Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:12, 25 March 2005

Hong Kong people's name

dearchived from /archive4

Should we write Tony Leung Chiu Wai or Tony Leung Chiu-wai and Tung Chee Hwa or Tung Chee-hwa?

I remember a discussion about this topic concluding apparently that the second version should be used, but I cannot retrieve it. Also the project page does not deal with this issue. Any thought on this topic? Thanks. olivier 19:10, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC) ?

It shouldnt really be what all Hong Kong people should be using, but what format is most common for each individual. We'll look up news articles and official sites to determine the "correct" version to use. --Jia ng 02:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course I did not mean that the HK folks should use it! I meant "should be used (as a recommended but not obligatory standard for Wikipedia articles mentioning the Cantonese romanization of the name of people, whose name is commonly pronounced in Cantonese, as it commonly occurs with people from Hong Kong)". Anyway, thanks, that was useful..... olivier 04:14, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we stick to the names that these people use on their official records (say identity cards, passport) or the names that they feel like comfortable to be referred to by the public (some celebrities stars don't use their real name)? Steve 12:44, Oct 24, 2004 (GMT)

It is not easy to confirm their name on official document except for some public figures. The question posted above has a bad assumption built in. It is trying to fit the Hong Kong Chinese name system into the Western Firstname, Middlename, Lastname convention. It becomes a problem when someone has 4 names, then someone would use the hyphen to join some names together so the name fit in the Western format. But is that the right thing to do?

I always believe names should be done in the person's native way. For example, Wen Ho Lee is a Chinese American who live in the US and he writes his name as Wen Ho Lee despite other Chinese would call him Lee Wen Ho. Mao Zedong is Mao Zedong even if the Western convention would have changed his name into Zedong Mao. Likewise, if a person goes by his/her Cantonese name, it is silly to use the Mandarin transliteration as the article title, though it is okay to annotate with pinyin. What I want to promote is the concept of "native" name. Just stick with how the person would do for himself.

None of your choices were appropriate. These names should be written as Tony LEUNG Chiu Wai and TUNG Chee Hwa.

Kowloonese 01:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, before attacking my assumptions, please read my question properly first. I was asking whether the name should be written "Tung Chee Hwa" or "Tung Chee-hwa". There is nothing about trying to fit a Western pattern on a Chinese one in this question, just the fact the both formats appear routinely for the same person across the English Wikipedia and the English media in Hong Kong. In my initial question, I was looking for an answer which would allow for some homogeneization across the English Wikipedia (again, for HK names - Mao Zedong is not part of the question; I did not mention pinyin nor questioned the word order). Obviously, things become more complicated when the person is also famous by his/her English first name, like in the case of Tony Leung.

As an example, the format used by the 100 year old South China Morning Post, the largest English language newspaper in Hong Kong is consistently "Tony Leung Chiu-wai" and "Tung Chee-hwa". Same thing for The Standard. Any good reason for not following the format adopted by the two leading English language newspapers of Hong Kong? olivier 08:08, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I am aware of how the newspapers do it. However, that is not how Hong Kong people write their names. People in Hong Kong mostly use the format as in Tung Chee Hwa. That is how students do it in school. Many do the same on their birth certificates, on their government ID cards etc. I have no strong objection to follow the newspaper convention in the Wikipedia. But on the other hand, I lean toward using the same names these people present themselves. Your examples above represented two different kinds of transliteration, Leung is definitely a Cantonese transliteration, but Hwa is obviously Mandarin because Cantonese would have used Wah instead. Two people from Hong Kong, using two different transliteration standards. Inconsistency is the way it should be because their names belong to them, not to wikipedia or the newspapers. We have no right to change the spelling or reformat it. Kowloonese 01:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We shall stick to their own way of writing their own names, and having their own names on their own personal identification documents. — Insta ntnood 21:33, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kowloonese and Instantnood. It is how they write their own names which is more important...not how a newspaper does it across the board for all names for a century...--Huaiwei 06:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then Tung Chee-hwa will have to be moved to Tung Chee Hwa. — Insta ntnood 21:18 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

OK, so who volunteers to go and check the ID of the HK people mentioned in Wikipedia? olivier 07:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest Instantnood, considering how much time he seems to invest everyday vetting through every single one of my edits, as well as several other members of this site. Surely expending that energy towards more productive work like tracking down people's names is his forte.--Huaiwei 05:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well actually most people do not have the hyphen, unless they intentionally do so. By the way, IMHO the format Tony Leung Chiu Wai is not official, and is misleading. Any suggestion? Should the family name be underlined, bolded or CAPITALISED in the article? — Insta ntnood 14:59 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)

The very purpose of my initial posting was based on the fact that there seem to be no "official" way to write Hong Kong people's names in English. The suggestion of some of the above postings, while interesting (we should write the name of people the way they want it), lacks practicality, since, for most people, we just don't know how they want it to be written. So, that's the reason why I was asking if we could agree on some acceptable standard for those for whom we do not have the information. By the way, that's most probably the reason why the English speaking media of Hong Kong have defined their own standards for this point (see my posting above). My suggestions, unless we have better information for specific individuals, is to agree on such a standard for use in Wikipedia. Here are the options that I suggest:

If the person has an English name, that is commonly used to refer to him/her:

Tony Leung Chiu Wai
Tony Leung Chiu-wai - standard used by the English language press in HK (see my posting above)
Tony Leung or Leung Chiu Wai - a compromise
Tony Leung or Leung Chiu-wai
Leung Chiu Wai - would boldly avoid "trying to fit the Hong Kong Chinese name system into the Western Firstname, Middlename, Lastname convention" (see posting by Kowloonese)
Leung Chiu-wai

If there is no English component to the name:

Wong Kar Wai - "That is how students do it in school. Many do the same on their birth certificates, on their government ID cards etc." (see posting by Kowloonese)
Wong Kar-wai - standard used by the English language press in HK (see my posting above)

I do not see any argument supporting the underlining, bolding or capitalizing of the names. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. olivier 09:20, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I support no.1 for both the first set and second set. For the first set, the family name should be underlined or capitalised in the first line of the first paragraph of the article, to avoid confusions.

Please also note that Tony Leung Chiu Wai is a rare case, to disambiguate from Tony Leung Ka Fai. For other Hongkongers with English names, such as Donald Tsang, the Chinese part of the name does not form part of the title. — Insta ntnood 09:35, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

..of Taiwan → ..of the Republic of China

continued from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/archive4#..of Taiwan .26rarr.3B ..of the Republic of China and #Solution

Solution

Is it time to reach a solution? Shall we go on a poll? — Insta ntnood 23:06, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

As the one who initiated the discussion, I support the moves. — Insta ntnood 17:35, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

..of China or ..of the PRC → ..of mainland China

Learnt from the lesson on Wikipedia:Requested moves, a consensus here is essential and a prerequisite.

Important note

This is not a debate on the naming conventions, but its application and enforcement. Please do not oppose the moves just because you oppose the naming conventions. If you do want to comment on the current naming conventions, please start a new section on this page.

Precedents

on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion: (#1 and #2)

existing articles: List of Chinese companies, Demographics of China, Cinema of China

Naming conventions

Relevant statements from the naming conventions: " Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ". (Obviously "mainland China" is the appropriate term to describe the situation which Hong Kong and Macao (and the territories under the ROC) are excluded.)

Also relevant: " Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality and considers the term "China" not to coincide with any particular sovereign state or government. In particular, the word "China" should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration of the People's Republic of China or with Mainland China. ".

Categories and articles involved

It is not necessary to support or oppose all of the moves below. In other words, you can object on the general direction, but support one or some of them, or vice versa.

Categories

Articles

(Note: This list should not be considered a full list. Some categories and articles might have not been identified.)

The moves do not apply to some articles and categories, such as the followings.

Categories

Articles

Basics Template:Fn

These articles or sections let you be more familiar with the issue.

One Country, Two Systems, History of Hong Kong, History of Macau, Sino-British Joint Declaration, Basic Law of Hong Kong, Politics of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, Hong Kong dollar, Pataca, Hong Kong International Airport#Anomalies, Economy of Hong Kong, Court of Final Appeal, Mainland China, Talk:Mainland China, Category talk:Cities in China, Category talk:Airports of the People's Republic of China, Category talk:Cities in China (more articles or sections would be added)

Important disclaimer: the list of articles and categories above have been compiled for some time, and the ongoing edit and revert wars staged recently by Huaiwei have made it necessary to bring the issue here earlier.

If there is no objection, the consensus here will serve as a precedance in future for articles sharing the common title problem. — Insta ntnood 22:59, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China"

Note: Here's a place for discussion. This is not a poll.

Object, yes, object! The term "mainland China" is absolutely meaningless semantic drivel. It should be removed from the naming conventions. "Mainland China" should be used rarely (or not at all! use a more specific term) to disambiguate from the greater "China". "China" in general refers to the anything chinese. It is also understood as a general term to refer to the PRC and it's possessions. English allows fluidity around a term and people understand meaning by context. There is not a need to rename articles from "China" to be more specific that it is only certain parts of PRC China. People understand, do not dumbify to uselessness because of some naming convention. If Tourism in China doesn't refer to Hong Kong or some other place, then just make a statement of that in the article, don't rename the article. There are multiple governments that use the term "China" but sorry, the PRC is the 800lb gorilla. Will your next crusade be to start renaming anything with "America" in the title to refer only to "The United States of America"? SchmuckyTheCat 23:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" is not just a casual or informal term. The phrase "the mainland of China" is used in laws in Hong Kong (search for "mainland of China" at http://www.legislation.gov.hk). The Mainland Affairs Commission (MAC) of the Executive Yuan of the ROC also uses the term "mainland China" (see Talk:Mainland China). And please bear in mind this is not a debate on the naming conventions, but its application. — Insta ntnood 00:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is 'talk:naming conventions' and if I want to say the naming conventions are bad, i will. I won't let the "Executive Yuan of the ROC" (the ROC being Taiwan) define the name used by an emerging superpower nation-state. It may be a useful term for subentities that are NOT part of "mainland China" to differentiate themselves but it is the wrong term to use for the main entity. HK and Taiwan don't get to define China. China does and the one word "China" is it. SchmuckyTheCat 01:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good. I am interested to know how you'd comment on the following materials produced by the PRC government.

Latest Satistics on SARS on Mainland China (15/04/2003) [1]
Education System in Mainland China [2]
Regulations of the State Council for Encouragement of Investment by Overseas Chinese and Compatriots from Hong Kong and Macao [3]
Reform gradualism and evolution of exchange rate regime in Mainland China (a speech delievered by the governor of the People's Bank of China) (doc format) [4]

If you want to comment on the naming conventions, please start a new section. — Insta ntnood 01:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the PRC is differentiating from the other regions it controls. SchmuckyTheCat 04:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right. In other words the term "mainland China" is not only used by Hong Kong or the ROC, but also the PRC itself. — Insta ntnood 15:07, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Object. Obviously an objection is in order, especially when there is actually a proclaimation that this result is going to form the basis for ALL the above changes! Each of those cases warrant discussions of their own.--Huaiwei 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not the case. — Insta ntnood 01:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

In reference to?--Huaiwei 05:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object For the reasons outlined above. How long will it take for Instantnood to recognise he is in a minority here, that many people have read his arguments, but disagree with them, and that WP is governed by consensus? jguk 19:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object "of mainland China" is ugly and cumbersome. If particular regions are included/excluded and confusion may otherwise occur, put it in the text. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 20:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support consistency. If the Wikipedia community had a consensus on the naming convention of Mainland China, China, People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Republic of China, etc., and the opposers failed to change the status quo in the "Political NPOV section", we should make the article titles and Categories consistent with the policy. Yes, someone may say that they look ugly and that most Western media ignore those fine details, but the consensus was to be accurate and to educate the public. I still find the old consensus make sense for an encyclopedia. -- Felix Wan 02:06, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

there isn't a naming convention for "mainland china" other than as an acceptable term when the need to differentiate from the greater China is necessary. Most of the time, and most of these changes, that differentiation isn't necessary. Using "mainland China" as a primary term is actually against the convention. (added by SchmuckyTheCat at 06:45, Mar 12, 2005)

The term "Mainland China" has never been accepted as an agreeable term to refer to the country. Refer to below.--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even by doing so it is not used to referred to as a country, but a part (though a major part) of a country. It is a matter of presentation. It does not imply mainland China itself is a sovereign state. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

So long that the above categories are classifications by country, then you are indeed calling "Mainland China" a country. Refer to below.--Huaiwei 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quoted from your words at Talk:Mainland China " more because of presentation issues then fact. " when commenting on the list of countries by area. — Insta ntnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

And what is wrong with that quote? The PRC often refers to the ROC as "Taiwan", avoiding the term "ROC" because it refuses to recognise it. The ROC refers to the PRC as "Mainland China" because it also refuses to recognise the PRC. But does this than equate to "Mainland China" and "Taiwan" becoming acceptable names for countries, although it is very much more common for the later, and although some of us have been criticising that assumption?--Huaiwei 16:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then am I calling "mainland China" as a country, or is it just an issue of presentation? — Insta ntnood 16:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

You are presenting the term as a country. And I dispute that, if that is not obvious by now.--Huaiwei 16:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support as well. And I don't think things would look ugly at all if they're changed. Why are people so afraid of the term "mainland China"? -- ran (talk) 02:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

My reason for disagreeing with the above is this. The term "Mainland China" itself may not be a major issue, but it is often a sub-category of categories filed by country. So, "Roads of China", for example, may come under a category "Roads by country". When we rename "Roads of China" as "Roads of Mainland China", we end up having "Mainland China" appearing as a country amongst other country entries. I do not find that acceptable. When the title reads as "XXX of China", I feel we have room to have "XX of HK", "XX of Macau" and "XX of Taiwan/ROC" appearing both as subcategories of "XX of China" as per our conventions set earlier, plus also appearing in the "XXX" by country category as well as a bonus. Personally, I prefer to see "XXX of China" split into "XX of the PRC" and "XX of ROC/Taiwan" and have "XX of Hong Kong" and "XX of Macau" as subcategories of "XX of the PRC". Isnt this the proper way that countries should be filed as?--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you argue in this way then strictly speaking the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan) are not two countries. They belong to the same country, and technically a country in war time that two powers controlling different parts of the country. In other words neither the PRC nor the ROC is qualified to be listed or categorised as country. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely because the two are in theory not countries, that we have some pages with "XXX in China" which contains information on both the PRC and the ROC. This has been well explained in this very convention, even if it was contested. If we apply that logic to pages, I dont see why it canot be applied to categories. What you are doing to the categories runs contrary to conventions. For example, why do you resist my restoration of "Category:Airports in China" to include all subcategories related to both airports in the PRC and the ROC, and instead tried to remove "Category:Airports of Hong Kong" and "Category:Airports of Macau" out of that category, plus revert my inclusion of "Category:Airports of Taiwan" within that category (although I also allowed it to appear seperately at the same time)?--Huaiwei 13:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to the current treatment at Demographics of China and List of Chinese companies. — Insta ntnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh....so you are telling me "Mainland China" gets listed as a country in those two instances? Thanks. Something needs to be done about them then! Meanwhile, did anyone not notice that Instantnood has been silently moving plenty of those pages to the "Mainland China" category in place of the PRC?--Huaiwei 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The real side of the fact is that the English word "country" is a relatively vague concept, as oppose to "sovereign state". Many lists or categories all across Wikipedia are not limited to cover only sovereign states. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to contest the notion of what "country" means, then you have to go beyond this small little exercise here. If you want consistency, and to accept that the term is vague, then may I ask if you allow the creation of "Category:Airports of Kurdistan" and "Category:Airports of Tibet" and list then independently, since they are also "countries" by certain definitions? And meanwhile, how would you treat any classification related to the United Kingdom, since it is composed of countries? Meanwhile, could you tell us just how often is the term "Mainland China" considered a "country" even if we were to consider the word "country" as contestable, which is true in actual fact?--Huaiwei 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you like it. But I am afraid everyone can tell. — Insta ntnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Answer those questions.--Huaiwei 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Except diplomatic relations and national defence, Hong Kong and Macao are on their own. Ministries of the CPG of the PRC have no jurisdiction over Hong Kong and Macao affairs. For instance if Hong Kong has to build an additional university it is not the business of the education ministry of the PRC. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

This point has been repeated over and over. Yes, we are more then aware that the two ~~SARS~~ SARs run their own economical and transportational affairs. But as has also been repeatedly retorted, we are talking about a classification along political lines here. Having a classification of XXX, even if it has nothing to do with politics, appearing in a classiciation by country is not a politically NPOV. Try creating "Category:Musicians of Tibet" and then listing it in "Category:Musicians by country" instead of "Category:Musicians of China", and then come tell me if that is a politically NPOV?--Huaiwei 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please tell why Tibet is a valid and applicable analogy here. — Insta ntnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

You insisted that so long that the topic in question is not political, it is ok to ignore political considerations in presentation. Fine. I chose Tibet because it is so damn obvious. You can ask yourself how it will be like if do it with Shanghai too for all I care, coz the same theory applies.--Huaiwei 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In other words you're implying the case of Tibet is comparable, and therefore Tibet is a valid and applicable analogy, am I right? — Insta ntnood 16:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Feel free to substitute with any other political entity you can think of. ;)--Huaiwei 16:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support. It's clear that the conventions have been defined beforehand and we should try to adhere to those standards. If people have problems with the convention itself, that should have been brought up beforehand. BTW, some of the articles you proposed to rename probably don't apply. For instance, the current text in Tourism in China talks about both mainland and Taiwan, so keeping it as "China" should be fine since China refers to the region as a whole. Transportation in China seems to talk a bit about Hong Kong too, so maybe it should be Transportation in the People's Republic of China instead of Transportation in Mainland China. Anyway, these are just nitpicks that can be ironed out beforehand, but I do support the general proposal of renaming some articles in order to adhere to the naming conventions. --Umofomia 06:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess the content of some of the articles might have to be slightly modified, for instance Transportation in China. — Insta ntnood 07:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

In the same way that you can modify the contents so that they suit the new categories, they can also be modified to suit the existing categories.--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

The conventions, however, did not state that "Mainland China" is an acceptable equivalant to refer to the PRC as a country. Do note, as I said before, that these categories are also classified under "XXX by country". I do not think there is a country called "Mainland China". The only reason Hong Kong and Macau sometimes appears under country listings is due to the 1 country 2 systems formula, which I am more then open to allow them appearing both as countries or as being classified under the PRC, or either one as the situation deems it neccesary.--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In this proposal "mainland China" is not used as an equivalent to the PRC. The scope of the content of the articles or categories covers only the mainland China, and therefore they need a proper title. Having them subcategorised undermine their character as dependent territories (or special territories, as you may prefer) instead of ordinary subnational entities. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

This assumption is only true, if you also then create new categories called "XXX of the People's Republic of China" and then make "XXX of Mainland China", "XXX of Hong Kong" and "XXX of Macau" as subcategories of it. The fact is that each of the above categories you are trying to rename are subcateries of "XXX by country" so you are, intentionally or otherwise, equating to insisting that the "People's Republic of China" has to be called "Mainland China" in country lists. I do not find that acceptable, unless you do what I suggested above. Trying to create international space for Hong Kong-related articles is perfectly alright as far as knowledge and this encyclopedia is concerned, but to therefore cause the international standing of another entity, and in this case, the holding entity of Hong Kong, to suffer by refering to it merely with a sub-geographical name when refering to the country is an extreme exercise we cannot take lightly.--Huaiwei 13:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments: I think User:Huaiwei did raise a valid point, which I had overlooked: the current convention is silent about whether we can list mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan among the other countries in non-political context. We may need to find some consensus on clarifying the convention before we decide on the move. Let's look at the problem using one example: The current Category:Airlines of Asia consists of subcategories Category:Airlines of China, Category:Airlines of Hong Kong and Category:Airlines of Taiwan and the article Air Macau. All other subcategories are airlines of sovereign states. The three subcategories do not have further subcategories. That appears wrong, but how to fix it?

Politically, although Hong Kong and Taiwan are not countries, listing them among other countries are allowed in the context of "airlines". For all practical reasons the three regions have independent administration of their airlines. There is no political dispute about that. On the other hand, listing Tibet among the list is not appropriate. However, it seems to be more appropriate to replace "China" with "mainland China" for two reasons:

That category actually excludes airlines from other regions of "China". "Mainland China" is the accurate description there according to the convention.
Listing "China" among "Hong Kong" and "Taiwan" seems to imply that the last two are not part of "China".

That was how I came to the same conclusion as User:Instantnood that most of the moves listed should be done according to the current convention.

If I understand the logic of User:Huaiwei correctly, he/she would suggest that we have only one Category:Airlines of China at that level, listed among other countries, and then have Category:Airlines of mainland China, Category:Airlines of Hong Kong and Category:Airlines of Taiwan listed as subcategories. Personally I find that acceptable too, but I am afraid other Wikipedians may not. It may also be difficult for someone unfamiliar with the politics of that region to find the last two categories if they are not listed among the Asian countries but only as a subcategory of China.

Let's discuss on how to resolve the issue using that example, and see if we can set a standard and state it clear as the convention. -- Felix Wan 02:11, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Felix, many of us DO disagree with the NPOV section of the naming convention but either nobody wants to have that discussion or when it occurs, it occurs within the context of proposals like this, where it doesn't actually affect the main article. I for one, have no problem with airlines of HK being a sub of Airlines of the PRC, or Airlines of China, and Taiwan being seperate altogether from either, maybe in Airlines of Asia, as it's own independent entity WHICH IT IS, and which the naming conventions ALSO say is an acceptable solution. SchmuckyTheCat 02:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that arrangement either, but I am sure someone will oppose it strongly. What I want is just a consensus on one convention and then apply it consistenly. By the way, there IS a discussion on the NPOV section on this page. If we can come up with any decision in this context, we should also change the main article accordingly. So feel free to discuss here or in that section. -- Felix Wan 04:05, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

I would like to remind the participants that claiming Taiwan being not a country is a clear POV and not neutral. The ROC government made it clear many times: ROC is an independent sovereign country. Although I also tend to disagree with that claim either. To be more precise, Taiwan is a territory under ROC occupation, my POV. (added by Mababa at 08:57, Mar 16, 2005)

Thanks Mababa. The most tend-to-NPOV treatment would be a description of the status quo, by saying Taiwan is a territory currently administered by the ROC (without addressing its legality). It is a POV and is not neutral to say Taiwan is currently a sovereign state on its own. — Insta ntnood 09:44, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Instantnood's response. For that very reason, that is why we have this long discussion about separating Taiwan from ROC. But again, though my POV supports this treatment, many people use the terms interchangably to refer the government. Though we do not adapt that POV and use it as truth, I believe that we should at least reflect that POV in the articles for the sake of reaching NPOV.Mababa 04:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A poll?

Shall we go on a poll? If yes, is now the right timing? — Insta ntnood 10:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood created his categories and started populating them without getting any concensus here.

Laws of mainland China has been put up for CfD. SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

May I add that he recently also created Category:Companies of mainland China, which I have also put up for review and deletion. Goodness knows how many more he has similarly done.--Huaiwei 03:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please start the poll if you would like to object the proposal. — Insta ntnood 08:57, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Important: Please see the Basics section above ^Template:Fnb before casting a vote. — Insta ntnood 01:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

As the one who initiated the discussion, I support the moves. — Insta ntnood 20:17, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I oppose all moves that mention Mainland China, unless it's a move away from it. -Kbdank71 21:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tentatively support moves from PRC or China to Mainland China. (I might want to look at the moves case-by-case but I support the idea in general.) I'm beginning to like the term "Mainland China" more and more. For starters, it describes a very real political and economic entity. It is a natural category that arises when Chinese people conceive of Greater China. It is used extensively on Chinese Wikipedia. It is also wonderfully NPOV, and is used by people of every political opinion, because it separates out Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan without implying anything whatsoever about their status (note: you can't say the same thing about separating PRC and ROC.) Heck, Mainland China even fields its own Olympic team. Why is everyone so scared of this term?? -- ran (talk) 23:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

ran, you've pointed out things to me and we've agreed to move or rename articles, sometimes in entirely different ways than what was proposed (like the autonomous regions article). this mainland China business, while I respect your seeing it as a neutral term, is being extensively used to push POV, which I don't think you'd support. I think that's why you'd like to see it on a case-by-case basis. take a good look at how it's currently being abused before supporting it. SchmuckyTheCat 00:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at how it's being "abused", and I conclude that it is not. In what ways do you think it's being abused? Do you mean the categories business above? -- ran (talk) 00:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

(response to Ran's message at 23:42, Mar 24, 2005) Don't worry. As long as the general directions is agreed we can do something like Template talk:Europe for each case. — Insta ntnood 00:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously oppose, as long as the term "Mainland China" is being used as thou it is a country. It is not, and even if it "sounds nice" or seems to be more "politically NPOV" (which I am beginning to notice has underlying POV here as far as Instantnood's agendas are concerned), it has not been popularly accepted as a proper terminology for any country. The only times it is useful is when there is a need to talk about the PRC minus HK and Macau. Thats it. I dont think it is being put down merely because people are "afraid of the term".--Huaiwei 00:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No one is referring to Mainland China as a country. It simply functions like a country in many fields, and should be treated like one in those fields. No one is going to argue for, say, Foreign relations of Mainland China, which is simply absurd, but there's nothing wrong with Economy of mainland China. -- ran (talk) 00:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

As to no one: Instantnood is referring to mainland China as a country. And yes, the economy of mainland China is the economy of the People's Republic of China. HK isn't apart of that, yes, so the article needs to explain that. The usage "mainland China" defines the PRC for what it isn't, not for what it is. That isn't acceptable. SchmuckyTheCat 01:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have never do so. — Insta ntnood 01:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

And yes, the economy of mainland China is the economy of the People's Republic of China. -- Funny, then what was that weird money that I saw in Hong Kong? Didn't look like the Renminbi to me...

Instantnood is referring to Mainland China as a country in contexts where it functions like one. -- ran (talk) 01:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even say that. I said it's just a matter of presentation, like metropolitan France on a list of countries by population or by area. — Insta ntnood 01:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The HK economy is seperate, but the mainland economy is the economy of the nation and should be named as such. don't define the PRC by what it is not. And instantnood is referring to mainland China anywhere where the PRC and HK don't exactly intersect. That's wrong. It's defining the nation by it's sub-entities. SchmuckyTheCat 01:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you were right, in that case, any reference to the Netherlands, say, Economy of the Netherlands, could be wrong. The Netherlands is not a member of the UN, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is one sovereign state with three parts. The Netherlands articles says "the Netherlands" is the European part of the "Kingdom of the Netherlands". — Insta ntnood 01:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

funny then, how List_of_countries_by_population lists the PRC with a number, and HK with a number, and nobody is confused. France is listed as France, with a number, and a parenthetical remark to the term "metropolitan". but nobody is titling categories "metropolitan France". And yes, "The Netherlands" is just one of three parts in a federal system, a federal system that is so powerless it's usually not worth making the distinction. SchmuckyTheCat 01:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The PRC figure on the list of countries by population covers only mainland China. I am not changing it there at this moment because somebody will probably revert it. DOMs of France are integral part of France, with the same status as régions in metropolitan France, except New Caledonia. They are not separate trade entities/economies, and are part of the EU. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, although a loose federation, and the three parts theoretically equal, diplomatic relations and extradition are handled by the national government, which largely overlaps with the government of the Netherlands. — Insta ntnood 02:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the population page. A figure that claims to be of the "PRC" but does not include Hong Kong and Macau is false and misleading.

What are you people going to think of next? Merging Hong Kong, China at the 2004 Summer Olympics and China at the 2004 Summer Olympics? "Yes, I know they went as separate teams, but they're the same country!" -- ran (talk) 02:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

In Chinese, 大陆 is used mostly in contexts where one needs to make a specific distinction, not in all contexts. You wouldn't use it in an article about US-China relations, for instance... but you probably would use it in an article about cross-straits issues. It's a little bit like the lower 48 states or continental United States, used mostly when it's necessary to distinguish the US "mainland" from Alaska and Hawaii (for instance, shipping on purchases sometimes costs extra to Alaska and Hawaii). However, creating categories and articles that use "continental USA" everywhere instead of just USA or America would be very much a POV thing, and highly unnatural. An article that talked about tense relations between "Continental USA" and the European Union over the Iraq war would sound bizarre. "Continental USA" is not the name of a country, and neither is "Mainland China". -- Curps 00:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Alaska and Hawaii are not particularly different from the other 48 states of the United States. They do not participate independently in economic organizations; they do not have separate currencies; they do not have final adjudication; they do not have separate political parties from the 48 states; they do not allow organizations banned in the 48 states; they don't have separate customs authorities or tariffs; they do not have separate passports or require a visa for entry from the 48 states; they do not field their own Olympic teams.

I agree that "Mainland China" is a term used only when a distinction needs to be made. But this situation arises much, much more often than in the case of the Contiguous United States. -- ran (talk) 00:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose As if all the above discussion saying "support" or "object" wasn't already a poll?

The times I think it is appropriate to use mainland china are rare. As a native english speaker, I think it sounds like drivel. Everyone in asia uses it however, so it's a valid term. My primary objection is that it is being used to define the PRC by sub-entities (HK and Macau) and other countries (Taiwan). If HK and Macau are the exception to some article or category with PRC in the title (and there are many exceptions), then short explanatory text, with a possible pointer to an article, should explain the exception. And it isn't NPOV, especially the way it is being used by some contributors. The way it is being used by some contributors here is very POV.

It is also not nearly clear and obvious, for instance, that a Taiwanese person saying "mainland" isn't including HK and Macau. It is a differentiating term for someone from HK, Macau, or Taiwan and has a definite use in HK, Macau, and Taiwan articles. It has little use in the context of the national PRC, which HK and Macau are part of. SchmuckyTheCat 00:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which Taiwanese person is going to include Hong Kong when he/she says "Mainland China"? This sounds positively bizarre to me. (And I ask any Taiwanese person who knows better to correct me, if I'm wrong.) "Mainland China" (dalu) is a wonderfully natural term perfectly accepted in the Chinese-speaking world.-- ran (talk) 00:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The use in Taiwan says nothing about HK or Macau. The Taiwanese simply use it to exclude "the other China" from themselves. SchmuckyTheCat 01:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not from Taiwan and I did not stay there long enough. But as far as I know they don't call people from Hong Kong and Macao as people from Dàlù. — Insta ntnood

I challenge Schmucky to find one Taiwanese person who calls Cantonese-speaking, milktea-drinking, dimsum-munching, English-education-getting Hong Kongers "daluren". -- ran (talk) 01:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Even the MAC of ROC's Executive Yuan does use different laws or guidelines for mainland China and for Hong Kong and Macao. — Insta ntnood 01:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Support in general, but there are some cases that are less clear. The term "Mainland China" is not meaningless; in fact, it may be one of the few terms that people from Hong Kong, Taibei, Beijing, etc. all agree on. (I'm also in favor of writing it as "Mainland China", with a capital M, to make it clear that it is a fairly precise technical term.) Let's try to split this along the "(one country), several systems" line: if there are several systems involved (e.g. economies), "Mainland China" can be used accurately and appropriately (economy of Mainland China vs. economy of Hong Kong). I'm less sure when there is a conflict between official names and their scope. For example, the Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China has "PRC" in its name, so it is tempting to categorize it as belonging to the PRC even though its jurisdiction does not include Hong Kong. I don't know what to make of such cases, since neither solution ("PRC" vs. "Mainland China") is completely satisfactory. --MarkSweep 01:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I spell with a lowercase "m" by following the rule of some newspapers, such as SCMP and Financial Times. In my opinion the ministry should be categorised under "category:Mainland China". The same applies to Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China. — Insta ntnood 02:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Important: Please see the Basics section above ^Template:Fnb before casting a vote. — Insta ntnood 01:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

NPOv: China, Mainland China, PRC, ROC, SAR, etc.

(SchmuckyTheCat 03:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC))

A lot has been discussed here previously about NPOV. I think most people who have discussed NPOV previously have very valid ideas and proposals. Some movement was made about updating the naming conventions in February but it did not go forward to actually change what is there now. Since then several very disputed rename proposals occurred with the justification that the renames were aligned with the naming conventions.

We've got so much confusion in article layout and terminology that readers are confused. We can't come to concensus because everyone believes their views are being excluded. Minor edits are turning into flame wars. The term "China" has been cut up and re-named to so many different things that nobody can agree on what the generic term can mean. The current terminology is so NPOV about Hong Kong and Taiwan that it is extremely POV about the PRC.

If we all recognize that the PRC is not homogenous and allow terms like "China" to be broad and encompassing, we can stop having so many arguments, needless renames and category pigeonholing. This means the main articles may need some text about terminology and it certainly means minor articles need to place the terms in the correct context.

I think concensus could be reached on the following statements (my examples may or may not exist):

1. "China" and "Chinese" means the entire geographical entity, including the PRC, Taiwan (ROC), Hong Kong, the autonomous regions, and in a purely historical context other areas as well.

2. "China" and "Chinese" is an acceptable but not preferred, term when referring to the People's Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the name "China" (such as "Economy of China") can mention what it does not refer to (such as Taiwan or Macau) with a short text and link inside the article. Even better is a specific article for the other entity. Linking articles should provide the reader, by context, the NPOV of whether the linking article is about the PRC or something else. We should not rename articles from China to mainland China or to the People's Republic of China simply because of a naming convention.

3. "Taiwan" is an acceptable, but not preferred, term when referring to Taiwan or the Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the only the term Taiwan or ROC (such as ROC controlled islands) should explain it's context in the article. We do not need to rename articles to "Republic of China" simply because of a naming convention.

4. The primary articles on China and the People's Republic of China should mention that neither "China" nor the PRC is homogenous in laws, language, custom, etc. The extremely loose federated system for provincial control in the PRC allows a wide variety of systems to be practiced. Individual articles should detail how things are different.

5. The primary article on "China" should contain a short section titled "Mainland China". This short section should link to the main article "Mainland China". Most articles should link to "China#Mainland China" and not "Mainland China". The term "mainland China" is POV dependent and might mean several things, thus, it is up to the linking article to maintain context if it links to that term.

6. There is no entity called "mainland China". Unless necessary, articles and categories should not be titled with it. Articles categorized with "China" or "the People's Republic of China" that have some unique situation that differentiates them from the main body of "China" should list that situation in their own articles.

7. Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China. They are also special. They should not be categorized or treated as seperate from China. Articles about Hong Kong and Macau have the responsibility to state why and how they are different from the People's Republic of China, not vice versa. The differentness of HK and Macau shouldn't be used to rename other Chinese entities.

Reasoning:

<--From re-reading previous discussions, I think these statements agree with the opinions put forth by Curps, Colipon, Mababa, jguk, Explorer CDT, and Suslovan. I think they mostly agree with Huaiwei, Jiang, ran, Mark Sweep, john k, and Penwhale. (I am not attempting to speak for any of you! I am trying to find where different people agree and associate.)-->

These are my reasons for approving the above statements. Your reasons might differ even if you also agree with the statements. To come to concensus, do not focus on my reasons. Come to your own conclusions and see if minor changes to your own POV or the statements above could bring you onboard to concensus.

My opinion on statement 2. Some have said that by letting "China" refer to the PRC that it is NPOV towards Taiwan/ROC, which still has a marginal number of people wishing to control all of China. And/or that Taiwan is also Chinese and that the term "China" (referring to the PRC) excludes Taiwan. This is not the case at all!

First, Wikipedia recognizes the status quo to the political situation. The status quo is that Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China. It is NPOV to allow China to refer to the PRC in most contexts.

Second, the terms China and Chinese does not exclude Taiwan anymoreso than it excludes ex-patriate Chinese living in Brazil, or native HK residents who fled to Canada, or Americans whose relatives emigrated four generations ago. Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese. Third, it is strongly POV to allow these other entities (Taiwan, HK, etc) to define what China is and is not. The situations in Taiwan and HK need to be addressed in articles about Taiwan and HK. Fourth, we must take into account the intention of the thousands of other articles that sloppily link to "China". We aren't giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowleding and accomodating common use.

My opinion on Statement 3. Republic of China is what the government there prefers. We should respect that. However, insisting that "Republic of China" is more accurate or less POV than Taiwan is as POV as anything else. Some Taiwanese prefer Taiwan, some prefer ROC, some probably prefer Formosa or Chinese Taipei. The meaning of Taiwan geographically is one thing, but in our global culture, the word "Taiwan" has expanded to mean the political entity, the language, and the unique culture that has sprung up there. We should encourage broad and encompassing terms. We don't need to rename articles (unless there is a naming conflict, of course) if we can have more explanatory text in the articles.

My opinion on statement 4, 5, 6. This is a huge problem. Mainland China is being used as a substitute, and using the current naming conventions to justify it, for the People's Republic of China. This is horribly POV for Taiwan and HK centric articles (and wiki users) to be defining the PRC with such a term. The term defines what mainland China is not, but can't define what it is because what it is is context dependent. From Taiwan, mainland China is every part of China that isn't Taiwan. From Hong Kong, mainland China is all of China except the SAR.

It is unjustifiable for an article like "Laws of the People's Republic of China" to be in a category called "Mainland China" but not the category "People's Republic of China" simply because an HK centric user feels like the PRC term is exclusive of Hong Kongs special status, even though HK is clearly part of the PRC. An article "Laws of Hong Kong" is good. Renaming an article from "Laws of the PRC" to "Laws of Mainland China" based on the specialness of HK is horrible POV and horrible style - but that is what is happening.

Most links to "Mainland China" aren't meant to be links to an article defining an informal term, they do mean to refer to a subset of China. Which is why they should link to the term as a placeholder (China#Mainland) within the article that most readers actually want to read.

My opinion on statement 7. This has been a point of contention lately. The differentness of HK and Macau have been used to redefine terms that have nothing to do with HK and Macau in articles that don't refer to HK or Macau. Again, HK is not Shenzen is not Beijing is not Tibet. Many areas of China have unique situations, laws and culture. It would be an impossible task to edit all articles on China to explain how the concept differs in each province, AR, SEZ, or SAR.

Additionally, the specialness of HK and Macau have been used to justify HK and Macau as seperate, even equal, entities to the PRC. The two SAR, of course, have many fundamental differences with the PRC. Those differences should be explained, not seperated.

---

Again, these things are fixed by everyone recognizing that China is not homogenous. Laws, economics, food, language, (even the concept of sovereignty!) are all different across China. Beijing is not Shenzen is not Hong Kong is not Tibet. By making it clear to the reader that China is not homogenous and providing links we encourage readers to explore and learn. Or, we can continue to focus on our current efforts and fighting about minor categories, in which case we have lost the big picture and also confused our readers.

Discussion on #Political NPOV

Statement 1.

Agree -- "China" is often used to refer to the entire geographical entity and there is no problem with that. --Umofomia 07:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Umofomia is clearly speaking form a mainland China POV. You can even take a look at his user bio. Clearly biased.

Please sign your comment. A contributor from Taiwan can be equally familier with all those issues.

Disagreed China is China and Taiwan is Taiwan. China should not include Taiwan. Although China considers Taiwan to be a rogue territory, Taiwan has its own currency, flag, Olympic team, embasies in foreign countries, delegates to the World Trade Organization, military, etc. Taiwan's statistics are calculated separately from China, including but not limited to: population data, economic data as in GDP, demographic data, etc. CIA factbook even goes further and lists Taiwan as a separate country altogether.

Disagreed--If "China" as a geographical entity includes Taiwan based on history, please also include Mongolia, Korea and Vietnam. If Taiwan is included into China due to Culture, please include Singapore which shared the Chinese culture with a majority Chinese ethnic population exits in that country. Please also remember, before 1945, Taiwanese residents read and write in Japanese. Culture export is not a reason to include other area into a reagion; or half of the world belongs to north america. If "China" as a geographical entity includes Taiwan is based on political system, that is a POV. The political status of Taiwan is debated. ROC arguably do not have sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan and mainland China only overlaped within Qing dynasty versus China's 5000 years history. Qing even evaded and denied its responsibility for events occured in Taiwan island. The current NPOV policy make deliberate ambiguity on the definition of "China". IMHO, it prevents endorsing which area is part of China and also safegaurds the possiblity that some areas are not part of China. If we reallky want to define China, then we'd better define it as the least contentious definition: PRC=China, with its claim to other territory. In this way, we still do not exclude Taiwan as part of China, but also avoid endorsing it.Mababa 08:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The articles dealing with Chinese history and culture do mention areas that were under Chinese control or influence historically, including the ones you mentioned, so I don't see any problem with that. This geographical area has grown and shrunk with time and the articles on Chinese history make adequate explanations of where Chinese influence extended. I think it's useful that we can use the words "China" and "Chinese" to separate themselves from the political entities, so that we don't have to claim who has sovereignty over what. I think using PRC=China is actually rather the opposite of what you claim, since it explicitly endorses that the ROC does not exist, which is a POV statement. --Umofomia 08:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Slightly disagree. China as a geographical entity has disputed borders. Independence supporters would like to think that Taiwan is not part of China, geographic or otherwise. The term Chinese (if considered to be on par with 中華/華人 etc) can be used to refer to Taiwan, but should be avoided where possible. Politically, for the sake of listing, both the PRC and ROC can go under "China", but we can't define the ROC as the same as Taiwan in a geographical context.--Jiang 09:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think geographical entities can have disputed borders since it's all based on where influence extends to. It's the political entity that has disputed borders. A piece of land may be claimed politically by another state, but if there is Chinese influence over it, then I don't see a problem of having fall under the geographical entity. In addition, I'm not sure the about your assertion concerning Taiwanese independence supporters. Other than probably the radical fringes, they still agree that Taiwan falls under the geographical entity of China. It's the political region that they claim is not part of the political region of the PRC. There is a difference, and we should not confuse the two concepts. --Umofomia 09:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Umofomia, that's incorrect! Taiwan does not fall under the geographical entity of mainland China. That's why there's such a push for 2 terms - "mainland China" and "Taiwan"; clearly separate with different geographical boundaries.
Comment: Wikipedia has to stay NPOV. Geographically Wikipedia has to be careful in dealing with saying Taiwan is part of China the geographical region. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I would like to urge Umofomia to glance over the statement (1) again. A geographical area is always an are with physical boundaries. The geographical area which has grown and shrunk as you proposed is actually the political entity of China and thus does not seem to comform with the common concept for a geographical area.
Thesuggested definition of geographical China using the influence of China(a political entity) as a criteria defining the boarder is undoubtly subjective to one's political point of view and thus is POV by nature. I am not even sure what the criteria, the so called "influence", is. And it makes me wonder why Iraq is not part of geographical US. Looking at the 5000 years of the Chinese history, I do not see why Taiwan has the privilege to be part of China whereas Korea, mongolia and Vietnam do not. As Jiang and Instantnood pointed out, a significant portion of Taiwnese do not like the idea to be considered as part of China, even geographically; and Wikipedia has the responsibility to make its content neutral. IMO, defining Taiwan to be part of the geographical China is not neutral.
Lastbut not the least, tagging people with the radical label is certainly not neutral either. There is a Taiwan strait, a High Seas, separating the island from the mainland China. Perhaps, people in Taiwan would consider those who think Taiwan be part of geograpihcal China more radical than the other way. If we ever want to define the geographical entity, China, we should better come up with some more neutral criteria. However, I do concede that my initial proposal, taking PRC as geographical China, is not ideal. Let me modify my proposal: I suggest that we take mainland China as the definition of the geographical China. I think that would be the most neutral treatment for this.Mababa 05:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Out of all these places with Chinese cultural influence, such as Vietnam, Korea, and exclaves in North America and Europe, Taiwan is the only place fulfilling all of the following: i) with a population of Chinese descent majority, ii) has been ruled directly by China in some part of history (from the end of Tungning Kingdom until 1885), and iii) geographically continguous with the Chinese culture, i.e. not separated by another culture. — Instantnood 10:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  - i)is disputable. There are arguments against Chinese immigration. Your statement could be true and could be untrue. Meanwhile, Singapore has a majority of Chinese people too. Please consider take Singapore into geographical China. ii)This argument is based on political POV. This arguement is not neutral. I believe Vietnam was once a province of China as well. They used to read and write in Chinese too. iii) what is that argument? Taiwan, just like Korea has been ruled by Japan. Chinese culture was interrupted and eliminated to certain extent so that people can not speak chinese. Lastly, why these criteria? Is it because that they fits Taiwan from some position? Or perhaps we can make some other criteria to pull Monglia and Korea into China later after we put Taiwan into China? A geographical entity, in common sense, has a physical boarder. To call Taiwan part of China, geographically is a political POV. To call mainland China as geographical China on the other hand is neutral to the most of the people. I would like to see some criteria based on some simple understandale standard, not convoluted indirect and untenable arguments. Or perhaps you would like to see HK to be pulled out of geographical China since HK currently is not directly controlled by PRC according to your criteria ii?Mababa 05:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Umm. Taiwan is the only place that fulfils all the three criteria. Korea and Singapore do not. — Insta ntnood 08:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. Ref Jiang. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement 2.

Hesitantly Agree -- Although the term "China" is often used to refer to the PRC only, it does do the reader a disservice by not adequately making it be known that there are political implications behind it. I would support it if a statement at the top of each article named "xxx of China" specifically states that it refers to the PRC and not to the ROC, et al. We should even make this statement a template so that it's consistent across all articles. --Umofomia 08:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Generally disagree. "China" is not acceptable when referring to the People's Republic of China because it either implies Taiwan is not part of China or is renegade. Neither is NPOV. I will take issue if people move away from the current naming, but I won't be deliberatly moving articles like "economy of China" as part of an established series of articles. --Jiang 09:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Responses to reasoning given above: "Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China" is POV and inaccurate because this implies that Taiwan is not part of the geographical entity of China. Having a "marginal number of people wishing to control all of China" is not relevant since as long as we see Taiwan as part of China, then China is divided. This is the state of affairs we are dealing with, not what things should be. Thereofore it is still POV to equate China=PRC. "Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese" cannot neutrally apply, especially if China=PRC because that means Taiwan is part of PRC. Overseas Chinese are not part of China... Regarding the statement, "it is strongly POV to allow these other entities (Taiwan, HK, etc) to define what China is and is not." we did not allow these entities to define China. Instead, we are looking at the current state of affairs from an objective standpoint. We are not using the same terms Taiwan or HK is using. "We aren't giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowleding and accomodating common use." Common use is POV and since this is in English, western-centric. Westerners are mostly ignorant of the situation. --Ji ang 09:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: First, Wikipedia do not see "Taiwan as part of China, then China is divided". This position is a POV. In my opinion and also many other's position, Taiwan is NOT part of China, politically or geographically. This is the affairs between two states we are dealing with, not what things should be. Secondly, the statement "Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese" is such a strong POV that I do not understand how could anyone see it as neutral. ROC may be Chinese due to its historical root, Taiwan definitely is not. If Taiwan is Chinese, then the whole Asia is Chinese. Thirdly, Rejecting common usage is also an POV. A NPOV can only be reached when all POVs are presented. We are not superior or more clever than any ignorant westerners. Lastly, PRC's definition can not be taken as neutral because its definition extends over PRC controlled territory, and because it is opposed by other areas. The China can not be clearly defined is because the NPOV process in Wikipedia. As long as PRC's definition of China is opposed for one single day, we won't be able to take PRC's definition as neutral, not because we want to bias against PRC. It is because PRC's claim is biased against other area's position and against the reality.--Mababa 04:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Exactly. Wikipedia should not show any inclination on whether Taiwan is or is not part of China (China here does not mean the PRC). Taking either side is already not NPOV. Everybody's view should be respected, but that does not mean it has to satisfy both sides or arguments.
    Nonethelessfor disambiguation purposes sometimes slight implications of Taiwan being part of China is unavoidable, such as companies and airlines that many still bear the name China/Chinese/Chunghwa, and languauges and culture. Such way of presentation is merely for letting information flows more smoothly without barriers. It does not imply Taiwan is or is not part of China. — Insta ntnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. "China" does not equal to "PRC", or the other way round. It is already a POV to say it's "acceptable thought not preferable". The rest of the problem is already solved by redirects, disambiguations and notices. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree in general. However, in a long article about the PRC, "Chinese" may be Ok as an abbreviated form when it's clear from context what is meant. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I can accept it as a reader, but not as an editor. — Insta ntnood 10:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed--Mababa 04:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement 3.

Hesitantly Agree -- it probably is a little silly renaming every article to "xxx of the Republic of China" and that most people would not readily know that the ROC refers to Taiwan, since many are ignorant of Chinese history. However, using Taiwan for the ROC also does the reader a disservice like I explain for statement 2. Again, perhaps we can have a templated statement at the top of any article named "xxx of Taiwan." --Umofomia 08:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed--The more inclusive the definition is, the more neutral the articles would be. Specifically rejecting the western common usage is surely a POV, with the caveat that usage may or may not be fact.Mababa 08:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Somewhat disagree. This is among the most contenous points in Taiwanese politics: seethis and this. There are some contexts where "Republic of China" is obivously appropriate eg "flag of the Republic of China" while other contexts where it is not "Mountains in the Republic of China". Use political terms for political topics and non-political terms from non-political topics. It just can't be defined as clear cut as no. 3--Jiang
- Hey Jiang. It's not Taiwanese politics, but ROC politics or cross-strait politics. :-) By the way, there are some hills or peaks outside of Taiwan, am I right? Should it be done according to the current treatment to category:Airports of the Republic of China vs. Taiwan, and category:Townships in the Republic of China vs. Taiwan? — Insta ntnood 10:21, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. "Taiwan" does not equal to "ROC", or the other way round. It is already a POV to say it's "acceptable thought not preferable". The rest of the problem is already solved by redirects, disambiguations and notices. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. The current conventions are just fine. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed Taiwan can be called Taiwan without referring to Taiwan ROC. The current page lists Taiwan as island then points people to ROC.
Partially agree. I agree that a disclaimer needs to be inserted into the article's text especially when it is apparantly not clear to most of our audiences concerning the whole "Taiwan" and "ROC" terminology issue. Where needed, articles which are deemed to be more appriopriate to use one term should have the other term created and redirected to it. I would, however, feel it is indeed neccesary to rename some articles because they become factually inaccurate when taking into account the differing technical definitions.--Huaiwei 03:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agree Taiwan page should state Taiwan instead of Taiwan the geographical island.

Anytime you search for Taiwan, it pulls up information on Taiwan the nation, not the physcial island. http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=Taiwan&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt

- This is already a POV, although it;s prevalent. And please sign your comment. — Insta ntnood 16:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Statement 4.

Comment -- I don't exactly know what you mean here. In my opinion, the main article on China is fine as it is since it talks about things under the geographic and historical definition of China. The main article on the PRC is fine as well since it talks about the political entity. --Umofomia 08:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: China is not a "loosely federated" State. Laws, customs, immigration, demographcs, economy, etc., are the business of mainland authorities. The articles on these topics do not deal with Hong Kong and Macao. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Agree that neither the PRC nor Taiwan (nor China by anyone's definition) is culturally, linguistically, or ethnically homogeneous. But the PRC is, at least de iure, not an "extremely loose federated system". --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement 5.

Somewhat Disagree -- I typically don't like linking to subsections of articles since subsections can end up getting renamed or removed. Also, I don't think mainland China is POV at all because it refers to the geographical entity, which also happens to coincide with the areas administered by the PRC excluding HK and Macau. In my opinion, it's on the same level as calling the ROC Taiwan, which you seem to support. --Umofomia 08:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree Mainland China means areas under the control of the PRC except HK and Macau in almost all contexts. The ambiguity of the term is being exaggerated by you. It is commonly used in Chinese for neutrality sake. It is the least POV of the terms. PRC and ROC are very much more POV. --Jiang
Strongly disagree. I agree with Umofomia and Jiang. Furthermore Metropolitan France, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Lower 48 all have separate articles. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
good luck going to an American article and trying to pigeonhole national articles into "Category:Lower 48" SchmuckyTheCat 23:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That is a false analogy. The reason why the use of Mainland China is often justified is because there are actually different systems of laws in place with respect to the SARs. If Alaska and Hawaii were deemed special regions as well, then the analogy would apply, but they are not so the analogy doesn't apply. --Umofomia 23:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. The term "Mainland China" (大陸) is not ambiguous. All sides more or less agree what it refers to, and all parties use it, e.g. the ROC has a Mainland Affairs Council, HK refers to cross-border exchanges with the Mainland, etc. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Can anyone confirm without all doubt that when the Taiwanese use the term "Mainland China", they are always excluding the two SARs, and not the government based in Beijing? Secondly, can anyone also confirm, that all overseas Chinese around the World, including in Singapore where I come from, also use the term "Mainland China" in the same way?--Huaiwei 03:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A search on Google on the Strait Times and Lianhe Zaobao (大陸)/(內地) already tells. — Instantnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, and I suppose you didnt notice they almost always refer to the term "Mainland China" because they are talking about Hong Kong in the same sentence? That still isnt a demonstration of how Singaporeans would use the term "Mainland China" when not talking about Hong Kong or Taiwan. And btw, Its interesting that newspapers are being used as representative of usage on the street now. The SCMP spells Macau as Macau. Care to comment?--Huaiwei 11:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But the Macanese government uses both, and it uses Macao more often than Macau.
- This search gives 34 hits. Try it also with Zaobao. — Insta ntnood 12:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Statement 6.

Somewhat Disagree -- I don't see why you keep insisting that there is no such entity called "mainland China" (大陸). Even the PRC uses the term all the time when it wants to refer to itself excluding HK and Macau. However, I am in favor of using the term only to refer to the geographical entity rather than a political entity. I have no problem with articles entitled "xxx in Mainland China" if they talk about places or things situated in the PRC excluding HK and Macau. But if it refers to something that relates more to politics or has governmental influence, then I would be in favor of using "xxx in the People's Republic of China." --Umofomia 08:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Even if it involves the influence of the government, in most occasions "..of mainland China" is more appropriate. The ministry of transport or the ministry of finance, for instance, has no jurisdiction outside mainland China. Economy and demographics articles also involve statistics compiled by the government, but again, these statistics cover only mainland China. — Insta ntnood 10:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree The statement is just plain false. There is an entity called "mainland China" and it is commonly defined as the PRC minus the two SARs. Agree with Umofomia: use non-political terms for non-political contexts.--Jiang
Strongly disagree. Though I can't tell if "mainland China" qualifies to be fit into the definition of "entity", "mainland China" is a valid term in referring to PRC's territories minus Hong Kong and Macao. See also my comment and the materials produced by the PRC government below. — Insta ntnood 10:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. Ref Jiang & Instantnood. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. The term Mainland China is often used to keep China from being confused with Taiwan or Hong Kong. Mainland China is China and Taiwan is Taiwan.
Comment. I personally read this in quite a different light. I could tell he is suggesting this in light of the recent spate of categories in particular which were created which favours the use of "Mainland China" over the "People's Republic of China". I mentioned before that "Mainland China" as a country or a state does not exist. Since it does not exist, why is it being treated as thou it is a country? Why place categories of "XXX in Mainland China" together with other categories which are classified by countries? Does this not imply that "Mainland China" is a country? I do not find this acceptable, as I mentioned before earlier in this page. The usage of the term "Mainland China" cannot be compared with that of "China", the "People's Republic of China", "Taiwan", or the "Republic of China", because unlike any of these, has the term "Mainland China" commonly been treated or assumed to be in reference to a country (whether independent or otherwise), be it de facto or officially?--Huaiwei 03:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement 7.

Disagree -- HK and Macau are definitely part of the PRC, but because they are special, they often have radically different systems from the PRC, which justifies them having their own separate articles. I don't think making them separate is an implicit endorsement of them being equal political entities to the PRC. The same can apply to any place in China. For instance, if there is something in Shenzhen or Shanghai or whatever that has its own special situation different from the PRC that takes more than a few paragraphs to explain, then they also could have their own separate articles. Conversely, if there are things in HK or Macau that aren't too different or don't particularly have enough content to justify separate articles, then they could be merged into an article on the PRC, but trying to place everything under the umbrella of the PRC would make some rather unwieldy articles. --Umofomia 08:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. "Mainland China" is on its own right on matters not related to diplomatic relations and national defence. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree to the extent that I can make sense of this. Ref Umofomia & Instantnood. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I believe what needs to be better emphasized in the above statement, is that while we do treat the two sars as thou they are "countries" in respect of their ~~SARS~~SARs status, we must also be careful about not treating them as thou they are countries on the same level as the PRC. Look up most international organisations, and they often either indicate Hong Kong as "Hong Kong, China", or in my most recent research on aviation issues, I noticed Hong Kong and Macau were listed under the PRC under the name "Hong Kong SAR" and "Macau SAR", along with a disclaimer below which reads "For statistical purposes the data for China excludes the traffic for the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions (Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR), and that of the Taiwan province of China." Taiwan province of China?? Well...that was taken from the ICAO Journal! It seems that many of those international bodies, while listing Hong Kong's data seperately, are also careful about indicating the fact that Hong Kong is there for statistical reasons rather then anything political, and that can actually be said too for many other publications as wide ranging as economics to sports. Therefore, I do not think the emphasize should be solely on "how different" the systems are....for just how different is different for it to be of note?--Huaiwei 03:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's somehow meaningless. You can always find out plenty of sources supporting your claims. The some thing can be done likewise for the opposite view. — Instantnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - That is the point. So long that we can find opposing views out there, who are we (and who are you) to come up with "conventions" which are contrary to half of those views?--Huaiwei 09:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's simply because the members of the organisation you looked at, the ICAO, are all sovereign States (list of members). The "S" in "States" is capitalised all the way through this page. Mainland authorities, however, do not add Hong Kong's figures into its own statistics. There must be some reasons for doing so. — Instantnood 10:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - And your point being? The figures are split, which you love to highlight. But then why do they write "Hong Kong SAR", and even list it under the PRC? And why insert that disclaimer? There must be a reason for that too, wont you think? And have you seen the physical journal to know what I am talking about?--Huaiwei 10:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's because all its members are sovereign States. Hong Kong is not a sovereign State and therefore couldn't be a member. The disclaimer makes it clearer that Hong Kong is not a member, although its statistics is presented separately. In this case, like the UN, PRC is the sole representative of China, and Taiwan is considered a province of it (and probably Quemoy and Matsu are considered part of its Fujian Province, and Taiping part of Hainan). — Instantnood 11:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, and didnt you insisted any topic other than the military and (what was the other one?) should be treated as thou they are seperate and distinct? If non-political issues are not the business of airlines and airports, may I know why some publications bother to present their statistics as such? The ICAO recognises that HK and Macau are parts of the PRC, and you say thats why they need that disclaimer. And you then saying that any other publication which fails to indicate as such as not recognising the SARs status of HK and Macau, and that they not part of the PRC?--Huaiwei 11:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Did I say the disclaimer is a must or else they will be failed to recognise Hong Kong and Macao as SARs, and as part of the PRC? ICAO membership is only open to sovereign States, and therefore they have to present China's (PRC's) statisitics in this way. The same would probably happen to other organisation open only to sovereign States. By the way would you mind telling how statistics of the Netherlands, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are presented? I don't have the physical journal on hand. — Instantnood 13:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - No you dont have to explicitly say it. You are implying it, because you are apparantly constantly bringing up examples whereby Hong Kong was treated as thou it is a country as some sort of justification that Hong Kong IS a country at the same level as the PRC (or...Mainland China?). You argue that this publication lists them this way because it is only open to "sovereign States"...then why do they need to bother having that special treatment (especially concerning Taiwan) if that was supposed to be "apparant" as you say?--Huaiwei 14:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - You might also be dissapointed to note that the lising I have is for countries with at least 15 million tonne kilometre, so I only saw one entry called "Netherlands". Whether it has Aruba or anything else down below, I wont know. ;) --Huaiwei 14:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have never attempted to imply that, and I must apologise if I made you confused. Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and it is not a sovereign State, and "sovereign State" ≠ "country" (get some political science textbooks in case you can't tell their difference). I guess ICAO's position is like that of the UN that Taiwan is considered a province of the PRC. — Instantnood 14:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - You guessed? Oh I tot you are dead sure. Are you sure the UN considers Taiwan a province of China? If you are agreeable to the idea that the two SARs are a part of the PRC, may I understand why do you see a need to disassociate as much as possible all links between the two SARs with the rest of China, when sub-categories, sub-sections, and disclaimers would have done the trick? And may I know if Hong Kong is a sovereign state (i dont care how its capitalised) or a country, for it to that much of a concern over my understanding of their definitions?--Huaiwei 16:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I am sure that the UN considers Taiwan a province of the PRC, and you can verify on that. I have never attempted to refute the fact that two SARs are part of the PRC. The meanings of "state" and "State" are not the same. If you don't care about that and don't know the different between the meanings of "sovereign State" and "country", there's little for us to further the discussion. — Insta ntnood 16:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- On "Taiwan Province of China": #1 #2 #3, here you go. — Instantnood 17:40, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah...and you are saying the UN actually considers Taiwan as province of China because of how it refers to that territory? I hope you realise the fine difference between the two?--Huaiwei 17:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The UN and ICAO list sovereign States, whereas lists on Wikipedia are usually lists of countries. — Insta ntnood 18:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
The issue here, Instantnood, is that you consistently DELETE such disclaimers on Wikipedia when those disclaimers give service to the reader that the SAR notifying them of the political context. This gives the presentation that the SAR are equals, and also by that exclusion, you rename the PRC to "mainland China" in order to avoid that same disclaimer. SchmuckyTheCat 14:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Did I ever delete such disclaimers on Wikipedia? — Instantnood 14:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - what? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_countries_by_coverage&curid=1442392&action=history SchmuckyTheCat 15:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That is not a list of sovereign States but a list of countries, and it is not the same sort of disclaimer that Huaiwei mentioned. — Instantnood 16:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not. A hyperlink that explains the political situation isn't the same as a phrase in a printed publication? APPLES! ORANGES! SchmuckyTheCat 16:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. The historical colonial backgrounds of the two regions are enough ground to set them apart from PRC regardless of the current situation. Kowloonese 21:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Views and alternative proposals

Instantnood's view

Everyone has already agreed upon that the term "China" refers to a geographical region, a vague concept that the limits vary to different people. What made "China" = "PRC" and "Taiwan" = "ROC" was a result of politics, and it is a POV. There was a long debate before the decision was made to place the articles about the governments at People's Republic of China and Republic of China, leaving China and Taiwan articles on geography. Using "China" as an encompassing term to refer to the "PRC" have been considered POV.

Either saying "Taiwan" as a geographical region is or is not part of the geographical region of "China" is, again, POV. It is also politics. On Wikipedia we have tried to be as NPOV as possible. However from culture point of view, Taiwanese culture, though with relatively greater influences from other sources, is part of Chinese culture. The Taiwanese or Min Nan language (or spoken variant) is a Han language, and Taiwanese cuisine falls into part of Chinese cuisines. History of Taiwan during the Koxinga era, between 1680 to 1895 (Qing rule) and from 1945 onwards (as a province of the ROC) is part of Chinese history.

The problem that many articles are linked to "China" meaning the PRC has temporarily been solved by the notice at the top of the China article, taking readers to the article People's Republic of China. In other cases, such as "..of China", are being solved by redirects or disambiguations (to "..of the PRC"/"..of mainland China").

Mainland China refers to PRC's territory excluding Hong Kong and Macao, with little dispute. The Mainland Affairs Commission of ROC's Executive Yuan does differentiate between mainland and Hong Kong + Macao. (see Talk:Mainland China#Scope of the term mainland China for details) It is neither an ROC- nor a Hong Kong-centric term, as reflected by the following materials produced by the PRC government.

Latest Satistics on SARS on Mainland China (15/04/2003) [5]
Education System in Mainland China [6]
Regulations of the State Council for Encouragement of Investment by Overseas Chinese and Compatriots from Hong Kong and Macao [7]
Reform gradualism and evolution of exchange rate regime in Mainland China (a speech delievered by the governor of the People's Bank of China) (doc format) [8]

When it has come to a decision among the terms "China", "PRC" or "mainland China"; "Taiwan" or "ROC, a simple rule of thumb, as I have mentioned here and elsewhere, is to depend on the scopes of the content of the articles or the categories. It doesn't matter whether it involves the government(s) or not.

An article about the entirety of territories under PRC's control, i.e. mainland China (22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions and 4 municipalities), Hong Kong and Macao included, should be titled ".. of the People's Republic of China". An article about mainland China, i.e. with Hong Kong and Macao excluded, should be titled ".. of mainland China".

An article about the entirety of territories under ROC's control, i.e. the island of Taiwan (including offshore islands such as Green Island and Orchid Island), Pescadores, Pratas, Matsu, Kinmen, Wuchiu, etc., should be titled ".. of the Republic of China". An article about Taiwan (i.e. Taiwan island plus Pescadores, with Pescadores, Pratas, Matsu, Kinmen, Wuchiu, etc. excluded) should be titled ".. of Taiwan".

Redirects and disambiguation are, very often, necessary to avoid making less well-informed readers in trouble.

Although "mainland China", "Taiwan", "Hong Kong" and "Macau" are not sovereign states, they are very often listed or categorised along with other countries, on lists of countries. The same have been done for dependent territories, and a handful of subnational entities (which are mostly French DOMs). — Insta ntnood 08:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

My response to a few of SchmuckyTheCat's comments

" 7. Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China. They are also special. They should not be categorized or treated as seperate from China. Articles about Hong Kong and Macau have the responsibility to state why and how they are different from the People's Republic of China, not vice versa. The differentness of HK and Macau shouldn't be used to rename other Chinese entities. "

He suggested Hong Kong and Macau are parts of the PRC, which is a status quo that everybody has to agreed wtih. But I guess she/he is referring to the differences between Hong Kong and Macau, and mainland China, rather than Hong Kong and Macau, and PRC.

" 4. The primary articles on China and the People's Republic of China should mention that neither "China" nor the PRC is homogenous in laws, language, custom, etc. The extremely loose federated system for provincial control in the PRC allows a wide variety of systems to be practiced. Individual articles should detail how things are different. "

From a political science point of view, the PRC is not a loose federation, but a unitary State. Typical example of federations include Switzerland, Germany, Canada and the United States.

" My opinion on statement 2. ... First, Wikipedia recognizes the status quo to the political situation. The status quo is that Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China. It is NPOV to allow China to refer to the PRC in most contexts. ... Fourth, we must take into account the intention of the thousands of other articles that sloppily link to "China". We aren't giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowleding and accomodating common use. "

Like what I have already mentioned, it is a POV to say either "Taiwan" is or is not part of "China" the geographical region.

The common use can be solved by redirects and disambiguations, as well as by the notices at the top of articles.

" My opinion on Statement 3. Republic of China is what the government there prefers. We should respect that. However, insisting that "Republic of China" is more accurate or less POV than Taiwan is as POV as anything else. Some Taiwanese prefer Taiwan, some prefer ROC, some probably prefer Formosa or Chinese Taipei. The meaning of Taiwan geographically is one thing, but in our global culture, the word "Taiwan" has expanded to mean the political entity, the language, and the unique culture that has sprung up there. We should encourage broad and encompassing terms. We don't need to rename articles (unless there is a naming conflict, of course) if we can have more explanatory text in the articles. "

Simple examples, History of Taiwan, Taiwanese cuisine or Culture of Taiwan has nothing to do with Quemoy (Kinmen) and Matsu. Differentiating "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" has the merit of solving many problems in proper titling, to tell the scope of the content of articles and categories.

" My opinion on statement 4, 5, 6. This is a huge problem. Mainland China is being used as a substitute, and using the current naming conventions to justify it, for the People's Republic of China. This is horribly POV for Taiwan and HK centric articles (and wiki users) to be defining the PRC with such a term. The term defines what mainland China is not, but can't define what it is because what it is is context dependent. From Taiwan, mainland China is every part of China that isn't Taiwan. From Hong Kong, mainland China is all of China except the SAR. "

See the materials by the PRC that I have quoted above. "Mainland China" is not an ROC- or Hong Kong-centric term. The ROC does differentiate between Hong Kong and Macau from the mainland. In Hong Kong and Macau the term "mainland China" does not cover ROC's territory.

"Mainland China" is not used as a substitute to "PRC". Its use depends on situation, and the scope of the content of an article or a category. Saying some users are using it as a substitute reveals that one is not well-informed with the issue. — Insta ntnood 08:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

My position

I agree with the current set of naming conventions. If modification is necessary, I would agree with slight clarifications, rather than changing the meanings. — Insta ntnood 08:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: History of Taiwan during the Koxinga era is diputable out side of the Chinese history. It is also a POV to call Taiwan not to be a sovereignty state but is at the level of the HK, Macuo. Other than that , I do not have much opinion. I also appreciate your thoughtful note separating ROC from Taiwan. :) Mababa 05:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are quite right. It was part of Taiwanese history. It was the history of Han settlers on Taiwan. But saying it's Chinese history could be disputable.

The status quo is that Taiwan is not a sovereign State, but a main part of territories administered by the ROC, which is a regime/government. Thanks for your appreciation. It has had more than enough battles around. — Insta ntnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Penwhale's Thoughts

I'll skip the quoting part, since I don't want to clutter the discussion/idea flows.

Regarding statement #1, I hesitantly stay neutral on the geographical half, and needs to comment on the historical half. Geographically, China would not include Taiwan. Historically, yes, you can say Chinese history, but that doesn't cover those that lived in Taiwan originally. (You know, American History don't exactly cover Native Americans)

Regarding statement #2, it is true that it's acceptable but not preferred, but we still have to follow a guideline. If something needs to be renamed, it should. Same with #3.

Regarding statement #4, correctly placing the articles could prevent the mix-up.

Regarding statement #5, I would -not- make such a section. If I do, it would be to inform that PRC contains mainland China as well as the two SARs.

Regarding statement #6, "mainland China" is considered a geographical location, which is PRC subtracting Tibet, HK, and Macau. I would maintain this view, like a number of people have insisted.

Regarding statement #7, yes. The problem is that I'd rather be exact on what I'm saying. If it's, say, culture, then "mainland China" -might- suffice. Like I pointed out right above, "mainland China is a geographical locale, and should be kept where applicable. Penwhale 06:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Names order

I find it confusing that Chinese family/clan name should be listed before given names, as opposed to Western practice; ordinary people would never know about this convention from reading the articles. I believe the most intuitive way is to mention the names in Western order on the first line and then provide Chinese names and transliterations in native order using a table/template. For example, Mao Zedong should be noted in the intro as Zedong (Tse-tong) Mao, then the rest of the article is free to use native name order and most common name (see also Stalin).

The given names should also be preferred over family/clan name when referencing by part of the full name ^update:in the rest of the article, i.e.

Kai-shek or Chiang 'Kai-shek, but not Chiang alone
Zedong or Mao Zedong or Chairman Mao, but not Mao alone.

DmitryKo 07:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up... I took a look at Mao Zedong and, sure enough, it seems to assume that the reader already knows how Chinese names work. Certainly a better, clearer template would help in solving this problem.

However, both reversing the two names ("Zedong Mao") and putting just the first name ("Zedong") would be highly unusual and jarring in both Chinese and English usage. It's conventional to stick to the original order: "Mao Zedong". It's also conventional in English to use the last name alone: "Mao". How about capitalizing the last name in the intro: MAO Zedong? -- ran (talk) 07:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree having the family name CAPITALISED or underlined on the first line of an article. — Insta ntnood 10:15, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

No, since western media, acadmic texts, and everything in English I've read keeps the Chinese order surname before given names. Wikipedia should be no exception. International convention is to capitalize the surname (e.g. this is done in the CIA World Factbook). I would support making this a convention. --Ji ang

It would be counter-intuitive for a reader to encounter a single all-caps surname per dozens of conventinal ones. How would he know it's a Chinese-only convention for family/clan name, again? To make it obvious, every surname would need to be capitalized; it's too much of a work and most non-English names don't even need this because they follow Western practice.

A similar naming confusion exists for some Russian persons. It's solved by keeping common article name but providing a correctly transliterated native name(s) in the intro. It's entirely painless because the follow-up reverts to common name (usually surname as the most unique part of the name); the intro is treated as a clarification. See Joseph Stalin, Leo Tolstoy, Mikhail Gorbachev, Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leon Trotsky.

Such practice could be applied to Chinese persons as well, with the only exception: a given name (courtesy name, posthumous name, era name etc.) should be used as partial name throughout the rest of the article (I'm sorry I didn't made it explicitly clear), because it's the most unique part of Chinese name; full names should follow the established 'family name goes first' pattern. DmitryKo 19:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

a given name should be used as partial name -- this is extremely unusual and unconventional. I have never seen any piece of writing refer to Mao Zedong as simply "Zedong" in either English or Chinese. The first reaction of a Chinese reader to simply "Zedong" would be, "what, is the author Mao's mom or something?" As you can imagine this is not the reaction we want to get.

Well, I could get this all wrong. Thanks for clarification. DmitryKo 12:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Putting Zedong Mao would also be highly unusual in a scholarly work. People do it with their personal names, but this is not done in encyclopedias referring to famous personnages. This is simply a convention that we have to follow, because doing it the other way looks jarring and wrong.

I understand that Chinese names are confusing to western readers. The best way to solve this is probably a template. But please don't introduce conventions that nobody else uses. -- ran (talk) 21:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't introduced it anywhere, what I did is made a proposal. DmitryKo 12:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization is an international standard. It is not counter-intuitive and the reader will smell something going on when we keep referring to the person by his surname in the article. What you are proposing is done nowhere. No publication of any scholarly repute or standard would ever do that. Only confused and ignorant people do what you propose, and only mistakenly so. It's also awfully western-centric. --Ji ang 22:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support either CAPITALISED or underlined. Underline is the practice in some countries, such as the United Kingdom. — Insta ntnood 11:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confused by both current practice and your smelly capitalizaion hints, and ignorant of your non Western-centric attitude, considering this is an English-language resource. I could be mistaken though. DmitryKo 12:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's stick with the current system, which corresponds to widespread English and Chinese usage. It so happens that English publications tend to follow the native order for Chinese names (Zhou Enlai or Chou En-lai, not Enlai Zhou), do not use the native order for Hungarian names (Bela Bartok, not Bartók Béla), and use both orders for Japanese names (Junichiro Koizumi is far more frequent than Koizumi Jun'ichirō; but Kato Takaaki is more frequent than Takaaki Kato). We should indicate family names somehow, but there is no need to change the current usage for Chinese or Hungarian names (I feel differently about Japanese names, though). --MarkSweep 07:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only occassion where Chinese names are written following western pattern is the names of anglicised or americanized people, such as Wen Ho Lee. It never happens for names based on Hanyu Pinyin. — Insta ntnood 11:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

We should indicate family names somehow. That's all I'm concerned about. However, the overwhelming overreaction indicates that every Western reader is expected to hold a PhD in Chinese culture, or he risks being tagged with all kinds of ruthless imperialism. DmitryKo 12:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah I see. So you're implying all non-western readers are already PhD holders in western culture aren't you? :-) — Insta ntnood 12:59, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Pretty sure I agree with Mark Sweep. I'd even add the caveat to just make it appear the way the person likes it. As a westerner reading chinese names, I'm often confused to the name order. That's ok though. Everyone who will go looking up the name will look for Chow Yun Fat. It definitely makes no sense to westernize it as Yun Fat Chow. Some people, concious of western naming conventions, like Jet Li, reversed it when introducing themselves and their romanized name is reversed. It would make no sense to have a single policy and re-reverse their name. And of course, there are those who take on a western name for the west. Just leave this issue with common use. SchmuckyTheCat 14:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why everyone is arguing against the revertal as if I'm calling for Westernization of each and every instance of Chinese names? My proposal is to explicitly indicate the family/clan name; to me, a temporary reversion of name order in one single place of the article is the simplest and most intuitive approach, as opposed to capitalization. DmitryKo 17:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it's just that what you're proposing isn't generally done anywhere... I understand and appreciate that you want to improve Wikipedia just as all of us do... but I'm sure there's a way to do it without breaking down existing naming conventions. Putting "Zedong Mao" in the first line of Mao Zedong is misleading because such a order isn't conventionally used. Putting "Zedong" throughout the article is even more unconventional.

I'm sure there's a way to solve this problem that's acceptable to all. Perhaps a well designed template that maintains current naming order but also clarifies the positions of the first and last names would work best? -- ran (talk) 17:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

This string of discussion reminds me of academic publications where the last words of the names of Vietnamese people (e.g. Diem in Ngo Dinh Diem) are used as family names, though they aren't. — Insta ntnood 18:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)\

Well, let's come up with a layout for both in-text and table listing of various Cninese names and I'll try to make a universal parametric templates for this purpose. To start with, here's (a little ambigous) in-text layout:

Mao Zedong (Clan name: 毛, Mao; Traditional/Simplified: 毛澤東/毛泽东; Pinyin: Máo Zédōng; Wade-Giles: Mao Tse-tung; IPA: /mau̯ː tsɤtʊŋ/)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) has an entire section on intros, including templates and boxes used for intros. -- ran (talk) 21:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

The inline templates mentioned do not specifically distinguish the clan names. DmitryKo 21:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yah, I know. I'm giving you the link for reference ;) -- ran (talk) 21:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Give me an inline layout that everyone agrees with, that's all I need. DmitryKo 07:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure they do. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)#Box format. Now we only need to implement this format everywhere…. --MarkSweep 21:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The box on that page is a table, not a parametrized template. DmitryKo 07:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Name is how a person is identified. Mao Zedong is how his name is called by billions of Chinese people. Why should it be altered because the western reader is ignorant of the Chinese name convention? Should those ignorant readers be educated instead of changing somebody's name to yield to ignorance? People's names should never be rearranged from its native order. Use ALL CAPS to specify which is the surname, it is a widely used International standard. It is a lame argument to use the English conversion because such convention is insufficient even for many Western names, Hungarian (SURNAME Givenname) and Hispanic (Givenname SURNAME mothersname) names do not follow the English rules. The ALL CAPS convention is good for any name around the world. The English convention is not. Kowloonese 22:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Using all-caps surnames is a common convention in places like France, but it is NOT used at all in English and should not be used in Wikipedia. The universal convention for Chinese names in English is surname first, first name last, no all-caps, unless the person has chosen a specific different English name (eg, "James Soong") which is widely used, in which case we honor their choice. -- Curps 23:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Putting this a little more strongly: all-caps surnames are not used at all in English, and will have NO significance to the average English-speaking reader. If someone is really confused about Chinese name order, reading "MAO Zedong" will NOT clear up any confusion... if anything, they will just say, "gee it's funny how Chinese people write their first names in all capital letters".

Once again, all-caps surnames increase confusion instead of subtracting it, and are not an acceptable usage in an English-language encyclopedia. -- Curps 23:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kongers put their surname sandwiched between their Anglicized name and Chinese given names. The CIA factbook uses all caps for surnames, and that is in English... We will only use the caps once, bolded in the first sentence, and nowhere else - not the location of the article or in other references within the articles. It should be obvious that the caps are not the way chinese people write their names if we use the convention only once per article. --Ji ang 02:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course Hong Kong names are often given as a mix of an English name with a Chinese name and the usual usage would be used, eg "Tony Leung Chiu Wai". The argument was over "Zedong Mao", which I don't think anyone but the original proposer agrees with.

If the CIA factbook uses all caps surnames, they are one of the very few reference works in English that do. Encyclopedia Britannica does not, MSN Encarta does not, the Catholic Encyclopedia does not, Encyclopedia.com does not... just go to Google and search for "encyclopedia" and you'll find hundreds or even thousands of reference works, big or small, general or highly specialized, and very close to 0% of them use all-caps surnames. This is simply not a custom in English, and it's not something that most English speakers are familiar with. And for what it's worth, none of these other encyclopedias (Britannica, Encarta, etc) find it necessary to provide an explanation in their articles on Mao that "Mao" is his surname.

Here's a similar example. Go to the German wikipedia article on Mao and you will see: (* 26. Dezember 1893 in Shaoshan (Hunan); † 9. September 1976 in Peking). In German, there is a convention that "*" means date of birth and "†" means date of death, but this custom does not exist in English, and any proposal to introduce this into the English wikipedia would be shot down. We should follow existing common English usage, not try to invent our own or borrow unfamiliar non-English innovations.

Even in France, where all-caps surnames are more customary, they are not universally used... the French Wikipedia does not use them, for instance! It would be bizarre indeed for the English wikipedia article on Mao to use all-caps while the French one does not.

The biggest problem with your all-caps surname proposal is that it does not solve any problem. This proposal is aimed at hypothetical English speakers who:

are not knowledgeable enough about foreign languages and customs to know that Chinese names are written with the surname first
are knowledgeable enough about foreign languages and customs to know that in some languages it is customary to sometimes (not always) write surnames in all caps.

I suggest to you that the population of hypothetical English speakers who fit both of the above criteria is very close to zero.

I am quoting from the CIA World's fact book, a US government publication written in English targeting English readers. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html scroll down to "Personal Names" section on this linked page)

The Factbook capitalizes the surname or family name of individuals for the convenience of our users who are faced with a world of different cultures and naming conventions. The need for capitalization, bold type, underlining, italics, or some other indicator of the individual's surname is apparent in the following examples: MAO Zedong, Fidel CASTRO Ruz, George W. BUSH, and TUNKU SALAHUDDIN Abdul Aziz Shah ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Hisammuddin Alam Shah. By knowing the surname, a short form without all capital letters can be used with confidence as in President Castro, Chairman Mao, President Bush, or Sultan Tunku Salahuddin. The same system of capitalization is extended to the names of leaders with surnames that are not commonly used such as Queen ELIZABETH II.

CIA uses ALL CAPS for surnames BECAUSE the factbook users are faced with a world of different cultures and naming conventions. Please convince me that the world that the CIA is in is different from the world that any English encyclopedia is in. The English convention is a colonial era invention with no respect for any non-English cultures. It is totally inadequate in this new global era. The issue is even more complicated when people live in multi-cultural societies. People in Hong Kong often add a Christian name in front of their Chinese names, e.g. a politician Martin LEE Chu Ming. Your outdated convention simply falls flat on its nose. This ALL CAPS global savvy convention should not ONLY be applied to Chinese names. It should be applied globally whenever any non-English name is mentioned. Since this is an English encyclopedia, I'd have no objection to using normal notation for English names. If the ignorant English readers do not understand the ALL CAPS convention, they need to be educated. If you can prove to me that wikipedia articles do not face the same multi-cultural issues the CIA World Factbook is facing, then you can keep the outdated convention. If you can prove our needs has not changed in this global era, I won't argue with you even if you convert the entire wikipedia into Shakesperean English. (I wrote this last night, but it didn't go through due to an editing conflict, I am not sure the same argument was already presented since then.) Kowloonese 18:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

This so-called "global" convention is simply not used in English, and is not used in any other English-language encyclopedias or reference works (the CIA factbook appears to be just about the only exception). Your ranting about "colonial inventions" is pure nonsense — surnames have been written with only the first letter capitalized ever since lowercase letters were invented in the Middle Ages — and your ranting about ignorant users is silly and pointless. Imagine being unfamiliar with something that doesn't exist in English usage... how dare they. What's next? Should we invent a system for writing English with the Cyrillic alphabet and complain about all the ignorant people who are unfamiliar with it? Anyways, I think the proposal is only to use all-caps in the introduction, and the rest of the article text would continue to give surnames in the "colonial invention" way... or are you proposing to change every surname everywhere, and not just the intro paragraph?

If you want to propose a vote to convert the entire English wikipedia to all-capss surnames, go ahead and propose it on Wikipedia:Current surveys instead of complaining. Good luck. I don't believe it will be accepted. -- Curps 21:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The CIA factbook does not use ALL CAPS everywhere. Did you see the quoted text "By knowing the surname, a short form without all capital letters can be used with confidence as in President Castro, Chairman Mao, President Bush, or Sultan Tunku Salahuddin." just few lines above? At long as the first appearance of the name (typically in the introduction) provide a notation to tell the surname apart. That is the convention that would save redundent explanation on how to read a name. One rule is good enough. Kowloonese 21:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

The colonial invention that I referred to is the "swapping around" of other people's names with total disrespect of the person's culture and his parents who gave the names. To correct this century old bastardization of other people's names, a surname notation will clarify the deviation from the English convention. There are two key points in this thread, namely the order and the surname notation. Hope this clears it up. Kowloonese 22:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

English does not do any "swapping around". The Japanese themselves adopted the custom of swapping their names when writing them in Western languages, and they continue to do so in their own English-language publications. Similarly, the Hungarians swapped their names around for the benefit of their European neighbors, and continue to do so. Unless they themselves stop doing so in their own English-language publications, it's unlikely that others will do so. On the other hand, Chinese (living in China) never adopted the custom of swapping their names when writing in English, and Western media and reference works always respected that choice throughout history. News media reporting on China never said "Zedong Mao", which is why that proposal seemed so bizarre to all of us.

Now, if a Chinese person emigrates to the West, they will often adopt an English first name and use it in a Western name order. But this is no different than a Western expatriate who lives in China for a number of years and learns some of the language and gets a Chinese name. If you immerse yourself in a different culture and spend part of your life there, you learn the language and adapt to the local customs.

If we need to clarify surnames, the right way to do it is with Template:chinese-name, Template:spanish-name, etc. The all-caps version is mysterious, doesn't allow any link to an explanation page (like Chinese name, Spanish name, etc), and would very likely be defeated if proposed for a vote (but once again, go ahead and propose it at Wikipedia:Current surveys or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) if you wish). Wishing that English used all-caps surnames is like wishing that English used more sensible spelling rules... unfortunately it doesn't.

Once again, if you really want all-caps surnames, the only way to do it is to make a widely-known proposal and let people comment on it or vote on it, and try to get the proposal accepted. In the meantime, it's really no use to complain and talk about how evil English-speaking people are. Nothing will be accomplished and nothing will change.

I'm tempted to propose Template:chinese-name and Template:spanish-name as a proposal, but would like to get more feedback first (Jiang has already expressed a negative opinion). I think this proposal would be more likely to get acceptance in a vote, because only Chinese and Spanish biographical pages would need to be edited, instead of every surname in the entire Wikipedia, so it's a much less obtrusive change. -- Curps 23:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we really need to provide information to people who don't understand Chinese names (even though Britannica and Encarta and others don't find it necessary to do so), the simplest way to do it would be by using a one-line template, something like:

{{chinese-name}}, which would expand to:

:''Note: This is a [[Chinese name]] which is written with the surname first''

Note: This is a Chinese name which is written with the surname first

And this template would simply be included at the start of Chinese biographical articles, where it would appear indented and in italics, the same way that disambiguation notices do.

This is a general solution that would work for other languages too. In Spanish, you have names like "Vicente Fox Quesada... his last name is Fox, not Quesada. So you would have Template:spanish-name which would be a one-line notice with a link to the informative article at Spanish and Portuguese names. You could apply the same solution to Russian (explaining about patronymics and male/female Gorbachev/Gorbacheva), to Japanese names (explaining that they're written one way in Japanese, and usually but not always in the opposite order in English), to Indonesian names (explaining that many Indonesians only use one name instead of a given name and surname), etc. In each case, a one-line text template Template:languageX-name with a link to a full explanation page at LanguageX names.

In fact, Category:Names by culture already has a bunch of already-written articles like Japanese name, Names in Russian Empire, Soviet Union and CIS countries, etc. All that would need to be done would be to create a one-line text template for each applicable language and add it at the top of biographical articles.

Don't you think this would be a better solution? -- Curps 04:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Esperanto Wikipedia capitalizes all surnames, including those following the given name -surname order. We only need the reader to know only one of the criteria (not both) for the caps convention to work. Even if they don't, they can figure something is up with the capitalization.

I am very strongly opposed to adding a note on every single Chinese biographical article telling readers that the surname goes first. This will get very bothersome after the fifth article I come across and I think implementing something so self-referential and redundant is overkill. Readers should only be told things once. I don't think it's necessary to underestimate (ie insult) the intellegence of the reader. Can't we assume that most readers (NOT the general population) will know about Chinese name order or at least smell something when we keep referring to the person using his/her surname? --Ji ang 05:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Esperanto usage is not applicable to English.

Your last sentence above ("Can't we assume that most readers (NOT the general population) will know about Chinese name order or at least smell something when we keep referring to the person using his/her surname?") seems to indicate that the status quo is fine. Yet elsewhere you argue that all-caps is necessary. Which is it?

All-caps is not an acceptable solution; it doesn't actually solve or clarify anything at all, for the reasons mentioned earlier. -- Curps 06:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you really believe that all-caps is a well-understood standard, then you should propose to implement it everywhere in English Wikipedia, including Spanish and Portuguese and Japanese biographies, and probably all biographies of all persons for consistency, and call for a very widely-advertised vote. I would predict that this proposal would be soundly defeated in a vote (not to mention, editing all the articles out there to implement it would be a mammoth undertaking). If this actually succeeded, then regular Wikipedia users arriving at a Chinese page might understand the convention, having seen it before, although first-time Wikipedia visitors would still be confused. Implementing all-caps for Chinese names alone would not solve or clarify anything at all, for the reasons mentioned earlier, and would not be an acceptable solution. -- Curps 06:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know in some part of the world the governments or other official authorities require people to underline their surname when filling in forms. Obviously there is no single rule. To me either underlined or CAPITALISED (well, I like small caps more) is equally acceptable.

IMHO the whole debate on name order shall commence at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style.. or perhaps we will be able to start a new manual of style for people names. — Insta ntnood 01:21, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: I really like what's being done with Spanish names, e.g. at Vicente Fox. I think something similar to this should be done with Chinese names. -- ran (talk) 03:10, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Singaporean names

As if things cant get more confusing, names used by the ethnic Chinese in Singapore can be even more unweldy. Presently, our Chinese names are anglicised using our native dialect pronounciations on out ICs, and is the "official" name (although a few have been known to use their names in pinyin). At the same time, it is not uncommon for us to have English names too, but these english names are often used together with non-pinyin names...the only major exception I can think of is Stefanie Sun...Who would probably have either Stefanie Sng Ee Tze or Sng Ee Tze Stefanie on her IC (there is no standard on whether the English name should be in front or not, and is often based on personal preference. I have mine at the back, for eg). Yet, she is much more famously known by either Stefanie Sun or her pinyin name, Sun Yanzi.

So how shall I name her article then?

Just a illustration...say someone in Singapore has a name of

"Chen Guowei" in pinyin.
"Alex" in English.
"Tan Kok Wai" in (non-Mandarin) dialect.

Should his page name be entitled "Alex Tan Kok Wai", "Tan Kok Wai Alex", "Alex Chen Guowei", "Chen Guowei Alex", "Alex Tan", "Alex Chen", or anything else, on the assumption that they are all equally well known, or it is difficult to judge which one is in more common usage?--Huaiwei 08:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course use the person's official name, in your example, the one that appears on the person's identification card (IC). A person's name should not be changed just because you want to use it in the wikipedia. The pinyin of the name can be added as a pronunciation guide, it is not how the person spell her name. As you have pointed out, there is no fixed rule in name ordering in Singapore. That again proves that the simplistic English convention is inadequate for handling multinational cultures in an encyclopedia that covers every culture. Kowloonese 18:59, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

What "simplistic English convention" are you referring to? If there's doubt about whether to call a person "Tan Kok Wai" or "Chen Guowei" in English, how exactly will using all-caps surnames solve this problem? Just find out what this person is most commonly referred to in English (using Google), and use that as the title, and give alternate names in the introduction as applicable, creating redirects if necessary. -- Curps 21:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...but in line with this pedia's policy of using the most common names where possible, how do are we to assume that using their "official" names will always be the most appriopriate? In fact, Singapore's most popular female actress is either popularly known as Zoe Tay or Zhen Huiyu in hanyu pinyin. Both of these are not her full official names on her IC, and till this day, I have no idea what it was. In addition, I have to clarify that in most Singaporean Chinese's ICs, the dialect and hanyu pinyin names, as well as the Chinese script are all printed on the card (unless the card bearer decides to remove them). But when refering to the person's name, the dialect name is always used first, as far as governmental usage is concerned. I cant find a good image, but here is a card of a China-born Singapore PR: [9]. They get to have their pinyin name used. For Singaporean Chinese, the first line is taken by the dialect name. The pinyin name appears in the next line in brackets, and the chinese characters appear in the same way as the picture. In this way, all 3 representations are official. But which is predered is the problem here, plus the fact that very often, none of these three representations are the most commonly used.--Huaiwei 22:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I called it simplistic because it is not sophisticated enough to handle the numerous naming convention in different culture. In the Singapore example, the ordering change from person to person. With the surname notation, the ordering does not matter any more. They can use their names the same way the persons are officially identified and the readers can easily address them properly. Kowloonese 21:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Why not just use my proposed Template:chinese-name (see my edit to Mao Zedong for instance). Unlike the confusing all-caps notation, this actually provides a link to the Chinese name page where everything is explained in detail (Huaiwei, should a Singapore section should be added to that page?). -- Curps 22:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the state does not dictate how the name should be ordered, but "conventions" of how Chinese names should appear has naturally ensured that the surname always appears before the Chinese name. The only part which does not seem to have a convention is to where to insert the English name with the full dialect one. As I said above, I placed my English name at the back of my Chinese name. ie. Surname-Chinese name-English name. But if a person decides to call me simply as English name-Surname, he is not addressing me in an imappriopriate manner either. In fact, I am probably more commonly known with the later then any format in my IC!--Huaiwei 22:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is the surname underlined or capitalised on the Singaporean idenity card? As far as I remember when filling in forms to the Singaporean government I was asked to underline my surname. (The form has to be filled in in BLOCK letters, and therefore they didn't asked me to capitalise :-D ) — Insta ntnood 01:15, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

At present this convention breaches the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) and this is unacceptable. It says that Wikipedia treats Taiwan as a sovereign state, and then implies that the sovereign state should be called "Republic of China". First, as a straightforward matter of fact, Taiwan is not a sovereign state - and nobody recognises it as such. Wikipedia should report, not invent a fiction here.

I have to strongly object to saying that no one recognizes Taiwan. That's just false and I doubt that you really believe that, which just angers me that you would say something you know is false. See comment posted at bottom about list of embassies around the world.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, the term "Republic of China" is not only confusing, but is also only a term used by the Taiwanese. The Chinese government in Beijing has made it clear that it views Taiwan to be a renegate province. It has recently passed an anti-secession law, is planning military rehearsals on an invasion of Taiwan with Russia, and does not recognise that there is such a thing as the "Republic of China". We really can't take the Taiwanese side on this. Especially as there is no need as everybody in real life appears willing to use the term "Taiwan" instead.

Are you going to buy the PRC party line or not? PRC says it is not planning invasion exercises.

The anti-seccession law is opposed by major powers of the world, most importantly, the United States. So let's not say that that law has any real meaning on the international level.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I therefore propose that we note the political situation and comment that Wikipedia takes no side in this dispute. Then that we prefer the term "Taiwan" as all sides of the dispute are ok with using that term - which seems to be the best approach to getting NPOV, jguk 12:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is a sovereign state currently called ROC (Taiwan). It may or may not be equivalent to ROC (NPOV means representing both views, not throwing away the ones you don't like).

Strongly disagree. Even if RoC isn't a sovereign state, it existed since 1912, it hasn't been removed from the planet of earth. You still need to note their existence. Penwhale 12:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's not call either of them sovereign States. They are two regimes, and technically they are still at war, as there was neither armistice nor cease fire agreement.

Do you really believe they are at war? America hasn't declared war since Korean War and there was Vietnam, two Gulf Wars, many smaller wars. Think about it like this. If Taiwan and China went to war tomorrow, would historians talk about a new war or a 60 year old war? I'm sure there's a linkage, but geez, let's not give so much authority to actual declarations. For something like war, actions speak loud and clear.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Republic of China has full diplomatic relations with 25 sovereign States (see Foreign relations of the Republic of China). The others usually has at least some form of contacts with the Taipei government. Taipei Representive Offices all around the world function as de facto embassies or consulates.

The territories that the ROC administers = Taiwan plus something, i.e. the ROC ≠ Taiwan. (and those something are not covered by the Taiwan Relations Act.) — Insta ntnood 12:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

you don't support calling the PRC sovereign? (added by SchmuckyTheCat at 13:16, Mar 19, 2005)

As pointed out before, the term "Taiwan" is far from being NPOV in political discussions. Much of the political debate is precisely about whether "ROC"="Taiwan". Currently all sides agree that this equality does not hold. It's only the Western media that are being sloppy here. --MarkSweep 21:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also Strongly disagree First and foremost, the Taiwan page is currently slanted towards China's view (PRC view), where Taiwan is simply an island whose authority is under dispute. Although China considers Taiwan to be a rogue territory, Taiwan has its own currency, flag, Olympic team, embasies in foreign countries, delegates to the World Trade Organization, military, etc. Taiwan's statistics are calculated separately from China, including but not limited to: population data, economic data as in GDP, demographic data, etc. CIA factbook even goes further and lists Taiwan as a separate country altogether. I agree that the dispute should be included somewhere in the page, but having Taiwan listed as an island with references to both PRC and ROC causes confusion. Taiwan should be referred to simply as "Taiwan", not "Taiwan the geographical location please see ROC". That is absurd. (by 205.174.8.4 at 21:56, Mar 22, 2005)

Hey wait. Those are ROC statistics, not statistics on Taiwan. Taiwan ≠ ROC even to the government in Taipei. Please sign your comment. — Insta ntnood 09:38, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, those are TAIWAN statistics. See CIA factbook. Pull up a country list and then click on the country called Tawian, and you will see those statistics.

No. They are ROC statistics. For political reasons the United States can't use ROC, and therefore they have to use "Taiwan" in its place. — Insta ntnood 16:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

You're sort of agreeing to DISAGREE. If using ROC stems from a slanted POV, then "Taiwan would be more NPOV".

no, the US has to follow the PRC's POV since it recognized the people's republic. This sacrifices accuracy, since the factbook states Taiwan's "official name" as "none". --Ji ang 02:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me remind readers and other contributers that the United States has a One-China policy defined by itself, not PRC. The definition of this policy adopted by the US overlaps the PRC's policy but the two are not exactly the same. This nuance is discernable and is something has to be pointed out. The United States is not a dependency of the PRC and does not follow PRC's policy. It is not precise to state "the US has to follow the PRC's POV" as Jiang just phrased.--Mababa 02:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to also point out that the United States statement when it reestablished diplomatic relations with China is: "The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." Read carefully. It says, PRC has a view and we acknowledge it. We don't agree, we don't disagree, we don't say anything. This is a major backing off from the meeting from Nixon's visit prior to the statment made at the time of reestablishing diplomatic relations. George Bush has said he will do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan. Do you think US accepts China's POV? So, again, Jiang, you can't pass off China's POV as the US's.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We clearly stated that Taiwan is governmened by a political entity called the Republic of China. This is not the PRC's POV, which states that the ROC no longer exists. Instead, we've portrayed the de facto situation and tried to bring in the different viewpoints. It is the Republic of China that has its own currency, flag, Olympic team, embassies in foreign countries, delegates to the World Trade Organization, military, etc. The flag of the Republic of China is being used. Extreme supporters of independence would like to dispute the fact that it is the flag of Taiwan. The currency is issued by the Central Bank of China, a corporation owned by the ROC government. It is obviously controversial to equate the ROC with Taiwan. --Ji ang 02:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One thing I see Jiang arguing that is really fallacious is that recognizing ROC is not the PRC's POV so it must be NPOV. Jiang, kindly review false dilemma to clear up the confusion. And the other thing that he does a lot of is he is interested in only the signs--the flags, the names, the pictures on the currency. If you have even the most naive intuitive theory of language, you recognize there are two things--there are tokens and there are objects that those tokens refer to. You cannot outright say the ROC continues to exist just because something today bears its name. You need to establish that there's a material unity. Native democracy versus authoritarian government run by mainlanders versus authoritarian government on China with lots of warlords and wars with both CCP and Japan? What's the same about them?--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to define who is extreme and who is not. For example, in many Taiwanese's opinion, they would define the Chinese nationalism supporters to be more extreme. I really wish other Wikipedians can avoid using judgemental and denegrading words like this. It has been frustrating to see so many Wikipedians carry this opionated position in this talk page. That being said, it IS controversial to equate the two and I believe that we should find a neutral way to present this prevalent opinion without stating this position as truth.--Mababa 02:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Extremism can be visualized on a spectrum. We have strongly unificationist (ie reunify immediately) on one end and strongly independencist (ie declare independence immediately) on the other. These encase the center (ie uphold the status quo) so as the outer edges of the spectrum, they are by definition extremes. Chen Shui-bian, though he leans more towards independence, he is not as extreme as LTH because unlike Lee, he is promoting the status quo and promising not to declare independence. I don't think this is hard to dispute. --Ji ang 05:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Extremism for sure is definitely not a neutral and flattering vocabulary. I don't think this is hard to dispute, either. If labeling politicians like Lee as extremists is tolerated in Wikipedia, then we should also make an equal effort actively labeling Chinese Unification and Chinese nationalism supporters (either on PRC or ROC) as extermists as well. Can we start to call unification supporters as China Fighters or Unification Fighters? People on both ends of the spectrum are probably either more liberal or conservative, but calling them extremists would be judgemental in my opinion. I was just thinking perhaps we should have a Chinese Naming convention on defining extremism to make sure that only people supporting status quo are not called extremist.Mababa 06:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think both independence and unificationist can be called extremists, at least from what I gather in the papers, like what they say about 急統/急獨 Ware ware 07:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you asked the question, what if Taiwan was guaranteed peace after declaring independence, how many people would support, you would have a great majority of Taiwanese saying yes. Now putting a gun to their heads (100 new missiles each year, advanced weapons that the EU desparately wants to sell to China), many Taiwanese, for practical purposes, do not want to declare independence openly. This is all easily obtained knowledge and it is POV to call Taiwanese that want to declare independence extreme.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually Jiang, WTO's directory lists that the delegates are from "Taiwan", not "ROC". Additionally, the currency for Taiwan used internationally is Taiwan Dollar (TWD), and not ROC Dollar. Please get your facts straight before relaying incorrect information.

Please look up its full title. It's Taiwan plus something, and two of those three something are not part of Taiwan. Quemoy and Matsu used to have their own currencies until recently (and Tachen between 1949 to 1955). The Taiwan Relations Act of the US does not apply to Quemoy and Matsu, which are under ROC's administration. The ROC offices in the US are Taipei Representative Offices, instead of embassies and consulates-general. — Insta ntnood 17:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, a list of Tawianese embassies can be found here http://www.embassiesabroad.com/embassy.cfm?embassy=abroad&countryID=86

Please note that jguk has put this issue forward to Wikipedia:Village pump. — Insta ntnood 13:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Due to these objections, I have reworded the text while keeping the existing policy in tact. Statements such as "Wikipedia treats..." and "Wikipedia is silent..." aren't really helpful here as we are trying to direct editors on what terms to use. This is more of a guide than a case study of community practices. Please comment on any problems with the changes.--Ji ang 09:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is the word "Taiwan" politically charged? Using that word seems to be one of the few things both sides agree on, jguk 10:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That depends on the context. "Taiwan" as a geographical term (as opposed to, say, "Formosa") is fine and pretty much unobjectionable. As a political term (as opposed to "ROC") it's often problematic, strongly POV, or flat out wrong (e.g. "The President of Taiwan" is grossly misleading/POV). --MarkSweep 19:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The term itself isnt charged, but using it syonymously with the Republic of China is: [10] [11]. --Ji ang 01:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

is there still a npov dispute here? the text has since been edited--Ji ang 14:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia bug?

I have done like 5 to six edits to repair this page, but the history only show the last edit. Is this a bug? Kowloonese 20:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Probably. You'd better check if there's anything lost. It does happen some time. — Insta ntnood 02:43, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Xiongxiong

Xiong's moves

Despite the lack of any support whatsoever, Xiong continues to move PRC/ROC/SAR-discussions to Talk:PRC vs ROC, as part of his proposal outlined above. In the above proposal, Xiong has also expressed his clear disregard for the policies of consensus and NPOV.

I've reverted this page three times already. If anyone wishes to continue restoring the content Xiong is moving out, please help me out and do so. Thanks in advance. -- ran (talk) 07:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)