Q1: Why is this article about the People's Republic of China?
A1: "China" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the People's
Republic of China rather than the Republic of China in both the Chinese and English languages. For relevant policy details, see WP:COMMONNAME.
Q2: Why is the Chinese government not described as "authoritarian" (or by similar terms) in the infobox?
A2: A community consensus was reached which overwhelmingly opposed the inclusion of the term "authoritarian" and similar terms in the infobox (see archived discussion). However, this question may be revisited in the future.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
China is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Eraserhead1, ChipmunkDavis, N-HH and the defenders of this move to equate PRC with China, you have and you will be defending this move incessantly for the foreseeable future from readers uncomfortable with this arrangement. The fact of the matter is -- the two Chinas question is more like that of Korea than the Fifth Republic is to France. With France, there are no two Frances currently coexisting and minimal room for confusion. With Korea, there is a North Korea and a South Korea, and a Korea page in Wikipedia that captures all that is Korea apart from the political division of Korea. That's how China was until this move. No amount of tinkering with the hatnote will overcome the readers' objections with the title of the article. What browsers of the Internet are likely looking for at any given moment in time when they search for "China" should not trump respect for the truth on Wikipedia. In this case, there is currently a live controversy over the political use of the name "China" and the article entitled China should reflect the controversy, not make this logical leap for the reader. ContinentalAve (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually disputing our enormous list of sources which show that China is used exclusively to refer to the PRC in a modern context? WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE are what counts, and it was basically undisputed that the People's Republic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for China. A few IP's disputing something is irrelevant, basically everyone else seems to be pretty satisfied with the move - at least as far as they don't want to lose face by protesting it.
The fundamental difference with Korea is that reliable sources don't use the term "Korea" to refer to either North or South Korea until context is established, and they certainly don't at the same ratio as sources use China to refer to the People's Republic.
Additionally when I've gone and bought the move up as an example elsewhere on the site, basically everyone (who at that point clearly isn't a partisan about cross strait relations) has agreed that it was a good move. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've reminded me about that list, is it too late to add more entries to that list? (After all, the general unwritten rule is not to refactor archived talk pages). I've noticed that Microsoft does not refer to the PRC as the sole China. In Windows 7, when selecting input languages (Control Panel>Region and Language>Keyboards and Languages>Change Keyboards), "PRC" and "Taiwan" are clearly distinguished, however there is no "China", meaning that Microsoft does not consider the primary topic of "China" to be "PRC". See http://i.imgur.com/5Z5g9.png for a screencap. Running Windows 7 Ultimate, Service Pack 1, Build 7601. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail04:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no (edit conflict; also replying to previous post). If the situation was more akin to Korea, we would have two states, one commonly called "Northwest China" and another "Southeast China" together with a wider area, commonly referred to as "China" that encompasses both and possibly other bits besides. We simply do not have anything like that in 2012 with China. Of course the French Republic point (as well as the examples of Germany, India etc) is not exactly the same - no comparison ever is - but it's closer than the Korea one, in so far as it deals with both the "this should be about a country not a political system" argument and the "but it doesn't cover the historical territory of X" argument; which are both misplaced anyway, as this article, like all other country articles, does deal with the country as a whole, its history, its shifting borders and how it came to be what it is today. There may indeed be some dispute over the use of the word China, but in the accepted terminology of geopolitics in the English language in 2011, it is hooked up to a life support machine with a priest hovering over it.
As for what constitutes "truth", well that's another whole can of worms, and I always find it odd when editors here think we can all divine a better, fairer and more "correct" nomenclature and classification than 1001 existing, serious sources. Yes an article title will often inevitably simplify complex issues, or prefer one styling over another (and thereby avoiding giving undue equivalence to a marginal dispute), but we're stuck with that problem like everyone else and whatever article title we choose. Again, if you have a problem, take it up with those existing sources; when they change, we'll change. And, btw, the previous set-up here (effectively a verbose and esoteric disambiguation page randomly discussing the "concept" of China) was far more controversial and far more confusing and was as out of place as the same kind of thing would have been for India or Germany. The difference was that people did something practical to resolve it - and won support for that effort. N-HHtalk/edits15:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
India is actually probably more dubious than China as historically India included Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which have substantial populations as a percentage of the region as a whole - this forces you to use "South Asia" to clarify what you're talking about, which is a position you wouldn't find with China as the parts that were historically part of China and aren't anymore are much smaller in terms of population at least. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
India is indeed a problem. After a very brief glance at the incoming links into the India article, many are actually about events long before the 1947/48 partition. And even though the modern Dominion and later the Republic of India is generally and commonly known as India, the ROI, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (and perhaps in some instances Nepal) together are all sucessors to the pre-partition or pre-(Western) colonial India. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead1, N-HH -- you guys seem pretty content to keep defending the move so I will leave you to it. But for the record, though, I think you should be aware that the "enormous list" is vulnerable to critique that was not presented at the time of the move. Namely, the term China carries a variety of meanings and the subtlties are not detected by the undiscerning reader. To use China precisely, it must defined. In the financial press, for example, the term China is always defined in some way -- as PRC including or excluding Hong Kong and Macau and sometimes including the ROC. (Some China region mutual funds include stocks of companies based in Taiwan). In scholarly works (books and journal articles) about contemporary China, China is generally defined at the outset as referring to the People's Republic of China. If the subject of the book concerns the PRC and ROC, then the book will use those two terms or will explicitly designate PRC or mainland China with China and ROC with Taiwan. Hence, China when used precisely is a defined term.
In news articles, especially those cited in the enormous list drawn from predominantly Anglo-American sources -- New York Times, BBC, Associated Press -- China is generally not defined and instead is equated with the PRC while Taiwan is equated with the ROC. This shorthand arrangement is used for the sake of simplicity but creates problems when the various meanings of China start to conflict. For example, these news sources can never adequately explain why Taiwan is warned against declaring independence when Taiwan is already independent. That's because there is a distinction between the Republic of China on Taiwan, which one political faction on the island wants to retain, and the Republic of Taiwan, which another faction has professed a desire to declare. The PRC although refusing to recognize the Republic of China on Taiwan, is willing to tolerate the existence of an independent ROC on Taiwan. The threats are made against the declaration of the ROT.
The Wikipedia entry for "China" should be the place where various common usages for China is discussed so that any reader who comes upon China, regardless which China they were looking for, will be apprised of the existence of other possibilities for China, so they too can use China precisely. With the move, however, China has been defined for them as the PRC. ContinentalAve (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All those points are fair up to a point, although I would dispute, for example, the assertion that the financial press are more specific - the FT for one pretty universally uses China for the PRC, at least in its general news reporting. As do plenty of academic, specialist books (and note, this page does precisely what you say many of those books do, ie define its terms at the outset, in the hatnote; which also offers readers a route to a disambiguation page, in the unlikely event they are looking for another use of the term China than the one here). In any event, WP is a general use encyclopedia. Yes we should avoid oversimplifying and definitely outright inaccuracy, but neither really applies here: it's perfectly reasonable - and no less "correct" than any other option - that we follow what virtually every other generalist, and huge numbers of specialist, publications do. As I say, what we have now seems far clearer overall than what we used to have in terms of how it defines and explains the use of the term "China", as well as, in terms of basic article title, following common usage. N-HHtalk/edits16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The weird semantic situation of the independent Taiwan declaring Taiwanese independence is not due to the country having multiple names. This situation arose because of the unique situation of having a regime overthrown and having this recognised by others around the world, but having the previous regime continue on in a small way. This means that although the regime functions independently from the larger overshadowing state, it has never done something like declare independence, as it existed first. The difficulty to simply capture the situation is caused more by the intricacies of the word independence than by ROC/Taiwan usage. Taiwan is independent. The Republic of China is independent. To anyone who doesn't place great symbolic stock to a simple word, those statements are exactly the same. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ContinentalAve if you have additional sources you would like to add to the list by all means do so - probably it would be good to add more sources from Asia. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Location of Jeju IslandPusan Perimeter Unlike Germany or perhaps the UK, Taiwan, Kinmen, the Matsu Islands, Wuchiou, and the Pratas aren't ceded, lost or seceded. It's in effect a rump state and the government there have until this moment carried on the same constitution, institutions, state organs, and many other things with them from Nanking. It isn't like East Prussia or (Southern) Ireland, which are no longer considered part of Germany or the United Kingdom, and aren't considered in any way as one of the successor entities to the original Germany or UK. These landmasses are still effectively carrying on a Chinese entity and is still in many ways considered part of China as a geographical area.
Let's consider an analogy. The Korean War ended up with an armistice roughly along the 38th Parallel, which is around the middle of the peninsula. But what if there wasn't an armistice along the 38th Parallel, but instead a ceasefire with the island of Jeju, a few islands along the southwestern coast of the Korean peninsula, and along the Pusan Perimeter, and that the communist DPRK is having recognitions like the PRC does? Would the northern state be known simply as Korea, while the southern state be known as South Korea, or perhaps as Jeju and Busan, or by its full name Republic of Korea? Would the meaning of 'Korea' be redefined, as much as 'China' on Wikipedia months ago? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, Jeju or Cheju experienced the Cheju Uprising as traumatic to the inhabitants as the 228 Incident had been to the Taiwanese people. (Note: the term Taiwanese people in this case does not cover 'Mainlanders' who relocated to Taiwan with the Kuomintang.) Would this southern Korean state be considered not part of Korea, in the same manner as East Prussia or (Southern Ireland) are to Germany or the UK, even though this southern state carries on the constitution, state organs, laws, institutions, etc., from Seoul and is having recognition from the ruling dynasty of the Korean empire as its sucessor? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And no I didn't say Wikipedia defined or redefined it. I said it in passive voice without specifying an actor. Wikipedia was mentioned as a venue or a medium. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can't really judge what that hypothetical Korean rump state would be called. You'd have to take it up with whatever English sources exist in that alternative history. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources that are cited here follow the partisan position of the majority of national governments, which are having official ties with Beijing and recognise or acknowledge Beijing's position. Beijing claims themselves as the sole successor to the ROC, the ROC was already replaced and succeeded by the PRC in 1949, and Taiwan is their province. In the hypothetical scenario that I suggested, the DPRK would have secured recognition and official ties in the same way as Beijing now possess. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that because a source calls the PRC China it is partisan is circular logic. If the DPRK has become so synonymous with the title Korea that it was referred to as such in sources ranging from newspapers to encyclopaedias to academic publications than I'm quite sure our DPRK article would be titled Korea. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
National governments can't be neutral since once they got into official relations with either Beijing or Taipei, they gotta stick with Beijing's or Taipei's position. And it has long been an established convention that the press do not 'decode' 'China' as the PRC when, e.g., the US President or British PM says 'China'. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Benlisquare // 04:03, 3 January 2012 and Eraserhead1 // 08:22, 3 January 2012 - Regarding the definition of 'China', The China Quarterly, a reputable academic journal on China published by the SOAS, explicitly defines 'China' as 'China including Taiwan',[2] (The China Quarterly is the leading scholarly journal in its field, covering all aspects of contemporary China including Taiwan.) and Taiwan topics appear from time to time in this journal:
[3]('Contemporary Taiwan, The Republic of China on Taiwan in Historical Perspective, etc)
[4] (Book Reviews: Building Democracy in the Republic of China, and Taiwan's Elections: Political Development and Democratization in the Republic of China)
[5] (Research article: Surviving the Rough-and-Tumble of Presidential Politics in an Emerging Democracy: The 1990 Elections in the Republic of China on Taiwan)
[6] (Book Review: Constitutional Reform and the Future of the Republic of China)
[7] (The Economic Transformation of the Republic of China on Taiwan)
[11] (Book Review: Planning in Taiwan: Spatial Planning in the Twenty-First Century)
This is also the case for The China Review, an academic journal published in Hong Kong by the CUHK:
[12] (Return Migration: The Case of the 1.5 Generation of Taiwanese in Canada and New Zealand)
[13] (Re-engineering the Developmental State in an Age of Globalization: Taiwan in Defiance of Neo-liberalism)
[14] (Why Do We Have to Abolish the Province?:An Assessment and Adjustment of Administrative Division in Taiwan)
In comparison, in general usage, the press uses the term 'China' quite often as excluding ROC's territories, Hong Kong and Macau:
Korea Times: Impact of Taiwan's elections on China (In fact, a 35-year-old man, Guo Jiyong, paddled three kilometers from the mainland to the Taiwan-held offshore island of Kinmen, apparently to observe the elections at first hand. "I want to see your elections with campaign flags flying all over the place," he told reporters after he was detained for entering Taiwan illegally. “Taiwan and China are one country, how can you arrest me for illegal entry?”)
BBC: World Agenda - A tale of two systems (Of course Uncle Thomas is not alone in his confusion. In both Hong Kong and China, defining quite who should be on each side of the border remains one of the biggest puzzles in post-handover Hong Kong.)
Reuters/The Globe and Mail: China’s Apple frenzy triggers wave of smuggling (Storeowners such as Xu take advantage of the price difference of Apple products in Hong Kong and China. For example, an iPad 2 costs $499 (U.S.) in an Apple retail store in Hong Kong, but its official price in China is $572.)
The Globe and Mail: Canada's food producers relish taste of success (Back at Honibe, John Rowe is busy promoting his products in the U.K., Japan, Hong Kong and China. It helps that most of the honey he uses comes from the island. His company is growing so quickly, he’s also now buying from Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta. But he’s sticking with strictly Canadian honey.)
Yet in many occassions 'China' is used to refer to a broader geographical region and Taiwan is included, as in the academic journals:
Chicago Tribune: Self-reliance Is All About Trust And Lending A Hand (Societies where trust is low, like Italy, France and China (including Taiwan), demand more contracts, regulations, oversight and centralized control, which exact higher costs for the conducting of business.)
BBC: Japan shrine seeks 'understanding' ("There is a noticeable increase in the number of worshippers and visitors from China, including Taiwan, and from South Korea. We created this pamphlet... to help them understand Yasukuni Shrine better," a statement from the shrine said.)
BBC: Rice: Food for the world (World rice production totals nearly 600 million tonnes. Asian farmers produced about 90% of the total, with two countries, China (including Taiwan) and India, producing more than 50% of the total crop.)
The Independent: China's shares are finally catching up the economy (Both Yearsley and Gavin Haynes of Whitechurch Securities like First State Asia Pacific Leaders. Managed by Angus Tulloch, this fund will provide greater diversification, although China (including Taiwan and Hong Kong) accounts for 35 per cent of the portfolio.)
That's my perception too. Most often for figures on trade volume, such as the trade volume between China and Japan, China and South Korea, China and Singapore, China and the US, or China and any country, China means the Chinese mainland (aka. mainland China, China's mainland). Census and statistical data of China, such as population growth rates, literacy rates, ethnic distributions, life expectancy, and so on and so forth, are all about the Chinese mainland. On cultural, customs and tradition matters, however, China is always understood to cover Taiwan, Kinmen and the Matsu Islands, as well as the former British and Portuguese colonies in the south. The sources right above are solid evidence. Entries on Wikipedia have to be properly titled to reflect this. 113.28.88.96 (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't clarified you guys would have said that it isn't clear and explicit enough to demonstrate that the word was meant to cover Taiwan. 113.28.88.94 (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But in many they do, and we had a list which was open to discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Evidence shows that the same word 'China', depending on contexts and qualifications, may refer to the Chinese mainland, the People's Republic, or the broader geographical region. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those using it for the Chinese mainland use that for the PRC, so those are one and the same. I have not at all seen evidence for this abstract idea of a geographical region. Almost every definition of China is determined by politics, not geography, and the few occasions that are different are usually about Culture. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you see 'China' and Hong Kong and/or Macau being listed side by side, it's probably referring specifically to the Chinese mainland. But, in some cases, it's referring specifically to the Chinese mainland too even if neither HK nor Macau is mentioned, e.g., the literacy rate of 'China', or the trade volume between 'China' and Iran. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said 'China' may refer specifically to mainland China, or to the broader geographical/cultural region that in many cases covers Taiwan. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I would also add that this sort of page-bombing really illuminates far less than people who do it think. Given the issues at the margins here, as elsewhere, I'm sure you can find 100s of examples of usage that slighty rub against the norm, but I could - if I had the time - provides 100s of 1000s that by contrast rely on the standard terms and classification. Also, to prove your point, you'd really need to find some reliable and authoritative sources that take one step back and make the explicit analytical judgment eg that "in normal usage, China includes Taiwan". The second IP here has asserted this for culture etc - where are sources that confirm it? And I mean the one-word phrase "China" specifically, in common discourse, not vaguer references to "Chinese cultural area", "Greater China", "One China Policy" or "Sinosphere" or whatever; and analytical sources that make that assertion, not simply examples of apparent use. N-HHtalk/edits14:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these seem to be sources who are simply confused about whether Hong Kong and Macau count as being part of China or not, which is something there seems to be some ambiguity about. But there isn't anything particularly good we can do about it. Its not as if if "People's Republic of China" was actually widely used that it wouldn't be used to refer to only "mainland china" anyway, so that title is hardly an improvement on that ground.
It sounds quite a lot like people using "England" to incorrectly refer to the UK, which we solve with a link on the disambiguation page - which is how we currently handle this case here as well.
With the journals "Greater China review" is a crap name, and there probably isn't enough coverage on Taiwan to justify its own journal, or they might believe Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China - which is hardly a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever actually heard of The China Quarterly? Is it a 'fringe' academic journal? And no. Using China to refer to the PRC is like saying America for the United States, Micronesia for the Federated States of Micronesia, or Ulster for Northern Ireland. 113.28.88.94 (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Eraserhead1 - When the term 'China' is used with its broader meaning Hong Kong and Macau are normally covered. But then many of the sources that I quoted above didn't actually touch on the issue about whether HK and Macau are covered. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
N-HH: And I mean the one-word phrase "China" specifically, in common discourse, not vaguer references... and analytical sources that make that assertion, not simply examples of apparent use. - What do you want then? The apparent usage are adequately illustrative. Anyway, here you go:
[16] "In this paper, the word “China” refers to mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan for simplicity.",
[17] "In this context, “China” refers to the community of people who have for thousands of years lived in the areas that cover the Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao. It is also the sum of these various geographic areas. Seen in this light, “China” is neither the ROC nor the PRC, although both governments claim to be the ruling body of these areas."; compare with
[18] "Throughout this document, China refers to mainland China. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau are not included because of unavailability of data and different economic systems.",
[19] "China refers to Mainland China and not Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan.".
Er, and which of those affirm, as requested that "in normal usage, China includes Taiwan"? All of them talk are qualified by "in this context .." or some variation thereof; or are specifically discussing "One China" issues; or specifically acknowledge that they are having to explain exceptions to normal usage. For the 10,000th time - we all know there are hazy areas and complexities at the margins, in respect of both the SARs and Taiwan. This does not alter the fact that in most normal, unqualified usage "China" is used to refer to [the People's Republic of] China (and that the SAR issue would arise whatever term we used here); or that this page is currently where it is, and you need to open a requested move or appeal the last one, rather than indulge in pettifoggery here, in order to do anything about it. It's your time your wasting as well as everyone else's. N-HHtalk/edits15:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What "double standards"? And when "again and again"? The point here was that people who bombard pages with what are primarily individual examples of usage that they prefer as a way to counter overwhelming evidence of primary, established usage prove nothing and generally, I have found, are people on a mission - the second list at least attempted to focus on alternative explanations of use, even if they were inadequate to prove the point intended. Anyway, this issue is solved, and has been ever since this page and its contents - which discuss all the complex aspects of what China "is" at a more esoteric or theoretical level - was moved to a title that reflects overwhelming common use of the simple one-word term itself in 2012 geopolitics, however "inaccurate" or "wrong" it appears to you and one or two others. So, we're done. Go and find something better to do with your time, and I will too. For the 11,000th time - open a page move request or shut up. N-HHtalk/edits15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I assume you noticed that the Economist letter (not magazine article, as it happens) you cited was referring to pre-1945 China as well, since you quoted that very section; you may not have noticed that we do, like the German WP (not that we have to follow them anyway of course), have pages on Chinese culture, One China and Greater China, and also, perhaps a little more obscurely, Sinosphere, that look at these broader issues, under more specific titles. N-HHtalk/edits16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was a reference to the double standard shared by the PRC-camp with the discriminatory application of the commonname principle upon Britain, Ireland, Congo, Macedonia, Holland, Russia and China, and your double standard with the so-called 'page-bombing' now and then. And if you aren't already aware, I have started the effort to prepare for a move request (or an appeal, if that's more appropriate). To reiterate, Wikipedia isn't just about 2012, and the broader usage of the term isn't marginal or fringe at all no matter how you yourself perceive it differently. Last but not least, please be courteous and civilised. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[20] In response to your clarifications, corrections and P.S., which weren't available when I type my previous response: Those sources that I cited aren't 'individual', non-'established' usage. I have no further point to add if you insist to dispute the standing of The China Quaterly. Just a little bit of clarification: the current German setting is to have the namespace 'China' as a redirect to the PRC article, with a hatnote to the article on the Kulturraum. It's similar yet essentially different from the arrangement here at the English version before the move request four months ago. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those arrangements were decided by totally different people, so it's nothing to do with "double standards"; I for one haven't commented on or been involved in any of them. This page is this page and has to be dealt with on its own merits. However, just to pick a couple - Holland is technically incorrect in a way that China isn't, even if it is common (much less so than it used to be, I think); the Ireland arrangement I personally think is unsatisfactory, but there is at least genuine and significant ambiguity there; Britain I think is fine as a disambiguation page, again because there is a tipping-point level of ambiguity. And the sources cited in favour of this move included overarching analysis/explanation as well as examples of use - eg the references to the country profile terminologies, style guides etc. Like I said, once that's been established, it takes more than flinging a list of counter-examples of use, however lengthy (these things are relative), to rebut the more definitive conclusions. Especially ones that anyway mostly had to explicitly note when they were including Taiwan under the term China, precisely because that is not the primary expected way of doing it.
I have seen the preliminary proposal and commented in that section - however, since it has not led you to actually open a more formal process, one can only conclude that it is simply a way of clogging up this page with more and more moaning. And, on that point, civility works both ways (see "double standards" above). And, finally, no, WP is not just about 2012 - no one has ever said it was. But it does favour the use of the dominant contemporary terminology, for countries as for everything else, other than when anachronism is the point, given the context. And it will do that even when there are issues at, as I have said, the margins (I have never explicitly said the issues were outright fringe). N-HHtalk/edits16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The preliminary proposal was meant to pave the way towards an actual and official move request or an appeal whichever more appropriate. The sources cited above already demonstrate that the term 'China' is itself noticeably ambiguous, just that it might not be as ambiguous as Ireland or Britain to you (and other editors on your side). You didn't say it's fringe, but other editors on your side (i.e. you in the plural sense) did, and you did consider it as margins. Since Wikipedia isn't only about 2012, applying the 2012 or so-called 'contemporary' usage retrospectively would create way too many confusions and troubles that you might not have anticipated. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is at the margins in terms of terminology and what most people mean when they use the term China in 2012. As a theoretical issue, maybe less so (see One China etc), but we're not talking about that; or about "retrospective" usage. We're talking about an article title in Wikipedia in 2012, which has now been settled, per the rules on primary topic, common name and NPOV (to the extent that the latter applies anyway). Cheers. N-HHtalk/edits17:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We all got different lives and topics of interests. Your understanding of the 2012 meaning of the term China may not be the same as the understanding of other people (say, the editors and contributors of the academic journals on China studies). The poll four months ago clearly demonstrates how divided it is among Wikipedia contributors. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary proposal
I would like to propose the following moves and redirects, so as to prepare for a further and official move request for later submission. It is going to involve:
This is going to address common name issues, without compromising the principle of neutrality. 'China' will not immediately be equated with 'People's Republic of China', yet users will get to read the PRC article while looking for 'China' as a common name. It will also avoid the wikineologisim term 'Chinese civilisation'. Please comment on this package. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a complicated mess that doesn't need to happen. The old article was a mess that didn't say anything - which was half the problem. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
This proposal is what the Spanish Wikipedia does over on their site. If it doesn't confuse Spanish speakers, I don't see why it would confuse English speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Because they probably take their layout queues from en. Very few language interwikis make bold naming decisions that depart from en. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
That doesn't surprise me. And it means we should be very careful to avoid doing what other wikis do so we don't go round and round in circles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do they redirect es:China to es:República Popular China? I think they do. And they got a es:China (región) article, as do the Portuguese (r, d, rdr, prc), Lithuanian (r, d, prc, prc) and German (r, d, rdr, prc) versions. And this wasn't the previous arrangement here at English Wikipedia. (The previous arrangement here was to locate the region article at 'China', like the existing arrangements of the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Dutch, Norwegian (both Bokmål and Nynorsk), Icelandic, Indonesian and Korean versions.) In comparison, the Latin and Gaelic versions got Sinae/Sìona as a disambiguation page (r, d, prc; r, d, prc). Let's call option B the German-Lithuanian-Spanish-Portuguese solution, and option A the Latin-Gaelic solution. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better than what we used to have, but not as good as what we seem, hopefully, to be heading towards, which is to have China at, er, "China" and Taiwan at, er, "Taiwan". There really isn't a neutrality issue there that needs to be addressed by this sort of complicated set up. WP:NPOV only comes into play when we look at how we write up the debate about China/Taiwan etc and the history of the division in article text; or if we were proposing to have Taiwan at "Definitely-not-China". N-HHtalk/edits15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explain why the article for Britain is located at United Kingdom, the article for Ireland is located at Republic of Ireland, the article for Macedonia is located at Republic of Macedonia, and the article for Holland is located at Netherlands? If your logic should apply, then I don't think there's any neutrality or ambiguity issue with these countries that needs to be addressed by this sort of complicated titles. The accurate and proper names or descriptions of this countries can be dealt with in the texts of the articles, not the titles. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bet all of us got the answer. The difference between us is that we stick with the same principle for essentially similar cases. You guys got the burden to explain why you don't apply your rule here to Britain, Holland, Ireland, etc. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Britain isn't as common as United Kingdom in various sources (it used to be, but has lost favour), Holland is rarely used in reliable sources, Ireland has two main meaning, of which the island is the primary topic, to the country is disambiguated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The data and information in those cases refer only to part of the PRC. Compare this with concepts like Metropolitan France (as opposed to the whole France with all overseas regions and territories), the Lower 48 (of the US, as opposed to all 50 states plus Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.), European Netherlands (as opposed to the whole Kingdom), (Mainland Portugal, as opposed to the whole Portugal with Madeira and Azores), or more appropriately, the United Kingdom as opposed the whole empire with Bermuda, Isle of Man, the Falklands, Guernsey, etc. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Metro France and lower 48 states etc. not appropriate comparisons. Many companies and the like treat HK/Macau separately from the Mainland (Hong Kong even has its own APEC membership) due to the extremely different laws they have under the two systems agreement. Due to legal oddities they've landed themselves in the position of often being treated as not part of China although they are (like Greenland and the Faroes with Denmark). Companies showing them as separate from China doesn't mean they don't refer to the PRC as China, as for their intents and purposes (business one would assume) they aren't part of it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My experience, and that of a great many people here, is different. You, and any other user, is free to create their own list of sources, keeping in mind they need to show not only that other uses exist but that the other terms are used significantly enough that the current page is not the primary topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But then the problem is that we cannot even agree on which meaning(s) the word 'China' is referring to in the same source, or on how to determine whether the sources are sufficient to suggest what is/isn't a primary topic. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a general response to this section so far: Is there any thing that we can learn from the German-Lithuanian-Spanish-Portuguese solution, or the Latin-Gaelic solution? Both are logical and sensible, and neither follows the arrangement here at the English version four months ago. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This POV is in our mind instead of on English web pages. Will Wikipedia recognize the common name for China other than the English world one? --Atry (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the PRC is the primary topic of 'China' in the English-speaking world. I speak English as my first language. In most of the occassions that I encountered, the primary topic is either the Chinese mainland (as in the cases of the FCO and the Economist above), or the broader region in general. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a native Chinese in mainland China, then Dalu is the official name of the PRC. That is the most politically correct. And this was brought up also in previous archives. A modern Chinese person just doesn't refer to him/herself as coming from "共和国". So PRC was never truly a common name to begin with. Benjwong (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But as an obvious relative expert and someone who relatively at least knows a lot about this I've never heard of this term before. For better or for worse it isn't common in English in the UK. And I doubt it's much different in the US or India or any other places with large English speaking populations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The press in the UK (such as The Guardian, The Scotsman, The Independent and BBC, to name a few) does use terms like 'Chinese mainland' and 'mainland China'. If you aren't familiar with the subject matter here, don't pretend you are, please. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjwong: To be fair, one could say that people from the mainland wouldn't claim that they come from "人民共和国", though they may say something like "I have a 中华人民共和国 passport" or "he is a 中华人民共和国 citizen". "共和国" itself only means "republic", so of course no one uses that term, since it's vague (it's no more than a synonym of 民国; both are alternate translations of res publica state, the only difference is that "共和国" is a word of Japanese (wasei kango) origin). -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail03:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be really fair, conversations regarding politics and passports might use terms like 共和国. But everyday conversations used by regular people just doesn't use those terms at all. Benjwong (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) 12:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I've ever noticed, China is virtually never used in English to mean both the PRC and ROC combined (or indeed any wider area). Also, it's worth saying again that this page is not simply about "the communist republic" - it's about the nation known as China, including all its history, but predicated on the notion that, in 2012, the currently-kind-of-communist PRC is the modern iteration of that nation and is what most people mean when they say "China". This is pretty indisputable stuff; there's no ambiguity as there is with, say, Georgia. And, finally, on the Far East sources point, I just glanced at the Japan Times, Taipei Times and South China Morning Post websites. Yes, a) newspapers don't determine everything here, b) it's not a full or thorough sample, and b) of course they're examples of use rather than explanations of use; but it's a pretty representative and decent starting point. And they all - even the Taipei Times - seem to use "China" and "Taiwan" pretty much as they would use "France", "Japan" etc. Why are we scrabbling around for reasons to be different? N-HHtalk/edits14:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Taipei Times is a Pan-Green, pro-Independence paper. It has a political motive for using "China" and "Taiwan" in the way that they use "France", "Japan", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that is the actual reason why it does prefer "Taiwan/China"; and, in any event, those sources - if there are any - that regularly or primarily use ROC/PRC are as likely to do so from political motives as well. Citing NPOV doesn't really get anyone anywhere; it's a red herring. And I didn't find any that do anyway, from Taiwan itself or elsewhere in the region (and there are of course virtually none in the West that do). N-HHtalk/edits17:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does; Taipei Times uses Taiwan versus China because they're pro-Independence. The sources that would support the ROC as China uses it because it's, you know, an actual reflection of reality: the Constitution of the ROC which calls itself China. That's reality, that's NPOV, it's in the ROC Constitution, it's recognized by people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits under teh 1992 Concensus. That the ROC is China. The POV here, is YOURS. Is it just me or are the people who most fervently defending this move from "China" to PRC are also the ones least informed about what is and what isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the lecture. No need to shout and be patronising by the way when you tell me things that I am actually perfectly well informed about. Anyway, sorry, but I cannot take seriously anyone who says explicitly and definitively that "the ROC is China" (as if it were a matter of some deep, objective truth anyway); or who suggests that what the government of a country says, or what terminology it happens to use, necessarily reflects "reality" or is by definition "neutral". And you know what? I don't have a POV, I just look at the terminology used by the overwhelming majority of sources - including the ROC/Taiwanese government itself half the time; or did you not know that? - and suggest following them. N-HHtalk/edits19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's something you should take very seriously. If the ROC itself were ever to declare itself as "not-China", hundreds upon hundreds of ballistic missiles will immediately fly over the Taiwan Strait at the sweet potato shaped island. The PRC recognizes the ROC as China. The ROC recognizes the ROC as China. Only a few of you here seem to have your own POV on this subject and sees the ROC as "not-China".
The issue is about what one word we use as an article title and in much of our written text to describe something (and what that one word generally describes). Too many people want to overcomplicate it by suggesting we are talking about a definitive statement of something's fundamental nature, or what it is or is not recognised as. Anyway, as noted above, those who dislike the current title of the page can open a move request - even if we only have just gone through one. 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The issue is, it doesn't have to be one word. I can be multiple words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Let's rebuild the world. We'll just declare that the PRC has no claim to Taiwan and that the RoC was never on the mainland and holds no claims there. We can inform the UN about our decision so they can write up the official paperwork. Do I have a second for this motion? Hcobb (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. According to the UN, the ROC ceased to exist on 1st January 1972. It's part of China, officially the People's Republic of China, which succeeded the Republic of China. UN's position is: It just doesn't exist. We don't know and we don't care what'd happened. The flag of China would be used to illustrate UN's founding anyways, with the flags of the Soviet Union, the UK, France, and the Star-Spangled Banner with only 48 instead of 50 stars. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view (= The Netherlands). China = PRC and Taiwan = ROC. Two seprate states, although each state claims that the other is part of their state. And my personal opinion: I think the USA will be angry and starts a diplomatic style roaring and cursing but are effectively powerless when China send its army out to seize Taiwan... Night of the Big Windtalk02:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ROC's claims over mainland China don't have any bearing on the fact that the majority of the world, including the ROC's GIO office, uses Taiwan as a name for the country. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the term 'Taiwan' is used either as a euphemism of the ROC or as an alternative reference to the 'Free Area', by the ROC itself on its relations with the PRC excluding the special administrative regions (i.e. as defined as the 'Mainland Area' in ROC's legislations), and by governments of other countries. Most countries recognise or acknowledge Beijing's position regarding the ROC, and therefore have no choice but to use the term 'Taiwan'. The United States, in particular, is bounded by its legislation on the definition of the word 'Taiwan' (which doesn't cover Kinmin, Wuchiou and Matsu).
But, all these do not change the fact that 'Taiwan' is only a common name for the contemporary ROC, with no clear and objective cut off point from which onwards the ROC became Taiwanese and no longer Chinese, and Taiwan refers only to part of the geographical extent of the contemporary ROC. Taiwan isn't (or isn't yet) Austrianised and in many occassions the term 'China' is used to refer to a geographical/cutural region that probably covers Taiwan. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that Taiwan is a common name for the contemporary ROC, but isn't that standard Wikipedia naming behaviour? We tend to name articles based on what their subject is currently known as, and make mention of what they were previously known as in the article. If the subject's previous incarnation is significant enough it might even be broken out into its own article, such as the British Empire with United Kingdom, or Yugoslavia with its various independent nations. This discussion really belongs on the ROC page, but I'll mention this here because the ROC discussion is related to the PRC->China move: an important 'first step' question is what the article on the modern state that occupies the island of Taiwan should be called. It's my view that calling it Taiwan is the appropriate answer. The historical details of the ROC can be worked out independently. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Between 1911-1949, there was a place called Great Britain. It's now called the United Kingdom. Between 1911-1949 there was a place called the Republic of China; it's more complicated for the ROC, but, it's now called Taiwan. All ROC articles need to be consolidated into a Taiwan articled. It's time to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.147.78 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Kingdom of Great Britain no longer existed in 1801 when it was succeeded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Republic of China did not become Taiwan in 1949. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison with the United Kingdom was to address concerns by some editors that you can't name an article X unless it was always and forever historically known as X, which is incorrect. You're referring instead to the common name issue. There's considerable evidence that has been provided that the common name of the country in control of the island of Taiwan is also called Taiwan. Wikipedia has a long and well-respected tradition of using common names, which is why you'll find the article on the USA at United States with a redirect from the more official United States of America. Similarly, the official name of Taiwan may well be Republic of China but the common name for the contemporary state is Taiwan, including in use by the ROC government itself, and our policy strongly indicates it should exist at that location. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of China is still the same Republic of China apart from the change in its territorial existence. United States is the common name for the United States of America since its founding in 1776. United Kingdom is the common name for both the UKGBI and the UKGBNI, and in modern usage may cover its predecessors too. Taiwan isn't the common name for the Republic of China at least until the 1970s. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
This is very circular arguing, 42.*. This circle consists of the following: 'but we can't call it X because it wasn't always X', 'Here's another example of a country at Y that wasn't always Y', 'but that country is commonly known as Y, X isn't commonly known as X', 'yeah it is, here's evidence', then back to step 1. I've demonstrated A) that Taiwan does not have to have been in use by the subject forever (eg. United Kingdom), and B) that it's widely regarded that Taiwan is the common name for the ROC. You seem to forget the answer to one of those points as soon as you shift focus to the latter, and I'm not convinced that your arguments aren't an attempt to filibuster discussion. As such I won't be replying to your concerns beyond this one. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand no one calls the period of the Republic of China between 1911/12 and 1972 as Taiwan in English (nor in Chinese), even in publications in the 2000s and 2010s. And even after 1978 in the US, Taiwan is only about 99% of the ROC. 116.48.84.248 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't they propose to break it off from the Chinese conventions? They don't consider Taiwan to be part of China, no matter what China may mean. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
![[15]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/Top%20growers.jpg){kind=link}
