Talk:Chinese civilization

i was looking for People's Republic of China

i was looking for People's Republic of China when i typed china in the search box. Shouldn't wikipedia send readers to that article when someone types china? Syrtis from regnum online 666 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

After all, the C in BRIC means People's Republic of China — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrtis from regnum online 666 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been many discussions on this topic. Redirecting this page to the PRC would violate WP:NPOV. See WP:NC-CHN#Political NPOV. You may want to look through the archives on this talk page for more information.--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Go read the "One China Policy". There is only one China, and the only China that matters is PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I resolutely support comrade 72.81.233.159! The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume both of the last two comments are facetious. Homunculus (duihua) 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, unless they want to drag up risk another POV war again.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In either case, it would be best to read WP:NC-CHN#Political NPOV and realise personal opinions don't/shouldn't factor into Wikipedia articles, and that this issue has been discussed to death.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians have made their rules and processes much more important than anything else. Nowhere is the more evident than in Wikipedia's No China Policy. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem doesn't come from Wikipedia's policies but most likely from the fact that most users here are either from the ROC or ROC-friendly. There's problably next to no PRC users contributing to the China/PRC's pages on Wikipedia (if only because these pages are all blocked in China). So that's why the "ROC = China" POV is being given a massive undue weight on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

so what does it matter that an absolute IDIOT (who also happens to be a sock) started this thread? editors should reserve the right to remove any such similar post in the future. these types of threads now constitute nothing but forums, and hence should not exist. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens. One group of editors decides that the debate about content is over, and tries to shut down comments to the contrary. This is very relevant to Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia. Also, WP:NPA Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

well do you want WP editors to on interminably debating? I am a PRC supporter So long as two states both officially claim to be China, this is a closed issue. Additionally, socks are not allowed to contribute. The sock should have realised that Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa recognise the PRC as the only legitimate government for China, and hence C in BRICS means PRC. A short-sighted idiot, indeed.

WikiLaurent, you would be correct if you said "next to no PRC users...on English Wikipedia". Most articles on Chinese-related (that is, native language=Chinese) topics are much longer on the ZH-WIKI than on EN-WIKI. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The original post that catalyzed this discussion was arguing that China should redirect to PRC. I disagree, not because I'm interested in going to the mat over the ROC, but because the article titled "China" rightly concerns itself with the whole of the region's history, culture, and development, rather than on the political entity that has emerged there in the last six decades. China is no more synonymous with the PRC than mesopotamia is with Iraq.Homunculus (duihua) 03:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are already aware that your comparison is quite absurd. Text from the China article: "The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China". While irak is not commonly known as mesopotamia. A better comparison would be The big bang theory. Does that redirect implies that the big bang theory is fiction, just a tv show?. My guess is that the redirect was made based on what people typing The big bang theory are expecting to find.190.51.168.236 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"China" redirect

Why China doesn't redirect to here? Isn't that biased? In other wikipedia languages the term China redirects to PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.110.164 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Unhappy in SAO PAULO. Just get the PRC to announce that Taiwan is not part of China and we'll fix that right up for you. Hcobb (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't actually help seeing as the ROC nominally claims China. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't make sense since Republic of China (Taiwan) claims all of mainland China (PRC + Outer Mongolia) as ROC national territory.Phead128 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The current situation is that we have two governments who each claim to the legitimate government of all China and that they'll merge at some point in the unknown future. The opposition in Taiwan has called for a split, but they don't set policy. Hcobb (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, China is the PRC, and China is not ROC, for all intents and purposes. However, the main 'China' article talks about China as a continuous civilization, a nation-state, or a cultural unit or identity... so I like the way it is now. It is fine.Phead128 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Political reasons within wikipedia. The redirect should send readers where most readers are expecting to go when typing china. This answer is for the original poster. 190.51.168.236 (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For the last time, this is a NON-ISSUE, and will remain one so long as Taiwan is ruled by a government different from mainland China. Read Chinese naming conventions. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

wikipedians are not a crystal ball and will remain like that as long as wikipedians are not a crystal ball policy is not overthrown by a new consensus. Read wikipedians ain't a crystal ball 190.51.168.236 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I DON'T need IPs to tell me about policy and to talk down to me like that. So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is inevitable. Besides, China has existed in some form for far longer than the PRC. Similarly, the Republic of China had significant history on mainland China before it hopped over to Taiwan. This is another reason why we don't even consider these merges and that this is a NON-ISSUE FOR THE LAST TIME --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

-- extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=424862903&oldid=424862781 . I moved it here instead of naming conventions because this is not about naming conventions, but about a redirect, something far more specific.

I will just summarize what i said with: The redirect should send readers where most readers are expecting to go when typing china. But i guess wikipedians as well as people in real life tend to stick with the same opinion over and over, mentioning only what favours their opinion, forgetting that the decision shoud be based in a balance of the pro and cons, a balance that is subjective. 190.51.168.236 (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not redirecting to PRC article is correct because it is NEUTRAL and educates English readers who likely are mostly non-Chinese to become aware Two Chinas exist, despite the international lie the Chinese Communists are able to push on UN. Wikipedia is for educational and reference purposes, not political. --Mistakefinder (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, why doesn't Europe redirect to European Union? Hcobb (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Because not all the countries in Europe are in the EU. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that was a rhetorical, sarcastic question. Hehe –HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is inevitable" isn't a crystal ball? According to Wikipedia's ROC article, the majority of the ROC public favors the political status quo and a plurality doesn't identify as Chinese anymore (opting for Taiwanese as an identifier). Most people that search China have very little at stake, and this particular "international lie" (which is being given unduly weight) frankly isn't what they meant to search. China is not unique in the fact that there is a conflict of interest over its name; this is a really weak reason for keeping this bizarre arrangement on Wikipedia. This reminds me of when Iranian nationalists try to push the name Persia onto the Iran article just because Persia "has existed in some form for far longer than" Iran. Oh wait, who do I sound like now? The current article on China gives as much representation of the PRC as the Palestine article does to the State of Palestine article. Unfortunately the rationale being used here is heavily rooted in blind nationalism that's preventing any productive change from taking place. -141.214.17.5 (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your relatively calm tone. Take note here that many of us who support this arrangement are from the PRC, and PRC nationalism would be screaming things like "PRC only!", and as the current state effectively is "Two Chinas" officially/constitutionally vying to be the One China, there is no such thing as a "China nationalist". There was an argument raised at Talk:Persia#Persia and Iran that "as long as the Persian people see themselves as Persians living in Iran...so will the world" that is a good point: many in Taiwan think they are not only Chinese ethnicity, but people of China (中国人). It is not Wikipedia's task to disregard these viewpoints in favour of the retarded Western viewpoint equating China with PRC and Taiwan with ROC. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How about the non-Persian Arabs who where born in Iran? (At least in English there is a clear distinction between Han and Chinese.) Hcobb (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see the issue with representing multiple views. However, the fact that both the PRC and ROC are being given this default 50/50 say is where it starts coming across as POV. Most people who do search the topic of China were just not looking for this article (hence why, going through the archives, etc. it's very obvious that this issue hasn't and will not go away). Most English-speaking people do in fact equate China with the PRC. As it already stands, the PRC article mentions Taiwan 4 times and the ROC 2 times in its opening section alone, and the ROC article mentions the PRC twice in its opening section. This nominal dispute is touched on in all of these articles, regardless of which of the three articles you read first. Now throw articles like Political status of Taiwan and History of China into the mix, and now you just have an article on China that is literally just a reiteration of articles that are already in existence, but lacking in its own clear purpose (other than, seemingly, to push the POV that the PRC is not China per se). It is completely redundant and could have whatever little, unique information that it has funneled to other articles easily. Certain sections of this article are rightfully problematic, like the economy section. I'm sure most people that looked up China, interested in learning about its economy, would like a summary of the PRC's economy, no? I'm sure this is a frequently searched topic. Instead this article provides a list of loosely-related links on every Chinese state or dynasty's economy under the sun. Completely unhelpful and hides the information that the majority of these people were looking for behind redirects.

And what about Iranian Arabs..? Getting way off topic and missing the point, but there are many nations already in existence in which the line between ethnicity and nationality is ambiguous (e.g. What about French Algerians? German Turks? Turkish Kurds?). "Iranian" is in fact the Persian word for "Persian" and is equated with a particular ethnicity in Persian language. And I apologize for the long post; I'm not very concise :) -141.214.17.5 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Equating PRC with China will force Wikipedia to take a side on Whether or not Taiwan is a part of the PRC, and we can't do that without violating NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pages416, 26 April 2011

In the "History" section of this page, you should also include the Aksumite Empire along with those other great and established civilizations that you've currently listed. Like ancient Egypt and ancient China, ancient Aksum used their own script and minted their own gold coins while being a dominant civilization erecting from modern day Eritrea and stretching from eastern Sudan, northern Ethiopia, western Saudia Arabia and most of modern Yemen. To confirm Aksum's legitimacy, I ask the editor of this page to please look at the wikipedia page for "Aksumite Empire". Here is the link: [[1]] .

Thank you.

Pages416 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't understand what that has to do with this page. The history section contains information about China's history, not the history of other countries. If you there is some specific way that Aksum is related to Chinese history, please post here and change the above template to say "answered=no". Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ROC/PRC order and T-1000's revert of my change and claim of NPOV

User:T-1000 reverted my changes and claimed it was NPOV. How is it NPOV? I only stated the facts and placed founding of ROC first and described briefly. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&oldid=425969425. Anyone else agree I'm not NPOV? I'll revert his change tomorrow if no objections. --Mistakefinder (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your edits clearly state Two Chinas, this POV is contradicted by both the "One China" and the "One China, One Taiwan" POVs. T-1000 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. "ROC and PRC" or "PRC and ROC" in the section header would be preferred for neutrality. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Prior to my edit, it already says "Two states with name China emerged" with "two states" linking to Two Chinas. So mine isn't any different. Besides, the existence of two Chinas is a fact, not an opinion or POV. But "One China Policy" is a POV of each government, which is presented in its respective articles. --Mistakefinder (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, two Chinese government exists de facto, but we must also maintain NPOV about de jure. The Two Chinas article talks about the two China POV, while clearly stating it is not accepted by the PRC or TI. T-1000 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the legal status of Taiwan is de jure is unresolved in international law. Where's the Wikipedia policy about NPOV about de jure, or disputed de jure issues? And besides this is irrelevant. As I said, the original article PRIOR to my change already lists the two Chinas. So my improvement to switch to chronological order and add the info about the first Republic in Asia I think is justifiable. Any other thoughts? Mistakefinder (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to state every notable viewpoint. "Two states with name China emerged" is different from your edit, which is "China's territory became divided into Two Chinas." since your edit imply a POV that China = PRC+ROC. I am sure you know the TI POV that Taiwan left China in 1895 and was never given back. Furthermore, The Two Chinas article define it as a Term, while your edits states "Two Chinas" as if it were a fact.

This reply was unsigned. I assume it's by T-1000? I guess "TI" is referring to "Taiwan Independence". Isn't "Two states with name China emerged" stating the fact there are two Chinas? And the "Two Chinas" article is not just defining a term but describing the reality there are two Chinas. And what's wrong with China=PRC+ROC? The Communists conquered territory of the ROC to establish the PRC, so PRC split from ROC as a result of the Civil War, so the ROC became ROC+PRC. I am aware of the TI POV but that seems irrelevant because ROC did get possesion of Taiwan (whether the possession is a separate issue), and is in essence "East China" like PRC being "West China", kind of like North Korea and South Korea (which is Republic of Korea). Make sense?

"The ROC is named China" and "The ROC is China" are two different things, the former is a fact, the latter is a POV. The thing wrong with China = PRC+ROC is that there is a notable POV that Taiwan is not part of China. There is no Korean Independence movement in South Korea. As discussed many times before, to Whom Taiwan belongs to is a disputed issue, The Reds views it as belonging to PRC, the Blues belonging to ROC, the Greens as independent,and that the ROC is a government in exile. Because of the Disputed status of Taiwan, China means different things to different people. And that's why Two Chinas is only a POV. Finally, in the Two Chinas article, it specially said that "One opinion in Taiwan is that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both sovereign, thus forming "two Chinas", so the article does not state that it as a fact. T-1000 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kyletroth, 9 June 2011

There is a grammatical error under Prehistory in the History section. It reads, "Although much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains,[25][26] a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa." This is not a complete sentence. Please change to, "Much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains[25][26] (a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa)."

Kyle Roth. I are wiki 05:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I also moved the references to the end of the sentence and removed the beginning "Much", since I don't think it adds anything. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

• China → Chinese civilization
• China (disambiguation) → China

Because China can refer primarily to the current article before 1912, whereas in a more modern context it refers generally to the People's Republic of China, but also to the Republic of China - with all three being listed at the top of the disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Given China's 5000 year old history this is the primary topic for the term in the past, whereas People's Republic of China is generally considered the primary topic for current usage of the term. Additionally the disambiguation link is currently not particularly clear if you want to read about china in the context of fine porcelain.

I want to keep the Republic of China's de-facto status in the current article as a sub-primary topic to reduce the scope of this move request, any issues with that its status with regards to being a primary topic can be sorted out later. Of note while generally disambiguation pages have only one primary topic, it seems to make more sense here to have multiple primary topics to aid the reader. This has also been done at iOS for example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment of note this has spun out from discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political_NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. With the current configuation, many articles link to this article ("China") about Chinese civilization when they mean "China" as in the "People's Republic of China". It is definitely correct that Chinese civilization is not the primary topic for current usage of the term, and even the assertion that "this is the primary topic for the term in the past" is shaky, as historical articles refer to past Chinese countries and ruling dynasties at least as often as they refer to China in the ethno-cultural sense. This move will help people clarify what they mean when they say "China", and will help people using semi-automated tools to clear up any ambiguity in the future, while retaining the status quo of not favoring either the PRC or ROC viewpoint about who has primacy over the use of "China". Quigley (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  That would support the first part of the move, but otherwise the rationale that the PRC is what people mean when they link here would favor redirecting the base name to the PRC article and linking the dab page from a hatnote there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The primary topic is the nation of China, it's history, civilisation, it's people, etcetera. That's what the current article is about, as it should be. There is only one China. As for what government constitutes China, that's disputed, and it's not for Wikipedia to decide. The hatnotes on the current article effectively make it a disambiguation page anyway, but with context. Most readers searching for "China" are only going to want one of three items: Chinese civilisation, the PRC and the ROC, and they get easy access to them all on that page. A ordinary disambiguation page with links and messy explanations just means they're forced to click more. Nightw 18:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Its not going to be an ordinary disambiguation page. That isn't what's been suggested at all. What's been suggested is making Chinese civilisation, the PRC and the ROC all "primary" topics linked at the top of the list. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment see this for a preliminary example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And how is this a better setup than the current China page, which provides easy redirection through hatnotes and content central to the primary topic? How would readers benefit from ordinary links on an otherwise blank page more than they would from arriving at what is essentially an introductory article for a complex subject? Nightw 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, it is currently ambiguous whether editors intend to send readers to the Chinese civilization article or some other (primarily, PRC) use of "China". If [[China]] links to a proper disambiguation page, then editors are forced to clarify whether they mean the PRC, Chinese civilization, or something else. Readers benefit because as a result, less of them will come to the Chinese civilization talk page (as many have done above this discussion) to complain, "why was I sent here when I wanted PRC?" I'm not convinced that Chinese civilization (which is distinct from China the country, by which I mean not only the PRC and the ROC but also the various historical dynasties) is the primary topic for "China". You have asserted this but provided no evidence for it. Quigley (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. By "readers complaining above this discussion" you mean the confirmed sock and the IP who cites in-depth Wikipedia policy? Editors won't be "forced" to disambiguate their links, and they won't bother. The clerks at WP:WPDAB will clean up after them as per usual. And given that this is currently the 34th most linked-to article, that's a battle that won't be won anytime soon. Nightw 19:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

At least with a disambiguation page you have a better chance of cleaning the links up, it makes it clear that they are broken so people can then pick the most sensible one rather than worrying about whether the editor in question wanted to actually link to this article. Additionally making this a disambiguation page aids people using semi-automated and automated tools to resolve the linking issues.

Additionally going straight to a disambiguation page means that other uses of the word china, such as for porcelain become more prominently linked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiprojects Countries, China, Taiwan and Disambiguation notified. Nightw 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. China should remain a valid link target, and the topic discussed in the current China article is a reasonable compromise between the vernacular primary topic People's Republic of China and the political tension resulting from that vernacular usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually frankly the current China article is a mess. The lead is really poor as it attempts to disambiguate the topics without being a disambiguation page. Additionally this change will keep the Republic of China's position. While that article could be removed after completing this move, it could also be quite easily removed before completing it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the lead reads fine. It effectively outlines the issue in a way that this, or any list of links on an otherwise blank page, could never hope to. Nightw 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You could easily take most of the context from the two bullet points and add them to the disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No you can't. Context is established not just through text, but also via wikilinks to articles providing elaborative information to the reader. Under WP:MOSDAB, extra links are forbidden and text is generally restricted to one line per item. Nightw 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think all the extra links are necessary, but I take your point that they do add some value. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Support per Quigley. Kauffner (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. To me, this serves visitors best:

• China --> Chinese civilization (because that's what the article is about)
• People's Republic of China --> China (because when people click China, 99% of the time they want People's Republic of China)
• Salt and pepper with hatnotes as you see fit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Page hits to People's Republic of China is currently around 10k/day, and China is 13k/day. I'd bet if clicking China went directly to People's Republic of China, then the article on civilization (currently named China) would drop to 2k/day, as visitors hit their mark. As it stands now, the vast majority of people landing on China click the hatnote to People's Republic of China within 5 seconds.