Talk:Chinese historiography

An angry tangent in "ethnic inclusiveness"

"Therefore, blaming the ethnic inclusiveness theory..." Blaming it for what? This entire section sounds like an angry defense of an unclear idea. Who is blaming the idea of Zhonghua Minzu for what problem? That Vietnam, Mongolia, and Korea are independent nation-states? This is a fact of modern geopolitics, not a problem of Chinese historiography. What should be discussed here is what different viewpoints exist on the issue of, essentially, how to resolve the historiography of all the overlapping nations that exist within modern (and have existed within ancient) China.

If this paragraph isn't neutralized before long, I will do it myself. Amhaun01 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The name of this article is not apropiated: in the translation to spanish we have opted by Interpretaciones de la historia de China. There is two reasons:

• First: there is only two chinese historian cited here, all others are occidental.
• Second: Science is one, and so one historiography (historians can be clasificated by time, nation, class, ethnics, sex... and even object of study)--Ángel Luis Alfaro 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ERA

Per this edit, the usage of the page is BC/AD and should be kept consistent as such. [edit: fixed] — LlywelynII 16:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this seem a little biased or non-neutral?

Bass77 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In my edit, I changed the header(so that it sounded simpler) and corrected a few mistakes. As I was reading it, I noticed that some parts about historians seemed to praise or talk about them in ways that didn't seem encyclopedia-like. Here compilation of biased parts, between >arrows<:

• "were more >conservative< but remained >innovative< in their >response to world trends< " • "The ensuing years saw >historians such as Wu Han master both(theories)< Western theories, including Marxism, and Chinese learning" • "historiography >viewed mankind as living in a fallen age of depravity< , cut off from the >virtues of the past<. " • "this political restriction is >less confining than it may first appear< in that the Marxist historical framework >is surprisingly flexible<" • " >There are several problems< associated with imposing Marx’s European-based framework on Chinese history"

Philosophy and Criticism don't go well with wikipedia articles. I think this article needs a big overhaul on that basis.

Bass77 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese historiography. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228095100/http://ich.cass.cn/ to http://ich.cass.cn/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

title

Why is this not called Historiography of China, the title seems inconsistent with other historiography articles, is this an error or on purpose? Dysklyver 20:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that its title is inconsistent with at least several other such articles (US, UK, etc.). As for the original rationale for the present form of the title, that is a mystery to me. It should be possible to move the article, if there are no objections. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki and A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: I object to any such move if this is the only rationale for it. You claim that the title is inconsistent with other articles about historiography, but that's easily disprovable given the articles entitled Greek historiography, Roman historiography, Ethiopian historiography, Marxist historiography, Humanistic historiography, etc. From what I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the present title and it is completely interchangeable with the alternative title "Historiography of China". --Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

ok thats makes sense. Dysklyver 07:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing and updating References and further reading

Thanks, Rjensen, for the comment explaining your reasoning in reverting my edits here. A little duplication may not waste space, but including random items obscures the good stuff. Readers throw up their hands and don't know where to begin.

WP:Further reading "section of an article contains a bulleted list of a reasonable number of works which a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article. In articles with numerous footnotes, it probably is not obvious which ones are suitable for further reading. The "Further reading" section can help the readers by listing selected titles without worrying about duplications." It goes on: "Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject, and to works whose contents are entirely about the subject of the article, rather than only partly." Further:"Wikipedia is not a catalogue..."

Here it seems reasonable not to select Fogel & Schneider from the notes; only part Evans is historiography, and Fairbank is linked; Goodman is a great but specialized book review on a topic not mentioned in the article; Kutcher's article is not mainly historiographical and Latourette is not mentioned in the article.

So if it's OK, I will restore the culled version, which will correct your I'm sure inadvertent addition of "Fairbanks." ch (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

ok. thanks. Rjensen (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hidden text removed

I removed the following hidden text from the article:

? Hu Shi (not professional historian. He taught philosophy，English, literature, etc.) ,

BD2412 T 23:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Although obviously quite old, Hu Shi does seem to have general knowledge of Chinese history, he knows the Mohists were engineers. His opinions on history are still worth reading.FourLights (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)