Talk:Civilization state

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2 October 2019 Comment

When looking through the artical it seems that most of the information is very POV heavy, and as stated by Rosquill Jacques's website is used as citation many times, even though it is not clear whether it meets the standards for verifiability. Muffin of the English (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPP comment: Undue weight tag

This article appears to be largely based on sources by one or two authors of unclear reliability, and most of its content presents the theory's understanding of China, rather than a historiographic account of the prevalence and usage of the theory. By contrast, consider Nation state. Given these concerns and the fact that the article was created by an editor banned for sockpuppetting following a slew of POV edits, I think that this article needs a thorough looking-over for POV, UNDUE, and FRINGE concerns. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Rosguill. But what remedy is appropriate? Should the article exist at all? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adoring nanny, at this point I think I've actually cleaned up the worst of it, in that we now at least have an article about how this term is used in academic and political discourse. It could be further improved by expanding the section about countries other than China, and by including criticism of the concept. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Criticism

That section is rightfully a Criticism, but it appears that (from the text, I did not read the citation inside) Journalist Gideon Rachman does not criticize the concept. It seems that he provided more texture on top the concept of civilization-state so that we understand more on their dark side. That is a criticism, but I am not sure whether there is a better word to describe this **enhancement**. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kittyhawk2, "Analysis" or "Reception", perhaps? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption of Chinese civilisation necessarily coalescing as singular states

Although in popular discourse, China might appear to be a singular culture in parallel with a single state, this is historically a very questionable claim. I offer a few reasons:

From the nascent sense of ethnic identity emerging in the early Zhou to the time of Song period (roughly 1054 BCE - 1279 CE), China was arguably more fragmented than a singular state, with only the Han and Tang empires as the only long-lived stable hegemonic states. It was only from the Mongol Yuan onwards (Yuan - Ming - Qing - PRC/Taiwan) where there is any clear continuous succession of empires in China. From this framing, it is quite obvious that the consistency of China as a civilisation-state was only generally true from the late medieval period onwards.
The term 中国 zhongguo (Central Civilized States or Middle Kingdom, or China), was first commonly used during the Warring States period, not to denote a single civilisation-state, but a multiplicity of states which shared the culture of the Zhou. To recast China as a civilization-state would be to redefine how Zhongguo was used in its early context, and hence a very anachronistic claim reflective of modern geopolitical concerns, rather than history.
Perhaps it worth pointing out that peaceful relations between a larger Chinese empire and a smaller sinitic kingdom, did happen throughout history: the Tang empire and Nanzhao, the Song empire and Dali. Again, this doesn't fit neatly into the concept of a civilisation-state.

Perhaps we should include a section that points out how politicized this term is, rather than it being an actual historical term, and even less a reflection of Chinese history. Veryhappyhugs (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a "Criticism" section. And if there is/are scholar(s) who argue that the term is politicized, then I don't see a problem to add it to the section. Such scholarly views can all be presented, without judging if such views are actually correct. But in any case the concept is not limited to China, but also to Egypt etc, and one can similarly argue that Egypt was more fragmented during the ancient period etc. --Wengier (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this ????

@2400:ADC7:1149:8A00:E91F:8821:2DFB:CF18: Pakistan is not a Civilizational state their was no concept of Pakistan prior to the Lahore resolution of the 1940s why are you desperately trying to compare with other countries. Was Pakistan even a name of a thing prior to 1947 it was not while we know India from British India or East India company etc etc stop this.

@Fylindfotberserk: What is this seriously this same user is trying all his best to try and make a difference what is this user at it again, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization

Somebody give some brains to these type of people. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2400:ADC7:1149:8A00:E91F:8821:2DFB:CF18: so Pakistanis try and worship arabs lol as thats what that book sounds like @Fylindfotberserk: should this be excepted. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on content, not contributors. I think your decision to undo the IP's edit was correct, but the speculation as to their motives and beliefs is unnecessary and veers into personal attacks above. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not patrol this page, but I'd say that new content should be discussed here in the talk page for consensus. I believe it was first added here in May. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be discussed here its mostly that same user that adds that. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that edit now, it's off to a bad start with the misleading edit summary. I reviewed the source and it doesn't seem to actually call Pakistan a "civilization state" at any point, nor does it reference any of the academics that coined the term (Pye, Xing, or Shaw). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Anti India sentiment thats it. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You people should decide @Fylindfotberserk:. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]