Wikipedia

Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 25

< Talk:Chinese civilization
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Chipmunkdavis in topic Discussion on the sources
Archive 20 ← Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

Republic of China shortend of the stick again...

Latest comment: 12 years ago70 comments9 people in discussion

How is it possible that the ROC who claims to be the true protector of Chinese culture, follow a legitimate continuous line, constantly get the shortend of the stick. I really would like to know how 20 editors on this page is proposing to support literally an alternative-China (PRC) as the only-legit-China. I mean, we are not even allowing the ROC to appear on the China page anymore. This discussion is so lacking real substance and suffer from recentism to the worst degree. Just 30 years ago it wasn't "no independence, no reunification." It was "no taking back the mainland". Why don't we just save time and all focus on supporting Taiwan independence. Benjwong (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The ROC will surely appear on any page titled "China" but it will definitely not be the primary focus. Beyond that I really don't understand what point it is you are trying to make. Again, no on is declaring that the PRC is the only legit "China". We have claimed that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is not commonly called "China" and no one has yet contradicted that directly. Maybe you could explain yourself better, because I'm really not following. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Metal.lunchbox. This has nothing to do with legitimacy, it's about common english usage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you're stalemating the debate again, because the opposers argue the NPOV > common usage. At this point I think hearing about GTBacchus's other suggestions might be most helpful. T-1000 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear I've stalemated it before. I'd like to know when, and how I'm doing it now. The opposers argue a lot of things, they're in a table in the previous section. As for this debate, Benjwong made a new section with some points, Metal.lunchbox countered some points, I added the basis for most arguments for the move. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't mean you specifically, but still, saying "it's not about Legitimacy" is definitely not common ground. T-1000 (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then we went over this. China is a common term used for any era of China. Benjwong (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Which is the same for any country. In modern context, China when used standalone refers to the PRC in the vast majority of sources. Even the ROC website uses China, without any clarifications, to refer to the PRC. If it is a historical reference, no doubt context will show that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this is possibly the only country where you cannot just accept the modern context right away. Let's say both the PRC and ROC political no longer exist. Let's make something up like a new modern ABChina. I am not even sure this ABChina would immediately take the place of the current China article. Benjwong (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Why do you say that and what is the point of your argument. If you are accusing us of not considering the facts, or not having an understanding of history, that our arguments are based on fad-ish whims then I suggest you reconsider. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You have facts, but not nearly enough to do this type of move. I still see no reason why you would want to push so hard on the modern entity, especially since the modern entity has so much identity crisis surrounding it. But I will say that if PRC and ROC no longer exist, it would be alot easier to vote a ABChina in. Until then why not just wait for the real political situations to change. Benjwong (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The RfC determined that 'China' signifies the common name for the PRC. Your ABChina analogy doesn't make sense anyway: the PRC wasn't created yesterday; it has had cohesive control of the mainland for over 60 years with no sign of collapse - that's more than twice the time the ROC had unstable control of only parts of the mainland. China has zero chance of being forcefully reunified under the Blue Sky with a White Sun, whether you accept the "legitimacy" of the Communist revolution or not. It's time to stop quoting slogans from 30 years ago and start accepting reality. Quigley (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The 60 years had many signs of collapse from cultural revolution, great famines to financial collapse. It is so unstable it has to censor the internet to pretend it is stable. Granted the ROC was not better as the Japanese practically owned China in everyway. But 100 years of ROC is never mentioned. So this is not going to help. This is really not an independence/reunification discussion. I am saying all the charts and tables above seem to suggest you really want to legitimize PRC into China. When in fact you don't mention that it is that same political party that refuse to let Taiwan be Taiwan. Benjwong (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If the PRC and the ROC didn't exist, I'd support the China page at being whatever was usually called China by English speakers. I don't understand the ABChina argument at all. To address NPOV. NPOV doesn't mean we give equal weight to all arguments, or that we don't take a position on something. A very important part of NPOV is WP:DUE. Is it due that because a state with limited recognition with the long form name "Republic of China" exists, another country which is referred to in english by the name "China" is given a page in which history is started at 1949 while its common name page is given to some abstract multinational civilization, especially considering the fact that the modern Republic of China is almost never simply called "China" in english? I disagree that it is. We're not here to "legitimize" anything, but to create a helpful encyclopaedia that describes, not prescribes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:DUE deals with coverage and there's problems with applying it to political disputes. If this were a scientific debate where the POV where the POV require explaining in length, then WP:DUE can be applied easily. Here, the sole evidence is how many countries recognize the PRC's/ROC's claims, which only requires one sentence to explain. Political disputes also lack an objective truth, unlike scientific disputes. T-1000 (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Why does WP:DUE only apply to science? The policy makes no mention of that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much every example of WP:DUE deals with science. How/If WP:DUE applies to Politics are open to personal interpretation, which just turns it into another huge dispute. T-1000 (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd have thought you'd just follow the same criteria, such as media coverage, international recognition etc. etc. Clearly a country recognised as China by 88% of countries has a 7x greater claim than one recognised by 12% of countries. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The page now is fair. It presents both Chinas and don't put a huge emphasize on either one. Benjwong (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not this page is fair, wikipedia is not trying to be fair, it is trying to be neutral. There is a difference. Of the two China's, only one is actually called China. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ironically, don't you have this as a Userbox?
Majority ≠ right This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake.

T-1000 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


I regularly call PRC by the name China. There is no problem there. But if presenting Taiwan as some form of China is also bad, then maybe we need to say it. Benjwong (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Calling the PRC China has no bearing on whether or not Taiwan is considered "some form of China". Quigley (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
So how you will present Taiwan after you move PRC to China? Benjwong (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
In the article? There is text in the PRC article now, that says PRC claims Taiwan but does not control or govern it. I'm sure this can be expanded. The PRC has multiple territorial disputes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
So you are taking all 100% the point of view of PRC. How is this neutral? Shouldn't the wording be "Taiwan remains independent until further reunification?" Benjwong (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you honestly think that's a neutral statement? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused, because I don't see any POV in these two sentence fragments. The intro blob says more about the civil war and current situation than anything in the article. That's a big problem, because the lede should summarize sections, but the PRC article is so stilted it is incomplete.
  1. "considers Taiwan to be its 23rd province" This is not a POV, it's a fact. It doesn't say the PRC is right, wrong, legitimate. It just states the claim.
  2. "despite not having control over Taiwan which is currently administered by the Republic of China." Again, simple fact, not a POV. All of the various POVs could be linked too, we have dozens of articles detailing various positions, but I don't see how this is "100% the point of view of PRC" when it simply states the facts without getting into the dispute. It doesn't say Taiwan is independent, nor dependent, it says it is controlled by the Republic of China. Anything BEYOND THAT is getting into POV territory but those two facts seem pretty basic. The article SHOULD be expanded with a section on cross-straight relations and this move would encourage that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Well, the dispute is precisely whether China = PRC is "BEYOND THAT". T-1000 (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
What? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Schmucky said "it is controlled by the Republic of China." is fact and going beyond that (into legitimacy and sovereignty) is POV territory. The same thing should hold true for PRC then "Mainland China is controlled by PRC" is fact, and going beyond that (into legitimacy and sovereignty, like PRC is China) is getting into POV territory. T-1000 (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
China is the short and common name for the PRC (it is neither for the ROC); that's all that putting PRC at "China" says. Also, we are already in "POV territory" by presenting PRC's and ROC's claims to mainland with China equal weight, which is a huge violation of NPOV. Quigley (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The opposition to common name comes from one of the userbox above. T-1000 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The userbox is an assertion that American English dialectical differences, while popular, are somehow "mistakes". The argument is neither smart nor well-developed both here and in its original context. Are you saying by the userbox that the PRC's claim then is a "mistake" and the ROC, as "the true protector of Chinese culture", is the "legitimate" ruler of mainland China? This seems to be a popular fantasy among those opposed to the move. Quigley (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it's about Argumentum ad populum. T-1000 (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Still doesn't apply, because we are talking about language which is defined by convention, not whatever is fair or right. If 300 million people decide that flavour should be spelled as "flavor" then that is how it is spelled (in their linguistic area). Article titling works the same way, read the policy. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If there's one thing this debates proves, it's that invoking policies is useless since everyone interprets the same policies differently. These old arguments are already in the table above, so let's just wait for GT's other suggestions. T-1000 (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If "invoking policies is useless", and we're avoiding "argumentum ad populum", then what are we to base decisions on? Quigley (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course is not a neutral thing to say. But if PRC is now presented as the one-and-only-China, wouldn't it be awkward to point out Taiwan, the 23rd province, and single that out. I suppose we can start naming all the territorial claims: Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Spratly islands, Diaoyu islands and many others as provinces or autonomous territories. Benjwong (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
All of those territorial claims, including Taiwan, are laid out at People's Republic of China#Administrative divisions. They would presumably be laid out in the same way at [[China#Administrative divisions]]. Quigley (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and before you say Tibet is not being "claimed". Tibet-government-exile has a new prime minister. I thought you guys want to keep these articles VERY RECENT. I am done for the day, I'll respond more tomorrow. Benjwong (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Your posts are getting more and more irrelevant and disruptive. Quigley (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
How did a userbox on my page lead to the note that policies are useless? I've looked over the PRC page, and I can't see that the detail of administrative divisions, foreign policy, etc. would be any different if it was titled China. The difference between Tibet and Taiwan is the the PRC controls Tibet. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Please people, if you are going to use sarcasm, say something funny. Making a sarcastic statement to make a point is confusing and it weakens your argument. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Obviously the ROC is going to get the short end of the stick with regards to the name China. Anything else is a breech of NPOV and undue weight. Get over it. The best claim that is made is that 12% of the world's countries recognise the ROC, but that means that 88% of the world's countries recognise the PRC.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
@ Eraserhead, Please try to be polite. We're trying to reach consensus here. Comments like "get over it" are counterproductive.
@ Benjwong & Quigley, Let's not fight about the contents of the article before we decide what to do about structure.
@ Metal lunchbox, It appears to me that there is consensus that there should be the same three articles as before, China, PRC, Taiwan. Only the contents of the first two of these articles need to be changed. This has been my contention all along.
Personally, I feel that the China article should have both the flags of PRC and Taiwan, as co-claimants to the name China. NPOV demands this. However, I don't want to get into a content argument. Let's decide on the structure of articles first. LK (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Quite right. I apologise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"It appears to me that there is consensus that there should be the same three articles as before, China, PRC, Taiwan." Explain to me how you came to this conclusion? I thought the opposite. Quigley (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought we were going to keep it to have an article like French Fifth Republic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we necessarily have to do that. I think the most common thing is to not have an article for the current regime of a country besides the country article itself. If you follow the "Austrian trail" in the country infoboxes starting at Habsburg Empire you will get to Allied-occupied Austria and after that you will just get to Austria. And from Kingdom of Great Britain you will eventually just get to United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. And United Kingdom of the Netherlands will lead you to the modern states of Netherlands Belgium and Luxembourg. So I don't think it is obvious we must have a PRC article.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I generally agree with this sentiment. I don't think that an article titled People's Republic of China is absolutely necessary. There is a little bit of potential for confusion as almost no one ever seems to refer to the modern state of France as the Fifth French Republic outside of political history. The People's Republic of China, however is frequently used in that fashion. That said it would be nice to have an article devoted to the political structure and history of the PRC in addition to the broader PRC article at China. Perhaps that is best dealt with as a spin-off article with a descriptive name like "Government of the People's Republic of China." That way the scope of the article is unambiguous.- Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that is how it is usually done. And there already is a politics of the People's Republic of China and a history of the People's Republic of China article.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
And there's a Government of the People's Republic of China article that I somehow missed earlier. I'd say we are not moving toward a consensus of having separate PRC, China, and Taiwan articles. There appears to be strong momentum for having a China article which is primarily focused on the PRC which means either moving the PRC article here (this article would probably move to Chinese civilization) or merging the two articles. In either case PRC would redirect here. I would also caution folks from making declarations about Taiwan/ROC related articles. We have not discussed in detail here and nor do I think that would be appropriate. I'm not convinced that any change needs to happen to the titles or scopes of those articles except perhaps to split the ROC article with one about ROC government on the mainland and one about ROC on Taiwan. That decision should probably be made somewhere else (talk:taiwan, talk:ROC, wikiproject taiwan). - Metal lunchbox (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Come now, there's way too few people participating now to form any kind of consensus. T-1000 (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
You have been quite consistent in your assertion that consensus is not possible. Duly noted. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I would support a merge of most of the PRC article into this article, with some to the "Government of the ..." and "History of the ..." articles, and redirect from PRC to here. However, I do feel strongly that information about ROC and Taiwan should remain in this article. LK (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this page moves fast. This section is quite an education. I enjoyed: "Please people, if you are going to use sarcasm, say something funny." Good natured humor seldom hurts. I've made a comment above that was prior to my reading this section. Lots of food for thought here. Perhaps enough to feed China. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 21:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually this needs to not move the way it is right now. In fact I strongly recommend slowing it down and wait until the end of 2011 for the 100th anniversary of the Republic of China. I suggest everyone pay attention to see how the KMT projects Taiwan. I cannot think of any event that will affect the outcome of this page move more. If they don't come out to reclaim the mainland, show a big interest in being China anymore, then maybe we are wasting time. Benjwong (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you expect such a change to occur or is this statement intended as somehow ironic? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The 100 year mark is not one that is easily reached. It is a once in a lifetime chance to make a big statement. The average timespan of a typical dynasty is about 200 years. The ROC is half of that, yet it spend more time on a little island than its own territory. I expect the KMT to at least say something and not miss the opportunity. They are already appearing like a political party too old to take any action, and ready for retirement. Benjwong (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Ben, I guess I really meant it grows fast. That's different from actual movement, isn't it? It's not clear that any change is going to be implemented before supper tonight. Will the celebration take place on January 1? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
GTBacchus, the celebration is around Double Ten Day. Benjwong (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens with the Double Ten hundredth anniversary, however it does not seem likely that any major changes will be made, given Ma's so-prominent and emphatic reassurance of "no reunification, no independence, and no war." Postponing this debate to see what happens would not seem worthwhile. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
If they come out with a massive parade and said it was for the ROC, would you still feel comfortable denying them that status? Benjwong (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, but I would certainly feel comfortable moving ahead with the changes suggested by GTB. I have no desire for wikipedia to deny the Republic of China's existence and I don't think that anyone in this debate has suggested such. What do you mean by "for the ROC"? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Basically that the parade is "for the Republic of China" as opposed to for the "100th anniversary of the Xinhai revolution" which is what almost all PRC pro-beijing sources are spinning it as. Another words this is not just to celebrate the downfall of a bad emperor, but a real celebration of a country. Benjwong (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
How does that represent any change, haven't all double ten day celebrations on Taiwan essentially been about the founding of the republic? I guess what I am trying to ask is, why would such a parade make you think that the changes suggested by GTB and others would not be appropriate? It certainly doesn't change how I feel, but I'm trying to understand what you position is. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Major double ten day celebations are followed by bigtime cross-strait direction events. Like the 1991 80th anniversary was followed by the 1992 consensus or the 1989 self immolation cases. If I had a choice I will put this on hold till well after the 2012 ROC election. Benjwong (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, i don't think we are going to do that, since China and its articles on wikipedia already exist, we need to bring them in line with reliable sources. As it is there are major issues that cannot simply be ignored while we wait for Godot. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, for what its worth, that the 1992 consensus emerged a little more than a year after the 80th double ten anniversary is a coincidence and not a particularly meaningful one. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually is not waiting for godot. I am going to start a new section way at the bottom. You can give some political feedback. Benjwong (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE and science

I'm really interested in the claims above by T-1000 about UNDUE and science. This is not a nuance of the policy I've thought about before, at least not in quite this context. I'm starting this subsection partly so I don't forget to think about that after I've read the PRC-RFC. If anyone has comments about it now, I'll be interested to read them. Do we know of other examples of political applications of UNDUE? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AT

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

My question at this stage is how does having an article at China covering both the PRC and its history fail to meet WP:CRITERIA, WP:POVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It violates WP:CONCEPTDAB. The article on China must also include Taiwan and ROC. Not including Taiwan in the article on China would not only violate CONCEPTDAB, it would also violate NPOV, as it would effectively declare "We recognize PRC as the sole legitimate government of China, and that Taiwan is not part of China." LK (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
In response to the CONCEPTDAB comment above. There is no reason an article at "China" which is primarily about the contemporary People's Republic of China, would not also have some information about the ROC and Taiwan. The current PRC article already does this but this could be improved. It seems reasonable that a move to China would result in a slight expansion of the scope of the article. In other words, these concerns can be addressed directly and with great nuance in the article content. There seems to be a lot of support for that if I've read the above discussions correctly. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree it violates CONCEPTDAB. CONCEPTDAB is about primary meaning, which seems from the RfC to be the PRC. In addition, I find the fact that we go against basically every other reliable source out there, especially other tertiary ones, to be a far worse violation of NPOV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear to me from the RfC that the primary topic is PRC, because I think the question was poorly posed, and people weren't distinguishing context-free "China" from modern-context "China". I addressed this a bit in the above section. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'context-free "China"'?TheFreeloader (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry GTBacchus, I can't recall that post and can't find it above. Can you suggest improvements? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
With regards to WP:NPOV violations you need to explain how WP:POVTITLE doesn't apply for them to have any relevance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec - reply to The Freeloader's question) I mean that when I say "China", in general, I'm not talking about present-day China only. The word "China" takes on different meanings, modulo the historical context. There's something that's constant between Han Dynasty China of the year 11, and PRC of the year 2011. They're both China. That's what I mean by 'context-free "China"'.

In a modern context, I mean modern China. In a historical context, I mean the appropriate nation-state. In the language from above, 'context-free "China"' is the country, as opposed to any particular state. The RfC didn't ask respondents to distinguish the country (which persists through) from the modern state (which is bounded in history). Everyone agrees that they mean PRC, as opposed to some other country or state, but not that they mean the state PRC, as opposed to the country China.

If the government of China changes tomorrow and stays changed, will all of those people still mean PRC by "China", or will they mean the Chinese people, living in Chinese territory, under the Chinese government of the time? I think the latter is the primary meaning of "China", just as the primary meaning of "France" isn't restricted to the French Fifth Republic. "France" means French people living in French territory under the French government of the time.

Any argument that PRC is primary for "China" should distinguish it from the case of "France", which does not have the French Fifth Republic as its primary topic. I hope I'm making the distinction clearer, and not muddier. :/ -GTBacchus(talk) 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

But as I explained above, France is actually somewhat of an exception in this context, in that most other countries do not have a separate article for the current regime/state for the country, rather the plain country article is (among other things) the article about the current regime. I think we could have an article which is both the article about the PRC and the article about China in an historic context. I think the current solution where you try to separate "China" from the PRC is just confusing to readers, as that distinction isn't normally made by outside sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we say PRC here, on wikipedia, because of the current setup of the pages. Semantics imposed by wikipedia are slightly misleading. The vast majority of reliable sources see the PRC as the current state governing China. The PRC represents the Chinese people, living in Chinese territory, under the Chinese government of the time (the PRC). The current People's Republic of China article is not designed in the same way the French Fifth Republic article is, it is designed in the same way that France is. What the RfC asked was what people were looking for when they search for "China". I voted because in my experience, China (outside, obviously, like every other country in the world, a historical context) refers to the state of which the long form name is the "People's Republic of China", but whose short form name is simply "China". I actually haven't seen a single source that takes a similar perspective to this page, certainly not a tertiary one. I'd be interested in any modern source which refers to the current ROC simply and in an unqualified manner as "China". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see how people could make the RfC question any clearer. If people aren't considering China's history properly, well that's life I guess. Even if they are only considering it in a modern context it shows that they think that Taiwan's status is irrelevant and the only issue is how we organise the historical stuff, which we can trivially merge into the PRC article - where quite a bit of that context already is. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite not asking it, the RfC responders clearly did answer it, re: context. The RfC asked a yes or no question, but those that answered yes backed that up stating the modern context/state is the primary topic. See the answer from siafu, for example. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Primary topic of China

Latest comment: 12 years ago141 comments31 people in discussion

Is the People's Republic of China the primary topic of "China"? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence from filing party

Wikipedia naming policy states that "by following modern English usage, we ... avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called." It goes on to state that for places we should use the widely accepted English name, "A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: 'X is the name most often used for this entity'." In the case of the People's Republic of China (PRC) it is indisputably "China".123. No reliable source contradicts this.

The problem is that the term "China" is somewhat ambiguous. The disambiguation guidelines are also fairly clear about this. When a term is ambiguous that title should lead to a disambiguation page except where a primary topic exists:

A topic is primary for an ambiguous term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box.

Where there is a primary topic the title should lead directly to that topic. We have not clearly established consensus as to what the primary topic is but the most prominent argument so far is that the primary topic for "China" is the People's Republic of China. In addition the same guidelines suggest that Vital articles, of which the People's Republic of China is one, can be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users.

In order to help establish what topic a reader is likely seeking when searching for a particular term, the guidelines suggest some looking at the following:

Wikpedia traffic statistics are not a useful source in the confusion caused by the current situation. A look at incoming links for both articles reveals that many "China" links are clearly intended to lead to the People's Republic of China article and many links to the PRC article are piped to be labeled as "China". This is pretty much standard practice on "In the news", which is transcluded on the Main Page.

A look at other reliable sources and various Google search results should make it clear what the primary topic is:

Individually these results prove nothing but there's a consistent pattern you can see anywhere you look. To be sure, do some Google searches for yourself and look at how the term "China" is used. Are they referring to the state officially known as the People's Republic of China and topics related directly to it? Google Web search should be used carefully because of the number of sites repeating Wikipedia content. Try Google Books and Google News. Again any individual result is not important, the question is about the general pattern. Does it look like "China" is referring to the PRC more than other topics?

Note: Currently the article China is not about the People's Republic of China.

When adding your comment below please keep in mind that this is not a move request or a discussion of whether or not renaming the People's Republic of China article to China would violate NPOV. Stay on the topic.

- Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the People's Republic of China the primary topic for the term "China"?

Responses

  • Yes. I believe the PRC is the primary topic for the search term "China". After surveying reliable sources on the topic, the usage seems fairly widespread among recent English-language sources. Mlm42 (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Unclear. PRC is more likely than other terms to be the subject sought, I believe that we agree on. I'm not sure that a convincing case can be made that the PRC is more likely than all the others combined. Because of that I lean toward no but maintain that it is unclear. Cliff (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes because the PRC is a WP:VITAL article, and as its almost certainly more likely to be sought than this article its probably more likely to be sought than everything else. That its a vital article and none of the other plausible articles are pushes it over the edge. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. From an outsider's point of view, China has always referred to the state in control of the bulk of territory on the Chinese mainland. In the past that might have meant something else, but today, it is the PRC. The PRC is what readers are looking for when they hear about China on the news, read about China in contemporary books and periodicals, and seek information about China to travel. The PRC is what modern reliable sources mean when they say "China", and the PRC is implicitly understood when "China" is mentioned in daily conversation. Quigley (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No. When I talk about China, I mostly mean the civilization that began several thousand years ago and is still going on, not merely the political entities that are at best about 100 years old. When I say my parents are from China, I don't mean PRC. --Tesscass (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes - "China" is, first and foremost, the common name of a very important country. The fact that Taiwan is currently independent from the mainland is very important, but no reason to create a confusing pair of articles: China (covering "territory, civilization and cultural entity"), and a second article on People's Republic of China. That sort of split makes sense in the case of Korea, where that article is defined as "an East Asian country that is currently divided into two separate states- North Korea and South Korea." But the two states involved in the China situation are vastly different in terms of population and importance. Another example: the Ireland article is about the island, not the larger country Republic of Ireland, but even in that case, the ratio of size is about 4:1, not 100:1, as in the case of China. One key fact is found in the article List of sovereign states, where the "China" entry points to People's Republic of China, and Taiwan is in a supplemental listing at the bottom (" States with no membership to the UN or to UN specialized agencies") --Noleander (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
... Also, I would wager that over 95% of all references to "China" by modern English speakers is to the modern country of China, namely PRC. The other 5% of uses are historical references to china before 1950. WP:Title weighs common usage very heavily. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Unclear: I echo the same views as Cliff and Tesscass, and wish to add that, as I have said many times before, any usage of "China" that does not have a clear and modern political context (i.e. "China criticises...") does not have to mean the PRC or the mainland and could well mean the civilisation or pre-1949 states. Examples: "_ in China", "to China". Since those phrases are common, too, it cannot be so that even 80% of all mentions of "China" most definitely mean the PRC. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 23:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes - as used commonly China refers to the People's Republic of China. E.g. if I wrote that I last visited China in 2008, or that the PM of China visited the UK this year, or that China has overtaken Japan as the second largest economy in the world, I am referring to the PRC. I use 'China' as 'PRC' would seem unduly formal and pedantic. Even historically although the boundaries of China were different before 1949 the country is the same, going back hundreds of years. Countries can and often do change borders, gaining and losing territory, while retaining their identity. The other indication of this is from Chinese itself: the country, although formally named 中华人民共和国, is in day to day communication and even in formal news reporting is always called 中国.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. Although it might have been made more clear, had the previous requested move gone through, I still think the overwhelming usage by media and other reliable sources of the name "China" when referring the PRC is good evidence that when people think of "China" they think of the PRC. I think we might potentially be going against NPOV when choosing to go against reliable sources and discriminate against the PRC. When reliable sources choose not to distinguish between the PRC and "China", I don't think it can be justified anywhere in Wikipedia's policies that we try to make such a distinction.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes When people discuss China they discuss the PRC, just as when people discuss Germany they discuss the Federal Republic of Germany. Historical usage does not affect modern usage, and I doubt people will not be able to know if something is historical. From anecdotal experience, I would say that "China" does not include Taiwan in modern usage, as all the Taiwanese I know vehemently insist they are not from China. If even the ROC is using China for the PRC, then clearly the PRC is the primary topic for China. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes Still not seeing any significant and mainstream reliable sources that refer to anything but the PRC as China. It's kind of odd this even needs to be asked considering the entire lack of evidence to the contrary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Yes Although China can refer to different things, including various countries and entities that currently exist or that have existed at some point of time, a sufficiently large majority of reference to "China" in reliable sources, whether news or scholarly text, are about the PRC.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes It's pretty clear that the common name for the PRC in modern usage is "China". This distinction and subsequent confusion seems rather artificial; if applied to other countries that have been composed of different states in different parts of history (e.g. Spain) it becomes quite obvious. siafu (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes even the government of Taiwan refers to the PRC as China. When the English media speaks of China it refer to the PRC. Agathoclea (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No China has a continuous history of 4000 years. The PRC has only been around 50. PRC is the primary topic for modern China. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes After reading other arguments, particularly about Germany's turbulent history, I'm changing my vote to "yes", PRC is the primary topic for China, and its article should by title "China." D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes Google china -wikipedia. All the top results are about the PRC. Kauffner (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No China is the primary topic of the term China. PRC is an important aspect of China, and it should be covered, but it is not the primary topic (as can be seen clearly from the incoming links). LK (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. BRIC. Disassociating the country from the geography is being done here only because of sore losers from an old war. Dalit Llama (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. When one says "China" in English, it means the PRC. Not having PRC=China makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. Taiwan has little international recognition as China and almost no Taiwanese ever say "I'm from China". The Chinese Civil War ended in 1949 and there is simply no ambiguity 60 years later. (Also, note User:Noleander's comments above.) As far as references to the past go, any country's name could refer to a different polity in the past. Germany could mean Nazi Germany, India could mean British India, France could mean the French Empire but it doesn't make these countries' names ambiguous. Reasonable readers no doubt understand that history is complicated. —  AjaxSmack  00:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "Reasonable readers no doubt understand that history is complicated" - not specifically referring to this move discussion, but do you think most people are "reasonable readers"? I don't think that the majority of people are. People come to Wikipedia because they want to know, not because they already know. 10 minutes ago I've come across someone talking about the attack on Pearl Harbour on Facebook: "were we (the United States) really on the same side as China? Why the fuck would a free nation like us side with those communists? Wikipedia is fucking retarded!" You cannot simply assume that the majority of readers are capable of understanding a concept that me and you are familiar with. We are not only writing for the literati and the academia - Wikipedia also serves the proles as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree with you about the purpose of Wikipedia and sympathize with you having to deal with "were we (the United States) really on the same side as China?". However, this ignorance should not be dealt with in the title of the article but the text. On might ask why Germany is now allied with the USA when it was once a Nazi dictatorship but that's no reason to move the Germany article to Federal Republic of Germany, ignoring the current common primary meaning of the name "Germany". —  AjaxSmack  02:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • That person on Facebook did not understand the historical distinctions despite experiencing Wikipedia's efforts to separate China and PRC, so this activist project of trying to re-educate the proles is clearly not working. Let's then try something truer to Wikipedia's principles: describing things as they are; not how they should be. Quigley (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No Never mind, no position: There is the simple, casual way of identifying things, used by the general proletariat, such as naming the United States as "America", calling the ulnar nerve the "funny bone", mixing up the terms British Isles, Great Britain and United Kingdom, claiming that personal computers running on the Macintosh OS X operating system as not "PCs", but "Macs", calling GNU/Linux as Linux or calling a Linux distro as Linux, and calling the PRC "China". But then there are those who strictly prefer the technicalities - that "America" is a continent, that nerves cannot be osseous, that OS X is an operating system, Macintosh is a brand of PC that are manufactured by Foxconn, and there is no such computer "form factor" as a "Mac", and that the situation regarding China is more complex than saying "A is definitely B, and C is not D, end of story". BBC, CNN, et cetera are written for the proletariat, and as elitist as this may sound, I believe that Wikipedia should not stoop down to such a simple-minded level. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Even though you prefaced it with a "No", your comment seems to support the idea that the People's Republic of China is the primary topic of "China", which is the only question that this RfC is asking. (quoted: "A topic is primary for an ambiguous term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box.") Quigley (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find that even media which is intended for more educated audiences us the term "China" in the way we are arguing above, to refer to the People's Republic of China. New York Times, The Economist, Foreign Policy magazine, Financial Timesof London, Wall Street Journal for instance. take a look. It's not just for the proles, it's convention. Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • can you please clarify your position. you do sound like you support 'yes' as a response to the RfC question especially in light of your previous comment above. Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Never mind. Let's leave it that I've yet to have a position, for this section at least. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. Looking at major news sources, it seems that the term "China" overwhelmingly designates the PRC. mgeo talk 20:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes Like all other countries. They say no because they hate and should just admit it. 203.184.138.132 (talk) 01:34, 13 August
  • Yes China is the PRC. And the Republic of China is Taiwan. These are the popular terms in English-speaking countries, and among my Taiwanese and Japanese friends as well. China is China!Vendrov (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No Even if people are often looking for the PRC when they type in "China", the hatnote at the top of that page makes it easy for readers to find their way here. The term "China" refers to much more than just the PRC, and there's no need to move the China article to some awkward title just to help readers find this article with one click less than before. Also note that America is not a redirect to United States of America, even though many of the arguments people are pointing out above also apply to that name. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not a move proposal. The question was "Is the People's Republic of China the primary topic for the term "China" ?" - Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but my understanding of your opening statement was that your goal is to have "China" redirect to People's Republic of China, which would also require moving this page to a different name. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, you offer a "no" but appear to be answering a completely different question than what was asked. My goal was for the community to answer the question about the primary topic. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes The current jurisdiction over the vast majority of historic China is that of the People's Republic. We have no problem in most other articles to point to the the current state as representative of the culture of its peoples and a hook on which to hang their history. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the only reason that there is a debate here is that the US has traditionally regarded the former Nationalist régime has the legitimate authority. That is clearly no longer true. --Red King (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment - Asking this won't solve anything because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows for "occasional exceptions" anyway. T-1000 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You're right to point out that occasional exceptions are allowed. Just establishing Primary Topic wouldn't automatically settle what the articles should be called. There are other considerations. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please put this into perspective. China is very different than other countries because there are always a state within a state. And I don't mean just Jin and 16 kingdoms. I mean look deep. Even when Qing was referred unconditionally as China, there was Taiping heavenly kingdom inside with Jesus christ's brother for president. So you have to know China has been administered that way for a very long time. What's different is that since the founding of the UN, countries need to be defined in a more clean-cut way. One way is to cut the borderlines clean like independence, the opposite is unification. Both ROC and PRC are not doing either. You could even argue that both states are actually not UN-compatible. And you are presenting them like they are 100% compatible. Benjwong (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. I don't want us to impose a clear-cut boundary between concepts, and I don't want to force China into a particular taxonomy or world-view. I know that words have meanings which overlap sometimes and that a particular use of the word "China" doesn't always mean "PRC" or "not PRC", but for better or worse the way the software works, we have to select a title for the article. It doesn't determine the content, it likely has some influence but it has to have a name so we might as well make an effort to use a name that doesn't confuse the readers too much. Believe me, I appreciate that the relationship between the PRC and ROC subtle. I think there is something beautiful in its complexity. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is surprising that the title China does not take readers to the country of China. I'd recommend that the title "China" refer to the country (what is currently in People's Republic of China), and that the current "territory/civilization" material in China be re-named to History of China or similar. The situation in China is much more like, say, Germany which has a single article, even though the country has changed shape and size many times. There are articles in WP that do not directly point to the state, such as Ireland (the island) or Korea (the penninsula), but the China situation is not analogous to Ireland or Korea, because Taiwan is so small relative to the mainland. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What if East Germany still existed? T-1000 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • East Germany is a substantial portion of the country, and West Germany was always called West Germany and not "Germany" so it would be a disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be inclined to think that Germany would have been a DAB page, if the DDR existed today or if Wikipedia existed in 1967. In such a hypothetical case (and as always there are issues with hypothetical cases anyway, it's like saying "if Hitler won WW2, would Call of Duty 2 still be released on PlayStation 2?"), Germany would refer to Germanic culture and civilization, from Roman times to now, focusing on the transnational nation of the people who love bratwurst and beer, with information on the geography of the Danube River and (I forgot what they're called) Mountains, and a detailed history of the Holy Roman Empire, Prussian state and Nazism, whilst having in the header "for the ABCDE state, see Federal Republic of Germany. For the UVWXYZ state, see German Democratic Republic." -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The comparison to DDR doesn't work because the government on Taiwan no longer claims (except in straitjacketed cross-strait meetings) to represent the whole of China. Quigley (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No, Ma specifically said that ROC still claims Mainland China in 2008. As ROC President, His POV is notable. T-1000 (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Taiwan is used pars pro toto to refer to Taiwan+Kinmen+Matsu+any other territory ROC controls. Quigley (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It may also be worth noting here that even the KMT ROC president Ma Ying-jeou who is the most prominent proponent of the Nationalist view consistently calls his country "Taiwan". Regardless of the claims of sovereignty over the mainland this would appear to minimize the claim that the ROC (Taiwan) is called "China". Remember that this whole debate is about what things are called, and how they should be titled on Wikipedia. Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
And if he didn't say those things, he'd lose the Pan-Green/Pan-Blue fence-sitting vote. His political party's official policies and ideologies however are on a different tangent. How else do you think the KMT won the past elections? For the proud Taiwanese, wouldn't have the DPP been a much better choice regarding identity politics? The DPP doesn't associate with "China", a place commonly associated by the Taiwanese public with melamine milk, short-range ballistic missiles, communism, and the authoritarian Chiang family. I'm sure if Ma said "ROC, ROC" in all his speeches, the results would have been much more different. Pampering your electorates is a key tactic in securing votes, this applies to any country, party or politician. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: The island of Taiwan, the Republic of China, and the KMT have come up a lot in this discussion. Most of this is not relevant. It is unimportant to the article naming dispute if the Republic of China on Taiwan maintains claims of sovereignty over territory claimed by the People's Republic of China. What is important is what things are called. We know that the PRC is called "China" and we have seen no evidence whatsoever that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is also called "China". I'm sure that some exists, but its clearly quite rare, and insignificant when stacked against references to the PRC as China. Arguments about politics and cross-strait relations are not germane to this discussion about article naming. Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Issues with statement

  • Comment: You should have submitted the first and last part of your statement as the RfC, and then the remainder as your own evidence. Making claims and providing evidence one way but not the other as part of your "neutral request for comment" is inappropriate for obvious reasons. Your claims about the incoming links is incorrect. The first link I see listed there, for example, is Alchemy, which describes archaeological evidence from ancient China. There's a serious argument to be made that this link and a substantial portion of other incoming links were intended for this page. Also, and this is just a minor correction, wikinews is not transcluded on the Main page; you're thinking of In the news, which should follow Wikipedia policy. Nightw 01:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The RfC as listed on the RfC pages is just a yes/no question. This is followed by my own argument listed on this talk page, which I include partly as a rationale for posting the RfC, but also because I think it is a relevant argument to the question. I am not pretending to be totally neutral, but trying to make an argument which has the potential for producing a consensus. I am not arguing that all of the incoming links are incorrect, only that many of them are. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not presented to participants in that way. Arguments in response to the question should be left out of the question. A simple ===Evidence from filing party=== header will help fix that slightly. At the moment, you've asked everybody a question and then gone ahead and answered it yourself, which discourages responses from others. And please don't make claims about standard practices on ITN, which it seems you know nothing about. Standard practice is to follow policy. You've taken the actions of a single administrator and presented it as the "standard practice" of an entire collaborative project. Nightw 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I refer to it as standard practice only because I've seen it many times before. I'm not claiming it is policy. I will add the heading you suggest above. Thank you. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • @Tesscass, I presume that's because they left China before 1949 or shortly afterwards? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, they escaped the war with Japan and the communist takeover. There is a very strong cultural identity that I'm concerned will be overlooked by saying PRC is the primary topic for China. --Tesscass (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Right so when they say they left China they are referring to the time before the PRC existed so obviously aren't referring to the PRC. However for everyone else referring to it in a modern context the only thing they are referring to is the PRC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
        • "Everyone else?" I will bow to consensus even if I'm not satisfied. But I'm not convinced there is one. --Tesscass (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
          • By everyone else I mean the media, other encyclopaedias, people in Wikipedia who write the front page and link China direct to the PRC article. etc etc. Its also far too early to judge any consensus about this matter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
            • I think what I really would like to see is a better China article, even if PRC is the primary topic. --Tesscass (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
              • I can definitely agree with that, and I definitely agree that you are right when talking about pre-1949. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've noticed a widespread misconception throughout this discussion that I think needs correcting. I've seen several users state that an utterance of "china" is not a reference to the PRC because they are talking about the culture or the geography or the history. These things are not separate from the PRC in the same way that the first Thanksgiving is a part of United States history, even if it predates the founding of the country. The People's Republic of China" includes the population, geography, and history of the state and the area it governs just like any other country topic. I've seen similar arguments that it can't be the PRC because its referring to "mainland China" and the two are not the same. In these cases its an unimportant coincidence that the author may or may not be including Hong Kong and Macao, its still the PRC. This is all just a subtle way to push POV that the PRC is not legitimate. To be sure, China is unique, but its not that unique. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed very much with this statement. If the political split was recent, then there is merit to considering the cultural entity of China as separate from the political regimes. However, the split occurred more than six decades ago - and by considering the PRC separate from China, we are in effect eliminating 60 years of modern history, demographics, economics and society from the topic. Virtually every Chinese in this world grew up in the People's Republic of China. While for NPOV reasons I would not support redirecting China to PRC, and would instead support Eraserhead1's previous proposal for a disambiguation page, it is very important that we understand here that there is not, in practice, a clear dividing line between the PRC and the entity known as China, and that any attempt at such an arbitrary division is one based on pragmatic choice, not actual situation. JimSukwutput 23:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. There are several factors that determine when a state becomes synonymous with its culture: (1) How long has the state existed? (2) How much of the land is occupied by the state? (3) Do English speakers use the name of the culture (China) when referring to the state (PRC)? (4) Does the state embody/represent/control the vast majority of cultural/historical artifacts? (5) Is there a second UN-recognized state that occupies some of the territory? All of these factors, in my opinion, suggest that the title "China" should take the reader to an article primarily about PRC. --Noleander (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Metal lunchbox: A sly swipe at some of my comments, eh? Why would I attempt to be portraying the PRC as legitimate when it is my wish that whatever state that controls (most of) China performs its best? And you are still playing deaf by pretending that simply because the PRC controls the mainland, the two terms are the same!
  • Noleander: 1) You can answer that question yourself. 2) When strictly considering control, it is not at all a 'fringe view' that the PRC controls most, but not all of the land we speak of. 4) Vast majority is not good enough. If you are looking for synonymity, the state must control all of the native land of this culture. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 00:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I've never claimed that the terms "PRC" and "mainland China" are the same, but in most common contexts, they mean the same thing, so claiming that a usage actually refers to mainland China does not disprove the claim that it refers to the PRC. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Statement seems okay - The current statement ( "Is the People's Republic of China the primary topic of "China"?) is just fine. It is a lot clearer than the vast majority of RfC statements :-) An RfC is supposed to be a very narrow, focused yes/no question on content. I suppose it could be re-worded more clearly to include the (implied) conclusion : "Should the article named China be about (1) the country of China (PRC), and the history/civilization be in another article, or (2) about the history/civilization, and the country PRC is in another article?". --Noleander (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I am waiting to see what happens when there is full agreement that PRC is the primary topic of China. Let's say it is. Then what next? Benjwong (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The question you raise is valid, but do you have a better idea of how to progress towards a solution which a consensus might find acceptable? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to see what you are going to do with the consensus after these responses. You raised a very straight-foward question, and it seems people are replying mostly with a yes. You must know what next right? Benjwong (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have some ideas but I think it would be best to see where this discussion goes, its only been a day. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It won't go anywhere. If you looked at past discussions, you will see that it inevitably leads to the NPOV debate, which deadlocks everytime. T-1000 (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the NPOV that requires the ROC claim to be taken seriously is anywhere near as important as the NPOV issues with not having the PRC article at its common name - especially when the Taiwanese government calls China China and Taiwan Taiwan.
While the NPOV issues may not have been adequately explained before that isn't true anymore. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
NPOV can only go so far. Currently, the ROC claims the entire Mongolia, but we do not call that part of China, because this claim has virtually no chance of becoming recognized. At this point, the claim that the ROC is a legitimate ruler of China is pretty much as worthless as its claim that it has sovereignty over Mongolia. For all practical reasons, China=PRC. Whether that includes Taiwan island is another debate - one that will not be affected by regarding PRC as the primary topic of China. JimSukwutput 13:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Read the past discussion, both of these points have been brought up years ago. Didn't help. T-1000 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In response to "what to do next?" if "Yes" prevails as the consensus: I would suggest a rename:
  • China -> Chinese civilization
  • People's Republic of China -> China
  • Use disambig links at top of articles, not a disambig page
--Noleander (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
lol, If Yes prevails, it turns into the same old "NPOV vs. Common name" debate, which deadlocks every time. In fact, this stage of the debates was even skipped at past discussions. T-1000 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
So you keep saying, Could you please stop lol-ing at folks. Its a little rude to respond to so many contributions to this debate with mockery. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Just find it funny that these people actually act like that these point haven't been brought up before. Kinda of hard to take it seriously when you see the exact same points brought up 3-4 times. T-1000 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:Don't call the kettle black, please - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Likewise. How many times did you state the ROC's claim are fringe? T-1000 (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Not once. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Undue weight means the same thing. T-1000 (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. An idea can be a prominent minority viewpoint (not FRINGE) but still be presented in a way that is not proportionate to its relative significance. Often what happens is that two ideas are given equal weight when equal weight is not appropriate. That's what UNDUE is about and I acknowledge that I have made at least one mention of WP:UNDUE because I believe it is relevant. Apparently I'm not the only one. I'm just asking you not to be so hostile to efforts to address a consistent problem through discussion and consensus building. It tricky but its the way things work. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
We are not giving equal weight. We already state that the ROC's claims are only recognize by 23 countries. If we said that ROC and PRC are recognized by the same number of countries, then it would be undue weight. T-1000 (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No, then it would be lying. Undue weight doesn't mean you are lying about the facts (at least not in any direct way). Undue weight is when a claim (or theory or idea) gets covered more prominently and more extensively by Wikipedia compared to opposing claims, than it does by reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Refusing to treat the topic of PRC in any way that might suggest it is legitimate is an example of undue weight, because so few reliable sources do this. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, First, If the weight of the claim rests how many countries recognize PRC/ROC, and Wiki clearly states that ROC is only recognized by 23 country, then we are still not giving equal weight to the ROC's claim. Secondly, undue weight applies mostly to science vs. pusedo science disputes. In those disputes, the POV's have to be explain in detail. However, that's not the case here. The ROC and PRC claims are the same, the only difference is the number of countries recognizing them, and that difference is explained with a single sentence. Since there is nothing to explain, The only decision to make is whether or not to ignore the ROC's claims altogether. And that's why Undue and fringe are the same in this case. T-1000 (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The point is that 23 small states don't require an equal disambiguation page. You could redirect Education in China to Education in the People's Republic of China and have a hat note pointing at the ROC article - and that would be due weight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, the disagreement is precisely whether the 23 states are fringe or a significant minority. T-1000 (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:UNDUE if they are only a minority viewpoint then they don't need to be treated equally with the PRC's claim. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
My previous response directly addresses this. There is next to nothing to "treat" because both PRC and ROC claim can be explained in one sentence. This isn't a scientific debate where the POVs require explaining. T-1000 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
T-1000, you are conflating 23 countries diplomatic recognition with people's actual belief and usage? Recognition of the RoC as "China" is a political issue of global diplomacy usually based on foreign aid. The people in those countries don't actually call the RoC "China". YES, the belief that the RoC is "China" is fringe. The diplomatic recognition is simply a minority view. We base our naming on real world usage, not diplomatic semantics. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said, then that implies a POV that de facto is more important then de jure. T-1000 (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we agree to disagree, it really is only you who thinks this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, no, Both PRC and ROC made use of de jure arguments. T-1000 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. And 12% of UN members officially recognising the ROC as China is certainly not "fringe". Nightw 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, 12% which is entirely made up of small insignificant countries and none of the world's media. Its may not be fringe, but its totally WP:UNDUE to say its equivalent in stature to the PRC's claim. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Every time you describe (and you seem to do it quite a lot) an entire people as "insignificant" or "unimportant", I get that much closer to throwing out what little "good faith" I have left in your opinion and just calling you a bigot. Unfortunately for your less-than-admirable stance on these things, both Chinas advocate the One China Policy, both Chinas recognise every one of those countries as states, and under international law each state is equal. Please stick to facts and keep your insulting beliefs to yourself. Nightw 07:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
So I'm a "bigot" if I say that small Caribbean islands are less significant than larger more powerful countries like the United States? That's all I'm saying... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Less signficiant or insignificant? They're not the same. Which are you going with? Lesser significance would mean that we would have to represent their view in proportion to that of the majority. Insignificance, however, would mean that we can discount their view altogether as fringe. And yes, under international law the state of Saint Lucia and is equal to the state of the United States. Nightw 08:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Less significant is correct. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't mark the ROC/Taiwan off as insignificant simply based on area and population; the ROC still accounts for a significant proportion of world GDP, as well as US foreign debt. It is economically significant, even though its recognition is limited. In addition, it is the country with the 9th largest number of total troops. It is also a major exporter. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "writing off" the ROC/Taiwan, I'm talking about the countries who recognise it, sorry if I was unclear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, I doubt this particular thread is going to lead anywhere productive. so I'll just say, I thought about what you said and added a notice to the long list of notices at the top of this page and Talk:People's Republic of China. I hope that it will help prevent some of the constant repetition that you are pointing out. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the links, Metal.lunchbox. I think those previous discussions show that something should be changed (though it isn't clear exactly what), and this RfC is probably a good step towards achieving a consensus. The persistent attempts of T-1000 to stifle this discussion are not productive. Mlm42 (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is unneeded to begin with. No one is denying China is common name for PRC, the deadlocks is whether the common name is neutral. T-1000 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
So you keep saying. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The outcome of this discussion is obvious. The outcome of the "NPOV vs. common name" discussion, not. T-1000 (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, apparently it was needed, as two users have not answered in the affirmative. The result will give a clear community consensus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
RfCs go for 30 days. After this RfC is finished, it may (or may not) suggest that a "request for move" (RfM) be initiated to rename the articles, based on the outcome of the RfC. --Noleander (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • @LK, how do you know that those incoming links refer to the civilisation and not the PRC? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
By looking at the articles from which the incoming links originate, and looking at the context in which they use the term China. I've gone thorough more than a hundred articles. PRC is not the intended meaning in the majority of the links. LK (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Most of the links intended for the People's Republic of China actually point to People's Republic of China so looking at the incoming links to this article wouldn't answer the question. Please have a look at some other sources like google searches. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PRC vs China the country/state/civilization/multinational thing

Looking at the "no" and "unclear" responses to the question above there is a clear pattern. The People's Republic of China was founded in 1949 but China is much much older than that. This is undeniably true and its rather important. The debate has been unduly influenced by the existing division of topics between these two articles. We have talked about disambiguation and primary topics with these two competing topics "China" and the PRC, but these are in fact, not separate topics at all. The PRC is the current official name for the country of China. There are many other names and these all differ slightly in meaning but the topic is not distinct. The "People's Republic of China" is clearly used more often to refer to China since 1949 and to refer to the government or officials. Remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary we are not concerned with having an article with every term with a unique meaning, we deal with topics, and China is a single, very broad, and very complicated topic. "People's Republic of China" is just a very specific term for that topic. "The civilization" and "the state" are just two different ways of looking at the same thing. Take a look at google books for "China" to see what I mean.

WP:CONCEPTDAB explains this. The primary topic of China is China (state/civilization) and the PRC is the current manifestation of that state and the ROC also exists. There is no reason an article called China cannot cover all of these various aspects of the topic. The existence of the ROC can then be handled much more appropriately first through hatnote but with far more attention in the body of the article than is currently the case for the PRC article. T-1000 is right when he says that titles influence content. If the PRC article were in fact made into a more general article about China it would not seem out of place to devote sections to dealing with the Civil War, Taiwan, the ROC, and cross-strait relations, and it would address the rather absurd desire to begin the history in 1949. There is no reason the China article can't be mostly like other country articles. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason is the One China policy. If PRC is China and there is only one China, (and if Taiwan is part of China) then ROC is an illegitimate government holding on the PRC land, or if the ROC is indeed legitimate, then Taiwan is not part of China. Both cases violate NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are those the only two ways to present it? Why can't we stick to the facts and present them with neutral language like every other article that involves some level of controversy. I should also note that cross-strait relations are not the most prominent aspect of the topic "China". Moving PRC to China is not a declaration that there is only one China and it is the PRC. That seems to be what you are implying. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but you are literally riding on 1 piece of fact. You asked a very straight forward question and got some very obvious responses. What you should understand is that other editors too can ask very straight forward questions to make things go the two-china directions. Benjwong (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
"PRC government controls mainland China" and "ROC government controls Taiwan" are the only facts. Everything else regarding legitimacy and sovereignty are inherently POV. T-1000 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
@Benjwong, if you have a straight-forward question that you think is going to help resolve this naming dispute then go for it, but if your intention is to promote a certain political view as I think you are suggesting then its really not worth the trouble. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, WP:CONCEPTDAB is pretty clear about this (thanks for pointing to it). Following the principle described at WP:CONCEPTDAB, the article 'China' should exist, and it should cover the 'broad concept', and discuss all aspects of the broad concept. Sub-topic pages (e.g. PRC, Taiwan) may exist, but the main page should not be a disambiguation page. LK (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You could easily satisfy that by covering all of China's history in a combined article with the PRC - its modern incarnation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The only thing we need to clarify as far as policy is concerned, is whether the concept of 'China' exists, is coherent and definable. If it is, then WP:CONCEPTDAB clearly states that China should be an article. Another question may be, should a separate article for PRC exist? This depends on whether the concept of 'China' is different from the concept of 'PRC'. If they are the same, then People's Republic of China should redirect here, if they are different, then People's Republic of China should be a sub-topic page. LK (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
No, because its not the only policy at play, there is also the NPOV issues of having a different article at the common name of a well known country. While Supreme Court probably should have a hatnote to point at the US Supreme court it is also often called the US supreme court whereas the PRC is always called China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as the WP:CONCEPTDAB policy is concerned, the article China must exist, and it must cover all aspects of the term 'China'. I see no other policy that contravenes this. It's unclear whether a separate PRC article should exist or not, this is not addressed in the WP:CONCEPTDAB policy. Frankly, I have no opinion about this issue. LK (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A People's Republic of China article could still exist to discuss the governmental system. I'd imagine it could look similar to the current French Fifth Republic article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, having China set up somewhat like France (and other countries) would seem logical. Having an article at China about the country/state meaning PRC + pre-1949 + much of what's in current China article and then having an article about the PRC in the stricter sense, about the government would also seem to match the way other sources treat the topic. look at books titled "China" vs books with "People's Republic of China" in their title. The words are often used interchangeably but there's a pattern of using PRC when talking about the mainland government since 1949. Of course hatnotes would also be used for further disambiguation. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
But then which article will have {{Infobox country}} at the top, with the PRC flag? Is it okay to put the PRC flag at the top of the article China? The same problem doesn't exist with France. At the moment, the "main" article for the country is the PRC article, not China; this is indicated for the infobox. Clearly the "main" article for France is France, not the French Fifth Republic.
And I'm not sure LK's point about the WP:CONCEPTDAB is entirely valid, if the primary topic for the term "China" is the PRC article (which is apparently what the RfC is demonstrating).
A more relevant situation to consider is the set of "Ireland"-related articles, who's titles were hotly disputed (and went all the way to ArbCom). In the end, the "main" country article is now at Republic of Ireland, while the article about the entire island is at Ireland. Mlm42 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Ireland has its own troubles, but I'd recommend folks look at what happened in that dispute. I would say that whatever we do, This RfC in particular but also other discussions lead me to believe that when a reader goes to the article titled "China" they should see the country infobox. Whether there should separately an article at People's Republic of China is a matter to be debated. There are several alternate solutions that have come up. I favor merging but would gladly accept any of the prominent proposals that I've seen as they are all great improvements over the status quo. If only there were a way to measure people's preferences among all the options. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
To be clear. I'm suggesting that the main article about the country be at "China" and that the topic of that article would be the PRC and its predecessors. It would be like the PRC article now but expanded to include info about China before 1949. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This article already functions as a concept dab, and the last discussion (the RM) concluded this was no longer an acceptable solution. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

China (civilization+multinational entity article) is an abstract concept

I don't really care what the primary topic of China is - the civilization,etc.-topic, PRC-topic, or ROC-topic, but I'm sure that the civilization,etc.-topic can never be defined precisely. Has it been described precisely, it would result in a new NPOV-issue, for different people may have different interpretation to the concept. So the article were wroten in such a way: “China is seen variously as A, B, and/or C, etc.” I oppose any proposal attempting to designating a certain object, whatever it is (civilization or country, nation or territory, etc.), to the abstract concept “China”. So I opposed the “China → Chinese civilization” proposal. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that the notation “China → Chinese civilization” is ambiguous, so we should probably stop using it on this page.. It usually means "move the content of China to Chinese civilization, AND redirect China to Chinese civilization". But the "→" symbol could also be interpreted as a page move without redirect, or a redirect without a page move.
Anyway, is the commenter suggesting that China should be a disambiguation page? (similar to the one at China (disambiguation). Or that the page China should remain how it currently is? Mlm42 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that "China is seen variously as..." is unnecessarily vague and confusing. The article isn't about the different ways of thinking about China as an abstract concept so the lead should not suggest that it is. I think you'll find, if you survey reliable sources, that treating "China" as an abstract concept is not the norm. We could argue over whether of not it should be treated that way but this isn't the place for such a debate, because on Wikipedia how things should be is none of our concern. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Beep - I'm just posting to keep this section from being archived before I've had a chance to read it all. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion

Latest comment: 12 years ago65 comments12 people in discussion

Ok, I've been reading the RfC, and listening to some lovely Korean music. I have no idea if its ROK music or DPRK music. I like it, anyway. Woodwinds, percussion, strings...

Definitions and set-up

We've got the following articles:

...and the following:

...and the following:

I'm going to assume we all know what we mean by a people, a territory, and a government. They're the things that those articles describe. There are nuances, but they shouldn't affect what I'm trying to do here. Let me define, just for the sake of the discussion, two more terms.

  • A country = a people + a territory.
  • A state = a people + a territory + a government

Thus, a state is a country with a government. If this seems strange, just hear me out, this is going somewhere.

A country, in a particular historic context has two names: a "country-name" and a "state-name", with the latter being determined by the government of the time. The country-name tends to be stable across different governments through history, while the state name is usually unique for each country/government combination. The current case is one counterexample, though.

Close-up on France

First, let's look at the top level-articles on France. The French people, living in the territory described in geography of France, constitute the country named France. The country France, together with the current government of France, yield the current state, named the Republic of France.

The state-name redirects to the country article, which is France. That article discusses the modern state in detail, with links to more political details, and it also discussses historic French states, with links to more historical details. If you say "France", you mean the country modulo the context. That means that when you're in a modern context, you mean the modern state, which is the country together with the current government. In a historical context, you mean the appropriate state: the country together with the government of the time.

In neither a modern setting, nor a historical one, do we distinguish the country from the state. You would only make such a distinction if you're comparing the same country under different governments, and then you can talk about the French Fifth Republic versus the French Third Republic. The states aren't the same, but the country is the same, so you distinguish them via the differing governments.

Obviously, news sources concern the modern context most of the time, but "France" is the common name for both the modern state now, and for the country regardless of context. Fortunately, those two topics are covered, each in a primary way, by the same article: France. That's just what we're lacking here.

Close-up on China and Taiwan

Remember, we're entertaining this terminology just for the purpose of discussion. According to it, "China" and "Taiwan" are country-names like "France", and "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" are state-names like "Republic of France". Here's where it gets interesting:

The government of the Republic of China is continuous in very concrete ways with the government that controlled, from 1912 to 1949, the territory we usually call "China". That government adopted the state-name "Republic of China" when it was based in the territory that we usually call "China", and it retained that same state-name after relocating to territory that we usually call "Taiwan". That's an unusual circumstance.

We've been using the state-names, Republic of China and People's Republic of China, for the main country articles addressing the modern context. We've been using the country-names for somewhat awkward articles that try to talk about the country while de-emphasizing the modern context.

However, the country-names of "China" and "Taiwan" are the ones that most of us generally use to talk about the modern states, just as we talk about other modern states using their country-names. When Germany was divided last century, we used full state-names a lot for East and West Germany, but when there's one Germany, we just call it "Germany".

People don't talk about the vacation they're planning to the "Republic of France". To do so would indicate that the trip probably has a political nature, relating to the government.

In our case, we really only use the state names when we're discussing a topic that is touched by cross-strait relations of the last 60 years. Admittedly, that's a lot of topics, but it's not everything.

Most people who say "China" mean the country of China, realized as the state relevant to the context of discussion. If they're talking about modern times, then it's PRC; if they're talking about Ming dynasty times, then it's that state. Also, most people who say "Taiwan" mean the country of Taiwan, realized as the state relevant to the time of discussion.

Just as with France, it is with China and Taiwan, when we're all on a first-name basis. Unfortunately, China and Taiwan aren't quite on a first name basis in the modern era. Since they insist on state-names in many contexts, we've been using state-names for our country articles, but this leads to problems.

Practical upshot

What does all of this boil down to? Well, look at what we do for most countries. Consider France.

The state-name redirects to the country article, which uses the country-name. That article is about the country, with all the governments it has had, so it's about multiple states. The differences between those states emerge in articles about the different governments and about the historical periods in which they operated.

Here's what I think is the most direct way to apply that setup to this situation:

  • Move PRC to China and ROC to Taiwan, merging existing content at China and Taiwan to various articles as appropriate. Leave redirects in place.
  • Top each article with cleverly constructed hatnotes and well-written ledes that accomplish all the disambiguation we need. I would, by now, feel confident offering specific wordings.
  • Merge detailed information about the two governments into Government of the People's Republic of China and Government of the Republic of China, just as we do with Government of France.
  • Leave those two government articles where they are, because of politics, and agree not to fight over that until 2012.
What about the RFC?

I think the distinctions I've made are meaningful, and that the word "China" and the name "People's Republic of China" are used in ambiguous ways in very many of the comments. I'm going to re-read it after digesting all of this, and possibly post some comments to it.

This post is to see how people react to the above suggestion. It might be a crazy idea, or a foolish one, or one that's been proposed and rejected; I'm really not sure. I look forward to hearing reactions anyway. While I was writing, the Korean music ran out, and I switched to American, which is most of my collection, I guess. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that sounds like a pretty comprehensive analysis, you clearly read the discussions above. I wanted to argue with some of your points, notably I was skeptical about moving ROC to Taiwan for a variety of reasons, but after re-reading what you have written and looking at the articles as they are now, I think your suggestion is very appropriate and what you say makes sense. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Please leave the ROC/Taiwan naming debate out of it or for a different day and on those pages. Contentious issues like that should be decided in small palatable chunks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying you disagree with that part, or that you just don't want me to talk about it? When I brainstorm, I write down whatever I'm thinking. Your advice on what to do is very much appreciated, but I'm going to think about anything I want to think about. Let's brainstorm, Schmucky, give us something to work with. Do you like the idea of moving PRC to China, or not? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This conversation about determining a primary topic and re-arranging PRC/China has been going on for a while. That's good. But a significant number of editors from ROC/Taiwan articles have not been part of the discussion, despite the overlap of editors, because ROC/Taiwan issues have only tangentially been discussed. To suddenly include that issue is disruptive to this discussion (which was designed to minimalize externalities exactly like that issue) and poor process for editors of those articles. That issue, while deeply related, and whose politics affect this discussion, can and should be a separate discussion and decision. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Why not answer the question I asked you last: Do you like the idea of moving PRC to China, or not? I'm not going to move any Taiwan articles anytime soon, okay? Are you familiar with brainstorming? Do you like the idea of moving PRC to China, or not? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought my position was obvious because I've been supporting that for seven years. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
(ec) Well, gee, I haven't been here watching you do that for seven years, have I? What have you got against communicating directly and clearly with me? There's no reason to get snarky with me; I'm not opposing you. Why not be agreeable, and stuff? What have I done to offend you, Schmucky? Will you let me know, so I can apologize, and then we can just be direct and cool with each other?

Thank you for answering my question. Writing things out directly and clearly for the benefit of the guy trying to learn everything he can about the situation is awesome and helpful. Can you work with me like that, man? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

T-1000 and others have argued that a China move implies a Taiwan move, portraying both as supporting Taiwan independence, which effectively shuts down discussion on the more impactful China issue. SchmuckyTheCat (and I) oppose bad-faith efforts to bundle the two; not the move of either China or Taiwan. Quigley (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me with that, Quigley. I'm not to bundle anything in bad-faith, is that the perception here? I'm open to considering any options, and to learn what the issues really are, so this is helpful. You can rest assured that I'm not going to try and crowbar anything through, that I'm not married to any particular suggestion that I'm making here, and that I have absolutely no agenda relating to the articles under discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Currently the Korea article lede refers to "an East Asian country that is currently divided into two separate states", whilst the NK/SK articles refer to the sovereign state - would it be possible to make a China article closer to the format of the Korea article, in the sense that it has no display of flags, but things like an orthographic projection map, languages, population, area, basic details, etc? If we can all agree that China is the country (or major some cultural landmass entity thing) and PRC/ROC are states, would it be easier to go for something like this? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess anything might be "possible". Are you saying you'd prefer that to what I've laid out here? Why? I don't know what people oppose yet, so I'm not sure what kind of compromise to think about. What opinion is there on my suggestion itself? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
There will definitely be opposition to this proposal, mainly describing the ROC as Historical in China, but not in Taiwan, which implies that Taiwan is not part of China. The main point of contention is whether the ROC is historic for "China". T-1000 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess my instinct is to say that we would address those concerns by properly writing hatnotes and lede sections of the two articles. Is that not possible, in your estimation? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't think that's possible, because for mostly encyclopedia readers, Titles = fact/Truth. Having a China PRC article then describing that "China" is disputed in the hatnote would be self contradictory. T-1000 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting. I guess I don't see why that contradiction is a problem. It reflects an unusual situation in reality; of course it's unusual. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I think This goes back to what I said about difference between political disputes and scientific disputes. T-1000 (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Good. That's something I want to hear more about. Can you point me to a best summary of it, perhaps you've already explained this in detail, and I can read about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but it's late here. I'll write it up tomorrow. T-1000 (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
That's great. Thank you, and good evening. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The only "Truth" being implied by the title of an article which is focused primarily on the contemporary PRC being titled "China" would be that contemporary PRC is the primary topic of the term "China". No other implication is made and I'd like to understand why T-1000 keeps making the claim that such a title would imply all kinds of political declarations on the part of wikipedia, such as Taiwan is not a part of China. From my understanding of the discussion above that is a very unique position. We have a very clear article titling policy and not applying that policy in this case would imply far more than applying it would. If we were considering a title like "China (which does not include Taiwan)", I would be sympathetic to this view. Perhaps T-1000 could give us an idea of how he would like to see top-level china-related articles organized and titled, as arguments over abstract policy have not been very productive. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I think T-1000's argument that such-and-such will mean "Taiwan is not part of China" strikes me as something that could be very close to the centre of this entire debate. It seems to me that the semantics here need clarifying, and I personally would appreciate if T-1000 would explain this statement more fully sometime, including explaining all the semantics/connotations of his statement and argument. I'd also like clarification on what he means by "describing the ROC as Historical in China, but not in Taiwan", if that's possible. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
If readers understood all the sub-text T-1000 infers from a one-word title they wouldn't need to read the article. Fact of it, Wikipedia policies acknowledge and reflect that titles often have nuanced meanings and demand prose-text representation of them. T-1000 objects to article text explaining the issue at the simple "China" title because no matter what the text says, the title under-represents his POV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

GTB, your posts are like a breath of fresh air. The subtle distinction you made between a "country" and a "state", seems useful here. Personally, I like your suggestion, and have no objections to it. Mlm42 (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you find those ideas useful. It's not clear this is the solution, but I like all the thinking that's going on. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


I notice this section started with a reference to ROK/DPRK music to compare. I can tell you the PRC does recognize the ROC sometimes by accident. Look at this Xinhua source in English. It appears they refer a singer that is largely undisputed as Taiwanese as a (Republic of )China singer. Now if you think they purposely try to claim her as a mainland singer, as far as I know that has never been the case. So this is a rare mistake made by Xinhua that accepted the existence of a "China" on Taiwan. It happens. Benjwong (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that you have misread the nuance. According to PRC (and ROC), Taiwan is part of China. So a Taiwanese singer is a Chinese singer. Not a hint of recognition of government of Taiwan there. --Red King (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Your answer probably would be true for any other singer. But not her. She is highly Taiwanese (Ms pride of Taiwan) and Beijing recognizes that for quite some time. Benjwong (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention there was that whole "Taiwan independence" controversy when A-mei was barred from holding any concerts in the mainland due to suspicions she was an advocate of TI; this was after she sung the ROC national anthem during Chen Shui-bian's presidential inauguration event. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any indication of ROC recognition in a paragraph about a Chinese singer. Xinhua probably wants to treat her no differently then they would a singer from Beijing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GTBacchus' suggestion sounds logical to me. There is nowadays a clear tendency to use "China" and "Taiwan" when referring to the countries in question, from the media to high-quality publications, so reflecting this reality in our articles would be, far from a crazy idea, a very reasonable thing to do. mgeo talk 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Understanding the point of contention

Above, T-1000 says:

  • "There will definitely be opposition to this proposal, mainly describing the ROC as Historical in China, but not in Taiwan, which implies that Taiwan is not part of China. The main point of contention is whether the ROC is historic for "China"."
  • "...for mostly encyclopedia readers, Titles = fact/Truth. Having a China PRC article then describing that "China" is disputed in the hatnote would be self contradictory."
  • "I think This goes back to what I said about difference between political disputes and scientific disputes."

I want to understand all of this, because I think more than one person has identified it as the center of the dispute.

In the language above, we'd like to have articles that describe countries and current states, presented in a way that's natural, informative, fair and neutral. We said that a "country" is a "people", plus a "territory", and then if you add a "government" you get a "state". Great.

There's an issue in the background, though, and we're running into it. A "government" is a well-defined entity, usually with some constitutional document(s) and form. Trying to pin down the exact "people" and "territory" that go with a given country can be difficult. Is Taiwan part of the territory of the country called "China"? Well, is Tibet? Manchuria? Outer Mongolia? Macau? Everything depends on the historic context, as does any precise definition of Chinese people. The corresponding Taiwanese people article is easier, because the boundaries of what we mean when we say "Taiwan" are much less mutable than those for "China".

I don't know how clear that was. I'll try to...: the territory of "Taiwan" overlaps with the territory of "China", depending on the historical context. Depending on the context, "China" might mean Taiwan, too. From the perspective of the ROC government, China is a country divided into two states, both of which are part of the larger country. From the perspective of um... someone else, there are two countries, two states, and a strange naming issue.

Is that what we're looking at, more-or-less? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess so, but where is the conflict? We are all aware that defining the exact territorial extent of "China" requires some explanation. Why would that impede the kind of move that has been suggested? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
These words already have meaning. Wikipedia knows how to treat countries already, we have articles on a few hundred of them without this kind of abstract solipsism. The China case is one where a country is singled out and treated differently than the 200+ others. So, to settle out this orphan country setup we have discussed, that's what Wikipedians do. We have a completed Requested Move with the result that it should be moved but no consensus on the target (dab or primary topic). We now have an RfC nearing completion that makes it clear there is a primary topic. Even some of those who oppose it reluctantly agree that there is a primary topic. Discussion about what should be in a move/merged article is putting the cart before the horse. Make the moves, then have editorial discussions.
While I've been glad this debate has been one of the most civil ever held on this issue, if the debate is simply delaying an inevitable result it has outlived it's utility. Degenerating into sophomorism about the definition of country vs state vs government vs people - it has been done before. At best it is a smokescreen of the actual issue (Wikipedia describes common usage of these terms, not prescribing usage with our own definitions) and at worst it is WP:OR. Sources, not Wikipedia editors, tell us what China is. Sources tell us what territory it controls. Sources tell us what territory it claims but doesn't control. Sources tell us the demographics, the economics, the politics, the disagreements, the government in exile claims, the history, et al, all of it. And our text will summarize and point to existing articles, just like every other article on every other country in the world already does. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
"We have a completed Requested Move with the result that it should be moved", no, that's the opinion of one admin. For the record, GTB also said "I've seen a consensus, and it doesn't look like this page" T-1000 (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Schmucky, I'm trying to take my time and really understand the issues here, and I don't fully understand them yet. You're not helping. You seem to be saying, in more of half of your posts to this page, that it's already over and that I should stop trying to have this discussion. I'm not going to do that, and I'm asking you now to stop.

There is absolutely not yet a consensus, and I'm not even fully oriented yet. All motions for summary judgment will be rejected. You don't get to just say what the conclusion is, because it's not over, and that's not going to be your call. Can you please let me conduct the discussion I'm trying to conduct, without cynically informing us every few hundred bytes that it's all very simple: We just need to listen to you and do what you say?

I'll thank you very much to let me engage in my "abstract solipsism", which is nothing of the sort, but a useful exercise in making distinctions. How carefully can you refute my points here about the value of working with models? I can defend them very, very thoroughly. Shall we have that conversation? Cut it out, please.

Everyone else is being pretty cool about this. Start being cool like them, okay, please? If you're annoyed, go take a break. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

GTB, You’ll notice that in cross strait relations, the PRC always refers to itself as the “Mainland” side, and never the Chinese side. Likewise the KMT would always say that they were forced out of the Mainland, but not China. And for them, the neutral term cross straits relations is used, instead of China-Taiwan relations. The political implications of the word China have always been there, and it’s from the PRC, KMT, and DPP, not from me.

Basically because of the disputed political status of Taiwan, the word “China” itself political implications and is not neutral, which is why like I said above, the PRC always refers to itself as the mainland side. The dispute is precisely whether PRC has succeeded ROC to all of China. The move request merge should only be done if the PRC did, but that leads to the two POV issues mentioned in the table. If the PRC succeed ROC, and Taiwan is part of China, then ROC is illegitimately holding on to PRC land. (The PRC argues this from resolution 2785). From an defacto perspective, If the PRC succeed ROC to “China”, and PRC does not control Taiwan, then Taiwan is not part of China. This is why the current setup does not say anything about whether PRC has succeed ROC to all of China, but Merely mentions defacto control of the PRC and ROC governments. And none of these issues are historical, they are all current.

Also, I think the definition you gave are too loose, a province can also be “a people + territory”. And also how is “a people” defined? From Blood /Culture? From those perspectives, argument can be made that Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese are the same people. So I think those definition only add more questions to the dispute. T-1000 (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

T-1000, cross-straight relations are one issue, they do not define the entire country. A single issue does not get to deny recognition of the common definition.
whether PRC has succeeded ROC to all of China. unimportant, actually. The PRC has succeeded ROC in the mainstream English usage of the word China, and in all global politics in any language. "All of China" is an unnecessary barrier. The rest of your second paragraph is about legitimacy and that isn't what this is about. We don't prescribe legitimacy, we describe competing claims, and that is done in the text. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Schumcky, there are already exceptions to common names, "Pro-life" is the common name, but the article is title "Opposition to the legalization of abortion" because it is more neutral. And WP:primarytopic allows for exceptions also. T-1000 (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to note that the PRC refers to itself as the mainland because it will not give any legitimacy to the ROC government. In the PRCs point of view, Taiwan is part of the PRC. That argument is a red herring. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
In the Anti-Secession Law, the PRC states that "Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China", but does not equate "China" with itself (PRC refers to itself as the state). [1]. T-1000 (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
We are again getting into a matter of semantics and details of relatively minor importance. I concur with SchmuckyTheCat on this issue, sources tell us how to treat the subject. How frequently have these discussions been sidetracked by the insistence that we settle political or academic questions. As I have said before we are not in the business of defining words. see WP:NOT#DICT. We are dealing not with words but with topics and those topics must be given a title. titling policy says we should use the common name given to the topic. The is not question as to what that common name is. "China" is a somewhat complicated topic but nothing that can't be explained in the same way we explain every other complicated topic, by summarizing the ideas expressed in reliable sources. That in some contexts the word "mainland china" is used is of minor relevance here. None of the articles discussed here are about cross-strait relations.
Also "pro-life" is a name that was invented to promote a specific side in a dispute. "China" is not such a case. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
First, what's minor to you is not minor to other people. Secondly, if we always used common names, then "Pro life" would be used. It's not, therefore common name must rank below NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about what is minor to me, what is minor to me is of no concern. I am instead refering to all of the reliable sources with which I am familiar. In the closing words of a recent NYtimes article '“Independence or no independence?” she asked. “To be honest, who cares?”'. Cross-straight relations is not the most important aspect of the topic "China". - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
T-1000, the short name of the PRC is officially China. The PRC considers itself the government of China, having taken over from the ROC in 1949. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It's stance is soften to try to promote reunification. It acknowledged that "China" is divided ruled. T-1000 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The PRC thinks of Taiwan as a separatist region, it doesn't acknowledge Taiwan anymore than Georgia acknowledges Abkhazia. This of course has no bearing on whether PRC = China; the PRC is simply the long form name of a country named China. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The anti-seccession law cited earlier is further example of this despite also using the term "mainland" in order to contrast with Taiwan. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Aside from all of this. I'd still like to know what T-1000 would like to see as far as the organization and titling of that which is called "China" and the "People's Republic of China". We can't avoid the topic because it is too complicated or controversial, and we have to divide it into articles or conversely decide that it all fits into one article. Subsequently we must give titles to the article(s). How do you, T-1000 think it is best to organize and title the topic(s)? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The current setup is fine. T-1000 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
That isn't acceptable to anyone else. You need to be prepared to compromise on this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The last big discussion of this topic from 2008 was 20 oppose vs 16 support. Those opposers are still around, and they will know about this discussion sooner or later. T-1000 (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus can change and vote counting is not how decisions are made on wikipedia. Consistently referring back to 2008 is just a way to refuse to accept the current developing consensus. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
There's about 8 people debating, 4 of those are opposed to the merger. Consensus developing indeed lol. T-1000 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Your vote counting and your mocking tone are not helpful. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The only reason I am vote counting is because you can't accept that consensus doesn't exist. T-1000 (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus may not yet exist on this issue but we are working to build consensus for a solution to the problem. It is clearly not a simple process, but contrary to what you have said, consensus is possible. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that consensus isn't a vote count if one side can line up a series of policies and explain how they apply and the other side cannot then the first side has consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You really think that the debate would have dragged on for 8 years if one side cannot list policies? The argument are exactly the same as before, NPOV vs Common Name. The problem is that everyone interprets the same Wiki policies differently. T-1000 (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at the discussions more recently. Since it was pointed out that the PRC is a vital article and none of the other alternatives are and then with the table and the suggestion of merging PRC and China the level of opposition has dropped off dramatically compared to the level of support. People aren't going to change their minds explicitly on this stuff as if they do they lose face. You extremely rarely get people to change their minds explicitly on Wikipedia in discussions on Western topics let alone Eastern ones. The world has changed a lot since 2008 so that consensus isn't really relevant today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple differences between this and the abortion case. Firstly "pro-life" isn't actually that much more commonly used than alternatives and searches have only found it used up to about twice as often. In this case China is used about 500x more often than that as I found when I searched the New York Times for example. This means in the former case pro-life doesn't meet WP:POVTITLE whereas in this case if China is a POV term then it does meet WP:POVTITLE. Secondly there are specific reliable sources and stylebooks from multiple reliable sources avoiding the use of the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" whereas no one avoids using the term "China" on POV grounds - including the Taiwanese government - making that argument a red herring in this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean the AP stylebook? It called "Mainland" a nation, meaning that Taiwan is not part of China. Invoking it would defeat the purpose of this debate. T-1000 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
How does calling the Mainland a nation mean Taiwan isn't part of China? What do you mean by that? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
If Taiwan is part of China, then the nation is composed of both the Mainland and Taiwan. T-1000 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please understand this statement doesn't really help me at all. What do you mean by nation, and how do you know that the AP guide isn't using a different definition? What do you mean here by China? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm following T-1000. According to the perspective he's explaining to us, China and Taiwan are not two nations; they constitute a nation divided. If you talk about "China", then you're talking about two states by default, because China is a nation divided by two governments, one controlling one part of the territory, and the other controlling another part.

Does that fairly represent your position, T-1000? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If I want to converse directly with T-1000, shall I switch to email or something? I'd like very much a focused conversation. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll keep that option in mind, but for now I'll address a couple of points that are of general interest, I think. T-1000 is exactly right that the notions of "people" and "territory" that I'm using are terribly inadequate. That's why it's a toy example rather than reality. If it's useful as an exercise, awesome, but at any time we can say, "remember, these are over-simplified definitions. Let's recall that reality is nuanced..." ...and we can step back out of the exercise.

Defining terms to work with, and remaining constantly aware of their shortcomings as terms, is very useful sometimes. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is extremely late, but I just noticed something in the opening post of this subsection that I feel I should respond to. GTBacchus wrote "From the perspective of the ROC government, China is a country divided into two states, both of which are part of the larger country." I don't think that is correct. The traditional view of the ROC is almost identical to that of the PRC; that it is the sole government of China, and that the other side are rebels (in this case the PRC). This is I think the default official government position, which hasn't greatly changed. However, the actual opinions of the current parties and people in the ROC is far more varied, as no doubt this conversation has shown. The Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China theory is one current political viewpoint, notably pro-independence. The Three noes policy (different from the older Three Noes policy) is another prominent viewpoint, meant to maintain the ambiguous status quo. There are other views out there, and no doubt I've missed some subtle nuance somewhere, but this is just to respond to the note on the ROCs perspective. Very crudely put, the ROC defaults to it being the sole government of China, but the practical viewpoint changes during elections. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Prostitute comment and true point of contention

Latest comment: 12 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion

I really don't think the people in this discussion "get it". The true point of contention is NOT the wiki policy that we have to follow urgently for no reason. The true point of contention is the events that happened and the events going on. In the past PRC premier Zhou Enlai was interviewed by international media as to what is in China?

  • In one question, they asked him "does China have prostitutes (妓女)?"
  • Premier Zhou answered "Yes. There are prostitutes in Taiwan province (在中国的台湾省)."

This is a known fact, not a joke. As far as I know, (and you can prove me wrong), no PRC politician has ever apologized to this or the 5000 other damaging statements made. Taiwan then got the shortend of the stick to be denied ROC status, and then denied independence many times afterwards. With all these things going on I cannot figure out why waiting for these events to settle is bad. Benjwong (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know we're not waiting for a two-state solution to write articles about Palestine and Israel.

January 1 isn't too long to wait; that's but a heartbeat. Meanwhile, I don't see anything that prevents us from continuing to understand these issues. When we don't write about it as a current controversy, we'll write about it as history, so let's keep understanding it.

I agree with you that the true point of contention is not a wiki policy, and I'm trying to keep our discussion focused on the true state of affairs involving the PRC and the ROC and how we can meaningfully and accurately reflect that on Wikipedia. Your comments are certainly apt, though. I never heard that before, the prostitute comment.

One of the best parts about Wikipedia is what you learn along the way. There's a lot of complexity here... -GTBacchus(talk) 02:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Waiting is bad because we have no reason to believe that waiting will improve the situation, meanwhile the current situation is a tremendous disservice to our readers. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean that Taiwan was "denied ROC status"? Anyway, it hasn't attempted independence, so it hasn't been denied independence either. In the end, I agree with Metal.lunchbox. The current situation has been going on for over half a century, wikipedia should not have to wait another half century to figure out how to display information. The world continuously changes, it would not be appropriate not to change with it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Taiwan has attempted many bids to the UN. Those independence articles really should show a list or table of historic bids. Benjwong (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It attempted to join not as a member, but as an observer. It was very clear about that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@Benjwong, I agree that the true point of contention is not about Wikipedia policy.. but I also don't think the argument is about the actual "facts"; rather, I think the argument is about how we present the facts. Mlm42 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to present the most continous fact, I think Chipmunkdavis is right in the section above. That the ROC perspective changes viewpoint alot after every election. That's why this page is basically a coverpage to handle whatever the situation. At the moment, if KMT wins the election, we don't present PRC + ROC equally on the coverpage with two infobox country templates used. And if DPP wins the election, we don't subtract anything either. So the current page is actually good except to those who want PRC to claim full China. Benjwong (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
So the question is not how to present the facts. But how do you satisfy readers that want to see PRC claim all of China? What if we agreed to make the PRC flag bigger or add more CPC-friendly pictures? Benjwong (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is this so political? The issue is basically that we aren't giving our readers what they are looking for, no matter how the elections in Taiwan turn out. Focusing on politics like this is missing the point. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
"How do you satisfy readers that want to see PRC claim all of China?".. I think this is missing the point. Honestly, I don't think many readers who come to the page China care very much about cross-straight relations, or about the various nuances in the word "China". I think "most" readers who come to the page are looking for information about the country whose capital is Beijing, whatever that means (and I think the RfC about the primary topic of China is pretty strong evidence for this). At the moment, that's not what readers get. Mlm42 (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please. Currently it takes one click to go from the China page to the PRC page. If this is a problem, then all dismbug pages are problems. T-1000 (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The average person coming to the page is looking for Beijing and other light topics. Mostly these are topics related to mainland China. I even help prove that 90% of the links currently pointing to China relate to mainland China in archive 24. But you guys don't want to move mainland China -> China. Also moving PRC -> China is very political. Benjwong (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Almost any link which is appropriate for Mainland China would also be appropriate for the PRC. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You should revisit archive 24. Most links that designate to the PRC are already pointing there. Links that belong to mainland is wide open. Benjwong (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This point about incoming links has been made several times, but I don't think it's really evidence for anything.. because editors who realise the current article situation, will be changing links which previously pointed to China and pipe them to the PRC article. It's more telling to observe how often "China" is piped to the PRC article.. Mlm42 (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What? Moving PRC to China is not very political as it is simply the most accurate reflection of the way reliable sources treat the topic. Calling the People's Republic of China is uncontroversial. And this "mainland china" argument is needless semantics that has yet to convince anyone because moving the article for mainland China to China would do nothing to improve the situation. A quick read of the article should make that obvious. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources take one of the 4 POVs I mentioned below, depending on their political affiliation. And these POVs are incompatible with each other. T-1000 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That whole argument about Mainland China is based on a misunderstanding of what the term "Mainland China" means in english. "Mainland China" refers to areas directly governed by the PRC, it is not a geographical term (clearly evidenced by the inclusion of Hainan). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Therefore the most sensible thing to do is to follow our titling policies which means China is the most appropriate title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Moving PRC to China is about as political as it gets. Is like moving Xinjiang to East Turkestan and completely ignoring one side. If you want to avoid all political matters, mainland China should do it. The negative is that it leaves out Hainan, HK, Macau. The positive is it leaves out Taiwan, ROC, KMT, the civilization.... these are by far the most serious points of contention according to the archives going way back. If Mainland China is moved to China, the page will be more than a geographical term. And those points of contentions listed above, I cannot see them being any more than a few small links. Benjwong (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't. Because that's what all our sources do so it meets WP:POVTITLE. If all our sources called Xinjiang "East Turkestan" then we'd move that article there. And as it is we are squashing the POV that Xinjiang isn't East Turkestan, as it is that is irrelevant as none of our sources call it that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Benjwong, Hainan is part of Mainland China. Mainland China is not a geographical term. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe Hainan people are referred to as the mainlanders not on mainland. But perhaps others can interpret it better. They are in politically, but out geographically. Anyhow I was using East Turkestan as an example of just ignoring one side. Benjwong (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"Mainland China" is the name for a region that includes Hainan. It's a short way of identifying the PRC minus HK/Macau. As for your example, doesn't having the article at Xinjiang ignore the East Turkenstan side? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on the primary topic

Latest comment: 12 years ago104 comments19 people in discussion
  • Comment - Asking this won't solve anything because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows for "occasional exceptions" anyway. T-1000 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You're right to point out that occasional exceptions are allowed. Just establishing Primary Topic wouldn't automatically settle what the articles should be called. There are other considerations. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please put this into perspective. China is very different than other countries because there are always a state within a state. And I don't mean just Jin and 16 kingdoms. I mean look deep. Even when Qing was referred unconditionally as China, there was Taiping heavenly kingdom inside with Jesus christ's brother for president. So you have to know China has been administered that way for a very long time. What's different is that since the founding of the UN, countries need to be defined in a more clean-cut way. One way is to cut the borderlines clean like independence, the opposite is unification. Both ROC and PRC are not doing either. You could even argue that both states are actually not UN-compatible. And you are presenting them like they are 100% compatible. Benjwong (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. I don't want us to impose a clear-cut boundary between concepts, and I don't want to force China into a particular taxonomy or world-view. I know that words have meanings which overlap sometimes and that a particular use of the word "China" doesn't always mean "PRC" or "not PRC", but for better or worse the way the software works, we have to select a title for the article. It doesn't determine the content, it likely has some influence but it has to have a name so we might as well make an effort to use a name that doesn't confuse the readers too much. Believe me, I appreciate that the relationship between the PRC and ROC subtle. I think there is something beautiful in its complexity. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is surprising that the title China does not take readers to the country of China. I'd recommend that the title "China" refer to the country (what is currently in People's Republic of China), and that the current "territory/civilization" material in China be re-named to History of China or similar. The situation in China is much more like, say, Germany which has a single article, even though the country has changed shape and size many times. There are articles in WP that do not directly point to the state, such as Ireland (the island) or Korea (the penninsula), but the China situation is not analogous to Ireland or Korea, because Taiwan is so small relative to the mainland. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What if East Germany still existed? T-1000 (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • East Germany is a substantial portion of the country, and West Germany was always called West Germany and not "Germany" so it would be a disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be inclined to think that Germany would have been a DAB page, if the DDR existed today or if Wikipedia existed in 1967. In such a hypothetical case (and as always there are issues with hypothetical cases anyway, it's like saying "if Hitler won WW2, would Call of Duty 2 still be released on PlayStation 2?"), Germany would refer to Germanic culture and civilization, from Roman times to now, focusing on the transnational nation of the people who love bratwurst and beer, with information on the geography of the Danube River and (I forgot what they're called) Mountains, and a detailed history of the Holy Roman Empire, Prussian state and Nazism, whilst having in the header "for the ABCDE state, see Federal Republic of Germany. For the UVWXYZ state, see German Democratic Republic." -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The comparison to DDR doesn't work because the government on Taiwan no longer claims (except in straitjacketed cross-strait meetings) to represent the whole of China. Quigley (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No, Ma specifically said that ROC still claims Mainland China in 2008. As ROC President, His POV is notable. T-1000 (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Taiwan is used pars pro toto to refer to Taiwan+Kinmen+Matsu+any other territory ROC controls. Quigley (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It may also be worth noting here that even the KMT ROC president Ma Ying-jeou who is the most prominent proponent of the Nationalist view consistently calls his country "Taiwan". Regardless of the claims of sovereignty over the mainland this would appear to minimize the claim that the ROC (Taiwan) is called "China". Remember that this whole debate is about what things are called, and how they should be titled on Wikipedia. Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
And if he didn't say those things, he'd lose the Pan-Green/Pan-Blue fence-sitting vote. His political party's official policies and ideologies however are on a different tangent. How else do you think the KMT won the past elections? For the proud Taiwanese, wouldn't have the DPP been a much better choice regarding identity politics? The DPP doesn't associate with "China", a place commonly associated by the Taiwanese public with melamine milk, short-range ballistic missiles, communism, and the authoritarian Chiang family. I'm sure if Ma said "ROC, ROC" in all his speeches, the results would have been much more different. Pampering your electorates is a key tactic in securing votes, this applies to any country, party or politician. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: The island of Taiwan, the Republic of China, and the KMT have come up a lot in this discussion. Most of this is not relevant. It is unimportant to the article naming dispute if the Republic of China on Taiwan maintains claims of sovereignty over territory claimed by the People's Republic of China. What is important is what things are called. We know that the PRC is called "China" and we have seen no evidence whatsoever that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is also called "China". I'm sure that some exists, but its clearly quite rare, and insignificant when stacked against references to the PRC as China. Arguments about politics and cross-strait relations are not germane to this discussion about article naming. Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Issues with statement

  • Comment: You should have submitted the first and last part of your statement as the RfC, and then the remainder as your own evidence. Making claims and providing evidence one way but not the other as part of your "neutral request for comment" is inappropriate for obvious reasons. Your claims about the incoming links is incorrect. The first link I see listed there, for example, is Alchemy, which describes archaeological evidence from ancient China. There's a serious argument to be made that this link and a substantial portion of other incoming links were intended for this page. Also, and this is just a minor correction, wikinews is not transcluded on the Main page; you're thinking of In the news, which should follow Wikipedia policy. Nightw 01:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The RfC as listed on the RfC pages is just a yes/no question. This is followed by my own argument listed on this talk page, which I include partly as a rationale for posting the RfC, but also because I think it is a relevant argument to the question. I am not pretending to be totally neutral, but trying to make an argument which has the potential for producing a consensus. I am not arguing that all of the incoming links are incorrect, only that many of them are. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not presented to participants in that way. Arguments in response to the question should be left out of the question. A simple ===Evidence from filing party=== header will help fix that slightly. At the moment, you've asked everybody a question and then gone ahead and answered it yourself, which discourages responses from others. And please don't make claims about standard practices on ITN, which it seems you know nothing about. Standard practice is to follow policy. You've taken the actions of a single administrator and presented it as the "standard practice" of an entire collaborative project. Nightw 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I refer to it as standard practice only because I've seen it many times before. I'm not claiming it is policy. I will add the heading you suggest above. Thank you. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • @Tesscass, I presume that's because they left China before 1949 or shortly afterwards? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, they escaped the war with Japan and the communist takeover. There is a very strong cultural identity that I'm concerned will be overlooked by saying PRC is the primary topic for China. --Tesscass (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Right so when they say they left China they are referring to the time before the PRC existed so obviously aren't referring to the PRC. However for everyone else referring to it in a modern context the only thing they are referring to is the PRC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
        • "Everyone else?" I will bow to consensus even if I'm not satisfied. But I'm not convinced there is one. --Tesscass (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
          • By everyone else I mean the media, other encyclopaedias, people in Wikipedia who write the front page and link China direct to the PRC article. etc etc. Its also far too early to judge any consensus about this matter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
            • I think what I really would like to see is a better China article, even if PRC is the primary topic. --Tesscass (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
              • I can definitely agree with that, and I definitely agree that you are right when talking about pre-1949. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've noticed a widespread misconception throughout this discussion that I think needs correcting. I've seen several users state that an utterance of "china" is not a reference to the PRC because they are talking about the culture or the geography or the history. These things are not separate from the PRC in the same way that the first Thanksgiving is a part of United States history, even if it predates the founding of the country. The People's Republic of China" includes the population, geography, and history of the state and the area it governs just like any other country topic. I've seen similar arguments that it can't be the PRC because its referring to "mainland China" and the two are not the same. In these cases its an unimportant coincidence that the author may or may not be including Hong Kong and Macao, its still the PRC. This is all just a subtle way to push POV that the PRC is not legitimate. To be sure, China is unique, but its not that unique. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed very much with this statement. If the political split was recent, then there is merit to considering the cultural entity of China as separate from the political regimes. However, the split occurred more than six decades ago - and by considering the PRC separate from China, we are in effect eliminating 60 years of modern history, demographics, economics and society from the topic. Virtually every Chinese in this world grew up in the People's Republic of China. While for NPOV reasons I would not support redirecting China to PRC, and would instead support Eraserhead1's previous proposal for a disambiguation page, it is very important that we understand here that there is not, in practice, a clear dividing line between the PRC and the entity known as China, and that any attempt at such an arbitrary division is one based on pragmatic choice, not actual situation. JimSukwutput 23:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. There are several factors that determine when a state becomes synonymous with its culture: (1) How long has the state existed? (2) How much of the land is occupied by the state? (3) Do English speakers use the name of the culture (China) when referring to the state (PRC)? (4) Does the state embody/represent/control the vast majority of cultural/historical artifacts? (5) Is there a second UN-recognized state that occupies some of the territory? All of these factors, in my opinion, suggest that the title "China" should take the reader to an article primarily about PRC. --Noleander (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Metal lunchbox: A sly swipe at some of my comments, eh? Why would I attempt to be portraying the PRC as legitimate when it is my wish that whatever state that controls (most of) China performs its best? And you are still playing deaf by pretending that simply because the PRC controls the mainland, the two terms are the same!
  • Noleander: 1) You can answer that question yourself. 2) When strictly considering control, it is not at all a 'fringe view' that the PRC controls most, but not all of the land we speak of. 4) Vast majority is not good enough. If you are looking for synonymity, the state must control all of the native land of this culture. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 00:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I've never claimed that the terms "PRC" and "mainland China" are the same, but in most common contexts, they mean the same thing, so claiming that a usage actually refers to mainland China does not disprove the claim that it refers to the PRC. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Statement seems okay - The current statement ( "Is the People's Republic of China the primary topic of "China"?) is just fine. It is a lot clearer than the vast majority of RfC statements :-) An RfC is supposed to be a very narrow, focused yes/no question on content. I suppose it could be re-worded more clearly to include the (implied) conclusion : "Should the article named China be about (1) the country of China (PRC), and the history/civilization be in another article, or (2) about the history/civilization, and the country PRC is in another article?". --Noleander (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I am waiting to see what happens when there is full agreement that PRC is the primary topic of China. Let's say it is. Then what next? Benjwong (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The question you raise is valid, but do you have a better idea of how to progress towards a solution which a consensus might find acceptable? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to see what you are going to do with the consensus after these responses. You raised a very straight-foward question, and it seems people are replying mostly with a yes. You must know what next right? Benjwong (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have some ideas but I think it would be best to see where this discussion goes, its only been a day. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It won't go anywhere. If you looked at past discussions, you will see that it inevitably leads to the NPOV debate, which deadlocks everytime. T-1000 (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the NPOV that requires the ROC claim to be taken seriously is anywhere near as important as the NPOV issues with not having the PRC article at its common name - especially when the Taiwanese government calls China China and Taiwan Taiwan.
While the NPOV issues may not have been adequately explained before that isn't true anymore. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
NPOV can only go so far. Currently, the ROC claims the entire Mongolia, but we do not call that part of China, because this claim has virtually no chance of becoming recognized. At this point, the claim that the ROC is a legitimate ruler of China is pretty much as worthless as its claim that it has sovereignty over Mongolia. For all practical reasons, China=PRC. Whether that includes Taiwan island is another debate - one that will not be affected by regarding PRC as the primary topic of China. JimSukwutput 13:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Read the past discussion, both of these points have been brought up years ago. Didn't help. T-1000 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In response to "what to do next?" if "Yes" prevails as the consensus: I would suggest a rename:
  • China -> Chinese civilization
  • People's Republic of China -> China
  • Use disambig links at top of articles, not a disambig page
--Noleander (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
lol, If Yes prevails, it turns into the same old "NPOV vs. Common name" debate, which deadlocks every time. In fact, this stage of the debates was even skipped at past discussions. T-1000 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
So you keep saying, Could you please stop lol-ing at folks. Its a little rude to respond to so many contributions to this debate with mockery. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Just find it funny that these people actually act like that these point haven't been brought up before. Kinda of hard to take it seriously when you see the exact same points brought up 3-4 times. T-1000 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:Don't call the kettle black, please - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Likewise. How many times did you state the ROC's claim are fringe? T-1000 (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Not once. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Undue weight means the same thing. T-1000 (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. An idea can be a prominent minority viewpoint (not FRINGE) but still be presented in a way that is not proportionate to its relative significance. Often what happens is that two ideas are given equal weight when equal weight is not appropriate. That's what UNDUE is about and I acknowledge that I have made at least one mention of WP:UNDUE because I believe it is relevant. Apparently I'm not the only one. I'm just asking you not to be so hostile to efforts to address a consistent problem through discussion and consensus building. It tricky but its the way things work. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
We are not giving equal weight. We already state that the ROC's claims are only recognize by 23 countries. If we said that ROC and PRC are recognized by the same number of countries, then it would be undue weight. T-1000 (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No, then it would be lying. Undue weight doesn't mean you are lying about the facts (at least not in any direct way). Undue weight is when a claim (or theory or idea) gets covered more prominently and more extensively by Wikipedia compared to opposing claims, than it does by reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Refusing to treat the topic of PRC in any way that might suggest it is legitimate is an example of undue weight, because so few reliable sources do this. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, First, If the weight of the claim rests how many countries recognize PRC/ROC, and Wiki clearly states that ROC is only recognized by 23 country, then we are still not giving equal weight to the ROC's claim. Secondly, undue weight applies mostly to science vs. pusedo science disputes. In those disputes, the POV's have to be explain in detail. However, that's not the case here. The ROC and PRC claims are the same, the only difference is the number of countries recognizing them, and that difference is explained with a single sentence. Since there is nothing to explain, The only decision to make is whether or not to ignore the ROC's claims altogether. And that's why Undue and fringe are the same in this case. T-1000 (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The point is that 23 small states don't require an equal disambiguation page. You could redirect Education in China to Education in the People's Republic of China and have a hat note pointing at the ROC article - and that would be due weight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, the disagreement is precisely whether the 23 states are fringe or a significant minority. T-1000 (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:UNDUE if they are only a minority viewpoint then they don't need to be treated equally with the PRC's claim. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
My previous response directly addresses this. There is next to nothing to "treat" because both PRC and ROC claim can be explained in one sentence. This isn't a scientific debate where the POVs require explaining. T-1000 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
T-1000, you are conflating 23 countries diplomatic recognition with people's actual belief and usage? Recognition of the RoC as "China" is a political issue of global diplomacy usually based on foreign aid. The people in those countries don't actually call the RoC "China". YES, the belief that the RoC is "China" is fringe. The diplomatic recognition is simply a minority view. We base our naming on real world usage, not diplomatic semantics. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said, then that implies a POV that de facto is more important then de jure. T-1000 (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we agree to disagree, it really is only you who thinks this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, no, Both PRC and ROC made use of de jure arguments. T-1000 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. And 12% of UN members officially recognising the ROC as China is certainly not "fringe". Nightw 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, 12% which is entirely made up of small insignificant countries and none of the world's media. Its may not be fringe, but its totally WP:UNDUE to say its equivalent in stature to the PRC's claim. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Every time you describe (and you seem to do it quite a lot) an entire people as "insignificant" or "unimportant", I get that much closer to throwing out what little "good faith" I have left in your opinion and just calling you a bigot. Unfortunately for your less-than-admirable stance on these things, both Chinas advocate the One China Policy, both Chinas recognise every one of those countries as states, and under international law each state is equal. Please stick to facts and keep your insulting beliefs to yourself. Nightw 07:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
So I'm a "bigot" if I say that small Caribbean islands are less significant than larger more powerful countries like the United States? That's all I'm saying... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Less signficiant or insignificant? They're not the same. Which are you going with? Lesser significance would mean that we would have to represent their view in proportion to that of the majority. Insignificance, however, would mean that we can discount their view altogether as fringe. And yes, under international law the state of Saint Lucia and is equal to the state of the United States. Nightw 08:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Less significant is correct. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't mark the ROC/Taiwan off as insignificant simply based on area and population; the ROC still accounts for a significant proportion of world GDP, as well as US foreign debt. It is economically significant, even though its recognition is limited. In addition, it is the country with the 9th largest number of total troops. It is also a major exporter. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "writing off" the ROC/Taiwan, I'm talking about the countries who recognise it, sorry if I was unclear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, I doubt this particular thread is going to lead anywhere productive. so I'll just say, I thought about what you said and added a notice to the long list of notices at the top of this page and Talk:People's Republic of China. I hope that it will help prevent some of the constant repetition that you are pointing out. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the links, Metal.lunchbox. I think those previous discussions show that something should be changed (though it isn't clear exactly what), and this RfC is probably a good step towards achieving a consensus. The persistent attempts of T-1000 to stifle this discussion are not productive. Mlm42 (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is unneeded to begin with. No one is denying China is common name for PRC, the deadlocks is whether the common name is neutral. T-1000 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
So you keep saying. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The outcome of this discussion is obvious. The outcome of the "NPOV vs. common name" discussion, not. T-1000 (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, apparently it was needed, as two users have not answered in the affirmative. The result will give a clear community consensus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
RfCs go for 30 days. After this RfC is finished, it may (or may not) suggest that a "request for move" (RfM) be initiated to rename the articles, based on the outcome of the RfC. --Noleander (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • @LK, how do you know that those incoming links refer to the civilisation and not the PRC? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
By looking at the articles from which the incoming links originate, and looking at the context in which they use the term China. I've gone thorough more than a hundred articles. PRC is not the intended meaning in the majority of the links. LK (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Most of the links intended for the People's Republic of China actually point to People's Republic of China so looking at the incoming links to this article wouldn't answer the question. Please have a look at some other sources like google searches. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PRC vs China the country/state/civilization/multinational thing

Looking at the "no" and "unclear" responses to the question above there is a clear pattern. The People's Republic of China was founded in 1949 but China is much much older than that. This is undeniably true and its rather important. The debate has been unduly influenced by the existing division of topics between these two articles. We have talked about disambiguation and primary topics with these two competing topics "China" and the PRC, but these are in fact, not separate topics at all. The PRC is the current official name for the country of China. There are many other names and these all differ slightly in meaning but the topic is not distinct. The "People's Republic of China" is clearly used more often to refer to China since 1949 and to refer to the government or officials. Remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary we are not concerned with having an article with every term with a unique meaning, we deal with topics, and China is a single, very broad, and very complicated topic. "People's Republic of China" is just a very specific term for that topic. "The civilization" and "the state" are just two different ways of looking at the same thing. Take a look at google books for "China" to see what I mean.

WP:CONCEPTDAB explains this. The primary topic of China is China (state/civilization) and the PRC is the current manifestation of that state and the ROC also exists. There is no reason an article called China cannot cover all of these various aspects of the topic. The existence of the ROC can then be handled much more appropriately first through hatnote but with far more attention in the body of the article than is currently the case for the PRC article. T-1000 is right when he says that titles influence content. If the PRC article were in fact made into a more general article about China it would not seem out of place to devote sections to dealing with the Civil War, Taiwan, the ROC, and cross-strait relations, and it would address the rather absurd desire to begin the history in 1949. There is no reason the China article can't be mostly like other country articles. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason is the One China policy. If PRC is China and there is only one China, (and if Taiwan is part of China) then ROC is an illegitimate government holding on the PRC land, or if the ROC is indeed legitimate, then Taiwan is not part of China. Both cases violate NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are those the only two ways to present it? Why can't we stick to the facts and present them with neutral language like every other article that involves some level of controversy. I should also note that cross-strait relations are not the most prominent aspect of the topic "China". Moving PRC to China is not a declaration that there is only one China and it is the PRC. That seems to be what you are implying. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but you are literally riding on 1 piece of fact. You asked a very straight forward question and got some very obvious responses. What you should understand is that other editors too can ask very straight forward questions to make things go the two-china directions. Benjwong (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
"PRC government controls mainland China" and "ROC government controls Taiwan" are the only facts. Everything else regarding legitimacy and sovereignty are inherently POV. T-1000 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
@Benjwong, if you have a straight-forward question that you think is going to help resolve this naming dispute then go for it, but if your intention is to promote a certain political view as I think you are suggesting then its really not worth the trouble. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, WP:CONCEPTDAB is pretty clear about this (thanks for pointing to it). Following the principle described at WP:CONCEPTDAB, the article 'China' should exist, and it should cover the 'broad concept', and discuss all aspects of the broad concept. Sub-topic pages (e.g. PRC, Taiwan) may exist, but the main page should not be a disambiguation page. LK (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You could easily satisfy that by covering all of China's history in a combined article with the PRC - its modern incarnation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The only thing we need to clarify as far as policy is concerned, is whether the concept of 'China' exists, is coherent and definable. If it is, then WP:CONCEPTDAB clearly states that China should be an article. Another question may be, should a separate article for PRC exist? This depends on whether the concept of 'China' is different from the concept of 'PRC'. If they are the same, then People's Republic of China should redirect here, if they are different, then People's Republic of China should be a sub-topic page. LK (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
No, because its not the only policy at play, there is also the NPOV issues of having a different article at the common name of a well known country. While Supreme Court probably should have a hatnote to point at the US Supreme court it is also often called the US supreme court whereas the PRC is always called China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as the WP:CONCEPTDAB policy is concerned, the article China must exist, and it must cover all aspects of the term 'China'. I see no other policy that contravenes this. It's unclear whether a separate PRC article should exist or not, this is not addressed in the WP:CONCEPTDAB policy. Frankly, I have no opinion about this issue. LK (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A People's Republic of China article could still exist to discuss the governmental system. I'd imagine it could look similar to the current French Fifth Republic article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, having China set up somewhat like France (and other countries) would seem logical. Having an article at China about the country/state meaning PRC + pre-1949 + much of what's in current China article and then having an article about the PRC in the stricter sense, about the government would also seem to match the way other sources treat the topic. look at books titled "China" vs books with "People's Republic of China" in their title. The words are often used interchangeably but there's a pattern of using PRC when talking about the mainland government since 1949. Of course hatnotes would also be used for further disambiguation. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
But then which article will have {{Infobox country}} at the top, with the PRC flag? Is it okay to put the PRC flag at the top of the article China? The same problem doesn't exist with France. At the moment, the "main" article for the country is the PRC article, not China; this is indicated for the infobox. Clearly the "main" article for France is France, not the French Fifth Republic.
And I'm not sure LK's point about the WP:CONCEPTDAB is entirely valid, if the primary topic for the term "China" is the PRC article (which is apparently what the RfC is demonstrating).
A more relevant situation to consider is the set of "Ireland"-related articles, who's titles were hotly disputed (and went all the way to ArbCom). In the end, the "main" country article is now at Republic of Ireland, while the article about the entire island is at Ireland. Mlm42 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Ireland has its own troubles, but I'd recommend folks look at what happened in that dispute. I would say that whatever we do, This RfC in particular but also other discussions lead me to believe that when a reader goes to the article titled "China" they should see the country infobox. Whether there should separately an article at People's Republic of China is a matter to be debated. There are several alternate solutions that have come up. I favor merging but would gladly accept any of the prominent proposals that I've seen as they are all great improvements over the status quo. If only there were a way to measure people's preferences among all the options. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
To be clear. I'm suggesting that the main article about the country be at "China" and that the topic of that article would be the PRC and its predecessors. It would be like the PRC article now but expanded to include info about China before 1949. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This article already functions as a concept dab, and the last discussion (the RM) concluded this was no longer an acceptable solution. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

China (civilization+multinational entity article) is an abstract concept

I don't really care what the primary topic of China is - the civilization,etc.-topic, PRC-topic, or ROC-topic, but I'm sure that the civilization,etc.-topic can never be defined precisely. Has it been described precisely, it would result in a new NPOV-issue, for different people may have different interpretation to the concept. So the article were wroten in such a way: “China is seen variously as A, B, and/or C, etc.” I oppose any proposal attempting to designating a certain object, whatever it is (civilization or country, nation or territory, etc.), to the abstract concept “China”. So I opposed the “China → Chinese civilization” proposal. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that the notation “China → Chinese civilization” is ambiguous, so we should probably stop using it on this page.. It usually means "move the content of China to Chinese civilization, AND redirect China to Chinese civilization". But the "→" symbol could also be interpreted as a page move without redirect, or a redirect without a page move.
Anyway, is the commenter suggesting that China should be a disambiguation page? (similar to the one at China (disambiguation). Or that the page China should remain how it currently is? Mlm42 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that "China is seen variously as..." is unnecessarily vague and confusing. The article isn't about the different ways of thinking about China as an abstract concept so the lead should not suggest that it is. I think you'll find, if you survey reliable sources, that treating "China" as an abstract concept is not the norm. We could argue over whether of not it should be treated that way but this isn't the place for such a debate, because on Wikipedia how things should be is none of our concern. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Beep - I'm just posting to keep this section from being archived before I've had a chance to read it all. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Positions

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Since GTB asked about Cross strait positions, I will list them here:

  • 1. China is a country composed of Mainland China and Taiwan, and PRC is the legit govt of both Mainland China and Taiwan.
  • 2. China is a country composed of Mainland China and Taiwan, and ROC is the legit govt of both Mainland China and Taiwan.
  • 3. PRC is the legit govt of Mainland China, while ROC is the legit govt of Taiwan, they are both soveregn, therefore forming Two Chinas.
  • 4. PRC is the legit govt of China, but due to the improper handling of Taiwan sovereignty after WWII, Taiwan is not part of either the PRC or ROC and ROC is a government in exile.

These 4 positions all have reliable sources and are all notable.

My position is, since the 4 POVs above are all notable, and they are imcomptable with each other, the China article should mention de facto control only. T-1000 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

How would that interfere with having an article at China which is primarily focused on the contemporary PRC? Where there is controversy we can either describe the controversy or point our readers to articles where they can read further. It sounds to me like you are not actually opposed to the move but want to make sure that the article content does not make political declarations that it should not. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
China = PRC is itself a political declaration. That's exactly why both the pro-PRC and pro TI POV pushers want it. T-1000 (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider myself a pro-PRC nor a pro Taiwan independence POV pusher. Prior to my stumbling across this page a month or so ago, I didn't have much interest in the China-related articles. I make decisions based on what I think is best for Wikipedia. And I think it's best if typing "China" into the Wikipedia search box produces a page with the PRC flag at the top. That is not a political statement, regardless of what T-1000 says. Mlm42 (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Painting supporters of a move as being political "POV pushers" is an assumption of bad faith and is not constructive. I won't make assumptions about the motivations of other but I myself am not participating in this discussion as a defender of the interests of the Chinese government. My interest lies in having a high quality set of articles about China which best serve the interests of our readers. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What I've stated is a fact. China = PRC could be interpreted to support either POV 1 or POV 4 (if you want proof of the PRC and TI supporters, just read the past dissusions), but ignores POV 2 and 3. And I don't remember mentioning either of you in that reply. T-1000 (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Anything could be interpreted to support anything. The best thing to do would be to ignore all the POVs, and decide on the article setup based on objective criteria. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No, as China = PRC is incompatible with POV 2 and 3. If you look at like objectively, you would realize that 4 incompatible POVs exists. T-1000 (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
AKA WP:AT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think a redirect would be better than a move, i.e. "China" points to PRC, current article "China" to "Chinese civilization", and the two states/governments remain where they are. This won't make everybody happy, but then, no final solution would do anyway, so that's my view.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that would be OK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
No, as the significant parts of China links are about pre-1949 China. T-1000 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
In which case you have to title the article China and it needs to cover the history as well as the modern nation state. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Time to propose a Requested Move?

Latest comment: 12 years ago34 comments9 people in discussion

The RfC that led to all the discussion above is now 30 days old. That RfC showed overwhelming support for the notion that the PRC was the primary topic of the word "China". There has been a lot of Talk page discussion since then, but most of it seems to be revolving around a couple of issues: (1) how to manage the disambiguation (graphics, text, etc) after the move; and (2) what (if anything) to do about existing links to "China" throughout WP articles (if a move were to happen). Both of those discussions are predicated on the assumption that the move suggested by the RfC will happen (granted, a minority of editors still oppose the move, but the overall consensus, in my opinion, is to do the move). My suggestion is to initiate the RM now, moving the current "China" article to "Chinese civilization", and move the existing "Peoples Republic of China" article to "China". Before initiating the RM process, I thought I'd solicit comments. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What weight does the last RM have? Since it showed support for a move, but not where. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Good question. The prior RM led to a lot of confusion, and as a result, an RfC was initiated to get clarity. The point of the RfC was to focus on a very particular question, which it did. The RfC also had the benefit of soliciting input from uninvolved editors. The outcome of the RfC now gives us guidance to frame a new, clearer RM. My reading of the RfC (and subsequent discussion) is that we should initiate an RM to move the current "China" article to "Chinese civilization", and move the existing "Peoples Republic of China" article to "China". --Noleander (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I prefer "Chinese civilization" to "China (civilization)". That avoids the parenthetical disambiguator. I think the big problem last time was that so many editors assumed that this article was already the article about the PRC. Other editors came here assuming that the vote was about the PRC/China issue, and were frustrated when they discovered that it was not -- at least not the straightfoward way they had expected. Holding two votes together would allow the issue to be presented in a way that is more easily understood. There should be two separate sections to allow editors to caste a vote on each proposed move separately. Kauffner (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the "Chinese civilization" .. parenthesis should be avoided. I'll amend my comments above accordingly. On your comment about "two separate votes" ... I'm not sure that would work, since the move of PRC -> China cannot happen unless the existing China is moved to something. Maybe the two votes could be: (1) Should PRC be moved to "China"; (2) If answer to 1 is "Yes", what should current China be moved to (give a couple of options)? --Noleander (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this two votes thing. All things being equal the simpler solution is definitely the better one. The two moves seem pretty much the same question. The RfC and recent discussions have certainly brought a lot of clarity to the issues, but I'm afraid that the passionate objections of several editors cannot be so easily ignored. I think most of the concerns they have raised are fundamentally not valid, but we should proceed with caution. In particular I think it would be wise to see what GTBachus has to say about the RfC. It may be worth considering that there's also support for merging the two articles. Perhaps it'd be best to first figure out which of the two proposals has the most support. I also prefer "Chinese Civilization" for moving "China" by the way. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
A few points. Firstly this issue has been going on for years, so we need to wait for the RFC bot to remove the RFC header and then we need to get an uninvolved administrator to close the RFC. I know it looks clear, but if process is followed then its much more difficult to argue about.
Secondly, clarity, clarity, clarity, providing lots of options is going to lead to no-nonsensus.
Thirdly, I think a merge of China and PRC is much more sensible than a move, while that might be more "controversial" that approach meets every part of WP:AT - as that's how basically every other country is organised, and it avoids people using the argument that China's vast history is important too - which is the best argument against progress. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Another advantage of the merge is that no-one can get confused about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I strongly support a merge. It is the most comprehensive solution and would provide greatest breadth of context to adequately address cross-straight relations without giving undue weight. I would also gladly accept moving. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is there overwhelming support? Looks like user Jiang had issues with the moves too. T-1000 had issues, and so did I above. Benjwong (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In the RFC, where there is an 80% majority in favour of the PRC being the primary topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Because there is no option for those that agree that the PRC was the primary topic, but oppose the move request because primary usage is not neutral, to vote for. Adding the fact that PrimaryTopic allows for exceptions, this makes it useless in resolving the debate. T-1000 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
As we have to follow our policies that isn't relevant. Showing that its the primary topic shows its the primary topic and that we should then act within our policies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
As you know, what is the primary topic is not so much the issue of contention here, so do refrain from bringing that point up again. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 14:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Xiaoyu on the issue before us; virtually everyone has agreed at one point or another that the primary topic for China is the PRC (with the exception being that ridiculous argument for Mainland China), so the issue is a dispute over POV. The arguments for this are shown in the table of arguments we made earlier, so any RM will have to address those instead of the primary topic question. For the record, I'd prefer a merger than a separate "Chinese civilization" article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we please stop with this pretence that the current position meets WP:NPOV. If for a second we ignore WP:POVTITLE and treat the cross strait issue as the most important. Even if we take this view surely to be neutral we have to adopt a position that is somewhere between the PRC position and the ROC position.
Looking at the ROC position as shown above all of the Taiwanese English language newspapers call the PRC China. Even the modern KMT view seems to be to refer to the ROC as either Taiwan or the ROC - and to the PRC as the PRC or occasionally China. Therefore even the KMT position would probably be to make China a redirect to the PRC article and not a separate article on the civilisation - which really shows how extreme the current position actually is. Then once we take WP:POVTITLE into account the current position looks even worse.
Given that the ROC is so infrequently called "China" having even a specific hatnote at the top of the China article point to the ROC/Taiwan article is actually a pretty decent concession and one that everyone should be satisfied with. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not saying I agree with the position that this page is NPOV (I don't), but that it is the position that it is NPOV that is the source of the dispute. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Responses like this only show that you still do not even understand what the other side is arguing. The NPOVs issue that has been brought up is whether or not the PRC has succeed to the ROC as China, both de jure and de facto. From a de jure perspective, the PRC argues that Resolution 2785 means that PRC has succeed ROC to all of China, including Taiwan, therefore ROC is illegitimate. From a de facto perspective, the DPP wants to argue that PRC has control of China, but they do not have control of Taiwan, therefore Taiwan isn't a part of China. Both of these cases means taking a side in a political dispute, which violates NPOV. The argument was never about if the PRC is the primary topic/common name for China. You can disagree all you want, but at least understand the point of contention first.T-1000 (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we do understand the point of contention. My response above is exactly what you've been saying over and over again on this page, that it is a NPOV dispute, so why you'd disagree with my agreeing with you is completely beyond me. Just because we don't agree with your argument doesn't mean we don't understand it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Eraserhead1, who harps on the "prove it's not common" stuff. T-1000 (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologise then. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
@T-1000 none of this stuff is relevant unless you can explicitly back it up with Wikipedia policy which you have continually failed to do. Per WP:COMMONNAME we follow de-facto not de-jure positions.
As mentioned many times before, the policy is NPOV because China = PRC is disputed. NPOV supersedes common name. T-1000 (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis, people may have gone on about neutrality but my point is that the argument that the current position is neutral isn't reasonable if people are being impartial about it. For there to be a possibility of neutrality clearly we need to adopt a position less extreme than the modern KMT position. If we made ROC redirect to Taiwan (province) or Taiwan, China - which is basically the opposite of the current position - no-one would stand for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that a few people say they prefer a merger (of China and PRC articles) rather than renaming those two articles. The problem with a merge is that the merge may - as a practical matter - never happen, because of the complexity of the merger (both the discussions and the actual editing). I would suggest that the rename should be done first, then merge be initiated after the rename. Renaming does not hinder the merge, but the merge would hinder the rename. --Noleander (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
That seems quite reasonable to me. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Good argument. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense, keep the issues separate. The RfC has expired now, so does another admin close it? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I've requested so at WP:AN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I strongly object to this. If there is a consensus, the consensus is for a merge, not a rename. A simple rename without a corresponding rewrite violates WP:CONCEPTDAB and WP:NPOV. If a move is made, the current PRC article should be copied to a sandbox so that it can be collaboratively worked on for some time to fix major issues. Exactly what is the hurry, that we need to violate policy and guideline, to immediately change a situation that has been stable for years? LK (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what major changes would have to be made to the PRC article to make it neutral? What is wrong with it in its current state? Most of the information from this page and from that page should theoretically be basically the same anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I asked the exact same question earlier without a legitimate answer. The sudden need to rush this (and bypass all political matters) is getting very strange. Anyhow the sandbox idea is good. Let them move PRC to China in a sandbox test page and see what the next changes/edits will look like. Benjwong (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
No one is rushing anything and the claim that the situation is "stable" misses the point that for the past 9 years there has been constant discussion of moving or merging the pages taking up countless lines of text in addition to the endless cautious adjustments to the article, attempting to more fairly deal with the relationship between the name "China" and hte PRC. All in good time, but that doesn't mean it can't be soon. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
If you need help with setting up a sandbox, just let us know. You can start that anytime. I am certainly curious to see what contents you will change. Benjwong (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it fair to say that you, Benjwong and LK, generally support a merge of PRC and China articles so long as such is not done with undue haste? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm fine with a considered merge that takes WP:CONCEPTDAB and WP:NPOV issues into account. I support working on a sandboxed version of the PRC article, and replacing the current page when we have consensus that all important issues have been addressed. Specifically, the article must not take sides about whether PRC or ROC is the legitimate government of China, and whether or not Taiwan is a part of China. The issue of the dual claimants to the government of China should also be adequately discussed. I'm not saying that ROC should have equal space, but that it should be fairly treated, just as the Eastern Orthodox church and the Quakers are given space in the article on Christianity, even though few editors here are Orthodox Christian or Quaker. LK (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on the sources

Latest comment: 12 years ago147 comments11 people in discussion

Some of the news sources I provided above just list articles on China, but I've obtained quotes that to me clearly point to the PRC rather than the ROC or anything else. I've also included in some quotes information about China's long history, which then leads on to a discussion on the modern state (the PRC), to show that these sources consider the PRC to be the modern state of the country of China (using GTBacchus terminology). Many have the PRC flag, although I can't quote that. It is interesting to look through the maps provided though, and information on the ROC. Many maps don't have Taiwan coloured in. In some of the text, it is mentioned that the ROC retreated to Taiwan after a civil war in 1949, but it is not really mentioned after that. I find the BBC especially interesting. They focus their China article on the PRC, showing the flag and describing the modern PRC. Yet their first paragraph in the overview section is:

"The People's Republic of China (PRC) was founded in 1949 after the Communist Party defeated the previously dominant nationalist Kuomintang in a civil war. The Kuomintang retreated to Taiwan, creating two rival Chinese states - the PRC on the mainland and the Republic of China based on Taiwan."

So although they mention there are two rival Chinese states, they still clearly call one "China". Their ROC article is located at Taiwan (and listed as a country profile too), and in that article they refer to "China" as the claimant over "Taiwan". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Could this go in the ROC header? It refers to the ROC as China, one of the few that still does so.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Done so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, as I said, inclusion better than exclusion right now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about this one [2] In English it calls the government website "Government of China", but in Spanish it calls it "Government of the Republic of China (Taiwan)".--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I saw "Government of China", but the rest of the page reflects language used by most other sources, "Official name: Republic of China, also known as Taiwan". Nonetheless, even if it's inconsistent, it's one of the only English sources that I've ever seen to refer to the Republic of China (Taiwan) as "China". - Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Well that and the vatican. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
So, shall it go in?--Tærkast (Discuss) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why not, we've been asking for sources that use "China" to refer to the Republic of China for a while now. Even if its accidental its an example, its not like anyone is keeping count (counting the sources that use "China" to refer to the PRC would be a terrible waste of time). I wasn't able to find any more examples, I've looked several times through the course of this discussion, but I'm probably not looking in the right places. if anyone can find another example which clearly uses "china" to refer to the ROC (Taiwan) then please share it. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I doubt we'll find a lot more sources on (modern) ROC = China. As I understand it, even those with diplomatic relations with the ROC and not PRC use the designation "Republic of China (Taiwan)".--Tærkast (Discuss) 21:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely we all acknowledge this. I'd say anyone who argues that it is relatively common to refer to the Republic of China (Taiwan) as "China" should make themselves more familiar with English usage. How many reliable sources does one need to cite to state that the sky is blue? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of these PRC entries are purely geographic. e.g. "British Foreign Office: "China is subject to earthquakes..." - this applies to what Benjwong mentioned above regarding China = Mainland China, or China in relation to the geographic area/region rather than the political entity. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, many entries are blatant laymen's readings that are realistically incorrect, e.g. "New York Times: ...Government Type: Communist State" (there is no such thing as a communist state, since communism is an economic model. "One party system", "authoritarian", "dictatorship", "people's republic", "communism", "socialist state", etc are not synonyms). Taking these seriously would be like taking seriously G4TV's crappy definition of "Linux" being an operating system (GNU/Linux is a kernel, and Linux distributions such as Gentoo and Ubuntu are OSes). I see that this viewpoint of mine is always shunned by other editors (as seen above), but I still believe that laymen rubbish shouldn't be used on an encyclopedic level. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
With regards to Linux guess what? That's exactly what Wikipedia does. The article Linux is about the operating system and the kernel article is at Linux Kernel. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
>The article Linux is about the operating system
Read the lede again. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You're saying that the New York Times can't be taken seriously? If you don't like the NYTimes there are at least a thousand other quality sources which use the word "China" to refer to the People's Republic of China, it's territory and its population. The list above is just the few most prominent sources that some of us felt like listing. I'll remind you that we aren't concerned here about how things should be, its about how things are, as can be verified in reliable sources. I have my own opinions about China and the PRC but I'm not here to represent those, because that would be inappropriate. Also take a look as some of these sources listed, we ain't just talking about G4TV. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
New York Times is taken seriously, but it has a POV that Taiwan is not part of China, shown in the Map here: [3] Taiwan is the same color as Mongolia and India. Since it already shows Taiwan as not part of China, it could only be used to prove such a POV exists, but cannot be described as fact. T-1000 (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
And what would you say if the two were the same color? They obviously use the word "China" to refer to the PRC because that is the convention in English not because of they are defending a particular point of view. They probably have Taiwan labeled with a different color because it is controlled by a different government and is in most of the ways that matter to them, a territory which is separate from the PRC. They aren't taking sides, they're just trying to present things realistically. If it helps, ignore the New York Times. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Then they would be taking the POV that Taiwan is a part of China. Like I said before, 4 notable POVs exists. T-1000 (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This is totally irrelevant. All this means is that WP:POVTITLE comes into play. All those 4 POV's aren't equally notable which is what our sources are saying. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
No need to invoking POVTITLE in the first place, because we already have a title that PRC, ROC, and TI all agree upon: China = the civilization. T-1000 (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There is which is that the status quo is unacceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
No, that's the opinion of one admin. GTB, who is also an admin, disagree with that position. T-1000 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think GTB has agreed or disagreed to anything at the moment. Let them make their own comment. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
GTB has said "I've seen a clear consensus, and it doesn't look like this page" T-1000 (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
And that notes he finds the status quo acceptable how? It doesn't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Eraserhead1's original claim was that there was a consensus that status quo is not acceptable. GTB said there was no consensus, therefore disagreeing with Eraserhead1 and that one admin. T-1000 (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually you've misunderstood what GTB was referring to. He said that the RfC about primary topic did not look like a clear consensus, he was not talking about the move request, reread the discussion and see for yourself. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Please. The RFC was more clear than the RM. If the RFC doesn't have a consensus, then there's no way in hell that the RM has a consensus. T-1000 (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The previous admin said there was no consensus for what to do with the articles. GTBacchus may have meant that too. Can we let GTBacchus clarify rather than try to determine his thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, just as long as Eraserhead1 stops harping on the opinion of one admin. T-1000 (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
T-1000, are there any sources which you would accept, or do we simply throw out everything as POV? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sources don't have to be neutral, we have to be neutral. The whole point of the dispute is that the sources have POVs and the POV directly contradict each other. I am not throwing out any source, they could be used to support their POV. Like the NY times can be used to support the POV that "Taiwan is not part of China". T-1000 (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
We still have to follow sources. The NY times article notes Taiwan is not part of the PRC, which is a quite fair and neutral statement to make. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
No that is a POV, because in the PRC's view, Taiwan is a part of the PRC. The PRC argues that it inherited all of the ROC's holdings in 1971. The PRC's POV is a notable one. The only way to remain neutral is to mention de facto control only. T-1000 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"The only way to remain neutral is to mention de facto control only." As that's exactly what they've done, I assume then you agree with them? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No, even if NY times had said "PRC has de facto control of China", it would still be POV because whether Taiwan is part of China or not is disputed. The neutral term is mainland China. T-1000 (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
In their usage, China is shorthand for the PRC. You're reading all these things into the use of China, when they use it simply as the name for the country whose long form is the People's Republic of China. That's the simple layout of the situation, whether you accept it or not. Are you jumping on that red herring which is the Mainland China argument too? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Those sources never claimed to be neutral, so it's totally fine for them to have a POV usage. That, however, is not fine for wikipedia. T-1000 (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
If you actually look at the British Foreign Office source, you will see the PRC flag clearly presented. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Quite. Its clearly just being used as an excuse to avoid the obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

On second glance of the list:

  • Now I can confirm that Britannica is written by idiots, since they call China "Zhonghua" (中华). If a person can't get a country's name right, I wouldn't trust them for medical advice personally. For me the same applies here.
  • Regarding "IBM China, IBM Taiwan", this doesn't prove anything since if IBM had an office in Hong Kong it would be called "IBM Hong Kong" - used geographically.
  • Merriam-Webster: "China is the most populous country" - sure. Country ≠ sovereign state, as explained above. I don't see a problem, since it doesn't equate China with the PRC. The terms country, nation and state vary on interchangability depending on the circumstance. Before someone drones on about the flag they used, most of the prose has nothing to do with the political state and more to do with China (as linked) in general.

I'm sure I can nitpick a bit more, but I'll leave it at that for now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Arguing Britannica is not reliable will not get you very far anywhere. The system of romanisation they use is up to them.
  • IBM indeed isn't the strongest source. There is, if you want, an instance where they use "China" to refer to "Mainland China", since you couldn't provide those before.
  • If Merriam-Webster has the flag of the PRC, and you then say the text is not about the PRC, then there's really not much hope. For the record, country in common parlance usually does equal sovereign state. The definitions used by GTBacchus above were purely to help focus debate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
>The system of romanisation they use is up to them.
 . This has nothing to do with romanization, China is never called "Zhonghua" in everyday Chinese. We don't say "Oh Mr. Zhang, where did you go last week?" "Oh nothing too fancy Mr. Chen, I just went to Zhonghua!" - things don't work that way. If Britannica can't do research as simple as finding out how to say "China" in Chinese, can they be trusted to not make other pants-on-head idiotic mistakes?
>If Merriam-Webster has the flag of the PRC
Maybe for uniformity? Or for decoration? You cannot imply that placing a flag means that they must be referring to the PRC. Their prose refers to China.
>For the record, country in common parlance usually does equal sovereign state.
China is an exception. Korea is an exception. Germany was, but no longer is, an exception. Blame commie-nism. The vast majority of other countries and/or nations (and yes, there is a difference, that and/or wasn't a mistake) aren't divided between commie and non-commie states. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: China, the country that is, irrespective of states, is always called Zhongguo (中国). "Zhonghua" is only used, in selective cases, as a descriptive adjective, e.g. Zhonghua Ethnicity (中华民族, Zhonghua Minzu), Zhonghua Bank (中华银行, Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan)), Zhonghua Republic (中华民国, lit. "Chinese Republic", i.e. Republic of China), Zhonghua cuisine (中华料理, Chinese cuisine). Zhonghua can never be used as a noun, unless you are the author of a 220BC Qin Dynasty romance novel. I say selectively, because even in most cases "Zhongguo" is used as the adjective - 中国料理 (Zhongguo cuisine), 中国学 (Sinology). In other words, Britannica, hailed by some Wikipedians as the holy grail of Western literature, has made a pants-on-head mistake that not even a preschooler in China of healthy mental capacity can ever make. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Romanisation matters completely. They don't give the Chinese characters, so we don't know what they're translating from. Britannica is a very old encyclopaedia, much older than Hanyu Pinyin, which only came into widespread use in the 1950s. There are a variety of ways that Chinese characters are translated into Latin characters, and Britannica may simply not use Hanyu Pinyin, but a different style. If they don't follow the same style as the PRC, that's not a point against them at all.
Yes, it does. When they say "China" they mean the "People's Republic of China", whose official shortform name is "China". If you're going to argue than whenever a source doesn't spell out "People's Republic of China" but instead uses just "China", that the source is then not referring to the PRC, then the whole point of the conversation, that "China" is oft used as a shortform to mean the PRC, has been completely lost on you.
Exceptions are always debatable. I've never actually heard anyone call Korea as a whole a country in real life. I'm not going to get into a debate of what "country" means, I've had enough of those, I will just note again that common usage equates country (and in fact nation) to sovereign state, even though they do have other meanings. Bark (dog sound) is not the same as Bark (tree trunk cover), yet the word is the same. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
>Romanisation matters completely.
Again, you've ignored my point. There is no way the two terms can be mistaken unless the author was really careless. As for your final point, I'll start a new block below. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's for a moment forget about Britannica, what about the fact that all of the most popular and most prestigious English-language newspapers on every continent use "China" for the PRC on a consistent basis? All three of the major English language wire services do as well. And prominent international organizations like the UN, WHO, and WTO, Official government sources such as the US State department; All major English-language travel guides; a variety of politics and culture magazines such as Economist, Foreign Policy, and Atlantic Monthly; the journal Science; radio and TV news outlets such as CNN and NPR; etc. etc. It's not POV to use China to refer to the PRC, it's just common English, the language of this encyclopedia. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As the Pro-life example shows, common terms are not always neutral. Yes, most of your sources use China to refer to PRC, but they also have a POV that Taiwan is not part of China (like the NY times and the AP stylebook), which makes them useless in resolving disputes. T-1000 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
This term however is neutral. you've already brought that up and Pro-life is an inherently not-neutral term. "China" is not. Throw out the NY Times and AP and you still have nearly every single prominent reliable source. The list above is not exhaustive, just a quick overview of some of the best examples across different types of sources. It could be expanded to thousands of sources but that would be a complete waste of time. Surely you recognize, given the sources we have provided that it is the norm to refer to the People's Republic of China as "China". Just painting sources that don't support your view as being nothing but POV is not going to convince anyone. No one has yet provided a single source which establishes the name "China" as being controversial. The incredible consistency across a wide variety of sources from around the world would suggest that there is no major controversy. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You're just repeating yourself. You argument is that a term is common, therefore it is neutral. And the Pro-life term destroys that argument by being common but not neutral. As for sources that dispute China = PRC, the 23 states and the KMT, of course. For your argument to work, Common name would have to never conflict with NPOV, and Ireland, Pro-life, pro-choice already shows it isn't the case. T-1000 (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
My argument is that it is more than just extremely common it is uncontroversially the norm. I am also arguing that it is neutral, not because it is common but because I have seen no evidence that it is not sufficiently neutral. Remember the title we are proposing is not "China (which is not Taiwan)" or any variation thereof, but simply "China". - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not neutral because it is incompatible with "Two Chinas" and the "ROC = China" POV, which is notable in the 23 states and Taiwan itself. The only way you can call it fringe is if you call Taiwan's entire POV fringe, but if Taiwan's POV is fringe, then the entire debate is pointless. T-1000 (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you could show me a source that states or directly indicates that calling the PRC "China" is controverisal in an important way. That Ma chooses to say "mainland China" or "the mainland" instead seems more a matter of style than genuine naming controversy. Its not incompatible in any important ways with those ideas, they could easily be included in brief summary format in an article titled "China" which is primarily about the PRC. By your logic it would seem that we should not have any article titled "China". I'd like to see even one more reliable source which uses China to refer to the Republic of China before discussing this any further. I have already made it clear that the naming scheme proposed does not violate the NPOV policy. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
As stated many times before, the sources are the 23 states and the KMT. They recognize ROC as China, thereby making PRC = China disputed. T-1000 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
That's not related to naming though, that's a matter dealt with in the content of the article, whether the country known as china includes the island of Taiwan or not. Of course those 23 states recognize the ROC and presumably they at least claim to support the ROC's one china policy, that does not mean that they claim that the people's republic of China should never be called "China". Do you see the difference. This is why POVTITLE doesn't confirm what you are trying to argue. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Then the disagreement is actually what "naming" is. You think that China = PRC is just about the common name, while others believe that naming PRC China implies that it is the truth that that violates NPOV. Like I said, this just means everyone interprets the same policies differently. T-1000 (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Well the burden of proof is on you since what we are describing is so clearly prescribed by naming policy with the support of countless reliable sources and is not contradicted by POVTITLE. Its up to you to demonstrate with reliable sources that such a simple name implies some absolute political statement and therefore violates NPOV, just coming up with some alternative interpretation of naming policies is not good enough, this is described in WP:GAMING. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
No, you mean that your interpretations of the policies are clear to yourself. But anyway, if you want to hear the arguments again, here they are: PRC, ROC, and TI are the parties in dispute here. They've all agreed that China can refer to the Civilization. Thus, China = Civilization is neutral. Based on the pro-life example, Neutrality is non-negotiable, while common name allows for exceptions. Since there is already a neutral title that PRC, ROC, and TI agree upon, there is no need to invoke WP:POVTITLE. T-1000 (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are right, there can be no question we need to follow WP:NPOV, but you are interpreting completely wrong what NPOV means. NPOV does not mean you should base decisions on the personal of editors on what is neutral. It means exactly the opposite. WP:FIVEPILLARS states under NPOV that: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.". WP:NPOV also points out that: ""Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". There simply is no way to implement WP:NPOV, which does not include basing your claims on reliable sources. And you have presented no sources at all to back up your claims. All you have presented is personal opinions and your own "logical conclusions", which is clearly something which WP:OR says we should not base Wikipedia on. So far there has only been shown sources which indicate that it would not be neutral to not call the PRC "China". The AP Stylebook says that you should avoid using the name "The People's Republic of China" when referring to the PRC, and it lumps that name in with names like "Communist China" and "Red China" as names for the PRC to avoid.
About the pro-life case which you keep citing, I would like to point out three things you got wrong in it: 1) The case has not been concluded yet, it is still ongoing in an Arbitration Committee case, so I think it's quite inappropriate to conclude anything about the outcome of that case yet. 2) The closing of the Mediation Cabal discussion was not based on policy, it makes that clear through-out. Rather it was compromise based on WP:IAR which was forced in place, because an unacceptable situation had arisen where the two opposing article had got non-parallel titles (Pro-life movement and Abortion-rights movement), and despite 6 months of discussion it had been impossible to get the articles back to parallel titles. 3) The people arguing against staying with WP:COMMONNAME in that case presented way better arguments than you do. They actually showed reliable sources which avoided the common names, as those sources concluded those names were too partisan to be used in news reporting. One of the sources was the AP Stylebook, which directly recommends not to use "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice".TheFreeloader (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Your AP stylebook called "Mainland" a nation, and that POV is disputed by the PRC itself, not me. If you have a problem with the PRC disputing your sources, go talk to the PRC, get them to agree that "mainland" is a nation and drop their claim on Taiwan, then we'll talk. T-1000 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You're reading way too much into the use of the one word, "nation". It doesn't have all these connotations you give to it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No matter how you define nation/country/state, the PRC still sees mainland and Taiwan together as one. T-1000 (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
China still uses the term China to refer to itself. The part that's debatable is whether that includes Taiwan. We don't have to wait for a solution to that situation to change the naming on Wikipedia unless you can point to an actual policy which says so - and hand-waving WP:NPOV without pointing to other policies isn't good enough. Additionally getting obsessed about the AP stylebook while ignoring the other 30-40 sources there is really WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
We've been through this before. Both the "ROC = China" and the "Two Chinas" POV are notable in Taiwan and the 23 states. An example is that it is referenced in Taipei Times. Saying that the POV's are fringe when there's proof that they are notable is a prime example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. T-1000 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
A look at the Taipei Times would actually contradict your statement. They consistently use the same naming convention as everyone else, the PRC is referred to as "China" and Republic of China (Taiwan) is referred to as "Taiwan". Every major English-language newspaper on Taiwan does so. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
He's talking about this two china's thing which he found one editorial source for, but that source explicitly said that it was the first time anyone had suggested such a thing. Its hardly a particularly notable viewpoint, and putting into the same basket as the PRC being called China is highly dishonest and a massive violation of WP:UNDUE. With regards to the 23 countries you need to bring sources to the table if you want to make the point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No, the two Chinas POV has been around since Truman [4]. Don't talk about stuff you don't know. T-1000 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Bringing up an argument about how China was treated before the founding of the PRC, or very shortly after, isn't really very relevant to 2011. While your source does use the term two China's it was written in 1987 - nearly 25 years ago, and even then although it calls the PRC the PRC it calls the ROC "Taiwan". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The Taipei times article proves that the "Two Chinas" POV is still notable. T-1000 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The world isn't anywhere near as black and white as you seem to think. POVs aren't either notable, in which case they have to be treated as equals to other POV's or fringe. There is a hell of a lot of grey. This viewpoint is clearly a very minority viewpoint, otherwise the Taipei Times would have known about it before May 2011. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as long as a POV isn't fringe, then Wikipedia should not take sides, that's from Jimbo Wales himself here:[5]. As for the two Chinas POV being fringe, it has been mentioned by notable people like Richard Bush here [6], so, once again, don't talk about stuff you don't know. T-1000 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It also proves that even within that POV, even in a newspaper from the Republic of China, China still refers to the PRC. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, Taipei Times is a Pro-DPP newspaper, so of course it wants to imply that Taiwan is not part of China. I wasn't using a neutral source to begin with, but just proving the Two Chinas POV is notable. T-1000 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
If I can add to this, a source would need to demonstrate that those 23 countries think that there is something wrong with calling the PRC "China" in English, simply having formal relations with ROC isn't enough. I've tried to find this but only find more confirmation that the PRC is usually called "China" and the ROC is not. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Those 23 states disputes the PRC succeed ROC as the legitimate gov't of China, and NPOV supersedes every other policy, including common name. T-1000 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No because there is WP:POVTITLE. You need to prove that the usage of China is a POV term and is treated as such by our sources, and not just your own personal belief which amounts to WP:OR. Its quite clear that the central Americans - which generally holding diplomatic relations with Taiwan call it "Republic of China (Taiwan)", only the Vatican appears to call it China and they contradict themselves anyway over it.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, There's no need to invoke POVTITLE in the first place, because we already have a neutral title that PRC, ROC, and TI agree upon, China = Civilization. The examples given at WP:POVTITLE are examples in which there is no neutral title, like "Jack the Ripper". T-1000 (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
And as I have said before, I disagree this title is NPOV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, then you would be need to come up with a party that said "China" cannot refer to the Civilization. Such a party don't exist. T-1000 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Given you are unable to come up with sources to backup your claims it is utterly unreasonable to ask anyone else to come up with a source to backup their views. Regardless the AP stylebook does say that using People's Republic of China is non neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
And the AP stylebook already has a POV that Taiwan isn't a part of China. T-1000 (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:POT. You still haven't come up with a single source saying China cannot refer to the PRC. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok here a source from the KMT that they use Mainland for PRC instead of China [7], specifically "馬英九在新春茶會中指出，為符合「九二共識」、「一個中國／各自表述」，今後政府機關用語，一律稱「對岸」或「大陸」，不稱「中國」。" T-1000 (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is no neutral title here either. The current situation implies the PRC is illegitimate. And given how our sources avoid the term PRC they obviously think using China is better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The PRC separates China from itself in it's own anti-secession law, thereby destroying any argument that China = Civilization delegitimatizes the PRC. T-1000 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Give us a quote or something to back up this claim. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's a source that talks about the Anti-secession law and the 92 consensus [8], specifically this part: "原本「一中原則」的老三句是：世界上只有一個中國，中華人民共和國政府是代表中國的唯一合法政府，台灣是中國的一部分，而這主要是對於外國的一種立場宣誓，因為當時兩岸在國際上的爭鬥激烈，但目前已不使用。而當今所使用的新三句則是：世界上只有一個中國，大陸與台灣同屬一個中國，中國的主權與領土不可分割。因此，一中是指「中華人民共和國」，已經變成為北京可以想但不必說的一種策略，這也提供了台灣一些較大的戰略空間，「一個中國」可以是中華民國，但也可以是中華民族（一中屋頂說）。" T-1000 (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Again we need some source which shows that the title is even a little bit controversial. I can say for sure that while T-1000 claims the KMT sticks to the idea that ROC = "China" it is easy to see that this is not so simple by looking at the KMT's language. The KMT never refers to the Republic of China (Taiwan) as "China", it may have done so many decades ago but it does not today. It consistently uses "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China", "Republic of China on Taiwan" or "Taiwan", but never "China". When referring to the PRC the KMT prefers to avoid calling it simply "China" but it has no competing claim on that title. see KMT entry in above list. There are not two states which currently call themselves "China" we have demonstrated this already. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if you understand what the other side are arguing or not. There are 2 issues here: 1. whether or not the "China" is the common name/Primary topic for PRC. 2. Whether the PRC has succeed the ROC to "China". Regardless of the status of 1, the status of 2 is disputed, because of the status of Taiwan. The people who are against the moves views 2 as more important than 1, because NPOV is non-negotiable, while common name allows for exceptions. You can bring up common name over and over again, but it will not be anything break through. And this this exactly where the debates stalled for the last eight years. T-1000 (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what NPOV means. It has to be backed up with sources. Almost all our sources say that the PRC has inherited the title China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The NPOV issues we are talking about here are not referring to the Title, but whether or not the PRC has succeed to ROC to "China", (both de jure and de facto). The response to Common name was always that Common name allows for exceptions. T-1000 (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We're not here to solve 2. Wikipedia is meant to follow real life consensus, as it describes, not prescribes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
That just shows you still missed the point: "We're not here to solve 2" is exactly why China = PRC is unacceptable. There is no real life consensus on 2, because of the status of Taiwan. Defining PRC as China would be taking a side and solving 2, which is exactly what Wikipedia isn't suppose to do. T-1000 (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because China should cover its primary topic and the PRC article should be at its common name - both of which are part of the naming policies as well. These other polices can't be completely ignored and so we must invoke WP:POVTITLE. Ignoring WP:AT as you are is totally inappropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned before, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows for "occasional exceptions". T-1000 (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to make an exception here as PRC at China follows all our policies. Additionally WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC backup the point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course there's a reason. The existence of the ROC makes China = PRC disputed and the China situation unique. T-1000 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Not really. Plenty of countries have territorial disputes and the ROC doesn't actively claim China anyhow. That it officially claims the rest of China doesn't mean we should abandon all of our other policies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, other countries has territorial disputes, but they don't claim the state in it's entirety like PRC/ROC. The only other example is Korea, which follows the example of the current China setup. T-1000 (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of who claims what there is no particular dispute that China refers to the PRC - even the KMT occasionally use China to refer to the PRC and never uses it to refer to the ROC, and all the English language newspapers in Taiwan use China to refer to the PRC. If there was a dispute that was notable and worth covering here then it would be trivial to find lots of sources to backup this claim. Its trivial to find sources using North Korea and South Korea to differentiate them, such as BBC South Korea country profile, BBC North Korea country profile. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
As stated before many times, the dispute is whether PRC has succeed ROC to all of China, not the common name. T-1000 (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Quite controversial and one-sided. Back to the Pro/Con table discussion. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Not really. The points against doing so in the pro-con table are weak as they don't generally take policy into account, whereas the arguments for doing so do take policy into account.
    • Btw I removed the stuff about commercial people using "China" to refer to mainland China, this may well be true, but every other point in the table is sourced so so should those. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I've moved IBM up to the PRC as they call their Hong Kong office "IBM Hong Kong S.A.R. of China". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That's weird. Usually if they don't just say Hong Kong Special Administrative Region it's Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, not just China. Very unofficial. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain why I marked the SICA example which appears to use "China" to refer to the ROC as a possible translation mistake. If you look at the website, first you'll see that the ROC and Taiwan are referred to again and again but only once does this "Government of China" appear. Second. notice the capital G in "Government of China", in the original Spanish version they use "Republica de China". Third, on that same page "Republica de China" is translated elsewhere correctly as "Republic of China". It's also important that this is an isolated utterance, without the context of a complete sentence. I'm reverting the removal of this notice which had the editors note "china in Spanish is china." Its not the "china" part I'm worried about. it seems likely that its a translation mistake. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the spanish version of the page its obvious that its a translation error. The Spanish version calls it "República de China (Taiwan)". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
With regards to the civil code where exactly does the ROC call itself "China"? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Country, nation, state

Though definitions vary from source to source, a country is a geographical entity that encompasses an area traditionally associated with a culture, a nation denotes an area associated with a peoples, and a sovereign state is a political entity with a government, judiciary, currency, etc etc. Most of the time people either get them confused or mistakenly believe that the terms are interchangeable, but this is because in most cases the country = the nation = the state. The person with the Ph.D in political sciences can correct me if I am wrong, but this is my interpretation of the whole hubbub.

In most cases, the country is the nation, which is also the state. In other cases, the country is the nation. For some, the three are not the same. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a degree in Political Science and I can tell you that the distinction that you are relying on is not as clear cut as you seem to believe. It is true that there are often quite specific definitions for these things but what you have presented is little more than a semantic parlor trick. South Korea is in fact a country, and so is (the People's Republic of) China. It is however of little importance whether or not we all agree on the exact definition of "country", "nation", and "state" and how they apply to China and the People's Republic of China. What GTBachus gave as an explanation using those concepts was simply a heuristic tool to help us understand the logic behind the organization and naming that he was proposing. You are right that nation, country, and state do not always apply to the same label, as illustrated by your Russian Federation example, but this does not change the fact that "China" is used to refer to the PRC. I would also take issue with your geography argument, that a particular utterance of "China" can't be referring to the PRC because they are talking about geography. That state has a defined territory which defines what we understand as China on the map. There are a few territorial disputes but that doesn't mean that the geography of china is an entirely different topic from the territory of the PRC. Beijing, China and Beijing, People's Republic of China are quite the same address. The distinction between China and the PRC is so utterly unique that it would make our readers wonder if we are talking about the same China that everyone else is. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It's fairly ironic that when describing the Russian republics Belinsquare said "These republics all have their own constitution, which is a prerequisite for nationhood" (emphasis added), rather than statehood. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Also bringing up England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and calling them countries is misleading. While the British do call them countries they are for all intents and purposes provinces with different levels of autonomy, and in the case of Scotland a different legal system. The reason they are called countries is bloody mindedness and historical hangover from where Scotland was in fact a separate kingdom which for about 200 years shared a king with England. While the British do use this as an excuse to have 4 teams in the football world cup they only get away with this as they founded the sport and anyway fielding more teams just makes them less likely to win, so why would anyone else care? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The definition of nation is particularly problematic. It can mean many things but when we are trying to draw fine lines between nation, state, and country, "nation" typically refers to a people who identify themselves as having a common name, culture, destiny, ancestry, but its not exact what is and is not a nation. A nation may have land, or it may not. The Kurds are an example of a nationality which does not have a defined territory although there are areas where Kurds are in the majority. In political science generally "country" does not contrast with "state". "State" is fairly well-defined as the combination of the people, a territory, and a sovereign government. "Country" is not a technical word and is used informally. It emphasizes territory, and it is usually used in common English in the place of "state", especially in the US. We can nit-pick about semantics all we want but what I want to know is what this is all supposed to prove about naming and article scope/organization. Are we debating how to word the first sentence of the article "China"? How does this suggest that we should not make the changes suggested above by GTBacchus? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Once the RFC is complete with regards to the primary topic, given that means WP:CONCEPTDAB doesn't apply, given the points from WP:AT and the evidence in this section I suggest a merge proposal to merge PRC and China is made. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can prove Taiwan/ROC is undeniably not China (literally independence) then PRC will be the only thing left for a page move. Listing all these references to China, it feels like a repeat of archive20 to be honest. Benjwong (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course we don't have to prove any such thing. The sources demonstrate clearly what things are called in English, and until a reliable source can be provided which establishes that calling the PRC "China" is substantially controversial, we have no reason not to use the common English name. And even if it were significantly controversial (which it is not) POVTITLE would still suggest we stick with the common name and I would agree especially in light of the great importance of this article. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
For a topic with this level of importance like you said, can't just be handled like this. You just find 50 sources to support the view of your choice, and pretend there is no opposition anywhere. That may work on smaller topics, but not this one. Benjwong (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not cherry picking. you find me some sources that say the PRC isn't called China and we'll talk, or better yet find me some sources that say the ROC is called China or that use China to refer to the ROC. I have looked, many times but cannot find them. When I went looking at the sources to see what they said, I actually wasn't expecting to find such broad unanimity, but its what I found none the less. I'm not pretending. I've looked for the opposition and I have not found it. Others and myself have requested many times for reliable sources which show opposition to the name China for the PRC but none has ever been shown. Its not a magic trick, I'm just calling it like I see it. I find your accusation that I'm stacking a bunch of cherry-picked sources just to push my own POV on this article inappropriate. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You show up in 2011 after wikipedia has been around all these years to make this move.... Last I checked this current China article was the most neutral solution to people educated about political situation. You have virtually a zero edit history on WP:China topics. Is not cherry picking. I think your credibility and hard push came out of nowhere. Is like you found out the 100th anniversary of ROC is coming up, and you just want to make sure people recognize PRC is China. Is not good timing, and you are doing them a disfavor. I suggest you focus on things the mainland do positive like maybe edit a "Opening ceremony of Shenzhen Universidad". You are not calling it like you see it. I am sure you can see there is a republic of China that lasted longer than the people's republic of china, and is still here. Benjwong (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You are way out of line, Benjwong. Stop the accusations immediately. I can show up anytime I want and my edit history has nothing to do with this discussion, though I have edited more than a few china-related articles. I have shown that I am familiar with wikipedia, its culture, and its policies. let's not make this discussion about me, as you have done before. stick to the content and policy please. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I am curious as to why someone who edits so few (if any) WP:China articles want so much say on WP:China political issues. It just seems strange to me. Unless you have some fear that the ROC would come back in a big way? I don't know, you tell me. Benjwong (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
How can you say "if any", just look at my edit history if you are curious, its not a mystery. Your repeated accusations that I am operating on a political agenda is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith and is very inappropriate. Consider this a warning. This is not a discussion about me, if you wish to make a comment about me do so on my talk page. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes Benjwong, everyone who disagrees with this page clearly wants to destroy the ROC, and fears its untimely revival into a worldwide superpower. Now, as that is actually irrelevant to content discussions, can we leave the ad hominems behind? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You mean to tell me if I went over to some country's talkpage, and I have zero knowledge of that country and never edited any article relating to that country, that it would be normal to be demanding huge changes like this? I think that is dangerous for the community. Chipmunkdavis, you know there are fraud editors? In zh.wikipedia I think they publicly found people associated with the 50 Cent Party. Benjwong (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of being a sock for the Chinese Communist Party? Your stating that I have no knowledge of China is personally insulting and completely baseless. Also if you would bother to look at my edit history you would see that I have edited China-related articles as I have already stated above. This is the last time I will warn you that these personal attacks are not appropriate. I recommend you have a look at WP:personal attacks. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I looked at WP:personal attacks and I do not believe I have crossed the line. I am just pointing out some of the stuff that has happened around other language wikis, and the highly abnormal expertise you claim to have (yet prefer to avoid politics, which is the core of this issue). Benjwong (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
If those 50 cent users have good points, more power to them. These are baseless accusations Benjwong, and I suggest you withdraw them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me help you out, Benjwong, from the first two sentences of WP:personal attacks, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor". You have definitely crossed the line. You are not in a position to evaluate my expertise as you know nothing about me except that I claim above to have a degree in political science - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I personally don't have great interest in Chinese politics. I have various pages on my watch list that I have requested unprotection for - quite a few of which involve controversial topics and I have made a few edits to various other Chinese pages. I certainly have no interest in cross strait relations and I view it as a matter for China and Taiwan to figure out. My country has spent the past 200 years getting involved in other countries politics and it has generally backfired anyway.

In 2011 China is one of the most successful countries in the world, and it also attracts vast interest. If you go on a site like the Economist out of the top 10 most commented threads 3 of them are explicitly about China and another is about Asian marriage which involves China.

The reason I have got heavily involved in this discussion is because I think that the current position is confusing to our readers and makes our titles longer than necessary and clearly our article on China is important and should have a sensible non-confusing title. You could quite easily have a degree on politics in the US and only be involved here to avoid confusing readers like the people you know who always call the PRC China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • “Country, nation, state” is an incomplete list, and "goverment", "dynasty" (not restricted to historical usage) and "regime" (as non-pejorative term) should be added. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Distinguishing Wikipedia from its sources

I think we must put sources in context. Sources listed are evidence of a "common name", but do not reflect what we should do as an encyclopedia to accurately reflect the topic at hand. While print encyclopedias and news articles are limited in size, Wikipedia is not a paper. It is a balance between accuracy and concision: Due to space constraints, and limits to reader attention, it would be unthinkable for news articles to regularly write out "People's Republic of China" out in full.

With or without a move/merger/renaming, I don't think the title of the article is a big deal with the existence of redirects. However, I am concerned that a change in the article title will affect the quality of the article text. For example, would the UN Security Council article read "China's seat was originally filled by Taiwan, but due to the stalemate of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, there have been two states claiming to represent China since then, and both officially claim each other's territory. In 1971, China was awarded China's seat in the United Nations by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, and Taiwan soon lost membership in all UN organizations." There are contexts where changing PRC to China would not sacrifice accuracy by much (e.g. "PRC leadership" to "Chinese leadership") but there are others where it would "China replaced Taiwan in the United Nations".--Jiang (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"In 1971, the People's Republic of China was awarded China's seat in the United Nations by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758". Titling the PRC page "China" doesn't mean that every instance of PRC must be replaced with "China", and it doesn't mean that the PRC's full name can't be used when "China" is ambiguous. Quigley (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Also it's worth noting that the sources list includes far more than just newspapers. Many newspapers are included because they are extremely prolific, accessible on the internet, and all of the writing is reviewed by a group of editors with specific standards of language use and style. They also operate under journalistic standards that mandate a high degree of neutrality. So newpapers are a good place to find clues about language which is NPOV and common written English. Like Quigley said, we don't have to change every single instance of "People's Republic of China" to "China" the official long form has its place, but in most contexts there is not enough ambiguity to use the longer name. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
In addition, all the sources above are online. Many newspapers now publish more articles online then they do in print, and theoretically they would have as much space as we do. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm trying to raise a two separate issues here:

  1. Any of the proposed changes should be made in conjunction with specific instructions on how to alter the existing wikilinks. As an example of sloppiness, after [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]] was moved to [[Elizabeth II]], someone went around destroying all pipelinks to that article, with [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]] changed to [[Elizabeth II]].
  2. There are a significant number of instances where using "China" in place of "PRC" will not create ambiguity, but will reduce the accuracy of of the text. I agree that the way newspapers refer to China does not create ambiguity problems in that we clearly understand what they mean when they use these terms, but why should we not use a more accurate and technically correct alternative? Wikipedia and online journalism have many overlapping goals, but the goal of concision is still much more pressing for journalists than it is for Wikipedians, where one audience is trying to research a topic in depth and the other is just trying to browse current events. Further, the ability to confuse by using more technical terminology is reduced by the ability to interlink to other articles, which is not available to our sources.

--Jiang (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think these are legitimate concerns that are worth considering. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with 1. It makes sense. 2 is an interesting point. However, I'd think that current wikipedia practice is does not put that much weight on complete accuracy. For a fairly analogous situation (although obviously not exactly the same), should we rename Australia to "Commonwealth of Australia" in order to increase accuracy and prevent all ambiguity with the Australian continent? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The only problem I see from the Australia setup is when someone links to the Commonwealth of Australia article when they really intend to link to the continent article. If Australia is ever referred to in a political/state context, there are not precision/accuracy issues. The same is much less true for China - for example, when we list statistics (which are invariably linked to a state entity like the Commonwealth of Australia instead of a continent), how do we tell is those numbers include Taiwan?--Jiang (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It's always not easy to tell whether numbers include Taiwan or not, and I don't see how that will be affected one way or another by whatever name is used. Either way there is ambiguity over Taiwan. Most sources listing statistics will list them under "China", which would mean the PRC. Some of these may include Taiwan, some may not. A listing under "People's Republic of China" could also include Taiwan. That all depends on the source used, and either way should be clarified on wikipedia with some form of notes if it is not obvious. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course, statistics are only a fraction of the concern here. China is used in the cultural and geographic sense to reach beyond the borders of the PRC. In my academic background (history), the term "PRC" is commonly bandied about by historians to refer to Mainland China in the modern sense. So while not removing ambiguity entirely, at least in English parlance (as opposed to a Chinese speaker in Beijing who is convinced Taiwan is part of China), PRC in English implies Mainland China more so in the way China does.--Jiang (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
China in a cultural sense extends even beyond the PRC+ROC, to singapore and communities in Malaysia and other overseas Chinese. In any case it's an abstract use of the word "China", and I'd more expect anything to do with Culture that is not directly related to the country to be described as "Chinese" rather than with the word China. I don't see any room for confusion there. In regards to geography, there's no such thing as geographic China. China is defined purely by its political borders, and this is the case historically as well as today. Historically I have no doubt the PRC is described as the PRC, at least until the 1970s or 1980s. In those days the PRC was not unequivocally called "China", but rather had some clarification such as "Red China". This is not the case at this time. In terms of historians writing now about that time, PRC would be used due to the fact that at that time much of the international community considered the ROC to be China. I don't have any sources about what PRC connotes to, but my guess is that the vast majority of english speakers would understand it to be China, just as easily if not more easily than Mainland China. Indeed, I've heard some people express surprise that "Hong Kong is part of China?!?" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
What?!? Hong Kong is in China??? You're kidding right⸮ -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha, nice reaction. However, if I do that they get angry with me! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an important point. We will need to work towards a clear convention for how to treat "China" and the PRC across all pages. Whatever it is, we need to avoid encouraging absolutism, we don't want editors going on a rampage changing every single instance of "People's Republic of China" to "China". I don't think it would have to be very complicated though. Just acknowledge that sometimes it is better to have clarity and use the long form but that its not against the rules to use the common name "China". As it stands we get a lot of awkward prose where editors feel that they have to use the long form every time. I don't think it would be hard to develop a clear common-sense standard so that editors can feel comfortable writing about China, but I don't expect we'll all be able to agree on all the detail immediately. The first step I think is settling the title for this article and the one currently titled "People's Republic of China", with an aknowledgment that the result will not be applied arbitrarily to every china-related article, that an MOS-type discussion will necessarily follow. These concerns can and should be addressed. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
With regards to naming that's basically the current status-quo. I agree that a naming convention discussion also seems worthwhile to follow the merge. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_civilization/Archive_25&oldid=1151049169"