Talk:Chinese Republic

Untitled
Chinese Republic is an imprecise term, or at least a term with multiple meanings, and thus should be disambiguated and explained. It is most often a reference to the state that existed on China during the Republican China Era, but it is also a reference to all Chinese rule since the abolishment of the empire--the Republic of China from 1912-1949 and the People's Republic of China from 1949-the present. A simple redirect is quite inadequate.--DownUnder555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DownUnder555 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 1 September 2005‎


 * please sign your posts with ~ . I've never seen "Chinese Republic" used to also refer to the PRC. The PRC is referred to as the "People's Republic" and never the "Chinese Republic" --Jiang 07:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well. Check out 'The Rise of the Chinese Republic: From the Last Emperor to Deng Xiaoping by Edwin P. Hoyt'. It is not a reference only to the PRC but to the ROC and the PRC eras of China.--DownUnder555 17:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Any web links showing common use? A search shows all the major hits referring to 1912-1949 China. If the term must refer to both, then "republic" should not be capitalized. Book titles are an excepton --Jiang 19:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it elsewhere, but if we restrict to 1912-1949, then a redirect is still inadequate and requires explanation.--DownUnder555 14:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

For a use referring to Republic of China on China and on Taiwan, see


 * I waited several days and see no response before reverting. I would appreciate if you did the same. Non-synonymous terms are often still redirected. I provided examples. If you feel "Republic of China" does not accurately explain the term "Chinese Republic", then please add an explanation. But not every redirect is explained. There are countless examples of this in wikipedia and this is in line with the redirect policy. If you disagree, bring this up at the policy page.


 * Your example shows that "Chinese Republic" is used exclusively for the Republic of China and not the People's Republic of China. --Jiang 20:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

One example can't show exclusivity. I was showing how that is equivalent to meaning ROC on mainland China + ROC on Taiwan. But in other cases it only means ROC on mainland China, 1911/1912-1949. So there are two uses you should agree to even if you think ROC before 1949 and PRC after 1949 is too infrequent to warrant an explanation.

You're wrong about the policy page. These are not synonyms or misspellings. Give me a category.--DownUnder555 09:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Other names, pseudonyms, nicknames, and synonyms"


 * Both uses are covered in the Republic of China article. I don't see your point. This is not wiktionary. We don't need to define "Chinese Republic" per se (though we should), but only to lead readers using this alternate and less frequently used term to the right place. --Jiang 10:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Republic is not another name, a pseudonym, nickname or synonym. Find a different category because the one you mention is not it. You also misinterpret the probability here. The most common use of Chinese Republic is to cover Republic of China 1912-1949. That is not what Republic of China is defined as in the article. --DownUnder555 11:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is another name. Again, convention established over the past four years dictates that redirects need not be for exclusively synonymous terms. Alternatively, you can interpret it as part of being the group "Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text".


 * how about redirecting to history of the Republic of China as a compromise? This article would contain too little information and too much exclusively redundant information to stand on its own. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Jiang 09:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait, but you didn't implement your compromise? I thinka disambiguation works here best. You yourself agree to several definitions. (unsigned comment by DownUnder555)


 * you didnt comment of the compromise. I prefer the redirect to ROC but find redirecting to history of the ROC acceptable. The first two definitions are already covered in the Republic of China article. The third does not make sense since there are two separate republics: the "r" in "Republic" cannot possibly be capitalized. --Jiang 16:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to ROC is inadequate for the reasons I already stated. Why couldn't it be capitalized? I don't necessarily personally see a great unity between the ROC to the PRC but that is exactly what some scholars see. They see it as a single moment, and because you are naming a political geographic entity, it is capitalized. It does not directly refer to ROC or PRC, but that this is the non-dynastic state of China. --DownUnder555 12:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The "Chinese Republic" is not capitialized simply "a political geographic entity". It is not a proper name like "Republic of China" or "People's Republic of China". It is a pseudodom, an unofficial description of a political entity. Per naming conventions (capitalization), a description of both the PRC and ROC (as you would like to define it), as republics that happen to be Chinese, is not capitalized, and even if it were, would not warrant an article like how "French republic" does not exist and "French Republic" is a redirect to the current one.


 * I do not see real evidence that the term is in any widespread use to refer to both the ROC and PRC. Can you name at least five people among these "some scholars"? A simple google search on the other hand, shows the term being used to refer to Republican China.--Jiang 10:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits don't track your talk points. Even if you advocate the removal of the third definition (and use in the ROC and PRC does not restrict use in Australia or the greater Anglo world at all... this is English wikipedia we're talking about), you're still left with two uses that should point to two different things. Make edits that reflect your positions, instead of looking for talk points to support your edits, regardless of what it is.--DownUnder555 10:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As I have stated before, the Republic of China article is meant to cover the Republic of China in its entirety. The two "different things" are covered in one article. You would be unable to make this into a real disambiguaton page even if you wanted, since we dont have separate articles for "Republic of China (1912-1949)" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)". --Jiang 20:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

One does not get everything that they would want from the ROC article. The History article is much more appropriate for someone looking for just Republican China. The ROC article is better for someone who is looking for info about the government of Taiwan.--DownUnder555 10:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If the ROC article is only on Taiwan, then we have flat out ignored the CPC version of history. It is not appropriate to follow the ROC=Taiwan DPP POV. As I have stated before, the Republic of China article is meant to cover the Republic of China in its entirety. This still doesnt explain how you can include the PRC in the definition.--Jiang 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a historian, but I do know that Fairbanks is a major historian of Chinese history and he uses the Chinese Republic in this way all the time. It's used that way in several of his published histories of China. And you don't even follow what you're saying. If you're problem is that there is absolutely no way someone would be looking for info on the ROC pre-1949 and the PRC post-1949 then you should delete the third direction.--DownUnder555 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I also have no idea what the hell you're talking about in terms of the ROC article being only about Taiwan. It's not. Come on mate, we're talking about Chinese Republic here.--DownUnder555 14:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The ROC article is not only about Taiwan. That was my point. As I have stated before, the Republic of China article is meant to cover the Republic of China in its entirety (third time I've repeated this sentence). If you have backed off from your third definition, then we are only left with the first two. If the first two definitions are covered in the Republic of China article, then I don't see how a disambiguation page can call itself that when both links lead to the same place. This is a dictionary entry, not a disambiguation page.--Jiang 14:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, you're quite confused. Where does it say I've backed off? I cited Fairbanks as a prime example of someone who uses it in the third sense. You've also quite erroneously mixed up what wikipedia policy says about definitions. The intent is to prevent extremely short articles, and for them, it suggests that you extend them. It also tries to group very related terms together. Chinese Republic is related to different things, depending on the context of where a person might have read about it or what point of view the person is coming from. Republican China, for example, we agreed to point to History of the ROC since it is most appropriate for someone looking for something about. But for someone who says Chinese Republic means the ROC exactly, we can't point him there, we have to point him towards ROC. And then there's the third definiton that means something else entirely.--DownUnder555 20:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am responding to first "Even if you advocate the removal of the third definition (and use in the ROC and PRC does not restrict use in Australia or the greater Anglo world at all... this is English wikipedia we're talking about), you're still left with two uses that should point to two different things" and second, "If you're problem is that there is absolutely no way someone would be looking for info on the ROC pre-1949 and the PRC post-1949 then you should delete the third direction."


 * Do you mean John King Fairbank? Can you reference the specific book/page numbers it is being used in the third sense? I don't see evidence of this. I repeat: The "Chinese Republic" is not capitialized simply "a political geographic entity". It is not a proper name like "Republic of China" or "People's Republic of China". It is a pseudodom, an unofficial description of a political entity. Per naming conventions (capitalization), a description of both the PRC and ROC (as you would like to define it), as republics that happen to be Chinese, is not capitalized, and even if it were, would not warrant an article like how "French republic" does not exist and "French Republic" is a redirect to the current one. :I do not see real evidence that the term is in any widespread use to refer to both the ROC and PRC. Can you name at least five people among these "some scholars"? A simple google search on the other hand, shows the term being used to refer to Republican China.


 * Your intent here, as demonstrated by the use of the disambig template, is to make a disambiguation page. Your intent here is not to "group very related terms together" (whatver that is supposed to mean). In the first definition, you suggestively point readers to "China, Republic of China" and for the second, you point readers to "Republic of China on Taiwan". Is it a conincidence that the "Republic of China" link appear both times? And this is not even written in disambiguation format, as outlined by Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). It is written in the form of a very short article, ie, a dictionary entry.


 * I have in the past waited several days for you to respond, and only waited until the absence of a response, to revert your edit. Every time you show up here, you immediately revert me. I hope that you will return the courtesy so we don't have to edit war here. Your turn. --Jiang 20:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You do the same. Don't be so hypocritical. It's what you did in your last edit too! Further, I actually change something in the article. You just revert. Your reasons don't even match up to what you're doing. You say it is Republican China, and that's the end of it. Fine, then that's the state we'll leave it in until we hash out something else. Not your silly reverts.--DownUnder555 05:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I like how you don't even carefully read the comments. Young man, I don't understand how you could possibly come to the conclusion that I had given up on my third definition. I didn't say that grouping terms together is the intent of the article. Wikipedia policy is to avoid definitions and instead to either extend the article if possible, redirect to a very closely related term, or disambiguate. Grouping related terms is done by disambiguation. But you can't do that in this case because there are several definitions that lead to different articles.--DownUnder555 05:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)