This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Timeline of Chinese history was copied or moved into Timeline of Chinese mythology with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. |
Columns of rulers and other persons can be merged into one named as "important figures of each period" or similar titles that doesn't necessarily define a person as a ruler. Listing and/or linking to rulers and persons of a ruling Chinese entity should be on the dynasty page since a dynasty has lots of emperors and listing each of them would make the page too long to load. The table is using the dynastic cycle approach of the Chinese Historiography. Some other approaches can be beneficial. User:kt2hello
Hey I just started this page so that it exists, and I it is aligned with the dates I found in the 'pedia. If you disagree with them, you are welcome to edit. olivier 16:58 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)
I think that it is important to leave the "ruler" column for rulers only, since it provides useful information, especially for the 20th century.
Now you can argue, how do we define a ruler? Is it a man with great political power, or power over the people? Does he use fear to instill his leadership, or benevolence? Or money?For instance, in the 1980s and 1990s, Deng Xiaoping held most of the actual power in China, although he did not have any official title aknowledging it. For that reason, I have added him (at least the year of his death) in the "other people" column. Nevertheless, keeping the ruler name in one column gives a good sense of time, since most periods are remembered in association with the ruler or the ruling entity.
Which brings to the next point: list of emperors. This list is very long. The only emperors, who I have included in the timetable are those which have an article in the 'pedia. I think it is OK for the time being. In any case, I think that major emperors should have their name in this timeline. It might be useful to insert a note at the top of the table, saying that the full list of emperors can be found in the dynasty articles.
Regarding alternative approaches to the dynastic cycle, again, I am open. olivier 12:05 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to equate presidents of the republics/nominal heads of the Communist Party as "rulers". Theoretically, they are not supposed to rule. They're supposed to serve the people/party/etc. --Jiang 04:19, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Head of what? Head of state? That would work, but only the "head" of the PRC listed on this timeline is not the head of state, but rather the head of the CPC. Try "leader"? Still iffy... --Jiang 04:34, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I changed it to "Ruler / Leader". Feel free to improve. --Menchi 04:47, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Removing the template just to solve the "ruler" issue sounds a bit drastic to me. Of course I am biased, since I started this template, but I like the table format and find it much more informative than the Polish one, because I find that the information is presented in a much clearer manner. Now regarding the "ruler" thing: the table is already broken down in 3 parts: pre-1949, PRC on mainland, ROC on Taiwan. We could make another break at 1911 and specify a different header for each section. For instance the "ruler" pre-1911 would be "emperor", the ROC on Taiwan guy would be "president"... olivier 13:19, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The head of the communist party is not always head of state. For ecample, Zhao Ziyang was premier and never president.
Should we create a section for imperial China? I dont think the rulers before Qin Shihuangdi were known as "emprerors". They were "kings". We also have multiple people claiming the presidency in pre-WW2 ROC. --Jiang 17:38, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The 'mnemonic' section should be marked as to what information it aids in remembering, as currently non-Chinese speakers cannot figure this out.
This article needs major rework as far as everything after 1949 is considered. There is no acknowledgement that many people would not consider Taiwan's recent history a part of Chinese history. Also, assuming we have these dual histories, the PRC's history is obviously a lot more important to China. And in addition to that, if we have this weighted PRC history over ROC history for China, we can't show them as one after the other--we need a visualization that does them in parallel or something else creative. This makes little sense to me as is.--DownUnder555 17:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
buddhism was introduced during the han dynasty
Yangshao culture 5000-3000 bce
Longshan culture 3000-2000 bce
The Art of War 6th century bce
Erya first dictionary 3rd century bce
Book burning under Qin Shi Huang 213 bce
The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art 1st century ce
Compass invented 271 ce
Zheng He 1405-1433, first open ocean exploration
Journey to the West 1590
Gunpowder 9th century ce <--- Article wasn't sure about exact date
Steel#Developments_in_China 500bce <--- Article wasn't sure about exact date
Chinese porcelain Eastern Han 100-200 ce <--- Article wasn't sure about exact date
standard exams to qualify for public office: Sui dynasty <--- Article wasn't sure about exact date
"Ten Classics", standard textbooks used for exam for public office 619ce <--- No article
Kung Fu Nasherx (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This page has some problems when viewed with Firefox. Perhaps with the cascading stylesheet for printing, that causes it to not print any of Imperial China's history. It skips to modern China. If you try a print preview in Firefox you will see the problem.
Is there any particular reason why modern Chinese history is (more or less) duplicated? 惑乱 分からん 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This page should use BCE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.180.176 (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2006
This Project is very helpful in research, if you need any help, contact me. AJ 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This page should not use B.C.E. No body uses this any more.
AJ 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Why in this entire timeline of "Chinese" history is Mao Zedong not mentioned once? And why is everything in this timeline after 1949 only related to Chen Shuibian and no one in the Main Land? I think this article could use some revision... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.170.83 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
The split is v. messy, which is why I made the mistake of deleting it, thinking that it doesn't belong in the "mainland china" section. Why not put the red and the blue side by side instead?
It appears that Mao has been listed, but it appears as though the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China have been listed seperately.. which In my opinion, Taiwan shouldn't have it's own timeline. It seems to be biased in favor of taiwan being it's own country which it is not, and shouldn't be treated as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.170.83 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Taiwan should be listed, and listed separately- and this is completely irrelevent to the highly sensitive issue of independence, just that it would be v. v. messy to put the two together and confuse everybody, because the leadership of the two localities are separate people. I did however, move the red bit so that it precedes the blue bit, merely because the red chunk of land is geographically bigger than the blue, and the history there is more colourful than the blue bit.
"The Grand Canal of China" usually refers to the canal in Sui Dynasty that connects Luoyang and Hangzhou. Here it appears in the time slot of 486BC, which suggests those built under Qin state. They should be described with a different title, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.104.29.223 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
Can someone tell me where there has been an ongoing discussion on format change of an entire table? If anything shouldn't we be going by the format used in the US/Canada? I am not against it. I thought the idea was to point things out that are useful and worth mentioning and not every little detail in 5000+ year of history. Benjwong 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The new format takes care of all these issues. What's the problem? Dallyripple 17:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Foreign missionaries began leaving either voluntarily or by force in 1949 when the Communist takeover happened. The last foreign Christian workers to leave were members of the China Inland Mission, and the event is recorded in that article. The Christianity in China article needs much updating.
I am sorry to see that there was a deletion of the event in 1976 of the Christian churches being allowed to reopen publicly. The event of their closure remains for the year 1966. Please explain.Brian0324 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Battle of Ch'ongch'on River forced UN to treat Communist China as equals with other nations while the fate of Korea is sealed in the aftermath, Battle of Chosin Reservoir did neither, so I replace the battles to show its importance in Chinese history. Jim101 (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Um... Is this information correct? There is two of the same king in the Xia Dynasty. Just asking! Well... it was useful! Thanks soooooo much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.74.178 (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So how can we know these dates are correct?
No, I'm not saying that Chinese historians don't know their subject, or that these dates are not trustworthy unless vetted by Western scholars. There have been countless intelligent historians in China over the centuries, many of whom knew their material far better than any living person. What I'm asking is how did historians of China determine what these dates are?
The only clue we have is the single sentence, which lacks a reliable citation, "Dates prior to 841 BC, the beginning of the Gonghe Regency, are provisional and subject to dispute." Does that mean every date up to that point is absolutely accurate? Despite the usual problems of unreliable sources, faulty memories, & scribal corruption? (Historians may be top-notch but the materials they work with sometimes is not.) It's expected that historians have determined which sources are the most reliable for fixing dates & have synchronized these into a unified reference that stretches back into the 8th (or maybe 9th) centuries BC with reasonable reliability & can offer approximate dates for earlier periods.
So is it possible for someone to write an article explaining how this was done? -- llywrch (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that the events of June 4, 1989 are not mentioned. I know that the Chinese government does not recognize this horrible atrocity as a real event, but everyone else in the world does, and it's on the same level as the denials of the genocides of the Jews and Gypsies in WW2 and the Armenians and Assyrians in WWI. Sure the number of dead are not in the millions, but they're not in the mere teens either. I put the incident back in the timeline where it belongs. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)