Talk:China

Not that I'm terribly concerned about historical accuracy, but this article has a pretty huge Mao-aboo slant. --206.55.183.234 03:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• The "Mao-aboo" (I this word means that it has a lot of Mao reference) slant only significantly appears on the Modern Era of China, since he is more infamous then China's previous leaders and his role was more important/significant into the birth of the Modern China psyche, so it seems pretty reasonable that he would most likely be the main focus in that section. Derpysaurus
  • I think he means that it's painting him in a more favorable light than he deserves, and some of the stuff (like the Cultural Revolution) does seem to conveniently ignore that it was in fact his fault. That's part of the problem with having history pages here, I guess- we can be passionate about the subject matter, but that passion gets in the way of cold, hard facts. --Newerfag (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yea, this is why I'd almost rather not have recent history articles. Nobody gets emotional about Hadrian's domestic policies (or at least nobody we care about offending). I will say I've never seen reliable sourcing for a lot of the things put forward in this article (Mao not wanting a personality cult or feeling remorse for the great leap). --Petro (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• And since I'm the kind of nerd that does care about these things I dug out my old history book and looked it up. So I don't know if that was what the previous editor was referring to, but I'd hardly qualify his response to Peng as "remorseful". Oh and then he sacked him, and replaced him with Lin Biao, who made his personality cult mandatory in the military, until he suffered a bad case of explosion during a defection attempt. So there's that. --Petro (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Well the paragraph on the Great Leap Forward was literally mocking the idiocy and the EPIC FAIL! of Mao's incompetency in his goal to industrialize China back to Great Power status. There was two paragraphs that was literally negative on Mao and the Communist Party that followed, only the last paragraph shared some light in Mao's humanity (Mainly on how this failure, which led to unnecessary deaths in large amounts, made Mao fear that it would eternally tarnished his reputation as the "Great Helmsmen who saved China from the corrupt KMT and the Imperialist Japanese"). Although it is true that it might seem a bit too "Pro-Mao", I think this might have been the fact that this is a Traditional Games wiki (Humor wiki) and we try our best to not get too realistically dark by adding some lightness into it. Derpysaurus

There is talk of the ethnic Han displacing the 'aboriginal' Chinese under the pre-history section, but I can't find any reliable information on that. I don't think there is much in concrete evidence that the Chinese haven't lived in the north for centuries before the founding of the semi-mythical Xia. --Canodae (talk) 8:18, 19 January 2018 (GMT)

Deleting Post Imperial History

I dunno, I'm very ambivalent about denuding the wiki of "modern history" (whatever that means). It's very tangentially related to traditional gaming (ever setting must have at least one Communist faction, it is known) and /tg/ are some of the biggest history nerds on 4chan. On the other hand you can just tell it's going to spawn edit wars, and the thought of having to cite sources to defend a position takes us to a weird place for this wiki. --Petro (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• While improbable, there could be people who were actually old enough to be around when those events had just happened, so it's for the best that they're taken out. We're a traditional games wiki with a humorous bent to it, not a bunch of trained historians with degrees. And do we REALLY want to get into the nitty-gritty of historical revisionism?--Newerfag (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well... I actually do have a degree in Chinese history, and I would love to argue about it.... I just don't know if it's helpful for the wiki. EDIT: I guess my main concern is that if we start justifying deletions with concern for people's sensibilities, however valid they may be, that puts quite a large portion of this wiki on the chopping block. I don't even particularly want to test the link but I think we have an article for rape. --Petro (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

so i dont know shit about china but reading the deleted section, i thought it was pretty funny and concise. why are people butt hurt about it? didnt it already say that mao was a piece of shit? --Kapow

I think the deletion of the modern history stuff should be undone, mainly because the reasoning the deleter has was "stop liking things I don't like". - Biggus Berrus (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

For the person who deleted the entire post-war China...Yes there are games, movies and literature based on Communist China such as C&C:Generals, BF4, 1984 Eastasia as well as others. Although I do admit that the part in the Great Leap Forward was a bit "Pro-Mao" in the sense that he showed some regret, it was balanced with the fact that we acknowledged multiple times that he was a very, very incompetent and paranoid leader who made a large number of mistakes. But other then that, it shouldn't really be necessary to be deleted.Derpysaurus "There is no evidence he showed regret at all- in fact, all evidence points to the exact opposite. Does this sound like regret to you?

"When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill."

I've fixed it so its historically accurate while still being funny.--Newerfag (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this /pol/'s wiki, now? We all know we have different opinions, as long as the facts are presented impartially- -Oh, who am I kidding. If it's funny, we should keep it.

Relevance

As much as I appreciate an article on ancient China from a learning standpoint (and it is relevant to my interests), I can't help but wonder what the relevance is on 1d4chan. I mean, I know this is someone's baby and I'm loving the article so far, but I really can't see it. Yeah, every setting should have at least one Communism faction, but that's what the Communist page is for. At the very least there should be something in the article explaining why this belongs in the wiki.

• Then shall we link it to the communist page then? Because quite frankly, I find the post-Imperial China history contents as quite important (Since whenever anybody talks about the history of China nowadays, the first thing that comes in their head is usually Mao-era China), I will try to cut down the communist content since its incredibly bloated in context to the Imperial Paragraph. But to delete a two entire paragraph should be the responsibility on my part, since I heavily worked on that section.Derpysaurus

• If legitimate pages on this wiki that describe actual tabletop-gaming-related stuff are going to get wiped in some misguided quest for ideological purity, might as well throw an actual problematic-from-a-relevance-standpoint page under the bus. This is a bad page, written to satisfy a China-fag's raging patriotism boner and private axe to grind with Japan. It fails to recognize actual China-related tabletop-gaming shit like Legends of the Wulin, Dragonfist, or Feng Shui. It needs either a complete rework from the ground up, cutting out the vast majority of the page, or complete deletion. --SpectralTime (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Editing. I will continue adding more in the future, though I've been cut off by RL for the moment. --SpectralTime (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I am going to stand by keeping the historical info as it is brief enough with the majority of it only 3 paragraphs of basic info. This actually has been a good resource for setting info for me, which helps from having to read a shit ton of wikipedia articles about the subject in order to get basic facts. The qing dynasty stuff should be limited to 3 paragraphs as well at most. I am going to stand by keeping each of the sections brief and to the point, but no need to delete all of it. It does need additions such as the wuxia stuffDragoon508 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I stand opposed without quivocation. If you want to add a historical component, be my guest. But, in the form it was in, this article is not, in any way, shape, or form a good tabletop gaming article. It is, to be blunt, a way for Derpysaurus to masturbate about how awesome his country is for an embarrassingly long time before half-assedly throwing in a few half-hearted tabletop gaming references on the bottom. If I did something even remotely similar writing a United States of America article, I'd be dogpiled down in a skinny minute. You wanna add some historical stuff to my other article, be my guest. But as it stands, you're taking something on-topic and making it off-topic. If good pages have to be torched to sate Newerfag's search for ideological purity and Forgefather's political agenda, I will not stand idly by and let this one escape the flames. --SpectralTime (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• The fuck SpectralTime? I mostly did the intro and a brief summary to some parts of China, the rest was done by A Walrus and some other anon. Don't try to put the jerking off on me as I mainly wrote it in the same vain as the Roman page with hints of over-the-topness in terms of presentation. If it did sound a bit like fanboying than I apologize for maybe going too far. Derpysaurus
• If anything I think we should agree to shorten the history bits to a few paragraphs while keeping some of the pictures (Found it humorous) while expanding its influence on other tabletop of /tg/ approved stuff. The same can be said about the Rome and British pages. Is this the agreement for everyone? Derpysaurus
  • • • • Alright well I think I have missed out on this newerfags and forgefather thing because I took a break due to family reasons. So not sure what you mean by that. Also not too confident in going that in depth on the historical portion of it as my history of China is basically confined to the three kingdoms era. But I will give a shot about doing a mini thing for a historical perspective about that time. I will probably get around to it later today or tomorrow. As for your wuxia portion of it you should probably do something about Kar Tu from DnD in there.Dragoon508 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Careful, if you say "Forgefather" 1d4 times he'll appear in the talk pa... Aw, nuts, I went and did it, didn't I?--The Forgefather
        • While "ideological purity" is an exaggeration, I did in fact propose and attempt to carry out a similar culling for the same reason SpectralTime stated- specifically, because its connection to /tg/ was made an afterthought at best in favor of fanboying a country and rambling about history that would be better suited for Wikipedia. Once it would have gotten a pass because /tg/ was the unofficial history board, but now that /his/ is a thing we only need the bare minimum of historical info and links to where people can find more info should they want it. I'm not opposed to having a history section, only to having said history being the major focus of the article. If ensuring that means people will see some big red numbers in the history, then so be it. --Newerfag (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Read it, a much better improvement than what I and A Walrus could do. I think we can all agree that it cut down a lot on the bloatedness that both me and A Walrus got too carried away with. Derpysaurus
  • Thank you, Derpy. I apologize profusely for personally attacking you. I've had a giant bug up my rectum about this for months, but the grace with which you're handling this profoundly shames me. --SpectralTime (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• No worries man, at the end of the day this page was a massive improvement and I applaud you for that. Derpysaurus