User:George Ho/Centralized discussion/China

Process

Since the idea for this discussion is modelled on Macedonia, I suggest a similar process:

• Decide the structure of the discussion based on the issues to be solved.
• Discuss each issue on separate sub-pages (talk pages).
• Propose conventions for each issue on the sub-pages.
• Narrow down the proposals, compile rationale for and against each proposal, and do an RfC to reach consensus.
• Create a Naming Conventions based on this discussion.

Thoughts? Szqecs (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Szqecs: That first question – What should be the page title of the People's Republic of China article (currently China) and the Republic of China article (currently Taiwan)? – is not really an issue right now. My understanding is that there is very strong consensus among the community that because "China" is overwhelmingly the commonly used name to refer to the People's Republic of China and not the Republic of China, the article about the PROC should remain titled "China". I would not advise even starting a new discussion about it, as at this point, there's not a snowball's chance in hell of it passing. See Talk:Taiwan/Archive 25#Requested move 2 February 2017, which was not much more than two months ago. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether the community has preexisting consensuses on the other two questions. Mz7 (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: As you know, there are move proposals all the time, therefore it isn't universal consensus. Users are always allowed to propose moves, sure, but the discussion need not go too far every time. Having a special Naming Conventions is better than using the commonly used, more general WP:COMMONNAME. A new discussion from scratch may not be needed, but the rationale for and against need to be compiled for fast reference. Also, some people believe that the general WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to this special case. There could be an exception if it is agreed upon, but with the current mode of the discussions, it doesn't seem possible. Szqecs (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I do agree on what is right and what is wrong, even when you all keep saying commonly known as etc. I can also say United States is commonly known as America, Netherlands is commonly known as Holland, South Korea is commonly known as Korea and United Kingdom is commonly known as England. Those are wrong and technically wrong (it's not exclusively overlapping with each other, but there are many overlapping with other region if we were to use the latter names). Example for exclusively overlapping each other is Taiwan Island and Formosa Island (the latter is the former name of the former). Chongkian (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chongkian: Why are you mentioning all this? It is not relavent to the discussion at the present stage. Szqecs (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced there's a problem. Reading over the most recent requested moves, I'm seeing that we have as close to a "universal consensus" as we're going to get. We are effective at shutting down requested moves along these lines quickly, since it has already been discussed numerous times – those who make the proposals are often users who are either unaware of COMMONNAME or disagree with it fundamentally. There doesn't appear to be anything more than a small minority of editors who believe an exception to COMMONNAME should be made. If you don't think you can successfully propose an exception to COMMONNAME in a requested move, what makes you think you can do it in a centralized RfC? Mz7 (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Because a requested move is not a suitable place to propose policy changes. Okay maybe you are right, but in Talk:Taiwan there are two discussions, in Archive 20 and 23. Which is the main reference? As I said, a new discussion may not be needed, but there needs to be a link to a discussion, and ideally the main points for final the decision. Szqecs (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The RM results at Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China and Talk:Civil Service of the People's Republic of China are, respectively, "not moved" and "no consensus". --George Ho (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Naming

Country/region-level naming

• For any official naming (e.g. government offices, ministry, etc) shall use its formal name, which is People's Republic of China (PRC) for China and Republic of China (ROC) for Taiwan.
• For any non-political neutral geographical name, Mainland China shall be used for China and Taiwan shall be used for Taiwan.
• For any sport or international organizational name, China shall be used for China, Chinese Taipei shall be used for Taiwan, Hong Kong, China shall be used for Hong Kong and Macau, China shall be used for Macau (unless there is already the existing other official name for each entity.

Sub-country/region-level naming

• For Mainland China, it is heavily accepted to use Hanyu Pinyin as their city/province/village names, with the exception of those universally international accepted naming (e.g. China (instead of Zhongguo), Tibet (instead of Xizhang), Peking University (instead of Beijing University) etc).
• For Taiwan, Hanyu Pinyin has been the official naming convention since 2009, except those internationally known places (e.g. Taipei (instead of Taibei), Kaohsiung (instead of Gaoxiong), Changhua (instead of Zhanghua) etc). However, almost all of people's naming use Wade Giles (e.g. Tsai Ing-wen (instead of Cai Ying-wen) etc). Nevertheless, Hanyu Pinyin and Wade-Giles have always been a contentious issues between the KMT or DPP-led central government of the ROC, depending who is in the office. Taiwan Railways Administration station names have been universally changed to Hanyu Pinyin, while township names are still half-half (no general consensus on this).

Chongkian (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I read through your proposal and I can find many counter arguments. But this is too much to discuss in one place. The topic is very broad and the issues need to be categorized first. Szqecs (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why and I do completely understand on this. We need to break this down into smaller section, topic by topic first (e.g. museum name/train station name) in which if there is any change on that, it wont affect much on other articles. Can start from the least disputed naming. Once we have reached a consensus on that, then we can start to move up into the broader or more general scope of the naming convention. Chongkian (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Can't think of the "least disputed naming". I know that History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China are very different articles; so are History of China and History of the People's Republic of China. Politics of the Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suffered from content changes and maintenance issues, like original research. George Ho (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, may I please convert subheaders from ====example==== into '''example'''? --George Ho (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I generally support the names "China" and "Taiwan" should be used for the countries they're known as the names of, unless there's a real reason not to. Any common reason there is?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: There are many reasons that were brought up in the past. They will be presented at a later stage. A good discussion requires some background reading. Szqecs (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The section Country/region-level naming has far too many problems as-is. Of course the official name, in China, includes "People’s Republic of China", but we go by what is in English language sources, and English usage. "Mainland China": definitely not as it is a term little used and known outside of Greater China (HK + Taiwan primarily). And on sports and international bodies it depends on context, i.e. again usage in English sources. In particular

The section Sub-country/region-level naming seems redundant as it largely matches current policies, for not just Chinese but any foreign name. If there is a common English name or normal way of writing it in English then use that. Otherwise use the name in the foreign language, Romanised by whatever rules are usually used.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: You share your opinion here but you support the discussion be deleted. I don't get you. Szqecs (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Initial thoughts on structure

I think that issues include the following:

Main articles: Discussed. Include in naming conventions.

Foreign relations

• What designation should be used to refer to the People's Republic of China on articles about countries that do not refer to it by such name?
• What designation should be used to refer to the entity with the self-identifying official name the Republic of China on articles about countries and organizations that do not refer to the entity by its self-identifying name?

PRC-related articles

• In articles and article titles related to the People's Republic of China, what designation should be used to refer to itself?
• In articles and article titles related to the People's Republic of China, What designation should be used to refer to the entity with the self-identifying official name the Republic of China?

ROC-related articles

• In articles and article titles related to the the entity with the self-identifying official name the Republic of China, what designation should be used to refer to itself?
• In articles and article titles related to the the entity with the self-identifying official name the Republic of China, what designation should be used to refer to the People's Republic of China?

Other articles

• In articles and article titles not covered by the special cases of PRC-related and ROC-related articles, and articles related to foreign relations, what designation should be used when dealing with the People's Republic of China and its present-controlled territories?
• In articles and article titles not covered by the special cases of PRC-related and ROC-related articles, and articles related to foreign relations, what designation should be used when dealing with the entity with the self-identifying official name the Republic of China and its present-controlled territories?

Thoughts? Szqecs (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that in ROC-related articles, the full name "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in laws, government institutions and any other related things that were created in ROC's Chinese years (i.e., before 1949), e.g., Nationality law of the Republic of China should not be named "Nationality law of Taiwan" because of the ROC's huge overseas population which do not have the right of abode in Taiwan or are not related to Taiwan in any way. The law itself was also first created in 1929. Same thing goes for Republic of China Armed Forces which were founded in the 1920s. C-GAUN (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

One-China policy

I'm no expert here, but an issue with "China" being a redirect to the PRC is that it conflicts with the one-China policy and/or one-China principle. (Not being an expert, I note the article distinguishes between the two but I don't fully understand the distinction) For example, the U.S. issued a communique in 1972 that "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position." Of course, not challenging it isn't quite the same as maintaining it, and I have no idea what other countries adopt this policy. But it might be encyclopedic to go to some sort of disambiguation or even a different high-level article that acknowledges the policy, if in fact it is a widespread position. Wnt (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Either way the One-China thing is simply delusional. Neither has controlled the other for about 70 years, if you don't control it, it isn't yours. It's about time the world tells laughs in the face of anyone who expresses the "One-China" falsehood. --Khajidha (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Our job is not to adjudicate the facts or the diplomacy, just to name articles in the way that will be as clear and neutral as possible. Homunq (࿓) 23:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the modern political reality, any claim that the PRC actively controls ROC territory (or vice versa) should be dismissed under WP:NPOV/WP:GEVAL. Establishing a neutral perspective is more important than following the PRC's decidedly non-neutral policy. In fact, we already do this with the Koreas – we note that both the DPRK and ROK claim the full Korean Peninsula, but we do not treat those claims as valid.  ONR  (talk)  04:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Call Taiwan "Taiwan", and all demonyms and subsidiary articles accordingly. Call China "China", and all demonyms and subsidiary articles accordingly. "China" should indeed redirect to the PRC. Wikipedia operates on the principle of least astonishment, and COMMONNAME. Anything else is just partisan political window-dressing in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What about History of the Republic of China? Szqecs (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with Softlavender. I appreciate some people feel strongly about this, but seeing various attempts to circumvent the outcomes of the RMs that led to China and Taiwan being at their current titles (as well as blocking attempts to bring other articles in line) is getting very boring (I suspect if it continues, it will eventually end up at ARBCOM with some topic bans handed out to the more persistent editors). There are the odd crossover articles (like the one above) due to the complexity of history, but this is not an excuse to rename everything else. Some of this complexity has been created by the way articles have been designed, and arguably History of the Republic of China would be better off being split, with most of it going into History of China (1912–1949) and the post-1949 bit largely ending up in History of Taiwan (1949–present) or Republic of China on Taiwan. Number 57 11:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There is already Republic of China (1912–49), to which you refer as "History of China (1912–1949)". George Ho (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC); hmm.... 17:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that earlier and was one of the things I had in mind when I referred to the complexity. The problem with that article is that it's been written as an article on a country rather than a period in history. Number 57 13:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't understand the continued conflation of 'Taiwan' and the 'RoC', to the point where people want to render the history of the RoC as entirely separate from the history of mainland China. This is the most gross kind of misinformation, a complete failing in the application of our policies, and essentially a nonsense. How many times must you have to be shown that blind adherence to the so-called 'common name' principle does not work in this case without leading to misinformation of the reader? Do you believe that merely because some western media have decided to oversimplify this issue for the sake of a broad audience that really doesn't care about this situation, that we should copy that misinformation in our encylopaedia? An encylopaedia is not a newspaper. We do not oversimplify. We look at the big picture, and the big picture is clear. "History of the RoC" and "History of Taiwan" are separate topics, though both are subsets of "History of China". In any case, I'm tired of dealing with editors who cannot think for themselves or look at the evidence before them without saying "Taiwan, Taiwan, Taiwan", so I'm out of here. RGloucester — ☎ 14:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The history of the ROC before 1949 is the history of China, the history of the ROC since 1949 is the history of Taiwan. --Khajidha (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, as Taiwan is part of China. The history of the RoC, in both periods, is part of the history of China, and the history of Taiwan in both periods (even when under Japanese rule) is also part of the history of China. Or, do we consider that the history of Manchuria, when under Japanese rule, was not part of the history of China? No, as that would not make any sense. Indeed, the history of the RoC after the flight to Taiwan cannot be considered anything but the history of "China". For more than two decades after the flight, the RoC was recognised as the legitimate government of all of China by the UN. These artificial distinctions are the root of the misinformation being spread here. The history Taiwan is part of the history of China. The history of the RoC is part of the history of China. China and the PRC are not equivalent entities, or do we consider that the Qing dynasty is not part of the history of "China"? RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

See, to me, much of what you said makes no sense. Once the ROC lost the mainland it was no longer China, no matter what it claimed or who recognized it as such. Saying that a government that controls a couple of dinky islands is "really" a country that covers a significant portion of the continent of Asia is absolute nonsense. --Khajidha (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And, no, Manchuria wasn't part of China when Japan controlled it. The struggle to regain Manchuria was part of Chinese history at the time, but Manchuria itself wasn't.--Khajidha (talk)

"China" is not state or a government. "China" is a historical-cultural entity that has spanned thousands of years and many states. What happened in Manchuria at that time was and is Chinese history, because Manchuria is part of the historical and cultural entity that is "China", even if it was outside the state that called itself "China" at the time. Likewise, so is Taiwan. The RoC ceased to be the government of mainland China when it fled to Taiwan, but did not cease to be Chinese, part of China, or part of Chinese history. This narrow definition of "China" as being the PRC simply doesn't add up, unless the Qing wasn't China, the Ming wasn't China, &c. And, of course, at those times, those entities did not call themselves China, and yet we still consider them to be part of Chinese history. RGloucester — ☎ 20:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Those states were the manifestation of China at the time, they grew and developed in a succession that is the history of the modern state so I don't see what you are getting at. And I don't really see how you are separating the "historical-cultural entity" from the state. The state is the way that entity manifests itself and controls itself. --Khajidha (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason the "state" is separate from the "historical-cultural entity" is because many different states have co-existed within the "historical-cultural entity" for thousands of years. States are transient, but the historical-cultural entity that is "China" is not. This is also not the first time in Chinese history that multiple states have occupied the historical China, or do we consider the Southern Song not to be Chinese because it did not control the whole historical China? The "RoC" is also a manifestation of the historical-cultural entity, and always has been, or were the Three Principles of the People a unique expression "mainland Taiwanese" thinking? RGloucester — ☎ 14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that is different from other countries where we cover the history of all polities that have existed on their current territory but cease coverage when those areas are no longer part of the country. --Khajidha (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan is still part of China, so your argument makes no sense. RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Consistency with parent and child articles

Ever since "People's Republic of China" → "China" and "Republic of China" → "Taiwan", there have been endless RM discussions on applying consistency with "China" and "Taiwan" to child articles (i.e. subpages). As proven, consistency is becoming either shaky or a weak point to justify changing other titles using official names, e.g. "Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China". What are factors that make consistency no longer a strong point? --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This is what I propose: User:Szqecs/Naming conventions (China and Taiwan). Szqecs (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks poorly planned. Don't move the page to "Wikipedia:" namespace yet. It still needs more improvement. Making "X of China" or "X of Taiwan" a disambiguation page? Not keen on the ides idea yet. --George Ho (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC); edited. 10:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Only when they conflict, which is quite rare. One example is this: Taiwan is about the ROC but History of Taiwan is not about the ROC but the island. Szqecs (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What about Flag of China, Flag of the Republic of China (redirect page is "Flag of Taiwan"), Politics of China, and Politics of the Republic of China (whose redirect page is Politics of Taiwan)? And RMs in their talk pages? George Ho (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

By "conflict" I mean the articles on the two pages are about different things. None of the pages you mentioned have this problem. As for which title to use, there are no rules; they are decided case-by-case. Szqecs (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There isn't consistency because WP:UCRN applies to the entire title rather than the just the state. This is different for different topics. Szqecs (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...... Okay. I hope the proposal works, even with some flaws to be fixed. George Ho (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I have moved your edits to User:George Ho/Naming conventions (China and Taiwan). Please write your version there instead. Szqecs (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Question: why not allow teamwork on your version? You reverted the changes made by me and other editors. --George Ho (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see if this project page gets deleted. If not, I prefer to work on that first. Szqecs (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Names are complicated, fuzzy things, unsuited to fixed rules. That is why consistency is only one of many criteria to be weighed in article naming. Relying on fine distinctions of meaning to create lots of overlapping articles, covered with a layer of disambiguation pages, does not help readers.

Your move of History of Taiwan to create a disambiguation page is a case in point. Most readers searching for that term will find what they expect in that article. Those looking for the history of the state will find half of what they want, and a pointer to the rest. That's much better than sending everyone to a disambiguation page containing two overlapping entries. Moving Taiwan after World War II to "Taiwan Island after World War II" is even less helpful. Kanguole 15:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Kanguole, you can edit my version if you wish. I can allow teamwork. --George Ho (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think that these subarticles and their relationships to the parent articles are so varied that any fixed rules will produce unhelpful and at times ridiculous results. I see you propose to weaken the "should"s to "may"s, but ten one might as well do away with the rules. Kanguole 16:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kanguole: The same argument can be made for Macedonia, which most people associate with the country. Nevertheless, History of Macedonia is a disamb page. I think your argument goes against WP:NWFCTM. Szqecs (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia is a rather different situation, and NWFCTM is about background bias. Kanguole 16:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Right. People of different backgrounds will "expect" different things when they search. I'm open to changing my mind, but my point is that there needs to be a discussion on this. Maybe the consensus will be to use "Taiwan" for the primary article always. Then maybe that can be the convention. Szqecs (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)