Jump to content

Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggestion

[edit]

In contrast to the notion that a sole "China" page would have to refer to the PRC, couldn't it simply refer to the general historic empire/nation of China then trace its history since it came under PRC control (and perhaps offer a summary of said party's pre-1949 history, as per relevance?). Likewise, couldn't the Taiwan page cover the history of the region/nation that is presently referred to as Taiwan, as well as the history of its post-KMT occupation? Seperate pages could be linked to for the CPC and Kuomingtang respectively; and this would eliminate the problem one user described wherein the Taiwan article might state something to the effect of: "Taiwan fought with the allies in WWII" - instead, it could hypothetically state, "The KMT, who [insert summary of pre-Taiwan occupation history] annexed Taiwan in 1945, and the island has hence been a mation nomminally referred to as the 'Republic of China',", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.10.54 (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Also note that searching the "ROC" could auto-link you to Taiwan, while searching the "PRC" could auto-link you to China - with their claims still fully documented. This is atleast in line with my Encyclopedia Britannica, which states that "ROC" is the longhand name for a country called "Taiwan", and "PRC" is the longhand name for a country called "China" (the "America" vs. "US" analogy falls flat here, as "United States" is not longhand for a country called "America"). As for the notion that Taiwan's claim (I'll lead by example and not say "ROC's claim") to mainland China needs to be thoroughly represented; I won't even get into the debate, as I feel that others have done an appropriate job illustrating how absurd it is in lieu of common usage, international opinion, and reality itself.

Wikipedia does not endorse any political viewpoint whatsoever, including "Taiwan is not part of China". Wiki could only report that "Greens don't consider Taiwan to be a part of China". Furthermore, it is possible for someone to support ROC sovereignty, but against Taiwanese independence, so the ROC and Taiwan page can't be merged. Also, if you go by majority opinion and the UN viewpoint, The ROC page should be deleted, and Taiwan should redirect to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. T-1000 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to 'the consensus of 1992', which were apparently agreed upon by the CPC of the PRC and the KMT of the ROC (and acknowledged by the US), there is only one China in the world but the meaning of 'China' is subject to varying definitions. If wiki redirects users to 'China' when he or she searches for the PRC and to 'Taiwan' when ROC is searched, then I think wiki is implying that Taiwan is not part of China and is arguably taking a political stance in this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plinwu (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source stack

[edit]

In implementation of the above consensus on the strategy going forward, we will determine the definitional sentence by a simple source stack: whichever definition has the greatest support will be used in the opening. Any that has no significant support among reliable sources will not be used. Please add sources and the precise quote, and sign your name after each item, so that we know who to ask in case of any ambiguity.

I'm not sure if it's essential to know how these sources treat Taiwan, but since some editors in the discussion above seemed to link this article to the Taiwan article, it would perhaps be helpful to also note whether and how each source treats Taiwan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether you can find sources that say "China is a country". The question is whether the sentence "China is a country" means anything and if so, what does it mean? So far your sources that provide any clue as to what they mean are saying China is the PRC.
If we can all agree that by "China is a country" we mean that China is the country known as the PRC, and I doubt there is any confusion about what the PRC is, then we all agree and the article should be about the country known as the PRC.
Otherwise, what are we talking about and why would we include a sentence that has no meaning?
Why this obsession with including a sentence that doesn't tell anyone anything?Readin (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we changing the article into a simple definition of "China is a country"? Or are we just incorporating this definition into the article? I am still not clear on that.Chris! ct 02:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that, given WP:RS, WP:NPOV and other policies, we should state any and all significant points of view about what China really is. So I'm hoping that all editors will pitch into this source stack. At the end of it, we will summarise the definition accordingly. If, for example, the result is that the majority of sources say "China is a country" but a minority also say "China is a blob", then our definitional sentence will say "China is a country[footnote 1] and a blob[footnote 2]", etc. If, on the other hand, we find more sources saying "China is a cultural region" but also a significant number of sources saying "China is not a cultural region", i.e. something contradictory, then we need to make it clear that "China is a cultural region by some definitions". In other words, we apply the same method we usually use to accomplish WP:NPOV by proportionately and appropriately representing all significant points of view.
I really have no pre-conceptions about how the end result will look like, though based on the progress so far it seems that "is a country" will definitely need to be added, while some of the more novel definitions in the article now might need to be removed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern is that if we rely too heavily on dictionary definitions of China as sources, then the article would sound like a dictionary. I do not oppose using dictionary definitions as sources, but it would be good to have other kind of sources as well. Chris! ct 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you. I started with dictionaries/encyclopaedias because they are the easiest to search. Will endeavour to add other sources as I find them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument against the usage of country is simply politicized nonsense. Let me make this simple: Arabia, for example, is a historical region. Saudi Arabia is a specific state that was established after World War I. The Indus Valley is a region in South Asia that nurtured emerging Indo-Aryan civilizations. India is a country founded after World War II. The Iranian plateau is the location that nurtured the Aryan civilizations. Iran is a country today. Anatolia has been the home for many civilizations; today, Turkey is a country that is founded within the historical region of Anatolia. These comparisons are simply illogical and completely anachronistic. Colloqually, China is a country also known as the PRC. There is a disproportionate number of sources that show this; Wikipedia does not give undue weight to minority views. The fact that a Chinese scholar in the Denver Post even called this article incoherent says something. Nation state (which the PRC is) and civilization are not necessarily interchangeable in every context. The source stack seems completely unnecessary because we already know that most reliable sources available all recognize the PRC as "China," whether or not some people like it or not. Moreover, the negative statement, "China is NOT a country," cannot be verified, and therefore constitutes original research. None of the sources that refer to China as a "civilization" ever suggest that China cannot also be a "country" at the same time; that is a source I am waiting to see. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So please add the sources that you can find to the list below. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above: Just because a source refers to China as a "civilization" in a specific context does not mean that such a source does not acknowledge China as a country. The source stack is actually a rather futile process because it cannot verify that the usage of the word "China" has to be exclusive, which is what some people want when they say "China is not a country, but a civilization only." The entire methodology is problematic because there are no sources to the contrary. China can be a civilization and a country simultaneously. There has been NO SOURCE that says China is not a country. Am I being clear? -98.209.101.146 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"China is a country"

[edit]
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002): "China, officially People's Republic of China, [transliteration omitted] country of East Asia."
    • "Taiwan: [transliteration omtited] island situated 100 miles (160 km) off the southeast coast of the China mainland. It is governed by the Republic of China, or National Chinese, who also claim jurisdiction over the whole of mainland China;" --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Geographic Atlas of the World (8th ed): "China is the world's most populous country with about 1.3 billion people
  • Oxford English Dictionary (online): "China: The country so called, in Asia"
  • CIA World Factbook 2008 (online): "For centuries China stood as a leading civilization, outpacing the rest of the world in the arts and sciences, but in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the country was beset by civil unrest, major famines, military defeats, and foreign occupation."[1]

"China is a country, being the People's Republic of China"

[edit]
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002): "China, officially People's Republic of China, [transliteration omitted] country of East Asia."
  • National Geographic Atlas of the World, 8th edition. Map of "China" either shows current claimed boundaries of PRC or current actual boundaries of PRC (Taiwan and China are both in same color). Readin (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inferences from map colours is original research. Ditto below. The country list clearly lists Taiwan as a sub-national entity under the country entry for "China". --07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Using a map is original research? Reading a labeled map is no more original than reading a position in a list in the National Geographic Atlas (I didn't see that list myself so I'll take your word for it).Readin (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxford Atlas of the World: World Country Index shows China as a country. Maps of "China" shows current boundaries of PRC.
  • Hammond Fifth Edition World Atlas: Index includes China as a country. Map of "China" either shows current claimed boundaries of PRC or current actual boundaries of PRC (Taiwan and China are both in same color).
  • Rand McNally Classic World Atlas: Index includes China as a country. Maps of "China" shows current boundaries of PRC.
  • CIA World Factbook 2007 (online) : Information about "China"
Country name:
conventional long form: People's Republic of China
conventional short form: China
local long form: Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo
local short form: Zhongguo
abbreviation: PRC
Country name:
conventional long form: none
conventional short form: Taiwan
local long form: none
local short form: T'ai-wan
former: Formosa

For some reason I can't get to the 2008 edition of the CIA World Factbook, but no doubt it says that China is the PRC too.Readin (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan his no conventional long form? Perhaps the US government has to placate certain government on its public websites?--Jiang (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you're right on that. There is no good reason not to include the conventional long name "Republic of China" for the country Taiwan.Readin (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Readin, I could access the 2008 version perfectly, and as it has been reported above, Taiwan does not appear in the "countries or locations" list. I have also checked the 2007 version, and Taiwan does not appear in the "countries or locations" list either. Perhaps I did not check the Factbook thoroughly enough. Please supply a link to the page where you found the information you quoted above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I believe that the CIA Factbook represents the official US diplomatic position. In that case, 'Taiwan' or 'Republic of China' would not be considered as a country. CIA Factbook should be relied on for official US position, which may or may not be desireable for Wikipedia. --Plinwu (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't explain why I have trouble getting at the most recent version. I don't doubt that you have no trouble accessing it. I've seen it in the past, but for some reason the web service I use, or who knows maybe its the browser, won't load the current page. Nat has kindly provided the link to the Taiwan page where Taiwan's "Country name" is provided.Readin (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's located here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html. As always, its at the bottom of the list. nat.utoronto 13:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"China is a country, being the Republic of China"

[edit]

"China is not a country"

[edit]
  • None yet.

Other definitions

[edit]

I like the change also. Putting it in that manner I also believe would create less confusion.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article locations

[edit]

OK, why does this not redirect to People's Republic of China? That's surely the overwhelming use of the word. If I wanted an article on chinese civilisation, I would've typed Chinese civilisation. Modest Genius talk 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Not all countries agree with China = PRC. Ma just recently stated that "One China = ROC", thus, if we define China as the PRC, it would be a violation of NPOV. If the definition of "China" is under dispute, then Wikipedia merely reports it, and not trying (nor does it have the authority to) decide what is "right". T-1000 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Half the world, at least, uses "China" to refer to the country (which it is...). Why is there even any question? What the fuck is this "republic of china" anyway?
We have an article for people like you. :) T-1000 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's NPOV policy:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

Treating the ROC, which has virtually no recognition, as an equal heir to the name "China" is in fact a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy per undue weight. If the majority of the world (as well as the United Nations, the G8, etc.) and the majority of scholarship recognizes the PRC as China, then it should be treated as China. This is simply a case of Overseas Chinese making a humiliating debacle of Wikipedia just so they can say that they made a statement against the PRC; and, they look as though they are just denigrating the quality of China-related articles and the presentation that they wish to make of their otherwise beautiful culture. This embarrassment should be fixed promptly. If the term "China" doesn't redirect to the PRC, then, at the bare minimum, this page should not be a redirect to "Chinese civilization," but instead an explanation of Two Chinas. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herring argument. This article does not say anything about the ROC being equal to the PRC. As for the question of majority/minority, how much of a majority does it need to make the minority's recognination not matter? 51%? Wikipedia have no right to decide this. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, there are still two governments claiming to be China, and that is a fact. T-1000 (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a red herring at all. It is implicit in the denial that there is a refusal to recognize that China is the PRC. The existence of the ROC is exactly what should not prevent this article from being about the PRC; refer to the Subjective criteria section under our Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
From the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline:
"However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy."
As for the question of "Subjective criteria", I don't think the "moral right" to use the name China has ever came up. T-1000 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current article fails to fulfill the very guideline you have transcribed here. Rather than linking to the Two Chinas article, which would provide a more appropriate location to discuss the controversy, we instead have a link to a vaguely related civilization page with a completely disjointed lead and body. It is an article on Chinese civilization, spanning millenia, but half of the history section is now dedicated to the 20th century! Not only is this article arrangement problematic, it has destroyed the Chinese civilization article and has become more or less a copy of what the Two Chinas article should be. What is even more outrageous is that there are editors here who don't even want this page to mention that a country called China exists in the lead.

Whether or not you like it, this format does violate WP:NPOV because there is a significantly greater degree of verifiability with respect to the PRC being labelled "China." In a parallel example, the general term "Holocaust" redirects to the more verifiable Jewish Holocaust, not Nuclear Holocaust. This is not a matter of choosing sides, it is a matter of verifiability and undue weight. If the sources suggest overwhelming recognition of the PRC as "China," then that's what the redirect should be. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PRC is labeled China, but the controversy is over "what else" China is (and what time period). Redirecting the page to PRC would make it that "China is just the PRC", which is a violation of the NPOV and Name conflict rule.
Furthermore, the naming conflict page guidelines clearly state that Wikipedia should not try to define the proper name, but to report the dispute.
Regarding the link to "Two Chinas", When somebody uses the term "China", he or she can be talking about the Ming or Tang or Qing dynasties, and not just the "two Chinas". T-1000 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're all really so exorcised over this, make China a disambiguation page with links to the PRC, Taiwan, ancient China, Chinese civilisation etc. Not perfect, but certainly better than the current nonsense. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a China disambiguation page, with links to China, Texas and so forth. T-1000 (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why isn't it at this location, instead of this civilisation page, which is rather unlikely to be what people want when they just enter 'china' into the search box? Modest Genius talk 21:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said about a lot of other pages, why doesn't Turkey lead to a disambiguation page? The bird Turkey is equally as common as the Republic of Turkey. Perhaps it is because this page already has links to the PRC, ROC, and most of the dynasties and serves as a good starting point? (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah...

[edit]

Okay, this article must not be very recently updated, because I don't see very much recent information. And what's all this about it not being a country? Yeah, China's sort of a country...Ask, oh, I don't know, 100% of the educated world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the hell does "China" bring me here?

[edit]

The most common name for the country is "China". This article should be at "Chinese civilization" or "Chinese people". India, Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Mexico, Panama, Australia, etc... all bring you to the country. Out of (approx) 192 countries in the world, I'm pretty sure 191 are straight-minded enough to send the commonplace name for the country to the country.--Loodog (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are pretty sure, but you are wrong. "China" takes you to an article on civilization rather than the country. "Taiwan" takes you to an article on the island rather than the country. 192-2=190.Readin (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point, it's a clear majority. I'm not sure why this particular case should defy common sense when the majority don't.--Loodog (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidelines, Wikipedia cannot take sides in political disputes. Wikipedia can report that "A majority of countries hold relations with PRC" but it does not have the authority to equate China with the PRC. You can also take a look at the Korea article. T-1000 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not taking sidis. Naming guidelines say to use the most common name. "China" is the most overwhelmingly common name for the country. If the majority of the world calls Israel, "Israel", it isn't taking sides in the Israeli-Arab conflict to put the article there.--Loodog (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been gone over before. The PRC is labeled China, but there is controversy to "what else" China is. Furthermore, "China = only PRC" is wrong in even common English usage. For example, "China was part of the Allies during WWII" is a common phrase, but this "China" is not referring to the PRC. Same thing with "Marco Polo visited China". T-1000 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no controversy with the name "Isreal", hence, "describe the controversy" and "taking sides" does not apply to it. T-1000 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
China=PRC is the most common usage. It has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness. I've never in my life met someone who said "China" and meant anything other than PRC.--Loodog (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible. I just gave two examples of common usage where China does not just equal to PRC. Furthermore, history books uses "China" to refer to any one of the Chinese dynasties as well as the ROC. Unless you actually believe that Marco Polo visited the PRC? T-1000 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that "France" doesn't refer to pre-Napoleonic France because it's changed government a few times?--Loodog (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The modern French government is the successor state to Pre-Napoleonic France, there is no controversy regarding that. Whereas there is controversy over whether the PRC succeed the ROC under the succession of states theory. PRC claims that it did, ROC claim it did not. T-1000 (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if one side or the other accepts it. The current choice is false balance anyway. Wikipedia naming goes by common usage. People saying "China" in international relations mean the modern country. The news has no trouble calling PRC "China" as it talks about the Olympics and relations with Tibet. "China" the first page of google results has no problems. "China" overwhelmingly means the modern mainland nation. The current choice is a confusing eyesore to the majority of users.--Loodog (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is denying that the PRC is China, but China can also refer to other stuff. Finding articles that refer to China as PRC does not negate the other viewpoints. Can you find articles that states it is wrong to refer to the Qing dynasty as China? Take a look at this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Asien_Bd1.jpg. Using "China" to refer to the Dynasties is just as common. T-1000 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to assert that PRC is China. I'm saying that "China" is PRC. I just picked up a National Geographic issue this month. The entire issue is dedicated to China. Hundreds of uses of the word, and not once do they clarify by stating "People's Republic of China". I cannot comprehend how wikipedia got in this vacuum, oblivious to overwhelmingly common speech and reference.--Loodog (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If China is just the PRC, that means China didn't exist before 1949? That's a violation of Wikipedia:Recentism. T-1000 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. China is overwhelmingly the PRC in common usage. "China" can also mean other things, just as England can refer to the Kingdom of England, the ancestor to the modern country. That's why "England" sends you to the modern country and has a disambig on top for the other, far less common usages.--Loodog (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it goes back to the controversy of "did the PRC succeed the ROC or not"? For an proper analogy, there would have to be two Englands claiming to be the successor state. T-1000 (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm not raising the point of succession. I'm raising the point of common usage. Your point is that "China" may refer to other things and therefore PRC shouldn't take the "China" location. My point is that wikipedia articles are regularly placed at naming locations that can refer to other things, with other things being allowed a note at the top for disambig help. "China" has been established to, in overwhelmingly common usage mean "People's Republic of China". "China" therefore should redirect to "People's Republic of China". The fact that "China" can mean other things does not change this.--Loodog (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it is also in overwhelmingly common usage to use "China" to refer to any of the Chinese dynasties. People just use context to tell them apart. When people talk about Christoper Columbus, "America" means the continent. When people talk about the news, "America" refers to the US. But "Columbus discovered America" is a very common usage to begin with. Both usages are common. T-1000 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why with no dominating usage, America goes to a disambig, not to some arbitrary choice among them. As for what to do with "China", you seem to be going backwards with this. I'm saying, "A" usually means "B". You're saying "C" also very often is refered to as "B". The location of "A" doesn't depend on what other non-dominant usages also use "A", if there's a dominant usage "B".--Loodog (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, China can be a disambig page. But sometimes Wikipedia just pick an dominant one and stick with it. For example, why is the Republic of Turkey more dominate than Turkey the Bird? T-1000 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "Turkey" needs to be moved is another issue, as per WP:OSE. "China" directing to some vague geographical/political/cultural entity when the primary usage is the People's Republic of China is confusing, annoying, and somewhat debilitating.--Loodog (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the same thing could be said about America page, given most modern usage of America means the USA. But to be honest, I don't think most people mind that one more click. T-1000 (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if the America page needs to be changed is its own issue as per WP:OSE. This page needs to be redirected to the correct usage.--Loodog (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not asking for the America page to be redirected to the USA. People who speak English would realize the "America" means more than just the US. But you have not proven that using China to refer to Dynasties is far less common than China = PRC. And whether or not the usage is correct is your opinion only. T-1000 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of "correctness". It's a matter of usage. And contemporary media has no problem taking for granted that "China" is PRC. Neither does google. Neither does National Geographic this month which is centered entirely around China. At any rate, you've offered no evidence the vague geographical/political/cultural entity is the most popular usage while the page redirects here.--Loodog (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"China" referring to the Civilization is in common usage to talk about events that happened before 1949. You are only looking at sources which talk about China post 1949 only. Does the issue of National Geographic talk about China pre-1949? Does the news cover the history of China? On the other hand, if we look at a history book or the history channel, China is also used to refer to the civilization and the dynasties. Like I said, you have not proven that the use of the word "China" to refer to the Civilization is uncommon or far less common and your argument carries no weight until you do. T-1000 (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indentations got insane. Neither have you proven that that usage is any more common than PRC, which is the underlying assumption behind making this page go here.

As for National Geographic, they "took sides" by making PRC, and historical "China" synonymous. Their usage is that of a common country dating back hundreds of years, which had been ruled by different dynasties and governments. This is the overwhelmingly common way to do it in all writing I've seen (maybe this is just the way the West does it), all speech I've heard, and all news media. It wouldn't be out of line to hear an article saying, "China's Olympic hosting came under fire today. The nation, one of the cradles of early civilization..."

You can try to split the country from its past by definition, but this is not common usage. Since you maintain this is taking sides (which it isn't any more than acknowledging Israel's existence is), we're left with two distinct articles. If you're going to partition it this way, then we at least need to redirect to a disambig and NOT a redirect to something I (and likely countless others) didn't want to be brought to when I typed in "China". If I wanted Ancient China, or the Ming Dynasty and didn't expect it here, I would have typed in "Chinese civilization".--Loodog (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the common usage of "China" to describe the civilization, and the use of "mainland" to describe the PRC to debatable.
Second, From Wikipedia:Name,
"Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."
As you can see, the common name is only used if the common name is politically neutral and does not conflict with other names. "China = PRC" clearly fails on both counts. T-1000 (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as for Israel, many would believe that even acknowledging its existence as a country is taking sides.--Loodog (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isreal meets the Montevideo convention. T-1000 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accepting the Montevideo convention takes sides. People doing something "officially" doesn't make it any less biased.--Loodog (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a reliable source that states that there is a controversy with the Montevideo convention, then Wikipedia can report it. T-1000 (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several states do not recognize Israel as a state. This necessarily requires not accepting the Montevideo convention.--Loodog (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Loodog, I don't see how China could be anything other than the PRC. One could argue that it could be referred to the ROC, but the ROC is not located on China anymore. I don't think this is controversial. Most importantly, the naming convention clearly states that we should use the common name for everything.--Jerrch 01:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Official stance of the PRC and the ROC considers Taiwan to be a part of China. T-1000 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Official =/= common usage. WP:UCN wants us to use the most common name, and China is obviously the common name for the PRC, and not the ROC. Also, did I say anything about Taiwan? I thought we were only talking about this article.--Jerrch 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is also common usage to use "China" to refer to the Civilization and the Dynasties. "Paper was invented in China" common enough? As for Taiwan, that was a response to your "ROC not on China anymore" statement. T-1000 (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's what the History section is for. Just a thought...--Jerrch 02:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you treat the ROC? As part of the history of the PRC when it still exists? T-1000 (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Taiwan. If we were to merge this article with the PRC article, we ought to merge the Taiwan article with the ROC article. We would probably move the history section of the ROC to another article that covers the history of the ROC on mainland China.--Jerrch 15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those countries who recognize ROC sovereignty also recognize it over mainland China. Therefore, Taiwan and ROC can't be merged. T-1000 (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above about England.--Loodog (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed many times before. "China" is very common in North america. The term "mainland/mainland China" is way more common in the east. But I would never move the article there to describe today's PRC, since it already has its own article. Benjwong (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I notice the PRC and ROC articles seem to be delicate about mixing political states with geographic regions. Why is that?--Loodog (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too many things unsettled I guess. There has been alot of proposals before. Many good ones too. Benjwong (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, the People's Republic of China should be at the China article, and the Republic of China should be at the Taiwan article. It's not about who says what is where, it's about common usage and current recognised extent of control. The ROC only controls Taiwan, even though it says the ROC is both China and Taiwan, and the PRC only controls China, even though it says the PRC is both China and Taiwan. I know there has been discussion or consensus before but re-evaluations are needed especially when the term "China" is increasingly being used to refer to the PRC. --Joowwww (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan and the ROC are not identical terms to begin with. History also needs to be considered. The early part of the ROC (1912-1945) has nothing to do with Taiwan, and Pre-1949 China isn't the PRC. ROC is the government and Taiwan is the island. And we talk about Pre 1949 China or the early ROC in everyday usage. For example, if the ROC is directed to the Taiwan page, then you get stuff like "Taiwan was part of the Allies during WWII" which is clearly false. T-1000 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

So does anyone except T-1000 actually object to China redirecting to the PRC? Modest Genius talk 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Take a look at WP:DEMO. Furthermore, opinions of Wikipedian are original research. T-1000 (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjwong seems to. As do I. And clearly, there is no consensus to take such actions to redirect this article to the People's Republic of China. nat.utoronto 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at how Encarta deals with it: Its article on China [4] and its article on Taiwan [5]. If a kid wanted to find out about the two for a school project, for example, how confusing must it be to have so many different articles for essentially the same thing? I understand the issue is complex, and yes I am probably simplifying it, but why can't the History of China article be about the history of the area of land we now call China, including past and present governments, and the History of Taiwan article be about the history of the island of Taiwan, including past and present governments. And in response to your comment above, of course I'm not advocating the input of false information, I'm suggesting the History of Taiwan article could read "Taiwan, as part of the Republic of China, was part of the Allies during WWII". Common usage among bog-standard only-partially-interested members of the public is of two entities: China and Taiwan. --Joowwww (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the phrase "Taiwan, as part of the Republic of China, was part of the Allies during WWII" is that Taiwan Island, during the Second World War, was under Japanese administration and had been since the 1890s until their defeat in 1945. So clearly, that would be false and misleading. nat.utoronto 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections. As for opinions of wikipedians, I'm sorry, but the point of a talk page is to determine the opinions of the wikipedians. The point of WP:DEMO is that a simple vote is not a substitute for consensus. Neither do we intentionally go with the least popular opinion. That being said, I'll reiterate my reasons for my views:
The most common reason I believe someone would type in "China" would be for PRC, especially with the Olympics, globalization, and the country's rapidly growing economy. If a person wanted the Ming dynasty or Ancient China, I firmly believe "Chinese civilization" would be a more likely search. This being said, I am somewhat open to "China" instead redirecting to a disambig. The way we have it now is bad.--Loodog (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way we have it now is not bad. If someone wanted the People's Republic of China when they type in "China", there is a dablink at the very beginning of this article that will directed them there. nat.utoronto 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Futhermore, "China = PRC" implies two points of view: 1) Taiwan is a part of PRC, or 2) "China" = only the mainland. Both of these statements are gross violations of NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this, but I'll repeat myself anyway. They are not violations of NPOV any more than acknowledging Israel's existence is. The current setup is false balance anyway, and takes a far more absurd point of view. At least move to China (disambiguation).--Loodog (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the terms "existence" and "Legitimacy". The states that do not recognize Isreal is not recoginizing it's Legitimacy. No one doubts Isreal's existence (If Isreal really doesn't exist, then who are these states fighting against?). As for the question of whether Isreal's existence is legitimate, Wikipedia is slient on the matter to maintain NPOV. Since Wikipedia is slient, false balance do not apply. T-1000 (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point still stands that if we make an article for Israel, we're recognizing its legitimacy as a state against all the points you just raised about supposed neutrality. Wikipedia does not redefine reality into politically correct partitions to avoid offending people. It goes by popular usage. The present situation is absurd, especially given all the press coverage PRC has received in the last 20 years. We have some bizarre and artificial partition of the concept of China so that we don't have to play the "Who's really China" game? Let's call Israel "Western Palestine", the Western United States "New Spain", while we're at it. What about countries that didn't even exist as countries prior to current government like Italy, which has the bizarre notion that its history prior to 1861 (when the very concept of Italy as a country didn't exist) should be included in the same article? What about Germany, which hadn't been a country prior to 1871, yet still takes the egregiously POV decision of calling it the successor to various independent empires?
Just let the article's location be defined by usage, not some wikipedian's notion of false balance neutrality resulting in needless redirects.--Loodog (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article does not imply legitimacy; take a look at Northern Cyprus, only recognized by one country, but it still has an article. Like I said before, Wikipedia is silent on the issue of legitimacy. How can false balance apply when Wikipedia is silent? As for the United States, the US is the official name, like the PRC and the ROC. It is for this reason that "America" does not redirect to the US page, even though it is also common to refer to the US as "America". Italy and Germany does not have the problem of two states claiming to the successor states.
Furthermore, the naming guideline clearly states that common names are only to be use if they do not conflict with other names, and do not carry POV implications. "China = PRC" fails both requirements.
Lastly, you are pushing for this change based on your own personal experiences, which is original research. Do you ever even provide a source that state "China" referring to the civilization is uncommon? T-1000 (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor have you provided a source showing that "China" meaning PRC is uncommon, which is yet another case for a disambig page and not this.--Loodog (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PRC is part of the Chinese Civilization. T-1000 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That misses the point. You say, "'China' shouldn't direct to PRC because you haven't shown me a source saying 'China' for the civilization is uncommon." I reply, "'China' shouldn't direct to the civilization because you haven't shown me a source saying 'China' for the PRC is uncommon." Neither source has been produced and somehow this page wins.--Loodog (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that the use of "China" to refer to the PRC is uncommon. Again it depends on what time period of "China" people are talking about. But establishing the PRC as the legitimate successor to the historical China is a violation of NPOV. Neither that Isreal page nor the Northern Cyprus page talk anything about legitimacy.
Sorry, but as you can see here, there is no consensus to move the article. nat.utoronto 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are still working on it. There is no need to rush. This is a major issue on Wikipedia, and we should not end the discussion until a consensus is reached, IMO.--Jerrch 21:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely object. Not my reason for objection has nothing to do with Taiwan or ROC. The "mainland" term is IMHO too commonly used to describe PRC. Benjwong (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Gomeying (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC) It doesn't have to discuss in such depth. For most people, China means the present boundary of People's Republic of China which includes/excludes Taiwan (depending on your political view). Please do not argue of some silly technical argument.[reply]

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)

[edit]

"Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the political status of Taiwan and Tibet. Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense referring to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China — (geographically) Mainland China, whether alone or together with Hong Kong and Macau. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)" T-1000 (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So according to the naming conventions this article should only contain information about pre-1947? Readin (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politically, post 1947, "PRC did this" and "ROC did that" is more neutral than "China did this". As I mentioned before, "China = PRC" can imply two statements that are violations of NPOV. Besides, that's the reason why both the CCP and DPP want it. T-1000 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...so are you saying that Wikipedia should become KMT-based?--Jerrch 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The KMT's official stance is "One China = ROC". That viewpoint is not endorsed by Wikipedia. T-1000 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is tagged with 'The following section's wording or inclusion in this policy/guideline is disputed.' and doesn't seem to 'reflect...reality' at all. Besides, at most you're just redirecting debate onto the guideline. Modest Genius talk 14:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until the guideline changes, the article's naming is in accordance with the naming convention. As for 'reflect reality', Wikipedia clearly reflects the reality that two China governments exist. The Legitimacy of these governments are Inherently a point of view. T-1000 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really follow disputed guidelines (at least I don't think so). Also, Two Chinas is not "the reality," different people would interpret the reality differently. The fact that Wikipedia reflects the Two China theory does not make it realistic.--Jerrch 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why interpretions do not belong on Wiki unless it is made clear that Wiki is only reporting it. As for the two Chinas, it could be backed up with pictures of the PRC and ROC embassies. T-1000 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But does Wikipedia reflect the reality that the ROC is more commonly referred to as Taiwan, and the PRC is more commonly referred to as China?--Jerrch 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. It's in the first paragraph of the PRC, ROC, and this article. T-1000 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The stalemate of the last Chinese Civil War has resulted in two political entities using the name China: the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, which controls mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau; and the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, which controls the island of Taiwan and some nearby islands."

Yes, why the hurry? What has changed? What is 'new'?

[edit]

Someone's comment above echoed what I've been thinking for awhile - why the hurry? What has changed recently to make this become such a 'hot' topic? What has changed recently to make people come here and demand changes? Perhaps if we knew, we could add this to the things to consider.

Reviewing the page history, there's been about 1750 edits about the name issue in just 6 months or so. Before that there were about 250 edits on other issues in 7-8 months.

What has changed about Chinese civilisation in the last half-year? Shenme (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are aware, but the next Olympic games are being hosted in China and there is much media attention to China itself in the last 6 months. That is what has changed. JayKeaton (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Der. Olympics. Protests of China's (yes, I mean the People's Republic of China like everyone does) hosting of the Olympics. Its human rights record. Its unprecendentedly-rapidly emerging economy. People are getting to this article and wondering why the hell they're here. That was how I got here. I wanted to read up about why the Olympics are being boycotted and I was brought to an article better filed under "Chinese civilization".--Loodog (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, can you provide a source that states "China" referring to the civilization is uncommon? Not to mention that the Use of "China" referring to PRC is not even common outside of the West. T-1000 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
T-1000, are you asking us to source something we claim doesn't exist? Asking us to source that China doesn't commonly (at all) refer to civilization, it's like asking us to source that a zebra isn't commonly called a "zogo-wow-wow" JayKeaton (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am asking the opposite since User:Loodog claims that "China' can only refer the the PRC. T-1000 (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. My point that PRC is primary usage, not sole usage, but thanks for the Straw man.--Loodog (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the links to "China" in the olympic articles should direct to the People's Republic of China. Should the Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics task force be aware of this? Benjwong (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding a wikipedia article not being the only way to get to "China", it's a pretty damn easy mistake to make on the part of the article editors. "The successful bid for the Olympics had been secured by China in ...".--Loodog (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well. That's why I asked if you feel the Olympic task force should be aware of this necessary change. If so, we can all get on their talk page and put in a request. Benjwong (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure tha it is more urgent than before, but this paragraph is an example of why we need a change:

Most Chinese dynasties were based in the historical heartlands of China, known as China proper. Various dynasties also expanded into peripheral territories like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjiang, and Tibet. The Manchu-established Qing Dynasty and its successors, the ROC and the PRC, incorporated these territories into China.

The article is supposedly about the a civilization called "China". If that is the case, how could the ROC and PRC possibly incorporated those countries into it's "civilization". They made them part of the same state, not the same civilization. Unless the "China" article is about the country or state, then that paragraph really needs to go. In fact having places like Xinjiang and Tibet in this article is highly dubious so long as the article is not about the country formally known as the People's Republic of China.Readin (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but a civilization does not always encompass only one ethnicity, or ever one "country" or state, but could encompass many ethnicities, "countries", or states. nat.utoronto 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a civilization can encompass many ethnicities, countries and states. In fact once we remove the references to Tibet and Xinjiang, we'll have to consider whether to include Japan and Korea. But let's start with Tibet. One of the key components of civilization is having a written language. From ancientscripts.com:

The origin of the Tibetan script is rather obscure. Tibetan Buddhist tradition states that it was created by Minister Thon mi Sambhota in northeastern India by order of the Tibetan king Srong btsan sgam po. On the other hand, the Bon po religious tradition maintains that the script came from Iranian or Central Asian origins. Nevertheless I ate some tacos, no matter how it came into Tibetan, the script's structure clearly suggests that its ultimate ancestor is the Brahmi script of India: (a) each sign is actually a syllable consisting of a consonant plus the vowel /a/; (b) the ordering of the characters are same as in Brahmi; and (c) the way the vowels /i/, /u/, /e/, and /o/ are represented by marks above and below the signs.

Another important part of civilization is large cities and buildings. From Tibetan culture: "Tibetan architecture contains Chinese and Indian influences". What about technology? Can it be said that throughout history or even in modern times that most of Tibet's technology was of Chinese origin?
Perform the same comparisons on Xinjiang, Korea, and Japan. It is clear that Korea and Japan are more a part of Chinese civilization than either Tibet or Xinjiang. Original research? Perhaps, but try finding a reliable source that says Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia were incorporated into "Chinese Civilization" rather than the Chinese empire. Readin (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_civilization/Archive_20&oldid=1148852214"