Talk:Culture of the People's Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Culture of mainland China)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Culture    (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.


This article is specifically about the culture of mainland China which develops separately from the culture of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan (and Pescodores, Quemoy, Matsu) after 1949. The culture of China article is about Chinese culture in general, and have a much much longer time frame.

If this article has to merged, the same should be done with the article Culture of Hong Kong.

We must include a communist section in the main culture of China article for completeness since China is so much defined by mainland China. I dont see how your last sentence follows. Hong Kong is comparatively small and unique and has been separated from China for so long. On the other hand, mainland China has been the same as China for a very long time. --Jiang 10:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As this article has suggested the development of Chinese culture in mainland China after 1949 has been heavily influenced by the ruling communist party, and the original Chinese culture has in fact been better preserved in Hong Kong, Taiwan and even Korea, than in mainland China.
I would prefer having this article as the main article of the relevent section(s) under the article Culture of China.
Similarly the article Culture of Hong Kong should be the main article of a section (probably a short one will be alright) under the article Culture of China. The same applies to Macao and Taiwan. — Instantnood 11:30, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)
(to the anonymous contributor) Generally agree. But Quemoy and Matsu has not been ruled by Japan. The culture on the two groups of islands is probably not the same as Taiwan and the Pescodores. — Instantnood 11:37, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

This would more aptly named "Culture in Communist China". But for a more detailed article to exist, we need a summary in the more general article. That should be written before this one.--Jiang 11:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Culture in communist China" would make it seem as if the Chinese Special Economic Zones (not to be confused with the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau), in which capitalism is allowed to run free, don't have the same culture as other Chinese provinces, which they generally do. -- RaiBrown1204 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't use the word "we". It is your opinion and your point of view. — Instantnood 12:30, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

"We" is ambiguous. It's a rhetorical device. You are also free to use it. --Jiang 04:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making this disambiguation statement. :-) — Instantnood 18:36, Feb 14 2005 (UTC)

Page mvs.[edit]

Per request on my talk page I've mv'd this thing back to what I hope was its original name. IN seems to have doe some very curious multiple mvs William M. Connolley 08:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Communist China[edit]

"Communist China" is a POV, because many communists, in particular left communists do not regard the PRC as communist at all, not even since 1958, or 1949. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 12:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and Leninists aren't communists according to Marxists. — Instantnood 21:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Reference: [1]

According to WP:CONTEXT, there is no mention to "keep it out of the iterated statement". Rather, we see a line that says "the opening of an article is typically more densely linked than the rest, because many items will appear there for the first time."

It is thus clear, that the tendency is still to link the first occurance of the word, as has been done in many articles across wikipedia.--Huaiwei 14:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was just reprimanded for linking in the reiterated title once. I think this came from "As a general rule, do not put links in the title; however, this may be acceptable with complex titles or verbose leads, such as those concerning multiple concepts." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No one ever told me not to link the title before... I think that requirement arises due to some people's persistance in adding a link to the title which is exactly the same as the title itself, ie, adding a link to Title in the Title page, or linking Chinese language romanisation in Singapore as Chinese language romanisation in Singapore. If you refer to the later article, I instead linked romanisation, Chinese language, and Singapore, thus fulfilling the later condition of "complex titles or verbose leads" I suppose? This article dosent have a very long title, but it does have two main concepts/entities embedded in the title?--Huaiwei 17:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Leading paragraph[edit]

Re [2] - This article specifically discusses culture in mainland China under communist influence. " which came with increased interaction with the capitalist world and the opening up of trade and exchanges with its two Special administrative regions particularly since their reversion to Beijing rule. " - Trade and exchanges were already significant before 1997/1999. — Instantnood 17:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • But trade and exchanges significantly increased post 1997, with the gradual relaxation of trade and tourism guidelines, for example. It was only in post 1997 where Chinese nationals make up a majority of annual tourism figures in HK, and the trend is expected to increase substaintially.--Huaiwei 18:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Influences from Hong Kong and Macao were already significant to the cultural aspects in mainland China before 1997/1999. Cultural inputs from Hong Kong and Macao to mainland China after 1997/1999 is comparatively not as notable. You did not explain why the scope of this article has to be changed. — Instantnood 18:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
And that, of coz, is merely a matter of personal impressions if no supporting information or source is provided. I argue, that the sharp increase in trade and human traffic, and the euphoria of the handover helped kindle much interest in the two SARS, along with their accompanying culture and values. What are the "trends" which claim otherwise? I have no comments on the scope of this article, simply because I do not think I need to explain it when I am not the instigator of the move.--Huaiwei 13:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
In what way would extent of cultural influences be correlated to volume of trade and human traffic? Any cite for euphoria? What are the differences between SARs and SARS? " I am not the instigator of the move. " - Neither am I. — Instantnood 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Cultural influence is very often accelerated by interaction. China has always attempted to shield its people from the outside world, but the return of the SARS to China left it with a wants to evoke nationalist sentiments due to the historic return, yet doing so allows many more mainlanders to opportunity to see and experience for themselves capitalist societies at their doorstep. This has clearly happened when the flood gates into the SARS opens up since 1997 and 1999. Even the impact of Macau is substaintial, for how else could the idea of legalised gambling in casinos swaying so many mainlanders be allowed to occur under strict communist ideals? Increased trade of goods via greater business linkages generates greater dependency, people-to-people exchanges, and requires an even higher level of understanding in each other's societal cultures and expectations. You dont walk into another location and just setup business and trade without doing any homework, do you?
All the text I give above is basic as far as geographers, economists, historians, political scientists, sociologists, and basically most of the social sciences are concerned. I challenge you to show otherwise, which you hadent been able to do so.
Neither am I. No one is talking about "article scopes" except yourself, isnt it, so why do you sound like you are expected to make an explaination for it? :D--Huaiwei 18:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Ask anybody who's familiar with the situation and has first-hand experience, she/he can tell the inputs to the mainland from the two special administrative regions after the transfers of sovereignty is comparatively not as notable as before the transfers of sovereignty. But yes, influences from the mainland to the special administrative regions have become substantial after the transfers of sovereignty, though such influences were insignificant before that. — Instantnood 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If your first statement is true, I have yet to hear anyone talking about it, nor any substaintial inputs from yourself despite calls for you to support your claims three times (this is the fourth). I suppose you arent familiar with the situation, nor have first-hand experience to comment? No wonder, for not many non-Chinese are able to fully understand the Chinese psyche in the first place anyway. Meanwhile, I did not really venture into discussions on cultural influence into the SARS, but its good to see some acceptance of reality there.--Huaiwei 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes cultural influences have increased after 1997/1999, but the influences from Hong Kong and Macao on the mainland was far more substantial before 1997/1999 than after. After 1997/1999 the influences is more on the opposite direction. What to do with "Chinese psyche"? — Instantnood 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You are still repeating yourself without giving any supporting points or evidence (as usual). Five request this is, for the record, so I went ahead with restoring the text. If this persists, the disputed tag dissapears as well. It seems you need a spanking before you understand the meaning of constructive content discussions. What to do with Chinese psyche? Nothing to do with you, I suppose. It dosent matter much to some non-Chinese.--Huaiwei 03:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Cultural influences can rarely be measured by numerals. But still you may be interested to learn about the number of mainland films shown in Hong Kong cinemas, and the number of Hong Kong films shown in mainland cinemas, before and after 1997. One's ethnic, cultural and nationality background is of no relevance here. — Instantnood 16:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

Re [3] [4] Why should the title be changed? This article specifically discusses the cultural aspects in mainland China under as a result of communist rule. — Instantnood 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are so interested, you are most free to create another article talking specifically about "cultural aspects in mainland China under as a result of communist rule", whatever that means. I fail to understand the need to contain this article within that scope unless you have substaintial content to add and turn this into an FA.--Huaiwei 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This article still discusses communist influences, despite the title and the leading paragraph has been changed. The change has never been discussed. The status quo ante should be restored until disagreements are settled. If there's a consensus, feel free to create an article for culture of the People's Republic of China, with the summary of this article as one of the sections. (And good luck dealing with the special administrative regions after 1997/1999.) — Instantnood 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
"Communist China" is an informal term. If you want, perhaps you could talk about culture ranging all the way back to the early 1900s, when communist anarchism was the predominant strain of communist thought. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
As I looked at the edit history, it was apparant that it took more than a month for a "disagreement" to be registered (and even then, this "disagreement" was not highlighted in the talkpage, but was done by a hostile revert move with merely a line of explaination [5]). Up till today, where was still no objections registed by anyone else except yourself, while in the same period, four other members either showed no objection to the present title made by the first editor, or expressed supported for it (and that is concensus you asked for). If you want to be a renegade in a website based strictly on concensus, then it is your onus to provide strong support for your case in the face of popular opposition, failing which, I do not see why there should be a need to restore the change just because "The change has never been discussed". I dont see you clamouring for all undiscussed page moves to be undone in wikipedia, or do you?--Huaiwei 11:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Had communist anarchism ever been influential in China? Culture of Communist China refers to cultural influences of communism in China, and the cultural aspects of China under communist party rule. — Instantnood 18:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"Communist China" is an informal term and should not be used in the title. It is more accurate to use Culture of the People's Republic of China. RevolverOcelotX —The preceding comment was added by RevolverOcelotX at 20:11, July 30, 2006 (UTC) [6].
Communist China is clear to inform readers that the subject matter of this article is culture in mainland China since it's under communist influence. Communist influence to culture was already in place before the People's Republic of China was established and proclaimed. The two special administrative regions have been part of the People's Republic of China since 1997 and 1999 respectively, yet they're not within the scope of this article. — Instantnood 21:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Communist China should not be used in the title regardless. It is an informal and POV term. Other users above have objected to using the term as well. The two special administrative regions have their own culture articles. RevolverOcelotX —The preceding comment was added by RevolverOcelotX at 17:15, September 4, 2006 (UTC) [7]
It was originally titled mainland China [8] [9]. The two special administrative regions are part of the People's Republic of China, but they're not part of mainland China. — Instantnood 00:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely wrong historical approach[edit]

I am sorry but the recent waves of edits by Hadooookin is taking all the credit of the china before 1949. It is completely wrong to do this. You should be talking about the hooters in Shanghai, not book of classics. Benjwong (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How am I claiming all the credit? It's quite petty minded to think that. Hadoooookin (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
For the last time. PRC literature is not the same as traditional literature. Not even close. Is like saying Egyptian literature is PRC culture because people read it. Benjwong (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by PRC literature? No one said it was written after 1949. Can you imagine talking about the culture or literature in today's United Kingdom without mentioning Shakespeare or Beowulf? It doesn't mean Shakespeare's work or Beowulf was written during the period of the UK's existence. It doesn't mean anyone in today's Britain is "claiming the credit" of writing any of those works. It is included because (1) it is part of today's China's heritage (2) has influenced literature written in the PRC history (3) is read widely and adapted in other forms of media as an expression of its culture and history. Egyption literature is not part of China's heritage nor has it greatly influenced Chinese literature that has been produced in the PRC. If it is good enough for the likes of Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Library of Congress Country Study, then it's good enough for Wikipedia. I think the experts there know more than yourself on historical approaches. Hadoooookin (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Before I dwell on this anymore. Are you Chinese?? Benjwong (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You didn't answer my points. Why don't you also delete the mentioning of Shakespeare from the UK culture article? Hadoooookin (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You are changing the history of it. And I don't know if you realize. PRC culture was designed to be anti-traditionalism. To make it short and plain, the government wiped out traditional written chinese explicitly to avoid integrating classics and old-books into present-day culture. Benjwong (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Today it's happening? I didn't know the Chinese government is currently wiping stuff out. WHere's the source for that. So that means Britannica and Library of Congress Research got it wrong. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Name me one China expert today who says that mentioning of the ancient classics in the profile of today's China is incorrect. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you find me a PRC-born Chinese who can pick up an un-modified classic and just read it. Haven't you heard that Taiwan and Hong Kong is more China than the PRC??? No China expert would ever proclaim ancient classics belong in the communist era. Benjwong (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
So why has the Britannica encyclopedia and the Library of Congress included it as such? Are you saying you know better than they do. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you copying from the library of congress and that's what they suggest? Benjwong (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Article Chinese literature has copied text from the Library of Congress Country Study, so is that what they suggest too? Hadoooookin (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that Chinese literature article is a legit list/timeline of everything ever written in the language. Nothing more nothing less. Benjwong (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply: so here you can pick and choose where you see fit from the LOC country study? Come on, mentioning the ancient texts in this article is nothing bad. Just because during parts of the PRC history they dispensed with which was a terrible thing -- doesn't mean their not part of its heritage today. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Is very deceptive to even mention it. Is the same reason why there has always been 2 separate articles. Culture of the PRC and Culture of China. Mixing the two defeat the purpose of recognizing the very separate culture. I wouldn't use Dream of Red Chamber, more of a popular TV show for mainland audience, as a reason to list traditional work. Benjwong (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
ReplyIt's funny how someone inserted LOC text from the country profile of the PRC into "Chinese literature" article of Wikipedia. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply Did you know that even Mao himself quoted texts of the dream of the red chamber. It could've been banned because of its "pornographic nature". Hadoooookin (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
How many people in today's Britain can read a "un-modified" Beowulf? Just because it's been modernized doesn't mean it's not part of its culture? Hadoooookin (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand your view. Except UK always accepted Beowulf and the excellent shakespearian work as part of the English culture. The PRC is a different story. We're talking about campaigns after campaigns of book burning and cultural disconnects. No political party in UK (at least that I am aware of) purposely modified English to the point where it was useless for reading shakespeare. Pardon the spelling. Benjwong (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
But that's the point. Not anymore. It's become far more accepted now. There's publications, adaptations on TV, DVDs, documentaries etc etc. Why are you so ashamed that the great classics is included in the PRC today? Hadoooookin (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It creates the illusion that it is accepted. When in fact, everything old is being forgotten or thrown out the window purposely by communist supporters or leftwingist. There are laws prohibiting some aspects of old cultures. Benjwong (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because the government destroyed a lot of its culture doesn't mean it hasn't had an effect today in the People's Republic. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
My god, how is it an illusion? When people are reading or watching Dream of the Red Chamber how is that an illusion? Hadoooookin (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Is reading, writing, adapting, using any of the classics prohibited today by law? Where's the evidence for this. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My nationality[edit]

What has my nationality got to do with it? Could you please reply to my second reply:

What do you mean by PRC literature? No one said it was written after 1949. Can you imagine talking about the culture or literature in today's United Kingdom without mentioning Shakespeare or Beowulf? It doesn't mean Shakespeare's work or Beowulf was written during the period of the UK's existence. It doesn't mean anyone in today's Britain is "claiming the credit" of writing any of those works. It is included because (1) it is part of today's China's heritage (2) has influenced literature written in the PRC history (3) is read widely and adapted in other forms of media as an expression of its culture and history. Egyption literature is not part of China's heritage nor has it greatly influenced Chinese literature that has been produced in the PRC. If it is good enough for the likes of Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Library of Congress Country Study, then it's good enough for Wikipedia. I think the experts there know more than yourself on historical approaches.

Hadoooookin (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Library of Congress Country Study is mostly a western data mine. Wikipedia is as close as you'll get to eastern topics in English. I asked for your nationality because it would be rare for a Chinese person to claim traditional Chinese culture with post 1949 PRC culture. They may admit to some ties, but that is where it stops. Benjwong (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You're honestly saying that no Traditional Chinese culture has had an effect on post 1949 PRC culture? That's completely wrong. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The effect is not what you think. Alot of people are a fan of feng shui, but is at the level that they are a fan of a football team. Literally the disconnect is that huge. Benjwong (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about being a fan of something, I'm talking about its effect. Today it is far more accepting of the classics. Yes, in the earlier periods they were thrown out, but today it is far more accepting. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Confucious is more accepted in the west than the PRC. If it's not far fetched, I think Confucious is more accepted in the UK than the PRC. In fact it is sooooo disconnected. The government is practically reteaching kids what Confucious is. Here is a recent effort. Benjwong (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's subjective. And you know it. Culture is not just what the kids are taught. But everything from society, social interaction, mindset, philosophy, family relationships, financial and commerical behavior, own way of thinking. These are all inherited from Chinese history and culture before 1949. In other words, almost all people in China today exhibit some form of Confucian behavior. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
When was the last time UK had to make a cartoon about shakespeare for re-education purpose. Never. Benjwong (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply. But loads of people can read Confucius texts. Whether it's in Ancient Chinese or simplified Chinese. Just because of what the government is doing, you shouldn't ignore what loads of public citizens are doing. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
How many people in todays' Britain can read Beowulf in Old English. Doesn't mean it's not part of its culture. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry they are good people, but IMHO far away from any Confucian behavior as people would like to imagine. Benjwong (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
So now you do say it has had a great effect on today's China. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that. I don't know where you got this from. If you want a group overdosed on Confucian ethics you are practically talking about Falun gong which are banned. Benjwong (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
And there's millions of falun gong practitioners in China today. How huge an effect is that as an example. I think you keep on mixing up PRC government and PRC country as a whole. Just because of what the government did, doesn't mean it holds huge sway with the people. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You are not mentioning some books had a few positive effects. You are throwing in an entire description about traditional text as if the people were somehow tied to it. They are not. And they haven't been for a long time. Benjwong (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about positive or negative effects, I'm talking about the cultural effect of the whole country. Not what the government did during certain periods of history. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Any ancient cultural texts - like those from the hundreds schools of thinking - can be accessed by anyone today in China.Hadoooookin (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Is reading, writing, adapting, using any of the classics prohibited today by law? Where's the evidence for this. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Those campaigns should really do the talking. Benjwong (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Where is it prohibited today or for the past 20 years? Hadoooookin (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you are looking for some law-prohibited reason yes/no direct answer. Where I agree with you is that the campaigns are of the past. But to mention it like it is part of today's culture is not doing justice. Especially to other territories like Taiwan who have done a better job of maintaining traditional culture. In fact this page should have no trace of anything traditional. Benjwong (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
But you said they were prohibited today, a few lines above? So you can add in the article that they weren't doing justice in some parts of its history, as well. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It really wasn't my intention to dive deep into this article. Not today anyways. I just couldn't resist making some quick edits because there were slight inaccuracies. Benjwong (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You said there are laws prohibiting reading of ancient texts. Where's the evidence for that? Hadoooookin (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Make a complaint[edit]

I really think you should complain to Britannica or LOC because they mentioned the old literature in their country profile of China, if you really feel that strongly. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I might look into Britannica. If they mean China, is okay. If they mean PRC, is probably not okay. Benjwong (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Except that they were written by professors of Chinese studies. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Which professor? Are they from the mainland? If so are they paid for by the government? Benjwong (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want me to give you the names will take me some time. But they are all American, European, or HK professors from what I remember. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You want me to chase down some professors interesting. Benjwong (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Or you could just go to Britannica's editorial board. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Is not just limited to Confucius. Is a large number of traditional things that have since been modified. Everything from medicine to mythical concepts. I think you were going down the path of.... let's mention all the great old things that everyone loves. When in reality it should we should be going down the other path. Let's mention all the old things that got trashed and are not really part of Chinese culture today. Then mention the skyscrapers, hooters, new internet cafes, and whatever the new culture brings. Benjwong (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me give you an example. How can you talk about Jin mao tower or Taipei 101 without mentioning traditional Chinese culture. You can't. They were both created only a few years ago but they have been affected by traditional Chinese culture. And therefore should be mentioned. Hadoooookin (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Taipei 101 is not even in the PRC so it should not be mentioned. Jin mao tower whether it follows real traditional Chinese culture or not, is equally as debatable. But these discussions belong in their own page. Not here. Benjwong (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
E.g. With any new building/architecture which reflects traditional culture you should be able to talk about its cultural influence. If that influence came before the present day country was founded -- it does not mean you have to disregard that cultural influence. Hadoooookin (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just giving you an example that today's culture has been affected by the past as well as before 1949 whether it has been created after 1949. You can't just talk about today as if the past never happened. Hadoooookin (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
But that is the exact problem. You insist on helping, and I know under good faith, that these people have some kind of continuous culture. When in fact, they have no idea what happened. Is not continuous one bit. So to say the past never happened... in theory is correct. Benjwong (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Who is they? Not everyone has no idea. And secondly people don't have to have an idea to be influenced by it. If I was Spanish and I didn't read any great Spanish literature, it doesn't mean that that culture hasn't affected me in a national sense. How can you say the past never happened? You still insist on looking at it from the Chinese government viewpoint which is too narrow. Hadoooookin (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


  1. Your statement: "For the last time. PRC literature is not the same as traditional literature." In this case UK literature is not the same as traditional English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish literature. But it doesn't mean it's not part of the heritage of either countries' culture. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The Irish/Scottish heritage is too different to compare with. Again there were no major interruption by the British parliament to purposely disconnect their excellent classical heritage. Contrary there really were disconnects in the PRC. It is simply too big to ignore. Benjwong (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That lies the problem in your thinking. You keep on thinking about what the government did. Because the government tried to banish a lot of classics and heavily criticized e.g. Confucianism doesn't mean that the ancient/traditional culture hadn't had an effect on today's China and for the past 50 years. In your case, you are talking about an article called: Cultural policy of the People's Republic of China's government - which is only part of the wider picture of culture in China as a country. As a country, I repeat. Hadoooookin (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
People did not get brainwashed at one time, and then woke up the day when the revolution ended. Is not clean cut that way. There are plenty of PRC extremist today who still believe traditional stuff is bad. Believe me when I say I can distinguish government mess and people mess. And the people aren't exactly out of that mess (yet). Benjwong (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Here again, you talking about individuals that don't represent the whole of China or its people. Even those against traditional stuff have themselves been affected by traditional Chinese culture.Hadoooookin (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no statement that can represent the whole of China. Some regions had more exposure to Communist influence than others. Benjwong (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's right. There's no statement that can represent the whole of any country in the world. But i'm not only talking about representation but effect. No matter how much the most anti-traditional culture people on earth hate whatever they hate, it is undeniable it is the country's heritage Hadoooookin (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Is more of a cultural split. You should avoid mentioning communism before 1949. Just as you would avoid mentioning traditionalism after 1949. You are suggesting traditionalism is some huge significant aspect of the culture when it is not. Benjwong (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you honestly saying things like Confucianism and other traditional behavior is not a huge significant aspect of China's culture today. Maybe not in the conscious studying and analysing sense. But what about the indirect subsconscious aspects, such rituals, ancestor worship, filial piety, a particular emphasis on education, loyalty, duty, commercial traits. Even the Confucianism article calls the PRC a Confucian society. LOL Hadoooookin (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Whether you like it or not, ancient/old/traditional Chinese literature has, had and is still affecting China through many ways, in culture, society, language, philosophy, family interaction, business thinking, traditions, folk beliefs, health practices, and many more. Just because the PRC government and its followers (i.e. not all the people of China) destroyed and banned a lot of things in the past and controls many things to this day, doesn't mean that they haven't affected the makeup of today's China and China's people. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You are making an assumption that traditional literature has a positive effect in PRC culture. When in fact it got more scholars and literate citizens in trouble. Benjwong (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying its either positive or negative. I'm saying it's has effected how they live and breathe to this day. Hadoooookin (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. You keep on thinking that this article should only contain things that have been created since the formation of the PRC. It's not just about what has been created! Things before the 1949 have contributed massively to what China is and has been for the past 50 years or so in terms of its present culture, ie. its present way of thinking, its present beliefs, its current arts, its present way of life and all other current forms of cultural expression.-- they are still being played out in today's China. Hadoooookin (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Anything having to do with traditional chinese characters, old books, old arts, old stuff is controversial. It should be brutally time consuming to debate it, let alone accept that this stuff has successfully reintegrated into today's culture. What you are suggesting is practically a shortcut. Benjwong (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Again you are talking about actual official policy. I'm not just talking about gov. policy but also more subconscious, traditonal, generation-to-generation heritage being passed down indrectly for the past 50 years to this day. Hadoooookin (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Difference of thinking[edit]

You keep on thinking about what the government did or is doing. That's not what the culture of China PR is just / only about. Whether the government tried to annihiate everything that is traditional Chinese culture IT IS impossible to remove its effect. Say one day we are two citizens and the government said okay you can't read these texts. But those literature still has an effect on how we think passed on by our ancestors. By the way our parents, neighbors and community interact with us and influence us.Hadoooookin (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Again people in the PRC nowadays do not jump into traditionalism the same way folks in HK and Taiwan does. It is merely just "interests" on mainland territory. And some people study it enough to preserve it. I seriously hesitate to even mention it as an integral part of their culture. I am at the point of suggesting they do it cause they get paid. Benjwong (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The average Chinese citizen doesn't have to express traditional culture through intentional actions such as studying or doing activities or preservation. Take any country you like. One day the government says you can't express or know about any culture of before, but the culture of before still has an effect. It's undeniable. Hadoooookin (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
What you are proposing, without sounding too harsh and I hope I am forgiven for saying this, is like saying Native American culture belongs in the Culture of United States. When the rich people in the PRC go looking for fengshui or other traditional expertise outside of mainland China. That gives you an idea of some sort. Is not that I am saying they should deny their heritage. Is just that traditionalism hasn't been PRC's specialty for like the last 30 years. Benjwong (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we both shouldn't start using banal analogies. But what do you mean by belonging? If you mean Native American culture is part of what is overall culture IN the united states today, then yes. If you mean that it originated in the United States or the UNited states owns it then no.
You still keep on mixing intentional and indirect cultural influence. Just because the government in China doesn't make Confucianism a high priority, hundreds of millions of people still exhibit Confucianist traits. Hadoooookin (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not like promoting a vacation hot spot. This is like saying a country has something, when in reality there is so much controversy as to whether the mainland "lost it" a long time ago. You can't just promote the fact that millions exhibit Confucianist traits. When here they are desperately trying to make a cartoon to re-educate people on why Confucious was even important. Benjwong (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because some group wants to make a cartoon series about it, so what? If i want to make a cartoon series about Shakespeare, it doesn't detract from what influence it has had.Hadoooookin (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Take one example, in China it has one of the most gender imbalanced societies in the world. Why? Because of traditional thinking way before 1949, people have placed a great emphasis on patriarchal line of descent. This is more of a traditional kind of cultural behavior than any other Chinese society like HK, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. Hadoooookin (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying they have successfully wiped out traditionalism. Better yet. Have you seen PRC Communist propaganda posters at their top popularity? If it's not Mao, they have plenty of females in the posters. Their vision of themselves is one where females have equal rights and such. While this is hardly the reality. You can't say they are diving back into traditionalism because they have emphasis placed on patriarchal society. This is more of an economics thing where males may pull off jobs with a higher salary. Benjwong (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's my point. They can never wipe out traditional cultural influences. Hadoooookin (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You said Confucianism is better accepted in the UK than in China. Believe me not many people in the UK know about about Confucianism. Even in ethnic minority studies conducted, not many Chinese people born in the UK know much about Confucianism. lolHadoooookin (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Confucianism more as a loose concept. I just don't envision anti-Confucius campaigns in the UK ever. Benjwong (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
But you can never call British society a Confucian one, unlike China [see Confucianism article.] Even if the PRC conducts anti-Confucian campaigns today, it still can't erase the culture. In fact the PRC gov does more to promote it. You can't really say UK "accepts" it. It accepts all types of thinking. Not only Confucianism. The UK government, in other words, doesn't care about it either way in the slightest. Hadoooookin (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Is really hard to explain. If the upcoming olympics has more "red" than more "traditionalism". That would practically sum it up. Benjwong (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. Hadoooookin (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly is hard to explain. Benjwong (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


Don't you think its a tragic-irony that text in the Chinese literature article uses text from the PRC country study by the Library of Congress, but you won't allow it to be used in the actual PRC article in Wikipedia. Hadoooookin (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a whole separate article. If there were 2 pages, Traditional Chinese literature and PRC literature then I'd probably be debating which one belongs in which. But is just 1 page. Benjwong (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
How is that any different? No one says the PRC is claiming credit for it. Hadoooookin (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just look at the size of the paragraph you were putting in. Now compare that to the size of the small paragraph in Culture of China#literature. I mean, come on. This page in general should not be focusing on this stuff. It should be focusing on the more exclusive communism influence or modern influence. Benjwong (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying I should shrink it. Would that be a compromise. Hadoooookin (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You probably spent a ton of time editing this article, so I most definitely feel guilty asking a large portion of it to be deleted. But to be consistent with the history. I think all traces of traditionalism should be wiped off this page. And completely shift gear to everything having to do with communism, followed by modernism. And that includes the very rural and very urban lifestyle. Preferably find someone who lives in the PRC to write it. Benjwong (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's why I started on this article because it is very unlikely that some Chinese citizen/s or anyone for that matter will ever get to do enough justice to it. It's been lying there like a dead duck for ages. Tomorrow I'll try to slim it down. Look at the previous talk, people seemed more interested in peripheral issues like naming or small phrases than trying to give it a decent shot. Hadoooookin (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If you really want to see how drastically different Culture of China is compared to PRC culture. Just look at Four Great Classical Novels versus the Communist Little Red Book. Maybe a pic of the Little Red Book belongs here too. Anyhow, it can be that much of a contrast. You are very right in the page lying around like dead duck. I definitely agree on that one. Benjwong (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Revolution 2.0[edit]

If I may quote Benjwong's comment: "I think all traces of traditionalism should be wiped off this page. And completely shift gear to everything having to do with communism, followed by modernism.". I glanced through this very lengthy discussion, and I shudder to think that a topic as profound as the culture of the People's Republic of China is being debated by just two individuals in this manner. I am particularly intrigued by this view taken by Benjwong, who seems to staunchly believe that something as fluid as culture can be easily compartmentalised as "traditional", "communist" and "modern". Which other reference in the world today classifies Chinese cultural history in this manner? What references are there to support the view that each sub-culture is completely independent from the other? Is wikipedia headed towards tyranny with one individual demanding a modern-day "cultural revolution" of sorts and wipe all "traditionalism" off an article like this?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

By saying Traditionalism = communism, I honestly think you shouldn't even be editing this article. Let me remind you a couple million people died trying to separate the two. If you don't agree with that, just say it nicely. Proclaiming cultural revolution 2.0 is a sick joke (even if you weren't targeting me explicitly). How about have a little sensitivity for the victims who died. Who in their right mind would start a topic with such a heading to target another wikipedia user?? Do you not know the title of this article is "Culture of the People's Republic of China". No offense but you made 1 comment so far. And it appears you are already lacking maturity or lacking common sense altogether for this topic. Benjwong (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the jokes on you then, for just where is the supposed statement from myself that Traditionalism = communism? From the above, are you suggesting that you edit articles based on how many people are dead? Many of the world's diseases have killed millions more of mankind, so why aren't you extending your crusade over to the world of diseased then and wax lyrical over their sins and evilness? Wikipedia is not a moral education textbook. It is an encyclopaedia, and if thousand-year-old traditions has influenced contemporary cultures in the PRC, then that information has every justification to appear, regardless of how many lost their lives. To be brutally honest, I do not owe anything to them as far as writing a balanced, well-referenced wikipedia article is concerned.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Taking your quote. Your so-called "easily compartmentalised of traditional, communist and modern" is anything but easy. In fact lumping all 3 together is a horrible presentation of reality. Having seen the PRC with my own eyes, I know how disconnected traditionalism on the mainland has been for a long time. If you claim to be such an expert and strive for encyclopedic accuracy, defending Confucianism and classical texts as post-1949 culture is what I would expect a tourist would say. Sure they have ancient wonders, and people are restoring old arts. But let's be real honest about what makes up post-1949 culture. Accuracy should be about cell phone culture, censorship, the rural and urban extreme, people with mao photos at home. Dare I say 北妹 culture and Fenqing culture. I explicitly said it is best to find a person currently living in the PRC today to talk about the culture. I think you missed that part. Benjwong (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Childlike edits[edit]

The introduction made of bullet points looks like its been written by an 8 year old. Is it possible for it look more professional and objective, at least in prose. Hadoooookin (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are so far off from the actual historical path is scary. Thanks for your effort. But please, I highly recommend you stay off this topic for the time being. Benjwong (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
What has historical path got to do with poor presentation and formatting. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You are not inserting grammar changes. Sorry. Benjwong (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
How can I grammatically change bullet points. I said prose. Hadoooookin (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Telling anyone to "stay off" any article is considered a sign of WP:OWN. I would advise you not to do it again.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And following people around with personal comments, vendetta and opinions is called wikistalking. I advise you not do it either. Benjwong (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a past contributor to this article, hence explaining its existence in my watchlist. Does anything in Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking rule against those who read their own watchlists? I doubt so, so would you not think your response is a tad immature?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So you are not a stalker. But you are still crazy to start a topic with such a heading like "cultural revolution 2.0". And even more nuts to accuse people of being a tyrant. This poor handling of other people's suggestions is not healthy and not suitable for wikipedia. Benjwong (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This page[edit]

Doesn't it seem strange that this article has no references in the footnotes. For example, who says that "The culture of the People's Republic of China is a rich and varied blend of traditional Chinese culture with communist and other international modern and post-modern influences." Where does that come from?? This page is something of an oddity. --Bstephens393 (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is an oddity because it tries three cultures in one page.
  • The traditional stuff (much destroyed in the 50s-70s)
  • The communist stuff (mainlanders are still afraid to talk about it)
  • The modern stuff (heavy censor and communist control)
Most people mix these up perhaps that is what PRC is all about nowadays. Unlike the Culture of the Soviet Union and Culture of Russia which actually is separate because the soviet dissolved. The Culture of PRC is something else, it is difficult to draw the line. Benjwong (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is cut/paste from Library of Congress Country Study[edit]

The reason why there are no notes or references is because the article is almost entirely cut and paste from LOC China Country Study, with Wiki links added in many places. ch (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Culture of the People's Republic of China. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 12:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)