Wikipedia:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:55, 21 February 2005

[[:|WP:RM]]

Requested moves is used to ask for, and vote for, moves that are not particularly straight-forward or those that require the assistance of Wikipedia's administration. This will either be because the destination of such a move requires technical expertise to transfer or merge one article's edit history to the intended destination, or when the move proposed is controversial. If the talkpage is blank, it may generally be assumed that the move will not be controversial, but a note to the Userpages of the main contributors always promotes collegiality.

If there is a rough consensus supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion here, it is eligible to be moved. An archive of the discussion and votes on this page regarding the proposal and its outcome is then copied to the talk page of the article.

It is advised that a discussion regarding a proposed move be initiated on the talk page of the articles in question with the hopes of achieving a consensus among those that frequently contribute to the article. If a consensus is reached, a move may be achieved by contacting an administrator directly who may decide to complete the move, or recommend further discussion here.

However, if despite this initial attempt to discuss a move a consensus is not reached on the talk page, it is beneficial to raise the question here as it opens up the discussion to a wider audience of Wikipedians that were not involved in previous discussions who may offer suggestions overlooked, impartial opinions, and other comments in the process of voting on the request.

It is important, for the ease of navigation from request to request and simply because of the chaos posed by jumping from talkpage to talkpage in order to observe discussions all over Wikipedia that discussions regarding a requested move and voting on that proposal take place here on this page.

Instructions on requesting a page move

In order to notify other editors of this request, add a note to the article's talk page (not the article itself), using the Move template. This template should be inserted at the top of the page using the following text:

{{move|new name}}

Replace "new name" with the name of the page to where you wish to move the article. This produces the following text on the page where you inserted it:

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Next, add the details of the requested move to the list below (new items at the top). Please create the request in the style:

====[[original name]] &rarr; [[new name]]====
{reason for move} -- ~~~~ 
* Support/Oppose - reasons for your vote (optional) ~~~~

Please sign and date all votes and comments, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. Remember, pages should be named in accordance with naming conventions.

Notices

Please add new notices to the top of this section.

February 21 2005

XXX of/in Macao → XXX of/in Macau

A previous request of moving Macau to Macao has been rejected in the talk page of Macau. However, we have residue references to Macao as part of page titles or categories, such as Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. I would propose renaming these for consistency.

Support - As explained above.--Huaiwei 11:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 20 2005

Schutzstaffel → SS

~~SS → SS (disambiguation), and make SS a redirect to Schutzstaffel~~
I'm changing my proposal (if a may) to address the concerns about consistency in the naming of the Nazi articles, but still having SS go straight to Schutzstaffel. I believe this is what Michael Z proposed below. This will still have all the current links to the disambig page go without having to pipe them. Thsi changes a few of the rationale I listed below; ignore the ones that no longer apply. -R. fiend 00:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is actually a request for a move back to where the article existed before. It was moved some months ago with few votes on it. I believe the name SS is better for several reasons.
The current title violates Wikipedia naming comentions, which state that the title should be "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." Everyone calls the Schutzstaffel the "SS". I doubt most people even know what SS stands for, but they know what the SS is.

There must be more than a hundred links to the current SS dab page, and, as far as I call tell, almost 100% of them are meant to link to Schutzstaffel.

At this stage, the organization is basically called the SS. All the other things on the SS page are mere abbreviations. People don't search for "social security", "short stop", "swallow sidecar", etc. by typing in "SS"; they type in their names. Not so with Schutzstaffel. Even those who know what it stands for will likely search for it as "SS".

An argument against it being listed under "SS" was based on the most popular google results. Google searches don't rank by common useage, but by most popular pages. When I google SS my top result is listed because "ss" appears in the web address itself. Hardly terribly relevent; and I doubt most people typing "SS" in an encyclpedia search are looking for the California Secretery of State. The most common result from text in a page is for form SS - 5. Is that it's most popular use?

For what it's worth, the other reference books I have seem to all list it under "SS".
I hope I've made my point. Obviously there would be a header at the top linking to a SS (disambiguation) page. If it is voted to be kept where it is I ask as a courtesy that those who oppose the move will help disamibguate a few of links to the current SS page. I won't feel like doing it all myself. -R. fiend 21:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OBJECTION. All the Nazi Germany articles are consistent, be it Sturmabteilung (the SA), the Sicherheitsdienst (the SD), or Volkssturm, or Kraft durch Freude (the KdF), or the other alphabet-soup agencies of the Third Reich. All the people I know know what SS means (not that they necessarily can translate Schutzstaffel, but they know what it is)...which must mean the folks (god love them) are dumb wherever you are. The redirects work fine, as people who type in SS get redirected there anyway through the disambiguation (and people do use SS for social security too often). It is also consistent for acronym government agencies to be redirected or disambiguated to the full name, as CIAredirects to Central Intelligence Agency, DEA to a disambiguation page that leads to Drug Enforcement Agency, FBI to Federal Bureau of Investigation, MI6 and SIS to its official name the Secret Intelligence Service (MI5 is the black sheep). This is a major league waste of our time as there is no pressing need to move these, and there are too many alternative English language uses for SS that dedicating SS to just the Schutzstaffel in light of consistency and the overwhelming need for disambiguation is utterly ridiculous. —ExplorerCDT 22:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, most of my friends are stupid. That's it. Those who have a substantial interest in WWII know what it is, but somehow it's not terribly important to the others. I wonder why? Now what is more of a "major league" waste of time, taking a minute to register a vote on the move, or piping "Schutzstaffel" into a couple hundred links all over wikipedia? Are you going to help with the latter? -R. fiend 22:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect SS → Schutzstaffel. Simple compromise, satisfies some of both sides' concerns. —Michael Z. 2005-02-20 22:40 Z
I would support this as well: SS → SS (disambiguation), and make SS a redirect to Schutzstaffel. Dab header at the top of Schuztstaffel for those who came their via SS (as I imagine many would do). -R. fiend 22:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. SS should be a primary disambig page with the SchutzStaffel as its primary topic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Object SS (disambiguation) does a very fine job of listing what every possible abbreviation should stand for. Also, this argument that "most people dont know what SS stands for and thats why we should move it" is pretty weak. A lot of eduated people in the english speaking world are very interested that SS does mean Schutzstaffel. And, all arguments aside, Schutzstaffel that IS the name of the group. We open up a door here to move and change every Third Reich article from SD, SA, and many others. Lets leave everything alone and as it is. The article titles are fine the way that they are. -Husnock 20Feb05

Support redirect SS → Schutzstaffel. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~article and categories about the Democratic Republic of the Congo → made consistent~~
Various article and categories (see Category:Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo and Category:Congolese_culture have inconsistent naming conventions, referring the Democratic Republic of the Congo variously as Congo (DR), Congo (DRC), Congo (Kinshasa). Also, some use the term Congolese, which as an article or category title is confusing as it can refer to the nearby Republic of Congo. I think all of the articles should read x of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. - XED.talk 13:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support (conditional). The content of the articles or categories titled "Congo" or "Congolese" related to the Republic of the Congo should not be moved. — Insta ntnood 15:08 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Support - Banyan Tree 19:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~This Side Of Paradise → This Side of Paradise~~
Decap the 'of' to eliminate a redir. TSoP originally was a Star Trek episode; as most people are probably looking for the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel rather than the TV show, I moved TSoP to TSoP (Star Trek episode); unfortunately, the redir left behind prevented me from moving TSoP (novel) to TSoP -- if an admin would be kind enough to delete the redir and rename the page, that would fix it. jdb ❋ 07:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As one of my favourite novels, I was disappointed upon seeing such a pathetic stub. I totally support. —ExplorerCDT 16:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Jonathunder 18:17, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Support. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~IDM releases - Fakes → Untilted~~
~~Article concerns faked leaks of a sigle album and thus should be placed in an article for that album. -- Sund 01:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~
Support this is the craziest thing i have ever seen, we have to restore some semblance of order to this article. alibosworth (although i would like to hear any reasons for this mad system of redirects)

Oppose. There are many things titled (ironically) "Untitled," and to be honest, I'm not sure that this article wouldn't be better off on VFD. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:32, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
It's untilted. Not sure about the VFD; I tend to stay away from albums. --SPUI (talk) 09:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Usually on VFD the vote would be something like "Delete...When the album comes out, come backand write the article if becomes notable" but right now, I'd recommend for VfD (which I'm tempted to do). Is it "Untitled" or "Untilted"? AND...why is it a double redirect? —ExplorerCDT 05:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~February 19 2005~~
~~AirTrain (JFK) → AirTrain JFK and AirTrain (Newark) → AirTrain Newark~~
~~These are the official names for the lines. --SPUI (talk) 01:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~
Go ahead. Who's protesting this? jdb ❋ 01:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The man is putting me down with page history and "this page cannot be moved". In theory this page should only be for these cases. --SPUI (talk) 09:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As a repeated AirTrain JFK customer...Support. —ExplorerCDT 05:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Jonathunder 18:22, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
~~London Bridge railway station → London Bridge station~~
~~I want to merge these two articles, like most of the other mainline stations in London are merged. -- OwenBlacker 22:27, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~~
Support Conforms with other London-area station articles. —ExplorerCDT 22:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Same reasons as OwenBlacker. And having multiple articles on what is essentially the same transport interchange complex is perverse. -- Chris j wood 23:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, assuming it fits naming conventions with other UK/London stations. Though if the articles were merged, why weren't they merged into the other one? --SPUI (talk) 23:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Jonathunder 18:17, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
~~Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Blacks and Mormonism~~
Rename and change scope of article as per discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?, and in line with convention on Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Article Title Conventions Alai 22:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support —ExplorerCDT 22:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Support. More consistent with the overall treatment of articles related to Mormonism Trödel|talk 12:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Jonathunder 04:02, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
~~Image:China_flag_large.png → Image:PRC_flag_large.png~~
~~To conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. (I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia's procedure to move an image on this page.) — Insta ntnood 13:19, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)~~
By nominating I support renaming. — Insta ntnood 13:19, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
This is not the place for changing the name of images. You can do that yourself. Simply rename it on your own computer and go through the upload process, relink the image. Further, I don't think you should be relying on a naming convention that has been edited back and forth on the topic of China vs. PRC and Taiwan vs. ROC for the past few weeks with divisive controversy. —ExplorerCDT 18:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes I know it could be done in that way. But it would be nothing difference from copy and paste moving of an article.
Would you mind providing any evidence to your argument " a naming convention that has been edited back and forth on the topic of China vs. PRC and Taiwan vs. ROC for the past few weeks with divisive controversy. "? — Insta ntnood 17:46, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
If you knew it could be done that way, why didn't you do it? Are you helpless? As to the proof you seek, look through the edit history...hardly any proof of a consensus on this "convention." Do you feel some inexorable need to waste our time with such indolent nonsense? —ExplorerCDT 19:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Copy and paste moving is not encouraged on Wikipedia, and in my opinion the same applies.
The section on political NPOV of the set of conventions that I have quoted from is not edited "back and forth for the past few weeks with divisive controversy". All the sentences I have quoted have been there since January 2004. Some of the sentences and ideas have been there since July 2003. — Insta ntnood 18:37, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
I guess the December 2004/January 2005 don't count because they don't suit your argument. This is one thing YOU can do yourself, simply as I detailed the procedure above. Why don't you stop this horseshit and take the damned initiative? —ExplorerCDT 22:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There wasn't any edit regarding the section on Political NPOV in December 2004. The January 2005 edits by the anonymous contributor with IP address 24.46.97.196 were reverted in 35 minutes. — Insta ntnood 09:19, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. This is getting silly. -- Curps 20:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support PRC is correct in this case ObsidianOrder 20:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

support this is just a damn image. if you want to reupload it and change all the links yourself, then be my guest. You might want to deal with the Taiwan flag too. no need to list here.--Ji ang 02:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, although this is not technically a move candidate—upload the image under another name, change the relevant links, and request that the original be deleted. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. — Insta ntnood 09:23, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Support. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Kemal Atatürk → Mustafa Kemal Atatürk~~
This is an after-the-event request, really. Someone has done an extremely sloppy copy-and-paste job to move the content of the former article to the latter address. The history needs to be merged in. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've switched it back, for now at least. I think I'd oppose the move, since he's generally known as either Mustafa Kemal or Kemal Atatürk, not Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. john k 20:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense. Coolcat is a bit new so he doesn't always know the right way to do stuff, but he seems to be settling down and producing some good edits and settling down to the Wiki way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...he yelled at me for doing it, and immediately reverted back. john k 02:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm also not a big fan of this, from his user page:
I only watch topics I am knowlegeable in. You are welcome to challenge my edit in the topics discussion. Do NOT edit what I added/modified without discussing. At least tell why you made the change (grammer and spelling fixes are alwats...always welcome). I will be "policing" the folowing articles.

john k 02:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Show him some kindness. Please do not bite the newcomers --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose — Kemal Atatürk is most widely known. — Davenbelle 12:33, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Having read the arguments I also oppose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~GM Daewoo Motors → GM Daewoo Auto and Technology or GM Daewoo~~
The original name of this South Korean automaker was in fact Daewoo Motors; however, the operational parts bought out by General Motors were reincorporated as GM Daewoo Auto & Technology company with a short name of GM Daewoo, GM DAT (or GMDAT) being even shorter and informal name - see GMDAT.com. These official and short names are listed right at the beginning of the GM Daewoo Motors article, clearly conflicting with Motors in the title name. --DmitryKo 09:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~I thought GMDAT was a different company. But if you're sure that they changed the name, then I support the move. Thanks for bringing the discussion here. --SFoskett 15:46, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~~
I'm pretty sure that GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. has been the company name right from the start - see the official PR on its public launch (the same text reformatted to a much better layout can be found at AutoIntell news). It makes a specific mention of "design, engineering, research & development" branches of the newly-formed company.
All of the three names are used interchangeably by GM staff, as shown by GM Asia Pacific Operations and GM Daewoo builts diesel plant. The source of confusion could be the fact that Koreans use GM Daewoo as short name for the company, emphasizing its history and somewhat equal partnership with GM, while Americans are also using GMDAT abbreviation widely, effectively downplaying the importance of Daewoo brand. Both of these short names still refer to GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co., established in 2002 by GM (through its Holden branch), Suzuki and SAIC on the assets of then-bancrupt Daewoo Motors Co. --DmitryKo 18:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Resume: On a second thought, I think shorter GM Daewoo title suits the purpose of naming the article much better than full company name, so I'll just relocate it and fix the double redirects myself. Please move this discussion to the Talk:GM Daewoo. --DmitryKo 15:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~February 18 2005~~
~~Science and technology in China → Science and technology in mainland China~~
The article deals with scientific and technological development of the PRC since its establishment in 1949, without any coverage of Hong Kong and Macao, which were former European exclaves until 1997/1999, and are now special administrative regions of the PRC with their own governments. The section on history has been moved to a separate article titled History of science and technology in China. — Insta ntnood 18:39, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV: " Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ". — Insta ntnood 18:52, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

By nominating I support moving the article. — Insta ntnood 18:41, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

oppose. if there's anything significant from HK and Macau, then add it. i don't see why not. and what do we do about technology pre-1949? this is overdoing it --Ji ang 18:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hong Kong and Macao should have separate articles. Hong Kong and Macao are not part of the PRC from 1949 to 1997/1999, and they currently have their own governments, with their own policies and developments in science and technology. — Insta ntnood 19:42, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
They can both have separate articles and have mention in this article. However, the mainland is many times larger and dominates. And as you said, "China" has been "mainland China" for much of history. For the ease of use, please dont unnecessarily complicate things. --Ji ang 21:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They are not and should not be covered in this article. As I have mentioned, they have their own policies, and their own path of development. The title of an article has to be accurate to tell the scope of its content. — Insta ntnood 22:50, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
The can exist as separate articles. They can be linked to, mentioned, etc. Either theyre important enough for mention, or theyre so insignificant/separate that mention is not necessary. If the move were necessary as you argue, then theyre signficant enough for mention. It's absurd to be forcing ancient/imperial Chinese development into an article with "mainland China" in its title when the term wasnt used until the rise of Communist China. --Ji ang 05:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Contents of ancient development are not part of this article. They are not forced to be include in an article with the title "mainland China". — Insta ntnood 12:49, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
It's a continous civilization. it's not necessary to force them off if they fit the same page. if they dont fit, we use summary style, not splitting --Ji ang 02:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I fully understand why you oppose a split. Nonetheless it is not really a "continuous civilisation" in present-day context. The 20th century seen a separated development of science and technology in different parts of the region of China, each with different influences and inputs. — Insta ntnood 09:35, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Needless change to a more confusing term, jguk 19:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to be accurate, NPOV and encyclopedic. If one wants to know what mainland China is, it's just several clicks to take you to the article about mainland China on Wikipedia. — Insta ntnood 19:40, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Cumbersome to qualify something that does not require qualification. —ExplorerCDT 18:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"China", "People's Republic of China" and "Mainland China" are not the same, i.e. China ≠ People's Republic of China ≠ Mainland China. — Insta ntnood 17:51, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
Just like User:Instantnood = Jackass and = someone interrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but User:Instantnood ≠ some nice guy who avoids getting on peoples nerves with his inane bullshit. —ExplorerCDT 22:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Alright then. There's no common ground for wikipedians to discuss with you. — Insta ntnood 09:37, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Oppose -- Curps 20:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose as ExplorerCDT said, cumbersome ObsidianOrder 20:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. I agree that science and technology in mainland China between 1949 and 1999 should be distinguished from the situation in Hong Kong and Macao during the same time. (Also, continuing from 1999 on forwards, since there still is no homogeneity.) --MarkSweep 00:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This disregards ancient/imperial/republican China.--Ji ang
There is an article titled History of science and technology in China. The two articles are linked to each other at the "see also" section. — Insta ntnood 09:39, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Support. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:17, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. By all means, add a subsection with reference to HK and Macau, and provide a link to a more detailed article if need be. We dont need different articles just because policies and governments are different.--Huaiwei 14:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In what way is Hong Kong and Macao were part of China before 1997/1999? And how should homogeneity be justifed from 1997/1999 onwards? — Insta ntnood 15:19 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
The title of the article dosent seem to have any timeframe built into it. It does not specify that you can only talk about scientific developments in China before the arrival of the colonists, during the era of colonisation, or after the handover alone. In addition, why are you suddenly launching into a question concerning whether HK and Macau are part of China or not in a page on science and tech?--Huaiwei 15:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The current title suggests no time frame, but only content of mainland China after 1949 is included. Science and technological development prior to 1949 are covered by History of science and technology in China. To better reflect its content, the title had already been changed to "..mainland China", but was later moved back by Jiang.
Hong Kong and Macao weren't part of China between the time they were colonised and 1997/1999, and share no homogeneity in science and development with mainland China even after 97/99. Naturally they are not covered by the article which focuses on the mainland since the establishment of the PRC. — Insta ntnood 19:05 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
I can see that the article only carries material for China after 1949, and only on whats happening under the CCP. But that dosent mean we cannot EXPAND on the article to include the advancement of Chinese science and technology since 5000 years ago, and in all places whereby the Chinese view of science and nature is being practised. In fact, I feel History of science and technology in China should be merged with this page so that we can see a continous flow of information over time periods.--Huaiwei 08:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Being a continuum fails to justify a merger of two articles. If it has to be divided into articles, the establishment of the PRC is a good point to be divided along. Many history articles are linked together by the "see also" section, or by a box (a template) that links to articles of the same series. — Insta ntnood 11:27 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
Failing to expand on the article is not justification for splitting the article into multiple parts either.--Huaiwei 11:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~February 16~~
~~X in People's Republic of China → X in China~~
Also X of People's Republic of China → X of China

Also People's Republic of China's X → China's X

etc.
There are a number of articles and categories with titles that use "People's Republic of China" in the title where just "China" would be more suitable, on grounds of "using common names". For instance People's Republic of China's trademark law and many other examples.
The use of "China" (in reference to current events and situations) in modern news media and everyday usage always refers to the territory, population, and society that is the People's Republic of China... the only political controversy is over whether China includes Taiwan or not. The term "Republic of China" is always used in full (or abbreviated to "ROC") — that is, the term "China" alone (in reference to current events and situations) never refers to the Republic of China.
For instance, when the news media refer to "China's economy" (a major topic these days), it is always the People's Republic of China's economy that is being referred to.
Exceptions: there are currently separate full articles on China and People's Republic of China, and History of China and History of the People's Republic of China. These are therefore not simple page moves, and are outside the scope of this "requested moves" page.
Note: the article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) would be edited in accordance with the outcome of this vote and the votes below on ROC/Taiwan issues. However, the votes are not linked: voting for one does not imply voting for the other. -- Curps 22:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support with condition PRC/China gets to use the term "China" as the name of the political entity; meanwhile, ROC/Taiwan gets to use the term "Taiwan" as the name of the political entity. Taiwan and ROC are interchangable as China and PRC when these terms are used to refering political entities. When the term "China" is being used in either political context or geographical context, it strictly refers to the territory under PRC jurisdiction. Territories outside of the current PRC jurisdiction depends on the context such as historical territories would be mentioned as part of historical territory. Taiwan would be only claimed by China as part of China, but not regarded as part of China. Provinces of China and the political divisions of China refers to the provinces of PRC with her claim over Taiwan. No articles of China would make Taiwan as part of it, only make claims of it. ROC is not China(here, PRC) or part of China(here, PRC). ROC should not be listed in a article which make it look like part of China/PRC.Mababa 04:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Saying the ROC and Taiwan are the same is not neutral. See this (from the PRC), and this (from Lee Teng-hui) for example, regarding the criticism of Chen Shui-bian for making such a claim. Certainly in the many times I've heard "China" being used, it does not strictly refer to, either in a politically, and especially and a geographical and cultural context, to the PRC. Your POV is one supporting Taiwan independence. We must represent all sides here. What if we regarded both the PRC and ROC to be part of China? What if we want to be ambiguous? What you propose is certainly not NPOV. --Ji ang 05:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah... I do see what you mean. Your statement "What if we regarded both the PRC and ROC to be part of China" is an obvious unification supporter's POV and I do not believe Wiki should have any thing to do with this statement though. Further, I do not think my proposal is supporting Taiwan independence by all means. I do not believe my proposal would ever damage PRC's claim over Taiwan nor bolster it. It is sheerly for connecting common perception to the Wikipedia so that we are not locked in our ivory tower and make a twisted encyclopedia that is not recognizable. PRC's claim would always be addressed as her claims as usually being processed here. There is a strong and clear need to have China to be directed to PRC in this Wikipeida for those readers searching information on PRC, and there is obviously some articles written not inline with the current naming convention and used China as political entity refering to PRC. I am only proposing a fair and easy solution so that no straneous or dramatic changes would be required to fix the current situation. I have been following the convention NPOV policy and most ROC related articles are quick to be fixed. Now I wish same priniciple would be applied to the POV in some articles using the term "China" as a political entity or we should change this policy to another fair and neutral usage. With the current poll land sliding toward opposition, I am confident that the wisdom envisioned in the NPOV convention dictating the term "China" would not be used refering any political entity (and often used to include ROC and PRC together under a political entity called as China) would be enforced and carried out.Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
China can be a geographical or a cultural area, that both mainland China and Taiwan belongs to. Saying Taiwan is part of this geographical or cultural concept of China does not necessarily means pro-unification. — Insta ntnood 13:01, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

~~Conditionally~~ oppose - This not an issue of which political entity is China--that was the Cold War debate. This is over the definitions of the entity named China. By endorsing the "People's Republic of China" as the sole China, we are still making a political statement. This goes against the notion that China is a cultural/geographic entity that transcends regimes--almost no Chinese, and no one familiar with China, will dispute that this can be at least an alternative definition of "China" given how many dynasties have passed through. Those who hold the view that China is a cultural/geographic entity currently divided politically between the PRC and ROC are not few. The news media usage is not NPOV. It's meant to be simplistic since news is designed to be short and cater to the masses. Do you also recommend moving Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia and Republic of Ireland to Ireland because the media does the same? This is awfully western-centric because in a Chinese political debate where there are multiple sides, the neutral terms mainland China and Taiwan are used, never simply China and Taiwan. As an encyclopedia, we can be different. We are supposed to be neutral and to educate. Any confusion in the title can be cleared up in the text. When most/many Chinese refer to China, they do not refer simply to the People's Republic of China, but Greater China. Just walk into San Francisco Chinatown and you'll see the flag of the PRC and flag of the ROC appearing in equal frequency--the ROC flags aren't being flown by Taiwanese, they are being flown by Cantonese-speaking immigrants and their descendants. Given that this is a politically contentious issue, this deserves exception to the "use common names" approach. The same exception has been given to Macedonia and Ireland. Why not China? Furthermore, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) may not be changed without proper consultations on the proper talk page, in the least a note directing others to this page. This said, I oppose mainly in principle. References in the text to the President of the People's Republic of China should not be changed. I oppose strongly on that. But for Politics of China to sit where it is, I will remain neutral. There was lengthy debate on this at Talk:People's Republic of China/Talk:China archives. Unfortunately, some of these are lost to the software and we'll need further help to retrieve them--Ji ang 05:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would be neutral on the Politics of China as well since it is clearly dedicated to the PRC (and no ROC involved), even this usage was not complying with the convention. As to the province of China and political divisions of China, they included ROC together with PRC under a political entity called "China" which is against the convention and makes a political statement endorsing the PRC's position :"There is only one China in the world. Both the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China.[1]" This is clearly not neutral and should get fixed in a way that either making the article purely dedicated to PRC (just like the politics of China) or having the NPOV convention enforced, so that not a single political entity would be called "China."Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The concept of province to the ROC and to the PRC is more or less the same (except for the autonomous regions under PRC's system (or to be exact, mainland China's system), which are either titled provinces or regions/areas). Splitting the article on "province of China" into two is probably redundant. — Insta ntnood 17:59, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
Oppose (unconditionally). The treatment of the title of these articles depends on the scope of the content. If it is about China in general, without dealing with any government (such as calligraphy, history, etc.) or both governments are addressed (such as province of China), the title "X of China" or "Chinese X" should be used. If it involves the two governments, "X of the People's Republic of China" and "X of Republic of China" should be used. If Hong Kong and Macao are not covered, such as economy, trade, culture, customs, cinema, etc., "X of mainland China", "X of Hong Kong", "X of Macao" should be used, instead of "X of the People's Republic of China". The same should apply to templates and categories.
I also oppose editing the naming conventions according to the votes on this page. It should be done at the discussion page of that article. — Insta ntnood 08:41, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
Comment: province of China involves a political power (a goverment called China in this case) exterting a state's sovereignty over territories. It is not something goegraphical. It is political and not neutral of the current article and your proposal in that talk page. Please understand that your political POV is not neutral.Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: On the other hand, there are two governments called China, so which one are you refering to?--Huaiwei 22:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your question is my concern and also your own answer. Which one? Please take note that PRC vehemently objects "two China" and thus we should not bias against their POV. Nor should we make ROC part of PRC 'casue it's biased against Taiwanese. You are more than welcome to participate the POV dispute in political divisions of China if you have any suggestions. We need more opinions to solve the POV dispute.Mababa 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For provinces, its the same thing for the ROC and the PRC, just like calligraphy of China. — Insta ntnood 18:01, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons given by Instantnood. --MarkSweep 09:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose, for the reasons given bt Instantnood. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - XED.talk 10:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose, vehemently even. The term China embodies and invokes different meanings to different people, and to assume that they all refer to the PRC alone goes against wikipedia conventions of respecting the views of all sides, as pointed out by Jiang and Instantnood above.--Huaiwei 21:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Jiang and Instantnood have said all that needs to be said. -- ran (talk) 02:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose ObsidianOrder 06:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose, and assume bad faith. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Why bad faith? The Taiwan voting trend below seemed to indicate people wanted to abandon using "Republic of China" because "everyone just calls it Taiwan". For this reason I invoked "everyone calls it China", I thought surely these same voters would agree. And English speakers talking about "China" are just talking about a country, not mystical Tianxia. Inconsistency in voting here is frankly surprising. -- Curps 12:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I doubt if everyone who voted for the DPP is pro-independence. Some of them voted the DPP as an alternative to KMT, which was associated with "hēi jīn" (black gold). Indeed many polls show that the majority of people on Taiwan support neither independence (i.e. changing the official title to Taiwan and officially renounce claims on the mainland) nor reunification (or rejoining/joining), but to keep the status quo. — Insta ntnood 13:36 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Oppose It will invoke a NPOV dispute. --Aphaea * 11:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan → Metropolitan areas in ROC (Taiwan)~~
Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.". The original title of the article was Metropolitan areas in ROC (Taiwan), and was moved at 03:28, Feb 16 2005 by Jiang. Alternatives for renaming: List of metropolitan areas in the Republic of China, List of metropolitan areas in the ROC, and List of metropolitan areas in the ROC (Taiwan). (Although the outcome is that all metropolitan areas are located on the island of Taiwan.) — Insta ntnood 20:14, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
Metropolitan areas in the Republic of China (ROC) is defined by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of the Executive Yuan of the ROC. It applies to the entire territories under ROC's control, in other words it is not restricted to the island of Taiwan, or the province of Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 21:17, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

By nominating I support moving the article. — Insta ntnood 20:17, Feb 16 2005 (UTC) ( moving to List of metropolitan areas in the Republic of China — Insta ntnood 07:49, Feb 17 2005 (UTC) )

OPPOSE for the same reasons I enumerated below at length in the Requested Move for Politics of Taiwan → Politics of the Republic of China &c. However, I would support a move to Metropolitan areas in Taiwan simply because the article is substantially more than a mere "List of." —ExplorerCDT 20:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Your proposed move does not make it more accurate since all these metro areas are located on the geographical island of Taiwan. The title is also ungrammatical and fails to convey that this is moreso a list than an actual article--Ji ang 21:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article employs the official definition by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of the Executive Yuan, but not the governments of Taiwan Province, Taipei Municipality and Kaohsiung Municipality.

Alternatives for renaming are also suggested. — Insta ntnood 21:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. There is a policy to use common names. --Improv 21:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please also refer to Don't overdo it. :-) — Insta ntnood 21:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
ROC and Taiwan is not overdoing it or inaccurate like using "Tidal Wave" for "Tsunami." Also, the section you're citing does not say we shouldn't use the more common "Mark Twain" just because "Samuel Clemens" was the name on his birth certificate and other documents where he had to be legally recognized. —ExplorerCDT 03:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Using Taiwan to refer to the ROC is common, yet it is not accurate. — Insta ntnood 07:47, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. No-one outside America would understand the new name. Use the name everyone understands, "Taiwan", jguk 21:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think wikipedians who made up the conventions and placed the article at Republic of China are all from the states. — Insta ntnood 07:46, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)

You may be confusing two issues here: if a substantial number of people would be helped by the word "Taiwan", then appropriate redirects should be created. But that has no bearing on what the article should be called. Issues of understanding can easily be addressed in the first paragraph of the article. Using "the name everyone understands" is not necessarily accurate, universal, or NPOV. --MarkSweep 01:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Taiwan as the name of a geographical area (the island) is not controversial. -- Curps 21:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Matsu Islands and Quemoy are neither part of the island of Taiwan, nor province of Taiwan. Yet they are territories under ROC's control. — Insta ntnood 07:44, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see that it is not about a geographical area. It is about the definition of what counts as a "metropolitan area" as defined by the ROC government. As such, it is primarily about the ROC and should have a title that reflects that. The words "list of" in the title are clearly misleading and may create the wrong impression that this article is about geography. It is not. --MarkSweep 00:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose I would prefer that any Taiwan/ROC article uses simply "Taiwan" ObsidianOrder 21:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That involves modifying the conventions. Currently the article about the government is at Republic of China but not Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 07:45, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I would like to see the conventions changed. I would consider the following: PRC = the political entity. China = geographic region, includes Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, etc. Taiwan = political and geographic entity with the same status as a country. ROC = just a footnote under Taiwan explaining where the ROC name comes from and why it's used. Just my 0.02. ObsidianOrder 13:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Republic of China" is a much more accurate title than "Taiwan", for neither the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan covers 100% of ROC's territories. The pro-independence politicians do not consider the Matsu Islands and Quemoy Taiwan's territories. — Insta ntnood 18:32, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Oppose For same reasons as I cite in other move below.--Silverback 14:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Taiwan" is not an accurate term to refer to the government, and in fact those pro-independence politicians who also advocate changing the country's official title to Taiwan (or "Republic of Taiwan") do not regard Quemoy and the Matsu Islands of the ROC's province of Fukien as their territories. — Insta ntnood 18:27, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Oppose As stated above, all the metropolitan areas listed are on the island of Taiwan. In addition, the vast majority of people outside of east Asia are more familiar with the name "Taiwan" than "Republic of China". Redxiv 18:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article is based upon a definition by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of the Executive Yuan of the ROC, which is applied and applicable to all territories under ROC's control, i.e. not restricted to the island of Taiwan or province of Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 18:28, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: this article is not primarily about geography. It's about the designation "metropolitan area" as defined by the ROC government. --MarkSweep 01:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, use official name. Grue 07:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support (but it needs a better target for the move). I was reluctant at first, but after reading the article in question, I have to agree. This article is about a standard set by the ROC government, and as such it is about a political entity (i.e., the ROC), not a geographic entity (i.e. Taiwan). --MarkSweep 00:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The name suggested on the title of this section was the old name of the article, before moving by Jiang. I agree it needs a better target.
Yes the standard is drawn by the ROC, and
~~(to repeat) not by the governments of Taiwan Province, and Taipei and Kaohsiung municipalities. — Insta ntnood 13:48 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)~~
Support. If this were simply a list, I would've opposed the move, but it does indeed appear to be an article about an ROC standard. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Moving would invoke ambiguity for many readers. --Aphaea * 11:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The content of the article already tells the ROC is a government controlling Taiwan. The ambiguity issue can be easily solved by redirecting "..Taiwan" to "..the Republic of China". — Insta ntnood 13:43 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Support Again, I'm not clear why anyone would oppose an increase in accuracy; that's what we're trying to achieve in this encycopædia isn't it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Politics of Taiwan → Politics of the Republic of China~~
Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.". — Insta ntnood 19:49, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
The same applies to List of political parties in Taiwan → List of political parties in the Republic of China and Elections in Taiwan → Elections in the Republic of China. — Insta ntnood 19:51, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
See also the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Politics of Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 10:54, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
By nominating I support moving the articles. — Insta ntnood 19:49, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Taiwan is far better known as the name, and the Taiwanese government and people prefer it. -XED.talk 20:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
half the Taiwanese population, probably those who voted for the current president, prefer it. see comment below.--Ji ang 21:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
when half the Taiwnese population knows it as Taiwan, and the rest of the world knows it as Taiwan, then its pretty clear it should be called Taiwan. Even recent passports issued by the Taiwanese government are starting to emphasize the name "Taiwan". - XED.talk 21:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's the POV of the current governing party DPP and the president. In fact there was a debate over printing the word "Taiwan" on passports. — Insta ntnood 07:55, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
Please take note: The debates exist. The general public supports the move.Mababa 01:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes the debates exist. And the general public prefer keeping the current situation (neither reunification nor going independent). But that's not relevant, as its the Wikipedia's principle to be NPOV. — Insta ntnood 18:02, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Taiwan is a much better known name, G-Man 20:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But it is not accurate. — Insta ntnood 07:56, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)

OPPOSE. I recall that this and other Taiwan → Republic of China requests have been made on several previous occasions. And is should be noted that the naming convention you have chosen to cite has been edited back and forth over this issue without resolution or consensus for the past several weeks. Without any such resolution, it is impossible to apply this "convention" much less state that such an unstable tete-a-tete is in fact a "convention." However, these facts substantiate why I oppose this move: First–by renaming these items "Republic of China" you potentially can confuse people who may think they are reading an article about the "People's Republic of China." Second–Taiwan receives 44,700,000 hits on google [2], while "Republic of China" receives 3,880,000 [3] (however, in light of the confusion mentioned above, I have also searched under "Republic of China" -People's which reduces the total to 1,350,000 [4] and likewise to avoid confusion with Mainland China's "Province of Taiwan" I have searched "Taiwan -'Province of'" which reduced the Taiwan total to 27,100,000 [5]) While I don't advocate google test results without analysis, a 20:1 ratio after the search is qualified is sufficient in my opinion to judge "Taiwan" as the more common choice. Third–The general convention on Wikipedia has been to label articles using the conventional short form of a country's name, hence Politics of Mexico and not Politics of the United Mexican States, &c. Fourth–The CIA World Factbook has only a listing for "Taiwan" and none for "Republic of China", and further states on the Taiwan article [6] that there is no conventional long form of the county's name (which if there were would be "Republic of China" but according to the CIA, that doesn't exist as a CLF most likely because the U.S. doesn't formally recognize the government in Taipei.). The U.S. State Department refers to "Taiwan" in an article on the People's Republic of China (the mainland), but does not refer to any entity known as the "Republic of China" [7] also stating under Note 3 on a list of Independent States of the World With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, the US Government recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China. Fifth, the article for Taiwan's/ROC's communist counterpart is China and their politics article as Politics of China, which is in keeping with the third premise I stated above. Sixth, Politics of the Republic of China is a cumbersomely long title for the article when concise brevity is generally the norm. The only counter position is that Taiwan only refers to one of the several islands under the control of the Republic of China, however, because the more common usage is to umbrella the ROC's islands as "Taiwan" in the same manner that the Hawaiian Islands are collectively called "Hawaii" in addition the fact that most of the English-speaking West refers to "Taiwan" popularly rather than the cumbersome "Republic of China," this counter position is moot. —ExplorerCDT 20:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The country template exists at Republic of China, not Taiwan. The article for communist China is at People's Republic of China, not China. On technical grounds, calling the Republic of China "Taiwan" is as much accurate as calling the United Kingdom "Great Britain". There's the island of Taiwan, which excludes the Pescadores and Quemoy/Matsu and there's the ROC's Taiwan Province, which excludes Taipei, Kaohsiung, Quemoy, and Matsu, and the PRC's Taiwan Province, which excludes Quemoy and Matsu. Neither of these definitions, either political or geographical, are completely synonymous with the Republic of China. In the case of the Hawaiian Islands, there's the political entity, the state of Hawaii. When President Chen made statements last year and the year before saying "Taiwan is the Republic of China and the Republic of China is Taiwan" there was widespread opposition by not only unification-leaning groups in Taiwan, but the People's Republic of China (as evidenced by Xinhua news reports protesting the statements) and the United States (seeming to suggest moves away from the status quo). Therefore, saying they are the same is not neutral. The US position is not neutral either: in recognizing the PRC, it "acknowledged" the PRC's position that the Republic of China is a defunct entity having been replaced by the PRC. Of course they can't call it the "Republic of China"... Please note that Foreign relations of Taiwan has been moved to Foreign relations of the Republic of China in the not so distant past. I won't take a stand on whether the politics article should be moved, since this is no big deal, but I would like to see some consistency. Either move this to ROC or move that one back to Taiwan. Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China should be dealt with similarly. --Ji ang 21:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It seems we have several articles...China, Mainland China and People's Republic of China. I believe, due to the reasons I stated above, that the consistent position should be naming the articles "Taiwan." —ExplorerCDT 21:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
However, among those, the template resides at People's Republic of China. The naming conventions have been well-enforced within articles for the most part. Try searching for references of "President of Taiwan" or "Flag of Taiwan" (you wont see these linked to in this manner). These pages are only such because the rules are being ignored--they existed before the templates were moved. If I wanted to play by the rules, I would support moving--Ji ang
It is also a matter of consistence. — Insta ntnood 07:57, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)

(To ExplorerCDT) Nearly all webpages about "Republic of China" would mention the word "Taiwan", and "Taiwan Province" is not only a claimed province by the PRC, but also a streamlined province of the ROC (Taiwan Provincial Government website). By searching with "Taiwan" -"Province" it eliminate webpages about the Taiwan Province of the ROC.
The US Department of State is POV, as the United States does not regard Taiwan or Republic of China as a sovereign state. And that's the prerequisite for any country to establish diplomatic relations with the PRC. The ROC is however listed as a special territory under the title "Taiwan" without dealing with the official title "Republic of China", probably to avoid any trouble from Beijing.
"Taiwan" is not accurate. Matsu Islands and Quemoy are neither part of the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan, although they are territories under ROC's control.
The sentence from the conventions that I have quoted has been there without modification for months. (despite edits to the page over the past few months) — Insta ntnood 08:04, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
Comment: By googling "Taiwan" "Province" limit to .tw, only 41,400 came out[8]. Even the ROC did not provide much information on that province. The name "Taiwan" is still more representitive for that government than the official name "ROC" which has been for gotten by the rest of the world.Mababa 07:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia has to be accurate, NPOV and encyclopedic. Taiwan is simply not an accurate and NPOV designation. — Insta ntnood 18:05, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. There is a policy to use common names. --Improv 21:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And unlike the naming conventions that Instanood cited, "use common names" isn't changed every other week. —ExplorerCDT 21:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The naming conventions for China-related articles, spelling out the current setup, has been in place for over a year. The template has existed at Republic of China for nearly two years. What is being changed every other week? I certainly dont see anything.--Ji ang 04:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(to ExplorerCDT) the conventions from which I quoted has been modified several times over the past few months, but the sentence I have quoted has been there for many months. — Insta ntnood 18:07, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Please also refer to Don't overdo it. :-) — Insta ntnood 08:05, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. No-one outside America would understand the new name, which is totally misleading to non-Americans. Use the name everyone understands, "Taiwan", jguk 21:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think wikipedians who made up the conventions and placed the article at Republic of China are all from the states. — Insta ntnood 08:07, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)

Support. The politics in question are those of the political entity called the Republic of China, which is not Taiwan. A.D.H. (t&m) 21:32, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose I would prefer that any Taiwan/ROC article uses simply "Taiwan" ObsidianOrder 21:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That involves modifying the conventions. Currently the article about the government is at Republic of China but not Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 08:05, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)

Support. Neutrality^talk 22:18, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Support, tentatively. While article related to geographical features should use Taiwan, this is an article specifically about politics. The state refers to itself as the "Republic of China", whether or not the ruling party is looking to change that. We do similar things with, say Republic of Ireland, which is obviously less commonly used than just "Ireland." john k 03:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support with condition Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality and considers the term "China" not to coincide with any particular sovereign state or government.". This is a written Wikipedia NPOV policy stipulating the term "China" can not be used as any political entity. However, there are so many articles with titles of "XYZ of China" which are mostly dedicated to the political entity called PRC; and quite often, ROC/Taiwan is being included into part of these articles simply because Taiwan is currently ruled by a government bears a name with "China" in its official name. The result of these China/PRC articles is creating an impression that Wikipedia agrees with PRC's POV and regards Taiwan/ROC as part of China. Otherwise why should ROC be listed under a political entity called China? I would support current proposal, if what the naming convention stipulated gets enforced and upheld: making all the "XYZ of China" (which actually equates China to PRC) changed back to the name PRC and stops making China as a political entity. Otherwise, why is that the articles about the PRC are so privileged that they do not have to follow the convention and enjoyed the title of China and also have the advantage to include ROC into it, while the ROC articles are bounded by the convention and can not be called as Taiwan like the world outside of Wikipeida calls her? Specifically the Political divisions of China, and the Province of China. Perhaps it is time for us to change the policy so that PRC gets the name China and ROC gets the name Taiwan as political entities. One more comment, even in side the U.S., I bet quite some people can only recognize Taiwan and knows nothing about ROC.Mababa 04:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose In some of my research for wikipedia contributions, I've had to search, and have found Taiwan to be a far more useful key word, and because of that and the context in the articles, I have had to explicity reference Taiwan, even though I was wiki linking to the republic article. It must have been some strained politics that resulted in the wikipedia policy that is being cited.--Silverback 14:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Taiwan has never been a real official title for the government controlling the island of Taiwan, Pescadores Islands, Matsu Islands and Quemoy (plus the Pratas and some islands of the Spratlys). — Insta ntnood 18:12, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing two things: you're talking about making it easy for readers and editors to find and/or link to articles. That can be accomplished with redirects and disambiguation pages. But that's not what's at stake here. The question underlying the requested move is what would be the most accurate title for the article. While there can be many redirects, as far as the main title of an article is concerned, there can be only one. As explained many times before, "Taiwan" is inaccurate and POV in this context, so it should be replaced with a more accurate and NPOV term and appropriate redirects created. --MarkSweep 11:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV section is badly flawed and contains a number of POV statements:
* "Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China"
* "Taiwan... should be only described as part of the Republic of China"
Anyone can agree or disagree with the above points of view. But they are just that, points of view (POV), which have been the subject of sharp debate over decades. Presence of POV statements in a section about NPOV is frankly silly, and it's deceptive to phrase this as some kind of Wikipedia official policy ("Wikipedia treats..."). This section Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV is not some official Wikipedia policy listed under Category:Wikipedia official policy or Category:Wikipedia semi-policy; it's just another page that anyone can edit (and someone should). PS, I am not voting on this particular ROC/Taiwan issue, but I do have an interest in the PRC/China issue (see other requested move above). -- Curps 04:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you disagree with the rules, then please post on the relevant talk page to gain consensus to change them. Otherwise, the rules stand and cannot be simply ignored. These rules have been in place for over a year, nearly two years. Please check the page history of that page. Any additions are quickly reverted, like yours, without proper consensus. It just hasnt been tagged because it's existed for so long before categories even existed. this doesnt mean it isnt policy.--Ji ang 04:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's very odd that you staunchly defend Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV, yet you yourself ignore it completely by making the unilateral move "X in Republic of China" → "X in Taiwan" that Instantnood wishes to undo. He quotes the wording: the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate. You yourself obviously believe this wording no longer applies, yet you didn't bother to post on the talk page. If your position is that "Political NPOV" section can just be ignored, you have no standing to object if others take the same position in the future. -- Curps 06:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In that particular case, as I have answered to Instantnood, using "Republic of China" did not make it any more accurate or NPOV. All metro areas listed were on the island of Taiwan. The topic was non-political and geographical/demographic in nature. Thereofre, Taiwan should be used. I dont believe I ignored the naming conventions there. --Ji ang
The definition that that article based upon is a definition by the ROC government, which is applied and applicable to all territories under its control. It is possible for some related or similar definitions by the ROC to be fit with places on territories outside the island or the province of Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 18:16, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happens to Politics of Taiwan is discussible or debatable. All these politics take place on Taiwan. If we want to add more historical review, we can always add the poltics of Taiwan during Japanese rule or even back to Qing or Dutch rule. It is really debatable if whether the move is necessary. I guess your proposal on redefining "China" is more foundamental; and your previous edits on the convention reverted by me are really POV moves that worth some discussion so that everyone can have a opinion to modify and finally reach a neutral point everyone's happy about. The key is: Talk is cheap; talk is free!! :)Mababa 06:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not likely. Elections are also held on Matsu Islands and Quemoy. They are not part of the island or the province of Taiwan. Political events on Taiwan during Dutch, Qing and Japanese rule are covered by other articles. — Insta ntnood 08:27, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Those covered article can be merged or partly introduced in this article. I do not see a reason to make that move unlikely. With your support on enforcing the NPOV convention, I would assume you would also support stoping the usage of having the term "China" as a political entity.Mababa 21:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Generally yes. — Insta ntnood 18:19, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

(To Curps) The two sentences you have quoted is not POV. "Republic of China" is the current official title of the government currently governing Taiwan, Pescadores Islands, Matsu Islands and Quemoy (and many other islands, such as Taiping Island in the South China Sea). — Insta ntnood 08:27, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. I could agree with Elections or Politics in Taiwan (Republic of China). Gangulf 20:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What about "Elections of.." or "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)"? :-) — Insta ntnood 18:19, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Support It is not the business of Wikipedia to declare Tawian's independence on their behalf. 172 20:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I do not see any implication of declaring Taiwan's independence here. PRC's claim over that administration on Taiwan is not further damaged or bolstered by all means. You might want to further explain how you interpret the political implication here.Mababa 21:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support there is no such country as Taiwan. Republic of China is the correct name. Grue 07:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment the Republic of China is a highly misleading title as it implies that it covers the whole of China, which it clearly doesn't, it covers a few islands of which Tiawan is the largest. The Tiawanese government may like to pretend that it is the legitimate government of China, but in the real world it clearly isn't. G-Man 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The official name of China from 1911 to 1949 is Republic of China (ROC). Following the Chinese Civil War, ROC government retreated to Taiwan, and maintained a stable existence by effectively controlling the island of Taiwan, Pescadores Islands, Matsu Islands and Quemoy. The latter two are on the coast of the continent. The ROC also controls the Pratas Islands, and some islands of the Spratlys. The Communist Party seized control of mainland China following ROC's retreat, and established the People's Republic of China. The ROC has not formally renounced its claim on mainland China (and Tuva and Mongolia) until today.
The territories that are currently under ROC's control covers not only the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan. And in fact pro-independence politicians who also advocate changing the official title of the country to "Taiwan" (or "Republic of Taiwan") do not consider Matsu Islands and Quemoy as Taiwan's territory. — Insta ntnood 19:55, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

The claim to all of China was unofficially dropped in 1991...--Ji ang

The name "Republic of China" is both official and accurate. Even after 1949 it was meant to cover all of China, since the ROC constitution was never amended. This is contradicted by reality and you may think it is misleading, but then again you could bring a charge of being misleading against any "Democratic People's Republic" or the "Holy Roman Empire". That doesn't make those names any less appropriate as article titles. --MarkSweep 12:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, to be consistent with the rest of WP this article should be moved over the redirect from politics of the Republic of China. We have plenty of articles about countries, and almost invariably they take the form "COUNTRY NAME" for the overview article and then "Politics of COUNTRY NAME", "History of COUNTRY NAME", etc. for the specialized articles. The situation is clearly more complex here, but for the sake of uniformity this should be "Politics of the Republic of China". As an aside, note that we have both history of the Republic of China and history of Taiwan, which are clearly distinct as they focus on different aspects. Another comment: Common names are sometimes wrong or misleading, e.g. "England" is used sloppily to refer to all of the United Kingdom, "Holland" to the Netherlands, etc. Likewise "Taiwan" is arguably imprecise, referring to a geographic entity and (at least informally and/or for some people) to a political entity, namely the ROC. There is no doubt that the political entity is meant here, so the narrower, more precise term should be used because it is unambiguous. It is only in certain historical contexts that it makes sense to talk about "Taiwan" in connection with politics, e.g. Political divisions of Taiwan (1895-1945) is clearly appopriate. --MarkSweep 00:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. For an encyclopedia to name its articles according to possible readers' ignorance rather than according to what's accurate is an appalling notion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Compromise~~
~~I had some discussion with Insta ntnood and I suggested the compromise to name these kind of pages ..of Republic of China - Taiwan. I think this might be less POV Gangulf 22:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~
~~Gangulf agreed with "..of Republic of China (Taiwan)" but she/he prefers "..of Republic of China - Taiwan". — Insta ntnood 22:21 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)~~
Are you saying that the compromise is to name or rename ROC-related pages currently named "Republic of China" to a new name substituting or incorporating "Taiwan?" Or using both simultaneously? or are you just patting yourself on the back and saying you had some discussion and made a suggestion? There is no entity known as the "Republic of China" it died in 1949, and the U.S. and other countries do not officially recognize a "Republic of China" but they officially recognize a successor state known as the "People's Republic of China." The West, in popular parlance, knows it simply and unconfusingly as Taiwan. You say ROC to the average Westerner and they'll immediately think Beijing. If that's the compromise, I continue my objections for the reasons enumerated hitherto. —ExplorerCDT 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just being curious, would vote backed with false evidence be counted? — Insta ntnood 23:15 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
Rhetorical appeals by deception don't work...here or elsewhere where you have tried to implement it. You claim false evidence, prove it. Otherwise, you're a mini-Goebbels repeating lies hoping that after a few times people will think them true. —ExplorerCDT 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If I were repeating lies, probably I weren't the only one. — Insta ntnood 11:35 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

trolling? the US did not recognize the PRC until 1979. It recognized the ROC until December 1978. The ROC represented China in the UN until it was replaced by the PRC in 1971. Neither usage is NPOV. Taiwan is not NPOV. We have no choice but to use the "whatever name the party exercises sovereignty over uses" rule. This is done at Republic of Macedonia, Diaoyu Islands, etc. Perhaps using both is a compromise--Ji ang 03:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Trolling, no. Statistics show Taiwan is the most used in the general sense, and google shows a 20:1 margin for Taiwan over ROC. But if you don't want to step on anyone's toes we might as well use all three, ROC, Taiwan, and Province of Taiwan, in order to keep Instantnood, the Red Chinese, and everyone else happy. Mao is probably rolling over in his grave wishing posthumously that he nuked that stupid island. —ExplorerCDT 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd just add that while both "ROC" and "Taiwan" are POV, "Taiwan" is also actively wrong, in that neither side recognizes the entity referring to itself as the ROC to be coextensive with Taiwan. john k 06:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Never said anything about co-extensive, just stated long ago that a 20:1 margin on google of Taiwan vs. ROC and common usage should trump nationalistic sentiment and overcumbersome title construction. —ExplorerCDT 07:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is most certainly "an entity known as the 'Republic of China'." Whether that is an appropriate name is, of course, up for grabs, but that is certainly what it calls itself. And it is certainly referred to as that in the world at large, at least some of the time. john k 06:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It calls itself that, sure, but does the world recognize it? No. Run a search through any newspaper and you'll see Taiwan is the word of choice, tromping usage of ROC. —ExplorerCDT 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
so newspapers, save the Communist Chinese media, use "North Korea" and "South Korea" over "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and "Republic of Korea", respectively. Does that mean no one recognizes the latter usages? Perhaps the most important issue in cross-strait relations, especially within Taiwan, right now is the debate over the meanings of "Taiwan" and "Republic of China". There's no need for wikipedia to dumb things down. Newspapers have to keep it short, we dont --Ji ang 07:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much of the world may not recognise the government of the Republic of China as the sole representation of China, but that is entirely different from the recognition of the fact that the name Republic of China exists!--Huaiwei 08:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Right. Two dozens of countries maintain diplomatic relations with an entity called "Republic of China". Many of the rest keep de facto diplomatic relations with Taipei, although they have to avoid using "Republic of China" and angering Beijing. — Insta ntnood 11:39 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

I support the compromise of having both ROC and Taiwan being in the same title, and I am open to whether it takes the format of ROC (Taiwan) or ROC - Taiwan. The only issue is that it looks sadly "unprofessional" and quite unbecoming for an encyclopedia. Personally, I prefer XXX of Taiwan to be automatically redirected to XXX of ROC so long that the article is refering to the political entity of the ROC, and not merely the island of Taiwan.--Huaiwei 08:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~A time of crisis~~
What I see of the recent discussion over whether to use PRC, ROC, mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao is that it reveals a deadlock over an encyclopedia built up by ordinary internet users. It is not easy to preserve the professional style of editing which an encyclopedia needs, as Huaiwei has suggested. People who supported and opposed the move had different concerns, whether to preserve accuracy, or to make it easy to use for average readers. If there isn't any ressolution to the deadlock, the number of votes for each side could be meaningless. — Insta ntnood 11:47 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
~~Good Riddance (Time Of Your Life) → Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)~~
~~Proper capitalization. —User:Mulad (talk) 05:10, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)~~
Oppose Looking at the track listings on my CD of Green Day's Nimrod album, the song is listed as "Good Riddance (Time Of Your Life)" with a capitalized "O" in "Of", and as a song being a work of art, and with works of art (i.e. books, paintings, music, etc.) generally considered as proper nouns, and as the name of the song is listed with "Of" on the information included with the compact disc, this proposed RM does not conform with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) policy. —ExplorerCDT 05:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutral See [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Music_standards#Albums.2C_bands.2C_and_songs|]], #10 — Catherine\^talk 10:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think this qualifies under the "unless it is unique" rule. —ExplorerCDT 16:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Pointless move. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Proper and logical capitalization. In my opinion, letting people hijack the conventions of English for marketing or whims or whatever is not something to support, even if they Want To Capitalize Every Word or use BiZZare CapitALs or whatever. Note that this is in agreement with the Naming Conventions (capitalization) listed above; it is not a proper noun per se but a title; titles are traditionally capitalized according to specific rules which keep short, common prepositions like of in lowercase. I confess I'm not sure I understand what "unless it is unique" means—it seems to me that the vast majority of song titles would be unique. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 07:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. What Knowledge Seeker said. — OwenBlacker 22:24, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. While I agree wholeheartedly with Knowledge Seeker, this isn't—unfortunately—the current policy of Wikipedia. Let the idiotic marketing capitalization stand. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Support. It's unique only if it's something like Yvan Eht Nioj. Mixed 06:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Jonathunder 18:11, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Support. I doubt very much that it's a marketing ploy — it's just some careless or ignorant typist's error, not picked up by a copy-editor (because there wasn't one). I'm looking at an Island CD, Cat Stevens' Catch Bull at Four, according to which track 8 is that well-known Irish bar “O'CARITAS” (for those who don't know it, it's a Latin title, “O Caritas”). It's one thing to go along with idiot marketing people (the sort of people who recently decided that boxed sets of CDs would be box sets — who the hell wants a set of boxes?), but another to go along with a typo. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Holding Pen~~
~~Rastafarianism → Rastafari~~
This article needs to be dealt with by an administrator as it has been here for 6 days. There is probably no consesnsus on the proposed move. --SqueakBox 17:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) formerly User:Squiquifox
because of the offensive nature of the the word Rastafarianism to Rastafarians both excludes believers and as a title is not from an NPOV but from an anti-rasta viewpoint. There has been a consensus to cchange the name on the talk page but the dissenting voice asked for the change to be put here. i think it is very wrong in an encyclopedia like this to use a term offensive to believers. This is not a question of free speach. It is a question of being inclusive, and encouraging rasta believers and all religious believers to come and share their knowledge, both about their religion and other subjects. Rastas, for instance, are a mine of information about reggae music. I paste below the talk page comments.--Squiquifox 01:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) User:Squiquifox is SqueakBox 22:28, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see the article changed to Rastafarians or Rastafari, Rastafarianism is a terrible name.--Squiquifox 18:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think you're right. I was surprised to find the article under this title really. I suppose it isn't really a big thing, but common courtesy suggests the title shouldn't be one that adherents have a legitimate objection to. The only problems I envisage are,
1) Making sure we don't lose the edit history of the existing article. I think the history can be moved, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know?

2) Working out what exactly to move it to. Rastafari itself is a disambig page, quite rightly since it could refer to Haile Selassie or to the religious/social movement. I suppose that means putting this page at something like Rastafari (religion) or, my preference, Rastafari (movement).
~~While we're at it, I suggest we create a policy page Wikipedia:Too much 'ism' and 'schism' to help people get along. I'm joking, but it would be fun, eh? Mattley 15:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~
Adherents to the Church of Christ may believe themselves to be the only true Christians, but that doesn't mean we disambiguate at Christianity. This move (i) asserts a Rasta POV in the most visible area of the article: its title, (ii) subjects the page to unnecessary disambiguation, and (iii) violates our naming conventions, which, for better of for worse, prescribe titling under the common names of things. Bring your proposal to WP:RM if you like, but I advise you not to act without clear consensus. ADH (t&m) 02:41, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the idea that anyone intends acting without clear consensus. This is a tentative proposal, as I think the above contributions make clear. Leaving that aside, you raise some interesting points, some better than others. The Church of Christ example is hardly germane. Aside from having to do with religion it is a completely different situation. A more relevant example might be mormon and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As for the unnecessary disambiguation, well that already exists. A lot of people with a more than a passing interest in the subject will, I suspect, type in Rastafari and have to go through that page. That isn't to say it must move, but you know, rastafari is a real term that people really use, so we're stuck with the problem of disambiguation whatever we do.

The other two points, on the naming conventions and the assertion of a rasta POV in the title are more inclined to make me think again. Whether or not it really does assert a rasta POV in any meaningful sense could probably be disputed, but that is something to be reflected on. Mattley 11:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I never suggested that anyone would act without clear consensus, but I've seen enough people jump the gun on similar moves (only to later have them reversed after a lengthy and often pointless WP:RM process, the redirect then having an edit history) to know that preemptive advice is certainly prudent. The disambiguation scenario already exists, yes, but only for certain cases, whereas it's proposed that it be disambiguated for all cases. "Rastafarianism" is the common, neutral term, and the one more likely to be referenced in article text—that's justification enough for me. ADH (t&m) 12:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
The current title will put off rastafarians and people who support rastafari coming to read the site as a source of information, and then becoming wiki editors and adding some much needed information to this article. So we need these people to make a good quality article. What do you think would happen if the articles on Christianity and Islam had pieces in the article that the believers of said religions would find so offensive that they would be put off either reading or editing said article and possibly anything else. It is the believers in Christianity and Islam who can add much rich material in a neutral way to their articles. We must not exclude rastafarians from this article, or any other. We could do with some knowledgeable help in the reggae section, and this title does not help there either. So I agree, the title is not NPOV, it is anti rastafarian. This in the title itself is a disaster. i think the consensus is in favour of changing the title. I would like to call it Rastafari (religion), and redirect rastafarian and rastafarianism to it but leaving open the disambiguation page. I would like to do it quickly, and if it isn't done quickly I would like to NPOV the article. Until this issue is sorted I have removed the following point of clarification. The proper name of the faith that worships Haile Selassie I is "Rastafari." Referring to it as "Rastafarianism" is like calling Buddhism "Buddhistism." Added by User:67.41.144.251I. I take this as another vote in favour. --Squiquifox 01:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support (I think) - Rastafarianism is a "white people" word - it's a polite, sanitised word for what were a gritty underclass...still are really, despite the popularity in the "metropole". I don't know if Rastafari (religion) is the best name for it. Does Rastafari really need to be a disambiguation page? I always thought Ras Tafari for the man (or the race horse), Rastafari (or Rasta) for the people. Not my field, but I always thought it was two words for the prince, one word for the people. Guettarda 03:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~I agree about moving it to Rastafari, it should not be a disambiguation.--Squiquifox 05:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~
My position on this has changed a bit since this discussion first started (and before it was moved to this page). I'm still sympathetic to the original idea of altering the article title, but I can also see the point of some of the objections raised by Austin Hair. I'm also sceptical of the idea that we should be actively recruiting followers of particular religions to contribute to articles on said religions, which is likely to take things too far in the other direction. Put me down as an abstention, for now at least. Mattley 14:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again, oppose, because although my concerns about disambiguation have been addressed, the principal one—neutrality and common usage—has not.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate defines Rastafarian as "an adherent of Rastafarianism." This is the usage you will find in print media, independent publications, other encyclopedias, and everyday speech, not to mention elsewhere in this encyclopedia. The Rasta objection to the term is based not on the fact that they've given their faith another name, but rather that it isn't a "faith" or "-ism," simply the Truth. This is hardly a neutral point of view.
And I seriously doubt that the article's creator had an "anti-Rasta POV," as Squiquifox suggests. Lacking any evidence at all, I'll assume the best of intentions in his choice of title.
If we're to pander, a more neutral title like Rastafarians would be acceptable, but I cannot conscionably support this. ADH (t&m) 18:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I am not wanting to actively encourage believers of a particular faith to participate. I am wanting to not actively discourage them! I never suggested the original author was knowingly coming from an anti-rasta point of view. Giving good faith I imagioine he was ignorant of the objection to this article's name. Actually there is dispute including in the academic world about the use of the word rastafarianism, eg see Joseph Owens, book Dread, so it not starightforward as Austin Hair seems to think. I repeat, I do not see Rastafarianism as being other than a POV attack on Rasta, and clearly I am not alone. This issue will not go away, because the article offends rastas. Shall we make this argument about NPOV? --Squiquifox 19:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have put a neutrality note on the article until this issue is resolved. --Squiquifox 20:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~You must be joking. ADH (t&m) 21:28, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)~~
I definitely was not joking. You cannot deny there is a dispute aroud this title. See my further comments on the discussion page. I think it is entirely apprpriate, and do not understand why you think I was joking. --Squiquifox 22:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This earlier discussion on the talk page may be of interest, but I don't consider it to have votes in the current debate. --Squiquifox 22:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rastafarianism or Rastafari?
I have been told that it is more strictly correct to call the Rastafarian religion "Rastafari", instead of "Rastafarianism". Any thoughts on the matter? (Rastafari currently redirects to Haile Selassie.) --Suitov 13:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have only ever read it "Rastafarianism" I recently reverted some edits on this page (probably by an anon) that changed all the words "Rastafarianism" to "Rastafari". The reason why I reverted the edits and why Rastafari redirects to Haile Selassie III is because Rastafari or more accurately "Ras Tafari" was the name of Haile Selassie III before he was crowned Emperor. Ras was his first name and Tafari was his last name. I have never met any Rastafaris I am just a student of religions (technically nuclear engineering) so I don't know what they like to be called these days. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 14:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression Rastafari is a more correct (or more commonly used by insiders) term for Rastafarian or Rastafarians. AFAIK, the religion itself is usually called Rastafarianism. Rastafari should be a disambig page, then, I think, since it could point to Rastafarianism or Haile Selassie. But I could be wrong (ordinarily, I would see what religioustolerance.org uses, but last time I checked, they had nothing on the subject, which is unusual for them) Tuf-Kat 16:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
What rastas don't like about rastafarianism is the ism. To them the world is too full of isms, and all religious sects are just more isms. Rastas don't see Rastafari as another ism, but as something radically different. Hugh Mundell and Prince Lincoln Thompson in Mecanical devices from his Natural wild album both rail against various isms. Gone dung says Prince Lincoln about isms. So there is no doubt that ideologically Rastas do not like the word Rastafarianism. Squiquifox 04:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure every faith loves the idea of having something to distinguish itself from the truckload of other faiths, because deep in the collective psychology, each faith would love to be the only one in the world. The idea that there are other comprehensive worldviews that other people use that compete against it must be deeply disturbing :) Speaking as someone who fits into a few different categories that are called -isms, I don't see what the big deal is. Not to oppose the page move, just pointing out what I see as a silly argument. --Improv 13:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It was 82.182.134.91 who changed rastafarianism to rastafari, but had his work reverted by Sunborn. Another example of a person being offended by the word rastafarianism. --Squiquifox 22:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I personally bitterly oppose freedom of speech being lost in the name of religion e.g. in the case of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti but i think this is not about freedom of speech it is about having a wikipedia open to as wide a range of people as possible. I am not even suggesting all references to rastafarianism be removed from the article or wikipedia, merely from the title. There is also a wider debate on this issue than just at Wikipedia. If we decide to keep rastafarianism we are making a statement within that debate whether we like it or not. I am surprised people are supporting an excluding policy? It could be argued this exclusiveness has rascist overtones if it is actively and knowingly done. Or do we just want rationalist white middle class educated people (like me) to contribute to and read wikipedia. --Squiquifox
I have just added this to the article itself.
Rastafarians claim to reject isms and schisms. They see a wide range of isms and schisms in Babylon society, and want no part of them. They strongly reject the word Rastafarianism, because they see themselves as having transcended isms and schisms. This has created some conflict between Rastas and some members of the academic community studying the Rastafarian phenomenon, who insist on calling this religious belief Rastafarianism, in spite of the disapproval this generates within the Rastafarian movement. The reason the academics call it Rastafarianism is to do with the structure of the English languge, which tends to demand the use of the word Rasstafarianism (and at the very least the writer or speaker has to make an effort in order to avoid using the word) when talking or writing about the Rastas in an academic way. Rastas see no need to talk about their religion in an an analytical and objective way. (See Vocabulary section below). They use their minds to figure out life through a rastafarian perspective. --Squiquifox 16:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If it's really that offensive to Rastafarians, I say go ahead and move it to Rastafari, and slap a disambig notice on the top to lead to Ras Tafari. After all, I'd like to believe that, had Wikipedia existed 50 years ago, we wouldn't have had an article on black people under "Nigger", even though that word was constantly used for them. Place a redirect at Rastafarianism, of course, but we shouldn't allow a naming convention to result in us insulting a group of people like that. Rules are made to be broken, after all. --HBK 17:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure why Austin Hair thinks I am lobbying at WP:RM when the only reason I went there was after his suggestion to do so if I wanted to change the article name, and in respect of his strong objection to changing the title. I am not lobbying, I am trying to generate a debate within the community about the subject. The democratic way to try to build consensus where there is conflict. The history of this article is clear evidence that some people who read the site have felt offended, but those who have changed things to counteract this trend have been inexperienced users, and haven't done it skillfully. Indeed I removed a paragraph to this effect from the article at the start of this debate that was not wiki style or appropriate for an encyclopedia. I strongly disagree that the common word is Rastafarianism. It is not a word used either in rastafarian communities or the many popular third world places where rastafari is popular. It is a label given to the rastas by a small, educated, elite.
Personally, I've never heard it referred to by another name, but I've heard of it infrequently enough that I can't say that the usage I've heard is authoritative. I don't care if the community prefers another name -- common usage should prevail (and it's important to note that in the popular third world places, they may not be speaking English, so perhaps the grammar is a bit different there and -ism isn't a common suffix in their language. This is just a comment and not a vote -- I don't feel comfortable commenting on the standard English term because I've heard it so infrequently. --Improv 18:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, we speak English in the Caribbean. Jamaicans may be hard to understand, but when they write, it's English. The word "-ism" has a lot of connotations (as Squiquifox mentions above) that derive from the English use of the suffix...AFAIK it has a lot to do with the clash of "-isms" which was the Cold War. Cf. Black Stalin's 1985 kaiso Ism schism. As for the English usage, does anyone call the Bahai Faith "Bahism" or "Bahai-ism"? Why isn't is "Christianisn" or "Muslimism" or any of the other usages? Not saying we should coin a new word, but the word that was coined (presumably by academics) was not an inevitability. Guettarda 20:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Therer is now also a debate about this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and I will include the comments on that page as well when trying to see what consensus has been reached on Friday. Both the Spanish and portuguese wikipedias say rastafarianismo and are (not recent) translations of the English article, whereas I am sure most Latin Americans don't say rastafarianismo. If you think they do, can you prove it? I suspect the same is true for French (French wiki says Rastafarisme but that may well not be what the African french speakers call it?). So I think the language issue is a red herring. Even in the rich English speaking world I am sure the great majority do not think of Rasta as Rastafarianism. This is plain common sense. Where in reggae (a vital source of information about rastafari) is there a reference to Rastafarianism? So apart from being offensive it is not common usage. --Squiquifox 18:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Dutch wiki uses Rastafari as does the German for the title.--Squiquifox 19:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mecca has similar title problems, because to some Muslims the word spelt this way in English in refernce to the Muslim holy city is considered offensive. They write Makkah. The argument to use the spelling Mecca is that most English speaking people know the city as Mecca. There has been lots of argument at Talk:Mecca. So obviously the religious sensibilities are not taken into account here. I still think rastafarianism is not the word most english speakers would use to search for the article. --Squiquifox 00:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In a Google test Rasta produced 1,710,000 hits, rastafari 321,000 hits, Rastafarian 210,000 hits while Rastafarianism has 84,000 hits. --SqueakBox 01:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I fear that the religious angle is clouding this a bit. I certainly wouldn't endorse the view that we should 'avoid offending religious sensibilities' in some general, abstract way. No-one ever goes out of their way to avoid causing offence to my deeply held political convictions, do they? No. And we'd be a pretty poor encyclopedia if we never said anything that might offend someone's beliefs and convictions. I can certainly see why some editors above have reacted to this as though it offered a license for religous POV warriors to stamp their prejudices all over wikipedia, without any opposing criticism. That's a definite danger to avoid.
But I'm not sure that's what this issue is about. It seems to me more akin to Red Indian or Aborigine, which you'll note redirect to Native American and Indigenous peoples respectively. The problem with calling this article Rastafarianism is that it just isn't used by the people to whom it applies. Our choice of term runs the risk of saying "Wikipedia is run by a bunch of educated white guys in North America and Britain. You call it Rastafari? How quaint. But tough. We're calling it by the tern WE choose."
Now, I'm not suggesting that the original creator of the article meant to convey this impression - but I do think it's likely to give that impression. It's an impression that would be reinforced by some of the reactions to the proposed move. We don't want to seem exclusive, arrogant, ignorant and Western-centred when we could so easily avoid it, do we? Mattley 14:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Rastafari is the religious/political movement. Rastafarian is an adherent of Rastafari. Ras Tafari is Haile Selassie. Rasta can refer to either Rastafari or Rastafarian. (Morgan Heritage says, You don't have to be dread to be rasta.) Rastafari, Rastafarian and Rasta are used as adjectives. - — Banyan Tree 18:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. -Sean Curtin 19:11, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Support. I had commented on the implied suggestion that the WP always uses the movement's own name that it does not, but that was not an opposition vote. I am convinced by the argument for moving it. User:Anárion/sig 18:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, one several grounds. First, in my experience, Rastafarianism is the most common term throughout the English-speaking world used to refer unambiguously to the movement/religion as a whole, and thus use of this is in line with our policy. Second, the grounds the Rastafarians themselves quote for disliking the term (that it reduces their beliefs to one more religion) is inherently POV, and must not be considered. (Guess what, every religion thinks it's the only correct one.) Third, the "-ism" ending is standard English for making a noun out of an adjective (and I think everyone concedes that "Rastafarian" is the usual adjective form), used on lots of names that absolutely are not meant disparagingly (q.v. "Anglicanism", "Catholicism", "Bhuddism", "Hinduism", "Judaism", etc), which get used all the time in serious contexts as respectful names. To take offense where none is meant is tasteless. It may be Rastfarian doctrine that "Rastafarianism" is offensive, but Wikipedia policy it not subject to Rastafarian doctrine. Noel (talk) 18:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to do the move now, so I may as well come out of the woodwork and oppose the move because I think Rastafarianism is the most commonly-used term. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Rastafari is another name for Haile Selassie. Rastafarianism is the name of the religion. The proposal is akin to moving Christianity to Christ, jguk 19:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. There are advantages to using the most common term for the religion as the title of the article, and we wouldn't be having this discussio if Squiquifox and a couple of others hadn't argued that "Rastafarianism' is offensive to Rastafarians. He asserts that Rastas have negative associations with "-ism's" in general, and says that they view the characterization of their religion as an "-ism" to be a kind of insult. I don't doubt that this reflects Squiquifox's point of view; however, I am not prepared to accept his assertion that this represents the view of the majority of Rastafarians without some evidence. To be honest, considering the widespread use in English of the suffix "-ism" without negative connotations, and of the term "Rastafarianism" for the religion, I have a hard time believing Squisquifox's assertion. I can't believe that all Rastas have developed an antipathy to the English suffix "-ism". It just seems nuts, to be blunt. Squiquifox: please cite sources that this is indeed Rastafarian doctrine, or some evidence beyond your personal testimony that it is the sentiment of a consensus of Rastafarians. --BM 19:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~I want to make it clear that this is not my opinion. I am not personally offended by the word Rastafarianism, nor am I anywhere near being a Rastafarian. --SqueakBox 22:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)~~
Comment. Here are some quotes. "You have catholicism, protestantism, liberalism, socialism, all kind of ism and schism, Babylon system", sings Lincoln Thompson in Mechanical devices. "All kinds of ism and schism, Babylon system" was also sung by Hugh Mundell, another Rastafarian, in Run, Revolution Run. Lincoln Thompson's music reflects a deep faith in Rastafari, and with these words it doesn't take too much to conclude what he thought about his faith being called Rastafarianism. Roots reggae is littered with anti ism and schism lyrics because being anti ism and schism is Rastafarian doctrine, as outlined in the article. Also check out Joseph Owens. If this seems mad to BM, probably lots of other rasta doctrines also seem mad. You wouldn't be the first person to see Rasta doctrine as mad but that has not stopped the growth of the movement. Calling rastafarians mad does not help create a good article either.
If you don't believe me when I say all Rastas have an aversion to isms and schisms you are not only being closed minded but you are failing to have good faith in me, which I resent. If you would look at Rastafarianism's history you would see I have contributed a great deal of content to help elucidate this mad doctrine of Rastafari. So I want to state very clearly that I do think the Rastas have a great aversion to the English suffix -ism, and that this aversion fits entirely with the rest of their beliefs. Formerly User:Squiquifox --SqueakBox 22:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Rastafarianism is the most common term throughout the English-speaking world. Just as most catholics term the church Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church is the most common term throughout the English-speaking world and common usage sould be a guide. Philip Baird Shearer 22:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment, Squeakbox: Well, I just don't find these quoted lyrics mocking "-ism's" as very convincing. That seems like a reasonable thing to write mocking song lyrics about, since the plethora of "-ism's" is at the very least amusing, but it does not imply that Rastafarians find "Rastafarianism" offensive and insulting to them. I believe you are convinced of what you say, and I certainly do not intend to challenge your good faith, only your conclusions. But if inference from these lyrics is the only thing convincing you, I'm afraid I'm not going to go along with you on this one, and I don't think we should change the article's title because of hints in some songs that Rastafarians might not like that label. I've spent an hour earlier today looking for any evidence in Google that Rastafarians object to "Rastafarianism" as the name in English of their religion, and I didn't find any. In fact, I came up with a couple of blogs of Rastafarians where they referred to it as Rastafarianism themselves. If the aversion is as great as you say, I would think you could produce a couple of direct quotes from Rastafarians to that effect -- you know, asking people not to use that term, or criticizing them for doing so -- and not leave us relying on inferences from song lyrics. I thought you were a Rastafarian, by the way. Your admission that you aren't does not increase my confidence that you are right about what Rastafarians think on this subject. --BM 22:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well the first evidence I can give is part of what started this problem in the first place. This article has a history of people either reverting all the terms Rastafarianism into Rastafari or putting in a paragraphs stating that this word is offensive. These have been inexperienced users not using correct style or knowing correct procedure for trying to get things changed round here. So there was persistent opposition coming from somewhere before I arrived on the scene. I would be interested if BM could provide a link to these blogs? and thanks for putting the time in to look. he might consider editing at what I have written in the article on this subject, but only if he is confident in doing so. I do not think my own beliefs make the slightest difference to how well I understand this phenomenon. --SqueakBox 23:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
~~I support this, after having read all the arguments above. Jonathunder 23:23, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)~~

Since User:BM said Well, I just don't find these quoted lyrics mocking "-ism's" as very convincing I decided to look a little further. I looked through the 5 most recent theses and dissertations avaiable through UMI (University Microfilms - they have all theses and dissertations done in the US) and I looked for anything with the keyword Rastafari, Rastafarian or Rastfarianism. These were the five most recent (that's as far as I had time to get).
~~Christensen, Jeanne. 2003. The philosophy of reasoning: The Rastafari of Jamaica. PhD dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder~~
The author discusses Rastafari, and calls, the people, the philosophy and the and the faith by that name. This is the usage the Rastafari themselves employ because they are suspicious of the western 'isms': Rastafarian or Rastafarianism (p.9)
~~Stanley, Cathy S. 2002. Expanding the small space: Rastafarians as knowledge producers (Jamaica). Ed.D dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois.~~
~~The author alternates between usage of Rastafarians (for the people, culture and movement) and Rastafari (for the philosophy/religion)~~
~~Raphasha, Makgompi Hamilton. 2002. Misrecognition and nonrecognition of Rastafarian identity in South Africa: A critique of 'Prince'. LLM thesis, University of Toronto~~
Author uses the terms Rastafarian and Rastafarian religion
~~Sterling, Marvin Dale. 2002. In the shadow of the universal other: Performative identifications with Jamaican culture in Japan. PhD dissertation, UCLA~~
~~The author uses Rastafari for the religion and culture, with Rastafarian as an adjective, and Rasta for the person.~~
~~Price, Charles Reavis. 2001. No cross, no crown: Identity formation, nigrescence, and social change among Jamaica's first- and second-generation Rastafarians. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY.~~
~~The author used the term Rastafarians for the people and Rastafari for the movement and the culture (although he quotes Rex Nettleford (from (1967) using the term Rastafarianism).~~
Among the dissertations and theses available with one of the names in their title, Rastafari appeared 17 times, Rastafarian(s) 8 times and Rastafarianism appeared 1 time.
In Google (English) Rastafari - 138,000 hits, Rastafarian 169,000 hits (95,100 hits for Rastafarians), Rastafarianism 77,300 hits. As shown in usage above, Rastafari is more often used for the culture/religion while Rastafarian(s) for the people or as an adjective. So, all hits for Rastafari is for the noun, the culture, while Rastafarian(s) is a mixture of noun (the people) and the culture. I think there is a pretty good case for using Rastafari. Guettarda 01:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
After doing some quick research, I have come to the conclusion that Rastafari is a more common word for the religion. I thus Support the rename. It's important to note that this is not out of sensitivity to anyone, but rather a conclusion on common usage. --Improv 05:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have been going through "The Rastafarians" by Leonard E. Barrett and "Dread Jesus" by William David Spencer" looking for a reference on the objection to "Rastafarianism". I can't find one, but I can confirm that neither uses the term. Both call it Rastafari or the Rastafarian movement. Support. Mattley 15:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have also spent some time trawling for references online to support our contention that rastas have an objection to the term, and have found a few. The difficulty of finding references for this may well be systemic: are there any rastas in academia? How many of them have internet access? These are issues we should bear in mind on this issue. To reiterate my own position, I don't contend that we should move this page because rastas might find it offensive but because it Rastafari is by far the most commonly used term amongst those who have any kind of familiarity with the subject. I provide the links below principally to try to answer the objection that the whole 'ism' issue might stem simply from a misinterpretation of reggae lyrics.
One should not refer to 'Rastafarianism' because 'No ism, no schism' is a Rastafarian proverb, usually quoted to deny that there exists a religion called 'Rastafarianism' (Jamaica Gleaner)*[9]

"We consider it our way of life, not an 'ism'," says bassist Isis, explaining the preferred term for his faith is "Rastafari." [10]

'the faith we practice is called rastafari or rasta for short. not rastafarianism as we need to fight the ism and the skism, explains a rasta on a messageboardd
~~Mattley 17:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~

~~Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency~~
Results: Could any admin please take care of this? This has been up for discussion for 5 days, and another couple of days on the article's talk page. The votes are Support: 19, Weak Support: 2, Oppose 9, Weak Oppose: 1. I think there's sufficient consensus for this move. The destination is now a redirect to History of Iraqi insurgency but it used to have some content so the history may need to be merged. Alternately, just swap the source and destination. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 07:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Results P.S. After this was moved to the holding pen, one more person voted "Support", and two people changed their votes from "Oppose" to "Strongly Oppose". My take: If we are taking late votes, I would prefer that we do so in a way the gives everyone an equal chance to add votes or change their vote, such as a formal extension of a specified duration. I don't think such an extension is needed since there have been very few votes in the last couple of days. I don't think the "Strongly Oppose" vote changes are fair: it is clear from the comments that many people would have voted "Strongly Support" had it been understood that was an option at the time. Should we give them a chance to change their votes now? Everyone voted and made clear how they feel already, let's move on. ObsidianOrder 09:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reason: One, the proposed name is the most frequently used by far and so should be chosen under the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Google News shows the following number of news articles using each name: "iraqi insurgents" 3,220, "iraqi insurgency" 1,050, "iraqi resistance" 420. Two, "resistance" is POV. From a careful reading of dictionary definitions, "resistance" strongly implies a legitimate struggle against illegitimate authority, while "insurgency" weakly implies a struggle against a legitimate (or at least well-established) authority. While there is no truly neutral term, "insurgency" is the more neutral term. Some additional discussion is on the talk page. ObsidianOrder 07:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rebuttal: This cannot be seen as a matter of preference over which term should be used. Both "resistance" and "insurgency" are value-neutral terms, and have nothing to do with the issue of legitimacy. The reason there is one article on the "insurgency" and another on the "resistance" in fact has nothing to do with legitimacy. Iraqi resistance and Iraqi insurgency are separate articles dealing with separate topics. On one hand, "Iraqi resistance," labelled as such in order to comply with the rule on self-identification (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)), should deal with the specific resistance groups, their compositions, their interests, their goals, their strategies, and their tactics. In other words, the resistance groups themselves should be the subject of the article. Iraqi resistance accomplishes this task relatively well, hence the featured article status. On the other hand, Iraqi insurgency should deal with the conflict(s) over time as the center of analysis, be organized chronologically, and act as the sequel to the article on the 2003 Iraq War. In other words, the war/guerrilla conflict/whatever you want to call it should be the subject of the insurgency article. Unfortuantley, the article on the insurgency fails to accomplish this at the moment (perhaps I will nominate it for Collaboration of the Week); and it will never develop if you crudely move the resistance in its place simply because you and some other users think that "resistance" sounds better than "insurgency" because of your POV. 172 19:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weak oppose - why switch one POV term for another? "Resistance" implies they are doing good to oppose the 'government' and "insugence" implies they are doing bad or doing nothing (it is therefore obvious why one term sees preference in Western media). Can't a truly NPOV title be found? --Boco XLVII 07:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would support something more along the lines of Government opposition in Iraq as an NPOV solution. --Boco XLVII 13:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, because although "insurgency" implies a weak POV, it's certainly not nearly as strong as "resistance," which is why media organizations eschew the latter in favor of the former. A.D.H. (t&m) 08:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Support First of all, "resistance" is a POV term; "insurgency" is not. Secondly, the news media consistently uses "insurgency", so this is the more common term and the article could be moved on that grounds alone. -- Curps 08:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, after some reflection I agree that "resistance" is too POV. — Ливай | ☺ 08:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, Michael Moore lost the election, so we don't have to call his Minutemen the Iraqi "resistance" ;) --Daniel11 12:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I resent the unfounded insult. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
lol - and just what insult might that be? Are you Michael Moore? Did I even insult him? --Daniel11 15:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support It is clear by now that the insurgency is not a resistance group, it is an anti-democratic fundamentalist sectarian force opposing the internationally recognized Iraqi government. With al Qaeda led forces claiming credit for the great majority of the bombings and attacks, there is serious doubt whether the insurgents and suicide bombers are even Iraqis. "Insurgency" is perhaps too NPOV, suggesting little more than unconventional conflict.--Silverback 13:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Of course many here will disagree with your analysis. If this becomes a pro-war vs. anti-war vote, we'll never get a consensus. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Support - I wholeheartedly disagree with the reasoning given by some above users voting support, but I agree that "insurgency" is a little less POV than "resistance", and I agree that it is the more common term in the English language. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:49, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose This is not a question of legitimacy of armed groups, that's not a judgement for Wikipedia to make. It is not an insurgency, because they are not targetting an established authority. Instead they are resisting the establishment of a new authority. They are Iraqi armed groups whose main targets are (1) foreign occupying troops, (2) the new forces being trained by the foreign occupying troops. These groups form therefore a resistance movement (whatever their aims beyond resisting the establishment of a new authority may or may not be), and the word insurgency is inadequate. Please note that groups targetting civilians, such as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad, and whose aim is to further sectarian violence and bring about civil war, cannot be classified as being part of the Iraqi resistance. - pir 14:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are a number of armed groups which attack a variety of targets, including military, governmental and purely civilian. Do you have any evidence that the groups which attack civilian targets operate independently of the groups which attack legitimate targets? Do you have any evidence that groups which only attack legitimate targets even exist? I think they all work together to attack all types of targets in a very fluid way; there is no operational distinction, except that each group may have different reasons. Any distinction based on excluding civilian-targetting groups such as JTJ is purely artificial. Moreover, JTJ and similar groups which you admit are not part of the "resistance" are a major topic of this article. I will write a longer reply at Talk:Iraqi_resistance, let's continue there. ObsidianOrder 14:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weak support. Properly speaking it's probably a resistance, or a collection of resistance efforts, to an ongoing occupation. However it has become known as the insurgency through common usage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that if various Canadians, Mexicans and Americans got pissed off at George W. Bush and started bombing American churches, that would be resistance? Or even insurgency? Is there an option other than support/oppose, to suggest renaming instead something like "Terrorism in Iraq"? --Daniel11 15:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT: No Daniel11, we usually call that an unprovoked act of war by a sovereign power. And the Mexicans did that once, under Pancho Villa, burning a border town to the ground and killing like a dozen or two of the inhabitants. The American response, while not a war (since we weren't fighting Mexico, just invading Northern Mexico to follow the perpetrator), was called the Punitive Expedition. As to the Canadians...check out the Aroostook War...even though people say it was bloodless, the Lumberjacks did fight a few quasi-battles and burnt down settlements in Northern Maine. If Americans did it, it would be domestic terrorism and probably investigated by the FBI (like the racist church bombings in the South during the 1950s and 1960s). —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That was my point -- I was only asking the question rhetorically. Of course we wouldn't call the bombing of American churches by a bunch of terrorists, whether foreign or domestic, any kind of a resistance or insurgency. We'd call it what it is, terrorism. Hence, why should we call al Qaeda and the rest of the terrorists in Iraq a resistance or an insurgency, when they're doing the same? We shouldn't, we should call it terrorism. --Daniel11 16:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Questions, whether asked rhetorically or not, will most likely be answered because text is such a poor communications medium. But it is not the same, and it isn't cut-and-dry terrorism. But it's not "terrorism" per se... When the insurgents striking civilian Iraqi targets to force the Iraqi government to capitulate, it is often called "domestic terrorism" just like when the Earth Liberation Front torches car dealerships or Timothy McVeigh blew up an Oklahoma City federal building. BUT when the insurgents turn their anger toward a foreign military occupation force (I don't intend to be POV by that phrase) it is a partisan resistance or an insurgency. Terrorism is never really as organized as the Iraqi insurgency is organized, simply because you have a loose alliance of groups working collaboratively (at many steps) to get a foreign infidel military occupation to pull up its stakes, leave Iraq, and be embarassed at the loss. But in this case, as the Iraqi government is seen by the insurgents as a tool of the occupying force, and by attacking them they are by a corollary attacking the occupying force in an effort to force the hand (esp. to compel a withdrawl) of the occupying force. Just like the partisan insurgency in Italy in 1943-45, and in Germany from 1944-1945. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1) Iraq is not governed by a foreign infidel military occupation, no matter how the terrorists view it. 2) Terrorism isn't a matter of how organized it is, and even if it were, the terrorists in Iraq are about as organized as numerous other terrorist groups, in fact to some extent they are the same groups. The loose alliances of terrorists operating in Iraq is really no more organized than, say, Hezbollah, or Yasser Arafat's bunch, or Osama's bunch, which all performed carefully planned operations in a variety of countries. Anyway, as I say, that's all moot because terrorism's not a function of the degree of a group's organization. --Daniel11 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was speaking rhetorically about "foreign infidels" etc. just because that's the lingo the insurgents use to justify their insurgency. Terrorism is organized, I'll grant you that. But structurally, this is not terrorism...while terroristic by its tactics, it is structured and justified like the French Resistance, or the Sandinistas were structured and justified, and their tactics carried out against what they perceive as an occupying force...a formidable backlash by groups of people (some coordinated, some randomly amateur) who don't like American tanks rolling through their streets. If the Russians took over the West Coast (as seen in the movie Red Dawn), Patrick Swayze's little band of resistance fighters would be called "terrorists" by the occupying Russians, but they considered themselves a patriotic resistance. What was their organized actions agaisnt the occupiers...an insurgency (see definition [11]). But if we take your route and frankly call them "terrorists" where the seemingly neutral media (they don't call them "patriots") call it an "insurgency" is just blatantly POV and jingoistic, and not in the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia. One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. Maybe the next contributor here would be some extremist anti-American Arab would like to call the insurgents "Iraqi Patriots" and the American troops as "infidel consumer whores". And that is just as POV. Terrorism is a function of its definition [12], not someone's desire to call bad guys even worse names just to satisfy a personal rage or vendetta, as is the vibe I am getting from the tone of your responses. Your desired type of rhetorical word-picking is best suited for politicized webfora like FreeRepublic.com...history is written by those who know how to step outside of personal prejudices and petty nationalism and analyze a situation equitably to all sides involved. In that case, "insurgency" is as close to neutrality and accuracy as we are going to get. —ExplorerCDT 21:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"while terroristic by its tactics," you say, before arguing that it's not terrorism. But terrorism is a tactic, and it's what the Iraqi terrorists are using -- that's why they're terrorists. As I explain on the article's talk page, I'm fine with calling the enyclopedia article Insurgency or Terrorism or any number of other things, but it's foolish to deny that it's terrorism. And as for your weird speculation about my motivation and intent, I'm not sure how to answer. I'm not trying to satisfy any kind of rage or vendetta, and I don't see where you get that vibe from what I've written. If memory serves, FreeRepublic.com is a conservative website, and I'm not conservative. And as for "personal prejudices and petty nationalism," well, I don't have any personal contact with the terrorists about which to be prejudiced, and the flavor of petty nationalism where I am -- Canada -- is nothing at all like what you're thinking of. So, perhaps there's some element of projection or other psychological voodoo involved? --Daniel11 22:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The insurgency is terroristic, not terrorism...there is a difference. Similarly, the Czech Resistance's assassination of Heydrich in 1942 was "terroristic" though it is not considered "terrorism." And that difference is precisely why "Iraqi terrorism" is not an appropriate title for the article, nor the descriptor "Iraqi terrorist" appropriate for the "insurgents." It's foolish of you to not see the semantic and rhetorical rationale behind such a position (or you simply have a limited conceptualization of reality because of a small vocabulary) As to your motives, that was the vibe I was getting...the tenor of your comments here and in earlier threads resonate like the rantings of the stereotypical myopic, jingoistic red state voter. —ExplorerCDT 00:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

oh, and by the way, those weren't Canadians at Aroostook, they were Britons. :) --Daniel11 17:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually for the most part they were Canadiens at Aroostook since they never really accepted the Treaty of Paris (1763) or the Quebec Act, but I won't bicker. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support: I don't see either resistance or insurgency as a POV word, however, "insurgency" and "insurgents" appear in more headlines (print and online) and tv news segments than "resistance." I don't think I've heard "resistance" used at all during this war. After all, it isn't organized like the French, Dutch and Czechs were against the Nazis. But that brings up another idea...how does Wikipedia (that is, if we do) treat the non-military largely civilian and partisans who resisted the allies with grassroots guerilla warfare in Germany in 1944-1945? Perhaps we could look at other insurgencies and see if there is a consistent terminology. In the meantime, though, I support. —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Insurgencies are not all the same, and they should not be treated the same. I don't suppose you can point to an occasion when the French resistance for example blew up a church full of Corsican civilians? The choice of terms is a matter of the legitimacy of the insurgents (which is affected by the choice of targets), and the legitimacy of the occupying force and/or government they are fighting against (which is affected by the intentions of said occupying force). Insurgency is the closest to a neutral term. ObsidianOrder 21:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In the theoretics of interional law, war itself isn't legitimate... therefore insurgents or resistence fighters can't be anymore legitimate or illegitimate. Fruits of the same spoiled tree. Also, it's a case of preferred semantics...the one-man's-terrorist-is-another-man's-freedom-fighter argument. I do agree though, "insurgency" is where it is at, mostly because "resistence" hasn't been used by the media nor by the architects of the war to describe the acts. Semantics wins. —ExplorerCDT 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I was trying for a compromise proposal ;) I am happy that there seems to be a sort of "bipartisan" agreement on this so far. ObsidianOrder 21:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's not a matter of legitimacy (and to counter another point, the French Resistance wasn't fighting against Corsicans, so why would they blow up Corsicans in a church?) Insurgency is the most accurate and most neutral description, in addition to being the most common terminology used to reference this situation. That's why I support the change to Iraqi insurgency, a position which obviously agrees with yours. Where I disagree is that I don't think "resistance" is POV, but it is not the right word to describe this action. —ExplorerCDT 21:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: This would go against Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (identity) and would no doubt be yet another example of systemic bias. —Christiaan 21:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is bias. "Insurgency" does not take a POV on the legitimacy of the fight. "Resistance" definitely does take a POV. Is it biassed to not take sides? ObsidianOrder 21:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's bias in that you have mostly a bunch of Americans and other Westerners trying to tell the world that the Iraqi resistance should not bear the title of resistance when that is what they refer to themselves as. This is systemic bias. Iraqi resistance is far more accurate and follows Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (identity). —Christiaan 22:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You also have mostly a bunch of Americans and other Westerners trying to tell the world that Saddam Hussein is not the President of Iraq, when that's what he refers to himself as. I guess we should keep calling Saddam the "President of Iraq" ... lololololol --Daniel11 23:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Insurgency" is inherently biased. I quote from the insurgency article: When used by an authority under threat, "insurgency" implies an illegitimacy of cause upon those rising up. Of course, resistance is also POV. Again, what's wrong with something more along the lines of Government opposition in Iraq? --Boco XLVII 22:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the Insurgency article, especially the paragraph the passage you quoted was located, is well written. Consult a dictionary [13]...they don't make value judgments as to legitimacy. —ExplorerCDT 00:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree that there's little or nothing to choose between the two terms as regards PoV, so why move? If someone could think of a genuinely neutral term, then fine. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Arguably there is a difference as regards POV, and dictionary definitions reflect this. Insurgency is just an armed revolt against a government; "resistance" implies that those opposed to the "resisting" forces are "collaborators" (eg, the candidates backed by Shiite clerics who ran for election). "Resistance" is inherently POV. -- Curps 01:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. By my reading, both names are POV, depending on whose shoes you are standing in. So no mileage in moving. I would support someone coming up with a reasonable NPOV alternative. -- Chris j wood 23:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT: To both Chris j wood and Mel Etitis...how is insurgency, defined as "an instance of rebellion; an insurgence" or "a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency" or "an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict" [14] POV? It is rather matter-of-fact. Even if, by some contrived denotation, the word "insurgency" is remotely POV, it is the lesser of two evils and the more accurate term. —ExplorerCDT 00:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
REPLY TO COMMENT: Because of the words 'recognized' and 'constituted' in your quote above, which simply raise the questions 'recognized by whom' and 'constituted by whom'. To repeat my objection, both terms are POV. Whatever our personal opinions, WP seeks an NPOV viewpoint and neither term fits that bill. -- Chris j wood 00:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT: To Chris j wood and Mel Etitis: if both terms are equally POV, should we not go with the more common one? ObsidianOrder 01:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not at all. Rather, we should seek an NPOV alternative to both. --Boco XLVII 01:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And why do you think it is so POV (other than merely stating that it is)? None of the dictionary definitions remotely hint that the term is POV...and as you seem to have some higher level of understanding please enlighten us. (sarcasm) Further, it would be nice if you had a concise "NPOV alternative to both" that you two so desirously demand. Along that vein, don't give me some crap like Government opposition in Iraq because that provides an opportunity to list anyone critical of what is going on in Iraq (which probably consists of 100% of the Iraqis and the lefists in Europe and the US) and doesn't even begin to make you think of the "insurgency." Given the irrational labelling of "Insurgency" as inherently POV without offering any substance, I bet you two would like to see Nazism renamed to ""Ideology of mostly-lower class right-wing activists in Post-World War I Germany" because Nazism has bad connotations and sounds like pre-judging. But then again, you'd say that "Ideology" was a POV word. The candid world calls it an insurgency, it IS the most common term in use, get over it. Now you'll object because you'd want a definition of what "is" is. —ExplorerCDT 02:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to ignore my opinion, especially as my viewpoint is clearly the minority here, but if you do seek my voice in the final consensus, I suggest you start listing other names that you would agree with. --Boco XLVII 04:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Boco XLVII, I don't think you're in the minority - few people think "insurgency" is perfect. It seems like the best available compromise and it is an improvement over what is there now, plus it has the benefit of being the commonly accepted name for this. Try any of these terms: rebellion, revolution, uprising, revolt, mutiny, insurrection, insurgency, resistance, beligenrents, guerillas, terrorists, militants, combatants, saboteurs, fighters, anti-government forces, anti-US forces ... none fits perfectly. Then there are the really cumbersome alternatives such as "groups involved in the conflict in Iraq" or "militant opposition to the Coalition and Coalition-formed government". I humbly request your support behind the compromise choice. ObsidianOrder 05:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To: Boco XLVII, I'm fine with insurgency, as evidence by my support vote for the move and my fervent argumentation in support of that vote. Further, I'll ignore an opinion if it is substantiated with wrong information (as no dictionary definition referenced "implies" POV). If you think that the term "insurgency" is POV and that you persist disagree with it, IT IS YOU who should "start listing other names that you would agree with." And so far, your one contribution to that list is fatally flawed for being far too ambiguous and as such lacks the necessary conciseness and accuracy needed for a title. Insurgency, accurate, concise, and as stated by several, sufficently NPOV. —ExplorerCDT 05:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I missed most of this as it was raging, but I'll just respond to a central point. Dictionaries can't give a term's full connotation; they normally restrict themselves to denotations. Two terms can have exactly the same dictionary definition, but a careful writer who's a native speaker would use them very differently. In this case, whatever the dictionary definition, 'insurgence' has a slightly negative connotation, 'resistance' has a slightly positive connotation. I thus see nothing to choose between them as regards PoV or accuracy. I don't think that either of them is so PoV as to make them unacceptable on WP, but the sum of their NPoV distances from neutrality is large enough that the change would' be NPoV. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're right that dictionaries are not the final word. However, many people (including me) seem to think that the connotation of "resistance" is strongly positive, not slightly positive, therefore it is the less neutral term. If you believe the two terms are equally neutral, we should go with the more common one. You're also right that the change would be large enough to not be NPOV. However the initial decision to use "resistance" was not NPOV itself, considering there is essentially zero use of that term outside the Middle East. I don't suppose I can persuade you to switch your vote to "Neutral"? ObsidianOrder 13:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. The term "Iraqi resistence" implies legitimacy and heroism, particularly because of the connotation with the "French resistence" to Nazi occupation in WWII. While others here claim that "insurgency" implies illegitimacy, I believe that it is the more commonly used term for any type of guerilla movement, whether left-wing or right-wing, against a recognized government. I don't believe that "insurgency" makes any sort of judgment about the legitimacy either of the "insurgents" or of the government they are in opposition to, and is therefore the less biased of the two phrases. Jhamby 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, They seem to fit the accademic consensus of terrorist rather well but lets compromise on the neutral insurgent. Dejvid 00:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. — Davenbelle 01:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
I see the argument being made here that 'insurgency' is the more NPOV term; I feel this is erroneous. 'Iraqi Insurgency' is the term used by those who want to avoid the damning-sting that 'Iraqi Resistance' has; a common association many people have for the word 'resistance' is the French Resistance — the unjustly dominated valiantly resisting their oppressors. 'Resistance' is the appropriate term, because it is the most accurate term; 'insurgent' is a spin-word. — Davenbelle 11:02, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
By what you wrote, you just make an excellent argument for the move. resistance, or in your words "the unjustly dominated valiantly resisting their oppressors", is a POV. insurgency, or in other words "people fighting against the government", is a simple statement of fact. of course none of this explains how "the unjustly dominated" come from a tiny minority which had been lording it over the majority for thirty years, or how their "valiant resistance" consists of blowing up churches of the majority religion. something to think about. ObsidianOrder 11:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do not cut & paste my words. I referred to people's view of the French Resistance as valiant, and I said that 'resistance' is the accurate term for what many Iraqis are doing; resisting an army. I count 14 comments of yours on this page; who's got a POV here?— Davenbelle 15:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Early on, the press started calling them "insurgents," but there was little to no established government or control at the time, so it would go against the definition. Resistance against an invading force is more logical terminology. —User:Mulad (talk) 05:14, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
When do they become "insurgents" then? After a government is elected? Or...? Also, how are attacks on Shia mosques part of "resistance against an invading force"? ObsidianOrder 05:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
After a government is elected? Sure. I'd be open to the point when a constitution was created as well, but would prefer a greater level of self-destiny. Before then, no (not in this case at least, as the U.S. has maintained that they are not there to rule the country—other conditions would/could be relevant for a definite empire-building endeavor). I suppose you could use some government-neutral measure, like the point in time when electricity was restored to the amount of the country it was in prior to the war. As for other attacks, perhaps attacks on civilians in Iraq? —User:Mulad (talk) 02:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Support, insurgency is NPOV. Grue 12:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. I prefer the more NPOV "insurgency". Carrp | Talk 21:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Resistance is more accurate. - XED.talk 11:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Object. Both are value-neutral terms, both NPOV. However, there is no reason to move a long-established featured article because some new user comes along with a POV crusade. 172 12:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
172, are you saying that you do not have an objection to the proposed new name, simply to the move itself? What is the downside? If you think both are value-neutral, then why not go with the more common one? Okay, I am a new user (more accurately "newly involved in Wikipedia politics" - I've done low-key contributions for a while). It's not just me though, so far around 2/3 of everybody who voted prefers the new name. Also this is not a new topic, and it was far from settled. In fact I believe the objections to the title predate the featured article status.
I do not object to the usage of either term in specific contexts, but Iraqi resistance and Iraqi insurgency ought to be separate articles dealing with separate topics. On one hand, "Iraqi resistance," labelled as such in order to comply with the rule on self-identification, should deal with the specific resistance groups, their compositions, their interests, their goals, their strategies, and their tactics. In other words, the resistance groups themselves should be the subject of the article. Iraqi resistance accomplishes this task relatively well, hence the featured article status. On the other hand, Iraqi insurgency should deal with the conflict(s) over time as the center of analysis, be organized chronologically, and act as the sequel to the article on the 2003 Iraq War. In other words, the war/guerrilla conflict/whatever you want to call it should be the subject of the insurgency article. Unfortuantley, the article on the insurgency fails to accomplish this at the moment (perhaps I will nominate it for Collaboration of the Week); and it will never develop if you crudely move the resistance in its place simply because you and some other users think that "resistance" sounds better than "insurgency" because of your POV. 172 13:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think I see what you're getting at. How about "Iraqi insurgency" and "Iraqi insurgency timeline"? The second of those can be a section under Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005 or a separate article. I am unpersuaded by the self-identification argument, you can as well call them by any of the florid terms used by Zarqawi [15] [16] or maybe "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (sign at the HQ in Fallujah). I am not even sure "resistance" is the self-identification they use - it has certainly appeared often in sympathetic sources aimed at a western audience, but I think much more common terms for one insurgent talking to another are "the nation" [of Islam] or "brothers". Can you give some quotes to support self-identification? Also: self-identification is not used when it is misleading or plain wrong. Even people opposed to the move agree that some groups (such as Zarqawi's) cannot be reasonably described as "resistance". ObsidianOrder 23:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Insurgency seems more widely used, and marginally more NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. "Insurgency" is clearly POV (mainly because of the way its used in media and its connotations). Resistance is POV also, but not as bad to use. zoney ♣ talk 14:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, primarily because insurgency is far more commonly used.--Etaonish 17:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Support, insurgency seems somewhat more NPOV. - SimonP 18:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Insurgency is the most commonly used term, and more in line with NPOV than resistance. Redxiv 04:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Personally I would call them "gangs of Islamo-fascist murderers," but I will settle for "insurgents." To call them a "resistance" implies a comparison with such heroic figures as the French Resistance, which is a gross insult. Adam 12:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Adam - to call them a resistance is a gross insult - i really wish more Wikipedians would be less tolerant of such POV. PMA 12:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Insurgency is the most commonly used term. Especially after the election turnout, it is hard to call the continuing violence a "resistance", which implies a level of national support. The attacks are sectarian and shared by a minority of the population. Thus insurgency is much closer to the situation as it stands. —thames 15:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weak Support. At this time, Insurgency is far more commonly used, and slightly less POV. It should also be noted that the Iraqi Resistance article also covers non violent groups; such groups do not qualify as insurgents and IMHO should be in a separate article. --Bletch 18:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree, those should probably be in a separate article. Suggestions for name? ObsidianOrder 05:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The section on non violent groups seems to be almost an afterthought. I'm not sure that the info in question belongs in a single article. The tidbit on the 'National Foundation Congress' seems more appropriate under a 'Political Parties in Iraq' article, or even its own stub article. Not sure about the following tidbit on Trade Unions though. The third paragraph with Wamidh Nadhmi says so little that it could still be under an article on the insurgency, or occupation or pretty much everything else. That might change if someone were to clarify it further. --Bletch 12:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support obviously, since I suggested the move ObsidianOrder 07:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Insurgency is NPOV. - --Noung 16:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Procedure for admins~~
It is important to check to see if the redirect has major history; major history contains information about the addition of current text. (This is sometimes caused by the accidental creation of a duplicate article - or someone doing a cut-and-paste "move", instead of using the "Move this page" button.) Never simply delete such redirect pages, (which we need to keep for copyright reasons).
The "right" way is to merge the histories, using the procedure outlined here. This is a slightly fraught procedure, which on rare occasions doesn't work correctly. There are also circumstances (e.g. duplicate pages) where it's not the correct choice anyway. Once done, it cannot be undone, so don't pick this option unless it's definitely the right one.
Alternatively, the article and the redirect can be swapped. This leaves the bifurcated history, but has less chance of causing problems. Simply move one of the pair to a temporary name, and then delete the new redirect which that move will left behind at the original location; next, move the other page of the pair across to the first one's old location, and delete that left-over new redirect; finally, move the first one from its temporary location to its new name. You will then need to delete the new redirect at the temporary location, and finally fix the old redirect to point at the article again (at this point, it will be pointing to itself).
Another option is for redirect pages with major history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into the article's talk page. (An example of such a page is a Talk:Network SouthEast, which was originally created as a duplicate article at Network SouthEast and later archived, when the original article was moved from Network South East.)
A minor history on the other hand contains no information, e.g. the redirect page Eric Tracy has a minor history but Eric Treacy (which incidentally is the correct spelling) could not be moved there because of a spelling mistake in the original page. Redirect pages with minor histories can simply be deleted.
Whichever of these various options you take, moving pages will create double redirects in any redirects that pointed to the original page location. These must be fixed; click on the "What links here" button of the new page location to check for them. It is the responsibility of the admin doing the move to fix these, though periodically a bot will fix any you miss.
When you remove an entry from this page (whether the move was accepted ot rejected), don't forget to remove the {{move}} tag from the page (alas, this has to be done manually). It's worth periodically checking either Category:Requested_moves or here to see if any pages missed this step. Checking either of these regularly has the side-benefit of finding pages where people added the {{Move}} tag to the page, but didn't realize they needed to edit WP:RM as well.
The discussion about articles that have been moved should be archived on the article's Talk: page, so that future Wikipedians can easily see why the page is where it is.
Admins volunteering to do tidying tasks should watch this page for new notices.

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 * '''Support''' - As explained above.--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 11:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-====[[Netherlands]] &rarr; [[The Netherlands]]====
-The name of the country in English includes the article, as it is a plural form and direct translation of the Dutch 'De Nederlanden'. The singular form would be *Netherland, which does not exist. Compare also other countries with articles in the name, as [[The Gambia]] and [[Republic of the Congo]]/[[Democratic Republic of the Congo]] (Zaire) and all the "&hellip; of '''the''' Netherlands" articles. {{User:Anárion/sig}} 12:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Support'''. For consistency do you propose to move any/all other articles and categories to include "The Netherlands" as well? [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 12:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-**Many if not most already have ''the Netherlands'' in the name, and as I plan to go over most of these articles anyway I will make sure that "the" is included everywhere. {{User:Anárion/sig}} 12:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 ===[[February 20]] [[2005]]===