Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep as arbitration evidence. If you wish to delete this, please resubmit only afte the case is over. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China
Since User:Instantnood joined Wikipedia, he has consistently tried to change articles relating to China to support his POV. There have been very many discussions, requested moves, requested categories, and a RfC on Instantnood as a result of this. So far he has been unable to establish a majority, let alone a consensus, in support of his proposals. This page is another 25!!!! votes. We don't need this. Please delete this page as it is disruptive to Wikipedia to continue these constant votes when Instantnood does not get his way, jguk 12:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment (non-vote): Please refer to the following sections: #..of China or ..of the PRC &#8594; ..of mainland China, #NPOv: China, Mainland China, PRC, ROC, SAR, etc., and #NPOV at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV. While my view is not unanimously supported, jguk's view is not supported by the majority either. Attempts to vote for deletion of these polls is in effect blocking the issue to resolution. &mdash; Instantnood 13:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I am against polls like these in principle. The matter can be solved by other means. Inter\Echo 13:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * These other means have failed. This poll does not have to be binding and can be used as a gauge of the opinions of the community as a whole. -- ran (talk) 16:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * What other means did you have in mind? A lot of different approaches have been taken already. What would you recommend should be done instead? --MarkSweep 22:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel polls like these contribute little to the community. I see that other means have been taken to resolve this and there is also now an Arbcom case. If this case is rejected, I was contacted by Instantnood to try and mediate further. Inter\Echo 12:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Inter. I guess many of us are running out of idea. &mdash; Instantnood 16:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose more options will be available when some of you open up to the idea that the convention itself can be reviewed once again.--Huaiwei 06:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. For the sake of brevity, I have copied and pasted my one post on this purported poll page:
 * I'm sorry, this is ridiculous - why are we going to look at each individual section instead of conforming to a single, comprehensive naming convention? The individual vote setup makes no sense. In any event, my vote in every instance [would be] to keep China as China (not Mainland China, not the People's Federal Democratic Soviet Socialist Republic of the Nation of China, just ... China). I've been there, the people are nice. The food is great. Bathrooms... not so nice - but did I mention the food? -- 8^D gab 13:53, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)


 * Delete Instantnood cannot run the polls in a non-biased manner. He doesn't announce them, tries to control who votes, and inserts his bias into the announcement. This poll was run through March until the discussion ran out of steam and the talk page got so big it couldn't be edited. This is just an attempt by him to repeat the voting until everyone gets tired of it and he wins. SchmuckyTheCat 14:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did annouce it. I told participants (such as Ran) in the discussion that ran through March the moves would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I announced 5 days ago that I was planning to create this page, and there was no objection. Upon its creation, I put up notices on many pages to notify people. Everybody can vote. Every vote counts, and will be counted. &mdash; Instantnood 15:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * If everyone can vote, I would question your habit of soliciting votes. I would even question you notifying anyone that a voting exercise exists, because you are indirectly influencing the voting result. It is up to potential voters to find this page, and it is your duty to ensure they know through unbiased means.--Huaiwei 15:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I try my best to notify as many people, for those who have joined any of the relevant discussions, as possible. Wikipedia is not an authoritarian or oppressive state. Nobody is in a position to have the power to influence the result. Every voters can think independently. By the way, should discussion over the this matter be brought to somewhere else? It's not quite relevant with the VfD. &mdash; Instantnood 16:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * When there is evidence that a vote was not properly conducted, there is every reason to point this out in support of its removal. Even the notification of one person is as good as introducing unfairness to the poll, and this does not get justified by notifying more persons. You claim that wikipedia is not an authoritarian or oppressive state, but this dosent mean it is not used by people with authoritarian or oppressive tendencies. Your claim that "nobody is in a position to have the power to influence the result." does not hold, because there is more then enough evidence to show how untrue this is, and all the more when I can show evidence of you doing it. Your past conduct in this site hardly qualifies you as someone who is "unbiased" and capable of conducting a fair poll, reason enough for this page's removal.--Huaiwei 20:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In what way that the polls are not properly conducted? And am I the one conducting the polls? I created the page when there's no objection, and initiated the polls. And please kindly stop implying that wikipedians can be influenced and are not capable to think, decide and act independently. &mdash; Instantnood 21:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have aleady mentioned in detail why it is not properly conducted, and all others who call for its deletion has given even more points to that. Perhaps you might spend some time reading them instead of asking me a well-answered question. Secondly, you started and worded this poll without contribution from anyone else. In that sence, you are the one who is conducting this poll, since you set it up. If it is not you, then who is it? The history page dont lie. You created the page with no objection, because the people who are objecting are not informed of your intentions, and neither do they know of the format of the poll and its wordings used. Your impatience shows. For someone who can make the effort to inform people that the vote is on in their talk pages, I am surprised he cannot do the same when contemplating the idea of coming up with the poll. Last but not least, your repeated discomfort shows when you repeatedly tells me to "stop implying that wikipedians can be influenced and are not capable to think, decide and act independently". Is this an excuse for your vote garnering habits? Is this to justify you dropping notices in people's talk pages when they vote against your favour? Do you feel you are entitled to only ask people who are likely to support your POV to vote because you think they wont be influenced anyway? If you think they wont be influenced, why bother? I said many times...action speaks louder then words, yeah?--Huaiwei 11:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The suggestion to have polls in this way was told (see #1 and #2). It is part of the discussion. I wonder if it is necessary to notify in everyone's personal talk page if I have said something at an article's talk page. And imho it is necessary to ensure the reliability and validity of any poll, and to make sure everyone knows what the matter is. &mdash; Instantnood 16:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither of those two "annoucements" mentions that 25 polls will be conducted, and neither did they list out the pages to be voted on. Neither of them discusses the mode of conduct of the poll, and neither of them discusses the wordings and options to be presented. Worse, neither of them actually say in explicit terms that this poll will be conducted at all. I have seen one of them before, and I was still taken by surprise. I do hope you realise we cant always read your mind. Next, your statements above just shows how biased you are. You find it unnecesary to inform people that you have mentioned the likelihood of your conduct of a poll. The next moment, you expect no surprise amongst anyone who sees that poll when you think it neccesary to inform people that the poll is already up. You insist that the poll is "reliable" and "valid"...by informing some people about the poll? You think it neccesary that "everyone" knows what the matter is...what is you definition of "everyone"? If "everyone" is "aware" of the situation at hand, are they allowed to vote against your favour without you dropping messages in their talk pages demanding for a review on their part? Your talkpage is there for all to see. Anyone can see what you are up to.--Huaiwei 06:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and note that there is a WP:RFAr request that deals with this ongoing conflict. Radiant_* 15:25, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolute delete. This page came as a complete surprise, an obvious indication that he has certainly not gained consensus in adopting this method to resolve disputes. As I mentioned in the page, this begs questions over the sanctity of all previous rounds of votes, which has thrown up plenty of comments of which hardly any comes close to an agreement. It is the conventions which need a review, and not massive voting exercises like this to establish a political point!--Huaiwei 15:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Proposals to modify the naming conventions should be done separately. If that is successful, the titles of the articles and categories will have to be renamed accordingly, to the revised set of naming conventions. Refer to my response to SchmuckyTheCat's remarks above for "complete surprise". &mdash; Instantnood 15:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * And as I mentioned in the other page, you are also saying this voting should take place before the naming conventions becomes a more valid and respectable set of guidelines?--Huaiwei 16:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No I didn't say it. I said the titles should be changed according to the then latest set of conventions, if the conventions is revised. &mdash; Instantnood 16:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if there is a change in the conventions tomorrow, we are going to have another round of votes of over 25 entries? Think about it. If the conventions are supposed to be respected, why do we need a process like this to enforce the conventions? If there are people protesting these moves despite having read and understood the conventions, do you not think the discussions should be centred over its contents, instead of having to go thru this over and over again, and yet paradoxically facing the possibilities of votes not going in favour of the stated convention? Is it more effective to cure the illness, or its symptoms?--Huaiwei 20:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It depends. If there's no disagreement on whether the naming conventions fit to be applied to an article or a category, what's the point of going on ballot? &mdash; Instantnood 21:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm...and so, you are saying the current conventions is fit to be applied?--Huaiwei 11:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There are many articles and categories nominated to be retitled according to the naming conventions. But some people, while they agree retitling according to the naming conventions, do not agree with retitling one or two, or more, of the articles/categories. And that's why it's necessary to be considered on a case-by-case basis. If everyone agrees that the retitling can be done to all of the articles/categories, then case-by-case assessment won't be necessary. Is that clear? &mdash; Instantnood 16:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hence as I mentioned just now, the contradiction is getting obscenely obvious. You now justify this page by saying "some people disagree with some renamings despite conventions". Yet you insisted those who disagree with the conventions will not have their votes counted. Can I say, then, that I agree with the convention, but disagree with what it calls for?--Huaiwei 06:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment (non-vote, again): Please be noted that this page is a sub-page of, in other words, part of the talk page of the naming conventions. It was created as a subpage, to prevent the talk page getting huge. &mdash; Instantnood 15:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this information, but we can see that from the page title.--Huaiwei 15:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Give it a few days. -- ran (talk) 16:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * As it stands, I am refusing to participate in the voting process because I disagree with the method used. Needless to say, I will not be accepting the voting results either.--Huaiwei 20:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of the dozen pages where "wiki policy" on China/Taiwan naming is being discussed/set/opposed/changed/protested. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds, but in this case, we need more small minds. There's already a forum for consensus on naming, so kill the new one that was created. Feco 19:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. &mdash; Instantnood 20:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The idea of a vote is a good one, and we will probably need a Gdansk-like vote. However, first of all there are not enough options (common usage is just "China", this should be offered as an option to "mainland China" and "PRC"), and probably a Taiwan/ROC vote should be held at the same time, for an overall solution.  Second, there are also too many options, but the wrong kind: it doesn't seem to make sense to have case-by-case special cases for each of "museums", "transportation", "tourism", etc. and then have to memorize what applies where; there should be some overall universal principle with only a few exceptions (such as for "history", for example).  Finally, any vote/survey should be announced well ahead of time, and the exact wording needs to be discussed and hammered out to be as neutral as possible (not just "mainland China, for or against"). -- Curps 01:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, we've already had many, many votes - and each of those shows there is no majority in favour of changing from the status quo, jguk 06:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's the situation as I see it: The naming conventions article that this vote is a subpage of try to specify under what conditions "PRC" and/or "Mainland China" are more appropriate than "China". Some users believe that the naming conventions entail that a significant number of articles should be renamed in order to better conform to those conventions. Others disagree, either because they think the proposed moves do not satisfy the naming conventions, or because they see the results of the moves as violating other policies, or they disagree with the naming conventions. There's been considerable debate already, with no clear results. The naming conventions are arguably the "overall universal principle" you are looking for. In the past on a related topic, several moves were proposed en bloc on WP:RM, which met with opposition, because achieving consensus on a whole set of items is difficult. My own view is that a different approach is needed, one which separates policy making (coming up with naming conventions) from policy implementation (carrying out the requisite moves without any need for additional polls), but I have no idea if that would be feasible or how to go about it. --MarkSweep 07:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There is already an ongoing poll to assess whether each of the Taiwan-/ROC-related articles and categories satisfy the naming conventions. That poll has already suggested that, to some users, although they agree with the moves, they don't think certain pages are satisfied. As this is an assessment on whether an item satisfy the conventions, the only option is to stick with the naming conventions, and therefore no alternative option was provided (say, "China") when I created the page. On announcement of the poll, please refer to my response to SchmuckyTheCat above. &mdash; Instantnood 07:58, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * And there lies the root of the problem. Again we can clearly see you are insisting the convention as it is now must stand at all costs. It is no wonder no one could get any idea through your head, because it is the conention itself which needs a review.--Huaiwei 06:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure where you get this idea that your proposed vote on Taiwan-related articles revealed any consensus among any users agree with your proposals. Please also make sure that you change your voting standard back to rough consensus to protect the Wikipedia voting standard and not the current simple majority votes standard which favors passing your controversial proposal. Please note that even you claim no objection for your initiation for votes, there is utterly no support for you to initiate a vote like this one being vfd or the one targeting on Taiwan-related articles.--Mababa 03:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned elsewhere, I did not notice it wasn't >50% majority, by counting number of "support"s and "oppose"s. Change it if it should be rough consensus. It'd be better if it goes through discussion. &mdash; Instantnood 07:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * As a participant in this vote initiated by Instantnood, I am realy troubled by this answer. I believe that I deserve a more responsible reply from Instantnood. The rest of my response at here. You have yet respond to my comment on your lack of support for initiating votes and thus these moves are unwarranted, I'll take it as an acquiescence of acknowledging this fact.--Mababa 02:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Instanthood doesn't owe you anything and he's been nothing but forthcoming, honest, and polite with everyone including those who have disagreed with him (which is a lot more than I can say for some people involved in this). I'm going to recommend he not reply to your constant questioning because right now this isn't productive.  I'd suggest a Wiki-break and reflection to gain some perspective.  --Wgfinley 04:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, concur with Curps. Megan1967 04:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some meaningful discussion has taken place at the page. If it is voted to be deleted the records of the discussion will be lost. &mdash; Instantnood 17:08, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment as Instanthood's advocate I also support protecting this page while the case is arbitrated. --Wgfinley 21:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Protect the page and stop the polls. Keep the page as evidence for Instantnood's Arbitration case. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I second Susvolans's call for protection while arbitrarion is pending. --MarkSweep 20:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.