Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 24

Eraserhead1's proposal
Eraserhead1 has posted “a” proposal, as he claims, but actually he combine 2 sub-proposals in his proposal: Most supports have noticed the first sub-proposal only, so his proposal should be closed, and two sub-proposals should be reposted separately. ––虞海 ( Yú Hǎi )  ✍  13:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Change the primary topic of China (from civilization & nation topic to disambiguation topic) - the proposal he showed to all;
 * 2) Change the connotation of the civilization & nation topic (from “an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and a multinational entity” to “an ancient civilization”-only) - the proposal he hid to others.
 * We should not allow people to hide a proposal inside another proposal, because it will confuse others - those who support your shown-subproposal but oppose your hidden-subproposal will be deceived. ––虞海 ( Yú Hǎi )  ✍  13:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This second "sub-proposal" is a minor wording change to the hatnote. I have made no attempt to change the hatnote from how it was at the start of the move discussion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only your personal opinion to see it as “a minor wording change”. People who concern the Cross-Strait relations may see it substantial. Your combined proposal actually hurts them. ––虞海 ( Yú Hǎi )  ✍  13:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK now lets be honest. 99% of the readership of English Wikipedia (including myself) don't give a damn about cross-strait relations. The fundamental reality is that "China" is used exclusively in a modern context by the western media at least to refer to the PRC. Having this article in the wrong place so that isn't clear is why I have made this move request so we can make it clearer to our readers.
 * Changing the hatnote text to include other details just makes the current situation even more confusing to non-experts. You really have to recognise how little about China (and to be fair other countries like India) people in the West generally know about. Probably most people are aware that China existed before 1949, but not in what state it existed in, and there was no substantial coverage at all of Chinese or Indian history in my school education.
 * Now sure we do have to take into account WP:NPOV and that's one of the reasons I am happy to include the Republic of China on the disambiguation page at the top. However having a bunch of text here which confuses our readers even further than having this article here is a serious issue. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are talking alot. Real lot.  And 95% of your comments do not mention any facts.  Is just opinion after opinion.  You can fill this page with opinions that sound like facts, but is still not facts. Benjwong (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What evidence should I present to prove that people in my country don't know a great deal about China? I guess the history syllabus would be a start. Here's a more detailed one for the British exams at 16, which gives you the option to study China under Mao. Above I have provided a lot of evidence backed up by different Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And to expand a little, even if we assume all the people in Asia (including Australia) care about cross-strait relations, and even if all the 11% of people in "other" live in Asia 80% of the readership doesn't care about cross-strait relations. See this for the readership stats. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope,
 * You made an essential mistake: you always talk about how much do people in your country know about China, but actually what matters is - how much do people who read the article “China” know about China or how much do those who care “China” know about China. So this is a sophisticated change of the object. Generally when those who “don't know a great deal about China” (as you told us) see a link into China, they won't click it, because they're not interested in knowing too much about China. And generally when someone click into the article China, he/she must be someone interested in some aspect about China, and he/she is likely to know some basic fact about China (e.g. Cross-Strait relations). So don't barely mention some unconvincing precentage (e.g. 99%, etc.) because you have not realized what is the readership stats.
 * What's more, we are talking about your sophisticated proposal - those who support your shown-subproposal but oppose your hidden-subproposal will be deceived. i.e. cheating in the polling. What you hurt are the voters (not the readers), here the proposal should be closed as purpose not clear, and this is not related to the readership stats. If you want to talk about the hatnote issue, go to, not here. This time you're not changing the object, but the subject.
 * ––虞海 ( Yú Hǎi )  ✍  08:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is a general access project that has to aim its content at a general audience. If Mathematics was only aimed at people which mathematics degrees then that would be bad, even if most people who read the article Mathematics have mathematics degrees (EDIT: See WP:TECHNICAL for a specific guideline on this). With regards to your theory that I want to change the article's content I have been perfectly happy to allow the word territory which is less confusing than nation to appear in the hatnote. I also don't think cross strait relations are a "basic fact" about China, there is very little coverage of it in the Western media. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Eraserhead1. It's true that Western media has little coverage of Cross-strait relations, but that's exactly the problem, since they are drive by profit and the consumer taste. However, Wikipedia is nonprofit and as with any good encyclopedia, aims to EDUCATE, not predict the reader's interest level in Cross-strait relations as it relates to China and Taiwan as we speak. Cross-strait relations IS a "basic fact" about China because it is a continuation of the Chinese Civil War (in fact, some people consider the war not ended), just not in live combat form but in military threats, diplomacy, and economic warfare/strategy against another country that's also "China", ROC. Readers looking for China need to be informed there are two Chinas, and learn that PRC has been pushing a lie about ROC/Taiwan. China's military threat against Taiwan, and Taiwan's need to defend itself and the US involvement through the Taiwan Relations Act makes the regions a flash point for war involving the US and possibly other allies. Just because PRC is not facing much military threat from Taiwan and the US now doesn't make it a non-pertinent issue. All these elements make Cross strait relations a FACT about both Chinas (including ROC), so it needs to be included in the China as well as PRC articles. Mistakefinder (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it isn't included I'm sure some content about cross-strait relations be included in the PRC article. I'm sure there are plenty of people watching the page and the talk page who know more about these issues than I do and can work out how to include them neutrally. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead1, till now you haven't face the the most critical issue - you misled us into the readership-stats discussion, which is not closely related to your sophisticated proposal, for that it didn't misinterpret the readers '  opinion, but the participants ' . Resultly the polling does not reflect the participants' opinion. ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> ( Yú Hǎi ) <Big> ✍ </Big> 08:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How to continue now that move request is closed with no consensus
Eraserhead1's move request was closed and no consensus was found. Now the question is how to advance from here. The closer and several participants have suggested a Request for Comment. That would surely be helpful but the exact question that the request for comment concerns would have to be settled beforehand. One of the reasons we were unable to get a consensus in support of the proposal was that the discussion branched out and participants began supporting or opposing any of a number of alternative proposals without making it clear how their position related to the current proposal. We don't have to stick with Eraserhead1's proposal if we feel that other proposals are more viable as a result of the above discussion.

After looking at the entire discussion again. I believe the prominent proposals to emerge are as follows:
 * 1) Eraserhead1's original move proposal: Move China to Chinese Civilization and move China (disambiguation) to China
 * 2) Move current China page to Chinese Civilization and put a redirect to PRC at China
 * 3) Move current China page to Chinese Civilization and move PRC to China.
 * 4) Maintain status quo and pretend this discussion never happened
 * 5) Merge China and PRC

Notice that the first three are all quite similar. Obviously, each of these have significant supporters and opposers. So please keep argument about the relative merits of each proposal in this section to a minimum. Instead, we need to figure out which question has the most interest, which proposal is the most worthy to be argued over at length, which if any of these proposals to we want ask outsiders to help us settle? In other words, regardless of what we think the answer is, What is the question that we need to answer? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've taken it to the closing admins talk page.-- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue with #2 and #3 is that they require PRC to be the primary topic for China, which I think isn't clear at all. What is clear is that this article isn't the primary topic. #4 has the NPOV/primary topic concerns as raised at length here, #5 is the right answer - and that's what's done for every other country in the world, but that will have issues as that makes the ROC claims look totally illegitimate which probably isn't going to fly either. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a sixth option, which is how it plays out in reality which is that people pipe China links straight to the People's Republic of China article, which de-facto is the same as #2. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just make it a disambig page with dinnerware as the top item. Hcobb (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you've just started a whole new fight between dishware, porcelain and Chinese ceramics, good luck with that one. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * :-). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic is way too important to not have these issues settled, so #4 is not a viable option, especially since, as the closer notes there seems to be consensus opposing the status quo. As for #5, merging China and PRC, that would make it most like other country articles but its the most destructive to prominent minority claims to China by the ROC and so has potential NPOV issues. I think a lot of people would say the existence of the ROC makes China a little bit unique, so if the articles are organized a little different that's okay. I think it is, at this point the least likely to gain consensus. That leaves three very similar proposals (1-3). Maybe we should focus on one of those. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So then #1 - if you're going to do #2 or #3 you may as well do #5 and do it properly, I don't think #2 or #3 will be more acceptable to the ROC crowd than #5, but maybe I'm wrong. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the discussion alot of the participants did seem to like the idea of solving this issue progressively by making one move now and then re-evaluating the situation after that to see what further changes are needed. I agree with that approach and believe that whether or not #5 can be supported by consensus should be an eventual goal of the debate, much further down the road, but I think you're wrong about #5 being just as acceptable to the minority as #2 and #3. I think a case can easily be made for primary topic being PRC (i'm not going to make that case here/now) and consensus built on that. Since consensus isn't unanimity, ROC diehards don't have to agree to anything but those who wish Wikipedia remain as neutral as is reasonable on the issue of ROC legitimacy will need to be convinced that the proposed solution is NPOV. I think that case is most easily made for #2, but there is clearly strong support for #1 and the consensus may actually be that that one is most neutral, I don't know Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a section above called Requested move with 2 options. And that section closed.  Now you are opening another move discussion, call it something else with 5 options.  This doesn't exactly help. It may even waste editor's time. Benjwong (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely you agree that the closing of the move request discussion does not definitively settle the issue of article titles. I think we need to find a consensus-based solution, however difficult that may seem. The current situation is by default and there seems to be consensus against it. I'll mark you down as supporting option #3, just stick with the status quo. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Create an RfC with weighted responses, like an IRV poll. If the consensus is clear that the status quo is unacceptable then respondents should clearly state which options are acceptable and which are not, and which are their first choices, and which they could live with as second, etc. BTW, an option is dab page temporarily in order to see page view statistics after ... 90 days, or whatever. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I believe you guys won't settle on a zero-move result. The current discussion is quite weak compared to some of the archives years ago. And those were years ago. Benjwong (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with Wikpedia discussions that have been conducted in that manner. Maybe you could point to an example. WP:RfC recommends keeping the question simple. I think that is even more important in this case considering the breadth of the issues. It seems like posing a simple yes/no question which can be stated in a single sentence would be the most likely to produce results. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read all of them, and not just one. I know I read them all. Benjwong (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my comment was not a response to you, Benjwong. I was asking about doing Instant run-off votes on Wikipedia issues. I haven't seen that before. I don't read all the discussions on wikipedia, and I am impressed that you do. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the first of those questions be, "Is the 'People's Republic of China' the primary topic for 'China'?" Imagine how much easier moving forward would be if we had a clear answer. I believe that we can discuss this with outside help, pointing to relevant parts of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and other guidelines and a clear consensus will emerge. Is posing this question, and then seeking RfC if needed, an acceptable way to continue? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether the PRC is the primary topic of China, that depends on what you are looking for that day, that moment. The primary topic is "Is the People's Republic of China the only China?" Benjwong (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As I look at some of the content of this discussion I realize that some editors weighing in on this issue do not properly understand what a Primary topic is. First, it is not the one and only to the exclusion of all others topic. It does not depend on what day it is or what you are looking for from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
 * "A topic is primary for an ambiguous term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic"
 * Furthermore, goes on to say that if a topic is a WP:Vital article which the PRC is (they label the link as "China" but they pipe it to PRC), then it does not even have to be demonstrated to be primary to be treated like the primary topic. Anyone interested in doing so can demonstrate that PRC is the primary topic, but I'll save that bit of text for when we've decided that this is the question we wish to answer now. Is this all starting to sound pretty relevant to the above discussions? - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After asking the closing admin has said that he agrees that the current position isn't the long term solution, but that he didn't feel it was within his discretion to go for the compromise. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To me there's a consensus that something needs to change, and I think the closing admin also acknowledged this. So hopefully the editors here go forward with an RfC. I'd suggest having a very simple, easy to understand question, like: "What should happen with the page China?" And then list the main options, which as I understand it, are: Editors could support more than one thing (for example, I'd prefer Option 3, but I would also support Option 2). RfC's reach a wider audience of editors, and in particular, more editors who are likely to be unfamiliar with China-related articles. Mlm42 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep it the way it is,
 * 2) Make it a disambiguation page,
 * 3) Redirect it to the People's Republic of China.


 * It is extremely important that the RFC makes it clear that the PRC is not the current topic at China as the comments on this move made it very clear that that is a common misunderstanding among editors here. Cliff (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing is there has pretty much always been a consensus that something must change. This subject has been argued alot on this page, on talk:People's Republic of China and the naming conventions talk page. It seems unlikely that we will achieve consensus without a more deliberate approach. It is my opinion, that given the complexity of the issues and the strength of opinions, that considering even one move proposal at a time is too much, that instead we must consider the fundamental questions that have blocked consensus, one at a time, until we have built a consensus around a particular course of action. For instance, we could ask everyone to completely ignore all question of what we should do with the articles and their titles, what the best course of action might be and consider instead the following yes/no question, "Is it a violation of WP:NPOV to name the article about the People's Republic of China its common English name, "China"? " Forget about whether or not you want to make the move, just is it a violation of NPOV policy or not. I think that clear arguments can be made and that over time a consensus would actually emerge on that question, especially with outside help. I also think that if we answered that question, the rest would just be a matter of sticking to the policies and guidelines, issues that pop up, could be address individually. There's been a lot of changing the subject inhibiting consensus. Is anyone on board with this approach? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This idea seems like a good approach, especially as these questions often get quite confused. As long as it is clear that the answer does not result in a page move etc., then questions such as these should help fully clarify the situation. I wouldn't mind having a "Is the Republic of China ever referred to as China?" question too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm on board with asking both of these questions, with the possible addition of a third to address how Imperial China being called "China" relates to these naming issues. Quigley (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think its really a question we need to answer, whether the Republic of China is EVER called China. In historic usage I'm sure that it sometimes was, when the ROC controlled the territory that has been called china for centuries, before retreating to Taiwan.The question is whether this usage of "China" is frequent enough to require a disambiguation page. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC addresses this directly, the title can be used to refer to some other topics but if one usage is more common than all the others then the article for that topic should go under the title in question. I think it would be quite easy to demonstrate that "China" refers to the People's Republic of China more often then the ROC, and porcelain dishware combined. Some people like to argue about everything but I think the fact is pretty easy to demonstrate. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, I didn't consider history. I would assume someone writing about something between the overthrow of the last emperor and the communist takeover would address the then-ROC as China. My question was about modern usage, I thinks readers will know if something is used in a historical sense or not. It seems standard practice to refer to direct predecessors of countries by the same name, for example Germany before the First World War is often referred to as simply Germany, although it is very different from modern Germany. Is it worth starting on one question soon? It would be detrimental to have more than one or two RfCs open at a time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the Germany example applies to any country article, including the PRC, so I agree. The problem is that the PRC article unlike every other article is not written with that assumption. Bizarrely, the history section begins in 1949. For contrast check out South Korea where the history section starts at 2333 BC. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That "bizarre" fact of the PRC history section reminds me of how Indian nationalist editors tried to have Pakistan's history section start at 1947. Quigley (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Even though I think the answer is obvious myself, we may be finding another question to answer, essentially the same one you (quigley) asked about imperial china being called "china" affecting PRC being called "China". I guess the question is simply, "Does the history of the PRC begin in 1949 or does it include the history of the ROC before retreat to taiwan, imperial china, and pre-imperial china?" in other words "Is the PRC the successor to previous states called "China"?" Whether it ought to be or not, is it? It seems like we ought to save that question for round two, but then all these things seem to be tied in together. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We should not poll users on political or academic questions like "Is the PRC the successor to previous states called 'China'?", because allowing political or academic responses invites back the fringe and minority views that dominated and destroyed the recent move request. Instead, after demonstrating that reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize the PRC as the successor state, we should poll them: "Does treating the PRC as the successor to previous states called 'China' comply with NPOV?" and otherwise focus the questions around policy. Quigley (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * lol, If you had read the past debates, you would know that the dispute lies in the word "overwhelming". T-1000 (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given not a single source has been found showing Taiwan as the successor state to China and a bunch have been found for the PRC I think "overwhelming" is the right word to use. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 23 countries that recognize the ROC and the KMT itself, of course. T-1000 (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The question about previous states is fairly irrelevant to history anyway. The United Kingdom article recently was organised in the same way, leaving out information prior to its unification. However, it was discussed and agreed on that talkpage that the history of a country extends beyond when it was created, as obviously there is history to how it was created. Most countries don't even deal with just prior states but just the general history of the area, to account for population and demographics etc. Let's look at South Sudan. New state, no real prior states at all, yet history extends back beyond 9 July this year. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you, quigley, sticking to policy is the only way forward. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Look, let me just save you guys some time by telling you guys how this is going to turn out. There will always be sources that support the ROC as China (the 23 states). The Pro-mover are going to claim the PRC = China sources are "overwhelming" and the ROC's claims are fringe. The anti-mover are going to disagree citing the 23 states and the KMT itself. And because terms like "overwhelming" and "fringe" are not clearly defined (Are there a number of sources to meet before a view is considered fringe?), there are no standards and the discussions always deadlocks. The discussions will go on and on, but there will not be consensus and the article stay as they are. The discussion become stale and People get sick of this and move on. And the cycle repeat itself every few years. T-1000 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively you escalate the issue which will lead to the issue getting sorted that way in a more sensible way than the current position. Especailly as the current position has no consensus as clearly pointed out by the admin who closed the discussion and breaches WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and probably WP:NPOV in a defined way rather than just with hand-waving.
 * The 23 countries thing can be quite easily and neutrally solved with a hat note on a PRC/China article pointing to the ROC article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * lol, you're way too naive. If this thing can be sorted out, it would've been done years ago. T-1000 (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming that the issues involved are without complexity but there is certainly a way to deal with it that fits wikipedia policy. The hatnotes are a good example but mostly controversy is complex and best dealt with in the article body as is done quite well already. Also while there isn't a bright line, no set number of sources which define fringe, I think an argument can easily be made which consensus can be built around which establishes that the KMT's claim of sovereignty over China should not prohibit the PRC from being at its common name as required by wikipedia policy. Just because a few diehards want to keep things the way they are doesn't mean that we have to let them. As for those 23 states, show some evidence that they support the claim that the ROC has sovereignty over China because just having diplomatic relations doesn't accomplish that, it proves they recognize the ROC as a legitimate state but not as sovereign over china. We don't have to prove fringe to put PRC article at "China". I kinda don't want to get into the argument right here. Is it time the start an RfC about NPOV as described above? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Chen attended the Funeral of the Pope John Paul II as the President of China. And no, an argument can't be made and the past eight years is the proof. And you still don't even know where the problem is. The problem is that everyone interprets Wikipedia policies differently, not "can we find something that fits in wikipedia policies or not? " T-1000 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can come up with something that is accepted by consensus. It happens everyday on wikipedia. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * lol, no offense, but I doubt you'll be able to solve what countless other people couldn't in eight years, espically when the stuff you've brought up has been brought up before over and over again. T-1000 (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand what you are saying and you are not the only one to make such a statement. The problem is that the current solution isn't great and this debate simply isn't going to go away on its own. We should take it as far as we can to try to find an acceptable solution. Maybe we're all just partisans and there is no real common ground but I doubt it. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Question - If the PRC article is moved to "China", what would happen to the article on the ROC? We'd then have "China" and "Republic of China", which would obviously need sorting out, and I'm not sure hatnotes will suffice.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 11:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does that need sorting out, and what kind of "sorting out" do you have in mind? "[The fact ] that the article Napoleon is about Napoleon Bonaparte doesn't mean that Napoleon III isn't a Napoleon." Quigley (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well because it's confusing and inconsistent, having two state articles, one called "China" and the other called "Republic of China", with that Napoleon example, I'm not entirely sure you can really draw parallels. In my opinion, it wouldn't work, so I'll be honest here, I'd rather have everything stay exactly the way it was, than have the PRC move to China, but that is not for me to decide. It's only my view, nobody elses.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 15:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those issues can easily be solved by moving ROC to Taiwan - it's WP:COMMONNAME. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True. Whilst I prefer the status quo (keeping the articles at ROC/PRC), it should be up to the community at large to decide what happens.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 17:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Solved" when the word 'Taiwan' often refers to the island only. "Solved" when the uttering of 'China' in a modern context does not always have to mean the PRC. "Solved" in gross violation of accuracy, as the ROC controls more than just that one island. Think of the dangerous suggestions you have proposed here, Eraserhead. I presume that if PRC is moved to China, that you would require that the ROC is moved to Taiwan?
 * I do not see how an RfC about NPOV would be any more productive than the move discussions of these two pages (PRC and China)&mdash;it likely would produce [nearly] the same opinions as before. You know how protracted RfC's can become. I would be fine if a consensus evolved to initiate an RfC, though. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  17:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is going back into another content debate. Let's stick to discussion of the process for the moment? Are there any objections or suggestions to add on to Metal.lunchbox's idea of placing individual questions in their own rfc? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * These are all legitimate concerns. The more we look around the more we'll see that there are lots of open questions. Not all of these questions are created equal, some seem more urgent. Answering the important questions first means there's alot of other questions that we don't even have to ask. As I see it, we can start with Article naming policy and then answer an NPOV question only after that. NPOV is a little more difficult to evaluate then issues such as Primary topic and Common name, because it inevitably becomes a political argument. I'm not suggesting that the NPOV question cannot be answered with a clear consensus, but its a little trickier. Let's start with the easy stuff, "Is "China" the widely accepted name ( or WP:COMMONNAME ) for the People's Republic of China? and Is the People's Republic of China the primary topic for "China"?" These two overlap quite a bit, so we can answer them both in the same discussion. Should be easy to settle that in no time, then we can move on, having finally settled something. If some of you think I'm basically trying start a debate about whether the sky is blue, please browse the above discussion and you'll see this question comes up alot and there's alot of agreement but it isn't settled. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your approach; the basic questions are unfortunate, but they are necessary after consensus has mandated a change from the status quo. Decisively settling the commonname and primary topic issues is a big step on a clear path towards breaking the gridlock. Quigley (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Taiwan ever really just refer to the island in English? I've never seen that happen. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In most things geographic, that's a great possibility. Saying that the other islands are part of Taiwan is awkward and breaches the truth. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  23:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Geographically then you could have an article called Taiwan (island). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The good news is that what "Taiwan" does and does not mean is not actually relevant to this discussion about China and the PRC. What a word is and what exactly it means is not as simple as it might seem. The other good news is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we don't worry about defining words, we're concerned with giving detailed overviews of topics, only we have to come up with appropriate titles for those articles. That's tricky but its a lot easier than getting everyone to agree exactly what an isolated word does and does not mean. Quibbling over definitions is a great way to obstruct debate, to hold up action.Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the issue raised by Tærkast about not having an article on the PRC at China and the ROC at ROC is a good one and probably one that unfortunately has to be addressed at the same time if you aren't going for a redirect (EDIT: or disambiguation) page. I think its interesting that the objections to moving PRC to China (and ROC to Taiwan) have been relatively minimal if appropriate hat notes are used. I should add that I think addressing the issues of whether China is to common name for the PRC is a good one. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that a redirect would be better than a move. That way, "China" links to the PRC article, which presumably is what most people would be looking for. I don't like the idea of moving. As noted, there are still issues that need sorting out after whatever happens.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 11:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems perfectly reasonable. I'm happy to go with whatever is acceptable to everyone, but I do think the status quo isn't good enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact is that ROC -> Taiwan is much more problematic than PRC -> China. I think that ROC should be at its common name "Taiwan" and there are others that do as well, but there does not seem to be, at present, a consensus for such an move. To give you an idea, you might check out the Taiwan talk page where the last time such a merger was seriously proposed it was resoundingly defeated, but of course consensus can change. That said I don't see why the name of the ROC article should inhibit the appropriate naming of the PRC article. Consistency is not everything.


 * As for the common name issue I should rephrase the question. That "China" is the common name for the People's Republic of China is undisputed. wikipedia, every reliable source, and common knowledge tells us that it is the common name and no source contradicts this. The real question is about the primary topic of "China", because there is on this discussion page some disagreement about this, which I believe can be cleared up. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Metal.lunchbox, I applaud you for working steadily towards achieving consensus in this (apparently) sensitive topic. It seems like a good goal to decide whether or not the PRC is the primary topic for "China". One of the main objections to calling the PRC article "China" (or even have "China" redirect to the PRC) is the perception that Wikipedia is "taking sides" with the PRC. I think some editors will have difficulty separating the political issues, with the more abstract "common name" and "primary topic" questions.
 * I'm not familiar with many China-related topics, but I've looked into this naming issue recently, mostly by surveying reliable sources. It seems clear (to me) that most of the English-speaking world has already "taken sides", by conventionally using the word "China" synonymously with the PRC. So the separation of the "China" article from the PRC article is concerning because: 1) It confuses a great number of people (as demonstrated by this talk page!) and 2) It may give the impression that Wikipedia has an anti-PRC bias.
 * So hopefully a small number of dedicated editors are not going to prevent a real consensus from forming.. for example, T-1000 has discounted Encyclopedia Brittanica by calling it not neutral; I suspect most uninvolved editors would not dismiss such a well respected source so easily. Mlm42 (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * please, Encyclopedia Brittanica called Taiwan a province, and that is obviously disputed. The only reason you would think it's neutral is because you never even read it. T-1000 (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article titled Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China; does that make us biased? Just because they use the word "province" doesn't automatically make them biased. Mlm42 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, actually read the article please. Wikipedia mentions that the Province only exists are part of the PRC's administrative framework. T-1000 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which article are you talking about? The Brittanica article on Taiwan says "The government of the ROC continued to claim jurisdiction over the Chinese mainland, whereas the government of the People’s Republic of China on the mainland claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan; both governments remained in agreement that the island is a sheng (province) of China." I'm no expert, so I don't know how accurate this is; but it seems neutrally written to me. I'm not convinced by your claim that EB is biased in this matter.
 * But, again, the Taiwan issue is a bit of a red herring here. Mlm42 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And you've proven again that EB is not neural, because this is a 3 sided dispute, PRC, ROC, and TI. While the PRC and ROC agree that Taiwan is a province, the Taiwanese Independence people maintain that Taiwan is a country. T-1000 (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh brother.. that quote from EB was about a time apparently before the Taiwan independence movement started. You can't simply discount EB entirely, even if you do manage to find a mistake (which I don't think you have). But again, this whole discussion is a red herring, and is not relevant to the PRC vs. China discussion! Mlm42 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't discount EB. You can use it to support that there is a POV that Taiwan is a province. But EB is clearly not neutral as it ignores the "Taiwan is a country" POV. T-1000 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It also ignores the "Taiwan is a galactic empire" POV. EB could be really biased, or it could be making smart editorial decisions about weighing opinions according to their prominence. Quigley (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's biased. because "Taiwan is a country" is endorsed by the DPP, and therefore notable. T-1000 (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Err.. if you are referring to the Democratic Progressive Party, they are definitely not a neutral source. Encyclopedia Brittanica is neutral, and you have a steep uphill battle ahead if you plan on convincing others here that it's not. Mlm42 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The DPP has a notable POV. If you ignore a notable NPOV, that is not neutral according to Wikipedia, which require all notable POV's to be presented and not take sides. If EB were neutral, it would mention that there is a dispute on whether Taiwan is a country or a province, like what we do. T-1000 (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So would setting China to be the disambiguation page necessarily be perceived as taking an anti-PRC bias? Please do not tell me that in order to avoid any anti-PRC bias we are to either redirect China or move PRC. Also, it is still incorrect to call Taiwan an island province (i.e. Taiwan Province, ROC) and then proceed to use maps of the supposed province that still include the municipalities which are not part of the real province. &mdash; Xiaoyu:  聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  03:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the Taiwan vs. ROC discussion is a red herring; it's not directly relevant to what happens with the China vs. PRC articles. I don't know whether having "China" as a disambiguation page would be perceived as taking an anti-PRC bias, but if the vast majority of reliable sources don't need to explicitly disambiguate it, then neither should we (of course hatnotes would solve the practical searching issues). Mlm42 (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Trouble in the lead
The lead has recently been edited to make it as long and confusing as possible. I undid the addition of two paragraphs explaining how the word "china" is so controversial, because ( as per WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD ) the lead already adequately explains this in addition to the hatnote, and any further detail belongs in the body of the article. Such an addition gives undue weight to the controversy and makes the lead too long. Tellingly the editor also thought it was important to reorder the PRC and the ROC in the lead so that the ROC is on top. The editor promptly reinstated the edits. Can we fix this, so the lead is clear and accurate.

The fist sentence of the lead has been edited to include that it is considered a "multinational entity". is that the same thing as a "multinational state"? China is not mentioned there and it doesn't seem like it should. The problem is that this is confusing and would seem to give equal weight to the idea that china is a "multinational entity" as the idea that it is a nation. I have never seen a source refer to China in this fashion so this would seem to be UNDUE. Also it seems odd that of all the various ways "China" is seen "country" or "state" are not included. If you like I can demonstrate that the view that China is a "country" or "state" is quite prominent, but I don't think that's necessary.

I'll remind you guys that the lead in this article is all the more important because readers are already stumbling upon a page they did not expect. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we shouldn't be confusing our readers. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is certainly a POV that China is a multinational state (people who view Tibetians as a different nation from Han Chinese, or Taiwanese aborginals from Hoklos). T-1000 (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't even have to concern ourselves with what all of the different ways people might think about the subject are. The first sentence is just to describe the topic of the article. I have a particular problem with "multinational entity" because I don't know what it means. I've occasionally heard it used to refer to large companies with operations in many countries, but I've never heard it used in this context. Maybe we can choose something that is a little more to the point. T-1000, you are the one who made the most recent change of the lead first sentence to include multinational entity. You also claim that "country" is POV. That requires an incredibly broad understanding of POV. Care to explain what "multinational entity" means and why it is used in this sentence. I don't usually debate every word on a page but previous attempts at changing the lead have mostly been immediately reverted. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this page is about both PRC and ROC, calling it "a country" is pushing a pro unify POV. As for multinational, I've explain it already, that's the POV that the non Han people being a different nation. T-1000 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to either define this article as having some kind of topic or move its contents into other articles. I think "Chinese civilization" is a legitimate topic, but we'd need to stick to that. Making this just an article about both the PRC and the ROC is not particularly useful. Topics like that are already at logical titles like "Cross-straight relations" and "Two chinas" and "One china". Take a look for instance at the Economy section. If we don't take "China" to mean either the PRC or the ROC but both, then how can we describe the economy of this vague multinational entity. Currently its a bunch of links, one sentence about imperial China and another specific to the PRC. What is the topic of this article? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well said, Metal.lunchbox. The article is current structured like most other country articles, which is going to cause people confusion (indeed, many of those people demonstrate their confusion on this talk page). At the moment the article doesn't have a clearly defined topic, because it's trying to use the word "China" in the broadest possible sense - even if that is contrary to common usage.
 * By the way, I noticed today that on the main page the word "China" is blue linked, and if you click on it, it takes you to the PRC article.. Mlm42 (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That kind of link piping is very very common. you can find China all over wikipedia Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And that itself is evidence that "China" should redirect to the PRC article. What this discussion lacks is actual evidence that "China" should not redirect to the PRC article. Mlm42 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Any Pre-1949 usage of China. T-1000 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for that argument, it's now 2011. I suppose if someone from pre-1949 were to time travel to today, the current "China" article would help them. For most other people, it just causes confusion. Mlm42 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Are you suggesting that people today no longer talk about WWII or any topic before 1949? No offense, but that's just stupid. T-1000 (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling someone else stupid amounts to a personal attack; and no I'm not suggesting that. Everybody knows that countries change over time; but country articles are titled based on how things currently are, not how they used to be. Mlm42 (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was directly addressing what you said. If someone talks about China in WWII, then China there is referring to ROC, and therefore evidence that China should not redirect to PRC. T-1000 (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid argument. 2000 years ago "Rome" didn't refer to the city. That shouldn't prevent Rome from being about the city. Heck, a few weeks ago Sudan split up; now there's "Sudan" and "South Sudan". By your argument Sudan, should not be about the country currently known as "Sudan". Mlm42 (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before, Ancient Rome doesn't exist anymore, while the ROC still does. T-1000 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your counter argument to Sudan vs. South Sudan? Mlm42 (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Sudan and South Sudan claim sovereignty over each other? T-1000 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No; but that's irrelevant. But I'm saying your "pre-1949" argument isn't valid, as you stated it; I'm saying that it's not evidence that "China" should not redirect to the PRC article. Conventions that are 60+ years out of date should not have much (any?) influence over whether "China" should redirect to the PRC article. Mlm42 (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Current PRC article begins in 1949. Merging China into PRC would require that ROC be described as a historic regime. Since it still exists, that violates NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it also links to the History of China article; I think it would be fair game for someone to briefly summarize a deeper history of China there as well. In fact, somebody probably should do that. Mlm42 (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you're still describing the ROC as a historic regime, which still violates NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? I didn't say anything about the ROC.. you did. Mlm42 (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to "summarize a deeper history of China". T-1000 (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * .. I don't understand your point. The ROC's status is "disputed". The PRC is widely recognized as a country (though it's precise boundaries are disputed.. like Serbia, say). I'm just saying I think it's fair game to put some content from the History of China article into the PRC article. This is what other countries do (regardless of how the countries evolved over time). Mlm42 (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is, Is the ROC "History" or not? T-1000 (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course the Republic of China is a part of Chinese history, and of course the ROC is still around. The article should clearly explain both and there's no reason it can't. I fail to see the point of your insistance on this point, No one here is trying to rewrite wikipedia to claim that the ROC is not legitimate. Maybe we could sort out what the topic of this article is. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mlm42 claims that China should redirect to the PRC. This is ridiculous as there are many usage of China Pre-1949 (China was part of the Allies during WWII, Mongols invaded China, etc). So the Article would have to have China and PRC merged, with history going back 5000 years, and taking the POV that PRC is the legitimate successor to China. Since how many Chinas there are is a POV, we cannot say for a fact that there are two Chinas (this is why the Napoleon analogy doesn't work). Therefore, either ROC is a historical regime that is no longer legitimate, or if the ROC is legitimate, then Taiwan is not part of China. T-1000 (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a lot of assertions about subject matter. This is stuff covered in the text, not the title. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * As I've said before, article titles directly influences article text. T-1000 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey T-1000 that is only if you take the ROC/PRC only view. There are actually many views.  If you buy into the New China concept.  Then originally "PRC = New China" and "ROC = China".  You can try researching this one out to see if the PRC founders wanted it that way. I believe they were even promoting "PRC = New China" and "ROC = do not exist." Benjwong (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * RE "POV that PRC is the legitimate succesor to China": No one is making a judgement as to whether the PRC succession is legitimate, that would indeed be POV, but avoiding any statement or wording or titling that might suggest that the PRC is the successor to China (legitmate or not) would certainly be UNDUE weight. Including history of the PRC prior to 1949 is not as political as you are making it out to be. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would only be undue weight if the ROC's claims are fringe, and like I said, that dispute can't be settled because there are no standards defining what fringe is. T-1000 (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Evaluating Consensus of move request discussion
I've kept up with this discussion and enjoyed taking part in it. It is clear that there is both strong support and strong opposition for Eraserhead1's proposed move. There has also been a strong tendency to debate other, related topics mainly whether or not the PRC is the primary topic for the title "China". When I look over the above discussion I have the impression that despite some strong opposition there is a weak consensus in favor of the proposed move. Its murky though, mostly because of the shear length of the discussion. Additionally, it seems like some of the participants are claiming to support or oppose the proposal but looking at the content of their comments they seem to be expressing support or opposition for something else, like the proposition that the PRC is the primary topic for "China". Is there a consensus in regards to the above move proposal by Eraserhead1? Would the discussion benefit from going on for much more time? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus, just like there had been no consensus for the last five or six years. T-1000 (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its highly inappropriate to pre-judge any admin decisions made to close the move discussion in attempt to push the move discussion in a certain way. I will be interested to see how the above discussion is closed, when it is closed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There needs to be consensus on this issue, it's been contentious for too long. I support Metal.lunchbox in making the effort to define and reach consensus. However, I think we may need to involve more editors to get it to stick. I don't think there are any easy answers here. I suggest starting an RfC, and crossposting to a few places, like WP:CHINA, WP:TAIWAN, WP:EASTASIA WP:NAMING, MOS:NAME. At the end, we should generate a Manual of Style document about how to use the term 'China', similar to the MOS documents about Ireland-related articles, and Poland-related articles. LK (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Leaving it open and using an RFC for more input is a good idea.
 * By my reading there is a consensus, possibly weak depending on how the closer values policy vs numbers, that the current arrangement isn't desirable. Some people have opposed the question because it leads to a dab solution instead of the PRC as primary topic. Those opposes should not be read as supporting the status quo. If that is the outcome, we need guidance on how to move forward. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTVOTE and WP:POLICY guidelines clearly overrides numbers unless they are significantly higher and make a good case of how the guideline doesn't apply. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that there does seem to be a consensus against the status quo but when evaluating support for a specific course of action (The move proposal at hand) it's less clear. It seems like RfC would be helpful in this case. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the support votes are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there are no real rebuttals to maintaining NPOV. Most I've seen are "Britannica does it!" but like I said, Britannica itself isn't neutral because it calls Taiwan an "island province." T-1000 (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most people can see that your understanding of NPOV is that fringe topics deserve equal weight. SchmuckyTheCat(talk)
 * Apparently you missed that part where I mentioned the dispute of Taiwan being part of the PRC or not. Neither side is fringe. As I said, it's impossible to include and exclude Taiwan from a merged PRC/China article. T-1000 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * outdent The current article names do no better or worse because that question cannot be answered by an article name. The Taiwan issue is multi-faceted and requires text in the article to show the relevant points of view.
 * The views on whether or not Taiwan is part of China are not fringe. Denying that the term "China" refers to the PRC is, as is claiming that people use the term China to refer to the RoC. Don't conflate the two different issues. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * First, liked mentioned above, even in common usage, China does not refer to just PRC. It can refer to ROC as well, for example in WWII, or any of the Dynasties before that. Second, The current setup is better because separating out the articles allows everything to be about de facto control instead of legitimacy or sovereignty, which are inherently POV. Britannica does a merged PRC/China article at the cost of neutrality, by calling Taiwan a province. T-1000 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)@T-1000 How about that the current arrangement is just at least as much against NPOV and that no tangible evidence has actually been provided that calling the PRC China isn't neutral. As it is now, we are exceptions to our naming policies and looking away ignoring sources we normally rely on just to spite the PRC. WP:DUE says that we should not go against how high quality reliable sources treat subjects to give equal validity to all parties. And an overwhelming majority of sources are referring to the PRC when talking about China, not just by Encyclopedia Britannica, but as Metal.lunchbox and Mlm42 showed above, also the New York Times, the AP Stylebook, The CIA Factbook, UN, WTO and G20. These are all sources which under normal circumstances would be viewed to be of very high quality. On the other hand not a single actual source has been provided for proving that any reliable sources actually regard calling the PRC China as unneutral. This is a claim which is sole being kept up by editors' personal opinions and feelings about this subject(in other words WP:OR).TheFreeloader (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't I already address this? "Even though the majority of sources refer to PRC as China, they disagree on whether or not this "China" includes Taiwan. For some sources yes, for others no. It is impossible to both include and exclude Taiwan from an merged China/PRC article." ::Britannica isn't afraid to use China for PRC, yes, but that's only because they never claimed to be neutral. T-1000 (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And the UN and WTO directly refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan, province of China", is that neutral to you? T-1000 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And how about the others? The New York Times, the AP Stylebook, The CIA Factbook, UN, WTO and G20. They are all biased too? It's just one big conspiracy to bring down the ROC, right?
 * And how about the reliable sources which show that calling the PRC China is regarded unneutral, how is that coming along?TheFreeloader (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, those source also call Taiwan a province, is that neutral to you? T-1000 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The AP Stylebook, the New York Times and the CIA factbook don't say that Taiwan is a PRC province. The CIA Factbook has a separate entry on Taiwan. Also, here is a National Geographic map which shows the PRC as "China" and which has a quite neutral explanation of the China-Taiwan conflict out in the Philippine Sea. And you have still not shown any reliable sources saying that calling the PRC China is unneutral.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I could find source showing Taiwan as part of the PRC. You are avoiding the main point, which is the fact that the reliable sources conflict each other. And you CIA factbook contradicts itself, by including Taiwan in one map and excluding it in another. T-1000 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How do reliable sources conflict each other?TheFreeloader (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In some sources, Taiwan is a part of PRC, in others, it isn't. That's how it conflicts. T-1000 (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, but that's not what's in question here. What's in question here is whether to call the PRC China. And there reliable sources all seem to agree, despite whatever opinions you may ascribe to them.TheFreeloader (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same issue, as you have to make a choice of whether to include or exclude from the merged PRC/China article. T-1000 (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we should merge anything. I say we should rename the People's Republic of China article China. It would still include the same as it does now, it would just be called "China".TheFreeloader (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's Even worse, As all of the pre-1949 usage of China would now redirect to PRC. T-1000 (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea there would probably have to be some merging in of History of China into the article. But that probably should happen anyways, as the PRC is the only country which only includes history on the most recent government. I mean the France article isn't only about the fifth republic, and the Germany and Italy articles even have history in them which stretch back more than two thousand of years before they became countries.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you like going around in circles? You then will have to make a decision on whether to include or exclude Taiwan from the merged China/PRC article. T-1000 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I only said we have to merge some of the most important parts of History of China into People's Republic of China. If that includes parts about the history of Taiwan, I don't see how that could be a problem. The article on Germany also includes history about its eastern settlement which part of it now.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I covered this already. Doing so will require the ROC to be described as a historical regime, which implies that the ROC is longer legitimate, or that Taiwan is not part of China. That's what your non-neutral Britannica did, remember? T-1000 (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can't just do as we usually would, that is to describe the claims of both sides in a disinterested fashion, much in the way the National Geographic map did. I don't see how changing the name of PRC article has anything to do with this.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you still have to decide whether to include or exclude Taiwan, and no matter what you decide to do, you are already taking a side. And you can't follow sources because sources conflict each other (like your CIA factbook).
 * We can, and already do, include information about Taiwan in the PRC article without taking sides as to whether it's part of the PRC or not. We can say that while Taiwan is de-facto controlled by the ROC, but the PRC makes claim to the island, a claim which is recognized by X number of countries and X international organizations, while the ROC is recognized by X number of countries. Also, I again do not see what this has to do with the name of the PRC article. I think the PRC article should include elements from the complete history of China, no matter what the article is called. The PRC is the only country I can find which does not article include a complete history of the land it occupies.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You said "while the ROC is recognized by X number of countries.", But the countries that recognize the ROC recognize it as the legitimate government of both Mainland China and Taiwan, and not government of Taiwan only. As you admitted the ROC has recognition and therefore for reliable sources, the NPOV does not allow us to take sides on the claims. T-1000 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Second, some sources, such as the UN, directly recognize Taiwan as a Province of China. If we take their POV that China = PRC, saying it's just a claim won't be enough. T-1000 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I don't see how we are taking sides, when all we are doing is to explain the positions of each side in the dispute. And yet again I must say I can not see what the name of the PRC article has to do with this.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because China = PRC is itself a side that either implies the ROC is illegitimate, or Taiwan is not part of China. Your Britannica does a wonderful job of proving that. T-1000 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find some reliable sources actually saying that it is regarded as unneutral or "taking sides" to be referring the PRC as China, I don't see any reason we should regard it as such. In fac,t quite to the contrary, the AP stylebook, a reference work in how to be neutral and precise in news reporting, recommends that one generally refers to the PRC as China, and that referring to it as the People's Republic of China should be generally avoided (page 46). I also think the fact that National Geographic refers to the PRC as "China" is another good example of the generally perceived neutralness of that usage, as they usual make quite a big deal out of staying neutral in geopolitical disputes.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The AP Stylebook is from the US, which does not recognize the ROC. When the US itself is not neutral in this regard, citing these American publications is useless since they just follow what the US recognizes. Second, like I said, it is impossible to be neutral about Taiwan in a merged PRC/China article, since reliable source disagree about it's inclusion or exclusion. T-1000 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well except for the Taiwan relations act... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change that fact that the US still has a POV and is not neutral. T-1000 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The accusation that all American publications would by default follow the US government's opinion on anything is just so absurd that I will not even comment on it, lest Xiaoyu will start requiring again that I retract my comments. If you read the entry about Taiwan in the AP Stylebook(page 238 in the linked version), I think it's quite clear they don't back any particular side in this dispute, as it says that "Taiwan" should be used about the ROC. And on the other issue, reliable sources don't disagree on whether or not to include information about Taiwan in the Wikipedia article about the PRC, they don't have an opinion on that matter. What they d0 disagree on is whether or not Taiwan is part of the PRC, and that dispute can we and already do cover in the PRC article without taking anyone's side.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To Use China for PRC and Taiwan for ROC is itself a side, as it implies to two are separate and Taiwan's exclusion from China. That's why a there's an article called cross-strait relations and not China-Taiwan relations. As for being neutral with Taiwan being a part of the PRC, your Britannica already proves that is impossible. T-1000 (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for the these claims? I (and the AP Stylebook) would assert that it is just standard English to refer to these countries like that.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Any PRC source would do, since they said Both Mainland China and Taiwan belongs to the PRC, and Taiwan is Taiwan province, not ROC. And did you just state as a fact that ROC is a country? T-1000 (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In an encyclopaedic view, which is to describe, not prescribe, the notion that Taiwan is part of the PRC is more absurd than anything you have raised here, Freeloader. The more relevant dispute is whether Taiwan is part of China. Ok that's enough confusion. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  21:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please avoid the personal attacks? Saying someone's comments are absurd is a personal attack and isn't acceptable. I'm going to collapse the next one. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the PRC's claim that Taiwan is part of its territories is quite absurd. But they have bullied a number of governments and international organizations, including the UN, into recognizing that claim, and as such the PRC's claims to Taiwan are plenty notable that they deserve mentioning.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Third, officially, all parties agree that China = Mainland China + Taiwan. We need an article on China in that sense and it can't be named "Chinese civilization".  Night w   16:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All parties do not agree that China = Mainland China + Taiwan. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you guys read the Taiwan Relations Act article? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Outside of diplomatic talk, I don't think it is common to be referring to mainland China and Taiwan when talking about China. Usually it's just referring to the PRC. I mean, when you hear that "Living standards are rising in China" or that "China is world's largest exporter" or that "Google is leaving China", it's not referring to mainland China and Taiwan together. It's just referring to the PRC.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Economic figures for the PRC tend to include only the mainland. Besides, Google is still in Hong Kong, so when someone says "Google is leaving China", they are talking about the mainland. You have cited common, notable viewpoints that equate China with something other than the entire PRC, and only shows your ignorance on this issue; you have no argument so you are making up weak, useless arguments. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  18:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we please try to keep the personal attacks down? The AP Stylebook states that China should only be used for the mainland nation, that is the PRC. The AP Stylebook's recommendations are followed by a majority of the American press.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mainland Nation" is already a POV term, as some consider the nation to be both Mainland China and Taiwan. Thank you for proving that the AP style book is not neutral. First Britannica and now this.  T-1000 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has proven anything about bias in the AP or Brittanica. Stop making such assertions unless you have proof. If you look at the Wikipedia guidelines for confirming what is the common name you will see that is states very clearly that Brittanica, Google news, and popular new sources are a recommended aid in the process of determining the widely accepted name. This is not to suggest that these sources are without issues, but we cannot categorically invalidate them. If you wish to continue such an argument I recommend you do so on the talk page of the above linked policy article. If you have a credible argument that is related to Wikipedia policy and the naming of this article then please elaborate clearly with some evidence. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, Britannica called Taiwan a province and the AP Stylebook called "mainland" a nation? T-1000 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your claims that this, that and the other thing is POV become quite hollow when you cannot back any of them up with references to reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, this is standard deduction obvious to any average person. If Mainland China and Taiwan belonged to the same country, then "Mainland" is obviously not a nation. As for sources stating Taiwan and Mainland China belong to the same country, any PRC source would do. T-1000 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that a map of "China" in the May 2008 of National Geographic also depicts Taiwan as being part of "China", as the mainland China and Taiwan have the same colour and strength of colouring in that map. The same applies to the link you provided. I can't read the full text of the dispute notice, so I am going to say that the "China" label in National Geographic's map may well be referring to the civilisation. Correct me if I am wrong, but either way, this arrangement is not entirely neutral.
 * And of course (and this is not a criticism of them) if sources are going to resort to vernacular usage, they aren't going to state that calling the PRC "China" is not neutral. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  04:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can zoom in on the dispute notice by clicking the magnifying glass or clicking on the map. The Philippines and Laos also have the same color as China, no need to read anything into that. I don't think they are referring to the Chinese civilization when writing China, as it a political map, concerned with political entities.
 * I didn't quite get your explanation for why you can't find any sources which state that calling PRC "China" is not neutral. Could I have it again please?TheFreeloader (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Freeloader, retract your ludicrous "conspiracy to bring down the ROC" comment at once; it is a distraction to avoid answering T-1000's questions and to falsely paint all of what he says as nonsense. WP:POVTITLE really only applies to situations where sources almost exclusively use a POV name: that's why you have titles such as Boston Massacre and Nanking Massacre. Hardly any other name is used, not at all like this four-names business regarding PRC, ROC, China, and Taiwan. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  03:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A strawman argument if I ever have seen one. I have never brought up WP:POVTITLE. I'm arguing that calling the PRC China isn't POV at all, rather it's just standard English.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies but with your tenacity it seemed clear that you were going to call for a move request from PRC to China. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  04:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already called for such a move in my initial comment on this move. But again, I would not invoke POVTITLE as an argument for that, as I don't see China as the title for the PRC article as POV.TheFreeloader (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The name of the article does not make a declaration on the inclusion or exclusion of Taiwan. The text in the article does. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Articles names directly influences article content, An example would be that ROC would have would have to be described as a historical regime in a merged China/PRC article, thus implying ROC is no longer legitimate, or that Taiwan is not part of China. T-1000 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, it wouldn't require that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Yes it would, that's what Britannica does. T-1000 (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then how do you reconcile, for example, "X was used in China for hundreds of years", in the body of the text when PRC is renamed to China? Quite hard. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  03:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this even worth answering? The Sphinx is in Egypt. The Great Wall is in China. These are not POV statements. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * What about China was part of the Allies during WWII? Is this China referring to PRC? T-1000 (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dodging the question yet again by playing dumb, Schmucky. As I stated above, the "China" in your statement could, but does not have to, refer to the PRC. However, a PRC/China merge would make reconciliation with statements in the PRC article such as "X was used in China for hundreds of years" awkward; China as a civilisation long predated the PRC. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  03:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird how every other nation on this project manages to deal with successive governments without these stupid conversations about over precise naming. This stopped making sense awhile ago. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Because only in China's case, whether the PRC succeed the ROC (and inheriting Taiwan) is disputed. Stop playing dumb, Schmucky. T-1000 (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is not disputed. That there is dispute about that is a fringe view. Taiwan being included or excluded, and whether the RoC should be treated as a state - these are not fringe views. But denying that the PRC is a successor state to China is very much so. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Let me get this stright, the ROC as state over Mainland China and Taiwan, which is recognized by 23 countries, is fringe. But the ROC as a state, with only Taiwan, which is not recognized by a single country, is somehow not fringe. You show your biased POV quite well. T-1000 (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, because that position is de-facto recognised by a huge list of powerful countries who recognise the PRC but also maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And that implies a POV that de facto is more important than de jure, which is disputed and violates NPOV. You are free to choose that POV, but like benjwong said, everything you post is pretty much opinion.
 * On the former hell yes, as the list of countries in the former camp includes the US, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Brazil etc etc. Especially when the US has the Taiwan relations act, then in contrast there isn't a single powerful country who recognises the ROC. On the latter point no evidence has been provided, and when Benjwong made his comment I provided evidence to back it up, I suppose this comment here is opinion, but it seems like a perfectly valid non-POV way to go. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From the PRC's POV, none of those relations count because they are not de jure. The PRC still said that Taiwan is only recognized by 23 countries. The PRC's POV is clearly notable. Thus, there is a dispute of the importance of de facto (but not dejure) relations. And we can't take sides in a dispute. T-1000 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The PRC's "POV" is much more significantly harmed by the article on their common name being about a completely different topic as it makes their entire government look illegitimate. I think they'll live. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't conjure about What's being harmed, we just don't take sides in disputes because of NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:POVTITLE we are breaching NPOV if we treat something as being under dispute when the vast majority of reliable sources don't think the issue concerned is under dispute. That is clearly true in this case. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't make me repeat everything. First, whether China only refers to PRC in common usage is disputed (it refer to the ROC and any of the Chinese Dynasties before that). Second, there is a dispute of whether the PRC includes Taiwan or not, and neither side is fringe in that. T-1000 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it becomes a clear choice between representing fact (I am not attempting to give equal weight to the ROC view) or furthering common lies. The majority is not always right. 2) Any notion of apparent denial of the PRC's legitimacy will be nullified if this particular move to make China a full DAB page is done. 3) The examples used under POVTITLE are for articles such as the Rape of Belgium where virtually no other name is used. That is not clearly true for China vs. PRC. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  18:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping this section of the discussion page could be reserve for a kind of meta-talk where we discuss how the proposal has advanced and what to do about it, as opposed to arguing over the merits of a particular proposal. There is plenty of room on the rest of this discussion page for that. I only suggest this because it can be very very difficult to follow the discussion if it is both extremely active and poorly organized. Others who want to participate will find it very difficult to do so. I should remind you that we don't have to argue over every detail no matter how important those details may seem to you. Its not important that we all agree on anything, and it seems unlikely that this kind of arguing is likely to convince anyone. By seeking consensus however we might get somewhere. I think we need outside participation in this discussion, in other words, a WP:RfC. I would prefer however that someone with more experience than myself make the request. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did, above, insert an RfC and re-organized the sub-discussions. Sorry for this section going off on tangent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * well, the actual RfC on this page has been removed quickly after being added. I'm a little confused. Eraserhead1 suggests we close the discussion first but that doesn't make sense to me, aren't we asking folks to participate in the discussion? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to start a new RfC in a new section organized in this way. One section where involved editors can comment, but no threaded replies, state your case and then hold your peace. No replies, otherwise it'ld just look like this mess again. One other section reserved only for editors who have not previously commented on this issue – new, external, uninvolved editors only; everyone who has already participated must not comment or reply in that section. I believe we can actually get somewhere that way. I suggest that Metal.lunchbox write the RfC post, since he appears to be reasonably neutral on this topic. Remember to clearly reserve a section for new previously uninvolved opinions. Thanks, --LK (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have taken a position in this discussion but I'm a little more interested in the discussion being resolved in general. I am not going to post the RfC right now because Eraserhead1, who is a pretty important participant in this discussion, has removed the first attempt at posting one. I'd like to understand a little more about why before moving forward. What you say about the format of the RfC section sounds good. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * as for "no threaded replies". that sounds good but is it realistic? People will certainly want to make threaded replies in the section, can we agree that we will move such replies to a more appropriate section? I imagine that some participants will object, but I think its necessary. Discussions like this can go on for years without resolution, but having some consensus-based ground-rules might make the process more productive. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the first RfC as I thought it was worth following process and waiting for the move request to be closed first. I did mention it on SchmuckyTheCat's talk page. Possibly a request on WP:AN could be made to close the move request? There is no point in having an RFC if the move request gets closed as move. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When we do make the RfC can we agree that it is going to address one and only one of the major questions at hand, Eraserhead1's move proposal? Can we agree that we will attempt to settle that question and avoid bringing in other important questions like whether "China" should link to "PRC"? We will have to answer that question too but I don't think its possible to seriously address both at the same time. Look at the above discussions and you'll probably get confused about which is being argued at any given point in the discussion. In that kind of confusion consensus is not likely to emerge. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think an RfC is really needed to decide if this article is the primary topic of the term "China". I think it's pretty clear to most that it isn't. We only really need an RfC for the problem about "China" and the PRC article. And I think it would be helpful if we got Eraserhead1's proposal out of the way first then, before moving on to that problem.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds like the most reasonable way to proceed. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm made a request at Administrator's noticeboard for someone to come by and close the move request as suggested above. I didn't see any sign with "make such a request here -->" on it so I made it here and crossed my fingers. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

All we need is a clear statement from the PRC and ROC that China and Taiwan are two non-intersecting concepts and the split is done. Hcobb (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing this is some kind of sarcasm. Please refrain from using sarcasm as it rarely comes across the way you intend, leading to confusion, something we have enough of on this page. Additionally, it does not actually contribute anything useful to the conversation. If it is not sarcasm, perhaps you could make yourself clear. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the proposal should be closed only according to the discussion in the polling since the topic is seriously limited to the proposer's desire, but affects far more than the topic itself. Till now Eraserhead1 haven't face a nature issue of his sophisticated proposal. ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> ( Yú Hǎi ) <Big> ✍ </Big> 09:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone, possibly Yú Hăi, could rephrase the above statement so that it may be understood. Is this the same as before about the alleged hidden sub-proposal? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant the alleged hidden sub-proposal. I made some syntactic mistakes, which have been corrected with bold text now. ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> ( Yú Hǎi ) <Big> ✍ </Big> 14:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

PRC is primary topic of "China", so what?
A clear consensus emerged from the Request for Comment above that the People's Republic of China is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "China". So what? In most cases this would mean moving People's Republic of China article to title China after discussing whether to move this article or merge it with PRC article, but there remains some disagreement about whether WP:NPOV prohibits this kind of move. It may look like we have gotten nowhere, but notice that for the first time this community has formed a consensus on something. A look at several move proposals including the most recent one by Eraserhead1, leads me to believe that the most productive way to move forward would be a straw poll to establish this communities level of support and opposition to the various prominent solutions to the naming problem. It would be useful for us to know which specific proposals have strong support and which do not. The key to finding a solution that does not have widespread opposition is polling based on preferences.

Have a look at this example preference poll. Of course it would not be binding but it would help give some direction and focus to this ongoing debate, so that we might resolve it soon. Don't be intimidated by how long the page is, it's not nearly as complicated as it seems at first. It'll need to be edited a little for neutrality and clarity and we'd have to agree on a few ground rules for the sake of fairness. Is there support for conducting such a poll?


 * No, don't bother. We had a requested move poll. The result was that the status quo was unacceptable and something had to move. We had an RfC poll. The result was a clear statement that the modern country (PRC) is the primary topic. This answers the ambiguity of the requested move.
 * We have clear answers. There is no need to continue polling and asking questions. Move this article Chinese civilization, move PRC to China, copy the history section (up to 1949) from this article to the moved PRC article, and then let normal editing fix it up. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * WP:Primarytopic allows for occasional exceptions and NPOV supersedes every other policy. And I see no resolutions to the NPOV issues raised above. T-1000 (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Schumcky, but the outcome of an RfC, unlike what is assuredly going to be a far lengthier move request, does not allow for any controversial moves to be made. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  01:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the solution you are proposing, SchmuckyTheCat, but I'm afraid that I'm with T-1000 and Xiaoyu of Yuxi on this. We can't completely ignore the dissent of some members of this page's editor community. I highly disagree with their position, but its not completely absurd. We have to address their concerns over NPOV directly even if we can't get everyone to agree on the details. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not ignoring them. They had a voice in the RM and the RfC. Consensus isn't unanimous. There isn't an NPOV problem with putting an article about a country at the common name of the country. If anything the NPOV problem is that we are giving so much weight to a loud minority and continuing to allow them to deny recognition because of their political beliefs. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Please, Republic of Ireland is commonly known as Ireland, and that Arbcom decision already shows what will happen if this goes all the way to Arbcom. NPOV supersedes common name, deal with it, Schmucky. T-1000 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't Ireland. NPOV and COMMONNAME go hand in hand, there is no conflict. Common names are explicitly neutral. The examples at POVTITLE are usually about descriptive titles, not proper noun titles, but that seemingly makes it easier and more obvious.
 * As has been explained multiple times, your NPOV problem is in the content, not the title. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Ireland is very different. The community on this page has difficulty agreeing on a few key points but we haven't engaged in the kind of vicious fighting that they did. ArbCom is worth avoiding. Let's try not take the Ireland example as binding precedence, especially since there are so many other country articles that form a convention that we are advocating, put the country article at its common name.
 * @SchmuckyTheCat, We definitely don't have to have unanimity but that "loud minority" you speak of have derailed consensus on every single solution to this problem that has been proposed. I agree that there is no violation of NPOV in any of the proposed solution and we can deal with that argument in a clear and deliberate manner, like we did with formerly the controversial Primary topic issue. The other perhaps, more important impediment to consensus has been disagreement about what the best solution is. Remember how the last move request went. Polling editors preferences among the proposed solutions might be useful. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The move request found consensus to move, but not to where (dab page or primary topic). Now we have an RfC answering where. At this point the objectors are still arguing the points asked and answered in the previous polls. They aren't going to change their minds, and haranguing on the same points isn't going to help move forward. What is the actual objection? T-1000 still says "NPOV!!" without defining the problem (particularly - defining it in a way that isn't simply re-hashing the RM/RfC conversations that already occurred). Continuing to discuss an issue that has been beaten to death is not going to draw in new opinions, it will drive them away because of all the noise. We have the answers we need. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Please, I defined the problem right here: "The reason is the One China policy. If PRC is China and there is only one China, (and if Taiwan is part of China) then ROC is an illegitimate government holding on the PRC land, or if the ROC is indeed legitimate, then Taiwan is not part of China. Both cases violate NPOV." T-1000 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we have to buy into the One China rhetoric. It's just trick used by diplomats to get around the question of whether they support the PRC or the ROC in the cross strait relations. Most reliable sources do not buy into the One China rhetoric and they do not use the term "China" about the PRC to delegitimize the ROC. And neutrality is to describe things the way reliable sources do. Imposing our opinion on the language use by reliable sources is to go against NPOV as defined by WP:POVTITLE.TheFreeloader

(talk) 13:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the PRC's POV is notable, that's why. T-1000 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What a red herring. We can have an article about the One China policy without therefore having to let its logic dictate how we should name our articles.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that "Two Chinas" is a fact? T-1000 (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The arbcom is not going to contradict itself on a similar issue with a different ruling. Like I said, if your interpretations of Wiki policies are correct, then Republic of Ireland would be at Ireland based on common usage. But it's not, therefore, the arbcom disagrees with your interpretations. What's the point of bring up an argument when you already know it's going to fail?
 * And as I've replied to you multiple times, article titles directly influence article content. T-1000 (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Ireland dispute is proof that NPOV does conflict with common name in some cases, and arbcom showed us which supersedes which. T-1000 (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * China and Ireland have plenty of very important differences that aren't worth getting into here. That ArbCom decision is not binding for us, especially since the ArbCom decision was to hold a vote and implement the result the community choose, So what you say about ArbCom is completely incorrect. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then the community chose NPOV over common name, since Ireland being the common name for Republic of Ireland is not disputed. T-1000 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The community said there wasn't a primary topic for that name. Which is a different question than you've presented, and is also answered differently here than there by our RfC. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The point is that, clearly Ireland is not as similar to this case as you choose to believe and, more importantly, THIS community will make its own decision about what to do with these pages, instead of clumsily attempting to graft a solution based on very different circumstances onto China. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Schmucky, You and I were both around when the during all these discussions. And you know as well as I do that the "consensus" is fake. There are way more opposers then those that voted this time around. So let's discuss the arguments instead of numbers, okay? T-1000 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Claiming that the consensus is "fake" won't get you anywhere. Nothing in WP:NPOV and WP:POVTITLE or any other relevant policy/guideline directly supports your claim that having PRC at the title "China" would violate NPOV the burden of proof is on you, to make a convincing argument, with some evidence that it would in fact violate NPOV, until then we can just play whack-a-mole trying to definitively disprove a negative and all its semantic vartiations. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)What I am saying is, there are too few people that participated this time around to generate a reliable consensus. Now then, let's talk about the arguments. Because of the One China policy, having PRC being China would either imply that (if Taiwan is a part of China), ROC illegitimate government holding on to PRC land, or Taiwan is not part of China. Furthurmore, Merging PRC and China will mean that ROC has to be described as a historic regime. T-1000 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If too few people participated then re-open the RfC to run the complete 30 days.
 * We don't have a One China Policy. That is a political belief, not a Wikipedia policy. The rest of your argument is content. Which is all well-handled by hat notes and summary sections to the several dozen articles Wikipedia has about cross-straight relations. Here is another fringe POV problem - you are elevating the single issue of cross-straight relations in order to deny PRC as China even as it is widely regarded as a global superpower and has hundreds of other issues at least as important. Deny deny deny - that's a political tactic, not a belief. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * As I said, the disagree is precisely whether the ROC's claims are fringe or not. We can agree to disagree on that. My main issue is the a consensus cannot be formed with so few people. So let's just wait for more input. T-1000 (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the rfc now is whether PRC is the primary topic for China. But the real debate is whether or not the common usage is neutral or not. So the rfc should be renamed or a new discussion should be opened. T-1000 (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's leave this past RfC alone, renaming it would just confuse things. You are free to open a new discussion but the RfC is pretty much settled. and there was plenty of participation. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please. There was around 15 people. Past big discussions are around 40-50. Like here:, 20 oppose vs. 16 support (Slashem is a sock). T-1000 (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel the result was inconclusive T-1000, you could always relist it. As it is the consensus was very clear. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * consensus is not useful when so few people participate. T-1000 (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already relisted it, I don't see how continuing the RfC could hurt anything. I only unlisted it to facilitate moving on, since a consensus had clearly been reached as had been acknowledged by others. The more the merrier, but at this point its just piling on. I think a lot of people didn't chime in because it was already clear what the result would be and they didn't have anything to unique to add to the discussion. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There will be Consensus on PRC being primary topic for China, but there won't be Consensus on whether the common usage is neutral or not, as shown in the 20 oppose, 16 support result from the last discussion. T-1000 (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you support considering the primary topic issue to be definitively settled (for the moment) and opening a new question regarding the neutrality of having the Republic of China article at the title "China"? only this time instead of having my argument presented first, we could let you prepare a clear and unambiguous statement with relevant evidence and then respond to that? The question itself would have to be neutral though and specific to policy, like "Does moving People's Republic of China to "China" violate WP:NPOV?" - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I recalled correctly, China being common name for PRC was never disputed in the first place. And I think a move request suggesting moving PRC to China would work better, since it's basically the same discussion. I'd suggest waiting a week or two to allow more people to participate and people to cool off. T-1000 (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't about common name, it's about primary topic. There's a reason the RfC was explicitly worded that way. Metal.lunchbox was asking if " support considering the primary topic issue to be definitively settled (for the moment)" (emphasis added) not the common name issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Common Name and primary topic pretty much mean the same thing here.T-1000 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I take it you agree the RfC reached a consensus that the PRC is the primary topic for China. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't think that was ever disputed to begin with. T-1000 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So if the PRC is the primary topic for China then there will be no issue moving that article to "China". -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated many times before, the dispute is whether the Primary topic / common name is neutral or not. T-1000 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you are all too eager to not learn from the equally involved events of the past. WP:UCN, and WP:PrimaryTopic have of course been used to support the move from May 2008, and to no avail. Hark you, the discussion resulted in pointless trading of barbs then and the same thing is occurring now. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  18:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We are all aware that Xiaoyu and T-1000 want to stifle this discussion as much as possible. The reality is that if we are to strive for neutrality, then when you type in "China" in the search bar, you should get an article with the PRC flag at the top. If you get an article which doesn't have the flag, and isn't primarily about the PRC (as is currently the case), then Wikipedia will have let a very vocal minority "win". To me, the real neutrality problem is the apparent "anti-PRC" bias in the current article configuration. Mlm42 (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Minority? the last big discussion from 2008 was 20 oppose vs 16 support. And you also thought EB was neutral even when it ignores a notable POV. T-1000 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mlm42, if you transformed into Pinocchio right this moment, your nose would be longer than the Great Wall. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  19:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument. Maybe you should keep your personal attacks out of this discussion. I have to agree with Mlm42 here, the most netural approach is to reflect the language common to the vast majority of reliable sources, therefore any solution which leads to an article primarily about the People's Republic of China when searching "China".  Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Time and time again, not so. The most neutral approach is to move China (disambiguation) to China, which I have given my support to, contrary to what Mlm implies. It does not enforce 1) the view that China is the civilisation, which appears to be the case with the current configuration. 2) either state's (PRC/ROC) legitimacy (I don't emphasise this as much as T-1000 does). 3) There is more, but enough babbling for now. As I have said before, we are all wasting our time, and it would be better for some editors here to contribute more meaningfully. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Why NPOV policy does not prohibit moving PRC article
Here's the thing about arguments which claim having "China" point to an article primarily about the People's Republic of China violates NPOV: WP:NPOV clearly states what we should do in this case - "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." Furthermore the examples that they give are titles which actually use non-neutral wording like "scandal", "massacre" and "ripper". There's nothing pointy or biased about the title, "China". That it is the common name for the PRC is not disputed and we have already clearly established that the People's Republic of China is the primary topic of "China". The only way the above policy could more clearly answer the question of whether or not having the title China lead to an article primarily about the PRC is sufficiently NPOV would be for the policy to mention China and the People's Republic of China by name. If for some reason you still aren't convinced read WP:AT, WP:PLACE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, nowhere in policy or guidelines is there support for this kind of filibustering of move/merge proposals. The real question isn't one of NPOV, but rather which solutions are most preferred by the editors on this page. The sooner we get on with this the sooner we can get to bringing the article up to the quality it should be. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right that there's no policy or guideline in favor of this filibustering. You're also right that this current configuration is not NPOV, and its foundations are based in selective reading of policy, the outsizing of fringe viewpoints, and the stifling of discussion. We might just need an administrator to close a move request based on a careful evaluation of all of the policies, rather than simple votecounting. Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, closed by User:GTBacchus, is an elegant example of proper application of policy slicing through emotions and nationalism. Editors from all sides of the debate collaborated to make a table containing their arguments for and against (it's in the collapsed section), after which the arguments were carefully weighed and compared to close the move. Let's put the arguments for "PRC ≠ China is NPOV" and the arguments for "PRC ≠ China is not NPOV" side by side and see which are stronger. Quigley (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with going ahead with a move request is that we'll probably end up the same place we did last time, agreeing that a move needs to be made, and getting lost in a somewhat confusing debate about all the different, moves and merges possible. Do you think that a straw poll of preferences like what I've suggested above would be a useful way to sort things out prior to a specific move and/or merge proposal? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes; the winner of the strawpoll should be the proposal of the move request. Quigley (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Context guys, context
Sure, the common name for the PRC may be "China" -- but for mostly nonpolitical aspects. (I had vacation in China, I'm doing business in China, busses in China are crowded...) When the actions of a government are concerned, Chinese people speaking in English (at least in New York City) seem quick to clarify that it is "the mainland Chinese government" they're talking about. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 05:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What Chinese government are they contrasting "the mainland" Chinese government to? Quigley (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They're distinguishing the state of the PRC from the Chinese people, or from "zhonghua", "huaren" / "tangren" etc. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 05:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This angle has already been explored at Talk:China/Archive 23. While older anticommunist Overseas Chinese communities (like those in New York City that you talk about, and many of the users in this discussion) dislike equating PRC with China, people inside China and non-Chinese outside of China equate PRC with China, politically or otherwise. Quigley (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The same applies from Singapore. In any case, the historic state of the PRC should be treated like a modern form of a dynasty or a political era, the same we do with Han Dynasty, Yuan Dynasty, etc. If you think about it, the issues are quite similar. The history of China (the cultural entity) and the history of the PRC are separate. Many people identify with China (Zhonghua) but not the PRC. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Many" (i.e., very few but overrepresented in the developed world) people identify with Vietnam but not the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV). It doesn't stop Wikipedia from calling the SRV "Vietnam", because Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view (meaning apportion viewpoints according to their prominence, not "take no position"). Quigley (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also imagine if Wikipedia had existed in 1300. Would we move the article about the political Yuan state that presided over much of China's territory over "China"? China is a cultural/geographic entity. There are many historic forces -- literature and so forth -- in the mainland that the political state cannot really claim heritage to. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 06:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The state is always involved in "historical forces", culture, and literature. Is this the anticommunist argument that the PRC specifically can't claim Chinese heritage because of the Cultural Revolution and somesuch? Quigley (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No this is a historical argument. How would we resolve dab pages like Education in China, Culture of China and so forth? It would be simply unspeakable to move "Culture of the PRC" over the current space held by "Culture of China," given the long history of Chinese culture rejected by the current culture of the PRC. The culture of the PRC (and all its fun entailings) and the culture of China that we know from the literature, poetry, plays, songs, history, passed down from generation to generation, embedded in proverbs, art, buildings, dedications are different. There's a reason Saudi Arabia hasn't been moved over Arabia. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 06:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's really not that hard to determine what to do in the case of sub-articles, because every other country article follows a standard that China unjustifiably deviates from. From the lead sentence of Culture of India: "the Indian tradition dates back to 8000 BC". The article follows up with a good historical survey, exactly like Culture of China. That article needn't change. Quigley (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually "India" in the cultural sense (which would include territory now under Pakistan, and Bangladesh) deserves its own article, but I'm not pushing for it because it would be needlessly messy to make all the moves. The benefit of the status quo of the current naming of articles is greater than what pointless instability would cause. This is not unlike going through every article to enforce a certain style of dashes. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 06:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The only "pointless instability" here is caused by certain editors who want to enforce some ill-defined fantasy of China that is anything but the PRC, and who constantly have to argue and edit-war with the non-Chinese users who ignore such edicts and equate China, like all other countries, with its modern state and government. Quigley (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is also complicated by the fact that the cultural sphere of China extends well outside the mainland. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 06:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you might want to rename "Culture of China", create a "Chinese culture" article, or add a "Spread of culture from China" section to the "Culture of China" article. The possibilities are endless (and irrelevant) Quigley (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not the reason Saudi Arabia hasn't been moved to Arabia. It's because Saudi Arabia is the common name of the country, whose long form is the "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia". It's never referred to as simply "Arabia". Similarly, there is a country called "China" whose long form name is the "People's Republic of China". The PRC is just the latest constitutional form of the country China. Why can't we have a Culture of China page, where China refers to the PRC? The cultural sphere of many countries extends well outside their borders, it doesn't stop us having articles on their culture, such as Culture of France. Having governments that don't follow traditional culture doesn't stop us either, we have Culture of Vietnam for example. As for Education in China, it's a rather simple split. Noone is going to search "Education in China" and hope to obtain information just about Education in Hong Kong or Education in Macau. If they were searching for Education in the Republic of China, I'm willing to bet they would search "Education in Taiwan". Thus what is currently under Education in the People's Republic of China can simply be moved to Education in China, as it is with every other country on wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

People are generally referring to whatever institution of China that is occupying the mainland soil. Business in China, busses in China, vacation in China.... they are referring to the mainland in modern context. Benjwong (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The primary topic is mainland
If you MUST make a move to legitimize the contents on mainland soil as THE legitimate primary topic, there is really only one move. That is to move mainland China to China and heavily put forth the term (中国大陆). This will gain far more favorable votes than any of your current proposal. That is at least consistent politically, geographically and matches reality in just about every aspect. Even Taiwanese/ROC citizens will accept that one. And then keep the two separate articles PRC and ROC as political entity links. This basically put the focus on what is China, and that is the continental mainland. Benjwong (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also Metal.lunchbox you should ask the question "Is mainland China topics the primary topic for the term China?" There is a very good chance you get even more "yes" responses. Benjwong (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about votes, and most of the opposition is not coming from self-identified ROC citizens. "Mainland China" is not a commonly used term, and it excludes territories that are often considered parts of China. Quigley (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainland China is not a common term? Are you kidding. When the media refers to China, they are referring to the contents relating to the region of mainland "China". And yes, last I checked Taiwan citizens are still calling it President of the Republic of China. Benjwong (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the media in Hong Kong or Taiwan uses it, but otherwise it's almost unheard of. Also, "is informally referred to as the "President of Taiwan" (traditional Chinese: 臺灣總統; simplified Chinese: 台湾总统)" Quigley (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Though it somewhat makes sense, doesn't this then open another can of worms regarding Hong Kong and Macau? --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 02:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Previously we said people looking up the primary topic of "China" they might be looking up things regarding PRC or ROC etc. But metal.lunchbox said we were wrong. As far as I can see metal.lunchbox did a small poll and people are thinking of mainland topics when looking up "China". They are not thinking of HK, Macau, ROC, Taiwan etc. Benjwong (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The PRC is inextricable from the mainland in people's minds. Quigley (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would even go as far as to say people looking up "China" are not looking up tibet or xinjiang. He wants to satisfy the most common English primary term. Benjwong (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * People looking up the United States are not looking up Hawaii, but Wikipedia serves them the whole package. Quigley (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Big difference. United States is an umbrella term that seems to be widely accepted. Obviously we are debating because there are issues with what should be covered under the China umbrella term.  We were saying many things should be covered under China to give it a fair scope.  Metal.lunchbox was saying no no no, just PRC topics. Benjwong (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that China is not a widely accepted abbreviation for PRC? The RfC participants seem to think otherwise. The United States also has other uses, like the United States of Mexico or the United States of Stellaland. If China is the PRC, it doesn't mean that Taiwan isn't China. That's left ambiguous. What do you think is left out of 'China' if China is the PRC, considering that a unified PRC/China article can cover historical and ROC topics? Quigley (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly when you say PRC is China, at least the ROC half has to be left out. And if you include ROC as a province or a part of the PRC, that is currently not the real situation. Benjwong (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The ROC is not left out because the PRC claims ROC territory, ROC history is PRC history, and the current ("the real") ROC situation can and should be discussed in a PRC-China article. Also, ROC is much less than "half". Quigley (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PRC claims alot of stuff. And that's fine, as long as you don't present it anymore than just a claim. That goes for any country/state/boundary topic. Benjwong (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The obvious corollary to T-1000's claim that all states that recognize ROC recognize ROC as ruler of PRC+ROC territory is that all the states that recognize the PRC (all but 23) recognize the PRC as ruler of PRC+ROC territory, so PRC's claim on Taiwan certainly means more than, say, PRC's claim on the Diaoyu Islands or other countries' territorial claims. Quigley (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer everyone do more research on the 23 recognized countries before using that case further. Benjwong (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also please look at the incoming links to this China article mentioned before. You can all count. What percent of the topics relate to the modern PRC? Very very tiny. What percentage of the topics relate to a China era on mainland in general? Huge percentage, maybe 90%. Benjwong (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are too many links to count; the first hundred or so links are not representative. Many people (including me) have tried to search for the PRC-intended links and link them there, and most people aware of this situation (who go to China intending to see the PRC) do an awkward pipe to PRC. The links that intend to go to Republic of China and Ancient China can be adjusted accordingly, but vastly more people put "China" in the search bar to see modern (i.e., post-1950) China, and are led to "China" or PRC by current affairs than reach "China" by reading articles on obscure historical topics. Quigley (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No I am saying if you just point Mainland China -> China, then you are 90% compatible with your links. PRC -> China only fits a very small number of links. Benjwong (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A merged PRC/China article at title "China" would be de facto a "Mainland China" article that works with ancient Chinese history, like India, Greece, Egypt, etc. The only reason to choose "Mainland China" over PRC seems to be anti-PRC politics. Quigley (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. If anything Mainland China satisfies so many more links that it is a very obvious thing to do.  In reverse the reason to not choose "Mainland China" has to do with political-dislike for the term. Which I don't know if you are aware of? Benjwong (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainland China wouldn't satisfy any more links than a merged PRC/China article would. And there are plenty of reasons to dislike that politicized neologism. The first sentence of the article Mainland China explains that it is a way to refer to PRC territory without naming the PRC. Why would you not want to name the PRC? Well, that's cross-strait politics, and Wikipedia is not bound by the rules of cross-strait politics. Quigley (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that a few editors were pushing to move the current China to "China (civilization)". What links to China civilization afterwards won't matter anymore. What matters is that everything is linked to China/mainland China by default. The goal is to be non-political, don't mention PRC because that's political. Benjwong (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not mentioning the PRC is political because it implies that the PRC is not the legitimate successor to "China", which all but possibly 23 states and practically everybody on the planet recognizes. And if you agree that the links intend "mainland China" rather than "Chinese civilization", then why did you oppose the recent move request? Quigley (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No the goal is to have a page that everyone can live with. After you move mainland China to China.  We can fix up the page with information about modern Chinese people, modern population, modern ethnic groups, modern culture on mainland.  Anything having to do with historical eras, branch it out to Qing/Ming etc.  Anything having to do with political aspects, branch it out to PRC/ROC.  Basically put the focus on continental mainland. Possibly do a big merge of Culture of China into China civilization.  Benjwong (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not everyone can live with your proposed solution, because not everyone is militantly opposed to titling the PRC what all people informally title it every day: "China". To have a PRC that is just politics and no history, people, or culture, is, to quote you, "currently not the real situation". Quigley (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The new intro will say something like "China, also referred to as Mainland China blah blah is the continental area blah blah. Currently the United Nations recognize the ruling entity on mainland China as the People's Republic of China." Then Stop there.  Don't go any further with the politics.  You don't have to mention Taiwan/ROC at all or anything else not physically on the mainland. That's what I was suggesting as a proposed solution.  You can then give a very brief history. Don't go deep.  Keep it shallow, easy to read. This new China page could be half the size of the current page, and let all the branch pages do all the details. Benjwong (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We understand that you want "China" to point to Mainland China but what we don't understand I think is why. Why is this distinction so important, whether the tiny territories of HK and Macau are included? Perhaps this distinction is important in those areas but not generally. People's Republic of China is more general, more common, and more logical. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There would be no mentioning of HK and Macau. Those are not mainland China topics. Perhaps you misread my comments above. Someone doing a primary search of China, is not looking up HK and Macau. You can do a poll of it.  Benjwong (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, it is not common for "China" to be used as a shorthand for "Mainland China" at all. In fact, the term "Mainland China" is itself not that common, used mostly in economics, and in my experience is usually shortened to "the mainland" rather than "China". The only time I can really think that something similar to China is used to discuss the mainland (therefore explicitly not including HK/Macau) is when a text discusses relations between the HK/Macau governments and the central PRC government, where the PRC is referred to as "Chinese authorities". Even then, it's debatable whether that is shorthand for the mainland. So before we even consider this proposal, there has to be examples of outside sources given that use "China" to refer to just the mainland, not including HK/Macau. As another note, I'd like to see the links which would appropriately link to Mainland China but not to the People's Republic of China. My guess is that most (if not all) would be on economic or inter-Chinese political issues. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This has already been settled. "China" is, whether you like it or not, the common name for the People's Republic of China and the People's Republic of China is the primary topic of "China". This discussion about mainland China is just more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please accept consensus and let us move on. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Look if a minority is attempting to filibuster discussion escalate it to the Mediation Cabal. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was hoping we could avoid that, because that seems like one of the least fun ways of resolving the issue, but alas we must be realistic. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mediation is for finding answers with other editors who are amenable to a common solution. In this case we already have answers and the minority editors are intractable. This is not a mediation case.
 * Let the RfC run. Request third party opinions on talk pages like WP:TITLE and WP:NPOV. Find an admin to close the RfC and perform the move if that is what the RfC determines the primary topic is. Use the process and act, don't drag it out, and don't try and convince those who never will be. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The primary topic is thousands of years of civilization. What's happen in the past Century is only a really tiny part of this. Hcobb (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then merge that content into the PRC article - just like every other country in the world - and that issue is easily solved. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just get us a note from the PRC that things that aren't currently under the PRC are not part of China.

And isn't a note like this sufficient?

This article is about ethno-cultural Tibet. For the administrative region of the People's Republic of China, see Tibet Autonomous Region. For other uses, see Tibet (disambiguation).

Hcobb (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Chinese government's official position doesn't prevent any other organisation from calling the PRC China, nor does the history of other countries generally stop when they were officially founded. This isn't a real issue. Maybe the Tibet and TAR articles should be merged as well, but that is a separate issue. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Metal.lunchbox, this was not settled. In fact what you tried to establish was not correct. Mainland China is by far the absolute most relevant link to China. Look at all the articles linked currently to China.


 * Alchemy - "...Chinese alchemy, centered in China and its zone of cultural influence"
 * Ancient China - "...from 770 to 221 BC, an era of great cultural and intellectual expansion in China."
 * Arabian Sea - "...linking the Near East with East Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and China."
 * Mahjong - "... is a game that originated in China".

The list does not stop. Almost every link has to do with some China on mainland soil. The percentage specifically referring to the People's Republic of China is very small. I will even apologize upfront if it sounds like I am targeting you.... but one would have to be lying to suggest PRC is the primary topic for China judging by these links. Benjwong (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * we've been over this before. This is a semantics game that we are playing. If it wasn't settled, that's fine, then we can settle it. I was under the impression that it had been settled, but if it needs to go on for longer I have no problem with that. I'm not trying to trick anyone, this process obviously needs to be fair. We know your position on "China" and mainland China now, thank you. Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If the goal was to use primary topic as the deciding factor for a page move, then I need to make clear (statistically) that PRC is NOT the primary topic, that's all. Benjwong (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The goal was to establish primary topic for "China". I said specifically that this is not a move request and then repeated that other factors would have to be considered before making a move request. Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A way forward?
Hi. I've been aware of the naming dispute relating to this article, and that it is very complex and occupies vast swathes of this page as well as the archives. So far, I haven't felt bold enough to try closing any move requests, or even to register an opinion. It's true I've dealt with a lot of difficult moves, and I was asked by a participant here if I'd have a look. "What a mess", is my initial reaction. This is more difficult than the M.K. Gandhi situation which is alluded to a few sections above. However, I do like the strategy that was used there, of stripping the arguments themselves away from the personalities making them, summarizing them in a table, and examining them under the light of relevant policies. I've seen that strategy applied very usefully more than once, so I'm inclined to recommend it here. I believe that I'm entirely neutral regarding the question of how to name various articles about nations and civilizations identified with and around the label "China". I care about things like how mathematics is taught, and not one bit about nationalism or labels applied to nations. I also care about seeing Wikipedia improved in a way consistent with foundational policy and consensus. Therefore I might be useful as an informal mediator. ("Informal" is my preference; formalities tend to upset my stomach a little.) Would it be helpful for me to start putting a summary together, of various positions that are taken in the above RFC? If people want that, I'd be happy enough to lend a hand getting things rolling, and moving the discussion toward a possible resolution. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, thank you for your participation in this process. I'll only add that I think there are two basic approaches that we need to if not decide between, at least recognize. If we are talking about pro-con debates on proposals we have to figure out what the proposals being debated are. As I see it there are two ways to slice the cake. Either we talk about the various advantages and disadvantages of specific move/merge proposals, like the 5 I have identified way up there somewhere or we debate underlying policy disputes which would affect move/merge decisions like the RfC above about whether or not the PRC is the primary topic of China and the one that has continued to come up again and again whether or not having the article titled "China" be primarily about the country officially known as the People's Republic of China violates WP:NPOV. I think the NPOV argument is abstract enough that it could be used to derail any debate on moving and merging. I feel that the answer to the question is clear but realistically we have to recognize that it will come up again and again as a way to impede change unless we settle it definitively first. I am all for such an organized debate as you propose, but we kind of need to settle what the question is first. Wait, are you talking about setting up such a debate in order to close the above RfC? - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about helping in whatever way people want me to help. I'm at your service, if that's desired. I don't care which process it's called. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the record clearly shows that we need some help. I think the best way to move on would be to have a debate in the style that you are proposing over whether or not having the article titled "China" be primarily about the country officially known as the People's Republic of China violates WP:NPOV. I already know what I think but it seems like we need a definitive group decision or it will keep popping up. If the results of the RfC are really being disputed then I'd support adressing that first. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, replying to some of the text that you struck, I'd be disinclined from debating policy in the abstract. Even saying that we're talking about this particular titling dispute, there are still a variety of questions that could be asked. We could ask whether it's a violation of NPOV to have an article about PRC at "China". Even that seems a bit abstract, though. Concretely, there are various proposals under consideration.
 * Have an article about PRC at "China", with a hatnote for disambiguation.
 * Have an article about Chinese civilization at "China", with a hatnote for disambiguation.
 * Have a disambiguation page at "China", pointing to various articles about nations, civilizations, and ceramics.
 * What else?
 * Each of these proposals can be examined in the light of various policies, such as NPOV, COMMONNAME... what else? That's my first inclination for how to proceed: define the options on the table, list pros and cons for each one, and then decide where we stand. Does that sound reasonable/appealing/redundant/helpful...? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are probably right about not focusing on abstract policy questions. RE: "what else?", I thought about this question in some detail and came up with a straw poll which clearly identifies the prominent proposals in neutral language. I thought it would be helpful, but I didn't get much response, for some reason we got into a very long debate about the term "mainland China" instead. I'd like to see community developed pro-con for each of the proposals. It could be in the form of a bulleted list like the ghandi episode but I'd prefer using prose, that is, a few paragraphs with an arbitrary word limit of say 1000 to keep the whole lot readable. I'm not sure if this is the better option but we might also do something like this. Either way, the traditional format of threaded discussion has not been able to resolve the dispute. Metal lunchbox (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks GTB, that sounds like a helpful idea. Another possibility is to redirect "China" to the PRC article, but include in the PRC article a (summarized) history of China, including before the PRC was formed. Mlm42 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this offer GTB.
 * Ignore for a moment all the discussion and look at the two processes. When you look at the comments by the closing admin for the move request, and when you see the preponderance of positive statements about the primary topic in the RfC - do you actually see a debate that needs to occur? What I see is a move request that ended saying the status quo is not maintainable, and a clear consensus in the RfC that there is a primary topic for the subject matter. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Schmucky, I'm just offering to help. If you don't want my help, I can go away. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Schmucky, you know as well as I do that once more people participates, your "consensus" will be gone anyways. T-1000 (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen "a clear consensus", and it doesn't look like this page. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should leave the RfC open for a while and you can evaluate the result from as a neutral observer. That would be useful. I saw a consensus in the RfC responses, but if there's no consensus that a consensus has been reached then I'd support further action to resolve the issue. Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good starting point. Let me take some time to read over the responses, and then I'll post what I think I've seen. If that doesn't resolve things, then we can go ahead with something like what you described above. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi GTBacchus is it safe to say that M.K. Gandhi would be the same biography article regardless of how it would be renamed? That is where I see the difference between that debate and this one. This rename will have a huge effect on the contents. Benjwong (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. That's one reason that this one is more complicated. I'm not really trying to compare the two debates, simply to say that the general strategy of working on the pros and cons of various proposals - without signatures - might be helpful. I've seen it work in a variety of contexts. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer of help GTBacchus. I'm sure everyone here would appreciate whatever you can offer, informally of course! Looked over the Gandhi page, that could work here. There was an idea here to clearly separate each individual question into an RfC, but we only managed to get through one question, which can be seen above. I personally don't see Benjwong's point here. Looking over the article, the only thing that I think would change would be an expansion of the history section's scope (which could happen even without a rename). The Culture section already includes information about modern and ancient, and every other section just covers the modern period. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another option is to have an article at China which covers Chinese history up to 1949 and then covers the PRC. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate a little, I'm not clear on what exactly it is you are proposing. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm basically suggesting is that you have the PRC article at China with some history content going back to 5000 BC, a bit like how Italy or France is organised. Possibly with detailed politics at PRC in a new article - a bit like the detailed politics of France is at French Fifth Republic. Any content which is gone into more detail in the current "China" article - such as the content on arts should be moved to the PRC article.
 * The advantage of this approach is that it makes the PRC the primary topic as well as covering Chinas significant history as well in one article and that should satisfy most people's concerns. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems logical. I think this solution has come up before as a merger of PRC and China and then the possible creation of a PRC article with a much more restricted scope, like French Fifth Republic. It is the solution that I most favor. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also support this, as long as the China article has the PRC flag and country infobox at the top (analogous to France and Italy). But there appears to be opposition to this idea from various people due to "neutrality" concerns regarding Taiwan.. Mlm42 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This "neutrality" concern has cut across all china-related articles. Perhaps the most egregious is the ending of Chinese history in 1950. Look at History of China which excludes the entire history of the People's Republic of China since 1950 as a matter of policy. We can't let editors distort every China-related subject to fit a Taiwan-straights centric paradigm just because they treat the mention of NPOV as a trump card. We need to restore the organization of the articles to a more neutral layout which better reflects the way reliable sources treat the subject. I challenge someone to find a "history of China" textbook which stops at 1950 that was published any time in the last three decades. This is an important topic and protecting our readers by excluding vital information is not helpful. I realize that in some ways this is a discussion for talk:History of China but the issue is the same one we see here with an insistence on the artificial absolute separation between China and the PRC. Metal lunchbox (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said before, this will mean that ROC must be described as a historical regime, which violates NPOV because it is still around. T-1000 (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you have said that before. It certainly doesn't mean any such thing. Read the History of China article it describes the ROC as a historical regime ruling over the mainland 1912-1949 and then goes on to say that the ROC retreated to Taiwan which it governs to this day. What on earth is POV about that? Thats the same way most histories of China treat the topic. There is no reason that any other article can't treat the topic in the same way. Also consider that there may be a reason a that the ROC today often chooses to refer to itself as the "Republic of China on Taiwan" or the "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Metal lunchbox (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the ROC has been succeeded in China, but not in Taiwan, then it implies that Taiwan is not part of China. Republic of China on Taiwan is only endorsed by the DPP. Ma specifically said that ROC still claims mainland China in 2008. Definitely a violation of NPOV to be pro-DPP and anti-KMT. T-1000 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The "historical regime" argument (repeatedly) put forward by T-1000 appears to be a straw man, and is not helpful to the discussion.
 * But maybe the important part of T-1000's point is: Could the various options regarding article titles be reasonably interpreted as Wikipedia taking a political stance? If the article called "China" had a PRC flag at the top, could that reasonably be interpreted as Wikipedia unfairly "taking sides" in the PRC vs. ROC dispute? Mlm42 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it's a straw man. That is what the three of you are trying say, right? That ROC has been succeed in China, but not in Taiwan? T-1000 (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What I assume T-1000 is trying to say that the issue being described isn't particularly a PRC vs. ROC POV issue, but rather a Pro-DPP vs. Pro-KMT POV issue. The policy of the DPP is what Chen Shui-bian termed as the Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China - that today, "The Republic of China is Taiwan.". The Pan-Blue camp however strongly opposes this view. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 03:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter, its a straw man arguement because nothing we are doing is stating or implying support for either of those competing positions, so claiming that that would be POV is a way to win an argument that no one is making. Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, your proposal implies that ROC is a historic regime in China, but not in Taiwan, therefore pushing a POV that Taiwan is not part of China. T-1000 (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is another intricate semantics game. You are now just repeating the same argument that no one accepts. Move on so that we can resolve this, please. Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the past discussions. This argument has been made before and the Pro-movers never had any responses. So it isn't surprising that you couldn't come up with anything now. T-1000 (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that argument has been answered multiple times and from multiple angles because you repeat it so often. You can continue arguing the same thing, but most people have moved on. Quigley (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And those responses had been refuted already. Two Napoleons is a fact, so we can decide which one is more important, while Two Chinas is a POV. Because of the One China policy, we can't say PRC is legitimate without saying the ROC is illegitimate, or that Taiwan is not part of China. Those responses require "Two Chinas" to be a fact, which itself violates NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Refutation refuted! Your refutation to the refutation to the refutation brings us at an impasse, because you seem to believe that Wikipedia cannot neutrally describe POVs in this situation, while most people think that Wikipedia can describe competing POVs, instead of ignoring them (which is itself POV against the majority view). Quigley (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The current setup describes the competing POVs. This proposal is trying to make China = PRC "the truth", which violates this part "in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view" from five pillars. T-1000 (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, titles do not make truth. Wikipedia' design makes it impossible for different articles to have the same title, so article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable. The title of "China" fulfills the ideal criteria for the article currently titled "People's Republic of China". Quigley (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "titles do not make truth", I think this part is percisely where the pro-movers and the anti-movers disagree. T-1000 (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's move on shall we. This argument is not relevant to the dispute and T-1000 shows no interest in dropping it or resolving it so we should drop it and move along. Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can claim it's not relevant, but it came up in 2008, and saying stuff you can't answer is "not relevant" sure is a good way to gain consensus. T-1000 (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We've answered this several times directly including the discussion from a few minutes ago. I dont want to get personal so I'm moving on. If you don't like my answers then so be it, but I'm not going to engage you in argument on this topic as it will clearly not lead anywhere. Also, sticking to relevant issues is vital to gaining consensus. Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine. I am just showing history repeating itself. Pro-mover bring up common name, Anti-mover bring up NPOV. Each side considers the other side's arguments not relevant, and No consensus. Hell, there's not even consensus on what the relevant issues are. As I said, this problem is that everyone interprets the same Wikipedia rules differently. T-1000 (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As our most recent discussion shows, anti-movers cannot monopolize the NPOV argument. Also, the problem with the 2008 move might just be procedural, as little more was tried than a simple move request. Deadlocks on issues with more vigorous disagreement have been broken. Quigley (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest when T-1000 makes a comment we just ignore him. He's continually derailing any possibility of moving forward and replying to his points doesn't help. We don't need him to make a consensus so why bother engaging? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * lol, because my points are exactly what the opposers have brought up for the past eight years. You can ignore it, but you'll just fail to build a consensus. T-1000 (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly content to discuss these issues with other people who largely agree with your positions because they don't have to have the last word in every discussion. While I respect that it takes two to tango you do pretty much always seem to be involved in discussions of vast length on this page. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Pro/Con table
Following up on the suggestion of GTBacchus, here is a pro/con table listing the three options that seem to be the primary choices. I suggest that editors fill it in impartially and politely, without signatures. I've started populating it with some pros/cons, with some pros/cons, based on what I can glean from the discussions above, but other editors should feel free to re-write or alter my contributions. --Noleander (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note:
 * "PRC" = People's Republic of China, which controls Mainland China since 1949
 * "ROC" = Republic of China, which controlled Mainland China from 1912 to 1949, and today controls only the island of Taiwan along with a few outlying islands

Discussion of table

 * I don't agree that having it as the civilisation avoids POV issues - especially given the PRC is the primary topic. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think that point was made several times in the discussions above. The point of the table is merely to capture, in one concise, easy-to-read location, all the arguments made in the discussions above.  The table will include many points that editors disagree with, but there is no reason to repeat the disagreements, again, here in the Discussion section.  Moreover, the table may include internally inconsistent arguments, but that is okay:  it is simply acting as a convenient way to summarize the points made above.  --Noleander (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion on the table contents: I see some other editors are working on the table.  That is great.  A suggestion:  the pros/cons should be worded in a way that accurately reflects what the proponent of that argument is saying.  The wording should not be tweaked by an opponent with the goal of diminishing the point.  For example if editor A believes that choice X is bad because it has a POV problem, then the Con should say "Has a POV problem because ...".   If editor B disagrees, B should not change that wording in an attempt to undermine the argument (such as rewording to "Has an alleged POV problem .."), even if B believe's that A's argument is irrational or fallacious.  The point of the table is to capture the arguments, as stated by the proponents, even if we disagree with them. --Noleander (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My gosh, I started editing after this was initially posted and must have edit conflicted with every other user who edited in that time. In doing so, I've kept everything that was added in, even if later removed. As far as I can see, this is just a list where things are splurged down. Even if it's not mentioned above, getting it down now will be helpful. As no doubt there will be some disputes about whether this or that argument is rubbish or not relevant etc., I suggest we keep everything added in for now. Refining can come later. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As examples, since I posted, Belinsquare made an edit where they removed the idea that the ROC being independent made it " 'not part of China' anyway?", which I'm quite sure is against the idea that China is a Cultural entity (topic of the current China page?). They then made this edit, saying it was "confusing to have something that is both pro- and anti-PRC". This is taking out an argument, and something could be either pro or anti I'm sure (at least in different users opinions). This is why we should not be refining what others place in the table at the moment. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Chipmunk: I hear what you are saying, but if every editor adds in their own bullets, the table would get HUGE and unweildy, and would end up replicating all the tedious arguments above. What is unique about the table (assuming it works out) is (1) it is concise; and (2) it forces editors to collaborate and come up with clear statements of the arguments.  Out of that collaboration may come consensus.  Or not :-)  --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully understand your point here, and am tempted to agree with it. However, this page has had circuitous argument for awhile now, and I would suggest the atmosphere here is at the moment poisonous, and I don't see how users attempting to edit others points, however in Good Faith, will produce much but more animosity and warring. The point of this table is to replicate all the tedious arguments above, which can then be sifted through properly. Can we please wait for GTBacchus (or another uninvolved editor) to do all the refining for us? Although I previously didn't revert Belinsquare's removals, I've reverted your removal of Two Chinas, as I see where that is coming from, and think it is not identical. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please dont duplicate bullets - I've seen three places where a bullet (argument) was duplicated, each time with slightly different wording. Please try to consolidate similar arguments into one bullet, otherwise the table will get too unwieldy.  The table is not a "vote" where the most bullets wins.  I've removed (or combined)  the duplicate bullets. --Noleander (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Question - T-1000: how is the "Ignores the "Two Chinas" POV" different from the topmost POV bullet in the first option?  --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The top bullets assumes a One China POV (ROC is illegitimate, PRC is legitmate over Mainland China and Taiwan), or the DPP's (One China, one Taiwan) POV. I am just saying a two Chinas POV also exists. T-1000 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed "Written as a disambiguation rather than an actual article (unclear topic)" bullet ... I cannot understand what that means. Whichever editor inserted it: could you explain what the point was? --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added that, [Discussion of process covered slightly above this post] but Noleander may I please stress again that this is not the time to evaluate the arguments of others? It's only going to lead to edit wars for now (as that revert of your removal by T-1000 showed). Just leaving everything in will be the least confrontational option for now, we had best leave it to someone outside, I suppose wait for GTBacchus. As for the written as disambiguation bullet, I was trying to show the point raised above that this article starts of with a sentence describing its topic as three different things, a civilization, a nation, and a multinational entity. It after that goes to bullet point the PRC and ROC, both bolded (suggesting they are topics). For full disclosure, I agree with this bullet. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I could not understand what the bullet meant. I'm still not grasping what your point is: you are saying that the Civilization "China" is good because it is the broadest possible meaning of "China", and broader is better?  If so, I guess that is a good argument ... maybe you could reword it to be clearer. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting the topic of the current article is not clear, to the editors and definitely not to the reader. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * T-1000: How is "PRC uses Bullying Tactics to get the United Nations to recognize that they are China. This is not neutral" an argument for or against a particular article title suggestion?   It is not.  It is an indirect response to another bullet.  The point of the table is not to respond to other bullets.  Please discuss before inserting. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument is that as a Encyclopedia that claims to be neutral, Wikipedia should not give in to PRC bullying (therefore going against retitling PRC to China. The argument has been made before (by Mistakefinder). T-1000 (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about article titles and how to organize topics into articles. This is not a political debate. Please refrain from including such political commentary in the table. Metal lunchbox (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument has been made, whether you like it or not. Like I said, there's not even consensus on what the relevant issues are. T-1000 (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not redirecting to PRC article is correct because it is NEUTRAL and educates English readers who likely are mostly non-Chinese to become aware Two Chinas exist, despite the international lie the Chinese Communists are able to push on UN. Wikipedia is for educational and reference purposes, not political. --Mistakefinder (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At least the "Let's stick it to the PRC!" line of thinking is out in the open instead of being a subtext to the "NPOV" dog-whistle. There are political arguments to be made on the other side too, which involve at least pointing out that Mistakefinder's "Communist China" vs "Nationalist China" paradigm is outdated Cold War politics. Quigley (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not debating anymore, just collecting arguments now. That argument has been made, therefore it needs to be in the table. T-1000 (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed Korea from the table. Korea isn't equivalent as North Korea is called North Korea and South Korea is called South Korea, neither is commonly called just Korea. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change the fact that the Korean examples has been used in arguments before. T-1000 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its highly dishonest that you are attempting to stifle discussion by removing counterarguments. If you want to include Korea - which isn't really a sensible comparison - then the counter should be included as well. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, then you're just invoking common name again, which is already mentioned. T-1000 (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Common name hasn't already been mentioned with regards to Korea. Besides its been suggested above that involved editors don't edit each others points, you should be following that as well. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The counter argument to Korea is that Korea isn't like China because of Common name. So it's the same argument. And it does look like you're going for a "most bullets win" thing. T-1000 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not important whether an argument "has been made" as T-1000 keeps insisting. A lot of arguments have been made and not all of them are valid. We aren't here to reconsider every argument ever attempted on this page. Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The point of this table is to replicate all the tedious arguments above, which can then be sifted through properly." Please read before you post. T-1000 (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you guys just wait until the Chinese Civil War is officially concluded? It's not like ROC will regain the Mainland plus Outer Mongolia anytime soon, but the other way around seems plausible every single day. I'll be the first to delete Taiwan (ROC) from the China page once the Chinese civil war is officially concluded, and the nuclear radiation dusts have settled in China's Shanghai and Three Gorges Dam region. I'm actually serious...Phead128 (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the lede section of the article and clearly the present state is unacceptable. This lede, in trying to give equal weight to ROC and PRC gives an WP:UNDUE advantage to a minority POV. It provides an avenue for pro-ROC / anti-PRC POV and propaganda that is is conflict with requirement of neutrality. The current text total crap: it presents the PRC as a failed state and ROC as the real – or at least better China. In fact, I do not know what the current "pro ROC" POV is, or if it has any support. it was a Cold War propaganda ploy that was abandoned in 1971. The current consensus in Taiwan is moving toward independence. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * <font style="color:green;"> > The current consensus in Taiwan is moving toward independence. Can you justify/prove this? It seems to be that the current consensus is to maintain the status quo - only a small minority wish for unification, and a small minority wish for independence. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 06:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Taiwanization, if not political independence, seems to be the way the wind is blowing, even in the KMT, but I won't pretend to be an expert in that area. Anyway, Petri Krohn's main criticism—that this article's lead is blatantly anti-PRC and pro-ROC—holds true, and is an argument for the box. Also, the post-1949 section gives undue weight to cross-strait relations, has almost no sources for the Taiwan stuff, and makes very dubious claims asserting a lack of Taiwanization. Quigley (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Various polls and surveys show no strong trend to stray from the status quo politically; as for within the KMT, most KMT members including (now ex-member) James Soong and Lien Chan were shocked to hear Ma Ying-jeou say that "independence is also an option for the Taiwanese people" in 2006. A lot of Ma's previous moves have been rather unpopular within the KMT. And in essence, Taiwanization only lasted full strength during 2000-2008 (i.e. Chen Shui-bian's presidency) - a lot of his changes were reverted in 2008, such as the re-renaming of Taiwan Post back to Chunghwa Post. A lot of the effects of Taiwanization were only temporary, and it in general did not have a lot of permanent impacts within Taiwan. Finally, I won't argue with you over the final point on the article contents' weight. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 10:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely at this topic area, I now see that all of this is total crap! The article of Republic of China states in its first sentence the minority POV that "Taiwan, is a sovereign state" – using as its only source this:
 * If the pov-pushers insist on using an oceanography source for this political claim, they could have at least located one not from the  internet domain. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, that ref is to prove that Taiwan is located in East Asia, as opposed to, e.g. Southeast Asia. I remember an edit war some years ago, when a few IP editors kept insisting that Taiwan was Southeast Asian. I think that might be what the ref is for. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 10:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, that ref is to prove that Taiwan is located in East Asia, as opposed to, e.g. Southeast Asia. I remember an edit war some years ago, when a few IP editors kept insisting that Taiwan was Southeast Asian. I think that might be what the ref is for. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 10:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Within the table, I don't see why <font style="color:green;"> > (c) not part of China should be listed, given that <font style="color:green;"> > (b) independent means the exact same thing. Doesn't independence imply "≠China"? It's redundant and a duplicate entry in my opinion. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 06:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Independence implies ≠China if we take China to mean the PRC I suppose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * However the definition of Taiwan independence is that a nation known as "Taiwan" is independent from Republic of China rule, i.e. a Republic of Taiwan that no longer is ruled by the political entity introduced by the Kuomintang to the island in the 1940s. Currently Taiwan is not de jure independent from the ROC, however it de jure has nothing to do with the PRC (and hence cannot be de jure independent from it in the first place); "China" can be used to refer to either the PRC or ROC in various cases. "Independent" and "not part of China" are effectively synonyms, two ways to word the same concept. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 10:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, this POV states that the Republic of China is little more than an occupation regime imposed on the Taiwanese people by the United States. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a strange twisting of politics and laws. It's not an attempt to become independent from the ROC (how can you be independent from yourself?) but to establish Taiwan, along with whatever government is ruling it and whatever they are called, as a separate body under international law from the PRC. As for de jure, that depends on our frame of reference. In the eyes of the PRC, and most international bodies that the PRC has influence in (such as the UN), the areas controlled by the ROC are de jure part of the PRC. In the ROC's eyes, the territory the PRC (and various other surrounding countries) control is de jure part of the ROC. If the ROC did become independent in the eyes of the world, that doesn't change its cultural and historical heritage. "Independent" and "not part of China" are the same if you consider the PRC synonymous to China. "Independent" and "not part of China" are completely different if you argue China has another greater meaning (the basis of the current China page). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what the TI-folk say. Having spoken to a few before, the standard reply is "The ROC is an illegitimate country forced upon us by the authoritarian Chiang family; they commit all sorts of human rights abuses, and they have nothing to do with us since they come from China", etc etc. They wish to become independent from the ROC, as they see it has a historically oppressive "Chinese" state and a symbol of past aggression. There's all sorts of detail at Legal status of Taiwan and Political status of Taiwan - TI-folk arguing that "x, y and z conventions signed in 19XX say that the ROC is illegal because blah blah blah", ROC-folk arguing against that, PRC-folk arguing against both... all in all the political situation is a very big mess. Taiwan Independence supporters do not see themselves as subjects of the ROC, which is why they are seeking independence in the first place. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 14:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you – and they – are in fact stating that the Republic of China is a fascist occupation regime imposed on the Taiwanese people by the United States (and the Chiang family). Thank you for the enlightenment! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No not me, I personally don't mind the Chiangs, (in fact I happen to have a secret fetish with Chiang Wei-kuo, don't know what but something about him really intrigues me), and I personally am definitely opposed to TI. But yes, people have expressed that kind of idea. In fact, In The Birth of Communist China (ISBN 0140206949, pp.106), C.P. Fitzgerald describes KMT rule over mainland China (pre-1949) like so: “the Chinese people groaned under a regime Fascist in every quality except efficiency” - it is not only limited to rule on Taiwan, but mainland China as well, due to harsh policies such as implementing a KGB-style secret police force, targeting of political opponents, hoarding of arms and funds etc. Though, this is starting to stray from the main topic at hand. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 15:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. – The solution then would be to separate the post 1949 part from ROC and move it to COR (Chiangist Occupation Regime) or maybe Kuomintang occupation regime. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I sure hope that was a satirical comment, as that would be going too far. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 15:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We will have to consider it satire as, unfortunately, I could not find any sources for this word play. (I even tried ROC = Régime d'Occupation Chiangenne.)
 * The point about the split is relevant though, I have discussed it below. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While the ideas of one group of independence activists is interesting, it's not in any way the be all and end all in terms of views of independence. It remains at the moment the long form name of Taiwan is the Republic of China, and all citizens of Taiwan are subjects of the ROC, similar to how everyone in the Basque areas of Spain are subjects of Spain. The people seeking to abolish the ROC are not seeking independence from it, but a change in government. The peasants of the French Revolution were not seeking independence from France, but a change in government. There's a difference. Anyway, the political body of the ROC does not in any way equal "China", just as the political body of the PRC doesn't. They are governmental systems. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be true if the Republic of China was internationally recognized. It is not, so their de jure point of reference does not really matter. From the neutral point-of-view the position of the Taiwanese independence movement and activists is equally relevant. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It may not matter for many of us, but I think that for those living in Taiwan that de jure point of reference is probably the most important one around, controlling as it does the country they live in. I apologise if my writing above came off as belittling the Taiwanese independence movement, I do not mean to do that. What I was trying to say was that that particular point of view is one among many; indeed, those I've met advocating for Taiwanese independence view independence as obtaining recognition by other countries that they are not part of China (meaning the PRC, as they very explicitly state they are not Chinese, but Taiwanese, even if their parents/grandparents moved to Taiwan from the mainland). "Taiwanese Independence supporters" should not all be stated to have the viewpoint that the ROC is an illegitimate regime, especially without any evidence to back this up other than anecdotes. Similarly, I don't expect my anecdotal evidence to count for much here either. It is, as Belinsquare said above, a "very big mess". Anyway, I believe I've said my part here, a lot of words that were made in order to place someone else's point, which I actually don't agree with, into a table that's supposed to list points. I leave it up to GTBacchus to determine if I've been spewing rubbish. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Grouping of points in table
That's nice work on the table so far. I think this will be helpful, both for people already involved and for any other editors coming to the discussion without having read all the backlog. Thanks to everyone who's helped with this. I've grouped the bullet points in the table into categories. What do people think: Are those groupings accurate and sensible? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed "ease of editing" to "ease of implementation", as those points are really more about the implementation of the solutions, rather than how easy it will make it to edit these subjects in general.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good edit. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add that ease of implementation is a good contender for the least important factor we're considering. If it's just a matter of Wikipedians having to do more work, we'll do it. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The table is not bad, and the groupings are okay. My beef with the table is that (1)  some arguments are repeated twice with slightly different wording: they should be consolidated; and (2) there are several irrelevant commentaries that are not genuine arguments: two examples (a) "No outside sources have been shown to support the claim that calling the PRC China is unneutral or partisan. This claim is solely build on the personal opinion of editors."; and (b) "PRC uses Bullying Tactics to get the United Nations to recognize that they are China. This is not neutral".   --Noleander (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that both (a) and (b) are irrelevant, and have accordingly removed them from the table. We don't generally require that a source say "X isn't neutral"; that determination has always been down to editorial judgment. Also, it doesn't matter why the UN calls it China; we don't need to second-guess real-world usage. As for consolidating arguments, that's probably true. I'll go over the table again with an eye to combining points that are close to identical. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm standing by my statement, and I'm adding it back in the table. I think the problem is that WP:NPOV usually isn't used for naming issues at all. So when utilizing it for such, pretty much all of what neutrality means is made up on the spot. Usually in content related NPOV disputes we have policies like WP:V, WP:OR and WP:DUE, which defines what kind of claims can be made in the name of NPOV and keeps us tied to reliable outside sources. It's that constant tie to outside sources which keeps an open project like Wikipedia from being nothing but vehicle for furthering the personal agendas of whoever happens to editing it. So I insist that if NPOV is going to be applied to naming disputes at all, we gotta base it on some level of verifiability. Else we risk to throw away a lot of good policy, put in place for the benefit of readers, to stay "neutral"(as defined by all by anything but neutral people) on issues only a tiny fraction of readers would care about. If these neutrality disputes really are that significant, it should be easy to point to some place outside of Wikipedia where they also are discussed.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't re-remove your point. I would say that, empirically, Wikipedians routinely make decisions about neutrality of titles without requiring citation from an outside source. What kind of outside source even addresses questions about neutrality of titles of encyclopedia articles? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well they could address whether it is neutral in general to call the PRC "China". As an example I think a good case was made in the ongoing pro/anti abortion article naming dispute that reliable sources regarded "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as partisan terms, and that many major news organizations therefore avoid them. There was also pointed to the AP Stylebook which also advised against using those terms. I think stuff like that is good evidence that what is being discussed are problems people actually are concerned with in the real world, and not just something made up to further one's own agenda. So if these neutrality problems with call the PRC "China" really are as big as people make that out be here, it should be easy to find outside sources which just mentions them in some way at all. TheFreeloader (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh. That's a pretty good answer. I think the comparison to "pro-life"/"pro-choice" is apt, for this consideration. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added links to the most basic of terms, since newcomers to the debate may not understand all the terminology. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 02:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that's helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IN the table we have declared that "PRC is NOT primary topic of China (statistically)" what does this mean and what "statistics" are being used to make this claim. I would like to propose that one can't claim that its statistical without citing some statistics or a citing a source which does. This is especially bizarre in light of the current RfC. I think it should simply be removed if it can't be fixed. Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think benjwong was talking to you when he said that. T-1000 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's fair to ask that any claim that something is "statistically" true be backed up with concrete statistics. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Order of groups
I've put the groups of arguments in order according to a list I made, and I'd like to say a word or two about that. It's not a strict ordering in the following sense: By having one group of arguments listed before another, I don't mean to imply that the one listed first is more important. On the other hand, there is a kind of loose ordering along those lines. Basically, I've separated the groups into tiers, and within each tier, the ordering is arbitrary (but consistent). So, Tier 1 arguments deal with the actual content of the article(s). We absolutely need to clearly and neutrally inform readers about the contents of these articles. Tier 2 arguments deal with the ability of readers to find the correct article easily, with a minimum of surprise and confusion. These are important, but not as important as Tier 1. Tier 3 arguments deal with our own concerns about how much work is involved, and these "weigh" the least. Comments? Questions? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tier 1
 * Neutrality
 * Clarity
 * Informativeness
 * Tier 2
 * Commonality/Recognizability/Naturalness/Precision
 * Consistency
 * Conciseness
 * Reader-friendliness
 * Redundancy
 * Tier 3
 * Effect on other articles
 * Ease of implementation
 * Move Informativeness to tier 2 and I agree. The point about "dumbing down" by moving PRC to China and it not fully explaining is isn't a particularly strong argument. Neutrality and Clarity are the most important two things. Literally no source we rely on, even high end ones like the Economist, care about the informativeness stuff - and I'm sure they've called McDonald's "a burger company" before. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was even thinking of moving Clarity to tier 2. Neutrality is really the bone of contention here. Fortunately, these tiers don't really matter much. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Now I'm actually going to disappear - just stopping by the office again on the way home.

How the proposals will affect the Republic of China article

 * Regarding the Effect on other articles heading in the table, I'd like to clarify why this is a significant problem: After a move from "PRC" to "China", I'm sure that there would be some that would actively pursue a move from "ROC" to "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Taiwan" or something similar. ROC is not only the current authority on the island of Taiwan, but also the historical state encompassing all of mainland China, at a time when Taiwan was a prefecture of the Empire of Japan. A large portion of the ROC article deals with the China formed by Sun Yat-sen after the Xinhai Revolution in 1911, that has had events such as Yuan Shikai's authoritarian rule, the Warlord era, Chiang Kai-shek's authoritarian rule, the war with Japan and the communists up to 1949, all which have nothing to do with the island of Taiwan. Taking this into account:
 * Moving "ROC" to "ROC(T)" makes no sense, as it implied the ROC on the mainland never happened
 * Keeping "ROC" at "ROC" will lead to large numbers of complaints ("they did it at China, why can't we do it too? this is unfair")
 * Splitting the article into Republic of China (Taiwan) and Republic of China (1912-1949) is plausible, but it might be borderline WP:OR since it implies that the two political entities are not related/separate/distinct from one another.
 * How will this issue be addressed? --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 07:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And for those not familiar with the issue, here's a simplified summary: In other words, the only time when the ROC was both mainland China and Taiwan was between 1945 and 1949. Hence, a "ROC" article moved to "ROC(T)" cannot be entirely about the historical mainland entity, nor the entity on Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, without a split or some other compromise. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 07:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * China
 * Ming Dynasty (1368–1644)
 * Qing Dynasty (1644-1912)
 * Republic of China (1912-1949)
 * People's Republic of China (1949- )
 * Taiwan, Penghu
 * Indigenous peoples (?-?)
 * Dutch/Spanish (?-?)
 * Ming Dynasty loyalists (1662-1683)
 * Qing Dynasty (1683–1895)
 * Empire of Japan (1895-1945)
 * Republic of China) (1945- )
 * Kinmen, Matsu
 * Qing Dynasty (?-1912)
 * Republic of China (1912- )
 * <font style="color:green;"> > Keeping "ROC" at "ROC" will lead to large numbers of complaints ("they did it at China, why can't we do it too? this is unfair") If they have good reasons and solve the issues you raise, ROC will be moved. If not, ROC won't be moved. Whatever happens there isn't a concern for this specific proposal. If the complaints you predict occur, they will happen and be addressed at Talk:Republic of China, not here. If "PRC" is moved to "China" (and that's just one of a number of competing proposals), then that doesn't make necessary any move of the ROC article. Quigley (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no reason the ROC and PRC articles have to be organised in the same way. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with having the current article on the ROC/Taiwan focus on the modern state, with another article to cover history, or something similar. The only current section which would need altering is History, and there's no reason the article can't have a short summary of the government's formation anyway. That being said, there's no reason we can't have a Republic of China article discussing the history of the government and the government system. The main problem I think would be what to do with the current Taiwan article, but that can easily be fixed by merging it with the ROC or renaming it Taiwan (island). In regards to the argument that it shouldn't be called Taiwan because it controls more than just that island, having other islands doesn't stop the state "Taiwan" being named Taiwan, just as the state of Antigua and Barbuda has more islands than just Antigua and Barbuda. At any rate, Quigley is right. "They did it at China" is not a valid argument. A valid argument would be stating what exactly they did, and explaining how the ROC situation is similar. This issue shouldn't really have any bearing on what the PRC article is called. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting:-) While this article China – or at least the lede section of it – is blatantly anti-PRC pro–ROC the Taiwan article is very anti–ROC, written from a pro Taiwanese independence point of view with a heavy emphasis on White Terror (Taiwan). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Separating Republic of China (Taiwan) and Republic of China (1912-1949) is absolutely vital. The current situation enforces the WP:UNDUE minority view that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is the one and only legal successor of Republic of China (1912-1949). This is not the position held by PRC and most of the world's nations. In their view the Peoples Republic of China is the one and only legal successor of Republic of China (1912-1949). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems both common and logical to make this distinction. That the Taiwanese government does this frequently is I think important to note. example: title of this page, Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan), and pretty much any other government website. I don't think we should be deciding the name of the ROC/Taiwan article(s) here but I do support the idea of having a separate 1912-1949 ROC article, because it is most compatible with the changes that need to be made to PRC/China article(s), is most logical, is consistent with reliable sources (like history of china books) and does not conflict with most prominent/official ROC points of view. Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Another example of fringe or WP:UNDUE POV can be found in the article Two Chinas. The article now states the following: This would be true, it the article was discussing regimes. It however claims to be about "the two states with "China" in their official names." The claim here is that ROC(T) is identical to ROC(1912-1949). The majority view is that the PRC is the successor state of ROC(1912-1949). Therefore ROC(1912-1949) ceased to exist in 1949 and cannot be identical to ROC(T). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Republic of China (ROC), established in 1911/1912 and controlled mainland China but since 1949,...


 * I like the idea of splitting the ROC article into Republic of China (Taiwan) and Republic of China (1912-1949) or something similar. I don't think that there's an WP:OR issue any more than with French Fourth Republic and French Fifth Republic vis-à-vis the French Republic. I simply recognizes that there are differences between the two political entities and not that there is no continuity.  Just the fact that territory of the ROC between 1944 and 1950 shifted to a degree of over 99% different means that the scope of the two time periods is different.  — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack   02:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We only need to make sure that while we treat them as two topics each with their own article that we don't try to draw too sharp of a line. For instance we should not state that the ROC founded in 1912 ceased to exist in 1949, but should instead simply say that the ROC government fled to Taiwan where they setup a new government which has ruled over Taiwan and nearby islands ever since. Naturally we'll go in to more detail than that but the point is just that we don't need to have an ROC (Taiwan) article which makes no mention of ROC history prior to 1949 and an ROC (1912-1949) article which leaves the reader with the impression that in 1949 the ROC vanished into thin air. I only say this because that's the very awkward arrangement we've arrived at with the PRC which sprang into existence suddenly in 1949 according to that articles history. Even a title with "(1912-1949)" should not prohibit the mention or inclusion of events after 1949. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The continuity is very important and the transition took time.  — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack   03:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That kind of move would only be endorsed by the DPP, as Pan-blues consider the state to be the same one as the one founded in 1912. President Ma said "The ROC has been sovereign ever since it's founding in 1912". T-1000 (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That quote doesn't support what you're saying, but by your logic, the status quo is endorsed by the KMT (and possibly the PRC). Also by your logic, it "implies" that the ROC hasn't changed since the retreat to Taiwan, and the status quo is not NPOV because it "ignores" the DPP and TI points of view, which are "notable". To dismiss your logic, we shouldn't consider mainland China-related moves by comparing how well they serve the platforms of various Taiwanese political parties. Quigley (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The main point of contention is whether the ROC left China in 1949. But anyway, what I am stating are facts. The DPP would put emphasis of the things that did change (territory), while the KMT would put emphasis on things that didn't change (Constitution, flag). Furthermore, the status quo mentions de facto control only. T-1000 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That can't possibly be a point of contention. I'm sure all parties accept that the ROC moved to Taiwan in 1949. The KMT has maintained that they have sovereignty over the mainland but even for those that subscribe to that point of view its theoretical, no one actually claims that they have been governing over the mainland all this time. I would suggest that while your comment above would suggest otherwise that this is actually another important point of common ground. Surely the DPP and KMT interpret the meaning of the events in different ways but the basic facts, like moving the ROC to Taiwan in 1949, are uncontroversial. We don't need to decide how the ROC and Taiwan related articles need to be written here, we only need to establish that a PRC move to China isn't prohibited by those ROC/Taiwan articles in some way. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. the KMT would say they left "Mainland" but not China, while the DPP would say the ROC left China. T-1000 (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Common ground?
It would seem desirable to have an article treating the modern (post 1949) PRC, under whatever title, and an article treating the modern (post 1949) ROC, under whatever title. This should be desirable because those are the states that are politically and economically active in today's world, the two states that a reader may want to visit, and the two states that appear on maps today. The titles of those two articles, and the location of pre-1949 content, remain in question. One or both of the articles I've mentioned might extend back into history, or the earlier history might be treated in separate article(s), but the two articles treating today's two Chinas should exist, and be easy to find. Is this claim agreeable to everyone here? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The PRC does not exist before 1949. As for the ROC, with Everything being the same (Constitution, army, flag) Pre and post 1949, except for the territory. That might imply a POV that territory is more important than the other aspects of the state. It might also be POV pushing for Taiwan independence. T-1000 (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I might not have been clear here. I'm just trying to see if there is a common ground in this: There should be an article about PRC, and there should be an article about ROC. I'm not saying anything about how far back into history those articles should extend. In particular, I'm not saying that an ROC article should just start in '49. Do you agree that there should be an article about PRC, and a separate one about ROC? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly the history should extend back before 1949 on both articles, whether ROC as well as the PRC should have its history going back to 5000BC or not is debatable, but I don't really think it matters if it does. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as above, I'm not trying to talk about the history. I'm just trying to establish a common ground. Do you agree that we should have an article about PRC, and another one about ROC? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This section may seem pointless or trivial. I'm just trying to establish something that everyone agrees on. I'm hoping that's possible, even if what we all agree on isn't very deep or interesting. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should explicitly state what you mean by the ROC, the governmental system or the modern country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean there should be an article about the modern country ROC. I'm not making any claim about whether that article should also include content about pre-1949 ROC, because I think that's a point of contention. I'm trying to say something utterly uncontroversial, to see if that's possible. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll start the ball rolling then by agreeing that yes, there should be two articles covering the modern states. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and my understanding of the discussion so far is that no one has clearly opposed this view. Metal lunchbox (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should be an article each specifically about PRC and ROC. --Tesscass (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a good point; regardless of what exactly the articles are called, and regardless of how far back into history the articles go, we should have two separate articles for the PRC and ROC modern states. I hope that T-1000 will explicitly agree with this point? Mlm42 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate Bullets
"It lets the single issue of the cross straits relations dominate how the much wider topic of China in general is covered" from the Civilization's con section and "It stops the single issue of the cross straits relations from dominating how the much wider topic of China in general is covered" from the PRC's Pro section are talking about the same thing. T-1000 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They are the same, but as it's in two different sections the point is needed in both for a better debate about the feasibility of each option. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's too much redundancy. Pretty much every Civilization con point would be repeated at the PRC's pro section. Perhaps we should ask the admin. T-1000 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think each applicable argument should be in each section it applies to. Not everything applies to each position. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay for a point to be repeated. In such a case, it's also okay to make a note on a point's second appearance: "(duplicates point above)", or something to that effect. At this stage, it's better to have too much than too little. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Requests from mediator
I've got two requests regarding how the table is edited, and a third regarding the discussion. I know that some bullets in the table seem to repeat points already made, and some points seem to be immaterial to the discussion. It would seem appropriate to remove such bullets, but I request that participants refrain from doing that, and instead follow a different strategy. Before stating the alternative, here is the reason I'm making this request: It doesn't hurt to have extra material in the table, especially while we're still actively editing it. On the other hand, if we exclude material that some editors feel is important, it makes those editors feel marginalized or disenfranchised, which can lead to (understandable) dissatisfaction with the results. I want everyone to know that their words are heard and understood; this is likely to make our final decision stronger and less likely to be challenged. First request. If two points seem to basically say the same thing, please place those points adjacent to each other, and add to the second one a parenthetical note: "(Same as above?)" This will allow other editors to see both points, and to understand that they might be candidates for merging. Also, if the points are intended to be distinct, this will allow editors to clarify the difference between them. Second request. If a point seems to not belong in the discussion at all, just add a note: "(relevance questioned)". Again, this will allow everyone to see that someone has questioned the relevance of that point, and it will allow those who value that point to clarify why it should be part of our considerations. I realize that I myself removed two points from the table last night, and one of them was quickly re-added. I'm going to go back and re-add the other point that I removed, for the reasons I've just stated here. This is going well, I think, and I thank everyone for their civil participation. We always strive to comment on the content, not the contributor. There's a lot being said here, and it's difficult for me to read every word, especially in a timely manner. That brings us to my... Third request. If anyone in the discussion feels that they are being disrespected or attacked by any other participant, I request that they refrain from responding directly to the statement in question, and instead let me know by posting here in this section. If posting here seems problematic, I will also see notes on my talk page. There is no reason for anything less than calm, respectful, collegial behavior here. After all, we are all on the same team: We want Wikipedia's coverage of all facets of China to be as accurate and fair as possible. If you have any questions, please let me know, and again, thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Gone for 24 hours
While I was editing the table about an hour ago, my modem at home died, and will not respond to CPR, or whatever the modem equivalent of that is. I'm at my office now, but I can't stay here long. My ISP has promised me a replacement modem, but I'll have to pick it up tomorrow. Between now and then, I won't be able to maintain much of a presence here. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. I trust you all to keep fleshing out the table and finding the best way to express each point. I'm developing some ideas of where we may be headed, but it's too early now to say much. This is indeed a uniquely challenging question we're dealing with here, and I thank everyone for your helpful and civil participation. I'm finding the experience to be quite interesting and educational. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The next step
Okay, the editing of the table seems to have largely settled down, and we've got most people agreeing above - - that we'll definitely have two articles about the two modern states. We haven't said so far how far each of those articles will go back into history, nor what their titles will be. I'm not declaring the table of arguments final at this point, and anyone may still edit it to improve the presentation of any argument, or to add arguments that are missing. There's no urgent need to remove anything at this time, so let's hold off on that. I'm going to state a couple more points here that might be well-supported by editors of this page. This is partly to establish more common ground, and partly for my benefit, because I'm much less familiar with these issues than other editors here are. Please let me know what you think, and please correct me if I'm not getting it right...


 * 1) Neutrality, clarity, accuracy, and ease for readers to find information they want are the important issues. Other considerations, such as consistency with other articles, conciseness of titles, and ease of implementation, are less important.
 * 2) A major point of contention is the extent to which the modern (post 1949) PRC and ROC are presented as continuations of pre-1949 ROC.

Are those fair claims to make? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * yes - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is tricky stuff. I hope I'm not moving too slowly, to the point of being annoying. I like that we developed that table, because everyone has had the chance to have their arguments aired publicly, without being shut out or marginalized, and it serves anyone new to the discussion quite well. I feel that we're gradually circling in on the real question, which is whether China should be a CONCEPTDAB, as it currently is (pretty much), or whether it should go straight to People's Republic as PRIMARY. There are also possible compromises, of which I think the Civilization position is one. Another possibility has recently occurred to me, which is without precedent that I know of, and I'm working on a way to articulate it. I'm just kind of thinking aloud here... I really like the summary that Benlisquare made above in the  section. That really has helped me appreciate the complexity of the situation, and I think we all want readers to be able to do that as well. On the other hand, not everyone is looking for that kind of discussion, and we don't want to force people seeking particular information to click through a history lesson in order to find what they're after.  I should probably stop here, and make sure that I'm not going too fast and running roughshod over anyone's position. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take your time, better to go too slow rather than too fast. Going on you claims:
 * 1. I agree with this, but would note that the current setup of related articles, consistency-wise, is based off the current setup of this China article. Besides the rare anomaly such as Culture of China, most subarticles would follow this one.
 * 2. Agree in spirit, although I think the point of contention could be better worded like so: if the PRC has become the sole inheritor of the name "China" (or whether the ROC has stopped being called China).
 * Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, GTB, I think you hit the nail on the head with your point (2).
 * @Chipmunk, I don't think anyone can claim to be the "sole" inheritor of the name China.. only the primary one. Mlm42 (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I speak in terms of wider english usage, as in which country do english speakers call china now, rather than anything legal. I should have been clearer. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, while PRC has inherited the common name of "China" for many/most speakers, the ROC has retained the full name, and an awareness is maintained among educated speakers that two modern nations are still called "something-something-China", officially. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is? I once mentioned the Republic of China in a discussion as it was referring to a pre-1949 event and I had to say that the "Taiwanese used to rule China" to explain it. The ROC puts "Taiwan" on their passports now because some Taiwanese have got turned away at borders who thought they came from the PRC. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it depends what one means by "educated". I've known it since middle school, but I went to a good school, and paid attention. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you went to school in a different country where they went into more detail about this stuff. Now sure maybe the people I mix with aren't oriental scholars, but they aren't stupid and they are well educated - sometimes at some of the world's best Universities. Per WP:TECHNICAL we have to make stuff accessible to a wide audience. The point about the passports is that the guys at immigration are supposed to know which countries are allowed in to their country and to know each countries official name. That they got confused is surprising, but means its an issue. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to disparage anyone. To be fair, I was a big geography-nerd in middle school, though I agree that Texas is very much like another country. Not as much as New Mexico, however. When I lived there, I read stories regularly in The New Mexican about people trying to book flights from, say, Newark to Albuquerque, and being told they have to go to the international terminal. On objecting that New Mexico isn't international, the airport people would say, "I don't care what part of Mexico it is!" That's neither here nor there, of course. What we're really talking about is that most English speakers use "China" and "Taiwan" to refer to those two nations. This is little surprising, as merchandise is stamped "Made in China" or "Made in Taiwan" according to which place it comes from, for example. I'm still mulling over an idea that people might like, but I want to wait until I can lay it out clearly and all-at-once, which will have to be later tonight or tomorrow. I'm not trying to build suspense or something; I'm just still mulling. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally, when I asked a few of my Taiwanese friends directly whether they consider themselves "Chinese", they said yes, but they qualified that by saying they consider themselves primarily Taiwanese. Of course that's not a very representative sample.. Mlm42 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(reply to the discussion above) I see people are starting to mention Taiwanese cultural identity here, so I figured that I present a copypasta of something that I've previously mentioned at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute whilst discussing this very issue: Identity politics varies between those with Pan-Blue and Pan-Green sympathies, and is all in all a political issue. Those who associate with Pan-Green view themselves as Taiwanese (and "definitely not Chinese"), and their country as "Taiwan", whilst those who are Pan-Blue view themselves as both "Taiwanese" and "Chinese" (you're essentially making an irrelevant correlation by claiming that no one from Taiwan would solely refer to themselves as "Chinese" - its obvious that they would point out their geographic origins to demonstrate that they're not from "that China". You know, the evil one that uses red colours alot and they say on Fox News that they murder poor children all day every day withe Melamine and send scary, nasty soldiers into Tibet (oh dear, poor them) all day every day. Similarly, ask any Hongkonger where they are from, and they will say "Hong Kong". The current global environment makes it unlikely for someone from Taiwan to solely refer to themselves as "Chinese". Also repeat the line on set theory listed above), and refer to their nation as "ROC", with their geographical origin being the island of Taiwan. Individuals, companies, all have their identities subject to their political views. Pan-Green leaning companies tend to write things such as "台灣製造 Made in Taiwan" and "台灣產品 Product of Taiwan" (I have a packet of 超级99棒 brand biscuits in front of me that does exactly this), whilst Pan-Blue leaning companies tend to write things such as "中華民國台灣" or "Made in Taiwan, R.O.C" (my LCD monitor has this printed on the back). Then there's the "degree of severity", so to speak - if you're Pan-Green "enough", you'll call your homeland "Formosa", not Taiwan; after all, the word "Taiwan" is apparently the Chinese corruption of "What is that?" in a Taiwanese Aborigine language, or so they say; if you're really Pan-Blue (though few people actually do this), you'll even drop the "Taiwan" from the line "Republic of China (Taiwan)". --Original post from Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute at 05:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I hope this somewhat clarifies the situation regarding Taiwanese identity - depending on where one politically leans, they are either "Taiwanese and not Chinese", or "Taiwanese and Chinese", but given the current global situation, never "only Chinese". --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 03:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S: My original post does read a bit belligerent - back then I was in a heated argument with someone on the Senkaku Islands dispute talk page regarding the use of Chinese naming; none of the language is actually directed to anyone on this talk page. Just thought I'd like to make that clear so there's no misunderstandings; I haven't abridged/modified the original post. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 03:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the next step is to initiate an Request for Move (RM) that moves China -> China (civilization) and moves PRC -> China. This discussion has been going on, as far as I can tell, for a several years. Recently, there was an RM here which led to an RfC here which demonstrated an overwhelming consensus that the primary meaning of the term "China" was PRC. Yet, we are still going around in circles, as if that RfC never happened. How many times does the same discussion have to be held? 3? 5? 20? At some point we need to bite the bullet and initiate the RM. All the discussion that is happening now will happen again in the RM. --Noleander (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its also worth noting we aren't looking for some absolutist declaration, just a general pattern to start from. To be sure there are issue which make things complex but in general English-speakers and English-language media uses "China" to refer to the People's Republic of China and "Taiwan" to refer to the Republic of China (Taiwan). The nuances are dealt with in context in the body of the articles and on top of that any solution will make liberal use of hatnotes to disambiguate. I'm not sure that RM is the next step, but it can't be that far down the line. I agree with GTBacchus's slow and deliberate approach, so that there is little doubt that everyone's concerns are adequately addressed. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but my impression is that this discussion has been going on for more than 2 years, with a revolving cast of editors. It is hard to argue with "slow and deliberate" (who wants to be rash and hasty :-) but at some point you have to bite the bullet and do the RM. The time for the RM is not too far in the future. --Noleander (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The two things are not even the same. It's entirely possible to agree with the RFC that PRC is the primary topic, yet disagree with the move request because the Primary usage is not neutral. T-1000 (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the curious, this discussion is over 9 years old and probably the longest running content dispute on wikipedia. I agree that the time for the RM is not too far in the future. I'd like to see the RfC closed by admin first, that might make the discussion a little less murky. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point: RfC's nominally go for 30 days, and since this one started 1 Aug, it should wrap up around 31 Aug. At that time an RM may be indicated. --Noleander (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC's often last 30 days but they can be closed earlier if a consensus has been reached. I'll not evaluate whether a consensus has been reached, only note that there have been some recent contributions so I'd support either closing early or letting it run 30 days. I don't imagine it makes much difference and I trust GTBacchus's judgement on this matter. I'm just going to be a broken record and repeat my suggestion that we conduct a straw poll to determine which complete solutions are most and least preferred by our community and then conduct a move discussion based on the winner. That straw poll might look like this link. I believe Quigley expressed support for this approach but then the discussion turned to the political status of Taiwan. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
Okay, here goes. I'm going to suggest something that I think hasn't been considered before, and as far as I know it's unprecedented on Wikipedia. However, that seems fair, because no other situation on Wikipedia is really comparable to this one, so maybe a unique problem calls for a unique solution. We all realize that most people, when they ask for "China", mean today's PRC, a nation which began in 1949. On the other hand, we don't want to somehow sideline or minimize the situation of the ROC as a continuation of the pre-1949 ROC, nor that of China as a civilization that continues from thousands of years ago unto the present day. So, you know how we often use hatnotes to point readers to different articles, or to disambiguation pages? I'm thinking of a new kind of hatnote. I'm thinking of an article located at China which is about the People's Republic of China. I'm thinking of an expandable hatnote at the top, which starts out with a message something like: "In modern usage, "China" generally refers to the People's Republic of China, which is what this article is about. For information on other claimants to the name "China", click here to expand." When a reader clicks to expand, they would see some kind of two-dimensional image, perhaps a multi-part timeline, perhaps a map w/ dates, where they could click variously for articles on the pre-1949 ROC, the post-1949 ROC, or a general History of China article. In this way, a reader looking for information on the nation currently known as "China" will not have to expend any extra clicks. Any reader looking for either the modern ROC, the pre-1949 ROC, or the Chinese civilization in general, will only have to expend two extra clicks, one very small in terms of load-time, which will be less obtrusive than loading a whole new disambiguation page, and will get them to their desired information quite efficiently. Any reader not appreciating the complexity of the situation surrounding the name "China" will be presented first and foremost with an opportunity to learn about that situation, and they will be very few clicks away from whatever they might be looking for. Part of the same hatnote, visible before expanding the box, will point to a China (disambiguation) page, so that readers interested in fine ceramics or in some entertainer or band called "China" will also be within two clicks of their desired destination. I believe that this proposal should satisfy those who wish the PRC to be recognized as the primary topic for the word "China", because readers will end up there first. Those who want to be sure that the Republic of China is not pushed into the sidelines will have the advantage of an extremely visible mini-disambiguation-page, right at the top of the article, not only pointing to articles about various incarnations of the Republic of China, but also alerting everyone to the complexity of the situation surrounding China and Taiwan before they start reading about the modern PRC. I really don't know how much anyone will like this suggestion, and it's not necessarily the last that I have to offer. I'm about to go to sleep, as I'm tired, and my cat is impatient to cuddle with me. I'm going to check in first thing tomorrow morning, and I hope to see some reactions to this suggestion. If it doesn't fly, no worries. We're not much older than we were yesterday, and there's creativity and good will to spare around here. For now, I wish a good evening to all of you. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My initial response, it sounds like a pretty good idea, at the least it's worth exploring in detail. I don't know how we are going to come up with a straight-forward representation of the relationship between the word China, the ROC (Taiwan/otherwise), the People's Republic of China, and Chinese Civilization (if that is something separate) that is not confusing and that the editors can come to a consensus about, but I think it's something we can handle, we just need to be honest with ourselves, that it could be difficult. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good so far. But just how detailed will this expandable hat be? Will it just be a few dotpoints with links and short coherent sentences, or 5 paragraphs worth of "this is the whole hubbub behind the things named China"? --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 06:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I reckon that's for us to work out. one rather tricky problem is how to balance the presentation of alternate chinas and DUE weight, because while cross-straight relations should be taken seriously, it is but one aspect of "China". I think starting the PRC/China article with a lecture about cross-straight relations would surely be WP:UNDUE, so length is very important. I would say it needs to be as simple and concise as possible without being confusing and without effectively ignoring the issue. It being collapsed buys a lot more content before reaching limits of due weight, but a 5 paragraph essay is probably too much. A single, brief, carefully written paragraph should be enough, with the aid of a diagram based solely on the most basic and uncontroversial facts. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good compromise. The only issue is whether Wikipedia allows you to do it technically. Frankly it sounds like a better way of doing disambiguation in general. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, given that an image tells a thousand words, I'd be in preference of a visual diagram, something like an infographic (an example would be something like this:       ), that explains the situation in a manner that is easy to understand for most readers. I guess we could make it an SVG vector image with clickable links on top, with a timeline or map or something. --  李博杰   &#124; —Talk contribs email 08:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. That "choosing a typeface" infographic is my new favorite thing! -GTBacchus(talk) 17:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of a chicken and egg thing because we cannot decide what exactly our disambiguation collapsed thing would look like until we decide on the organization of the top-level china-related articles, which we have not settled yet. Perhaps it would be best just to leave it open and know that some of the concerns that people are bringing to the requested move can be dealt with in that box, to be defined more specifically later. Sounds like a good way to make everyone (mostly) happy. Eraserhead1, why is it not being allowed a concern? is there something that might prohibit this technically?- Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well technically you can do it, but whether you can do it nicely so that the box smoothly expands, or even better, using a lightbox - such as this needs some javascript to do which Wikipedia might not allow. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about the old-fashioned collapsible table, doesn't seem to be any technical issues there:


 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

! The term China can refer to more than one topic...
 * Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
 * }
 * I would support the "China" article being about the state (PRC) and having a large-ish disambiguation thing at the top (either textual or graphical). --Noleander (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support the "China" article being about the state (PRC) and having a large-ish disambiguation thing at the top (either textual or graphical). --Noleander (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this response is positive. I realize there are participants we haven't heard from, and I'd like to know that every perspective is being included at each step. However, it appears we can tentatively say that an expandable hatnote has potential to present a lot more information about cross-straight issues without being unduly obtrusive at the top of the PRC article. It seems that this could obviate many concerns about UNDUE weight in the opposite direction. If the "China" article is about PRC without being too much in viewers' faces about ROC, etc., then one camp is potentially satisfied. At the same time, if there's a prominent and non-trivial disambiguation box at the very top of that article, going into cross-straight issues in some detail, that potentially satisfies another camp. That seems to be where we currently stand. As noted above, there remains the issue of what the top-level China articles are actually going to be. It's my suspicion that if we can say a few things about that, it might be best to do so before closing the above RFC. I'm going to have to study the situation a little bit more before I can confidently address that question, and it might not happen this afternoon. As usual, there's no deadline, and I like the progress that I think we're making. Can anyone comment on the extent to which different perspectives are being represented in this discussion? I want to be sure we're not leaving anyone behind. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Image
Here is an extremely rough draft of the sort of image I've been imagining. It's neither pretty, complete, nor particularly well-made; I just used Microsoft Paint and an extremely rough summary of the history between 1912 and the present. However, it communicates the concept effectively, I think. Imagine that each differently colored region is a link that leads to an article, so this image would point to four different articles. Obviously, we would use a much better image, made by someone more skilled and informed than myself, which might end up having more divisions, and point to more articles. I imagine something like this being accompanied by some text that might link to two or three additional articles, such as History of China, etc.. Comments? (Did I choose appropriate colors?) -GTBacchus(talk) 18:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a map ala Macedonia would probably work better but I'm not too bothered. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's hard to get the time dimension in a map. The one at Macedonia is quite successful, I think, and it's certain that China deserves a real professional-looking, informative and easy-to-read image. I'm not too sure I'm up to the task, but there are many talented map-makers here on Wiki. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be effective use an animated gif like the one already in use on this article, File:Territories of Dynasties in China.gif, except only having three frames. 1. ROC 1912-1945 with Japan controlling taiwan, 2. ROC 1945-1949 ROC nominally controlling mainland china and taiwan, 3. PRC controlling mainland china and Taiwan et al. controlled by ROC. Below map could be a timeline, with the appropriate block of the timeline being highlighted in each frame. below the map would be a very concise explanation in the most general language possible like,


 * "The Republic of China ruled over mainland China from 1912 (1) and the island of Taiwan from 1945 (2), when that island was returned to Chinese control from the Japanese. In 1949 the People's Repubic of China was established which has controlled the Chinese mainland to the present day (3) and the Republic of China moved its government to Taiwan which it has controlled ever since."


 * The exact wording can be adjusted but I think it sums it up without going into too much detail, confusing the reader, or imposing a specific interpretation of the status of Taiwan. The whole thing including the map would have to be prefaced by some general statement about why we are showing them this map in the first place. maybe: "There are two governments in existence today which have claimed sovereignty over China." It offers no evaluation of those claims whatsoever and avoids the controversy of whether the ROC still claims sovereignty over China. Is this a good place to start? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Metal:  Minor nit:  the wording "ROC ruled over mainland China..." seems awkward to me.  Before 1949 the Kuomintang was the ruling party, then after 1949, the Communist party ruled. The parties ruled the land, a country does not "rule" its own land.  The parties changed the name of the country from one name to another, but it was always the same underlying country:  China. --Noleander (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be a source cited that verifies that it is a matter of current ROC government policy to claim sovereignty over China. What would it be? For this purpose of this argument, T-1000 has cited personal interpretations of statements by Ma Ying-jeou, which aren't enough in the face of the contrary evidence. Quigley (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good discussion, but I have a funny feeling that putting a graphic at the top of a major article like China could be problematic. Maybe start with textual disambig and then try graphics later?  On the other hand, GTBGacchus' proposal makes it clear they are suggesting a collapsible  illustration (default would be collapsed?), so I guess that mitigates my concerns.  --Noleander (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we need to clarify what exactly we are trying to accomplish in this collapsed hatnote space. If we just want a link to the ROC, thats easily done with a simple hatnote like is already used on PRC article. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the animated GIF idea, since we're limited to a small timeframe (e.g. 1945-1949 for one slide), there might be a few minor accuracy issues. If we're just going for "the rough idea", then that would be completely fine, but if we were to go for precision, the animated GIF would have to incorporate things that may confuse a newcomer reader. First of all, between 1945 and 1949, Manchuria (i.e. Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning) were occupied by the Soviet Union, and later handed over to the CPC; also, should a 1945-1949 map of the ROC incorporate Outer Mongolia and Tibet? The ROC held suzerainty and made official claims, however both regions declared their independence and had considerable autonomy from the Central Government, if not complete autonomy. Hell, I even doubt that the border with Tibet would have been clearly defined back then (Sino–Tibetan War), along with the western Soviet border (Soviet invasion of Xinjiang, Islamic rebellion in Xinjiang (1937)). In addition, no Chinese government, red or blue, has accepted the McMahon Line - do we include that as well? --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 22:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, this is what such an image, could look like, just something I whipped together which is probably not entirely accurate, just to give you an idea:

Maybe a bulleted list, or a paragraph or some other kind of graphic would be better, but I thought it would help the discussion if I proposed something kind of concrete. Maps are indeed problematic, but we might make it cleat that the map isn't about the fine details. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For the reasons that Benlisquare mentions, I think if we were to use such a map we would need to use one with much much less detail. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Dont forget accessibility (e.g. color-blindness issues). Such as Accessibility dos and don'ts and WP:Color, which suggest that color should not be the only mechanism used to convey information.   I still think textual bullets may be a safer/simpler way to start.  If those work out, go for graphics later.  --Noleander (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree maps should probably be avoided in this case. Its always tempting to think that a picture will explain everything but it would introduce too many new problems to an already complicated situation. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The map looks really good though. If someone can make the map in black and white and the shades are still clear then the colours should be usable by colour blind people as well. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like the idea behind the map a lot. Those two colors will be indistinguishable to a certain percentage of viewers, though, I'm pretty sure. Someone knows how to make those kinds of choices, though, and we can figure it out when and if we need to. I guess the map isn't strictly necessary, in the sense that the same could be achieved with text, or with a more abstract timeline, but if we use a collapsible hatnote, we might as well have a nice one, and a properly rendered map would look great. If the issues of exact placement of borders becomes complicated, though, then a timeline, or text alone, could be much easier to present. Starting with text and considering more later, as Noleander suggests, is another option I wouldn't veto out of hand. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Other solutions?
GTBacchus, you said that you also have a couple of other suggestions, can you lay those out also? Thanks T-1000 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * T-1000, hi. Yeah... As I said, it's not necessarily the last I've got to offer. I haven't got anything else concrete right now, but I'm continuing to ponder the issue, and I tend to get more ideas the longer I think. I suspect that some aspects of whatever solution we choose are inevitable. A reader typing "China" into the search box should have extremely quick access to the PRC article. They should also be informed very quickly that the situation is somehow more complicated than "China" = "PRC", that there's an issue of cross-strait relations and competing claims, and that the ROC is the other involved party. Somehow, we want both of those things to be near-immediate. We also want the latter part to be implemented in a way that gives appropriate weight to those cross-strait issues - neither too much nor too little. The expandable hatnote seems to be one way. It puts ROC two clicks away, where the first click is just opening a box, and is therefore quick, in terms of load-time. Whether the ROC link might even be outside of the collapsed part, so readers are really just one click away from Taiwan, is something we could talk about, I imagine.  If "China" points directly to a PRC article, and we don't use an expandable hatnote, then we want a really well-written one. It might contain two links, one to ROC and one to a China (disambiguation) page that starts with something like the contents we're discussing in this thread.  I've given less thought so far to solutions that don't involve a "China" search going directly to PRC, but I'm thinking about it now. I've got germs of ideas; I request a few hours to develop them.  Meanwhile, if you or anyone else would like to respond to what I've just said, I'm certainly interested to hear it. I might not be weighting my priorities here in a way that is fair to everyone, and I'd certainly want to know if that's the case. How are we doing, so far? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would be most appropriate if we are going to have a collapsed hatnote to have a link to the ROC on the uncollapsed portion, as it is now in PRC article. It seems most logical to have something that when the page first loads is very similar to the ROC hatnote that is already on the PRC page but giving the reader an option to expand a brief explanation below it. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I can expand on another idea a little more. If typing "China" doesn't take readers immediately to the PRC page, then we still want them to have very fast access to both the PRC page, and to some quick explanation of why there's a naming issue, i.e., of cross-strait issues and the claims of the ROC. Maybe that means a very light (in terms of load-time) disambiguation page, with a very prominent link to PRC at the top, located very close to a pithy explanation of the crux of contention. Is this an option that editors here are willing to consider? I'm currently imagining a lighter page than what we've currently got here at "China", which is a broad-concept page, and which is significantly heavier than any standard dab page. We should probably address that RfC soon, and see where we stand regarding the role that PRIMARYTOPIC plays here. I've been putting that off so far, and gathering more general information, but we're getting somewhere, I think. Any comments on the light dab page idea? Again, I'm not saying I'm out of ideas, just laying one more out there. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The most recent move request was along these lines, that we have a disambiguation page at China and move the current China article to "Chinese civilization". I could accept this but its my least favorite solution other than the status quo. In fact many editors were willing to accept that solution as a first step towards moving the PRC article to "China". I think the primary topic issue goes a long way to help answer the question, whether we want the article at "China" to be primarily about the PRC. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's time for me to digest that RFC in some detail. My initial thoughts concern how I might run into the ambiguity, as a reader. If I'm reading about the number π, and click on a link saying "the estimate π ≈ 355/113 was used in China in such-and-such century B.C.E.", then I don't expect an article about PRC. If I read that "mathematicians at University XYZ in China proved in 1996 that the transcendence measure of π is...", then I do expect an article about the PRC. That makes sense, right? I need to see what was said in the above discussion, though. I guess that's my next project here. First I'll sleep 8 hours. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason you couldn't have the same China article for both. When you click on the link to Tuscany in the Leonardo da Vinci article you go to an article on the modern region with history - like most country articles. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if we've got PRC and Chinese Civilization in separate articles, then the situation isn't like Tuscany. I agree that it's possible in theory, and the status quo here isn't too bad - the broad concept article is fine, no matter which era of Chinese mathematics I'm interested in.


 * How you answer that question of yours depends on whether or not you understand the PRC as something separate from the rest of Chinese history. If the People's Republic of China inherits the history of its predesessor states as is fairly typical then there is no ambiguity, context makes it clear that the topic pre-dates the founding of the PRC. That continuity is natural but the current arrangement of the articles has had us thinking about this issue rather backwards. When people say "China" to refer to the PRC and when they use that same word "China" to refer to the setting of Pearl S. Buck's The Good Earth they are not referring to two different things, but the same China in different contexts. We treat other countries the same way. I think ultimately the answer to the question you are bringing up is that the China article must include a history which extends past 1949. That the article is titled then "China" and not "People's Republic of China" makes this somewhat easier. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think I'm getting the following idea from what you're saying: If the PRC article is limited in scope to post-1949, then it's not nearly as clear that it's the primary topic. The primary topic for China is the nation/culture/civilization whose current political embodiment is the PRC (mostly, in terms of numbers), and previously by many other forms of society, including the ROC government for 37 years. That's why people don't say that The Good Earth is a novel about the ROC; they say it's about China. It takes place in the period of ROC control. That's the idea of the broad-concept article, it seems. Hmm. Let me think aloud a little more... the primary topic of "China" is the whole culture, with all its history and both of its present-day national manifestations. The PRC and ROC governments can be described to any level of detail in their own articles, with as many auxiliary articles as required (e.g., politics of the PRC, history of the ROC, etc.).  Isn't that pretty much the current situation? "China" and "Taiwan" are more-or-less geographically-stable cultures, while "PRC" and "ROC" are governmental entities. Those are four different things, about which we can have four articles.  Thus: Taiwan is about an island with its culture and history; Republic of China is about the current government in Taiwan. China is about a region of Asia with its culture and history; People's Republic of China is about the current government in China.  Am I talking sense here? I know I must be missing something. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We seem to be osculating between two extremes, each basically relying in the assumption that the PRC is a distinct topic from China. The PRC is more than just a government. Notice the overlap of population, territory, and culture with previous forms of China and the PRC. There is continuity. The PRC defines 99% of China today and for the last 60 years. the PRC is not a sub-topic of China. I've notice that it is common in this discussion for people to focus on words and not topics. To be sure "People's Republic of China" and "China" are not the same word. They are however, for our purposes, the same topic. This brings us back to the oft-cited examples of France and Germany articles, which while there have been many governments throughout a long history, the articles are primarily about contemporary France and Germany and even show the current flags of those states. In this same way the China article should be primarily about the contemporary PRC. The current China article does not do this. It studiously avoids emphasis on the PRC. Notice that "Hu Jintao", current Paramount leader of the PRC, isn't mentioned once in the China article, nor is any PRC leader after Deng Xiaoping. Nor is the population of the PRC, or any information on what kind of economy or government it has aside from passing mentions in the history section, or how large it is compared to other countries. In fact more than half of the post 1949 history section is about the ROC (taiwan) and cross-strait relations. The current article doesn't come close to addressing the consensus in the RfC. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was right - I was definitely missing something. It's exactly what you're talking about, and I'm neck-deep in a detailed post about it, which should be appearing in a new section of this page quite soon. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)