Wikipedia:Chinese naming controversy

''I'm starting an extra (parallel?) article, in attempt to clear up the controversy. I have no particular axe to grind here; rather, I hope to shine a lantern. (Uncle Ed)''

The ideas we all agree on:


 * China is a very old country (or nation), with a history going back more than 2,000 years.
 * In the mid-twentieth century, there was a fight between Communists and other forces for control of the entire nation.
 * After the dust settled, two rival governments emerged, each controlling only a subset of China
 * The PRC controlled nearly all of the mainland.
 * The ROC controlled Formosa (and a few nearby, tiny areas).
 * In recent decades, the government on the island of Formosa has called itself the Republic of China (ROC).
 * The government which controls the ancient capital city Peking (or "Beijing") on the mainland calls itself the Peoples Republic of China (PRC).
 * The PRC and ROC each have for several decades claimed "rightful" jurisdiction (or sovereignty) over all of China.

So what don't we agree on?


 * A significant portion of Taiwanese will claim that since Taiwan was only part of dynastic China for a shortwhile (being ceded to Japan up to the end of ww2, even), that the PRC claim to Taiwan isn't valid at all, so the PRC already has the entire subset of China. (I could agree with this, but don't care enough to argue it when it comes up.)
 * Strict constructionists of the term "Taiwan" say it does not refer to the extra tiny islands, only the main one. (I don't agree with this.)
 * There are movements, even the current or last chief exec, to move from the name "RoC" to "Taiwan", but all attempts to do so (for instance, handing out Taiwanese passports, rather than RoC passports, was done in the 90s) was met with diplomatic checkmates by the PRC, so the RoC name isn't set it stone by anyone. (Which is a justification to keep the Taiwan label).

Me, personally, I really don't care about Taiwan other than a preference to two syllables written on happy meal toys compared to seven that I never, ever, hear. For all I care Taiwan is the RoC is Taiwan and nobody takes the historical claim to the rest of China seriously anyways. It somehow keeps getting mixed up with Hong Kong issues, which I do care about - such as a justification to avoid the term China and People's Republic of China.

Hope that helps. SchmuckyTheCat 21:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A little bit of addition. Taiwan was under Cheng Ch'eng-kung's rule from 1662 to 1683, and from 1683 onwards by Qing Dynasty, as part of Fujian province. Taiwan was made a province in 1887, and ceded to Japan in 1895. Not the entirety of the present-day ROC-administered territories were colonised by Japan.
 * It's the same ROC passports, with the word "Taiwan" added to the cover design. Such new passports were issued after Chen was in power, i.e. after 2000.
 * And as a matter of fact I have never avoid saying Hong Kong as part of the PRC whenever it's necessary. &mdash; Instantnood 22:37, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does help. I will comment on the substance later, but for now I would say that the level of courtesy I have seen when both you guys are "in the room" with me is heart-warming. And by both of you putting your cards on the table -- i.e., saying out loud what you want and don't want -- I have high hopes that this issue may be resolvable without requiring an arbcom ruling.

Thanks to STC for not objecting when I, er, called him a "prick" the other day! That was a bit over the line for me, I admit. *blush* (But a pun that was hard to resist: schmuck is Yiddish for penis).

And thanks to Instantnood for calmly going over all this stuff again, even though it's been already hashed over many times.

In fact, thanks to both of you for taking the time to come across "namespace borders" to this project page! With all the effort you've both been making, and the clarity that's resulting from the discussion, I have high hopes for resolution (yes, I said that already but I "hope" that my HOPE will be contagious :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, there have even been a few instances where we've gone back and forth collaboratively editing articles without issue. Even when I filed the RfC, the first thing I said was that he was a genuine contributor. This isn't a controversy like say, abortion, indeed I'd even go so far as to say it's almost a dispute about style, not substance.
 * Of course, as I said, I don't have enough care to argue about Taiwan. It's the "mainland China" naming problem that gets at me. I believe your talk page holds my opinion about that. SchmuckyTheCat 17:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to SchmuckyTheCat's focus on China, I am focused on Taiwan. And I believe that since many people holds the position described below, this position needs to be incoporated into the naming convention so that we can call the naming convention a genuine NPOV.


 * The polity ROC is commonly called Taiwan, since the residents under the rule of ROC share the common national identity under the rule of the same polity located on the island.

Current naming convention deliberatedly rejected this common belief and thus does not qualify as a NPOV. The repetitively voting down on Instantnood's proposal on Taiwan-related topics based on his own religious belief and interpretation of the naming convention has proven the desperate insufficiency of the current naming convention.

Topics on PRC is not my focus, and therefore I believe the debate between mainland China v.s. PRC would be best resolved among the Chinese people who hold the issue near and dear to themselves.--Mababa 00:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Based purely on usage in America, I would lean toward using Taiwan in preference to ROC or Republic of China. The official name of the de facto government on Formosa is Republic of China, of course, but for the series of articles on politics, geography, and history, the more-easily recognized name might serve better.


 * politics of Taiwan
 * history of Taiwan
 * geography of Taiwan
 * economy of Taiwan


 * Please remember, everyone, that it is never the case that choosing an article title may be considered an endoresment of any particular idea. Wikipedia will not be saying that "Taiwan" is the right name of any political or geographical entity; but we have to call it something. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ed, have you been here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29/NPOV/Taiwan_vs._ROC? SchmuckyTheCat 14:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)