Talk:Chinese civilization

Consensus

It seems we have reached a concensus that we are incapable of reaching any new concensus. Since that is the case, we need to make the article true to the pre-existing consensus as stated in the opening line "This article is about the Chinese civilization. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." It's time to start modifying the article to make it about the civilization rather than the state, states or empire. Maps that show the state rather than the civilization need to be changed or removed. We need discussions about what makes a region/people/city a part of the civilization of "China". A first simple step will be to make sure that where ever we use "China" alone in the article, it is talking about the subject of the "China" article - the civilization - and not about something else. Readin (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I started working on it and it wasn't as easy as I thought. For example, when the article is talking about the state ruled by the Qing, rather than China the civilization, what term should be used? "Qing Dynasty" works when describing government actions, as in "the Qing Dynastly ceded Taiwan and Korea to Japan", but what about when "the Qing Dynasty planned for China to become powerful"? What should be substituted for "China" in that place? Looking up Qing Dynasty I find that the official name for the state was "Empire of the Great Qing" which seems a bit too verbose and confusing. "empire of China" might work, though someone will likely mistakenly 'fix' that to "Empire of China". I've used "the empire" a few times. Any other suggestions?Readin (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when was consensus established that this article is about the Chinese civilization? I don't recall this ever happening. Even if this were the case, I really don't see logic behind deleting useful information, information that no party here seeks to delete, merely for the sake of procedure. The dispute is about the lead, not about the scope. --Jiang (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus before recent (last 6 months) discussions was that the article is about the civilization. As we haven't been able to change that, the old consensus stands. If that's what we have to live with then we need to make the best of it.Readin (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Link? The consensus in 2003 (when this article setup was established) wasn't so.--Jiang (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, if this page isn't about the civilization, what is it about?--Jerrch 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in Readin's recent edits. There isn't really a distinction between "China" and "the Chinese empire" pre 1912. Both terms remain anachronisms.

There was a (non clear cut) succession of states, but China, Chinese civilization, and Chinese empire and essentially the same thing from a historical perspective. No state or sovereign entity was ever officially called any of these terms until 1912.--Jiang (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is consider some examples, as I've explained earlier. Korea - arguably part of Chinese civilization, or at least an outgrowth of Chinese civilization, but often not part of the Chinese empire. Taiwan - part of Chinese civilization but after 1895 clearly not part of the Chinese empire. Tibet - arguably part of the Chinese empire starting in the 1700s, definitely part of the Chinese empire after 1959, but not part of Chinese civilization. Empire has to do with zones of control, the ability to tax, the ability cause people to fight for you, etc. Civilization is about technology and culture. Civilization and Empire are not the same even though thay often have large overlaps. You can even have one without the other. Consider the early Greek city-states and the Zulus.

I've focused on the difference between China as civilization and China as empire. You directly asked about the difference betweeen "China" and "the Chinese empire". I agree that in common usage, "China" and "the Chinese empire" were one and the same pre-1912, just as "China" and "the People's Republic of China" are one and the same now. But we are unable to reach a consensus to recognize that.

The existing consensus, by long-standing prior state of the article, is that the article "China" is about Chinese Civilization. Using "China" to mean something else is therefor confusing to the reader and it should be used only to refer to Chinese Civilization, in quotes, or as part of a longer name such as "People's Republic of China".

Personally, I think it is a mistake for the "China" article to be about "Chinese civilization" rather than about the People's Republic of China and its predecessors, but I've not succeeded in persuading people to that consensus nor have any other proposals gained consensus. Readin (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is a mistake. Since Wikipedia isn't a democracy, most of the arguments against China=PRC are that they don't like it (because of the ROC), or that another China exists (the ROC), or that other things mean China (expensive dishes). None of those are policy based reasons to deny the obvious. What are the policy based reasons to not see a consensus that the PRC is the current (for the last 40 years) most common usage of "China"? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The "majority" argument does not apply because of the Northern Cyprus article. Were Wikipedia based on majority rule, Northern Cyprus should not even get an article. As for common uasge, see below, From Wikipedia:NAME:

"Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."

"China=PRC" fails pretty much all requirements of this standard. T-1000 (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying about Northern Cyprus has nothing to do with this, and makes absolutely no sense. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Look, I am sure everybody here can see the analogy between Northern Cyprus and the ROC. T-1000 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Civilizations don't have borders, and before Westphalia (in the case of China, before the Opium War), neither did empires. Rather, authority thinned as it moved away from the center. So who is to claim that Korea was part of Chinese civilization but not part of the Chinese empire? At one point, parts were directly under imperial authority. At others, the government was clearly tributary. Sovereignty was once fluid. We cannot create borders where they don't exist. Especially when we dicuss thousands of years in one sentence. I see where you're headed, but I don't think merely changing "China" to "Chinese empire" will clarigy things.

I really don't see anything in the archives where everyone says "Okay, this article is on the civilization." This was not the original intent when the current setup was established in mid-2003.--Jiang (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of truth to the statement that empires didn't always have borders. That is, they didn't have the well-surveyed and completely defined borders they later came to have. But they did have borders in some places. More importanly, empires had "zones of control, the ability to tax, the ability cause people to fight for you, etc." Civilization is more about technology and culture. So both empires and civilizations both don't always have neatly defined borders. That doesn't make them the same thing. Readin (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to lead

Onetwo1 has been making some fairly extensive changes to the lead. I have reverted back to the previous stable version for a number of reasons. I would like to have some discussion here before making such major changes.

I have also removed the "citation needed" tags that had been added. The information in the lead is well-established. One doesn't need a citation for the fact that China is an ancient civilization or that there are nations within China, for example. Sunray (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you read the above discussion, you will notice that editors are discussing about what this article should be about. So I think that is where the citation needed tag came from. Some editors believe that it should be cited since there are many translation on what China should mean. —Chris! _ct 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. I would have no objection to putting the tags back, but I hope people will find the citations and add them soon, rather than go on speculating about "what China is." After all, few countries have citation needed tags in the lead. Sunray (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking the above (see "China is a country, being the People's Republic of China") into account, I have added the phrase "a country in East Asia" to the lead instead of the cumbersome and disputed "national or multinational entity." Sunray (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Defining China as a country either implies that Taiwan is not a part of China, or Taiwan is a part of the PRC, both are violations of NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the cross-strait dispute delevels China from being a country to something else. China is certainly a country. Whether ROC or PRC represents China is another issue. All major political parties agree that China is a country. CPC and KMT position re consensus of 1992 - There is one China (hence a country) but the party who can exercise the sovereignty of China is subject to varying definitions; DPP position, Taiwan and China are both countries, hence China is a country.--Pyl (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• It's also undisputed constitutionally that Taiwan is part of China on both sides of the Taiwan Strait ("Taiwan Province", look at the vehicle licence plates in Taiwan http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/01/04/2003343336 ). DPP's position of Taiwan being a separate country is not enacted in law and therefore does not affect that constitutional position.--Pyl (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? Surely "country" is a neutral term. I don't think it implies anything about Taiwan. Sunray (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Taiwan is defined as "Province of China" by the UN. If China is defined as "a" country, that implies that Taiwan is a part of the PRC. T-1000 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that confirms that Taiwan is defined as "Province of China" by the UN? Sunray (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see link:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24138&Cr=general&Cr1=debate&Kw1=general+assembly&Kw2=&Kw3=

Also, please do not make changes to the main page until the discussion is over, to avoid the revert war. T-1000 (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I still think that the usage above on China as a country is definitive. Sunray (talk)

Whether on not the UN refers to Taiwan as the "Province of China" is immaterial to whether China is a country. As has been well established on this page, China is widely accepted as a country. The version of the lead that states that China is "national or multinational entity in East Asia" is an extremely weak formulation, IMO. Several editors apparently agree and have reverted your attempts to reinsert it. Since you are a minority of one, please heed your own advice not to edit war. Sunray (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did editors revert my edits? Your insert of "a country" was first reverted by User:Readin on 1:51 of April 27, then Another user reverted vandalism, and reverted Readin's edits in the process. Furthermore, defining China as "a country" is deliberate ambiguity, since you never define the term "country" or define this country to be the PRC or the ROC. If China the country means PRC, then the edit is a violation of NPOV. The old Censuses was that this article is about the Chinese Civilization. If "country" is to be inserted, then what the "country" is needs to be defined. Due to the lack of a new Censuses, the old Censuses stands. T-1000 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sticking to the issue at hand, as per the discussion I've referred to above, the following sources refer to China as a "country":

• Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002),
• National Geographic Atlas of the World (8th ed),
• Oxford English Dictionary (online): "China: The country so called, in Asia"
• CIA World Factbook 2008

There is not need to define country in the article. It is in all dictionaries: "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." Sunray (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The territorial definition of Both the PRC and the ROC is flawed. Furthermore, the sources you found all acknowledge that Taiwan is a part of China, which equals to the PRC. That's is not neutral. T-1000 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

Sources do not have to be neutral, just reliable. We have to be neutral. However, I agree with you that since we do refer to both PRC and ROC in this article, we probably do have to stick with the cumbersome wording of "national or multinational entity." Thanks for the discussion. I will not revert again. Sunray (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the population of China?

This article is lacking even basic information about China. Where's the quick reference table thingy that appears for other countries (i.e. with government, population, GDP figures etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.69.126 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Civilizations don't have clearly defined borders like nation-states do. So long as the article is about China the civilization it won't contain statistics or measurements like population, GDP, etc.. Readin (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

CHINA IS A COUNTRY!!! IF NOT, ASK United Nations!!!! --Singaga (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning basic Quick Reference data necessary for Template:Infobox Country, wouldn't such information be accessible online through, for instance, an official Ministry of State server for the People's Republic of China? It is entirely possible that some of the population figures are not currently counted due to the present state of emergency (as of 05:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC) ) declared under the Antisecessionist Act. We know about the ongoing issues involving Tibet Autonomous Region, but other prefectures could be off the statistics books due to some need that the Communist Party of China is keeping unpublished. As I understand things, the Republic of China vital-statistics bureau at Taipei concurs with what figures ARE available from Beijing, so those may be all the numbers currently available to proceed with the basic info herebefore mentioned. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Macau and other parts of southern China in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes Macau and other parts of southern China. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost (Red4tribe (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Even a child can tell you China is a country

But unfortunately, some people here don't really know the fact, and deny the fact! why? because some people here are 反华份子，and some people here are afraid of this country so called Central Kingdom from rising!! So please change the first paragraph to "China is a country"!!! --Singaga (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Will a child know what he means when he says "China is a country"? If so, what will the child mean? Suppose I tell you that the Zercux Corporation has hundreds of plants, but I don't bother to tell whether they are house plants or manufacturing plants. Have I provided you useful information? "Country" has many definitions. If the reader can't tell from context which definition is intended, or we don't provide a definition, then what value have we added? If we're going to say "China is a country" we need to agree on what we mean and we need to make sure we say what we mean unambiguously. I agree with you that "China is a country" only if "country" means in this case the People's Republic of China. China is not a country in the sense of a culturally unified region. It is not a country in the sense of a rural area (It has many of the world's largest cities.) Readin (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

儍屄. --Singaga (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

China is a member of United Nations!! --Singaga (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, children know what country means. It may not be a very nuanced definition, but walk into a grade school classroom, pull down the wall-sized world map, and they can show you all the differently colored blobs, and China as a country means the same as any other country. If our knowledge of intranecine politics has so clouded our ability to recognize that then we have failed. If we allow the biased politics of a noisy minority to dictate non-recognition of something so basic, then we have failed. Currently, this article is a failure, as the external reviews show. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

enough 贱𨶙反華屎! --Singaga (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Those maps often show Taiwan as a part of the PRC also. I really hope your not using a Child's standards for Wikipedia. And please stop using the "noisy minority" argument. Must I redirect you to the Northern Cyprus article again? Furthermore, the external reviewed talked nothing about the PRC and ROC issue. Both the Silk Road and Korean independence have to do with the Chinese Civilization. T-1000 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We use sources for individual facts. We do not import them wholesale so it doesn't matter if they include Taiwan as part of the PRC. We do not here at Wikipedia. We describe what sources say about our subjects. We do not prescribe facts. Our sources most commonly describe the PRC as simply China, and the ROC as simply Taiwan (or the obverse, they use China to mean PRC, and Taiwan to mean ROC).

FWIW, for research, I looked at a world map published by Highlights for Children. China and Taiwan were labeled as such, and as separate countries. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The point remains that you are still implying that PRC is the legitimate China by redirecting. The naming conventions and WIKI:NPOV clearly states that NPOV is non-negotiable and more important than concern for common usage. Furthermore, Wiki already states in the article that PRC is commonly known as China. T-1000 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you use a source that defines China as PRC, but do not mentions that the same source also defines Taiwan as part of the PRC, that's intentional dishonesty.

You said: "We do not here at Wikipedia." It is because of this reason that we cannot equate "China" with PRC. If China = PRC and Taiwan is not part of the PRC, that endorses the POV that Taiwan is not part of China. T-1000 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not I. Our reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the PRC as simply China. In fact, I cannot think of a single mainstream English language source that uses the shorthand "China" to refer to the ROC. Please read: Wikipedia:Naming conflict. The ROC use of the term China is a subjective criteria that should not be used. The naming conflict guideline addresses your POV concerns, under "geopolitical contexts" even refers to this subject itself. Further, the example under dealing with self-identifying terms makes it clear that considering your claims that the PRC has no right to the term China, is the NPOV problem, because it gives undue weight to the minority position and controversy. We don't deal with whether the PRC should use the term China, simply that it does, and the rest of the world does as well. The competing claim by the ROC is a minority position that is adequately described in every article where it matters and half a dozen independent articles devoted to the issue itself.

The text in the articles deals with the Taiwan question, not the title of the article.

This boils down to one question: What is the most common english language use of the term China? We look for the answer in reliable sources and they all point to one thing: the populous and very large country in east Asia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You said: "We don't deal with whether the PRC should use the term China, simply that it does, and the rest of the world does as well." However, redirecting the "China" to PRC precisely implies that Wikipedia agrees that the PRC should use China, because only things that are equal to each other get redirects. The China article already describes that the PRC is commonly known as China.

From Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

"China" is commonly used as a synonym for the People's Republic of China, even though it does not control the territory (counted as part of China) governed by the rival Republic of China.

As you can see, counting Taiwan as a part of PRC is a violation of NPOV. When NPOV conflicts with common usage, concerns for NPOV is considered before concerns for common usage, as NPOV is stated to be non-negotiable.

Can you find a guideline that states common usage is to be considered before NPOV? T-1000 (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Power of the Veto: The five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) enjoy the privilege of veto power. --Singaga (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that that usage of China refers to the state called the People's Republic of China. The original purpose of this article is to describe China as a civilization, its culture, the history of this civilization, the different states that are connected with this civilization, etc. nat.utoronto 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As Jiang notes above, what this article has developed into is NOT what the original purpose was. The current article is a mess with no rhyme or reason whatsoever. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If you have a problem with the NPOV guidelines, talk to Jimbo Wales. Please stop ranting. T-1000 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. You obviously fail to understand it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Mind telling me where in the NPOV guideline does it support your viewpoint? A quote would be nice. T-1000 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

dab

Can't China just be a disambiguation page that points to three articles: People's Republic of China, Republic of China and Chinese civilization? --Joowwww (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No! That would be too easy and make too much sense. Worse, it would represent NPOV and we certainly can't have that. Readin (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA. Very Funny. But seriously, that would work, however, if this page is moved to "Chinese Civilization", whatever says "China" on this article should still be refer as to "China". The problems would be the pipe links such as [[Chinese Civilization|China]] and it would take forever to find all the links and matched them accordingly to their respected articles. nat.utoronto 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would take that long; we have a lot of interested editors.

Even if it did take that long, it would be worth it.Readin (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A dab page is only useful when there is no clear primary topic. In this case, we have a primary topic that KMT fans wish to deny. Denial is not NPOV, it's undue weight to a minority POV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Please actually take the time to read the undue weight guideline:

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one"

Labeling PRC as the true China, on the basis that it is the most popular view, is actually a violation of undue weight. T-1000 (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it is more complex than just the KMT fans wanting to deny the primary topic. People who want to see China annex Taiwan, regardless of what government they want to see it happen under, may also wish to avoid seeing the "China" article be about the PRC, but instead prefer a "China" article about some larger entity that includes all current PRC territory plus Taiwan. This is one reason I suspect the dab page proposal won't gain traction. If you take the various definitions of "china" (the civilization, the PRC, the culture, etc.) it is hard to find a single definition that includes all of the PRC plus Taiwan. But if you have an ambiguous use of "China", then by applying different definitions at different times you can include all of the PRC plus Taiwan. Readin (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF is this? Why isn't this redirecting to the People's Republic of China? What about the current human rights problem and the tibetans, REVERT IT! :( -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC?

Would it be worth getting an outside opinion on the naming issue at WP:RFC? Things are only going in circles here, and as has been noted above the issue isn't going to just die down and go away. Modest Genius ^talk 23:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

better not to expect any, bunch of 反華儍屄 are here promoting 牠們的屎，反華份子牠們本身就是一堆屎!!! --Singaga (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must point out that, regardless of which language you do it in, calling anyone who disagrees with you vulgar names for female anatomy or dung heaps is both highly inappropriate and unacceptable, as well as a violation of WP:NPA. If you have something to contribute, please desist using profanity (regardless of what language) and participate in a rational discussion. GolatHi (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, rational discussion, but those 反華贱𨶙一様会嗎？--Singaga (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and in fact they were trying to before you started name calling. I'm certain everyone would appreciate another point of view, but please share it in English (since this is English wikipedia) and cut the name calling.

As you discuss, you should keep in mind that simply because the PRC proclaims that there is only one China, that does not mean it to be true. We are not here to evaluate their policies, rather to discuss Chinese civilization as a whole. 129.101.117.97 (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do 反华份子 对这页 24 hours monitor 着?

Do 反华份子 对这页 24 hours monitor 着? this is really a joke. 赚个小钱，辛苦啊。 --Singaga (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article shows the bias of anti-PRC editors. But this is the English Wikipedia. Please use English to discuss on the talk page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

犯咗你乜例啊？𨶙𨳊！--Singaga (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-PRC? Nobody here is denying that "China = PRC" is the majority view. The majority view is still a point of view. The guidelines clearly state that "the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications", Hence POVs do not belong in article titles. How many more times do I have to post this guideline for you to get it? T-1000 (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the outcome is, or what each contributor's opinion is, I feel the need to point out that another Wikipedia guideline actually encourages discussion and consensus building rather than simply stating/repeating rules and guidelines and expecting all discussion to end there. Most guidelines are there for the entire Wikipedia, in all their broad and vague splendour, and fail to take into account the nuances and complexity of some issues that can't be solved by a simple "that's the rule, so there". --Joowwww (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

With the controversial status of cross strait relations, I doubt the China page will be exempt from the NPOV policies. If anything, they are probably enforced more vigorously. T-1000 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion never ends. Consensus is impossible. Real encyclopedias have real editors with real power to make real decisions. Wikipedia's attempt to produce NPOV via consensus, where every "editor" has an effective veto, actually results in no coherent point of view. --slashem (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• And besides the above comments (which I agree with), I am sure most people in the world would agree that the PRC government doesn't have an exclusive claim to the word "华 (Hua)". Things done here that are not in compliance with the RPC government's policy don't mean they are also against the whole Chinese population throughout the world. Please stop using the term "反华 Anti-Hua", as it is highly offensive.--Pyl (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This page will be moved to "Chinese Civilization"

各位，I will rename the page to "Chinese Civilization"， and the other page People's Republic of China will be renamed to "China", similar to India and Republic of India, later on we can move stuff in "Chinese Civilization" back to China. (This comment will also appear in the People's Republic of China page) --Singaga (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't get your logic here. What relevance does India have here in this matter? Did India have a civil war that resulted in a stalemate of having two political entities within one country? I think that's the situation we are dealing with here.--Plinwu (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What? You've never heard of Pakistan? Pakistan is as much a part of India as Taiwan is a part of China. Well perhaps Pakistan is more a part of India. Pakistan had long been part of India before the civil war, while Taiwan had been part of Japan for most of 50 years prior to the Chinese civil war spilling over into Taiwan.Readin (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

False analogy, Pakistan does not have India in it's official name nor is it trying to claim to be the sole legitimate government of India. T-1000 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All analogies are false because there are always differences. It's a question of how significant you think those differences are. You think that the official position of Taiwan is significant. However it does not reflect the will of the people of the country - it reflects the fact that they get a lot of support from the U.S. and the U.S. wants them to pay lip service to that position. Similarly, the "China" in "Republic of China" is no more significant that the "Democratic" in "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names quite often have nothing to do with reality. A more significant difference in the analogies is that Pakistan had a long history of being an integral part of India, while Taiwan has been separate from China for 108 of the last 113 years, and before that was generally considered an outside area rather than an integral part.

Leaving aside the analogy, it is common for countries to have a common name and an common name. Ireland and Republic of Ireland, America and United States of America, England and United Kingdom, South Korea and Republic of Korea, North Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Republic of China, China and People's Republic of China. Each example is different in its own way. Some of the common names aren't strictly accurate (England is only a part of the UK). Some of the official names are way inaccurate. That's the world we live in.Readin (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether Taiwan is a part of China or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia has no power to decide that anyway. The reason that we have to be neutral is because of the political status of Taiwan is disputed. Pakistan does not have this dispute, so the analogy is false. The Official view is important because it is the only thing coded into law. If we speculate on stuff like "Will of the people", it could open up a slippery slopes which allow all kind of non-neutral stuff into Wikipedia. T-1000 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We have no more power to decide whether Taiwan is part of China than the ROC does, unless of course the ROC wants to submit to China, which it doesn't. The "official" view is just the official View, nothing more. Kim Jung Il is officially a living god as was his father. Officially most of the people killed June 4 1989 at Tiananmen Square were soldiers and the rest were hooligans. Officially Taiwan is part of China. We have to make note of these views, but we don't have to treat them as objective truth simply because they're "official". Readin (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether Taiwan is a part of China or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia CORRECT. But not because Wikipedia has no power to decide that (which is also true, and also irrelevant.) The article, at China, should be the most common usage of the word China. The text of the article sets up definitions. The text about Taiwan/ROC, is always about the dispute. That's what the neutrality policy demands, and all of our articles that discuss it have in depth mention of it. Neutrality does not demand (in fact, it demands otherwise) that a minority position gets to dictate a denial of what the most common usage is. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Nobody is denying common usage, but the common usage itself is not neutral, see below:

"Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."

As long as the status of Taiwan is disputed, China = PRC remains a viewpoint. As I have already shown, the common name guideline disallows POVs in article titles. T-1000 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, T-1000 (talk · contribs) asserts that it is possible to avoid all viewpoints. His assertion that common usage is not neutral begs the question of who defines what is neutral, since obviously people disagree. Finally, "As I have already shown" is symptomatic of his approach: he is here to prove his viewpoint, not to compromise. --slashem (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when has the RoC made a claim to be the sole legitimate government of China? It's been 15-20 years since that position was taken seriously, really? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Please. If people edited based on stuff like "taken seriously", Wikipedia would be fucked up beyond belief. T-1000 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is entirely the point of NPOV. Fringe views get fringe treatment. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Then the entire debate turns into a POV mess of defining "Fringe", Northern Cyprus Anyone? T-1000 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

𨶙𨳊！咁 India 呢？--Singaga (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The constitution of the RoC still says that the RoC is the government of China and claims mainland China as part of its territory (and this position is agreed upon by 20 or so countries in the world). Shouldn't we just stick to the fact here in Wikipedia? If the RoC decides to change the constitution and no longer claims to be China then we can make the appropriate changes.--Pyl (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If we say that the ROC Constitution claims that the ROC is the government of China, that is fact. But saying that the ROC Constitution statement on the issue represents anything more than an obsolete left-over from the 1940s that now only serves to placate a deranged imperial China, that is opinion.

Saying that the ROC, commonly known as "Taiwan" now governs only Taiwan and a few smaller islands, but does not govern more than 1/1000 of the land it once called "China" is fact.

Until established international law principles, the territory governed plays no part here the ROC government still governs Kinmen and Matsu since ROC's establishment in 1911. What you were saying is fact but the current circumstance that ROC doesn't govern all of the land it once called "China" doesn't stop ROC from being "China". Even the PRC government recognises this and wants ROC to remain "China" as per the consensus of 1992.--Pyl (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Taiwan is part of China when we don't have an agreed on definition of "China" is not even opinion, it's nonsense.Readin (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Official consensus across the strait is that Taiwan is part of China. Whether Taiwan is part of the ROC or PRC is subject of varying definitions. Re Consensus of 1992. The unofficial position varies depending on the polls conducted (when and who etc conducted the polls). But I was just saying that India/Pakistan was an inappropriate example to use here and my comment wasn't relating to debates on Taiwan independence.--Pyl (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

对比 Inda IS Rpublic of Inda, China IS People's Republic of China. --Singaga (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean India IS Republic of India and China is Republic of China? I still don't get your logic.--Pyl (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When people talk about India, they aren't talking about Pakistan. When people talk about China, they aren't talking about Taiwan. That's the point. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Has Pakistan claims to represent the whole of India in its constitution?--Pyl (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Has Pakistan been separate from India for 108 of the past 113 years? Does Al Qaeda claim that Spain is part of their territory? What is the point of your question? Readin (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Macau was governed by a power other than China for more than 108 years before 1999. I don't think anyone right now would realistically claim that Macau, because of that, would no longer be part of China. Taiwan was governed by Japan for 50 out of the 108 years because of the same reason, colonisation. For the rest of the time you mentioned, during KMT years, Taiwan *was* China as KMT government claimed. Therefore Taiwan was only notionally separate from mainland China for some of the 8 years when DPP was in power, as DPP didn't go for Taiwan independence initially. And even that, Taiwan was still legally (and officially) part of China for the whole time as the constitution which claimed so never was amended. In any event, in this section, I wasn't getting into debates on Taiwan independence because this is not the forum. My question was that using Pakistan/India as an example to say that PRC is therefore "China" was inappropriate. I make no comment on the Al Qaeda/Spain question as it is outside the subject of discussion.--Pyl (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

低屄仔，誰在這兒問问題啊？ --Singaga (talk)

各位网友，I will make the changes tomorrow，如有问题，请提出。反華份子就滾屎好了。--Singaga (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

请注意， article and discussion will be moved altogether --Singaga (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, let's see how long you last before you get banned. T-1000 (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we operate by consensus, not by logic or common sense. Singaga, I'm sorry to say it but we're stuck with the current set-up for now. If you try to move the page without consensus you'll be in violation of Wikipedia policies.Readin (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not something to be rushed. Benjwong (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

T-1000 (talk · contribs) will never change his mind. I've noticed the other people against this are from Hong Kong, where apparently the usage is "mainland China". To them I would say think about this from the perspective of your audience, which is mostly in the States. Too many people assume that "what makes sense to me" must be right. --slashem (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have read the policies and guidelines, (i can't remember which one) they state that although Wikipedia's servers and the majority of the readers are from the United States, it does not mean that we follow the views of the United States or their citizens. nat.utoronto 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

By that argument we don't follow the views of people from Hong Kong either. In fact, if you take that policy literally, we don't follow anyone's views, which is not realistic.

Personally I don't believe Wikipedia should try to impose a "correct" usage on its audience, rather it should reflect the usage of its audience. Knowing your audience is the first principle of effective communication. --slashem (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The audience is English speakers. One thing that isn't quite clear though is whether we are to focus on native English speakers, proficient English speakers, or anyone who knows a few words of English. Given how many people know English well as a second language, and how many more people know it poorly as a second language, that could be an important consideration. What happens when an entire country, particularly a large country like China, India, or Japan, adopts an "incorrect" or non-standard usage of English? Should their usage be given equal weight with the usage of an equal number of native English speakers?Readin (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a deep question. Hypotheticals are hard to deal with. The current situation is that American English is the leading international standard and Commonwealth English is the leading alternative. Like Canada, Wikipedia gets a little confused between the two.

On this specific issue, we get a lot of comments from casual readers that our naming convention confuses them, but they don't stay and so regular editors, who have already adjusted to the status quo, make policy. At this time I see only three editors, all from Hong Kong, who argue that there should be a distinction between "China" and "PRC", although in the past there were more (including, surprisingly, Larry Sanger (talk · contribs)). --slashem (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Both American English and the Queen's English most commonly refer to the PRC as "China". The distinction most common in Hong Kong is raised when it is a matter of politics internal to the PRC. Some Hongkongers sometimes forget that Hong Kong is wholly and indisputably part of the PRC, which makes their distinction strictly internal. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Mao Zedong once claimed PRC = New China. If the first president wants nothing to do with original China or "old China", then who are you to dispute? Benjwong (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Languages are defined by consensus, not by individuals. --slashem (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Hu Jin Taoyesterday in a formal speech in Japan just said something to the effect of the Chinese people establishing the new China during 1911 to 1949.--Pyl (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You can say some scholars had the vision of new china as early as 1920s. This is research-able. Benjwong (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. --slashem (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

{{editprotected}} The Etymology section is currently carrying the Peter.zhou vandalism that the protection is there to prevent. And the protection is supposed to be semi-pp not full-pp, which is why I can't fix it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

 Done nat.utoronto 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you also set it to semi-pp? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

POV and NPOV

T-1000 (talk · contribs) thinks POV can be avoided and that NPOV means "no point of view". Of course what he is really saying is that "My POV = NPOV". --slashem (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"no point of view" in article titles is a guideline. I trust you can find that on your own. Where did I express my own views? T-1000 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"No point of view" is impossible. You don't understand that. Everyone has a point of view. Your opinion that the POV you are advocating is neutral is a POV. --slashem (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, just read this on your own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity T-1000 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No point of view in article titles is not a guideline. In all cases, it is neutrality, and the NPOV POLICY, and the Naming conflict guideline that the policy summarizes all make it very clear that the existence of the ROC is not a consideration to deny that the most common usage of China is to mean the country we call People's Republic of China.

Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, describing corporate entities such as cities and states by the names by which they describe themselves (or by the English-language equivalent). Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance.

The followup guideline, Naming conflicts, entirely disagrees with you. The common name (in use by the world), the self-descriptive name (of the PRC), the official short name (ie, the UN) of the PRC is simply, "China". The guideline says that subjective criteria such as someone else's claim to the term China (ie, the ROC), should NOT be used as criteria to determine Wikipedia's usage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

On the contrary, It is indeed a guideline:

"Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."

I trust you can read the words in bold. In this case, the common usage itself implies a POV (PRC is the legitimate China). T-1000 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This link is not about article titles, which cannot "describe" vocabulary disputes. An article title must choose a POV. Not to mention that the choice of what to include in a description of a dispute, such as which participants are major, requires a POV. And also that often major participants cannot agree that the article is presenting all views "sympathetically and comprehensively". If you want to have an informed opinion on this subject I suggest you study the history of some long-running disputes on Wikipedia. Try WP:MEDCAB cases, maybe Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada where participants cannot agree on whether to use the term "uprising" in the article. (Yes, that is the entire dispute.)

As an empirical question, all the attempts so far have failed. --slashem (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

""Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." T-1000 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that policy is perfect and quoting it should solve all problems. You really are not dealing with reality here. --slashem (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

T-1000: The WP:NPOV policy and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline do not contain the words you are quoting. Those are the operative rules of Wikipedia in this dispute. You are ignoring the rules that apply to this dispute. You are selectively quoting from other rules to try and make a point. It isn't working. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It is from Wikipedia:NAME, under 1.6. I trust you will have no trouble finding it now. T-1000 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"China" is not a descriptive name. It is a proper noun. This, Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, is a descriptive name, and not a proper noun. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Again, can you find a single guideline that allows POVs in article names?

"A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." T-1000 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I quoted the NPOV policy above. Neutral POV does not mean NO POV. NPOV points to naming conflict, which gives multiple examples of POV disputes in article names, and how to resolve the conflict. It specifically says not to use the subjective criteria of someone else's (the ROC's) moral right to the name, or because it is politically unacceptable (to hardcore nationalists of the ROC). Yes, that is specific endorsement that article titles WILL HAVE A SPECIFIC POV IN SOME INSTANCES. And it also explains how to achieve neutrality, in the text of the article, and with dab headers are the top of the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Again T-1000 insists that it is possible to avoid all POV. He's not really listening. --slashem (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, he is putting the Common names guideline and the Naming conflict guideline in opposition to each other. They are complementary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In fact there are so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines that there are often conflicts. This cannot be avoided and is why policy is not perfect. --slashem (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of ROC's moral right to use the name China. The ROC does still use the name "China", period. That a fact. In accordance with the common names guideline:

"use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. That is the part of the common names guideline that you ignored. Since, "China" obviously conflicts between the PRC and the ROC, "PRC" and "ROC" are used instead. T-1000 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously names will conflict. That is why there is a naming conflict guideline. Don't ignore the conflict guideline, which is very specific, and which the common names guideline defers to in the exceptions section. You are selectively quoting out of context. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

From the naming conflicts guideline: Objective criteria

"Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)"

The name "China" is still used in the ROC constitution.

"Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

The Chen Administration still uses the term "President of the ROC"

As I said, it is the objective criteria that conflict, hence the situation in common names guideline applies. T-1000 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think SchmuckyTheCat is right. The Naming Conflict guideline suggests that "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute." We should not try to determine whether the word "China" is good based on POV reasons. —Chris! _ct 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That opens the can of worms again. The common sources (CIA factbook) that is used to prove that "China = PRC", also places Taiwan under the PRC. T-1000 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You only provide one source that places Taiwan under the PRC. And that doesn't even matter, the fact that the One China Policy exists doesn't interfere with what we're trying to do. We have an article about the policy. Taiwan is still the common name of the ROC, China is still the common name of the PRC.--Jerrch 01:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is also in Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002) (Taipei is not highlighted as the capital), and National Geographic Atlas of the World. What is the point of citing these sources if their definition of "China" is different from Wikipedia's? As for the common name, there is still conflict even when using the objective criteria to evaluate them. T-1000 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Jerrch makes a good point. The sources may differ on what they include as China, but they all refer to simply to "China." We explain — right in the lead that there are two entities called "China." Sunray (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I swear its "neutral point of view"...Faizaguo (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

From the previous posts this Section, it is obvious that the exact nature of the Article is an issue, as China covers three basic governmental eras (see also History of China). From numerous sources, the Sun Empire controlled the real property in question until 1912; the Republic of China, from 1912 to 1949; and the People's Republic of China, since 1949. Multiple articles in the scope of WikiProjects other than WPChina refer to China at various historical points, dependent on the subject matter; as an example, most WPBiography Musician Work Group Articles on current musicians refer to the People's Republic of China, but articles on deceased musicians and defunct bands may refer to any of the three Chinese governmental entities, literally. So, ideally, what needs to be in the Article China to provide context for all three governments that have controlled China proper? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion vs. consensus

As I noted before, T-1000 (talk · contribs) will never change his mind. He is also repeating his arguments and I don't think he has anything new to say. At this time I would prefer to hear from Nat (talk · contribs) and Benjwong (talk · contribs) who are the remaining objectors to using the name China for the PRC. --slashem (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeating arguments? User:SchmuckyTheCat has been repeating the same arguments and expressing his discontent at the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Chinese article since at least September 2007. This issue can't be settled because there is no objective standard to evaluate the significance of the ROC positions.

Schmucky has to repeat his arguments because he keeps trying to talk to you. --slashem (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't debate this seven months ago. Please just look at the talk page of the Chinese Convention. T-1000 (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, This is the current guideline from the Chinese naming conventions: (Redacted for length)

Schmucky has not been successful in getting the guideline changed. The guideline is not my POV. You accuse me of pushing my POV, please stop. T-1000 (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That part of that guideline has not had concensus for over 4 years, if it ever really did. These conversations show that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Based on that naming convention, there is no situation in which "China" should be used after 1947. Given that, we should either direct "China" to a disambiguation page or have the "China" article about pre-1947 China. Naming the current article "China" violates the naming convention.Readin (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

𨳒你，吃屎唔用脑, how about India and Republic of India? 1947年獨立之前就無印度？反華狗永遠是不用脑。 --

That is not a convention, it is disputed. It has a big ugly disputed banner on it, which has been there for years, which T-1000 of course did not mention. It drives me crazy that people think something is authoritative just because it is written down. --slashem (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article is "Naming Convention (Chinese)", how is it not a convention? Wikipedia's standards are always to followed the old guidelines until new ones are established. As for the fact that is it disputed, that is common knowledge here if you bothered to look in the archives, which I told you to do. T-1000 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand what I say. You don't listen to what I say. I really have no interest in talking to you.

However, I must correct you lest you mislead others. A convention is not something imposed by one group on another, it is defined by consensus. There is no consensus behind the article and there never was. And in fact I have read every archive of this talk page, which is how I know it has always been disputed.

Labeling something a convention doesn't make it so. You are like a fundamentalist Christian who thinks everything in the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

I have read all the policies you have quoted here. You persistently misrepresent or misunderstand them, simple examples are when you tried to apply the guideline on article text to article titles, and quoting text without mentioning that it has a disputed banner on it and not even linking to the original so people could see it for themselves. For someone who keeps telling others to read things (and expect them then to agree with you) your reading comprehension is pathetic.

Did you read all the WP:MEDCAB cases like I told you to? Then don't get off telling me what to read. --slashem (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, calm down and stop this immature grudge. Second, how did I not mention that fact that the guidelines are disputed? I gave a link to the original article in the first place in my "repeating arguments" post. But you acted like you have no idea that the guidelines are disputed, which I why I told you to read the talk archive of that page in the first place. As for me misunderstand policies, my understanding of the policies is consistent with the current guidelines. The guidelines are in dispute because the political status of Taiwan itself is in dispute. Simply because the guidelines are disputed does not mean that we don't follow any guidelines. If that is really the case, it be easy for someone with a political agenda to dispute every guideline for the sole purpose of avoiding them. Going by your methods, nearly every guideline on wiki is in dispute, there are pages of discussions for even the NPOV page. T-1000 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Any use of "China" outside of a political context satisfies the guidelines. "The Great Wall is in China. Last September, there were massive floods in southern China. The Three Gorges Dam is in China."--Jiang (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean an article like Shanghai can have a lead that reads something like "Shanghai is in China", but the Politics section of which should remain as mentioning the PRC? --Joowwww (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right Jiang, under the disputed guidelines we can't equate China to mainland China (with or without HK and Macau) in political or diplomatic senses, but we can do so in other senses. So then this article can be about he PRC, but not in the diplomatic or political sense.

So working from that, and knowing that the common usage for "China" is to refer to the country formally known as the PRC, we ought to be able to have an article about mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau that would cover those areas in a non-political way just as the Taiwan article covers the current ROC in a non-political way. Readin (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know, that is what we have now. So nothing needs to be changed. --slashem (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what happened. A long time ago a small group of people who happened to be here first wrote something. Note that even at that time Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) said that the article about the PRC should be titled China. The fact that the guideline cannot be changed now has nothing to do with consensus or NPOV, it is simply because Wikipedia has grown to the point where it is impossible to get consensus for any change, so the status quo is set in stone. And don't think the convention is actually followed on Wikipedia; the status quo is that Wikipedia is inconsistent and it is also impossible to fix all of Wikipedia to follow the convention. So, as I noted before, discussion is just a waste of time. --slashem (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look into the 20 archives with more relevant reasons why the move should never be made. Also SchmuckyTheCat pointed out this has no consensus for 4 years. I'd like to add we are actually doing pretty good. The PRC government still hasn't figured out what China "should be" in 50 some years. Benjwong (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Compared to the PRC government we may be doing "pretty good". But we do worse than any encyclopedia or print publication ever. --slashem (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the source stack we worked on earlier, you'll find that a good fraction of the sources completely disagree with another good fraction on what constitutes "China". They can't both all be right with such disagreement so a significant fraction must be wrong. We may not say anything useful with our article, but at least we can't be said to be wrong.Readin (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no right or wrong regarding political legitimacy, it's all a matter of different opinions, which is why Wikipedia should just report what the sources say. Some people just constantly "dispute" the guidelines until the ROC page is deleted and the Taiwan page is redirect to the Taiwan province, PRC page. What can you do? Too many people believe that "the guidelines are in dispute until my POV is reached" T-1000 (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot "report what the sources say" in choosing an ARTICLE NAME. There can be only one POV as to what the subject of China is. --slashem (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That is only your opinion. Obviously Wikipedia still thinks it's possible to have a neutral title. "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." T-1000 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your persistent out of context and selective quoting of guidelines is becoming a problem. Whenever a line of argument starts running out of steam for you, you circle back to an out of context quote and start over. As has been said repeatedly, this quotation is about descriptive article titles, not proper nouns. Descriptive article titles amount to a phrase - a statement in and of itself. That is fundamentally different than a proper noun. This behavior of repeatedly mischaracterizing and selective quoting is known as tendentious editing. We have policies against that too. It's a waste of time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No. Since the statement before that guideline is "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue." As you yourself admitted, redirecting China = PRC implies that PRC is the legitimate China. This guideline is at Wikipedia:NPOV, the descriptive name guideline is at Wikipedia:name. The two are totally different.

As for repeating arguments, you have been repeating that "ROC fits the subjective criteria because they are a severe minority" since 2005. Look who's talking.T-1000 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting WP:NPOV. The paragraph after you are quoting covers proper nouns. The one you are quoting is for descriptive names.

Yes, the hardcore KMT position that the ROC represents "China" is an extreme minority to an international English reading audience. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Nowhere in WP:NPOV does it mention the second paragraph only applies to descriptive names. As for the ROC, yes, they are a minority, but stating "They are a severe minority so they fall under the subjective criteria" is your opinion. Obviously, that argument hasn't been able to convince people for three years. T-1000 (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the fundamental problems with this discussion, people think it is about being right or wrong. That is not at all what I am talking about. --slashem (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the song title of Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China. Can it get any more obvious that PRC is not China, but New China. Benjwong (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you also do not know what I am talking about. --slashem (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== 長駐這裡的反華狗聽著，𨳒𨳊𨶙你！！I will go ahead and update the page ==

Based on the users who support the idea of updating this document, I will go ahead and update this page with the info presented in the 中華人民共和國 page. Be aware that this is progressive modification, it's not a move. 長駐這裡的反華狗聽著，𨳒𨶙𨳊你，想丑化中国？𨳒𨶙𨳊你個老母閪！！--Singaga (talk)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus for this move. Húsönd 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

China → Chinese civilization, People's Republic of China → China

Rationale

discussed to death in archives, has vocal detractors. Simple reason is that the article "China" is not about China, and the most common usage of China is the article at People's Republic of China —SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as is obvious by talk page discussions. The country China, whose article is at People's Republic of China, is the most obvious and most common usage of the word China to an international english-reading general interest audience. We give undue weight to consider the claims made by opponents of a 60 year old war that still, though inconsistently, claim to be "the real China". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Oppose because there is more than one China, and Chinese civilization extends beyond China, and China is frequently used to encompass things beyond Red China. There's also the porcelin which is referred to as china, which is probably as used or more used than PRC in English as China. 70.55.88.176 (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current naming is eminently logical and works just fine. "China" is more than simply the name of a country. The article should, as it does now, encompass dynastic China and the "idea" of China (Chinese people, Chinese civilization, etc.). Badagnani (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  The article does not encompass the contemporary nation-state. The current guidelines actively forbid it. The PRC article is forbidden to discuss dynastic China. What you want is not directly addressed by this proposal, although it could be achieved by dropping the guideline and merging the two articles. --slashem (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. When articles make links to China, PRC need not be an intended target. This is in particular the case when the articles discuss China in the past. Given that PRC and China are two different things (unlike Japan, say), the current naming also makes sense. -- Taku (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. See below. --slashem (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support common usage. Can't we have just two articles: One about the area of land between the Himalayas, the Gobi and the South/East China Seas, and it's past and present governments, and another article about the large island south-east of that land, past and present governments. --Joowwww (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as common usage by English-language media and academic sources. Also, the PRC is the internationally-accepted successor state to China. --Polaron | Talk 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Casual readers who are confused by this convention rarely stay, so policy is made by regular editors who have already learned and become comfortable with the status quo. For the record, here is a list of those who have commented in favor or been confused: Jeronimo (talk · contribs), Mav (talk · contribs), Koyaanis Qatsi (talk · contribs), Ktsquare (talk · contribs), anon, Cantus (talk · contribs), anon, Rd232 (talk · contribs), anon, anon, anon (note here Ran gets frustrated at having to repeat explaining), Vergnügen (talk · contribs), Naus (talk · contribs), Intsokzen (talk · contribs), Heilme (talk · contribs), RND (talk · contribs), Daduzi (talk · contribs), Sumple (talk · contribs), anon, Brian Pearson (talk · contribs), Flamarande (talk · contribs), Brett Halo (talk · contribs), Balthazarduju (talk · contribs), SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs), LDHan (talk · contribs), Gantuya eng (talk · contribs). For balance, here are those who have commented against it: Larry Sanger (talk · contribs), Roadrunner (talk · contribs), Jiang (talk · contribs), Eclecticology (talk · contribs), Ran (talk · contribs), Bayerischermann (talk · contribs), HongQiGong (talk · contribs), La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs), anon, WGee (talk · contribs), Tevildo (talk · contribs), Nat Krause (talk · contribs), Henry Flower (talk · contribs), Aranherunar (talk · contribs), Awongca (talk · contribs), GunnarRene (talk · contribs), Hillgentleman (talk · contribs), Benjwong (talk · contribs), Folic Acid (talk · contribs), Nat (talk · contribs), Augest (talk · contribs). That brings us up to the recent large discussion. --slashem (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC) This actually was all written by me. --slashem (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Listing bunch of names, I can do that as well. 儍𨳊。 --Singaga (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I've previously stated my position, but I'll reiterate it again. The current scheme is not broken. Therefore, there is no need to make a move in a misguided attempt to "fix" it. The article heads clearly point readers to whichever article they are looking for. I suspect those pushing most vehemently for the move are doing it to push a POV.Ngchen (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support See comment below. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Indea=Republic of India, China=People's Republic of China. 反華份子吃屎，想分裂中国的人吃屎。 --Singaga (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the talk page guidelines, it is preferred that you use English when commenting on the talk page. Thank you.—Chris! _ct 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support If you put China into the search bar, you arrive at this smaller article on Chinese civilization rather than where you were expecting which is PRC. This article should therefore be appropriately renamed Chinese Civilization and China should link to PRC. Kristmace (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose PRC can move to New China, certainly not Old China. It is a complete contradiction of a replacement. That is of course taiwan has full independence, then we'll come back to this. Benjwong (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support- The term "Peoples republic of china", is not commonly used, and therefore should be renamed "china", But still needs major clean up, and reorganization. Buddha24 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support I believe that there are multiple meanings to the word "China." But the WP:NCON said "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute." So what we should do is to follow the guideline and in this case, China is indeed the best name. —Chris! _ct 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UCN.--Jerrch 23:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Opposed to this proposal. However I am willing to support any proposal that would do the following:

Current name	Move to
China	Chinese civilization
China (disambiguation)	China
People's Republic of China	People's Republic of China (no change)

And also that this article essentially remains the same with the exception of the name of course nat.utoronto 23:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Forget various intra-Chinese political arguments for a moment and apply the question posited at WP:DAB: "Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes 'Go', what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" The answer is clearly the People's Republic of China. Outside of a few oldtimers in Taiwan, few English-speaking users would consider Republic of China to be the legitimate government of China. WP:NAME says that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity..." and that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." When a generalist, English-speaking audience thinks of "China," it thinks of the state, the People's Republic of China, not Chinese culture. Despite what User:Nat implies above, it's not even ambiguous. — AjaxSmack 00:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support If you ask people the definition of China, most people will tell you China is country, and almost all encyclopedias state that China is a country. Wruazuezoa (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It was a country before 1949, for thousands of years, yet under the proposal you support the new article would discuss China only from 1949 on (the People's Republic of China). Badagnani (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at my comment at the bottom of this page, I don't think (or at least I hope not) that's what they are proposing. --Joowwww (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment China was, is, and will be always a country Wruazuezoa (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion is NOT to discuss whether or not "China" is a country but whether or not we should move several articles. nat.utoronto 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose OUTSIDE OPINION It's not uncommon for article to be split due to more recent name changes. Since there's a government in exile with a similar name, this helps to avoid confusion. The last paragraph before the table of contents explains the difference very well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Many, many countries of the world have exile groups, or large amounts of territory occupied by opposition/secessionist movements with entire alternate government structures. The Wikipedia:Naming conflict rightly says subjective criteria like this shouldn't be used to deny the name to the most common use. Can you reconcile your opposition with that guideline? It's something the talk archives have gone over many times. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'd say it falls under the section "overlapping names". Therefore, if there's really a huge concern that the article currently at China doesn't belong there, China should disambiguate., but no one seems to be concerned with that. I'm not sure how to determine what is "common use" in regards to the term, but the current setup goes by the official title. For the sake of neutrality in regards to PRoC and RoC, it's best to keep them separate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, you aren't sure how to determine common use? Find independent reliable sources that use the single term "China" to refer to the ROC. Find independently published maps that show a capital for "China" at either Nanjing or Taipei. Since independent reliable sources simply do not ever use the term China to refer to the government on Taiwan, there is no way to deny that common use of China is about the PRC. You quote neutrality, but please read our neutrality policy in regards to undue weight to minority views - the number of sources using "China" to refer to the ROC defines it as a minority view. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Oppose This article is about China. It is about more than the "civilization".--Jiang (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support This article should contain more info about China, for example, population, and the other page has it. Kaeblao (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • — Kaeblao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose When someone says China they are talking about one of the founding civilization on the earth. To move China to People's Republic of China assumes that 60 years of communist rule some how displace over six thousand years of Chinese history, including imperial rule and times even more ancient then that. The proper way to address this is to have China remain exactly where it is and use summary style to branch out to the finer points of Chinese history. In addition, the search bar test pales spectacularly to the google test: China nets a total of 853,000,000 hits, while Peoples Republic of China nets a much lower 8,770,000 hits. Just something to consider. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A Google test is not going to be a valid test. For instance a news article that says "the 2008 Olympics will be held in Beijing, China" clearly means the PRC, just as saying "the 1936 Olympics were held in Berlin, Germany" meant Deutsches Reich. Every country, including former empires and major historical civilizations has the current country at the common short name. The modern state, "Arab Republic of Egypt" is at the article Egypt. Egypt is not an article about a 6000 year old civilization and neither should China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Oppose China is more then just the current PRC, just as my own country, Germany, is more then the current FRG. Country names change all the time but China will always be called China, I think. The Taiwan issue is of no importance in this context at all at only used to discredit opponents. EA210269 (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed, there is only one article about Germany - not two (Federal Republic of Germany and German Civilization). This move isn't about making the PRC 1949-present the only China that ever existed, it's about having one article, called "China", for the area of land we call "China", for the country we commonly call "China", which includes its 2,000 years of history, its geography, its past and present governments, its culture, etc, etc, like every other country article on Wikipedia. --Joowwww (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed. There is one article on Germany because East Germany no longer exists. If East Germany still existed, saying that West Germany is the legitmate successor to the German Civilization is a violation of NPOV. Obviously, Germany is united now, but the analogy does not apply to China. T-1000 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my point, and it wasn't his. I was using Germany as an example of a country that doesn't make the distinction between "government" and "civilisation". He used Germany because it's where he lives. If you would like an example that is a bit simpler for you, how about Panama, where you will find one article, not two "Panamanian Civilisation" and "Republic of Panama" articles. --Joowwww (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I understood your point. Most countries have a merged article between the Civilization and state because there is not two state claiming to be the succssor state. This is not possible for Korea and China. T-1000 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good point, I have to agree. Have you followed the FRG link? It takes you to an article titled Germany, not Federal Republic of Germany. EA210269 (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support per previous comments. John Smith's (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - China, historically, culturally and geographically, does not correspond with, but merely overlaps, Red China. This move would endorse the POV of the Peking regime in its claim to embody the China of the past, and all the China of the present, while disregarding the equal and opposite claim made by Taipei. The status quo strikes an appropriate balance between the two claims. Biruitorul (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"equal and opposite claim". Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. No reliable sources use the single word "China" to refer to the ROC. There is nothing equal about their claim, and our policies do not allow us to deny a 60 year old successor government the name of their country when the rest of the world identifies that. The ROC claims are well represented in the text of our articles. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The failure of the above editor, in each of his/her responses, to address the historical issues raised by the editors to which s/he is responding, preferring only to address issues of the PRC/ROC split, isn't good. Badagnani (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been told twice now that the historical issues you raise are not what we are discussing. The failure is yours. --slashem (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See my response to Joowww below. Many modern countries have histories dating to antiquity. Our articles are about the modern country with summary style links to history. Using the glories of history to deny the modern usage is disingenuous, and obviously done with political bias. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

First, Taipei actually claims this as China; see article 4 of the ROC Constitution. Second, these nations recognise Taipei as "China", as have quite a few others in the last several decades. Third, Taipei and Peking both have successor state claims. For us to say unequivocally that "China" is the PRC, by placing the article there, is endorsing a POV that is very much in contention. Biruitorul (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that this is a minority viewpoint held by 23 minor countries as a matter of political convenience. It effectively proves that to a general interest English speaking audience that "China" is not used to refer to the ROC. Secondly, your commentary shows that opposition to using "China" to refer to the PRC is a political bias and not based on Wikipedia's policies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I would like to know on what standards you classified those countries as minor. I see wikipedia guidelines stating that reliable sources are required, and recognination by countries is certainly relable sources. I see there are also no rule that states that recogniation by 10% of the UN countries as falling under subjective criteria. This is Wikipedia, not Schmuckypedia. T-1000 (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And other countries recognise the PRC for motives other than "political convenience"? Costa Rica: "in order to attract foreign investment"; Malawi: "the benefits that we will be getting from mainland China". Let's be honest here. There is a split in world opinion on the matter, not least in Taiwan itself, which has a plausible, legitimate claim to all of China, as recognised by a number of countries. Also: kindly refrain from accusing me of failure to conform with Wikipedia's policies in this discussion. I have brought forth solid arguments on the matter and my side comments have nothing to do with my position in this discussion, which is based on my interpretation of policy. Biruitorul (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - From my view regarding POV outweighs the trend of using common names in this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Initially I was going to throw Oppose because I thought the RM request is a kind of joke. After reading the previous comments by people, I change my mind. Regardless of the political issues surrounded by China(s), PRC is the very legitimate regime of the mainland China with its history from prior dynasties. Spelling the country as PRC is also confusing with Taiwan. --Appletrees (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Somebody compares China with Korea's situation which is totally wrong. North and South Korea have been internationally acknowledged as legitimate and independent states but unfortunately Taiwan is not. When people talk about China, it is automatically the main China, not referring to the other China and history of China. PRC article misses the history of China section much.--Appletrees (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Appletrees, you know that in order to have official diplomatic relationships with the PRC the states must NOT recognize the ROC. Instead states use *unofficial* diplomatic channels to deal with the ROC. Also the above paragraph is essentially a POV shared by many of the states. Anyhow, remember that the ROC also controls Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu. Japan occupied Pescadores and Taiwan, but it did not occupy Kinmen and Matsu. Therefore the ROC had always controlled, and still does, Kinmen and Matsu. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Merging PRC and China would imply two points of view, either Taiwan is a part of the PRC, or "China" is only the mainland, both are gross violations of NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Both PRC and ROC claim themselves as the only representative of China, so moving PRC to China implies that only PRC is China, but ROC is not, which is not NPOV. Please respect the fact that there are two states, which are PRC and ROC, in the country China. -- Kevinhksouth (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • — Kevinhksouth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I have registered here since 2005. Although I am not active in editing here (only have arround 100 edits), I have lots of experences in Chinese Wikipedia (and also as a sysop there). Therefore, I am surprized that I am classified as a newcomer who is just for voting here only. -- Kevinhksouth (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Based on the comments, I think it's better to move the document since it's basically misleading and simply wrong. Dindong (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • — Dindong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support As someone pretty much completely ignorant of the politics of the PRC/China debate (seriously...just about everything I've read in this discussion now is news to me), I would expect to search "China" and get an article on the country. If I want Chinese history or civilization, those are what I'd search. This move makes sense to me. Chaoticfluffy (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I understand the situation, China is a reference point for multiple Articles in the scopes of other WikiProjects, and the historical context of an Article could require reference to the Sun Empire (<1912), the Republic of China (1912-1949; Taiwan 1949-present), or the People's Republic of China (1949-present). Consequently, in addition to being a summary of the Chinese civilization, China needs to include a summary governmental history with Main Article links as appropriate. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The PRC does not co-extensive with China, and Taiwan does not co-extensive with ROC. We have already gotton troubles with links pointing towards India for historical sites of ancient India within modern Pakistan. Don't make more trouble to lay readers of Wikipedia who rarely edit. Malaer (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)— Malaer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose - the opinion that when most people say "China" they mean the PRC is just that: an opinion. I don't buy it. It seems absurd to me that the "China" article should only cover the last 59 years of the PRC when Chinese culture goes back for 4,000 years! The word clearly has a far broader cultural and political meaning than those proposing the move suggest. At the same time, Wikipedia is committed to having articles whose point of view do not immediately cause offense to people and that applies to their titles just as much as the rest of their content. Sure, sometimes it's impossible to avoid causing offense to some people, but this is a case where that can be easily avoided, so imo it's a no-brainer to retain the status quo: use "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" to describe those entities and keep "China" for the larger discussion of Chinese society as a whole. The other alternative that I would support would be a disambiguation page at "China" much like the one at Georgia. -- Hux (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support for WP:COMMONNAME. --Checco (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOV. There's two Chinas, and until Taiwan changes its name, to prefer the PRC would not be neutral or proper. —Nightstallion 12:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support see Turkey for a somewhat similar case (note that article is not called "Republic of Turkey"). The argument shouldn't be about Taiwan, it should be about the use of the word "China" which more often than not means the big country. maxsch (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Where is the similar case with Turkey? AFAIK one government claims all that is "Turkey" while "Kurdistan" is disputed. The argument has to be about Taiwan... and the Pescadores... and Kinmen and Matsu. There is no way to avoid it. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Why listing all Chinese inventions? That looks ridiculous. Imagine pages about Germany, Russia or USA listing all its inventions. Is someone trying to show to the readers that Chinese invented something, even if it was hundred of years ago??? Secondly, China didn't invent gunpowder!!! They invented powder, not gunpowder - chinese never invented the gun!!! - so they couldn't have or call it 'gunpowder'. Gunpowder was actually invented by the Germans. Please correct it. Lin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.24.23 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the same issue in relation to Ireland is in dispute at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Republic of Ireland.

Fundamentally this is a question of who defines reality, politicians or the common people. The arguments regarding the neutrality of common names are all political arguments. Politicians, like all people, believe their own POV is neutral, but it is not clear why Wikipedia should agree with them. Other encyclopedias and all mass media take the view that the common names are the "most" neutral.

As a practical consideration, there are probably thousands of links to China which make no sense when they come to this article.

Finally, here is a logical rationale:

There are many perspectives from which terms can be defined. China can refer to a country, a civilization, a government, a people, an economy, a culture, a history, a geographical region. Each perspective leads to a different definition.

By far the most stable perspective is that of geography. The region known as "China" changes only due to continental drift. Associated with that geography is a people living in it. Although those peoples have changed, we do not define China as defined by only one of them. China also has a history, but it is primarily the history of a geographical region and the peoples who have lived in it. Thus we do not limit an article on the history of China to a history of the Han.

Associated with those people is a government. But the government is the least stable of these definitions. Although there have been various governments of China over its history, there is also implicit in common usage the assumption that terms refer to the present. Therefore in common usage "Chinese government" refers to the present Chinese government, which is defined by which government controls de-facto the geographical region named by "China" (which has not changed in human history).

From this perspective the ROC lost the usage of the term "China" when they retreated to Taiwan. This is why common usage is as it is.

Again, the only rationale behind making this article not about the PRC (which again is defined by common usage as the country that governs the geographical region "China" now and de-facto) is that you believe politicians define reality.

--slashem (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Note also that encyclopedias are traditionally organized around countries. Thus when there is a country commonly called China it defies expectations to make the subject of China about something else like a civilization. Similarly, when there is a country commonly called Ireland it defies expectations to make the subject of Ireland an island. Wikipedia is defying convention when it requires countries to reside at articles named by their official names while placing articles about other things at their common names. This could be ameliorated by requiring that common names for countries be redirects to their official names, but this is also likely to be opposed by the politically motivated. --slashem (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

France = French Republic, India = Republic of India, China = People's Republic of China -- Singaga (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Don't forget that because Wikipedia is blocked in mainland China, the only people from "Greater China" who can edit, or voice their opinion on this matter, are people from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, all of which are known for being less than enthusiastic at the prospect of being lumped together with a China that is described as the PRC. Do they oppose this move because it's against their POV? Even though they say their POV is NPOV? How many 12-year old kids who want to do a school report on China see the unnecessarily confusing array of articles about the same thing and decide to use Encarta instead? --88.107.114.30 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This issue exists because of a political situation where one side is over-represented and the other is prevented from participating. That's why it is important we answer the question based on Wikipedia's policies and not the personal politics of the participants. Using Wikipedia as a political battlefield is why the situation has existed for so long and why the current China article gets poorly reviewed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The article does not go into the legitimacy of PRC or ROC at all. How is it undue weight? And please stop using that poor excuse of review argument. The problems with the review were very clear, the Silk road and Korean independence. Both things having to do with the civilization. T-1000 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I would like to see these poor reviews, and 2. I don't think the political controversies will ever go away unless something drastic happens politically. In other words that is out of our control; all of the political controversies will remain. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you and most opposers are saying the political usage trumps the common usage. No one has ever explained why that should be so. --slashem (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the issue and not the person. Instead of labeling people try to frame it in an argument manner. First, there is a saying on the NPOV page that it is non-negotiable. If the common title violates NPOV, then, NPOV should prevail. It's a hierarchy. NPOV is to be protected at all costs. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You think neutral == politically neutral. Politics is full of lies and is not neutral. Our convention implies that the ROC and the PRC have equal claims to be the successor state to China, which is a lie. This lie has been agreed to because it serves the goals of the U.S. and China. Common usage is apolitical and therefore closer to being neutral. --slashem (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If two states officially claim to legitimately control one landmass (and if Kinmen and Matsu are a part of "China" then the PRC does NOT control all of "China"), then we need to be "neutral" about that. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my objection. --slashem (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I did - Whether "PRC=China" is a manner disputed by significant parties (I.E. important political factions in the Republic of China), so such a statement cannot be said as fact. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[reviews]; that you asked for. The China article was called simplistic and incoherent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

So the issues raised were: "simplistic, and in some places, even incoherent." and "mishandled the issue of Korean independence from China" and "and the context of the Silk Road in China's international relations." - So, of them only the first can relate to China being about the Chinese civilization instead of being about PRC and the Chinese civilization. Please explain how having the PRC would make this more incoherent and less simplistic, and how this would ALSO satisfy covering the history. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• China should be a disambiguation page for the myriad possibilities that the word could be used for. Being the "most common" target is not good enough; an article should be receiving the vast majority of hits/links in order to take precedence as a primary topic, e.g. because the other topics are derivative or virtually non-notable. For example, compare America to United States. I'm sure the US article is probably the most common target, but it's a bad idea to redirect America to the US article. Another example to consider is the simultaneous existence of British Empire, United Kingdom, England, etc. Although these are overlapping to an extent, and some are even purely historical, they are still independently notable in their own contexts. The PRC should have its own article regardless of whether it is or remains the definitive nation of China. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to opposers

Could you provide a reason to oppose based on Wikipedia policy? Talking about China as porcelain, or using Newspeak like "New China" is very much avoiding the issue and not answering the question. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Sure, per the policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, the move would violate that in several ways. First, the Republic of China still officially considers itself the "legitimate" Chinese government. Of course that position is borderline fringe. However, the view that it is a Chinese government is not so fringe. In addition, and I would suppose this fact would come as a surprise to people not familiar with the situation, supporters of Taiwan independence probably wish to equate "China" with the PRC, in order to paint "China" as a "foreign" entity vis-a-vis Taiwan. As I have already pointed out, the article leads of all the articles clearly refer people to whichever article they're looking for. Wikipedia should not take sides in this admittedly controversial three (or however many) way dispute surrounding the political status of Taiwan.Ngchen (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All of this is true but is only marginally relevant to the title of the article. Instead of looking at the political claims, apply the question posited at WP:DAB: "Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes 'Go', what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" The answer for English-speaking users of English Wikipedia is clearly the People's Republic of China. Even the government in Taipei de facto recognizes this. If there is a political dispute over the meaning of China, it can be discussed in the text of the relevant articles. — AjaxSmack 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is marginally relevant. By moving PRC to China we are saying China = PRC and that ROC = not China. The current position is that BOTH countries claim to be China. The PRC would hate it if ROC stopped claiming it was a part of China - it would be seen as a declaration of Taiwanese independence. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - When typing in China, many readers will want to find information about a place that existed before 1949 (i.e., dynastic China), the way they could find information about many aspects of Korea (and not simply a single recent nation-state) by typing Korea. Badagnani (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's quite an assumption, and is blatant original research. --Joowwww (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. And the might also want to find out about China (porcelain). That's why the guidleine says "what article would they most likely be expecting..." which is still the contemporary nation-state. — AjaxSmack 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Porcelain

If porcelain is the most common usage in English, then your move is wrong. 70.51.8.190 (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Porcelain is certainly not the most common usage in English. Red herring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In regular television people talk about a china set the china teacup, bone china, the good china, china cupboard, there are thousands of store/gift catalogs filled with chinaware and china. Wedding registries have entries for china sets. I rather think it *is* the most common usage in English, just as a "fork" is kitchen table utensil, and not a "fork in the road" or a programming construct. Filming movies or television would deal with orders from suppliers for china for dinner scenes, wedding scenes, diner scenes. Antiques shows deal with specialty china sets, like "airline china", "White House china", etc. When setting a dinner table for a family dinner, you set the china, and mom tells the children about it, but how often does "China" where the china originated come up? How often do people talk about a distant land, when it's something you use probably every day, and people break and need to buy new pieces of. 70.51.9.30 (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is not what meaning is most common in English — that is the realm of Wiktionary. The question is, as an encyclopedia, "when readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes 'Go', what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" The answer to that is the nation-state of China, known in full as the People's Republic of China. — AjaxSmack 01:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If that were the case, then it's just as likely to be a search for pre-PROC China as it is for PROC. If you're looking up the China of Emperors, or the context of the Great Wall, etc, it wouldn't be PRC. If it's for the recent earthquake, the Three Gorges Dam, it would be for PROC. If it's about the China of 1421, it's not, nor of Marco Polo, or the Silk Road. But in English, it should be porcelain that is the most likely usage. If we start devining the likely target, there are three, pre-PROC, PROC and porcelain, and then you'd have to have a dab page at China. 74.15.105.204 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is what is most likely to be expected of an encyclopedia. All encyclopedias I know of place a country article at its common name. Wikipedia is defying established convention here. --slashem (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias do not have an NPOV policy. They recognize PRC as the national government and Taiwan as a regional government (Taipei is not highlighted). Unless you believe this is netural? If that's case, the article on the Political status of Taiwan can be deleted as well. T-1000 (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is admit that you don't give a shit what established convention is. And no one is talking about deleting anything. --slashem (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of pathetic that you think politicians are neutral. You never did understand the statement that no on is neutral. --slashem (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is neutral. We stay neutral by presenting both sides of the arugment. We do not agree with either side. And please read WP:NPA, you can take that as an insult too, if you want. T-1000 (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot present both sides of the argument IN AN ARTICLE TITLE. The title of an article about the country China is either China or not. And again, you tell me to read things, well I tell you you don't understand what you read. --slashem (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good lord you don't even understand the words coming out of your mouth. If NO-ONE IS NEUTRAL why do you think WE ARE NEUTRAL? Do you think it is neutral to imply there are only two sides to this argument, and they are equal? --slashem (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We use neutral article titles. "China" = Chinese Civilization is uncontroversial. Wikipedia's neutralty is already defined in NPOV policy, We represent all arguments backed up by reliable sources, and we stay alient on whether the calims are equal or not. T-1000 (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, you never understand anything I say, but I'm bored so I'll keep repeating myself. There is no such thing as a neutral article title. Either China refers to the country currently governed by the PRC or it doesn't, there is no middle ground. You don't "represent arguments" or provide "reliable sources" in an ARTICLE TITLE. Again, you cannot grasp the concept that we are talking about ARTICLE TITLES here. Hey, want me to say it again? --slashem (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again Wikipedia disagrees with you. Since the guidelines clearly state "Having an neutral article title is very important". Sorry. T-1000 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha, AND YOU SPEAK FOR WIKIPEDIA. Say, DID YOU READ WP:NAME, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCON where it states "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Hey, sometimes Wikipedia policies conflict! That just blows your mind, doesn't it? --slashem (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is stated to be non-negoitable. Common names is not. NPOV comes first. T-1000 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeat: 1) NPOV is about article text not article titles, and 2) nothing is absolutely neutral. --slashem (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

1)Repeat: ""Having an neutral article title is very important" is from WP:NPOV. 2) your opinion only. T-1000 (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

1) It is your CLAIM that pretending there is no successor state to China is more neutral than the common usage 2) That wouldn't be your opinion would it? --slashem (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

1) I didn't pretend, the controversy is real and I can back it up with 23 countries that considers ROC to be China. 2) Wikipedia thinks that a neutral article title is possible. If you have a problem with that, talk to Jimbo Wales. T-1000 (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(too many indents)Oh my god, there is a controversy THEREFORE THERE IS NO SUCCESSOR STATE TO CHINA! Politicians never lie! And we all know not only that Jimbo Wales is God, but that you are his prophet. --slashem (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I can back up the controversy with reliable sources. Second, you don't like the rules set by Jimbo Wales, you can leave. No one is forcing you to stay. T-1000 (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, did I say there was no controversy? Maybe you better read what I wrote again. While you're at it, reread the part below where I said different people can interpret rules differently. And thanks so much for suggesting I leave, it shows your dedication to cooperative editing which we all know is a core value here. --slashem (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You claim that the controversy ended with the Cold War, remember? Second, I would like to know how you interpret "Having an neutral article title is very important" diffrently. T-1000 (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You think that when politicians from 23 countries give diplomatic recognition to Taiwan that they believe the ROC is the successor state to China? You think politicians don't fudge the facts? You continue to believe that pretending that there is no successor state to China is "neutral", well, I am saying the common usage is "more neutral". Stop pretending that you are the final judge of what is neutral. --slashem (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reply with what you think, and just stick with the Wikipedia guideline of reliable sources. It doesn't matter if you think they fudge or not. They are still reliable sources. T-1000 (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, that didn't take long. How many times will I point out to you that we can't refer to reliable sources to determine article titles? How do we determine article titles when there are conflicting sources? --slashem (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We use the one that is uncontroversial. T-1000 (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's bad enough that you never shut up, could you at least do everyone else a favor and try to consolidate your comments so they can easily ignore us if we bore them? As to your point, no one understands this title and it defies existing convention. It's easy to be uncontroversial when you don't have to be understood. --slashem (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, such an outburst is a sure way to make a point. Perhaps you don't understand this current title. Needlessly to say, you don't respresent everyone. T-1000 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My points have already been made, you just repeat yourself because you never listen. I never claimed to represent everyone, although you claim to represent Jimbo Wales. --slashem (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, since everything you said so far is your opinion. I don't represent Jimbo Wales, merely that My understanding of the guidelines is constant with the Naming guideline for five years. But Like I said, show us your interpretation of the guidelines. T-1000 (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That's kind of hilarious that you choose to repeat yourself again here, in spite of all attempts to consolidate the discussion. Answered below. --slashem (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Important clarification needed

Comment: I think some people are thinking that if the PRC was moved to China then the new China article would only be about post-1949 China. Let's clear this up now, because it's not what I support, and I hope it's not what other supporters support. The article "China" would be about the area of land we commonly call "China", and the country we commonly call "China", and its 5,000 years of history, its geography, its past and present governments, its foreign relations, its economy, its demographics, its culture, etc etc, like every other country article on Wikipedia. If this survey is suggesting that the new China article would only be about post-1949 China, then I withdraw my support. --Joowwww (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that your prosopal was PRC = China, ROC = Taiwan. However, that violates NPOV on several points. First, treating the PRC as the legitimate successor is a violation of NPOV. Second, your proposal implies that Taiwan is not a part of China, which is another violation. Third, Merging the ROC and the Taiwan article would mislead people, as you yourself were mislead by saying Taiwan was part of the allies during WWII. T-1000 (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you. I just read several country articles on places with long histories (Israel, Egypt, Turkey). All of these somehow connect the modern state to the history of the region and people. The current PRC article does not do that at all, as if history began in 1949. The current China article refuses to connect the region and history to any modern state. Both are broken. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Israel, Egypt, Turkey are all bad comparisons. None of them have a modern entity that tries as hard as the PRC government in terms of disconnecting from its original root. Benjwong (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you imply that what the politicians say defines reality. --slashem (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Common people's opinions are original research, and don't even belong on Wikipedia. Do read WP:OR. We cite from reliable sources, which includes politicians. T-1000 (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again you confuse article text with names of articles. Read WP:NAME and WP:NCON, both already referenced in this discussion. See, I can quote policy as well as you can. Don't insult me by telling me to read anything, I've read it all and I understand it better than you. --slashem (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about article names. That's was a response to your implication that common people's opinions override notable sources. And please be more mature, telling you to read stuff is allowing you to become a better Wikipedian, not an insult. The welcome message to Wikipedia tells you to read five articles. Do you take that as an insult as well? T-1000 (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about article names, so you are not talking about what we are talking about. Try to be relevant. I don't care whether you think it is an insult or not, stop telling me to read policy because I've told you many times I've read it all. And you are also violating WP:NPA by calling me immature. Perhaps you should read it. --slashem (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Neutral" POV

Again, it is impossible to choose a "neutral" organization and naming convention for these articles. The current convention pushes the POV that the PRC is not the successor state to the Chinese civilization, that in fact the PRC and the ROC have equal claims. This is not the common view, and you don't even hear it much in political circles anymore. --slashem (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia never said that "PRC is not the successor state". We mention both claims and remain slient of the issue of legitmacy. T-1000 (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are incapable of understanding. If the article about the country China is not called China that implies China is not a country, i.e. has no successor state. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ARTICLE TITLES HERE. You are incapable of understanding even whawt the debate is about. --slashem (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a simliar problem with the Koreas. There are no uncontroversial successor states to China. T-1000 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

North and South Korea are more equal. And, in fact, the only controversy over which is the successor state to China comes from Cold-War politics, which, you know, ended with the fall of the USSR. --slashem (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Both countries are recognized, and they recognize to be South and North, not a single Korea. This debate is about People's Republic of China and Republic of China, and most of the world accepts and/or recognizes PRC as the only China, and ROC as Taiwan. You want something that sustains this comment? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_China -- Suddenly, RoC's article seems so full of content, with many categories at the end of it. Perhaps someone is vandalizing this whole deal? Maybe doing this to remove any trace of China in the world's most popular online encyclopaedia? Hasn't anyone though of that? -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, "the controversy ended with the Cold War" is only your opinion, given that there is still a political status of Taiwan page. T-1000 (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again you fail to understand what you read. That would be an article about the political status of Taiwan, not China. Hey, "the controversy didn't end with the Cold War" -- THAT WOULDN'T BE AN OPINION, WOULD IT? --slashem (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The political status of the Republic of China page redirect to the Political status of Taiwan page. Plus the PRC and ROC are still competiting for recognize. So yes, the controversy is still ongoing. That's a fact. The only way for the controversy to end is for the ROC to renounce claim over mainland China. T-1000 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, we have a redirect so it must be true! And the fact that the PRC refuses to allow other countries to recognize Taiwan implies that the ROC is still seriously considered a successor state to China! IS THAT A FACT? And of course the actions of a few politicians in Taiwan determines what is a neutral article title! --slashem (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What kind of response is this? Of course we only look at the facts and not conjure about what is "serious" or not. As for the question of minority. We have an article on Northern Cyprus, only recognized by one country. T-1000 (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's a response you can't understand. You actually believe that the ROC is seriously considered a successor state to China. Hey, you know what? I think California is a successor state to China. Don't try to conjecture about whether that is serious or not. And you are getting me confused with someone else regarding the minority. I'm the one claiming political claims (e.g. international recognition) doesn't trump common usage. Try to keep it straight, ok? --slashem (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia never goes by majority rule to began with. As long the claim is backed up by reliable sources, it is serious. 23 country recogniation is a reliable source. T-1000 (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You really cannot understand the difference between article text and article titles, can you? --slashem (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You really can't understand that my above comment is about your claim that "the controversy ended with the Cold War", can you? T-1000 (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me get this straight, you can't make your comments relevant to what I say, but I'm required to make my comments relevant to what you say? This ENTIRE DISCUSSION is about you trying to apply article text policy to article title policy, and YOU YOURSELF admitted you are not talking about article names. --slashem (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote policy from WP:NPOV is "Having an neutral article title is very important". So yes, it is about article names, not article text. T-1000 (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy

It's kind of amusing that some people can't understand that different people interpret policy differently. --slashem (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, show me how you interpret " A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context." differently. T-1000 (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary to repeat yourself three times. Well, you do it anyway, but try not to do it in immediate succession. If you want to show that you understand what I am saying, don't bring up the idea about reporting both sides with reliable sources again. Ever.

In hopes of consolidating discussion, I will repeat myself here. It is not neutral to have China be about the Chinese civilization: it implies there is no country called "China". Since there is no perfectly neutral title here, the most neutral title would be to follow common usage (as all other encyclopedias do) and make China about the country currently ruled by the PRC. --slashem (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no undisputed country called China. Just like there is no country called Korea, that's a fact. T-1000 (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In common usage there is. That's a fact. --slashem (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You should try to talk Jimbo Wales into considering Common names before sources. T-1000 (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You do love to repeat yourself, don't you? Again, 1) an article can only have one title, so any choice will conflict with some sources 2) Jimbo Wales is not God and you are not his prophet 3) Read WP:COMMONNAME. --slashem (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, everybody agrees with that China can refer to the Chinese civilization, that part is uncontroversial. Second, Jimbo Wales is the ultimate decider here on Wiki. You can ask the adminstrators if you don't believe me. T-1000 (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gee, does the Chinese civilization have a successor state? What would that state be called? Hey, you know calling porcelain china is pretty uncontroversial too, maybe we should do that. As for Jimbo, I'm sure he would love to be asked how to name every article on Wikipedia. Oh wait, we don't have to BECAUSE YOU SPEAK FOR HIM. --slashem (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, The Chinese Civilization does not have a undisputed successor state. Regarding the guidelines, show us your alternative interpretation. T-1000 (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, because you cannot read, I repeat myself: WP:NAME, WP:NCON, and WP:COMMONNAME. But I'm sure you still won't read it, so I promise to repeat it again. --slashem (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again you refuse to acknowledge that there is an undisputed common usage of "China". You can't even understand that politicians do not control language. --slashem (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always acknowledged know that PRC is commonly referred to as China, but it still implies a viewpoint. The example at the Common names guidelines is that Gay people are common referred to as "faggots", and that is also not neutral. T-1000 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(repeating) There is no such thing as an article title without a viewpoint. --slashem (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(repeating) Please stop repeating your opinion. T-1000 (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, God knows you would never do that. --slashem (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day, "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context", this guideline will still be there. Good Luck trying to convince everyone that a neutral article title is impossible. T-1000 (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're allowed to repeat your opinion but I am not? --slashem (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

PS So nice of you to show your support for core Wikipedia principles by editing the article to reflect your POV during this discussion. --slashem (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's another issue. The national borders of the ROC do include the mainland, that could be backed up with an official roc map. T-1000 (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously you aren't here to discuss, just to get your way. So there's no point discussing it with you. --slashem (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you discuss a claim. It either exists or it doesn't. T-1000 (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary too. You are priceless. --slashem (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring too? T-1000 (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, there's no point explaining it to you, you are always right. I'm just going to enjoy watching you. --slashem (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, more edit-warring. You are an inspiration to all Wikipedians. --slashem (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Schmucky changed that to help his viewpoint, and it was done without disscusion. I have started a new discussion at the talk page. T-1000 (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Assumption of Bad Faith. Wow, for someone who loves to quote policy you sure can violate a lot of them when you want to. --slashem (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He changed right after I said "Nowhere does it say that the second paragragh only applies to descriptive names", so yes, it's pretty obvious. T-1000 (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Say, you wouldn't happen to have a prior conflict with Schmucky, would you? Do you think you are "neutral"? --slashem (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's simply standard to have discussions before altering NPOV rules. T-1000 (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and we all know your definition of "discussion" is "repeat my opinion until everyone is tired of talking to me." --slashem (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How ironic, That's exactly the impression you given me. Considering you never gave out any proof of "Impossible to have a neutral article title" and the "controversies ended with the Cold War". 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you know that's what you said about Schmucky, too. But I don't have conversations like this with anyone else. Apparently the only way for us to avoid repeating ourselves to you is to ignore you. But obviously you don't wait for discussion before making controversial edits yourself. Now that we have proven you really aren't interested in discussing your edits, are we done? --slashem (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

controversial? The ROC's national border includes the mainland is common knowledge. [1] T-1000 (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, since guidelines already demend a netural article title and the controversy can be proven, I will no longer respond to these two arguments. T-1000 (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, you repeat yourself again and then try to have the last word. But I am sure that if you don't get the last word you will repeat yourself. --slashem (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(repeating) Hey, did you read WP:NAME, WP:NCON, and WP:COMMONNAME? --slashem (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. T-1000 (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. This has been mentioned before too. "Mainland" is more common than "China" in the east, where it should count most. Benjwong (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any source to sustain your comment? Because practically every major power in the world, including the USA doesn't recognizes Taiwan. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First, Ruine, taking that rationale would align us with a POV officially expressed by the PRC. Two, remember that the PRC tells countries to NOT recognize the ROC in order to establish diplomatic relations. Third, aren't Kinmen and Matsu Islands a part of "China" too? (they were never controlled by Japan) Fourth, remember that the ROC has unofficial relations with many countries. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial, that is why many people want to move the article of PRC to the China, so why do we have to keep the name for the unofficial state's sake? That is your POV.--Appletrees (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, please re-read Wikipedia:NPOV - It is undisputed that the ROC has unofficial (and real, which is my point - just because they are unofficial doesn't mean they are not real) contacts with other countries, such as the USA. That is a fact and is not disputed. Saying that the PRC is the modern government of all of China is disputed by significant groups, and so that would be an opinion. Also the above reply does not address the above information (Kinmen and Matsu never being occupied by Japan, and so always a part of "China", the PRC tactic of forcing non-recognition of the ROC). Remember that we decide things by arguments and not by votes. Also, please take the "your" out of replies. Talk about the issue, and not about my views. Notice how I talk about statements, paragraphs, and replies. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your point of view seems to me just your POV, not close to NPOV. The NPOV policy does not change the fact that people commonly refers to the PRC as China and Taiwan is just called "Taiwan". Besides, NPOV does not mean to "not side for any party". Consensus is not "middle ground or compromise not to cause any conflict around Wikipedia. Fact is fact and real life is real life. Wikipedia reflects on "real life" not just like ordinary encyclopedia. Republic of "China" is what Taiwanese only call themselves, not by others. And please don't confuse my statement just as a claim for "vote". I guess your unpleasant analysis stems from my comment below which is totally irrelevant to your right above comment. I'm talking about the issue and response is one way to continue a "discussion". --Appletrees (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Under international law, recognition and normalized relations are two separate issues. Recognition does not require the precense of normalized diplomatic relations. The US recognizes the authority of the Communist Party of Cuba over Cuba, or the regime of Kim Jong-il over North Korea, even though it has no official relations with either. The vast majority of states recognizes the sovereignty of the Republic of China over Taiwan through actions such as stamping its passports and accepting them as valid documents, carrying out "all but in name" relations through institutions such as the American Institute in Taiwan, and contacting the ROC government for issues of trade, trafficking, etc.--Jiang (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder: the neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant minority points-of-view be fairly presented. I think the arguments can be broken down simply as follows: (pro-move) use common names; (anti-move) NPOV, even if the terms are not as well-known. I don't see a consensus developing, nor do I see one developing in the future. Disclaimer: I am against the move for NPOV reasons. If no consensus is going to develop, I suggest closing the discussion in a reasonable time as opposed to having it go on ad nauseum.Ngchen (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Common sense?

So after reading all of the above it seems like "NPOV trumps Common Usage" is going to be the stubborn response to any attempt at consensus. But there is another factor: common sense. No there isn't a guideline specifically about it, and there's probably 1,000 conflicting guidelines for/against it, and I'll probably get dismissed with a link to WP:Whatever, but why do all these rules, guidelines, arguments, etc etc blind the average user from wanting to find out about China? Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? A free encyclopedia that anyone can use, and an outlet for promoting knowledge and understanding to everyone? Or a base for contributors to vent their political opinions at the expense of clarity of information? The guideline of "NPOV" is generally a good thing, I agree with that, but in isolated cases, such as this debacle, it is a hindrance to clarity and understanding, and I feel that discussion needs to be made higher up about the real usefulness of it in banging-head-against-brick-wall topics such as China. Below is my proposal of the article move. Feel free to casually dismiss it, round off a load of guidelines, and refuse to climb out of the insular bubble, take your fingers out of your ears, open your mind, and take part in any forward-moving discussion that might actually solve this issue. Put the guidelines aside for one moment and actually think about what benefits the guest reader, not the contributors. Please note this rant isn't directed at any individual, but if the cap fits... --Joowwww (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

China, officially the People's Republic of China, is a country.... History, Geography, Politics, Administrative divisions, Foreign relations, Economy, Demographics, Culture, etc Yes, this may look like it's describing the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China, but for crying out loud, not only has more than one guest to the page asked why doesn't the China article describe the actual country, it also uses common sense, reality, common usage, whatever you want to call it. Who was it that said "serve the people"? Well, serve the people, not the guidelines.

Taiwan is a disputed island in the East China Sea, currently administered by the Republic of China. History, Geography, Politics, Administrative divisions, Foreign relations, Economy, Demographics, Culture, etc This is based on the Kosovo article. Both have limited recognition. Both aren't recognised by the "parent" state.

No this isn't definitive, and no I'm not suggesting that precise wording, but it's just so some can gain a little perspective on what I am proposing. Bring on the wrath. --Joowwww (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• First, what does "country" mean in this context? Are you referring to the government(s)? If so, I think this statement is very clear: "The stalemate of the last Chinese Civil War has resulted in two political entities using the name China: the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, which controls mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau; and the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, which controls the island of Taiwan and some nearby islands." - Also it seems like "it also uses common sense, reality, common usage, whatever you want to call it." is describing a point of view. Until the ROC officially declares itself as "separate from China" and no longer officially claims the Chinese mainland, then "PRC is the government of China" sounds like a point of view. Also the ROC is not a parent state of the PRC - the ROC moved to Taiwan and the Pescadores after Japan left, and the ROC continued to hold Kinmen and Matsu while the PRC took everything else. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, NPOV is not a "guideline" - it is a non-negotiable policy. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This proposal will likely be opposed by those who support Taiwan Independence, because it implies that the PRC is a national government, while ROC/Taiwan is a regional government. T-1000 (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is simply incorrect. It should be New China, officially the People's Republic of China, is a country... etc. Benjwong (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are terms from PROC that are shorter than the whole term... mainland China and Red China come to mind, as common, widely used. 74.15.105.205 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Jooowwww. That is common sense. Most people talk about China and Taiwan now in my experience. I don't know when I last heard or saw Red China or Mainland China in the media or talking to people. Look at Google News -- or look at [2] in USA Today -- who's that referring to Taiwan? Why it's Taiwan's incoming president. It seems to me that anything other than China and Taiwan are POV in the 21st century.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Weller, just because media outlets use "China" and "Taiwan" as shorthand doesn't negate the fact that the Republic of China (which governs more than Taiwan, anyway) still officially claims China as part of its territory - Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

US Congressmen seem to use Red China and Mainland China alot on CSPAN, and Lou Dobbs does on CNN... 70.55.86.34 (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Red China isn't used, but that is just a red herring. "Mainland China" is widely used when strict neutrality and precision needs to be observed: [3][4] And this is what happens when you fail to use the term and imply certain "Chinese territories" are not part of China: [5]--Jiang (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't watch Lou Dobbs on CNN. [6] He uses Red China. And CSPAN does have Congressmen calling China Red China. Congressmen say all sorts of things... like Communist Canada, Canuckistan, People's Republic of France. 70.55.84.51 (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because the incoming President of Taiwan uses the word Taiwan doesn't mean we should, because Wikipedia is not a president, right? Interesting that the articles that use Mainland China also use the word Taiwan. A few mention "mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau" which is a slightly different use of the phrase "mainland China". I repeat, it is POV to let a tiny political viewpoint overrule reality. I see no reason not to follow WP:COMMONAMES guidance. Only doing that will give us NPOV in this case.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the incoming president of Taiwan?

That would imply that "People's Republic of China" should be moved to "Mainland China" which would be inappropriate in many contexts.

The PRC calls itself "the Chinese mainland" when dealing Taiwan:[7][8]. This is about accuracy and precision, that is, not unnecessarily implying for the sake of expediency that certain territories outside mainland China are not part of China. This is not simply a "tiny political viewpoint". The reality is that Western media terms imply that Taiwan is not part of China, which is simply unacceptable to many Chinese readers.--Jiang (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Classification of responses

I'm going to try to sort responses by type here. If I list you in the wrong section feel free to move yourself.

Support: common usage, PRC is China

China should be about the country currently governed by the PRC and the history of China going back thousands of years.

1. SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs)
2. Slashem (talk · contribs)
3. Joowwww (talk · contribs)
4. Polaron (talk · contribs)
5. RuineR (talk · contribs)
6. Kristmace (talk · contribs)
7. Buddha24 (talk · contribs)
8. Chrishomingtang (talk · contribs)
9. Jerrch (talk · contribs)
10. AjaxSmack (talk · contribs)
11. John Smith's (talk · contribs)
12. Appletrees (talk · contribs)
13. Chaoticfluffy (talk · contribs)
14. Dougweller (talk · contribs)[9]
15. Checco (talk · contribs)
16. Fennessy (talk · contribs)
17. Loodog (talk · contribs)

Oppose: calling PRC "China" violates NPOV

1. Biruitorul (talk · contribs)
2. WhisperToMe (talk · contribs)
3. T-1000 (talk · contribs)
4. Ngchen (talk · contribs)
5. WhisperToMe (talk · contribs)
6. Nightstallion (talk · contribs)
7. Arbiteroftruth (talk · contribs)
8. Computor (talk · contribs)
9. Lowellian (talk · contribs)

Oppose: other

1. Benjwong (talk · contribs): the PRC is "New China" not "China", and common usage in the east is "Mainland China"
2. TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs): China in the past is a different thing from the PRC
3. TomStar81 (talk · contribs): China is about the historical civilization and not the PRC
4. Nat (talk · contribs): prefers disambiguation page
5. Jiang (talk · contribs): China is not just about the civilization
6. 70.55.88.176 (talk · contribs)
7. JeremyMcCracken (talk · contribs)
8. B.C.Schmerker (talk · contribs)
9. Badagnani (talk · contribs)
10. PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs) I believe it is anachronistic to say that the dynastic, pre-modern empire forged in the 3rd century BC is the exact same political entity as the modern People's Republic which has ruled most of "China" for the past 6 decades. Benjwong also makes a great point about modern usage of the term "mainland China".--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
11. Kraftlos (talk · contribs): I think this is fine the way it is, but perhaps a heading of Government should be added to the China page for easier access to the RoC and PRC links.
12. Colipon (talk · contribs): I do not think this article should be moved, but I do think there needs to be more clear organization in the articles. For example, why does the "China" article have sections on science and technology, and recreation? I think basically the difference is a cultural political one. The PRC is a political entity, while "China" is a cultural concept. Hong Kong people, for example, do not call themselves "Chinese" in the sense that they are PRC nationals, but call themselves "Chinese" when referring to their culture or ethnicity. This is slightly more taboo in Taiwan due to the sensitivities and confusions surrounding the word "China" there. I think the China article should explain what the cultural sphere consists of, and focus on cultural and historical issues, while the PRC's culture and history sections should include only PRC history and PRC-influenced culture. In addition, merging sets a precedent to refer to the ROC as "Taiwan", which means all Taiwan articles have to change as well.

Notes

Suspected single-purpose-accounts not included. I did not classify Badagnani (talk · contribs) because he opposed even though he apparently agrees with the rationale of the supporters. EA210269 (talk · contribs) initially opposed but may have changed his mind.

--slashem (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed single purpose accounts/suspected socks Singaga (talk · contribs) and Wruazuezoa (talk · contribs).--Jiang (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It was very wrong to have left me out of the "Oppose" list. Please don't do something like that again. Badagnani (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Singaga a sock? Wruazuezoa certainly is and rightfully removed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Singaga is recently registered and all of this user's (sometimes disruptive) edits are on this single topic.--Jiang (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Slashem, you should see how chinese editors handled the same article space on chinese wikipedia. Notice how they too do not make the PRC the representative entity for all of China. Benjwong (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(This is off-topic, but I wonder if this has to do with the fact that Wikipedia had been censored until recent. -- Taku (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Exactly... expect biased results. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess the anon above seems also unqualified to cast his "vote" here if the same standard applies upon him/her. At least Singaga and Wruazuezoa (I don't know what opinion they presented) "registered" their account in the end of "April". The anon edited with the ip since May 9th, and there is a possibility of him/her to vote twice with his account and ip. Although this discussion did not set up any specific rule but generally voter number does not include IP users. --Appletrees (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I not exactly WP:AGF but those removed reek of a certain sockmaster we know, as the usernames are quite similar in style to the ones found and indef blocked. nat.utoronto 15:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Singaga is not a sock, but maybe an SPA, I'm on the fence about whether that should neutralize his contribution. Wruazeuzoa is a sock of a well-known troll and should be tossed, even if he registers three dozen socks to agree with me, he has to go. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

As well, Singaga's contributions to talkpages are very similar in style to the insults/vandalism left on my talkpage a while back when I was conducting "search and block operations" on the sockmaster's list of infinite number of sleeper sockpuppets. nat.utoronto 15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, then we have two sockmasters. Singaga barely knows english, Wruazeuzoa has a good grasp of it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Nope, there is only one. I had a quick CU report done for me by a checkuser and both are Peter zhou's socks. nat.utoronto 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is User:Buddha24 also a sock? T-1000 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That I don't know. The individual wasn't on the Checkuser's to-block list. The possibility is there, but until we are absolutely sure, and there is absolute solid evidence to back that claim, we should assume good faith and let the person be. If Buddha24 is a sock, the username will sooner or later end up on a confirmed CU report. If you suspect that he or she is a sockpuppet or sockmaster, I would suggest that you visit WP:SSP or WP:RfCU. (and btw, I am not a checkuser, so it would be pointless to ask me to find out for you.) nat.utoronto 03:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

More input needed

This debate, no matter the result, will have a profound impact on the encyclopedia. We will have to rewrite a number of policy pages, change a TON of links if it succeeds, and restructure China's entire article categorization system. Many articles will need to be rewritten to match the new status quo. Given the importance of this debate, we need to solicit as much of the community to participate as possible. We would be lax in our editorial responsibilities if we only allowed what relatively amounts to a handful of editors to decide something that will require a major overhaul of the encyclopedia. I recommend we notify WP:AN, WP:VP and the Community Portal. Also, this is probably worth mentioning in the Signpost, so notifying them would also be prudent. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This debate will never go anywhere. It is impossible to impose any Wikipedia-wide standards, there will never be consensus. --slashem (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, as long as interpretation of policy is up to a vote that can plainly ignore the text of the policy this discussion will always deadlock. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Could we, instead of focusing primarily on arguments that never end, focus the efforts of our considerably energetic and knowledgeable editors focusing on China-related-articles to creating stubs for all of China's counties? There are still thousands of redlinks and this was done last year for Vietnam; I think it took less than two weeks to do, assisted by a bot. For an example of the need for this, just see all the redlinks at List of administrative divisions of Shaanxi. Badagnani (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive China Article Solution

Throughout the last couple of weeks, I have looked at the problems faced by English Wikipedia with articles on Chinese topics. After carefully analyzing the problem, and looking at how Wikipedias in other languages deal with the problem, I would like to propose the following:

Proposed Name	Topics covered
China	Geography of China (no actual text, but links to its counterparts at the Taiwan and PRC article), the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", the constituent entities that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan), cultures and customs (mostly like it is now)
China (Historical)	A bowdlerized history of China, including its successive dynasties (with links to the history section of each of the dynasties), areas ruled (there are wild variations between dynasties) with a cutoff point at the end of the Qing Dynasty. Treat it as if it was a former nation.
People's Republic of China	People's Republic of China as it stands today (no change whatsoever)
Republic of China (1912)	ROC as it existed before it retreated to Taiwan
Republic of China	ROC after its retreat to Taiwan (aka: Taiwanese Government)

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. --slashem (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If you guys can give a better reason than "莫須有" (see Yue_Fei#Kneeling_Iron_Statues), that would be great. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a separate chinese civilization/history article (maybe up until the end of the qing dynasty), but the article about mainland china should include references to both chinas. I oppose because I don't see a need to separate RoC and Roc (1912).

solution

Have China redirect to the Republic of China and keep Communist China as it is.

OR DO THIS Good China (Republic of China) Bad China (People's Republic of China) Chinese civilization (China)--4.245.72.201 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mao's portrait

Can anyone tell me the size of Mao's portrait in tianamen square

nikonmark@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.35.101 (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I am proposing that we split pages on Chinese topic as follows:

Proposed Name	Topics covered
China	Geography of China (no actual text, but links to its counterparts at the Taiwan and PRC article), the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", the constituent entities that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan), cultures and customs
China (Historical)	A bowdlerized history of China, including its successive dynasties (with links to the history section of each of the dynasties), areas ruled (there are wild variations between dynasties) with a cutoff point at the end of the Qing Dynasty.
People's Republic of China	People's Republic of China as it stands today (no change whatsoever)
Republic of China (1912)	ROC as it existed before it retreated to Taiwan
Republic of China	ROC after its retreat to Taiwan (aka: Taiwanese Government)

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to change two things to make it work. First, the China can talk about the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", and even different definitions of what "China" is, but when you start talking about "geography" or more problematically "the constituent nations that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan)" you run into trouble. Your very proposal lacks NPOV by including Taiwan in the constituent nations. And if you talk about geography you'll have no end of trouble trying to decide whether to include that big island off the coast of Fujien province. By not equating China with PRC you'll even run into difficulties trying to decide whether to include that big plateau and montain range pushed up by India colliding into Asia. But if you stick to just describing the different definitions and providing links to articles with more info you'll be fine. It will be like a deluxe disambiguation page.

There is no need to break the ROC page into two pages because of Terroritral expansion and shrinkage. T-1000 (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? The territorial change was very significant. There could even be three articles because the democratization was significant too.--Jerrch 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It pushes the POV that Taiwan is not a part of China, which violates NPOV. As for democratization, we don't have separate articles for United States (Pre 1865) and United States (post 1865), despite there was signifacant democratization. T-1000 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It also pushes the POV that Taiwan is part of China. As for the significance, there was not only democratization, but also there were localization, desinicization, and rise of Taiwanese nationalism.--Jerrch 23:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is, accroding to the ROC's terrortial defintion. There's also signifancant dispute regarding those other terms. T-1000 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

T-1000, you analogy with the US is misused, and off-topic. Taiwan, as it exists today, is much different legally than the ROC that exists before. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

different legally? such as? T-1000 (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am advocating for the split, because the ROC before and after its relocation to Taiwan are different not only territorially, but legally and constitutionally as well. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of China has maintained the same constitution since 1948 (before the withdrawal/retreat/relocation to Taiwan), so constitutionally it has not changed, with of course minor changes to the parts concerning legislative duties and powers (i.e. the dissolution of the National Assembly and majority of its powers transfered to the Legislative Yuan). nat.utoronto 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Second, rename Republic of China (1949) to Republic of China (Taiwan) (1949).

Readin (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I will amend the topics covered for China, but I am not going to change the current ROC page to Republic of China (Taiwan), for we might violate NPOV, as that title might be construed by some that we condone Taiwan Independence. The issue of China is no joke, and we need to be careful. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the idea that we shouldn't split the ROC article into pre and post 1949. While the territory changed, there was continuity of government. The same dictator and autocrats remained in power; and the structure of the government remained. The ROC article is about the government, not about either of the countries it ruled. The fact that you think adding the territory governed post 1949 to the title condones independence, while it is clear to me that the territory governed is integral to the article and - it is the very reason for having a post 1949 article and avoiding it would violate NPOV, shows that the split might now work anyway.

Let's keep the ROC article as one article focused on the government. The Taiwan article can continue to deal with non-governmental aspects of the modern ROC. That leaves us with a hole for the non-governmental aspects of 1912-1949 China. Let's call that "China during the Republican Period" or something similar, or perhaps lump it in with "China (historical)".Readin (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have set up this sample page here to show what the Republic of China (1912) article could look like. It is work in progress, but it's a start. Also, for ROC after 1949, I think we could suffice with the current name, instead of adding "(1949)" after it. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think splitting is good, because of the radically different governments involved. Yes, there was continuity, but after the move to Taiwan, the government underwent radical changes that make it more localized to Taiwan. Also, the size of the ROC article is within the area where splitting is suggested. This is a good chance to truly delineate the ROC article into a pre and post Taiwan stage. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of this needs to be merged onto one single talk page. China (Historical) should just redirect to History of China. The history of China is a succession of states (dynasties), all of which will have the "former countries" template applied. It is impossible to apply the template on pre-modern China as a whole.

As posted before, the succession of Republican governments must to seperated from the succession of Republican states. There is a clear succession of governments, all of which need articles showing this succession, and something as major as the Nationalist Government really needs an article. The state existed more-or-less undisputed throughout the Republican era, but no single government gained complete control over it (so what the heck do we mean when we say the Republic of China "ruled" all of China before 1949?) and at times (e.g. WWII) there were rival governments going by the same name and flag. There are clear breaks in rule in 1912, 1916, 1928, 1937, 1945, and 1949. How many Republic of Chinas do we need? --Jiang (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would generally argue that the watershed for the ROC happened in 1949, when they moved to Taiwan. That is where we draw the line for the ROC, and create a page for the ROC before, and the ROC after Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal for co-ordinated rewrites is a starting point. I picture a variation thereof, as follows:

• China — Geography of mainland China; history of the Chinese people; historical summaries of the Sun Empire (<1912), Republic of China (1912-1949) and People's Republic of China (1949-present). See-also's to include Dynasties in Chinese history (essentially unchanged from current Article), History of China (essentially unchanged from current Article), Republic of China (see below), People's Republic of China (see below).
• Taiwan (officially Taiwan, Republic of China) — Geography of Formosa; History of Formosan people (under Sun Empire, Empire of Japan and Republic of China suzerainties); Administrative structures of Taiwan governments by era.
• Republic of China — Governmental structure under the Zun Yatzen and Jiang Gaishek Administrations and reorganization of 1948; notable legislative acts in mainland China, 1912-1949, and on Taiwan, 1949-present; related data. (Essentially the current ROC article, with appropriate major amendments.)
• People's Republic of China — Governmental structures under First Secretaries Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, &c.; Prefectures and Autonomous Regions; notable acts of People's Congress; related data. (Essentially the current PRC article, with appropriate major amendments.)

This seems to me the best structure for maintaining the most neutral POV practicable at this time, provided that the Articles can be properly coordinated. The one unanswered question is whether it can be done sans edit wars. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that a split of the ROC article into the ROC today (which will be covered by the ROC article currently in existence) and the ROC of 1912 is a good solution. The ROC article is way too long anyways, and cutting some of the fat out of that article and transfer it to the ROC (1912) page would be good. The French and Spanish Wikipedia, I believe, work under the same principle. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I still like the Arbiteroftruth's proposal at the top of this section. To be acceptable however, the ROC post 1949 needs a "(Taiwan)" in the title to make it NPOV. Without that change it fails the fundamental NPOV test. If Arbiteroftruth is opposed to doing so, I'm also ok with keeping the ROC eras in a single article. Arbiteroftruth's description of the China article is not perfect - he's making too much effort to have Taiwan be part of China, but the details can be haggled over while writing the actual article. A possible China article description is shown below.

Proposed Name	Topics covered
China	Disambiguation with links to PRC, ROC and the dishes, etc.. The different definitions of what area constitutes "China", with appropriate links as necessary to general articles and geography articles (Taiwan, Mongolia, geography of PRC, geography of ROC incluing Mongolia, etc.). Etymology of "China".

The handling of "culture and customs" will need to be worked out. We could include in the China article "Culture and customs of the PRC (culture and customs of Taiwan are already covered in the Taiwan article, and a link to the Taiwan article will have already been provided in the section on different definitions)." Or we might divide the section on the culture and customs of China into different section with a subsection called "customs and culture of disputed regions" that includes or links to articles on the culture and customs of Taiwan, Mongolia and maybe even Tibet. Readin (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet more possible POV

Putting aside all my previous arguments for a moment, I have stumbled upon a dilemma:

Is it POV for a geographic article such as Shanghai to include the sentence: "Shanghai is a city in the People's Republic of China"? Surely, according to other contributors' arguments above, and seeing as how the Republic of China claims mainland China as part of its territory, saying that any settlement such as Shanghai, Nanjing, Wuhan, Qingdao and many others, are located in the People's Republic of China, is a violation of the "non-negotiable policy" that is WP:NPOV?

Logically it would make sense to assert that mainland China is a disputed territory, and WP:NPOV infers that any location within that disputed territory can't be said to be located within either state. Therefore, the sentence "Shanghai is a city in the People's Republic of China" can only be concluded as a violation of WP:NPOV.

This leads me to wonder if that article and every location relevant, including other settlements, provinces, rivers, terrain features, and anything else of a geographic nature located within the disputed area that is mainland China, and not directly associated with either government, should state its location as "China", instead of "the People's Republic of China". Please note this is purely in a geographical sense, and anything dealing with politics such as Politics sections would require mention of the current administration governing the location.

Opinions please. --Joowwww (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You could change it to say "Shanghai is a city in China" and you probably wouldn't get any objection. There is no perfect NPOV. In this case saying Shanghai is in the PRC would not, in my opinion, "fail" NPOV. But it would not be quite as NPOV as saying Shanghai is in China. However, saying it is in the PRC is slightly more informative as it gives the official name of the country and clarifies that it is not on that island that some people mistakenly consider part of China. In this case either alternative seems fine. As for using "mainland China", that seems out of place. We use "mainland China" in relation to Hong Kong and Macau, and sometimes in relation to Taiwan to placate the imperialists. But using it when not talking about either of those is awkward and strange. Readin (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As for your proposal that every settlement or geographic feature located within the PRC should simply say it is in China, that would cause NPOV problems for places in Tibet and maybe even Xinjiang.Readin (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)