Talk:Chinese civilization/DiscussRM

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was No consensus for this move. Hús ö  nd  01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

China → Chinese civilization, People's Republic of China → China
 * Rationale
 * discussed to death in archives, has vocal detractors. Simple reason is that the article "China" is not about China, and the most common usage of China is the article at People's Republic of China —SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as is obvious by talk page discussions. The country China, whose article is at People's Republic of China, is the most obvious and most common usage of the word China to an international english-reading general interest audience.  We give undue weight to consider the claims made by opponents of a 60 year old war that still, though inconsistently, claim to be "the real China". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Oppose because there is more than one China, and Chinese civilization extends beyond China, and China is frequently used to encompass things beyond Red China. There's also the porcelin which is referred to as china, which is probably as used or more used than PRC in English as China. 70.55.88.176 (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Current naming is eminently logical and works just fine. "China" is more than simply the name of a country. The article should, as it does now, encompass dynastic China and the "idea" of China (Chinese people, Chinese civilization, etc.). Badagnani (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not encompass the contemporary nation-state. The current guidelines actively forbid it.  The PRC article is forbidden to discuss dynastic China.  What you want is not directly addressed by this proposal, although it could be achieved by dropping the guideline and merging the two articles.  --slashem (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When articles make links to China, PRC need not be an intended target. This is in particular the case when the articles discuss China in the past. Given that PRC and China are two different things (unlike Japan, say), the current naming also makes sense. -- Taku (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. See below.  --slashem (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support common usage. Can't we have just two articles: One about the area of land between the Himalayas, the Gobi and the South/East China Seas, and it's past and present governments, and another article about the large island south-east of that land, past and present governments. --Joowwww (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as common usage by English-language media and academic sources. Also, the PRC is the internationally-accepted successor state to China. --Polaron | Talk 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Casual readers who are confused by this convention rarely stay, so policy is made by regular editors who have already learned and become comfortable with the status quo. For the record, here is a list of those who have commented in favor or been confused: , , , , anon, , anon, , anon, anon, anon (note here Ran gets frustrated at having to repeat explaining), , , , , , , , anon, , , , , , , .  For balance, here are those who have commented against it:  , , , , , , , , anon, , , , , , , , , , , , .  That brings us up to the recent large discussion.  --slashem (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)  This actually was all written by me.  --slashem (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Listing bunch of names, I can do that as well. 儍𨳊. --Singaga (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've previously stated my position, but I'll reiterate it again. The current scheme is not broken. Therefore, there is no need to make a move in a misguided attempt to "fix" it. The article heads clearly point readers to whichever article they are looking for. I suspect those pushing most vehemently for the move are doing it to push a POV.Ngchen (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support See comment below. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Indea=Republic of India, China=People's Republic of China. 反華份子吃屎，想分裂中国的人吃屎. --Singaga (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the talk page guidelines, it is preferred that you use English when commenting on the talk page. Thank you.— Chris!  c t 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And also that this article essentially remains the same with the exception of the name of course nat.utoronto 23:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support If you put China into the search bar, you arrive at this smaller article on Chinese civilization rather than where you were expecting which is PRC. This article should therefore be appropriately renamed Chinese Civilization and China should link to PRC. Kristmace (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose PRC can move to New China, certainly not Old China. It is a complete contradiction of a replacement. That is of course taiwan has full independence, then we'll come back to this. Benjwong (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support- The term "Peoples republic of china", is not commonly used, and therefore should be renamed "china", But still needs major clean up, and reorganization. Buddha24 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support I believe that there are multiple meanings to the word "China." But the WP:NCON said "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute." So what we should do is to follow the guideline and in this case, China is indeed the best name. — Chris!  c t 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:UCN.-- Jerrch 23:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed to this proposal. However I am willing to support any proposal that would do the following:


 * Support. Forget various intra-Chinese political arguments for a moment and apply the question posited at WP:DAB: "Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes 'Go', what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?"  The answer is clearly the People's Republic of China.  Outside of a few oldtimers in Taiwan, few English-speaking users would consider Republic of China to be the legitimate government of China.  WP:NAME says that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity..." and that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."  When a generalist, English-speaking audience thinks of "China," it thinks of the state, the People's Republic of China, not Chinese culture.  Despite what User:Nat implies above, it's not even ambiguous. —   AjaxSmack   00:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support If you ask people the definition of China, most people will tell you China is country, and almost all encyclopedias state that China is a country. Wruazuezoa (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It was a country before 1949, for thousands of years, yet under the proposal you support the new article would discuss China only from 1949 on (the People's Republic of China). Badagnani (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at my comment at the bottom of this page, I don't think (or at least I hope not) that's what they are proposing. --Joowwww (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment China was, is, and will be always a country Wruazuezoa (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is NOT to discuss whether or not "China" is a country but whether or not we should move several articles. nat.utoronto 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose OUTSIDE OPINION It's not uncommon for article to be split due to more recent name changes. Since there's a government in exile with a similar name, this helps to avoid confusion. The last paragraph before the table of contents explains the difference very well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Many, many countries of the world have exile groups, or large amounts of territory occupied by opposition/secessionist movements with entire alternate government structures. The Naming conflict rightly says subjective criteria like this shouldn't be used to deny the name to the most common use.  Can you reconcile your opposition with that guideline?  It's something the talk archives have gone over many times. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I'd say it falls under the section "overlapping names". Therefore, if there's really a huge concern that the article currently at China doesn't belong there, China should disambiguate., but no one seems to be concerned with that. I'm not sure how to determine what is "common use" in regards to the term, but the current setup goes by the official title. For the sake of neutrality in regards to PRoC and RoC, it's best to keep them separate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, you aren't sure how to determine common use? Find independent reliable sources that use the single term "China" to refer to the ROC.  Find independently published maps that show a capital for "China" at either Nanjing or Taipei.  Since independent reliable sources simply do not ever use the term China to refer to the government on Taiwan, there is no way to deny that common use of China is about the PRC. You quote neutrality, but please read our neutrality policy in regards to undue weight to minority views - the number of sources using "China" to refer to the ROC defines it as a minority view. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Oppose This article is about China. It is about more than the "civilization".--Jiang (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This article should contain more info about China, for example, population, and the other page has it. Kaeblao (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * — Kaeblao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose When someone says China they are talking about one of the founding civilization on the earth. To move China to People's Republic of China assumes that 60 years of communist rule some how displace over six thousand years of Chinese history, including imperial rule and times even more ancient then that. The proper way to address this is to have China remain exactly where it is and use summary style to branch out to the finer points of Chinese history. In addition, the search bar test pales spectacularly to the google test: China nets a total of 853,000,000 hits, while Peoples Republic of China nets a much lower 8,770,000 hits. Just something to consider. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A Google test is not going to be a valid test. For instance a news article that says "the 2008 Olympics will be held in Beijing, China" clearly means the PRC, just as saying "the 1936 Olympics were held in Berlin, Germany" meant Deutsches Reich.  Every country, including former empires and major historical civilizations has the current country at the common short name.  The modern state, "Arab Republic of Egypt" is at the article Egypt.  Egypt is not an article about a 6000 year old civilization and neither should China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Oppose China is more then just the current PRC, just as my own country, Germany, is more then the current FRG. Country names change all the time but China will always be called China, I think. The Taiwan issue is of no importance in this context at all at only used to discredit opponents. EA210269 (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is flawed, there is only one article about Germany - not two (Federal Republic of Germany and German Civilization). This move isn't about making the PRC 1949-present the only China that ever existed, it's about having one article, called "China", for the area of land we call "China", for the country we commonly call "China", which includes its 2,000 years of history, its geography, its past and present governments, its culture, etc, etc, like every other country article on Wikipedia. --Joowwww (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is flawed. There is one article on Germany because East Germany no longer exists. If East Germany still existed, saying that West Germany is the legitmate successor to the German Civilization is a violation of NPOV. Obviously, Germany is united now, but the analogy does not apply to China. T-1000 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That wasn't my point, and it wasn't his. I was using Germany as an example of a country that doesn't make the distinction between "government" and "civilisation". He used Germany because it's where he lives. If you would like an example that is a bit simpler for you, how about Panama, where you will find one article, not two "Panamanian Civilisation" and "Republic of Panama" articles. --Joowwww (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understood your point. Most countries have a merged article between the Civilization and state because there is not two state claiming to be the succssor state. This is not possible for Korea and China. T-1000 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good point, I have to agree. Have you followed the FRG link? It takes you to an article titled Germany, not Federal Republic of Germany. EA210269 (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per previous comments. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - China, historically, culturally and geographically, does not correspond with, but merely overlaps, Red China. This move would endorse the POV of the Peking regime in its claim to embody the China of the past, and all the China of the present, while disregarding the equal and opposite claim made by Taipei. The status quo strikes an appropriate balance between the two claims. Biruitorul (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "equal and opposite claim". Wikipedia depends on reliable sources.  No reliable sources use the single word "China" to refer to the ROC. There is nothing equal about their claim, and our policies do not allow us to deny a 60 year old successor government the name of their country when the rest of the world identifies that. The ROC claims are well represented in the text of our articles. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The failure of the above editor, in each of his/her responses, to address the historical issues raised by the editors to which s/he is responding, preferring only to address issues of the PRC/ROC split, isn't good. Badagnani (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have been told twice now that the historical issues you raise are not what we are discussing. The failure is yours.  --slashem (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See my response to Joowww below. Many modern countries have histories dating to antiquity.  Our articles are about the modern country with summary style links to history.  Using the glories of history to deny the modern usage is disingenuous, and obviously done with political bias. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * First, Taipei actually claims this as China; see article 4 of the ROC Constitution. Second, these nations recognise Taipei as "China", as have quite a few others in the last several decades. Third, Taipei and Peking both have successor state claims. For us to say unequivocally that "China" is the PRC, by placing the article there, is endorsing a POV that is very much in contention. Biruitorul (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for demonstrating that this is a minority viewpoint held by 23 minor countries as a matter of political convenience. It effectively proves that to a general interest English speaking audience that "China" is not used to refer to the ROC. Secondly, your commentary shows that opposition to using "China" to refer to the PRC is a political bias and not based on Wikipedia's policies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I would like to know on what standards you classified those countries as minor. I see wikipedia guidelines stating that reliable sources are required, and recognination by countries is certainly relable sources. I see there are also no rule that states that recogniation by 10% of the UN countries as falling under subjective criteria. This is Wikipedia, not Schmuckypedia. T-1000 (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And other countries recognise the PRC for motives other than "political convenience"? Costa Rica: "in order to attract foreign investment"; Malawi: "the benefits that we will be getting from mainland China". Let's be honest here. There is a split in world opinion on the matter, not least in Taiwan itself, which has a plausible, legitimate claim to all of China, as recognised by a number of countries. Also: kindly refrain from accusing me of failure to conform with Wikipedia's policies in this discussion. I have brought forth solid arguments on the matter and my side comments have nothing to do with my position in this discussion, which is based on my interpretation of policy. Biruitorul (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - From my view regarding POV outweighs the trend of using common names in this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Initially I was going to throw Oppose because I thought the RM request is a kind of joke. After reading the previous comments by people, I change my mind. Regardless of the political issues surrounded by China(s), PRC is the very legitimate regime of the mainland China with its history from prior dynasties. Spelling the country as PRC is also confusing with Taiwan. --Appletrees (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody compares China with Korea's situation which is totally wrong. North and South Korea have been internationally acknowledged as legitimate and independent states but unfortunately Taiwan is not. When people talk about China, it is automatically the main China, not referring to the other China and history of China. PRC article misses the history of China section much.--Appletrees (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Appletrees, you know that in order to have official diplomatic relationships with the PRC the states must NOT recognize the ROC. Instead states use *unofficial* diplomatic channels to deal with the ROC. Also the above paragraph is essentially a POV shared by many of the states. Anyhow, remember that the ROC also controls Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu. Japan occupied Pescadores and Taiwan, but it did not occupy Kinmen and Matsu. Therefore the ROC had always controlled, and still does, Kinmen and Matsu. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merging PRC and China would imply two points of view, either Taiwan is a part of the PRC, or "China" is only the mainland, both are gross violations of NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both PRC and ROC claim themselves as the only representative of China, so moving PRC to China implies that only PRC is China, but ROC is not, which is not NPOV. Please respect the fact that there are two states, which are PRC and ROC, in the country China. -- Kevinhksouth (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * — Kevinhksouth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have registered here since 2005. Although I am not active in editing here (only have arround 100 edits), I have lots of experences in Chinese Wikipedia (and also as a sysop there). Therefore, I am surprized that I am classified as a newcomer who is just for voting here only. -- Kevinhksouth (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Based on the comments, I think it's better to move the document since it's basically misleading and simply wrong. Dindong (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * — Dindong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support As someone pretty much completely ignorant of the politics of the PRC/China debate (seriously...just about everything I've read in this discussion now is news to me), I would expect to search "China" and get an article on the country. If I want Chinese history or civilization, those are what I'd search. This move makes sense to me. Chaoticfluffy (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As I understand the situation, China is a reference point for multiple Articles in the scopes of other WikiProjects, and the historical context of an Article could require reference to the Sun Empire (<1912), the Republic of China (1912-1949; Taiwan 1949-present), or the People's Republic of China (1949-present).  Consequently, in addition to being a summary of the Chinese civilization, China needs to include a summary governmental history with Main Article links as appropriate. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Oppose. The PRC does not co-extensive with China, and Taiwan does not co-extensive with ROC. We have already gotton troubles with links pointing towards India for historical sites of ancient India within modern Pakistan. Don't make more trouble to lay readers of Wikipedia who rarely edit. Malaer (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — Malaer (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose - the opinion that when most people say "China" they mean the PRC is just that: an opinion. I don't buy it. It seems absurd to me that the "China" article should only cover the last 59 years of the PRC when Chinese culture goes back for 4,000 years! The word clearly has a far broader cultural and political meaning than those proposing the move suggest. At the same time, Wikipedia is committed to having articles whose point of view do not immediately cause offense to people and that applies to their titles just as much as the rest of their content. Sure, sometimes it's impossible to avoid causing offense to some people, but this is a case where that can be easily avoided, so imo it's a no-brainer to retain the status quo: use "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" to describe those entities and keep "China" for the larger discussion of Chinese society as a whole. The other alternative that I would support would be a disambiguation page at "China" much like the one at Georgia. -- Hux (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for WP:COMMONNAME. --Checco (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NPOV. There's two Chinas, and until Taiwan changes its name, to prefer the PRC would not be neutral or proper. — Nightstallion 12:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support see Turkey for a somewhat similar case (note that article is not called "Republic of Turkey"). The argument shouldn't be about Taiwan, it should be about the use of the word "China" which more often than not means the big country. maxsch (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the similar case with Turkey? AFAIK one government claims all that is "Turkey" while "Kurdistan" is disputed. The argument has to be about Taiwan... and the Pescadores... and Kinmen and Matsu. There is no way to avoid it. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Why listing all Chinese inventions? That looks ridiculous. Imagine pages about Germany, Russia or USA listing all its inventions. Is someone trying to show to the readers that Chinese invented something, even if it was hundred of years ago??? Secondly, China didn't invent gunpowder!!! They invented powder, not gunpowder - chinese never invented the gun!!! - so they couldn't have or call it 'gunpowder'. Gunpowder was actually invented by the Germans. Please correct it. Lin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.24.23 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the same issue in relation to Ireland is in dispute at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Republic of Ireland.

Fundamentally this is a question of who defines reality, politicians or the common people. The arguments regarding the neutrality of common names are all political arguments. Politicians, like all people, believe their own POV is neutral, but it is not clear why Wikipedia should agree with them. Other encyclopedias and all mass media take the view that the common names are the "most" neutral.

As a practical consideration, there are probably thousands of links to China which make no sense when they come to this article.

Finally, here is a logical rationale:

There are many perspectives from which terms can be defined. China can refer to a country, a civilization, a government, a people, an economy, a culture, a history, a geographical region. Each perspective leads to a different definition.

By far the most stable perspective is that of geography. The region known as "China" changes only due to continental drift. Associated with that geography is a people living in it. Although those peoples have changed, we do not define China as defined by only one of them. China also has a history, but it is primarily the history of a geographical region and the peoples who have lived in it. Thus we do not limit an article on the history of China to a history of the Han.

Associated with those people is a government. But the government is the least stable of these definitions. Although there have been various governments of China over its history, there is also implicit in common usage the assumption that terms refer to the present. Therefore in common usage "Chinese government" refers to the present Chinese government, which is defined by which government controls de-facto the geographical region named by "China" (which has not changed in human history).

From this perspective the ROC lost the usage of the term "China" when they retreated to Taiwan. This is why common usage is as it is.

Again, the only rationale behind making this article not about the PRC (which again is defined by common usage as the country that governs the geographical region "China" now and de-facto) is that you believe politicians define reality.

--slashem (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Note also that encyclopedias are traditionally organized around countries. Thus when there is a country commonly called China it defies expectations to make the subject of China about something else like a civilization. Similarly, when there is a country commonly called Ireland it defies expectations to make the subject of Ireland an island. Wikipedia is defying convention when it requires countries to reside at articles named by their official names while placing articles about other things at their common names. This could be ameliorated by requiring that common names for countries be redirects to their official names, but this is also likely to be opposed by the politically motivated. --slashem (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

France = French Republic, India = Republic of India, China = People's Republic of China -- Singaga (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Don't forget that because Wikipedia is blocked in mainland China, the only people from "Greater China" who can edit, or voice their opinion on this matter, are people from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, all of which are known for being less than enthusiastic at the prospect of being lumped together with a China that is described as the PRC. Do they oppose this move because it's against their POV? Even though they say their POV is NPOV? How many 12-year old kids who want to do a school report on China see the unnecessarily confusing array of articles about the same thing and decide to use Encarta instead? --88.107.114.30 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. This issue exists because of a political situation where one side is over-represented and the other is prevented from participating.  That's why it is important we answer the question based on Wikipedia's policies and not the personal politics of the participants.  Using Wikipedia as a political battlefield is why the situation has existed for so long and why the current China article gets poorly reviewed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The article does not go into the legitimacy of PRC or ROC at all. How is it undue weight? And please stop using that poor excuse of review argument. The problems with the review were very clear, the Silk road and Korean independence. Both things having to do with the civilization. T-1000 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. I would like to see these poor reviews, and 2. I don't think the political controversies will ever go away unless something drastic happens politically. In other words that is out of our control; all of the political controversies will remain. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you and most opposers are saying the political usage trumps the common usage. No one has ever explained why that should be so.  --slashem (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the issue and not the person. Instead of labeling people try to frame it in an argument manner. First, there is a saying on the NPOV page that it is non-negotiable. If the common title violates NPOV, then, NPOV should prevail. It's a hierarchy. NPOV is to be protected at all costs. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You think neutral == politically neutral. Politics is full of lies and is not neutral.  Our convention implies that the ROC and the PRC have equal claims to be the successor state to China, which is a lie.  This lie has been agreed to because it serves the goals of the U.S. and China.  Common usage is apolitical and therefore closer to being neutral.  --slashem (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If two states officially claim to legitimately control one landmass (and if Kinmen and Matsu are a part of "China" then the PRC does NOT control all of "China"), then we need to be "neutral" about that. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my objection. --slashem (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel like I did - Whether "PRC=China" is a manner disputed by significant parties (I.E. important political factions in the Republic of China), so such a statement cannot be said as fact. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * [|Poor reviews]; that you asked for. The China article was called simplistic and incoherent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * So the issues raised were: "simplistic, and in some places, even incoherent." and "mishandled the issue of Korean independence from China" and "and the context of the Silk Road in China's international relations." - So, of them only the first can relate to China being about the Chinese civilization instead of being about PRC and the Chinese civilization. Please explain how having the PRC would make this more incoherent and less simplistic, and how this would ALSO satisfy covering the history. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * China should be a disambiguation page for the myriad possibilities that the word could be used for. Being the "most common" target is not good enough; an article should be receiving the vast majority of hits/links in order to take precedence as a primary topic, e.g. because the other topics are derivative or virtually non-notable. For example, compare America to United States. I'm sure the US article is probably the most common target, but it's a bad idea to redirect America to the US article. Another example to consider is the simultaneous existence of British Empire, United Kingdom, England, etc. Although these are overlapping to an extent, and some are even purely historical, they are still independently notable in their own contexts. The PRC should have its own article regardless of whether it is or remains the definitive nation of China. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to opposers
Could you provide a reason to oppose based on Wikipedia policy? Talking about China as porcelain, or using Newspeak like "New China" is very much avoiding the issue and not answering the question. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Sure, per the policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, the move would violate that in several ways. First, the Republic of China still officially considers itself the "legitimate" Chinese government. Of course that position is borderline fringe. However, the view that it is a Chinese government is not so fringe. In addition, and I would suppose this fact would come as a surprise to people not familiar with the situation, supporters of Taiwan independence probably wish to equate "China" with the PRC, in order to paint "China" as a "foreign" entity vis-a-vis Taiwan. As I have already pointed out, the article leads of all the articles clearly refer people to whichever article they're looking for. Wikipedia should not take sides in this admittedly controversial three (or however many) way dispute surrounding the political status of Taiwan.Ngchen (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All of this is true but is only marginally relevant to the title of the article. Instead of looking at the political claims, apply the question posited at WP:DAB: "Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes 'Go', what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?"  The answer for English-speaking users of English Wikipedia is clearly the People's Republic of China.  Even the government in Taipei de facto recognizes this.  If there is a political dispute over the meaning of China, it can be discussed in the text of the relevant articles. —   AjaxSmack   02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is marginally relevant. By moving PRC to China we are saying China = PRC and that ROC = not China. The current position is that BOTH countries claim to be China. The PRC would hate it if ROC stopped claiming it was a part of China - it would be seen as a declaration of Taiwanese independence. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - When typing in China, many readers will want to find information about a place that existed before 1949 (i.e., dynastic China), the way they could find information about many aspects of Korea (and not simply a single recent nation-state) by typing Korea. Badagnani (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite an assumption, and is blatant original research. --Joowwww (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. And the might also want to find out about China (porcelain).  That's why the guidleine says "what article would they most likely be expecting..." which is still the contemporary nation-state. —   AjaxSmack   02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Porcelain

 * If porcelain is the most common usage in English, then your move is wrong. 70.51.8.190 (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Porcelain is certainly not the most common usage in English. Red herring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * In regular television people talk about a china set the china teacup, bone china, the good china, china cupboard, there are thousands of store/gift catalogs filled with chinaware and china. Wedding registries have entries for china sets. I rather think it *is* the most common usage in English, just as a "fork" is kitchen table utensil, and not a "fork in the road" or a programming construct. Filming movies or television would deal with orders from suppliers for china for dinner scenes, wedding scenes, diner scenes. Antiques shows deal with specialty china sets, like "airline china", "White House china", etc. When setting a dinner table for a family dinner, you set the china, and mom tells the children about it, but how often does "China" where the china originated come up? How often do people talk about a distant land, when it's something you use probably every day, and people break and need to buy new pieces of. 70.51.9.30 (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is not what meaning is most common in English — that is the realm of Wiktionary. The question is, as an encyclopedia, "when readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes 'Go', what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?"  The answer to that is the nation-state of China, known in full as the People's Republic of China. —   AjaxSmack   01:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If that were the case, then it's just as likely to be a search for pre-PROC China as it is for PROC. If you're looking up the China of Emperors, or the context of the Great Wall, etc, it wouldn't be PRC. If it's for the recent earthquake, the Three Gorges Dam, it would be for PROC. If it's about the China of 1421, it's not, nor of Marco Polo, or the Silk Road. But in English, it should be porcelain that is the most likely usage. If we start devining the likely target, there are three, pre-PROC, PROC and porcelain, and then you'd have to have a dab page at China. 74.15.105.204 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is what is most likely to be expected of an encyclopedia. All encyclopedias I know of place a country article at its common name.  Wikipedia is defying established convention here.  --slashem (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Other encyclopedias do not have an NPOV policy. They recognize PRC as the national government and Taiwan as a regional government (Taipei is not highlighted). Unless you believe this is netural? If that's case, the article on the Political status of Taiwan can be deleted as well. T-1000 (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is admit that you don't give a shit what established convention is. And no one is talking about deleting anything.  --slashem (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's kind of pathetic that you think politicians are neutral. You never did understand the statement that no on is neutral.  --slashem (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is neutral. We stay neutral by presenting both sides of the arugment. We do not agree with either side. And please read WP:NPA, you can take that as an insult too, if you want. T-1000 (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot present both sides of the argument IN AN ARTICLE TITLE. The title of an article about the country China is either China or not.  And again, you tell me to read things, well I tell you you don't understand what you read.  --slashem (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good lord you don't even understand the words coming out of your mouth. If NO-ONE IS NEUTRAL why do you think WE ARE NEUTRAL?  Do you think it is neutral to imply there are only two sides to this argument, and they are equal? --slashem (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We use neutral article titles. "China" = Chinese Civilization is uncontroversial. Wikipedia's neutralty is already defined in NPOV policy, We represent all arguments backed up by reliable sources, and we stay alient on whether the calims are equal or not. T-1000 (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, you never understand anything I say, but I'm bored so I'll keep repeating myself. There is no such thing as a neutral article title.  Either China refers to the country currently governed by the PRC or it doesn't, there is no middle ground.  You don't "represent arguments" or provide "reliable sources" in an ARTICLE TITLE.  Again, you cannot grasp the concept that we are talking about ARTICLE TITLES here.  Hey, want me to say it again?  --slashem (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again Wikipedia disagrees with you. Since the guidelines clearly state "Having an neutral article title is very important". Sorry. T-1000 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, AND YOU SPEAK FOR WIKIPEDIA. Say, DID YOU READ WP:NAME, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCON where it states "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"  Hey, sometimes Wikipedia policies conflict!  That just blows your mind, doesn't it?  --slashem (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV is stated to be non-negoitable. Common names is not. NPOV comes first. T-1000 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeat: 1) NPOV is about article text not article titles, and 2) nothing is absolutely neutral.  --slashem (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)Repeat: ""Having an neutral article title is very important" is from WP:NPOV. 2) your opinion only. T-1000 (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is your CLAIM that pretending there is no successor state to China is more neutral than the common usage 2) That wouldn't be your opinion would it? --slashem (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I didn't pretend, the controversy is real and I can back it up with 23 countries that considers ROC to be China. 2) Wikipedia thinks that a neutral article title is possible. If you have a problem with that, talk to Jimbo Wales. T-1000 (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(too many indents)Oh my god, there is a controversy THEREFORE THERE IS NO SUCCESSOR STATE TO CHINA! Politicians never lie! And we all know not only that Jimbo Wales is God, but that you are his prophet. --slashem (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I can back up the controversy with reliable sources. Second, you don't like the rules set by Jimbo Wales, you can leave. No one is forcing you to stay. T-1000 (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, did I say there was no controversy? Maybe you better read what I wrote again.  While you're at it, reread the part below where I said different people can interpret rules differently.  And thanks so much for suggesting I leave, it shows your dedication to cooperative editing which we all know is a core value here.  --slashem (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You claim that the controversy ended with the Cold War, remember? Second, I would like to know how you interpret "Having an neutral article title is very important" diffrently. T-1000 (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You think that when politicians from 23 countries give diplomatic recognition to Taiwan that they believe the ROC is the successor state to China? You think politicians don't fudge the facts?  You continue to believe that pretending that there is no successor state to China is "neutral", well, I am saying the common usage is "more neutral".  Stop pretending that you are the final judge of what is neutral.  --slashem (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop reply with what you think, and just stick with the Wikipedia guideline of reliable sources. It doesn't matter if you think they fudge or not. They are still reliable sources. T-1000 (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, that didn't take long. How many times will I point out to you that we can't refer to reliable sources to determine article titles?  How do we determine article titles when there are conflicting sources?  --slashem (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We use the one that is uncontroversial. T-1000 (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's bad enough that you never shut up, could you at least do everyone else a favor and try to consolidate your comments so they can easily ignore us if we bore them? As to your point, no one understands this title and it defies existing convention.  It's easy to be uncontroversial when you don't have to be understood.  --slashem (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, such an outburst is a sure way to make a point. Perhaps you don't understand this current title. Needlessly to say, you don't respresent everyone. T-1000 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My points have already been made, you just repeat yourself because you never listen. I never claimed to represent everyone, although you claim to represent Jimbo Wales.  --slashem (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise, since everything you said so far is your opinion. I don't represent Jimbo Wales, merely that My understanding of the guidelines is constant with the Naming guideline for five years. But Like I said, show us your interpretation of the guidelines. T-1000 (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That's kind of hilarious that you choose to repeat yourself again here, in spite of all attempts to consolidate the discussion. Answered below. --slashem (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Important clarification needed
Comment: I think some people are thinking that if the PRC was moved to China then the new China article would only be about post-1949 China. Let's clear this up now, because it's not what I support, and I hope it's not what other supporters support. The article "China" would be about the area of land we commonly call "China", and the country we commonly call "China", and its 5,000 years of history, its geography, its past and present governments, its foreign relations, its economy, its demographics, its culture, etc etc, like every other country article on Wikipedia. If this survey is suggesting that the new China article would only be about post-1949 China, then I withdraw my support. --Joowwww (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that your prosopal was PRC = China, ROC = Taiwan. However, that violates NPOV on several points. First, treating the PRC as the legitimate successor is a violation of NPOV. Second, your proposal implies that Taiwan is not a part of China, which is another violation. Third, Merging the ROC and the Taiwan article would mislead people, as you yourself were mislead by saying Taiwan was part of the allies during WWII. T-1000 (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with you. I just read several country articles on places with long histories (Israel, Egypt, Turkey).  All of these somehow connect the modern state to the history of the region and people.  The current PRC article does not do that at all, as if history began in 1949.  The current China article refuses to connect the region and history to any modern state.  Both are broken. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Israel, Egypt, Turkey are all bad comparisons. None of them have a modern entity that tries as hard as the PRC government in terms of disconnecting from its original root.  Benjwong (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you imply that what the politicians say defines reality. --slashem (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Common people's opinions are original research, and don't even belong on Wikipedia. Do read WP:OR. We cite from reliable sources, which includes politicians. T-1000 (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you confuse article text with names of articles. Read WP:NAME and WP:NCON, both already referenced in this discussion.  See, I can quote policy as well as you can.  Don't insult me by telling me to read anything, I've read it all and I understand it better than you.  --slashem (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about article names. That's was a response to your implication that common people's opinions override notable sources. And please be more mature, telling you to read stuff is allowing you to become a better Wikipedian, not an insult. The welcome message to Wikipedia tells you to read five articles. Do you take that as an insult as well? T-1000 (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We are talking about article names, so you are not talking about what we are talking about. Try to be relevant.  I don't care whether you think it is an insult or not, stop telling me to read policy because I've told you many times I've read it all.  And you are also violating WP:NPA by calling me immature.  Perhaps you should read it.  --slashem (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Neutral" POV
Again, it is impossible to choose a "neutral" organization and naming convention for these articles. The current convention pushes the POV that the PRC is not the successor state to the Chinese civilization, that in fact the PRC and the ROC have equal claims. This is not the common view, and you don't even hear it much in political circles anymore. --slashem (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia never said that "PRC is not the successor state". We mention both claims and remain slient of the issue of legitmacy. T-1000 (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you are incapable of understanding. If the article about the country China is not called China that implies China is not a country, i.e. has no successor state.  WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ARTICLE TITLES HERE.  You are incapable of understanding even whawt the debate is about.  --slashem (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a simliar problem with the Koreas. There are no uncontroversial successor states to China. T-1000 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * North and South Korea are more equal. And, in fact, the only controversy over which is the successor state to China comes from Cold-War politics, which, you know, ended with the fall of the USSR.  --slashem (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Both countries are recognized, and they recognize to be South and North, not a single Korea. This debate is about People's Republic of China and Republic of China, and most of the world accepts and/or recognizes PRC as the only China, and ROC as Taiwan. You want something that sustains this comment? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_China -- Suddenly, RoC's article seems so full of content, with many categories at the end of it. Perhaps someone is vandalizing this whole deal? Maybe doing this to remove any trace of China in the world's most popular online encyclopaedia? Hasn't anyone though of that? -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, "the controversy ended with the Cold War" is only your opinion, given that there is still a political status of Taiwan page. T-1000 (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again you fail to understand what you read. That would be an article about the political status of Taiwan, not China.  Hey, "the controversy didn't end with the Cold War" -- THAT WOULDN'T BE AN OPINION, WOULD IT?  --slashem (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The political status of the Republic of China page redirect to the Political status of Taiwan page. Plus the PRC and ROC are still competiting for recognize. So yes, the controversy is still ongoing. That's a fact. The only way for the controversy to end is for the ROC to renounce claim over mainland China. T-1000 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey look, we have a redirect so it must be true! And the fact that the PRC refuses to allow other countries to recognize Taiwan implies that the ROC is still seriously considered a successor state to China!  IS THAT A FACT?  And of course the actions of a few politicians in Taiwan determines what is a neutral article title!  --slashem (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What kind of response is this? Of course we only look at the facts and not conjure about what is "serious" or not. As for the question of minority. We have an article on Northern Cyprus, only recognized by one country. T-1000 (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's a response you can't understand. You actually believe that the ROC is seriously considered a successor state to China.  Hey, you know what?  I think California is a successor state to China.  Don't try to conjecture about whether that is serious or not.  And you are getting me confused with someone else regarding the minority.  I'm the one claiming political claims (e.g. international recognition) doesn't trump common usage.  Try to keep it straight, ok?  --slashem (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia never goes by majority rule to began with. As long the claim is backed up by reliable sources, it is serious. 23 country recogniation is a reliable source. T-1000 (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You really cannot understand the difference between article text and article titles, can you? --slashem (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You really can't understand that my above comment is about your claim that "the controversy ended with the Cold War", can you? T-1000 (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me get this straight, you can't make your comments relevant to what I say, but I'm required to make my comments relevant to what you say? This ENTIRE DISCUSSION is about you trying to apply article text policy to article title policy, and YOU YOURSELF admitted you are not talking about article names. --slashem (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote policy from WP:NPOV is "Having an neutral article title is very important". So yes, it is about article names, not article text. T-1000 (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy
It's kind of amusing that some people can't understand that different people interpret policy differently. --slashem (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, show me how you interpret " A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context." differently. T-1000 (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to repeat yourself three times. Well, you do it anyway, but try not to do it in immediate succession.  If you want to show that you understand what I am saying, don't bring up the idea about reporting both sides with reliable sources again.  Ever.
 * In hopes of consolidating discussion, I will repeat myself here. It is not neutral to have China be about the Chinese civilization:  it implies there is no country called "China".  Since there is no perfectly neutral title here, the most neutral title would be to follow common usage (as all other encyclopedias do) and make China about the country currently ruled by the PRC.  --slashem (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no undisputed country called China. Just like there is no country called Korea, that's a fact. T-1000 (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In common usage there is. That's a fact.  --slashem (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You should try to talk Jimbo Wales into considering Common names before sources. T-1000 (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You do love to repeat yourself, don't you? Again, 1) an article can only have one title, so any choice will conflict with some sources 2) Jimbo Wales is not God and you are not his prophet 3) Read WP:COMMONNAME.  --slashem (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, everybody agrees with that China can refer to the Chinese civilization, that part is uncontroversial. Second, Jimbo Wales is the ultimate decider here on Wiki. You can ask the adminstrators if you don't believe me. T-1000 (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee, does the Chinese civilization have a successor state? What would that state be called?  Hey, you know calling porcelain china is pretty uncontroversial too, maybe we should do that.  As for Jimbo, I'm sure he would love to be asked how to name every article on Wikipedia.  Oh wait, we don't have to BECAUSE YOU SPEAK FOR HIM.  --slashem (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, The Chinese Civilization does not have a undisputed successor state. Regarding the guidelines, show us your alternative interpretation. T-1000 (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, because you cannot read, I repeat myself: WP:NAME, WP:NCON, and WP:COMMONNAME.  But I'm sure you still won't read it, so I promise to repeat it again.  --slashem (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again you refuse to acknowledge that there is an undisputed common usage of "China". You can't even understand that politicians do not control language.  --slashem (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always acknowledged know that PRC is commonly referred to as China, but it still implies a viewpoint. The example at the Common names guidelines is that Gay people are common referred to as "faggots", and that is also not neutral. T-1000 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(repeating) There is no such thing as an article title without a viewpoint. --slashem (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (repeating) Please stop repeating your opinion. T-1000 (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry, God knows you would never do that. --slashem (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context", this guideline will still be there. Good Luck trying to convince everyone that a neutral article title is impossible. T-1000 (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're allowed to repeat your opinion but I am not? --slashem (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS So nice of you to show your support for core Wikipedia principles by editing the article to reflect your POV during this discussion. --slashem (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's another issue. The national borders of the ROC do include the mainland, that could be backed up with an official roc map. T-1000 (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well obviously you aren't here to discuss, just to get your way. So there's no point discussing it with you.  --slashem (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you discuss a claim. It either exists or it doesn't. T-1000 (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Misleading edit summary too. You are priceless.  --slashem (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you referring too? T-1000 (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no, there's no point explaining it to you, you are always right. I'm just going to enjoy watching you.  --slashem (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, more edit-warring. You are an inspiration to all Wikipedians.  --slashem (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Schmucky changed that to help his viewpoint, and it was done without disscusion. I have started a new discussion at the talk page. T-1000 (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Assumption of Bad Faith. Wow, for someone who loves to quote policy you sure can violate a lot of them when you want to.  --slashem (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He changed right after I said "Nowhere does it say that the second paragragh only applies to descriptive names", so yes, it's pretty obvious. T-1000 (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Say, you wouldn't happen to have a prior conflict with Schmucky, would you? Do you think you are "neutral"?  --slashem (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's simply standard to have discussions before altering NPOV rules. T-1000 (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and we all know your definition of "discussion" is "repeat my opinion until everyone is tired of talking to me." --slashem (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How ironic, That's exactly the impression you given me. Considering you never gave out any proof of "Impossible to have a neutral article title" and the "controversies ended with the Cold War". 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, you know that's what you said about Schmucky, too. But I don't have conversations like this with anyone else.  Apparently the only way for us to avoid repeating ourselves to you is to ignore you.  But obviously you don't wait for discussion before making controversial edits yourself.  Now that we have proven you really aren't interested in discussing your edits, are we done?  --slashem (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * controversial? The ROC's national border includes the mainland is common knowledge. T-1000 (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, since guidelines already demend a netural article title and the controversy can be proven, I will no longer respond to these two arguments. T-1000 (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, you repeat yourself again and then try to have the last word. But I am sure that if you don't get the last word you will repeat yourself.  --slashem (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(repeating) Hey, did you read WP:NAME, WP:NCON, and WP:COMMONNAME? --slashem (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. T-1000 (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. This has been mentioned before too. "Mainland" is more common than "China" in the east, where it should count most.  Benjwong (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source to sustain your comment? Because practically every major power in the world, including the USA doesn't recognizes Taiwan. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, Ruine, taking that rationale would align us with a POV officially expressed by the PRC. Two, remember that the PRC tells countries to NOT recognize the ROC in order to establish diplomatic relations. Third, aren't Kinmen and Matsu Islands a part of "China" too? (they were never controlled by Japan) Fourth, remember that the ROC has unofficial relations with many countries. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unofficial, that is why many people want to move the article of PRC to the China, so why do we have to keep the name for the unofficial state's sake? That is your POV.--Appletrees (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Appletrees, please re-read NPOV - It is undisputed that the ROC has unofficial (and real, which is my point - just because they are unofficial doesn't mean they are not real) contacts with other countries, such as the USA. That is a fact and is not disputed. Saying that the PRC is the modern government of all of China is disputed by significant groups, and so that would be an opinion. Also the above reply does not address the above information (Kinmen and Matsu never being occupied by Japan, and so always a part of "China", the PRC tactic of forcing non-recognition of the ROC). Remember that we decide things by arguments and not by votes. Also, please take the "your" out of replies. Talk about the issue, and not about my views. Notice how I talk about statements, paragraphs, and replies. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point of view seems to me just your POV, not close to NPOV. The NPOV policy does not change the fact that people commonly refers to the PRC as China and Taiwan is just called "Taiwan". Besides, NPOV does not mean to "not side for any party". Consensus is not "middle ground or compromise not to cause any conflict around Wikipedia. Fact is fact and real life is real life. Wikipedia reflects on "real life" not just like ordinary encyclopedia. Republic of "China" is what Taiwanese only call themselves, not by others. And please don't confuse my statement just as a claim for "vote". I guess your unpleasant analysis stems from my comment below which is totally irrelevant to your right above comment. I'm talking about the issue and response is one way to continue a "discussion". --Appletrees (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Under international law, recognition and normalized relations are two separate issues. Recognition does not require the precense of normalized diplomatic relations. The US recognizes the authority of the Communist Party of Cuba over Cuba, or the regime of Kim Jong-il over North Korea, even though it has no official relations with either. The vast majority of states recognizes the sovereignty of the Republic of China over Taiwan through actions such as stamping its passports and accepting them as valid documents, carrying out "all but in name" relations through institutions such as the American Institute in Taiwan, and contacting the ROC government for issues of trade, trafficking, etc.--Jiang (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder: the neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant minority points-of-view be fairly presented. I think the arguments can be broken down simply as follows: (pro-move) use common names; (anti-move) NPOV, even if the terms are not as well-known. I don't see a consensus developing, nor do I see one developing in the future. Disclaimer: I am against the move for NPOV reasons. If no consensus is going to develop, I suggest closing the discussion in a reasonable time as opposed to having it go on ad nauseum.Ngchen (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Common sense?
So after reading all of the above it seems like "NPOV trumps Common Usage" is going to be the stubborn response to any attempt at consensus. But there is another factor: common sense. No there isn't a guideline specifically about it, and there's probably 1,000 conflicting guidelines for/against it, and I'll probably get dismissed with a link to WP:Whatever, but why do all these rules, guidelines, arguments, etc etc blind the average user from wanting to find out about China? Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? A free encyclopedia that anyone can use, and an outlet for promoting knowledge and understanding to everyone? Or a base for contributors to vent their political opinions at the expense of clarity of information? The guideline of "NPOV" is generally a good thing, I agree with that, but in isolated cases, such as this debacle, it is a hindrance to clarity and understanding, and I feel that discussion needs to be made higher up about the real usefulness of it in banging-head-against-brick-wall topics such as China. Below is my proposal of the article move. Feel free to casually dismiss it, round off a load of guidelines, and refuse to climb out of the insular bubble, take your fingers out of your ears, open your mind, and take part in any forward-moving discussion that might actually solve this issue. Put the guidelines aside for one moment and actually think about what benefits the guest reader, not the contributors. Please note this rant isn't directed at any individual, but if the cap fits... --Joowwww (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No this isn't definitive, and no I'm not suggesting that precise wording, but it's just so some can gain a little perspective on what I am proposing. Bring on the wrath. --Joowwww (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First, what does "country" mean in this context? Are you referring to the government(s)? If so, I think this statement is very clear: "The stalemate of the last Chinese Civil War has resulted in two political entities using the name China: the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, which controls mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau; and the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, which controls the island of Taiwan and some nearby islands." - Also it seems like "it also uses common sense, reality, common usage, whatever you want to call it." is describing a point of view. Until the ROC officially declares itself as "separate from China" and no longer officially claims the Chinese mainland, then "PRC is the government of China" sounds like a point of view. Also the ROC is not a parent state of the PRC - the ROC moved to Taiwan and the Pescadores after Japan left, and the ROC continued to hold Kinmen and Matsu while the PRC took everything else. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, NPOV is not a "guideline" - it is a non-negotiable policy. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal will likely be opposed by those who support Taiwan Independence, because it implies that the PRC is a national government, while ROC/Taiwan is a regional government. T-1000 (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal is simply incorrect. It should be New China, officially the People's Republic of China, is a country... etc. Benjwong (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are terms from PROC that are shorter than the whole term... mainland China and Red China come to mind, as common, widely used. 74.15.105.205 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jooowwww. That is common sense. Most people talk about China and Taiwan now in my experience. I don't know when I last heard or saw Red China or Mainland China in the media or talking to people. Look at Google News -- or look at in USA Today -- who's that referring to Taiwan? Why it's Taiwan's incoming president.  It seems to me that anything other than China and Taiwan are POV in the 21st century.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weller, just because media outlets use "China" and "Taiwan" as shorthand doesn't negate the fact that the Republic of China (which governs more than Taiwan, anyway) still officially claims China as part of its territory - Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * US Congressmen seem to use Red China and Mainland China alot on CSPAN, and Lou Dobbs does on CNN... 70.55.86.34 (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true. Red China isn't used, but that is just a red herring. "Mainland China" is widely used when strict neutrality and precision needs to be observed: And this is what happens when you fail to use the term and imply certain "Chinese territories" are not part of China: --Jiang (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't watch Lou Dobbs on CNN. He uses Red China. And CSPAN does have Congressmen calling China Red China. Congressmen say all sorts of things... like Communist Canada, Canuckistan, People's Republic of France. 70.55.84.51 (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because the incoming President of Taiwan uses the word Taiwan doesn't mean we should, because Wikipedia is not a president, right? Interesting that the articles that use Mainland China also use the word Taiwan. A few mention "mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau" which is a slightly different use of the phrase "mainland China". I repeat, it is POV to let a tiny political viewpoint overrule reality. I see no reason not to follow WP:COMMONAMES guidance.  Only doing that will give us NPOV in this case.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with the incoming president of Taiwan?
 * That would imply that "People's Republic of China" should be moved to "Mainland China" which would be inappropriate in many contexts.
 * The PRC calls itself "the Chinese mainland" when dealing Taiwan:. This is about accuracy and precision, that is, not unnecessarily implying for the sake of expediency that certain territories outside mainland China are not part of China. This is not simply a "tiny political viewpoint". The reality is that Western media terms imply that Taiwan is not part of China, which is simply unacceptable to many Chinese readers.--Jiang (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Classification of responses
I'm going to try to sort responses by type here. If I list you in the wrong section feel free to move yourself.

Support: common usage, PRC is China
China should be about the country currently governed by the PRC and the history of China going back thousands of years.


 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)

Oppose: other

 * the PRC is "New China" not "China", and common usage in the east is "Mainland China"
 * China in the past is a different thing from the PRC
 * China is about the historical civilization and not the PRC
 * prefers disambiguation page
 * China is not just about the civilization
 * 1) I believe it is anachronistic to say that the dynastic, pre-modern empire forged in the 3rd century BC is the exact same political entity as the modern People's Republic which has ruled most of "China" for the past 6 decades. Benjwong also makes a great point about modern usage of the term "mainland China".--  Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is fine the way it is, but perhaps a heading of Government should be added to the China page for easier access to the RoC and PRC links.
 * I do not think this article should be moved, but I do think there needs to be more clear organization in the articles. For example, why does the "China" article have sections on science and technology, and recreation? I think basically the difference is a cultural political one. The PRC is a political entity, while "China" is a cultural concept. Hong Kong people, for example, do not call themselves "Chinese" in the sense that they are PRC nationals, but call themselves "Chinese" when referring to their culture or ethnicity. This is slightly more taboo in Taiwan due to the sensitivities and confusions surrounding the word "China" there. I think the China article should explain what the cultural sphere consists of, and focus on cultural and historical issues, while the PRC's culture and history sections should include only PRC history and PRC-influenced culture. In addition, merging sets a precedent to refer to the ROC as "Taiwan", which means all Taiwan articles have to change as well.
 * 1) I believe it is anachronistic to say that the dynastic, pre-modern empire forged in the 3rd century BC is the exact same political entity as the modern People's Republic which has ruled most of "China" for the past 6 decades. Benjwong also makes a great point about modern usage of the term "mainland China".--  Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is fine the way it is, but perhaps a heading of Government should be added to the China page for easier access to the RoC and PRC links.
 * I do not think this article should be moved, but I do think there needs to be more clear organization in the articles. For example, why does the "China" article have sections on science and technology, and recreation? I think basically the difference is a cultural political one. The PRC is a political entity, while "China" is a cultural concept. Hong Kong people, for example, do not call themselves "Chinese" in the sense that they are PRC nationals, but call themselves "Chinese" when referring to their culture or ethnicity. This is slightly more taboo in Taiwan due to the sensitivities and confusions surrounding the word "China" there. I think the China article should explain what the cultural sphere consists of, and focus on cultural and historical issues, while the PRC's culture and history sections should include only PRC history and PRC-influenced culture. In addition, merging sets a precedent to refer to the ROC as "Taiwan", which means all Taiwan articles have to change as well.
 * I do not think this article should be moved, but I do think there needs to be more clear organization in the articles. For example, why does the "China" article have sections on science and technology, and recreation? I think basically the difference is a cultural political one. The PRC is a political entity, while "China" is a cultural concept. Hong Kong people, for example, do not call themselves "Chinese" in the sense that they are PRC nationals, but call themselves "Chinese" when referring to their culture or ethnicity. This is slightly more taboo in Taiwan due to the sensitivities and confusions surrounding the word "China" there. I think the China article should explain what the cultural sphere consists of, and focus on cultural and historical issues, while the PRC's culture and history sections should include only PRC history and PRC-influenced culture. In addition, merging sets a precedent to refer to the ROC as "Taiwan", which means all Taiwan articles have to change as well.

More input needed
This debate, no matter the result, will have a profound impact on the encyclopedia. We will have to rewrite a number of policy pages, change a TON of links if it succeeds, and restructure China's entire article categorization system. Many articles will need to be rewritten to match the new status quo. Given the importance of this debate, we need to solicit as much of the community to participate as possible. We would be lax in our editorial responsibilities if we only allowed what relatively amounts to a handful of editors to decide something that will require a major overhaul of the encyclopedia. I recommend we notify WP:AN, WP:VP and the Community Portal. Also, this is probably worth mentioning in the Signpost, so notifying them would also be prudent. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This debate will never go anywhere. It is impossible to impose any Wikipedia-wide standards, there will never be consensus.  --slashem (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, as long as interpretation of policy is up to a vote that can plainly ignore the text of the policy this discussion will always deadlock. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Could we, instead of focusing primarily on arguments that never end, focus the efforts of our considerably energetic and knowledgeable editors focusing on China-related-articles to creating stubs for all of China's counties? There are still thousands of redlinks and this was done last year for Vietnam; I think it took less than two weeks to do, assisted by a bot. For an example of the need for this, just see all the redlinks at List of administrative divisions of Shaanxi. Badagnani (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive China Article Solution
Throughout the last couple of weeks, I have looked at the problems faced by English Wikipedia with articles on Chinese topics. After carefully analyzing the problem, and looking at how Wikipedias in other languages deal with the problem, I would like to propose the following:

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. --slashem (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * If you guys can give a better reason than "莫須有" (see Yue_Fei), that would be great. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having a separate chinese civilization/history article (maybe up until the end of the qing dynasty), but the article about mainland china should include references to both chinas. I oppose because I don't see a need to separate RoC and Roc (1912).

solution
Have China redirect to the Republic of China and keep Communist China as it is.

OR DO THIS Good China (Republic of China) Bad China (People's Republic of China) Chinese civilization (China)--4.245.72.201 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.