Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

Would everyone agree to this method for solving this discussion?

This discussion is starting to take a little too much time for what it's worth! How about we do this... 1) In Google Books searches for "Han Dynasty," "Tang Dynasty," "Yuan Dynasty," and "Qing Dynasty" (or Zhou, Jin, Song, and Ming, whatever), we count how many works capitalize "dynasty" in these compounds. Excluding books compiled from Wikipedia articles and books or articles that have no excerpts (this means we ignore abstracts and book jackets), we pick the first 20 relevant results. If more than 60% of these 80 works on four different dynasties use "dynasty," then we switch to "dynasty" as I propose; if not, we stick to "Dynasty." This way, we could conclude this discussion either way on the basis of tangible data. I volunteer to compile the results, with hyperlinks so that everyone can verify them. Would this be acceptable to most editors? Anybody who has not commented so far is of course welcome to comment even now. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. With all due respect (and I'll say it is a rational proposal) I still believe it to be wrong for reasons that I have argued — the main one being that in the Chinese-speaking world, at least, "Tang Dynasty" is thought of as a discrete proper noun referring to the polity, rather than "Tang" as an adjective modifying "dynasty." In other words, the use of "dynasty" creates logical conundrums that defy common conceptualization of the terms. But if there is a clear consensus that this proposal makes sense, then consensus rules regardless of what I think. Let's see what other people think about this proposal. (I do not believe that there is clear consensus, but let's see if your proposal creates a new consensus or not.) --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:USEENGLISH. If Chinese-language academics can't, it's not really the English-speaking world (or Wiki)'s problem. They all think "Chinese" can be used as a noun since Zhongguoren is one, too. — LlywelynII 10:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Chinese" can't be used as a (proper) noun? I'm sorry, that's clearly proper usage in my book. Of course, maybe my English isn't good enough, either. --Nlu (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The United States Supreme Court not so long ago used it in that usage (albeit in quoting a military court's conclusions). Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 447, 175 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2009). Of course, given that it was a per curiam opinion, maybe they agree with you that it's so shamefully improper usage that none of the justices wanted to sign the opinion. --Nlu (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Madalibi's proposal seems a reasonable method to determine the balance of usage in reliable English-language sources, which the naming policy says we should follow. Kanguole 00:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support (as nominator). I don't understand Nlu's insistence on usage "in the Chinese-speaking world" and I believe "common conceptualization of the terms" strongly suggests we un-capitalize dynasty. Anyway, a simple statistical analysis of 80 works on Chinese history seems like a simple way to solve this problem. I chose a majority of 60% as a threshold because I think advocates of change (i.e., me) should bear the burden of proof. Madalibi (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is more than ample precedent for applying typical Chinese (including "Chinese English") usage on this very Chinese subject: Wikipedia uses American English usage for American subject areas, British English usage for British subject areas, Australian English for Australian usage subject areas, &c. I don't see how the Chinese view proper capitalization in English is is irrelevant or improper consideration. --Nlu (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that "D" is hardly a completely local consensus. Articles about Korean and Vietnamese dynasties, in particular, generally follow that same convention as well. (For examples, see Joseon Dynasty and Lê Dynasty.) Again, I think this is part of Chinese influence (viewing "XXX Dynasty" as referring to the polity) as both Korea and Vietnam were, for millennia, within the Chinese sphere of influence, but it shows that this is hardly a Chinese-only thing. (And, I'd say, if you try to mess with those "localized" Korean and Vietnamese usage, be prepared for heavy fights on your hands.) --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Nlu. I'm not saying that taking Chinese usage into consideration is improper or irrelevant. In fact I pointed out even before you did that Chinese sources usually capitalize "Dynasty." What I said is that this usage constitutes a small minority. We shouldn't grant it special favor, because this interpretation of the English language is confined to the small circles that publish works in English, almost always in translation (which is very different from the case of topics concerning America, Britain, or Australia). Whether the majority of Chinese people interpret "Tangchao" 唐朝 as a proper noun is entirely irrelevant, because this interpretation is about the Chinese language, not the English language. I've simply been arguing that we should follow the overwhelming majority of English-language scholarship on Chinese history in not capitalizing "dynasty." What if we raised the bar from 60% to 80%? Would this kind of majority be strong enough, or is majority not a consideration? Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that a lot of "support" !votes here were due purely due to what the !voters perceived as convention; the !voters agreed that capitalizing "D" is more logical. (Of course, I acknowledge that they may be doing so to sooth my feelings.) It is my opinion that what is logical should be used, regardless of what the prevalent western usage might be, particularly when uncapitalizing "d" will now create an inconsistency with other east Asian usages as well, unless you're willing to tackle the entire east Asian block in one swoop. Essentially, I think what we have is an east-Asian vs. non-east-Asian usage split here (in English); therefore, I don't think just "counting the sources" is a valid way to count here since western sources will be overrepresented in any kind of a Web search vis-a-vis Asian ones. --Nlu (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Seems reasonable enough to me. I empathize with User:Nlu here, because 1) his grammatical argument is logical, and 2) I think capitalized "Dynasty" simply looks better. Be that as it may, we're supposed to stick with the reliable sources.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a reasonable-sounding proposal, for sure, and I appreciate the rationale. The reason I oppose it is because I do not hold titles to the same standard of capitalization that I do with prose in a book. I am of the belief that, given the ambiguity of the 'proper noun status' of these titles, it is fine to decapitalize them in the body of the article but capitalize them in the headings of articles and in article titles. An example that I can draw upon is the title "Prime Minister", which is almost always capitalized in titles but much less so in prose, unless it is followed by a name. Colipon+(Talk) 02:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Colipon. Personally I would be more than happy to accept a compromise by which we would decapitalize "dynasty" in the body of texts and keep "Dynasty" in wiki titles. I just don't know if this kind of local consensus would be acceptable, since Wikipolicy states that common nouns should not be capitalized, even in titles (see WP:TITLEFORMAT; WP:CAPS is also relevant). Though I like the compromise you propose, could it be that your "oppose" ignores Wikipedia's naming policy? Would you be willing to reconsider your point of view? Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Same here. It's reasonable but doesn't seem workable, given the tendency to have editors come through and "standardize". — LlywelynII 10:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I support but only to foster group consensus, as I think the case for "dynasty" is clear already. The use of the lower case in article titles is Wikipedia policy, and lower case is the style in the Chicago Manual of Style and Library of Congress. I admit that I still get a little taken aback when the NY Times puts "secretary of state" in lower case, but this is now established practice. User Nlu's arguments are thoughtful but it's is not a matter of logic but of convention. ch (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I agree that capitalizing "Dynasty" would be logical, but it contradicts the convention of most books on Chinese history that I have read. (My argument is something like: "if the founder of Harvard's Sinology department department didn't do this, why should we?") Finding an objective criteria for what constitutes "common use" is more difficult than I expected it to be. This formula isn't perfect, but it at least gives some quantifiable criteria to make a judgement.Ferox Seneca (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed solution is arbitrary, and in my opinion no better than tossing a coin. A decision should be based on rational argument, not a random method that is intended to solve the problem as quickly as possible. BabelStone (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi BabelStone. I think a rational decision should be grounded in Wikipolicy and in common usage in reliable sources. Six other editors (ch, Anna Frodesiak, Ferox Seneca, Kanguole, White whirlwind, and yourself) have confirmed my impression that English-language scholarship on Chinese history usually does not capitalize "dynasty." The dominance of this usage outside Wikipedia also shows that the lower case form is not a source of confusion. Logic alone cannot solve this issue no matter how long we spend on it. We need a reference outside Wikipedia, and I propose that this reference be a large sample of reliable sources that we will find through Google Books. Now I agree that 60% of 80 books is a bit arbitrary, but I don't see how deciding this issue on the basis of scholarly usage outside Wikipedia would fall outside of rational argument. Would a higher percentage and a larger sample be better? Do you have another solution in mind for solving our problem? Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a problem that needs a solution here? I don't see one. Keep the current policy. Of course, that's me. --Nlu (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The violations of English language usage and general policy in favor of local consensus, as explained above. — LlywelynII 10:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Soft Support. The case for decapitalization was already made above and the specifics of this method are pretty profoundly arbitrary (20, 60%, "relevant", etc.). Make it 20 for

  ∘ each major dynasty listed on {{History of China}}
  ∘ from sources after 1990

  and I'm fine with it establishing a solid current English usage, though. — LlywelynII 10:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi LlywelynII. You're right about "relevant." It was just unclear, so I crossed it out from my proposal. And no problem about expanding the search. Madalibi (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The overall trend in Wikipedia and in scholarship is to decapitalize "dynasty" when writing about non-Chinese dynasties. It's about time for the Chinese dynasty articles to catch up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry if I missed it, but was this ever resolved? Just curious. ch (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it was never resolved. Maybe Madalabi had something pressing to do in RL? If you are up to picking this discussion up and carrying it to its eventual conclusion, I would encourage you to do so.Ferox Seneca (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Madalibi offered to perform an extensive survey of high-quality English-language sources, but I think everyone expects that this will show the lower-case form is more common in those sources, and several editors argued that the question should be decided on the basis of logic rather than usage in the sources. That being the case, the survey would be pointless. The only way forward is to get wider input, e.g. by making a request to move all the articles at WP:RM. Kanguole 09:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that in the context of Chinese history, dynasty and empire are more or less the same thing. A dynasty is indeed an empire and the two terms are occassionally used interchangeably, such as in the case of Tang or Ch'ing. There aren't any dynasty that I can think of that created more than one empires (nor was there any empire that continued with another dynasty). 218.250.159.42 (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is not about dynasty/empire, just capitalization – whether to write "Tang Dynasty" or "Tang dynasty". Kanguole 09:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There was an argument above on whether 'dynasty' was used to meant a polity or a ruling family. If it's the latter it should be decapitalised. Obviously in Chinese history contexts the word 'dynasty' is more a reference to the polity. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

When does a Chinese family name cease to be Chinese?

Hello. I will have to state at the outset that I am a bit annoyed at the current practice of hanging Chinese characters onto the name of people born in the United States and who do not use the characters in their everyday life. That said, I am just wondering—

The current lead sentence of this page states:

Any encyclopedia entry with a title that is a Chinese proper name should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in the first sentence. The article title itself is normally the pinyin representation with the tone marks omitted: "Mao Zedong", not "Máo Zédōng", unless another spelling is common . . .

For a person born in the United States, is his family name still a "Chinese proper name" even though the American law and practice is to treat everybody equally? Is (for example) Obama a Kenyan name and Roosevelt a "Dutch" family name? And why or why not? Thank you for your attention; I realize this may have been treated before, but I couldn't find previous posts when I did a search. I would really like to put a stop to the assumption that people with any given ancestry are automatically assigned non-English characters for their names in their Wikipedia articles, but I realize others mighr think differently. Sincerely GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the person and to what extent they use the Chinese character for the name. Can you provide some examples of where the Chinese name appears to be used inappropriately? Readin (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Chinese names of people in and of "Western" countries are not an equivalent of the English names. They are separately given. This situation cannot be compared with African or European names. Chinese names that get in to English Wikipedia cannot be "derived" from legal birth names (in other languages) by third parties. When Chinese-language books and newspapers (regardless of where) introduces a person of Chinese ancestry with only "foreign" legal names, they always sought out if the subject has a Chinese name either from him/herself or parents or grandparents. Once given, everybody sticks with such a name when using the Chinese language. This makes the names encyclopedic. All this may very well escape those outside of the Chinese-language world. And finally, this issue is outside the scope of "title that is a Chinese proper name". HkCaGu (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well-known Americans often are known by other names in other countries. The fact that thier family name originated in that foreign land and is used in its original form in that land does not automatically make it worth noting. It's nice that the newspaper goes to the trouble of looking up the grandparents to find the historical character - but its not automatically notable. However if the person's Chinese name is especially important (compared to the foreign names they use when visiting other countries) then it might be worth noting. There has to be something that makes the Chinese name notable beyond its mere existence. Readin (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So let me go from general to specific too--on the subject on Chinese Americans, whose presence and scale of economy mean they don't have to be in other countries to be known by "another" names. My earlier interaction with George is about politicians, who campaign using the Chinese language, fundraise out of state using the Chinese language, and intentionally supply their Chinese name to appropriate election authorities in the state and local levels, lest their name is translated by someone from English and in variance with their campaign materials. (Federal laws require translations of election materials in jurisdictions with those significant populations.)

San Francisco's Clipper card picked a distinct Chinese name, and Kevin Rudd and Jon Huntsman, Jr. picked their Chinese names, but these are just cases of "by the way" mentions somewhere down in the article. But for someone essentially born with that name and the legal English name may or may not be based on the Chinese name, I can't see where else to put it except at the very beginning. It looks natural that names that they didn't pick later in their lives (and that are as much their basic identity) should be mentioned early and be done with. HkCaGu (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to my friend ReadIn, I was thinking of the Los Angeles City Council member Michael Woo, who is the only L.A. Council member to have Chinese characters attached to his name. In response to my friend HkCaGu, I really don't understand why Mister Woo, who was born in this country and presumably has a birth certificate in English, should be honored with the Chinese characters in the first line of his Wikipedia article. When I was in China, I purchased a chop with my English name transliterated into Chinese (phonetically), but I wouldn't think of using it in any formal sense or as a byline for any article I might write. Howcum Mr. Woo is treated differently from me? I am sorry, but I just don't get it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it is an entirely different (given) name. One cannot be inferred from the other. Also, Chinese is not an alphabetical language, therefore evening knowing it is pronounced Shaoji (Mandarin) there are hundreds of two-character combinations how to write it. (Even "Woo" can point to several "possible" Chinese surnames.) A Chinese name is not legally register-able, but it does not mean such an American is not given two distinct names. I can tell you that Woo's Chinese name in Cantonese is pronounced Wu Siu Gei and that probably explains his legal middle name Kay but still they are distinct. A Westerner picking a Chinese name also carries a weight of "this is my name, don't call me anything else." For example, Rudd wants to be called Lu Kewen, not Kaiwen Lade, and Jon Huntsman wants to be called Hong Bopei, not Yuehan Hengciman. When you go to China and make a chop, the maker picks Chinese characters with the closest sounds that are of neutral or positive values. The next time you go or if you go to a different dialect region to make another chop, your Chinese name may not be the same because there are many characters of the same sound or the maker speaks in different accents. Either way, you have made no commitment to your name.

For Chinese Americans, their Chinese names are not even names they can choose to commit to. They're often just "given". Complications of this issue has arisen especially in San Francisco. Someone's genuine Chinese name was ignored by the election department and resulted in non-recognition by voters. Then anyone could submit a name. Then Aaron Peskin called himself Ban Shiqin (Mandarin)/Baan Sikan (Cantonese) which was literally "Do Things Diligently" just for that election. Then they required candidates to have actually used such a name for it to be on the ballot. I hope you see why all levels of candidates might have a "Chinese name" on the ballot, but not every name is encyclopedic like Michael Woo or Judy Chu or Matt Fong or March Fong Eu.

The Chinese-English issue will be a little different from Korean-English and Japanese-English and Vietnamese-English and so forth. It's not a simple Miguel-Michael or Jose-Joseph bi-cultural issue. HkCaGu (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is all very interesting, but it seems awfully Sino-centric to me. I will confine my further remarks to any articles I happen to run across where it is really important to me to be accurate—the only one right now or in the foreseeable future being Michael Woo. If anybody is interested in following that discussion, I invite him or her to move over there. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! One detail that the other editors have not said with complete clarity is that most people of Chinese ethnicity, no matter where they live in the world, receive a Chinese name at birth from their parents. Even in mixed Western-Chinese couples, children will receive both a "western name" and a Chinese name. A boy may be X XX (Chinese name) in some contexts and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx (western name) in others. Since this is a common practice, I don't think mentioning the Chinese name of Chinese-Americans like Michael Woo constitutes Sinocentrism. Of course, indicating the "Chinese name" of people who were given "Chinese names" by the media of other countries, like "Aobama" 奥巴马 for President Obama, would be inappropriate on English Wikipedia. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Having been married into a Chinese family for ten years and having been an uncle to lots more than one Chinese-American, I can assure my good friend Madalibi that not all Americans of Chinese ancestry are given Chinese names at birth. Mr. Woo may very well be one of them, and even if he were, well, so what? He is an American, not a Chinese, so this section does not apply to him. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It continues to be an insult for you to say someone is American and therefore not Chinese. Chinese names do not "belong" to only citizens of the People's Republic of China. Ethnic Chinese everywhere can have them. It is ridiculous to reason that an American cannot have a Chinese name publishable on Wikipedia. This section is the wrong section because we're not discussing "naming convention", but the word Chinese here is about the language, not nationality. HkCaGu (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of Americans of Chinese descent who do not speak the language and lots more who do not read it and who would not recognize their own name in Chinese characters if it were handed to them as a Christmas present. Thank you again for your contributions to Wikipedia, which we all appreciate, but not this particular one. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a case to be made for Chinese names to be found somewhere in the article if a) that person is of Chinese descent, and b) their Chinese names are consistently and frequently used in Chinese-American (Canadian/Australia) media. This way a reader could associate the English name with the Chinese one in the first sentence of the article. As for non-Chinese people who have adopted Chinese names that are not a mere transliteration of their English name, then it is also necessary to specify this name, assuming widespread use, particularly in a Chinese-speaking country. For example, Jon Huntsman Jr. is always called 洪博培 by Chinese media, Gary Locke is always called 骆家辉 by Chinese media etc. etc. George H. W. Bush, on the other hand, only has a transliterated Chinese name - 布什, and thus does not need to specify his Chinese name. Furthermore, Mark Rowswell is essentially only known by his Chinese name - so that name, Dashan, becomes his article title full stop.

Also, let's avoid comparisons to Dutch or even Kenya names - as those names are purely transliterated, sometimes even preserving the original spelling. Chinese names, when they are unique, are not transliterated, but strictly translated. Colipon+(Talk) 00:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Late Qing Dynasty Princely titles

I brought this up over at Talk:Yixuan, 1st Prince Chun#Rename, and no one has yet responded, so I thought I would extend this discussion to other articles in question. I do not agree with the naming conventions of late Qing Dynasty princes. The convention [Given name], [order] [princely title] for article titles is needlessly conforming to a standard only seen at article names of British peers (and to a lessor extend, European nobility). I do not think this standard applies to Chinese princes. I would like to change this convention to [Given name], [princely title], unless there is a vast body of English literature that uses another form of romanization that is well established. This would mean the changes to the following articles:

• Yixuan, 1st Prince Chun -> Yixuan, Prince Chun
• Zaifeng, 2nd Prince Chun -> Zaifeng, Prince Chun
• Yixin, 1st Prince Gong -> Yixin, Prince Gong (or simply Prince Gong, since no other "Prince Gong" has nearly enough notability to rival that of Yixin)
• Yikuang, Prince Qing would remain as is.

This naming convention would better mirror the formal naming convention of Chinese literature. In Yixuan's case he is referred to as 醇亲王奕譞, his son 醇亲王载沣. Never are they referred to as 第一醇亲王 (First Prince Chun etc.). Colipon+(Talk) 01:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. We would need "1st Prince" and "2nd Prince" if the title if these wikis were just "Prince Chun"; the names Yixuan and Zaifeng make this kind of disambiguation unnecessary. Colipon's proposed format stays close to Chinese naming conventions, which are not contradicted by Western reliable sources, so I think it's a good idea to simplify. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but I would also like this to be considered: why not just "Yixuan" and "Zaifeng"? --Nlu (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Nlu, I used to be an advocate of just using the personal names of the Princes, but a survey of history books in both serious English-language scholarship and Chinese literature, you will notice that many historians prefer to actually use "Prince Chun" and "Prince Gong". This may not be the case with earlier Qing Princes - for example, Daišan, Hooge, Dorgon etc. More ambiguous are Kangxi-era princes, namely his sons, who are often simply named using their order of birth. For these latter articles I would much prefer them to be simply personal names. I will put up a proposal for this change sometime soon. It will affect a great many articles. Colipon+(Talk) 03:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I prefer to follow the format used on Chinese Wikipedia for now. However if certain names such as "Prince Gong" churns out more results on search engines than "Yixin" or the princes' personal names, then I guess it's better to abide by WP:COMMONNAME. I feel that it's odd to use numerical order (1st, 2nd...) in the titles. Don't the personal names of the two Prince Chuns (Yixuan, Zaifeng) already distinguish them from each other? Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 01:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not just a matter of search results really. Even in Chinese literature there are more references to "Prince Gong" than to "Yixin". Few people who are not well versed in Qing Dynasty history will know who "Yixin" is. I think the common name convention would mean that Yixin be moved to "Prince Gong", but since the Prince Chuns still need disambiguation, they will be disambiguated with their personal names. Prince Qing is kind of a toss-up, being referred to in literature by both "Yikuang" and "Prince Qing". So perhaps we should just stick with both. Colipon+(Talk) 02:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I've no objections to using "Prince Gong" in place of "Yixin". However I believe we'll need a dab page, because I don't think Yixin is the only Prince Gong in Chinese history. His grandson Puwei, for example, inherited the Prince Gong title. As for the Prince Chuns, I'm fine with using "Yixuan, Prince Chun" and "Zaifeng, Prince Chun". What about the other princes in this category? Should we go on a case-by-case basis? Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
      • To be honest, I don't see Puwei being an issue, given the his grandfather was much more notable. If anything we should just name Puwei "Puwei", and make a note that he also held the Prince Gong title. In fact, I think Prince Gong is the only Prince in the Qing Dynasty where the title is associated so directly with a person (with Prince Gong Mansion etc.). As for the category you listed, few of those princes are known by anything other than their personal names (most commonly in literature) - including the princes created during the Yongzheng reign. So this would mean moving "Yinti, Prince Xun" to "Yinti", etc. Colipon+(Talk) 07:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I've already created Prince Gong (disambiguation) and made a technical request at WP:Requested_moves#Technical_requests for Yixin to be moved to Prince Gong. Would you like to assist me in moving the pages for the other princes? That includes cleaning up after the moves (i.e. fixing redirects etc). :) Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 10:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Thank you sir. Just a note: I cannot move a page over redirects. Colipon+(Talk) 17:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
            • There's an issue over the move from Yixin to Prince Gong. You're invited to join in the discussion at Talk:Yixin#Move?. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 02:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Case discussion

• Hooge, Prince Su --> Hooge
  • There are two notable Prince Su's in the Qing Dynasty, with Hooge probably occupying the more prominent spot than his 6th generation descendant Shanqi. This does not, however, change the fact that he is commonly referred to in both modern Chinese history books and Chinese television series as "Hooge". Anyone looking for the subject will look under 'Hooge'.

• Yinxiang, 1st Prince Yi --> Yinxiang
  • Yinxiang was known as "Yinxiang" for his entire life - his name of special significance since the Yongzheng Emperor allowed him to maintain the character "Yin" against the Emperor's nominal taboo. The "Prince Yi" is a title used only during Yongzheng's reign. In history books he is referred to as "the Thirteenth Prince" or "Yinxiang", very rarely "Prince Yi".

• Yongqi, Prince Rong --> Yongqi

• Yinti, Prince Xun --> Yinti
  • This one is debateable, since during the Yongzheng Emperor's reign his name was changed to "Yunti" to avoid the Emperor's nominal taboo, and indeed, some historical books prefer "Yunti".

• Yinsi, Prince Lian --> Yinsi
  • He had many names during his lifetime, of which the most common is "Yinsi". His title Prince Lian was abolished by Yongzheng before he died anyway.

• Hongzhou, Prince He --> Hongzhou
  • There aren't many English-language sources on this, but the Chinese sources almost uniformly use "Hongzhou".

• Zaiyuan --> ???
  • This one is very difficult. Of the English-language sources, "Prince Yi" is more common. The Chinese sources tend to prefer Zaiyuan. But then there aren't many English-language sources that deal with this Prince. Google Book search yields 39 results for "Prince Yi" and "Cixi" searched in conjunction (to avoid conflating the earlier Prince Yi), and only 9 results for "Zaiyuan" and "Cixi".

Those are my two cents. Colipon+(Talk) 02:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Already moved for Hooge, Yongqi, and Yinti. However the Kangxi Emperor had another son also called "Yinti" (胤禔), so how are we going to distinguish between the two Yintis? I've no objections to Yinxiang, Yinsi, and Hongzhou. I propose moving Zaiyuan to Zaiyuan, Prince Yi. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 05:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about right. The other son of Kangxi that you are talking about is actually pronounced Yinzhi, not Yinti, so that should not be a problem. I think the proposal for Zaiyuan, Prince Yi, sounds good. Colipon+(Talk) 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Transliterations of ethnic minority languages: Xixabangma vs Shishapangma

Discussion and polling over the choice of peak name has not yet reached consensus. If you wish to join the discussion or polling, please feel free to at Talk:Xixabangma. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Revamping single-character district conventions

The current naming practise for single-character districts (i.e. 城区) is to pinyin-ise the Chinese name and append "District" in the title. For example, any place named "城区" is titled Chengqu District. This is tautological because "区" (pinyin: qū) means "district". Conventions for other geographical features (i.e. mountains, lakes) ask that titles be non-tautological, since quality English sources avoid tautologies to begin with.
Now for the possibilities for the proposed change:

• 城区, 郊区, 矿区

1. "Cheng District", "Jiao District", and "Kuang District"
2. "Chengqu", "Jiaoqu", and "Kuangqu"
3. No literal translations (i.e. Urban District)

• 东区, 西区

1. "Dong District", "Xi District"
2. "East District", "West District"
3. "Eastern District", "Western District"
4. "Dongqu", "Xiqu"

Please discuss which options you prefer and why. Thanks  The Tartanator  03:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed an interesting discussion. I would be perfectly fine with "Chengqu" and "Jiaoqu" as standalone names, with a bracket denoting which city it is in. I believe "Chengqu District" is probably as tautological as "Mount Taishan". As for 东区, 西区, I would say "Eastern District" and "Western District" probably fit their descriptions the best, but that would make it a double standard - since we are not translating 'Chengqu' as 'Urban District', nor are we translating 'Jiaoqu' as 'Suburban district'. Colipon+(Talk) 04:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you said you are perfectly fine with "Chengqu", then "Chengqu", "Dongqu", etc it is. Also, because there have been no objections raised in over a month, I will change the guideline myself. GotR ^Talk 22:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Chinese" vs. "Mandarin"

I understand there was some sort of broad (but controversial) consensus reached at an earlier discussion over "Standard Mandarin" being renamed "Standard Chinese", and then ostensibly a clean-up operation was performed pan-wiki to redact references to "Standard Mandarin" wholesale. This was previously also done to references of "Cantonese" and "Yue Chinese". I believe this approach is bad and creates some very problematic lines of text, and find it alarming that we want to impose this sort of standard without carefully going through every article ti affects.

For example, from "Chinese as a foreign language", we have the following phrase:

“ Increased interest in China from those outside has led to a corresponding interest in the study of Standard Chinese as a foreign language, the official languages of mainland China and Taiwan. ”

Here "Standard Chinese" refers to Putonghua on the mainland and Guoyu in Taiwan. Even though this is essentially the same concept on both sides of the strait, Taiwanese speakers would translate "Guoyu" to "Mandarin" rather than to "Chinese". Calling it "Standard Chinese" violates WP:NPOV. Similarly, what is known as Huayu in Singapore is also more often translated as "Mandarin" or "Standard Mandarin" than it is "Chinese" or "Standard Chinese". It would unambiguous and neutral for the phrase to instead read

“ Increased interest in China from those outside has led to a corresponding interest in the study of Standard Mandarin as a foreign language, the official languages of mainland China and Taiwan. ”

Colipon+(Talk) 17:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) uniformly uses "Mandarin" as the standard English translation for the term 'Guoyu'. See this. Colipon+(Talk) 17:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Beware that Taivo et al. don't care at all about NPOV; in order to stand a chance against them in successfully reversing the move back in the direction of "Mandarin", we need to compile sources and show that most of Taivo's sources don't fit the description Putonghua/Guoyu/Huayu.  The Tartanator  21:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for convenience sake I will link newcomers to the discussion to here as a reference to the archived discussion. As much as I am sympathetic to the academic side of the argument, and the sourcing on "Modern Standard Chinese", I object to the mess that it has now created on countless articles in much the same fashion that an article name change between 'Cantonese' and "Yue Chinese" did several years ago. I also do not believe the moves were made with sufficient consultation and due process according to the principles of consensus on this eencyclopedia and will seek ways to challenge it procedurally (it seems one or two editors with muscle pushed the move through despite continuing debate on both sides). Even if sources overwhelmingly state that "Modern Standard Chinese" is a better alternative to "Standard Mandarin", we have to weigh the practical considerations of how this will affect the rest of the Encyclopedia and the presentation of this subject. Awkward turns of phrase have appeared in many articles as a result of this blanket change across the encyclopedia. In addition, the government of Singapore and the government of Taiwan do not call Mandarin "Standard Chinese". They call it "Mandarin" or "Mandarin Chinese". Even the government of China does not call it as such, preferring terms like Putonghua to clarify. This brings about a real concern with WP:NPOV. Colipon+(Talk) 00:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we have a very good starting point here then. It seems Taivo only considered academia, and that is understandable considering he himself is a linguist. But don't open a move request until you have made up your mind as to the new title and you have enough sources...a request that snowball fails will make us look laughable.  The Tartanator  01:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to not use "Standard" everywhere. The use of "language" to primarily mean a dialect bundle and only secondarily a standard language that some people learn nonnatively, is limited to linguistic specialists. The common English usage of "language" refers primarily to a well-known standard language, and only secondarily to dialects.

As for Chinese vs. Mandarin I think both are appropriate and in fact both should be used. I don't think the question of the English words Chinese vs. Mandarin has anything to do with the differences between PRC, ROC, Singapore, or others. Saying Mandarin explicitly is less ambiguous as many people are not yet clear that the standard for Chinese is Mandarin, but it is good to let readers know by example that both are used. --JWB (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion on Mandarin

I have done another review of the articles, and find that the current article structure is inappropriate.

I am willing to concede that the modern standard language is a standard for all Chinese, not just Mandarin. I am willing to concede that many sources, particularly academic ones, refer to "Modern Standard Chinese". But I dispute the following things:

1. Users cannot find what they are looking for. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the principle behind article titles is for the reader to find the subject in the most convenient fashion possible. "Mandarin Chinese" currently garners some 2.5 k hits per day, as opposed to the 800 or so in Standard Chinese. I assert here that the vast majority of readers who are looking up the "Mandarin Chinese" article are really looking for the article on Standard Mandarin. This is a practical flaw. The "Mandarin Chinese" article currently deals with a lot of dialectology. I appreciate the linguistic classifications when dealing with dialectology, but not when someone wants to just learn about a topical area.
2. The title is not neutral. Per WP:NPOV. In English language publications, the Taiwan government calls it "Mandarin", the Singapore government calls it "Mandarin". The Chinese government calls it "Putonghua". In the United States and Canada, people refer to "Mandarin" opposing "Cantonese", the two widely known spoken forms of Chinese. In this context "Mandarin" refers to the same concept as the "Mandarin" of Taiwan and Singapore governments (I doubt they would be referring to the "northern dialects"). Calling it "Standard Chinese" would be pandering to one group only - linguists. No official government sources or the average person calls it "Standard Chinese".
3. The title can confuse spoken and written forms. You write in Chinese, you speak in Mandarin.
4. Ambiguity. If the word "Mandarin" has taken on its own meaning (just like the word "Chinese") has in the English language, then that should be taken into context of article naming. "Standard Mandarin" is totally unambiguous. "Standard Chinese" is. It does not have to be 100% congruent with Chinese interwiki links. Just as there is no easy translation for the English word "Chinese" in Chinese, there is also no easy translation for "Mandarin" - all of it is context sensitive.

Those are just my thoughts. I want to make this encyclopedia as accessible to our readers as I can. I believe calling the article "Standard Mandarin" is the most neutral, unambiguous, and accessible way for our readers to find what they are looking for. Colipon+(Talk) 15:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you're right that most people arriving at "Mandarin Chinese" are looking for the standard language, not the dialect group, and that's a problem. (I'm afraid I don't find the other points convincing.) But renaming the article on the standard language as "Standard Mandarin" would not address that problem; after all Standard Mandarin already redirects there. The ambiguous term "Mandarin Chinese" would still take readers to the dialect group. Kanguole 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are not convinced, read the latest references in the New York Times, the Economist, and other reputable international newspapers that set guidelines in proper naming conventions in the English language. They refer to the language much more often as "Mandarin" than "Standard Chinese". Colipon+(Talk) 01:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Colipon. This clearly contrary to WP:COMMONNAME because it's pretty clear what most people look for when they type that term in the search box. The spoken northern dialect ought to occupy the namespace 'Mandarin'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Colipon's arguments are persuasive. "Mandarin" means something slightly different in common English than "Chinese". Article titles should reflect standard use.Ferox Seneca (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I support Mandarin but Standard is not WP:COMMONNAME either. --JWB (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Trying again:

1. isn't an argument for moving "Standard Chinese" to "Standard Mandarin"; it's an (IMO persuasive) argument for moving the article on the dialect group to a new name so that "Mandarin Chinese" can be redirected at the standard language.
2. The article title policy explicitly discounts neutrality arguments in favour of usage in reliable English language sources. (WP:AT#Neutrality in article titles)
3. I know lots of people who say they speak "Chinese", and the shops are full of books and CDs offering to teach people to "speak Chinese".
4. if the claim is that "Standard Chinese" is ambiguous, what else is the term commonly used for in English sources? Kanguole 23:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone arguing particularly for Standard, just for Mandarin. I would support your proposal for Standard Chinese -> Mandarin Chinese and Mandarin Chinese -> Mandarin dialects. It sounds like the other editors in this discussion would too. --JWB (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To continue this discussion, if one takes a look at the principles outlined on WP:TITLE, it would become increasingly apparent that "Standard Mandarin" is the name that fits all the guidelines, i.e., recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. I do not have the time to elaborate on the details right now, but "Standard Chinese" certainly does not appear to fit into any of these, except for perhaps consistency. Colipon+(Talk) 00:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change the title of Standard Chinese then you should be making a case for a move request there, not here. There is already extensive refutation of your arguments in that article's talk archives. Shrigley (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Spoken Chinese isn't one single language, and there is no such thing as one standard for multiple languages. 116.48.84.248 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan Province (ROC) vs. Taiwan Province (PRC)

Under the Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof template it mentions the Taiwan Province. I think we should make it more clear if we are talking about the Taiwan Province of the Republic of China or the Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China. --Gimelthedog (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the government that administers "Taiwan Province" calls itself "the Republic of China", but the status of Taiwan is obviously ambiguous/controversial in a way that I'm sure you are familiar with and which doesn't need to be reviewed here. What do you believe would be the fundamental difference between "Taiwan, ROC" and "Taiwan, PRC"? What sort of information would even be included in a "Taiwan, PRC" article?Ferox Seneca (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China? Kanguole 15:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Very interesting.Ferox Seneca (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The "China" and "ROC" articles.

Clearly, that move is still causing problems for some as you can see on the talk pages of both Talk:China and Talk:Republic of China. I once suggested formal resolution discussions, but that didn't go anywhere. In either case, I'm just raising this issue here, I doubt I'll play much of an active part in any future discussion, as I've accepted the move as it stands. However, in my opinion, while its true that nothing is going to please everyone, something is going to need to be done to alleviate the problems caused bt it somewhat, it's just a question of what and how.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Some serious revision is needed of this guideline, which appears to at best ignore, and at worst deprecate, the simple use of "Taiwan" to refer to the political unit. This flies in the face of common English language usage in 2012, in which Taiwan is far more common than "Republic of China" or "ROC" or whatever; and not just in casual or "incorrect" usage, but in serious governmental, international, media and academic sources. Obviously there's an issue about the main Taiwan/ROC page itself to be resolved, and there's always context (eg in terms of historical references, and references to official names and titles) to be considered, but I can't believe that this convention can be allowed to stand as drafted. Following it just leads to everything jarring with what readers see in the outside world, and confuses more than it clarifies through its purported technical correctness. N-HH talk/edits 23:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Essentially what we must decide is whether NPOV trumps COMMONNAME. Both are valid Wikipedia principles. In some articles, such as "aircraft", NPOV does indeed trump COMMONNAME. One way or the other, though, the overall policy should be consistent. Either call it China and Taiwan, or PRC and ROC. Not a mix-and-match. Colipon+(Talk) 00:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the notion that a "mix-and-match" should be avoided. There are clear instances where we would use official names and titles, such as with legal documents and government organs, and instances where we would use common names and titles, such as when referencing a place. Accuracy takes on a greater role in article text than it does for article titles. There are many instances where using the common name would not diminish accuracy, while many others where we would be implying the name of an institution is something that it is not. For example Republic of Korea Navy is a proper name, so the article exists there and not at South Korean navy (which avoids the proper name) or South Korean Navy/Navy of South Korea (which implies the wrong proper name).--Jiang (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that principle applies for Taiwan, then it ought apply for China as well. China is officially called the People's Republic of China - more often than Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China anyway. If that is the argument then "China" should be moved back to PRC. Colipon+(Talk) 02:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that based on widespread usage in print media that there is more justification for People's Republic of China and China to be separate articles than there is for the countries template to reside at Republic of China rather than Taiwan. However, the merge of People's Republic of China into China does not justify the wholesale change of "People's Republic of China" to "China" in article text and in article titles. Our most recent edits to the naming conventions reflects the notion that whether to use the official name is context dependent. For example, President of the People's Republic of China isn't going anywhere.--Jiang (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That part I agree with, much like the dogma that has led to the modification of all "Standard Mandarin" references on the encyclopedia to become "Standard Chinese", regardless of their context. Colipon+(Talk) 04:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see why "President of China" is an illegitimate title for that article, any more than President of Germany shouldn't be used for the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Presidents of the Republic of China can be included to the extent that they are part of the PRC's history. But nobody calls the President of Taiwan the "President of China". Shrigley (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Colipon or we could compare to other countries and our policies WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE, in which case China is in the right place, and Taiwan isn't... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not sure about this idea that we have a clash between NPOV and COMMONNAME. Indeed I'm sceptical what NPOV has to do with much of this wider debate really - if anything it should surely lead us to avoid the more politically charged and motivated reasoning that goes on around this issue, and simply ask: what do people, around the world in 2012, from the person in the street and the media, through to international bodies and even up to the ROC government itself at times, normally refer to this thing as? And if we ask that question, the answer, undoubtedly, is "Taiwan". I also disagree that "mix and match" is a problem - as noted, for official titles, of course ROC will stay, where appropriate, both in article text and in article titles; then there's the issue of context, where one formulation will be more appropriate or clearer than another; and finally of course, it's a basic principle of writing prose that you switch between different terms as you go simply for the aesthetic reason of avoiding repetition (this applies also, say to mixing references to "China" and, say, "the People's Republic", "the PRC" etc). The issue here is that these guidelines should not only allow use of the term Taiwan for the political unit, they should surely prefer it over ROC in most cases (and, btw, that should almost certainly, as now with China, include the main country article title - it's standard for country pages on WP and for real-world country profiles to use the common, short-form country name, eg "France", "Iran" etc). N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

' and, btw, that should almost certainly, as now with China, include the main country article title - it's standard for country pages on WP and for real-world country profiles to use the common, short-form country name, eg "France", "Iran" etc ' - What about countries such as the Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of Ireland, and the Federated States of Micronesia? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are the result of disambiguation and the lack of a primary topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As a native speaker of English residing in Europe (and not an American, apparently), I'd say more than 90% of the time that I come across the name Georgia is about the independent state in Caucasia (instead of the US southern state), and more than 95% of the time with Washington about the US capital (instead of the US state in the Pacific Northwest). So what's the primary topic of Georgia and Washington? Why should we consider the communist republic as the primary topic of China just because the politicians in Washington and London equate them as such? Why don't we consider English sources from the Far East too? 1.65.152.12 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

English sources from around the world were considered. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis - You sure Ireland and Macedonia aren't primary topics? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm personally not, but as there have been ARBCOM rulings on both, I assume the views are fairly well backed up. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case shall we bring this to the ArbCom too? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The option is always there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom would reject the case as "premature" until the dispute was a complete trainwreck. Both those disputes had degenerated into extreme misconduct, which is thankfully a long way from the situation here. Even then ArbCom didn't decide the naming issue – after banning and restricting several editors they directed the survivors to seek neutral outside administrators to come to a policy-based decision. You're probably better off just going to that last step directly, say at WP:AN. Kanguole 16:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jiang - I don't think 'widespread usage' could override neutral point of view. It's meaningless if a certain usage or some certain sources aren't neutral, no matter how widespread they are. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jiang and Colipon+ - The navy and aircraft example highlights how WP:Commonname isn't everything. But how can we apply that rule in the case of the PRC? In both cases, the terms got the same meanings (e.g. South Korean Navy = Navy of South Korea = Republic of Korea Navy), but the PRC and China aren't essentially the same thing. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

@N-HH - What if we gotta write about the ROC in the 1950s, 1970s or 1990s, if we set 1949 or 1945 as the cut off point? Shall we write 'Taiwan and the United States signed the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty in 1954', 'Taiwan was a permanent member of the UN Security Council until 1971', or 'Taiwan's diplomatic ties with South Korea, Saudi Arabia and South Africa were severed in the 1990s'? Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or a news magazine. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the PRC, the ROC seized to exist after 1949. That is why they celebrated the 60th anniversary instead of the 40th anniversary. Benjwong (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's PRC's point of view that the ROC ceased to exist in 1949 and the PRC succeeded as the rightful ruler of all China. Yet they also admit the existence of another authority controlling the islands of Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, etc. But all these are sort of irrelevant as far as the above statements are concerned. 'Republic of China' couldn't readily be replaced by 'Taiwan'. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That is easy to fix. Just say "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)" in the article. This treaty wasn't even signed on mainland soil or US soil. The name is the least concern. Benjwong (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's rewriting history. The United States wasn't signing a treaty with Taiwan, but a government that it by then recognised as China. What we can only say is that 'The Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty was signed in 1954 between the Republic of China, which had lost the Chinese mainland and relocated its government to Taipei in 1949 as a result of the civil war with the Communist Party of China, and the United States.'. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There are various contexts where we would find it necessary to mention some or all of these facts: that this regime is known formally as the Republic of China, that it rules Taiwan and is nowadays commonly referred to as Taiwan, and that it has a complicated relationship with mainland China. I would think that there is a cutoff date before which we would err on the side of calling it the Republic of China and explaining that its rule after 1949 was limited to Taiwan and nearby islands; and after the cutoff we would heir on the side of calling it Taiwan and explaining that it is known formally as the Republic of China. One option for a cutoff date would be when the ROC loses its seat in the UN in 1971. Another option would be when the ROC government last made serious plans to try to reclaim the mainland by force, which I believe was ca. 1966 — after this time, they had resigned themselves to rule only Taiwan.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)

I bet you are talking about 1996 instead, when the president was elected by the people of the Free Area, i.e. Taiwan and Kinmen, Wuchiou and Matsu. But then no matter the cut-off day is 1971, 1978 or 1996, such a cut-off day would still be OR among Wikipedia editors. Further, we cannot readily rename the articles President of the Republic of China, Flag of the Republic of China, Constitution of the Republic of China, etc., readily, into '.. of Taiwan'. We can't say Chiang Kai Shek or Lee Teng Hui is the founding president of Taiwan in 1972 or 1996. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

NC-TW straw poll

It's time to start a new discussion of WP:NC-TW, a guideline which is often referenced as a representation of "consensus", but which in light of current events, many people are complaining does not still represent consensus. After seeing the trainwreck at Talk:Republic of China, I think we need a straight up-or-down vote before we try to propose anything new, because of the real possibility of filibustering with ten dozen "alternate proposals". So just indicate your preference below; there is a separate section for discussion. Shrigley (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this is possibly one of the worst possible issues on which we should think that a vote at a particular time could give a sound indication of broad consensus. It's obvious that this issue attracts people deeply concerned with the complex geographic-socio-political history of the area. While they make a very valuable contribution, they are not representative of the broader, global Wikipedia community. My interest arose on one of our genuinely global pages, Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. To balance those very interested people perennially watching this page, is it possible to also invite to comment here those who commented on this matter in relation to the recent election in the ITN article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. There were a variety of viewpoints expressed about this convention at ITN. Shrigley (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But it also attracts people who know very little about the complex geographico-socio-political history of the ROC and the PRC to come to vote and discuss. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the point to discuss about the naming conventions for Taiwan in the talk page of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)? You don't consider Taiwan or the ROC to be part of China in the same way as the PRC does. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Does NC-TW represent current consensus?

Support

(NC-TW continues to represent current consensus. The guideline needs minor tweaks or no tweaks at all in light of the current China title.)

1. Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Raiolu (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
3. 119.236.8.59 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
4. GotR ^Talk 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Hsinhai (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
6. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
7. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
8. 1.65.130.202 (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
9. 116.48.164.14 (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC) - In many cases the two concepts have to be differentiated. We already tell readers that this country is now commonly known as Taiwan.
10. 61.18.170.128 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Jiang (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Support basic thrust of existing guidelines, but strongly believe it needs to be reworded to respect rather than denigrate common usage (has nothing to do with placement of China article).
12. wctaiwan (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Given a broad interpretation of "identifying a geographic location" (e.g. Radiohead plans to visit Taiwan in July, not Radiohead plans to visit the Republic of China (Taiwan) in July), and without endorsing the underlying motivation of other editors.
13. User:虞海 11:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
14. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC) - No change needed. The Republic of China is far more than just Taiwan Province. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)203.98.184.99 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC) This is the most unbiased way.
15. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Definitely. This is the only way to be in line with WP:NPOV. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
16. 203.145.92.163 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Per above.
17. --王小朋友 (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

(NC-TW does not represent current consensus. It should be decommissioned and we should write a new NC-TW guideline or just defer to greater WP policy.)

1. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
2. N-HH talk/edits 17:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
3. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
4. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
5. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Tktru (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
7. John Smith's (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
8. 95.232.244.111 (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Chaut0 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Kanguole 12:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
11. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
12. Kirby173 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC) - It is because of the China renaming that NC-TW no longer reflects the current consensus. A change is required to maintain a form of consistency between the two Chinese states.
13. 59.148.146.237 00:40, 18 January 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.148.146.237 (talk)
14. 1.65.194.29 (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC) I am an American. Having been residing in Korea, Japan, Thailand, Hong Kong and the Philippines for more than a decade, I have never heard or read about Republic of China (except in the phrase Peoples Republic of China). The island country is always known to us as Taiwan. We don't need confusing, ambiguous and perculiar names on Wikipedia.
15. mgeo talk 13:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Mlm42 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC) - It seems apparent from the discussion at Talk:Republic of China that WP:NC-TW does not reflect consensus.
17. Benjwong (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC) - After the move of PRC -> China, the current consensus looks seriously out of date and need changes.

Criticism on the polling

The poll want us to express our opinion about WP:NC-TW, while WP:NC-TW redirects to WP:NC-CHN! So the poll statement is confusing. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I doubt if the voter (either support or oppose) know what they're doing. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do they have to? 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course! If you vote for a topic with completely absense of cognition, then it's no different to nonsense. (e.g. you vote “yes” to “Obama is a Muslim” at a congress but you don't know who is Obama, then your vote is nonsense.) ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 10:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no such requirement on Wikipedia. Neither is there any such requirement in the US congress or any state legislature in the states. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the poll hard to understand but I think I have voted correctly after all. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There is: WP:DEM. Wikipedia does not allow any poll if the voters do not know what they're polling about. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How can this be executed? 42.3.2.237 (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe these guidelines are meant to reflect usage of terms within articles more so than the naming of articles. This should really be about the "Manual of Style (Chinese)" instead of the "Naming conventions (Chinese)." Kirby173's comment above seems to believe that this ought to determine the placement of the Taiwan article, which the guidelines as worded for do not aspire to do. Article titles and article text are two separate issues. It's now hard to tell here what people are really responding to.--Jiang (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's exceedingly sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, they're related in that we're not going to call an article one thing and then use an entirely different term to normally refer to that same thing in actual text, presumably. Obviously there's more flexibility in text, in terms of qualifying/explaining use and also in terms of switching between different terms at different times, for aesthetic variety or depending on precise context, but we have to decide what the primary, contemporary designation for Taiwan/ROC is, surely? And that then applies to the article title AND to the majority of non-historical or non-specialised in-text references. And no, this poll does not decide anything, but it may well suggest - as it seems to be doing so far - that there's no consensus for these guidelines as currently written. N-HH talk/edits 00:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Currently, the guideline suggests that Taiwan should only be used for references to the island itself, and that references to the state should be to "Republic of China", or at a pinch, "Republic of China (Taiwan)" - but the latter only on first mention, reverting to the simple "ROC" designation subsequently. This simply flies in the face of what nearly every real-world source does in 2012 when referring to the state/nation/geopolitical entity at issue here. Universally, as amply demonstrated elsewhere, they talk about "Taiwan" doing this that or the other, about elections "in Taiwan", about "China warning Taiwan" etc etc. Basically, this part of the guidelines needs to be flipped on its head. ROC should only be used in a historical context, or when talking about the more abstract idea of the regime that still claims sovereignty over the whole of China but whose authority is currently limited to the state/area known as Taiwan. This should apply of course to both the main article titles, and to in-text references. Regardless of what people claim is "correct" or "more neutral" or whatever, this is simply the way the world uses the terms, and we should follow that; not declare that everyone else has got it wrong and that a small clique of WP editors somehow know better. N-HH talk/edits 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would suggest having an RFC on this fairly soon, as given this is a guideline we can list the discussion at WP:CENT to get wider participation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wider participation is key, since we hopefully might get a more detached, objective and representative consensus sorted out, rather than just a repeat of the kind of thing we have now, which was presumably agreed by a small group of interested parties with an inevitably narrow and often partisan focus. N-HH talk/edits 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This guideline is not consistent with Wikipedia's other policies and standards like WP:COMMONNAME, nor with standard usage in modern English-speaking society. The ROC government itself even uses the name Taiwan frequently to refer to their country in official English writing, evidenced by the press releases on the GIO website. I would say not only that it should be superseded by more updated guidance, but that its inconsistency with other elements of policy makes it unsustainable and compelled to change. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't we just edit the Taiwan guidelines to be a mirror of the recently edited China guidelines? We simply made the wording less descriptive and more ambiguous, leaving the issue to editor discretion. That was relatively painless.--Jiang (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No. That would solve nothing. I came here as a result of an intense debate at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates on the issue of the recent election. Several editors used this policy as an absolute reason why China had to be mentioned in the blurb for that news item. Many disagreed. Deliberately creating ambiguity here would only make things worse, recreating this debate in perpetuity every time this place was discussed elsewhere. We need a clear policy here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think what would make the most sense and offend the least people would be to change the current "China" article to "People's Republic of China" and leave the "Republic of China" alone. The hardcore Mainlanders cannot complain about the article saying "People's Republic of China" versus "China" because "PRC" is the name of their country, there's no debating that. And the hardcore Taiwan Independence people cannot debate the fact that their country is legally called "Republic of China" until such time as that government actually declares independence. You can't compare this case to Ireland or even America (United States) in this case and use those (and any other) article as an example to move forward here, the situation is unique and requires its own unique solution. People's Republic of China/Republic of China; using the unarguable, official, legal names in this case, is the way to go.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk • contribs)

"Deliberately creating ambiguity here..." is arguably the most laughable thing I have heard any established editor say while here on Wikipedia. The policy on the ROC versus "Taiwan" makes itself unequivocally clear, and the only ambiguity that is being created here is to alter the status quo: In a modern context, the term "Republic of China" has only one meaning, while the term "Taiwan" has many. I do not care how much your side attempts to refute this—it only means further denial, denial, and more denial of the complicated, intricate truth. GotR ^Talk 03:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's like Congolese people cannot complain about having the article about the Congo located at Republic of the Congo, even though their country takes its seat in the UN as Congo. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think you can establish consensus here to wipe the term "Republic of China" off Wikipedia, well then, good luck. We can only pinpoint the instances were each term would be more accurate and acceptable, and the many other instances where they are interchangeable. Consensus is about taking into account as many views as possible - on the basis of existing discussion, replacing every instance of Republic of China with Taiwan isn't going to get consensus. The best that can be achieved is to permit Taiwan to be used as some sort of conventional short form of Republic of China, rather than limiting it to the island as the current guidelines do now.

What do you propose to replace the current text with?--Jiang (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In many contexts about the modern state, Taiwan and ROC are somehow interchangeable though Taiwan is not as accurate since it excludes the islands farther away. But the article on the Republic of China isn't only about the modern state. As for the title of this article is concerned, they aren't interchangeable. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Taiwan isn't just the island. Makung and the rest of the Penghu County / Archipelago, as well as Lanyu, Pengchiayu and Lyudao are part of Taiwan. Kinmen, Matsu, Wuciou, Tungsha and Taiping are not. 119.236.8.59 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not so simple. For example, the current ITN blurb could be shortened from "In the Republic of China (Taiwan), Ma Ying-jeou is re-elected as president and the Kuomintang retains its majority in the Legislative Yuan." to "In Taiwan, Ma Ying-jeou is re-elected as president and the Kuomintang retains its majority in the Legislative Yuan." without sacrificing either neutrality or accuracy, as Taiwan is used to refer to the geographical place of the political entity. Less accurate but not necessarily biased would be "Ma Ying-jeou is re-elected as president of Taiwan and the Kuomintang retains its majority in the Legislative Yuan." Not only less accurate but misleading would be "Taiwan was replaced by China in the UN in 1971." See the difference?

Article titles reflect common names. Article text reflect accuracy and precision.--Jiang (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Those arguing against accepting the name Taiwan for current events are showing very bad faith by completely ignoring the fact, pointed out in GOOD faith by many editors, that Taiwan IS the common name of the place now all over the world. (Obviously except among some hardliners obsessed with history.) They are not arguing against that point made by so many. They are acting if it hadn't been said at all. It's either very poor comprehension on their part, or very bad manners. This is meant to be Discussion, not repeating old political position over and over while ignoring what everybody else says. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. I can't believe you are this desperate, desperate enough to resort solely to commenting on personal conduct to confront your opposition...you have sunk to a bottomless new low. Almost no one here, myself included, disputes that "Taiwan" is the common name of the ROC, yet in the face of this fact, you unforgivably pretend otherwise. You are in enough denial to even deny the fact that your side has consistently REFUSED to acknowledge (and even learn) the subtleties involved. GotR ^Talk 04:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are absolutely no subtleties about the common name. The world's media and therefore the world's people use it. Please comment on that point. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Taiwan hasn't always been the common name of the ROC from the time of its foundation. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the common name of the Republic of China? It is Taiwan fair and simple. But are there subtleties involved in differentiating between the common name and the official name? Of course there are. (See the post by me immediately above this one.)--Jiang (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Common name isn't something so authoritative that cannot be trumped. It's a principle subjected to actual contexts. As far as the title of the article about the ROC is concerned, the subject of the article isn't only the modern state, and therefore the modern common name isn't everything. For example, it's the ROC that fought against Japan in the Second World War, not Taiwan. It's the ROC that declined to sign the Treaty of Versailles in the Paris Peace Conferece, not Taiwan. It's the ROC that was one of the founding members of the UN, not Taiwan. It's the ROC who lost the UN seat in 1971, not Taiwan. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't bloody well care! The more people try to tell me about the history (of which I do happen to know more than the average bear, but not as much as some here), the more I think that you are being deliberatlely obtuse. The reason for the increase in interest in the past week has been because of Wikipedia's attempt to cover the recent election. That isn't ancient history. It's this bloody week! And this week the place is known almost universally as Taiwan. I don't want to change historical articles. I just want "In The News" items to actually make sense to the millions of people reading them, and not think that Communist China has suddenly started having elections. Although the blurb for the item In The News now says Taiwan as well as RoC, the discussion, still active today, is headed with only China in the title and not Taiwan at all. That is nonsensical and makes Wikipedia look like it is playing 50 year old political games. A very bad look. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For the In The News section, I think it's ok to say Taiwan or even better Taiwan (Republic of China). But Wikipedia isn't only the ITN section. I bet over 90% of the average Joe can tell which name is which Congo. It's nothing surprising that the average Joe can be easily confused with anything. The merit of Wikipedia is that there are often links to the relevant articles. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think Taiwan is okay in ITN then you should be opposing the current text here, which syas it shouldn't be. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's ok for ITN, since ITN is like a media outlet. The rest of Wikipedia isn't like ITN. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(Might be somewhat off-topic, but I'm sure it definitely must be addressed right now...) I don't get it. Are we supposed to assume that all IPs from Hong Kong are User:Instantnood? I don't think that is a practical manner of doing things, since we're talking about a city of eight million, many English speaking, and each revert potentially being a false-positive. Can't we do this some other way? How can you prove that this IP is, in fact, Instantnood? A hunch isn't good enough; I don't think that the IP fails the WP:DUCK test yet. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There aren't many IP editors who make contributions to talk pages, let alone policy pages. That an IP editor has come along and made contributions from the same city and with the same modus operandi (replying to every comment going) only a couple of days after being blocked for sock puppetry is pretty damn obvious.

Even if this was in court its not a criminal case, so you only have to prove it to balance of probabilities rather than beyond all reasonable doubt.

Balance of probabilities its the same user. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also refer to User:Deryck Chan's 16 January 2012 comment here, where he shares similar concerns as mine. I don't mean to assume bad faith, but it seems that under the pretext of "thwarting Instantnood sockpuppets", users are scaring away IP editors that have any dispute or opinion regarding China topics. Keep in mind that IPs are people as well, and have the right to edit as per WP:PILLAR. WP:DENY does not mean that we can silence all IPs from an entire city, since we suspect that someone might be using sockpuppets from within that city. In fact, nowhere within WP:DENY does it say that we are permitted, or actively should, delete comments based on suspicions alone. Find me the exact line of text within WP:DENY that justifies these actions. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There aren't many ISPs in this territory of 7 million inhabitants, and this isn't the first time that I got my edits behind variable IPs of this ISP reverted for no reason. The ISP that I'm using was previously a monopoly in the landline telecom market. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If I had made as many talk page edits as the IP user did on China after everyone else on my side had stopped I'd be blocked for WP:DEADHORSE beating if nothing else. Deryck was wrong to complain about the block.

The sock puppetry card wasn't used until the problem got entirely ridiculous, in principle we weren't sitting there reverting Hong Kong IP's at the first hurdle.

With regards to just removing the comments what else am I supposed to do to make sure the IP user is following their block? Its generally standard practice to remove contributions by blocked users unless they are clearly good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So if I flew to Hong Kong, and started using the same ISP as Instantnood did three years ago (back in 2009), then it's my fault for using that ISP? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you did it less than a week after that user was blocked, yes. Especially if you continued that users modus operandi. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, one of my comments got deleted. But in light of the evidence about the sock-puppetry, I think it was necessary. John Smith's (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan and the ROC aren't congruent. 1.65.130.202 (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of point-missing going on above, as there has been all over this debate. The suggestion, as I see it, is not to replace ROC with Taiwan in every context, including historical or more theoretical references. There, ROC will often of course be the appropriate designation. The point is that the current guidelines, which demand the use of ROC in every context, including modern references to the state, and which effectively bar the use of Taiwan except very specific references to the geographic island, neither reflect real-world usage nor the likely consensus of wider WP editors without political axes to grind. In fact, not only do they not reflect it, they jar with it massively and are inevitably confusing to the average reader - who, pray, uses ROC these days to refer to the actions of the modern state? Who? If we agree that the guidelines are inadequate, we then move to working on them - so that they specify those more specialised occasions when we would actually rather use ROC than Taiwan. N-HH talk/edits 12:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Best thing to do is use their official names. How did the pro PRC->China crowd begin to own the dialogue by making it a law that articles names MUST be 1 word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to WP:COMMONNAME, that's been Wikipedia policy for a long time and was a deciding factor in the PRC->China move, it wasn't born from that move. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And we had a separate policy for naming conventions in place for PRC/ROC and it was completely disregarded when PRC=China. We need to follow the naming conventions that we have in place in regards to PRC/ROC; in this case, calling the PRC=China is denigrating the ROC. Having the articles called "PRC" and "ROC" is the most accurate and NPOV way forward.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And these "separate" naming conventions directly contradict every other Wikipedia rule and guidelines as well as common real-world usage. That's precisely why they are coming under question and criticism. There's no "denigration" involved in talking about "China" and "Taiwan" and it's no more or less "POV" than using PRC or ROC, which carry baggage all their own; and either way, commonname means all that is irrelevant. Neutrality is more relevant to how susbtantive text is written. Now, there's some space to debate to what extent and in which contexts decent guidelines might recommend the alternative uses of ROC or Taiwan, but I'm struggling to see how a naming convention which outright bars the use of the word Taiwan for the geopolitical entity is sustainable (note no one's suggesting a bar on ROC or "wiping" the term from WP when the convention changes). Or why anyone would ever have thought it appropriate, or still wish to support it. N-HH talk/edits 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The "baggage" that comes with using PRC and ROC is absoutely acceptable because it is their LEGAL names. The baggage that comes with using "Taiwan" and "China" is less acceptable because "Taiwan" is not the legal name of the ROC, it is the Republic of CHINA, not the Republic of TAIWAN (now that would be Baggage). It's denigrating because, somehow, the People's Republic of CHINA can be called "China" and the Republic of CHINA cannot.

Precisely. I don't care how common one is versus another — WP:NPOV is a core principle, unlike COMMONNAME, and the current naming convention obeys NPOV far better than alternatives that I'm seeing here. Note that news agencies and other sources that typically use "Taiwan" and "China" are typically allowed to be biased, even though they often bear pretty obvious biases. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What about WP:POVTITLE? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the Republic of Macedonia? Exceptions are made where things can get sensitive. WP:POVTITLE is not the end all be all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:POVTITLE apply in that case? How do the names stack up? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And having WP refer to what everyone else calls Taiwan as the "Republic of China" is no more neutral, implying as it does that the Taiwanese regime is somehow the legitimate and usurped ruler of all of greater China. Like I say, every title in this arena carries baggage. Also, if we're going to throw policy around .. i) wp:povtitle and wp:commonname are as much policy as wp:npov; and 2) the latter anyway says "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". Add the provisions of commonname to that, and we're done. And the Macedonia example is neither here nor there, as pointed out ad nauseam. The issue there is genuine ambiguity, not primarily political sensitivity (which, up to a point, we rightly ignore anyway) - "Macedonia" is a term that is commonly used to refer to several different things, with no clear primary topic, and hence it's a disambiguation page. That doesn't apply when it comes to "China" and "Taiwan". N-HH talk/edits 00:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Republic of China has been China since at least 1912. Which is before the PRC. The PRC still considers the ROC government as China under the 1992 Consensus. You have your history backwards.

I'm not sure the unsigned intervention immediately above makes sense. And, esp. @Nyttend, further on the "neutrality" point - which remains pretty much a red herring as far as I can see, once we look at what npov and other policies actually say, and once we bear in mind that all possible names carry some apparent bias or implication - since when was it assumed that an official name is magically neutral; and that the common name, in the media and elsewhere, is somehow definitely not? N-HH talk/edits 10:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It makes no sense to you because so many who want the PRC=China and ROC=Taiwan are also the ones with the least understanding of history and the facts of this subject. You used the word usurp, the ROC's creation precedes the PRC's, how can the ROC be the usurper? Legal names are not "magically" neutral, but no one can argue that it's the wrong name to use, because there's a legal precedence, it would hold up in a court of law, however, there's no legal precedence for "Taiwan". "Dumbing" down this issue (which many news articles tend to do for space, readablity and comsumption by the masses, eg, 6th grade and up) is not the way to go with a place like Wikipedia, a place that seeks to EDUCATE people, not just inform.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Taiwan ever mentioned in the verdicts laid down by the law courts of the U.S., Canada or any other western jurisdiction?

Right, I'm going to say this again, and this time hope it gets through. The Republic of Macedonia article is not named as such as an exception to commonname. Yes, the commonname of the country is indeed Macedonia. However, there is a Greek province called Macedonia (also its commonname), also an ancient kingdom called Macedonia (also the commonname), and a couple of other ones which probably aren't as important. It was established that none of these different Macedonias was the primary topic. Hence, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Macedonia (Greece), and Republic of Macedonia. In fact, many people think Republic of Macedonia is POV, and want it named Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Now with China, there has been no challenge that the country currently at China is not the primary topic. Basically, Macedonia does not in any way support an argument against China, and in fact shows that a proper legal, UN recognised, long name, "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", wasn't chosen as the article title. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion both China the cultural-historical-geographical region and China the People's Republic are called China, and both are common-name. 116.48.84.248 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Fujian

Is it potentially a violation of neutral point of view to have one same article for both Fujian in general and the Fujian Province of the PRC, and another article for the Fukien Province of the ROC? It is effectively equating Fujian with PRC's Fujian Province, and treating PRC's Fujian Province as the primary successor of its predecessors. 61.18.170.128 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

China / PRC

The current NPOV guideline suggests that "[i]n many cases, China can be used to refer to the modern nation-state officially known as the People's Republic of China." The PRC is not a nation-state. It's officially and in reality multi-ethnic. Further, neither "many" nor "modern" is defined. This is leaving people to ask in what cases China can be used to refer to the PRC, in what cases it cannot, and from when onwards is the PRC modern, and prior to when is it not. 119.236.8.59 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, why all this nitpicking? The reason this discussion intensified in the last couple of days is that some editors at In The News insisted that policy absolutely prevented the use of Taiwan to describe the country when this week's election was added to In The News. Obviously this week is modern. That is the only issue, so in fact there is no issue. HiLo48 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ma Ying-jeou is the President of the Republic of China, not the President of the Republic of Taiwan/President of Taiwan. That's not nitpicking, we don't call Barack Obama the President of America, we call him the President of the United States of America. "United States" is in United States of America. No where is "Taiwan" in the Republic of China.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

President of Taiwan Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

See also this incomplete list of English-language reliable sources which use "Taiwan" instead of "Republic of China". It seems that "Taiwan" is winning.. Mlm42 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As a Taiwanese national who regularly reads English-language news, I'd say that it's very rare, if ever, that the term "president of Taiwan" is used formally. There are indirect references--"the island nation", "the Taiwanese president", etc., but sources are usually careful to avoid saying or implying that there is a state by the name of Taiwan. While "the president of Taiwan" may be okay when used informally (or euphemistically...) to refer to the head of the state that is on Taiwan, it is simply factually inaccurate to say "Ma Ying-Jeou was re-elected the President of Taiwan", since no such position exists (the Obama analogy above is pretty good). (Though if we wanted to "be neutral" on the question whether Taiwan is a state, we could say "In Taiwan, Ma Ying-Jeou is re-elected president." I think that's ridiculous though, akin to providing equal weight to fringe theories.) wctaiwan (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Struck. wctaiwan (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, this issue is very difficult to discuss for several reasons. One is that people make absolute statements that are very easily refuted. Please have a look here. The use of the name Taiwan as the name of the country is not "very rare" at all. And it's used that way in very major sources, so I don't know where you've been looking. I got involved in this discussion after seeing a headline in my local top quality newspaper that said "China welcomes second term for Taiwan's leader". There's no problem with that. It's 100% clear. I knew exactly what was happening. It's not trying to deceive. It shouldn't offend anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Striking my comment, partially because you're right to a certain extent--some of those links do use 'Taiwan' to refer to the state; but also partially because I'm not prepared to argue the finer points of the issue. I'll stay out of this as long as phrases like "President of Taiwan" (with a capital P) don't start showing up in articles. wctaiwan (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that how he's commonly referred to in English? If so do we use full titles for other world leaders? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If we're using formal titles (President, as opposed to president), shouldn't we use them in full? wctaiwan (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to. Obviously we'd note the full title on their article, but something concise that is still perfectly understandable seems better to me. We say Prime Minister of Australia, President of the United States, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, so why not President of Taiwan? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If one is reading something that happened between China and the United States in 1965, for example, it's really difficult to tell if it's about the communist People's Republic or the renmant of the China that the US recognised by then. Eisenhower visited China in 1960 but that wasn't the communist one. Further, for those who don't know when the ROC was displaced by the PRC in the United Nations, they wouldn't be able to tell which China was it in an article about the Chinese votes in the UN in a meeting in the 1960s and in another meeting in the 1980s. We obviously cannot say the vote in the 1960s was cast by Taiwan. 116.48.84.248 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of content for alleged block evasion has screwed up this whole page

Someone may have been breaking the rules. I'm in no position to judge. But those posts had many responses which now make no sense. The whole page is now a bloody big mess. Don't hurt Wikipedia because one editor did something wrong. It's like a form of self harm.

Please put back the posts so conversations become readable again. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Then someone should have reverted the blocked user earlier in the day.

We can't possibly move forward on this if any attempt at discussion is continually filibustered. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression comments by block-evading users were normally struck rather than removed. It does tend to cause confusion when comments directed in reply to now-removed comments are left out of context. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That would make a lot more sense (unlike this page now). HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't realise that. That sounds like a better approach for the future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think there's any point restoring and striking it now (edit: never mind, I see this has already been done) (looking at the revision history, it's quite a lot of commentary) but it's worth keeping in mind at least. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've restored and struck the two comments that were replied to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

More deletions and s Some appalling Discussion

This has become one of the worst Talk pages in Wikipedia. Yet again, conversations have been rendered meaningless by the deletion of a lot of posts. Chunks of the page are now unreadable, AGAIN! We should NOT punish Wikipedia in that way because of alleged sins of an editor. We should punish the editor, and strike out the posts, not delete them.

And h Here is a precis of many discussions above.... EDITOR 1: We should use the name Taiwan for the country when discussing current events. EDITOR 2: The correct name of the country in 1960 was Republic of China.

It's a ridiculous disconnect. It's NOT a conversation. It makes the defenders of the old, official name look like fools, and I'm sure they're not. Maybe we have a language or a cultural problem. I really wish there was a sane way forward here, but I can't see it when Discussion is not actually happening. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, no content has been removed since your last thread on this, and some has been restored and struck. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Weird. There's been a couple of "Oppose" votes removed above, but I'll swear I saw some deletions when I looked at a shorter period. But basically, you're right. I'm still very concerned about the non-discussion happening here, so I'll strike out the inaccurate part of this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed some content that was re-added by the banned user, but all of it had been removed before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've restored my previous vote on the polling (IP:95.232.244.111), as it was erased by user Jiang. My ISP is located in Italy but i don't have a fixed IP. I have interest on the topic and it's a long time ago when I started reading about PRC and ROC, so I'd like to be free to express my opinion, with my single vote. Between, users from mainland China or Taiwan could also state their provenience, as it's very hard to be neutral on a topic regarding their own country/countries.

We should try to find a better consensus about the words referring to both territories. But it seems many users believe words are just for stating political positions. In mainland China, many people like to call Taiwan "Taiwan island" or "Taiwan province" or "Taiwan region", at the same time most of them want the formal name of Taiwan -Republic of China- being preserved as the presence of the word "China" inside the name in their eyes is stating that place is still China. For the same reason they put Taiwan territories in every map of PRC (as already being part of the PRC...) In Taiwan there is also politically biased point of view: someone wanting to use "Taiwan" in every every place ("president of Taiwan" , "Taiwan Navy" ?); at the opposite side there are other Taiwaneses just wanting to use the "ROC" always, even when this is clearly misleading (for example in the news, reporting last week Taiwan elections). If we call Taiwan "Taiwan", we're not saying the formal name of the country has changed, but just using the very common name for this place. And this name of "Taiwan" is the common name not just for English, but for almost every language on the world.

Besides, when I read a country-article about Taiwan in Wikipedia, I'd like to find information about the current territory and the people currently leaving there, the country economy and transport facilities, railways, languages, quality of life, history. I'd like for example to read Taiwan was ruled by Japan in 1895-1945 period, rather than information regarding ROC in mainland, having almost nothing to do with Taiwan itself. Is totally confusing, searching for "Taiwan", being redirected to "ROC", and the starting reading only information about mainland China, rather than on Taiwan itself. For example, during the whole period 1911-1945 the ROC and Taiwan where just opposite sides, Taiwan being part of Japan Empire and fighting against ROC during the Second Sino-Japanese war. But in the country-article for Taiwan, that period 1911-1945 is coverd like Taiwan were ROC in that time.

From what I understand the term Republic of China when used in mainland China refers only to PRC's predecessor before its foundation in 1949. They don't acknowledge the existence of an ROC remnant. In any country article, history of the land is covered anyway, just like the history of the rest of Canada apart from Lower and Upper Canada is covered in the Canada country article. 116.48.84.248 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)