Talk:China

Cfd Discussion of interest to talk page participants

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_13#Category:Populated_places_in_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China is probably of interest to those that participated in the move discussions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Intro length

Respecting that this is of course one of the most important articles in Wikipedia, I just wonder if that and the length of the whole article are sufficient justification to have the Lead longer than the one recommended in the Lead Length MoS? It should ideally be four paras presumably? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Reduce. The Sound and the Fury (talk)

FAQ answer saying retitling due to need for NPOV

The FAQ answer should say the title is due to WP:COMMONNAME, ie "Because we use the common name to title our articles and the overwhelming usage of "China" is to refer to the People's Republic of China." No need to say more than that. To claim that NPOV requires the equating of "China" and the PRC is dubious. Yes, this has been discussed before, but that's the point: the FAQ answer should reflect the discussion and the primary argument for the retitling was WP:COMMONNAME not WP:NPOV. This is not a trivial point because WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles whereas WP:NPOV's scope extends to text. It is unhelpful to supply fodder to those seeking to change PRC to China in other articles by stating here that "China" "follows our neutrality policies [and PRC does not]." Such a declaration is too general.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What if we replace the word "follows" with "is consistent with"? Would that fix your concern? "Neutrality" is, broadly speaking, a principle that applies to aspects of Wikipedia beyond article text. Mlm42 (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it is "consistent with" WP:NPOV. It's consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. There should not be an implication that "China" should be used in in contexts where WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. It could be used but that depends on the circumstances; it is not neutral in all contexts.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's consistent with our neutrality titles as it meets WP:POVTITLE. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is part of WP:COMMONNAME.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased...This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and other relevant guidelines such as geographical names)." CMD (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ answer doesn't say the use of China "follows our neutrality policies for titles" it says the use of China follows our neutrality policies period.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the link goes to that section and its talking about titles it's pretty obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I take this as not objecting to adding "for titles" as it would not change things substantively.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"this title follows our neutrality policies for titles" would be redundant. There's no reason to add it. CMD (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be a pretty small concession to those who have concerns about the scope of the retitling. The current implication is that the title is neutral. In fact, WP:NPOV allows for non-neutrality for titles when outweighed by other concerns, which isn't the same thing as saying titles primarily chosen on the basis of a WP:COMMONNAME rationale are neutral.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't help any point of view. What the policy says is that "the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias...If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English)...it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". Appearance of bias is not bias. On the other hand, the FAQ grammar isn't great, so how about "Because we use the common name to title our articles, in line with our neutrality policy. China is overwhelmingly used to refer to the People's Republic of China"? CMD (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it does help. It prevents the Republic of China to be moved to Taiwan which Taiwan is not an independent sovereign state from China as Taiwanese independence has not been gained nor I do recall the Republic of China ever losing the Chinese Civil War as it only retreated to Taiwan and the lesser islands. This reimplements the ROC/PRC/China format which supports the ROC's claims to China while honoring the PRC's claims and control over Mainland China. This supports neutrality over the issue.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My grammar isn't that great so I'm definitely happy with alternative wording. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no particular objection but as CMD says it would be redundant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede

The common name of this article is China, because the move of PRC --> China was made on the basis of common name -- that is, sources commonly refer to the PRC as China. Nevertheless, the primary subject matter of this article remains the People's Republic of China (as the fact box indicates) and not any other China, including the Republic of China. This distinction needs to be made clear in the lede. For the foregoing reason, I have changed the lede back to the following:

The People's Republic of China, commonly referred to as China or the PRC (ⁱ/ˈtʃaɪnə/; Chinese: 中国; pinyin: Zhōngguó), is the world's most populous country with a population of over 1.3 billion.

NumbiGate (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC) revised again NumbiGate (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the guidelines on this are simple and clear. Where there is a common name that's used for the title it should the subject of the first sentence, or otherwise mentioned as early as possible. This is for clarity and consistency: the not insignificant number of readers who know the country only by its common name "China" will be reassured they've got to the right article. See WP:LEADSENTENCE and WP:BOLDTITLE for details and examples.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A counterexample lies at nearly every Western person whose common name (where the article title is at) is not their full name. NumbiGate's (and the former) set-up makes it much clearer that this article is about the PRC, which is what most readers are looking for. GotR ^Talk 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Other country articles are of course the more relevant comparison. See France, Iran, India etc. See also the country project's recommended format for a lead. N-HH talk/edits 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@John Blackburn and N-HH, the rules you cite are not so inflexible as to prevent greater precision and accuracy in the presentation of information. John Blackburn, but the guidelines aren't that simple. For First sentence, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[Note] However, if the article title is merely descriptive . . . the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." China in the title of this article is serving as a descriptive common name for the People's Republic of China. In the Note, the rule provides the example of the United Kingdom:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe.

N-HH, the rule you cite, also gives the example of the United Kingdom and the United States. Those two countries' common and official names happen to be synonymous, and the sequence in which they appear in the lead sentence is done for the ease of presentation only. In the case of China, however, the common name and the official name of the PRC are not entirely congruent, so it is even more important to distinguish the primary topic of the article from the common name used in the article title. There is no ambiguity with the country names of France, India and Iran. There is for China.

For the foregoing reasons, I have reversed John Blackburn's undo. NumbiGate (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For more evidence of what this article is about (the primacy of the People's Republic of China), look to the hatnote and the heading of the factbox. NumbiGate (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you can't just ignore guidelines without good reason.first you have misunderstood what it means by "merely descriptive". It is meant to cover things like Provinces of the People's Republic of China, which are not titles (there is no one thing called "Provinces of the People's Republic of China") but describe the contents. The title of this article is "China" which is the English name for the country. It is not descriptive.

As for the other articles they conform to the guidelines as e.g. United Kingdom does start "The United Kingdom". But in any case what individual articles do is less important than the guidelines, not only the ones I mention above but the additional country-specific guidelines. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry the English name for this country is the People's Republic of China. The common name is China but there is ambiguity therein, so it is more precise to begin the lede by specifying that China in the title is a common name that is referring to the People's Republic of China. That is a perfectly valid reason to deviate from the template to which you have cited, which itself says, "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." (emphasis added). You can't ignore the UK and US leads. Furthermore, let me redirect your attention to WP:LEADSENTENCE --

The third bullet point says, "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms."

If you think China and PRC are synonyms for the People's Republic of China, you should not have any objections to the US / UK lede format. NumbiGate (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the official name for the country is the "People's Republic of China" just like the official name for the UK is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

For the the lead of United Kingdom says "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[note 5] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain)" and the United States says "The United States of America (also called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States)" for me - so there is a precedent. Although France says "France (English i/ˈfræns/ franss or /ˈfrɑːns/ frahnss; French: [fʁɑ̃s] ( listen)), officially the French Republic" and India says "India (i/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य, Bhārat Gaṇarājya)," and Germany says "Germany (i/ˈdʒɜrməni/), officially the Federal Republic of Germany". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The name is also 'China', and as that's by far the most common and clearest name for the country it's the title of this article. It's not at all ambiguous: yes there are many places with "China" in the name but that's also true of "England" or "France". It does not make those country names ambiguous. This was all worked out at the recent move, which I suggest you review as you are clearly unfamiliar with the arguments.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You say "The name is also 'China'" so you seem to believe that China is a synonym for the People's Republic of China and the PRC. That by itself satisfies the third bullet point of the rule you've cited to, which allows the UK / US formulation of the lead sentence. And once again, let me repeat: "China" could also refer to the Republic of China, another sovereign state whose name not only resembles that of the People's Republic of China but whose history and national claim also overlaps with that of the PRC. This is a source of ambiguity that the move of PRC-->China on the basis of Common Name did not resolve, and this is a type of ambiguity that is different from New England to England. NumbiGate (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody ever uses the term China (or frankly Republic of China) to refer to Taiwan in English.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Eraserhead, the UK / US formulation of the lead is independent of usage of the lead term. One could say that "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is used relatively infrequently, but that, as you have recognized, does not preclude the term from introducing the lead of the United Kingdom article.

Also, be careful about using absolute characterizations like "nobody ever". I refer you to the English language stock share offering prospectus for Chunghwa Telecom[1] prepared by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and UBS Investment Bank in 2006. The cover page describes Chunghwa Telecom as "a company limited by shares in the Republic of China" and says "the American depositary shares" sold in the offering "are not being offered in the Republic of China." On page 3, the prospectus goes on to say:

• All references to "Taiwan" are to the island of Taiwan and other areas under the effective control of the Republic of China.
• All references to "the government" or "the Republic of China government" are to the government of the Republic of China.
• All references to the "National Communications Commission" are to the National Communications Commission of the Republic of China.
• All references to the "Securities and Futures Bureau" are to the Securities and Futures Bureau of the Financial Supervisory Commission of the Republic of China or its predecessors as applicable."
• "ROC GAAP" means the generally accepted accounting principles of the Republic of China (emphasis added). NumbiGate (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, so the term "Republic of China" is used where required in legal documents and for accounting purposes. Regardless the term "China" certainly isn't used in those circumstances to refer to Taiwan, and frankly they are pretty limited even for the term Republic of China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, if you look long enough you can find something written by lawyers that uses the name "Republic of China". Except they make it clear that the country is called "Taiwan": "All references to "Taiwan" are to the island of Taiwan and other areas under the effective control of the Republic of China." And none of that changes the fact that this article is about the country "China", as it says in the article title.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

John Blackburne, you still have not responded to bullet 3 of WP:LEADSENTENCE, which expressly authorizes the UK / US formulation for the lede. Therefore the approach that I have put forth conforms with the "guidelines." You have not been able to dispute the greater precision of this approach. NumbiGate (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is precedent for both wordings. Frankly I don't care between them but it would be good to have some more input. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'greater precision' as "China" is precise and unambiguous. It would not be the article title otherwise. As for the guidelines, the most relevant one, which explicitly says what should happen, is WP:BOLDTITLE: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence". "China" is the widely accepted name for the country (otherwise, again, it would not be the article title), so it should go first.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The United States of America is the formal name and is more precise than the "United States", "USA", "the States" etc. even though the latter terms are more widely used. The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the formal name and is more precise than the "United Kingdom" and "UK", even though the latter pair is more widely used. The "People's Republic of China" is the formal name and is more precise than "China" or the "PRC", even though the latter pair is more widely used. You should not confuse wide usage with precision. The title of this article was changed from the People's Republic of China to China to accommodate the presumption that most readers, when they are looking up China, are actually looking for the People's Republic of China. Hence the article title change was based on common name. "China" is less precise and less formal than the "People's Republic of China". NumbiGate (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You keep on asserting that "China" is less precise but you've yet to produce any evidence of this. But again, this was all covered during the move discussion: China is clear and precise in English. If you have good evidence this has changed a move request would be appropriate but I really doubt it has changed much since the article was moved only a few months ago.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This does seem somewhat like a bid to rehash the recent move debate, or rather rehash the arguments used there in order to push a change of pretty limited consequence, which seems to be against best and most common practice, even if you can find some examples that would appear to justify it. Best for those pushing it to just let it lie, surely? N-HH talk/edits 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONCEPTDAB says this article must cover all related meanings of the term "China". If this is more expansive than the People's Republic of China, which it is, then the lede should be written in a way to reflect this. Narrowing the scope of the article to the People's Republic of China only is not supported by WP:CONCEPTDAB.

Perhaps define People's Republic of China in paragraph one, and define subsidiary meanings separately in paragraph two.--Jiang (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

But this article is not on a broad concept, as described at WP:CONCEPTDAB. This article is about a very concrete thing, the country called China. One can quibble about its exact boundaries but that's true of any country. Other notable uses of the word are listed at China (disambiguation), linked at the top of the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. As noted, this is rehashing old arguments and seems to be about post-move death twitches or theoretical wrangling about what the "real China" is rather than anything constructive. For countries, we build on the common name and current broadly accepted iteration of that common name entity, with appropriate history and backstory (fairly broad brush in the lead itself; maybe specific sections and links to specific, other articles further in). Currently the lead does exactly that - it starts with the PRC and then, correctly, discusses the Taiwan/ROC issue and then the history. I don't see what the problem is - are you asking for a kind of almost-bullet-pointed dictionary-style entry? Iran does not define the Islamic Republic in para 1 and then say, explicitly in narrative text, "but Iran can also refer to historical Persia and to a broader cultural area"; France does not define the current Republic in para 1 and then say "but France can also refer to the Ancien Regime; or the Frankish empire, when it had much larger boundaries". They simply build those assumptions into the way the article as a whole is written and constructed. N-HH talk/edits 14:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You have valid points regarding the content and scope of country article lede sections. But two points here: First, the old China article no longer exists, so this article must cover its content to serve incoming links. Second, the form "Blah, officially known as Big Blah" is actually unconventional when compared to other Wikipedia articles e.g. Snoop Dogg. It has always been the convention endorsed by the Manual of Style to start out with the formal name and then introduce the common name as a parenthetical clause of the same sentence. This convention was followed for over half a decade by Wikipedia's country articles. Someone, around the years 2008-2010 singlehandedly decided to introduce the "Blah, officially known as Big Blah" into country articles without consultation at WikiProject Countries. There is no such requirement of consistency to use this unconventional opening sentence. And I think "Blah, officially known as Big Blah" conveys slightly less information than "Big Blah, commonly known as Blah" --Jiang (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

N-HH, you're overlooking an independent rationale for the lead of country articles to begin with the official name of the country. When a country is referred to by two or more common names or abbreviations, the official name often precedes its various other names and abbreviations in the lead. See United States, United Kingdom, Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo as examples. In this article, the country commonly called China is also officially known as the People's Republic of China and is frequently referred to as "the PRC". See also Federated States of Micronesia which uses the official name in the lead to distinguish FSM from Micronesia. NumbiGate (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

But you're overlooking the fact that we do not have two or more common names or abbreviations here. "China" is unequivocally the primary description or term used for the country - People's Republic of China/PRC sometimes follows for variety, or in occasional specific contexts, when a clear distinction is needed; but is not the usual term or an equally frequent alternative. Nor am I convinced that the US and UK articles open the way they do for the reasons you state. As said, the usual format for "Islamic/Democratic/Federal Republic of Ruritania"-type countries is to have the short-form name "Ruritania" not only as the title but as the first mentioned name. I can't see that it's worth asking or edit-warring for change to that formula here. N-HH talk/edits 13:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Provinces of the People's Republic of China

• This image is also used in the en:Provinces of the People's Republic of China, it shows provincial level division in the law, not showing it is under control or not. It is very funny that Taiwan is a province in the article but the map has no Taiwan in it.user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington keep reverting the image to the version of no Taiwan and no China-India arguing territory, it is not neutral, especially he seems from India and as a administrator on the English Wikipedia. Check India, why dont remove the part of territory claimed by China map out? Werran2 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And he was threatening block my account btw (tho im not a "single purpose account"), check my talk page.Commons:user talk:Werran Werran2 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that it's also ruining the China and Provinces of the People's Republic of China pages, because now there is a chunk of white nothingness that links to Taiwan Province, PRC. What is their justification for the change? I don't think it's a necessary thing to do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should follow usual practice for disputed territories here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should worry about being blocked Werran. I opened the discussion at commons ages ago, glad to see participation now. CMD (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick, as an administrator involved in a content dispute with you, has no right to block your account. GotR ^Talk 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently the India article's maps display all of India's territorial claims; I think exclusion here is somewhat of a double standard. If the claims were removed from the India article as well, then those changing the map have somewhat of a justification for their actions, but currently it seems quite inappropriate for the grey areas to be removed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, will take that as consensus then, on this page and commons. The locking admin has not responded to my query, so we'll have to wait for protection to expire before changing it back. CMD (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted Nicholas on his Commons talkpage asking him to provide an explanation either here or on the Commons file talkpage; I don't think he's keen on doing so, from the looks of things. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this recent post by the sockpuppet earlier. I have been asking involved parties to start a discussion here for the past couple of months to no effect. Glad that you have all found time to comment. I have started a thread below, please feel free to join in. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The past couple of months? Kondicherry's first edit was one month ago. Also, if you're going to call someone a sockpuppet, you should substantiate it. CMD (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Culture of Obedience to the State"?

I guess whoever wrote this knows nothing about the concept of the mandate of heaven. It really shows a very profound ignorance in regards to Chinese culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.63.125 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Geography of Taiwan link

ILVTW, you need to explain why inclusion of this link implies Taiwan is part of China. Unless I am badly mistaken, the template {{see also}} is not to meant to have any political overtones. GotR ^Talk 05:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok.. As long as you are able to do so in PRC topic for extra template, should we do the same for other China-related topic as Hongkong, Macao, even ROC to cover extra templates for each segments? That's not relevant and totally redundant--ILVTW (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite the logical fallacy there. Taiwan can fairly be considered a subset of China's land area, which in turn is a superset of Hong Kong, Macau, and the ROC. {{see also}} does not make ANY statement other than "Another article is related to this one". In addition, no one else (not even those ambivalent to whether Taiwan is part of China) even tried to remove this link, so I continue to wonder what is your problem here—it may be that you are strongly Pan-Green and refuse to admit it? GotR ^Talk 05:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

By the principles for we editors, no one can set a "superset" as an issue still remain in dispute. For this case, you told me the extra template isn't mean to have political overtone... and now you say Taiwan should be regard as a "subset" of a topic refering to the PRC. why are you such contradictory?? And making a subset for a geography part??--ILVTW (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous here and again stating that I said A when I said B. By explaining the superset business, I was merely totalling doing away with any possibility of "doing the same for other China-related topic as Hongkong, Macao, even ROC to cover extra templates for each segments".

The move from PRC to "China" was followed by the merging of nearly all content at the old [[China]] article into the new one; that page move was a MERGE, not just a simple change of titles. So the notion that this article is about the PRC and nothing else is impish nonsense. GotR ^Talk 06:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Even whether Taiwan in part of the People's Republic of China is disputed. Lots of international organisations take that as their official line so we are pushing a POV if we explicitly say that Taiwan isn't part of the People's Republic of China.

We should of course label it differently from territory the People's Republic currently controls but it shouldn't be entirely removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely Taiwan's inclusion/disinclusion should be dealt with in the main geography article, and fall under that anyway? CMD (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Chinese map as depicted in the article

Hi all, there is an annoying bit of POV pushing going on both on the Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia over what constitutes the divisions of the People's Republic of China. This includes one of the recent edits made by User:ASDFGH where he has altered the image linking to the template from the Commons. Please see a history of the original image listed below to understand what has transpired over the last few months.

• See commons:File:China administrative.svg and commons:File talk:China administrative.svg

I have listed the different versions below in chronological order with a brief description.

• 20:03, 28 July 2011 by commons:User:Quigley (or User:Shrigley). Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin greyed out to show as disputed.
• 11:50, 13 September 2011 by User:Chipmunkdavis. Chipmunkdavis yellowed out Aksai Chin with the following rationale: "Yellowing areas which are controlled by China, as since they were grey it gave the impression China only claimed them".
• 13:04, 5 February 2012 by User:Kondicherry. Kondicherry coloured out different portions to mark out existing disputes.
• 15:48, 5 February 2012 by User:Chipmunkdavis. Chipmunkdavis reverted with the following rationale: "Reverting to simpler uncoloured version. It's misleading to show Indian controlled territories claimed by China as similar to Chinese controlled territories claimed by India, and the legend distracts from the purpose of the map, which is simply to show Ch"
• 16:56, 5 February 2012 by User:Kondicherry. Kondicherry reverted to the grey version of the map with Aksai China, Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan greyed out with the following rationale: "this is a far neutral representation of disputed territories, if you have issues discuss on talk page"
• 17:46, 5 February 2012 by User:Chipmunkdavis. Chipmunkdavis reverted him shortly thereafter with the following rationale: "It's not more neutral, it confuses two very different situations."
• 08:56, 6 February 2012 by User:Kondicherry. As a response to the former revert, Kondicherry took out Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan from the image while leaving Aksai Chin intact as a yellowed out portion along with the rest of the map.
• 01:11, 7 February 2012 by User:Chipmunkdavis. Chipmunkdavis reverted yet again with the rationale: "The claimed areas are part of how China has legally divided itself"
• 06:12, 7 February 2012 by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (that's me). At that point of time, the image came to my attention and I reverted it to Kondicherry's version with the following rationale: "Reverted to version as of 08:56, 6 February 2012 / Revert to neutral version, nothing "legal" about a map that pushes one government's viewpoint. Please take this to w:en:Talk:China"
• 18:03, 7 February 2012 by User:Chipmunkdavis. Chipmunkdavis swooped in thereafter to revert back to his version with the following rationale: "This is simply a reflection of the administrative divisions, and how well they hold in reality. (If you want to use en.wiki discussion, follow en.wiki codes, such as BRD)"
• 21:06, 7 February 2012 by User:Logicwiki. Logicwiki reverted Chipmunkdavis with the following rationale: "POV pushing. Please don't revert again. and discuss on the enwp talk page"
• 09:14, 22 February 2012 by commons:User:Werran. After a few days, a single purpose sockpuppet account reverted back to Chipmunkdavis's version without an edit summary.
• 23:06, 22 February 2012 by User:Denniss. Denniss reverted the SPA sock to the version prior to that.
• 13:46, 23 February 2012 by commons:User:Werran. The sockpuppet SPA reverted again without a rationale.
• 18:53, 24 February 2012 by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. At that point, I reverted the SPA sock again.
• 14:20, 27 February 2012 by commons:User:Werran
• 19:57, 27 February 2012 by User:Beria. Finally Commons administrator Beria reverted the map to the version it was on prior to this little edit-war and protected the image.

Unfortunately, this has resulted in attempts such as the one I have highlighted above to alter the image linked to from the PRC template to reflect a version preferred by the Government of the PRC. Interested users are invited to comment below. I am also contemplating initiating an RfC on the issue. Thanks all. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't appear to grey out the territory controlled by India and claimed by Pakistan (source). So I see no problem with Chipmunkdavis' changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We have a similar practice for all orthographic projections. Political maps must be differentiated. See this map on political divisions of India for further reference: File:Political map of India EN.svg. As Kondicherry pointed out on the image talk page, this is how the political map has been depicted on a featured article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Benlinsquare has already informed the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject China regarding the existence of the dispute on the talk page of the noticeboard (without bothering to comment here about such notification). I have gone ahead and notified other participants on the talk page of the India noticeboard and the talk page of Wikproject Taiwan since this involves depiction of territories administered by the respective countries.

I have also summarized my contentions below:

• If disputed territories are to be highlighted on the map in grey color, then all the three areas – Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan should be included, not just Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan. As a neutral project, we are supposed to reflect mainstream consensus over on-the-ground realities, not how PRC "divides itself legally".
• If only administrative divisions of the PRC are to be reflected, then Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan should be left out of the map.
• The Chinese border with Bhutan and Tajikistan is still disputed and the situation is unresolved, and therefore it should be marked as such.

The few proposed versions are highlighted below:

• Territorial status clearly highlighted with details and legend including Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan
• Disputed areas marked in grey including Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan
• Aksai Chin yellowed along with PRC and Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan removed

CMD's proposed version:

• Aksai Chin yellowed along with PRC while Arunachal and Taiwan greyed out as claimed territories

— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Do not call me "a single purpose sockpuppet account" again, Nearly Headless Nick, "this is the first and final warning", just what you told me. I had read(found no one agree your edition) and left message in the commons talk page of the image and then I reverted it. Lavender Poison※Leaf 06:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

#Provinces of the People's Republic of China. As a summary, this is a simple map trying to show China's provinces. Internal subdivisions are something which countries almost always decide on their own. This is the basis of the map provided. However, as noted, China doesn't control all of its claimed territory. Due to this the areas which aren't controlled are greyed out. This is a fully accurate representation of "mainstream consensus over on-the-ground realities". This is actually exactly what the India map does, with the India map having a white(ish) background for all controlled territory, and a yellow for uncontrolled. The India map is more complex, with diagonal lines to show disputes and with neighbouring countries and ocean shown, but the underlying colour scheme is the same. CMD (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Drawing comparisons between the colour schemes on maps built in different contexts is not particularly helpful. The map which you propose does not indicate that Aksai Chin is disputed by the Republic of India, at the same time shows how the PRC lays claim to Arunachal Pradesh (which is an India-administered territory) and Taiwan (administered by ROC). Your proposed basis for the map is not consistent with the practice of having political maps (and not maps highlighting "internal subdivisions") on the country articles. You might as well mark it as the PRC government version for all its worth. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a map that shows the administrative boundaries or provincial break up of a country need only show the area that is actually controlled by the country and the claimed territories marked in a separate color (as are the chinese map and the Indian map in the India infobox). If a map is included under 'foreign relations' or in a section that explicitly discusses a territory administered by one nation that is disputed by another, then the map should show that area as 'administered by but claimed by' in a third color (or other marking). I think the issue is more with the clickable map of India in the India article that highlights the Arunachal Pradesh dispute. Nothing wrong with that, but unnecessary. --regentspark (comment) 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

@Nearly Headless Nick: There is no widespread standard for presentation of subdivisions on country articles, and both maps here have the same context: the administrative divisions section. The map depicts China's divisions; thus it should show the areas administered, as well the areas which it includes in its divisions but which it doesn't actually control. Your suggestion that we should "mark it as the PRC government version" is completely ridiculous, and you know that. A Chinese opinion wouldn't have any grey whatsoever. CMD (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis The complication in the map of India you are talking about should be considered as legit imitation of WP:NPOV, the map clearly depicts what India administers and what not whether relating to China or to Pakistan, the same should be with the map of China.--kondi ^{talk/contribs} 23:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The China map clearly depicted what it administers and what it does not, with a similar colouring system to the India map. If you want to create a map presenting China's divisions in the context of the countries around it like the India one with diagonal lines, you may (although I'm not sure it's necessary, perhaps the India one is too complicated). However, with the map we currently have, without the context of surrounding countries, the basic controlled/claimed distinction is all the readers need. CMD (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Areas controlled by the PRC should be yellow. Areas claimed but not controlled by the PRC should be gray. Areas controlled by the PRC but claimed by others should not be marked on the map. Are we supposed to color everything yellow to gray because the Republic of China claims them all? But if we don't have we accurately reflected the entirety of overlapping territorial claims? The map should primarily reflect actual control and actual divisions. It is impossible to accurately and completely reflect more than that without making the map overly complicated like Image:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.svg, which belongs on a page dedicated to territorial disputes rather than the main country article.

If we have to depict claimed territories, then Kondicherry's version is better than Quigley's version, which does not distinguish between claimed but not controlled and controlled but claimed by others.--Jiang (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jiang. Incorporating all of PRC's claims would also mean including South China Sea in the map. Is this something we should also consider? I agree that Kondicherry's version is better because it accurately reflects the claims as they exist. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think incorporating the South China Sea islands in this particular map is quite practical, since at the scale of the image used on China, Provinces of the People's Republic of China and the like, the islands are too small to actually be visible. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not just the islands that are in dispute, but the extension of the entire continental shelf which China claims sovereignty over. We are not looking for practical solutions here, but accurate depictions. For instance, I would not propose including ROC claims over mainland China for the reason that it is not a country that has recognition with the UN. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This map doesn't show continental shelf, which I doubt is something administered on a provincial level anyway (although I could be wrong). Why shouldn't we consider the ROC claims if we consider their control? The UN has zero effect on either. CMD (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

For this image of Hainan Province, you'll need to squint your eyes in order to see the islands, which are not area-to-scale, but simply marked as equally-sized circular dots. Now think about how small these islands are when compared to the rest of the PRC.

The South China Sea claims are under legal jurisdiction of Hainan Province; they do not form their own provincial subdivision. This map is a depiction of provincial-level subdivisions of the PRC, both administrative and claimed. Sure, all official maps published by the PRC include a little square in the bottom including the South China Sea as well, but we are not making a map of China here. What we are doing is making a map of the political subdivisions. Plus, maps like these generally only involve landmasses; equivalent maps of Canada and the United States don't include deep-sea shelfs in their administrative division maps as well. If you really want to include the South China Sea islands somewhere, the most relevant place to do so would be File:People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg, which is an actual location map of China (being illustrated within the country infobox is its very purpose), however as I've mentioned earlier, the islands are too miniscule to be even seen. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there are some good points above and I've changed my thinking on this. Perhaps a political map should only reflect actual reality and not represent any 'claims' since claims are not reality. For example, if Pakistan chooses not to recognize the separation of Bangladesh, would we show the entire Bangladesh as a province of Pakistan, though in a different color? Since the Tibetan government in exile does not recognize China's claim on its Tibetan province, should we show that in a different color with a "claimed by Tibetan government in exile"? Every claim that we present here gains credibility and we shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which claims have a greater validity than others. It would be better to eschew all mention of claims except in sections or articles on the dispute itself. --regentspark (comment) 16:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends on what the purpose of the political map is. This one is designed to show how the PRC divides itself. Their division will include Taiwan and South Tibet, and the explanation associated with the map will explain to readers why they may sometimes see Taiwan in a map of the PRC. I was under the impression the government recognised Chinese sovereignty but wishes for autonomy, but either way, it's a good point as to why we shouldn't show what territories other countries claim, as this has no affect on Chinese laws and control. CMD (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is that you just cannot choose to use a map representing "administrative divisions" when a political map which shows on-the-ground realities would be more appropriate. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And this map would show both. CMD (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you CMD. If readers found "Taiwan Provence" in the article but can not find it on the map as I said, "where is Taiwan then?" he may ask, it will be a very confused problem. Lavender Poison※Leaf 06:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet account User:Werran (who recently usurped this username) with less than 25 edits. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Initiate an SPI if you think it's a sock. CMD (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sockpuppet" - you keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means. Having had his/her first edit on 17 April 2006, this user has been on Wikipedia roughly the same length of time as you have. Wikipedia is a multilingual project, and making such an accusation is quite a bad-faith remark. See also global contribs, 1,536 edits on ZH Wiki. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at his global contributions wasn't very obvious. They have limited contributions on the English Wikipedia and the Commons, and they were involved in disruptive reversions of established users without explanations or edit summaries edits. I do not need to file an SPI case to conclude that it is a single purpose account. I guess this part of the Wikiverse sees a lot of ridiculous lawyering. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So what? it doesnt make any sense. I can edit even if I am an IP user, Wikipeida is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit. I dont care you have more edits than me or you are the admin or something, what u did and ur reason is ridiculous. Lavender Poison※Leaf 14:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And pls do more homework before any personal attack, I am user:Werran and was user:Werran2, and you are not showing your user name too, so you are the sockpuppet account of user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington? Very funny. And what you are talking about, is it have any relevant about the map? I dont think I need to report to you if I gonna usurp an account or not(I registered in 2006/enwiki in 2008, not the same name), its none of your business. Lavender Poison※Leaf 14:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's move on now, there's no need to further dwelve into this particular issue. I'd prefer if we didn't end up with lots of heat on top of the original discussion at hand, which is the image issue. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

@chipmunkdavis. I see your point but this does need thinking through (perhaps at a wiki level) because this approach could lead to absurdities. For example, in the years following the communist takeover of China, when both China's claimed to be the 'real' China, we would have had to show the entire mainland China as a claimed province of Taiwan (or something like that). Then, there is also the issue of giving preference to nation states over the claims of other, extra-national, governments. Does the Tibetan government in exile have a lesser claim over Tibet than China over Taiwan or Arunachal Pradesh merely because it is a government-in-exile? Perhaps, but why should we be deciding which sorts of claims get preference over others? Better, I think, to stick to reality and ignore all claims that are not administratively backed up. Whether that claim be that of China over Taiwan or that of India over Pakistani Kashmir (or vice versa). Except, of course, in sections or articles that are primarily about the dispute. --regentspark (comment) 14:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

moved here from article, till the discussion is over. Lavender Poison※Leaf 14:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest asking wp:arbcom for resolution due to the conflict of interest of most participants in the current discussion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is an arbcom level issue. Rather, the community needs to decide what type of map is appropriate when we're depicting provinces of a country. Seems to me that there are three choices, each with its own pros and cons:

1. The "reality" map. Only actual land area that is under the control of the national entity should be shown.
2. The "claimed" map. Any land mass that is actually claimed by a country and included as a province or a part of a province should be shown, with the disputed area clearly demarcated. In the China case, this would include Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan. In the India case, this would include Aksai Chin and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
3. The 'claimed and counter claimed' map. The claimed map along with any provinces or parts of provinces that are claimed by another entity (whether that entity be a nation state or some other organized group needs to be decided) but administered by the mapped entity also demarcated. In the China case, this would also include separately demarcating the Aksai Chin region (and possibly Tibet depending on whether we recognize non-national entities). In the India case, this would include the boundaries of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and the state of Arunachal Pradesh, the part that is claimed by China, marked as "administered by claimed by .....".

Seems to me this is best suited for an RfC. --regentspark (comment) 17:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with regentspark.--kondi ^{talk/contribs} 18:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

At one point, I agree improving the clarity of the Kashmir and Taiwan part in the map in order to include those areas. If this compromise is still not accepted by the major opponents here, this sadly leads me to believe your Indian background has affected your judgment. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to discuss nationality of the editors and attribute COI editing. I hope we are all pursuing a common objective – an accurate and neutral encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm against a RfC because it's making an elephant march out of mice. This is a small issue regarding one image that doesn't need third opinions, especially since the third opinion is likely to have little to no background knowledge of what's going on. I'd rather not have pretend experts who have read nothing on China apart from watching 10 minutes of a CNN report tell us what to do; the editors in this discussion are familiar with the China political issues; let the editors in this discussion deal with the problem at hand. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. They are images. They can be edited to be about anything and forked for any purpose. This is the China article and it includes the claims made by the PRC and how the PRC defines itself. The map in this article should show the claims whether it has control or not. If the map needs to be forked for the purposes of some other article, do it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

See the map of India, why don't you remove the part of Aksai Chin, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan from India? -Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You can see current version, Quingley version My version, my version was like the map mentioned above, the thing is Chipmunkdavis wanted to show what china claims and administers(not what india caims), so I reverted it to Quingley version. (I suggest this should be discussed in general as there is no prior policy or practice regarding territorial disputes see WikiProject Maps/Conventions). --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 07:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this really something people are getting angry and frustrated over? It seems to me as an interpretation thing, rather than a "this is wrong, this is right".

• The PRC actually controls mainland China, therefore it should be yellow.
• The PRC actually controls Hong Kong and Macau, therefore it should be yellow.
• The PRC actually controls Aksai Chin, therefore it should be yellow.
• The PRC claims Taiwan and Penghu, but has no effective control, therefore it should be grey.
• The PRC claims Kinmen and Matsu, but has no effective control, therefore it should be grey.
• The PRC claims South Tibet, but has no effective control, therefore it should be grey.
• We don't need green/blue/magnolia pink shades in the map distinguishing actual claims of disputed territories, because it is an administrative divisions map, and not a foreign relations map. It's just like picking flowers to brew tea or planning a war between two; we don't need a 5-shaded map detailing on claims because that is not the purpose of the map; a simple black-white difference with the two categories of "us" and "them", or between "edible flower" and "non-edible flower", is all that's required.

Is it really that difficult to find an agreement over interpretations of simple things? How else can the situation be interpreted, may I ask? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Map distinguishes areas only by colors is inaccessible for color blind readers. That's one of the reasons why stripy pattern is preferred over color. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? WP:ACCESSIBILITY does not dictate that it is an absolute rule to accommodate for the colour blind in maps and diagrams. File:People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg exists in its current state, as does File:DNA Structure+Key+Labelled.pn NoBB.png, File:DNA chemical structure.svg, File:Chosin-Battle.gif, File:Korean war 1950-1953.gif, et cetera. Plus, the thing that is most discouraged generally is using red and green, due to the most common colour-blindness being red-green non-distinction, and we are using neither colour. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Not everyone knows that China and India have territorial disputes, so the chances that they read the article on dispute are very low but if the image is on main article the chances of notice are comparatively high. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 10:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Be a bit more clearer, I don't understand what you're implying. What are you trying to explain by referring to how well people notice articles? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on second read through I can kind of guess what you're trying to say. Are you saying that we should add additional weight regarding the territorial disputes to the China article, so that people are "more likely to see" it? I frankly cannot agree with doing that. Not everybody knows about the territorial disputes between the United States and Canada either, yet we don't advertise it in big bold letters with flashy colours on the US map for everyone to see, just in case they weren't aware. In other words, it's undue weight. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Those disputes are about waters and islands, the disputes with India are of major portion of land. I'm not saying to advertise but at least the map should be according to current scenario and if the US map doesn't distinguish the disputes then I would like see the same thing in the US/Canadian map. And WP:UNDUE reads Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. These reliable sources 1 2 2 4 and more. When searched in google books and news archives these are the results: 1240 book results 1150 news results --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 10:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the weight compared to the main topic. This is the China article, not the Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China article. There's more to China than politics, you know. Guess what I had for dinner today? I had Hokkien noodles with pork cutlets and assorted vegetables. Whilst I was cooking dinner, I certainly wasn't thinking about territorial disputes in Aksai Chin. Sure, we shouldn't ignore that these disputes exist, however there is a place for that, and the China article is not it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in China#Foreign relations ;) But Benlisqure is right, there's no need to advertise the dispute in areas it is tangential. That could be considered quite WP:pointy. Also quite pointy is making me hungry Benlisquare. Stop it! CMD (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘instead WP:NOTPOINTY--kondi ^{talk/contribs} 14:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you, but about pointless advertising of disputes, something I've encountered in numerous pointy fashions. I apologise for sounding like calling your pointy. CMD (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

File:J-10a zhas.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:J-10a zhas.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:J-10a zhas.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)