This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
The whole idea that there are many different "dynasties" of one continuously existing country called "China" is increasingly challenged by many historians, such as Hidehiro Okada. It might be worth having a section about this in which the alternative view is at least mentioned. The alternative view is that we need to look at what happened in each period in its own terms, not necessarily as a stage on the way to the present-day situation. The story should be framed in a regional context, highlighting how peoples moved, states rose and fell, frontiers fluctuated, trade flowed and cultures hybridised.Nero Calatrava (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a potentially interesting point, I always appreciate trying to unstick one's mind from structures like these if that's possible. I'm trying to look into the work of Okada now, do you have any starting points? Or, does anyone have any works in this historiographical area? Remsense聊 06:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is going to be a heavily politically contentious point, I would recommend that a thorough discussion on exactly what is to be included in the section be held here before anyone makes WP:BOLD edits. I think such a section would be useful, especially considering that what was considered Chinese or not varied quite considerably thorought history. That said, nobody seems to have really raised similar issues in articles like History of Russia, even though the breadth of that article is... also potentially problematic. I would also be quite hesitant to start a section on this view based only on Japanese historians. Fermiboson (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would've been the second point I wanted to make. I just heard about the PRC putting the History of Qing project on ice this morning, apparently in large part due to New Qing History-related turbulence—and while this in summary is facially absurd and embarrassing and the PRC isn't interested in historiography for its own sake here—something Western observers very often forget is, the last time a lot of people outside China got really interested in the Manchu-ness of the Manchus, for example, it was due to the direct propaganda efforts of the empire carving a bloody colony out of the northeast of their country. So certainly, I think looking at Chinese perspectives is paramount. Remsense聊 19:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The listing of dynasties would be far more useful if dates were attached to it, CE. That's what I came here looking for and I was sorry to see so much writing without such a useful feature.
108.51.169.236 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the column "Year" in the table. Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment Major dynasties like the Yuan and Qing were Mongol and Manchu respectively so using Chinese as an adjective might carry some ethnic connotations that are not entirely accurate. Killuminator (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an appropriate point to consider! But certainly, Chinese ≠ Han, and one might peruse the Qing's rhetoric about the Manchu (and Mongols, etc.) being an integral Chinese people group as an example of how there really aren't understood to be fraught ethnic connotations if they're simply called 'Chinese dynasties'—they're dynasties in China taking part in Chinese history, and those are often understood to be coterminous concepts, especially by modern scholarship in modern times. That's my understanding at least. Remsense聊 05:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose instead use Dynasties of China; as this concerns rule of most of China, and not rule of non-China. Such as, where the Triệu dynasty is sometimes called the Chinese dynasty of Vietnam -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
65.92.247.90, is this a common name for the dynasty in English? — Remsense聊 23:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Vietnamese diaspora sometimes uses it to refer to it in English. Vietnamese nationalist scholars do as well. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
65.92.247.90, this seems like a situation where a hatnote would be apropos?
For the dynasty in Vietnam sometimes called the "Chinese dynasty", see Triệu dynasty.
I find my suggestion a better fit though. It distinctly identifies the country (the region of the Heavenly Mandate) without the frequently confused demonyms/adjectives, and doesn't have any potential problem with ethnicity, language, and nationality concerns as Killuminator has pointed out with English language meaning of "Chinese", with the Mongolians (Yuan) with a sinitic civil service, the sinicized Jurchen/Manchu (Jin/Qing) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
65.92.247.90, I do think your suggestion is good, and I appreciate your input! — Remsense聊 10:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current title is a better descriptive title. This article is about dynasties as a concept, framework, institution... The current title gets that across clearly. Srnec (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's subtle, but could you explain why you feel the proposed title isn't equally descriptive? Remsense聊 18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the naturalness argument is what convinced me. Either works though. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: There seems to be a general support for a move, however it seems to be a split between "Chinese dynasties" or "Dynasties of China". Relisting to hopefully determine a clearer consensus. – robertsky (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus leans more towards Dynasties of China, then I fully support that, I think it's equally good. Remsense聊 02:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Dynasties of China, mostly because English doesn't differentiate between an adjectivised toponym and a demonym. Folly Mox (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the move towards geographical words that can't be misconstrued as demonyms or ethnic labels is well established at CfD. I note the category for this article is already Category:Dynasties of China, not Category:Chinese dynasties. Folly Mox (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Dynasties of China is preferable to the proposal, but I don't see how it is a big improvement over the current title. Srnec (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One point i'd make toward it not being a WP:COMMONNAME, in a bit of a subtle way, is that it's somewhat redundant. A dynasty is a historical object already. It's like saying "Abacuses in Chinese mathematics" Remsense聊 02:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Dynasties of China. I think that this title is most natural. Also avoids the potential thorn of whether "Chinese" is used an ethnic descriptor (there were Manchus that ruled China for quite a while) or a national one. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 22:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
