about the enviroment. How much of Europe's forest are still natural anyway?

What you need to realize is that the symptoms you mentioned aren't cultural, but social-econamical. If you want to adress this issue, you need to put it under "Demography of China". I won't call you ignorant, but you need to place yourself in their situation to see why these people behave in such a way.

And who else besides the English still stand in a line for a bus anyway in Europe? In the Netherlands there is no waiting line and I even get cut in line by grandma's. At least people still respect the waiting line in Hong Kong. --Leegte (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually looking for something on the Cleanliness, society habits on Chinese culture because there is actually a "Cleanliness Campaign" that was instated in 2007 in expectation of the Beijing Olympics. (http://www.dancewithshadows.com/business/pharma/china-2008-olympics-cleanliness.asp) that has been further forwarded by the SCSC due to the overall disgust with some of the underlying public habits of the more rural Chinese (by the cultural leaders within the cities) to educate them on proper ettiquete. I really think there should be something in the Culture_of_China that discusses the movement by the urban population to educate the rural population on etiquette. Don't you? --B4theword (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about reckoning one's age in China[edit]

I read or heard once, somewhere, that it was customary in China to say that a newborn baby is one year old, and to increment the age at the start of the lunar new year (instead of on the person's birthday). Is this true? And if it is true, can anyone help me find a quotable source for it? I've mentioned this point in one of the footnotes of the article United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but I really ought to include a citation if possible. Richwales 04:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Kusunose for telling me about the article on East Asian age reckoning after I reposted my question in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. Richwales 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by user:Huaiwei[edit]

Re " Earlier revert was not overdone, since all edits were rejected. " [1] - Could user:Huaiwei please kindly explain (if there were any reasons) why other edits have to be rejected (as demonstrated by [2])? Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 18:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huaiwei has responded with " I simply didnt bother opening up this page when I note the last editor was by the name of instantnood. As stated in the summary, an "over-revert" dosent exist when ALL edits are rejected. End of discussion.--Huaiwei 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) " [3]. — Instantnood 17:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not quote my comments out of context. I told you not to bring content discussions about specific issues to my talkpage, but you persist in doing so. My edit summary comment says exactly as what I intend to say. You reverted me purely for the reason that is was an "over-revert". I explained it wasent an over-revert because non of those edits were acceptable to me. If you have nothing further to say except to revert everyday, than yes, the discussion ends there.--Huaiwei 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided the links. Over-revert is behavioural problem, not editorial problem related to this article. If it's not over-revert as you've claimed, you've yet to explain why everything was not accepted. — Instantnood 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism[edit]

Im gonna add Sikhism to the list, during my visit to China I saw a a big population of Sikhs in Hong Kong. --Elven6 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how big (or visible) that HK population is, it's still just a drop in the bucket for China. It really shouldn't be added unless it has a significant cultural impact on CHINA. Add it to the culture of Hong Kong page. -Easytoremember 03:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China bans Anime[edit]

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=9354

"China has banned anime from prime time television. Starting September 1, animation produced outside of China will be barred from TV from 5 to 8 p.m., freeing the space for struggling Chinese studios."

Where should this infomation be put? dposse 23:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Does this really concern culture.....

Uh, yeah. It does. dposse 18:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese culture has nothing to do with foreign anime.

I put up a section about Chinese Animation earlier and it got deleted from this page. I think this shows people still have a high preference for Japanese anime instead. But still, you shouldn't deny your own culture. Benjwong 13:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this go?[edit]

I think the section "Culture in the early Republican era" doesn't belong in this article, but I have no idea where it should go. --Ideogram 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should not split by actual historical eras. It should be split by ancient and contemporary. To have a communist section that mentions mao suit is something that belongs in a fashion page to begin with. Benjwong 21:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess.[edit]

I vote for a lot of these headings to be moved as sub-headings: Cinema, Architecture, Cuisine, Martial Arts, Clothing and Mass Media into Arts. Marriage, Religion, Tourism and Government into Society. Somehow merge Games, Hobbies, and Science and Technology (maybe). Somehow merge History and Modern China.

This would leave about 5 or 6 headings. Any agreement? Kansaikiwi May 28 2007

I have an idea of how to fix this page. It is going to take alot of moving around and alot of time. Benjwong 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this article is a disaster. I tried to clean it up a while ago and ended up with this which you can look at for ideas. Unfortunately someone else came along with different ideas and put most of it back the way it was and I was too tired to fight about it. --Ideogram 12:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Structure[edit]

I looked the article Social structure of China but it didn't contain information about family structures. From what I understand, in Chinese culture here is a hierarchy within families with the oldest male being the "boss", then proceeding down with women usually subordinate to men and younger siblings subordinate to older siblings. A section on this and other aspects of family behavior in Chinese culture would be a useful addition to Wikipedia. Anyone have the knowledge/background/sources to write it? Readin (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?[edit]

Protection? this whole thing sounds just like a piece written by a bunch of people that have not been to China and were just copying and pasting from all kinds of messy resources. There is nothing to protect basically. Let people argue around for a while maybe Can we semi-protect this article? It's getting vandalized pretty much every day! HkCaGu (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

The sources provided for 5000 years of civilizations do not support the assertion. The article says "The Culture of China (traditional Chinese: 中國文化; simplified Chinese: 中国文化) is home to one of the world's oldest and most complex civilizations covering a history of over 5,000 years." The first source says "Chinese history, which dates back more than 5,000 years..." without saying what is meant by "China". It goes on to say in its section on years 3000 to 1500 BC "The earliest known Chinese Stone Age culture was the relatively sophisticated Yang-shao, whose people lived in rudimentary settlements and hunted for game with carved stone spears." A stone age hunting people do not necessarily make a civilization. The second source is even less clear on what it means, saying simply "China 5000 years" as the title of a museum exhibit.

Since neither source says what is meant by "China" (is a culture? a civilization? a populated region?) neither is useful as a citation for the opening sentence of the article. Readin (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 5000 years is true if you accept the start of Qin state as a continuation of those stone-aged culture. In even the most conservative sources will put Yinxu as the first "China" capital. And that already puts you at about 4000 years if you count from 2000BCE to 2000AD. Benjwong (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a stone age culture is not a civilization. The statement currently says that the civilization is 5000 years old. The references don't support that. Perhaps the opening should be reworded to say that the culture is 5000 years old. That would move the statement from being completely groundless to merely being on shaky ground. The source says the "history" is 5000 years old, a statement whose meaning is not entirely clear. The source is a guide for a regional art museum in the U.S. - a source I can't consider reliable for this. The logic of accepting the Qin as a continuation of the the stone age cultures is WP:OR and speculative. Change the wording from to say that that the culture, not the civilization, is 5000 years old and I think we can replace the dubious tag with a fact tag, but we still need better sources. Readin (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the reference on the Yellow emperor who is a "safe" starting point used by quite a number of sources. He is also mentioned in the Records of Grand Historian which is China's own history record. So this is not original research. The question is whether a civilization only counts when it is advanced enough. If not, then there are sources pointing to 6,000 years. Benjwong (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Yellow Emperor is not a "safe" starting point as, according to the sources I can find, he may not have even existed, but was "mythical" or a "legend". The Economist Taipei Times Myth Encyclopedia. The source provided to support the Yellow Emperor statement appears to be a text on Chinese traditional medicines rather tha a history or archeology book.
There certainly is a question about when a culture is advanced enough to be considered "civilized", but when a culture is referred to as "stone-age" it can usually be assumed that they are not "civilized". Readin (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "5000 year" claim appears to be an oft-repeated rarely-verified piece of conventional wisdom among people educated by Chinese teachers. And it is generally accepted by westerners with little knowledge of history and little reason to doubt. However, whenever I've seen scholarly papers or high-level texts that talk in detail about China's early history, I haven't seen much to support the claim. Part of the problem can be said to be the difficulty of defining "history", "culture" and "civilization". Part of the problem is also the scarcity of evidence and reliable sources from such a long time ago.
Given the tendency for many non-scholarly western sources to unquestionably accept whatever someone from the East tells them about the East, and given the appearance that this is one of those "facts" that "everyone knows" but just isn't true, we need to have a very reliable source before we include the 5000 year (or however many years we use) claim. I suspect that to do it right, we'll need to say exactly what evidence there is and what exactly is being claimed for 5000 years ago rather than using a concept whose precise beginning is hard to define (like "civilization", "culture", or "history" - what exactly marks the beginning of a civilization? One day it's uncivilized and the next day it's civilized? What happened overnight?)
I just wanted to explain why I'm being such a stickler for a source here when usually I'm not that picky. Readin (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cultures change - if a very old culture still exists, that would be a sad thing. The stone age culture definitely is not the the current culture, even if drawing lines between successive cultures is hard - it is like recognising languages in a language continuum. But we can safely say that the Cultural Revolution ended the Confucianist culture that preceded it, so that seems to be a terminus ad quem.61.49.121.127 (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for original research, as most of contributor's edits should consist of citing what published sources say. This statement of 5,000 years, regardless if its validity, was cited from sources published by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and the Minneapolis Institute of Art, two prestigious cultural institutions. There are countless ways of looking at history and interpreting them, it doesn't matter if us contributors on Wikipedia debates over the validity of whether China has 5,000 years of history or not, or if you disagree about the statement or the source, those are just personal opinion. There is no academic merit in our comments.--Balthazarduju (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to User:Readin puting articles from Taipei Times, The Economist to refute claims, I think they are talking about something completely different. The Minneapolis Institute of Art and the Solomon Foundation aren't talking about the "Yellow Emperor". The Economist article is about current politics, and neither The Economist or Taipei Times publications specialize in fields of arts, history and humanities, they are news magazines.--Balthazarduju (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only pointed out the Yellow emperor marker since it is happily accepted in 95% of sources (eastern + western). I can't tell if Readin is challenging the archaeology of it. If so, Longshan culture has some pretty civilized pottery. I would think that's enough to call it a culture, and that's at the neolithic age. Benjwong (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If user Readin still disagree, we can simply attribute the source i.e. "according to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and Minneapolis Institute of Art", even though it would make the statement appear longer, but then there will be absolutely no grounds for removing these sources since it is "attributed" to the original material's content.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with those sources. Afterall there are a couple thousand other sources that say pretty much the same thing. So is a waste of time to debate it further. Benjwong (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The institutions cited are focused on art, not archeological history.
...if you disagree about the statement or the source, those are just personal opinion. Disagreeing over the statement is personal opinion; disagreeing over the source is a legitimate subject of discussion and even debate.
According to WP:verifiability, In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. There is nothing about art museum promotional materials in that list. Magazines and newspapers do make the list, although in this case I don't consider them great sources either.
WP:verifiability also says Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.
In this context, for reasons I've explained above, I believe the art museum sources are not appropriate. Were this a question about the art, then art museum sources would be acceptable. This is more of a question about a history of technological, societal development.
Saying "according to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and Minneapolis Institute of Art" works for me until we have a reliable source. Readin (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was an anonymous IP user's edits with the fact tag attached still doing on the article? Also, a vast majority of archaeological and historical research are done by art museums and cultural institutions (i.e. British Museum, Smithsonian, etc...), so refuting the credibility of art museums doesn't ring true at all. The WP:verifiability paragraph was only given examples, it is not all conclusive. Remember this article is dealing about the culture of China, and art is a dominant part of it.--Balthazarduju (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Smithsonian and British Museum are far more than just art museums.
  • Some museums do support archeological work, some don't. I don't know which category the referenced museums fall into.
  • Even if the referenced museums do scholarly work, the references are not to the scholarly work by those museums, but instead to promotional materials for particular art exhibits.
  • The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum reference just says "China 5000 Years". It is completely unclear what is meant.
  • The Minneapolis Institute of Art says Chinese history not Chinese culture, dates back 5000 years. It does not immediately clarify what is meant by "history". Their Neolithic Era - The Art of Asia page which is linked to gives dates starting in 3000 BC and says "The earliest known Chinese Stone Age culture was...". If the criterion for 5000 years is the earliest known stone age culture, then we cannot say that China has one of the oldest cultures because according to Neolithic the stone age started much earlier in other cultures.
I'm fine with the removal of 3000. Until we have a solid basis for a date, and we can say what the date really means, it's probably best not to say anything. Readin (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you unhappy with the museum study or are you unhappy with the two sources being used? There is a difference. Benjwong (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the question. I didn't see anything that I would call a "museum study". I saw an introduction to an exhibit and/or promotial materials for an exhibit. Those were the two sources. I am not satisfied by those sources. Readin (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of culture and civilization[edit]

I noticed you've added additional details in a new section. I like the way you are providing specific information, listing ages of specific remains. Unfortunately I see problems with this section.

  • "The remains of some of human kind's earliest ancestor, known as Yuanmou Man, Lantian Man and Peking Man..." However, this is a very controversial claim. The Peking Man article says
Some Chinese paleoanthropologists have asserted in the past that the modern Chinese (and possibly other ethnic groups) are descendants of Peking Man. However, modern genetic research does not support this hypothesis. A recent study undertaken by Chinese geneticist Jin Li showed that the genetic diversity of modern Chinese people is well within the whole world population. This shows that there could not have been any inter-breeding between modern human immigrants to East Asia and Homo erectus, such as Peking Man, and affirms that the Chinese are descended from Africa, like all other modern humans, in accordance with the Recent single-origin hypothesis.[8][9][10] However, some paleontologists still see continuity in skeletal remains.[11]
  • "There is considerable archaeological records of human habitation in neolithic times.[3]" This sentence is fine.
  • "A distinct Chinese civilization, one of the world's oldest, began to emerge 5,000 years ago.[3]" Unfortunately I don't have access to the book that was used as a source. I hate to ask you for something, but can you provide provide the exact words used and some context including what I assume is some description of what the author means by "civilization"? Assuming the information is good, some context would not only help convince me, it would likely provide additional details to put into the paragraph.
  • "Though it was not until the 3rd century, under Qin state, when China approached its present shape.[3]" Another good sentence.

Readin (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently available here at pg 2836. I knew I came across something like this in the past, just had to refind it. Anyhow it goes on to talk about Confucius etc, which (if you dispute as being not part of the culture), I'll need some sources from you. Benjwong (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think we should remove the line about Peking Man being an ancestor of humans since that is no longer widely accepted (the book cited was published before more recent research so we can't blame the book).
Unfortunately, no details are provided about "a distinct Chinese civilization, one of the world's oldest, began to emerge 5,000 years ago". It is unclear what is meant by "a distinct Chinese civilization". The source seems reliable enough I guess. It's not a scholarly paper, but it is an "encyclopedia" so the assumption is that the information is backed up somehow. If we had the whole book we might examine what sources it uses, but unfortunately we don't have the whole book.
For now I'll just leave a "vague" tag. I hope we can provide more details at some point. Readin (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I removed the tag. This kind of "vague" tagging is an extremely lazy way of disagreeing. It is actually better if you point out sources that suggest all the neolithic ancestors have nothing to do with chinese civilization, and counter the source. That way we mention both points to support all POV. Even better, if you tell us when you think the civilization started at what year. It is really not good to counter the intro. Like most articles, maybe you should add a controversy section, and challenged the dates that way. Benjwong (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to find a source that disagrees because I'm not sure what is being said. One of the problems I have with the sentence is that "civilization" is not a precisely defined term. The sentence in question says "A distinct Chinese civilization, one of the world's oldest, began to emerge 5,000 years ago". Based on that, can tell me some precise actions that were occuring 5000 years ago. Were people recording their actions in written records? Were cities larger than 2000 people? 10,000 people? Were armies larger than 100 people? 500 people? 2000 people? Were soldiers marching in formation? Did kings rule more than just their extended families an their extended families' servants? Was money in use?
If you said some of those things were occurring as examples of a "civilization" then those facts could be checked. As it is, the sentence is vague.
The other word you focused on also leaves me wondering. What made the culture "distinctly Chinese"?
That's why I marked it "vague". Readin (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can put this same "vague" tag in a number of other articles such as Easter island, Culture of Egypt and many more articles. While I understand your question. This is not a good way to approach it. Benjwong (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the two articles you linked to. I'm sorry I don't have time to read the whole article, but I looked over the Easter Island article and couldn't find anything that I need to mark as vague. The Culture of Egypt article starts with "The Culture of Egypt has five thousand years of recorded history." This is not vague. It means that there are written records of Egyptian history as old as 5000 years. The next sentence could be labeled vague, "Ancient Egypt was among the earliest civilizations". This will sound strange, but personally I have less of a problem with it because it is entirely vague rather than partially vague. That is, they are not making what sounds like a specific claim about something that is not specific. This is the same reason I haven't complained about this article's opening sentence "The Culture of China is one of the world's oldest and most complex cultures." It's vague all the way through. Were it to become more specific only in part, for example by claiming to be the oldest culture rather than one of the oldest, we would have a problem. Or if it were to claim the culture were a specific number of years old, we would have a problem. Now I'm just speaking personally. By Wikipedia policies I suspect both the Culture of Egypt sentence and our opening sentence would need to go. But I'm not that picky. Readin (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you created a controversy article on when you think the culture "really" began. And research deeply with a ton of sources, that is probably the best way to do it. Maybe even compare it with egyptian culture? Benjwong (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better solution would be to make specific claims about what was going on 5000 years ago in China. Was there already a writing system? Can examples of sophisticated tools and technology be given? Can large-scale projects such as canals be pointed to? Were there large cities (how large?)? A claim of a 5000 year civilization backed up by details of what is meant by "civilized" would be much better than what we have now. The only question then would be whether or not the details justify the name, and that's an issue where the benefit of the doubt can be more easily granted. Readin (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the archeologist, the definition of "civilized" vary greatly. Your requirements listed are pretty steep actually. Benjwong (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the definition of "civilized" varies greatly is exactly my point. If we're going to tie the term to a specific date, then we need to be clear what we mean by it. Readin (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several sources that look like they may have useful specific information: Encyclopedia Britannica Neolithic Period in China The discovery of early pottery in China You might try searching google for "Neolithic China" since 5000 years ago seems to be in the Chinese Neolithic age. It seems they at least had pottery and jade working. Show a few serious archaeologists who call that "civilization" and suddenly you're on solid ground. Readin (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brief section should be removed since it has very little to say about "culture"; its more about archaeological research and history perhaps. The article is thematically sorted as per different "cultural aspects" of China: people, society, language, music, architecture, leisure... adding a section titled "beginning of civilization" not only sounds odd, it also throws the whole structure of the article out of the window all together.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to show when abouts a culture started. By removing that whole section, the thousands of years of continuity is ignored. There is nothing currently in the article that gives it any time frame. Benjwong (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you.
The removed paragraph didn't fit well as it was written. However, it does make sense to give some history of the culture. I think the paragraph can be put back in if it has a suitable introductory sentence. The wording needs to be careful to avoid overstating what is known and what scholars agree about. Readin (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

I reworded the introduction as it really didn't make sense. I left this sentence, which also doesn't make sense, because I can't figure out how to fix it:

  • Chinese culture is a broad term used to describe the cultural foundation, even among Chinese-speaking regions outside of mainland China.

Any idea what this is trying to say or how it can be fixed? Should we just get rid of it? Readin (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that bad? Benjwong (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad enough that I can't figure out what it means. Some questions that come to mind are
  • Usually a foundation is a foundation of something, like the foundation of a building. What is this the cultural foundation of?
  • What is a "cultural foundation"?
Readin (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the "Beginning of culture and civilization" section. Benjwong (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I think it would be more appropiate to change the uppermost picture of the page with a picture of chinese writing.

The reason: Although I do not question that Beijing Opera and its costumes are part of Chinese culture, the picture nevertheless conveys the implicit meaning that "culture" is most importantly "folklore" which serves the appetite of non-chinese (probably the majority of english wikipedia users) for "exotic" images. I think a picture of chinese caligraphy gives a more essential starting point for an article about the fast topic of chinese culture. Especially since the distinct writing system was and is one of the main cornerstones of chinese cultural development and distinction from foreign cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G0&2% (talk • contribs) 10:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Ponytail Cultural Issues[edit]

Could someone take a look at this question please? 66.97.213.202 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The family[edit]

The foundation of china is the family. I was looking for a write-up in the article but did not see any. That is the glue and we teach it today to our children.(****) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.123.197 (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

und word and both characters mean something similar to style or custom. Can someone fix this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.137.233 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Martial Arts[edit]

Tried to clarify the "names of the martial arts" sentence, first paragraph, Martial Arts. I think I've gotten close, but this may need tweaking by an expert. Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wu wei and sysop abuse[edit]

The following section is removed by a sysop, who refuses to discuss it. However, I bring it here for other users to disucss, since he refuses a talk page discussion.

In Chinese culture, there is a deep rooted, minimalist approach to interpersonal affairs and to dealing with nature, :that tries to put interferrence and effort used to accomplish things to a minimum. This Wu wei concept is perhaps best :epthomized in the Lao Tse doctrine from Tao Te Ching, Do nothing and there is nothing left undone.
Self-reliance sometimes even takes precedence over compassion, in ways few other cultures can understand. For instance, :a cry for help is less likely to be answered in China than in the rest of the world. World was shocked when a video of :a toddler, twice run over by a car in midst of urban area, leaked to youtube, as 18 pedestrians refused to help the :child, minding their own business. Local people even refused to get involved when finally a trash collector, who :removed the child from the busy street, pleaded for help.[11] China has no Good Samaritan laws and many in China avoid :helping strangers in order to minimize trouble for themselfs. Similarly, it is common that a tourist comes to rescue, :as it happened when a suicidal woman jumped into West Lake in Hangzhou, while the Chinese bystanders did nothing to :help. [10]

Wu wei is one of the key aspects of Chinese philosophy, culture and life. Section about it is clearly important. It has both positive and negative sides - positive - Chinese live in harmony with nature and do not bully other nations; negative - they sometimes neglect compassion, as a couple of cases illustrate. The toddler incident is well reported (references were provided).

Certainly, both sides should be discussed. There is also absolutely no justification for blanking the whole section, which this sysop does (and which is in my opinion, and according to policies here, vandalism)."Wangleetodd (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Culture of China → Chinese culture – It is Wikipedia article title policy on English language wikipedia to use the common name where practical:

"the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable." "The most common name for a subject is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural."

This topic is most commonly referred to in English as "Chinese culture" and not "Culture of China". The two phrases do not mean the exact same thing but I believe if there is a difference in scope "Chinese culture" is preferable because is is more clearly not restricted to the People's Republic of China, and may include say the culture of ethnic Chinese in northern Vietnam and elsewhere. The second sentence of this article "The area in which the culture is dominant covers a large geographical region in eastern Asia", suggests that "Chinese culture" better describes this inclusive scope which is not strictly limited by political boundaries. The Culture of the People's Republic of China is a separate topic with its own article so better distinguishing the topics via title is good.

"Chinese culture" is more precise, more recognizable, more natural, etc. To get an idea which is the more common name in English check out Google News, 407 vs 24, or Google Books, 220,000 vs 13,100. Anyone object? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It makes sense to me, especially since it can be used to describe behavior found in countries other than China with large numbers of people with Chinese ancestry. Readin (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A more natural expression that accords with titles of similar articles – like Chinese art, which is linked from this article. NoeticaTea? 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The proposed title conforms to the current article's scope, which is Chinese culture. "Culture of China" I would expect to be broader, including cultures in China not typically thought of as "Chinese", such as Tibetan culture. Quigley (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and User:Quigley. Chinese culture is the dominant culture in other countries such as Singapore and Taiwan and is widely practised outside China in places such as Malaysia, Indonesia, USA, &c. —  AjaxSmack  15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History of China[edit]

China have really long history,it lasted about 2,000 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.16.52 (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese history is 5,000 years. --111.248.24.104 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Improvement[edit]

The article seemed kind of chunky and broken into too many random separate sections. I would combine some, like music, arts, and the different kinds of arts. I loved all of the different visuals, however, I would add a map in the Region section so it is clear what areas of China you are talking about. Lastly, I would talk about the different gender fashions in the fashion category. Overall, it is very interesting information on Chinese culture, it just seems a bit unorganized.

Haleyhook (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures of chinese culture is TOO UGLY![edit]

We can put some beautiful chinese traditional paintings to replace them, like

. I'm chinese, and when I see the pictures in the article, I WAS SHOCKED, BECAUSE IT CAN'T emerge the beauty of china.

--111.248.25.161 (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of reducing the size of the painting because it has been added to the article.ch (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you think Qinghuaci, chinese painting and chinese garden is not one of the chinese culture??[edit]

I have seen the Culture of Japan, there are a lot of paintings, architectures in it. Why can the others add beautiful photos japanse painting in japanese culture, and I can't add them (include chinese painting, Qinghuaci, chinese garden and other) in chinese culture? I am Chinese, and I was so worry about some UGLY and GROTESQUE photos in chinese culture, they are not real chinese culture! Those photos will destroy the beauty image of chinese culture!!

It is a kind of Low Culture in china, only the olds in village will watch it!
Kung Fu is only a very small part of the whole chinese sports, why the westerner always think of it as a symbol of China? We are not Martial Monkey!!
A beautiful Qinghuaci!
A beautiful chinese painting!!
A beautiful chinese garden!!!

Chinese culture has so many beautiful photos, why do you think the VULGAR photos can on behalf of china!? Why do you vilify chinese culture!??

--111.248.21.104 (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chinese culture/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The structure is there, but it is just not filled in enough to make B class at this time. --Danaman5 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 06:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 11:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cluttered Sentence[edit]

The following sentence in the opener reads:

"Chinese culture is historically considered the dominant culture in East Asia, as it was the civilization that held the most dominant influence in the region that laid out the cultural groundwork for East Asian civilization"

I don't disagree with the substance, but this sentence is cluttered and passive. The entire second part is redundant because it is already implied by the first. Consider revising to the following:

"Chinese civilization is historically regarded as the dominant culture of East Asia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facial (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Wind aoi Blue (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The change has been made. I also reorganized the introductory paragraphs into the following bins:
1st paragraph: brief introduction, discussing origin and variation.
2nd paragraph: discussion of influences. Facial (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading this on Chinese New Year 2021 I spotted a further minor simplification on the opening paragraph:
"The area over which the culture prevails covers a large geographical region in East Asia..." can be simplified to "The culture prevails across a large geographical region in East Asia..."
The problem I had with the previous revision is two action verbs "...prevails covers..." which, when juxtaposed, doesn't read smoothly. This version reads much more easily without any loss of substance. Facial (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-reading the opening paragraphs again. In particular, the sentence "Chinese civilization is historically regarded as the dominant culture of East Asia." has been changed to " "Chinese civilization is historically considered as a dominant culture of East Asia." (emphasis added)

I disagree with changing the article "the" to "a" because it is not implied by a cursory interpretation of the cited reference. The sentence now gives a sense of false balance. My understanding is that for the greater part of the past two millenia, only China has exerted disproportionate influence over its neighbors and not the other way around. The relative population and geographic size of China is a good proxy to understand this historically disproportionate influence. The sentence would be correct if it referred to all of Asia, with India being the most prominent neighbor influencing South and Southeast Asia. But the sentence specifically refers to East Asia. If there are no objections, I will revert to the article "the" and add a few additional references. Facial (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to have more information on subcultures[edit]

In my opinion, when looking at an article regarding Chinese culture as a whole: I would like to see more information on subcultures listed rather than just links to other articles. I feel that the fact that Chinese has so many sub cultures is a huge part of what makes Chinese culture what it is. Do you think it would benefit the article to add more of this information directly into it? 

Heylee dooley (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Heylee_Dooley[reply]

Introductory Paragraphs[edit]

I have reorganized the first two paragraphs, originally motivated by a desire to edit cluttered sentences (see my comment there). The intro also now uses the Oxford comma. I recommend the rest of the article follow suit. Facial (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early history about Chinese Culture[edit]

what the origin of Chinese Culture and how it developed to the countries?Qianqianrong (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Beijing bikini" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Beijing bikini. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Beijing bikini until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

scotland forever irish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.128.158 (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023[edit]

Chinese Culture is poopy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.110.76 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_culture&oldid=1206039304"