Talk:Names of China/Archive 2

I think the original meaning of guo in zhong guo is capital city. Hence zhongguo means capital in the center not the whole kingdom in the center. --刻意(Kèyì) 11:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone put a sound file to pronounce 中国? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.78.177 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See ^ⓘ (File:Zh-zhongguo.ogg). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the following phrase is not correct: "The People's Republic of China and Republic of China are official names given for the two sovereign states currently claiming sovereignty over the traditional area of China." "Traditional area of China" is 'China proper' but not other parts of the P.R. China: Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang. More correct will be: "The People's Republic of China and Republic of China are official names given for the two sovereign states currently claiming sovereignty over the area formerly ruled by the Manchu Qing dynasty". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.228.70 (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets talk about your country first before posting POV laden rants on talk pages. the "Russia" article should include a massive notice in bold, that Russia is currently occupying the sovereign nation of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, and laying irridentist claims to the Crimea which is the homeland of the Tatars and not Russians. Its best that if you came to wikipedia to rant your political agenda, you'd do it on your own country's articles, before you get a notice on your talk page that wikipedia is NOT a SOAPBOX.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So, Mr. IP, you're saying that Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia aren't "traditional" areas of China (whatever that may mean)? Well, I guess Russian/Inuit Alaska and Polynesian Hawaii aren't "traditionally" United States soil either. Face it, prior to the mid-20th Century, military conquest was a legitimate reason to take control over land. Hawaii was American centuries after Tibet was Chinese, and don't get me started on the Ryukyu Islands, Russian Far East, or the Falkland Islands. You're talking as if China was the only country to engage in imperialism and colonialism in its past. Regardless of where you are from, I'm sure I can always come up with ways to show that you are merely pot calling the kettle black, unless you come from a powerless country like, say, Cuba or something. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This ip address traces to Russia, he should start trolling on his native country's articles before going into WP:China articles, like the Russian Czar who pushed his agenda in the Caucasus during the Russian–Circassian War, killing over a million native circassians and commiting ethnic cleansing. And his comment also constitutes WP:SOAP or WP:BAIT which may make it eligible for removal.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I came upon this name in Ryuunosuke Akutagawa's story "The Nose", and it was used in reference to China. I looked it up on this online Chinese dictionary and it is listed as "noun - A name for China used by ancient Indians".

The link is here: http://www.nciku.com/search/zh/detail/%E9%9C%87%E6%97%A6/128813 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.41.121 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

1

re. the image of the Inner Mongolian name for China:

The image reads (ignoring umlauts) Bugude nayiramdakhu dumdadu arad, but it should read Bugude nayiramdakhu dumdadu arad ulus. In this case, the ulus is important for two reasons:

• "bugude nayiramdakhu ulus" means "republic", but "bugude nayiramdakhu" alone only means something like "mutual friendship"
• "dumdadu ulus" means "country in the middle", i.e. the translation of the Chinese name of China into Mongolian, "dumdadu" alone only means "in the middle"

In short, the image is incorrect and needs to be replaced. Yaan (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2

Tianchao is by far the most common sobriquet for China in contemporary text on the Mainland in my experience. Does the claim that Shenzhou is the most common have any support at all? Is it a Taiwanese and expat preference? — LlywelynII 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

After reading the discussions in the archive, it seemed that the material I added did not touch on those questions. In any case, I supplied substantial documentation, which I would be glad to discuss and offer more examples. ch (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This article contains Mongolian script. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of text in Mongolian script.

I've moved this from the section on official names for the Republic of China, as it renders vertically and breaks the page layout in both IE8 and Chrome, seen on systems without the font pack for this language installed:

ᠪᠦᠭᠦᠳᠡ ᠨᠠᠶᠢᠷᠠᠮᠳᠠᠬᠤ ᠳᠤᠮᠳᠠᠳᠤ ᠤᠯᠤᠰ (Official in Inner Mongolia)

If anyone has a solution for this problem, please fix and re-add it to the article. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mongol script is written and read vertically, and that's exactly what the {{MongolUnicode}} template is for. At the moment, vertical text is supported by IE8 and Chrome, and not by Firefox and Opera, which displays the text horizontally. Mongol script fonts are included by default in all installations of Windows 7, which has a market share varying from 33%-40% according to Usage share of operating systems. Just because some people cannot view the text properly doesn't mean that it's the same case for everyone, and that it should be removed. Should we remove all Chinese text from Wikipedia as well? There are plenty of grandpas out there running Windows 98 on Pentium III machines - there's one that lives right on my street. Windows 98 does not natively support CJK characters (without Microsoft language packages or third-party additions), so isn't Chinese text an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue for these old grandpas? Same dilemma applies here. Why should those running more modern computers have to shoulder the burden and curse of those that do not? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello World 你好，世界Template test above. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you reinserted it without presenting a solution, I've set this to render horizontally for now. 37% of visitors to Wikimedia projects are using Windows 7, which means 63% are not. Nearly two-thirds of visitors will not be able to read this script and will see a result as in the screenshot to the right. That's completely unacceptable from both usability and accessibility standards. Compatibility is a major factor in article presentation, it always has been. I'm well aware that the native rendering of many Asian scripts is vertical, however I don't recall reading any articles that actually feature this, and certainly not in the layout-breaking way that this particular line was included in the page. I don't know how it renders with the font pack installed but without it, it takes up about 425px of height and completely throws out the layouting.

Compatibility is a major factor in article presentation, it always has been. I'm well aware that the native rendering of many Asian scripts is vertical, however I don't recall reading any articles that actually feature this, and certainly not in the layout-breaking way that this particular line was included in the page. I don't know how it renders with the font pack installed but without it, it takes up about 425px of height and completely throws out the layouting.

On Chinese text, I don't recall reading any articles where this presented a problem. I don't have Chinese font packs installed on my work system here either but every page I've seen has always rendered it horizontally. There must surely be a solution to this problem that renders in an acceptable way for people with and without the pack installed? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As an addendum, even when cases where vertical rendering is desirable, it should be common sense that you never mix vertically- and horizontally-rendered text inline. This is not done anywhere. In common vertically-rendered scripts like Chinese and Japanese, English text is always also rendered vertically. The same common sense applies when English is the primary language, the accompanying foreign script is rendered with the same orientation. See this example of Mongolian and English mixed text doing the same thing.– NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with having horizontal render as a compromise. I understand where you are getting at. The {{MongolUnicode}} template must be used, however, to ensure the proper fonts are used. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I just added the 'h' parameter to the MongolUnicode templates in the article - I didn't notice that it had one when I originally removed it. Apologies if I came across a bit strongly, I got the impression this was going to be one of those odd sticking points over minutiae that seemed to plague the Taiwan moves. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the text a little bit, how do you think? here are the sources:

(1) Regarding the accuracy of the translation, Professor Chen Jian writes: "I believe that 'Central Kingdom' is a more accurate translation for 'Zhong Guo' (China) than 'Middle Kingdom'. The term 'Middle Kingdom' does not imply that China is superior to other peoples and nations around it — China just happens to be located in the middle geographically; the term 'Central Kingom', however, implies that China is superior to any other people and nation 'under the heaven' and that it thus occupies a 'central' position in the known universe." (Mao's China and the Cold War. UNC Press. ISBN 0-8078-4932-4)

(2) "A more accurate translation of Zhong Guo is "Middle Country," and to be still more precise, "Central Country," with "central" being the key word." The Chinese Have a Word for It." McGraw-Hill Professional ISBN 0658010786 / 9780658010781

Maeblie 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet aother quote from renowed sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente:

(3) "Whoever it was that first began calling the country Zhong Guo was using the word "central" in the sense of "heart," "main," or the place where everything starts, and from where everything is controlled." - Boyé Lafayeete De Mente

Maeblie 14:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your changes have been reverted per consensus established through a (very) lengthy discussion previously.

See here [1] --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had given the translation of "The Central State" for Zhong Guo in the now defunct "Far East Economic Review" way back in about 1993. 86.176.118.52 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The treatment of the English translation of Zhongguo was settled after lengthy discussion as archived at Talk:China/Archive 11. Please do not unilaterally change it to "central kingdom" without at least justifying your edit, addressing the arguments by which the current version was adopted. To summarise, they are the common names policy (and policy against neologisms); undue weight; verifiability and NPOV.

This message is cross-posted too Talk:China --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Another literal meaning of Zhongguo is The Neutral State. 86.176.118.52 (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Friends;

I've amended the lede for this section for these reasons:

• TEXT: “China is called Zhongguo in Mandarin Chinese.” COMMENT: But the characters can be pronounced in any of the regional languages, so “China is called Zhongguo in modern Chinese” is more accurate.

• “... it became the official name only after 1911.” COMMENT: Zhongguo was never the “official name” in Chinese. Wilkinson says "it was adopted as the abbreviation of Zhonghua minguo in the early twentieth century.” If there’s a better source, please advise.

• “Although it was a common name often used in both Chinese and Western literature and references.” COMMENT: I thank Sevilladade for introducing Étienne Fourmont's Lingua Sinarum, which is a 1742 grammar and listing of books from the imperial library, written in Latin. The book is fascinating – on page 109, for instance, we learn that the pluperfect of the verb amare (“to love”) in Chinese is Aile or that the four tones are represented by “ut, re, mi, fa, sol,” presumably on the same principle as the notes of the musical scale.

But there are problems.

First, this is Original Research. We should use this as a wonderful illustration but it should not be preferred over appropriate Secondary Sources.

Second, the note refers to an auction catalog, not the book itself, and does not give a page reference. The book is available for download: [2] and there is a jpg of the title page: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/FourmontGrammar.jpg

The only reference to the name of the country I can find is on p. 430. Fourmont's catalogue includes the 大清律 Da Qing Lű, (Qing Law) which he annotates:

Da Qing Lű id est Lex magna puritas. Magna puritas, seu tá çím nomine, intelligunt eam, quae nunc apud Sinas regnat, Familium Tartarum: quo modo enim, qui præcessere Sinæ vocati sunt tá nîm, magna claritas, ita qui nunc Imperium habent Tartari, dicuntur tá çím, magna puritas."

My rusty Latin translates this as:

Da Qing Lű, that is, Law of the Great Qing. "Great Purity," or the Da Qing by name, as they understand it, which now rules in China. The Manchu Family: those who came before "Sina" were called Da Ming, Great Brightness; now that the Tartars [Manchus] control the Empire, they call it Da Qing, Great Purity."

That is, the reference says that the country is called "Da Qing," with no mention of Zhongguo. This illustrates the point that Zhongguo was indeed used but not that it was common as a name for the country.

• Footnote citations on "Middle Kingdom" etc. COMMENT: No need for Original Research when Esherick, a Reliable Source says as much. So the simplest and most accurate thing is to give Wilkinson and Esherick as the scholarly references, with further discussion in the paragraphs to follow.

Please let me know if I went wrong. ch (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are comments on edits to make the section more compact and coherent:

• The caption to the map of the Qin dynasty claims that "Zhongguo" was used to describe the Qin territory. There is no source for this claim, which does not fit in with sourced information.
• notes 9,10 are dead links, which Wayback Machine does not have archived. Maybe someone could track them down, but in the meantime, I suggest that we leave the material, which is indeed relevant and interesting.
• note 6: Internet archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080704131953/http://www.cycnet.com/history/qanda/010802012.htm
• note 11, the quote from the Zuo Zhuan, should be referenced to an English translation for the benefit of most readers (Chinese readers using the English Wikipedia obviously can read English!). In any case, the quote is off the point of this section, which is not “guo” but “Zhongguo.” But it is interesting!
• note 12. Quote from the Mao Heng, Zuozhuan. Again, this is good stuff, though not strictly on topic, but needs an English source or reference.
• Much in the following paragraphs is unsourced and questionable, or at least not representative of scholarly consensus. I made a few nips and tucks.
• “Zhongguo quickly came to include areas farther south...” Amend to be shorter and fit in with Bol source.
• The paragraph on the nineteenth century: I am, again, and as is so often the case, grateful to Sevillidade for his keen eye and meticulous approach. But in this case, the process by which Zhongguo became the common name (though not the official one) for the nation needs some detail in order to show readers that it was not predetermined but a choice which prominent figures debated. Besides, the passage now still refers to Liang both as himself and as “another reformer.” So I have taken Sevillidade's comment to heart but will restore the specific arguments, with more references.

ch (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

[3] The term was once used a lot.

Acrossadesert (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In a mocking way by Europeans, and the Chinese were called the celestials. Hong Xiuquan did set up the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom in the Taiping Rebellion. The Japanese title their emperor as the Celestial Emperor, so presumably their empire is also the celestial empire. 81.129.180.47 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Unlike "Zhongguo," the literal and figurative meanings of "Zhonghua" are never discussed in the article, despite the fact that the article uses the term multiple times. Seems like a major oversight.174.21.240.251 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

On 9 April 2013 Sevillade cleaned up the section Zhongguo and Zhonghua with accustomed aplomb, but I have taken the liberty of restoring some of the material.

The important point behind the following minor ones is that "Zhonguo" as a modern term for a modern nation evolved only slowly. This section needs detail to establish this point.

• Cutting the phrases

" 'Zhong guo' (here best translated as 'the central country') as both an historical place or territory and as a culture, a different sense from the modern use of Zhongguo as 'China.'"

Edit Summary : "And this statement was not in the reference at all."

My goodness! Please look at the reference once again. The very title of the article is "Geography and Culture: Middle-Period Discourse on the Zhong Guo: The Central Country," and on p. 2 Prof. Bol says "I translate Zhong guo as “the Central Country.” He then specifies, "Before proceeding we need to make a distinction. A reader of middle-period texts who encounters the two characters zhong guo is likely to translate the term as “China” because today the internal name of the country that is known in English as China is Zhongguo." [3] The second page referred to in the note contains Bol's statement that "The modern use of Zhongguo/China is different from the middle period use of the Zhong guo/the Central Country." [26]

• Edit summary: "There is a lot of inconsistency here. Obviously the term Zhongguo was commonly used before...." Yes, but the sources say that it was not used in the modern sense "China."

• Edit summary: "The term 'common' is subjective and some of the phrasings here are speculative as well." Esherick's language: "A common (and influential) early nineteenth century conception of Zhongguo is ... the seventeen provinces [of China proper] and the three eastern provinces..." Please tell me whether the use of this reliable source is "subjective" or whether other interpretations of the term Zhongguo in Fourmont or the stele (below) are WP:Original research.

• Edit Summary : "The Nestorian stele of 781 uses the term 'Zhongguo'..." OK, but the translation "China" is not reliably sourced. It is from Frits Holm's My Nestorian Adventure in China published in 1924 and rightly described as a "popular account." Holm, according to the "Biographical Notes" (p. 324-325) does not claim to know Chinese! [4]

All the best in any case and many thanks for your thoughtful attention. ch (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate Sevillade's concern and his removal of "(PRC)" and "(Taiwan)" from the lede. If someone thinks we need this parenthetical information, it can go elsewhere.

I also wonder about the second paragraph, which makes the otherwise unreferenced and vague statement that:

In other parts of the world, many names of China exist, mainly transliterations of the dynasties "Qin" or "Jin" (e.g. China, Sino), and Han or Tang. There are also names for China based on a certain ethnic group other than Han, much like the Western rendering of all Arabs as "Saracens". Examples include "Cathay" based on the Khitan and "Tabgach" based on the Tuoba.

Does anyone have a source or just a suggestion for a sharper characterization of these non-English and non--Chinese names? The sections in the article on "Sin/ Sino" have yet to be sourced.ch (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ignore this - it is indeed "How the Qing Became China" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbgold (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Qing identified their state as "China" (Zhongguo), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in Manchu. The Qing equated the lands of the Qing state (including present day Manchuria, Dzungaria in Xinjiang, Mongolia, and other areas as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multi ethnic state.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao%20-%20reinventing%20china.pdf

When the Qing conquered Dzungaria in the Ten_Great_Campaigns#The_Zunghars_and_pacification_of_Xinjiang_.281755.E2.80.931759.29, they proclaimed that their land was absorbed into "China".

http://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&pg=PA77&dq=Dulimbai+gurun+land&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jEHtUunnIIvksASBzIEQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun%20land&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&pg=PA83&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA503&dq=steppes+mountains+rivers+Dzungar+unified+with+china&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5UHtUuvvCcu_sQStu4HYBw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=steppes%20mountains%20rivers%20Dzungar%20unified%20with%20china&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA503&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_0LtUoGlNMTCywHW0ICAAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

In many other Manchu records they refer to their state as China and as Manchus as inhabitants of China, and when they refer to the Qing in conparison with other lands, they use "China"

http://books.google.com/books?id=qlJpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA205&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=t2JTJW0X6LkC&pg=PA205&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA218&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=90LtUpuHEaSMyAHAl4DoDA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=zqVug_wN4hEC&pg=PA102&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m0PtUtv-OIOTyQHX8YCwAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dw9gYo4Pk0MC&pg=PA211&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=LbmP_1KIQ_8C&pg=PA304&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=TmhtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA80&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-0PtUoKZEKWgyAH8oIHgBQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=zqVug_wN4hEC&pg=PA102&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K1HtUvGtJKHNsQTE6IKYCA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=TmhtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA80&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-1HtUv6FKsjXyAG9poDQAQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NESwGW_5uLoC&pg=PA117&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ripGAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA817&dq=Dulimba+e+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_E_tUuTfC6aisQTul4HoBQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Dulimba%20e%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=dKEIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA817&dq=Dulimba+e+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_E_tUuTfC6aisQTul4HoBQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dulimba%20e%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=HDdDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA75&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-1HtUv6FKsjXyAG9poDQAQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=tHMEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA75&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-1HtUv6FKsjXyAG9poDQAQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6NArAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA27&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OVLtUpyLM8LcyQG3ooDwBQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAzgo#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=oVMMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA11&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OVLtUpyLM8LcyQG3ooDwBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwADgo#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

Other Manchu works which mention Dulimbai Gurun

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nvg9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA92&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i0PtUortL5OMyAHDr4HoDA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IsFBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i0PtUortL5OMyAHDr4HoDA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=chcTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA96&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m0PtUtv-OIOTyQHX8YCwAQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ragOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA198&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OVLtUpyLM8LcyQG3ooDwBQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATgo#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ft0cAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA198&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OVLtUpyLM8LcyQG3ooDwBQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAjgo#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iWE3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA454&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8FDtUr6xN43MsQTG7IHYBg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=xn70a2aWQ1AC&pg=PA147&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K1HtUvGtJKHNsQTE6IKYCA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cRHtZEuc7K8C&pg=PA162&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K1HtUvGtJKHNsQTE6IKYCA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=XmIC6CtGmqcC&pg=PA229&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-1HtUv6FKsjXyAG9poDQAQ&ved=0CCcQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Nguyen Emperor Minh Mang claimed that the Vietnamese had the right to call themselves Han people 漢人

http://books.google.com/books?id=py5Xh0-pw18C&pg=PA115&dq=minh+mang+han&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cOZSUqPkLcbgyQHVzYD4AQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=minh%20mang%20han&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=q5C3Sbe1iMoC&pg=PA209&dq=minh+mang+han&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cOZSUqPkLcbgyQHVzYD4AQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=minh%20mang%20han&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2j6GNiMMc1oC&pg=PA474&dq=kinh+people+of+capital&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g7xJUs2iMoO48wSzq4GYBg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kinh%20people%20of%20capital&f=false

http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue4/article_353.html

Minh Mang called Vietnam "Zhongguo" 中國

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-asia&month=9906&week=e&msg=28mq4qDZEWt3sD%2B6t6h/lw&user=&pw=

Sinocentrism#Vietnam

Rajmaan (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggest changing "earlier" to "more recent" or some such as Ming and Qing are later than "ancient" (if you see what I mean). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbgold (talk • contribs) 10:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Difference engine (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not able to look this reference up so won't tamper with the text, but surely the title "Joseph Esherick, "How the Qing Became China," in Empire to Nation: Historical Perspectives on the Making of the Modern World (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), p. 232-233" should be "How the Qin Became China..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbgold (talk • contribs) 10:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The title appears to be correct as-is (Google Books link). Difference engine (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It says that the French and German terms 'literally' mean "Middle KingdomEmpire", but I can attest that they actually mean "KingdomEmpire of the Middle". I'm sure the page is incorrect about the 'literal' translation of many of the other languages too. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E (talk) 22:24 &:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

   No doubt our colleague saw no harm in the detail of presenting a two-edit contribution as a single-edit one (which i have marked-up to accurately reflect the sequence). And many will have discounted it (and in some cases done their own research). For those who found the attestation of literality convincing, this should IMO serve as an object lesson from the colleague who has at least become sensitive to at least the possibility of, for many, the English words "empire" and "kingdom" not being interchangeable.
   I can tell you, about German, that König and Kaiser are usually translated as "king" and "emperor". Additionally: reich is "rich" or "wealthy", but Reich (which IMO is evocative of "commonwealth" describing several forms of polity in English) is "empire". And KuK was a ubiquitous concept of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and its ruler, who was described as both königlich und kaiserlich (imperial) bcz he was, over some of his subjects and lands, only royal, yet imperial over all the rest. You could probably look up the details (like my delusional recalling a wrought-iron monograms with the first K of KuK backwards). You can cap that off with (see wikt:Königreich) de:Langobardisches Königreich (... Royal Empire, Royal Realm?), whose interlanguage link is to our Kingdom of the Lombards article.
   Anyway, Mittel is a noun meaning both "middle" and "means" (as in "ways and means" and "means [of doing something]"), while mittel is an adjective meaning "middle" or "center".
   Finally (and in an excess of caution, i would hope in light of items that i've not confirmed to be in the article) i'll mention to a few colleagues that "Middle" in the native name for China doesn't mean sandwiched between the countries to its left and right, but standing between the heavens and the non-Chinese riff-raff.
--Jerzy•t 13:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

[ user:Rajmaan begins here by quoting:]^{Jerzy•t 13:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)}

The subjects of the Flowery Kingdom do not call their country "China," but Chung Kwoh, or "Middle Kingdom." It is incorrect to say that this is because the people believe that China lies in the middle of the earth. Chang Chih-tung rightly says that the name is derived from "The Doctrine of the Middle," which is an important section of their canonical "Four Books." The principles of the Chinese do not go beyond, and do not fall short of, what is just and right. The " Middle Kingdom " is therefore so called because its organization was supposed to be perfect and complete. We Americans proudly imagine that our country is £ pluribus UNUM.—Translator.

China's only hope By Zhidong Zhang, Samuel Isett Woodbridge

http://books.google.com/books?id=kgCDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

The source is primary, I'm wondering if anyone can find a secondary source to back up this conclusion?
Rajmaan (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question, Rajmaan -- as you can see, your question spurred me into looking into more research, but I didn't come across anything that would put "Middle Kingdom" very far back (at least in Chinese terms!). The Etienne Fourmont book that Savillidade put in a reference to says on it title page "Medii Regni communis Loquela," that is, "The 'Middle Kingdom' in common speech," but I have no idea whether this was the first usage. [[5]] ch (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "桃花石" is Chinese transliteration of "Tabgach",and "尼堪" is Chinese transliteration of "Nikan". Should these words be included here?Clayblockmc (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A year ago edits by an IP editor removed some things (another editor tried to revert/fix the edits but goofed). This was the result, where information was removed. I've not got the time right now to review and/or restore this. Could someone look at this? Shenme (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)